Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

The Incredible Mystery of How Trump Got Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago Case: There are a number of incredible coincidences that led to the former president getting his preferred judge.
by Jose Pagliery
Updated Oct. 18, 2022 12:17PM ET / Published Oct. 18, 2022 4:43AM ET

When Donald Trump’s legal team filed their court paperwork protesting the Mar-a-Lago raid, a lawyer took the rare step of actually filing the paperwork in person. At a courthouse 44 miles from Mar-a-Lago. And they got a judge to oversee the case that was outside both West Palm Beach—where the raid took place—and the district where they filed.

Those incredible coincidences have led lawyers and legal experts to suggest that something may not be above board with how Trump’s team filed their lawsuit, which serendipitously ended up in the MAGA-friendly hands of Judge Aileen Cannon.

For one, Trump’s team blamed a “technical issue” with the court’s computer system. But The Daily Beast has discovered that the system was working just fine for dozens of other lawyers making hundreds of filings that day.

For another, lawyers typically file lawsuits at the district where an issue took place. Trump’s lawyers filed at a courthouse in a neighboring division.

And third, lawyers will mark a case as “related” when it deals with a similar matter. Trump’s legal team did not—despite the fact that another magistrate judge at the right courthouse had approved the FBI’s search warrant to recover those classified government documents from Mar-a-Lago.

“It’s clearly related. I don’t think there’s a plausible argument that it’s not related… it was related to another case in the district—in the same courthouse as a matter of fact,” said Carl Tobias, a law school professor at the University of Richmond.

Questions continue to swirl over how exactly Trump managed to get Cannon, who has shocked legal scholars by issuing mind-boggling orders that always favor Trump. She has temporarily halted the FBI investigation, appointed a “special master” to slow down the probe, and kept the case far from its natural home in Washington, D.C.

“It was basically a home run to get her,” said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. “They clearly made the correct calculation, because Judge Cannon’s rulings legally don’t make sense. They only make sense if you’re trying to help the former president.”

Levinson said Trump’s team was clearly “judge shopping.”

“They did not want the magistrate judge to make this decision,” she said. “There was already a captain of this ship. They just didn’t like the direction this was taking.”

Trump’s lawyers filed in one division, Fort Lauderdale, selected the venue in a second division, West Palm Beach, and got a judge in a third division, Fort Pierce. And the way Trump handled this matter was odd from the start.

On Aug. 8, the FBI raided Trump’s oceanside estate in Palm Beach. But he did nothing to intervene or legally protest the search over the following two weeks—inaction that surprised two lawyers who have done significant work for Trump or his associates, who told The Daily Beast about their frustration.

It wasn’t until Aug. 22 that Trump finally sued the government to assert his rights were being violated—at a courthouse an hour’s drive south of Mar-a-Lago. A relatively new addition to the former president’s ever expanding cadre of lawyers, the 33-year-old Lindsey Halligan, went in person to the Fort Lauderdale courthouse near her listed address to submit a copy of the 27-page lawsuit, according to a receipt of the transaction. West Palm Beach was selected as the proper venue. The clerks entered the document into the court system at 4:50 p.m.

The move was so peculiar that Trump’s legal team had to explain themselves, which they did in an official document electronically signed by Halligan, Washington lawyer James M. Trusty, and Baltimore attorney M. Evan Corcoran.

“A technical issue with access to the Court’s CM/ECF system precluded electronic filing today, and the CM/ECF Help Desk advised undersigned counsel to file conventionally,” they attested.

To fact-check that, The Daily Beast examined timestamps for all 1,370 court filings made in the Southern District of Florida that day and interviewed lawyers who used the system throughout the afternoon.

Five lawyers who filed documents in the district that day told The Daily Beast that the court’s electronic system was working fine and some even provided receipts that showed their electronic filings were submitted successfully. The district’s head clerk, attorney Angela E. Noble, also confirmed that her court experienced no technical difficulties that day.

Court docket timestamps provide further proof. A lawsuit against a pizzeria was filed electronically at 4:08 p.m. Pissed-off restaurant employees sued their boss over missing tips at 4:14 p.m. A cruise line got sued three minutes later at 4:17 p.m. And the system was still working at 4:43 p.m., just three minutes before Trump’s lawyers filed their lawsuit, when a woman sued over the way she tripped on a pallet at a Costco aisle.

The system was up and running afterwards too, when a food producer sued French businessmen at 5:10 p.m.

When South Florida lawyers who regularly practice in this district were told about Trump’s in-person filing—and the excuse that the system wasn’t working—they all responded with disbelief.

"I don’t know anybody who files in person. I didn’t even know you could do that anymore. It looks like this person was trying to select a particular judge,” one said, suggesting that a Trump lawyer may have had sway with a court employee.

"I find it bizarre. The only people who file in person are ‘pro se,’” said another, referring to people who sue on their own without the help of a lawyer.

“People don’t do this anymore. It’s extremely odd. I guess you could do this if you wanted to get a particular judge—or avoid getting a particular judge,” speculated a third.

For weeks on social media, legal scholars and paid news commentators have been wondering the same thing—and openly suggesting that Trump’s legal team figured out how to game the system.

“Could the 4th estate PLEASE get to the bottom of this,” tweeted former DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. “If there wasn’t at least the potential to judge shop why on g_d’s green earth would Trump have gone all the way to her district to file and do so physically, when he could have electronically filed at the court in his backyard?”

Lawyers spoke on background, citing a concern that they may have future cases assigned to Judge Cannon.

Some lawyers raised the possibility that Trump’s lawyers tried to be deliberately vague when they blamed “a technical issue with access to the court's” system, which could technically mean they couldn’t get their own computers to work.

“It lacks the ambiance of candor,” one lawyer said. “What do you mean by technical issue? Are you saying the court system was down? Or your computer was down?”

Trump’s own lawyers seem to disprove that notion. In court documents, Halligan attested that she was able to send a copy of the lawsuit “via electronic mail” that day to two Department of Justice lawyers: top Miami federal prosecutor Juan Antonio Gonzalez and Jay I. Bratt, chief of the DOJ National Security Division’s counterintelligence and export control section.

Halligan did not respond to questions for this story.

Trump’s lawyers’ claim that the system wasn’t working makes even less sense when you consider that they could have filed sooner or even later.

“There was nothing that imposed a deadline on them to file. They could have done it the next day,” one South Florida lawyer said.

“I think somebody pulled a fast one in the clerk’s office to rotate it to a friendly judge. It doesn’t sound like it was done by the blind filing system,” mused another.

The Daily Beast contacted a court employee with direct knowledge of how the Trump lawsuit filing was handled, and this person said the case was placed into the federal court system’s automatic random judge “assignment wheel.”

Noble, the head of that office, also said that the proper procedure was followed on their end—and that this is backed up by a log that “is not publicly available.” She said the Trump lawsuit was placed on the West Palm Beach civil wheel, which consists of nine judges. Cannon is in a neighboring division, so she can occasionally get West Palm Beach cases.

Theoretically, that would give Trump a 1-in-9 chance of getting Cannon on the case.

However, The Daily Beast analyzed new case assignments in West Palm Beach in the week preceding Trump’s lawsuit and found that Cannon actually got a much higher share, nine of the 29 new complaints—roughly a third of all cases.

