Thread by @meghanncuniff

I’m in Los Angeles today for Nebraska U.S. Rep. @JeffFortenberry’s criminal trial, and jurors heard this morning from professional Republican political fundraiser Alexandra Kendrick about the illicit $30,000 at the heart of the case. I’ll share updates on this thread. ⚖️🧵⚖️

Kendrick is of High Cotton Consulting, which was acquired by largest GOP consulting firm in U.S. back in 2017, according to this article: themissouritimes.com/axiom-strategi…
Kendrick worked with Fortenberry 2015-18, including the 2016 fundraiser in LA.

That 2016 LA fundraiser is where, according to testimony, the $30,000 from foreign billionaire Gilbert Chaguery was funneled to Fortenberry, who was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, through Toufic Baaklini, the founder of In Defense of Christians.

Kendrick took the stand after Baaklini. Fortenberry is not charged with illegal campaign contributions, but Kendrick’s testimony is really not good for him because it’s all about how suspicious she was about 2016 fundraiser, and how it could lead to illegal foreign donations.

So Kendrick's testimony is helping @USAO_LosAngeles prosecutors try to show jurors that Fortenberry knew all about the illegal donation when the fundraising host called to ask him about in 2018 as part of an @FBI ruse.

A memo Kendrick wrote detailing her concerns to Fortenberry was displayed for jurors and entered as evidence. (Fortenberry’s spokesman said he’d be happy to try to get reporters exhibits, so I’ll see if he can get me a copy of that one even though it’s a prosecution exhibit.)

Kendrick said she had “a previous incident” with another candidate involving illegal donations and “because of it, I was apprehensive, I guess.” (Jurors learned in cross that the candidate was Jack Kingston, the now Georgia U.S. representative. bit.ly/3L3FGsA)

AUSA Susan Har asked how Kendrick learned years ago of that illegal donation to Kingston's campaign.

“I received a phone call while I was at a @TJMaxx in Atlanta, Georgia. I will never forget it,” Kendrick answered.

“Where in the TJ Maxx were you?” Har asked.
“I was in the purse section,” Kendrick answered.
(I’m watching from the overflow room so I can use electronics, and everyone in here LOLed at that one.)

Kendrick said the host called and said donations were received from a foreign national, and it was given to the candidate by dividing it up through conduits (also illegal). She wasn’t expecting the call. How long did it last?

“It felt like an hour. It was probably five minutes,” Kendrick answered.
Why can’t she ever forget it?
“It’s just a worst-case scenario to go through an event like that” and find out this happened. “It’s like a betrayal,” Kendrick said.

Kendrick said the campaign returned all the money, and the FBI was involved, and she told this story to Fortenberry like she tells it to all her clients. She testified today she’s “sure” she told Fortenberry “how upset and horrific that experience was.”

Regarding Fortenberry's 2016 LA fundraiser, Kendrick said she had concerns about the source of contributions.

“We weren’t given an RSVP list before the event, so that was one of my concerns. Because it’s not normal,” she testified.

Kendrick said she's used to events in Washington D.C. with Political Action Committee crowd. “I know all of those people; they come to the same events over and over and over again.” So an LA event with mystery attendees and organized by people with Lebanese ties concerned her.

Kendrick said she was concerned no one would show up, or that foreign nationals may try to donate and donations from other contributors “might not be their money.” She told all this Fortenberry, but he decided to go forward with the fundraiser anyway, Kendrick said.

That’s when AUSA Susan Har brought in exhibit 194, the brief she wrote about her concerns.

“I’m not going to say it was like a cover-my-bottom situation, but I just wanted it to be abundantly clear that I had done everything I could” to get the donor information, Kendrick said.

The fundraiser ended up being a huge success, raising $36,000 for Fortenberry's campaign. But as jurors know from other testimony - $30,000 of that was money from Chagoury that had been funneled through Baaklini, who testified before Kendrick.

The fundraiser organizer, Dr. Elias Ayoub, is testifying now. In cross, Fortenberry’s lawyer John Littrell worked to show that Kendrick had actually warned Fortenberry not about illegal donations, but about donations from ethnic minorities.

One issue I’m seeing is objections. I was amazed on first day how few objections I heard. Then I realized something must be up when Fortenberry’s lawyer Glen Summers said during AUSA Mack Jenkins’ direct of the FBI agent: “Your honor, I hate to interrupt, but it’s all leading.”

OK so does Summers know what an objection is? Judge Blumenfeld told Summers: “If it is leading, you need to make an objection” and he’ll sustain it.

