L. Louise Lucas family drug trafficking, money laundering charges: Full DOJ, FBI press conference

[0:01] All right, good morning. This morning, seven individuals were arrested or surrendered for [0:08] allegedly participating in a large-scale RICO drug trafficking and money laundering conspiracy. [0:15] One of those individuals is the President pro tempore of the Virginia State Senate, [0:20] Lily Louise Lucas of Portsmouth, Virginia. A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of [0:27] Virginia returned an indictment against all seven individuals on October 14th of this year. [0:33] The defendants are currently in federal custody and my understanding is there's an initial [0:39] appearance later this afternoon in federal court. The remaining six defendants listed in [0:44] the indictment include Senator Lucas's daughters, Lisa Lucas Burke and Theresa Lucas Lamb, [0:51] Ms. Lucas's grandson, Ryan Eichelberger, Prince Albert William Hudson III, Carlton Upton Jr., [1:01] and Tamika Johnson. Senator Lucas has been charged and indicted with five counts, [1:08] racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, [1:14] conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, and maintaining a drug [1:20] involved premises. The other counts listed in the indictment that she's not charged in include [1:26] possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and wire fraud. All seven [1:32] defendants are charged for their various roles they allegedly played in the Lucas Enterprise. [1:38] The indictment alleges that Senator Lucas approved and directed criminal activities and other [1:43] activities to benefit the affairs of the Lucas Enterprise. That she arranged for the acquisition [1:50] and distribution of marijuana, that she supervised the laundering of marijuana proceeds, and that she used [1:56] her political influence to demand and accept a bribe and attempted to influence Virginia legislation for [2:02] the benefit of herself and her family. As some folks know, since 1992, Senator Lucas has held a position of [2:11] trust in the Virginia State Senate. Since 2020, she has served as the president pro tempore, or she has served as [2:20] the presiding member of the State Senate in the absence of the Lieutenant Governor. At the same time, Senator Lucas has been the owner of [2:27] Lucas Lodge LLC, Lucas Hospitality LLC, and the Cannabis Outlet, all three located in Portsmouth, Virginia. [2:38] The Department of Justice intends to prove that Senator Lucas violated the trust of the people of [2:45] Portsmouth and Chesapeake, Virginia, and of her State Senate colleagues. Through her elected office, [2:52] Senator Lucas has been a public servant of the people of Virginia. Her first duty should have been [2:58] looking out for her constituents before herself. But the charges listed in the indictment reflect the [3:07] alleged behavior of a public servant who put her own financial interests before the people she was [3:13] elected to serve. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, an elected official, or an everyday citizen, [3:22] nobody is above the law. If you commit crimes in violation of federal law, the Department of Justice will [3:28] prosecute you. We're here today because of facts and evidence, which led to this investigation to [3:35] begin many years ago, and facts and evidence that led to the grand jury to indict Senator Lucas and her [3:41] alleged co-conspirators. And the facts and evidence will continue to guide our federal prosecutors in this [3:49] case. I want to take a moment to thank the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney's [3:55] Office here in the Eastern District of Virginia for the work they have done throughout this investigation [4:01] and in bringing the charges here today. And with that, I will hand it over to Director Patel. Thank you. [4:11] Thank you, General. As alleged by the Attorney General, Ms. Lucas, for the last nearly five years, [4:20] accumulated nearly $5 million in ill-gotten gains through her criminal enterprise. Ms. Lucas served in a [4:26] position of trust for nearly four decades and served as the president pro tempore of the Senate for the [4:31] Virginia State Senate for these last five, six years. During that time, as alleged in the indictment, [4:36] her and her six co-conspirators, instead of serving the public, as was her job, manufactured and created [4:43] a criminal enterprise to illicitly enrich themselves by procuring sales and stores and divisions through the [4:52] marijuana and CBD enterprise. Ms. Lucas has many things to answer for on the allegation. The purpose [5:02] of her enterprise included trafficking large quantities of illegal marijuana, creating generational [5:08] wealth for members and associates of her criminal enterprise, recycling drug proceeds to expand the [5:14] operation that she launched and created, and steering marijuana licenses to entities in which members [5:19] held financial interest. During her time as Virginia State Senator, instead of enforcing the law, she [5:25] was actually breaking the law, as alleged in the indictment, and then using her position of power and [5:30] public trust to deflect and defend against her own criminal