Conspiracy to Corruption...
Are you the Mark?
Visit the Evidence Files Facebook and YouTube pages; Like, Follow, Subscribe or Share!
The world is full of scam artists. Bolstered by the anonymity, global reach, or both, of the internet, scamming has become at least a multi-billion-dollar industry. From deceptive business practices to the height of fraud—corruption—the crime seems limitless. No longer relying on the antiquated “Nigerian Prince” scams, however, fraudsters now use deceptions so insidious that they are too rarely prosecuted. But make no mistake, they are frauds nonetheless. The question is, are you the mark?
Instead of legally labelling these deceptive practices as “frauds”—as they should be—the new term is “conspiracy theory.” Ok, conspiracy theory is not a new term, but its novel use in some ways is. Calling a ridiculous or overtly deceptive idea a conspiracy theory has allowed nefarious actors to hide behind a provincial reading of “free speech” as a way to steal money from millions of people. Like all cons, the scammers first get their marks emotionally connected, so they cannot admit to the scam even when it is laid bare. Then the fraudsters convince their marks that any contradictory evidence is part of some grandiose (and inevitably impossible) cover up. This emotional ploy keeps their victims on the defensive against truth and reason, even when the victims’ own well-being is at stake. To be sure, these kinds of crimes are prosecuted all the time. Just not the ones cloaked under the impetus of a conspiracy theory, and especially when the scammer is rich and powerful.
All of this is evident in the responses I receive when I write about a particular conspiracy theory. Take, for example, my article on Chemtrails. As an idea, chemtrails are beset with a number of impossibilities that make the general idea ridiculous. I pointed out the problem of the necessary size of a payload on chemtrail aircraft, the virtual impossibility of keeping pilots in the dark, the lack of any actual substantive evidence, the difficulties of keeping any widescale program under wraps, and the numerous lies told on conspiracy websites about it (such as that modern jet engines cannot create condensation trails). I then noted how these websites universally sell items related to this sham, such as the “chemtrails protection” package, which provides no quantifiable or even explicable product. Yet, people have told me that despite all of this, they still believe there must be something to the theory. Why? Because they think it is simply something governments would do, or they see the trails in the sky. That’s it. Adopting this cognitive dissonance is a choice over having to take the less desirable path. That is, “when there is a conflict between our attitudes and our behavior, we tend to change our attitudes to make them consistent with our behavior rather than change our behavior to make it consistent with our attitudes.” In short, it is the easier path to reject even the slightest bit of complex evidence and simply cling to a misguided belief, rather than to analyze the situation objectively.
Some might argue that indulging in certain fantasies like sustaining a belief in chemtrails and purchasing a “chemtrail protection” plan is foolhardy, but not especially destructive. If this were true, why punish fraud at all? Indeed, the impetus for a criminal justice system is not simply to promote fairness, but to maintain societal stability. As Peter Baldwin of the University of California has noted, “the state has been more concerned with society’s overall functioning than with individual justice — except insofar as a fair judiciary is necessary for a well-run system.” Moreover, enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria argued that the harm inflicted from committing a crime should be the focus of punishment. Authors Mahir Al Zadjali and Christopher S. Wright stated that the successful resolution of corruption may determine the very survival of a given society. Public corruption is the pinnacle of fraud as it invokes the power of the state to both conduct and expel. The tolerance of fraud at the individual (i.e., conspiracy theory) level creates an increasing tolerance for it at the highest level and there thus exists a fundamental need to root it out from its very base. Escalating levels of fraud, to the point of corruption, should be punished in ever-increasing increments. In the information—and misinformation—age of today, unfortunately, even blatant corruption becomes defensible in the realm of conspiracy theories as people seem increasingly prone to believe that which is defied by logic, moral beliefs, or evidence.
The motives behind the purveyors of many conspiracy theories interweave between the financial and political, and are not so easily disentangled. Perhaps one of the largest frauds perpetuated to date is just such an example. Called by some, the “Big Lie,” the continued propagating of the stolen U.S. election conspiracy theory of 2020 may be the most destructive fraud since Bernie Madoff’s or Sam Bankman-Friedman’s schemes (alleged scheme for the latter). The list of actors in this fraud are so many, it is difficult to delineate them. But one need only look at some examples to get an idea of the depraved depth of deceit. Before examining the chief should-be-defendants in this scheme, however, let’s examine for a moment the general architecture of it.
