Categories
Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Racism The Courts WOKE

This Supreme Court case could spell the beginning of the end for affirmative action. DEI-ers are bracing for a crisis.

This article appears in the June/July 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “The end of affirmative action?”https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3JgZEG_0mfat9pt00

**Fortune Magazine is a woke-promoting organization. Notice the blatant propaganda in their choice of the picture above**
Somewhere along the way, “Diversity and Inclusion” added “Equity” — which is the left’s code word for “preferential treatment” — TPR

Why diversity advocates see a Supreme Court case on college admissions as a looming crisis for corporate America.

It may seem like a harsh assessment of human nature, but people don’t generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do, says Natalie Gillard, who has worked in diversity, equity, and inclusion for over a decade. That’s why laws and mandates exist.

And that’s why Gillard has been anxiously watching the Supreme Court. While the ruling had not come down when this issue went to press, court watchers say the conservative majority is very likely to strike down or severely restrict race-based college admissions programs in June. Many fear that prohibiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions will unleash a legal dismantling of over half a century’s worth of laws and rulings aimed at remedying the systemic inequities racial minorities face in the U.S.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in October in the case brought by Students for Fair Admissions, an organization founded by the anti-affirmative-action legal activist Edward Blum, against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, accusing the institutions of discriminating against Asian American and white applicants.

While this decision on affirmative action will most directly affect higher education admissions, legal analysts say it could open the floodgates to upending diversity initiatives in other areas, including the corporate landscape.

And Gillard and her colleagues in DEI are bracing for a crisis. Gillard created Factuality, a 90-minute interactive game and “crash course” in structural inequality that has been used as an employee-training tool at companies such as Google, Nike, and American Express, as well as at Yale University, among others. Factuality has seen an uptick in demand in recent years, but Gillard is under no illusions about why companies hire her: “I really feel that there are people who participate in these programs and initiatives because it’s required and mandatory,” she tells Fortune, “and that with this decision they’re just emboldened to stop.”

Last year the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, had a transformative cultural and legal effect—leading to a cascade of states passing near-total abortion bans and restrictions on reproductive rights. The affirmative action ruling may not be as far-reaching, but it is a bellwether for a shift in the conversation about race and racism broadly, says Richard Leong, a senior strategist at Collective, a DEI consultancy headquartered in Brooklyn.

“I think it really begins to throw into jeopardy whether or not we can continue to use race and ethnicity as a demographic identifier,” Leong says, adding, “The DEI industry as it is today is already under fire.”

Indeed, DEI initiatives at public universities have been challenged in Florida and Texas this year. Corporate DEI programs have been the target of rage and ridicule in op-eds from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. And amid a wave of layoffs, many tech companies are rolling back their diversity pledges, cutting DEI roles at disproportionate rates.

Gillard says she has already seen the effects in her business: She used to collaborate often with companies and organizations in Texas and Florida, she tells Fortune, but she no longer works in those states because organizations are unsure about what they can and cannot do, and fearful of causing controversy.

“I’m concerned the decision will only further curtail our efforts,” Gillard says. “After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

A ripple effect

Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court decision goes as expected, it could have a ripple effect on corporate diversity programs. The decision could “augur where the court might go with respect to certain programs for private employers,” says Kevin Cloutier, a partner in the law firm Sheppard Mullin’s labor and employment and business trial practice groups. The courts may rule to strike down affirmative action programs for federal contractors, or be more receptive to reverse discrimination claims against private companies

The most direct impact of the Supreme Court prohibiting race-based admissions decisions is that universities will very likely become less diverse over time—as has happened in public university systems in states where affirmative action is already banned. If so, companies will be left with a more homogenous talent pool to recruit from.

And there are likely to be knock-on effects for companies, says Camille Bryant, an attorney and member of the labor and employment practice group at McGlinchey Stafford. It may be harder to live up to the ESG commitments that companies have made to investors, for example. And less diverse workforces may turn off customers, who increasingly expect brands to be inclusive. More homogenous workplaces are also less appealing to millennial and Gen Z workers, who have high expectations of workforce diversity.

