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

Feds Investigate Classified Files Found in Biden’s Former Office

Published

on

The documents reportedly include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom


What Was in the Files?

President Biden’s legal team discovered about 10 classified files in his former office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington D.C., the White House revealed Monday.

The Department of Justice has concluded an initial inquiry into the matter and will determine whether to open a criminal investigation.

According to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, they include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom.

A source also told CBS News the batch did not contain nuclear secrets and had been contained in a folder in a box with other unclassified papers.

The documents are reportedly from Biden’s time as vice president, but it remains unclear what level of classification they are and how they ended up in his office.

Biden kept an office in the. Penn Biden Center, a think tank about a mile from the White House, between 2017 and 2020, when he was elected president.

On Nov. 2, his lawyers claim, they discovered the documents as they were clearing out the space to vacate it.

They immediately notified the National Archives, which retrieved the files the next morning, according to the White House.

What Happens Next?

Attorney General Merrick Garland must decide whether to open a criminal investigation into Biden’s alleged mishandling of the documents. To that end, he appointed John Lausch Jr., the U.S. attorney in Chicago and a Trump appointee, to conduct an initial inquiry.

Garland reportedly picked him for the role despite him being in a different jurisdiction to avoid appearing partial.

Lausch has reportedly finished the initial part of his inquiry and provided a preliminary report to Garland.

If a criminal investigation is opened, Garland will likely appoint an independent special counsel to lead it.

The case mirrors a similar DoJ special counsel investigation into former President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified materials and obstruction of efforts to properly retrieve them.

On Nov. 18, Garland appointed Jack Smith to investigate over 300 classified documents found at Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.

Trump resisted multiple National Archives requests for the documents for months leading up to the FBI’s raid on his property, then handed over 15 boxes of files only for even more to be found still at Mar-a-Lago.

“When is the FBI going to raid the many houses of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. “These documents were definitely not declassified.”

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the new chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters he will investigate the Biden files.

Republicans have been quick to pounce on the news and compare it to Trump’s classified files, but Democrats have pointed out differences in the small number of documents and Biden’s willingness to cooperate with the National Archives.

The White House has yet to explain why, if the files were first discovered six days before the midterm elections, the White House waited two months to reveal the news to the public.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (The New York Times) (BBC)

Continue Reading

Politics

Lawmakers Propose Bill to Protect Fertility Treatments Amid Post-Roe Threats

Published

on

The move comes as a number of states are considering anti-abortion bills that could threaten or ban fertility treatments by redefining embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for IVF.


The Right To Build Families Act of 2022

A group of Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday that would codify the right to use assisted reproductive technologies like in-vitro fertility (IVF) treatments into federal law.

The legislation, dubbed the Right To Build Families Act of 2022, was brought forward by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Il) and Patty Murray (D-Wa.) alongside Rep. Susan Wild (D- Pa.). The measure would bar any limits on seeking or receiving IVF treatments and prohibit regulations on a person’s ability to retain their “reproductive genetic materials.” 

The bill would also protect physicians who provide these reproductive services and allow the Justice Department to take civil action against any states that try to limit access to fertility treatments.

The lawmakers argue it is necessary to protect IVF because a number of states have been discussing and proposing legislation that could jeopardize or even ban access to the treatments in the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal. 

“IVF advocates in this country today are publicly telling us, ‘We need this kind of legislation to be able to protect this,’” Murray told HuffPost. “And here we are after the Dobbs decision where states are enacting laws and we have [anti-abortion] advocates who are now starting to talk, especially behind closed doors, about stopping the right for women and men to have IVF procedures done.”

Fertility Treatments Under Treat

The state-level efforts in question are being proposed by Republican lawmakers who wish to further limit abortions by redefining when life begins. Some of the proposals would define embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for those that are created through IVF, where an egg is fertilized by a sperm outside the body and then implanted in a uterus.

For example, a bill has already been pre-filed in Virginia for the 2023 legislative session that explicitly says life begins at fertilization and does not have any specific language that exempts embryos made through IVF.

Experts say these kinds of laws are concerning for a number of reasons. In the IVF process, it is typical to fertilize multiple eggs, but some are discarded. If a person becomes pregnant and does not want to keep the rest of their eggs. It is also normal that not all fertilized eggs will be viable, so physicians will get rid of those.

