Earlier this week, we covered how Rep. Cori Bush's (D-MO) campaign finance scandal remains relevant as groups like the Committee to Defeat the President (CDP) have submitted more complaints and supplements when it comes to accusations regarding campaign funds being used for her now husband, Cortney Merritts, was previously paid $60,000 by Bush's campaign. It's only gotten more heated from there.
Counsel for the congresswoman and her campaign, David Mitrani, has sent a letter to counsel for CDP, with a note that they "demand you retract the complaints," claiming multiple times through the demand letter that they are "demonstrably false." In response, the Committee signaled they are showing no signs of backing down, though.
To recap, CDP sent complaints and supplements to the Office of Congressional Ethics, the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, the Department of Justice and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. Merritts is not licensed in security, as his most recent license expired in 2012. Meritts was nevertheless paid $60,000. Until April, the expenditures were switched from "security services" to "wage expenses," as Fox News had reported.
CDP is taking issue with not only Merritts being unlicensed, but also argues that Bush's conversion of campaign funds violates House Rule XXIII(2), (6)(b)- (c) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Mitrani's letter reads that Merritts does not need a license, and, with original emphasis, that his services are "bona fide services, directly related to work provided to the campaign." He has been paid paid at or below fair market value, according to the letter. "[S]alary payments to a member of the candidate’s family are permissible, if they are bona fide, and are the 'fair market value of the services provided,'" the letter also noted, citing 11 C.F.R. § 113.1(g)(1)(i)(H).
"Mr. Merritts' experience," according to Mitrani's letter, "closely matches the services that he provides to the campaign:
service in the United States Army (including protection of high-ranking officials), security services provided to casinos in Missouri, as well as services for a statewide energy company in the state (where he had around 80 direct reports)." However, there is no evidence provided. Merritts now has a moving company, but Mitrani's letter still refers to him as a "Security Supervisor."
The letter also says that "Licenses are not required for Mr. Merritts’ services," as one more way to claim that CDP's complaints, with original emphasis, "are absolutely baseless."
As the Daily Caller noted in covering the letter:
Campaigns “may use campaign funds to pay for bona fide, legitimate, professional personal security personnel” to protect themselves from potential threats, the FEC ruled in 2021, according to Roll Call. It’s unclear whether Merritts falls under the “professional” designation for campaign security personnel, though both D.C. and St. Louis County require private security personnel to be licensed."
There isn't much more than that, as the letter instead stresses throughout how "false" CDP's claims supposedly are.
Under a subheader that, for not the first tine, charges that "[t]he statements in the complaints are demonstrably and unequivocally false," Mitrani also argues that CDP filing complaints with the Federal Election Commission,
and the Office of Congressional Ethics "should have been the end of the matter," and accuses CDP of "'throwing the kitchen sink' at the campaign and at the Congresswoman." The letter yet again takes issue with the complaints, pointing out that "filing claims that are not only factually and legally baseless but are outside the jurisdiction of the agencies with which you filed, constitutes an abuse of the legal process."
Dan Backer, counsel to CDP, responded on Tuesday, taking great issue with the letter, including and especially the nature of it. "It is both remarkable and disappointing Congresswoman Bush, as a sitting Member of Congress, would attempt to threaten, bully, and intimidate Americans from 'petition[ing] the government for a redress of grievances' concerning her and/or her husband’s apparently illegal conduct," the letter reads early on. It also goes on to note that "Congresswoman Bush and her husband, Cortney Merritts, are in a dilemma of their own making. They are not entitled to lash out at CDP for merely pointing it out."