It became apparent rather quickly that on the heels of a disastrous presidency, laden with numerous criminal convictions and ethics-related resignations or firings, that Donald Trump was destined to lose the 2020 election. Despite an over-estimate of Joe Biden’s lead in the two weeks prior to the election by most polls, even accounting for a large error margin it was clear Biden would win by millions. And, well, he did. As the then-President Trump’s team awaited his imminent loss, disgraced attorney Rudy Giuliani purportedly stated, “just say we won.” Not long after, many politicians or would-be politicians began repeating the mantra, either to remain in lockstep with what they viewed as their voting base, or in an effort to win their own elections (or bemoan their losses, like in the case of Kari Lake). If it is true that in an alcoholic stupor Giuliani did in fact say such a thing, that might have been the moment of conception for what became known as the Big Lie. The fraud caused harm much greater than mere financial gain—several people died in or as a result of the January 6th riot, some thousands of people earned themselves a criminal record and jail time there and elsewhere, and many Americans now view political division as among the most serious problems in society (this in a country where children of certain ages are more likely to die by gunfire than anything else).
For more on how the Big Lie facilitated a conspiracy, the size of which America has never known, read this article on the Michigan section of the scam.
The Big Lie
There is ample evidence indicating that the narrative of a stolen election is false. Despite having various arguments heard across more than 60 courts and 86 different judges (at least), no associated court that heard election fraud cases from 2020 found merit in the idea that there was any remotely serious “theft.” A bipartisan committee in the Senate published nearly 400 pages further dispelling the possibility of substantial election fraud. Numerous other committees and even some Republicans also publicly claimed the notion was a myth. Furthermore, logic itself dictates that if there was not election fraud at other levels (i.e. Senate or House races), then how was there election fraud in the Presidential race when the tally came from the same ballots?
Regardless, to keep the election fraud lie alive some have claimed that the associated courts never reviewed cases on their merits. This is how they dismiss this critical canon of evidence. This is also simply false, but asserted because such fraudsters are reliably confident that their believers will not read a single case. Numerous lawyers who filed these cases have already faced punishment from their respective bars because their filings were either false or patently frivolous, and some more may face censure still. Moreover, many of Trump’s own appointees to various agencies dismissed the claims perpetrated by “Big Lie” fraudsters, including Trump’s own claims. Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence is the settlement of three quarters of a billion dollars by Fox News based on its role in the election lie fraud scheme. The settlement came on the eve of trial where the company was sure to face a humiliating spectacle based on the myriad evidence already in the public record, and likely more to come, illustrating that the network’s highest figures knew the narrative was a lie. The company still faces yet another billion-dollar-plus trial for its conduct. But more on that in a moment. In short, there is no objective conclusion other than that the “Big Lie” is, in fact, just that—a lie. It is a pervasive scheme used to dupe millions out of their money and those profiting from it should be prosecuted for the criminals they are.
Built off the election fraud scam, numerous entities have taken in millions of dollars based on claims made to perpetuate it. Perhaps among the largest of these is Trump’s “election defense fund.” Various emails sent to potential supporters contained allegations (almost all provably false) that the election was stolen, and from these false premises sought money to “mount challenges” toward overturning the results in certain states. Of course, Trump and numerous allies had already mounted these challenges and lost, which suggests that this effort for soliciting money was purposely deceptive from the start. Some recipients of the emails sent by these fraudsters received as many as 25 messages per day, another common tactic in facilitating fraud. Gary Coby, the former digital director for the Trump campaign, told the House Committee investigating this and many other election-related frauds that the emails were merely a marketing tactic. False marketing can be a crime, or at the least a violation of business law, in numerous states, so Coby’s defense is inadequate in even the most generous analysis. The scam brought in over $250 million to this fund. Most of the money went to other Political Action Committees, and not a single dollar went toward its proclaimed purpose because no election defense fund was ever created. A disclaimer, likely located where no one would read it, noted that most contributions, except those of the highest amounts, would actually go toward other expenses and not this election defense nonsense. As Ken Gross, former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, put it, "as distasteful as it is to raise money for a purpose other than what you're going to use it for, in the political arena, there's a good bit of latitude given to campaigns because oftentimes, money is used for some other purpose." In regular English, political organizations seemingly have carte blanche to rip off their donors.
United States Code Title 18, § 1343 (wire fraud) makes it a crime to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises [using the “wires” like email]. A fraudulent scheme must include a material misrepresentation, which is a misrepresentation that could influence the decision of a "person[] of ordinary prudence and comprehension." The Supreme Court wrote in 2020, “Save for bribes or kickbacks (not at issue here), a [government] official's fraudulent schemes violate [§ 1343] only when, again, they are ‘for obtaining money or property’." In other words, SCOTUS found that a politician merely abusing one’s position for potential benefit itself did not invoke this statute, however, the intent to specifically obtain money or property did. Statutes across many states also proscribe such conduct in similar ways. While the defense in this instance most assuredly would rely on the language of the disclaimer, this defense is laden with rot and abused all the time. Corporations, for instance, rely on it repeatedly despite sometimes not even providing such “terms and conditions” in a readily available format. What is not written in this statute is some carve-out allowing politically related entities from engaging in fraud. Mr. Gross’ comment merely indicates a lack of stomach to prosecute political fraud. Nevertheless, even if it cannot be charged criminally because of this loophole, or because of prosecutorial cowardice, it should not be viewed as anything other than the fraud it is. If one must read through paragraphs of tiny print to discover that the money is going somewhere other than where two dozen emails per day and where the primary spokesperson says it is going, especially to a fund that does not even exist, it is a scam. Plain and simple.
Fraudsters often are identifiable by their history of law-breaking. Like the bogus election defense fund outlined above, the principal(s) behind it often perpetuates a number of smaller frauds before moving onto the big ones. For Trump, the list of deceptive acts is exhausting—if not exhaustive. For example, he is currently under indictment for 34 counts of falsifying business records related to an alleged coverup of a payment to aid his election in 2016—a conspiracy for which one defendant already served prison time. Trump’s Chief Financial Officer, Allen Weisselberg, pleaded guilty to a 15-years-long tax scheme, seemingly facilitated or outright engineered by Trump’s company. That plea related to criminal convictions of Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corporation for 17 different crimes related to tax fraud and others. The Trump Corporation is also accused in a civil suit of falsifying records and manipulating assets to unlawfully obtain loans and other benefits. The Trump Foundation, a self-proclaimed charity, was shut down for fraud and fined $2 million. Trump also settled with the Federal government over housing discrimination against African Americans, paid $25 million in compensation to students scammed by his “university,” paid $10 million for failing to follow regulations meant to deter money laundering, among many others. While it is generally inadmissible in court to use prior bad acts as evidence in a current case, there are exceptions when such acts help to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
Fox “News”
Certainly an even larger fraud, at least from a financial perspective, born of the election lie is the scam perpetrated by the ironically called Fox “News.” Hiding behind the veneer of journalism, Fox News has repeatedly been accused of lying or fraud, and in several cases has either admitted to it or made big payouts allowing it to make no admission of wrongdoing. For example, on May 25, 2017, Tucker Carlson aired a segment in the UK following a terrorist attack in which he stated that the British government failed to act against terrorism because of some nebulous claim about the abuse of children… because of political correctness, or something. Sean Hannity made the same claim in a segment around the same time, and both were found to be in breach of fairness rules, according to Britain’s media regulator Ofcom. Ofcom found failures in Fox’s adherence to media plurality and broadcasting standards; or more succinctly, it basically stated these segments were lies, not based on any actual evidence. Fox escaped a fine because it no longer had a broadcast license in the UK at the time of the finding. In 2020, Fox managed to persuade a court to dismiss a suit against it for defamation after Fox’s lawyers somehow fooled the judge into believing that no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously. It did so by convincing Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil that Carlson’s use of the word “extortion” comprised “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language.” In Fox’s view, Carlson’s very large audience of “reasonable viewers” all believe Carlson is merely hyperbolic and would never believe what he says to be true. Thus, his vitriol on air would never drive people to make threats of or conduct actual violence, for example. Except, that too is false. Fox just recently settled yet another lawsuit predicated on the lies it told on-air. It shelled out over ¾ of a billion dollars despite its claim of no wrongdoing, one of the largest defamation payouts ever. To be clear, defamation is lying about a particular person or entity. Fox still faces another lawsuit with damages sought in the amount of $2.7 billion. It also faces a lawsuit by its own shareholders who apparently are tired of paying out large chunks of their dividends for Fox’s repeated lies (at least since they keep getting caught and having to pay). It seems Fox has decided to discard one of its purveyors of lies, Tucker Carlson. During the writing of this draft, Fox abruptly cut ties with Carlson with some speculating the decision was driven by “a weighing of the negatives - and risks to the business - versus the positives or benefits.”
As mentioned above, fraud consists of any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. Fox news clearly sought to build and maintain its ratings by promoting the election fraud because its ratings directly correlate to one of its primary sources of revenue: advertising. In addition, Fox obtains revenue by providing online services through apps available on mobile devices, smart TVs and Firestick-like devices. All of this money is procured through a fraud on its viewers; and Fox’s previous lawsuits illustrate a proclivity to constantly engage in this behavior. Unlike other media companies (that surely also have told provable lies), the evidence is very strong indicating Fox personnel knew they were purposely misleading viewers for the explicit reason to maintain ratings and revenue, and doing it all the time practically as a business strategy. Tucker Carlson wrote in a text to Hannity and Laura Ingraham, “We devote our lives to building an audience and they let Chris Wallace and Leland fucking Vittert wreck it.” Carlson was referring to the fact that Wallace and others correctly stated on-air that Trump had lost Arizona, directly contradicting one basis of the Big Lie. Carlson also acknowledged in a text that claims made on Fox about Dominion were false, yet on air later that evening he said quite the opposite. Even Fox’s own “brainroom,” the department in charge of fact-checking claims, concluded there was “no evidence of widespread fraud.” Nonetheless, the deceptive behavior persisted among its on-air personalities, at least tacitly condoned by management, for years. The bottom line is that Fox personalities knew they were engaged in a massive fraud, were almost solely concerned with the results of their ratings (and, thus, revenue) should they tell the truth, and subsequently lied willfully, knowingly, and repeatedly to their customers. The court in the defamation suit brought by Dominion against fox put it bluntly: “The evidence developed in this [case] demonstrates that it is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” [emphasis here is by the court, not me]. To be sure, flimsier cases for fraud and conspiracy have been criminally charged and prosecuted. Of course, those typically involve defendants with far fewer resources or who are non-public personas. Here, the evidence is clear that Fox News’ revenue generation is built largely upon a giant scam on its viewers for which it and its personalities should be criminally charged.
The Vaccination Conspiracy
Some conspiracy theories are even more deadly. While so called “anti-vaxers” have existed for years, the belief in this conspiracy theory moved front-and-center when COVID thrust the world into a pandemic. Vaccination and its predecessor, variolation, have been used for centuries. Even in the 18th century, some writers decried the practices, adopting similar tactics as those used today—cherry-picking negative outcomes and composing scary stories and conspiracy theories around side effects, implying they are widespread when in fact they are not. At that time, though, some hesitancy was warranted because while vaccines themselves were often effective, their delivery systems were not. Sterilization of medical tools simply was not a concern in those days. But it wasn’t until the first vaccine was mandated by law, that the anti-vax movement started to materialize into something organized. The arguments made against compulsory vaccination then (which protected against smallpox, one of the most lethal diseases in human history) sound eerily similar to those made now: vaccines don’t work, they are filled with dangerous chemicals, and they shouldn’t be mandated. The early versions of an organized movement did not last long as major medical developments followed one after the other, including many important vaccines, leading the public toward an extremely high trust of the medical field predicated on longer life expectancies. Not to mention, smallpox was eventually eradicated thanks to vaccines.
Today’s anti-vax movement largely emerged from the publication of a single study in 1998 by British physician Andrew Wakefield. The study was a fraud; Wakefield manipulated data, his conclusions did not arise from any evidence, and he eventually lost his medical license. Nevertheless, like so many conspiracy theorists are wont to do, this fraudulent study is propped up as “evidence” despite the fact that experts in many related fields have repeatedly pointed out its methodological flaws, false conclusions and overall lack of any value whatsoever. Like today, anti-vaccination arguments then were bolstered by media coverage of the study even after it was widely discredited. What makes the modern anti-vax movement especially pernicious is that it emerged during the advent of the social media age. A very small number of people suddenly had access to audiences numbering in the millions, even billions. Thus, it does not require legions of misinformation generators to send false information far and wide. In 2021, researchers found that 65% of all COVID vaccine misinformation came from just 12 people. In short, 12 people have perpetuated a fraud that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of people for their own pecuniary benefit.
The anti-vax conspiracy developed and continues as a means to garner attention and money. Using debunked claims or sheer nonsense, anti-vaxers sell “alternative” (read: largely ineffective, unproven, or downright dangerous) treatments for various maladies. As NPR pointed out, anti-vaxers “have upped their rhetoric, while continuing to promote their books, workshops and other products. Research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate shows it can work, as 147 key anti-vaccination accounts have managed to grow their followings by at least 25% since the start of the pandemic.” One of the biggest purveyors of misinformation is a doctor named Joseph Mercola (legal disclaimer here: Dr. Mercola denies this). I have written about another deceptive campaign, the one in which a website by his name claims microwaves are dangerous. They are not.
This individual is careful, however, by routinely characterizing his assertions in the form of questions to avoid liability for his lies. Tucker Carlson, a key participant in his own fraudulent history, often did the same (though perhaps with less success, given the dollars Fox has paid out on his behalf). Also like Carlson, when people criticize the ridiculous things people like these promote, the response is that they are “being silenced” for “telling the truth.” Converting oneself into a victim when caught in a web of lies is common rhetoric for a scammer to continue stoking emotional responses from the real victims. Nevertheless, Mercola and other anti-vax propagandists have reaped extraordinary benefits from their lies.
The Sandy Hook Slanderer
Another example of a serial liar profiting off of this category of lies is Alex Jones. Jones, who is now in debt to the tune of billions of dollars for defaming Sandy Hook victim families, also repeatedly propagated his own variation of lies about coronavirus, obviously to sell his wares on Infowars. Jones’ propensity to scam is so pervasive, it barely needs mention here. After all, he dug his heels into the defamation cases against him so much so that he made a fool out of himself and his attorneys repeatedly during the trials. And then after he lost those cases, he appears to have attempted to hide his millions in assets to prevent paying the families he defamed. He came right out and said it: “Do these people actually think they’re getting any of this money?” Those cases demanded he pay for his despicable treatment of victims of a horrific crime. His vaccination conspiracies, too, were actually costing lives, merely so Alex Jones could make some more money. He came right out and said that as well, “I am very sad about this virus and very sad about the bioweapons and things that are going on [whatever that means], but it is an opportunity for people to take advantage of the products we have” [this emphasis is mine]. One study found that roughly 5,800 people were hospitalized and over 800 died as a result of listening to the type of hogwash people like Jones and Mercola broadcast during the first months of the pandemic. Many of those deaths resulted from poisoning by ingesting dangerous substances based on what they saw on the media put out by Jones and others like him. In other cases, people were harmed in assaults or even murdered based on hysteria induced by this type of drivel they read or saw online.
Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of these fraudsters is starkly evident. While it is hard to know for sure, some of these spreaders of misinformation have, themselves, been vaccinated by the very thing they continuously decry. One likely example is a con-artist whose name has been mentioned all too often already in this article, Tucker Carlson. While airing segments repeatedly questioning the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, Carlson would not answer whether he himself had been vaccinated. Perhaps, like in the case of his participation in the election fraud, Carlson was too afraid to admit it for fear of dwindling his ratings. In another form of hypocrisy, some have simply changed their targeted audience to ensure profit from their deceptive peddling. Take for example Del Bigtree, an anti-vaccine peddler. His pre-pandemic audience was apparently Democrats and liberals, but when that group would no longer buy his snake oil, he started attending conservative group events where he found a receptive audience. He said, “I was shocked as a lifelong liberal progressive that I was hugging and hanging out and having a great time with a bunch of extremely conservative mothers and grandmothers.” To make matters worse, not only do people like him dial in on whatever audience that will readily accept their lies, that audience suffered much higher death rates during and since the pandemic as a result. One study found that as the pandemic wore on and certain political factions made political hay of the anti-vax movement, the death rate by COVID among this political group far outpaced any other demographic. Instead of receiving the vaccination and virtually assuring their safety from the worst effects of the illness, these people instead often chose ineffective alternatives fed to them by the fraudsters—many associated with their political party of choice. Now in 2023, the difference in death rates of COVID between the vaccinated and unvaccinated remains extraordinary.
The disparity in death rates is even higher when you compare registered political party affiliation.
Source: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30512/w30512.pdf
People successfully sue manufacturers all the time for mislabeling food, so how is what these anti-vaxers are doing really any different?
The Gun Rights Sham
Then there is this uniquely American fraudulent enterprise—the gun lobby. Perhaps no scam on Earth has been so purposely lethal despite the volumes of contrary, and painful, evidence as the 2nd Amendment Scam in the United States. Unlike any developed country in history, the United States has entertained a veritable war zone on its streets for decades. Defenders of the status quo—yes, there are far too many people who have found ways to morally twist themselves into essentially defending hundreds of mass shootings, many of which kill young children—use tortured arguments about the 2nd Amendment to make their case, much like many other conspiracy theorists do with the 1st Amendment. One problem, as explained by historian Michael Waldman, is the wording of the amendment itself. He said, “Let’s be clear: the eloquent men who wrote ‘we the people’ and the First Amendment did us no favors in the drafting of the Second Amendment.” It has created leave for some spirited, but obviously disingenuous, debate. The first Supreme Court case that began the twisting of the amendment was decided in a way to protect Ku Klux Klan members from prosecution for murdering hundreds of African Americans in the south in the late 19th century. It also effectively stripped many from being able to vote, as it claimed the states—and not the federal government—owned sole power over enforcement of Equal Protection and Due Process. Many states during that time clearly were not about to protect the African American vote. Another major outcome of this case was the holding that the 2nd Amendment merely restricted the powers of the federal government. Put another way, the current reading of that amendment by the pro-gun lobby is essentially the same as when it was judicially prudent to allow terrorism by the KKK against African Americans, but disregards the debate over the original writing of the amendment or jurisprudence later. In United States v. Miller, for example, the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment, and its right to bear arms, was directly in reference to when such right involved a militia. Since then, and especially now, Americans are dying by gunfire at 4 times the rate of the nearest wealthy country, because the gun lobby continues to convince courts to find an individual right in the 2nd Amendment where there is not one (it defies sense to simply pretend an entire clause of the amendment doesn’t exist). Read a fuller history of the 2nd Amendment drafting and jurisprudence here.
While plenty deserve the blame behind this travesty, none deserve it more than the National Rifle Association (NRA). Despite a membership of just 5 or so million (a tiny fraction of the US population), the NRA has wielded considerable political power. Through a vast lobbying and donation fund (with virtually all donations going to the one party who routinely votes against nearly all gun restrictions), the NRA has adeptly kept politicians in its pocket for quite some time now.
Source: Open Secrets
Despite even its own membership supporting many gun restrictions, the NRA has fought against mostly all of them. It maintains support of its membership by perpetuating myths such as that the police will start knocking down doors to forcibly remove people’s guns. It is why people like Randy Conner, a pistol and rifle instructor for the NRA from Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, can say such cognitively dissociated things like, “No one wants to see the violence you see in schools and stuff today… But I don’t think taking the guns away from ordinary citizens is going to change any of that at all.” If not ordinary citizens, who is pulling all of these triggers? This mode of thinking has helped to immortalize the nonsensical trope of “only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun,” even if the facts prove time and again this is simply false.
But this isn’t a debate about gun violence in the USA, this about scams. And the NRA is looking more and more like a really big one. Notwithstanding the lies it peddles to maintain its relevance, the principals of the NRA appear to have been fleecing their membership for years. The Attorney General of New York State filed suit in 2020 accusing the NRA of diverting “millions of dollars away from the charitable mission of the organization for personal use by senior leadership, awarding contracts to the financial gain of close associates and family, and appearing to dole out lucrative no-show contracts to former employees in order to buy their silence and continued loyalty.” You can read the entire complaint here. In response to the suit, the NRA first unsuccessfully attempted to move the suit to another county. When that failed it then tried—and again failed—to dismiss it. Following that, the NRA attempted to file bankruptcy to avoid paying any potential fines should it lose, but that was rejected by a Texas bankruptcy court that stated that the bankruptcy was filed in bad faith. Upon yet another defeat, the NRA attempted a counterclaim in which it asserted the Attorney General was on a “witch hunt” (sound familiar?). That, too, was rejected.
Dueling suits between the NRA and its former PR firm, Ackerman McQueen, also took place throughout this saga. The NRA ultimately settled and paid the PR firm around $12 million. Reports brought into evidence in that case noted “a damning assessment of financial relationships between the [senior leaders of the NRA] and various vendors and individuals” perhaps going back into the 1990s. Read the long, sordid history here. Curiously, one of the defendants, the NRA’s former CFO, filed a motion to exclude the accountant’s testimony that included the report as an exhibit in the New York Attorney General’s case. That issue has yet to be decided, but history is not on the side of the former CFO. Now, full disclosure here, I worked for the New York Attorney General’s office for a decade. With that experience, however, I can tell you that it is exceedingly rare that that office tries a case for which it does not have troves of damning evidence. It is exceedingly probable that the NRA will lose. The question is, why is enforcement against these frauds almost always only a civil action?
Once again, the story seems to be one of an organization spewing lies to keep its audience emotionally connected to its concoction, while quietly ripping them off at the same time. As with the anti-vax groups, the believers of this fraud essentially stand behind an organization that clearly has no one’s interests in mind but its own. More precisely, the organization’s elites have profited handsomely for decades by seemingly embezzling money from their members, doing so while contributing to an extraordinary societal harm, one that also negatively affects their own followers. It is a double-victimization.
Supreme Corruption
This leads us to the pinnacle case, one dripping with lies, myths, and evasions to cover-up what should be the scandal, and criminal case, of our times—the corruption of the Supreme Court embodied by Clarence Thomas (and just reported today, Neal Gorsuch). Nominated by President George H.W. Bush, Thomas has sat on the Court since 1991. Thomas may have been defiling the integrity of the Court for nearly as long. In 2014, Harlan Crow, chairman of a Dallas-based investment firm, purchased the house Thomas owned—and that Thomas’ mother lived in—for $133,363. Crow then put tens of thousands of dollars of renovation into it, directly benefitting Thomas’ mother who remained living there. This may seem innocuous enough, except for one curious thing: Thomas never disclosed the sale. He reported plenty of other things that year, far less significant. It appears that it was not the transaction Thomas was hiding, rather it was the relationship. ProPublica uncovered many years’ worth of benefits Thomas received from Crow, valued in the millions of dollars. These included chartered planes and yachts, luxury vacations, and stays at private resorts. You can guess as to whether any of these had also been reported on financial disclosure forms. They were not.
“Under the Ethics in Government Act, as amended [], Justice Thomas is a ‘judicial officer’ who is required to disclose travel and other gifts on his annual financial disclosure reports,” wrote the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in their complaint to Chef Justice Roberts. The Act to which that organization refers is one passed following the Watergate scandal back in the 1970s. No exception exists to justify Thomas’ failing to report. And Thomas hasn’t offered one. Instead, he has chosen the road of ignorance, claiming he had taken advice from (someone) who told him this kind of thing did not need to be reported. This. From a Supreme Court Justice. The core judiciary ethics of nearly every state sums up their purpose as follows, “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.” In New York, the second substantive paragraph starts with the headline, “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities” [emphasis added]. But, Clarence Thomas did not see this friendly “hospitality” as a problem or an appearance of impropriety, either.
Except, despite his claims that Crow is among his “dearest friends,” Thomas ruled on an awful lot of business to Crow’s benefit. I will let The Guardian tell it:
In 2003, the anti-tax group the Club for Growth joined other rightwing individuals and organisations, including the Republican senator Mitch McConnell and the National Rifle Association (NRA), in attempting to push back campaign finance restrictions on election spending.
At the time of the legal challenge, from at least 2001 to 2004, Crow was a member of the Club for Growth’s prestigious “founders committee”. Though little is known about the role of the committee, it clearly commanded some influence over the group’s policymaking.
During the course of a 2005 investigation into likely campaign finance violations by the Club for Growth, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) noted that rank-and-file club members could “vote on an annual policy question selected by the founders committee”.
Crow has also been a major donor to the club, contributing $275,000 to its coffers in 2004 and a further $150,000 two years later.
The 2003 legal challenge championed by the Club for Growth targeted the McCain-Feingold Act, which had been passed with cross-aisle backing the previous year. The legislation placed new controls on the amount of “soft money” political party committees and corporations could spend on elections.
On appeal, a consolidated version of the lawsuit, Mitch McConnell v FEC, was taken up by the supreme court. In a majority ruling, the court allowed the most important elements of the McCain-Feingold Act to stand (though they were later nullified by the supreme court’s contentious 2010 Citizens United ruling).
Thomas was livid. He issued a 25-page dissenting opinion that sided heavily with the anti-regulation stance taken by the Club for Growth and its rightwing allies. Thomas began his opinion by breathlessly accusing his fellow justices of upholding “what can only be described as the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the civil war”.
By the time Thomas issued his opinion in December 2003 he had already forged his deep relationship with Crow. According to the billionaire, they first met at a conference in Dallas in 1994 – by which time Thomas had already been nominated in 1991 by George HW Bush to the most powerful court in the land.
None of this will come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Thomas’ corruption. In 2011, he was caught failing to disclose relevant associations his wife had with certain businesses, among them another organization that probably could be called a fraud, the Heritage Foundation. Thomas never acknowledged his cover-up-by-omission until a watchdog group filed a complaint. Thomas’ explanation for the omission? “My financial disclosure report was inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions,” [emphasis mine]. A judge on the highest court of the land once again did not understand the law. In addition, Thomas’ wife Ginni has actively lobbied on many issues that came as cases before the Supreme Court. For example, she signed a letter to Congress by the Conservative Action Project, wherein the organization claimed among other things that the January 6 Committee “improperly issued subpoenas.” The Court did not agree with this and ordered the organization to turn over the documents. Only one justice dissented—Clarence Thomas.
Even less surprising are the howls in Thomas’ defense. Charlatans circle the wagons, such as people like James Ho of the infamously bad-at-law 5th circuit. James Ho called Thomas “a role model” in response to the publication of the story. This same Ho believes that no court should hire clerks from Yale Law School because students there protested another federal judge. Yet Ho also believes ‘cancel culture’ is bad, invoking it to defend another legal luminary, Ilya Shapiro. Shapiro risked his new job when he tweeted that a Black woman appointed to the Supreme Court would result in a “lesser” nominee who will “always have an asterisk attached.” Shapiro offered his own defense of Thomas tweeting, “Does anyone doubt the sincerity of any justice? Do you think any of them would vote differently on any issue [because] of their friends are [sic] or which parties they get invited to?” Yes. Yes, most people do. Senator Mitch McConnell also defended Thomas stating, “The Supreme Court and the court system is a whole separate part of our Constitution, and the Democrats, it seems to me, spend a lot of time criticizing individual members of the court.” Is McConnell implying that no ethical or legal boundary exists for members of the Supreme Court? Crow himself tried to defend this indefensible behavior saying, “I think it's a political hit job.”
If the names and political affiliations were removed and a pure statement of the facts in this case were given to anyone, I suspect 99% of people would be troubled by the situation. Anyone with a case in front of such a judge as Thomas would undoubtedly be howling about the lack of fairness. Indeed, I have participated in the prosecution of such cases myself, and the ‘gifts’ were far less substantial. And in at least one case, the judge and his gift-giving buddy still sit in jail to this day. Corruption is prosecuted because it damages the very core of what is supposed to be an objective institution. The higher one sits in that hierarchy, the more severe should be the punishment.
People across the USA lose billions of dollars to fraud each year. Companies or individuals who collect money for a purpose that does not exist go to jail all the time. Selling deceptively labelled products is often prosecuted, including criminally. Concealing these crimes under a façade of “alternative truths” or “free speech” is no less harmful, no less deceptive, and no less criminal. If your inclination to defend these actions derives from a political affiliation or conspiratorial belief, you are the very mark upon which they prey.
***
***
I am a Certified Forensic Computer Examiner, Certified Crime Analyst, Certified Fraud Examiner, and Certified Financial Crimes Investigator with a Juris Doctor and a Master’s degree in history. I spent 10 years working in the New York State Division of Criminal Justice as Senior Analyst and Investigator. Today, I teach Cybersecurity, Ethical Hacking, and Digital Forensics at Softwarica College of IT and E-Commerce in Nepal. In addition, I offer training on Financial Crime Prevention and Investigation. I am also Vice President of Digi Technology in Nepal, for which I have also created its sister company in the USA, Digi Technology America, LLC. We provide technology solutions for businesses or individuals, including cybersecurity, all across the globe. I was a firefighter before I joined law enforcement and now I currently run a non-profit that uses mobile applications and other technologies to create Early Alert Systems for natural disasters for people living in remote or poor areas.
Find more about me on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Mastodon. Or visit my EALS Global Foundation’s webpage page here.
For another story of utterly disgusting corruption in America, check out this link.
