U.S. Rep. Francis Rooney mum about fat fees paid to White House Counsel’s ex-law firm

By Francisco Alvarado, FloridaBulldog.org 

U.S. Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Naples

From last July to March, the campaign committee for freshman Florida Congressman Francis Rooney paid roughly $117,000 to the former law firm of White House Counsel Donald McGahn II. However, neither Rooney nor McGahn are answering questions about the payments to Jones Day, a global firm based in Cleveland where McGahn was a partner for nearly three years before joining President Donald Trump’s administration in January.

So far, the only information McGahn, a former commissioner for the Federal Election  Commission, has released is that he provided “legal services” exceeding $5,000 to the Rooney for Congress campaign committee, according to his public financial disclosure report. Campaign finance reports filed by Rooney for Congress show nine disbursements to Jones Day between last July and March. Jones Day received five of those payments totaling $72,328 after the Nov. 8 election, including $17,505 on the day of Trump’s inauguration, Jan. 19

Efforts by Florida Bulldog to get answers about the type of “legal services” McGahn and Jones Day provided Rooney for Congress were unsuccessful. Over the course of four days, White House media affairs director and former Miami political television host Helen Ferre did not respond to three email requests to interview McGahn. Likewise, Rooney press secretary Chris Berardi did not respond to three emails and three voicemails requesting comment from the Naples-area U.S. representative, a rising star in the Capitol’s GOP power circle. A spokesman for Jones Day declined comment.

McGahn and Rooney may not want to talk, but a government watchdog group and two campaign finance lawyers who spoke to Florida Bulldog believe the costly legal services may be for defending the congressman or his committee in a civil investigation for either ethics or campaign violations.

“You can never really know without them telling you,” said Jordan Libowitz, spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “But that pattern of spending is consistent with people who are under investigation by the Federal Election Commission.”

He added: “It certainly raised a flag when we started looking at Donald McGahn’s financial disclosure statement.”

The attorneys, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, concurred that the expenditures seem to indicate that a probe by the commission, also known as the FEC, is taking place. “There could be a civil investigation by the FEC inquiring about donations and expenditures within the campaign,” said one lawyer, who has represented clients accused of federal civil and criminal campaign violations. “Once the FEC starts an inquiry, you got to get a lawyer.”

The other lawyer, who primarily represents city, county and state candidates, said it could also be that Rooney is under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics. “That would entitle him to the use of his campaign funds to defend against a complaint,” the attorney said. “I can’t see anything else these payments are for but an investigation.”

Riding the Trump train

Rooney, one of the first prominent Florida Republicans to climb aboard the Trump train, has become a leading conservative voice. The former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, Rooney owns a construction company that built the Dallas Cowboys’ new stadium and the presidential libraries honoring the two Bush presidents. Before jumping into the race to represent Florida’s 19th Congressional District, Rooney was one of the top Republican rainmakers in the country.

In February, Rooney participated in two panels about national security and political correctness at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. In a press statement at the time, CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp hailed Rooney as a “much needed and welcomed” addition to Congress. “He will stand up for you and for conservative policies,” Schlapp said. “We are proud to welcome him to our stage next week.”

While filings for Rooney for Congress don’t show any warning letters from the FEC regarding impermissible donations and expenditures, McGahn seems to be the ideal counselor to hire when campaigns run into trouble with the commission.

A January Jones Day press release touted McGahn’s commission credentials from 2008 to 2013 when Trump selected him as White House Counsel. “He led what has been called a ‘revolution’ in campaign finance,” the statement says. “He rewrote virtually all of the FEC’s procedures for audits, enforcement matters, and advisory opinions, which provide for an unprecedented amount of due process.”

However, press reports paint a much more controversial tenure. Campaign finance reform groups clashed with McGahn over his efforts to deregulate the FEC. He voted to loosen restrictions that prohibited parties from using campaign money for recounts and litigation. In 2013 before he resigned, he unsuccessfully pushed a rule that would have barred FEC lawyers from sharing information with federal prosecutors without commission approval. But McGahn was instrumental in passing a new rule allowing campaigns and party committees to present their cases in open session instead of behind closed doors.

McGahn joined the Trump team early on in the billionaire developer’s astonishing run to win the White House. He served as the campaign’s general counsel and lists several Trump political committees as clients on his financial disclosure form. When Trump appointed him as the commander-in-chief’s top lawyer, 13 attorneys from Jones Day joined McGahn at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Since Trump took office, McGahn has been at the center of some of the biggest controversies to hit the new administration. For instance, then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates warned McGahn’s office in January that Michael Flynn, Trump’s first pick as National Security Adviser, had misled officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about his conversations with Russia’s U.S. Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

When Flynn was subsequently forced to resign after his compromised position was leaked to national media outlets, questions arose about McGahn’s handling of the information he received. During a February press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer defended McGahn, saying he “informed the President immediately” and that he concluded Flynn did not violate any laws after conducting “exhaustive and extensive questioning of Flynn.”

President Trump on witness list in Palm Beach lawsuit involving billionaire pedophile

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein

President Donald Trump is on a list of witnesses for trial in a Palm Beach lawsuit that pits billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein against a Fort Lauderdale attorney who represents Epstein’s victims.

The case appears bound for trial this summer following a Feb. 9 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court in another case that has allowed Fort Lauderdale lawyer Bradley Edwards’ claim of malicious prosecution against Epstein to proceed.

President Trump “has been identified as an individual who may have information relating to these allegations,” said Edwards’ West Palm Beach attorney Jack Scarola, who placed Trump’s name on a witness list on Aug. 31. “But it’s unlikely that he would ever be called” to appear at trial, especially now that he’s assumed the presidency.

Scarola said Trump is one of a number of high-profile individuals whose testimony might be relevant because they “had a relationship with Epstein that would have at least exposed them potentially to what was going on inside Epstein’s Palm Beach home … during the relevant period of time” between 2001-2007.

What was going on in Epstein’s mansion, court papers say, was an ugly child molestation scheme involving sex with “substantially more” than 40 girls, some as young as 12. A “statement of undisputed facts” filed by Scarola says Epstein used his staff and his victims to recruit more victims, employing “a pyramid abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for each other underage victim that she brought to him.”

“There is no evidence the President was involved in Epstein’s schemes,” Scarola said.

