The Robinson Report

Tom Shattuck and Steve Robinson walk through Troy Jackson’s letter blaming Republican news sites for his legal trouble. The panel covers Jackson’s Augusta District Court letter after his suit over an Augusta home purchase was dismissed, including his claim that opposing counsel threatened media exposure and later fed Republican online news sites. Steve Robinson says Maine Wire’s reporting did not come from that alleged tip. Shawn Packard, Joe Sokol, Seamus Othot and Jon Fetherston also discuss a Waterville High School hoax bomb threat, Jackson’s FEC filings as they posted during the show, and other clips from the week.

Tom Shattuck, Steve Robinson, Jon Fetherston and the panel cover Sanford PD’s response to the mill video. Graham Pollard, Joe Sokol and Seamus Othot join as Fetherston describes an overnight look inside Sanford’s abandoned mill; the panel says Sanford police then secured the area and the city moved people off the sidewalk, with a street shutdown notice following. They also cover Joe Sokol’s Bangor confrontation and ongoing MaineCare group-home reporting from the field.

Tom Shattuck, Steve Robinson, Jon Fetherston, Graham Pollard and Seamus Othot on the Susan Collins-Troy Jackson debate. The panel says Jackson’s answer on the FHA loan for his Augusta house, that he was there five days a week, contradicts how he described the house when defending his mileage reimbursements. They also play MS NOW host Jen Psaki’s interview with Jackson in Maine. Robinson says absentee ballot requests through Oct. 6 reached 100,657, with 54.9% from registered Democrats, compared with 60% at the same point in 2022. Fetherston says a man threatened him in a hallway after Tuesday’s Lewiston City Council meeting, where speakers criticized his reporting. Othot reports on a prison protest, and Joe Sokol’s video shows early-morning traffic at a Bangor methadone clinic.

Steve Robinson and Jon Fetherston delve into the closure of Quality Care Access and We Care Residential Services. Plus, a Lewiston City Councilor is accused of sexual misconduct.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

William Turton is the Pro Publica investigative reporter who released a report this week alleging that Sen. Susan Collins and several members of her staff engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to funnel defense appropriations money into a federal contractor in return for campaign contributions. He joins us on The Robinson Report to talk about the credibility of his primary source for the story — convicted fraudster and serial liar Martin Kao — as well as what readers are to make of the Federal Elections Commission and the FBI under Joe Biden dropping the case. Turton defends his report and insists sources he communicated with attested to the credibility of both Kao and unnamed FBI agents familiar with the probe.

Also today: Sen. Susan Collins spoke with Maine Wire TV outside an event in Gorham, directly responding to the allegations leveled against her and her office staff in the Pro Publica report. You can watch a clip of that interview below.

Get the best news from around New England and support investigative journalism by subscribing today to The Robinson Report!

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:

Steve Robinson: Today we are joined by William Turton, who is an investigative reporter from ProPublica. Earlier this week, ProPublica dropped a investigative news piece that has rocked Washington D.C. and has mixed up the Maine Senate race between U.S. Senator Susan Collins and former State Senate President Troy Jackson.

I’ll let—I’ll let Turton explain the story, but we’ll get into it here. Ask him some questions about his reporting, so the people of Maine can learn a little bit more about a piece of reporting that Troy Jackson thinks is going to turn the tables in this U.S. Senate election.

So, without further ado, here’s our interview with William Turton.

William, thank you very much for joining us. You’re obviously the author of an investigative news report that I think rocked Washington D.C. Certainly, Maine politics. As a, you know, a fellow reporter, I can certainly sympathize with the adrenaline rush that comes with dropping a report like that. So I bet it’s an exciting time for you, and you’re fielding lots of interview inquiries.

And I think probably the best part to—the best place to start is just to give us the, you know, the Reader’s Digest version of the story. It was a long story. There’s lots of moving parts. It’s kind of complicated, and, you know, the average reader’s attention span is about 15 seconds these days.

So, just explain to us the—the crux of the story that you reported on this Martin Cow guy who is currently sitting in federal prison, and donations that he made to United States Senator Susan Collins and a pack that was run in support of her.

William Turton — 01:43

Yeah, and thanks so much for having me. Yeah, the best way to explain it in brief is sort of like a two-part story, right?

So there’s one part, which is about a Hawaiian defense contractor, which is owned by—previously owned by this guy named Martin Cow and Susan Collins, and, you know, to give a little bit of history, Navitec, this company, relied on Daniel Inouye, the legendary senator from Hawaii, to receive appropriations for the company so that they could do research for the Navy.

And anyway, died in 2012, and that kind of set the company on this path, where Martin had to figure out a new way to get congressional appropriations to fund the company’s research.

And so, what they do is they develop this strategy of targeting senators who sit on the Appropriations Committee, and they’re actually extremely successful. And one of the senators that they focus on in their strategy is Senator Susan Collins.

And so we report in our story that Martin, his family members, other members of, you know, top Navitec employees, start to make donations to Collins, and we report at the top of the story about this fateful meeting where Martin Kao and other company executives meet with the head of Susan Collins Super PAC, a man named Scott Reed, where they eventually hash out a deal, and Martin creates a shell company to give $150,000 to Collins’ campaign.

Steve Robinson — 03:30

No, just hold on. When you say Susan Collins Super PAC, was this a—a political committee that she had started, or were—were her employees involved in it, or consulted?

William Turton — 03:40

This is a separate pack, 1820 pack. Okay, it’s chaired by Scott Reed, who, as Susan Collins’ campaign manager said this week, is close friends with Susan Collins’ husband, Tom Daffron.

Steve Robinson — 03:52

Okay.

William Turton — 03:52

And so, so they—they make this deal to do this donation, and it’s through Shell Company. But a week later, according to an email we received, an employee or consultant, actually, of the pack, reaches out and says, “We’d like to get Martin’s phone number so that Susan Collins can call him and thank him.”

And then two months after that, Martin writes to other Navitec executives and says that they met with Collins and that they secured $32 million in funding. It was an excellent meeting, and they were very warmly received.

So that’s part one, right? But then part two, that’s kind of going concurrently, is—is an FBI investigation, right? So Martin—

Steve Robinson — 04:32

Well, just before we get to the FBI investigation, did—when did the $32 million appropriation Cal referenced in his email come through, and was that—was that tied to the University of Maine?

William Turton — 04:44

So they didn’t end up getting the $32 million. You know, the exact reason why, we don’t know—know, but okay.

Steve Robinson — 04:52

So Cal—so cow—cow said basically what he said was false in the email.

William Turton — 05:00

Well, shortly after they made this donation, everything kind of blew up, right? The—the shell company was very quickly exposed because it was incredibly sloppy, right? A good governance group noticed it and reported it to the FEC, and there was almost immediate scrutiny, like mere months after they had facilitated this donation.

Steve Robinson — 05:22

And this was back in 2019, 2020?

William Turton — 05:25

Late 2019 and early 2020. Yes.

Steve Robinson — 05:28

Okay, so the FCC investigated at the time the pattern of straw donations from Tao and his family’s associates.

William Turton — 05:35

Yeah, from what I understand, the FCC kind of just really scratched the surface. Right, they looked at this pack. They looked at the donation, but, you know, I don’t know whether they examined the entire kind of scheme of the ongoing relationship with Colin’s office, and the, you know, I don’t know the extent of the FEC investigation. So yeah—

Steve Robinson — 06:00

When you say that they just scratched the surface, though, is that just based on a hunch because they didn’t find what you reported on, or do you—were there sources at FCC who said, “Yeah, we investigated this, but just kind of, you know, gave it a leaving alone”?

Because I understand that there was a—an FEC commissioner who posted a message on X responding to it, saying, “I was a commissioner at the time, we looked. We looked at this. There was nothing there.”

So, did you have sources saying otherwise at the Federal Election Commission who could speak to the nature of the investigation into those straw donations?

William Turton — 06:33

So, obviously, you know, as you know, as a journalist, I can’t talk about confidential sources. But my understanding is that the FBI investigation went on for much, much longer than the FEC investigation did, and it was much more in depth and covered a wider scope of Cal Navitec’s relationship with Collins.

Steve Robinson — 06:51

Okay, but yeah, I understand the FBI investigation separate from that, but I didn’t know whether you were just making a judgment about the FCC based on your—your—you’re talking about as a political observer, or based on something you’d found in your reporting.

William Turton — 07:07

You’re—you’re talking about the Federal Election Commission, right?

Steve Robinson — 07:10

Yes, yes.