“After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

Natalie Gillard, creator, Factuality

Less diverse talent pipelines could have a substantial effect on outcomes at some organizations. A recent study found, for example, that a higher prevalence of Black doctors led to lower mortality rates among Black residents in those counties. But with less diverse medical programs, hospitals will likely employ fewer Black doctors, negatively impacting patient care.

Backlash to the backlash

The Supreme Court case comes at a critical time for the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It has been three years since the murder of George Floyd brought about a reckoning on racism in the summer of 2020, and many Black and brown workers remain skeptical of their companies’ lip service to the ideals of diversity, dismissing them as “performative allyship.”

“DEI is a journey, not a destination,” says Ericka Brownlee-Keller, DEI head at a renewable energy company. “It really depends on the fabric and culture of the company you’re in.”

BlackRock is one company that decided to take a hard look at its own record, and the results were revealing. In March 2022, the asset management firm hired a third-party law firm to audit the progress it had and hadn’t made on its multiyear racial equity plans, launched in 2021. The audit found that BlackRock was adhering to the letter of its diversity goals—increasing Black and Latinx hires by 30% and improving representation at senior levels—but was failing in some respects when it comes to the spirit of those goals. It has struggled, for example, to retain its Black and brown employees.

BlackRock is also an early case study of a trend DEI professionals say is growing, and the Supreme Court decision could accelerate: backlash to perceived “wokeness.”

21%

Percentage of companies that have a senior role fully dedicated to DEI. Source: Paradigm’s State of Data-Driven DEO, 2022

In April, the conservative group America First Legal (founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller) said it had filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting a civil rights investigation into whether the BlackRock Founders Scholarship, an internship for minority students, discriminates against students who don’t qualify as minorities.

Incidents like that are why DEI professionals Fortune spoke with don’t believe it’s overblown to see the looming Supreme Court decision as a time bomb. They’ve kept tabs on the responses to the court overturning Roe v. Wade last year, and watched as state legislators quickly moved to severely restrict or ban abortions in the wake of the decision. They’ve braced themselves as anti-LGBTQ cultural narratives have gathered steam in recent years, leading to new state laws restricting access to gender-affirming care and accommodations. And they’ve watched as bans have throttled discussion of sexual orientation and Black history in schools.

“What we’re seeing is in a lot of ways a backlash to us being able to have made so much progress,” says Brownlee-Keller. “We often talk about ‘When’s the other shoe gonna drop?’ A lot of this is people’s fears being realized.”

Some argue that diversity initiatives won’t completely crumble on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision, that the field has come too far and the people doing the work are too committed. “This might hinder the progress we’ve made in DEI, but I think we’ll find other avenues,” Brownlee-Keller says. “People in these roles are resilient.”

Strategize now

Many DEI professionals are coming up with lists of actions for employers to consider, no matter how the Supreme Court rules. The first is to review DEI programs and ensure the company has a robust and evidence-based case for these initiatives, says Evelyn Carter, a social psychologist and president of the diversity and inclusion consulting firm Paradigm.

For example, a company may discover that the promotion pipeline for Black leaders falls off at a specific ranking, based on 10 years of company data. If the company determines that it has failed to support this talent for promotions, it might implement a program to address the problem. Using data to explain these moves helps ensure that company initiatives are not “misconstrued as things that are being done because Black folks or folks of color are deficient,” says Carter, “but rather recognizing it as what it is: righting systemic inequities.” It could also help ensure that the program would survive a legal challenge.

It’s crucial, too, for companies to diligently vet public statements related to diversity initiatives. For example, in today’s climate, making public promises that a company’s board will be 25% female could create a legal vulnerability, Bryant, the McGlinchey Stafford lawyer, says. “Sometimes messages that are very well intended can get an organization in hot water if it’s not necessarily done and crafted in the right way.”