Sometimes doctors will also implant multiple fertilized eggs to increase the likelihood of pregnancy, but that can result in multiple eggs being fertilized. In order to prevent having multiple babies at once and improve the chance of a healthy pregnancy, people can get a fetal reduction and lower the number of fetuses.

All of those actions could become illegal under proposals that do not provide exemptions. 

“In my case, I had five fertilized eggs, and we discarded three because they were not viable. That is now potentially manslaughter in some of these states,” said Duckworth, who had both of her daughters using IVF.

“I also have a fertilized egg that’s frozen. My husband and I haven’t decided what we will do with it, but the head of the Texas Right to Life organization that wrote the bounty law for Texas has come out and specifically said he’s going after IVF next, and he wants control of the embryos,” Duckworth added.

In a hearing after Roe was overturned, Murray also raised concerns about “whether parents and providers could be punished if an embryo doesn’t survive being thawed for implantation, or for disposing unused embryos.”

Experts have said that even if anti-abortion laws defining when life begins do provide exceptions, it would be contradictory and confusing, so providers would likely err on the side of caution and not provide services out of fear of prosecution.

“[Abortion bans] are forcing women to stay pregnant against their will and are, at the very same time, threatening Americans’ ability to build a family through services like IVF,” Murray said in a statement to Axios. “It’s hard to comprehend, and it’s just plain wrong.”

The federal legislation to combat these efforts faces an uphill battle. It is unlikely it will be passed in the last few days of lame duck session, and with control of Congress being handed to Republicans come January, movement in the lower chamber will be hard fought.

Duckworth, however, told Axios that she will keep introducing the legislation “until we can get it passed.” 

See what others are saying: (Axios) (HuffPost) (USA Today)

Continue Reading

Politics

Hundreds of Oath Keepers Claim to Be Current or Former DHS Employees

Published

on

The revelation came just weeks after the militia’s founder, Stewart Rhodes, was convicted on seditious conspiracy charges for his involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.


An Agency Crawling With Extremists

Over 300 members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group claim to be current or former employees at the Department of Homeland Security, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reported Monday.

The review appears to be the first significant public examination of the group’s leaked membership list to focus on the DHS.

The agencies implicated include Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Secret Service.

“I am currently a 20 year Special Agent with the United States Secret Service. I have been on President Clinton and President Bush’s protective detail. I was a member and instructor on the Presidential Protective Division’s Counter Assault Team (CAT),” one person on the list wrote.

POGO stated that the details he provided the Oath Keepers match those he made in a sworn affidavit filed in federal court.

The finding came just weeks after Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was convicted on seditious conspiracy charges for his involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“Law enforcement agents who have associations with groups that seek to undermine democratic governance pose a heightened threat because they can compromise probes, misdirecting investigations or leaking confidential investigative information to those groups,” POGO said in its report.

In March, the DHS published an internal study finding that “the Department has significant gaps that have impeded its ability to comprehensively prevent, detect, and respond to potential threats related to domestic violent extremism within DHS.”

Some experts have suggested the DHS may be especially prone to extremist sentiments because of its role in policing immigration. In 2016, the ICE union officially endorsed then-candidate Donald Trump for president, making the first such endorsement in the agency’s history.

The U.S. Government has a White Supremacy Problem

Copious academic research and news reports have shown that far-right extremists have infiltrated local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.

In May, a Reuters investigation found at least 15 self-identified law enforcement trainers and dozens of retired instructors listed in a database of Oath Keepers.

In 2019, Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting found that almost 400 current or former law enforcement officials belonged to Confederate, anti-Islam, misogynistic or anti-government militia Facebook groups.

The Pentagon has long struggled with its own extremism problem, which appears to have particularly festered in the wake of the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nearly one in four active-duty service members said in a 2017 Military Times poll that they had observed white nationalism among the troops, and over 40% of non-white service members said the same.

The prevalence of racism in the armed forces is not surprising given that many of the top figures among right-wing extremist groups hailed from the military and those same groups are known to deliberately target disgruntled, returning veterans for recruitment.

Brandon Russell, the founder of the neo-Nazi group AtomWaffen, served in the military, as did George Lincoln Rockwell, commander of the American Nazi Party, Louis Beam, leader of the KKK, and Richard Butler, founder of the Aryan Nation.

In January, NPR reported that one in five people charged in federal or D.C. courts for their involvement in the Capitol insurrection were current or former military service members.

See what others are saying: (Project on Government Oversight) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading