Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

Trump campaign brings new U.S. Supreme Court challenge over Pennsylvania’s 2020 election
by Jonathan Lai
Updated: December 20, 2020- 5:38 PM

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and overturn several decisions the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made regarding the 2020 election, saying that the court overstepped its bounds and that “the outcome of the election for the Presidency of the United States hangs in the balance.”

But even in the unlikely event the new challenge is successful and the court agrees to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania, it would not change his Electoral College win. Biden amassed 306 electoral votes, the same as Trump four years ago — 36 more votes than the 270 needed to win. Pennsylvania has 20 votes.

What the challenge would do, if successful, is defy the will of the Pennsylvania voters who cast ballots in the Nov. 3 election under the rules in place at the time. Specifically, the campaign said in its filing, it would throw out 110,000 votes that it says are invalid because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court inappropriately changed election rules.

A lawyer representing the campaign said Sunday it had filed a cert petition and a motion to expedite, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to fast-track the case because of the impending Jan. 6 meeting of Congress to receive the Electoral College results and the Jan. 20 inauguration.

The challenge is the latest in a series of increasingly long-shot attempts to overturn the election, which Trump lost in Pennsylvania by more than 80,000 votes. The latest attempt, like the others, doesn’t center on any specific claims of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, despite Trump’s repeated use of baseless conspiracy theories to attack the election.

Instead, it challenges three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions on mail ballots and says the state court overstepped its constitutional role. Those opinions, which resolved multiple cases, prohibited counties from comparing mail ballot signatures to those on file; said campaigns and political parties can’t challenge ballots as they are being processed and counted; allowed limitations on observers to the vote count in Philadelphia; and allowed ballots to count even if voters had forgotten to fill out the address or date on the envelope.

In making those decisions, the campaign argues, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the Constitution by taking the state legislature’s power to determine how federal elections are run, similar to an existing argument Pennsylvania Republicans are making in a separate set of challenges. The campaign also says the state court violated the Constitution’s due process clause and equal protection guarantees.

“Collectively, these three decisions resulted in counting approximately 2.6 million mail ballots in violation of the law as enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature,” reads the petition for a writ of certiorari, the document which asks the Supreme Court to take up the case. If the state Supreme Court erred, the campaign said, that would mean “over 110,000 invalid ballots were illegally counted — more than enough to have affected the outcome of the election, where the margin between the two principal candidates for President currently stands at 80,558.”

Federal courts have consistently protected ballots cast by voters relying in good faith on the election rules that were in place at the time, even if those rules are later deemed unconstitutional.

A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of State, which as a policy doesn’t comment on active litigation, didn’t respond to an email for comment Sunday.

In its filing, the campaign urges the Supreme Court to take up the challenge “to put the country at ease, to the extent possible in these tumultuous times,” painting a dark portrait of a divided nation in which nearly half the country questions the legitimacy of the election, and raising the specter of chaos on the horizon.

“Indeed, the intense national and worldwide attention on the 2020 presidential election only foreshadows the disruption that may well follow if the uncertainty and unfairness shrouding this election are allowed to persist,” reads the motion to fast-track the challenge.

It is Trump and his allies who have spent months fueling the uncertainty around the election and baselessly questioning the results instead of accepting Biden’s victory.

The filings don’t acknowledge that Trump began attacking the election long before a single vote was cast; promotes outlandish conspiracy theories; provides no real evidence of his claims of fraud; has lost dozens of lawsuits across the country, rejected by judges across the ideological spectrum; and fueled the very erosion of public faith that the campaign now points to as a concern.

Instead, they invoke the Civil War election of 1860 and list a series of data points that don’t prove malfeasance or even irregularity in the results.

“A large percentage of the American people know or at least strongly believe that something is deeply amiss,” the cert petition reads.

The Trump campaign asserts that even though the vote has already been certified and the Electoral College has already met, the court can still intervene because a separate group of Republican electors also met to provide dueling electoral votes for Congress to choose from. Or the Republican-controlled legislature could appoint its own set of electors, the campaign argues.

And even if it’s too late to change this election, Trump can still run again: “The legal issues presented by this petition, namely, whether the alteration of state election laws by nonlegislative officials in the states is unconstitutional, will likely recur in future elections — including in the presidential election in 2024, in which Petitioner is constitutionally eligible to run.”

The campaign is represented by John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University who wrote a controversial Newsweek op-ed questioning Kamala Harris’ eligibility for the vice presidency, and Bruce S. Marks, the Republican former state senator from Philadelphia who appeared to lose his election in 1993 before a federal judge declared him the winner and found his opponent had engaged in absentee-ballot fraud.

In the op-ed, Eastman claimed that the Democratic senator wasn’t a natural born citizen, even though she was clearly born in Oakland, California, because she was born to non permanent residents of the country: an Indian mother and a Jamaican father. He extended that line of reasoning to argue that she lacked the eligibility to run for vice president of the United States.

-- Donald Trump’s Newest Lawyer Is a Kamala Harris Birther, by Asawin Suebsaeng, White House Reporter, and Adam Rawnsley, 12/9/20

Copies of the documents filed were provided by Marks and lawyers for other parties in the state cases.

[admin]

'Thuggery': Four Star Army General Blasts Trump's MAGA Martial Law Plot
The Beat With Ari Melber
MSNBC
Dec 21, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

[Ari Melber] And now about that extraordinary rebuke from top military leaders pushing back against the talk of imposing martial law that's reportedly swirling inside the Trump Whitehouse.

Statement by Military Leaders on the Use of Martial Law
"There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election."
-- Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff General James McConville

The Secretary of the Army and and Army Chief of Staff having to release a joint statement saying in part: "There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election."

It is remarkable that military officials are even having to say this, but that is the response after multiple reports that Trump asked about the option on Friday during an Oval Office meeting about overturning the election. Trump says the reporting is wrong.

One person attending Friday's meeting was Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Now the day before that meeting, this is what Flynn said. Watch.

[Gen. Michael Flynn, Former National Security Adviser, Newsmax, Greg Kelly Reports] He could immediately, on his order, seize every single one of these machines around the country, on his order ... within the Swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and basically re-run an election in each of those states. This is not unprecedented. There's people out there talking about martial law like it's something we've never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times.

[Ari Melber] That is a former U.S. general calling for martial law to re-run an election in this country.

Joining me now is Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, a former National Security Council member. Thank you so much General McCaffrey for joining us. I'm curious to get your thoughts. First of all, how alarming do you find this talk of martial law?

[Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey] We've never heard anything like it since 1860. I was personally horrified watching Mike Flynn, who was a terrific intelligence officer during the war on terror, who is now acting in a demented fashion. Seizing ballot boxes, the Armed Forces in charge of unilaterally conducting elections in swing states -- this is thuggery! This is third-world behavior!

And by the way, the Armed Forces will NEVER, IN ANY WAY, TAKE PART.

But what we don't want to do is find out what happens when the commander-in-chief tells the acting Secretary of Defense to pull something like this off.

So I think what we get back to is the responsibility of Republicans, Senators in particular, and it's going to be heavy in history if they don't go to the President IN PUBLIC, and back him down from this criminal conversation!

[Ari Melber] General, what do you think is the thinking right now among top military officials? I understand your point about they will never do this, but at the end of the day, what happens when given the order, as you mention, because they WILL BE GIVEN THE ORDER, and they will then be tormented between following an order that they may think is illegal, and having to resign. What do you think they are thinking?

[Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey] Well, there will be NO "torment" whatsoever! If they get an order that is CLEARLY illegal, they have lawyers, both military and civilian, who will rule on it. This would be PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL! They simply won't do it! But then, the question becomes: "Will the Congress get engaged?; will the Supreme Court get engaged?; will Trump start firing generals until he finds somebody that would move?

And by the way, I might add that Acting Secretary of Defense, retired Lieutenant Colonel, will bear a heavy responsibility. The Chairman of the JCS has NO COMMAND AUTHORITY over the Armed Forces. Two civilians do: Trump, and Chris Miller. So we need the Senate Republicans in particular to step up. And not in private, but in public, and say, "We're not going there with you!"

[admin]

Trump discussed naming Sidney Powell special counsel during White House meeting: Powell has been a vocal proponent of many conspiracy theories about voter fraud since the election.
by Carol E. Lee
NBC News
Dec. 20, 2020, 12:46 PM MST

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

A senior administration official said that when Trump is "retweeting threats of putting politicians in jail, and spends his time talking to conspiracy nuts who openly say declaring martial law is no big deal, it’s impossible not to start getting anxious about how this ends."

"People who are concerned and nervous aren’t the weak-kneed bureaucrats that we loathe," the official added. "These are people who have endured arguably more insanity and mayhem than any administration officials in history."

-- Officials increasingly alarmed about Trump’s power grab, by Jonathan Swan, Axios.com

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump held a meeting at the White House on Friday evening in which he discussed naming appellate lawyer Sidney Powell as a special counsel to investigate voter fraud in the election, a person familiar with the meeting confirmed to NBC News.