But the system still appears random. The previous Friday in West Palm Beach, Cannon got the first lawsuit of the day. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks got the next three. Cannon got the last one.

On Monday, Aug. 22, in West Palm Beach, Cannon got the first case. Trump’s lawsuit was the second of the day in that division, and she got that too.

A head clerk of federal courts in another state told The Daily Beast that lawyers sometimes time filings as if they’re players at a casino. Sometimes it works.

“If you play cards and count the cards, I suppose they could say, ‘I’ll hold this here until I see if other judges got assignments.’ But it would be very risky because it’s random,” she said.

[admin]

Is America Headed to Another Civil War? Jordan Klepper Fingers the Pulse
by Jordan Klepper
The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
Oct 24, 2022

Is America headed towards another Civil War? Jordan Klepper chats with Rep. Adam Kinzinger and polls Arizona liberals and conservatives to find out. #DailyShow #Comedy



Transcript

There's no question that America is becoming
0:02
more and more polarized.
0:04
And it has a lot of people wondering--
0:06
could this division turn into violence?
0:09
Well, we sent Jordan Klepper to find out for another episode
0:12
of "Fingers the Pulse."
0:13
[music playing]
0:20
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): When you've
0:21
been to as many rallies as I have,
0:23
you get used to hearing things you don't encounter
0:26
in everyday life, like "Go to hell,"
0:28
and "Klepper is a bitch."
0:30
But lately, the. crowds have been
0:31
coalescing around one particular idea
0:34
that nobody wants to hear
0:35
- Civil War. - Civil War.
0:37
- Civil War. - Civil War.
0:38
Civil War.
0:39
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): The Civil War--
0:40
our country's bitter attempt at divorce
0:42
that ended with mom and dad back together in a state
0:45
of constant resentment.
0:46
43% of Americans think it's very
0:48
likely there's a Civil War in the next decade.
0:51
OK.
0:52
I'm going to be perfectly straight up and honest.
0:53
It's going to happen much sooner than that.
0:55
How soon?
0:56
Because I have an Airbnb rented in the Outer Banks.
0:58
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): But it turns out
1:00
a lot of Americans think this way and not just your uncle
1:03
who has been hoarding weapons and Vienna sausages
1:05
in his basement bunker.
1:06
Even sitting members of Congress, like January 6
1:09
Committee Member Adam Kinzinger.
1:10
How close are we to another Civil War?
1:13
I think we're closer than we'd like to think.
1:15
And I used to be afraid to talk about it.
1:17
Now I think it's important for us to talk about it.
1:19
To talk about a Civil War?
1:20
Yeah.
1:21
Because I think we have to be aware of where we're at.
1:23
I don't think it's going to be North and South
1:25
with large marching armies.
1:26
You know, if I live in Illinois,
1:28
there's going to be Republicans and Democrats in Illinois.
1:31
I do think it could get violent easily.
1:33
I mean, that's scary.
1:34
That is scary.
1:35
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): If a sitting representative
1:37
like Kinzinger thinks a second Civil War is possible,
1:39
it's something we need to take seriously.
1:41
So I decided to gather Americans
1:43
in one of our most sacred traditions of civic unity--
1:46
the corporate focus group, bringing together
1:48
conservatives and liberals in purple Arizona
1:51
who all think Civil War is a real possibility.
1:53
The Civil War is tomorrow.
1:55
What is the skill set you bring to the battlefield?
1:57
Well, I'm good with a gun.
1:58
- Yeah? - Yeah.
1:59
OK.
2:00
James?
2:02
[laughs] I have survival skills.
2:03
I was in the military.
2:05
I know how to shoot a weapon, hand-to-hand combat
2:06
if I have to.
2:08
I could stick you with a knife and not cry about it.
2:10
[laughs]
2:12
We're laughing about sticking people with a knife, but--
2:14
OK. Lansing, what skills?
2:15
Leadership JORDAN KLEPPER: Leadership?
2:16
Yeah.
2:17
I just feel there's going to need to be some leaders.
2:19
Bo, what skills do you have?
2:20
Critical thinking.
2:22
Jesus, for all of the liberals in here,
2:24
we have a leader and a critical thinker.
2:27
This is why the blue side is [bleep]..
2:28
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): But if America was going
2:30
to be divided in a Civil War, where would the modern day
2:33
Mason-Dixon Line fall?
2:35
It was time for a state-by-state fantasy draft--
2:37
well, nightmare draft.
2:39
JORDAN KLEPPER: We've terraformed
2:40
the states that have been red and blue to create
2:44
one land mass.
2:46
Who sees himself as conservative part
2:47
of the red map here?
2:50
Are these the states you would want?
2:52
Oh, I much prefer the red states.
2:54
What breaks your heart?
2:56
What are you going to miss?
2:57
Well, Arizona-- isn't that supposed
2:59
to be a red state now?
3:00
Let's say we give you Arizona.
3:02
Where do you want to travel to?
3:03
Well, I love California.
3:05
But it's turned into such a shithole.
3:06
Let's be fair.
3:08
As a red state guy, the blue state has the best food.
3:10
Oh, yeah.
3:11
Right.
3:12
Bo, what would you miss?
3:14
Not a ton.
3:15
As a liberal, you're feeling pretty
3:17
good about the states you get.
3:18
Honestly, I feel all right.
3:20
We got Hawaii.
3:21
JORDAN KLEPPER: You do have Hawaii.
3:22
James, what are you missing?
3:24
You're going to be in this red conglomerate, right?
3:25
Well, the family's from back east in Ohio, so, yeah,
3:27
I mean-- that would be.
3:28
You'd miss Ohio?
3:29
I wouldn't trade Cleveland for anything.
3:30
I'd trade Texas for California
3:32
so I can go to San Diego. - OK.
3:34
Any other trades?
3:35
Texas for California-- blue side,
3:36
would you allow that trade?
3:37
I'll take Austin for Cleveland,
3:39
but I don't need all of Texas.
3:40
We'll do an Austin for Cleveland.
3:41
I don't want Cleveland. He's in Cleveland.
3:43
I want San Diego.
3:44
What will you give up for San Diego?
3:45
I would give up Florida.
3:48
No thanks.
3:49
There's no takers on Florida?
3:50
No.
3:51
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): OK.
3:52
So I guess the ocean can have Florida,
3:54
which is helpful because it will probably take it anyway.
3:57
And now that we have our newly divided States of America,
4:00
we get to draft some new constitutions.
4:02
If there is a new America, you're going to need new laws.
4:06
Are there any laws you would want to change?
4:08
Get rid of the petty ones.
4:11
I mean, there's lots of petty laws out there.
4:13
I mean, if you pee in public, I mean,
4:14
are you really going to be in the sex crime registry
4:16
now because you peed in public?
4:17
It's stupid.
4:18
It's a crack in the system.
4:20
That's the first law that comes to head?
4:22
It's the petty laws.
4:23
You get put in the federal sex crimes registry
4:27
if you take a leak outside.
4:29
It's just pretty dumb.
4:30
That's just an example.
4:31
We just talked about a Civil War
4:33
tearing this country in two.
4:34
[laughter]
4:35
You finally get your way-- - Well, you know, I mean--
4:37
--and the first law that jumps
4:38
to mind is peeing in public.
4:41
Does your side not have toilets?
4:42
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): With the vision
4:44
of the new Confederacy already collapsing under the burden
4:47
of sewage infrastructure, I thought
4:49
it was time to cut to the chase and ask
4:51
the biggest question of all.
4:52
Which side wins?
4:53
We all lose.
4:54
We all lose, yeah.
4:56
There's no winning there.
4:57
What if one side loses and then refuses to concede?
5:04
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): Well,
5:05
I don't know if I feel any better
5:06
about the future of America.
5:07
But for now, at least we still have elections.
5:10
In fact, check out my new half hour special where I dive
5:13
into the midterms and ask the very important question--
5:16
democracy, we still cool?
5:19
If you knew you got fewer votes, you wouldn't concede.
5:21
What is conceding mean?
5:23
Yeah.
5:24
It means accepting loss.
5:25
- No. - No.
5:26
Why?
5:27
Is democracy [bleep]?
5:28
We can be [bleep] tomorrow if the wrong thing happens.
5:32
You were there January 6.
5:33
It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw.
5:35
Birds chirping, police officers screaming.
5:37
No.
5:39
[music playing]
5:45
[applause]
5:46
Thank you so much for that.
5:47
Jordan Klepper, everybody.
5:48
Before to check out--
5:50
be sure to check out Jordan's special next Tuesday at 11:30
5:52
right after this show.

