Epstein Secrets

rtisan bureaucrat and nothing more." Pence's National Security Adviser: Williams Never Voiced Concerns About Trump-Zelensky Call. Politico (11/19, Desiderio, Cheney, 4.29M) reports that Jennifer Williams, an adviser to Vice President Pence described the Trump-Zelensky phone call as "unusual" because it

a statement Tuesday that he listened to Trump's July 25 phone call with...Zelenskiy and that he 'heard nothing wrong or improper.'" Bloomberg says Kellogg issued the statement after Williams testified that she "didn't inform him of any concerns after the call." Kellog said, "In fact, she never report

taff, "went on Fox News to make the same point. 'She said she found the call unusual yet she never raised any concerns with her supervisor General Kellogg, she never raised any concerns with the chief of staff, she never raised any concerns with the vice president,' he said." In a profile of Williams

intiffs' factual allegations in the com- plaint as true and draw inferences from those allegations in the light most favor- able to the Plaintiffs." Desiderio a Nat'l Assn of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 191 F.3d 198, 202 (2d Cir.1999). Dismissal is not appro- priate unless it appears beyond doubt, "even when the

urran, White & Case LLP (DC), David Charles Frederick, John Christopher Rozendaal, Mark Charles Hansen, Michael John Guz- man, Michael K. Kellogg, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans PLLC (DC), Law- rence Saul Robbins, Robbins Russell Eng- lert Orseck & Untereiner LLP, Washing- ton, DC, Jean Engelmaye

k Curran, White & Case LLP (DC), David Charles Frederick, John Christopher Rozendaal, Mark Charles Hansen, Michael John Guz- man, Michael K. Kellogg, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans PLLC (DC), Law- rence Saul Robbins, Robbins Russell Eng- lert Orseck & Untereiner LLP, Washing- ton, DC, Jean Engelmayer

ns in the com- Failure to State a Claim plaint as true and draw inferences from those allegations in the light most favor- able to the Plaintiffs.” Desiderio v. Natl Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 191 F.3d 198, 202 (2d Cir.1999). Dismissal is not appro- priate unless it appears beyond doubt, “even when the c