Powell, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows took part in the meeting, as did retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was Trump's first national security adviser. Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani participated by phone. The meeting was first reported by The New York Times.

Powell's conspiracy theories about the election got strong pushback from other aides in the meeting. The person familiar with the meeting said Meadows and Cipollone cut the meeting off because it was going in an alarming direction.

The White House declined to comment. Giuliani and Powell, who is also Flynn's attorney, did not respond to requests for comment.

Powell was involved with the Trump legal team's election lawsuits, the vast majority of which have been unsuccessful.

Flynn, whom Trump recently pardoned, has been publicly pushing for Trump to declare martial law. He told the conservative outlet Newsmax on Thursday that Trump should order the military to immediately "seize" every voting machine and to "rerun" the election. Trump disputed that on Twitter, writing, "Martial law = Fake News. Just more knowingly bad reporting!"

Flynn also claimed that he is acting as a conduit between Trump and foreign intelligence agencies that he claims have evidence of external interference in the election.

"I think they'll provide it directly to the president once we present it to him. ... They're more than willing to do that, from what we understand," Flynn said in an interview with Fox Business' Lou Dobbs that aired Friday.

"There are foreign partners and allies that are willing to help us," Flynn said at another point. He said without evidence that there is "a relationship" between the SolarWinds hack and election security.

[admin]

Judge Says Lin Wood’s Post-Election Lawsuits May Have Violated Several Professional Rules, Orders Him to Respond
by Adam Klasfeld
Law & Crime
Dec 22nd, 2020, 11:47 am

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Attorney Lin Wood’s lawsuits aimed to topple the 2020 election may have violated Delaware’s rules of professional conduct, preventing him from representing President Donald Trump’s ex-campaign advisor Carter Page in a defamation suit there, a judge found.

In a detailed order to show cause, Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz itemized defects and alleged unprofessional behavior in Wood’s lawsuits in Wisconsin and Georgia, including filing suit without a plaintiff’s authorization, submitting a false affidavit, and making a series of gaffes that the judge said call his competence into question.

“It appears to the Court that, since the granting of Mr. Wood’s motion he, has engaged in conduct in other jurisdictions, which, had it occurred in Delaware, would violate the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct,” Karsnitz wrote in a 4-page order to show cause.

Karsnitz is presiding over Page’s defamation lawsuit against Oath—the parent company of Yahoo News and the Huffington Post—alleging that their articles “portrayed him as a traitor to America.” Wood has been pursuing Page’s cause, but his post-election litigation may torpedo the attorney-client relationship.

The order to show cause that may disqualify Wood was issued on Friday, entered the docket on Saturday, and was provided by the court to Law&Crime on Tuesday morning.

The judge tore into Wood’s lawyering in the so-called “Kraken” litigation, a name given to litigation by fellow right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell; all four lawsuits filed in its name were torn asunder by federal judges, leaving an extensive record that could haunt the attorneys that filed them. The Kraken has since limped onto the Supreme Court docket.

In Wisconsin, a Republican candidate for Congress complained that Wood’s legal team named him as a plaintiff without authorization.

Judge Karsnitz cited that episode along with a series of gaffes in his complaint, including the failure to list an address, failing to file documents under seal, submitting a motion in draft form and repeatedly being skewered for violating the court’s rules.

As noted in the order to show cause, a quotation in one of the case’s filings was “found by the Court to be fictitious.”

“The citation was to a point of law critical to the case,” Karsnitz added.

U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper pointed out the alleged act of legal fabulism in a ruling dismissing the Wisconsin case.

“Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country,” Pepper wrote in a 45-page ruling on Dec. 9. “One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so. After a week of sometimes odd and often harried litigation, the court is no closer to answering the ‘why.’ But this federal court has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief the remaining plaintiff seeks.”

Judge Karsnitz also questioned Wood’s legal antics as a plaintiff in Georgia litigation, in a case thrown out for having “no basis in fact in law.”

That legal finding may put Wood in violation of Delaware’s professional rules.

“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so,” those rules state, as cited by the order.

Karsnitz also cited Wood’s “Exhibit Q,” an affidavit by Russell James Ramsland, Jr. roasted for confusing the states of Michigan and Minnesota.

“Mr. Wood’s conduct in filing this false affidavit violates DRPC 1.1 (Competence), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements/False Statement of Material Fact), and Misconduct (Dishonesty and Deceit),” the order stated.

Wood is not licensed to practice in Delaware. He was allowed by the court to represent Page pro hac vice in the state. Judge Karsnitz called that permission into question.

“All of the foregoing gives the Court concerns as to the appropriateness of continuing the order granting Mr. Wood authorization to appear in this Court pro hac vice,” the judge said.