[admin]

'Deep trouble': Consultant during Trump's impeachment gives his take on DOJ move
by Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law Professor, Harvard Law School
CNN
Oct 26, 2022

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.

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to force the top two lawyers from Donald Trump's White House counsel's office to testify about their conversations with the former President. This comes as the DOJ tries to break through the privilege firewall Trump has used to avoid scrutiny of his actions on January 6, 2021, according to three people familiar with the investigation.



Transcript

[ERIN BURNETT] TONIGHT, A CNN EXCLUSIVE. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NOW ASKING A FEDERAL JUDGE TO FORCE TWO TOP LAWYERS FROM DONALD TRUMP'S WHITE HOUSE TO TESTIFY ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM. THOSE LAWYERS ARE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE, AND PATRICK PHILBIN. TRUMP WAGED A SECRET COURT FIGHT TO BLOCK FORMER ADVISERS FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6th. OUR SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, EVAN PEREZ, IS OUT FRONT. EVAN, THIS COULD, I THINK, HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE INVESTIGATION IF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUCCEEDS, AND GETS THESE FORMER TRUMP LAWYERS TO TESTIFY, RIGHT?

[EVAN PEREZ] RIGHT. IT REALLY DOES HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING PROSECUTORS INTO THE INNER CIRCLE OF DONALD TRUMP, AND HIS WHITE HOUSE. PAT CIPOLLONE WAS THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. PATRICK PHILBIN WAS HIS DEPUTY. AND THEY WERE THERE DURING SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS AS THE FORMER PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO IMPEDE THE TRANSFER OF POWER IN 2020, WHICH IS AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROSECUTORS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ARE INVESTIGATING. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SO FAR, HAS BEEN WINNING THESE SECRET PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE GOING ON AT THE COURTHOUSE HERE IN WASHINGTON. THEY GOT GREG JACOB, AND MARK SHORT, FORMER AIDES TO THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, TO COME BACK IN AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. THESE ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, ABOUT CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY HAD WITH THE FORMER PRESIDENT. SO, THE FACT THAT THEY'RE WINNING THESE FIGHTS DOES BODE WELL FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AS THEY TRY TO GET THE COMPELLED TESTIMONY OF CIPOLLONE AND PHILBIN.

[ERIN BURNETT] EVAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO GO NOW TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, WHO ALSO CONSULTED HOUSE DEMOCRATS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO, PROFESSOR, WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR DONALD TRUMP IF THE DOJ SUCCEEDS HERE, AND GETS IN THIS INNER CIRCLE, GETS PAT CIPOLLONE AND PAT PHILBIN'S TESTIMONY?

[LAURENCE TRIBE] IT MEANS HE'S IN DEEP TROUBLE. THERE'S NO REASON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT SUCCEED. WHEN A GRAND JURY DEMANDS THE TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF SOMEONE WHO APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AN INSURRECTION AND A SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GET THAT INFORMATION. IF THERE WERE AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR A FORMER PRESIDENT -- AND THAT'S DOUBTFUL -- IT WOULD BE OVERCOME BY THE CONTEXT: THE INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. IT WAS UNANIMOUS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN BOTH CASES WHERE THE ISSUE AROSE, THAT THE NEED FOR INFORMATION IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING TRUMPS -- NO PUN INTENDED -- ANY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. SO THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THEM TO RESIST THE ORDER THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET FROM THE DEPARTMENT MOTION WITH THE COURT. AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE COURT TO DENY THAT MOTION.

[ERIN BURNETT] SO, OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. THERE IS ALSO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IN GEORGIA. YOU'VE BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS GIVING SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM A TEMPORARY FREEZE FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE THAT GRAND JURY IN GEORGIA. WHY DO YOU THINK THOMAS' DECISION -- WHICH, BY THE WAY, WENT AGAINST WHAT TWO OTHER COURTS ALREADY RULED, WHICH IS THAT GRAHAM SHOULD HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THAT GRAND JURY -- WHY DO YOU THINK THOMAS DOING THIS IS SO EGREGIOUS?

[LAURENCE TRIBE] IT'S EGREGIOUS BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL. IT WASN'T THE FACT THAT HE GRANTED LINDSEY'S REQUEST -- EVEN DENYING LINDSEY'S REQUEST WOULD'VE BEEN UNLAWFUL. BECAUSE 18 U.S. CODE -- ACTUALLY 28 U.S. CODE SECTION 455 -- SAYS THAT A JUSTICE OR JUDGE -- BUT IT INCLUDES A "JUSTICE" -- AND THE LANGUAGE IT USES IS "SHALL" DISQUALIFY HIMSELF IN ANY PROCEEDING IN WHICH HIS IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED. SO EVEN DENYING LINDSEY'S REQUEST WOULD'VE BEEN WRONG. HE SHOULD'VE JUST HANDED IT OVER TO ANOTHER JUSTICE. BUT THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF 28 U.S. CODE THAT IS SLAM DUNK APPLICABLE. IT SAYS THAT A JUSTICE "SHALL "-- AND I KEEP EMPHASIZING THE WORD "SHALL" -- IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY -- DISQUALIFY HIMSELF. AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE THE LANGUAGE, IF "HIS SPOUSE IS KNOWN BY THE JUSTICE TO HAVE AN INTEREST THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME." NOW, WE KNOW THAT GINNI THOMAS HAS AN INTEREST. SHE MADE IT CLEAR. IT'S NOT EVEN SECRET. SHE WAS AT THE JANUARY 6th RALLY. SHE SENT AT LEAST 29 TEXTS A FEW WEEKS EARLIER TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MARK MEADOWS, URGING HIM TO BACK UP THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO PREVENT THE TRANSFER OF POWER TO BIDEN. SHE SAID THE WHOLE BIDEN FAMILY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON. THEN THERE WERE TEXTS THAT SHE SENT TO THE LEGISLATORS OF ARIZONA AND WISCONSIN, URGING THEM TO SUBMIT PHONY ELECTORAL SLATES TO PREVENT THE TRANSFER OF POWER. SO SHE IS INTIMATELY INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING IN GEORGIA WHERE THE SAME QUESTION, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE, INCLUDING SENATOR GRAHAM, WERE ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT TO STRONG-ARM PEOPLE, LIKE RAFFENSPERGER, TO CREATE PHONY VOTES. SO SHE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. HE HAS TO KNOW THAT. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF PILLOW TALK. EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY KNOWS IT. IT'S OPEN AND SHUT.

[ERIN BURNETT] WELL, AS YOU SAY, IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY, IT'S "SHALL." AND THAT OPERATIVE WORD CARRIES SO MUCH WEIGHT IN THIS CASE. PROFESSOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[admin]

Pastor Jamal Bryant DEMOLISHES Herschel Walker. White Evangelicals in Disarray
by Pastor Jamal Bryant
The Benjamin Dixon Morning Show
Oct 31, 2022

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.

Don’t get mad now. White evangelicals stay preaching politics in their pulpits. Jamal Bryant does it better.

Transcript

[Pastor Jamal Bryant] Ladies and gentlemen, when the Republican party of Georgia moved Herschel Walker from Texas to Georgia so that he could run for Senate, it's because change was taken too fast in the post-Antebellum South. The state had been flipped blue, and there are some principalities that were not prepared for a black man, and a Jewish man, to go to Senate at the exact same time. So they figured that they would delude us, by picking somebody who they thought would in fact represent us better with a football, than with a degree in philosophy. They thought we were so slow, that we were so stupid, that we would elect the lowest caricature of a stereotypical broken black man, as opposed to somebody who is educated, and erudite, and focused.

Y'all aren't ready for me today.

Since Herschel Walker was 16 years old, white men been telling him what to do. Telling him what school to go to, where to live, where to eat, where to buy a house, where to walk, where to sit down, where to sleep, where to pay for abortions, where to buy a gun. And you think they not gonna tell him how to vote in 2022?

We don't need a Walker, we need a runner. We need somebody who gonna run, and tell the truth about January 6. We need somebody who gonna run, and push for the cancellation of student loan debts. We need somebody who gonna run, and make the former president respond to a subpoena.

We don't need a Walker, we need somebody who will be steadfast, unmovable, always abounded, knowing that your labor is not in vain.

Georgia, I need you to know: the slave Negroes y'all are used to don't live here no more. We can think by ourselves, function for ourselves, and vote for ourselves. Why? Cause we don't need a Walker.

[admin]

Trump-backed Wisconsin GOP candidate and 2020 election denier claims Republicans will 'never lose another election' in the state if he gets voted into office
by Hannah Getahun
Business Insider
11/2/22

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.

Wisconsin Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels speaks as he appears with former President Donald Trump at a rally in Waukesha, Wis., on Aug. 5, 2022. AP Photo/Morry Gash, File

* Wisconsin GOP gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels said Republicans would never lose an election in the state.

* "Tim Michels is a danger to our democracy," Gov. Tony Evers said on Twitter.

*The Michels campaign clarified the comment, saying that Michels would boost support for Republicans.

Wisconsin GOP candidate Tim Michels said Republicans would never lose a race in the state should he become governor, concerning opponents that he would take steps to alter election results once in office.

American Bridge 21st Century, a left-leaning political action committee, released an audio clip Monday of Michels recorded during a campaign event in Jackson County, Wisconsin. Michels is running for governor against Democratic incumbent Governor Tony Evers.

"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I'm elected governor," Michels, who co-owns the state's largest construction company, can be heard saying.

In response to the audio clip, posted on Twitter, Evers replied, saying: 'Tim Michels is a danger to our democracy."

"Democracy is on the ballot in this election," Sam Roecker, a spokesperson for Evers told Insider. "Tim Michels has made it clear he will do anything in his power to make it harder for Wisconsinites to vote and could even overturn the fair results of our elections if he doesn't like the outcome."

Tony Evers@Tony4WI·Follow
Governor candidate, WI

Folks, we’ve known this for awhile – Tim Michels is a danger to our democracy.

When you head to the polls on Election Day, remember that we’re fighting to protect our democracy, voting rights, and free, fair, and secure elections.

American Bridge 21st Century @American_Bridge

GOP #WIGov nominee Tim @MichelsForGov said the quiet part out loud: "Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I'm elected governor."

Democracy is on the line in Wisconsin. Michels must be stopped.

Embedded video

3:59 PM · Oct 31, 2022

Michels, a candidate endorsed by former President Donald Trump, has questioned the results of the 2020 election and has declined to answer questions as to whether or not he would certify presidential election results as governor should a Democrat win the state in a national election.

Michels also suggested that he could pursue an unconstitutional effort to decertify Biden's 2020 win in Wisconsin once he became governor, telling local station WKOW that he would "need to see the details."

In a statement to Insider, the Michels campaign denied the audio had anything to do with election integrity. Rather, the campaign said, Michels would garner more support for Republican candidates in the state by implementing "lower taxes, better schools, uniform election laws and safer communities."

"While revving up supporters to get out and vote, Tim was referring to winning and leading and then being rewarded by voters for doing a good job," Brian Fraley, a spokesperson for Michels, told Insider in a statement.

"Any attempt to make more out of that quip shows just how pathetic and desperate Tony Evers and his supporters are getting as we approach election day. They want to talk about anything other than his four years of failure."

An NBC analysis found 60% of Republican candidates in five key battleground states deny or question whether or not President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

Experts told The New York Times that election deniers who win key offices could refuse to accept the 2024 elections, resulting in legal battles across the country.

Michels is looking to unseat Evers next Tuesday in a race that has been rated a "toss-up" by Inside Elections, The Cook Political Report, and Sabato's Crystal Ball.

[admin]

Trump lawyers saw Justice Thomas as 'only chance' to stop 2020 election certification: “We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote in an email exchange.
by Kyle Cheney, Josh Gerstein and Nicholas Wu
Politico
11/02/2022 10:17 AM EDT
Updated: 11/02/2022 03:09 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/0 ... n-00064592

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.

The emails were part of a batch that lawyer John Eastman had sought to withhold from the Jan. 6 select committee but that a judge ordered turned over anyway, describing them as evidence of likely crimes committed by Eastman and Donald Trump. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Donald Trump’s attorneys saw a direct appeal to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as their best hope of derailing Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election, according to emails newly disclosed to congressional investigators.

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a Dec. 31, 2020, email to Trump’s legal team. Chesebro contended that Thomas would be “our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress.”

“I think I agree with this,” attorney John Eastman replied later that morning, suggesting that a favorable move by Thomas or other justices would “kick the Georgia legislature into gear” to help overturn the election results.

The messages were part of a batch of eight emails — obtained by POLITICO — that Eastman had sought to withhold from the Jan. 6 select committee but that a judge ordered turned over anyway, describing them as evidence of likely crimes committed by Eastman and Trump.

They thought we were so slow, that we were so stupid, that we would elect the lowest caricature of a stereotypical broken black man, as opposed to somebody who is educated, and erudite, and focused.

Y'all aren't ready for me today.

-- Pastor Jamal Bryant DEMOLISHES Herschel Walker. White Evangelicals in Disarray, The Benjamin Dixon Morning Show, Oct 31, 2022

They were transmitted to the select committee by Eastman’s attorneys last week, but remained largely under wraps until early Wednesday morning.

