Bosworth’s Claim That She Had Advice From Joel
On April 17th, Bosworth went on a radio talk show to face questions about the petition controversy. During the course of the show mentioned she had acted on the advice of counsel.
There are two possibilities here: Boswoth was telling the truth and acted on the advice of Arends, or she lied on the radio show and never got any such advice.
For the moment, leave aside the question of whether she was telling the truth or not. Instead, let’s just look at the impact of the statment on Bosworth and Arends whether it’s true or false.
In Part 1 of this series, we established that Arends was well aware of the controversy and had already been contacted by the Attorney General’s office. We also saw that Arends himself had been singled out in the complaint.
Two possibilites here:
Obviously, if Bosworth told the truth on the radio show about getting advice from Joel, it’s bad for Joel and almost certainly good for Bosworth.
On the other hand, if Bosworth liedthen it’s good for Joel because he did nothing wrong and very bad for Bosworth
Just make sure this is clear, here are the two options charted out.
It’s completely obviously that what’s good for Joel is bad for Annette and vice-versa: their interests clash.
Arends Never Admits This Clear Conflict of Interest
Yet you’ll hear in this section of Arend’s testimony, he admits that he wrote a retracton of that claim and sent it out as press release the next day.
The very act of writing and sending that release out was 1) good for Arends and 2) very very bad for Bosworth.
This is true whether Bosworth lied or didn’t lie on the radio show. If she lied, it still hurt her to send out a press release saying she lied and it helped Joel. If she didn’t lie, the retraction hurt her and helped Joel.
In other whoever, whoever you believe about what was said on the radio show, sending the release helped Arends and hurt Bosworth.
Significantly, Joel Arends admits in testimony that he never informed Annette Bosworth about the obvious conflict of interest.
In fact, his testimony makes it clear that Joel Arends still doesn’t acknowledge the conflict of interest even currently.
Why? Because he can’t.
If he acknowledges that there was was an obviously conflict and he failed to tell Bosworth, then Joel Arends faces possible civil and criminal charges in addition to being disciplined as an attorney.
There’s no way for Arends to get around this.
What Joel Arends SHOULD have said is something along the lines of:
“Look Annette, you’re facing potential criminal charges here and anything you say can be used against you at trial. If you agree to retract what you said about acting under advice of counsel yesterday, it’s entirely possible that the retraction will be used as part of the state’s case to prosecute you. This is in addition to the potential damage to your credability and to the campaign. I just want to make sure that you are fully aware of all that.”
But according to his own testimony, he never said that or anything else.
You’ll hear Arends brag that Bosworth continued to retain him, something he apparently says because he thinks it shows Bosworth didn’t have a problem with him.
Well, that’s true—because he never revealeed the obvious conflict of interest.
He witheld that information from Bosworth and now boasts that she contiued to retain him.
Of course she did, since he wasn’t honest with her, as he was duty bound to be.
Joel Arends betrayed Bosworth and a lawyer and a friend.
And the obvious deduction is that he wrote the retraction because he had, in fact, given her the advice as she claimed…and now he’s lying on the witness stand about it.
Arends is perjuring himself, over and over, on the witness stand.
TO BE CONTINUED