Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump Twitter: Republicans and Democrats split over freedom of speech

      by

      Twitter’s decision to permanently suspend Donald Trump’s account in the wake of the storming of Capitol Hill on Wednesday continues to stoke fierce debate, supporters and critics split on partisan lines as they contest what the suspension means for a cherished American tradition: freedom of speech.Republicans – many using Twitter – decried Trump’s removal and claimed conservative beliefs and opinions are being censored.“Big Tech censoring [Trump] and the free speech of American citizens is on par with communist countries like China and North Korea,” tweeted Steve Daines, a senator from Montana.The president’s son Donald Trump Jr said: “Free speech is dead and controlled by leftist overlords.”Democrats argued that the company had the legal right to make the decision – which they said was long overdue.“It took blood & glass in the halls of Congress – and a change in the political winds – for the most powerful tech companies to recognise, at the last possible moment, the threat of Trump,” tweeted Senator Richard Blumenthal, from Connecticut.Trump’s suspension came two days after the US Capitol saw a violent attack by supporters of the president, who has for months spread false information about the election and encouraged his followers to contest the result.Two tweets the president posted on Friday proved the last straw. Trump tweeted that his supporters “will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future” and said he would not attend Joe Biden’s inauguration. Twitter said the tweets were “highly likely to encourage and inspire people” to replicate the Capitol attacks. Reports of secondary attacks have been spreading among extremist social media groups.Debate has been going on for years about the role social media companies should play in moderating content.Conservatives are adamant companies should be punished for what they say is censorship that the Republican Study Committee, a caucus in the House of Representatives, wrote on Twitter “runs contrary to the principle behind our first amendment”.Tiffany Trump, the president’s daughter, used the social media site Parler, popular among conservatives and also subject to controversy over its policies, to say: “Whatever happened to freedom of speech?”Republicans claim Twitter’s move violates the first amendment of the US constitution. Others argue that the first amendment says the government cannot restrict speech, but social media companies are private entities.“[The first amendment] doesn’t give anyone the right to a particular platform, publisher or audience; in fact, it protects the right of private entities to choose what they want to say or hear,” said Mary Anne Franks, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law – on Twitter.Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts social media platforms from legal liability for user-generated content. Republicans including Trump say Congress could curtail social media companies through reform to the law.But Republicans are no longer in control of Congress and activists and Democratic lawmakers said actions taken this week – Facebook has banned Trump for at least two weeks and Google removed Parler from its app store – are what they have been advocating for years. The attack on the Capitol, they said, showed a breaking point had been reached.Misinformation experts and civil rights activists claimed that the platforms were culpable for the attack.“[The violence] is a direct response to the misinformation, conspiracy theories and hate speech that have been allowed to spread on social media platforms,” Jim Steyer, who leads Common Sense Media, an advocacy group which organized the Stop the Hate for Profit campaign that encouraged advertisers to boycott Facebook over hate speech concerns, told the Guardian.Many Democratic lawmakers have been critical of social media companies but have yet to propose specific actions to curtail them.“It’s important to remember, this is much bigger than one person,” wrote Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, incoming chair of the Senate intelligence committee – on Twitter.“It’s about an entire ecosystem that allows misinformation and hate to spread and fester unchecked.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden to nominate Merrick Garland for next US attorney general