75%

Percentage of employees who don’t think their organization’s racial equity policies are genuine. Source: Catalyst Survey, 2022

That’s a lesson several of Carter’s clients learned last year after announcing plans to pay for employees’ travel costs if they have to cross state lines to get abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Instead of just applause, they faced controversy and complaints.

“There were employees who said, ‘This goes against my values, and I am upset that you would be seen as a company supporting abortion,’ ” Carter says. “A lot of clients said, ‘We thought we did the right thing. But now these people are upset.’ ” Developing internal FAQs to respond to questions or complaints from employees will help managers and human resources teams avoid being caught off guard if and when such a controversy erupts.

Creating new pathways for diverse recruitment will also be key, and might include doubling down on partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities and other minority institutions and on sponsorship and mentorship programs, as well as more actively developing the pipeline for diverse talent.

“This is the time to help your DEI team.”

Evelyn Carter, president, Paradigm

Most important, company leaders should ask what their DEI teams need. These often small and under-resourced teams may soon have to respond to an influx of reverse discrimination claims and handle a slew of complex internal and external communications. That might involve training managers to see and address bias and harassment and training HR to understand how discrimination impacts employee performance.

Employees may also have to navigate more internal strife, microaggressions, and harassment, so companies might consider increasing access to mental health resources such as therapy services and warmlines for employees—free, confidential lines where employees can seek guidance, support or a listening ear.

“That’s a lot. So this is the time to help your DEI team,” Carter says. “Ask your team what they need, and then deliver on it.”

 

Categories
Corruption Links from other news sources. The Courts

Race Baiters and White Progressives complain about Thomas and Roberts. What about Sotomayor?

Race Baiters and White Progressives complain about Thomas and Roberts. What about Sotomayor? Recently we’ve been hearing about Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas. Especially about Thomas having a rich friend. A friend who hasn’t had any cases before the court. But what about one of the race baiting Justices?

Sotomayor did not recuse herself when her publisher had cases before the court. But look what I found. In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision on whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who had received money from the book publisher, recused himself in that case.

What say you?

Joe Scarborough responds to the latest Clarence Thomas non-scandal by saying “imagine what would happen if it were Justice Sotomayor” and “everybody at this table would be shocked and outrage and had be critical if this were a liberal justice” Who wants to tell him? pic.twitter.com/EsBrzPF8uL

— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 4, 2023

 

Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Clarence Thomas is taking one for the team. The controversy over his gifts is another tempest to fill the dead space between Orange Man Bad stories

Clarence Thomas is taking one for the team.

Did Clarence Thomas do anything wrong in accepting gifts from a wealthy Republican? Or is he the victim of years of pent-up anger at the Supreme Court by Democrats?

Yes.

According to an investigation by ProPublica, for more than twenty years, Justice Thomas received lavish and expensive gifts, including trips on a private yacht and a private jet, from Harlan Crow, a Texas billionaire and real estate developer with a long record of support for Republican politicians. Under the ethics regulations that guide Supreme Court justices, it is not clear that Thomas had to report any of this. (Thomas says the guidance he received affirmed he did not need to report any of the gifts as his angel, Crow, had no business before the Court and the trips were “personal hospitality” — a gift from a friend.)

ProPublica asserts that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 required Thomas to report these gifts. This is probably untrue. People do not report “personal hospitality,” such as Thomas’s vacations. It wasn’t until a few weeks ago that the Judicial Conference issued new guidelines saying free trips and air travel must now be reported. This was announced as a change in policy, meaning disclosure was not required in the past but would be in the future. It is as simple as that.

So it appears that while Thomas did not break the letter of these regulations, he certainly skirted the edge of what we’ll call propriety — the appearance of being on Harlan Crow’s extended payroll. For a guy who has lived so long in Democratic crosshairs. it seemed an unwise thing for Thomas to do, even if it was legal. One theme of government ethics classes is you don’t just have to demonstrate actual impropriety; you must avoid even the possible appearance of impropriety. Accepting lavish travel perks (or operating your own email server) is just not what regular feds do.