enterprise. Truly the epitome of hypocrisy for [5:36] a public official. Ms. Lucas, on January 24, 2022, posted on social media, I'm a 78-year-old grandma who [5:44] legalized pot and now has her own cannabis store. And I'm the last thing standing between the GOP and [5:50] total control of Virginia. That's worth an RT." End quote. While she was posting these things, and the [5:57] reason I highlighted it is because during this time period, her and her co-conspirators continued her [6:03] criminal conspiracy to enrich themselves and break the public trust. Thank you to the Attorney General, [6:10] thank you to the United States Attorney's Office here in Norfolk, Virginia, for making sure that we hold [6:15] people accountable in positions of public trust and power, especially when they violate the law, [6:21] as has been alleged here today. I want to personally thank the men and women of the FBI, [6:26] in the Norfolk Division, and also at headquarters and the FBI Richmond Field Office for their tireless [6:31] work over these last years. Putting together a public corruption case takes a lot of effort and [6:37] manpower. And the prosecutors bravely and courageously waded through mountains of material, [6:42] along with the FBI investigators and agents, to reach this decision point today and present this [6:47] material to the grand jury. And the grand jury returned an indictment, finding a finding of [6:51] probable cause to charge Ms. Lucas and her six co-conspirators. Thank you again to the men and [6:56] women of the FBI Norfolk Division, and thank you again to the Department of Justice and Attorney General [7:01] Todd Blanche for your leadership. Good morning. My name is Theo Stamos. I'm the first Assistant United [7:12] States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. I want to thank Attorney General Blanche, [7:17] and Director Patel for their years-long support in supporting this prosecution and this investigation [7:24] that culminates in today's charges being announced. The allegations in the indictment detail a criminal [7:30] enterprise operating in plain sight. These charges, as alleged, reveal not just an abuse of public trust, [7:37] but a reliance on the deference granted to a public official, an elected public official. [7:44] These charges are not limited to one defendant, however. The charges include relatives and associates [7:49] of that elected official who allegedly conspired to cash in on beneficial legislation, access, and [7:57] influence. The charges are not limited to public corruption, but also involve public safety. We see [8:04] time and again the dangers of the presence and use of firearms in conjunction with drug trafficking. [8:11] As detailed in the indictment, both illegal narcotics and firearms were recovered by law enforcement [8:17] during searches of the premises maintained by this enterprise. The charges also include the fraudulent [8:24] acquisition of funds through a COVID-era loan program. This program was intended to assist small [8:29] businesses impacted by the pandemic. Instead, one of the businesses operated by this enterprise was used to [8:36] exploit that very program. I am grateful to the agents of the FBI and the prosecutors led by Eric Hurt [8:44] and Brian Samuels here at EDVA, whose diligence and efforts and professionalism over the course of this [8:51] very careful and thorough investigation have led to the charges we're announcing today. Thank you. [8:56] All right, thank you. We'll take questions. I mean, I was going to call on you, but you just started talking [9:04] before I did, but please. No, go ahead, please. That's okay. That's all right. Go ahead. [9:09] Your attorney is saying this is political payback. She's been an arch opponent to the president and [9:17] that this is payback for that and that they were expecting, in his words, this circus to afford. [9:23] What is your response to that? What do you say to those that say this is just political? [9:29] Well, my initial response is there's actually a now public indictment that anybody in this country [9:35] can read and the 45 or so page indictment lays out a series of allegations that the grand jury heard [9:40] and that's, I've read the indictment. I read it this morning. It's not, we don't do political paybacks. [9:47] That's not, this investigation has been going on long before the U.S. attorney, the first assistant [9:53] started her job, long before I started my job here and long before Director Patel became the FBI [9:59] director. It started long before President Trump was reelected. So I don't, I'm not going to, I can't get [10:04] into a war of words with, with an attorney for a charged defendant, but just to unequivocally say [10:09] it's completely false to say that this, and again, don't trust me, read the indictment. So, yeah. [10:15] In the back, you. Can you say what year the investigation started [10:19] and what prompted the investigation? Was there a tip or anything like that? [10:23] I don't know what prompted it and I don't know exactly when it started. The indictment alleges that the [10:28] conduct started at least in 2019, up until the date of the filing of the indictment. So I don't have the [10:34] information in front