Posted on March 17 2019
As is the now customary standard, each Sunday I figured I’d take a moment and highlight watch you should watch for in the coming week.
Diana Flazone exFox Employee:
You know NDAs can be tricky, both in terms of how onerous and constraining they can be both also in terms of their enforceability. Such is the case with former Fox Employee, Ms. Diana Falzone. One exquisite miscalculation by Trump and Trump-State-Run Propaganda Network colloquially known as Fox “News” is as a matter of Law (not opinion) NDAs are not enforceable as it relates to Congressional Investigations or Subpoenaes.
As such Chairman Cummings (I will never get tired of typing that) sent Ms Flazone via her Counsel of Record Nancy Erika Smith, who’s one helluva venerable litigator a letter on March 14, 2019.
Now most will overlook what’s in this letter, beyond the document request but I’d like to draw your attention the paragraph just under the itemized list of documents. Do you see what I see? As in Ms Flazone will be scheduling a “transcribed” interview and with any luck that transcript will be made available to the public.
Why does this matter? Currently Ms Flazone is party to a Fox NDA but as her attorney noted NDAs are not enforceable when there’s a Congressional Investigation and/or a subpoenae in play. I’m not saying the Chairman Cummings has issued a subpoena (becuase he hasn’t) but I am asserting the enforceability of an NDA while in receipt of a Subpoena, the subpoena should/would reign supreme <snort>
Things are a little more complicated then they appear. What you may not know is in May of 2017 Ms Flazone filed suit against Fox News. Her complaint and docket can be found on the New York Unified Court System aka SCROLL provided you have the Index No to her case, which is: 153973/2017. In her 11 page Complaint Flazone asserts aspects of potentially discriminatory practices that lead to her “life-time ban on Fox News”
She further discribed the “2nd Floor” of Fox News Executives and Bill Shine makes an appearance in her Complaint which is reasonable given he was literally at the helm after Roger Ailes’ departure.
Nearly one year ago today Flazone’a Case the Parties agreed to a Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice. I assume that the parties reached an out of court settlement and amiacable resolution.
The only reason I’m bringing this up is I believe in giving you all the datapoints as I assume that Trump, Shine, former Fox Executives, Fox News and members of the House GOP plan to launch a full scale going smear campaign against Ms Flazone. With the intention of dirtying her up as much as possible so she isn’t a credible or reliable witness. I’m not saying she is, I’m setting your expectations to what will likely happen to her in the coming weeks. My understanding is Ms Flazone is in possession of potentially explosive and damaging documentary evidence that might support the assertion that Executives at Trump-News, I mean “Fox News” intentionally spiked the story of Trump’s extra-marital affairs and hush money.
This March 8, 2019 “article” by Ms Flazone’s former boss and former Fox Executive offers a pretty slanted one-sided back ground. However it is probably best you read Ken LaCorte’s article but I’d urge you to take his article with a huge grain of salt. I’ve read it three times and each time my takeaway is:
”Geez whiz what exactly are Fox and Trump so scared of? And why would this former Fox Executive offer such a vociferous and acerbic condemnation of his former employee...if there’s nothing there then why not let Congress investigate and bring her in for an interview”
HIGGINBOTHAM case update:
Yes it’s totally weird that my previous account is no longer available in America yet I can still grab caches of it in Russian. See (disjointed) archived George Higgenbottom’s thread here Keep in mind that in February the Judge approved his March vacation to Los Angeles.
However last Friday March 15, 2019 a status hearing was held and he remains out on bond via Continued on Personal Recognizance and the Judge scheduled the next Status Conference for August 2, 2019. I guess one could infer that Higgenbotham is fully and forthrightly a proactive cooperating witness because beyond that I have no other reasonable explanation as to why the defendant is being treated with such deference.
Later this week I plan on doing a much deeper dive into the December hearing Transcript becuase I kind of got stuck on these pages and figured that Elliot Broidy’s indictment will be soon-ish?
This link to take you to my previous write ups on Elliot Broidy, I’m still vexed why he hasn’t been indicted. I’ve spent a decent amount of time researching him and his circle of “poor life choices”
And honestly let’s not forget that George Nader has been cooperating with the Special Counsel’s Office for more than a year, Nader and Brody also super tight.
Elliot Broidy 2015/2016 Donations:
Oh and speaking of Elliot Broidy it’s always interested me that not once during the 2015/2016 election cycle did he make a donation to Trump or any proTrump PACs, although I’m still curious why Broidy wasn’t cited or the Justin Fareed For Congress Campaign fined by the FEC, given that Broidy’s second $2,700 campaign donation exceeded the maximum allowable for “individual” donations. See FEC raw data report. During the 2015/2016 election cycle Broidy’s donations maxed out $18,900.00 trust me lock the number in because the next set of numbers will leave you with a lot of unanswered questions.
Elliot Broidy 2017/2018 Donations
When I say there was a precipitous INCREASE in donations from Elliot Broidy during the 2017/2018 election cycle that might in fact be me completely understating the actual amount.
Ladies and Gentleman please fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the not so friendly a SpicyFiles Flight...shit is about to get really bumpy for Broidy and the GOP.
Alex, I’ll take: money launderering...foreign money pouring into our elections for today’s daily double:
Exhibit A - this is a three for one, again I do not condone doxxing of any kind so while the FEC data is “public information” if I think your home address is listed I will take the time to redact your information.
November 30, 2017 Elliot Broidy made two donations to the RNC:
$101,700.00 and $26,700.00 = $128,400.00
The third donation on this page, a one Mr Mohammad S Diab is interesting to me because he’s a regesiered Democrat and his donation of $66,100.00 is approximately 1/6 of his home value.
The beauty of tilt tables is you can run the numbers in different aggregates, such as during the 2017/2018 Election Cycle Elliot Broidy made a total of 73 donations to the GOP party and various candidates but the RNC received the largest sum both in number of donations and funds. This FEC link will take you to the raw data for the 2017/2018 Election Cycle. The various big money haul dates:
- May 12, 2017 = $85,800.00
- May 16, 2017 = $50,000.00
- June 7 2017 = $107,600.00
- November 16, 2017 = $94,600.00
- November 30, 2017 = $189,000.00
Is in recess until tomorrow at Noon, you can follow the Clerk Of the House here, my understanding is this week should be a light week.
EDVA Alexandria Docket:
As you know you can view the weekly docket here, it’s pretty much SOP with the exception of one particular hearing I’m looking forward to, on 3/22/2019 Judge Trenga will hold a status hearing on the Lumber Liquidators matter, previously discussed here.
Tomorrow SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in a case a lot of us have been closely watching given the issues and complexity of Case No: 18-281. This SCOTUS link will take you to the whole docket
ISSUES and QUESTIONS in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill
(1) Whether the district court conducted a proper “holistic” analysis of the majority-minority Virginia House of Delegates districts under the prior decision in this case, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, even though it ignored a host of evidence, including the overwhelming majority of district lines, which were carried over unchanged from the prior map; the geographic location of population disparities, which imposed severe redistricting constraints and directly impacted which voters were moved into and out of the majority-minority districts; and the degree of constraint the House’s Voting Rights Act compliance goals imposed in implementation, which was minimal;
(2) whether the Bethune-Hill “predominance” test is satisfied merely by a lengthy description of ordinary Voting Rights Act compliance measures;
(3) whether the district court erred in relying on expert analysis it previously rejected as unreliable and irrelevant and expert analysis that lacked any objective or coherent methodology;
(4) whether the district court committed clear error in ignoring the entirety of the house’s evidentiary presentation under the guise of credibility determinations unsupported by the record and predicated on expert testimony that should not have been credited or even admitted;
(5) whether Virginia’s choice to draw 11 “safe” majority-minority districts of around or above 55 percent black voting-age population (“BVAP”) was narrowly tailored in light of the discretion the Voting Rights Act afforded covered jurisdictions to “choose to create a certain number of ‘safe’ districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice,” under Georgia v. Ashcroft, or the requirement the Voting Rights Act, as amended, imposed on covered jurisdictions “to prove the absence of racially polarized voting” to justify BVAP reductions towards or below 50 percent BVAP;
(6) whether the district court erred in ignoring the district-specific evidence before the house in 2011 justifying safe districts at or above 55 percent BVAP; and
(7) whether appellants have standing to bring this appeal.
On Tuesday SCOTUS will also hear oral arguments in Case no 18-315
Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt
The question before SCOTUS:
Whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an “official of the United States” for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2).
This SCOTUS link will take you to the docket.
At any rate early Spring in DC can be sort of fun, like opening up a box of chocolates and hoping you don’t get the nasty chewy nugget. As for me, I’ll be eyeballs deep in work...oh and I should probably say if you’re a social media company and you’ve filed SEC filings in the past 26 months that weren’t exactly truthful, you might want to call a decent SEC law firm because you dolts think the FTC is the only enforcement arm. Snort...nope the SEC has some gnarly teeth and they bite super hard and deep...oh shittlestix I really should not say that out loud.
Damnit. Snort. Damnit
-SpicyFiles Out...see y’all on the flip side...
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.