New York
Justice Dept. weighs in on 2020 election robocall suit
NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Justice Department has weighed in on a civil lawsuit against two conservative political operatives accused of using robocalls to dissuade Black voters from taking part in the 2020 election.
The department said Friday that defense lawyers for the two men were misinterpreting the Voting Rights Act, although the department emphasized that it was not taking sides in the civil litigation and is not a party to the suit.
The robocalls falsely told voters that if they voted by mail, their information would be used by law enforcement to track old warrants and by credit card companies to collect debts — even by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track people for mandatory vaccinations.
“Don’t be finessed into giving your private information to the man, stay safe and beware of vote by mail,” the automated recording said.
Political operatives Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, a lobbyist, were sued in 2020 by a nonpartisan civil rights organization, The National Coalition on Black Civil Participation, and several individuals who received the calls in August 2020.
The Justice Department said Friday the plain language of the Voting Rights Act “prohibits threats of non-physical harm, as well as attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, whether they were racially motivated or not.”
In a federal court filing in Manhattan, Washington-based attorneys in the department’s Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney Damian Williams in New York said the Wohl and Burkman’s defense misrepresented the scope of the Voting Rights Act in arguing the law doesn’t cover conduct that threatens economic or legal consequences that are unlikely to occur, conduct that does not target minority voters, or conduct that does not successfully dissuade voters from voting.
In all, nearly 85,000 robocalls were sent to residents of predominantly Black neighborhoods in New York, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Two years ago, Judge Victor Marrero ordered corrective calls to go out to nearly 30,000 recipients, saying the calls amounted to “electoral terror.”
In a court filing Friday, lawyers for Wohl and Burkman defended the robocalls, saying they are protected by the First Amendment.
They called the content of the robocalls “substantially true” and said there was no evidence aside from “speculation and hearsay” to indicate that the robocalls influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election.
They defense said the calls didn’t target specific races or ethnicities, and there was no evidence the men sought to induce or compel anyone not to vote.
However, the plaintiffs wrote in court papers that Wohl sent Burkman the voiceover in an email and wrote, “Attached is the audio file for the robo call. We should send it to black neighborhoods in Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Richmond, Atlanta, and Cleveland.”
The defendants have both invoked their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
Christopher Dunn, legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the Justice Department filing “a welcome sign that the federal government is committed to defending voters.”
He added: “With all that is happening in our country now, it’s essential that voters be protected from intimidation and threats.”
Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Leticia James’s office announced Friday a settlement with a company her office said made thousands of the robocalls.
The settlement calls for Message Communications to pay $50,000 in restitution to people who received the calls. The company must also send out a voter protection robocall approved by a nonpartisan voter rights organization. It will screen future customers and election-related robocalls in order to prevent intimidating messages from being sent.
An email message was left Friday with an attorney representing the company.
Illinois
R Kelly trial on whether he fixed 2008 trial starts in Chicago
CHICAGO (AP) — Jury selection began Monday at R. Kelly’s federal trial in his hometown of Chicago, where the R&B singer faces charges that he rigged his 2008 state child pornography trial by threatening and paying off a girl who he allegedly filmed himself having sex with when he was around 30 and she was no older than 14.
Jurors acquitted Kelly on all charges in that 2008 trial, some explaining later that they felt they had no choice because the girl did not testify. The woman, now in her 30s and referred to in filings only as “Minor 1,” will be the government’s star witness in the upcoming federal trial.
Kelly, 55, goes into Chicago federal court Monday already sentenced by a New York federal judge to a 30-year prison term for a 2021 conviction on charges he used his fame to sexually abuse other young fans.
Kelly, who rose from poverty on Chicago’s South Side to become a star singer, songwriter and producer, faces multiple charges at the federal trial. They include four counts of enticement of minors for sex — one each for four other accusers. They, too, are slated to testify.
Convictions in Chicago could add decades to Kelly’s New York sentence, which he is appealing. With the New York sentence alone, Kelly will be around 80 before qualifying for early release.
Two Kelly associates, Derrel McDavid and Milton Brown, are co-defendants at the Chicago trial. McDavid is accused of helping Kelly fix the 2008 trial, while Brown is charged with receiving child pornography. Like Kelly, they have also denied any wrongdoing.
Two state cases are also still pending. One is a multiple count sex-abuse case out of Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago. The other is a solicitation case in Minnesota. No trial dates are set for either.
Minor 1 is expected to testify that she was on video having sex with Kelly. The recording was at the heart of the monthlong 2008 trial and was played for jurors almost every day.
Minor 1 first met Kelly in the late 1990s when she was in junior high school. She had tagged along to Kelly’s Chicago recording studio with her aunt, a professional singer working with Kelly. Soon after, Minor 1 told her parents Kelly was going to become her godfather.
Prosecutors say Kelly later threatened and sought to pay off Minor 1 and her parents so they wouldn’t testify at the 2008 trial. None of them did.
Double jeopardy rules bar the prosecution of someone for the same crimes they were acquitted of earlier. That doesn’t apply to the Chicago federal trial because prosecutors are alleging different crimes related to Minor 1, including obstruction of justice.
