US Congressman Fortenberry found guilty of concealing campaign donation from Parisian billionaire

LOS ANGELES (CN) — U.S. Congressman Jeff Fortenberry was found guilty of concealing and lying to the FBI about an illegal campaign contribution from a Parisian billionaire who shared the Nebraska Republican’s commitment to protecting Christians in the Middle East.

The jury deliberated for about two hours before returning the verdict.

John Littrell, one of Fortenberry's attorneys, said in his closing argument Thursday, that the congressman had been the victim of an opportunistic investigation and that he was "ambushed" by the FBI when they showed at his home in Lincoln, Nebraska on a Saturday evening to question him about his relationship with Gilbert Chagoury, the Nigerian-born, Paris-based billionaire, and about illegal campaign donations.

"The reason we're here is that an opportunity dropped in their lap," Littrell told the jurors. "They planted evidence."

Fortenberry, 61, hadn't been a target of the original investigation into possible illegal donations by Chagoury, who also had a home in Beverly Hills, and his associates to U.S. election campaigns. The FBI became interested in him only after a close friend of Chagoury, who in 2016 had hosted a fundraiser for Fortenberry in Los Angeles, started cooperating with the investigation and revealed that the billionaire had secretly donated to the congressman's campaign.

The purportedly planted evidence was a recorded call the FBI cooperator made to Fortenberry in June 2018, in which he told the congressman that he had received $30,000 in cash from another associate of Chagoury to distribute to his friends and family so they could write checks to Fortenberry's reelection campaign at the 2016 fundraiser.

Whether Fortenberry is found guilty will depend on whether the jurors are convinced the nine-time representative for Nebraska's 1st Congressional District heard and understood what he was told during that 2018 phone call and that he deliberately lied about what he had been told when he was twice interviewed by investigators and prosecutors the following year.

Fortenberry's wife testified earlier Thursday that her husband is often on "autopilot" when making fundraising calls and that, from the recording, it sounded like he was cooking his breakfast while he was talking with the cooperator on the phone.

"It sounds like water going into the teapot," Celeste Fortenberry testified about background noises that could be heard on the recorded call played in court. She wasn't at home during the call.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Har said in the government's closing argument that it would have been a dereliction of duty not to investigate Fortenberry after the congressman's responses on the June 2018 call with the FBI cooperator. At one point, the cooperator raised the possibility that their common friend, Toufic Baaklini, who had provided the cash from Chagoury for the 2016 fundraiser could ask the billionaire for money for a new fundraiser in LA that Fortenberry was hoping to get.

In response, Fortenberry suggests that he himself reaches out to Baaklini. Text messages introduced at trial show that Fortenberry contacted Baaklini later the same day.

Once he had been told he received an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign billionaire, Fortenberry didn't amend his required disclosures to the Federal Election Commission about who had provided the money, according to the government.

"He took no action even though he had every opportunity to amend the filing," Har told the jurors.

Chagoury and Baaklini both resolved the charges against them, including related to the Fortenberry fundraiser, by paying fines as part of deferred prosecution deals.

Fortenberry's lawyer Littrell said in his closing argument that the congressman had just come back from an overseas trip when he received the June 2018 call from the FBI cooperator and there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he clearly heard and understood what he was told. Littrell also argued that because of spotty cellphone connection, there was no irrefutable evidence that every word of the recorded call came through on the congressman's end.

On rebuttal, the government told the jurors that Fortenberry is never heard telling the cooperator that he couldn't hear him and that instead he can be heard responding to everything that's said on the call.

After the jury had left the courtroom, U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld reprimanded Littrell at length for explaining in his closing argument why Fortenberry didn't testify in his own defense. Littrell had argued that there was no need for his client to testify because the jury already had his denials in the recorded interviews with the federal investigators and prosecutors. That, the judge said, was a flagrant disregard of his instruction to the jurors that they shouldn't consider Fortenberry's reasons not to testify in any shape or form.

Fortenberry’s lawyers didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the verdict.

Follow @edpettersson

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit