webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

CRC strategies PR

same as http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=:{Creative_Response_Concepts}:

yikes see RW scotus

NO MERRI

Leo

also crc advisors

SEE Creative Response Concepts

SEE MIKE THOMPSON ALEC CLIMATE LAWSUITS

---

AN PP 4 26

Across the country, Republican-led state legislatures are passing a slate of laws that effectively shield oil and gas companies from legal claims that they are responsible for the destruction and mounting toll caused by climate change. Fifteen laws have either been passed or are currently being debated in 11 states. Together, they threaten to remove long-standing tools for the public to hold corporations accountable.

A ProPublica investigation has found that most of these bills are part of a coordinated effort, orchestrated by a constellation of groups that share staff or have funding ties to the prominent conservative activist Leonard Leo, who is credited with placing conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. These groups have drafted state legislation, planned its dissemination and engaged a well-connected lobbying firm to get them signed into law.

The effort is unfolding as courts are weighing more than 30 significant lawsuits by states, counties and municipalities accusing fossil fuel companies of misrepresenting the risks their products posed to consumers and seeking to recoup the costs of disasters and other climate impacts like wildfire losses or coastal flooding that their products helped cause. A goal of the legislation is to block these cases from going forward and prevent new ones from being filed.

The strategy to establish state laws that will make it all but impossible to sue oil and gas companies was laid out in detail by a group of lobbyists and political operatives in December, during a panel presentation at the annual States and Nation Policy Summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council — the influential organization that brings together state lawmakers, corporate leaders and conservative activists to draft and promote legislation.

During the session, one of the panelists, Will Hild, the executive director of a nonprofit called Consumers’ Research, described the climate cases as a liberal effort to use the judicial system to exact a new tax on energy companies in the form of civil judgments. Another panelist, Oramel H. Skinner, the former solicitor general for Arizona and the executive director of the nonprofit Alliance for Consumers, warned that those judgments will trickle down to make citizens’ lives less affordable and ultimately make many of their choices — whether to own pickup trucks or purchase a side of beef — illegal.

ProPublica reviewed an audio recording of the event obtained by the nonpartisan watchdog group Documented.

Hild and Skinner had come to the session with a ready-made fix: a set of pre-written bills and plenty of funding.

Consumers’ Research and the Alliance for Consumers are both funded by organizations connected to Leo. ProPublica examined lobbying records across 25 states, federal tax disclosures for more than a dozen organizations and notes from other closed-door strategy sessions among ALEC members and found that several Leo-supported groups are part of a national strategy to give legal immunity to companies for their climate emissions.

Since 2021, Leo has been deploying a $1.6 billion gift through a series of nonprofits and other organizations that obscure the source and the recipients of donations — so-called dark money groups. Much of that money has been routed through a nonprofit judicial advocacy group Leo founded — now called The 85 Fund — which both receives and disseminates Leo’s funding. Many of these nonprofits are increasingly focused on issues related to climate change.

The panel session’s moderator, Michael Thompson, is a senior vice president at CRC Advisors, Leo’s for-profit Virginia-based political and corporate consulting firm. He also sits on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council. Hild’s organization, Consumers’ Research, received more than 65% of its funding in 2024 through a dark money group called Donors Trust. The 85 Fund contributed more than $67 million to Donors Trust in 2024. Consumers’ Research also works closely with — and contracted more than $670,000 of work in 2024 to — CRC Advisors. Another panelist, Paul N. Watkins, was a legal fellow at Consumers’ Research. According to tax filings, his law firm received more than $2.2 million in 2024 from the group. As recently as 2024, Skinner was also counsel for Leo’s 85 Fund, according to the nonprofit’s tax filings.

= POWELL MEMO BS

“For decades, the left has leveraged immense resources to capture the institutions that shape our society — the legal system, universities, medical and scientific bodies, the entertainment industry, and our biggest corporations,” Leo wrote to ProPublica in a text message. “That takeover resulted in a radically woke culture that does not reflect the will of the American people, or the pillars of limited constitutional government that made our country great. That is why our enterprise supports organizations that are committed to crushing liberal dominance and restoring balance in the institutions that shape society.”

At the ALEC session, Skinner presented a model bill that would effectively bar cities and towns from bringing public nuisance lawsuits against corporations and others when the issue is a broad public harm like climate change. In several cases, plaintiffs have argued that the impacts of climate change — the buckling of a road from extreme swings in temperature, for example — are a “nuisance” caused by fossil fuel companies.

Nuisance claims are common in the American legal system, giving individuals, companies or communities a way to sue when someone else’s actions damage their property, degrade the health or safety of the environment around them or interfere with their rights. Under these laws, parties can ask for financial compensation or seek court orders to remedy problems, such as pollution. Skinner, however, argues that nuisance laws should only be used to address local, easily fixable problems, like excessive noise from a bar. His bill would curtail the use of public nuisance suits in climate cases by limiting liability for manufacturers and other businesses and giving state attorneys general the sole authority to bring them.

“Think really hard about every lever you have in your states to shut off the ability for this woke lawfare machine to churn,” Skinner told the audience. “The left’s goal is to reshape society around you using the courtroom.”

The second draft law, called the Energy Freedom Act, was produced by the policy nonprofit associated with Hild’s organization. It would, among many provisions, shield businesses from liability related to emissions of greenhouse gases if those releases did not violate the federal Clean Air Act.

Critics of the bills say they subvert the rights of local communities. They send the message that “you can pollute with impunity,” said Carly Phillips, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s really a thumb in the eye of places that are affected by climate change.”

The push to block climate suits across the states comes as several of the cases against the oil industry approach, or have already entered, the perilous legal phases of discovery, when plaintiffs will have the opportunity to seek confidential industry documents and depose oil executives. The stakes for oil companies are enormous. By some estimates more than $10 trillion in damages can be attributed to U.S. emissions.

:{:{There’s a reason why state and local governments have increasingly brought these suits. The frequency and cost of climate-influenced disasters, including severe storms, drought and flooding, continues to mount — between $350 billion and $450 billion in each of the last three years — stretching government budgets.}:

Significantly, the science that makes it possible to attribute how much any one disaster was influenced by climate change has steadily advanced. To cite one example, the March heat waves across the U.S. would have been virtually impossible without the emissions that have caused climate change, according to the European science group World Weather Attribution, and were about four times as likely to happen as they were a decade ago.}:

Boulder, Colorado, is among the places facing increasing droughts, more extreme precipitation and larger wildfires — all of which are significantly propelled by climate change linked to the emissions from the use of fossil fuels. The state has estimated the costs of these perils will run into the many hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2018, Boulder County sued Exxon Mobil and the Canadian oil company Suncor Energy, accusing the companies of “intentional, reckless and negligent conduct.”

Among its claims, the county alleged the oil companies engaged in a conspiracy to mislead the public and violated consumer protection rules by mischaracterizing the dangers of their products. They accused the oil companies of creating a public nuisance by altering the environment and leaving the county to pay to abate growing hazards such as the flooding that tests roads and bridges. Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy have never filed a response in Colorado but asked for the case to be dismissed.

Ever since, the lawsuit has been mired in a dispute over whether Colorado courts were the correct venue, with the state Supreme Court ultimately ruling last May that they were. Suncor filed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider, and this fall it will weigh the company’s petition asking whether federal environmental law preempts the state law.

:{:{The high-profile national court case is just one facet in an increasingly tense fight over liability for the fossil fuel industry. In January, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest fossil fuel industry group in the United States, said fighting the climate liability lawsuits was one of its top priorities in 2026. Lobbying records for the group from last year show that it advocated for legislation to protect oil producers from climate lawsuits at the state level. }:

The Trump administration; other industry groups, including the Chamber of Commerce; and several of the nonprofit advocacy groups associated with Leo have argued that state courts are the wrong venue for claims that ultimately concern emissions that drift widely across borders, and they wish to see other cases moved or dismissed. They say that because the federal government already has the authority to regulate those emissions, the federal courts, not the states, should hear the claims.}:

In an interview, Hild told ProPublica that he sees the suits as an illegitimate effort to enact policy through the courts and to “regulate the entire U.S. economy from a single state.”

In an email, Skinner wrote: “Our effort is not one focused on climate change. But it is true that left-wing activists and their dark money donors have put vast sums of money and years of groundwork into pushing a coast-to-coast campaign of climate-focused public nuisance lawsuits.”

Neither Watkins nor Thompson responded to requests for comment.

When Skinner and Hild finished their presentation at ALEC they made a QR code available to download the language of the model bills and directed the audience to a woman named Catherine Gunsalus, who was in the back of the room. She would be able to answer any questions, they said.

Gunsalus until recently worked for the Heritage Action Fund, the political and lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation, the Trump-aligned think tank that is most recently known for promoting the Project 2025 agenda. Records show that Gunsalus has also lobbied in collaboration with another Leo-affiliated group, Americans for Public Trust.

In April 2025, she formed a lobbying firm called Varidon Strategies and began registering in states almost immediately afterward, according to records. By mid-summer, Varidon was representing Alliance for Consumers Action Fund; Consumers’ Research; The Honest Election Project, an affiliate of The 85 Fund; as well as other Leo entities in 25 states. In the majority of those filings, Varidon used an email address at the domain of Holtzman Vogel, a Virginia-based law firm that is often retained by Leo’s organizations.

Gunsalus did not reply to a detailed list of questions.

In the four months since the ALEC summit, there has been substantial activity in the states where Varidon has registered. On Jan. 5, representatives in Missouri introduced the loosely related Eliminate Criminal Profiteering Act, which could stop revenues flowing to law firms from settlements in the sort of nuisance suits often used in climate cases. Two days later, legislators took up the Public Nuisance Reform Act, which proposes narrowing the definition of what could be considered a nuisance.

That same month, similar bills were introduced in Indiana, Oklahoma and Tennessee. In February, eight more followed in Oklahoma, Iowa, South Carolina, Utah, Louisiana and Kansas. Skinner, who is registered to lobby in Kansas, was invited to testify in a hearing about that state’s bill and launched a new “End the Lawfare” website targeting the “left-wing” agenda. As of April 2, versions of the model legislation offered at the ALEC meeting have been introduced across 11 states altogether. In Utah, the governor has signed two related bills into law, and in Tennessee and Indiana, bills are awaiting their governors’ signature.

The more states there are with some sort of waiver in place, the narrower the pathway for cities and states to seek redress as environmental conditions worsen, and the costs continue to rise. Hild and Skinner and the Leo network’s bills also serve another purpose: teeing up a conflict that pits states against one another, a conflict that only the Supreme Court or Congress can finally resolve.

As Hild put it at the ALEC gathering, “This is economic civil war.”

