US elections 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘There’s no fraud here’: how a Republican official is addressing election denialism in his rural county

      by

      Abe Dane would be the first to admit he had concerns about election fraud during the 2020 election. He believed the elections in his own county, where he had worked the polls, were clean – but he wasn’t sure about other counties in the state, where unfounded claims of fraud swirled in 2020.That was before he took a position in local election administration. Now, with first-hand experience, Dane, the director of elections in Hillsdale county, Michigan, is confident in the process.It’s convincing others that’s the challenge now.Since 2020, deep-red Hillsdale county has been a flashpoint for election anxieties. Stephanie Scott, the elections clerk from Adams Township – one of the offices in Dane’s jurisdiction – earned the attention of figures in Donald Trump’s inner circle as she spread false claims of fraud and refused orders by the secretary of state’s office to turn over voting equipment for regular maintenance. Scott was ousted in a recall campaign by activists who were fed up with her insistence on spreading the false claim that the last election was stolen from Trump.On 8 May, the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, announced felony charges against Scott and her attorney, Stefanie Lambert, for allegedly turning over private voter data from the 2020 election to an unauthorized third party.Meanwhile, Scott has filed paperwork to challenge Dane in his fall election for Hillsdale county clerk.The Guardian spoke with Abe Dane about running an elections office during troubled political times – and his own shifting view of election security.View image in fullscreenIn a more conservative area, like Hillsdale, where people know that their neighbors are mostly going to be voting along a certain party line, do you still see the same kind of politicization around election administration as elsewhere? What does that look like for you, in a conservative town, as an elected Republican?Being a Republican and administering elections, I’m pushing back on that [politicization]. I try my best when I’m at township meetings, or city meetings, to choose my words carefully.I guess when I first started, I was a little bit more cautious. Here’s an example: I would say, “In Hillsdale county, there is no election fraud going on. We are doing things right in this county.” I’d always say “in this county”. I’ve gotten to the point now where I personally believe that our elections nationwide are completely fine. And so I’m starting to stop that, and to stop trying not to offend my fellow Republicans in my county. I’ll just say flat out, like, “I don’t think there was election fraud anywhere. I think people have a different worldview than you and you can’t accept that.”You mentioned earlier you had doubts about the election and concerns about election fraud, but it sounds like your view now has shifted. Can you tell me about that evolution?Well, to start with, in 2020 and before, I wasn’t in county government at all.I began to be an election inspector in the 2020 elections, and I knew things were on the up-and-up here. I didn’t have any questions about our own county. But I had questions about, you know, Detroit or Wayne county – things like that. As I got into election administration, I started seeing the processes, the checks and balances, the security that’s involved, and got familiar with a qualified voter file – the state’s voter registration system – and how they manage that list.There’s no good training to be an election administrator that’s from an accredited school. So, our education comes from our peers, and our associations – I’m rubbing shoulders with the elections director in Wayne county and [officials] all over the state, and we’re developing these relationships, and I’m saying, “You know, these are people just like me.” They care about their voters, they care about everyone having access to the polls. They care about making sure everything balances, and every vote is counted. And there’s no partisanship in that.Clerks should be non-partisan, because all we care about is allowing people to have access to the voting process.So no, there’s no fraud here.Given that you are part of this community, do you think that your evolution on this has given some credibility to election processes, with you having seen it from the inside and being able to communicate about it?I wish I had that much influence. It’s really just the people that are in my circle, that know me on a personal level, that I would have that kind of an impact on. So unfortunately, it’s not like that.No, it’s a battle that all of us election administrators have to fight – to help people understand what we’re trying to do and the process that’s in place to keep it accurate and honest. It’s going to take time and this election coming up – depending on how it goes – it might set us back another number of years in trying to get people to the point where they can trust our elections.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAmong our clerks and election inspectors, there are a good percentage of them that actually have concerns about people causing trouble in the precinct on these big elections. We’re working with our local law enforcement to try and visit the precincts, and even this one I had yesterday, I talked to the sheriff and I said: “It would go a long way if you just popped in there. It’s just one little precinct open, but they would love to see you there sometime.” And he did.Now that we’re getting a little bit closer to the election, what types of security threats are you preparing for? Or does it not feel that tense here?I would like to say it doesn’t feel that tense here, but we need to be prepared for anything.So we’re getting ready to do our inspector training – every election inspector in our county that will be working all the precincts in August and November will need to take their two-year recertification, and I’ll be doing that. So it’s a big ordeal. It takes two months to go through and I think there’s close to 300 people that we have to train.And in that, [security] is going to be one of the things that we talk about – and that’s the preparation. It’s: OK, what if this happens, what do you do? Who do you call?If I have the time, which is difficult with my time restraints right now, I’m trying to develop a document that will help facilitate communication if something does happen – whether it’s security, or whether it’s a weather issue, to facilitate communication between myself and the clerk’s office and the sheriff’s department or central dispatch, 911 operation and any county maintenance and stuff to be able to get things orchestrated, if we have to change a precinct location or if we have to deal with emergency in a precinct.View image in fullscreenAs the 2024 general election approaches, at the national and also local level, people who rejected the results of the 2020 election are getting more active. What’s been the most effective way that you’ve been able to push back against election denialism?I would say the most effective way is to have the time to be able to go out in the community and talk at public events or clubs and organizations and even the township and city meetings, and just give presentations to give that information about how our processes work.I’ve seen in other communities where they have more staff, and more time, where they can invite people in and have trainings just for the community on elections – not necessarily to make them inspectors, but to just teach them about the processes and inviting them in to conduct audits of an election precinct voluntarily.On a different subject, I am curious – is Stephanie Scott campaigning against you? Is that election a concern?To be honest, I’m not losing sleep over it. I put a lot of time and effort, blood, sweat and tears into this place. So I want to win. But if I lose, then I have a market where I can easily find another job that pays better and is less stressful and less hours. So it’s a win-win either way for me.So you’d stay in election administration?I do love election administration. And I love this community. And I want my family to grow up here. So yeah, I want to stick it out. More