In a way, Backer's letter responds to Mitrani's letter that CDP has made baseless claims by arguing Mitrani's points are the ones that are baseless:
You repeatedly assert—no less than 9 times, 5 of them in BOLD FACE—that the contents of my clients’ complaints to various governmental agencies are “false.” CDP has not made any such “demonstrable false” complaints. You have not identified any false statements of fact—as opposed to non-frivolous legal conclusions and non-actionable opinions based on disclosed facts— in any of CDP’s filings. Nor have you provided any actual evidence establishing any of CDP’s assertions were false. To the contrary, several of the factual claims you make in the Threat Letter actually bolster CDP’s complaints. Additionally, each of CDP’s complaints is protected by absolute or qualified privilege under D.C. law. See, e.g., Mazanderan v. McGranery, 490 A.2d 180 (D.C. 1984); Sowder v. Nolan, 125 A.2d 52, 54 (D.C. 1956). There is no valid legal basis for Congresswoman Bush’s unilateral, self-serving determination of the administrative complaints CDP has her permission to pursue and those she demands be withdrawn. See Threat Letter at 5.
The letter addresses a series of issues, mostly noting how Mitrani's claims lack evidence. "The Threat Letter stands in stark contrast to Mr. Merritts’ public-facing presence on the Internet at the time of CDPs’ complaints, which neither mentioned any such security-related experience nor suggested he worked in the security field," Backer's letter points out.
Another point of Backer's letter points out that "the Threat Letter does not offer any evidence to establish the $90,000 Mr. Merritts received for Security Services, not the continuing pattern of payments for 'Wage Expense', from Congresswoman Bush’s official campaign account constitutes fair market value for bona fide security services."
The letter also goes on to take issue with many details raised by Mitrani:
Third, in light of your contention Mr. Merritts “does not provide security services in the District of Columbia, and solely works on scheduling and logistics,” Threat Letter at 4, it appears Congresswoman Bush’s repeated FEC filings that she was paying Mr. Merritts for “SECURITY SERVICES” were false. Congresswoman Bush effectively admitted as much by changing her description of the funds her campaign continues to funnel to Mr. Merritts after CDP blew the whistle on her shameless lies to the vague, uninformative, and equally illegal description “WAGE EXPENSE.”
Fourth, the Threat Letter’s description of Merritts’ security work simply bolsters CDP’s claims he is engaged in the unlicensed provision of security services in violation of District of Columbia and/or St. Louis law...
Speaking to admissions made in Mitrani's letter, Backer points out that the work Bush paid Merritts for may have violated St. Louis City Code § 8.75A.010, St. Louis County Code § 701.115(1), and/or D.C. Code ch. 28, § 47-2839.01.
Finally, the response also claims that there isn't even standing:
Finally, you claim to represent only Congresswoman Bush and Cori Bush for Congress. Threat Letter at 1. Two of the administrative complaints you demand CDP withdraw, however—to the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, and to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, see id. at 5—pertain exclusively to Mr. Merritts and did not allege any legal violations by Congresswoman Bush or her campaign. Your clients lack standing to challenge those complaints, much less to litigate over them (and yet is paying for legal services for the personal benefit of her husband).
The letter concludes by reminding that "Congresswoman Bush’s threats against CDP are meritless. It is inappropriate for
Congresswoman Bush to purport to determine which administrative complaints CDP may pursue and those it must dismiss."
In a series of tweets, Backer highlighted how "avoidable" the whole situation was, as well as how suspicious it remains.
And if it really was just a scam to pay her man, as we strongly suspect, just as stupid to call it security services, which begs scrutiny.
— Dan Backer (@DanBackerEsq) September 7, 2023
Tons of other descriptions nobody would notice.
Now they’re stuck with this crazy story he provided security, but he’s special and doesn’t…
Backer also provided a statement to Townhall. "First, the Committee filed a complaint about Cori Bush's potentially illegal acts. Then, we updated that complaint, exposing Bush's attempts to cover it up and calling out her husband for providing what seem to be unlicensed security services. And Bush's response? Threatening those who try to expose her corruption. You know you’re on the trail of real corruption when they hide behind lawyers and refuse to come clean," he said.
Townhall also reached out to Mitrani for comment, specifically as to if the congresswoman and/or campaign will take any further action against CDP, but did not receive a response.