I don't think so. She changed her story when I found a witness that contradicted her. Here's the full thread from my chat with her:
I've been calling demanding accountability. I left a message with Kelly Rossman-McKinney, Communications Director of Michigan's AG. I urged Michigan's AG to release the audit she was blocking. Kelly called me back and said it was "misinformation" that the AG was blocking the release of the Dominion information. So I asked her who was and why it wasn't released. She told me it was up to a judge and that her office hadn't filed to block the information. I asked who I could call to urge them to release the information and said she'd text me. Here is our text exchange.
Kelly: "Case is Bailey vs Antrim County before 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer"
Me: "Hi Kelly, thank you again for your assistance with this. So to clarify, this judge is blocking the release of the Anterim county forensic findings? And it was his decision to do so and no one in your office ever filed to block the information? Is that correct? You are so kind to clarify."
Kelly: "No that is not correct. No one has moved to block or suppress the information."
Me: "So, just again, so I understand completely before bringing this to the public, in what way are you intervening on behalf of the secretary of state?"
Kelly: "It is asking the court's permission to let the Secretary of State be part of the lawsuit with Antrim County."
Me: "Thank you for clarifying. I hope you have a great day."
Kelly: "Of Course"
I then called Court to speak to someone in judges office. I left a message demanding to know who was blocking the release since the AG denied her office moved to suppress the information and said "no one did."
Waiting for answers.
EDIT WITH UPDATE: OK, Teri, someone who works for the 13th circuit court just called me back. She said it was her understanding (but she clarified it was her opinion based on the live hearing that she listened to on YouTube but is not recorded for our reference) that the audit is not yet done. I said, well Kelly told me it was done but wasn't being released because it was pending litigation with the judge (I was more polite than this). Teri said she can't speak to what Kelly thinks but it's her understanding as a private citizen no one is blocking it and that it hasn't been released because it's not yet done. She says we can't see a recording but we can order a court transcript (which she says is expensive). Black Box.
EDIT WITH 2nd UPDATE: GET THIS, it gets wilder. I just texted Kelly back politely letting her know her story contradicts Teri's and Kelly changes her story to match Teri's because she "just found out Teri is right."
Me: "Hi Kelly, so kind of you again to help me understand all this. So I just spoke with Teri at the 13th circuit and she told me it was her personal understanding the forensic audit wasn't actually complete at all. Is that your understanding or is your understanding still that it's simply pending litigation in order to be released? Thanks again for all of your help clearing this up!"
Kelly: "She is correct. I found that out late this afternoon It is incomplete so even the judge hasn't seen it yet."
We part with polite formalities. So yeah, at this point I have a LOT of questions.
That's a huge wall of text but I read through it, including the second update. Paragraphs would help a lot.
I looked up Communications Director Kelly Rossman-McKinney on LinkedIn and she's a self-proclaimed renowned public relations expert, which means she's an expert on saying as little as possible that could possibly make her clients look bad.
In this case, Rossman-McKinney gave you no useful information but convinced you it was all she knew. Whether that was true or false, it's clear she did her job as a PR specialist
Notice she said it was up to the judge and claimed her office hadn't filed to block the release. A good PR person is going to give you as little information as possible, tell you the truth when the information is publicly available and inconsequential, and try changing the subject if the interview is getting off message.
P.S. I archived Kelly Rossman-McKinney's bio at Truscott Rossman , the public relations firm she was founder and CEO of before retiring to take a job with the Michigan Attorney General, if you want a better idea of who you were talking to.
I mean she was actively lying. She straight up said no one blocked it. (also, sorry about the para issues. I had them originally but they got lost on the copy paste).
I don't think so. She changed her story when I found a witness that contradicted her. Here's the full thread from my chat with her:
I've been calling demanding accountability. I left a message with Kelly Rossman-McKinney, Communications Director of Michigan's AG. I urged Michigan's AG to release the audit she was blocking. Kelly called me back and said it was "misinformation" that the AG was blocking the release of the Dominion information. So I asked her who was and why it wasn't released. She told me it was up to a judge and that her office hadn't filed to block the information. I asked who I could call to urge them to release the information and said she'd text me. Here is our text exchange. Kelly: "Case is Bailey vs Antrim County before 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer" Me: "Hi Kelly, thank you again for your assistance with this. So to clarify, this judge is blocking the release of the Anterim county forensic findings? And it was his decision to do so and no one in your office ever filed to block the information? Is that correct? You are so kind to clarify." Kelly: "No that is not correct. No one has moved to block or suppress the information." Me: "So, just again, so I understand completely before bringing this to the public, in what way are you intervening on behalf of the secretary of state?" Kelly: "It is asking the court's permission to let the Secretary of State be part of the lawsuit with Antrim County." Me: "Thank you for clarifying. I hope you have a great day." Kelly: "Of Course" I then called Court to speak to someone in judges office. I left a message demanding to know who was blocking the release since the AG denied her office moved to suppress the information and said "no one did." Waiting for answers. EDIT WITH UPDATE: OK, Teri, someone who works for the 13th circuit court just called me back. She said it was her understanding (but she clarified it was her opinion based on the live hearing that she listened to on YouTube but is not recorded for our reference) that the audit is not yet done. I said, well Kelly told me it was done but wasn't being released because it was pending litigation with the judge (I was more polite than this). Teri said she can't speak to what Kelly thinks but it's her understanding as a private citizen no one is blocking it and that it hasn't been released because it's not yet done. She says we can't see a recording but we can order a court transcript (which she says is expensive). Black Box. EDIT WITH 2nd UPDATE: GET THIS, it gets wilder. I just texted Kelly back politely letting her know her story contradicts Teri's and Kelly changes her story to match Teri's because she "just found out Teri is right." Me: "Hi Kelly, so kind of you again to help me understand all this. So I just spoke with Teri at the 13th circuit and she told me it was her personal understanding the forensic audit wasn't actually complete at all. Is that your understanding or is your understanding still that it's simply pending litigation in order to be released? Thanks again for all of your help clearing this up!" Kelly: "She is correct. I found that out late this afternoon It is incomplete so even the judge hasn't seen it yet." We part with polite formalities. So yeah, at this point I have a LOT of questions.
That's a huge wall of text but I read through it, including the second update. Paragraphs would help a lot.
I looked up Communications Director Kelly Rossman-McKinney on LinkedIn and she's a self-proclaimed renowned public relations expert, which means she's an expert on saying as little as possible that could possibly make her clients look bad.
In this case, Rossman-McKinney gave you no useful information but convinced you it was all she knew. Whether that was true or false, it's clear she did her job as a PR specialist
Notice she said it was up to the judge and claimed her office hadn't filed to block the release. A good PR person is going to give you as little information as possible, tell you the truth when the information is publicly available and inconsequential, and try changing the subject if the interview is getting off message.
P.S. I archived Kelly Rossman-McKinney's bio at Truscott Rossman , the public relations firm she was founder and CEO of before retiring to take a job with the Michigan Attorney General, if you want a better idea of who you were talking to.
https://archive.is/LaYsU
I mean she was actively lying. She straight up said no one blocked it. (also, sorry about the para issues. I had them originally but they got lost on the copy paste).