FOIA Response on Citigroup Justice Department Referrals: DOJ Draws a Dark Curtain Around Its Actions

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: November 7, 2017

Robert Rubin, Former Treasury Secretary and Citigroup Board Chair

Robert Rubin, Former Treasury Secretary and Citigroup Executive Committee Chair

On March 11, 2016, the National Archives released a trove of documents related to the work of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) and their investigation of the causes of the 2007-2010 financial crisis. As a result of reviewing those documents, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a September 15, 2016 letter to the Inspector General of the Justice Department and to then FBI Director James Comey seeking to find out why the Justice Department had not prosecuted any of the individuals or corporations that were referred to it by the FCIC.

Senator Warren indicated in her letter to James Comey that her staff had “identified 11 separate FCIC referrals of individuals or corporations to DOJ in cases where the FCIC found ‘serious indications of violation[s]’ of federal securities or other laws consistent with this statutory mandate. Nine specific individuals were implicated in these referrals — yet not one of these nine has gone to prison or been prosecuted for a criminal offense.”

Warren asked Comey to “promptly facilitate the release of any and all materials related to the FBI’s investigations and prosecutorial decisions regarding these referrals.”

It’s been more than a year since Warren sent her letters to the DOJ’s Inspector General and to the FBI – and the sound of silence on this critical matter has been deafening.

Wall Street On Parade decided to file its own Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Justice Department in the matter. To be certain that the Justice Department would not decline the FOIA on the basis that we were seeking too broad a search, we narrowed our inquiry to the three former Citigroup executives whom the FCIC had made referrals to the Justice Department: former Chairman of the Executive Committee of Citigroup, Robert Rubin – who served as the former U.S. Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton; former Citigroup CEO Charles (Chuck) Prince; and former Citigroup CFO Gary Crittenden. The Justice Department responded as follows:

“This is in response to your request for records on Charles Prince, Gary Crittenden, and Robert Rubin. Please be advised that I have decided to neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C) of the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), (7)(C). Even to acknowledge the existence of law enforcement records on another individual could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This is our standard response to such requests and should not be taken to mean that records do, or do not, exist. Accordingly, I cannot confirm nor deny the existence of records responsive to your request.”

Read the full Justice Department response to Wall Street On Parade’s FOIA request here.

Typically, it is true that the Justice Department does not comment on prosecutions that it decides not to bring. But it made a major exception to that standard on July 5, 2016 when then FBI Director James Comey released a detailed statement on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server in the basement of her home while serving as Secretary of State to transmit highly classified material. Comey said he was “going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.”

What could possibly be of more “intense public interest” than learning about the role played by individuals at the center of the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression. Citigroup was not some minor player in the corruption that collapsed Wall Street. It received the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history. The U.S. Treasury infused $45 billion in capital into Citigroup to prevent its total collapse; the government guaranteed over $300 billion of Citigroup’s assets; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) guaranteed $5.75 billion of its senior unsecured debt and $26 billion of its commercial paper and interbank deposits; the Federal Reserve secretly funneled $2.5 trillion in almost zero-interest loans to units of Citigroup between 2007 and 2010.

We believe we know the answer to why the Justice Department is choosing to remain mum about its investigation of the individuals referred by the FCIC. In our opinion, it’s because the Justice Department commenced no serious investigation of any major Wall Street bank executive. In January 2013, the PBS program Frontline interviewed the then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer. This was the exchange:

NARRATOR: Frontline spoke to two former high-level Justice Department prosecutors who served in the Criminal Division under Lanny Breuer. In their opinion, Breuer was overly fearful of losing.

MARTIN SMITH: We spoke to a couple of sources from within the Criminal Division, and they reported that when it came to Wall Street, there were no investigations going on. There were no subpoenas, no document reviews, no wiretaps.

LANNY BREUER: Well, I don’t know who you spoke with because we have looked hard at the very types of matters that you’re talking about.

MARTIN SMITH: These sources said that at the weekly indictment approval meetings that there was no case ever mentioned that was even close to indicting Wall Street for financial crimes.

Brazile Fallout: Hillary Privatized the DNC with Help from a Washington Law Firm

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: November 6, 2017

Hillary Clinton Tells Senator Bernie Sanders That There's No Evidence She Can Be Swayed by Wall Street Money During CNN Debate, April 14, 2016

Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders During CNN Debate, April 14, 2016

Secret side agreements are a common maneuver by corporate law firms. Here’s how they work. An agreement that is legal and passes the smell test is drafted and submitted to a court or a regulatory body for public consumption. Then, a separate, secret side agreement is written and signed by both sides and it contains all of the smelly, shady, ethically questionable hard details on how the original agreement will be carried out.

