Chenault-Fattah: Prosecutors misrepresented facts of Porsche sale

Former NBC10 news anchor Renee Chenault-Fattah accused prosecutors Tuesday of personally attacking her and misleading the court overseeing her husband's federal corruption case.

Her response - posted on her Facebook page - came four days after government lawyers suggested in court filings that she might face criminal liability should she testify next month at the trial of her spouse, U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.).

"I am not surprised that as soon as I take a high-profile role in my husband's reelection less than three weeks away, these prosecutors would attack me," read her post, which was also shared on the Facebook page of a political group supporting her husband's campaign. "However, I am surprised that as officers of the court, they would make a misrepresentation in a court document."

The posting underscored the increasingly caustic relationship between government lawyers and the Fattah family, as the congressman faces his toughest reelection contest to date even while preparing to fend off a potentially career-ending indictment at trial six days after the vote.

For years, Fattah, an 11-term Philadelphia Democrat, has alleged that Justice Department lawyers have pursued a single-minded crusade against him and his family - an allegation that has exasperated prosecutors, but one they have largely chosen not to address publicly while focusing instead on presenting their case in court.

That strategy paid off last fall when the same team of FBI agents and prosecutors currently pursuing the case against the congressman won convictions against his son that have sent Chaka Jr. to prison for five years on bank and tax fraud charges.

The elder Fattah was indicted in July, accused of accepting bribes and misusing federal grant money, campaign contributions, and charitable funds under his control to pay off debts and enrich his inner circle.

But Chenault-Fattah, once one of the most recognizable faces in local TV news, had largely stayed out of the courtroom fray.

She attended several days of the testimony during her stepson's trial last year, sitting silently at the front of the gallery, and she has made few public comments about her husband's case.

NBC10 pulled her from the airwaves after Fattah's indictment. She severed ties with the station earlier this year, although it is unclear whether she left voluntarily or was fired.

Since then, Chenault-Fattah has taken on a new role, chairing an organization called "Women for Fattah" that was set up to champion her husband's reelection.

But a government filing in her husband's case last week put her reputation squarely in the crosshairs.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul Gray and Eric Gibson sought a judge's permission to use a recording of Chenault-Fattah as part of the racketeering conspiracy case.

Chenault-Fattah has not been charged and prosecutors have given no indication that they intend to seek an indictment against her. They have not mentioned her name in court filings, instead referring to her as "Person E."

Still, Gray and Gibson alleged that Chenault-Fattah was aware of - if not an active participant in - what they describe as a complex bribery scheme involving a sham sale of her 1989 Porsche convertible to lobbyist and former Rendell-era deputy mayor Herbert Vederman.

According to the indictment, the lobbyist offered $18,000 to the Fattahs in 2012 to help cover closing costs on a $425,000 vacation home they hoped to buy in the Poconos. In exchange, prosecutors say, Fattah hired Vederman's girlfriend for a job in his congressional office, where she performed "little to no work."

Fattah and Vederman allegedly tried to hide the exchange of cash by falsifying documents to show that Chenault-Fattah had sold her 1989 Porsche convertible to the lobbyist for the $18,000 sum.

Yet, prosecutors say, Chenault-Fattah held on to the sports car for years after the purported sale, paying the insurance bills, registering the car in her name, and driving it. As recently as March 2014, federal agents spotted the car parked outside the congressman's house.

The recording the government hopes to present to jurors is from a November 2012 call Chenault-Fattah made to her insurance company seeking to alter her policy for the winter because she would not be driving the car. Prosecutors argue that it proves she still considered the car her own 10 months after she allegedly sold it to Vederman.

Her "statements plainly tend to expose [Chenault-Fattah] to criminal liability for the false statements and documents she provided to the financial institution about the $18,000 payment," Gibson and Gray wrote, referring to documents she and her husband filed to register the Porsche's sale.

In a footnote, they added: "The government expects [Chenault-Fattah] to be unavailable to testify at trial by virtue of her assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination."

Chenault-Fattah's lawyer, Robert Vance, issued a statement Tuesday disputing the government's claims, calling them inaccurate and misleading. He maintained that his client has cooperated with the FBI investigation from the start.

Chenault-Fattah, he said, met with an agent "two years ago and answered every question he posed to her, including regarding her conversation with the insurance company concerning automobile coverage," the statement read. "She voluntarily met [with the FBI] without an attorney and answered questions without receiving Miranda warnings."

He added: "Ms. Chenault-Fattah has not been contacted by the government about testifying at her husband's trial."

Both Vance and Chenault-Fattah had declined to comment when contacted by a reporter Monday.

Chenault-Fattah has previously said she kept the car in one of her three garages and insured it after its sale to Vederman because he did not have the space to park it - a position she reiterated in her Facebook post Tuesday.

"I have never asserted the Fifth Amendment (although it is a protected constitutional right to do so) and I have never indicated to anyone that I would," she wrote. "Why would these prosecutors tell the court something that is inaccurate?"

jroebuck@phillynews.com

215-854-2608

@jeremyrroebuck