LIVE: Blanche, Patel Make Law Enforcement Announcement in Virginia

All right, good morning. This morning, seven individuals were arrested or surrendered for allegedly participating in a large-scale RICO drug trafficking and money laundering conspiracy. One of those individuals is the president pro tempore of the Virginia State Senate, Lily Louise Lucas of Portsmouth, Virginia. A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned an indictment against all seven individuals on October 14th this year. The defendants are currently in federal custody and my understanding is there's an initial appearance later this afternoon in federal court. The remaining six defendants listed in the indictment include Senator Lucas's daughters, Lisa Lucas Burke and Teresa Lucas Lamb, Ms. Lucas's grandson, Ryan Eichelberger, Prince Albert William Hudson III, Carlton Upton, Jr., and Tamika Johnson. Senator Lucas has been charged and indicted with five counts, racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, and maintaining a drug-involved premises. The other counts listed in the indictment that she's not charged in include possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and wire fraud. All seven defendants are charged for their various roles they allegedly played in the Lucas Enterprise. The indictment alleges that Senator Lucas approved and directed criminal activities and other activities to benefit the affairs of the Lucas Enterprise, that she arranged for the acquisition and distribution of marijuana, that she supervised the laundering of marijuana proceeds and that she used her political influence to demand and accept a bribe and attempted to influence Virginia legislation for the benefit of herself and her family. As some folks know, since 1992, Senator Lucas has held a position of trust in the Virginia State Senate. Since 2020, she has served as the president pro tempore, or she has served as the presiding member of the State Senate in the absence of the lieutenant governor. At the same time Senator Lucas has been the owner of Lucas Lodge LLC, Lucas Hospitality LLC and the cannabis outlet all three located in Portsmouth, Virginia the entire the Department of Justice intends to prove that Senator Lucas violated the trust of the people of Portsmouth and Chesapeake Virginia and of her state senate colleagues through her elected office Senator Lucas has been a public servant of the people of Virginia. Her first duty should have been looking out for her constituents before herself. But the charges listed in the indictment reflect the alleged behavior of a public servant who put her own financial interests before the people she was elected to serve. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, an elected official or an everyday citizen, nobody is above the law. If you commit crimes in violation of federal law, the Department of Justice will prosecute you. We're here today because of facts and evidence, which led to this investigation to begin many years ago, and facts and evidence that led to the grand jury to indict Senator Lucas and her alleged co-conspirators. And the facts and evidence will continue to guide our federal prosecutors in this case. I want to take a moment to thank the the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office here in the Eastern District of Virginia for the work they have done throughout this investigation and in bringing the charges here today and with that I will hand it over to Director Patel, thank you, thank you General as alleged by the Attorney General, Miss Lucas for the last nearly five years accumulated nearly five million dollars in ill-gotten gains through her criminal enterprise, Miss Lucas served in a position of trust for nearly four decades and served as a President pro tempore of the Senate for the Virginia State Senate for these last five six years during that time as alleged in the indictment her and her six co-conspirators instead of serving the public as was her job, manufactured and created a criminal enterprise to illicitly enrich themselves by procuring sales and stores and divisions through the marijuana and CBD enterprise, Miss Lucas has many things to answer for on the allegation the purpose of her enterprise included trafficking large quantities of illegal marijuana creating generational wealth for members and associates of her criminal enterprise recycling drug proceeds to expand the operation that she launched and created and steering marijuana licenses to entities in which members held financial interest during her time as Virginia State Senator instead of enforcing the law she was actually breaking the law as alleged in the indictment and then using her position of power and public trust to deflect and defend against her own criminal enterprise truly the epitome of hypocrisy for a public official, Miss Lucas on January 24th 2022 posted on social media, "I'm a 78 year old grandma" who legalized pot and now has her own cannabis store and I'm the last thing standing between the GOP and total control of Virginia, that's worth an RT end quote, while she was posting these things and the reason I highlighted it is because during this time period her and her co-conspirators continued her criminal conspiracy to enrich themselves and break the public trust, thank you to the Attorney General, thank you, the United States attorney's office here in Norfolk, Virginia for making sure that we hold people accountable in positions of public trust and power especially when they violate the law as has been alleged here today. I want to personally thank the men and women of the FBI in the Norfolk Division and also at headquarters and the FBI Richmond Field Office for their tireless work over these last years. Putting together a public corruption case takes a lot of effort and manpower. And the prosecutors bravely and courageously waded through mountains