Introduction by Frank Parlato:
To begin with, I would like to remind readers that neither I nor the Frank Report is advocating for Keith Alan Raniere or his innocence. Just the opposite. I think he is a criminal.
What I have chosen to do, however, after careful consideration, is to give supporters of Raniere an opportunity to present evidence they say they have of alleged prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during his trial and during pretrial motions.
The decision to publish is not a judgment on my part as to whether Raniere is innocent or guilty of his crimes of conviction – sex trafficking, attempted sex trafficking, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, forced labor, etc..
I will repeat: I think Raniere is a criminal.
On Monday, Raniere’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo, is expected to file a motion asking for a new trial based on what he will allege is prosecutorial misconduct. He will include affidavits from followers alleging certain things. More than likely some of what Agnifilo presents will be similar to what Raniere’s supporters wish to present to the Frank Report.
The Frank Report is, therefore, reporting what is being alleged and presented to the Court.
There are five people who collectively refer to themselves as Make Justice Blind. They are Marc Elliot, who is the author of the presentation of evidence below, Nicki Clyne, Eduardo Asunsolo, Michele Hatchette, and Suneel Chakravorty.
The presentation concerns Raniere’s application for bail. Because he was charged with sex trafficking, the law states that the presumption for detention is warranted. However, by law, the defense is permitted to show evidence that the defendant should be allowed to post a bail bond if they can establish he is not a menace to society and does not pose a flight risk.
If these conditions can be established, a defendant charged with sex trafficking can be granted bail, usually with conditions, such as house arrest and an ankle monitor.
Raniere’s attorneys offered evidence in their bail motion. The government replied with arguments. The judge ruled against bail for Raniere, which kept him confined in prison – the majority of time at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center. He spent about a year and three months in custody prior to his trial.
What is being argued by Raniere’s supporters is that prosecutors told a false narrative to the judge to persuade him to deny Raniere bail.
As you examine the evidence Raniere’s supporters present, remember, we are not looking at Raniere’s innocence or guilt. Even his supporters are not asking the readers to believe he is innocent. They are looking into the prosecution’s innocence or guilt.
Even a prosecutor should be judged, though none of them would ever admit it.
As the jurist Robert Jackson said, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous… While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”
It is never wrong, therefore, to insist that prosecutors – even in the case of the worst defendants in our of society and even in the case of our enemies – be held to the highest standard.
In that spirit, Frank Report is allowing his supporters, people with a clear bias to help their friend Raniere, present what they hope people will believe to be evidence of prosecutorial misconduct – in this instance misconduct that denied Raniere bail, which, in turn, may have denied him the fullest opportunity to mount a defense.
It probably goes without saying that a defendant in detention is disadvantaged in mounting a defense. He cannot see his attorneys without making them trek down to the prison and going through the cumbersome machinations to get admittance into a special room to meet with the defendant, which some have said is not necessarily even private. In addition, the defendant cannot actively work in his own defense. He has no access to documents or a computer and has the additional disadvantage of the health-depriving factors associated with prison life.
I know there are people who will be upset by my decision to publish this. Others will be surprised considering Raniere sought to deprive me of my due process rights – and that I see him as a criminal who has not likely been charged with the worst of his crimes.
However, I want to ensure the due process rights of even my enemy. If his due process rights were violated, the prosecutors should be admonished. If they were not, then the prosecutors should be given a clean bill of health and applauded.
Any due process violation is horrid, but if the violation is, in the opinion of the judge or the appeals court, such that it would not have changed the outcome at trial, then nothing more than bringing it to the public’s attention will occur, if it occurred.
However, if serious misconduct occurred where the outcome of the trial might have been different had prosecutors not committed offenses, then the specter of a new trial has to be considered by the judge or the appellate court.
None of this means that Raniere is innocent. If he is guilty, the prosecution should be able to prove it without any violation of due process.
A free society would want an outcome such as that – no one convicted without due process.
As I write this, I am, to repeat, not saying there was prosecutorial misconduct. I am merely sharing with Frank Report readers, exclusively, what the Make Justice Blind group is presenting.
I urge readers to judge for themselves. I will be doing likewise. At the very least, readers will find some interesting new information about Raniere, Nxivm, and the case against him.