Donna Brazile, the former interim Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 presidential campaign, has written a new book, “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House,” and has revealed the secret side agreement that the DNC had with Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

In 2015, Hillary Clinton’s campaign set up a joint fundraising committee called the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) with the DNC and over 30 state democratic committees. The public portion of the agreement indicated that Hillary would raise funds for her own campaign while also allocating a portion to the DNC to help the overall Democratic Party as well as allocating funds to state democratic committees in order to support down-ballot candidates in their local elections. But the secret side agreement that effectively privatized the DNC, giving Hillary and her campaign lawyers control of the DNC and its money, had yet to see the light of day.

This is how Brazile describes the secret side agreement in her book:

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook [Clinton’s campaign manager] with a copy to Marc Elias [lawyer at Perkins Coie]  — specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

The Clinton camp has now attempted to defend itself by saying these terms are standard because they were not going to kick in until the Democratic Party had chosen its official presidential nominee at its party convention in July 2016. But that’s not what the actual secret side agreement says. It indicates the following: “Beginning October 1, 2015,” the HVF would begin transferring $1.2 million to the DNC at the start of each month with that release “conditioned on” Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign personnel being consulted “and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate.”

Additionally, the secret agreement states that “the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA” (Hillary for America, the primary campaign fund for Clinton) as its Communications Director. All of this is occurring in the fall of 2015 with the official Democratic nominating convention not taking place until July 2016.

As Politico reported in May 2016, the Hillary Victory Fund was a sham in multiple other ways. First, Politico writes that less than 1 percent of the money raised stayed in the state’s coffers. The Treasurer of the Hillary Victory Fund actually had the power to move money in and out of state committee bank accounts. Politico reporters Ken Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf cite the following example to show how things actually worked:

“…the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party received $43,500 from the victory fund on Nov. 2, only to transfer the same amount to the DNC that same day. The pattern repeated itself after the Minnesota party received transfers from the victory fund of $20,600 on Dec. 1 (the party sent the same amount to the DNC the next day) and $150,000 on Jan. 4 (it transferred the same amount to the DNC that day).

“That means that Minnesota’s net gain from its participation in the victory fund was precisely $0 through the end of March. Meanwhile, the DNC pocketed an extra $214,100 in cash routed through Minnesota — much of which the DNC wouldn’t have been able to accept directly, since it came from donors who had mostly had already maxed out to the national party committee.

“A similar pattern transpired with most of the participating state parties. As of March 31, only eight state parties (most of which were in battleground states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia) had received more from the victory fund than was transferred from their accounts to the DNC.”

Brazile backs up this account in her book, writing that “the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding….”

Brazile notes in her book that the lawyer, Marc Elias, of the politically-connected law firm, Perkins Coie, was copied on the secret side agreement. Elias has repeatedly come under scrutiny for his multi-faceted roles in the 2015-2016 presidential campaign. Most recently, he was exposed as the guy behind the hiring of Fusion GPS which compiled the scandalous Russian dossier on Donald Trump, using both Hillary campaign funds and DNC funds. The Washington Post reported that Elias was allowed to spend these funds “without oversight by campaign officials, according to a spokesperson for his law firm.”

Elias served as the General Counsel to Hillary’s primary campaign committee, Hillary for America, as well as serving as one of a team of lawyers from Perkins Coie that provided legal advice to the DNC. (Elias also provided legal advice to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Associations, according to the Perkins Coie web site last year.)

As a legal adviser to the DNC, Elias should have known that its charter mandated fairness and impartiality to all primary candidates. But when WikiLeaks released emails last year that had been hacked at the DNC, Marc Elias was caught giving advice on how to tar Senator Bernie Sanders after his campaign suggested that the Hillary Victory Fund was skirting Federal election law. The email from Elias read:

“My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over ‘rigged system’, the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful the [sic] the Democratic party.”

Writing for Politico in 2014, Ken Vogel detailed how Elias and Perkins Coie have not only been the legal go-to guys for the Democratic party over the years but how they have also tinkered with Federal election law to shift more power to the 1 percent. Vogel writes:

“Perkins Coie’s political law practice, anchored by Elias and former White House Counsel Bob Bauer, has something of a stranglehold on the Democratic Party’s election law business, representing not only the party committees themselves but everyone from [Harry] Reid (whose various committees have paid $317,000 in legal fees to Perkins Coie over the years) to Obama ($7.4 million) to the major Democratic super PACs ($19 million).”