---

==

off bs

https://revereproject.org/

:{scooter Schaefer is the director of marketing at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is a graduate of George Mason University and a leading practitioner of digital media with more than a decade of experience. Scooter has previously served as the Assistant Director of Marketing and Digital Media for theMedia Research Center,Senior Digital Strategist at CRC Public Relations, and Senior Digital Strategist at Red Edge.Scooter proudly serves as a faculty member of theLeadership Institute where he trains activists in digital media, and is also co-chair of the :{New Media Exchange, a private group of America’s most prominent center-right digital strategists}:. Scooter lives with his wife and three boys in Northern Virginia.

===

amazonwatch

https://theamazonpost.com/post-trial-brief-pdfs/brief/10PX0528.pdf

no lnx

11 Civ. 0691 (LAK)

PLAINTIFF’S

EXHIBIT

528#

ChevronToxico I Chevron Using Six Public Relations Firms to Discredit Indigenous Groups

THE CAMPAIGNI FOR JUSTIn INI ECUADOR

ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN NEWS & MULTIMEDIA TAKE ACTION

HOME » News and Multimedia

Chevron Using Six Public Relations

Firms to Discredit Indigenous Groups In

$27.3 Billion Environmental Case In

Ecuador

Lobbyists - Mac McLarty, John Breaux, Trent Lott,

Mickey Kantor, Carla Hills and Others - Charged With

Misrepresenting Facts

FRlliTE DE IlERlNlIA

Amazon Defense Coalition

20 November 2009 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Karen Hinton at 703-798-3109 or

... karen@hintoncommunications.com

Caroline Bennett at 510-520-9390 or caroline@amazonwatch.org

start:]

Washington, DC - Chevron has retained at least twelve public relations firms and lobbyists to

discredit claims of Amazon indigenous groups on the eve of an expected multi-billion dollar

judgment against the oil giant in an environmental lawsuit in Ecuador, according to representatives

of the tribes in the U.S.

Although Chevron is near the top of the list of highest-spending lobbyists in Washington, the

campaign seems to be backfiring. Politico, one of the most influential publications on Capitol Hill,

reported this week that Chevron's lobbying was "drawing fire from environmentalists, media

ethicists, state pension funds, New York's attorney general, members of Congress, and even Barack

Obama when he was a Senator."

The article also quoted Rep. Linda Sanchez (D - CA) as calling Chevron's lobbying "clumsy" and

"very heavy handed". Sanchez - who on Tuesday characterized the Chevron lobbying as "extortion"

in testimony before Congress - said she plans to write three letters to Members of Congress,

blasting what she called the oil giant's "misguided approach" to dealing with the lawsuit from the

indigenous groups.

Separately, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating the company to determine if

it is misleading its own shareholders about the financial risk from the Ecuador case, where damages

are assessed at up to $27.3 billion, Politico reported.

An American legal advisor to the plaintiffs, Steven Donziger, criticized the public relations and

lobbying effort."Chevron is paying huge fees to lobby the U.S. government to inappropriately quash

a legal case brought by indigenous tribes in the country where Chevron asked for the trial to be

held," said Donziger, who has been working on the matter since it was filed in U.S. federal court in

1993.

The case, which alleges Texaco dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon from 1964

to 1990, was transferred from U.S. federal court to Ecuador in 2002 at Chevron's request. The oil

giant filed 14 expert affidavits in the U.S. court praising Ecuador's court system, but later began a

campaign to discredit those same courts once the evidence in the Ecuador trial pointed to its

culpability.

The public relations firms working for Chevron include Hill & Knowlton, which represented the

tobacco industry and - as it did in the debate over tobacco and cancer - has tried to deny a link

between oil contamination and cancer;Edelman Worldwide, which is believed to be preparing a

Wal-Mart-style political campaign against the indigenous groups in anticipation of an adverse court

judgment;Sard Verbinnem, which handles financial press in an effort to stem a budding shareholder

revolt against Chevron management for its handling of the case; Robinson Lerer Montgomery, a

well-highly connected New York-based agency; Sam Singer and Associates, which handles the

matter in the San Francisco area, where Chevron is located; and the Washington-basedCRC

Public Relations, which helped create a pro-Chevron video by former CNN correspondent Gene

Randall to counteract a highly unflattering 60 Minutes segment on the legal case that broadcast

earlier in the year.

The Randall video, which did not mention that it was paid for by Chevron, was blasted by the

Columbia Journalism Reviewfor "blurring the line between public relations and journalism." The

President of CRC, Greg Mueller, spearheaded the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry and is a

former senior aide to Pat Buchanan.

CVX-RICO-0502246

Plaintiff's Exhibit 528# p. 2 of 4

among Chevron's lobbyists isWayne Berman, former McCain campaign national finance chair who chairs the governmental relations practice at Ogilvy Worldwide; former Senators John Breaux and Trent Lott; Mac McLarty, former chief of state to President Clinton who is lobbying the State Department; Mickey Kantor and Carla Hills, former U.S. trade ambassadors who are lobbying their former agency to cancel Ecuador's trade preferences; 

Peter Romero, who served as U.S. ambassador to Ecuador in the early 1990s under the first Clinton Administration; Brian Pomper, the former staff director toU.S. Sen. Max Baucus; Scott Parvin, a career lobbyist who formerly worked with Kantor at the law firm Mayer Brown; and several members of Chevron's governmental relations office in Washington, headed by William Irwin. Lawyers for the Amazon communities have long said Chevron's public relations and lobbying firms are part of a broader effort by the company to undermine the rule of law in Ecuador in anticipation of an adverse judgment. The company has taken out advertisements in both Ecuadorian and American newspapers attacking lawyers for the communities and various judges who have presided over the case.

The public relations firms and lobbyists also state incorrectly that Chevron was released from further clean-up responsibility in Ecuador by the government in exchange for a limited clean-up in the mid 1990s. But the terms of the release itself expressly exclude the private claims in the current lawsuit and the so-called remediation was a fraud that has led to the indictment of two Chevron lawyers and several former government officials, said Donziger.

:{

}:

Evidence at trial against Chevron includes more than 50,000 chemical sampling results produced by the company itself, which prove that 100% of its former well sites are highly contaminated with cancer-causing toxins, according to an independent court-appointed Special Master who reviewed the evidence in the case and assessed damages. A final decision on liability and damages is expected next year. For more information, become a follower of The Chevron Pit or follow @ChevronPit on Twitter

https://news.yahoo.com/attorneys-remade-supreme-court-now-110017179.html

no lnx many

lawyers for Trump: These lawyers remade the Supreme Court. Now they're fighting to limit voting.

Lisa Riordan Seville and Sally Bronston

November 1, 2020·

Way back in February, before the pandemic, the lockdowns and the epic lines at polling places, election officials in the battleground state of Michigan got a letter. It said voter registration in 19 counties was "abnormally" high, indicating that they weren't maintaining their rolls.

"Michigan's failure to provide accurate voter rolls violates federal law [and] jeopardizes the integrity of the upcoming 2020 federal election," the letter warned. If officials didn't clean up rolls "bloated with ineligible voters," they'd be taken to court.

:{The group spearheading the letters, called the Honest Elections Project, describes its mission as a nonpartisan effort to fight fraud, protect every American's right to vote and instill faith in the electoral process.

"Elections should be above the political fray," Executive Director Jason Snead told NBC News. "We're talking about elections from a point of principles, not politics."}:

Behind Snead's group, however, is a network that includes some of Washington's most powerful conservative figures, with close ties to the Republican Party and the Trump administration. Hundreds of pages of financial records and other documents, some not previously reported, lead back to Leonard Leo, an adviser to President Donald Trump and former executive vice president of the influential conservative legal group known as the Federalist Society.

Although he doesn't hold public office, Leo has spent three decades helping to shift the American judiciary, including the Supreme Court, to the right. Now his network, backed by millions of dollars in untraceable "dark money," is working to reshape the American vote.

Alongside lawyers who also work for the Republican National Committee, Leo and his team during this election cycle have teed up lawsuits about voter rolls, run ads and filed court briefs to support litigation against mail-in voting. Leo is also on the advisory board of Lawyers for Trump, which is recruiting a battalion of lawyers ready to go to court in the wake of the election.

Whatever the outcome of the race, some see Leo's efforts as part of a longer-term strategy by conservatives to hold onto power in the face of demographic shifts that aren't going their way.

"It's a small circle of Republican advisers and donors who are all wrapped up in the same project," said David Daley, the author of "Ratf**ked," a book about gerrymandering, and a senior fellow at FairVote, which advocates for electoral reform. "The project is using redistricting, voting rights and the courts to ensure long-term Republican power."

:{Since 1988, Republicans have won the popular vote in a presidential election just once, in 2004. In March, Trump said on Fox & Friends that if the $3.6 billion congressional Democrats had requested to support elections during the pandemic had been approved, "you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again."

"The president always says the quiet part out loud," said Sarah Longwell, a veteran Republican political strategist who broke with the party to co-found Republican Voters Against Trump.}:

Longwell pushes back against the idea touted by some liberals that the GOP has been engaged in a long-term effort to disenfranchise voters.

She spent years in Republican circles, she said, and "never heard anybody talk about suppressing the vote." But in this cycle, she said, "the lengths a lot of the Republicans are going to affect voting, those to me do look suppressive. Nakedly suppressive."

'Bloated' voter rolls

In June, the Honest Elections Project made good on its threat over voter rolls, joining a local conservative activist to file suit in Michigan. Trump won the state by just 12,000 votes in 2016, the thinnest margin in the country.

Michigan's Democratic secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, who is fighting the lawsuit, rejects the characterization of state rolls as "abnormally" high. A spokesperson for her office said the project's methodology, which compares current voter registrations to slightly older population estimates, "misleads the public and misunderstands our nation's laws."

"The goal is 100 percent voter registration, and any suggestion otherwise is antithetical to democracy," the spokesperson said. "Michigan's registration rates are strong because we have had one of the best motor-voter systems in the country."

Snead rejected claims that the suit seeks to suppress the vote, pointing out that Michigan now allows same-day voter registration.

"I would strongly object to the notion that we're trying to stop people from voting when we're talking about cleaning up voter rolls," Snead said. "What we're talking about should be no more controversial than throwing out a spoiled container of yogurt."

Michigan is among at least six swing states that have faced litigation this year over their voter rolls from conservative groups who said keeping voter rolls "clean" protects against election fraud. Voting rights advocates describe them as "purges" that disenfranchise low-income, minority and young voters, who tend both to move more and to vote Democratic.

In a statement, the Trump campaign's deputy national press secretary, Thea McDonald, said: "President Trump has clearly and consistently advocated for stable, understandable rules that will give every American faith in the election's results.

"Democrats have duped the mainstream media into advocating for states to ignore the fact that their voter rolls are inaccurate and outdated," McDonald said, "so that there are tens of thousands unclaimed ballots out there for harvesters to snatch and illegally cast, diluting the will of every eligible voter."