of me exactly when it started, but suffice to say it wasn't started by the three [10:40] folks, but by the Trump administration or whatever allegations are now going to come forward. Yes, go [10:46] ahead. So the, you know, my understanding of typical practice DOJ doesn't usually release charges like [10:52] this, this close to an election. And even though Louise Lucas is not on the ballot, her daughter is. [10:57] So can you speak to the reason for the timing of these charges so close to an upcoming election? [11:03] Well, so, I mean, I think you're referring to the 60 day or 90 day practice, which is not [11:11] in writing. There's no, that's not the part of the justice manual. The justice manual speaks [11:15] very clearly about what the Department of Justice can and can't do. And we cannot [11:20] bring a charge if our purpose is improper. And there's nothing improper about this purpose. And so [11:25] there's a lot of commentary about the 60 day rule. I think it's something that we [11:29] in leadership at the Department of Justice think about and take very seriously. The center's not up [11:34] for reelection. This is a long running case. As alleged in the indictment, it's a RICO conspiracy [11:40] case. It's a narcotics case. And so while the timing of an indictment is something that we have always [11:49] thought about at the Department of Justice, the expected complaints about the timing of [11:54] this indictment are not consistent with the justice manual or consistent with what we're doing is very [12:00] consistent with with past practices. And so I can't, you know, people can criticize all they want, [12:05] but it was time to bring the charges. The grand jury returned an indictment and and we made the arrests. [12:10] You've got like some alleged covert acts as recently as July. I mean, just sort of following up on that, [12:16] is there any specific thing you can cite that says there is a real need for urgency, you know, [12:22] before the next two weeks? You mean to stop crimes from occurring? [12:24] Was that, yeah, that was the... Is that what you're asking? Is there an urgency to stop crimes [12:28] from being committed? Yes. Always. Absolutely. [12:30] So you're saying this is... No, I mean, well, I mean, I know I appreciate the question, but when you, [12:35] when someone says, is there an urgency, I hope everybody at the Department of Justice and every federal agent and cop always [12:41] acts with urgency when there's crimes going on. And that doesn't mean that there are not instances [12:46] in investigation where you need to wait for any number of reasons. But this, but, but yes, I mean, [12:52] there the there's there's dates in the indictment dating back to 2018. And so this was a there's been [13:00] covert actions taken for many years. And and this was the the the right time to bring the charges. [13:06] She's not up for election, right? So I just to be clear, there's there's decisions and processes [13:11] in place at the department when we're bringing a case against a political official. And the question, [13:18] the first question is, is this investigation proper? And the conclusion of that is yes. [13:23] Is the timing proper? And the conclusion of that is yes. So, yes, I mean, we did need to bring it to an [13:29] end in the back. You mentioned that the indictment came down, I think, the 14th. Can you tell me when [13:36] Senator Lucas was notified that she had been indicted and needed to turn herself in? [13:42] Well, I hope she wasn't notified till this morning. It was unsealed, I believe, today. So, [13:46] like, I mean, that's not that's quite usual that there's a couple days or a week or so in between [13:52] the returning of a sealed indictment. And especially if there's multiple defendants in the case to make [13:58] sure we can plan an arrest plan and make sure our agents are safe. My understanding is she surrendered this [14:03] morning. I don't know exactly when her counsel would have been informed that the indictment was [14:08] unsealed. But I would hope that it was today. Tom, two questions, one on topic, one on topic. [14:16] Just real quick, I'm making sure. You were alleging that he was selling marijuana for recreational use [14:23] before it was legalized in Virginia. And secondly, on that point, it's very rare to have you, [14:30] Director Patel and A.G. Blanche here announcing a case at a press conference. This is a very different [14:37] type of drug crime than, you know, with marijuana. This is a drug that the president has declassified. [14:43] Can you explain why it's very important for you two to be standing here holding a press conference [14:48] and announcing this case? So, well, so what you described is what I've alleged is not, I think, [14:55] I mean, it's a lot more detailed and there's a lot more alleged in the RICO conspiracy than [15:01] just legally selling marijuana. Indeed, if that was all that was the investigation uncovered, [15:05] we would not be here. And so this isn't about a citizen in Virginia lawfully getting a license, [15:12] lawfully opening a shop that sells lawfully manufactured marijuana under the state laws of [15:17] Virginia. To the contrary, the indictment alleges something very, very