of material, along with the FBI investigators and agents, to reach this decision point today and present this material to the grand jury. And the grand jury returned an indictment, finding a finding of probable cause, to charge Miss Lucas and her six co-conspirators. Thank you again to the men and women of the FBI Norfolk Division, and thank you again to the Department of Justice and Attorney General Todd Blanche for your leadership. Good morning. My name is Theo Stamos. I'm the first assistant United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. I want to thank Attorney General Blanche and Director Patel for their years-long support in supporting this prosecution and this investigation that culminates in today's charges being announced. The allegations in the indictment detail a criminal enterprise operating in plain sight. These charges, as alleged, reveal not just an abuse of public trust, but a reliance on the deference granted to a public official, an elected public official. These charges are not limited to one defendant, however. The charges include relatives and associates of that elected official who allegedly conspired to cash in on beneficial legislation, access, and influence. The charges are not limited to public corruption, but also involve public safety. We see time and again the dangers of the presence and use of firearms in conjunction with drug trafficking. As detailed in the indictment, both illegal narcotics and firearms were recovered by law enforcement during searches of the premises maintained by this enterprise. The charges also include the fraudulent acquisition of funds through a COVID-era loan program. This program was intended to assist small businesses impacted by the pandemic. Instead, one of the businesses operated by this enterprise was used to exploit that very program. I am grateful to the agents of the FBI and the prosecutors led by Eric Hurt and Brian Samuels here at EDVA, whose diligence and efforts and professionalism over the course of this very careful and thorough investigation have led to the charges we're announcing today. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We'll take questions. I mean, I was going to call on you, but you just started talking before I did. But please. No, go ahead, please. That's OK. That's all right. Go ahead. Her attorney is saying this is political payback. She's been an arch opponent to the president and that this is payback for that. And then they were expecting, in his words, this circus to unfold. What is your response to that? What what do you say to those that say this is just political? Well, my initial response is there's actually a now public indictment that anybody in this country can read. And the 45 or so page indictment lays out a series of allegations that the grand jury heard. And that's I've read the indictment. I read it this morning. It's not we don't do political paybacks. That's not this investigation has been going on long before the U.S. attorney, the first assistant, started her job. long before I started my job here and long before Director Patel became the FBI director. It started long before President Trump was reelected. So I don't I'm not going to I can't get into a war of words with with an attorney for a charged defendant. But just to unequivocally say it's completely false to say that this and again, don't trust me. Read the indictment. So, yeah, the back view. Can you say what year the investigation started and what prompted the investigation? I don't know what prompted it and I don't know exactly when it started the indictment alleges that the conduct started at least in 2019 up until the date of the filing of the indictment so I I don't have the information in front of me exactly when it started but suffice to say it it wasn't started by the three folks but by by the Trump administration or whatever allegations are are now going to come forward. Yes, go ahead. So the, you know, my understanding of typical practice, DOJ doesn't usually release charges like this, this close to an election. And even though Louise Lucas is not on the ballot, her daughter is. So can you speak to the reason for the timing of these charges so close to an upcoming election? Well, so, I mean, I think you're referring to the 60 day or 90 day practice, which is not in writing. There's no, that's not the Justice Manual. The Justice Manual speaks very clearly about what the Department of Justice can and can't do. And we cannot bring a charge if our purpose is improper. And there's nothing improper about this purpose. And so there's a lot of commentary about the 60-day rule. I think it's something that we, in leadership at the Department of Justice, think about and take very seriously. The senator is not up for reelection. This is a long-running case. As alleged in the indictment, It's a RICO conspiracy case. It's a narcotics case. And so while the timing of an indictment is something that we have always thought about at the Department of Justice, the expected complaints about the timing of this indictment are not consistent with the justice manual or consistent with what we're doing is very consistent with past practices. And so I can't, you know, people can criticize all they want, but it was time to bring the charges. The grand jury returned an indictment, and we made the arrests. You've got some alleged covert acts as recently as July. I mean, just sort of following up on that, is there any specific thing you can cite that says there is a real need for urgency before the next two weeks? You mean to stop crimes from occurring? Is that what you're asking? Is there an urgency to stop crimes from being committed? Yes, always. Absolutely. No, I mean, I appreciate the question, but when someone says, is there an urgency? I hope everybody at the Department of Justice and every federal agent and cop always acts with urgency