William Turton — 07:11

Yeah, you know, I—I—our story doesn’t really focus on FEC’s investigation. We’re chiefly focused on allegations of criminal bribery, and, you know, less so on mere campaign finance violations.

Steve Robinson — 07:24

Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Sorry for the—the sidetracking. But now, so the second part of the story is the FBI investigation that you reported on. So yeah, I guess tell us—tell us, you know, what your reporting was on the nature of the FBI investigation.

William Turton — 07:41

Sure, sure. So, so as I explained earlier, they’re kind of working this scheme of targeting appropriators. I mean, it’s going really well for them. They’re seeing huge success. They’re projecting huge growth. I mean—

Steve Robinson — 07:53

I’m sorry, sorry to interrupt again, but you say that they’re having huge success. How is that measured? How is it, like, who says it’s going to get 10s of millions of dollars—

William Turton — 08:02

In—in appropriations from not just Collins but other senators around the country, right? And their revenue is going up according to internal documents that we got, and they projected that they could go from $40 million to $100 million in the next year based on the sort of appropriations they were targeting.

Steve Robinson — 08:19

So their—their strategy was successful with other senators, but the 30 million that Cow said in the email he had secured never actually materialized because of subsequent investigations.

William Turton — 08:29

No, they—they got at least 10 million of that.

Steve Robinson — 08:31

Okay, yeah.

William Turton — 08:33

So, so just to back up, so as I’m explaining, they’re—they’re running the scheme and targeting appropriators, but at the same time, Cow is, like, incredibly sloppy, right? So they do this sloppy Society of Young Women Scientists and Engineers shell company.

Steve Robinson — 08:49

I actually think that’s a great name for a shell company. That’s—that’s—that’s pretty clever for a shell company. But he was sloppy with the straw donations. But anyway, sorry.

William Turton — 08:56

Well, it was very obvious. It was, like, the first check. You know, there was no website for this company. There was no other kind of backstory to the company, and so it was obvious to anyone that looked at the disclosures that this was probably not a real company. But the name is comical for sure.

But, you know, Martin also goes off and does huge PPP loan fraud, which is, like, what the—actually the majority of his federal prison sentence is for. He defrauds banks in Hawaii and inflates the number of employees that the company has, and—and fraudulently receives, you know, millions of dollars from a COVID relief program.

And so that is, you know, so much so that, like, when it gets reported in the press that the company is getting so much money, the guy Steven Louis who founded the company says that he turned Martin in. He—he referred him to the authorities, and so that kind of blows everything up, right?

Martin gets arrested. The Navitec offices get raided. FBI agents and windbreakers are conscripting the IT staff, and—and they’re downloading a copy of Navitec servers. And so there’s that.

Steve Robinson — 10:12

What time? What—what year is this? What’s the general time frame for when it—the s**t really hits the fan?

William Turton — 10:16

Steve Robinson — 10:17

Okay.

William Turton — 10:18

And so, so, you know, there’s this YPP loan fraud investigation, but obviously, you know, public corruption investigators, FBI agents in DC take notice. I don’t actually have perfect visibility into, like, what happened first, but, you know, all of this stuff was kind of blowing up at the same time.

And so, sorry, I’m getting long-winded here, but—but, you know, then the FBI starts their own investigation. Martin is—is on trial in two separate cases, and crucially, as Martin is awaiting sentencing, he gives a detailed confession to the FBI in 2022, and then again in 2024, where in both interviews they ask him extensively about his relationship with Susan Collins.

Steve Robinson — 11:04

So what were—what were the circumstances that brought him into this extensive confession? Because it sounds like, as you described, he was very sloppy. You know, they—they had him by the short and curlies. So why, on two—two separate occasions, is he sitting there, you know, singing for the FBI?

William Turton — 11:23

He’s hoping to. He has a formal cooperation with the agreement and is hoping to receive a benefit in his sentencing and get less time.

Steve Robinson — 11:31

So, did you ever get the text of that agreement or see what, like, what did he have to do in order to get, you know, fewer—fewer prison showers?

William Turton — 11:41

You know, I don’t under—I don’t know the details of that arrangement. And my understanding, generally speaking, and is that it’s, you know, the DOJ has a lot of discretion in offering what’s called a 5K letter, which is a formal letter to a judge where they kind of detail the way in which witness has been cooperative and helpful to an investigation. Martin didn’t get any of that.