The rolls should be kept up to date, experts said, but officials need to weigh the risk of fraud against that of disenfranchisement.

"There's very, very little evidence of voter fraud based upon voter rolls," said Paul Rosenzweig, a security expert and senior fellow at the R Street Institute, a right-leaning think tank. "There's a lot of evidence that purging voter rolls ends up purging legitimate voters."

Claims of widespread voter fraud have been largely debunked by experts, including Trump's own commission. The organization perhaps best known for asserting them is the Heritage Foundation, whose voter fraud database Snead managed before he moved to the Honest Elections Project. Last year, he was also in Heritage's private election fraud briefing with Republican secretaries of state and active members of the Justice Department, as ProPublica first reported.

While Snead insists that his organization doesn't fight for either party, the lawyers working with him are also leading the Republicans' legal battle over rules for the 2020 contest.

:{

William S. Consovoy, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,}: is the head of a boutique Washington, D.C., law firm whose clients include the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign. His firm has been paid $2 million this year for legal work on behalf of the Republican National Committee and the campaign, according to election filings, which included litigation against mail-in voting in Wisconsin. He is also one of Trump's private attorneys.

Before helping Trump with his fight to keep his financial records secret, Consovoy was on the winning side of the Supreme Court case that gutted a key section of the Voting Rights Act, which had prevented areas with histories of racial discrimination from changing their voting rules without federal approval.

Jason Torchinsky, listed as a plaintiff's counsel on the Michigan lawsuit with Consovoy, is a well-known lawyer for conservative dark money groups, including several linked to Leo. He has also represented the Republican National Committee in the past, and he is general counsel for the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the GOP group gearing up to do battle over redrawing state legislative and House district maps in 2021. In September, he represented Pennsylvania's GOP state senators in their unsuccessful Supreme Court petition to block the state's counting of late mail-in ballots.

Further behind the scenes is Leo. A dapper Washington figure who wears distinctive round glasses, he has played a role in placing every one of the six conservative justices on the Supreme Court. In 1991, two years out of law school, he helped prep Thomas for his confirmation hearings.

This year, Leo's network helped to push the confirmation of the court's newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Sept. 18, creating a vacancy. Leo's network immediately pledged to spend millions to advocate for Trump's right to fill the vacancy before the election.

The White House said in a statement that Barrett and Leo didn't speak "after the vacancy arose."

"As President Trump has said, he has no more solemn obligation and no greater honor than to appoint Supreme Court Justices and, as such, it was his decision alone to nominate this well-qualified jurist," White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said.

Should the election go to the high court, as many think it will, the justices Leo helped to seat will decide it.

Soft power

Leo's influence came from his position at the top of the Federalist Society, which he was instrumental in building. Thirty years ago, the organization was a scrappy island for conservatives in what they viewed as a sea of left-leaning legal institutions. Today, its 70,000 members range from law school students and leading legal scholars to Supreme Court justices and Trump's personal attorneys.

The Federalist Society doesn't litigate or take policy positions. It doesn't have to, because its members have come to occupy positions of power across the legal landscape, said Steven Teles,a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University who wrote a book about the conservative legal movement.

"That's where a lot of the power comes from," he said. "It can coordinate, even in an informal way, across boundaries that government often tends to stovepipe."

Leo moved smoothly across those borders. When a seat on the Supreme Court opened up under a Republican president, he'd take leave from the Federalist Society to organize "the outside coalition efforts," as he did with the confirmations of Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Until recently, he worked largely "behind the scenes," said Amanda Hollis-Brusky, an associate professor of politics at Pomona College in Claremont, California, and the author of a book about the Federalist Society. "Leo's influence really hasn't been fully felt until the Trump administration."

It began during the 2016 campaign, after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that February.

Don McGahn, a longtime Federalist Society member who served as the Trump campaign's counsel and would become the White House counsel, realized early that the judiciary could help rally a fractured Republican Party behind a controversial candidate. He pulled together a tight team to talk with Trump about who should fill Scalia's seat.

In March 2016, Leo had a quiet meeting with Trump at McGahn's D.C. law firm, Jones Day. Soon after, the Trump campaign did something unheard of: It released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, a signal to conservatives that he would do right by them with the judiciary.

"It ended up being the single biggest issue that brought Republicans home to someone they were largely troubled by," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told The New York Times.

Leo has always insisted that his mission is intellectual.

"I'm engaged in the battle of ideas, and I care very deeply about our Constitution and the role of courts in our society," Leo told The Washington Post in the paper's investigation into his work. "And I don't waste my time on stories that involve money and politics."

But money and politics have been crucial to his success.

The network

Not long after Trump's victory, Leo stood in the gilded lobby of Trump Tower after a meeting with the president-elect.

Beside him was Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager and counselor. Leo and Conway knew each other well. Her husband, George, was a longtime Federalist Society member; he has since become one of the right's most ardent "Never Trumpers." And according to ethics filings, in the year before she joined the administration, she did consulting work for at least seven companies and nonprofits with close ties to Leo.

In addition to Leo's role at the Federalist Society, where tax filings show he made about $400,000 a year, he was involved in a constellation of nonprofits and companies supporting conservative causes, fueled by tens of millions of dollars of largely untraceable cash.

For years, Leo's presence in this tangled web "was visible, but it wasn't official," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, who first wrote about Leo's connection to the Honest Elections Project. "He's been effectively leaving breadcrumbs all over. It's just a matter of finding them and putting it together."

One of the most prominent of the interconnected groups was the Judicial Crisis Network, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that has been the public relations machine supporting the nomination of conservative, originalist judges to the country's courts. The group has an office in the same building as the Federalist Society.

:{After Scalia died, the Judicial Crisis Network kicked into gear. Its $7 million campaign helped block President Barack Obama's nominee, keeping Scalia's seat open for the next president to fill.

In January 2017, the group announced that it would spend $10 million to back Trump's pick, who was soon revealed as Neil Gorsuch. Working with the Judicial Crisis Network were several figures who are now official partners in Leo's consolidated dark money network.}:

There was Greg Mueller, the head of powerful CRC Public Relations, who ran point, according to a news release. He serves with Leo on the board of the anti-abortion rights group Students for Life of America. Leo would later join Mueller at the firm.

There was also Gary Marx, a political strategist and Judicial Crisis Network senior adviser, who worked to build support in key states. Marx now leads the two main tax-exempt groups in Leo's new network, corporation filings show.

In 2018, the network rallied around the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, which survived the most contentious set of hearings since Thomas faced Anita Hill in 1991. McGahn, the White House counsel at the time, coached Kavanaugh, who disputed accusations that he had assaulted Christine Blasey Ford as a teenager.

Leo's network threw millions at the cause, including buying ads to pressure Democratic senators in red states to vote for confirmation.

CRC reached out to reporters offering quotations from former Kavanaugh clerks. The PR firm was, according to Politico, also behind an ultimately embarrassing effort to exonerate Kavanaugh by claiming that someone else might have assaulted Ford.

After Kavanaugh was confirmed, supporters gathered in the Senate's Mansfield Room for a private reception, Politico reported. Leo, Marx and Jonathan Bunch, Leo's right-hand man at the Federalist Society,were there.

Their quest undoubtedly was driven by a shared vision of the law and limited government. But it was also lucrative.

:{

All told, at least $330 million flowed through nonprofits linked to Leo from 2015 to 2018}:, according to an analysis by NBC News that built on a Washington Post tally done last year.

Millions flowed back to the men behind it. A company Leo owns in part received nearly $9 million, according to the tax filings of various nonprofits from 2016 through 2018. CRC, Mueller's company, brought in $9.3 million in that period.

During Trump's first term, Leo's network helped him confirm more federal judges than any other administration had done since Jimmy Carter's. In addition to three Supreme Court justices, Trump appointed 220 federal judges, including 1 of every 4 circuit court judges.

No compromises

Leo's network is prepared for whatever follows Election Day.

He began consolidating the existing strands this year. In January, he announced that he was leaving the Federalist Society to officially head up a push to spread "big money and expertise across the conservative movement," as Axios put it.

Leo implied that his effort was an answer to dark money groups on the left, which in 2018 outspent the conservative groups for the first time.

He surrounded himself with a familiar list of names, essentially making his role official in a network he'd helped create.

Leo became chairman of the newly branded CRC Advisors, Mueller's public relations firm. Bunch joined him.

:{To move the "big money," they revamped two tax-exempt organizations already in their network, with Marx at the helm.

One became The 85 Fund, the fiscal sponsor of the Honest Elections Project}:.

"The conservative movement is finally adopting some of the left's tactics, but the left is still spending far more," Marx said in a statement, pointing to the Arabella Advisors network, one of the largest left-leaning dark money networks. Like the Honest Elections Project, Arabella has said it is nonpartisan.

The Judicial Crisis Network became an entity underneath The Concord Fund.It has given more than $2 million to the Republican Attorney Generals Association, financial disclosures show. Some of that money has gone to pay consulting and research fees to CRC.

The Republican Attorney Generals Association backed Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court. Several Republican attorneys general are also part of Lawyers for Trump, the group marshaling legal power for the election, which also includes Leo and Consovoy, the attorney for the Honest Elections Project suit in Michigan.

Leo didn't respond to an interview request or a detailed list of questions. Neither did Consovoy or Torchinsky, the other attorney on the Michigan suit.The Republican National Committee, for which both Consovoy and Torchinsky have worked, didn't respond to a query.

The Federalist Society, where Leo remains co-chairman of the board, reiterated that it doesn't "take a position on legislation, litigation, candidates for office or judicial nominees." The spokesman who sent that response is a senior vice president at CRC Advisors.

The support for conservative attorneys general could also be a sign of what's to come.

Attorneys general have mounted aggressive political challenges to Washington over the past decade. Republicans in Oklahoma and Texas challenged Obama's environmental regulations and the Affordable Care Act. Their Democratic counterparts banded to block Trump policy changes on immigration and cuts to food stamps.

"If Biden wins, Republican AGs in general are going to be a real thorn in the side of a Democratic administration, much like Democratic AGs have been for the Trump administration," said Paul Nolette, an associate professor of political science at Marquette University who runs a database that tracks litigation by attorneys general.

If they rally together to file multistate litigation, as state attorneys general increasingly do, they will have an advantage — the ability to "forum shop" for like-minded judges, choosing which states and which federal courts in which to file their cases. The Trump administration's appointments have broadened their options.

In a politically polarized landscape in which Congress is often gridlocked, policy fights are likely to land at the judiciary's feet. Some may like it that way.

"For partisans, it's an appealing avenue," Nolette said. "It doesn't force the two sides to come to a compromise."