different than that. So [15:21] this isn't about us trying to micromanage state's decisions about the marijuana laws. And you're [15:27] right. We are going through a process with the federal level with marijuana laws. But that's not [15:32] what the RICO conspiracy alleges in the indictment. That's a very simplistic way to say it. And [15:39] why, while we're here, I mean, I think it's my responsibility and Director Patel's responsibility to [15:47] be open and transparent at the right times with all of you and with the American people about [15:52] charges we're bringing. She is a, she's been a member of the Senate in Virginia, I think, since 1990 [15:57] or so. So there is something, there's been public reporting about this investigation for many months. [16:03] And so we determined that it was appropriate to have this press conference today. We're not going [16:07] to continue to speak about the case. We're keeping it to the charges as alleged in the indictment. But [16:12] I think the public has a right to to hear from us at times like at times like this. What you said [16:18] you had off topic. Go ahead. The 60 90 day rule came up. I wanted to ask about the search of Ilan, [16:26] Representative Ilan Omar's home and why, you know, you think that why the argument for how that complied [16:34] with that rule. I know it's not written, but we also know as a defense attorney before you also had [16:39] criticisms of Jack Smith violating that rule. So I want to understand how the Ilan Omar search [16:47] concordated with that rule. Well, so I, we don't talk about searches. Searchers are covert. They're [16:53] not overt. And yes, and this became overt because of the circumstances around the search on, on Monday. [17:00] But that is a covert operation. It's a search warrant. And when you, anytime you apply for a search warrant, [17:05] one of the factors under the rules is why it needs to happen on a, pursuant to a search warrant and not [17:11] a subpoena and why it has to happen on that day and not some other day. And as the magistrate judge [17:16] found there, we needed to do it then. We were not, our comment, I don't know what, you know, [17:23] the, the, the Congresswoman has made multiple public comments about it. I haven't. I said there's a law [17:29] enforcement action. That's all I've said. So, and again, this does not violate the 60 day rule or whatever [17:34] rule that's, it's, it's, which is not even a rule. It's just a practice. When we have to execute a [17:39] search warrant or an arrest, if there's a crime that occurs, we take into consideration the purpose [17:45] and making sure the purpose is proper, which is what the justice manual requires. And, and that's what [17:51] we did then. And that's what we do in every case behind. Yes. There's some concern with the consolidation [17:56] of the Norfolk field office may hinder solving crimes like this in the future. Can you touch on, on that [18:01] effort moving forward? I don't, I have, that concern has not been raised to me. So I can't touch on, [18:06] sorry. I don't, I just don't have an answer. I don't know if you. I think the director can answer [18:12] that question. So the, what we always try to do is put more resources into the field. There will not [18:18] be a reduction in Manning when we combine the Richmond and Norfolk field offices. In fact, [18:22] there'll actually be an increase. And what we did was we eliminated $4.5 million in administrative costs. [18:27] And that $4.5 million is going right back into Norfolk to hire more agents, to hire more [18:31] investigative analysts and to buy more tech and kit. So our agents can be in the field doing [18:35] the work they need to do. The senator's quote is saying to someone on the phone, quote, [18:42] this is our last chance at generational wealth. I've gotten too old to not be greedy. In your view, [18:49] is greed at the center of this case? I mean, I think it's a RICO conspiracy case, whether [18:55] the motivation for what happened was greed. I have no, I have no idea. I can't get into the [19:00] mind of the, of the senator. I, I'm familiar with the text you're referring to as it's in the [19:06] indictment. But I, I don't, I don't know the motivation behind somebody when they do something [19:11] like this. So it's just a couple more. Go ahead. This question is for Director Patel. So like a few [19:16] months ago, there was this reporting that you were going to Moscow. And then last week, there was [19:21] reporting that you were in Moscow that ended up not being accurate. Were you ever planning to go [19:25] to Moscow for what purpose? And if so, and is that something that you would still consider doing? [19:31] Well, as you pointed out, the reporting was entirely false. I was at Liberty University [19:35] talking to students, police officers, and young Americans who had an interest in joining our law [19:39] enforcement community and adding to the historic reduction in violent crime that we've already [19:43] achieved. As to where we go and how we do our business, the FBI has 125 offices overseas. [19:48] Under this administration, we engage with everyone to make sure that we can service the needs of the [19:55] American people to