Thomas’s long war with the left started with his confirmation hearings in 1991 after his nomination by President George H.W. Bush. Anita Hill, who worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Her testimony ignited a national conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace and the treatment of women in the legal profession. It introduced many Americans to the vocabulary of pornography long before Bill Clinton soiled the waters (small world: Senator Joe Biden was then chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversaw the confirmation process. Biden has faced criticism for his sexist handling of Hill’s testimony and for not allowing three other female witnesses to testify.)

As a jurist, criticism of Thomas has focused on three points. Many liberals disagree with his conservative judicial philosophy, which emphasizes originalism and strict interpretation of the Constitution. They argue that this approach leads to narrow interpretations of individual rights and protections, particularly for marginalized groups. Similarly, liberals criticize Justice Thomas for his opposition to affirmative action and other civil rights policies. They argue that his views on these issues are harmful to communities of color. Lastly, Thomas is known for being one of the least vocal members of the Supreme Court, rarely asking questions during oral arguments or engaging in public discourse about his opinions. Some liberals argue that this makes it difficult to understand his reasoning. There are accusations that he often makes up his mind along ideological lines before even hearing a case.

Thomas has more recently become a lightning rod for everything Democrats have come to hate about the Supreme Court, as the Court has shifted rightward and Roe v. Wade was overturned. They see Thomas’s “corruption” as emblematic of the Court’s outsize power due to lifetime appointments, isolation from traditional constitutional checks and balances, and virtual immunity from public pressure, making it a magnet for corruption and influence-peddling. They see Harlan Crow as having purchased direct access to one of the most influential and powerful men in America and argue that while Crow may not have a specific issue in front of the Court, he holds a generic interest in right-wing causes and thus has bought himself a sympathetic judge for his broader conservative agenda.

Things only got worse when it was discovered that Thomas’s spouse Ginni donated to Republican causes and sent texts cheering on the protests of January 6. A woman with political thoughts of her own!

The only real check and balance on Supreme Court justices is formal impeachment and removal from the bench, so it’s not surprising that at the first sign of impropriety Democrats like AOC immediately called for Thomas to be impeached. It won’t happen: the standards for impeachment are high, whether what Thomas did actually qualifies is far from clear, and a partisan Congress will never go along with it. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached: Samuel Chase, in 1804, for alleged political bias in his judicial conduct. The Senate held a trial, but ultimately acquitted Chase of all charges. In addition, Justice Abe Fortas did resign more than fifty years ago over money issues, ahead of a likely try at impeachment.

Some have already gone further than the expected calls for hearings and investigations. The New Republic writes, “The Democrats need to destroy Clarence Thomas’s reputation. They’ll never successfully impeach him. But so what? Make him a metaphor for every insidious thing the far right has done to this country.” The magazine went on to call him the “single worst Supreme Court justice of all time. Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court and the country, and the worship of this man on the right is one of the greatest symbols of their contempt for standards, the law, precedent, and democracy.”

The hyperbole gives it away — this is another tempest to fill the dead space between Orange Man Bad stories. Thomas should not be proud of his actions, but nor should he face impeachment, never mind some sort of public drawing and quartering of his reputation. Clarence Thomas is taking one for the team.

Categories
Just my own thoughts The Courts The Law

What a crybaby.

What a crybaby. So the local yokel from NYC is now begging the Federal courts  to bail his butt out of having to explain why he would use federal charges in a state court.

He created these phony 34 charges and now wants a federal judge to help him out of this mess. Well he used Federal charges and spent Federal dollars on this, so yes Congress has a right to call him out.

He’s outright lying claiming that Congress wants him to reveal his strategy. They are only asking him to explain how he came up with his charges since he’s a local yokel trying to use big boy charges.

 

Categories
Links from other news sources. The Courts

U.S. Circuit Court Judges James Ho and Elizabeth Branch have decided they will no longer hire students from the woke law school.