The thrust of the article, however, is that Elias played a central role in further opening the spigots for legal revenues his firm might be expected to collect in the future by tinkering with Federal legislation at the eleventh hour. Vogel writes:

“A powerful Democratic lawyer helped craft a provision that was slipped into a year-end spending bill allowing political parties to raise huge new pools of cash — including some for legal fees that are likely going to be collected by his own firm…

“The change has the potential to halt or at least slow the erosion of power of the political parties, since it would increase the maximum amount of cash that rich donors may give to the national Democratic and Republican party committees each year from $97,400 to $777,600 or more.”

The question that no one seems to be asking is who are the main beneficiaries of Perkins Coie’s heavy influence at the top of the Democratic Party. Despite Obama’s re-election for a second term, the Democratic Party shed nearly 1,000 seats from coast to coast. The Republicans now control both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch. A man with the lowest approval rating in modern history now occupies the Oval Office.

The primary beneficiaries of this hubris have been the 1 percent – Wall Street and hedge fund titans – and giant multi-national corporations that dominate the client roster at Perkins Coie.

Those within the Clinton camp and DNC who are suggesting to the American people that there is nothing to see here, time to move along, are dead wrong. Just because the Republican presidential campaign may have been corrupted by outside forces doesn’t mean that the Democratic campaign wasn’t also corrupted by its own outside forces. It’s time to follow the obscene political money trail wherever it leads.

Related Articles:

Are Hillary Clinton and the DNC Skirting Election Law?

DNC’s Direct Marketing Firm Shows Bias on Facebook Against Bernie Sanders

WikiLeaks Bombshell: Emails Show Citigroup Had Major Role in Shaping and Staffing Obama’s First Term

Russia-Trump Saga: Both Murdoch Empire and NYT Have Soiled Hands

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: November 1, 2017

Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an error-filled article on the indictment of Trump adviser George Papadopoulos that seemed intent on cementing the notion that Russia hacked thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and then offered those hacked emails to the Trump campaign to smear dirt on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. The problem was that the actual Federal indictment unsealed on Monday against Papadopoulos made no such claim regarding emails hacked at the Democratic National Committee. Where the thousands of emails referenced by the Russians actually came from was not spelled out in the indictment. They could have just as easily been emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s unsecure server in the basement of her home during her time as Secretary of State.

Instead of correcting its own erroneous reporting, today’s New York Times is blasting Rubert Murdoch’s media empire and other conservative media outlets for creating a false narrative that casts a taint on the Russia probe. The digital front page of the New York Times carries an editorial headlined, “That Crazy Talk About Robert Mueller,” writing that among Republicans there is a “fog of propaganda and delirious conspiracy theories” despite what they call Mueller’s “precise, methodical work.” The agenda, they believe, is to continually cast Hillary Clinton as “Public Enemy No. 1.”

But Hillary Clinton actually is Public Enemy No. 1 to millions of Americans on both sides of the political aisle. Supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders have filed a Federal class action lawsuit (now on appeal) with strong evidentiary support to show that the Clinton campaign and the DNC conspired to undermine Sanders’ campaign – in direct violation of the DNC Charter which mandates fairness to all primary challengers.

Wall Street On Parade is certainly no supporter of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Both were the most unfavorable Presidential candidates in modern history as evidenced by respected polls taken prior to the election. Looking at the facts on the ground in May of this year, we felt that Mueller, a partner at the corporate law firm, WilmerHale, immediately prior to his appointment, would be tainted by the legal representations of his law partners.

As reported in March by Politico, a WilmerHale law partner, Jamie Gorelick, represented Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. According to the report, Gorelick also represented former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson in his confirmation process to become Trump’s Secretary of State. As if those connections were not eye-popping enough, Gorelick had actually been an active supporter in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign for President.

The same month that Politico was calling out Gorelick’s ties to Trump and Clinton, American Lawyer reported that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign adviser (who was just indicted by Mueller) was being represented by a top WilmerHale partner, Reginald Brown, chairman of the firm’s financial institutions group who also heads up the firm’s congressional investigations practice.

Wall Street On Parade identified two more potential conflicts at WilmerHale. According to this Trump Transition Team roster at the corporate law firm, Steptoe & Johnson, Benjamin Powell, a partner at WilmerHale, served on the Trump transition team for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. According to the roster, another WilmerHale partner, Matthew Martens, served on the Trump transition team for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

What the New York Times continuously ignores is that the American people are disgusted with Washington’s revolving door and good-ole-boy mentality. When Special Counsels are appointed to investigate matters that are critical to the public interest, Americans don’t want that individual to come buried under either the perception, or the fact, of conflicts. Taking the New York Times word that Mueller’s work is “precise” and “methodical” and that he is “highly respected” is just not cutting it. Americans are demanding that they get transparency and conflict-free investigations as well as leaders in Washington who reflect the honesty and decency of average Americans.

In years gone by, we thought about the New York Times as a newspaper in the same sense as we thought about democracy: it’s the worst form of government, except for all the others. Now, we no longer believe that the New York Times is the worst media outlet, except for all the others.

The New York Times allowed its reporter Judith Miller to fuel the rush to war with Iraq on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Russ Baker, writing at The Nation in 2003, said this about the episode: “What Miller did, and the fact that her brand of journalism is encouraged and rewarded by the powers that be, is precisely the kind of topic that the Times’s leadership ought to air during its current semipublic glasnost phase.” Baker added that Miller’s brand of journalism “risks playing with the kind of fire that starts or justifies wars, gets people killed and plays into the hands of government officials with partisan axes to grind.”

The New York Times is headquartered in the same city that Wall Street calls home. Wall Street, in turn, mints the billionaires and millionaires that keep the city’s chic restaurants full, the real estate soaring, and the trendy stores bustling. All of this means big advertising bucks to the New York Times. Thus, we can’t help but wonder if a less than altruistic agenda played a role in the editorial page of the New York Times cheerleading over the years as an advocate for the worst financial and economic decision in U.S. banking history – to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall legislation had kept the U.S. financial system safe for 66 years until its repeal in 1999 by banning banks holding FDIC-insured deposits from being under the same roof with investment banks and brokerage firms that regularly gambled for the house and blew themselves up. Just nine years after the repeal of the legislation, the U.S. experienced the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression – the economic disaster that spawned the legislation in the first place in 1933.

Both the Iraq war and the Wall Street financial collapse and government bailout of 2007-2010 have added trillions of dollars to our national debt. The Wall Street collapse and its related economic disasters have left this nation with a stunted annual growth rate of 2 percent or less since the crisis and our young people unable to find decent paying jobs.

Senior citizens who were living on the interest income from 4 and 5 percent Certificates of Deposit before the crash have had to dramatically scale back their food purchases and other necessities to make up for their interest income being slashed in half as a result of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at close to the lowest levels in history — in an effort to repair the damage to the economy that Wall Street perpetrated.

All of this should remind us that a powerful media outlet engaging in bad reporting and bad editorial calls can have critical consequences for this nation and our democracy. The problem is not just the Murdoch empire but the New York Times as well.

Russia Probe: New York Times Writes Its Own Indictment

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: October 31, 2017

George Papadopoulos

George Papadopoulos

The digital front page of today’s New York Times carries this dramatically misleading headline: “Trump Campaign Got Early Word Russia Had Democrats’ Emails.” Within the article, there are six separate references suggesting that the unsealed indictment against Trump adviser George Papadopoulos supports the premise that the Russians had the hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), before the emails became publicly known.

For example, New York Times reporter Scott Shane makes the following references in the article:

“Court documents revealed that Russian officials alerted the campaign, through an intermediary in April 2016, that they possessed thousands of Democratic emails and other ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton…”

And this:

“That was two months before the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee was publicly revealed and the stolen emails began to appear online. The new court filings provided the first clear evidence that Trump campaign aides had early knowledge that Russia had stolen confidential documents on Mrs. Clinton and the committee, a tempting trove in a close presidential contest.”

The New York Times has, amazingly, written its own indictment of George Papadopoulos rather than adhering strictly to the content of the indictment unsealed yesterday in Federal Court. The official indictment makes absolutely no reference to any emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee or from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. It states simply this:

“On or about April 26, 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS, as defendant PAPADOPOULOS later described to the FBI, that ‘They [the Russians] have dirt on her’; ‘the Russians had emails of Clinton’; ‘they have thousands of emails.’ “

What the New York Times reporter has done is to jump to the conclusion that the unsealed indictment is referring to the thousands of emails released by WikiLeaks from the Democratic National Committee which, among other things, showed DNC officials conspiring against the presidential primary campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. But the official indictment itself does not make that claim.

What the Russians could just as easily have been referring to are the tens of thousands of emails that Hillary Clinton, during her years as Secretary of State, sent over an unsecure server in the basement of her home in New York. Tens of thousands of those emails were destroyed and never turned over to the government on the basis that they were Hillary Clinton’s personal emails and not covered by government retention rules.

