Memos Show Anti-Trump Nonprofit Assisted State Prosecutions Of Trump Supporters
What they're not telling you: THE MACHINERY OF PROSECUTORIAL CAPTURE: How a Nonprofit Fed by Democratic Money Became the Shadow Legal Arm of State Attorneys General A nonprofit organization controlled by Obama-era operative Norm Eisen embedded its attorneys directly into state prosecutions of Trump supporters, blurring the line between independent advocacy and government power in ways that raise fundamental questions about who directs criminal enforcement and why. According to open records released under state FOIA requests, Eisen's States United Democracy Center (SUDC) provided legal strategy, drafted filings, and in documented cases actually appointed attorneys to serve as special prosecutors working under state attorneys general in investigations targeting alternate electors and lawyers involved in Trump's post-election legal challenges. The arrangement created a two-tier system: government prosecutors with subpoena power and immunity, paired with private advocacy attorneys answerable to a nonprofit whose funding sources and decision-making structures remain largely opaque to the public.
What the Documents Show
The money trail reveals the mechanism. Tax filings show SUDC paid Marc Elias' law firm Perkins Coie more than $100,000 as an independent contractor. Elias, a prominent Democratic political operative, has represented Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. SUDC itself traces its origins to the Voter Protection Program, an initiative of the Progressive State Leaders Committee—an organization with documented "extensive ties," according to tax records, to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA). This is not three degrees of separation between partisan advocacy and criminal prosecution; this is institutional plumbing.
Follow the Money
Norm Eisen is not a neutral figure. ambassador to the Czech Republic under Obama, he has publicly campaigned against Trump, co-authored a New York Times essay titled "How to Convict Trump," and used his platform to advocate for criminal prosecution. SUDC claims nonpartisan status, but the organizational DNA tells a different story. The Progressive State Leaders Committee, which spawned SUDC's voter protection work, operates within Democratic political infrastructure. The attorneys general receiving SUDC's legal assistance were all Democrats in swing or purple states—jurisdictions where prosecutions would have maximum political impact. What makes this arrangement structurally problematic is not partisan motivation alone, but institutional capture.
What Else We Know
When a private advocacy organization—one with clear ideological commitments and funding from partisan sources—appoints attorneys who then exercise state prosecutorial power, accountability fragments. Who supervised these SUDC-placed attorneys? Who decided which cases received their attention? What conflicts of interest were disclosed? The public records released so far show the flow of legal assistance and the appointment of private attorneys to government roles, but they do not reveal decision-making authority or oversight mechanisms. The questions multiply.
Primary Sources
- Source: ZeroHedge
- Category: Corporate Watchdog
- Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.