Like an election, he said, a lawsuit is "largely win or lose."

https://www.desmog.com/crc-public-relations/

cRC Advisors

Background

CRC Advisors, previously Creative Response Concepts, is a Virginia-based public relations firm, known for working with numerous high-profile right-wing clients, as well as fossil fuel companies such as oil major Chevron.

On a now-deleted website when the company was known as CRC Strategies, it stated in a list of “case studies” that it “developed winning communications, media relations, crisis communications and social media strategies for a leading energy client, the second-largest integrated energy company in the US.”

The firm has also represented political advocacy groups funded by the Koch brothers, including Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Tax Reform, and was employed by the Republican National Committee in the late 1990s to “sell the party’s tax-cut message throughout the country.” [1], [2], [3]

According to its website, CRC Strategies specialises in crisis management on behalf of “industry leaders, mid-sized organizations, small businesses and nonprofits,” with the aim of “protecting our clients, their reputations and their assets.” The company claims its “proven methodologies help to energize and mobilize the masses to ensure that your message resonates to those who matter most,” with day-to-day work including: “launching influencer campaigns or advocacy programs, guiding opinions on the Hill, advertising, branding, building websites, research or driving social and digital outcomes.” [4], [5]

CRC was founded in 1989 but came to prominence in 2004 through its work onthe “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaignto cast doubt on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s war record. In a 2009 Washington Post interview, the company’s senior vice president acknowledged that their clients are “almost always center-right,” with the company described as a conservative “attack dog” by  Estuardo Rodriguez, a Washington publicist who worked with Hispanic organizations supporting Sonia Sotomayor during the time of her nomination as a Supreme Court Justice by President Obama. [6], [1]

Although CRC‘s website does not list any staff or directors, its president is Greg Mueller, former communications director during “paleoconservative” political commentator Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign bids in 1992 and 1996. Mueller has repeatedly denied climate science, tweeting approvingly of climate science denier Richard Lindzen: “MIT Climate scientist says claims of warming are “nonsense,” “irrational, “lead us down false path.”” [7], [8] Mueller also has close ties to Leonard Leo, who is a Vice President of the Federalist Society whohas worked with the Kochs to help pack the courts, in addition to launching dark money operations like the BH Fund and BH Group.

CRC‘s founder and chairman is Leif Noren, former executive director and treasurer of the **National Conservative Political Action Committee**, a right-wing advocacy group that pioneered the use of “independent expenditure” in the early 1980s as a way of circumventing campaign finance laws, leading to the rise of expensive political “attack ads”. [9], [10]

In September 2017, CRC purchased The Polling Company, a public opinion company founded by former Trump campaign manager and White House Advisor Kellyanne Conway, who has a long history of working with :{CRC:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:. CRC‘s president Greg Mueller said in a statement: “The Polling Company is a natural fit for CRC. It is an established brand with a strong reputation among conservatives, Republicans, public policy organizations, corporations and associations.” [3], [1]

Clients

Creative Response Concepts has provided services to numerous controversial clients, including the**Discovery Institute**,an organisation that seeks to promote creationism and discredit evolutionary biology, as reported in the New York Times. [11]

The company has also worked to promote books by well-known right-wing commentators, such as former Republican Speaker of the House of RepresentativesNewt Gringrich; David Limbaugh, brother of conspiracy theorist radio show host Rush Limbaugh; and Matt Drudge, editor of theDrudge Report. [2]

In 2017, CRC worked with the Leo-tied Judicial Crisis Network on judicial nominations issues and “spearheaded a ten-week communications program” for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch after Gorsuch was nominated by President Trump to succeed Antonin Scalia, according to a *Washington Post* report and its website. [12]

In September 2018, *Politico* reportedthat CRC had worked closely with Ed Whelan, president of the right-wing DC group called the Ethics and Public Policy Center, to “stoke anticipation” ahead of Whelan’s attempt to discredit Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Whelan quickly issued an apology for the unsubstantiated theory and took leave of absence from his post. [13], [14]

The same month, it was revealed CRC had registered as a “foreign agent” in 2005 for its work with Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovych, backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. [15]

In April 2019, Politico revealed that CRC was behind a publicity campaign to have Trump advisor Stephen Moore appointed governor of the Federal Reserve. Founder of the free-market Club for Growth and a long-time climate science denier, Moore has held positions at a number of Koch-funded groups including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council. [16]

Other past CRC clients are listed under “Related Organizations” below.

Stance on Climate Change

July 15, 2013

CRC‘s president Greg Mueller tweeted: [17]

“A strong majority of earth scientists surveyed said that nature is the reason behind any rise in global warming, not humans…”

Funding

Below is a sample of CRC‘s known clients, based on information presented under “3rd party contractors” on public 990 tax forms. Note that this is not an exhaustive list, and that only nonprofit organizations are required to reveal public 990 forms, meaning private clients are also excluded.

View the attached spreadsheet for additional information on:{ :{CRC:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: Public Relations funding by year (.xlsx):(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:600"):}:.

Client Total Payments
Federalist Society$11,373,503
Judicial Crisis Network$5,155,084
**Media Research Center**$3,109,554
Judicial Education Project$1,921,500
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers$722,205
Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes$627,508
**Wellspring Committee**$600,000
Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust$267,443
Acton Institute$131,588
Grand Total$23,908,385

Key People

Via LinkedIn

The following people were listed as employees of CRC Public Relations on LinkedIn (this is a partial listing):

Actions

June 2020

*:{E&E:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: News* reportedan email sent out by CRC public relations “accidentally contained the name of a high-profile client”—Chevron Corp. The email sent out a message urging journalists to look at how green groups were “claiming solidarity” with black protesters while “backing policies which would hurt minority communities.” [23]

“Despite this claimed solidarity, environmental organizations, composed of predominantly white members, are backing radical policies like the Green New Deal which would bring particular harm to minority communities,” John Gage of CRC wrote in the email sent to several news outlets including E&E News. [23]

The email ended with the line: “If you would rather not receive future communications from Chevron, let us know by clicking here.” [23]

Chevron denied involvement in the campaign and said the inclusion of Chevron amounted to a clerical error. Chevron has been a longtime CRC client.  [23]

The email included quotes from two black conservatives opposing the Green New Deal: Ken Blackwell and Derrick Hollie. Hollie, founder and president of Reaching America, said that CRC had approached him for the campaign. [23]

“They was like, ‘Derrick, would you mind being a part of something that we’re working on?’ I said, ‘Absolutely.’ And they asked me to put together a quote,” Hollie said in a phone interview with E&E News.

“I didn’t know what they were going to do with it,” he added. “I figured they were going to put it in an op-ed or something like that.” [23]

“Radical policies like the green new deal that raise the cost of driving to work and heating our homes would target the African-American community and … would make us even more vulnerable and marginalized than we already are,” Blackwell said in the email sent by CRC. Blackwell is now an adviser to Trump’s reelection campaign and a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. [23]

April 26, 2019

Politico revealed that CRC was behind a publicity campaign to have Trump advisor Stephen Moore appointed governor of the Federal Reserve. Founder of the free-market Club for Growth and a long-time climate science denier, Moore has held positions at a number of Koch-funded conservative thinktanks including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council. [16]

September 21, 2018

CRC worked closely with Ed Whelan, president of conservative Washington thinktank the Ethics and Public Policy Center, to stir up anticipation ahead of an attempt by Whelan to discredit Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, *Politico reports*. Whelan quickly issued an apology for the unsubstantiated theory and took leave of absence from his post. [13], [14]

September 28, 2017

Creative Response Concepts purchased The Polling Company, a public opinion company founded by former Trump campaign manager and White House Advisor Kellyanne Conway, who has a long history of working with :{CRC:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:. CRC‘s president Greg Mueller said in a statement: “The Polling Company is a natural fit for CRC. It is an established brand with a strong reputation among conservatives, Republicans, public policy organizations, corporations and associations.” [3], [1]

2017

CRC “spearheaded a ten-week communications program” for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch after Gorsuch was nominated by Donald Trump to succeed Antonin Scalia, according to a *Washington Post* report and its website. [12]

Related Organizations

Contact & Address

According to its website: [22]

2850 Eisenhower Avenue

First Floor

Alexandria

Virginia

22314

Social Media

Resources

People related to CRC Public Relations:

Gregory R. Mueller - president http://www.muckety.com/Gregory-R-Mueller/106873.muckety

Leif E. Noren - chairman

Gerald Walpin - client

Other current CRC Public Relations relationships:

Agustawestland - client

Americans for Fair Taxation - client

Associated Builders and Contractors - client

AT&T Inc. - client

Chevron Corp. - client

Conservatives for Patients' Rights - publicity agent

Corn Refiners Association Inc. - client

Creative Response Concepts Public Relations - former name

Discovery Institute - client

Federalist Society - client

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies - client

Free Enterprise Foundation - client

Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc. - client

LexisNexis- client

Manhattan Institute - client

Media Research Center - client

Microsoft Corporation - client

National Republican Congressional Committee - client

National Republican Senatorial Committee - client

National Taxpayers Union - client

Parents Television Council - client

PAX TV - client

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America - client

Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration - client

Regnery Publishing Inc. - client

Republican National Committee - client

Simon & Schuster - client

Telecel International Limited - client

The Case Against Barack Obama - publicity agent

United States Business & Industry Council - client

Visa U.S.A. Inc. - client

Walden Media - client

Walt Disney Company - client

CRC Public Relations past relationships:

Contract with America - client

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - publicity agent

Unfit for Command - publicity agent

from 

http://www.muckety.com/CRC-Public-Relations/5030751.muckety

==

ref

:{

}:

https://www.axios.com/leonard-leo-crc-advisors-federalist-society-50d4d844-19a3-4eab-af2b-7b74f1617d1c.html

1/20

conservative powerhouse Leonard Leo tells Axios that he'll step aside from the daily running of the Federalist Society to focus on a new venture — inspired by Arabella Advisers on the left — that will funnel big money and expertise across the conservative movement.

Why it matters: Leo is considered one of the most powerful conservatives in the country, playing a key role in shaping President Trump's selections for the Supreme Court and raising hundreds of millions of dollars to fill the nation’s courts with conservative judges.

Behind the scenes: Leo told Axios that he and his business partner, conservative communications executive Greg Mueller, studied tax filings that led them to Arabella, a little-known yet powerful consulting firm that advises liberal donors and nonprofits about where to spend their money.

Leo and Mueller told Axios that after studying Arabella's structure they were impressed — and saw the opportunity to build a replica on the right.

Between the lines: The new venture will go beyond the anonymous money networks they've already built and weaponized in the conservative legal movement movement.

Go deeper:

https://www.republicreport.org/**2018/**how-did-powerhouse-gop-pr-firm-crc-mess-up-kavanaugh-so-bad/

We now know that when conservative lawyer and close Brett Kavanaugh friend Edward Whelan attempted his disastrous Perry Mason tweetstorm suggesting that one of Kavanaugh’s prep school classmates was the one who assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, he did not do so alone. He was, at least, aided and abetted by the big DC firm CRC Public Relations. According to Politico, CRC “guided” Whelan through the unveiling of the accusation, with CRC’s president, Greg Mueller, helping Whelan in advance of the tweets to “stoke the anticipation”; key conservatives touted the announcement in advance.

CRC is one of the most powerful and influential conservative political PR operations. Its clients include the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, and the climate change denying Institute for Energy Research. It also has advised an enormous number of major corporations and trade associations, including Amazon, Chevron, General Motors, Microsoft, National Association of Manufacturers, Northrop Grumman, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers Association, and Pizza Hut. The firm is perhaps best known for its work devising the ugly Swift Boat attack on 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

More relevant to this discussion, though, CRC has been aiding the dark money advocacy group Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), the people behind the determined, expensive public campaign to confirm conservative judges and, in the last administration, to block Obama picks for the federal courts. JCN, tied to the conservative lawyers’ group the Federalist Society, spent big to help confirm Neil Gorsuch and now has pushed hard to get Kavanaugh on the court, including with a relentless TV ad buy (e.g., the female friend of Kavanaugh who endlessly tells viewers “I’m a teacher, I’m a coach”).

UPDATE 09-25-18: Politico [reports that Federalist Society executiveVP Leonard Leo has “raised upwards of $15 million from conservative donors” for the JCN communications campaign supporting Kavanaugh. Politico also reports that Whelan “worked feverishly” with Leo (as well as CRC) to “hype” Whelan’s mistaken identity theory.]

From 2013 to mid 2017, according to IRS filings, JCN paid CRC about $5.1 million. The group is obviously spending even more for CRC’s help on Kavanaugh.

If CRC’s people are talented enough to get all this business, how could they have guided the Whelan disaster, the Thursday evening tweetstorm that used maps of Chevy Chase, Maryland, and photos of a house there and two prep school boys to point the finger, by name, at Kavanaugh’s classmate — a debacle so bad, so thoroughly denounced by a wide range of commenters, that the next morning Whelan deleted the thread and apologized for what he called “an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment”?

I think it was a Hail Mary pass. I doubt CRC saw the thinly-sourced Whelan accusation as a sure thing. I suspect they hoped the bizarre Twitter attack would spook Dr. Ford and deter her from testifying: Perhaps if she saw that the Kavanaugh forces were prepared to attack an innocent bystander classmate — now a middle school teacher — and burden his life, they would stop at nothing, perhaps Swift-Boating her friends and family with similar recklessness.

I think CRC believed that they had to try, because if Dr. Ford testified, the Kavanaugh nomination might be dead.

Hours after the tweetstorm, Ford issued her resolute statement — “I knew them both, and socialized with [the other classmate]…. There is zero chance that I would confuse them” — and the charge was thwarted. Whelan had to retreat.

But of course his phony theory will stay alive in the hearts and memes of Trump supporters.

The White House and Senate Republicans all denied they had anything to do with the Whelan attack. But there are suggestions otherwise. Whelan was caught by Dr. Ford looking at her LinkedIn profile before her name was made public, but after the Washington Post had asked the White House about her, so it’s apparent that he’s closely tied to the Trump administration’s efforts to confirm his friend Kavanaugh. And this morning, Garrett Ventry, a Grassley Judiciary Committee communications aide, resigned his post after it was reported that he left his previous political job, in North Carolina, amid a charge of sexual harassment. When Ventry joined Grassley’s staff he took a leave of absence from his employer — CRC Public Relations.

It’s been clear for a while that there’s a multi-million dollar campaign by shadowy special interest donors to make a Supreme Court justice out of Brett Kavanaugh, whose judicial record indicates he will cast the deciding vote for big corporations and against workers and consumers. What we didn’t know — until the Whelan/CRC attack and Friday’s nasty misogynist tweet by Donald Trump — was how vicious the architects of this effort were prepared to play it.

But Dr. Ford has not backed down.

https://www.republicreport.org/2018/who-kavanaugh-is-really-for-big-corporations/

ref

Brett Kavanaugh now faces a credible charge of sexual assault, as well as powerful evidence that he repeatedly lied to the Senate to conceal, among other bad deeds, his improper use of stolen documents as a Bush White House aide. Even religious conservatives and others at the grassroots who have supported Kavanaugh should take this moment to reconsider whether this particularly nominee is worth fighting for. Because, although as a Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh might well vote to advance the social conservative agenda, his real specialty as a judge has been supporting large corporations and harming the interests of American workers and consumers. And the millions of dollars supporting his candidacy are coming from a network of Washington lobbyists and big business interests.

Here are some of the key figures in the corporate special interest network that’s aiming to put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court:

— C. Boyden Gray is the D.C. swamp personified. He’s a corporate lobbyist who was the White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush. He has been a central player in pushing GOP judicial nominees for decades, while also serving the interests of some of America’s wealthiest corporations. Gray published an essay this month arguing that Kavanaugh should be confirmed in part because he will protect the rights of small businesses over those of big business and big government. But the argument hardly seems credible coming from Gray, whose own business is based on trading on the relationships he developed as a top Washington insider to advance the interests of clients in the oil and chemical industries and other monied special interests.

Gray, a wealthy heir to the R.J. Reynolds tobacco fortune, has served on the board of the corporate-backed legal group the Federalist Society as well as of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a business group that was founded by the billionaire oil and chemical industry Koch brothers and later morphed into the Koch advocacy mega-operation Americans for Prosperity. Gray invited President Trump to his fancy Georgetown home earlier this year for a dinner with wealthy Republican donors, including other lobbyists and oil and banking executives, as part of efforts to raise $100 million this year, mostly in big donations, to support Trump and GOP candidates.

—The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) is the conservative advocacy group that is leading a multi-million dollar public campaign, with heavy TV advertising, to confirm Kavanaugh. JCN is guided by Leonard Leo, who is also the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, and the man who has Trump’s ear when it comes to picking judges. The “dark money” JCN doesn’t reveal its donors, but it’s tied to the political network of the Koch brothers, Boyden Gray, and mysterious wealthy contributors. JCN was launched with seed money from real estate magnate Robin Arkley II — who has made big money foreclosing on the homes of working people.

— Jon Kyl was, until recently, a lobbyist at the DC mega law firm Covington & Burling, which has represented big tobacco’s Philip Morris, oil giant BP, retailer Wal-mart, energy and construction titan Halliburton, and other big corporations. Last year, the Judicial Crisis Network paid Kyl, who had been a U.S. senator from Arizona, to push the nomination of Trump’s previous Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch. The Trump administration this year hired Kyl to shepherd the Kavanaugh nomination, a role that ended when Arizona’s governor tapped Kyl to return to the Senate to take John McCain’s seat and, presumably, to vote to confirm Kavanaugh for the high court.

— Lisa Blatt wrote an article last month entitled, “I’m a Liberal Feminist Lawyer. Here’s Why Democrats Should Support Judge Kavanaugh,” and she introduced Kavanaugh at his Senate hearing. Each time, in vouching for Kavanaugh as a person of integrity and empathy, Blatt stressed her liberal credentials as well as her impressive background as a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court more times than any other woman. What Blatt failed to explain is that she’s a partner at the big DC corporate law firm Arnold & Porter, where she represents giant tobacco and pharmaceutical interests seeking to defeat claims by workers and consumers.

We haven’t heard from the feminist Blatt in the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her during high school, but a group of D.C. Republican women have spoken out on his behalf. As Politico reports, there are a lot of lobbyists for big corporations, like Dow Chemical and Citigroup, in this band of women for Kavanaugh.

—The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) is running a “Confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh!” campaign on its website. State attorneys general frequently represent their states before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the concept of a group of them lobbying for their own Supreme Court justice is ethically concerning. But it’s worse when you consider that RAGA’s activities are funded by big corporations. RAGA’s biggest donor — providing $2.9 million in 2017 and $1.7 million already in 2018 — is the Judicial Crisis Network. It also gets money from numerous large corporations including Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Monsanto, Facebook, Altria, Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, Mastercard, Johnson and Johnson, UPS, and Murray Energy, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association (RAGA’s second largest donor in 2017).

— The Ethics and Public Policy Center is a Washington think tank whose president, Edward Whelan, briefly shook up the Kavanaugh debate Thursday night when he played Twitter Sherlock Holmes and accused a Kavanaugh classmate by name as the possible assaulter — only to delete his thread and apologize the next morning for “an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment.” Whelan is a close friend of Leonard Leo and of Brett Kavanaugh, with whom he worked in the George W. Bush White House. In devising this Twitter rollout, Whelan was advised by the big DC PR firm CRC Public Relations; CRC’s clients include the Judicial Crisis Network ($3 million from JCN to CRC in 2016), the Federalist Society, and the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity, as well as corporations:{ including Chevron, Visa, and Microsoft. UPDATE 09-22-18 11:30 am: Garrett Ventry, a Grassley Judiciary Committee communications aide on leave from CRC, :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[resigned this morning:{ after it was reported that he left his previous job amid a charge of sexual harassment.] The Ethics and Public Policy Center has received }:funding:{ from the family foundations of the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers as well as other wealthy interests.}:

Why are all these corporations and swampy DC lobbyists fighting so hard for Brett Kavanaugh? They have important interests, every year, in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — cases that decide whether companies can bust unions and discriminate against workers, whether banks must treat customers honestly, whether companies must treat investors fairly, whether big tech companies can charge tolls to use the Internet and can spy on customers, whether predatory for-profit colleges can get away with deceiving students, whether makers of defective products and dangerous pharmaceutical can get away with harming consumers, and whether companies can create monopolies that allow them to control markets and jack up prices.

While a range of Americans are focused on the impact of a five-justice conservative bloc on issues like civil rights, reproductive choice, and other political values, perhaps the most powerful and unifying feature of such a bloc would be its deference to the interests of big business over workers and consumers.

Brett Kavanaugh’s record as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shows that he has usually sided with big business interests — like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute — in cases involving protection of labor, consumers, health, safety, and the environment.

That’s why big money and big corporations want so badly to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, despite enormous questions about his honesty and integrity.

matt whitaker

...

“If we are going to have a national discussion about Senators meeting with ambassadors it is appropriate for all Senators to disclose who they met with so the public, and apparently the media, understand that all Senator Sessions did was his job,” Whitaker said in the statement.

:{

}:

The statement was blasted out to reporters by CRC Public Relations, a conservative group based in Alexandria, Virginia, which represented FACT and Whitaker throughout 2017, according to press releases.

More recently, CRC faced scrutiny and criticism during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process for reportedly stoking media interest in a discredited conspiracy theory about Kavanaugh’s chief accuser.