House General Counsel Douglas Letter acknowledged Wednesday afternoon that his office effectively released the messages by including a link to them in copies of messages publicly filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We were not aware that the links in Dr. Eastman’s email remained active, and had no intention to provide this type of public access to the materials at this stage. Providing public access to this material at this point was purely inadvertent on our part,” Letter told the appeals court in a brief letter. The emails, as produced to the committee, included formatting errors that removed “i”s and “l”s. POLITICO has included the missing letters for clarity.

[DELETE]

From: Eastman, John [DELETE]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Kenneth Chesebro [DELETE] Bruce Marks [DELETE] Kurt Hilbert [DELETE]
Cc: Chris Gardner [DELETE] Kaufman, Alex B. [DELETE] Nina Khan [DELETE] CMitchell [DELETE] Tom Sullivan [DELETE]
Subject: Re: Confidential

I think I agree with this. If the court were to give us "likely", that may be enough to kick the Georgia Legislature into gear, because I've been getting a lot of calls from them indicating to me they're leaning that way.

John

_____________________________________________

From: Kenneth Chesebro [DELETE]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 7:35 AM
To: Bruce Marks [DELETE] Kurt Hilbert [DELETE] Eastman, John [DELETE]
Cc: Chris Gardner [DELETE] Kaufman, Alex B. [DELETE] Nina Khan [DELETE] Tom Sullivan [DELETE]
Subject: Re: Confidential

I see.

I haven't focused on the relief sought, but if what we're seeking as something that TENTATIVELY holds, either by way of PI or DJ, that very likely the electoral votes sent in by the Biden electors aren't valid, because the election failed, as long as that's what the district court, or 11th Cir., or Supreme Court says, that's the key, and probably good enough.

The point is to have the court say that probably the election was void, which ought to be enough to prevent the Senate from counting the Biden electoral votes from Georgia, right?

Merely having this case pending in the Supreme Court, not ruled on, might be enough to delay consideration of Georgia, particularly if Pence has the legal ability and will to insert himself at least enough to win delay.

So I would go for non-final relief, trying to get a statement by a court helping Trump-Pence by Jan. 6.

Possibly Thomas would end up being the key here -- circuit justice, right? We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt. Realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas -- do you agree, Prof. Eastman?

Ken

[DELETE]

Thomas is the justice assigned to handle emergency matters arising out of Georgia and would have been the one to receive any urgent appeal of Trump’s lawsuit to the Supreme Court — a fact that seemed to be part of the Trump legal team’s calculus.

Rulings from so-called circuit justices are typically stopgap measures aimed at preserving the status quo until the full Supreme Court weighs in, but the Trump lawyers hoped a favorable order from Thomas would embolden state GOP-controlled legislatures, Congress — or then-Vice President Mike Pence — to block final certification of Joe Biden’s victory.

In another Dec. 31 email, Chesebro explicitly laid out this strategy:

"[ I]f we can just get this case pending before the Supreme Court by Jan. 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice, hopefully Thomas, I think it’s our best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress,” Chesebro said.

[DELETE]

From: Kenneth Chesebro [DELETE]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 9:55 AM
To: Kurt Hilbert [DELETE] Bruce Marks [DELETE] Eastman, John [DELETE]
Cc: Chris Gardner [DELETE] Kaufman, Alex B. [DELETE] Nina Khan [DELETE] Tom Sullivan [DELETE]
Subject: Re: Confidential

I know we're at the district court level, and late in the day, but if we can just get this case pending before the Supreme Court by Jan. 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice, hopefully Thomas, I think it’s our best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress.

WI and PA have strong cert. petitions, but in both cases, at least the state courts involved issued timely rulings, and Trump & Pence have had an opportunity to file cert. petitions, and thus a chance to have the Supreme Court weigh in before the count.

But the Georgia courts just sat on this for weeks. No opportunity for judicial review. On a showing of a reasonable chance of success of the merits, it would be unconscionable for Congress to count the electoral votes for Biden. It would set a horrible precedent -- that a State can be represented in the Electoral College despite serious concerns about the regularity of the election, which it suppressed through its courts.

Maybe that should be one argument for preliminary relief, that to deny relief would incentivize the denial of due process in future presidential elections. States could do what they wanted, and ignore the rule of law, confident that there would be no judicial interference. What's the point of having life-tenured federal judges if they won't intervene to stop state courts from doing this?

Ken

[DELETE]

Chesebro’s emails continued to offer detailed strategy proposals about ways to delegitimize Biden’s victory on Jan. 6 and beyond.

In one scenario, Chesebro proposed encouraging Senate Republicans to filibuster long enough to delay the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, ignoring limitations on the length of debate. He also described how Trump allies could use inaction by the courts to build political pressure against Biden’s inauguration.

“Hard to have enormous optimism about what will happen on Jan. 6, but a lot can happen in the 13 days left until then, and I think having as many states still under review (both judicially and in state legislatures) as possible is ideal,” Chesebro wrote Trump campaign attorney Justin Clark on Dec. 24, 2020. It’s unclear how or whether Clark responded to Chesebro’s message.

The New York-based lawyer has been scrutinized by the Jan. 6 select committee, as well as prosecutors in Fulton County, Ga., who are investigating Trump’s efforts to subvert the election there.

The Trump’s team’s effort found virtually no traction at the high court. The only outward signs of dissension among the justices were mild, like a Dec. 11 order where the court rejected a bid by Texas to challenge the vote counts in four other states. Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito issued a brief statement saying they’d have accepted jurisdiction over the case, but joined the other justices in denying Texas any relief.

Eastman, an architect of Trump’s last-ditch bid to subvert the 2020 election, once clerked for Thomas and had corresponded with his wife, Virginia, in the weeks before Jan. 6.

Eastman played a central role in pressuring Pence to single-handedly subvert the 2020 election when he presided over the Jan. 6 session of Congress — a legally required proceeding to count electoral votes and certify the election results.

In his conversations with Pence’s staff on Jan. 4 and 5, Eastman suggested that he believed Thomas would likely support their efforts. Eastman’s emails, which he has fought to keep from the select committee, have yielded some of the most potent evidence against Trump’s team — including a March 28 ruling from a federal judge declaring it likely that Trump and Eastman had criminally conspired to subvert the election.

Federal prosecutors have also scrutinized Eastman, who pleaded the Fifth in testimony to the Jan. 6 panel. FBI agents seized Eastman’s cell phone in June as part of a wide-ranging investigation related to efforts by Trump allies to undermine the election results.

Ginni Thomas became the focus of congressional investigators after text message emerged showing her urging Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to continue efforts to keep Trump in power despite losing the 2020 election. She interviewed with the Jan. 6 panel earlier in the fall.

The emails also shed new light on an effort to get Trump to sign documents connected to a Dec. 31, 2020, federal lawsuit challenging the election results in Georgia, including acute concerns Trump’s lawyers voiced during that chaotic period that Trump might put himself in legal jeopardy if he attested to the voter fraud data contained in it.

From: Eastman, John [DELETE]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 12:15 PM MST
To: Kaufman, Alex B. [DELETE] Kurt Hilbert [DELETE]
Subject: RE: Link to entire case

Keeping Bruce and his team off this for the moment.