Now today I heard a lot more objections during Kendrick’s testimony.

For example, after Kendrick said she “doesn’t enjoy” telling the story about Kingston's illicit donation, “but it’s a story I relate to my clients,” Judge Blumenfeld struck the entire answer for lack of foundation.

Prosecutors lodged objections as Littrell asked Kendrick about knowing Fortenberry well and him having a sterling reputation. A big reminder how weird it was to hear Southern District of New York prosecutors not stating reasons for objections in Avenatti-Stormy Daniels trial.

AUSA objected to question about Fortenberry having a sterling reputation as lacking foundation, and Judge Blumenfeld said, “On foundation? Overruled.”

Which indicates the judge thinks there’s another valid reason for an objection, but he’s not going to say it for the AUSA. Totally different scene than the no-reason objections in SDNY.

Blumenfeld also sustained AUSA Har’s objection under 403 when Littrell started asking Kendrick about Fortenberry helping her with her Catholic faith. Fortenberry lives a devout Catholic life like you do?
“Like I’m trying to,” Kendrick answered.

Littrell asked Kendrick about Fortenberry encouraging her to go to confession, and Judge Blumenfeld sustained the 403 objection and told Littrell to move on. bit.ly/3HgJEww

Another example of sustain objections: Littrell was getting into how Fortenberry doesn't need much campaign money because Nebraska is a small state. But after he said something about Nebraska being “sparsely populated” ...

... the AUSA objected for lack of foundation, and Judge Blumenfeld said, “It would take a tremendous amount of foundation, and I’m not sure at the end of the day you’re going to have it.”

So Littrell had trouble after that establishing the point he was trying to make about Fortenberry not needing as much money as congressional candidates in urban areas. An example of the power of objections.

Speaking of the Cornhusker State, I’d like to hear a coherent reason from the court why Fortenberry's trial isn’t being live streamed in city parks across Nebraska like the @Huskers are playing for a national championship.

I mean, seriously. This is a congressman who’s up for reelection, on trial for three federal crimes in a courthouse 1,500 miles away from his constituents. And @uscourts refused Nebraska media’s request for a live stream.

So the Nebraska news orgs had to dip into their multimillion-dollar travel budgets (har har har) because their 9-term congressman is on trial, and how can they just not cover it? Then they get here and are relegated to watching jury selection on TV in an overflow room.

Fortunately the court decided in time for opening statements that there's enough room in the actual courtroom for everybody, and then the judge decided to allow electronics in the overflow room. So conditions have improved.

But I lunched with a retired federal judge last week who made me realize that maybe we shouldn't act like Judge Blumenfeld did us all just such a tremendous favor by doing that, when he was willing to impose those restrictions in the first place...

... and we still can't bring electronics in the actual courtroom or live tweet the proceedings from the overflow courtroom. I'm grateful for him accommodating electronics in overflow, but there needs to be a discussion about conditions in LA federal court for journalists.

Here’s Nebraska U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry leaving the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles a few minutes ago with his family. The remaining prosecution witnesses are two federal agents. One started testifying just before court ended at 3:30. Back tomorrow.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s spokesman just issued this statement that prosecutors so far have “produced no evidence Jeff Fortenberry lied to anyone.” (FWIW, I’m pretty sure that’s the evidence the next two witnesses are to present. They’re the agents who interviewed Fortenberry.)

Regarding public access, yes, federal courts don’t allow photography or video inside the building. But let’s not act like the courts couldn’t do something about public access to trials. For example, in 2011, a uninformed Spokane police officer went on trial…

…in the Eastern District of Washington (yes, federal court) for lying to investigators and violating the civil rights of an innocent mentally disabled guy he killed in a convenience store. The trial was moved from Spokane to Yakima because of pre-trial publicity, but the court…

…set up a live stream of the trial in a courtroom in Spokane so the public could watch. Because that case was a huge deal in Spokane, and the judge didn’t want to deprive the city of the opportunity to finally see the evidence and hear the testimony. This was 11 years ago.

Yakima and Spokane are in the same district, and I’m aware Nebraska is not located in the Central District of California, but still. Something could have been done here.

Great sketch from today. I’ll share more details from Baaklini and Dr. Elias Ayoub’s testimony in the morning. Baaklini is the one who got the $30k from Gilbert Chagoury to funnel to Fortenberry at Ayoub’s fundraiser, and Ayoub is the one who set Fortenberry up for the FBI.

https://twitter.com/billkellyreport/status/1506081128414789633