Two people familiar with CRC’s communications at the time told The Daily Beast that people at the firm tipped off reporters that conservative activist Ed Whelan would be tweeting interesting material relevant to Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

==

suspended from bs CTT

Ethics and Public Policy Center announced Sunday that its president, Ed Whelan, “will take a leave of absence” from the conservative Washington think tank after peddling a conspiracy theory on social media last week related to a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Following a special phone-in meeting of the EPPC board on Friday after Whelan’s Twitter screed, he offered to resign “in light of what he described as an ‘appalling and inexcusable’ error in posting online a series of comments that he has now deleted and for which he promptly publicly apologized,” the organization said in a statement. The board declined Whelan’s offer to step down permanently, according to the statement, and the EPPC’s vice president, Yuval Levin, “will be in charge” during Whelan’s time away.

“The board will meet in a month to review the situation,” the statement said.

Later Sunday, Whelan released a statement of apology.

“I apologize deeply and sincerely to all those whom I have harmed by my appalling and inexcusable tweet thread last week — above all, the person whose name I wrongly made public,“ he said.

LAW AND ORDER

Ed Whelan’s Troubles Might Be Just Beginning

By JOHN CULHANE

Referencing Christine Blasey Ford, he added: “I also apologize to victims of sexual assault and to Dr. Ford for these and other tweets that did not address with respectful consideration the difficult question of how to assess allegations of sexual assault. I do not believe that all such allegations must be accepted as true, and I believe further that the usual inquiries into motivation, cognition, memory and other matters that apply to other charges properly apply to these as well. But my tweets did not advance the discussion in a constructive way.“

Whelan became the target of swift bipartisan criticism on Thursday evening after offering an unsubstantiated alternative explanation for Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a drunken high school party more than three decades ago.

His conjectures, laid out in a series of tweets, included floor plans of the house in which Whelan said the alleged assault may have taken place. It also featured the name and photo of a high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s whom Whelan identified as a potential suspect and posited that Ford may have misremembered as the federal judge.

POLITICO _{reported on Friday}_ that CRC Public Relations, a prominent firm based in Alexandria, Va., assisted Whelan in coordinating the rollout of his attempt to discredit Ford’s account and exculpate Kavanaugh.

an 1020

...LISA GRAVES:It is the case that the Republicans have really politicized the courts in that way, while they claim that the Democrats have.The court that they complained so much about, the one historically complained about, was the Warren court.That was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. And that court in my view, really did a tremendously valuable job for the country, because what it actually did was to read the Constitution to apply its terms to ordinary people. So equal protection of the law—

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

LISA GRAVES: Using that phrase in our 14th Amendment that people will not be denied equal protection to ensure that Americans could not be segregated in our schools through racial segregation. That was attacked vociferously on the right as an inappropriate and outrageous decision. It was following the plain language of the Constitution. The Warren Court ruled that when the Constitution says you have a right to counsel in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, that you actually have a right to counsel. And so, there were a number of decisions in the '50s and '60s that the right wing, they called themselves conservatives or libertarians, opposed.

And in the aftermath of those decisions the Republicans really began running on a claim with Richard Nixon of supposed law and order. Part of that law and order campaign was about the courts and trying to pack the courts with people who he thought would reverse those rulings that gave meaning to people's rights that were listed and written in the Constitution.

And then Ronald Reagan went a measure further. He decided to say that he, through his attorney general Edwin Meese, at the time, was going to have a litmus test about abortion, that he would only appoint someone to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. With Reagan, there was a specific determination, to appoint people basically pretty far to the right at the time. They did manage to get Justice Scalia on the court, and they did manage to put William Rehnquist [as Chief Justice] on the court, who'd been an advisor to President Nixon.

And then it was 12 years of real court packing by Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush. And when Clinton came into office in the early 1990s the path he chose was one to say that litmus test was wrong and that we needed fair judges. And so, the effort was articulated as trying to put people of moderation on the court. I personally think it's important to talk to the American people about the courts and what's at stake. And talk about how people are being put on the courts by the right, by the Republicans, in order to overturn precedent. In order to overturn our rights. I think that that case needs to be made not just to not fight about the courts but to basically tell the American people quite plainly how important the courts are. And this movement that's underway to overturn those rights. I would say to you one of the things that came out in an investigation by THE WASHINGTON POST last May by Robert O'Harrow and Shawn Boburg was that Leonard Leo, who's been working on helping to pack the courts for, almost two decades or more now—

BILL MOYERS: Leonard Leo, tell me who he is.

LISA GRAVES: Leonard Leo, for many years served as the vice president of the Federalist Society. And he is still an advisor to the Federalist Society. He has been the architect for the last few decades of this long-term effort to put far right judges on the Supreme Court and the federal courts and other courts in order to change the law by changing what decisions are being issued by those very judges. And he has created basically a big dark money operation that THE WASHINGTON POST tallied at more than $250 million to influence who gets installed on the Supreme Court. And those people are being chosen from his own lists. And they are having an utterly disproportionate influence on who gets confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.Leonard Leo gave a speech last year to a group called the Council for National Policy, which is made up of fundraisers on the far right.

People who are funding this effort to capture our courts, as Sheldon Whitehouse has described it. And in that speech, he said that we, America, and the people in that room, were standing on the precipice of what he called the revival of what he described as the quote, "Structural Constitution," that would roll back 100 years of precedents in America. And that the appointments that Trump was making were in design to do just that, to remove the rights of people to organize in labor unions. The rights of people to petition their government for social security and programs that help protect us from the extremes of our economy. To protect our lives. Efforts to protect our environment and protect us from pollution from corporations that aren't restrained or regulated. That was really a shocking speech about the level of judicial activism that the right wing is pushing. And this new nomination by President Trump of Amy Coney Barrett is in that mold to try to use the courts to reverse Americans' rights.

BILL MOYERS: We learned after Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation that some very rich people had put up millions of dollars to quote, "Sell" his nomination to the public. Will those people do the same thing for the Barrett nomination?

LISA GRAVES: It's already under way. One of the main groups that Leonard Leo has helped to orchestrate is called theJudicial Crisis Network, JCN. And it's already running ads in swing states, states where senators are facing close election to try to promote this judge. And Leonard Leo is the one who's helping to orchestrate for the campaign to use dark money to put these judges in position to rule on our rights and to remove our rights. I know there are groups on the right and left who spend money on nominations. But this circumstance is really extraordinary, because you have unknown billionaires or multi-millionaires who are secretly giving to a group that gives to a group. During Kavanaugh, it was the Wellspring Committeegiving to Judicial Crisis Network.

BILL MOYERS: Who's in this Judicial Network you're talking about? Can you name some names? Organizations? Individuals? And where's the money coming from?

"If this court rules that our federal government cannot pass measures to regulate carbon, it's an existential consequence of who's being put on the court. And we know that people like Charles Koch have been spending big money to try to capture the courts because he wants to have people on the court who will limit our ability to regulate corporations."

LISA GRAVES: Yes. So, the Judicial Crisis Network is formally led by Carrie Severino, along with the assistance of Gary Marx, a longtime political ally, of Leonard Leo. Leonard Leo is the former vice president of the Federalist Society. And he now leads a dark money network, along with a guy named Greg Mueller.He and Leo have a group calledCRC Advisors that is devoted to capturing both the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts, as well as state Supreme Courts. Carrie Severino's a former clerk of Justice Thomas. And Gary Marx is someone who has been working on judicial nominations with Leo really for the last two decades through all the fights to try to pack the courts. 

Their funders are unknown. We do know that there was one huge donation to the Wellspring Committee. That huge donation was almost entirely given to Judicial Crisis Network. Judicial Crisis Network spent some of that money and then gave some money to other groups in the network, like the so-called Independent Women's Forum that was created back around the Clarence Thomas nomination. That's where they got their start was in judicial nominations. But who is that original donor? We don't know. There's no disclosure of who that one donor was who spent these millions and millions of dollars to capture the court. Who was that? Who was that donor? Who were those people? And they were boasting about how successful their efforts were in trying to rally their base, the base of Republicans, to try to come out in the 2018 election. That fight over Brett Kavanaugh actually had the effect of bringing a lot of people out who were progressives and moderates who thought we shouldn't have someone like Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

But to JCN and the Independent Women's Forum and their network, they believe judicial nominations help motivate the base because even though they will tell the press and the public that this person is a rule of law judge or a law and order judge or a judge who's going to follow precedent– now they're calling Amy Coney Barrett a so-called Constitutionalist, or original interpretivist in the mold of Justice Scalia. These are all just catchphrases that they try to use. They're not appointing her because they think she'll be fair. She's been chosen because they are convinced she will be unfair. They are convinced that she will decide in their favor to overturn people's rights on a host of issues. That's why they're investing.

They're not investing to get a fair judge. If you are trying to appoint a fair judiciary you may not put a lot of political capital in that because it's not seen as a political appointment. Instead, if one party is trying the pack the courts and seize the courts as pawns in their political war. And so, they're willing to invest enormous funds in order to get those people in place so that they can change the law to advance the agenda of those people who are funding it. On the left or in the middle what you have is a subset of people who believe courts should be fair and they shouldn't be political partisans. And so, you're not going to spend political capital to talk about that very much or to make your case. Because they're not seen as partisan. And then you have some progressives who have said, "No." You've got to stand up to what's happening.

This is a total capture and takeover and it's going to undermine our ability to do almost anything a modern society would do. For example, undermine our ability to have rules that try to mitigate climate change. If this court rules that our federal government cannot pass measures to regulate carbon, it's an existential consequence of who's being put on the court. And we know that people like Charles Koch have been spending big money to try to capture the courts because he wants to have people on the court who will limit our ability to regulate corporations. And we know that Leonard Leo and Carrie Severino and their team are trying to put people on the court for that reason, as well as to limit women's reproductive rights, and more. And so, you have this confluence on the right where they are choosing people and trying to put them in place because they don't think they'll be fair. Because they're convinced that they will rule in their favor, which is the opposite of what you expect from a judge, to be fair and impartial.

"They're not appointing her because they think she'll be fair. She's been chosen because they are convinced she will be unfair. They are convinced that she will decide in their favor to overturn people's rights on a host of issues."

BILL MOYERS: Let me read you what Josh Marshall wrote about this. He's founder and editor in chief of TalkingPointsMemo.com and a terrific journalistic watchdog when it comes to the judiciary. He says, and I'm quoting, "I don't know a lot about Amy Coney Barrett. But I know she's accepting the nomination from a president actively trying to subvert a national election and threatening to hold onto power by force, an attack on the Constitution unparalleled in American history. Do I need to know more?"