when there's crimes going on. And that doesn't mean that there are not instances in an investigation where you need to wait for any number of reasons. But yes, I mean, there's dates in the indictment dating back to 2018. And so there's been covert actions taken for many years and and this was the the the right time to bring the charges she's not up for election right so i just to be clear there's there's decisions and processes in place the department when we're bringing a case against a political official and um the the question the first question is is this investigation proper and the conclusion of that is yes is the timing proper and the conclusion of that is yes um so yes i mean we did need to bring it to an end in the back. You mentioned that the indictment came down on the 14th. Can you tell me when Senator Lucas was notified that she had been indicted and needed to turn herself in? Well, I hope she wasn't notified until this morning. It was unsealed, I believe, today. So, like, I mean, that's quite usual that there's a couple days or a week or so in between the returning of a sealed indictment and especially if there's multiple defendants in the case to make sure we can plan an arrest plan and make sure our agents are safe. My understanding is she surrendered this morning. I don't know exactly when her counsel would have been informed that the indictment was unsealed, but I would hope that it was today. Two questions, one on topic, one on topic. Just real quick, I'm making sure you are alleging that she was selling marijuana for recreational use before it was legalized in Virginia. And secondly, on that point, It's very rare to have you, Director Patel, and A.G. Blanche here announcing a case at a press conference. This is a very different type of drug crime than, you know, with marijuana. This is a drug that the president has declassified. Can you explain why it's very important for you two to be standing here holding a press conference and announcing this case? So, well, so what you described is what I've alleged is not, I think, I mean, it's much, it's a lot more detailed and there's a lot more alleged in the RICO conspiracy than just legally selling marijuana. Indeed, if that was all that was the investigation uncovered, we would not be here. And so this isn't about a citizen in Virginia lawfully getting a license, lawfully opening a shop that sells lawfully manufactured marijuana under the state laws of Virginia. To the contrary, the indictment alleges something very, very different than that. So this isn't about us trying to micromanage states' decisions about the marijuana laws. And you're right, we are going through a process at the federal level with marijuana laws, but that's not what the RICO conspiracy alleges in the indictment. That's a very simplistic way to say it. And why, while we're here? I mean, I think I think it's it's my responsibility and Director Patel's responsibility to be open and transparent at the right times with with all of you and with the American people about charges we're bringing. She is a she's been a member of the Senate in Virginia, I think, since 1990 or so. So so there is something there's been public reporting about this investigation for many months. And so we determined that it was appropriate to have this press conference today. We're not going to continue to speak about the case. We're keeping it to the charges as alleged in the indictment, but I think the public has a right to hear from us at times like this. You said you had off-topic? Go ahead. As the 60-90-day rule came up, I wanted to ask about the search of Representative Ilhan Omar's home, and why, you know, you think that, why the argument for how that complied with that rule, I know it's not written, but we also know as a defense attorney before, you also had criticisms of Jackson violating that rule. So I want to understand how the Ilhan Omar search, according to what you've been told. Well, so we don't talk about searches. Searches are covert. They're not overt. And, yes, this became overt because of the circumstances around the search on Monday. But that is a covert operation. It's a search warrant. And any time you apply for a search warrant, one of the factors under the rules is why it needs to happen pursuant to a search warrant and not a subpoena and why it has to happen on that day and not some other day. And as the magistrate judge found, we needed to do it then. Our comment, I don't know what, you know, the congresswoman has made multiple public comments about it. I haven't. I said there's a law enforcement action. That's all I've said. So, and again, this does not violate the 60-day rule or whatever rule, which is not even a rule, it's just a practice. When we have to execute a search warrant or an arrest, if there's a crime that occurs, we take into consideration the purpose and making sure the purpose is proper, which is what the Justice Manual requires. And that's what we did then, and that's what we do in every case. Behind, yes. There's some concern with the consolidation of the Norfolk field office may hinder solving crimes like this in the future. Can you touch on that effort moving forward? That concern has not been raised to me, so I can't touch on it. Sorry, I just don't have an answer. I don't know if you... I think the director can answer this. What we always try to do is put more resources into the field. There will not be a reduction in manning when we combine the Richmond and Norfolk field offices. In fact, there will actually be an increase. And what we did was we eliminated $4.5 million in administrative costs, and that $4.5 million is going right back into Norfolk to hire more agents, to hire more investigative analysts, and to buy more tech and kit so our agents can be in the field doing the work they need to do. I think it's a RICO conspiracy case, whether the