• Molly Ashford World-Herald Staff Writer – Dec 26, 2023 – Omaha World Herald, Lincoln Journal Star

My cmnt: I’ve several blogs (here, here, and here) on this site referencing Fortenberry’s legal issues. It appears to many observers to be a clear case of a democrat-controlled FBI entrapping a Republican Congressman for a very minor campaign finance violation. Fortenberry’s lesson here (and the same applies to everyone) is: Never, ever talk to the FBI and, as Hillary showed us, simply say “I don’t recall” to every question. And always have legal representation present.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday reversed former Nebraska Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s three felony convictions, agreeing with Fortenberry’s argument that the trial should not have taken place in California. 

Fortenberry was convicted by a federal jury in Los Angeles in 2022 on one count of concealing conduit campaign contributions and two counts of lying to federal agents, all felonies. The charges stemmed from Fortenberry allegedly accepting an illegal campaign donation from billionaire Nigerian businessman Gilbert Chagoury at a 2016 fundraiser and then lying about the donation during later interviews with FBI agents. 

On Tuesday, a panel of three judges with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an 27-page opinion reversing Fortenberry’s convictions “without prejudice to retrial in proper venue,” meaning Fortenberry could be tried again in Nebraska or Washington, DC., where the interviews with FBI agents took place. 

Prosecutors had argued that holding the trial in California was proper because the fundraiser at which Fortenberry allegedly accepted the illegal donation was in Los Angeles, and because the agents investigating the case were based in California. But the appeals court found that wasn’t enough to satisfy the constitutional right for a criminal defendant to be tried in the place where the crime occurred. 

“Fortenberry’s trial took place in a state where no charged crime was committed,” the conclusion of the opinion reads. “The Constitution does not permit this. Fortenberry’s convictions are reversed so that he may be retried, if at all, in a proper venue.”

The facts that led to Fortenberry’s now-overturned convictions began with the 2016 fundraiser, at which Fortenberry raised $36,000 for his re-election campaign, according to court documents. But prosecutors said almost all of that money — $30,000 — was provided by Chagoury, a foreign national, and then distributed amongst fundraiser attendees who acted as conduit donors. 

During a 2018 phone call that an FBI agent listened in on, according to court documents, a friend of Fortenberry’s who helped organize the first fundraiser explicitly mentioned Chagoury’s illegal donations while discussing the potential for another fundraiser with Fortenberry.

But when interviewed by FBI agents about Chagoury twice in 2019, Fortenberry denied any knowledge of the $30,000 contribution, according to court documents.

Attorneys for Fortenberry fought for the trial to be moved from California to Nebraska almost immediately after the October 2021 indictment. Soon after the indictment was filed, Fortenberry filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of venue and later to transfer the venue to Nebraska, both of which were denied. 

Following his conviction, Fortenberry was sentenced to two years of probation, 320 hours of community service and a $25,000 fine. 

Fortenberry and his wife, Celeste Fortenberry, praised the court’s decision Tuesday.

“We are gratified by the Ninth Circuit’s decision,” Jeff Fortenberry said in a statement. “Celeste and I would like to thank everyone who has stood by us and supported us with their kindness and friendship.”

Thom Mrozek, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, noted that the appellate court left a path open for future proceedings against Fortenberry.

“The ruling does not preclude a retrial on the charges that then-Congressman Fortenberry made multiple false statements to federal agents,” Mrozek said in a statement. “We are evaluating potential next steps before deciding how best to move forward.”

Patricia Hartman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, declined to comment on the ruling’s potential impact for federal prosecutors in Washington.