U.S. Circuit Court Judges James Ho and Elizabeth Branch have decided they will no longer hire students from the woke law school.

 

This from The Free Beacon.

Ho’s announcement is the latest and most dramatic effort to hold Stanford accountable for its treatment of Fifth Circuit appellate judge Kyle Duncan, who was shouted down by hundreds of students—and berated by Stanford diversity dean Tirien Steinbach—when he spoke at the law school last month. The students called Duncan “scum,” asked why he couldn’t “find the cl*t,” and screamed, “We hope your daughters get raped.”

Though Steinbach is on leave, Stanford has ruled out disciplining the hecklers, who by Stanford’s own admission violated the school’s free speech policy.

“Rules aren’t rules without consequences,” Ho said. “And students who practice intolerance don’t belong in the legal profession.”

Calling the disruption an act of “intellectual terrorism,” Ho argued that Duncan’s treatment reflects “rampant” viewpoint discrimination at elite law schools, some of which do not employ a single center-right professor.

If they could get the names, maybe pass that to all the judges nationwide

Categories
Corruption Elections Leftist Virtue(!) Politics The Courts The Law

Fact Check: George Soros Responds to Trump Indictment by Claiming He Didn’t Fund Alvin Bragg – Is That True?

Billionaire George Soros, left, denied funding Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s campaign, but there’s more to the story. (Sean Gallup / Getty Images; Ed Jones – AFP / Getty Images )

Leftist oligarch George Soros is claiming that he hasn’t funded Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind the indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Soros claimed as much in a Friday text sent to Semafor’s Steve Clemons.

The Hungarian-born billionaire emphasized that he doesn’t know Bragg personally.

“As for Alvin Bragg … I did not contribute to his campaign and I don’t know him,” he wrote.

“I think some on the right would rather focus on far-fetched conspiracy theories than on the serious charges against the former President.”

However, there’s more to the story than Soros’ partial denial.

The leftist megadonor is the biggest individual contributor to Color of Change, a Super PAC that heavily supported Bragg in his campaign for office in 2021.

Color of Change ended up spending about $500,000 in support of Bragg, according to The New York Times.

Campaign finance law forbids direct donations to campaigns in excess of $3,300, a figure that’s increased since Bragg’s 2021 campaign.

Soros highlighted that he hadn’t contributed directly to Bragg’s campaign in a Friday tweet — without addressing his funding of a PAC that supported him.

Soros donated $1 million to the group just days after it endorsed Bragg in 2021, with the likely knowledge that his contributions would be used to assist in Bragg’s election.

Soros is widely known for his targeted focus on the elections of local prosecutors, bragging about his backing of “reform” candidates in a 2022 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Those who call Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump a targeted political prosecution point to his financial connection to Soros — a multi-billionaire who has established himself as one of the premier financiers of progressive politics in the United States.

As a prosecutor, Bragg has downgraded and eschewed filing criminal charges against those accused of violent crimes — while seemingly emphasizing a politically charged inquiry targeting the former Republican president.

Trump is slated to appear in a Manhattan courtroom for arraignment proceedings on Tuesday, according to CNN.


Nothing like a good ole non-denial denial to set the peasants straight!

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics The Courts The Law

Pelosi: ‘We Have To Convict Trump On The Charges To Find Out What Is In Them’

This is from the Babylon Bee but is too close to reality for comfort.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is calling for a quick conviction of Trump so that we can all see what he’s being charged with.

“Just like we do with our spending bills, we should convict Donald Trump of these charges right away so that we can see what’s in them,” said Pelosi. “Trump has many pages of charges that are probably horrible and we just don’t have time to read them all. Doing it this way is much more efficient!” Pelosi’s statement was then interrupted by her teeth getting stuck in an ice cream bar she was eating.

Sources speculate the list of charges against Trump includes paying hush money to a stripper, colluding with Russia to overthrow the United States government and usher in 1000 years of darkness, and being really yucky and Trump-like. “We don’t need a list of charges to know that Trump is guilty of being Trump,” said Pelosi. “Let’s get this over with already.”