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme court justice Samuel Alito faces criticism after Trump-supporting flag reportedly seen outside his home – live

      by

      Good morning, US politics blog readers. The New York Times reported yesterday that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless claim of fraud in his 2020 election loss flew outside Samuel Alito’s house shortly before Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021. The supreme court justice, who said the flag was displayed by his wife amid a dispute with a neighbor, is a conservative stalwart on the court, and authored the decision that two years ago overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states the ban abortion. The reactions to the news have been predictably partisan, with Republican senator Tom Cotton accusing the Times of trying to “incite another mob”, Minnesota’s Democratic governor Tim Walz describing flying the flag as “not normal” and Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal saying the court’s credibility “is plummeting”.The story was the latest in a string of reports that have emerged over the past year and raised questions about the supreme court’s ethics. While these stories have generated plenty of outrage, none of the justices involved have suffered any consequences, and the conservatives remain dominant on the court, with six seats against the liberals’ three. The court is poised to soon rule on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election – a case that could have a major impact on his rematch with Joe Biden.Here’s what else is going on today:
      The House oversight committee late yesterday advanced a resolution to hold attorney general Merrick Garland in contempt for not releasing a recording of Biden’s interview with a special counsel, but only after a shouting match between lawmakers.
      Biden, who polls show has lost some of his support with Black voters, will speak at the National Museum of African American History and Culture at 11.45am ET, and then meet with leaders of Black fraternities and sororities together with Kamala Harris at 3.30pm.
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre takes reporters’ questions at 1pm.
      The Democratic chair of the Senate judiciary committee, Dick Durbin, is calling on Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases concerning Donald Trump and the 2020 election after the New York Times reported that a flag supporting the ex-president’s false election fraud claims flew outside the supreme court justice’s residence.Here’s what Durbin had to say:
      Flying an upside-down American flag – a symbol of the so-called ‘Stop the Steal’ movement – clearly creates the appearance of bias. Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6 insurrection, including the question of the former President’s immunity in US v Donald Trump, which the supreme court is currently considering.
      The court is in an ethical crisis of its own making, and Justice Alito and the rest of the court should be doing everything in their power to regain public trust. This latest story is further proof that Congress needs to pass the SCERT Act to create an enforceable code of conduct for the supreme court. Supreme court justices should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest.
      The Scert Act would require the supreme court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to investigate violations. While the court adopted an ethics code last year, it lacks any mechanism for enforcement.Republicans are vehemently against any new regulations on the supreme court, and have the votes to prevent the Scert Act from passing the Senate.In other news, the House oversight committee last night advanced a resolution to hold the attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt after he refused to release audio of Joe Biden’s interview with Robert Hur, the special counsel who investigated his possession of classified documents. But the vote only took place after a messy verbal clash between lawmakers at opposite ends of the political spectrum, the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports:The two most famous sets of initials in US politics clashed in a chaotic House hearing on Thursday, as the progressive star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC, objected fiercely to an attack on another Democrat by the far-right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, or MTG.The oversight committee hearing concerned Republican attempts to hold the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt, for refusing to release tapes of interviews between Joe Biden and the special counsel Robert Hur.Things went wrong when MTG made a partisan point, trying to tie Democrats to the judge in Donald Trump’s criminal hush-money case – which, by drawing a number of Republicans to the New York courtroom to support Trump, was responsible for the hearing starting late in the day.In answer to MTG, Jasmine Crockett of Texas said: “Please tell me what that has to do with Merrick Garland … Do you know what we’re here for? You know we’re here about AG Garland?”In response to the New York Times’s reporting, Samuel Alito acknowledged that the flag was raised outside his house, but said it was due to a dispute with a neighbor:
      I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”
      The Alitos live in Alexandria, Virginia, a pleasant city across the Potomac river from Washington DC, where some of their neighbors do not like them, the Times reports:
      In recent years, the quiet sanctuary of his street, with residents who are Republicans and Democrats, has tensed with conflict, neighbors said. Around the 2020 election, a family on the block displayed an anti-Trump sign with an expletive. It apparently offended Mrs. Alito and led to an escalating clash between her and the family, according to interviews.
      Some residents have also bridled at the noise and intrusion brought by protesters, who started showing up outside the Alito residence in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion. Other neighbors have joined the demonstrators, whose intent was “to bring the protest to their personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives,” said Heather-Ann Irons, who came to the street to protest.
      The half-dozen neighbors who saw the flag, or knew of it, requested anonymity because they said they did not want to add to the contentiousness on the block and feared reprisal. Last Saturday, May 11, protesters returned to the street, waving flags of their own (“Don’t Tread on My Uterus”) and using a megaphone to broadcast expletives at Justice Alito, who was in Ohio giving a commencement address. Mrs. Alito appeared in a window, complaining to the Supreme Court security detail outside.
