DOJ probes bizarre and thoroughly debunked conspiracy pushed by right-wing lawyer

DOJ probes bizarre and thoroughly debunked conspiracy pushed by right-wing lawyer
Sidney Powell/mugshot

Federal investigators are looking into thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories about President Donald Trump's election loss that were infamously pushed by right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell, who pleaded guilty to six counts of conspiring to interfere with that election.

The attorney later defended herself from defamation allegations by arguing "reasonable people would not accept" her claims about Venezuela stealing the election, but two other conspiracy theorists have presented similar unfounded claims to W. Stephen Muldrow, the U.S. atrorney for the district of Puerto Rico, and been interviewed by a federal task force in Florida, four sources told The Guardian.

"The story starts with two unique characters who claim to have been pursuing the election claims for years: Gary Berntsen and Martin Rodil," the publication reported. "They have become sources for the Trump camp and ultimately for investigators and have promoted two major allegations about Venezuela, as the reporters Seth Hettena and Jonathan Larsen have written on Substack."

The pair claims the Tren de Aragua street gang is closely linked to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and they've also promoted the conspiracy theory that Venezuela helped rig elections around the world, including Trump's 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

“I don’t dabble in conspiracy theories,” Berntsen told The Guardian. “I spent my life defending our country and constitution. I led many major operations and investigations and saved many lives. The Department of Justice and FBI and key White House Staff are investigating and coordinating efforts to defend our system and charge those guilty of Stealing Elections and violating other laws accountable for their actions.”

The Department of Justice is joining the president's efforts to recast his election loss while also potentially justifying the administration's case for military action against the Latin American country, but the conspiracy theory has been disproven more than once in court.

"A judge in Delaware ruled it false in 2023, and Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN later paid a total of hundreds of millions in total damages in defamation claims," The Guardian reported. "At heart, the theory was that Smartmatic, which had the contract for electronic voting machines in Los Angeles, and Dominion, which ran voting in many other parts of the country, had been created or influenced by Venezuela to fix elections."

"With a military buildup in the Caribbean and increased sabre-rattling from the Trump administration towards Maduro, the unfounded election-rigging theories could provide another rationale for military action against Maduro," the report added.

Sources told The Guardian that Berntsen and Rodil have been feeding information about the voting claims to Muldrow and an organized crime task force called Panama Express, or Panex, which is based out of Tampa.

Muldrow, who is described as a staunch Republican and Trump supporter, was appointed by the president in 2019 and stayed in office through Biden's term, and he's one of the few U.S. attorneys to stay on the job when Trump returned to the White House.

One source who knows him said he enjoys a good working relationship with Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was Florida attorney general when Muldrow worked in the Tampa U.S. attorney’s office.

Sources say Muldrow turned over information to the Panex task force, which they said was working directly with Rodil and Berntsen, but the U.S. attorney declined to answer specific questions about the investigation.

“In accordance with Department of Justice policies," Muldrow said, "I am not able to provide you with a comment.”

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

Today I want to talk to you about a difficult subject. Let me start with the Trump regime’s ongoing accusations of antisemitism to extort billions of dollars from American universities — while simultaneously disregarding antisemitism within its own ranks.

Exhibit A is Harmeet Dhillon, now Trump’s assistant attorney general for civil rights. For the last 10 months, Dhillon has condemned prestigious universities for allowing what she deems “antisemitic” protests — and withheld research funding unless they agree to explicit measures supposedly to prevent antisemitism.

I was a Dartmouth trustee in the 1980s when its president, James O. Freedman, who was Jewish, endured the antisemitic barbs of an ascendant right-wing student group that included Dhillon, along with Laura Ingraham and Dinesh D’Souza.

In 1988, as editor of The Dartmouth Review, Dhillon published a column depicting Freedman as Adolf Hitler under the headline “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Freedmann” — a play on a Nazi slogan, “One Empire, One People, One Leader,” but substituting and misspelling Freedman’s name for “Fuhrer.”

Using the analogy of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, the column satirically described how “Der Freedmann” and his associates rid the campus of conservatives. The column referred to the “‘Final Solution’ of the Conservative Problem” and to “survivors” of the Dartmouth “holocaust” and described Dartmouth conservatives being “deported in cattle cars in the night.”

A drawing on the cover of the following issue also depicted Freedman, who had been critical of The Review, as Hitler.

I saw up close how much Dhillon’s publication hurt Freedman. As a Jew, he not only felt personally attacked but also worried about the effects of Dhillon’s publication on Jewish students at Dartmouth.

The student newspaper The Dartmouth took The Review to task, claiming that it “is anti-semitic; its impact rings through this community today and will remain long after its publishers have completed their stints in Hanover.”

Several faculty members wrote to outside advisers of The Review, asking them to reconsider allowing their names to be associated with the publication. The regional office of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, in Boston, condemned it.

It is possible, of course, that Dhillon’s undergraduate escapade into antisemitism caused her such remorse that she subsequently experienced a conversion of sorts and became committed to ridding universities of similar acts of bigotry.

But nothing in her history after Dartmouth or her official biography suggests such a conversion.

The most probable explanation for her turnaround is simple ambition. Dhillon grabbed the opportunity to become assistant attorney general in charge of civil rights and agreed to use the charge of antisemitism as a weapon to carry out the Trump regime’s war on prestigious universities — not because they’re hotbeds of antisemitism, but because the authoritarian right considers them hotbeds of leftist ideology.

As JD Vance said in a 2021 speech titled ‘The Universities are the Enemy,’ “we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.”

But the problem of antisemitism within the ranks of Trump Republicans runs much deeper than Dhillon.

Exhibit B is Kevin Roberts — president of the Heritage Foundation, creator of Trump’s Project 2025, and one of Trump’s most loyal supporters.

Roberts recently came to the defense of Tucker Carlson after Carlson’s friendly interview with Nick Fuentes, an ardent fan of Adolf Hitler, in which Carlson declined to challenge Fuentes’s bigoted beliefs or his remark about problems with “organized Jewry in America.”

Here’s what Roberts said:

“Tucker Carlson … always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation. The venomous coalition attacking him are sowing division. Conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington.”

To whom was Roberts referring when he spoke of “the venomous coalition” and “the globalist class”? These words are closely associated with antisemitism and are similar to those Fuentes has used.

Roberts went on to say:

“The Heritage Foundation didn’t become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians, and we won’t start doing that now. My loyalty as a Christian and as an American is to Christ first and to America.”

But aren’t Jews as loyal to America as Christians? Again, Roberts seemed to be toying with an antisemitic trope, implicitly questioning the loyalty of American Jews to America.

When asked about the controversy, Trump refrained from criticizing Fuentes (with whom he has dined at Mar-a-Lago) and praised Carlson for having “said good things about me over the years” — adding “you can’t tell him who to interview” and “if he wants to interview Nick Fuentes — I don’t know much about him — but if he wants to do it, get the word out. People have to decide.”

Fuentes liked Trump’s response, posting “Thank you Mr. President!” on social media.

Fuentes’s influence is surely one test of whether Trump conservatives are willing to accommodate bigots in their coalition.

But the problem of antisemitism in the ranks of Trump Republicans runs deeper than one antisemitic crackpot. Indeed, it runs deeper than the apparent hypocrisies of Kevin Roberts or Harmeet Dhillon.

It touches on a central question that everyone inside the regime and all who support it must grapple with: When does Trump authoritarianism bleed into fascism — along with the antisemitism that has historically fueled it?

  • Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
  • Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org.
THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

President Donald Trump just lobbed death threats at a group of Democratic military veteran lawmakers for reminding the troops they are required to refuse illegal orders — but then a series of courts hit him in the face with precisely the reason that reminder was necessary, former Trump administration Homeland Security staffer Miles Taylor wrote for his "Defiance" Substack on Friday.

The Democrats in question, which include Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), put out a video this week, stating that the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires illegal orders — like an order to shoot unarmed civilians — to be disobeyed. Trump hit back on Truth Social by first demanding they be arrested, then writing, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" then retweeting another user who said George Washington would have hanged them all.

Despite this, wrote Taylor, "Rather than unify in repudiating the vile remarks from the president, Republicans immediately echoed Trump, daring Democrats to 'name one' illegal order anyone in Trump’s government had been asked to carry out. Some similarly accused Democrats of 'sedition,' despite the lawmakers merely telling government workers to comply with the law."

This was a big mistake, he continued, because "within 48 hours, a flurry of receipts arrived."

On Thursday, Taylor noted, a federal judge ruled Trump's orders deploying the National Guard to take over law enforcement in Washington, D.C., “exceeded the bounds of statutory authority,” which came shortly after other court rulings striking down deployments in Memphis, Portland, and Chicago. "This is now the second court in one week finding Trump’s domestic troop deployments illegal."

But that's not all, he said, because at the same time, a new report revealed Trump's Justice Department overruled a military lawyer who warned lethal strikes on ships in the Caribbean suspected to be carrying drug traffickers were illegal "extrajudicial killings." And a grand jury is investigating whether the DOJ's criminal investigations into Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and New York Attorney General Letitia James involved people illegally impersonating mortgage investigators.

While all this is going on, Taylor added, yet another federal judge escalated a contempt probe into illegal deportation flights, and analysts at Just Security published findings that Trump officials have ignored 26 court orders so far this year.

"In other words, the lawmakers were right," wrote Taylor. "The Trump administration is putting federal employees in an impossible position. They’re asking them to do things that the courts are easily finding to be 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional,' and then they’re threatening those employees not to come forward."

Those Democratic lawmakers, he concluded, "were not criminals. What they did was not sedition. It was not treason. It was American. And the past 48 hours prove they were absolutely correct."

President Donald Trump denied that he was "threatening death" for Democratic lawmakers who reminded U.S. troops that they are obligated not to follow illegal orders.

On Thursday, Trump accused Democrats of sedition “punishable by DEATH” after they published a video advising troops to uphold the Constitution.

But in an interview with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on Friday, the president denied that he had threatened Democrats with the death penalty.

"If you look at sedition, if you look at, you know, that type of, that's a form of, a very strong form of being a traitor, it's a terrible thing to say," the president said. "What they said is, and it was, I mean, I don't know about the modern day things because, you know, modern day is a lot softer, but In the old days, if you said a thing like that, that was punishable by death."

"I'm not threatening them, but I think they're in serious trouble," Trump claimed. "I'm not threatening death, but I think they're in serious trouble. In the old days, it was death."

The president insisted that Democrats who made the video were "bad people."

"Now, what happens to them, I can't tell you. But they broke the law. That is a terrible statement," he remarked. "That was a traitorous statement. That was a horrible thing to do. I believe they broke the law very strongly. I think it's a very serious violation of the law."

"I think Pete Hegseth is looking into it," he added. "I know they're looking into it militarily. I don't know for a fact, but I think the military is looking into it, the military courts."

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}