Secretary of Labor nominee Alex Acosta

Still, the spectacle of a U.S. president being drawn into sordid litigation involving a notorious politically connected sexual criminal who got an apparent sweetheart deal from then-Miami U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, now Trump’s nominee to become U.S. Secretary of Labor, represents a potential political nightmare for the White House.

The White House press office did not respond to requests for comment.

Epstein’s attorney, Tonja Haddad Coleman, declined to comment.

An affidavit about Trump

A little-noticed affidavit by Edwards recounting his knowledge of Trump’s involvement with Epstein is recounted further below in this story.

Investment banker Epstein, represented by a team of high-powered lawyers, pleaded guilty June 30, 2008 in Palm Beach Circuit Court to two felonies: procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and offering to commit prostitution. He served 13 months of an 18-month sentence. The Palm Beach Daily News has reported Epstein served his time in “a vacant wing at the Palm Beach County Stockade with liberal work-release privileges.”

Today, Epstein, 64, is a registered sex offender.

In exchange for his plea, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed not prosecute Epstein or his employees on federal charges contained in a 53-page indictment. A 2007 federal non-prosecution agreement with Epstein states, among other things, that he “knowingly and willfully” conspired with others to use interstate commerce to “persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution.”

If convicted of that charge, and others cited in the agreement, Epstein faced possible prison for life.

Republican Acosta, dean of Florida International University’s Law School and chairman of U.S. Century Bank, is expected to be asked about his treatment of Epstein at his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

In addition to the malicious prosecution claim against Epstein, attorney Edwards is also suing the government on behalf of “Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2” and others under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). The lawsuit, filed in 2008, alleges the U.S. Attorney’s Office under Acosta violated the rights of Epstein’s victims by, among other things, “conspiring” with Epstein to keep them “in the dark’’ so the plea arrangement could be done without the victims “raising any objection.”

Wifredo Ferrer, who stepped down as Miami U.S. Attorney earlier this month

In February 2016, Edwards and co-counsel Paul Cassell filed a still-pending motion for summary judgment that says Acosta’s successor, Wifredo Ferrer, “has continued to fight” victims’ efforts “to have the court declare that their rights were violated.” The motion asks U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra to rule that the government violated the victims’ rights and explore possible remedies. Ferrer stepped down March 3.

Addressing a “terrible injustice”

“Both Brad and Professor Cassell undertook and have continued to prosecute the CVRA claim to address what they perceive to be a terrible injustice,” said Scarola. “There is no claim for money damages and there is no prevailing party provision in the CVRA” that would allow them to collect legal fees for their work on the case.

Attorney Edwards began representing several of Epstein’s victims while maintaining a solo law practice in 2008, settling a number of claims for undisclosed amounts two years later.

For eight months in 2009, however, he worked for Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, the law firm that spectacularly imploded in scandal in November of that year when it was discovered that founder Scott Rothstein was running a giant Ponzi scheme. Rothstein, now in prison, enticed investors by falsely claiming that they could buy into lucrative pending settlements in whistleblower, sexual harassment and other cases.

Edwards’ court papers say he knew nothing of Rothstein’s schemes, and federal authorities later determined Edwards to have been one of Rothstein’s victims. In 2009, however, Epstein sued Rothstein, Edwards and one of Edwards’ clients alleging, among other things, civil racketeering. Edwards’ court response: the suit was filed “for the sole purpose of attempting to intimidate” him and his client.

Epstein later dropped all his allegations, and Edwards since has turned the case back against him with his counterclaim of malicious prosecution. The case was on hold for two years pending last month’s Florida Supreme Court ruling, which reversed a lower court decision that dismissed the accusation on technical grounds.

Edwards won’t discuss either case. But in a little-noticed 2010 affidavit, given a year after the case was filed, Edwards explained why he thought Trump and other notables involved with Epstein, including former President Bill Clinton, might have relevant information to provide.

“If you’ve read Brad’s affidavit then you know everything there is to know regarding Trump,” Scarola said.

Does Trump have knowledge of Epstein’s crimes?

In his affidavit, Edwards suggests Trump has personal knowledge of Epstein’s criminality.

“I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago [Mar-A- Lago] Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club,” Edwards stated.

The affidavit notes that Trump visited Epstein at Epstein’s West Palm Beach home – “the same home where Epstein abused minor girls daily.”

Fort Lauderdale attorney Bradley Edwards

A “review of message pads confiscated from Epstein’s home” showed “that Trump called Epstein’s West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period relevant to my client’s complaints,” the affidavit says. Likewise “Epstein’s phone directory from his computer contains 14 phone numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers to Trump’s security guard and houseman.”

The affidavit goes on to say that one of Epstein’s victims “Jane Doe #102” has alleged that she was initially approached at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstein’s “underage sex slave.”

Maxwell, daughter of the late British publishing baron Robert Maxwell, is named in the affidavit as an Epstein associate of interest. She is described in court papers as Epstein’s “longtime companion” who helped run his companies and “recruit underage children” for the pleasure of both Epstein and herself. The affidavit says she attended the wedding of Chelsea Clinton, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s daughter, in July 2010.

The affidavit goes on to cite the 2009 deposition of Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein, who “testified that Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane with him (the same plane that Jane Doe 102 alleged was used to have sex with underage girls).”

Likewise, attorney Edwards cited in his affidavit a 2002 New York Magazine article about Epstein titled, “Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery.”

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” said Trump, then a prominent, wealthy New York developer. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

The subtitle of the article about Epstein: “He’s pals with a passel of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn’t until he flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world began to wonder who he is.”

A second U.S. president

While ex-President Clinton is not on the witness list for trial, Edwards listed a number of reasons in his affidavit to believe that Clinton might have relevant information about Epstein. They include:

·      Clinton’s “well known” friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell, an alleged enabler of Epstein’s sexual crimes with young girls.

·      Clinton’s highly publicized travel with Epstein and Maxwell aboard Epstein’s private plane to Africa. Flight logs for “the relevant years 2002-2005 showed Clinton traveling on Epstein’s plane on more than 10 occasions and his assistant, Doug Band, traveled on many more occasions.” The logs also showed Clinton traveled with other “employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein’s that were closely connected to Epstein’s child exploitation and sexual abuse.”

·      “Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be exploited not only by Epstein but also Epstein’s ‘adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and/or other professional and personal acquaintances’ – categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into.”

