FULL: DOJ announces indictment of Virginia State Sen. Louise Luca

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, where she has served as the presiding member of the state senate in the absence of a 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 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. 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 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, Ms. Lucas, for the last nearly five years, accumulated nearly $5 million in ill-gotten gains through her criminal enterprise. Ms. Lucas served in a position of trust for nearly four decades and served as the 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. Ms. 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. Ms. Lucas, on January 24, 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 to 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 Ms. 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 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 the HBA, 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. But don't you think that this is, well... 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 okay. That's all right. Go ahead. But 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 that they were expecting, in his words, this circus to unfold. What is your response to that? What do you say to those that say this is just political payback? Well, my initial response is there's actually now a 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 and that's I've read the indictment I read it this morning um it's not we don't do political paybacks that's not this investigation has been going on long before um the u.s attorney the first assistant started her job long before i started my job here and long before director patel um became the fbi director it started long before president trump was re-elected so i don't i'm I'm not going to, I can't get into a war of words 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, payback. Can you say what year the investigation started and what prompted the investigation? Was there some kind of a tip or anything like that? 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 don't have the information in front of me exactly when it started, but suffice to say it wasn't started by the three folks, but by the Trump administration or whatever allegations are now going to come forward. Yes, go ahead. So my understanding, the typical practice, DOJ doesn't usually release charges like this this close to an election. And even though Ms. 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. That's not part of 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 of the Department of Justice, think about and take very seriously. The Senate is not up for re-election. 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 uh you know people can criticize all they want but it was time to bring the charges the grand jury returned an indictment and and we made the arrests you've got like some alleged covert acts as recently as july i mean just sort of following up on that is there any specific if any, incitement says there is a real need for urgency, you know, before the next two weeks. You mean to stop crimes from occurring? Was that, yeah, that was the... Is that what you're asking? Is there an urgency to stop crimes from being committed? Yes, always. Absolutely. So you're saying this is... No, I mean, well, I mean, I know, I appreciate the question, but when you, 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 this was the right time to bring the charges. She's not up for election, right? So I just, to be clear, there's decisions and processes in place at the department when we're bringing a case against a political official. And 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. So, yes, I mean, we did need to bring it to an end. In the back. You mentioned that the indictment came out 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 not, 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 off 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 um 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 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 state's 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 it's my responsibility and Director Patel's responsibility to be open and transparent at the right times with all of you, with the American people about the charges we're bringing. She's been a member of the Senate in Virginia, I think, since 1990 or so. So 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. What you said you had off topic. Go ahead. Yeah, I wanted to ask the 60-day rule came up. I wanted to ask about the search of Ilhan, 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 Jack Smith violating that rule. So I want to understand how the Ilhan Omar search comported with that. Well, so we don't talk about searches. Searches are covert. they're not overt and yes and this became um overt because of the circumstances around the search on on monday um but that is a covert operation it's a search warrant and when you anytime you apply for a search warrant one of the factors of the rules is why it needs to happen on a 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 there we needed to do it then um we were not our comment i don't 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. And, again, this does not violate the 60-day rule or whatever rule, which is not even a rule. It's just a practice. And 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 you. There's some concern with the consolidation of the Norfolk field office. It may hinder solving crimes like this in the future. Can you touch on that effort moving forward? I don't. That concern has not been raised to me, so I can't touch on it. Sorry. I don't know. I think the work of the FBI, but his director can answer that question. So 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, it'll 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. In this indictment, the senator is quoted as saying to someone on the phone, quote, this is our last chance at generational wealth. I've gotten too old to not be greedy. In your view, is greed at the center of this case? I mean, 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 let's use just a couple more. 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, 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 adversaries alike, we are going to continue that mission because President Trump has kicked open those doors that were never open 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 meet out justice for the American people. By the way, that was not reporting. It was completely false reporting is the way that it should be described. Clarification question. It's just a follow-up question to somebody else. I'll come back to you on the last question. 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 the 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 their results when you have this list of, you know, 20,000 alleged likely non-citizens in DOJ's view. Okay. Keep it up in the air. Keep it true. All right, appreciate you being with us and hanging out. Basically, we've been talking about the charges filed against 82-year-old Louise Lucas, longtime Virginia Senate Democrat in Southern Virginia. Charges filed involving drug operation. These are just charges at this point. When you hear things, and we just heard a lot of federal officials, including the Attorney General talking to the head of the FBI. You know, when you hear things like fraud, when you hear things about COVID funding, like you said before, this kind of plays in line into what the White House has been saying they will crack down on. Yeah, just to recap the press conference, you know, three major figures in federal law enforcement. You have the Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche, Kash Patel, who is the Director of the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The allegation here is that State Senator Louise Lucas, very powerful chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee in Virginia, is alleged to have run what they say is a criminal enterprise in this indictment for marijuana sales, which are not legal for recreational use in the Commonwealth of Virginia.