At publishing time Manhattan’s DA had announced 3,000 additional pages of charges were brought in at 1 AM in the morning.


Look, anyone with more than two functioning brain cells can see this for what it is. Although I suppose that the Severe Trump Derangement Syndrome case hotspots in liberal cities like NYC may render even that generous definition moot.

 

 

Categories
Corruption Crime Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Former AG Whitaker to Newsmax: Bragg’s Trump Case a ‘Slippery Slope’

Former U.S. Attorney General Matt Whitaker told Newsmax on Wednesday that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s potential criminal case against former President Donald Trump represents a “slippery slope” that will lead to further political prosecutions by both sides across the country.

“I think what’s going to happen is we’re going to go down this slippery slope where local prosecutors start to prosecute folks wearing the other team’s jersey,” Whitaker told “The Chris Salcedo Show” on Wednesday. “Conservative prosecutors in conservative jurisdictions are going to go after Democrat-leaning politicians for ‘stretch cases.'”

Whitaker said that the criminal case Bragg is trying to make in New York against the former president is such a “stretch case.”

“They have to jump over so many hurdles to ever even get it to trial,” he said. “It seems like they just want to file the charges to get the hit in and drive-by media to get their videos and their mug shots, but I think it’s going to be very challenging for our republic to sustain itself.”

Whitaker said he wanted to know where the “statesmen” on both sides of the aisle are now to speak out against this kind of “political targeting” for prosecutions.

He said that the current criminal investigations into Trump, including Bragg’s in New York, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s in Washington, D.C., and one in Atlanta, Georgia, dealing with the 2020 election, are taking place because the left wants to stop Trump from winning in 2024.

“It just seems like we’re watching something where everyone’s trying to trip up the Trump 2024 campaign,” he said. “I hope Trump’s lawyers are up for the fight. I know that the president is, but I hope he’s got people around him that are willing to do whatever it takes to win these cases and to make sure that the truth gets out.

Categories
Corruption How sick is this? The Courts The Law

Soros-Funded DA Alvin Bragg CAUGHT HIDING Nearly 600 Pages of Exculpatory Evidence from NY Grand Jury in Trump Case (VIDEO)

Attorney Robert Costello, the former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, spoke to Tucker Carlson on Monday night after he testified to the Manhattan Grand Jury investigating President Donald Trump.

Costello told the FOX News audience that he testified for two hours in front of Alvin Bragg’s Manhattan Grand Jury.

Robert Costello told Tucker Carlson, “I spoke to the jury for two hours… It was clear to me the Manhattan Grand Jury did not want to get to the truth.”

And it now is being reported that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg was HIDING exculpatory evidence from the Grand Jury!

According to FOX News legal mind Gregg Jarrett, Soros-funded DA Alvin Bragg HID nearly 600 pages of exculpatory evidence to the New York Grand Jury investigating President Trump.

Gregg Jarrett: I mentioned it yesterday, I think, when Bob Costello got into that Grand Jury room and told them, “Wait a minute. You don’t have the hundreds of pages I handed over to Alvin Bragg over here? You only have six cherry-picked documents?” You know, hiding from grand juries exculpatory information is reprehensible and unconscionable. And the conduct of Alvin Bragg and his henchman Mark Pomeranz, who specifically says in his book, “We’re targeting zombies because we don’t like his beliefs,” those guys should face disbarment proceedings.

Once again the REAL crooks reveal themselves.

And Jarrett is right. If there was a real justice system in the country, they should be disbarred.

 

Categories
Corruption How sick is this? Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Jan. 6 Proud Boys Trial Paused as Defense Attorney Alleges FBI Altered Evidence

WASHINGTON, DC – DECEMBER 19: Attorney Steven Metcalf (2nd L), representing seditious conspiracy defendant Dominic Pezzola for his role in the attacks of January 6 at the U.S. Capitol, arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse December 19, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
By Gary Bai for The Epoch Times
March 9, 2023Updated: March 10, 2023

FBI agents ordered to alter or destroy evidence

 

The trial of Dominic Pezzola, one of the defendants of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach, was paused on Thursday due to classified FBI messages revealed in court, which the defense attorneys say show FBI agents discussing the altering of evidence.