      As you can see in the below tweet from the New York Times, the flag flown outside the conservative supreme court justice Samuel Alito’s house was simply an upside-down American flag:But as their story notes, flying the flag that way had, by early 2021, become a symbol of support for Donald Trump’s false claims that his loss in the November 2020 election had occurred due to fraud:
      Turning the American flag upside down is a symbol of emergency and distress, first used as a military S.O.S., historians said in interviews. In recent decades, it has increasingly been used as a political protest symbol — a controversial one, because the flag code and military tradition require the paramount symbol of the United States to be treated with respect.
      Over the years, upside-down flags have been displayed by both the right and the left as an outcry over a range of issues, including the Vietnam War, gun violence, the Supreme Court’s overturning of the constitutional right to abortion and, in particular, election results. In 2012, Tea Party followers inverted flags at their homes to signal disgust at the re-election of President Barack Obama. Four years later, some liberals advised doing the same after Mr. Trump was elected.
      During Mr. Trump’s quest to win, and then subvert, the 2020 election, the gesture took off as never before, becoming “really established as a symbol of the ‘Stop the Steal’ campaign,” according to Alex Newhouse, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder.
      A flood of social media posts exhorted Trump supporters to flip over their flags or purchase new ones to display upside down.
      “If Jan. 6 rolls around and Biden is confirmed by the Electoral College our nation is in distress!!” a poster wrote on Patriots.win, a forum for Trump supporters, garnering over a thousand “up” votes. “If you cannot go to the DC rally then you must do your duty and show your support for our president by flying the flag upside down!!!!”
      In an appearance on MSNBC this morning, Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic senator who serves on the judiciary committee, said the revelation that a pro-Trump flag flew outside Samuel Alito’s house further undermines the supreme court’s credibility.Polls indicate public approval of the supreme court has declined over the past two decades, which Blumenthal blames on the conflicts of interest that have developed among its conservative justices. He called on Chief Justice John Roberts to order Alito and Clarence Thomas, a fellow conservative whose wife was involved in efforts to stop Joe Biden from taking office, to recuse themselves:Blumenthal has been among the Democratic lawmakers that have pressured Roberts and the justices to tighten their ethics following reports of their connections with wealthy conservatives:The revelation that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless 2020 election fraud claims flew outside the house of Samuel Alito comes as the court is considering whether to give the ex-president immunity from the federal charges brought against him for his attempt to block Joe Biden from assuming office.In oral arguments in the case last month, the supreme court justice and other conservatives seemed partial to Trump’s claim that he should be immune from at least some of the charges, since they concern his conduct while acting in his official capacity as president. That raises the prospect of a decision that could have the net effect of further delaying his trial, potentially until after his November presidential election rematch against Biden.During the oral arguments, Alito, together with fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh, seemed worried that future presidents could be affected by a denial of immunity to Trump. Here’s a recap of their viewpoint, from the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell:
      Alito and Kavanaugh suggested they were particularly concerned about zealous prosecutors going after former presidents once they left office for “mistakes” if the supreme court decided that presidents had no immunity from criminal prosecution.
      “It’s not going to stop, it’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president and the next president and the next president after that,” Kavanaugh said.
      The government disputed that prosecutors could wantonly target former presidents, arguing there were checks and balances in the judicial system like the grand jury process.
      Alito was dismissive of the grand jury suggestion, bringing up the adage that a grand jury could indict a “ham sandwich”. When Dreeben said prosecutors don’t charge people who don’t deserve it, Alito responded: “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”
      For more on the case, and how the supreme court’s decision could affect it, here’s our story from April:Good morning, US politics blog readers. The New York Times reported yesterday that a flag used by supporters of Donald Trump’s baseless claim of fraud in his 2020 election loss flew outside Samuel Alito’s house shortly before Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021. The supreme court justice, who said the flag was displayed by his wife amid a dispute with a neighbor, is a conservative stalwart on the court, and authored the decision that two years ago overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states the ban abortion. The reactions to the news have been predictably partisan, with Republican senator Tom Cotton accusing the Times of trying to “incite another mob”, Minnesota’s Democratic governor Tim Walz describing flying the flag as “not normal” and Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal saying the court’s credibility “is plummeting”.The story was the latest in a string of reports that have emerged over the past year and raised questions about the supreme court’s ethics. While these stories have generated plenty of outrage, none of the justices involved have suffered any consequences, and the conservatives remain dominant on the court, with six seats against the liberals’ three. The court is poised to soon rule on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election – a case that could have a major impact on his rematch with Joe Biden.Here’s what else is going on today:
      The House oversight committee late yesterday advanced a resolution to hold attorney general Merrick Garland in contempt for not releasing a recording of Biden’s interview with a special counsel, but only after a shouting match between lawmakers.
      Biden, who polls show has lost some of his support with Black voters, will speak at the National Museum of African American History and Culture at 11.45am ET, and then meet with leaders of Black fraternities and sororities together with Kamala Harris at 3.30pm.
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre takes reporters’ questions at 1pm. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Rudy Giuliani suspended by New York radio station over 2020 election lies