Ex-President Bill Clinton

·      “Clinton frequently flew with Epstein aboard his plane, then suddenly stopped – raising the suspicion that the friendship abruptly ended, perhaps because of events related to Epstein’s sexual abuse of children.”

·      Epstein’s computer contact list “contains e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him.”

Attorney Scarola would not say why Clinton is not on the Aug. 31 witness list, stating he is “not at liberty to discuss our litigation strategy.”

Edwards initially sought to depose Trump and Clinton about Epstein, but never did. Scarola said there was no need to depose them after Epstein dropped his racketeering and other claims against Edwards.

While there are other notables on the witness list of those with knowledge of Epstein, including retired Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz and illusionist David Copperfield, there’s only one other politician. That’s ex-New Mexico Governor and Clinton Administration Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson.

The affidavit says Epstein’s personal pilot, Larry Morrison, testified in a 2009 deposition about “Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein’s New Mexico ranch” and that “there was information that Epstein had young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances of the case, raised the reasonable inference he was sexually abusing these girls since he had regularly and frequently abused girls in West Palm Beach and elsewhere.

“Richardson had also returned campaign donations that were given to him by Epstein, indicating that he believed that there was something about Epstein that he did not want to be associated with,” the affidavit says.

FBI Director Comey’s credibility issues go beyond presidential politics to 9/11 panel

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

FBI Director James Comey discusses the 9/11 Review Commission’s findings during a press conference at FBI headquarters on March 25, 2015. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese (left), and former Congressman Tim Roemer (right), are also pictured.

FBI Director James Comey discusses the 9/11 Review Commission’s findings during a press conference at FBI headquarters on March 25, 2015. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese (left), and former Congressman Tim Roemer (right), are also pictured.

FBI Director James Comey’s credibility is under heavy fire due to his headline-making public statements about the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton that have entangled the bureau in presidential politics.

Republicans howled in July when Comey publicly declared he wouldn’t recommend criminal charges against Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Over the weekend, Democrat Clinton reportedly told supporters she blames her surprising loss to President-elect Donald Trump on Comey’s announcement 11 days before the election that he had restarted the email probe, as well as his announcement two days before the election that an examination of newly discovered emails had not changed his July findings.

But those aren’t the first credibility issues to be raised about Republican Comey since he became FBI chief in 2013. Others, largely unreported, arose from his handling of a secretive blue-ribbon panel authorized by Congress to conduct an “external review” of the FBI’s post-9/11 performance and to assess new evidence.

Under Comey’s direction, the 9/11 Review Commission became a captive of the FBI. He chose its three commissioners, authorized they be paid undisclosed sums and arranged for FBI personnel to spoon-feed them information. As the panel’s final report makes clear, the commissioners in turn were pliant to the very agency they were tasked to examine.

After the Review Commission was finished, Comey misled the public by promoting the fiction that it was an independent panel of experts.

“This is a moment of pride for the FBI,” Comey told reporters when the Review Commission’s final report was released, according to the New York Times. “An outside group of some of our most important leaders and thinkers has stared hard at us and said, ‘You have done a great job at transforming yourself.’ They’ve also said what I’ve said around the country: ‘It’s not good enough.’ ”

But the 9/11 Review Commission members – Reagan-era Attorney General Ed Meese, former congressman and ambassador Tim Roemer and Georgetown University securities studies professor Bruce Hoffman – were not outsiders. Each signed personal services contracts with the FBI at the outset that under federal regulations made them de facto FBI employees. The FBI has declined to say how much they were paid.

The Review Commission issued its final 127-page report, “The FBI: Protecting the Homeland in the 21st Century,” on March 25, 2015. It was largely supportive of the FBI, while repeatedly noting the bureau needed to speed up reforms to make it a more effective anti-terrorist force.

An embarrassing 2002 FBI report

The Review Commission’s most controversial finding: a section that curiously sought to discredit an April 16, 2002 FBI report that had become an embarrassment to the bureau.

The 2002 report discussed the findings of the FBI’s investigation of a Saudi family who it said had “fled” their Sarasota area home shortly before the 9/11 attacks and were later determined to have had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.” Florida Bulldog obtained a heavily censored copy of the document during ongoing Freedom of Information litigation.

The FBI report corroborated earlier source-based reporting by Bulldog and Irish journalist Anthony Summers that in 2011 disclosed the existence of the FBI’s Sarasota investigation. Among other things, the story reported how law-enforcement agents had obtained community security records – including photos of license tags – showing that Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 figures had visited the home in the gated Prestancia neighborhood.

Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fl, co-chair of Congress's Joint Inquiry into 9/11

Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fl, co-chair of Congress’s Joint Inquiry into 9/11

The FBI did not inform Congress or the subsequent 9/11 Commission about its Sarasota investigation, according to former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who co-chaired Congress’s Joint Inquiry into the attacks. The FBI has said Congress and the 9/11 Commission were told.

The 2002 report, however, conflicted with the FBI’s prior public statements that said it had found no connection to terrorism during its once-secret investigation into the apparently hasty departure from Sarasota of Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his family. The couple moved out of their home about two weeks before 9/11 – leaving behind their cars, clothes, furniture and other belongings.

The Review Commission, while silent about whether the FBI informed Congress and the 9/11 Commission of its Sarasota probe, cited unidentified FBI officials who called the April 2002 FBI report “poorly written and wholly unsubstantiated.”

“When questioned later by others in the FBI, the special agent who wrote the [report] was unable to provide any basis for the contents of the document or explain why he wrote it as he did,” said the report, which does not identify the allegedly inept agent or provide further explanation.

Embracing the FBI

The Review Commission’s report, however, recounted the FBI’s assertions without challenge or reservation, adopting them as its own findings. Its recommendation: that the bureau “continue its thorough investigation into the 9/11 attacks.”

As originally conceived in legislation proposed in 2012, the 9/11 Review Commission was to be much tougher: an independent national commission with subpoena power that would take testimony and receive evidence in public. Its chairman and vice chairman would be appointed by the leaders of the House and Senate, staff would be hired without outside interference, and the General Services Administration would provide support services.

That proposal failed, but the idea of a 9/11 Review Commission was repurposed. Instead of being under congressional control, it was to be put under the administration and control of the FBI. All mention of public hearings, subpoena power and legislative control was stripped out.

The proposed FBI 9/11 Review Commission was inserted into a large appropriations bill that President Obama signed into law in March 2013.

