Connect with us

Politics

Trump Campaign Presses Ahead With Lawsuits After Losing Key Legal Battles

Published

on

  • On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a case filed by the Trump campaign alleging that Republican observers were forced to stand too far away from ballot counting in Philadelphia. The court argued the 15-18 feet they were given was enough to do their job.
  • Separately, Trump’s team also experienced another loss in Michigan after Republicans on the election board in Wayne County reversed an earlier decision to not verify ballots after massive backlash.
  • Despite these and other recent losses, the Trump campaign is still moving forward with other highly questionable cases.
  • After the Pennsylvania ruling, Trump’s team filed a suit in Nevada asking officials to reverse the will of the people and give the state’s electoral votes to the president.

String of Losses

After numerous legal losses in the last few days alone, President Donald Trump and his campaign are moving forward with new dubious legal challenges aimed at overturning the result of the election. 

However, the president’s legal strategy of throwing everything against a wall to see what sticks is not working out too well.

“There have been something like 30 or 40 of these lawsuits filed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and so on,” Harvard Law School professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos told CBS News on Monday. “To this point, dozens of defeats have piled up for the Trump campaign.”

Not only have major losses been piling up, but the Trump campaign has also been dropping some cases too because they have next to no chance of standing up in court 

Meanwhile, lawyers and even entire law firms that have been bringing these suits for Trump are withdrawing from the legal fights, leaving the campaign scrambling to fill the spaces in key cases with the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Pennsylvania Lawsuits

The Trump campaign took yet another hit in the keystone state this week after a series of defeats in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona on Friday.

On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled 5-2 to strike down a lawsuit brought against Philadelphia’s county election board. In it, the Trump campaign alleged that Republican observers watching ballots being counted in Philadelphia were kept 15-18 feet away from the election workers, which they claimed was too far away to see if there were irregularities in the process.

A lower court denied that request, the campaign appealed it, and an appeals court ruled in their favor on Nov. 5, allowing observers to stand six feet away as long as they abided by COVID-safe guidelines like wearing masks.

The election board then appealed that decision to the state’s Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the first court’s decision and ruled that Philadelphia’s election protocols were set up with, “careful consideration of how it could best protect the security and privacy of voters’ ballots, as well as safeguard its employees and others who would be present during a pandemic for the pre-canvassing and canvassing process.”

The court also noted that observers were simply directed to observe the process — not audit the ballots for irregularities — and that they were very much able to observe election workers “performing their duties” as required at the safe 15-18 foot distance.

That ruling was also significant because of how it could play into the other lawsuits the campaign has brought in Pennsylvania, which has seen the most single filings of any state.

In fact, at the same time that Pennsylvania’s highest court made that ruling, Giuliani had just finished giving highly unusual opening arguments in a federal court case elsewhere in the state in what marked his first appearance before a judge in decades.

The case that Giuliani was arguing — though at times he appeared confused as to which of the many lawsuits he was talking about — was narrowly focused on whether election officials in Pennsylvania should have given voters the ability to fix issues with their mail-in ballots after submitting them.

Some counties in the state did allow voters to fix the issues, but others did not. The Trump campaign has argued that that is unconstitutional and is attempting to block Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State from certifying the election results.

Or at least, that’ was what they were supposed to be arguing. Instead, in his court appearance Tuesday, Giuliani made a number of wildly baseless claims entirely unrelated to the lawsuit, saying, without any evidence, that there was a massive conspiracy behind former Vice President Joe Biden’s victory. 

“It’s a widespread, nationwide voter fraud,” he claimed, accusing local election officials of being part of a “little mafia.”

The president’s lawyer also claimed Republican observers had been prevented from watching the ballot counts, though he later acknowledged that the president’s legal team had dropped that claim in the lawsuit because they knew it would not hold up.

When questioned by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann as to whether Giuliani was bringing new claims of fraud that were not mentioned in the suit at hand, he admitted that it was not a fraud case, but continued to complain about the “fraudulent process.” 

“So you are alleging a fraud,” Brann responded, adding such claims would need a higher standard than just baseless suspicion to make a real case.

Michigan Certification

The Trump campaign also saw another major upset Tuesday, though this one did not stem from a legal case, but rather from a decision made by an election board in Wayne County, Michigan, which is home to Detroit.

There, the two Republican members of the election board, Monica Palmer and William Hartman, refused to certify the election results. They argued that in some precincts in the county, and specifically in Detroit, the number of recorded votes did not line up with the number of voters who were listed as having shown up to vote.

However, many people pushed back heavily against this objection, including the Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and other top officials, who pointed out that most of the discrepancies at the precincts involved a very small number of ballots.

Officials noted that these small blips likely just stemmed from easily explained situations like a voter leaving a long line, or an absentee ballot kicked out of a tabulator because a voter decided to cast their ballot in person.