      by

      Joe Biden will nominate the federal appeals judge Merrick Garland to be the next US attorney general, a transition official for the president-elect said on Wednesday, a choice most Americans know as the supreme court nominee of Barack Obama who was memorably blocked by Republicans.Garland, 68, serves as a judge on the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. Obama, a Democrat, nominated him to the supreme court in 2016 while Biden was vice-president, but the Republican-controlled US Senate refused to hold hearings on the nomination.Biden, who takes office in two weeks, also intends to nominate justice department veterans Lisa Monaco as deputy attorney general and Kristen Clarke as the assistant attorney general to the civil rights division, the official said.During his election campaign, Biden pledged to take steps to end racial disparities in sentencing by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, ending the use of the federal death penalty and restoring the justice department’s role of investigating and holding police departments accountable for “systemic misconduct”.While many of these initiatives would require approval from Congress, Garland as attorney general will still have significant power to address these topics through changes in policy, such as by instructing prosecutors not to seek the death penalty or to make charging decisions that will not trigger mandatory minimums.The news came as Democrats looked set to win two US Senate seats up for grabs in Georgia runoff elections held on Tuesday, which would give the party control of both houses of Congress and give Biden more leeway to enact his agenda.Garland, who has served on the federal appeals bench since 1997, is no stranger to the justice department.Before becoming a judge, he worked as a federal prosecutor where he helped secure a conviction against Timothy McVeigh for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. He was also on the team that helped secure a conviction of former District of Columbia mayor Marion Barry for cocaine possession.Garland held other key posts at the justice department, including serving as principal deputy associate attorney general to the deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, starting in 1994.Obama nominated Garland in March 2016 to replace the long-serving conservative justice Antonin Scalia, who died on 13 February 2016. But the then Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, a Republican, refused to consider the nomination on the grounds it should not occur in a presidential election year.That stance, assailed by Democrats at the time, came under further criticism two months before the 2020 presidential election, when McConnell rushed to confirm Donald Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, to fill the vacancy of the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.While serving as attorney general under Trump until last month, William Barr faced criticism for his willingness to intervene in criminal cases in ways that benefited Trump’s political allies, such as Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden wants to fill federal court seats – but he needs to win the Senate first

      by

      During the disastrous first presidential debate in September, Donald Trump mocked Barack Obama, and Joe Biden by extension, for leaving office with so many federal court seats unfilled.“I’ll have so many judges because President Obama and him left me 128 judges to fill,” Trump said, slightly inflating the 105 vacancies he inherited. “When you leave office, you don’t leave any judges. That’s like, you just don’t do that … If you left us 128 openings, you can’t be a good president.But as is often the case with Trump’s attacks, there is much more to the story than that. It is true that Trump inherited nearly twice as many federal court vacancies as Obama did in 2009. However, Democrats blamed the high number of vacancies on what they described as an unprecedented level of obstruction from Republicans after they took control of the Senate in 2015.Over Trump’s lone term as president, he and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, have successfully remade the federal judiciary, and Democrats are anxious to confirm liberal judges once Biden takes office. But some Democratic lawmakers are already voicing concern that Republicans will once again obstruct judicial nominations if they keep the Senate by winning at least one of the Georgia runoff races next month.Dick Durbin, who is seeking to become the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, raised that concern in late November, predicting Biden would have “very little” impact on the federal judiciary if Republicans maintain control of the chamber.“If the last two years of the Obama administration were any indication, they’ll freeze them out,” Durbin told Politico. “Hope springs eternal, but I believe in history.”Daniel Goldberg, the legal director of the progressive Alliance for Justice, said Durbin’s comments underscored the importance of the Georgia Senate elections. If Democrats were to win both of the 5 January runoff races, the Senate would be 50-50, and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris could provide a tie-breaking 51st vote.“I think Senator Durbin just made clear how important the Georgia elections are. The stakes could not be higher,” Goldberg said.If Republicans were to win at least one of the Georgia races and keep control of the Senate, Chuck Grassley is expected to chair the judiciary committee, and the Iowa senator would have the ability to block Biden’s nominees from receiving hearings.“If Grassley decides to play hardball, he could just not bring them up for hearings, and there’s nothing the other side can do,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston and an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute.That possibility is distressing to Democrats, who have watched with dismay as the Senate has approved more than 200 of Trump’s judicial nominees since 2017. While Obama was able to have 55 of his nominees to the federal appeals courts approved over eight years, 54 of Trump’s nominees have been confirmed over just four years. Roughly a quarter of all trial-level federal judges are now Trump appointees.Risk for RepublicansJosh Blackman also warned there could be potential consequences for Republicans if they choose to “play hardball” with Biden’s nominees. “If the Democrats take the Senate in 2022, they could just fill the vacancies then, so you may get more moderate nominees now to fill the void,” Blackman said. “If you wait two more years, they might become less moderate.”That calculus may be part of why some Democrats are more optimistic than Durbin about the likelihood of Biden’s judicial nominees being confirmed.“I think the dynamic is very different than the dynamic with Donald Trump as president,” said Russ Feingold, a former Democratic senator from Wisconsin. “Having served in the Senate for 18 years, 16 years on the judiciary committee, I can tell you people back home want those seats filled. And there is pressure from newspapers, from the legal community when that doesn’t happen.”Feingold, the president of the American Constitution Society (ACS), argued Biden’s team has also prioritized judicial nominations in a way that the Obama administration didn’t.“Because of the economic situation and the need to pass healthcare, this didn’t get the attention it deserved” during Obama’s presidency, Feingold said. “I believe the Biden transition and the Biden administration will give it the attention it deserves and make it a higher priority.”The ACS has already provided Biden’s team with extensive lists of potential nominees, in the hope of ensuring a smooth nomination process once a seat on the federal judiciary opens up.“It’s not just getting past McConnell,” Feingold said. “It’s being ready and getting those names moving and being ready when there are vacancies.”Legal experts argue that, if McConnell were to blockade Biden’s judicial nominees, the repercussions for the country would be severe. Not only would courts probably struggle to handle their caseloads with vacancies piling up, but the potential standoff could jeopardize the reputation of both the federal judiciary and the Senate.“The American people just repudiated Donald Trump, and they elected Joe Biden to the presidency, and one of the critical roles of the presidency is nominating individuals to sit on our federal courts,” Goldberg said. “I think what the American people expect is the Senate to not have one set of rules for Donald Trump and one set of rules for Joe Biden.”Although Feingold is more optimistic than Durbin about Biden’s judicial nominees receiving hearings, he acknowledged it was likely to be a hard-fought fight. If Democrats lose the Senate, Feingold said, they should not wallow but instead prepare for battle.“I understand it will be a challenge, a tremendous challenge that will involve a lot of negotiating, should the Democrats not be able to control the Senate,” Feingold said. “But it’s a challenge that I think can be met … We shouldn’t despair. We should be ready for the fight.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans’ acceptance of Trump’s behavior will be his vilest legacy

      by

      Most of the 74,222,957 Americans who voted to re-elect Donald Trump – 46.8%of the votes cast in the 2020 presidential election – don’t hold Trump accountable for what he’s done to America.Their acceptance of Trump’s behavior will be his vilest legacy.Nearly forty years ago, political scientist James Q Wilson and criminologist George Kelling observed that a broken window left unattended in a community signals that no one cares if windows are broken there. The broken window is thereby an invitation to throw more stones and break more windows.The message: do whatever you want here because others have done it and got away with it.The broken window theory has led to picayune and arbitrary law enforcement in poor communities. But America’s most privileged and powerful have been breaking big windows with impunity.In 2008, Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy. The Street got bailed out while millions of Americans lost their jobs, savings, and homes. Yet not no major Wall Street executive ever went to jail.In more recent years, top executives of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, along with the Sackler family, knew the dangers of OxyContin but did nothing. Executives at Wells Fargo Bank pushed bank employees to defraud customers. Executives at Boeing hid the results of tests showing its 737 Max Jetliner was unsafe. Police chiefs across America looked the other way as police under their command repeatedly killed innocent Black Americans.Here, too, they’ve got away with it. These windows remain broken.Trump has brought impunity to the highest office in the land, wielding a wrecking ball to the most precious windowpane of all – American democracy.Trump has brought impunity to the highest office in the land, wielding a wrecking ball to the most precious windowpane of all – American democracy.The message? A president can obstruct special counsels’ investigations of his wrongdoing, push foreign officials to dig up dirt on political rivals, fire inspectors general who find corruption, order the entire executive branch to refuse congressional subpoenas, flood the Internet with fake information about his opponents, refuse to release his tax returns, accuse the press of being “fake media” and “enemies of the people”, and make money off his presidency.And he can get away with it. Almost half of the electorate will even vote for his reelection.A president can also lie about the results of an election without a shred of evidence – and yet, according to polls, be believed by the vast majority of those who voted for him.Trump’s recent pardons have broken double-pane windows.Not only has he shattered the norm for presidential pardons – usually granted because of a petitioner’s good conduct after conviction and service of sentence – but he’s pardoned people who themselves shattered windows. By pardoning them, he has rendered them unaccountable for their acts.They include aides convicted of lying to the FBI and threatening potential witnesses in order to protect him; his son-in-law’s father, who pleaded guilty to tax evasion, witness tampering, illegal campaign contributions, and lying to the Federal Election Commission; Blackwater security guards convicted of murdering Iraqi civilians, including women and children; Border Patrol agents convicted of assaulting or shooting unarmed suspects; and Republican lawmakers and their aides found guilty of fraud, obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations.It’s not simply the size of the broken window that undermines standards, according to Wilson and Kelling. It’s the willingness of society to look the other way. If no one is held accountable, norms collapse.Trump may face a barrage of lawsuits when he leaves office, possibly including criminal charges. But it’s unlikely he’ll go to jail. Presidential immunity or a self-pardon will protect him. Prosecutorial discretion would almost certainly argue against indictment, in any event. No former president has ever been convicted of a crime. The mere possibility of a criminal trial for Trump would ignite a partisan brawl across the nation.Congress may try to limit the power of future presidents – strengthening congressional oversight, fortifying the independence of inspectors general, demanding more financial disclosure, increasing penalties on presidential aides who break laws, restricting the pardon process, and so on.But Congress – a co-equal branch of government under the Constitution – cannot rein in rogue presidents. And the courts don’t want to weigh in on political questions.The appalling reality is that Trump may get away with it. And in getting away with it he will have changed and degraded the norms governing American presidents. The giant windows he’s broken are invitations to a future president to break even more.Nothing will correct this unless or until an overwhelming majority of Americans recognize and condemn what has occurred. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump has executed more Americans than all states combined, report finds

      by

      Donald Trump has added a morbid new distinction to his presidency – for the first time in US history, the federal government has in one year executed more American civilians than all the states combined.In the course of 2020, in an unprecedented glut of judicial killing, the Trump administration rushed to put 10 prisoners to death. The execution spree ran roughshod over historical norms and stood entirely contrary to the decline in the practice of the death penalty that has been the trend in the US for several years.The outlier nature of the Trump administration’s thirst for blood is set out in the year-end report of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). In recent years, the annual review has highlighted the steady withering away of executions, all of which were carried out by individual states.That pattern continued at state level in 2020, heightened by the coronavirus pandemic which suppressed an already low number of scheduled executions. Only five states – Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas – carried out judicial killings. And only Texas performed more than one, producing the lowest number of executions by the states since 1983.States carried out seven executions to the federal government’s 10. Despite the rash of federal killings, that still amounted to the fewest executions in the US since 1991.Against that downward path, the actions of the Trump administration stand out as a grotesque aberration.“The administration’s policies were not just out of step with the historical practices of previous presidents, they were also completely out of step with today’s state practices,” said Robert Dunham, DPIC executive director and lead author of its year-end report.Part of the story was Trump’s willful refusal to take the coronavirus seriously. Unlike death penalty states, the federal government insisted on proceeding with executions. As a result, there was an eruption of Covid-19 cases at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana which the DPIC report notes infected at least nine members of execution teams.But the overwhelming story of the federal executions in 2020 was the disdain shown by the Trump administration towards established norms, and its determination to push the death penalty to the limits of decency even by standards set by those who support the practice.Since Trump lost the election on 3 November, the federal government has put to death three prisoners: Orlando Hall, Brandon Bernard and Alfred Bourgeois. The last time a lame-duck president presided over an execution was in 1889, when the Grover Cleveland administration killed a Choctaw Indian named Richard Smith.All three Trump lame-duck executions involved black men. As the DPIC review points out, racial disparities remain prominent in the roll call of the dead, as they have for decades, with almost half of those executed being people of color.The review exposes other systemic problems in the Trump administration’s choice of prisoners to kill. Lezmond Hill, executed in August, was the only Native American prisoner on federal death row. His execution ignored tribal sovereignty over the case and the objections of the Navajo Nation which is opposed to the death penalty.The subjects of the federal rush to the death chamber included two prisoners whose offenses were committed when they were teenagers. Christopher Vialva was 19 and Bernard 18: they were the first teenage offenders sent to their deaths by the US government in almost 70 years.The sharp contrast between the Trump administration’s aggressive stance and the dramatic reduction in executions at state level is underlined by the annual review of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP), also released on Wednesday.Texas, traditionally the death penalty capital of America, carried out three executions this year, down from nine in 2019. The most recent was on 8 July. Billy Joe Wardlow was 18 in 1993 when he committed robbery and murder.“The fact that state legislators, juvenile justice advocates, neuroscience experts and two jurors from Wardlow’s trial had called for a reprieve based on what we know now about adolescent brain development make the circumstances of his arbitrary execution even more appalling,” said Kristin Houlé Cuellar, TCADP executive director.There was some good news. In March, Colorado became the 22nd state to abolish the death penalty. Louisiana and Utah have not executed anybody in 10 years.Joe Biden, the president-elect, has vowed to eliminate the death penalty. But until he enters the White House on 20 January Trump remains in charge. Three more federal inmates are set to die – including the only woman on federal death row – before he is done. More

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump is spending the last days of his presidency on a literal killing spree | Austin Sarat

      by

      In disregard for political precedent or basic humanity, Trump has fast-tracked federal executions before Biden takes officeDonald Trump is on a killing spree. He is turning the anger and resentment which burnishes his brand into a virtually unprecedented string of federal executions. From 14 July 2020, when the attorney general, William Barr, restarted the federal death penalty by executing Daniel Lewis Lee, through last week, the administration has put ten people to death. Three more executions are on the docket in the days leading up to the inauguration of Joe Biden.Last week, Trump and Barr executed Brandon Bernard even though his crime was committed when he was just 18 years old, and they killed Alfred Bourgeois even though his IQ put him in the intellectually disabled category. Continue reading… More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      After Trump review: a provocative case for reform by Biden and beyond

      by

      At times, the Trump administration has seemed like a wrecking ball, careening from floor to floor of a building being destroyed, observers never quite knowing where the ball will strike next. At others, it has worked stealthily to undermine rules and norms, presumably fearing that, as the great supreme court justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “sunshine is the best of disinfectants”.
      These changes, far beyond politics or differences of opinion on policy, should trouble all those who care about the future of the American republic. Jack Goldsmith and Bob Bauer, veterans of Republican (Bush) and Democratic (Clinton) administrations, are students of the presidency whose scholarship is informed by their service. They have combined to write a field guide to the damage and serious proposals to undo it.
      Presidencies do not exist in a vacuum, and many of the excesses of which the authors complain did not begin in 2017. But Trump upped the stakes: the violations of rules and norms are not merely quantitatively more numerous but qualitatively different. Whether seeking to fire the special counsel investigating him, making money from his businesses or attacking the press, he has made breathtaking changes.
      As the authors write, “Trump has merged the institution of the presidency with his personal interests and has used the former to serve the latter”, attacking “core institutions of American democracy” to an extent no president had before.
      The American constitutional system, unlike the British, is one of enumerated powers. But over 230 years, norms have arisen. Unlike laws of which violations are (usually) clear, norms are “nonlegal principles of appropriate or expected behavior that presidents and other officials tacitly accept and that typically structure their actions”. In an illustration of the great American poet Carl Sandburg’s observation that “The fog comes on little cat feet”, norms “are rarely noticed until they are violated, as the nation has experienced on a weekly and often daily basis during the Trump presidency”.
      Those two axioms – that Trump’s offences are worse than others and that norms can easily be overcome by a determined president – show reform is essential.
      The first section of After Trump deals with the presidency itself: the dangers of foreign influence, conflicts of interest, attacks on the press and abuses of the pardon power.
      Here the reforms – political campaigns reporting foreign contacts, a requirement to disclose the president’s tax returns and criminalizing pardons given to obstruct justice – are generally straightforward. Regarding the press, where Trump has engaged in “virulent, constant attacks” and tried to claim his Twitter account was not a public record even as he happily fired public officials on it, the authors would establish that due process applies to attempted removal of a press pass and make legal changes to deter harassment of or reprisals against the media because “the elevation of this issue clarifies, strengthens, and sets up an apparatus for the enforcement of norms”.
      Goldsmith and Bauer’s second section focuses on technical legal issues, specifically those surrounding special counsels, investigation of the president, and the relationship between the White House and justice department.
      The American constitution is far more rigid that the British but it too has points of subtlety and suppleness. One example is the relationship between the president and an attorney general subordinate to the president but also duty bound to provide impartial justice, even when it concerns the president.
      The issues may seem arcane, but they are vital: “Of the multitude of norms that Donald Trump has broken as president, perhaps none has caused more commentary and consternation than his efforts to defy justice department independence and politicize the department’s enforcement of civil and criminal law.”
      And yet even as the attorney general, William Barr, sought a more lenient sentence for Roger Stone, stood by as Trump fired the US attorney in New York City, and kept up a “running public commentary” on an investigation of the origins of the investigation into the Trump campaign, the authors oppose those actions but remain cautious. They decline to endorse some of the more radical proposals, such as separating the justice department from the executive branch. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme court rejects Trump-backed Texas lawsuit aiming to overturn election results