Wood must file any response to the order to show cause ruling by Jan. 6, 2021, but he already reacted on Twitter.

Lin Wood
@LLinWood
Judge in Delaware issued show cause order against me today to revoke my appearance as counsel for @carterwpage in defamation case, contending I violated Bar rules by filing GA case now before US Supreme Ct. & was co-counsel in Wisconsin election case filed by @SidneyPowell1.
7:54 PM Dec 18, 2020

Responding to an email requesting comment, Wood denied violating Delaware’s professional rules.

“I am presently engaging counsel to represent me to determine why this order was issued and to defend against its false accusations against me,” Wood told Law&Crime in an email.

Oral argument on Oath’s motion to dismiss Page’s defamation lawsuit has been scheduled for Jan. 13.

Read Judge Karsnitz’s order to show cause below: [PDF HERE]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CARTER PAGE, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
OATH, INC., a corporation,
Defendant.

C.A. No. S20C-07-030 CAK

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

Pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 90.1, the Court sua sponte is issuing this Rule to Show Cause why the permission to practice in this case issued to L. Lin Wood, Jr., Esquire should not be revoked. The following appears to the Court:

1) In this case alleging Defendant defamed Plaintiff, the Court gave Mr. Wood permission pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 90.1 to appear as attorney for Plaintiff, pro hac vice by order dated August 18, 2020. The order granted Mr. Wood's motion, which contained the typical agreement to abide by all State and local rules, the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct1 and the Principles of Professionalism for Delaware Lawyers.2

2) It appears to the Court that, since the granting of Mr. Wood's motion he has engaged in conduct in other jurisdictions, which, had it occurred in Delaware, would violate the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("DRPC").

3) The Georgia Litigation

a. Mr. Wood is Plaintiff in the case of L. Lin Wood, Jr. v. Brad Rattensperger, et al., 2020 WI. 6817513 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division Nov. 20, 2020. In that case, Mr. Wood sought, inter alia, to prevent Georgia's certification of the votes in the general election for President of the United States. In its opinion denying the relief sought by Plaintiff, the Court said:

Viewed in comparison to the lack of any demonstrable harm to Wood, this Court finds no basis in fact or law to grant him the relief he seeks. (Emphasis supplied).

b. Mr. Wood's conduct in filing this suit which the Court found had no basis in "fact or law" may violate DRPC Rule 3.1:

"A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so..."

c. The False Affidavit

Mr. Wood filed or caused to be filed the affidavit of Russell James Ramsland, Jr. in the Georgia litigation which contained materially false information, misidentifying the counties as to which claimed fraudulent voting information occurred.

d. Mr. Wood's conduct in filing this false affidavit violates DRPC 1.1 (Competence, 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements/False Statement of Material Fact), and Misconduct (Dishonesty and Deceit).

4) The Wisconsin Litigation

Mr. Wood is one of several counsel for plaintiffs in the case of William Feehan and Derrick Van Order v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al.3 In that case it appears:

a. The suit was filed on behalf of a person who had not authorized it.

b. The Complaint and related papers had multiple deficiencies as outlined in an order dated December 20, 2020 issued by The Honorable Pamela Pepper:

(i) The Order indicated the filings had been forwarded to defense counsel "...at the following address..." with no addresses listed.

(ii) Documents were allegedly filed under seal, but were not.

(iii) The Complaint requesting a temporary restraining order was not verified or supported by an appropriate affidavit, as required by Court Rules.

(iv) The Complaint contained no certification of efforts to notify the adverse parties, as required by Court Rules.

(v) Apparently, a motion for declaratory relief was filed in draft form.

(vi) The papers filed in Wisconsin asked for various injunctive remedies, but did not ask for a hearing.

(vii) While the pleadings, including a proposed order, asks for emergency relief and an "expedited" injunction, nothing indicates whether the plaintiffs were asking the Court to act more quickly than normal, or why.

c. In a response to defendants' Motion to Dismiss, which was not signed by Mr. Wood, but which was filed while he was one of the counsel of record, a citation for a case, including a quotation was found by the Court to be fictitious. The citation was to a point of law critical to the case.

d. The foregoing conduct in the Wisconsin case appears to violate DRPC 1.1 (Competence), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness), and 8.4(c) (Misconduct).

5) All the foregoing gives the Court concerns as to the appropriateness of continuing the order granting Mr. Wood authorization to appear in this Court pro hac vice.

6) Mr. Wood and local counsel shall have until January 6, 2021 to respond to this Rule to Show Cause. If defendant has a position on the Rule, defendant shall file it in writing by the same date.

7) Currently in this case oral argument on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. The Court will hear counsel on that date in response to this Rule To Show Cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Craig A. Karsnitz

cc. Prothonotary
All Counsel of Record

FILED PROTHONOTARY
SUSSEX COUNTY
2020 DEC 18 2020

_______________

Notes:

1. Prof. Cond. R. (Jan. 1, 2019).

2. Prim. Prof. (Nov. 1, 2003).

3. 2020 WI. 7250219 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Wisc. (Dec. 9, 2020).

[admin]

Glenn Kirschner: ‘There Is No Line Donald Trump Won’t Cross’
by Ali Velshi
The Last Word
MSNBC
Dec 22, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

[Glenn Kirschner, Former Federal Prosecutor] It seems like there is no line Donald Trump won't cross. And I will say to this old prosecutor, it feels like what he just did was like an indiscriminate drive-by on the rule of law. I mean, he pardons people who are lying to the FBI as part of the Russia probe; he pardons Republicans who were either stealing from their own donors, committing campaign finance violations or engaged in insider trading. But what galls me the most, and hits home for me personally, is the Blackwater pardons of these four Blackwater contractors who slaughtered innocent, unarmed Iraqi men, women and young people. That case was prosecuted three times by my former office, the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia. The lead prosecutor, a gentleman by the name of T. Patrick Martin, is somebody I tried murder cases with. He poured his heart and soul into fighting for justice for those Iraqi victims. And Ali, my office would bring the victims over from Iraq, and their surviving family members of the 17 who were murdered, over and over and over again for those three trials. And I can tell you that those Iraqi citizens were equal parts heartened that the American criminal justice system cared about their victimization, and shocked at all of the time, energy, and effort we poured into holding those Blackwater killers accountable for what they did. I consider that one of our proudest achievements at the DC U.S. Attorney's office, holding those men accountable for the way they ravaged, murdered, victimized those Iraqi citizens. And now Donald Trump has killed that justice we achieved in a very real sense. This is perhaps the single greatest affront to victim's rights I saw in my 30 years as a prosecutor.

[admin]

Federal Prosecutors Consider Search Warrants for Giuliani's Emails. Barr Soon Won't Be Able To Help
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
Dec 22, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

[Glenn Kirschner] Let's talk about Rudy Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor being investigated by current federal prosecutors. And I wonder if Rudy understands that we don't care if he's the President's lawyer or not. If he broke the law, he needs to be held accountable, because justice matters.

Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here. So we've had some really interesting recent revelations about Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Here's how Axios reported it:

"Giuliani Asks DHS" -- Department of Homeland Security -- "About Seizing Voting Machines [by Jonathan Swan]" And the article reads in part:

Rudy Giuliani called Ken Cuccinelli, second in command at the Department of Homeland Security, on Thursday night and asked him whether DHS could seize voting machines, a source familiar with the call confirmed to Axios.

So now we have Rudy Giuliani contacting federal agencies and telling them, "Why don't you just go ahead and take the states' voting machines. You know, we actually have a word for that in the law: "Theft." The federal government doesn't have magical authority to just take property that doesn't belong to them. Well, except for a little something called "eminent domain" by which the feds can take our land provided they pay us just compensation. That's a topic for another day. Generally speaking, they can't just take things that don't belong to them. But given that that's where Rudy Giuliani's head is at the moment, is it any wonder what we heard reported out yesterday about Rudy Guiliani?: "Feds Consider Warrant to See Rudy Giuliani's Emails: Report [by Matt Stich]."

Now that was a story that NBC News first broke, and here is how it was reported out by New York Magazine:

Though the scope of the investigation is still unknown, the report suggests that the investigation into President Trump's personal attorney is still active. As NBC News notes, for the legal request to go forward, the Southern District of New York needs "Washington's approval before its prosecutors can ask a judge to sign a search warrant for materials [like emails and text messages] that may be protected by attorney-client privilege, according to department policy."

So let's talk about that for a moment. The federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have been in discussions with Main justice, the Department of Justice in Washington, wanting to seek a search warrant for Rudy Giuliani's emails, text messages, electronic communications. So what do we know? We know, and we have known for many months, that the Southern District of New York federal prosecutors were criminally investigating Rudy Giuliani. Not only that, they were investigating and prosecuting Rudy Giuliani's business partners, his associates, perhaps his partners in crime: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. I always kind of thought "Lev and Igor's Excellent Adventures" would be a good name for a movie. But I digress.