      by

      The former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s troubles deepened on Friday when he was suspended by WABC radio, for trying to use his show to discuss the lie that the 2020 presidential election was lost by Donald Trump because of electoral fraud.John Catsimatidis, a New York billionaire, Republican donor and owner of WABC, told the New York Times: “We’re not going to talk about fallacies of the November 2020 election. We warned him once. We warned him twice. And I get a text from him last night, and I get a text from him this morning that he refuses not to talk about it.“So he left me no option. I suspended him.”Giuliani later said he had been fired.A spokesperson for Giuliani issued a lengthy statement, in which the former mayor said: “I’m learning from a leak to the New York Times that I’m being fired by John Catsimatidis and WABC because I refused to comply with their overly broad directive stating, word-for-word, that I’m ‘prohibited from engaging in conversations relating to the 2020 presidential election’.”Claiming “a clear violation of free speech”, Giuliani said he would address the situation further on social media on Friday night.But he went on to say the move by WABC came “at a very suspicious time, just months before the 2024 election, and just as John and WABC continue to be pressured by Dominion Voting Systems and the Biden regime’s lawyers”.Dominion Voting Systems, a manufacturer of elections machines, reached a $787.5m settlement with Fox News over its broadcast of election fraud lies. It also sued Giuliani and Sidney Powell, another lawyer who worked on Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.Now 79, Giuliani was mayor of New York from 1993 to 2001, emerging as a national figure after leading the city through the 9/11 terror attacks. He ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.Long close to Trump, who reportedly helped him through a personal crisis after the failed presidential run, Giuliani emerged as a steadfast supporter when Trump ran for the Republican nomination in 2016 and then won the White House.Giuliani did not win the prize of being made secretary of state, but he worked on Trump’s behalf in matters including the attempt to extract political dirt from Ukraine, which prompted Trump’s first impeachment.In 2020, Giuliani worked to try to overturn Joe Biden’s defeat of Trump at the polls, only to suffer a series of courtroom defeats and mounting public embarrassments.Giuliani denies wrongdoing, but his efforts on Trump’s behalf have produced legal disbarment proceedings; criminal charges in two swing states, Georgia and Arizona; and defeat in a defamation suit that left him owing $148m to two Georgia poll workers he claimed were involved in electoral fraud.Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in New York last December. Filings showed debts of up to $500m.Earlier this week, a legal filing on Giuliani’s behalf said no accountants “seem[ed] interested” in working with him to meet requirements in the bankruptcy case.His spokesperson, Ted Goodman, said then: “While it is true that the permanent Washington political class is leveraging all of its power and influence to bully and scare people from defending Americans who are willing to stand up and push back against the accepted narrative, Mayor Giuliani will be appropriately represented when it comes to his accounting and finances.”The filing on Tuesday said the former mayor, who made millions in consulting work after leaving office in 2001, “currently received social security benefits and broadcasts a radio show and podcast”.“These are his sole sources of income,” it said.Catsimatidis told the Times that at the close of his WABC show on Thursday, Giuliani tried to speak about the 2020 election but was cut off by station employees.“Look, I like the guy as a person, but you can’t do that,” Catsimatidis told the paper. “You can’t cross the line. My view is that nobody really knows [about the 2020 result] but we had made a company policy. It’s over, life goes on.”In his statement, Giuliani accused Catsimatidis of “telling reporters I was informed ahead of time of these restrictions, which is demonstrably untrue.“How can you possibly believe that when I’ve been regularly commenting on the 2020 election for three and a half years, and I’ve talked about the case in Georgia incessantly ever since the verdict in December. Other WABC hosts and newscasters questioned me on these topics.“Obviously I was never informed on such a policy, and even if there was one, it was violated so often that it couldn’t be taken seriously.” More

    • 225 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Former US town clerk and her lawyer charged for allegedly accessing 2020 voter data in hunt for fraud

      by

      Dana Nessel, Michigan’s attorney general, announced felony charges Tuesday against Stefanie Lambert, an election-denying attorney, and Stephanie Scott, a former small-town election clerk , over an alleged 2020 voter data breach.Nessel’s office alleges Lambert and Scott allowed an “unauthorized computer examiner” to access private voter data from the 2020 general US election and that Scott illegally withheld voting equipment amid an order from the Michigan secretary of state to submit it for regular maintenance. According to a statement from Nessel’s office, Lambert transmitted voter data at Scott’s direction.“When elected officials and their proxies use their positions to promote baseless conspiracies, show blatant disregard for voter privacy, and break the law in the process, it undermines the very essence of the democratic process,” Nessel said in a statement. “Those who engage in such reckless conduct must be held accountable for their actions.”Lambert did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Lambert faces separate felony charges in Oakland county, Michigan for her role in allegedly tampering with election equipment. In March, Lambert was arrested for failing to comply with court orders in that case, including refusing to submit fingerprints.In the wake of the 2020 election, Lambert took on numerous cases challenging the election results and worked with the attorney Sidney Powell on a lawsuit seeking to overturn the election in Michigan. Since then, Lambert has used her platform to promote baseless conspiracy theories about elections, fundraising hundreds of thousands of dollars to support her work. She is currently representing former Overstock CEO and prominent election denier Patrick Byrne in his defense against a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems.Last month, Lambert faced a hearing for possible sanctions after she handed over Dominion documents apparently obtained in discovery to the rightwing sheriff Dar Leaf of Barry county, Michigan.Meanwhile Scott, who faces five felony charges in connection with the alleged voter data breach, was recalled in May 2023 from her position overseeing elections in the rural Michigan community of Adams Township. But she has stayed active in local politics since then – even filing paperwork last month to run for the office of Hillsdale county clerk.“When I saw [the charges] I think my jaw dropped,” said Abe Dane, who is the current elections director for Hillsdale county and is running against Scott. “I’m pleased that they’re looking into it further, because I’ve wanted them to for a very long time.”Lambert’s attorney, Daniel Hartman, said in a statement that his client did not violate the law and that she “remains steadfast in her efforts to bring transparency to the people’s election data, processes and procedures”Joe Biden won Michigan by nearly 155,000 votes over Donald Trump, a result confirmed by a Republican-led state Senate investigation in 2021. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court presses Trump lawyer over immunity from prosecution claim – audio

      by

      US supreme court justices on Thursday questioned a lawyer for Donald Trump about the former president’s claim of immunity from prosecution over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. They posed questions about what happens if a president sells nuclear secrets, takes a bribe or orders a coup or assassination. Trump took his case to the highest court after lower courts rejected his request to be shielded from four election-related criminal charges on the grounds that he was serving as president when he allegedly took the actions that led to the indictment More

    • 238 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Barrett signals at least part of Trump’s trial could continue even if court approves immunity defense – live

      by

      In an exchange with attorney John Sauer, conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett signaled she thought Donald Trump could still face trial on some election interference charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, even if the supreme court agrees with his claims of immunity.“So, you concede that private acts don’t get immunity?” Barrett asked.“We do,” Sauer replied. Barrett then referred to Smith’s brief in the immunity case:
      He urges us even if we … assume that there was some sort of immunity for official acts, that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment … for the case to go back and the trial to begin immediately. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts.
      She then posed a series of scenarios to Sauer, and asked him whether the acts were official or private. Sauer said most would be considered private, not official, acts.“So those acts, you would not dispute those were private, and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official as characterized?” Barrett asked. It’s a telling statement from the Trump-appointed justice, because the court could find that Trump is immune for official acts – but must face trial for acts done in his capacity as a private citizen.Before the special counsel’s office began presenting its case, Neil Gorsuch, a conservative justice, pondered whether rejecting Donald Trump’s claim of immunity would cause presidents to preemptively pardon themselves, in fear that a successor could decide to prosecute them.“What would happen if presidents were under fear, fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office,” asked Gorsuch, who Trump appointed, in an exchange with his attorney John Sauer.“It seems to me like one of the incentives that might be created as for presidents to try to pardon themselves,” Gorsuch continued, adding, “We’ve never answered whether a president can do that. Happily, it’s never been presented to us.”“And if the doctrine of immunity remains in place that’s likely to remain the case,” Sauer replied.Trump’s lawyer went on to argue that a finding against his immunity claim would weaken all future presidents:
      The real concern here is, is there going to be bold and fearless action? Is the president going to have to make a controversial decision where his political opponents are going to come after him the minute he leaves office? Is that going to unduly deter, or is that going to dampen the ardor of that president to do what our constitutional structure demands of him or her, which is bold and fearless action in the face of controversy?
      “And perhaps, if he feels he has to, he’ll pardon himself every four years from now on,” Gorsuch pondered.“But that, as the court pointed out, wouldn’t provide the security because the legality of that is something that’s never been addressed,” Sauer replied.Arguing before the court now is Michael Dreeben, an attorney representing special counsel Jack Smith, who indicted Donald Trump on federal charges relating to conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.He told the court that agreeing with Trump’s immunity claim means president could not be found liable for all sorts of criminal acts:
      His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here for conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power.
      Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. Here the executive branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for petitioners’ alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy.
      Conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett continues to sound somewhat flummoxed by John Sauer arguments in favor of Donald Trump’s immunity.“So how can you say that he would be subject to prosecution after impeachment, while at the same time saying that he’s exempt from these criminal statutes?” Barrett asked.Apparently unsatisfied with his answer, Barrett posed another hypothetical to Sauer: In the “example of a president who orders a coup, let’s imagine that he is impeached and convicted for ordering that coup and let’s just accept for the sake of argument, your position that that was official conduct. You’re saying that he couldn’t be prosecuted for that even after conviction and an impeachment proceeding?”Sauer responded by arguing the law must specify that a president who has been impeached and convicted by Congress can still face criminal prosecution for a coup:
      If there was not a statute that expressly referenced the president and made it criminal for the president. There would have to be a statute that made a clear statement that Congress purported to regulate the president’s conduct.
      In an exchange with attorney John Sauer, conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett signaled she thought Donald Trump could still face trial on some election interference charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, even if the supreme court agrees with his claims of immunity.“So, you concede that private acts don’t get immunity?” Barrett asked.“We do,” Sauer replied. Barrett then referred to Smith’s brief in the immunity case:
      He urges us even if we … assume that there was some sort of immunity for official acts, that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment … for the case to go back and the trial to begin immediately. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts.
      She then posed a series of scenarios to Sauer, and asked him whether the acts were official or private. Sauer said most would be considered private, not official, acts.“So those acts, you would not dispute those were private, and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official as characterized?” Barrett asked. It’s a telling statement from the Trump-appointed justice, because the court could find that Trump is immune for official acts – but must face trial for acts done in his capacity as a private citizen.Another liberal justice, Elena Kagan, debated the specifics with Donald Trump’s attorney John Sauer of his alleged misconduct, and whether he would be immune from prosecution.Kagan asked for Sauer’s views on Trump’s attempt to get Republican lawmakers in Arizona to help him disrupt Joe Biden’s election victory there: “The defendant asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud.”“Absolutely an official act for the president to communicate with state officials on a matter of enormous federal interest and concern, attempting to defend the integrity of a federal election to communicate with state officials,” Sauer replied.In an exchange with liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor, Donald Trump’s attorney John Sauer defended the legality of sending slates of fake electors – as Trump is alleged to have done to stop Joe Biden from winning the White House.The allegation is at the heart of the charges against Trump, both in special counsel Jack Smith’s federal case, and in the case brought in Georgia by Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis.“What is plausible about the president insisting and creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates, assuming you accept the facts of the complaint on their face? Is that plausible that that would be within his right to do?” Sotomayor asked.“Absolutely, your honor,” Sauer replied. “We have the historical precedent we cite in the lower courts of president Grant sending federal troops to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876 to make sure that the Republican electors got certified.”Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded sharply skeptical of John Sauer’s arguments as she harkened back to the country’s early days in exploring the situations where a president could be prosecuted.Referring to amicus, or “friend of the court”, briefs filed in the case by outside groups, Sotomayor said:
      There are amica here who tell us that the founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president. And in fact, they had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors. And yet, they didn’t take it up. Instead, they fought to pass an impeachment clause that basically says you can’t remove the president from office, except by a trial in the Senate, but you can impeach him after so … you can impose criminal liability.
      We would be creating a situation in which … a president is entitled not to make a mistake, but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain, to use the trappings of his office. That’s what you’re trying to get us to hold? Without facing criminal liability?
      Up first before the court is attorney John Sauer, who is representing Donald Trump.He’s currently in a back-and-forth with chief justice John Roberts, a conservative who has occasionally acted as a swing vote on the rightward-leaning court, as to whether a president accepting a bribe would be legal.The nine supreme court justices are seated and have begun hearing arguments over whether or not Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election because he was acting in his official capacity as president.Follow along here for live updates.Should the supreme court throw out Donald Trump’s immunity claim, when might his trial on federal election subversion charges begin?Or, if it is delayed further, which is the next criminal case to go before jurors? And what of the many civil suits against him?For a rundown of the former-perhaps-next president’s multitudinous legal troubles, check out our regularly updated case tracker:Protesters often turn up by the dozens outside the supreme court in Washington DC when it hears high-profiles cases, and Donald Trump’s occasional appearances in the Capitol also typically attract demonstrations.But for whatever reason, the exterior of the high court appears relatively quiet this morning, at least based on the photos on the wire, with few protesters present:The supreme court has not yet even heard arguments in Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from charges related to attempting to overturn the 2020 election because his alleged actions were taken while serving as president. But legal scholar Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said the conservative-dominated body has already done the ex-president’s bidding by agreeing to hear the case – and therefore delaying the start of a trial that could prove pivotal to his chances of returning to the White House.“The justices have already done great damage,” Waldman wrote recently. “They engineered one of history’s most egregious political interventions – not with an ugly ruling, at least not yet, but by getting ‘the slows’. At the very least they should issue this ruling in three weeks. That would give trial judge Tanya Chutkan enough time to start the trial [before the election], if barely.”Here’s more on why Waldman thinks the high court erred, and what we can expect in today’s arguments, from the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly:Good morning, US politics blog readers.It’s another big day at the supreme court – perhaps the biggest of its term so far. Beginning at 10am ET, the nine justices will hear arguments over whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for acts done while he was in office. The former president has made the claim as part of a bid to blunt special counsel Jack Smith’s case against him for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election, and while there’s no telling how the court will rule, it has already had one concrete effect: delaying his trial in Washington DC, potentially until after the November election, and therefore preventing a potential guilty verdict that could have damaged his campaign.The supreme court is composed of a six-justice conservative supermajority – three of whom Trump appointed – and a three-justice liberal minority, and the fact that they took this case up at all has raised eyebrows among some legal scholars. A ruling in his favor could lead to at least some of the charges Smith has brought to be dropped. If the court rejects arguments from Trump’s attorneys, his trial may be cleared to proceed – but there is still no telling when it will actually kick off.The former president will not be in Washington DC for today’s oral arguments. He’s in New York City, where his trial is underway on charges of falsifying business documents related to hush money payments made before his 2016 election victory, the first of his four criminal cases to go before jurors. We have a separate live blog covering all that.Here’s what else is going on today:
      Joe Biden is heading to Syracuse, New York to tell the tale of how the 2022 Chips act and other policies are helping turn around the local economy, then heading to New York’s ritzy suburbs for a campaign event.
      Arizona has indicted 18 former top Trump officials, including Mark Meadows, his ex-chief of staff, and attorney Rudy Giuliani for their attempts to overturn Biden’s victory in the state four years ago, the AP reports.
      And in Michigan, a state investigator said he considered Trump and Meadows as unindicted co-conspirators in a plot to interfere with Biden’s victory there in 2020, according to the AP. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Arizona grand jury indicts Trump allies including Giuliani over 2020 fake elector scheme

      by

      An Arizona grand jury has charged 18 people involved in the scheme to create a slate of false electors for Donald Trump, including 11 people who served as those fake electors and seven Trump allies who aided the scheme.Kris Mayes, Arizona’s Democratic attorney general, announced the charges on Wednesday, and said the 11 fake electors had been charged with felonies for fraud, forgery and conspiracy.Beyond the fake electors themselves, high-profile Trump affiliates have been charged with aiding in the scheme: Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Christina Bobb and Mike Roman.Those charged over their roles as false electors include two sitting lawmakers, state senators Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern. The former Arizona Republican party chair Kelli Ward and her husband, Michael Ward, have been charged, as has Tyler Bowyer, a Republican national committeeman and Turning Point USA executive, and Jim Lamon, who ran for US Senate in 2022. The others charged in the fake electors scheme are Nancy Cottle, Robert Montgomery, Samuel Moorhead, Lorraine Pellegrino and Gregory Safsten.The indictment says: “In Arizona, and the United States, the people elected Joseph Biden as president on November 3 2020. Unwilling to accept this fact, defendants and unindicted co-conspirators schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep unindicted co-conspirator 1 in office against the will of Arizona’s voters. This scheme would have deprived Arizona voters of their right to vote and have their votes counted.”Biden won Arizona by more than 10,000 votes, a close margin in the typically red state that immediately prompted allegations of voter fraud that persist to this day. The state has remained a hotbed of election denialism, despite losses for Republicans who embraced election-fraud lies at the state level.Trump has not been charged in the Arizona case.The indictment refers to Trump himself as “unindicted co-conspirator 1” throughout, noting how the former president schemed to keep himself in office, and how those around him, even those who believed he lost, aided this effort.Some involved have claimed they signed on as an alternate slate of electors in case court decisions came down in Trump’s favor, so they would have a backup group that could be certified by Congress should Trump prevail.But, the indictment says, the defendants intended for these false votes to pressure former vice-president Mike Pence into rejecting the slate of accurate electors for Joe Biden during the electoral college vote-counting on 6 January 2021. Pence did not declare Trump the winner, use these fake electoral votes, or otherwise delay the official count.Arizona’s charges are the latest turn in the fake electors saga. Seven states saw similar schemes, but two states – New Mexico and Pennsylvania – hedged their language in their documents enough to prevent prosecution.Democratic attorneys general in Michigan and Nevada have indicted Republican fake electors in their respective states. In Georgia, three of 16 fake electors were indicted as part of a wide-ranging racketeering indictment against Trump and allies. The remaining were given immunity for helping in the district attorney’s investigation.In Wisconsin, the fake electors acknowledged Biden’s win as a way to settle a civil lawsuit over the issue.Mayes’ investigation fell behind other states because she narrowly won office in 2022, and her predecessor, Republican Mark Brnovich, had not pursued the line of inquiry. She had confirmed the investigation in early 2023.The investigation – along with a host of other disagreements – have put Mayes at odds with Arizona’s Republican-led legislature, which started a committee to investigate Mayes and her office over concerns she was working beyond her authority as attorney general.In a video on Wednesday, Mayes said the investigation was “thorough and professional” and would provide justice for the plot to overturn the state’s electoral votes.“I understand for some of you today didn’t come fast enough, and I know I’ll be criticized by others for conducting this investigation at all,” she said. “I will not allow American democracy to be undermined – it’s too important.”Hugo Lowell and Sam Levine contributed reporting More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Voting equipment company Smartmatic settles defamation lawsuit with far-right network

      by

      The voting equipment company Smartmatic has agreed to settle a defamation lawsuit with the far-right One America News Network (OAN) over lies broadcast on the network about the 2020 election.Erik Connolly, a lawyer for Smartmatic, confirmed the case had been settled, but said the details were confidential. Attorneys for Smartmatic and OAN notified a federal judge in Washington on Tuesday that they were agreeing to dismiss the case, which Smartmatic filed in 2021.Smartmatic sued OAN in November 2021, saying the relatively small company was a victim of OAN’s “decision to increase its viewership and influence by spreading disinformation”. Smartmatic was only involved in the 2020 election in a single US county, Los Angeles, but OAN repeatedly broadcast false claims that its equipment had flipped the election for Biden. Trump allies Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell played a key role in advancing the outlandish claims.Defamation cases are difficult to win in the US, with plaintiffs having to clear a high bar of showing that defendants knew the information was false and published it anyway. The settlement comes months after OAN lawyers apparently accidentally turned over documents showing that the network had obtained a spreadsheet with Smartmatic employees’ passwords. It’s not clear if the passwords were authentic, but Smartmatic lawyers said in court filings that the network may have committed a crime.The settlement also means that internal documents from OAN showing how the network weighed and evaluated claims about the 2020 election will not become public. Before the voting equipment company Dominion reached a $787.5m settlement with Fox last year, those kinds of internal documents offered smoking gun evidence that key personnel at Fox knew election claims were false.The settlement is the latest development in a series of defamation cases that have sought to hold media outlets accountable for spreading false information about the 2020 election. In 2022, OAN settled a defamation case brought by Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, two Atlanta election workers it falsely claimed were involved in stealing the election. The network issued an on-air report saying there was “no widespread voter fraud” by Georgia election officials and clarifying that Freeman and Moss “did not engage in ballot fraud or criminal misconduct”.Smartmatic still has a pending $2.7bn defamation lawsuit against Fox.Earlier this month, a Delaware judge set a September trial date for Smartmatic’s defamation case against Newsmax. Both Smartmatic and Dominion also have ongoing defamation cases against Powell, Giuliani and Mike Lindell.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLegal scholars are carefully watching the cases to see whether defamation law can be an effective tool in curbing misinformation. More