motivation for what happened was greed. I have no idea. I can't get into the mind of the senator. I'm familiar with the text you're referring to as it's in the indictment. But I don't know the motivation behind somebody when they do something like this. So I'll take just a couple more. Go ahead. This question is for Director Patel. So like a few months ago, there was this reporting that you were going to Moscow. And then last week, there was reporting that you were in Moscow. That ended up not being accurate. were you ever planning to go to Moscow? For what purpose, if so, and is that something that you would still consider doing? Well, as you pointed out, the reporting was entirely false. I was at Liberty University talking to students, police officers, and young Americans who had an interest in joining our law enforcement community and adding to the historic reduction in violent crime that we've already achieved. As to where we go and how we do our business, the FBI has 125 offices overseas. Under this administration, we engage with everyone to make sure that we can service the needs of the American people to reduce crime, to find kids that are missing, to bring home hostages, and to thwart any cyber actors who wish to do us harm. And by engaging our allies and adversary alike, we are going to continue that mission because President Trump has kicked open those doors that were never opened before. So we're going to take advantage of those opportunities, and we're not going to announce where we're going to go and when we're going to go, except to tell you that this FBI and this Department of Justice will go wherever we need to go to mete out justice for the American people. By the way, it was not reporting. It was completely false reporting is the way that it should be described. But, Alex. It's just a follow-up question to somebody else. I'll come back to you on the last question. Go ahead. Thank you. On the election litigation against California yesterday, it was assigned to the judge who actually previously dismissed a lawsuit the DOJ brought seeking to state's voter rolls. I'm wondering, is the overarching goal of this litigation to kind of leave it up to question as to whether a state should certify the results when you have this list of, you know, 20,000 alleged likely non-citizens in DOJ's view? Is it kind of just to kind of keep it up in the air and potential results when they start rolling in on Election Day? Absolutely, positively not. I mean, that's not what the lawsuit alleges. We're not trying to create chaos. it continues to baffle me why anybody, whether it's people in this room or people watching or elected officials at the state or local level if presented with evidence that there are tens of thousands 20,000 ineligible voters that are receiving ballots that there isn't some motivation anything to do something about that like do something besides write a nasty gram to me or to have a senator write a letter to me suggesting I'm doing something wrong But the fact that we had to even bring this lawsuit after alerting local election officials to this potential issue, and this isn't just made up, notwithstanding what folks are saying, this isn't just made up, we didn't pull names out of a hat. This is something that should be a serious concern to everybody in California and everybody in this country. So let's assume that only half those names vote. That's 10,000 people who are not eligible to vote that are voting in California. That's not scaring people. I'm not trying to not have an election certified. Of course not. What we're trying to do is guarantee to the American people that the only people that are voting are people that are eligible to vote. So we don't have a motivation beyond just trying to force or try to encourage or try to just get California election officials to do what we think they need to do to make sure that the only people that are voting, whether it's by mail or in person, are the person that's registered to vote and that that person is actually somebody who's allowed to vote under the law. So somebody who is a U.S. citizen. That's the motivation behind the lawsuit. Okay, I'll take the last question from the back. Clarifying question. In the indictment, it alleges that Upton, who has previously worked with Lucas, helped her obtain a recreational marijuana license, but there aren't any recreational marijuana licenses in Virginia yet. So can you clarify that a little bit, please? Can you ask that question again? I'm sorry. In the indictment, it alleges that Upton, her former, someone she did business with at one point, helped her obtain a recreational marijuana license, but there aren't those in Virginia yet. So can you clarify that? I can't clarify it beyond what's alleged in the indictment and what we understand from the evidence that we collected, the senator alleged she was doing or not doing. And yeah, you're right. There was some fluctuation in the law and the governor ultimately vetoing some parts of this effort. So I don't want to get into the specifics of the case beyond what's in the indictment. But yes, I appreciate that there were, according to the allegations in the indictment and some of the statements that were made by the co-conspirators allegedly, it ultimately is inconsistent with what the law ultimately ended up being or was at the time. The pursuit of recreational marijuana, despite it not being legal in Virginia yet. Oh, I'm not saying anything. You said that. What I said is that I do appreciate that as alleged in the indictment, there are statements that were allegedly made by the co-conspirators and by the senator about what they were doing and not doing and trying to get and not trying to get is ultimately inconsistent with, as you said, the law and where it ended up being and where it was going. So, okay. All right. Thank you guys very much. I appreciate it.