Pezzola is one of the Proud Boys members on trial for obstruction and conspiracy charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. He was arrested on Jan. 15, 2021, and indicted the same month. Pezzola’s trial began in January of this year.

“There are a couple of emails between FBI agents casually discussing altering a document and destroying hundreds of pieces of evidence. It’s very disturbing and right now we have more questions than answers,” Roger Roots, an attorney at John Pierce Law, wrote to The Epoch Times. Roots confirmed that Washington District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, paused the trial on Thursday after the leaked messages were shown in court.

The exchange Roots referred to came into light on Wednesday during the testimony of FBI special agent Nicole Miller, who was involved in the agency’s investigations of the Jan. 6 defendants.

When cross-examining Miller, Nick Smith, an attorney representing Proud Boys member Ethan Nordean (listed as co-defendant on Pezzola’s case), revealed classified FBI emails that were hidden in a tab in an Excel spreadsheet. Roots, in Pezzola’s case, used this evidence to support a motion to dismiss (pdf) the charges against Pezzola, which Roots’s team filed on Wednesday.

In the motion, Pezzola’s team said the emails showed that the FBI monitored communications between Nordean and his lawyer, violating the Sixth Amendment, which prohibits invasions of the right to counsel (Matter of Fusco v. Moses).

“In the Nordean case, confidential attorneys-client trial/defense strategy and position was wrongfully obtained by the government, about which was overheard, shared, utilized, where potentially ‘338 items of evidence’ were ordered to be ‘destroyed,’ said Pezzola’s legal team in the motion to dismiss.

According to a separate filing by Nordean’s lawyers, Miller said in one correspondence that “[her] boss assigned [her] 338 items of evidence [she has] to destroy”; Nordean’s lawyers allege that another email show an agent requesting Miller to “go into [a] CHS [informant] report” that Miller “just put [together] and edit out that [the agent] was present.”

The emails show Miller “admitted fabricating evidence and following orders to destroy hundreds of items of evidence,” Pezzola’s lawyers wrote in its motion to dismiss, and that the government obtained information that benefitted itself in the trial, causing substantial prejudice to each of the defendants, including Pezzola.

“If justice means anything, it requires this case to be dismissed,” Pezzola’s lawyer said.

Roots is representing Pezzola on a pro bono basis. Legal non-profit National Constitutional Law Union (NCLU) is helping cover Roots’s expenses while he is in Washington, according to NCLU Executive Director Natalie Danelishen.

“My thoughts are we need a longer pause to get to the bottom of some of Agent Miller’s emails,” Roots told The Epoch Times.

As of Thursday evening, the court has not issued an order responding to the motion to dismiss.

Alleged Brady Violations

In addition to their argument about the Sixth Amendment, Pezzola’s lawyers also argued in their motion to dismiss that newly surfaced footage of events of the Jan. 6 Capitol breach constitutes exculpatory evidence. The defendants’ lawyers say the government, by withholding that evidence, violated their client’s constitutional rights as defined in Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 case in which the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must make available exculpatory evidence to defense counsel.

The defendants’ motion comes two days after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) released more than 40,000 hours of Jan. 6 footage to Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, who then aired some of the footage on his show on Monday and Tuesday.

One tape aired Monday showed Capitol Police officers walking alongside Jacob Chansley, a Jan. 6 defendant serving a 41-month sentence after pleading guilty to an obstruction charge. Chansley was unarmed and walked past several Capitol police officers.

The aired footage “is plainly exculpatory,” Pezzola’s lawyers said in the motion.

The FBI declined to comment and referred The Epoch Times to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for comment.

U.S. Attorney’s Office did not provide The Epoch Times with comment by