Here's the issue. The complaint incorporates by reference the state court challenge. Although the President signed a verification for that back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate. And I have no doubt that an aggressive DA or US Atty someplace will go after both the President and his lawyers once all the dust settles on this.

I know it is late in the day, but do we need to incorporate that complaint by reference?

John

[DELETE]

“I have no doubt that an aggressive DA or US Atty someplace will go after both the President and his lawyers once all the dust settles on this,” Eastman wrote in an email to two other private attorneys working on Trump election challenges, Alex Kaufman and Kurt Hilbert.

After some exchanges, including with Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, the lawyers agreed they would remove some of the specific figures before Trump swore to the accuracy of the lawsuit.

But they also debated whether the federal complaint should “incorporate by reference” the voter fraud data included in an earlier state-level lawsuit. Eastman warned that since the state lawsuit was filed, evidence had disproved some of the voter fraud data contained in it — and having Trump point to the earlier data would be erroneous.

“I know it is late in the day, but do we need to incorporate that complaint by reference?” Eastman wondered.

It’s unclear how the other attorney responded to Eastman. But in a separate email chain with additional lawyers, an intensive effort was underway to get the court filings in front of Trump so they could be signed and notarized in time to file the lawsuit that evening.

Trump, they were informed, was on a plane back to D.C. and they needed him to sign and notarize the document. Trump attorney Cleta Mitchell said Trump’s personal assistant had informed her they had no access to a notary until Monday.

“So, now what?” she wondered. “Can we figure out a way to file this without a verification?

“There’s no one they can call to come to the White House that’s a notary?” Chris Gardner, a Virginia attorney and former GOP House aide assisting the president’s legal team, asked in an email sent just before 4 P.M. on New Year’s Eve. “I don’t know how we file without it. Presidential trip to a UPS store?”

Mitchell later said she was exploring the possibility of getting a notary to certify Trump’s signature via a Zoom call.

Court records show Trump’s signature was ultimately attested to by William McCathran, an assistant executive clerk working for the White House.

Trump’s signature was key to U.S. District Court Judge David Carter’s Oct. 19 ruling that the emails must be disclosed to the House Jan. 6 committee. Carter said Trump signed the verification to a federal court complaint under penalty of perjury despite evidence that he’d been told many of the fraud claims in the lawsuit were inaccurate.

The messages “show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” wrote Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

[admin]

Trump's company to get a court monitor, judge rules: Former president’s lawyers fight bid for restraints on Trump’s business empire
by Josh Gerstein
11/03/2022 02:27 PM EDT
Updated: 11/03/2022 09:37 PM EDT

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.

NEW YORK — A judge Thursday granted the New York attorney general’s request that former President Donald Trump’s business empire be overseen by an independent monitor.

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued an order after a daylong hearing, requiring that the Trump Organization’s dealings with banks and sale of major assets be subject to supervision by a third-party expert to be named by the court.

One provision in the order requires 14-days notice to the court before Trump can dispose of any “non-cash asset” listed in a financial statement his firm prepared last year.

The judge’s order came over strenuous objections from Trump’s lawyers in Manhattan earlier Thursday, where Trump’s team pleaded with Engoron to reject Attorney General Tish James’ bid to impose potentially far-reaching supervision of Trump’s business empire as litigation proceeds over her claims that the firms engaged in vast bank and insurance fraud in real estate transactions.

Engoron said in his ruling the evidence of fraudulent valuations by Trump and his businesses was “more than sufficient” to indicate that James is likely to prevail in the lawsuit she filed in September, which is seeking strict limits on the Trump businesses’ activities in New York and a ban on the former president and his three eldest children from serving as an officer of any New York corporation.

The legal setback for Trump came after the two sides squared off in court for the first time since James drew national attention for her civil lawsuit taking on the former president and his businesses. She was quick Thursday to hail the judge’s decision as a step toward justice for Trump.

“Time and time again, the courts have ruled that Donald Trump cannot evade the law for personal gain,” James said in a statement. “Today’s decision will ensure that Donald Trump and his companies cannot continue the extensive fraud that we uncovered and will require the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance at the Trump Organization. No number of lawsuits, delay tactics, or threats will stop our pursuit of justice.”

A Trump Organization spokesperson denounced the decision and suggested that the judge was aiding James politically. She is seeking a second term Tuesday.

Trump himself ripped James’ case, continuing his war of words with the Democratic attorney general of his native state.

“A puppet judge of the New York Attorney General and other sworn enemies of President Trump and the Republican Party has just issued a ruling never before seen anywhere in America. It is Communism come to our shores,” he said in a statement.

Later, at a rally in Iowa, Trump knocked James and “a radical left lunatic judge.”

“They’re weaponizing the Justice Department. They weaponized things that are not supposed to be weaponized,” Trump continued. “Companies are already fleeing New York, as you probably read … What they’re doing in New York is unbelievably sad, and it’s all coming from Washington D.C.”

During the hearing, Engoron — who has overseen earlier rounds of legal jousting between the attorney general and the former president — sounded highly skeptical of Trump’s legal arguments against imposing restrictions and oversight on the businesses during the year or more it could take for the case to go through fact-finding and trial.

Trump’s decision during a long-delayed deposition in August to repeatedly invoke his constitutional right not to incriminate himself came back to haunt him in the ruling Thursday.

“Although not dispositive on any single issue, this Court is permitted, and is here persuaded, to draw a negative inference from Mr. Trump’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right … more than 400 times in response to questions posed to him during his deposition,” Engoron wrote.

Trump’s history of clashes with regulators and prosecutors undermined his drive to avoid court supervision: Among the decisions Engoron cited in his order was a 2016 ruling involving allegations of fraud by Trump in connection with his Trump University venture.

The judge rejected Trump’s arguments that disclaimers on his financial statements meant that banks and insurance companies were not entitled to rely on them. Engoron said those warnings were supposed to insulate Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars, from responsibility, not Trump.

“The Mazars’ language…does nothing to alert its recipients that Mr. Trump himself cautions them not to rely on its contents,” Engoron wrote.

During the court session, Engoron declared that the government had to meet a “heavy burden” to get immediate relief, but he suggested Trump’s case against doing so consisted of little more than hot air, such as arguments from their attorneys without evidence to rebut the extensive collection of documents and deposition excerpts James presented from their three-year investigation.

“Let’s be real here …They submitted all these documents,” the judge said to a lawyer for Trump, Christopher Kise. “What kind of evidence do you want? This is a motion for preliminary injunction.”

An attorney from James’ office, Kevin Wallace, pressed Engoron’s point, arguing that the evidence the AG submitted should be weighed against the lack of proof offered by the other side.

“The Trump Organization didn’t field a team,” Wallace said. They didn’t put in any documents. … Most of the evidence is in their custody and they presented nothing.”

Kise, a Florida attorney who is also deeply involved in Trump’s response to the federal investigation into sensitive White House documents the former president kept at his Mar-a-Lago home after leaving office, repeatedly complained that the safeguards James is seeking now would amount to a “nationalization” of Trump’s businesses, effectively placing them into receivership.

“The order itself really borders on nationalization of a private enterprise,” said Kise, who said it would amount to “tremendous and staggering interference” in the ability of the Trump businesses to manage their own affairs. “It’s really more in the nature of seizing control of a successful corporation and interfering on a day-to-day basis with its financial arrangements.”

But the judge chided the Trump side for exaggerating the severity of the oversight the attorney general is proposing.

“Your papers kept using the word receiver. ... They’re not asking for one and that’s very different from a monitor. True or false?” the judge said to Kise.

Engoron, who issued no immediate ruling but promised to do so later Thursday, made clear his familiarity with the case. He noted that one of the claims raised by James is that Trump claimed to lenders that his Trump Tower apartment was 30,000 square feet, even though it was actually 11,000.

“Could that be a good faith disagreement ... ?” the judge asked.

“I would submit that it could be,” Kise replied, contending the claim was part of a broader financial statement that was reasonable when taken as a whole.

However, the judge ruled that the central issue wasn’t whether Trump, his family members or his employees intended to deceive anyone. The promotion of wildly inflated valuations can amount to fraud under New York law “whether or not” the figures were intentionally misstated, Engoron wrote.

During the court hearing, Kise also accused James of pursuing the injunction to score political points, looking to grab headlines as she campaigns for reelection next week.

“We’re a few days out from an election,” Kise told the judge. “I’m hoping that’s not behind the motivation and the timing here, but I’m candidly a little bit cynical about it. ... I hesitated to bring it up, but this really shouldn’t be about political theater.”

The former Florida solicitor general also said that by delving into business transactions between the Trump organization and banks and insurance companies he called “corporate titans,” James was encouraging businesses to flee the state.

“Look at what’s happening in Florida, go down to Miami, see the businesses that are moving from California, the businesses are moving from New York,” Kise told reporters. “This is why. Because there’s this extraordinary interference with the free marketplace. And it’s a dangerous precedent to set.”

Trump has fought a series of unusual and unsuccessful legal battles against James’ probe, beginning long before the attorney general’s massive suit against his business empire was filed in September.

The latest maneuver came just Wednesday in a state court in Florida, where Trump sued James for allegedly interfering with a Florida-based trust that holds many of the former president’s business assets.

As is typical with Trump suits, the complaint departs from the usual dry legalese to unleash withering rhetorical attacks on James that sounded more like fodder for political speeches.

The Florida suit details a series of sharply critical statements James made about Trump while running for office and accuses her of mounting a “political and personal vendetta” against the former president.

One shot the suit takes at James says she had no intention of fulfilling her oath of office when she took it in 2019. “Unfortunately, she must have had her fingers crossed behind her back when she did so,” the Florida suit says.

“What began as a cartoonish, thinly-veiled effort to publicly malign President Trump for personal political gain has morphed into a plot to obtain control of a global private enterprise ultimately owned by a Florida revocable trust,” the 41-page complaint says.

The Florida suit, filed in Palm Beach County, which became Trump’s legal residence in 2019, seeks to block James from interfering with the trust and even from obtaining a copy of it. It doesn’t seek a money judgment against James, but says in a footnote that a move for that sort of compensation is planned.

The Trump lawsuit rehashes a series of arguments Trump’s lawyers have previously made in other venues without success, including in proceedings before Engoron where Trump resisted efforts to force him to testify in connection with the probe. Trump finally sat for such questioning in August, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination more than 440 times.

Kise insisted in court Thursday that the former president has no plans to try to evade James’ suit by moving any assets out of New York. He said just two of Trump’s New York buildings, Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street, could amply cover the $250 million in disgorgement that James seeks in her suit.

Kise said Trump shouldn’t be penalized for seeking to vindicate any rights he may have under Florida law, but the attorney also seemed to distance himself from that litigation. “I don’t represent the trust in Florida,” he said. “I didn’t file it, obviously.”

Trump had also filed a federal court lawsuit last year trying to shut down James’ investigation, but a district court judge in Syracuse tossed that case in May. Trump has appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to hear arguments on the case early next year. He also attempted to get James’ suit assigned to a different judge, but struck out on that effort.

[admin]

Arizona Republican [Rusty Bowers] who crossed Trump sees bad omens
by Romain Fonsegrives
AFP
Wed, November 2, 2022 at 8:03 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.

In three decades of involvement in conservative politics, Rusty Bowers has never been so worried by the gap between perception and reality that currently plagues Arizona's Republican Party.

Ahead of the November 8 midterm elections, masked poll watchers, some of them armed, have been looming over ballot drop boxes in a bid to prevent a repeat of the vote-fixing they are convinced took Donald Trump's presidency away from them in 2020.

No such conspiracy exists, says Bowers, and a party that was once more pragmatist than propagandist is now fully in thrall to unhinged theories -- and it's dangerous.

"It's intimidation," Bowers -- the 70-year-old speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives -- says of the men and women wearing paramilitary gear who set up camp at ballot boxes in parts of the southwestern state.

"If you take voting away and make it insecure, and you increase the violence, to me that's a fertile ground for fascism," he tells AFP in an interview in Arizona's state Capitol.

On Tuesday a judge this week ordered the self-appointed poll watchers to keep their distance from the drop boxes. But a toxic political climate that has swirled since the last election has persisted, and ensnared Bowers.

In November 2020, after campaigning for Trump in the presidential race, Bowers watched with dismay as Joe Biden's vote tally in Arizona squeaked past those of the GOP incumbent.

A mere 10,000 ballots separated the two candidates, but under the first-past-the-post rules, the state's electoral college votes all went to Biden, helping tip the Democrat over the national line and into the White House.

Multiple investigations, including a recount organized by the Republican Party, found no evidence of wrongdoing; nothing to throw any doubt on the results.



In line with his constitutional duty as leader of the state House, Bowers readied to certify the results. And that should have been that.

But then his phone rang.

On the other end, Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani set about assuring Bowers that an old Arizona law -- which he has never found -- allowed the Republican-controlled assembly to change the state's electors, the people responsible for formally electing the president after the election, in defiance of the popular vote.

"I said, 'Mr. Trump, I voted for you, I walked for you, I campaigned for you, I was at your campaigns with you, but I will do nothing illegal for you,'" he recalls.

"When they asked me to break my vow to the Constitution, it's like saying: 'We want you to throw away your religion, your faith, the foundation of who you are.'"

- 'RINO coward'? -

Bowers stuck to his guns, and Arizona's electoral college votes went to Biden.

As it has for others before and since who have taken a principled stand in defiance of Trump, that decision tipped his world upside down.

Bowers is no wilting liberal; he is fiercely pro-life, wants the southern US border strictly controlled, and wears his Mormonism proudly.



Since Trump smeared him as a "RINO coward" -- a Republican In Name Only -- Bowers has been besieged by death threats and a torrent of abusive emails.

The father-of-seven was called to Washington to testify before the committee investigating the January 6 US Capitol assault about the pressure he came under to rig the election.

For weeks, Trump supporters and far-right militia members demonstrated in front of his home, sometimes armed, sometimes carrying signs that accused him of paedophilia and other insults favored by QAnon conspiracists.

Even as the physical intimidation died down, Bowers found himself the target of a political assassination.

Like many who cross Trump, he was faced with a far-right challenge in the Republican primary for a state senate seat.

He lost.

But until he leaves office in January, Bowers says he will keep fighting.

A Republican state bill introduced this session would have given the Arizona House authority to summarily dismiss the results of a popular election, Bowers said, calling it "dangerous legislation."

"It doesn't say they may 'if....', it doesn't say they may 'when....', or why. Nothing, no criteria," according to Bowers.

"I killed it," he says.

Whether it stays dead is another matter.

Arizona voters are being offered Republican candidates for governor, secretary of state and US senator who all subscribe wholly to Trump's election denialism.

"The strength of the leadership of the current party is just anger," Bowers says, adding it is "leaning towards the Mussolini model," referring to Italy's WWII-era Fascist leader.

And that, he concludes, is not good for the country as a whole, whose polity is hanging by a thread.

"It's a very shallow civilization," he says, gesturing with his thumb and his forefinger squeezed tightly together.

"About that thick."

[admin]

Trump Lawyers Sanctioned by Judge on Clinton Conspiracy Suit
by Erik Larson
Bloomberg News
November 10, 2022 at 2:41 PM MST Updated on November 10, 2022 at 5:05 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.

** Judge orders lawyers to pay $66,000 for filing conspiracy suit
** The same federal judge dismissed Trump’s suit in September


Attorney Alina Habba Photographer: Amir Hamja/Bloomberg

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers who accused Hillary Clinton and dozens of other people of engaging in a conspiracy to harm his reputation were sanctioned by a federal judge who excoriated them for filing a “frivolous,” politically motivated lawsuit.

Alina Habba, one of Trump’s most outspoken attorneys, and other lawyers involved in the case were ordered Thursday to pay $50,000 to the court and $16,274 in legal fees and costs to one of the defendants, Democratic political operative Charles Dolan, who was involved in Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

“The rule of law is undermined by the toxic combination of political fundraising with legal fees paid by political action committees, reckless and factually untrue statements by lawyers at rallies and in the media, and efforts to advance a political narrative through lawsuits without factual basis or any cognizable legal theory,” wrote US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in West Palm Beach, Florida.

“It should be no surprise that we will be appealing this decision.” Habba said in a statement.

Middlebrooks, a Bill Clinton appointee, dismissed Trump’s suit in September, calling it a “manifesto.” The judge was even harsher in his ruling on Dolan’s motion for sanctions, saying the failings of the lawsuit were “basic and obvious” and that the lawyers’ conduct was “willful, not simply negligent.”

“Thirty-one individuals and organizations were summoned to court, forced to hire lawyers to defend against frivolous claims,” the judge wrote. “The only common thread against them was Mr. Trump’s animus.”

Trump’s suit repeated many of his grievances over the FBI’s 2016 investigation into whether his presidential campaign was colluding with Russia to influence the election that year, alleging the entire probe was the result of a Democratic-led conspiracy to undermine his presidency and tarnish his reputation. Along with Clinton, he named former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, British intelligence ex-agent Christopher Steele and many others.

Clinton and other defendants are also seeking sanctions against Trump and his lawyers. That group filed a joint motion for fees and costs totaling more than $1 million. The judge hasn’t ruled yet on that request.

Middlebrooks noted in his ruling Thursday that the many flaws in Trump’s complaint, filed in March under the civil version of a racketeering law normally used against organized crime, were correctly highlighted by Clinton in her motion to dismiss the suit. But when Habba amended the suit in an effort to address its shortcomings, she merely added irrelevant detail and new defendants, the judge said.

“This cannot be attributed to incompetent lawyering,” Middlebrooks wrote. “It was a deliberate use of the judicial system to pursue a political agenda.”

Trump and Habba have repeatedly attributed rulings against them to a broader effort by allegedly partisan judges to unfairly punish the Republican in court. Habba previously asked Middlebrooks to recuse himself from the suit because he was appointed by the lead defendant’s husband -- a request the judge denied.

The case is Trump v. Clinton, 22-cv-14102, US District Court, Southern District of Florida.

[admin]

Judge orders Newt Gingrich to testify in Georgia 2020 election probe
PBS News Hour
Politics
Nov 9, 2022 3:39 PM EST

FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich must comply with a subpoena seeking his testimony in front of a special grand jury in Georgia investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence that state’s 2020 election results, a Virginia judge ruled Wednesday.

Gingrich, who lives in northern Virginia, had argued that the federal law that normally requires states to honor out-of-state grand jury summonses should not apply in this case because the special grand jury lacks the power to indict. He also argued that the subpoena would be unnecessarily duplicative and burdensome because he has already agreed to testify in front of a congressional select committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and that his testimony in both matters would essentially be the same.

But Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Robert Smith sided with prosecutors who said the subpoena should be enforced. The judge said the law doesn’t parse out a difference between regular grand juries and special grand juries, as Gingrich’s lawyer argued.

“I think I have to read the statute as written,” the judge said.

Gingrich’s lawyer, John Burlingame, said he expects to appeal the ruling. If the appeal fails, Gingrich will be required to testify to the special grand jury on Nov. 29.

Gingrich declined comment after the hearing.

Gingrich, a Republican, is one of several high-profile Trump allies who have unsuccessfully tried to avoid testifying.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis opened the investigation early last year, shortly after a recording of a call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was made public. In that call, Trump urged Raffersperger, the state’s top elections official and a fellow Republican, to “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss in the state to Democrat Joe Biden.

The scope of the investigation has broadened considerably since then, and Willis, a Democrat, has sought the testimony of dozens of witnesses, including numerous Trump attorneys, advisers and associates since the special grand jury was seated in May. It is among several cases that have the former president in potential legal jeopardy as he prepares to launch a 2024 presidential campaign.

Because Gingrich lives outside Georgia, Willis had to use a process that involves asking a judge where he lives to order him to appear.

Willis filed that paperwork in court in Atlanta last month, and Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who’s overseeing the special grand jury, certified that Gingrich is a “necessary and material witness for the investigation.” In her petition seeking Gingrich’s testimony as a witness, Willis said she relied on information made public by the House committee that’s investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

The petition says Gingrich was involved along with others associated with the Trump campaign in a plan to run television ads that “repeated and relied upon false claims about fraud in the 2020 election” and encouraged members of the public to contact state officials to push them to challenge and overturn the election results based on those false claims.

Gingrich was also involved in a plan to have Republican fake electors sign certificates falsely stating that Trump had won the state and that they were the state’s official electors even though Biden had won, the petition says.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Burlingame said the information sought by the Georgia special grand jury overlaps entirely with the congressional investigation, so there’s no need to require Gingrich to testify twice, since the Georgia prosecutor can obtain the transcript of Gingrich’s upcoming testimony to the congressional committee.

“They’re very thorough,” Burlingame said of the congressional investigators. “It almost sounds like the Fulton County district attorney is concerned that the professional attorneys for the select committee aren’t going to be doing a capable job. Your Honor, I assure you they will.”

Fairfax County Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Kyle Mandelbaum acknowledged there may be overlap in the two investigations but said it would be wrong to assume they have identical interests.

“The grand jury in Fulton County is specifically looking at the question of whether or not Georgia law was violated which is not necessarily the focus of the January 6 committee’s investigation,” Mandelbaum said.

The subpoena provides him immunity for his testimony and covers his lodging and transportation costs, Mandelbaum said.

Special grand juries in Georgia are generally used to investigate complex cases with many witnesses. They can compel evidence and subpoena testimony from witnesses, but they cannot issue indictments. Once its investigation is complete, a special grand jury can recommend action, but it remains up to the district attorney to decide whether to then seek an indictment from a regular grand jury.

Associated Press writer Kate Brumback in Atlanta contributed.