On July 7, 2016, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee took testimony on the matter. During that hearing, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Charles McCullough, dropped a bombshell. He revealed that Clinton or one of her aides placed tens of thousands of emails, some containing Top Secret material, on a thumb drive and handed it over to Clinton’s attorneys to decide what emails should be turned over to the State Department. (Clinton left the State Department without turning over the government records for more than a year, in violation of the Federal Records Act and potentially obstructing Freedom of Information Act requests from being filled.) The tiny thumb drive, called that because it’s about the size of one’s thumb and thus easily stolen or lost, was then housed in Clinton’s attorneys’ office – which lacked government security features for holding classified material, according to McCullough.

In other words, if the Russians wanted to hack unsecure servers to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, she gave them unlimited opportunity using non-government-approved servers in the basement on her home and in her attorney’s office.

The New York Times lavishly praised Hillary Clinton when it endorsed her for President. Bringing up her handling of classified emails while she was Secretary of State – handling which former FBI Director James Comey called “negligent” and “extremely careless,” may not be the narrative that the New York Times wants to advance.

But if the Times cares at all about sticking to the facts of a Federal indictment, it will correct its reporting. Based on our past experience, we’re not holding out much hope for a correction.

Lawyer Behind Russian Dossier Tried to Undermine Bernie Sanders as well as Trump

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: October 25, 2017

Marc Elias, Law Partner at Perkins Coie, the Law Firm Representing the DNC Against Fraud Charges

Marc Elias, Law Partner at Perkins Coie

Last evening, the Washington Post dropped a bombshell on the already discredited leadership of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) under its former Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The Post reported that Marc Elias, a law partner at the politically connected law firm Perkins Coie, retained the company, Fusion GPS, that compiled the infamous Russian Dossier on Donald Trump. The Post said he did so on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. (The current leadership of the DNC has stated that it had no knowledge of these actions.)

After the Washington Post story broke, New York Times reporters Ken Vogel and Maggie Haberman Tweeted that they had been lied to by those involved. Haberman Tweeted: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Vogel Tweeted: “When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’”

Elias is also the lawyer defending the class action lawsuit filed last year by Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. The lawsuit alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The amended complaint indicates that more than 1,000 individuals have signed retainer agreements to serve as class representatives.

Emails leaked by Wikileaks in July of 2016 show Wasserman Schultz referring to Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, as “an ass,” “particularly scummy” and a “damn liar” as her staff conspired in emails to characterize Sanders as an atheist and his campaign a “mess.” (Sanders has stated that he is not an atheist.) As these anti-Sanders emails were flying about, the DNC set up a joint fundraising account with Hillary Clinton, effectively functioning as if Clinton had no primary challenger, despite the fact that Sanders’ rallies had thousands of supporters while Clinton’s were embarrassingly small in contrast.

Wasserman Schultz and key DNC officials were clearly violating their own Charter. Article Five, Section 4 of the DNC Charter mandates the following:

“The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and even handedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

Multiple leaked emails also showed lawyers at Perkins Coie engaging in strategy that appeared to benefit Clinton over Sanders.

On July 25, 2016, under the headline “Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails,” Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake called out an email from Marc Elias, writing:

A Clinton lawyer gives DNC strategy advice on Sanders — When the Sanders campaign alleged that the Clinton campaign was improperly using its joint fundraising committee with the DNC to benefit itself, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias offered the DNC guidance on how to respond. ‘My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true,’ Elias said May 3 in response to an email about the issue sent by communications director Luis Miranda to other DNC stuff that copied Elias and another lawyer at his firm, Perkins Coie.

“Elias continued: ‘The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over ‘rigged system’, the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful [to] the Democratic party.’ ”

According to the Perkins Coie’s website in 2016, Marc Elias was “general counsel to Hillary for America,” the main fundraising vehicle for Hillary Clinton’s political campaign. Simultaneously, Elias served as one of a team of lawyers from Perkins Coie that represented the DNC. Exactly how that was impartial to the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders has yet to be explained.

Prior to the WikiLeaks emails being released, a hacker going by the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” released a DNC document dated May 26, 2015 – almost one month after Senator Sanders had declared his candidacy. The memo leaves little doubt that the DNC had pre-determined that Hillary Rodham Clinton (“HRC”) was to be the Democratic Presidential candidate, again in brazen violation of its charter.

The memo states that “Our goals in the coming months will be to frame the Republican field and the eventual nominee early and to provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.” It further suggests that the DNC use “specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.” Another recommended strategy will be to “utilize reporters” and create stories in the media “with no fingerprints.”

The Sanders’ supporters’ lawsuit was dismissed by the Federal District Court on September 19 of this year on highly dubious technical grounds. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Marc Elias has already filed the paperwork to indicate that he will serve as Lead Counsel for both the DNC and Wasserman Schultz in the appeals process.