LISA GRAVES: I think he's exactly right. It would be an honor to be nominated to be a Supreme Court justice, but under these circumstances, I think it reveals a lack of devotion to the Constitution to be a willing party to what's unfolding. Where you have a president who has said expressly that he wants you on the court in order to rule in his favor in this election to keep him in power, a president who has said expressly that if they can stop the ballots, there we be will be no transition. It will just be a continuation of his power. When you have a president that has made lie after lie about some sort of massive voter fraud in America, when in fact, the statistics and evidence show that that's not the case. So, you have someone who's willing to take that nomination, take that baton from this president, I think that is damning in its own way.

BILL MOYERS: Is it possible, Lisa, that she doesn't know that the fix is in and that she's the fix?

LISA GRAVES: Anything is possible. I don't think it's probable. And the reason I don't think it's probable is because if you look at her decisions as a judge in the very brief time that she's been a judge, as well as her actions before then, you can see someone who has a very agenda-driven view of the law. One in which she has expressly articulated that she doesn't feel bound by precedent.

She doesn't believe the Constitution requires judges to follow precedent.In fact, she thinks it does not require judges to follow precedent, which is the definition of being an activist, that you're someone who wants to impose your own views of the law, regardless of the precedent that people are relying on in this country. I don't think that she is unwitting. In this circumstance, you have this election that is happening as we speak, and litigation around that election that is happening as we speak, and a president who has said quite clearly, he's going to use the courts to try to win a victory in this election no matter what the ballots say, and to try to stop them from being counted.

And you have an attorney general in Bill Barr, who has shown time and again that he's more the president's lawyer than acting in the office of the attorney general, though he's using the office of the attorney general of the United States, advancing the partisan interests of this president and the lies of this president around voting. And has indicated that he's going to aid in those claims by this president. And now you have a judicial nominee who has willingly stepped into this role of potentially being a deciding vote on the Supreme Court in cases that will affect the outcome of this election. And I certainly hope, if she has a hearing, which is slated this month, that she will commit unequivocally to recuse from any such litigation. I don't believe she will, though. I don't believe she'll commit to recuse to anything.

BILL MOYERS: Are you suggesting that she is fully aware that she is also a political operative and a political force in this scenario you just outlined?

LISA GRAVES: I believe that she is. There's no doubt that she's smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. They're not all fair. There're a lot of people who are more advocates than judges. I think when you look at Amy Coney Barrett's record, what you see is someone who has been groomed for this position. She clerked for one of the very sort of activist right-wing judges on the D.C. circuit. She then clerked for Justice Scalia, who often wrote his opinions more like he was writing an op-ed column than writing an opinion of the United States Supreme Court. He was determined to move the law, to change the law, to advance his original point of view, although he cloaked it in originalism but it really managed to be miraculously aligned, for the most part, with his personal views.

And she's also been someone who's been an activist in attacking the Affordable Care Act. She has written and spoken about a lot of these issues in ways that show that she has a very specific point of view. And I don't think she's been on the bench long enough to know that she can actually set aside her personal views. In fact, I think it seems pretty clear from her decisions, in the brief time she's been a judge, that she has tried to impose her personal point of view on the law. I don't think she's unwitting in this effort. I think she is embraced by the Judicial Crisis Network, by the Leonard Leo operation, by the president as someone who they think is a sure thing. A sure vote for them and for their right-wing agenda.

BILL MOYERS: There's been a lotta talk about her hardline ideology in the last few days, that she will be opposed to women's reproductive freedom, to affirmative action, to voting rights for minorities, to environmental regulations. Even worker safety rules. What I've seen of her record suggests also a very strong bias on behalf of corporate power. The last decision or rule she issued was that workers, gig workers, can't file for a class-action lawsuit against their employer.That's going to be a real blow to workers in what is an expanding gig economy.

LISA GRAVES: I think that decision is very troubling. Jeffrey Toobin pointed out in his piece about the impact of the Federalist Society on our courts and on our law, thatshe is straight from that mold set forth by Lewis Powell before he became a Justice of the Supreme Court. Lewis Powell had been a tobacco lawyer. Before he really was known widely as a tobacco lawyer, he was the main person involved in the Richmond schools, as it was fighting the efforts of Brown v. Board of Education to get those schools integrated. So, you have this tobacco lawyer who represents a segregated school district, who is asked by the United States Chamber of Commerce to write a memo about where the law could go. And he wrote a memo which is known now as the Powell Memo. And that memo basically said that in his view, no one in America had less influence on policy than business people. And they needed to dramatically change that through changing the courts and changing the way businesses fund think tanks at the federal and state level. As well as the way businesses support universities. And so that Powell blueprint from the early 1970s to really push for courts that were going to be pro-corporation and I think she very clearly represents that perspective. Her decisions show that she does, but regardless of her background, I think this would be an illegitimate nomination, and illegitimate to proceed. It's fundamentally unjust for anyone, no matter their background, to be put on the court under these circumstances with this election pending. I think it's really a disaster for our country, for this nomination to be proceeding.

BILL MOYERS: Do you really think, Lisa, that a Democrat as president would pass up this opportunity to name a Supreme Court justice if he were in the place or she were in the place that Trump is right now?

LISA GRAVES: Well, I don't know that a president would not nominate someone under these circumstances. Although typically, you know, there's usually, like, 30-40 days between a vacancy and a nomination to do an F.B.I. background investigation, to do a thorough vetting of a candidate before someone is even named. In this case, it's super accelerated. As you said, there's no Constitutional restriction by time from doing so. But I do think that the president's prerogative in naming someone is not the same as that person that getting confirmed, as we've seen. The Senate's role is to thoroughly examine a nominee's record. And to allow for there to be time for the American people to understand the record of a person who's being chosen for a lifetime job on the court. Is this the best person? Is this the right person? Is this someone who we trust, who we would entrust with our lives, who we believe absolutely without reservation will be fair? This process, where the president's named someone this weekend, the nomination will have arrived in the Senate at the very end of September. The Senate is racing to have a hearing in two weeks. That hasn't happened in the modern era, someone has received a hearing that quickly. And that Mitch McConnell has vowed to use the rules of the Senate to try to get a vote before the end of October. It's extraordinary. And it's a real railroading of not just this nomination but of the American people.

BILL MOYERS: Trump obviously believes that she will be a wedge to help him win a second term. And that's the issue.

LISA GRAVES: I have never seen a president in my lifetime that has disavowed the results of the election before they've even happened. That has basically vowed to try to stop people from voting. Who's vowed to unleash tens of thousands of people to go to polling places to try to, in my view, intimidate them. Is now doing fundraising to enlist a quote army to defend his results in this election. We've never been in a circumstance where we have had a president so unmoored from the law, so reckless in his disregard of the Constitution. And to have that person choosing his own jury in a case that he's determined to bring to this court is outlandish and outrageous.

BILL MOYERS: Tell me what's right and what's wrong about this scenario. Trump keeps repeating that vote by mail is rife with fraud. So Republican lawyers will try to get a large number of mailed ballots thrown out after the election as Trump declares himself the winner on the basis of the ballots that had been cast and counted before and on Election Day. He has refused to commit to leaving office if he loses. And he will challenge those ballots that have not been counted to try to get them thrown out. It's there and on other procedural points that he will need the Supreme Court majority to take his side, including the justice he is putting on the court. So, isn't he sending a message to the world that he expects the court and its new nominee to rule for him and nail down a second term? Is that the strategy?

LISA GRAVES: I believe that's precisely the strategy. This president is trying to secure for himself an illegitimate victory in this election. He has said he is going to win on in-person voting. And that any ballots that come in or that are counted afterward are somehow illegitimate, that they have to be thrown out. And he has said, quite clearly, he's going to take this to the Supreme Court. The court is actually problematic in a number of ways. First of all, you have someone likeJustice Thomas who has expressed personal antipathy toward Joe Biden from his time as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee presiding over Thomas' nomination. Justice Thomas' wife has been very active in electoral politics and was active during Bush v. Gore and was on the transition team for George W. Bush. As that case was coming through the court, she then became part of the transition team for the victor. You have a Justice of the Supreme Court in John Roberts who advised on the Bush v. Gore case. You have another recently confirmed justice in Justice Kavanaugh who was an attorney on one of the original cases that resulted in the decision in Bush v. Gore. And now you have a nominee who also worked on the Bush v. Gore case in Amy Coney Barrett.

BILL MOYERS: So if she's confirmed three members of the nine-member court will have worked to get the Supreme Court to deliver the presidency to George W. Bush.

LISA GRAVES: That's correct. One third. And you would have a court that has also demonstrably been trying to limit people's voting rights. Justice Roberts was part of the decision to really restrict the power of the Voting Rights Act. So, you already have a court that a reasonable person would question whether that court could or would fairly rule in this election, or whether it would again put its thumb on the scale of justice in favor of the party of the president that nominated them, put them on the bench. And this president saying that he's choosing someone specifically to help him win that ninth vote on that Supreme Court, and someone who also participated in the litigation that resulted in that extraordinary decision that installed George W. Bush as president by stopping the counting of ballots. And once the ballots were counted, the actual count showed that Al Gore would have won the electoral college. And would have been president but for that intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court.

BILL MOYERS:We've had two of the last four presidents elected by minority vote. They got the electoral college, but they lost the popular vote. And they turn around and appoint Supreme Court justices who perpetuate the pattern.

LISA GRAVES: Yes, it's very troubling. John Roberts and Justice Alito arguably might not have been confirmed had Bush not been the incumbent, by virtue of this decision in Bush v. Gore. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor disavowed and regretted enormously that she had participated in that five/four decision in which the only justices who ruled in favor of Bush were justices appointed by presidents of his political party. 

Then you had President Obama who had three vacancies, including one in February of 2016 that could've been filled anytime during that entire year. And there would've been plenty of time for people to weigh in and express any reservations they had about Merrick Garland. Almost none were expressed because he'd been a judge for a long time and had a reputation for being a fair judge. And that third nomination of President Obama was blocked. That meant that the Supreme Court was able to have a five/four majority of Republican appointees, rather than a five/four majority of Democratic appointees.

President Trump, who has appointed two justices. And that's why, right now, you have a court that is five Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees. And they're trying to make it six Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees. The Republicans have certainly gamed the system and they're going to come out with a bunch of ads saying how nice Amy Coney Barrett is or how good of a neighbor she is or how nice she is as a colleague or as a teacher. There are a lot of nice people. That doesn't mean they're fair people. That doesn't mean they're people that you would trust to decide impartially in a case involving your rights. And in fact, everything we know about this process, from President Trump, from Leonard Leo, from the Federalist Society, from the Judicial Crisis Network that's backing them, is that she's been chosen with the very hope and belief that she won't be fair, that she will rule in their favor.