Steve Robinson — 12:05

So what—I guess what is—what can reasonably be inferred from the nature of the information he provided if he didn’t get any reduction in his sentence?

William Turton — 12:15

Well, it’s hard to say because shortly after Martin gave them a 50-page manifesto detailing his interactions with senators and a two-day confession—this—this all happened in late 2024, right?—the agents working on the new investigation that came out of his confession were essentially pushed out of the FBI.

One agent was fired. One agent was told to resign. You know, and one of those agents is currently suing the FBI, alleging that it was essentially political retaliation. So, you know, for all we know, Martin could have received a benefit, but he did not.

Steve Robinson — 12:53

Okay, so because those two FBI agents were fired, the—the case was dropped completely in—in this new era, but I’ve seen the Collins campaign push back and say that the—the FBI had dropped the case under Biden.

So I guess what was—what would the reason—what reason would the Biden FBI have had for essentially, you know, covering up what we’re led to believe is evidence of criminal conduct? Like, why? Why did they drop the case that’s looking into not just Collins but all of these different, you know, senators involved in the 50-page pay-to-play manifesto that Martin Cal wrote?

William Turton — 13:34

Well, our reporting contradicts what the Collins campaign said, right? And we’re reporting that agents were continuing to investigate through the Trump administration, and, you know, Collins saying that they were exonerated during the Biden administration simply isn’t true.

That, you know, they’ve said that they were exonerated in 2021. Well, FBI agents flew to Hawaii and were interviewing Martin Kao about his personal interactions with Susan Collins in 2024.

Steve Robinson — 14:00

And that’s according to FBI sources or CAO?

William Turton — 14:04

That’s according to FBI investigative records that we saw.

Steve Robinson — 14:07

Okay.

William Turton — 14:09

No one is disputing that these interviews took place.

Steve Robinson — 14:10

Yeah, no, no. I’m just—I’m just trying to, for—for the benefit of people who haven’t read the entire report and reviewed all the source documents, I just want to make sure people know where various sources come from because I think one of the criticisms of your story is the extent to which you rely on this Martin Cow guy, and he seems like someone who has a track record of not telling the truth.

And he lied about law degrees by your own description. He lied about his company to get a loan. He’s embellished all kinds of aspects. So it seems like you faced a challenge in preparing this story and trying to figure out: well, to what extent is this guy believable? How can we present something he says in an email as factual when he’s—seems like he’s a self-serving habitual liar?

William Turton — 14:56

Right. Exactly. Yes. So, you know, we don’t—as professional journalists, anyone at their word, especially this convicted fraudster, right? So what we—

Steve Robinson — 15:06

Well, hold on there. It seems like you have taken him at his word.

William Turton — 15:10

No, I’m about to tell you about how we haven’t taken him at his word. I’m about to describe my reporting process to you and tell you how we report about what Martin said.

So, you know, if we were to take Martin at his word, we could have written this story in a week, right? We would have just published the things that he told the FBI.

Instead, me and three other reporters spent nearly a year working on this story, where we interviewed dozens of officials who—or dozens of Navy officials, executives at Navitec, including one who’s on the record in the story. We submitted Freedom of Information Act requests. We interviewed people who are familiar with the FBI and DOJ investigations.

We reviewed FBI investigative material, including a document in 2024 where agents wrote that using 1000s of pages that they had obtained via subpoena, they were able to corroborate some of the statements that Martin said to them.

So it’s not just us taking Martin at his word. The FBI actually found Martin to be credible. People familiar with the investigation told us that the FBI agents found Martin to be credible and that they were able to corroborate the things that Martin told them. Some of the things that Martin told them, using their own investigative techniques and methods, which, as you know, are extensive. And so—

Steve Robinson — 16:27

Who was—who was subpoenaed in this? Was this just the—the records that they got from Navitec, or, you know—

William Turton — 16:33

I’m sure they—that, you know, the FBI did extensive subpoenas. I don’t know, you know, 100% of everything that the FBI did.

Steve Robinson — 16:41

Weren’t there a lot of records provided by Collins’ office as well?

William Turton — 16:46

That’s what they—yes, they told us that.

Steve Robinson — 16:48

And—and did you—did you guys have those when—of all the records that you were reviewing in preparation for this story, were some of them records that had been turned over to the FBI or whomever?

William Turton — 17:00

I’m not sure what your question is.

Steve Robinson — 17:01

Oh, did some of the records that you reviewed for your reporting originate from what the Collins office gave to the federal government?

William Turton — 17:11

I don’t know the extent of the records that the Collins campaign gave to the government, and they didn’t share any of those with us.

Steve Robinson — 17:18

Okay, so I guess that—I guess that takes care of the Martin cow and how you handle that. But there’s also the situation with one of the FBI agents. The—I guess he’s described as an anti-corruption agent, and he says, you know, that he was forced out for political reasons. But—

William Turton — 17:37

Sorry, I have to interrupt you. He—he hasn’t talked publicly about his dismissal at all. You’re referring to Kevin Ganot, right?

Steve Robinson

Yes.

William Turton

There’s two agents who worked on the case. One is named Michelle Ball, who’s suing the FBI now, and there’s another agent named Kevin Ganade who has not commented publicly about him leaving the FBI.

Steve Robinson — 17:55

Okay, so Ganad is the one that I was talking about, though, because it’s also emerged that he was an individual who tried to sue Elon Musk or have—sorry—have Elon Musk investigated by the FBI for sending around the—the, you know, what have you done in the last five days email, and, you know, that kind of speaks to somebody who maybe has their own political motivations.

So were you concerned that—that an FBI agent who’s speaking to you as the someone who’s familiar with the investigation—

William Turton — 18:26

Sorry, I have to stop. You’re—you’re assuming—you’re—you’re assuming something that we haven’t discussed about whether or not these agents spoke to us.

Steve Robinson — 18:34

Okay, so Gunnar did not—

William Turton — 18:36

I’m not going to comment on our—on our confidential sourcing.

Steve Robinson — 18:39

Okay, sorry. I thought that—I thought that that was just known from your reporting and some of the commentary around it.

I guess then, speaking generally about the FBI agents that you talked with who had knowledge of the case, were you concerned at all about their own political motivations? Because I know the FBI has been, you know, it’s been politicized. I think it’s fair to say left, right would agree that in recent years the—the FBI has been fairly politicized.

But was it your view that the FBI agents, by virtue of being FBI agents, are just to be believed 100%?

William Turton — 19:12

No. As part of our reporting on this process, obviously we asked people who know these agents, who have worked with these agents: What’s their reputation? What’s their level of credibility? And no one ever told us anything other than the fact that these are kind of nonpartisan, down the middle agents.

Steve Robinson — 19:32

Can you elaborate on that process a little bit? Like, what was that like? I’m just wondering how you would vet an FBI agent. Are you talking with other FBI agents, their colleagues, or, you know, what’s the process like establishing that an FBI agent isn’t, you know, a partisan despite being an agent for the FBI?

William Turton — 19:51

We act—we asked people who worked with them, who are familiar with their work, what their reputation was.

Steve Robinson — 19:57

Okay, so other FBI agents—

William Turton — 19:59

Again, I’m not going to get into confidential sourcing.

Steve Robinson — 20:02

Okay, I can—I can respect that. So I think the—the—the crux of the report really is whether or not the senator herself or someone close on her staff, you know, orchestrated or—or had knowledge of, designed, encouraged, engaged in this alleged quid pro quo conspiracy, so what’s the strongest piece of evidence that you have in your reporting that Senator Collins was directly involved in this?

William Turton — 20:32

Well, I think to me the thing that really sticks out is after they make this $150,000 donation using a shell company that’s supposed to be anonymous, and before the pack itself has even disclosed that donation, someone from the pack reaches out and says Susan Collins wants to call Martin to thank him.

And even more interesting is that the campaign is not denying that. You know, they said they can’t locate a record, but they still haven’t denied that that call took place.

Steve Robinson — 21:03

And is—is the thank you call illegal? Well, is the knowledge—is—is having knowledge of a promised donation or an actual donation to a super PAC by the elected official or her staff, is—is that a violation of FEC rules, or is that illegal in and of itself?

William Turton — 21:24

You know, you’d have to ask an election law expert. But, you know, the—the real question is, like, did Collins know, or was there any arrangement ever made that—to promise federal contracts in exchange for a donation like that? I mean, that’s—

Steve Robinson — 21:39

Do you have evidence of that, that—that Collins knew, or is it just the fact that she wanted to thank someone who donated to an aligned political committee?

William Turton — 21:48

Cal told the FBI that he had discussions with Collins where this was discussed explicitly. Where—

Steve Robinson — 21:57

Okay, so that—so—so Senator Collins’ involvement hinges on what Cal said and the—the phone call thanking a donor.

William Turton — 22:04

Well, there’s—there’s a mountain of evidence linking Cow and Collins, right? There’s photos of them together at Navitec.

Steve Robinson — 22:11

Yeah, as you would expect with somebody who’s invested money in Maine, with the University of Maine, with a shipyard in Maine. There’s lots of photographs of Senator Collins with people who have been the recipients of contracts that are—are brought back to the state of Maine. There’s a long history, frankly, of shipyards and—and defense contracts in Maine.

So I guess the—the photographic evidence doesn’t seem like it bears on a quid pro quo necessarily. I’m—I’m interested more in what specific evidence you have that Collins was directly involved in the quid pro quo because that would seem to be, like, the—the implication of the story.

Like in your interview with Hassan Piker, it was just assumed that Collins was, you know, very much, you know, directing and deeply intimately involved in this conspiracy, but the evidence that you’re talking about now is a thank you phone call and what Cow told the FBI?

William Turton — 23:03

Sure, I was just going to describe to you the kind of, like, extent of the relationship between Collins and Cow herself, the company and the pack, the company and the campaign, the fact that, you know, the company did receive over a period of years 10s of millions of dollars from Collins’ office, that, you know, they—that, you know, Collins’ campaign staff were telling them that, you know, we’re grateful for all the Cal support, reallocating contributions to family members, which the FBI noted wasn’t legal.

And so what I’m—what I’m trying to explain to you is there is, you know, a huge variety of evidence that suggests knowledge, but, you know, that the idea that there’s, like, Susan Collins on a hidden camera somewhere saying, “I’ll give you this for that”—we didn’t report that.

Steve Robinson — 23:56

Okay, but when you say huge body of evidence, there’s a body of evidence that they—that Senator Collins was familiar with Navitec, a defense contractor investing in her state, and had attended functions with that person, and that they thanked large donors to a political committee.

I’ve never worked on a political committee myself, but it’s my understanding that, like, thank you phone calls and thank you letters to max donors are pretty much routine practice for most professional politicians, but—

William Turton — 24:26

Not someone who donates through an anonymous shell company, right? Like, how did Susan Collins even know that he was responsible for that donation? I would love to know.

Steve Robinson — 24:37

But so, and so theoretically, this Reed guy says, “Hey, I talked with Cow, and he’s going to make this donation.” Is that—is there a crime there? If there’s back channel information from the guy running the super PAC to the—the senator’s office—

William Turton — 24:52

I’m not a lawyer or election crime expert, but my understanding is the basic premise is that super packs and campaigns are not supposed to coordinate with each other.

Steve Robinson — 25:03

Okay, now I guess one other question I have is about the statute of limitations on bribery cases. My understanding is, like, five years.

So the—how does that interact with this idea that the investigation that, you know, would have caught Senator Collins red-handed was shut down because Trump wants corruption in the FBI and wants to get rid of the anti-corruption units and purge all of the career civil servants?

Wouldn’t they have been effectively reviving an investigation for what—into an incident where the, if true, the statute of limitations had expired?

William Turton — 25:42

You know, I’m—I’m not a lawyer or a prosecutor, right? And in my basic understanding, it’s that there’s different ways into, like, when a crime is committed, when a crime is discovered by agents and prosecutors, like, when the clock starts ticking on the statute of limitations.

You know, I don’t know, like, what the viewpoint of the agents or prosecutors as to when, in their mind, the statute of limitations began ticking on certain interactions.

Steve Robinson — 26:08

Okay, and one other thing I heard you say on the Hassan Piker interview was there was kind of this discussion. I think you might have been, like, joking around with them about no product being produced.

To—is it your understanding that the money that went to Navitec resulted in no actual work and no—no work product?

William Turton — 26:31

So one of the things that we got in our reporting that was super fascinating was a PowerPoint presentation made by a senior executive at the company, a guy named Duke Hartman, and it explained how in Navy research there’s kind of a sliding scale of research, all the way from, like, the most theoretical research up to you’re making a product that the Navy is buying and using, right?

And in the middle of that, what Hartman identified was something he called the Valley of Death, right, where it’s, like, this kind of experimental research that never actually ends up being a product that the Navy buys. And so, what Hartman said in that presentation is, “We thrive in the Valley of Death.”

Now, that’s not to say research that comes before a product that the Navy buys is—is useless or not worth doing, but Cal and others that we spoke to, including researchers, scientists who worked on these projects, as well as other people in the field who were familiar with the work and the research, you know, didn’t think too highly of the quality of the work that was being performed.

As one executive told me, they used to joke at the company that their product was engineers looking at screens and updating PowerPoint presentations.

Steve Robinson — 27:55

That’s a funny line, but the—the projects specifically in Maine, what work was done at, like, the—the Belfast Shipyard and the—the University of Maine projects?

Because my understanding was some of these contracts predated the actual meeting at Corner, the—the bakery between Reed. So there was a relationship between—Navitec was getting money with, you know, some level of influence from Senator Collins well before any of the events that you describe in your story.

So what work product was produced throughout that period of time, or was Navitec from the very beginning of their partnership with the University of Maine in that Valley of Death doing, you know, research that never produced him?

William Turton — 28:40

So I’m not sure what you’re asking. You’re asking me to describe what—

Steve Robinson — 28:45

What—what was the work product? You know, there’s—there’s money flowing to Navitec from well before the—the donation to 1820 pack to the—the period that your reporting centers on.

What was the work product? Was this—was it—was Navitec running a scam essentially where they did nothing and just got money from the government, or were they actually producing, you know, the 3d printed boats? Was the technology used? Is the University of Maine still advancing these research projects? You know, I guess what did the taxpayer get for the money that was driven to them?

William Turton — 29:17

Yeah, you know, they performed research, and as I, you know, just explained to you, there’s—there’s dispute about the quality of the research. That’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying that no work is done. I was saying that the—the work isn’t of a quality that you would expect.

And I just want to point out something that’s super interesting: is that on Tuesday, Susan Collins’ campaign manager Steve Abbott made the point that actually the research was useful because he held up this picture of a boat in 2019 that, you know, Navitec was associated with, and then he held up a picture of a boat that was christened a month ago, and he said, you know, these two projects are related. Navitec’s work is related.

Well, the University of Maine came out today and said that there’s actually no link between those projects, and that the university hasn’t worked with Navitec since 2021.

Steve Robinson — 30:08

And did you talk to anybody at the University of Maine in advance of your reporting?

William Turton — 30:13

Again, I’m—I’m not going to talk to you.

Steve Robinson — 30:15

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. I’m not trying to bait you or—or pressure you into revealing sources.

[Speaker attributions unclear in the supplied transcript:] Oh, absolutely! Habit to ask—ask questions. I appreciate that.

Steve Robinson

So, I guess the one thing that people have called into question, obviously, is the timing of the release of the report. As someone who, you know, also does investigative journalism, I understand the stories are ready when the stories are ready, and there’s not much you can do about that.

You—you push for the story to come early, or if you’re obsessive, you want to get every single piece of information nailed down, and it takes forever, and you procrastinate.

What do you say about the—this allegation that this reporting was from what I think is, you know, I would fairly describe the Mainwire as a conservative outlet, and ProPublica I’d fairly describe as a left wing liberal outlet.

William Turton — 31:01

I wouldn’t. Just for the record, we’re an—we’re an independent, nonpartisan outlet.

Steve Robinson — 31:04

Oh, I know you—I know technically, according to the 501 c3, but the thrust of your reporting is—is primarily critical—

William Turton — 31:12

I’ll just tell you, my experience working here as a reporter is that we’re an independent, nonpartisan outlet, and in fact, we’re continuing to report on some of the Democratic senators’ relationships with Cow and Avatar.

Steve Robinson — 31:25

Okay, so I guess just tell me about the—the timing of it all, and—and you’re right. Was—was this—was this—

William Turton — 31:32

When they’re ready?

Steve Robinson — 31:33

Were you—were you aware though of, you know, injecting this into a, you know, a contested Senate race, and what were the conversations like at ProPublica around that dynamic?

William Turton — 31:45

To me, one of the purposes of investigative journalism is to inform people about the decisions that their elected officials are making, right?

And so, to me, it would be essential that before an election is coming up, that voters are armed with fact-checked, corroborated, deeply researched information that would shed light on the true nature and activities on the people that they may elect to another six years in the Senate.

Steve Robinson — 32:18

So you said shedding light on their decisions. What decisions, based on your reporting, what decisions did Senator Collins make?

William Turton — 32:26

To give millions of dollars to Navitec.

Steve Robinson — 32:28

Okay, like she did before the check went to the pack, and like she’s done for tons of organizations.

William Turton — 32:35

I’ll just point out: before the check went to the pack, they were already making huge donations to her campaign.

Steve Robinson — 32:42

Okay, but it would not be. But I guess the—the—there are 1000s of organizations and towns and businesses that Senator Collins has steered money to. So, but that’s the decision that you think that the—that is—the voters should be enlightened about.

William Turton — 33:00

Yeah, I think, you know, voters should know about all the details in our story. The fact that the FBI was seriously investigating this, the fact that Cal told FBI agents that he saw it as an explicit pay-to-play arrangement, the fact that this $150,000 donation through a shell company was organized by the head of a pack who’s close to Susan Collins’ husband—that seems to me like all, like, crucial information that’s in the public interest.

Steve Robinson — 33:26

Do you think you fairly conveyed Cow’s lack of credibility in terms of his documented pattern of lying and, absolutely, you know, his incentive to lie in order to reduce his sentence, and then the fact that the judge didn’t find his story credible enough to reduce his sentence?

William Turton — 33:42

Absolutely, everything you just said we included in our story.

Steve Robinson — 33:45

Okay, is there anything else that you can tease about forthcoming reporting? You know, you’ve mentioned—

William Turton — 33:53

I’m glad you’re excited.

Steve Robinson — 33:54

What?

William Turton — 33:55

I am too. You—you—you’re—you’re asking for more information on what we’re reporting.

Steve Robinson

Of course.

Unidentified speaker — 33:59

You hinted at it. You said you—

Steve Robinson — 34:01

You—you—you’re—you’re sitting on a gold mine, and you’ve given us just a taste of, you know, corruption information.

But I guess what—for my understanding is that this was, you know, there are many more figures who could potentially be implicated, maybe possibly in a more serious way than Senator Collins is—is referred to in the story. What can you tease without, you know, violating ProPublica’s policies about teasing?

William Turton — 34:31

Yeah, as I said earlier, we report stories when they’re ready, so you’ll have to stay tuned.

Steve Robinson — 34:36

All right. Well, William, thank you very much for joining us. I appreciate you taking some of your time, and good luck with the rest of your—your media tour and continued reporting on this series of documents and interviews that you have.

William Turton — 34:49

Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

Host Tom Shattuck welcomed Shawn Packard onto Maine Wire TV alongside the panel as the show dug into Bobby Charles’s 10-part plan to fight addiction. Packard described citizen cleanup work in Waterville near the Two Cent Bridge—needles, trash, and encampments in places that show up on local “things to do” lists—and pressed the gap between syringe service programs and what residents actually see on the ground. The panel debated needle exchange, citing Bangor’s HIV and hepatitis outbreak as a challenge to the claim that free needles limit blood-borne disease, and contrasted Charles’s “get well, stay well” recovery sequence (Narcan followed by detox, residential treatment, sober living, and work) with the harm-reduction status quo they say Hannah Pingree and other Democrats are defending. They also weighed whether Charles’s addiction message is breaking through in a TV air war that still looks one-sided.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

After four shots rang out in Lewiston and a massive police presence flooded the scene, Jon Fetherston reported from the ground with eyewitness accounts of youths running from the area. A school bus later dropped young children near what reporters described as an active crime zone. On the same episode, the panel reacted to a ProPublica story claiming the FBI had eyed Sen. Susan Collins over a defense contractor’s donations; Collins’ staff called the seven-year-old allegations categorically false.

A Chinese national who worked as a U.S. Customs and Border Protection supervisor in Calais was arrested after FBI agents said he altered computers at three Maine border facilities. The case raised new questions about DHS hardware security, CBP oversight and how 46 modified machines were allegedly put back on the agency’s network.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Bangor is spending big on park upgrades while residents are still asking why public spaces are not safe, clean or under control.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Cortes praised Lewiston’s Basilica as a symbol of faith and hard work, but Jon Fetherston said the scene nearby tells a darker story of drug deals and youth violence. Ashley Webb later joined Maine Wire TV to discuss her write-in campaign for Senate and whether Maine media will treat serious candidates fairly.