Evidence Shows Prosecution Made False Statements to Deem Raniere a Flight Risk and Deny Him Bail
By Marc Elliot,
Make Justice Blind
Upon review of the evidence in the case against Keith Raniere, it is clear that prosecutors lied to the court to make him appear he was trying to flee the country and evade the justice system.
The government misrepresented many significant facts, painting a false picture of Raniere’s travel patterns and his intent to avoid prosecution in the U.S. These lies were used to deprive him of his right to a Grand Jury and to deceive the Court so that Raniere and his co-defendants would be treated with extreme harshness.
The prosecution succeeded in this endeavor.
On Page 1 of the Detention Letter filed 3/26/2018, US Attorney Richard Donoghue – and Assistant US Attorneys Moira Kim Penza and Tanya Hajjar – argued that Mr. Raniere was a “flight risk”: writing to Magistrate Judge Stephan Gold, “the defendant, who was living in Mexico prior to his arrest and has access to vast resources, poses a significant risk of flight.”
By casting Raniere as a flight risk, the government bypassed a Grand Jury indictment and obtained a sealed information, out of the public’s view. The prosecution repeated its lies, which will be exposed in detail below, at least two more times to the Court in order to deny Raniere bail. Raniere was indeed denied bail, and the prosecution was able to get extraordinarily high bails set for his co-defendants, even though their charges did not include any violence or weapons, and none of them had a prior criminal record. The government used inaccurate statements to thwart due process. Their lies had tremendously adverse consequences for Raniere and his co-defendants’ prospects of getting a fair trial.
While accusing Raniere of “fleeing to Mexico” to avoid prosecution, the government possessed detailed information about Raniere’s travel and whereabouts prior to his arrest. They even used some of this information in their court filings.
As detailed below, the prosecution undeniably knew their statements to the Court were false.
Prosecutors should never lie, but this criminal behavior has become commonplace in our country. This misconduct erodes justice and the rights of all citizens and is at the root of the mass incarceration that currently plagues the United States.
Below are seven lies (Lies A through G) which will be shown to be lies with ample evidence to show how the prosecution made false statements, thereby thwarting due process. This analysis will show that Raniere was not a flight risk and should not have been denied bail because:
Raniere did not flee the country to avoid authorities
He was not in hiding and was not in a concealed location
After learning there was an investigation involving NXIVM, Raniere hired an attorney who proactively reached out to multiple jurisdictions to check on his legal status
Lie A: Prosecutors falsely said Raniere hadn’t left the country between 2015 until after the NYT article was published
The prosecution repeatedly lied about Raniere’s travel history. They contended, multiple times, that Raniere had not left the country since a 2015 trip to Fiji.
In Docket #1 (18-cr-204) below in a red box, see the sworn affidavit statement by FBI Special Agent Michael Lever that “Prior to [the trip to Mexico he took after the New York Times article was published], RANIERE had not flown out of the country since 2015, when he visited the Heiress’s private island in Fiji.” This is shown to be untrue, based on Raniere’s passport and visa records that the government possessed and recited from.
Lie A: False travel statements
This same passage is repeated by the government in Docket #1 (18-cv-03041), a parallel case to seize property related to defendants in the criminal case.
Truth A: Raniere had left the country before the NYT article was written, subsequent to his 2015 trip to Fiji
The prosecution had evidence disproving the lie that Raniere had “not flown out of the country since 2015”, in Docket #43 (18-cr-204) Exhibit 5, in a motion for bail submitted by Raniere’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo.
This evidence shows Raniere’s initial trip to Mexico [which the prosecution failed to mention] was NOT related to an investigation, as he didn’t know about the investigation when he initially traveled there since there was not investigation at this time.
Truth Evidence A.1.1.: Raniere’s passport
Truth Evidence A.1.1: Mexican stamp on his passport shows Raniere arrived in Mexico on October 14, 2017, three days before the New York Times article was published on October 17, 2017.
This directly contradicts the prosecution’s sworn statement that Raniere flew out of the country several weeks AFTER the NY Times article as published and that “RANIERE had not flown out of the country since 2015, when he visited the Heiress’s private island in Fiji.”
The passport shows that he flew out of the country prior to the New York Times article.
Truth Evidence A.1.2.: Proximity of passport stamp
In the same Exhibit of Docket #43 (18-cr-204), it is important to note that the stamp to Fiji in Raniere’s passport is only one inch from the stamp that clearly indicates his initial entry to Mexico was before he could have known there was an investigation against him.
The prosecution can in no way claim they did not see the stamp or date of Raniere’s first trip to Mexico. They were in possession of his passport.
Truth Evidence A.1.2: Stamp of first entrance to Mexico is one inch from Raniere’s Fiji stamp.
Lie B: Mr. Raniere was a flight risk
The prosecution made a false portrayal that Raniere left the country and went into hiding after the New York Times article was published. The Times article DID NOT mention Raniere was under investigation, so the prosecution inaccurately portrayed him as trying to avoid law enforcement instead of the truth that he went to Mexico to rejoin his newborn son and the mother, a Mexican citizen.
Lie B: What the Government presented
In the statement referenced above in Lie A, in Docket #1 (18-cr-204) and in on Page 6 in Docket #4 (18-cr-204) below, the prosecution falsely suggests Raniere fled to Mexico to avoid being arrested.
Lie B: Raniere posed a flight risk
Truth B: Raniere was not a flight risk
Truth B.1: Rather Than Fleeing, Raniere Traveled Back to the US
The government failed to mention that Raniere traveled back to Albany, after his first trip to Mexico, on the exact same day the New York Times article revealing the existence of DOS was published, on October 17, 2017.
Truth Evidence B.1: Raniere’s return on October 17, 2017
Truth Evidence B.2: NYT article published on same day
The fact that the prosecution swore that he made his first trip outside the USA since Fiji in 2015 is not an insignificant lie.
He went to Mexico with his partner, Marianna, and his son before the New York Times article came out, which then was absolutely before there was any active FBI investigation, which the prosecution admits began after the Times story was published.
He came back to the US alone and remained in Albany for several weeks before rejoining his family in Mexico several weeks later.
By failing to mention his previous trip, which occasioned his second trip, the government created a false narrative that he only went to Mexico to flee jurisdiction and not to rejoin his son and his mother, who is a citizen of Mexico and because of her visa had to remain outside the USA for a period of time.
Raniere’s two trips to Mexico, which were based on his desire to be with his newborn son, were described as only one trip to flee jurisdiction. The problem with this lie is that the omission of the first trip by the prosecution is a vital lie by omission.
Truth B.2: Raniere was actively participating in life in Albany
In between the two family-based trips, Raniere was in Albany. While there, Raniere was living openly and without any attempt at concealment in the community he lived in for years. He remained in Albany for more than three weeks, even though the NYT article had been published and many other articles were published about him and DOS.
Nevertheless, Raniere went about his normal life for weeks after the NY Times article was published, playing volleyball with friends and sending normal communications to members of the NXIVM community in Albany. Playing volleyball with multiple other people, multiple times is not a normal pattern of behavior for someone preparing to flee the country.
Truth B.2.1: Raniere was engaged in normal conversations and activities after the NYT article was published
Below, Raniere is seen in a thread planning volleyball games and wishing someone happy birthday. Note, the holder of the phone who provided these texts had Raniere in their phone under the name “Autoshield” (see contact record for Mr. Raniere). The text from “Autoshield” below was from Raniere.
Truth Evidence B.2.1: Texts about volleyball
Truth B.2.2: Raniere was actively involved in developing new curriculum in Albany after the NYT article was published
New trainings in NXIVM were scheduled around Raniere’s availability while he was in Albany. A new course –The Jness Track Training #11 — took place from October 19-26, 2017. Raniere was actively working with Nxivm community members in Albany to put on the new training.
Truth Evidence B.2: Jness Intensive dates
Truth B.2.3: Raniere was openly working with leaders of Jness after the NYT article was published
While Raniere was in Albany, he was actively participating in the community and the classes taking place. As Raniere did with all his new trainings, he was working closely with leaders in the Jness company to create the curriculum and monitor the progress of the training.
Truth Evidence B.3: Raniere involvement in Jness Intensive
Truth Evidence B.3: The video is of Nancy Salzman. It demonstrates Raniere’s involvement in developing the Jness 11 intensive while he was in Albany after the NYT article was written. Salzman answers a question about whether there is a name for the new Jness track yet and she says she asked ‘him” referring to Raniere, who names all the courses, and she quotes him as saying he has not decided on a name yet.
Lie C: Raniere fled and went into hiding
The government made multiple false statements to the Court that Raniere had fled the country after the New York Times article and actively was avoiding contact with U.S. authorities. The government falsely paints a picture that Raniere chose to go to Mexico to thwart due process, even though they had information to the contrary.
On Page 4 of Detention Letter filed 3/26/2018, the government writes: “…Shortly after the government began interviewing witnesses and victims in November 2017, the defendant flew to Mexico. For over a month and a half, since the arrest warrant in this case was issued, the government has actively worked with Mexican immigration officials to locate the defendant.
Truth C: Raniere left the U.S. to obey immigration law
In a Bail Release Memo submitted to the Court on 6/5/18 Raniere’s attorney, Agnifilo, explains how Raniere’s leaving the U.S. was specifically intended as travel with the mother of his son so that she could comply with U.S. immigration law. In this memo, Agnifilo clearly shows that:
The mother of Raniere’s newborn son was advised by counsel to leave the U.S. by 10/14/17 to comply with her visa
Originally, Raniere and his partner planned on going to Montreal, Canada to be closer to Albany while they sorted out her visa issues
When they were denied entry at the Canadian border, Raniere and his partner booked tickets to Monterrey, Mexico
These facts, outlined, starting on page 16 of the Bail Memo with ten supporting exhibits, were in possession of the government. These facts were minimized by the prosecution in a Memorandum and Order filed on 6/20/18, where they acknowledged the veracity of the documents. However, they also tried to cast doubt on the veracity of Raniere’s claimed intent for his travel patterns, even though the evidence for them fully supported his claims.
Truth Evidence C.1: Expiring Visa of Mother of Raneiere’s son
Truth Evidence C.1: Exhibit 1 from Bail Memo showing Raniere’s partner was required to leave U.S. on or before October 14, 2017
Truth Evidence C.2: AirBnb rental in Canada
Truth Evidence C.2: Exhibit 2 from Bail Memo showing Raniere’s original 62 night AirBnb reservation was in Montreal
Lie D: Mr. Raniere was concealing his location
On Page 4 of Detention Letter filed 3/26/2018, the government writes: “Finding the defendant was difficult because the defendant purposely concealed his location.”
Lie D: Raniere concealed his location
On page 7 of a memo filed by the prosecution on June 6, 2018, the government suggests Raniere was hard to find in Mexico. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security visited the NXIVM Center in Monterrey, Mexico. According to the document, “[the agents] asked to speak with the defendant, but were told he was unavailable. The agents’ telephone numbers were left for the defendant but neither he nor an attorney ever contacted them.”
Truth D: Raniere’s location was far from secret
Truth D.1: Raniere was living openly and without any attempt at concealment in Mexico
While living in Mexico, Raniere was not hiding or hunkering down. As seen in the photos and videos below, while in Puerto Vallarta, Raniere was frequently in public, oftentimes with his son, and surely very noticeable in Mexico. These photos and videos were taken during the period when the government contended Raniere was concealing his whereabouts.
Truth Evidence D.1.1, D.1.2, and D.1.3: Photos of Raniere in public
The truth is Raniere hosted dozens of friends while he was in Mexico, including numerous visitors from the USA and none of them were told to keep his whereabouts or the fact that he was in Mexico a secret.
Truth Evidence D.1.4.: Video of Raniere driving into town
Truth Evidence D.1.4: Raniere driving on a public road in Chacala in February 2018. No one in hiding – accompanied as he was with American friends – ever yet rode around in a golf cart – if he wanted to keep his whereabouts secret.
Truth D.2: Raniere gave the NYT Magazine permission to publish that he was in Mexico before his arrest
Raniere did not know he was going to be arrested when he was interviewing with New York Times Magazine writer Vanessa Grigoriadis.
The photos and interviews published in the story took place in Mexico. Raniere consented to share that he was living in Mexico when he was interviewed for this widely read article. As Clare Bronfman indicated below, due to safety reasons, they did not disclose their exact location. While that’s understandable, someone fearing arrest or “running from the law” would not so much confirm let alone publicize the country in which they are residing in such an obvious way. In fact, someone on the run and hiding from authorities would not consent to an interview at all.
Truth Evidence D.2: NYT Magazine
Truth D.3: Raniere visited a notary to submit a document to a NY court
After leaving Monterrey, Raniere was primarily staying in Jalisco, Mexico. Raniere submitted a notarized document to a Saratoga Surrogate Court, filed on January 17, 2018. A Notario Publico (a type of notary that has an esteemed role in Mexico) included his own name and address on the document. The Court was made aware of this in a bail motion filed 6/5/18. Anyone interested in finding Raniere could have followed up with this Notario Publico to get information on Raniere’s whereabouts or contact information.
People in hiding generally do not visit notaries.
Truth Evidence D.3: Notario Publico’s address shared with Court
Truth Evidence D.3: Evidence of appearance before a Mexican legal official submitted in bail motion submitted to the Court
Lie E: Raniere stopped using his phone
On Page 4 of Detention Letter filed 3/26/2018, the government writes: “Finding the defendant was difficult because the defendant… stopped using his phone.” Ostensibly, the government was referring to his longtime US phone number, 1-518-810-7890.
Lie C.2: Phone usage ended
Truth E: Raniere continued using his phone in Mexico
Raniere not only kept his phone while in Mexico, he actively used it. Those who were in contact with Raniere have corroborated that he had bad reception at places where he was staying, but when he did have reception, he would frequently text. Text messages sent from Mexico, during the time the prosecution falsely stated that Raniere stopped using his phone, are pictured below.
Truth Evidence E.1: Screenshots of texts sent to Marc Elliot while in Mexico from Raniere’s US phone
Truth Evidence E.2: Screenshots of texts sent to Marc Elliot while in Mexico from Raniere’s US phone
The point of this is that the prosecution said he stopped using his phone and that was the reason he was hard to find. This was an unequivocal statement. It was not true. He did use his phone.
Lie F: Raniere essentially lived in a “fortress”
In a memo (Docket #44) filed by the prosecution on 6/8/18 in response to Mr. Raniere’s bail memo, the prosecution writes, “[The Defendant] was hiding in a luxury beach resort that was essentially a fortress with armed guards stationed at all entry and exit points.”
Truth F: Raniere actually stayed in an AirBnb
When Raniere would visit friends or the mother of his son, he would occasionally stay at an AirBnb in Puerto Vallarta. Since Raniere would only go to Puerto Vallarta occasionally, he stayed at various rental homes. When Raniere was arrested, the so-called “hideaway,” he was staying was an AirBnb. It was hardly a “fortress.” The house where he was arrested was a 6-bedroom vacation home, open to the public for booking. Raniere was staying there for about 10 days. Given security issues in Mexico, it is highly common for tourist areas with vacation homes or AirBnbs to be located in gated communities with armed security guards. This AirBnb was no exception.
However, these guards were not hired by Raniere or assigned for his protection. They were there as part of their assigned duties for the gated communities. There are gated communities in the USA that also have armed guards to protect the security of all the residents of that gated community. But the government makes it look like he is El Chapo in a fortress with guards to prevent the FBI from finding and then arresting him. It is totally untrue and the government knew this.
Truth Evidence F.1: Pictures of Raniere’s Puerto Vallarta AirBnb
Truth Evidence F.2: Armed guards are commonplace at Mexican tourist areas in Puerto Vallarta
Truth Evidence F.2.1: Travel Warning article from popular PV resort
Truth Evidence F.2.2: TripAdvisor’s TravelMarketReport.com article explaining the prevalence of security guards in Puerto Vallarta
Lie G: Mr. Raniere actively evaded authorities
According to a prosecution memo filed with the Court on 6/8/18, “Despite active surveillance efforts, [Raniere] eluded law enforcement for over two months.” Notwithstanding the information provided above, this statement could not be further from the truth.
Lie G: Raniere actively eluded law enforcement for 2+ months
Truth G: Raniere proactively sought to work with authorities if necessary
Raniere’s bail memo submitted to the Court showed he proactively checked to confirm he was not under investigation. Below is an excerpt of the memo, starting on Page 14, with the most relevant portions highlighted.
To summarize, after Raniere heard of a federal investigation, he retained an attorney with expertise in federal law, Michael Sullivan (who was formerly a US attorney), to proactively reach out to government agencies. This started in the Fall of 2017 and then again several times in March 2018, Sullivan contacted the Northern District of NY’s (NDNY) to inquire about any investigations relating to Raniere.
This type of behavior is the opposite of hiding from an investigation.
By contacting the federal authorities in the federal district [the Northern District of NY] where he lived, Raniere and his attorney had assumed that the agencies would be cross-referenced in responding to his inquiry.
Raniere was given no indication that he was a target of an active investigation from the US Attorney for the NDNY’s office. Even if it was an oversight to contact only the NDNY (which was the jurisdiction that oversaw Albany) and not the Eastern District of NY directly, it nevertheless shows that Raniere was conscientious of the law.
It was his impression that when the Albany US Attorney said they knew of no investigation. that they would be aware of any federal investigation concerning a person and his company Nxivm that operated primarily in that district.
In other words, if there was an investigation into Raniere and others of Nxivm, it would be conducted largely in Albany since they and all the potential witnesses lived in Albany. Any outside FBI agents from another district would hardly sneak into Albany – outside their district – without coordinating with the local district, or at least one could reasonably assume this.
Truth G.1: Raniere hired counsel to confirm there was no investigation
Truth Evidence G.1: Bail memo shows Raniere’s proactivity
Excerpt from Docket #43 (cr-00204-NG)
Truth G.2: Raniere offers his attorney, Sullivan, to the Court to verify he took proactive steps to try to confirm whether he was under investigation
Truth Evidence G.2: Footnote to bail memo offers Raniere’s attorney as a resource
Truth Evidence G.2: Footnote to bail memo proactively offers that Raniere’s attorney, former US Attorney Michael Sullivan, can confirm he checked to ensure Raniere was not under investigation.
The degree to which the prosecution falsely characterized facts in order to arrest Raniere and deny him bail extends beyond what the average citizen would consider believable. We like to think that our prosecutors don’t cheat to win.
The actual facts of the situation show that:
Raniere left first to go to Canada and then to Mexico for immigration and family reasons, not to evade authorities. The prosecution misrepresented Keith’s travel.
Once in Mexico, Raniere was hardly in hiding or concealing his location, as he was going about his everyday life.
Raniere proactively took steps to ensure he was obeying the law to meet immigration standards with his son’s mother, and to confirm his own legal status once he became aware of an investigation related to DOS.
Because the above-mentioned lies of the prosecution were believed over the truth, Raniere was denied bail.
It is well-known among the legal community that getting denied bail, and particularly when imprisoned at Metropolitan Detention Center, makes it incredibly difficult to mount a proper defense.
A lawsuit mounted in 2019 from inmates at MDC alleged that their right to legal counsel had been violated by their inability to contact their attorneys, particularly when the heat went out during the polar vortex of Winter 2019.
Further, according to David Patton, Executive Director of Federal Defenders of New York, “[MDC is] an awful place to do time . . . Until you get to something like a super [maximum security prison], there’s nothing worse than MDC.”
Raniere’s inability to communicate with his lawyers most certainly made it nearly impossible to assemble a proper case for a fair trial and to adequately refute the lies that the prosecution levied against him.
End of Marc Elliot article
I should not have to supplement my preface for careful readers, but for those who think I should not publish the arguments of his supporters, because it supports Keith Raniere, I will end with this:
I think it must be published. Not only because I gave my word, but because everyone deserves due process. If anyone, even Keith Raniere, is alleged to have been deprived of it, I want to explore this.
I am not prepared to say misconduct happened. Even if it did, that does not mean Raniere is innocent. Prosecutorial misconduct, which is another way of saying the government cheated or lied to win, has nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of a defendant.
It has to do with how we want our government to function – honestly or dishonestly.
The principle is not about Keith Raniere. This is about holding our government accountable through freedom of the press. I can’t think of a finer way to start review of prosecutors than to review allegations of misconduct perpetrated against my enemy.
If I will fight to ensure due process for my enemy, a man I helped put in prison, then I know, inside myself, [I don’t care what others think] I can be depended on to fight for due process for my friends, myself, for others. I can be depended on to value due process more than seeing a man put into prison who tried to do the same to me and who I believe would have been glad to deprive me of due process and let prosecutors run amok in order to destroy me.
Let us let his supporters say everything, present everything. The truth of this matter will prevail sooner or later.