      by

      The US supreme court has unanimously rejected a baseless lawsuit filed by Texas seeking to overturn the presidential election result, dealing the biggest blow yet to Donald Trump’s assault on democracy.In a brief, one page order, all nine justices on America’s highest court dismissed the longshot effort to throw out the vote counts in four states that the president lost: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.The decision hammers another nail in the coffin of Trump’s increasingly desperate effort to subvert the will of the people and deny Joe Biden the presidency.The suit filed by Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, sought to invalidate the results in four swing states, asking the court to extend the deadline for election certification so alleged voting irregularities could be investigated.It was backed by Donald Trump, 17 other states and 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives – more than half the caucus – including the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, and the minority whip, Steve Scalise of Louisiana.Trump had long expressed hope that a disputed election would go before the supreme court, to which he appointed three justices during his term, ensuring a 6-3 conservative majority. Earlier on Friday he tweeted: “If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!”But hours later, his hopes of a political miracle were all but extinguished. The supreme court wrote: “The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”Officials in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin had derided the suit as a publicity stunt. More than 20 other attorneys general from states including California and Virginia also filed a brief on Thursday urging the court to reject the case.Josh Shapiro, the attorney general of Pennsylvania, welcomed the court’s ruling. “Our nation’s highest court saw through this seditious abuse of our electoral process,” he tweeted. “This swift denial should make anyone contemplating further attacks on our election think twice.”Democrats in Congress also expressed gratitude. Eric Swalwell of California tweeted: “The Supreme Court, a mix of conservative and liberal members, united to defend your vote against @realDonaldTrumpand his democracy deniers in Congress.”And Senator Ben Sasse, one of relatively few Republicans to acknowledge Biden’s victory, signalled that it was time for the party and government to move on. He said: “Since Election Night, a lot of people have been confusing voters by spinning Kenyan Birther-type, ‘Chavez rigged the election from the grave’ conspiracy theories, but every American who cares about the rule of law should take comfort that the Supreme Court – including all three of President Trump’s picks – closed the book on the nonsense.”Courts have dismissed numerous of lawsuits and appeals by the Trump campaign and its allies in various states. William Barr, the attorney general and a staunch Trump ally, has said the justice department uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the election.Saturday will mark the 20th anniversary of the court resolving the 2000 election in Republican George W Bush’s favour but that was a much closer contest that came down to one state: Florida. Biden gained 306 votes in the electoral college – the same as Trump in 2016 – and leads the national popular vote by 7m.Some Democrats have accused Trump and his Republican backers of sedition. Chris Murphy, a senator for Connecticut, said in a floor speech on Friday: “Those who are pushing to make Donald Trump president for a second term, no matter the outcome of the election, are engaged in a treachery against their nation.” More