Following delays attributed to sequestration, the Review Commission was established in January 2014. It relied heavily on the FBI for information, and sought little input from sources outside the U.S. intelligence community. About 30 individuals were interviewed, including CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director Robert Mueller and four other ex-FBI officials. The commission also met with Comey several times, the report said.

Commissioners got more than “60 extensive briefings” on topics like the “Evolution of the National Security Branch” to PENTTBOM, the code name for its 9/11 investigation.

Commissioners also traveled to eight FBI field offices and six legal attaché posts in Ottawa, Beijing, Manila, Singapore, London and Madrid, according to the report.

The FBI declined to release any transcripts, memorandums or other back-up records generated by the Review Commission. In June 2016, Florida Bulldog sued the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act for access to those records. Trial is set for March in U.S. District Court in Miami.

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez’s son rose to the top skirting lobbying rules, critics say

By Francisco Alvarado, FloridaBulldog.org 

Mayor Carlos Gimenez, right, and his son, Carlos Gimenez Jr.

Mayor Carlos Gimenez, right, and his son, Carlos Gimenez Jr.

As his father rose to power from county commissioner to strong mayor, Carlos Gimenez Jr. has climbed his way to the upper echelon of South Florida’s lobbying corps representing prominent clients like Donald Trump, the PGA Tour and American Traffic Solutions, the nation’s largest red-light camera operator.

Along the way, junior has been investigated three times for violating county ethics rules by concealing his lobbying activities involving Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez as well as other county and municipal elected officials. While the probes ultimately found no wrongdoing by junior, critics insist he exploits his family name on behalf of his clients.

Alfred Santamaria, one of six candidates running against Gimenez in the Aug. 30 primary, told FloridaBulldog.org that the mayor’s son provides a clear-cut reason why Miami-Dade should adopt a rule that bans companies and individuals doing business with county hall from hiring the relatives of elected officials.

“Carlos Gimenez Jr. has worked at firms that represented companies getting contracts worth tens of millions of dollars for airport work, roads and red-light cameras,” Santamaria said. “I think it is unethical, not moral and clearly a conflict of interest.”

Gimenez Jr. did not return two messages on his cell phone seeking comment. Michael Hernandez, the mayor’s spokesman, said his boss is not concerned about allegations made against his son because Gimenez “prides himself on operating in a very transparent manner.”

Hernandez added: “Mayor Gimenez is very proud of his son’s professional success which has come due to his hard work, education, dedication and talent and is in no way related to his father being elected as the county commissioner representing District 7, or as Miami-Dade County mayor.”

According to his LinkedIn page, Gimenez Jr.’s career began in 2000 as an associate for the now-defunct law firm Steel Hector & Davis, where his father also briefly worked. When Gimenez was elected county commissioner in 2004, his son went to work for Bilzin Sumberg, a Miami law firm specializing in government relations, land use and zoning. Four years later, Gimenez Jr. moved to his third law firm, Becker & Poliakoff, where he was a senior attorney until February 2013. Since then, he’s been vice president and general counsel for Balsera Communications, a Hispanic-focused public relations firm founded by Alfredo Balsera, a prominent Democratic fundraiser for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Balsera Communications President David Duckenfield did not address the allegations against Gimenez Jr., but told Florida Bulldog in an email statement that the mayor’ s son was hired based on his qualifications.

‘Well known and respected’

“Carlos brings to our firm top notch experience in real estate development and crisis communications, having worked for the some of the best law firms in Miami,” Duckenfield said. “He is well known and respected among his professional peers.”

Recently, however, Gimenez Jr. stirred up controversy when he and a Balsera colleague tried to convince three candidates running in a Miami-Dade School Board race against his aunt, Maria Theresa Rojas, to drop out.

Documents from the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics & Public Trust show that Mayor Gimenez has sought several legal opinions about how he should conduct county business involving firms employing junior, 39, and his other son Julio, 37, who has worked for two construction firms that are frequent county vendors.

Gimenez Jr. is currently registered as a lobbyist In Doral, where he represents Trump and the PGA Tour, and in Miami, where he represents more than a dozen firms. He is not a registered lobbyist with county government.

For instance, on March 27, 2007, then-Ethics Commission Executive Director Robert Meyers advised Gimenez, at the time a county commissioner, to abstain from voting on a rezoning application because junior was part of the team representing the developer.

Four years later, shortly after Gimenez was elected mayor, he asked for another ethics opinion. This time, Meyers advised him to delegate the power to award contracts involving Munilla Construction Management to one of his deputies or get a county commissioner to sponsor an item awarding those contracts because the firm employed Julio Gimenez. Meyers also advised the mayor to recuse himself from making any recommendations or decisions when Gimenez Jr. lobbied any arm of county government.

During the five years Gimenez has been mayor, the ethics commission has delved into allegations Gimenez Jr. cloaks his lobbying work by not filing required paperwork identifying him as a representative for vendors and developers seeking to influence the decisions of government officials, including his father.

According to a 2012 ethics commission report, investigators received a confidential tip in October of the previous year that Gimenez and his son held discussions about initiating a red-light camera program in Miami-Dade with executives from Horsepower Electric, a subcontractor to Gimenez Jr.’s client American Traffic Solutions. The report states Gimenez and Horsepower Vice President Humberto Ortiz were interviewed, but not Gimenez Jr.

The mayor and Ortiz vehemently denied they discussed red-light cameras during their meeting, which took place at Horsepower’s main office in Hialeah. They said the mayor was there to collect a campaign check for his political action committee.

Gimenez could not recall if his son, who represents American Traffic in the City of Miami, attended the meeting, but the mayor was adamant that he was not involved in implementing a red-light program in unincorporated Miami-Dade, according to the report.

“He said that, dating back to his tenure as a county commissioner, he has recused himself from any deliberations on the matter as a result of his son’s representation of ATS,” the report states.

In 2014, Joe Centorino, the ethics commission’s current executive director, sent an investigator in mid-May to meet with Susan Fried and Armando Gutierrez, two well-known lobbyists who had pulled him aside during a county commission meeting to complain that Gimenez Jr. and four other individuals who worked on his dad’s campaign “were lobbying on the big Water and Sewer bond issue and had not registered as lobbyists,” according to another investigative report.

Fried alleged that Gimenez Jr. and the four others told potential clients, “I’ll charge you $150,000, and avoid the lobbying registration, but they lobby anyway under the name of public relations,” wrote ethics investigator and former Miami Herald columnist Robert Steinback. Fried could not provide specific details, but said Gimenez Jr. and crew “have infiltrated everywhere, including the mayor’s office,” Steinback wrote.

No ‘hard evidence’

Gutierrez was unable to provide names or any firsthand knowledge, Steinback added. Steinback closed the probe shortly after checking the sign-in logs for the 13 county commissioners and finding none of the names of the alleged shadow lobbyists, including Gimenez Jr. “Given the lack of specificity of the original complaint, this investigator could not turn up hard evidence of lobbying on the part of the subjects,” Steinback wrote.

When contacted by Florida Bulldog, Fried and Gutierrez declined comment.

Steinback opened another investigation into Gimenez Jr. on Aug. 27 2014 after an anonymous female called in a tip that the county mayor’s son had bragged to her that he had lobbied six of seven council members in North Miami Beach about a proposal to build luxury floating homes off the city’s coastline by his client, Dutch Docklands. Steinback reviewed the city’s lobbyist log the following day and determined Gimenez Jr. was not registered to represent Dutch Docklands.

In late September, Steinback interviewed three council members, who denied meeting with Gimenez Jr., as well as Frank Behrens, Dutch Dockland’s vice president, who claimed junior’s role was to “address residents of Eastern Shore,” a residential neighborhood in North Miami Beach.

“[Behrens] said that the company has endeavored to be very careful about lobbyist registration,” Steinback wrote in his report, adding that he subsequently spoke to Gimenez Jr.

“It turns out Gimenez Jr. registered with the city as a lobbyist on September 15, 2014,” Steinback wrote. “He stated that he then sent letters to two city commissioners, which he acknowledged would qualify as lobbying contacts, on Sept. 17.”

Nevertheless, Steinback concluded there was no evidence suggesting Gimenez was improperly lobbying city officials.

Gimenez Jr.’s name would pop up again in a fourth ethics investigation that was completed in June of last year. This time, it was junior’s most famous client, Donald Trump, and his dad who were being accused of breaking the county’s lobbying rules when the Republican presidential nominee made an unsolicited offer to take over management of the Crandon Park Golf Course in early 2014. Gimenez told ethics investigators he stopped being involved once Trump submitted a formal proposal because junior represents the billionaire developer in Doral, an independently run city not under the county’s control.

“Gimenez said he immediately recused himself from involvement in the Trump proposal out of an abundance of caution,” the investigative report states. “But not because he is required to since his son does no lobbying work for Trump in the county.”

Three lobbyists, who spoke to FloridaBulldog.org on the condition of anonymity because they fear being blacklisted, said the only way to catch Gimenez Jr. breaking the rules is with good old-fashioned surveillance and wiretaps. “It’s amazing that Carlos Jr. is able to get away with this scam of not being a lobbyist while trading on the name he shares with his dad to do exactly that,” one lobbyist said. “But since we’re in Miami, people just kind of shrug and accept it.”

“Of course, it’s still going on,” another lobbyist said. “Unless you are dishonest with him and his clique, you can’t beat them. It’s not endemic to the county. I believe it happens in most of the municipalities too.”

Santamaria, Gimenez’s opponent, agreed. “The mayor and his inner circle are very sophisticated,” Santamaria said. “”They know how to work the system very well.”

28 pages and 80,000 pages: The hunt for a Saudi support network for 9-11 hijackers

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org worldtradecenter

Lawyers for the Florida Bulldog have asked a federal judge to award substantial attorney fees for years of efforts to obtain secret reports about the FBI’s post-9/11 investigation of Saudis in Sarasota with apparent ties to the suicide hijackers.

The court papers filed Tuesday seek a court hearing and also show how the Fort Lauderdale Freedom of Information (FOI) case ties into a better-known push to declassify 28 pages that were cut out of a 2002 report by Congress’ Joint Inquiry into the terrorist attacks. Those censored pages involved “specific sources of foreign support” for the hijackers while they were in the U.S.

In the Fort Lauderdale case, a federal judge is reviewing for possible public release 80,000 classified pages about 9/11 located in the FBI’s Tampa field office. Judge William J. Zloch ordered the Bureau to produce those records for his private inspection two years ago.

“In essence, the 28 pages are expected to reveal what the Joint Inquiry discovered about Saudi government support of terrorism and the Sarasota documents are expected to reveal what the Joint Inquiry failed to discover about Saudi government support for terrorism,” wrote attorney Thomas Julin, of Miami’s Hunton & Williams.

“Together, both sets of documents may reflect whether a Saudi government network throughout the United States was used to support the terrorist attacks on 9/11. They also may help the American public to judge how the defendants [Department of Justice and the FBI] reacted to the terrorist attacks on the United States and whether additional steps should have been taken to prevent the attacks and to prosecute those who may have aided the attacks,” Julin’s motion said.

The Florida Bulldog’s parent, Broward Bulldog Inc., sued the FBI and the Justice Department in September 2012 after the FBI claimed to have no records about its Sarasota investigation. The Bulldog, working with Irish author Anthony Summers and his wife, Robbyn Swan, broke the story on Sept. 8, 2011 – nearly 10 years to the day after the terrorist attacks.

A fast exit from Sarasota

The story disclosed the existence of the FBI’s probe of events surrounding Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji, a young Saudi couple who abruptly moved out of their upscale home about two weeks before 9/11 – leaving behind cars, clothes, furniture and other personal belongings – and how agents found evidence that Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers, who’d trained at nearby flight schools in Venice, had visited the al-Hijjis’ home.

Anoud’s father, Esam Ghazzawi, an advisor to a Saudi prince, owned the home.

Likewise, the story reported that former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, co-chair of the Joint Inquiry, said the FBI had kept Congress in the dark about its Sarasota investigation.

The Bulldog is a tax-exempt public charity with what Julin described as “extremely limited resources.” Its lawsuit, however, is nearly four years old, an unusually long time for a Freedom of Information Act complaint.

Miami attorney Thomas Julin

Miami attorney Thomas Julin

As a result, the news organization’s law firm, Hunton & Williams, has borne the financial burden of the case. Julin and four colleagues told the court they have spent more than 615 hours on the case and are asking for $409,000 in fees.

The fee award being sought is in large part attributable to the FBI’s aggressiveness resistance to disclosing its records about the Sarasota investigation. For example, in addition to repeatedly denying that it had any responsive documents, Bureau representatives have said the Sarasota probe found no connection to the 9/11 plot. Still, a handful of FBI documents made public during the pending litigation said the opposite: that the Sarasota Saudis had “many connections” to persons associated with the terrorist attacks.

In addition to representing the Bulldog in court, attorney Julin has spent numerous hours in an effort to declassify the 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry’s report. The Bulldog, Summers and Swan began the process in June 2013. Today, the case is pending before the Interagency Security Classification Appeals panel is Washington. A decision is expected this month.

The quest to unlock the 28 pages got a huge boost in an April 60 Minutes TV report that focused on current efforts by Sen. Graham and others to obtain their release.

Numerous members of Congress, 9/11 victims and their relatives and current and former government officials as well as leading presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have called for the release of the 28 pages.

Developments in the case continue. On May 17, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Justice Against Supporters of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a bill that would allow 9/11 victims and their families to sue Saudi Arabia. The House is expected to consider the bill shortly.

“It underscores the public importance of the records that are at the heart of this litigation,” Julin wrote in his fee motion.

Click here and scroll down to FOIA Lawsuit Documents to read the new filings.

Donald Trump and the art of the campaign expense

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

Inside Donald Trump's Boeing 757

Inside Donald Trump’s Boeing 757

Donald Trump knows how to make money, even when he’s running for president.

Federal records show that Trump’s campaign paid the Republican frontrunner and 10 companies he owns more than $1.64 million for various campaign expenses since the billionaire businessman began his run last spring.

The payouts amounted to nearly one of every three dollars the Trump campaign spent through Sept. 30, according to campaign reports, including an amended quarterly report filed Dec. 17 with the Federal Elections Commission.

Most of that money, $1.2 million, was paid to Tag Air, the holding company for the luxury Boeing 757 with 24-karat gold plated seat belts that Trump uses on the campaign trail. The jet can accommodate up to 43 passengers. The payout was the fair market value of those flights, according to the campaign. You can take a video tour of the plane here.

Another $410,000 went to Trump and Trump entities to reimburse payroll expenses and pay rent, hotel and restaurant bills.

Trump himself was paid more than $100,000, including $45,000 for rent and $60,000 in reimbursements for campaign payroll expenses he incurred, the records show.

The Trump campaign pie also was sliced to pay rent to The Trump Corporation, Trump Tower Commercial LLC, Trump Plaza LLC, and Trump CPS LLC. Together, they collected more than $278,000.

Trump Payroll Corp., too, was paid nearly $18,000 for pre-paid payroll expenses. Campaign checks also went to Trump Restaurants LLC and Trump hotels in New York and Las Vegas for meals and lodging, though in much lesser amounts.

While noteworthy, it’s not unlawful for Trump’s campaign to pay Trump or his companies for their services. Indeed, federal law often requires it.

“It’s not illegal as long as they’re paying fair market value,” said prominent Washington, D.C. campaigns and elections lawyer Jan Witold Baran. “In fact, if a campaign uses the goods and services of a corporation they have to pay for it. Otherwise, it would be an illegal corporate contribution even though the candidate might be the 100 percent owner of the business. That has been the policy of the Federal Elections Commission for decades.”

Federal election law, however, does not contemplate a mega-wealthy candidate like Trump.

“There’s no question that Trump is conducting a campaign that’s unique in many respects. I’ve been doing this for 40 years and I never heard of a candidate disclosing his financial numbers and complaining they were too low – that I’m really richer than these forms say,” said Baran.

GIVING MONEY TO A BILLIONAIRE

Trump and campaign manager Corey Lewandowski have said repeatedly – most recently in a radio interview with Lewandowski three weeks ago – that Trump is self-funding his campaign. While that was true last spring when Trump seeded his campaign with a $1.8 million loan, it no longer is.

The Trump campaign solicits credit card donations on its website, telling supporters to “Stand with Donald Trump to Make America Great Again.” Through Sept. 30, the campaign reported accepting $3.8 million in contributions – a number that’s sure to rise with the campaign’s year-end report due Jan. 31.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump

About $2.8 million of those contributions to billionaire Trump were given by small donors whose names aren’t required to be disclosed because they contributed $200 or less.

Neither the Trump campaign nor Dan Scavino, a senior advisor to the campaign, responded to requests for comment.

What the Trump campaign took in from outside contributors in the last reported quarter is less than what it spent, $4 million. In all, the campaign’s reported net operating expenditures were $5.4 million.

Some other major Republican candidates have spent much more.

For example, Sen. Marco Rubio raised $14.8 million in contributions and spent $6.9 million on operating expenditures through Sept. 30. Jeb 2016 Inc., the campaign committee set up by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, raked in $24.2 million in individual contributions and spent $14.5 million during the same period.

All those contributions, and Trump’s as well, are designated for the primary elections. $2,700 is the maximum an individual may give for the primaries.

The Trump campaign’s first television ad, released Sunday, marks a turning point in spending. To date, Trump has benefitted from untold hours of free coverage. With the Iowa caucus on Feb. 1, the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9 and Super Tuesday on March 1, he and other candidates are expected to shell out big bucks to blanket the airwaves.

Can Trump turn a profit on his campaign — that is, see his loans repaid in full and additional campaign dollars flowing to his companies? It will depend on his fortunes in the primaries, his contributors’ staying power and his determination to win.

As Marco Rubio pushes past Jeb Bush in polls, Democrats shift sights

By Francisco Alvarado, FloridaBulldog.org 

Jeb Bush, left, and Marco Rubio

Jeb Bush, left, and Marco Rubio

With Marco Rubio overtaking Jeb Bush in polls for the Republican presidential nomination, national Democratic political organizations have turned up their attacks on the U.S. senator, accusing him of breaking Senate ethics rules and federal election laws by soliciting campaign donations from his Senate office and using Senate staff to work on his campaign.

In the coming weeks, these groups will continue highlighting more of Rubio’s vulnerabilities, from his alleged misuse of a Republican Party credit card to his close friendships with disgraced politicians like ex-congressman David Rivera and former State Rep. Ralph Arza, according to Democratic and Republican operatives in Rubio’s home county of Miami-Dade.

“Marco seems to be the guy on the upswing right now,” said Ben Pollara, a Miami Beach-based Democratic political consultant. “It is only natural that they are turning their fire on him. A true deep dive into his record in Florida is bound to happen.”

Miami-Dade Republican Party Chairman Nelson Diaz concurred. “I’ve noticed Democrats are trash-talking Marco more,” he said. “It might hurt him a little. At the end of the day, people understand candidates are not 100 percent perfect.”

Miami-Dade Republican Party Chairman Nelson Diaz

Miami-Dade Republican Party Chairman Nelson Diaz

Over the past two months, Rubio has ascended in national polls, as well as surveys in early primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida. While Rubio still trails billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, he’s topping Bush, who has tumbled into the single digits after starting his campaign as the presumed front-runner.

A Quinnipiac national poll released Nov. 4 has Rubio garnering 14 percent of Republican voters, trailing Carson and Trump, who virtually tied for first. Bush, on the other hand, had his worst showing yet with 4 percent, placing him fifth behind U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

The momentum shift has led to groups like the American Bridge 21st Century political action committee and the American Democracy Legal Fund to escalate their strikes against Rubio.

American Bridge is a super PAC that conducts opposition research for the Democratic Party. Rodell Mollineau, a former staffer of Sen. Harry Reid, is American Bridge’s treasurer and George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager and Democrat rainmaker, is one of the PAC’s largest benefactors. Soros contributed $1 million to American Bridge in May, according to filings with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

Since Oct. 23, American Bridge has produced three YouTube videos assailing Rubio, but none on the other Republican contenders. Prior to that, American Bridge primarily focused on Bush, having made 41 online clips since the former Florida governor entered the race in June. In contrast, the PAC has produced 10 total videos about Rubio since his presidential announcement in April.

TAKING AIM AT RUBIO

In the most recent American Bridge video about the senator, uploaded on Oct. 29, the PAC takes aim at Rubio’s abysmal Senate attendance record with screenshots of a Sun-Sentinel editorial calling for him to resign. In addition, Rubio is featured in the headlines of 15 of 22 blog posts on American Bridge’s website between Oct. 23 and Nov. 4. Spokespersons for American Bridge and Rubio’s presidential campaign did not respond to multiple email requests for comment.

While American Bridge is hammering Rubio with videos and blogs, the American Democracy Legal Fund — a group helmed by former Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse — wants the FEC to investigate Rubio for allegedly breaking Senate ethics rules and campaign finance laws.

According to an Oct. 28 complaint signed by Woodhouse, Rubio solicited campaign contributions during an on-air interview with Fox News when he was inside the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The complaint alleges Rubio said, “obviously if somebody watching this program wants to help us, they should go to marcorubio.com and chip in.”

Woodhouse claimed “Rubio’s campaign donation pitch was a flagrant violation of federal law and Senate rules.” His complaint also accuses Rubio’s Senate staff of providing policy proposals and ideas to his campaign that were crafted during work hours using Senate resources and facilities.

This is not the first time Rubio has run afoul of campaign finance laws. In September, after receiving a warning from the FEC, the Rubio campaign notified federal regulators that it had refunded more than $120,000 to contributors who donated more than the $2,700 maximum allowed by law. Ernest Semersky, an Illinois Porsche dealership owner, received the largest refund: $10,000.

A month later, on Oct. 27, a super PAC called Values are Vital voided a $5,000 check it gave the Rubio campaign after the committee was unable to get a refund. In July, the FEC had warned Values are Vital that its excessive contribution was not allowed by law. According to an Aug. 21 letter to the FEC, the committee’s lawyer James C. Thomas III requested more time to address the problem because the Rubio campaign failed to respond to his email inquiry and a certified letter asking for the refund.

Prior to his April presidential campaign unveiling, Rubio’s campaign had been warned by the FEC after each of its four quarterly filings in 2014 that it had accepted excessive contributions. Two days before Rubio announced his candidacy, the campaign refunded more than $23,000 in excessive contributions and another $27,000 was either reclassified for use in the 2016 general election, or applied to the spouses of donors who gave more than the maximum allowed by federal law. In 2012, Rubio’s campaign and its treasurer paid an $8,000 civil penalty to settle an FEC inquiry into $210,173 in excessive donations accepted in 2010, the year he won his Senate seat.

Pollara said Rubio can expect even more intense scrutiny of his campaign’s financial missteps, his record as a state legislator, and his friendships with Rivera and Arza. Although he hasn’t been criminally charged, Rivera’s ex-girlfriend Ana Alliegro has implicated the former congressman as the mastermind behind a ringer candidate that ran against his nemesis and Democrat Joe Garcia in the 2012 primary. Alliegro made the accusation under oath during a federal court hearing in February. A month later, an administrative judge in Tallahassee ruled Rivera had to pay nearly $58,000 in fines for ethics violations that occurred when he was a state legislator.

In 2006, Arza was forced to resign from the State House after he was charged with two felonies, including for retaliating against and tampering with a witness. Arza had left a threatening voicemail on the phone of then-State Rep. Gus Barreiro over a dispute involving then-Miami-Dade Public Schools Superintendent Rudy Crew, whom Arza referred to with a racial slur. Arza pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of tampering with a witness and was sentenced to probation, community service, an anger management program, and alcohol abuse counseling.

“The more he gets examined, the worse it will get for Marco,” Pollara said. “It’s like cockroaches. When you see one scurrying around, there are thousands more behind the walls.”
Diaz countered that voters are not going to hold Rubio accountable for the alleged misdeeds of his friends. “People elected Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama knowing all their flaws,” he said. “Voters will accept a flawed candidate.”

Trump, Gimenez let off easy after breaking lobbying laws, critics say

By Francisco Alvarado, FloridaBulldog.org 

Donald Trump, right, and Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez

Donald Trump, right, and Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez

Donald Trump’s efforts to take over management of a public golf course is at the center of a recently concluded Miami-Dade ethics commission probe that has come under fire for not admonishing the billionaire developer and county Mayor Carlos Gimenez for breaking local lobbying laws.

Critics accuse Michael Muraswski, advocate for the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics & Public Trust, of giving a free pass to rich, powerful, and politically connected individuals who break the rules. Murawski’s role is to prosecute persons who break the county’s conflict of interest and ethics laws.

In Trump’s case, Murawski failed to present evidence to the ethics commission board at a June 17 meeting in which the advocate recommended a finding of no probable cause against the billionaire candidate for president and the mayor, said Eston “Dusty” Melton, a prominent county hall lobbyist.