So we know that the SDNY prosecutors have been going after Lev and Igor, Rudy Giuliani's business partners. Here's what we don't know. What has Bill Barr's involvement in all of this been? Has Bill Barr been a roadblock, a speedbump, a firewall protecting Rudy Giuliani, and by extension Rudy Giuliani's most famous client? Has he put the brakes on the criminal investigation that we know has been up and running into Rudy Giuliani? We have to ask ourselves that question, particularly in light of this reporting that apparently the SDNY prosecutors have reached out to Main Justice to try to get authorization for a search warrant for Rudy Giuliani's electronic communications.

But you know what we do know, folks? We know that it's all about to come to an end, because Bill Barr leaves the job tomorrow. He's done as Attorney General. Thank goodness! And Donald Trump leaves the job of President in a few weeks. But do you know what I can promise you? The investigation and prosecution of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman will continue in the Biden Administration. And by implication, the investigation of Rudy Giuliani, and perhaps an ultimate prosecution, will continue, in the Biden Administration. Of that, I'm certain.

Some people may say, "Yeah, but you know, Donald Trump is probably just going to pardon Rudy, so it's all for naught. We won't be able to prosecute Rudy for federal crimes." That may be true. Of course, we can still prosecute Rudy if he committed any state crimes. A Presidential pardon can't help him on that front. But I would ask you to also keep this in mind: You can only pardon somebody for past crimes, so that if Rudy Giuliani has been in a conspiracy, and if that conspiracy continues beyond the date of the pardon, if Donald Trump pardons Rudy today, but whatever conspiracy they have been in continues after today, well, he's still on the hook, because the crime isn't complete, so the pardon will not have full effect.

Let me use another example. Mike Flynn. We all know that on November 25th, Mike Flynn was pardoned by Donald Trump for past crimes. But what have we seen Mike Flynn doing in recent weeks? Advocating that the military should go in to states that Donald Trump lost and re-run the election. You know what that is? That's conduct unbecoming an officer in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 133. Take it from me -- I used to be an Army Jag prosecuting court martial cases. Do you know what else it is? It's a violation of the UCMJ Article 134: Conduct that brings disrepute, disgrace, on the Armed Forces. So there are some that are suggesting, some former generals in fact, that Mike Flynn should be ordered to active duty so he can be court-martialed for the crimes that he has been committing in violation of the UCMJ in recent weeks after the time he was pardoned. Because remember, you can't pardon future crimes.

Now this is a topic that we're going to take on in some detail tomorrow, but I mentioned that just to highlight the fact that if Rudy Giuliani's crimes continue beyond the date he's pardoned -- and why wouldn't they? -- I mean, he's Rudy Giuliani -- well then, the pardon will not give him complete immunity from prosecution.

[admin]

Disgrace To His Uniform’: Col. Wilkerson On Flynn’s Martial Law Election Plot
by Chris Hayes
All In
MSNBC
Dec 21, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

[Chris Hayes] Now for some perspective on what exactly is happening, I want to turn to Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. At one level, Colonel, again, this is a story similar to many stories we have heard, where the President has a crazy idea and people are trying to walk him away from it. In this case, though, it's hard to get your head around just how wildly dangerous and offensive it is. What is your reaction to what you have heard about this meeting, and what the President is currently attempting to consider?

[Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell] My first reaction, of course, is, "don't take counsel of your fears." We've just gone through one of the most incredible election sequences in our Nation's history, certainly since World War II. More people voted by more methodoligies in a pandemic environment, etc., etc. I have to commend all of those people out there in every state who worked so hard to deliver a free and fair election. At the same time I say that, I have to say, my fears are somewhat significant with a former Lieutenant-General of the United States Army saying what Mike Flynn said with regard to martial law and going to the battleground states and essentially reconducting the election. Were I the Secretary of Defense, I'd call him back to active duty, which is in the prerogative of the Secretary of Defense, and I'd court-martial him. At a minimum, I'd cite him for Incitement to Insurrection. This is not something that a military officer should do. You serve until you're roughly 85 years old. It's half-pay. It's not necessarily retired pay. You can be called back anytime. I got my letter from Secretary Rumsfeld when I was Chief of Staff to Secretary Powell. I was called back to active duty. I was judged to be in a critical position and didn't have to do it, but that's the power of the military over this General. And he needs to be rebuked! He needs to be reprimanded, and it needs to be done officially. That would be the best way to do it.

