The committee cited a Washington Post story and a recent book by Robert Costa and Bob Woodward to corroborate its assertions concerning Kerik. But the article does not say Kerik attended the meeting, and the book doesn’t mention Kerik at all, according to his lawyer, Timothy C. Parlatore. Rather, Parlatore wrote to the committee, Kerik was in New York on Jan. 5 handling a family medical emergency.
“If you were not personally responsible for this fabrication and false statements, then someone on your staff was and should be held accountable,” the letter continues. “Someone either intentionally fabricated this claim, or someone failed at the simple task of carefully reading the sources before writing a letter claiming that the sources ‘have revealed credible evidence.’”
The letter also criticizes the committee for saying Kerik worked with Giuliani to “promote baseless litigation” related to the election results and claims that Kerik has evidence that could support “true claims of voter fraud” in litigation. It further says that a committee staffer asked Kerik’s lawyer multiple times in a phone call if Kerik would not comply with the subpoena.
“When someone continuously invites non-compliance in this manner, it gives the distinct impression that the goal was never to have him comply, but rather to cause him to not comply and face indictment, like Mr. Bannon,” the letter continues.
Then the letter from Kerik’s attorney makes a demand.
“For these reasons, Mr. Kerik demands that both the letter and press release be withdrawn or corrected and an apology issued,” it says. “Whether intentional or negligent, allowing these false statements to stand on the website of this Committee is improper and should be corrected.”
But, the letter continues, Kerik “still intends to comply with the subpoena.” The letter says Kerik’s work is covered by the privilege that shields lawyers’ work from becoming public, since he worked for Giuliani, who was representing then-President Trump. Kerik found evidence of voter fraud, according to his attorney, but couldn’t finish his work to determine if it would have changed the election’s outcome.
“Although the law is clear that these documents are exempt from disclosure, we are working to see if some form of limited privilege waiver can be obtained because Mr. Kerik very much wants to cooperate and provide these documents to the Committee, so that the American people can witness first-hand what he and others on the president’s legal team saw for themselves,” the letter says.
A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment. Parlatore did not immediately respond to a request for comment.