Murawski also recommended the board dismiss a complaint against Trump’s environmental consultant Edward Russo despite concluding he did not register as a lobbyist for his client until Feb. 24, seven days after the ethics investigation was initiated.

Melton said Murawski similarly let celebrity soccer star David Beckham off the hook in an unrelated 2014 ethics case accusing him of illegally lobbying Gimenez and county commissioners to give him public waterfront land for a Major League Soccer stadium.

“I think it is clear that in certain cases, particularly complaints against high profile individuals, the findings and materials given to board members of the ethics commission are deeply and remarkably flawed,” Melton told Florida Bulldog. “As a consequence, some of the decisions made by the ethics commission are seriously embarrassing for those who care a lot about the rule of law.”

Miami-Dade’s lobbyist registration requirements are designed to allow the public to know who is trying to influence government decision makers. Principals and their representatives – consultants and lobbyists included – who seek to do business with local government must register with the county clerk prior to any interactions with public officials. Failure to do so is punishable by a fine of up to $500 or a temporary ban from county hall, a penalty that is rarely enforced.

BLOGGER’S COMPLAINTS OPEN PROBE

The ethics commission opened a probe on Trump, Gimenez, and Russo based on complaints filed in February by Miami watchdog blogger Al Crespo. Crespo accused the Republican presidential contender and his consultant of not registering as lobbyists, and Gimenez of failing to inform them that they had to register.

Al Crespo

Al Crespo

Crespo, who operates the Crespogram Report,  alleged Murawski has purposely misrepresented portions of ethics complaints he and others have filed against public officials in an attempt to minimize their wrongdoing.

“Murawski has set himself up as the chief manipulator of the facts to reach the conclusion that he wants,” Crespo said.

Trump, who leads the Republican presidential field in some polls, owns the Trump National Doral golf club. He first broached the subject of taking over the county-owned Crandon Park Golf Course while playing there with Gimenez and Russo in October 2013.

In a June 2 interview, Russo told ethics investigators Trump was not keen on letting anyone know he was interested in taking over Crandon. He also stated that Trump and he began their full court press on Gimenez during and immediately following their golf game at the public golf course on Key Biscayne.

“Russo said that they were giving the mayor a gift,” says a summary of the interview. “They are lobbying him when they are the guys who should be lobbied. [Russo] and Trump wanted to do this anonymously.”

According to the investigative file, Gimenez, his then-chief-of-staff Lisa Martinez, and Miami-Dade Parks Department Director Jack Kardys met with Russo on Jan. 28, 2014 to continue discussions on what Trump had to do to submit a proposal.

Using Trump National Doral letterhead, Trump sent a signed pitch letter to Gimenez about a month later. The proposal: Trump would spend $10 million of his own money to renovate Crandon in exchange for allowing his company to lease the golf course for $1 a year.

Over the next two months, emails from Kardys to his subordinates indicate that Gimenez was anxious to send Trump a reply. On March 31, the parks director informed his deputy, George Navarrete, that the “mayor wants Trump letter today – see me first thing.”

But no reply was drafted by April 12, 2014 when Kardys emailed Navarrete again to express his concern. “I hope this is moving because the mayor will be furious if Trump calls him for a lack of response – please advise,” Kardys wrote.

GIMENEZ ADVISES TRUMP

Three days later, Gimenez signed an official letter to Trump explaining how he could submit an unsolicited proposal and that Kardys would be his point of contact.

Trump’s formal proposal arrived in August, along with deposit check for $25,000 from Trump Golf Acquisitions LLC.

Ten months had elapsed since the day Trump and Russo met Gimenez on the golf course, but neither Trump nor Russo registered to lobby the mayor, records show. Nor did Gimenez ever instruct Trump or Russo to register, Crepo’s complaint alleged.

Nevertheless, in his June 5, 2015 memo Murawski recommended the ethics commission find no probable cause against the mayor or Trump. He also recommended Russo be given a letter of instruction because Trump’s consultant insisted he was unaware of the county’s lobbyist registration requirements.

The ethics commission considered the matter at a closed-door session on June 18. Audio of that meeting shows Murawski told commissioners Trump’s only dialogue with the mayor was their informal talk at Crandon in October 2013, and that Gimenez quickly stopped being involved. He also argued that no formal bidding process was ever initiated that would have required Trump to register, or required Gimenez to tell him he had to register.

“The conclusion is that [Trump] wasn’t a lobbyist,” Murawski told the board. “We covered this in the David Beckham case when Mr. Beckham met with the mayor and some commissioners initially to discuss his proposal of having a soccer stadium here in Miami-Dade County. We concluded in that case that there is a certain ‘meet and greet’ period where you can generally discuss ideas but there is nothing concrete in the pipeline; nothing to be voted on.”

Lobbyist Melton, a former Miami Herald reporter, said he was so stunned by Murawski’s actions after hearing the audio that he felt compelled to address the advocate’s “botched analysis” at the July 8 ethics commission meeting.

Melton told commissioners that Murawski had failed to inform them how Trump and Gimenez had exchanged official correspondence in March and April about how to draft an unsolicited proposal, action that Melton said constitutes lobbying.

“Mr. Murawski framed his entire recommendation regarding Trump around the golf game only,” Melton told the board. “Mr. Murawski entirely ignored Trump’s personal, ongoing, formal, written lobbying activities that followed, many months after the golf game.”

In a brief phone interview with the Florida Bulldog, Murawski dismissed Melton’s criticisms. “He cherry-picked one or two lines and took what I said out of context,” he said. “I give very little credit to what he said.”

Murawski declined further comment, saying he will address Melton’s accusations at next month’s ethics commission meeting.

Marcia Narine is a law professor at St. Thomas University who has served on the ethics commission board for about a year. She said she does not believe Murawski hid information, and says the ethics commission did not go easy on Gimenez and Trump.
“It can appear that this was glossed over because the person is a presidential candidate,” Narine said. “That is not the case at all. I think the commission acts in good faith to do the job the public expects us to do.”

Miami attorney and ethics commission chairman Nelson Bellido also denied the board is making bad decisions, noting its members will take a “second look” at the Trump-Gimenez case at its Wednesday, Aug. 12 meeting.

“We are absolutely not a rubber stamp,” Bellido said. “We are there to listen to all sides. I don’t come in with any bias or political bent. I take the job very seriously.”

Newsletter

Notify me by email when new stories are published.

Bulldog Archives