These other people, like Bannon, and Powell, and so forth -- they are sycophants who are seeking whatever they can gain from the magic aura of this man before it dissipates. And it frightens me as to the things that they could do if the 25th Amendment, or something like it, is not implemented, and we don't remove him from office. There's a lot of time left. When we worked on this at the Transition Integrity Project, we saw Trump do some pretty desperate things. One of the things we saw him do that I'm not waiting eagerly to see if he fulfills it, is he did everything he could possibly do, the Team playing his team, to ruin Biden's first year in office, everything from allowing him to get cabinet officers confirmed, because he had such control that we've seen demonstrated over the Senate of the United States, to not allowing good transitions to take place.

I understand, from inside sources, that those transitions are -- for the most part -- taking place, but they are taking place, in some instances, grudgingly, and that's not the way transitions should occur.

[Chris Hayes] Your point about General Flynn, just to circle back to that again, I find the General's trajectory here really unnerving. I mean, this is someone who was really celebrated, who had a fairly sterling record, people thought he was an incredible intelligence officer, and he was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency before he was essentially fired, and to watch somebody who served, and had this reputation, and is known by a lot of people who work with him go on the trajectory he has where he was essentially an unpaid for agent of a foreign government, the Turkish government, which he did not disclose, and now idly talking about martial law, it's a very unnerving trajectory!

[Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell] It is! In my view he's a disgrace to his uniform. And he's one of those examples, and I knew several of them when I was in the military some 30 years plus, he's one of those examples of a person who gets squirreled away in a special community, in this case Special Ops and also Intelligence, and he grows up to Flag rank and no one really applies any adult supervision, and I include in that General McChrystal in Afghanistan when he worked for General McChrystal. I blame General McChrystal for putting him in the position that he's in right now to a certain extent.

So these people come along, and they get to a position where they really have some authority, in this case much beyond the three stars, National Security Adviser almost, and they then show their true colors. And I think that's what Flynn is doing. Otherwise I've got to pronounce him a psychotic, or worse!

[Chris Hayes] You seem unnerved, but also somewhat confident about the situation we are in, which I think tracks where I am. Again, there is a dwindling amount of power the President has. There's kind of a whiff of desperation. He's going to, sort of, more and more bizarre, crankish kinds of voices. And yet the authority of the Government still rests in the man's hands for 30 days. And we've been anticipating break-glass moments -- I don't think we've quite gotten one yet. But are you confident, basically, based on the reporting, and also on what you know about the institutions, particularly the Department of Defense, that he will not be allowed to do anything like he is contemplating?

[Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell] There will be nothing with the military in my very strong view. The military will not do anything untoward, no matter what orders come from him. And indeed, if the orders were truly untoward, the 25th Amendment might be implemented. I don't see how people could stop from doing that.

What worries me, Chris, right now, is the opportunistic advantage that's out there right now for a very hard press by COVID 19 -- North Korea, for example, Kim Jong Un -- for a very pressured China with regard to what Taipei is doing, and Taiwan in general, and in the situation with Iran where we have them just waiting. These are the kinds of things that Trump could leave as a blow to the country, and it would wind up being a significant blow to the country into the new administration.

25th Amendment: Presidential Disability and Succession

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967. The 25th Amendment changed a portion of Article II, Section 1

Section 1
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

[admin]

Trump met with Pence before calling on the vice president to thwart the Electoral College: report
Pence was named in a recent lawsuit that seeks to block him from ratifying Biden's victory on Jan. 6
by Roger Solenberger
December 24, 2020 10:06PM (UTC)

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Just before President Donald Trump shared a tweet calling for Vice President Mike Pence to "act" against the Senate's coming ratification of the Electoral College vote, he reportedly met for more than an hour with his second-in-command, CNN reported.

While a person familiar with the events told CNN that the Oval Office discussion was "entirely unrelated" to the demand in the tweet, the person declined to say if the ratification issue came up. Trump soon left town for Mar-a-Lago, reportedly still obsessed with overturning his loss to President-elect Joe Biden. On the flight to Palm Beach, accompanied by his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — the former spokesperson for LifeLock brand identity theft protection services — Trump retweeted a demand for Pence to refuse to certify the Electoral College results on Jan. 6, an impossibility that arose from baseless chatter in right-wing internet crawlspaces.

Giuliani will spend the holidays at the outgoing president's Mar-a-Lago club, where the two men will likely discuss the limited post-election actions that may still be available to them. Trump and his GOP allies have gone one-for-sixty so far in their efforts to sue their way to victory ahead of the Electoral College's vote. Giuliani now faces a defamation suit from an executive at a voting machine company who was forced into hiding following threats on his life stemming from some of the former New York mayor's remarks in those efforts.

Trump has recently griped that his vice president, who as President of the Senate will formally preside over the ratification of his loss, has not gone to bat for him. CNN reported that Trump has raised the issue with Pence, but appears "confused" about why the vice president can't use his role to overturn the election.

Speaking this Tuesday at an event in Florida for the young conservative group Turning Point USA, Pence did not mention the ratification, but promised to fight "until every legal vote is counted" and "every illegal vote is thrown out."

That same day, the conservative Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit against Pence and the entire Electoral College, claiming that Pence should not be allowed to count the votes because states have not "affirmatively voted to certify the Presidential electors" — despite the fact that the electoral college has already voted. The court filing includes Pence due to what the plaintiffs describe as his "legal obligations under the Constitution and federal law" to preside over ratification.

"I can't even describe it," election law attorney Marc Elias wrote on Twitter. "It's really dumb."

The vice president is not constitutionally bound to ratify the final vote. For instance, in 1969, when then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey declined to preside over his loss to Richard Nixon, the role fell to the Senate president pro tempore — a post currently held by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

In a parallel fit of absurdity, Rep. Mo Brooks, an Alabama conservative, has volunteered to lead a floor debate on Jan. 6, and claims he has the support of "multiple Senators." Brooks recently discussed the plan at a meeting with Trump and a number of GOP representatives, and claimed Pence had made an appearance. The debate as planned would last 12 hours, after which Biden would be ratified as the next President of the United States.

A Pence spokesperson in a lengthy email exchange refused to reply to Salon's request for comment.

[admin]

Armed Protesters Break Into Oregon State Capitol Building, Break Windows, Assault Journalists, Hit Police With Chemical Agent
by Tom Tapp
Deadline
December 21, 2020


Armed protesters storming the Oregon State Capitol
AP Photo/Andrew Selsky

According to the Oregon State Police and multiple media reports, a group of armed protesters broke windows and stormed the capitol while the state legislature was in session on Monday. Legislators were debating Covid-19 restrictions and related public assistance in closed session. The only people permitted inside the building were members of the Salem Police Department and the Oregon State Police as well as lawmakers, staff and reporters.

The protesters, many with flak jackets, military helmets and some carrying long guns with multiple magazines, entered the capitol building at about 8:30 am. According to Salem PD, “at least one of the protesters used chemical agents on the police…OSP [Oregon State Police] used inert pepper ball, while dealing with these protestors.”

At 10:30 police had gathered in sufficient numbers to push the crowd out of the building. It was then that “another individual used bear spray against police officers,” according to an OSP statement. “He was arrested on multiple charges including trespassing and assaulting a police officer.

Salem Police Department
@SalemPoliceDept
UPDATE @1140: Since approximately 8030 this morning, December 21, protesters assembled on the grounds of the @OregonCapitol. At about 0930 @ORStatePolice declared an unlawful assembly & made various audible announcements for dispersal to the crowd outside & warnings to leave to the individuals who forced their way into the Capitol. @ORStatePolice continues to make those announcements. All events taking place in the capitol bldg & on its grounds are under OSP's jurisdiction. SPD is assisting OSP as mutual aid.
At this time, the streets around the @OregonCapitol grounds are closed and Salem Police officers are providing support to ensure the public's safety on our city streets.
Please avoid the area and follow all directions for detours. Thank you.
#salemoregon

Later in the day, the protesters returned and tried to gain entry again, kicking in glass entryway doors, before police again repelled them.

Nick Knudsen @NickKnudsenUS Dec 21, 2020
Replying to @NickKnudsenUS
This guy seems nice.
Nick Knudsen
@NickKnudsenUS
Just before their violent physical assaults on journalists, the right wing extremists literally tried to kick in the door of the Oregon State Capitol in Salem.
4:11 PM Dec 21, 2020

Those assembled also attacked a photographer for the Salem Statesman General. One is heard on video telling the photographer, "I'm gonna f*ck you up," as the journalist leaves. See videos above and below.

Nick Knudsen
@NickKnudsenUS
Right wing thugs intimidated and threatened journalist @_Briant_ICT - for trying to cover their unlawful assembly at the Capitol in Salem, Oregon today.
They tried to storm the Capitol with pistols and rifles in protest of COVID-19 restrictions.
3:49 PM Dec 21, 2020

Those assembled also attacked a photographer for the Salem Statesman General. One is heard on video telling the photographer, “I’m gonna f*ck you up,” as the journalist leaves. See videos above and below.

[admin]

The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell
by Lawrence O'Donnell
MSNBC
Dec 24, 2020



Well, the outgoing President is attempting a coup. Not something "kind of like" a coup, not something "close to" a coup, it's the actual thing: It's a coup! And it's everything Donald Trump promised to do and said that he wanted to do all along ...