Benson, who agreed to a comprehensive audit of the Detroit precincts, also specifically said that all the evidence they currently have shows that the election had been run cleanly, that there was no evidence of fraud, and that these discrepancies were just due to clerical errors.

She added that it was irresponsible for the Republicans to refuse to verify these legal votes over such a minor and normal election occurrence.

That point was echoed by other voters, activists, and community members, many of whom pointed to the fact that Palmer even argued at one point that the results should be certified in one of the predominantly white suburbs outside of the majority-Black Detroit, even though it had an even bigger variance in ballots cast to voters who turned out.

Following the massive outcry, Palmer and Hartman reversed their decision and agreed to certify the results. 

New Lawsuit in Nevada 

Notably, all of campaign’s many recent losses have not stopped team Trump from filing more questionable lawsuits.

Following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday, the campaign filed another lawsuit in Nevada asking that Trump “be declared the winner of the Election in Nevada,” or for the results to at least be annulled so that no winner is certified by the elections board.

In the lawsuit, the campaign claimed, again without evidence, that “fraud and abuse renders the purported results of the Nevada election illegitimate.” Trump’s team also argued in the suit that a signature verification machine in Clark County, the most populous county in Nevada, was flawed, and that poll watchers were denied meaningful access to the ballot counting process.

A Clark County election official pushed back, and said that the Trump campaign inaccurately described both claims. 

“On both of these issues, state and federal courts have already rejected their allegations,” the official said.

While the cascade of lawsuits might seem endless, there is an end in sight: Dec. 8.

Also known as the safe harbor deadline, Dec. 8 is the date by which all legal challenges and recounts must be settled and electors must be solidified by states.

Technically, Trump could still file a lawsuit after that, though it would almost certainly be tossed out immediately.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Los Angeles Times) (CBS News)

Politics

Jan. 6 Rally Organizers Say They Met With Members of Congress and White House Officials Ahead of Insurrection

Published

on

Two sources told Rolling Stone that they participated in “dozens” of meetings with “multiple members of Congress” and top White House aides to plan the rallies that proceeded the Jan. 6 insurrection.


Rolling Stone Report

Members of Congress and White House Staffers under former President Donald Trump allegedly helped plan the Jan. 6 protests that took place outside the U.S. Capitol ahead of the insurrection, according to two sources who spoke to Rolling Stone.

According to a report the outlet published Sunday, the two people, identified only as “a rally organizer” and “a planner,” have both “begun communicating with congressional investigators.”

The two told Rolling Stone that they participated in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of the protests and said that “multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent.”

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the person identified as a rally organizer said. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”

The two also told Rolling Stone that a number of other Congress members were either personally involved in the conversations or had staffers join, including Representatives Paul Gosar (R-Az.), Lauren Boebert (R-Co.), Mo Brooks (R-Al.), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Andy Biggs (R-Az.), and Louie Gohmert (R-Tx.).

The outlet added that it “separately obtained documentary evidence that both sources were in contact with Gosar and Boebert on Jan. 6,” though it did not go into further detail. 

A spokesperson for Greene has denied involvement with planning the protests, but so far, no other members have responded to the report. 

Previous Allegations Against Congressmembers Named

This is not the first time allegations have surfaced concerning the involvement of some of the aforementioned congress members regarding rallies that took place ahead of the riot.

As Rolling Stone noted, Gosar, Greene, and Boebert were all listed as speakers at the “Wild Protest” at the Capitol on Jan. 6, which was arranged by “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander.

Additionally, Alexander said during a now-deleted live stream in January that he personally planned the rally with the help of Gosar, Biggs, and Brooks.

Biggs and Brooks previously denied any involvement in planning the event, though Brooks did speak at a pro-Trump protest on Jan. 6.

Gosar, for his part, has remained quiet for months but tagged Alexander in numerous tweets involving Stop the Steal events leading up to Jan. 6, including one post that appears to be taken at a rally at the Capitol hours before the insurrection.

Notably, the organizer and the planner also told Rolling Stone that Gosar “dangled the possibility of a ‘blanket pardon’ in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.”

Alleged White House Involvement

Beyond members of Congress, the outlet reported that the sources “also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.”

Both reportedly described Meadows “as someone who played a major role in the conversations surrounding the protests.”

The two additionally said Katrina Pierson, who worked for the Trump campaign in both 2016 and 2020, was a key liaison between the organizers of the demonstrations and the White House.

“Katrina was like our go-to girl,” the organizer told the outlet. “She was like our primary advocate.”

According to Rolling Stone, the sources have so far only had informal talks with the House committee investigating the insurrection but are expecting to testify publicly. Both reportedly said they would share “new details about the members’ specific roles” in planning the rallies with congressional investigators.

See what others are saying: (Rolling Stone) (Business Insider) (Forbes)

Continue Reading

Politics

Jan. 6 Committee Prepares Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon for Ignoring Subpoena

Published

on

The move comes after former President Trump told several of his previous aides not to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the insurrection.


Bannon Refuses to Comply With Subpoena

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection announced Thursday that it is seeking to hold former White House advisor Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

The decision marks a significant escalation in the panel’s efforts to force officials under former President Donald Trump’s administration to comply with its probe amid Trump’s growing efforts to obstruct the inquiry.

In recent weeks, the former president has launched a number of attempts to block the panel from getting key documents, testimonies, and other evidence requested by the committee that he claims are protected by executive privilege.

Notably, some of those assertions have been shut down. On Friday, President Joe Biden rejected Trump’s effort to withhold documents relating to the insurrection.

Still, Trump has also directed former officials in his administration not to comply with subpoenas or cooperate with the committee. 

That demand came after the panel issued subpoenas ordering depositions from Bannon and three other former officials: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel.

After Trump issued his demand, Bannon’s lawyer announced that he would not obey the subpoena until the panel reached an agreement with Trump or a court ruled on the executive privilege matter.

Many legal experts have questioned whether Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, can claim executive privilege for something that happened when he was not working for the executive.

Panel Intensifies Compliance Efforts

The Thursday decision from the committee is significant because it will likely set up a legal battle and test how much authority the committee can and will exercise in requiring compliance.

It also sets an important precedent for those who have been subpoenaed. While Bannon is the first former official to openly defy the committee, there have been reports that others plan to do the same. 

The panel previously said Patel and Meadows were “engaging” with investigators, but on Thursday, several outlets reported that the two — who were supposed to appear before the body on Thursday and Friday respectively —  are now expected to be given an extension or continuance.

Sources told reporters that Scavino, who was also asked to testify Friday, has had his deposition postponed because service of his subpoena was delayed.

As far as what happens next for Bannon, the committee will vote to adopt the contempt report next week. Once that is complete, the matter will go before the House for a full vote.  

Assuming the Democratic-held House approves the contempt charge, it will then get referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the matter before a grand jury.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Washington Post) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading

Politics

Senate Votes To Extend Debt Ceiling Until December

Published

on

The move adds another deadline to Dec. 3, which is also when the federal government is set to shut down unless Congress approves new spending.


Debt Ceiling Raised Temporarily

The Senate voted on Thursday to extend the debt ceiling until December, temporarily averting a fiscal catastrophe.

The move, which followed weeks of stalemate due to Republican objections, came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) partially backed down from his blockade and offered a short-term proposal.

After much whipping of votes, 11 Republicans joined Democrats to break the legislative filibuster and move to final approval of the measure. The bill ultimately passed in a vote of 50-48 without any Republican support.

The legislation will now head to the House, where Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said members would be called back from their current recess for a vote on Tuesday. 

The White House said President Joe Biden would sign the measure, but urged Congress to pass a longer extension.

“We cannot allow partisan politics to hold our economy hostage, and we can’t allow the routine process of paying our bills to turn into a confidence-shaking political showdown every two years or every two months,’’ White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement.

Under the current bill, the nation’s borrowing limit will be increased by $480 billion, which the Treasury Department said will cover federal borrowing until around Dec. 3.

The agency had previously warned that it would run out of money by Oct. 18 if Congress failed to act. Such a move would have a chilling impact on the economy, forcing the U.S. to default on its debts and potentially plunging the country into a recession. 

Major Hurdles Remain

While the legislation extending the ceiling will certainly offer temporary relief, it sets up another perilous deadline for the first Friday in December, when government funding is also set to expire if Congress does not approve another spending bill.

Regardless of the new deadline, many of the same hurdles lawmakers faced the first time around remain. 

Democrats are still struggling to hammer out the final details of Biden’s $3.5 trillion spending agenda, which Republicans have strongly opposed.

Notably, Democratic leaders previously said they could pass the bill through budget reconciliation, which would allow them to approve the measure with 50 votes and no Republican support.

Such a move would require all 50 Senators, but intraparty disputes remain over objections brought by Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), who have been stalling the process for months.

Although disagreements over reconciliation are ongoing among Democrats, McConnell has insisted the party use the obscure procedural process to raise the debt limit. Democrats, however, have balked at the idea, arguing that tying the debt ceiling to reconciliation would set a dangerous precedent.

Despite Republican efforts to connect the limit to Biden’s economic agenda, raising the ceiling is not the same as adopting new spending. Rather, the limit is increased to pay off spending that has already been authorized by previous sessions of Congress and past administrations.

In fact, much of the current debt stems from policies passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, including the 2017 tax overhaul. 

As a result, while Democrats have signaled they may make concessions to Manchin and Sinema, they strongly believe that Republicans must join them to increase the debt ceiling to fund projects their party supported. 

It is currently unclear when or how the ongoing stalemate will be resolved, or how either party will overcome their fervent objections.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading