this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
73 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2782 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In December 2020, an adviser to Rudy Giuliani circulated a draft email addressed to the White House seeking “provisional” security clearances for the former mayor and members of his team as part of their work to keep Donald Trump in power.

The adviser, Katherine Friess, also helped Giuliani woo potential donors to finance Trump’s effort to reverse the results of the election. She helped draft a “strategic communications plan” for a final push to keep Trump in office, a document that became a focus for Jan. 6 investigators and that called for placing paid ads on radio and TV alleging widespread voter fraud. At the same time, Friess warned other Trump aides that their claims about dead people voting in Georgia were weak — but Trump continued to trumpet those claims anyway.

Friess, a national security consultant with deep roots in Washington, kept a low profile, but in November and December 2020, she was Giuliani’s jack-of-all-trades. A host of emails and documents exchanged by Friess and other Giuliani aides have been turned over to special counsel Jack Smith, according to a person familiar with the investigation granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive material.

Dozens of those documents, which have been reviewed by POLITICO, add new detail to the public understanding of how Trump’s allies operated after Election Day — and how they grappled with obstacles both immense and quotidian.

Friess, who did not respond to inquiries, has not been accused of any wrongdoing — by prosecutors or by Congress. And she has not been mentioned in either of the criminal cases charging Trump with conspiring to subvert the election. Two Georgia election workers who are suing Giuliani for defamation tried unsuccessfully to subpoena and depose her. But after searching for her for months, they gave up, saying Friess “vanished.”

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Maybe she flipped and now she got witness protection or some shit. Remember: they want the main squad, so they are always looking for a few goons to flip on the side, so the evidence racks up.

[–] deconstruct@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's pretty crazy that a well known political operative can completely disappear.

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

She was working for dirty sleazy criminals who have everything to lose.

[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

the Feds got her on ice bubba

[–] Paterfamilias01@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She’s probably hiding in some rich donor’s guest house.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Or UNDER some rich donor's guess house, with all the others...

[–] baru@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Hopefully a cooperating witness.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Promise the feds know where she is at.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sounds like they found their scapegoat.

"I wasn't in that meeting with Trump, that was Katherine Friess..."

[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

The Feds got Friess in a nice rental somewhere secluded when they get all their food delivered and there's no internet service

[–] RozhkiNozhki@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] Soap10116@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't tell if you're serious

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The word is, in fact, "scapegoat", I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that.

[–] Soap10116@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I believe it was a play on words as in they have escaped but thats how I read it.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait- how could Politico send inquiries to her at all if the court couldn't find her to subpoena her?

[–] baru@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The article doesn't say they got a response, no? They could've sent an email. And then not gotten any response.