BILL MOYERS: Her very nomination under these circumstances is going to cast another long shadow on the court's integrity and on Amy Coney Barrett's, quite frankly. You wonder why someone who's on the record for being a person of faith and a moral person wouldn't say thank you, Mr. President, but let's wait a week or two or three and then we'll both come out better in the judgment of history.

LISA GRAVES: If you are a person who believes in the integrity of the judiciary, in the independence of the judiciary, if you're someone who believes that the court's core power stems from the public esteem and regard for it as an independent and fair institution, I really can't see how you could be a willing participant in this sort of railroading of a nomination through the court on the eve of an election. I think a person who had such high value of the court and the importance of the courts as an independent tribunal in our country would call herself for this nomination to be delayed until after the people have a chance to say.

BILL MOYERS: Let me– let me interrupt there if I can. I'm not sure that waiting for the people to speak, so to speak, in an election is an appropriate way to measure the worthiness of a Supreme Court nominee.

LISA GRAVES: Well, it's a complicated issue. I don't think that we should be in this position in the first place because I think with an election so close that a nomination should probably not have been put forward, because of the very way in which it is being politicized and will be politicized.

BILL MOYERS: I agree with that.

LISA GRAVES: –and could affect the outcome of the election, one way or the other.

BILL MOYERS: Let's take an example. The court is scheduled to hear a big health care case a week after the election. And conservatives are openly counting on Barrett to help throw out the entire Affordable Care Act, once and for all. Pandemic or no pandemic, they want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Should the senators interrogating her at the hearings come right out and ask her stance on that vote?

LISA GRAVES: I don't think she'll give an answer. But the issue of the Affordable Care Act is one in which this president has campaigned on trying to destroy it, has attempted to stop it legislatively and through a number of machinations, through executive orders, to make it harder for the health care exchanges to work.And while some are now trying to claim that that decision from the 5th Circuit that's coming up to the Supreme Court, people shouldn't worry about it, I would say that's what the right-wing is trying to say to try to minimize that case. The reality is that it's been teed up for this moment, for the ACA to be overruled, and with it, the provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. And now, we have millions more Americans who have preexisting conditions due to this pandemic. And you also have some serious deceptiveness by this president on this point in particular, where after Justice Ginsberg died and he made the decision to move forward with a nomination immediately knowing that the Affordable Care Act was going to be an issue, he suddenly issued an executive order claiming that it's the policy of the federal government to protect people with preexisting conditions.

That executive order does not replace the actual statute if it's overturned. It's a talking point, that he and his advisors have cooked up to try to use in this Supreme Court battle and in this election to claim that even though he's determined to overturn the Affordable Care Act, that suddenly he now cares about this. They're going to be using that talking point to try to defend this nominee about her determination to overrule the Affordable Care Act. And she, both as a judge and before she was a judge, has attacked the Affordable Care Act. And so, I think that, as they say, when people tell you who they are, you should believe them, we should believe very much that she's someone who's hostile to the Affordable Care Act, and that this president's hostile to the Affordable Care Act, and that could affect the lives and health of millions and millions of Americans. And it will.

BILL MOYERS: What will you be watching for during the confirmation hearings?

LISA GRAVES: That's a great question.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, I, myself, am sick and tired of these hearings that really are charades. The senator asks a question and, on the pretext of not revealing a position or prejudging—

LISA GRAVES: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: –the nominee says bull. Pleasantly, elegantly, sometimes, but it's bull.

LISA GRAVES: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: And the public moves on.

LISA GRAVES: It can be very frustrating watching those hearings because these nominees of this president have been so prepared to try to avoid answering any meaningful questions for the American people under this guise that they can't answer or they would be prejudging when, in fact, they've been chosen on some of these issues because they have, in fact, prejudged them. What's been happening with this president's nominees on these questions is so deeply troubling because they have refused to commit to the importance of longstanding precedents, including Brown v. Board of Education, a precedent that's been on the books for nearly 70 years in this country, they will not agree that that's good precedent.

They will only agree that that is, quote, "Precedent," which is meaningless when you have a nominee like Amy Coney Barrett who said that precedent, in her view, violates due process. I'm sure we're going to see what some people call Kabuki theatre or theatrics at that hearing in which she declaims about her fairness and her impartiality and, therefore, she won't discuss any substantive issue about how she might rule, when the reality is that her record about how she favors corporations over individuals, how she favors corporations, including in cases involving discrimination– racial discrimination, LGBTQ discrimination and more how her record shows that she has an agenda and that she is desirous of using that agenda, propelling it forward with the force of law. So, I think that, when you have someone who wants to impose their personal views as law, in essence by judicial fiat (not through the legislative process), but imposed their views and disavows the value of precedent, refuses to say that core, bedrock cases like Brown are good precedent that must be followed, I think you have someone who will be behaving disingenuously in a theatrical way to try to deceive the American people.

BILL MOYERS: Would you concede that she might see this in the context of what she said to the commencement at Notre Dame when she said that there was a larger purpose to being a lawyer than being a lawyer, and I'm paraphrasing, that it was a way to help build the kingdom of God and implying, therefore, that there are times when you do justify the means by the ends, and that she actually thinks as a sincere, faithful Christian that she is helping to build with this man who is anything but virtuous– the kingdom of God by going on that court under these questionable circumstances so that she can accomplish what some of what it takes to build the kingdom of God here on earth?

LISA GRAVES: Yeah. You know, it is the case that we've seen, from the Falwell world and other worlds, a real willingness to turn a blind eye to the many ways in which this president has transgressed the basic moral code on a daily basis. You know, I'm not even going to get into THE NEW YORK TIMES report about the failing to pay taxes or potential tax fraud and what that means in terms of theft from the public treasury. You have a president who has been more aggressive in violating those moral norms than I think any president, probably since Nixon; maybe much worse than Nixon. And you have him embraced by the religious right. Not all people of faith. There are progressive and moderate evangelicals and people from the Catholic faiths who do not embrace this president as a moral leader. But you do have people in this country like Leonard Leo and William Barr and the Judicial Crisis Network that are willing to advance this president's agenda because it helps them win changes in Supreme Court doctrine, including in particular on Roe v. Wade, but also on gay rights, on the rights of LGBTQ Americans and more.

In terms of Amy Coney Barrett, all people are entitled to their faith and to make decisions about their conscience and what their faith means to them and how it enriches their lives. I think the challenge is that the United States Constitution expressly forbids a religious test for office. But the corollary of that is that the United States is not a theocracy. People are not given positions of trust in our government in order to impose their religious views on millions and millions of Americans without their consent. But the fact is we see already in communications by the right-wing about this nomination that they believe that she will rule in their favor on these religious issues. They probably are not wrong, given what we've seen of her statements in the record. But I think the broader issue is I think if you're going to be put on our highest court, you ought to be someone who's not just young and smart and a right-wing advocate but someone who has a lengthy record of a willingness to set aside personal views in order to follow the law, and to administer the law fairly for all people.

BILL MOYERS: But if you're sitting there with the President of the United States and if you're informed and knowledgeable and aware, you know that this is the man who told the nation that COVID-19 was a hoax, even as he was telling Robert Woodward it was deadly stuff. And if he's giving you the bull about why you should be on the court– I don't want to be unfair to her, but because she has spoken openly and honestly, I think, about her faith she has presented us with questions like this. What's happening in the country is not all Donald Trump. He's being enabled. Look at the people who have surrounded him at the moment to enable her nomination. She's enabling him by accepting it under these circumstances. And so, it raises questions as to how do we stop such things if so many participate in them and benefit from them.

LISA GRAVES: I don't know if I would call it the conundrum but it's one of the very uncomfortable circumstances of both this administration's approach to the law and the news cycle and public policy where it's so transactional that these two things can coexist.

BILL MOYERS: By transactional, you mean–

LISA GRAVES: Transactional in the sense that they have a meeting at the Rose Garden that's all love about this nomination and its greatness that exists separate from the president's statements in which he said that he wants this nomination in order to basically take the election by legal force, by judicial fiat, which exists in the context of a president who I think it was only two weeks ago that the story broke that he knew exactly how contagious this disease was, how deadly it was, months and months ago, and that he deliberately downplayed it to the American people and deceived them. And so, all these things are happening as if they're separate things. Like, that Rose Garden ceremony of introducing her happens as if there's this normalcy. We're in a normal presidency. This is a normal America. And this is all just business as usual to have this ceremonial embrace of this nominee and this nomination as being something that's about the rule of law in America and is exalting the law. When outside of that Rose Garden, you have a scenario in which you have a president that has thumbed his nose at the law, who has violated the law in a number of ways that have been documented, and who has attacked the integrity of our very democracy, and has impugned the integrity of the Supreme Court by how he has described the judges who've been put on it as "his judges," and has described why he wants this judge confirmed to it, to rule in his favor.

And so, the people who are joining with him in these different endeavors, it's as if they're able to put on blinders and ignore the reality, the full record of what's transpiring before our very eyes, which is an assault on the rule of law, an assault on our actual Constitution, an assault on our very institutions both in the executive branch at the Justice Department and other agencies, the way they've been so distorted (and grotesquely distorted) by partisan, right-wing people who Trump has put in power, who have distorted health policy that has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans and the infection of millions of Americans, due to the fundamentally immoral actions by this president and by the people he has put in place to distort public opinion, to distort the record about a deadly disease.

It's extraordinary to have the Senate in Mitch McConnell and these Judicial Crisis Network people supporting her, the ones that are running ads in support of her at that White House ceremony announcing her, to be acting as if this is just a normal transition of the Supreme Court when, in fact, it's a capture of the Supreme Court and a further deployment of the Supreme Court as a weapon for the far-right to use to impose its narrow views on the rest of America, and to destroy core regulation of businesses in this country, including businesses that have harmed our climate. It is extraordinary to me that these things all seem to happen in these silos from the standpoint of coverage when, in fact, they're inseparable. And the assault on the Supreme Court, this effort to capture it and move it as far to the right as possible for ten, 20, 30, possibly 40 years. And to do it in defiance of the American people's desire to have a fair say is also grotesque. It's another manifestation of the dysfunction of our democracy. And it's not just the president, it's that he has a number of enablers in the administration, and outside the administration, that are willing to turn a blind eye to almost everything he does in order to advance a very narrow and regressive agenda.

BILL MOYERS: It's clear that Chief Justice John Roberts wants people to think that the Supreme Court is a nonpolitical institution, that it's not beholden to the Republican party. But with this new nomination and likely confirmation, it's going to become just the opposite. Beholden to the Trump presidency and to the Republican party.

LISA GRAVES: I think that's right. If Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, it will cast a cloud over every decision that she makes, every decision that this court makes; that this court has been manipulated, has been captured, is designed to be unfair, is designed to put the thumb of the far-right and the corporate right-wing on decisions of this court. And that fundamentally undermines the idea of an independent court, what is happening to it right now....