reduce crime, to find kids that are missing, to bring home hostages, [19:59] and to thwart any cyber actors who wish to do us harm. And by engaging our allies and adversary alike, [20:05] we are going to continue that mission because President Trump has kicked open those doors [20:09] that were never opened before. So we're going to take advantage of those opportunities. And we're not [20:12] going to announce where we're going to go and when we're going to go, except to tell you that this FBI [20:16] and this Department of Justice will go wherever we need to go to meet out justice for the American [20:20] people. By the way, that was it was not reporting. It was completely false reporting is the way that [20:26] should be described. But Alex. [20:30] It's just a follow-up question to somebody else's question. [20:31] I'll come back to you for the last question. Go ahead. [20:33] Thank you. [20:34] On the election litigation against California yesterday, it was signed to the judge who [20:38] actually previously dismissed a lawsuit the DOJ brought seeking the state's voter rolls. I'm wondering, [20:43] is the overarching goal of this litigation to kind of leave it up to question as to whether a state [20:49] should certify the results when you have this list of, you know, 20,000 alleged likely not citizens [20:56] in the DOJ's view? Is it kind of just to kind of keep it up in the air and potential results when they [21:01] start rolling in on election day? [21:03] Absolutely, positively not. I mean, that's not what the lawsuit alleges. We're not trying to create chaos. [21:10] It continues to baffle me why anybody, whether it's people in this room or people watching or elected [21:18] officials at the state or local level, if presented with evidence that there are tens of thousands, [21:24] 20,000 ineligible voters that are receiving ballots, that there isn't some motivation, [21:31] anything to do something about that, like do something besides write a nasty gram to me or [21:36] or to have a senator write a letter to me suggesting I'm doing something wrong. The fact that there's, [21:42] that we had to even bring this lawsuit after alerting local election officials to this potential issue, [21:49] okay, and this isn't just made up, notwithstanding what what folks are saying, this isn't just made [21:54] up. We didn't pull names out of a hat. This is something that should be a serious concern to [21:59] everybody in California and everybody in this country. So let's assume that only half those names [22:06] vote. That's 10,000 people who are not eligible to vote that are voting in California. That's not [22:12] scaring people. I'm not trying to not have an election certified. Of course not. What we're trying [22:17] to do is guarantee to the American people that the only people that are voting are people that are [22:21] eligible to vote. So we don't have a motivation beyond just trying to force or try to encourage [22:30] or try to just get California election officials to do what we think they need to do to make sure that [22:38] the only people that are voting, whether it's by mail or in person, are the person that's registered [22:44] to vote and that that person is actually somebody who's allowed to vote under the law. So somebody who [22:49] is a U.S. citizen, that's the motivation behind the lawsuit. Okay, I'll take the last question from [22:54] the back. Yeah. Clarifying question. In the indictment, it alleges that Upton, who has previously [22:59] worked with Lucas, helped her obtain a recreational marijuana license, but there aren't any recreational [23:05] marijuana licenses in Virginia yet. So can you clarify that a little bit, please? Can you ask the question [23:10] again? I'm sorry. In the indictment, it alleges that Upton, her former, someone she did business with [23:15] at one point, helped her obtain a recreational marijuana license, but there aren't [23:19] those in Virginia yet. So can you clarify that? I can't clarify it beyond what's alleged in the [23:25] indictment and what we understand from the evidence that we collected, the senator alleged she was [23:32] doing or not doing. And yeah, you're right. There was some fluctuation in the law and the governor [23:36] ultimately be doing some parts of this effort. So I don't want to get into the specifics of the case [23:43] beyond what's in the indictment. But yes, I appreciate that there were, according to the allegations in [23:48] the indictment and some of the statements that were made by the co-conspirators allegedly, [23:53] it ultimately is inconsistent with what the law ultimately ended up being or was at the time. [23:57] Like a pursuit of recreational marijuana despite it not being pulled for ticket yet? [24:02] Oh, I'm not saying anything. You said that. What I said is that I do appreciate that as alleged in the [24:07] indictment, there are statements that were allegedly made by the co-conspirators and by the senator [24:12] about what they were doing and not doing and trying to get and not trying to get is ultimately [24:16] inconsistent with, as you said, the law and where it ended up being and where it was going. So, [24:23] okay. All right. Thank you guys very much. I appreciate it.