Voter Fraud (Election Fraud)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      D.C. Bar Moves to Penalize Jeffrey Clark, Who Aided Trump in Election Plot

      by

      A D.C. Bar office filed a complaint against Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department official who worked to undo the results of the 2020 election.WASHINGTON — A disciplinary board is moving to penalize Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department official who worked to undo the results of the 2020 election, including the possibility of disbarment.A complaint filed this week by the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which governs lawyers in Washington, accused Mr. Clark of interfering in the administration of justice in his bid to keep President Donald J. Trump in power.The ethics complaint comes as the Justice Department’s watchdog and federal prosecutors are also scrutinizing Mr. Clark for his efforts to wield the department’s authority to falsely persuade election officials and the American public that Mr. Trump had won the presidential race.Mr. Clark “attempted to engage in conduct involving dishonesty” and “attempted to engage in conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice,” the complaint said.Once Mr. Clark receives the complaint, he has 20 days to respond to the accusations, according to a filing by the D.C. Bar. Mr. Clark and his lawyers can present evidence in his defense and cross-examine witnesses. Should he lose his case, the board could ultimately strip him of his law license.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 8Numerous inquiries. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Barry Morphew Pleads Guilty to Casting Missing Wife’s Ballot for Trump

      by

      Prosecutors in April dropped a first-degree murder charge against Barry Morphew, whose wife, Suzanne Morphew, disappeared in May 2020.The husband of a Colorado woman who has been missing for more than two years pleaded guilty on Thursday to casting her mail-in ballot for Donald J. Trump during the 2020 election, telling F.B.I. agents, “I figured all these other guys are cheating.”The man, Barry Morphew, 54, was given a sentence of one year of supervised probation but avoided jail time after pleading guilty to one count of forgery, a felony, in district court in Chaffee County, according to court records.The outcome in the voter fraud case marked the latest twist in the mystery of what happened to Suzanne Morphew, who disappeared in May 2020 after going for a bike ride near her home in Salida, Colo.The missing person’s case has generated national headlines. Prosecutors charged Mr. Morphew with first-degree murder last year, but then, in April, they dropped all charges against him related to her disappearance after a judge imposed sanctions on them for violating discovery rules. Mr. Morphew maintained his innocence as prosecutors accused him of killing his wife after learning that she had been involved in an extramarital affair.The body of Ms. Morphew, a mother of two who was 49 when she vanished, has not been found.About five months after she was reported missing, her mail-in ballot for the 2020 election arrived at the clerk’s office in Chaffee County, about 100 miles west of Colorado Springs, according to an arrest warrant.Election officials contacted the sheriff’s office, which took a photograph of the ballot and seized it as evidence. A space for the voter’s signature was blank, but Mr. Morphew wrote his name on a line for legal witnesses to sign ballots. The ballot was dated Oct. 15, 2020.When F.B.I. agents asked Mr. Morphew why he had returned his missing wife’s ballot, he told them, as detailed in the warrant, “Just because I wanted Trump to win.”Mr. Morphew told investigators that he didn’t know he was not authorized to cast a ballot for his wife.“I just thought, give him another vote,” he said, referring to Mr. Trump. “I figured all these other guys are cheating. I know she was going to vote for Trump anyway.”Iris Eytan, a lawyer for Mr. Morphew, said in an interview on Friday that her client had mistakenly assumed that when he became the legal guardian for his wife after her disappearance, it extended to voting.“He believed that because he could sign legal documents for her, that the ballot, similarly, was under his authority,” Ms. Eytan said. “So he was following her wishes. He did not sign her name. He signed his name on the witness line. So he didn’t, in any way, intend to deceive the clerk of the court.”Ms. Eytan said that instead of prosecuting Mr. Morphew for voter fraud, the authorities should be focused on the search for Ms. Morphew.“Barry’s life is shattered,” she said. “Her disappearance is not linked to him. He’s looked at and treated like a killer.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Giuliani Ordered to Testify in Georgia Criminal Investigation

      by

      After Rudolph W. Giuliani failed to show for a hearing in Manhattan, a Georgia judge ordered him to testify as part of an investigation into election interference in the state.A Georgia judge ordered Rudolph W. Giuliani to testify in Atlanta next month in an ongoing criminal investigation into election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his advisers and allies, according to court filings released on Wednesday.Some out-of-state witnesses in the case have gone to court to challenge subpoenas or other legal filings seeking to compel their testimony. But after Mr. Giuliani failed to show for a hearing last week in Manhattan, where the matter was to have been adjudicated, Judge Robert C. I. McBurney of the Superior Court of Fulton County ordered him to appear before a special grand jury in Atlanta on Aug. 9.Mr. Giuliani, who spearheaded efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power as his personal lawyer, has emerged as a central figure in the Georgia criminal investigation into efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s 2020 electoral loss in the state. Fani T. Willis, the prosecutor in Fulton County leading the investigation, has indicated that she is considering conspiracy or racketeering charges, which could take in a broad spectrum of people engaged in multiple efforts to sway the election results.Her office worked with the office of Alvin Bragg, the district attorney in Manhattan, to secure Mr. Giuliani’s testimony, and she said in a statement that she was “grateful to the prosecutors and investigators” in Mr. Bragg’s office for their assistance.Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.A special grand jury has been meeting regularly in Atlanta to hear testimony and review documents and videos that may shed light on the multipronged effort to put Georgia in Mr. Trump’s win column. Among the acts under consideration are an infamous postelection phone call that Mr. Trump made to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, asking to “find” enough votes to secure his victory.Mr. Giuliani appears to be of interest for a number of reasons, including his participation in a scheme to create slates of pro-Trump presidential electors in numerous states including Georgia. In court filings this week, it was revealed that all 16 pro-Trump electors in Georgia had been informed by the Fulton County District Attorney’s office that they could face charges.Mr. Giuliani also appeared in person before two Georgia state legislative committees in December 2020, where he spent hours peddling false conspiracy theories about secret suitcases of Democratic ballots and corrupted voting machines. He told state legislators, “You cannot possibly certify Georgia in good faith.”Legal experts have said the Georgia investigation may prove to be particularly perilous for Mr. Trump and his allies. Though the grand jury proceedings are secret, a number of details have emerged in recent days that hint at the scope of the investigation. Among the pro-Trump electors who learned they could be indicted are David Shafer, the chair of the state Republican Party, and State Senator Burt Jones, the party’s nominee for lieutenant governor. Another Republican state senator, Brandon Beach, was also informed that he is a potential target.Prosecutors are seeking testimony from Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Trump ally who also called Mr. Raffensperger, and Representative Jody Hice, a hard-right Georgia Republican who has embraced false narratives about election fraud in Georgia and who helped lead efforts in Congress to help keep Mr. Trump in power.William K. Rashbaum More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Lawyer William Olson Pitched Trump on a 2020 Election Plot

      by

      The role of William J. Olson in advising the president in late 2020, which has not previously been disclosed, shows how fringe figures were influencing him at a critical time.Around 5 in the afternoon on Christmas Day in 2020, as many Americans were celebrating with family, President Donald J. Trump was at his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Fla., on the phone with a little-known conservative lawyer who was encouraging his attempts to overturn the election, according to a memo the lawyer later wrote documenting the call.The lawyer, William J. Olson, was promoting several extreme ideas to the president that Mr. Olson later conceded could be regarded as tantamount to declaring “martial law” and could even invite comparisons with Watergate. They included tampering with the Justice Department and firing the acting attorney general, according to the Dec. 28 memo by Mr. Olson, titled “Preserving Constitutional Order,” describing their discussions.“Our little band of lawyers is working on a memorandum that explains exactly what you can do,” Mr. Olson wrote in his memo, obtained by The New York Times, which he marked “privileged and confidential” and sent to the president. “The media will call this martial law,” he wrote, adding that “that is ‘fake news.’”The document highlights the previously unreported role of Mr. Olson in advising Mr. Trump as the president was increasingly turning to extreme, far-right figures outside the White House to pursue options that many of his official advisers had told him were impossible or unlawful, in an effort to cling to power.The involvement of a person like Mr. Olson, who now represents the conspiracy theorist and MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell, underscores how the system that would normally insulate a president from rogue actors operating outside of official channels had broken down within weeks after the 2020 election.Read William J. Olson’s Memo to TrumpA memorandum sent in December 2020 to President Donald J. Trump by the right-wing lawyer William J. Olson on how to seek to overturn the election.Read DocumentThat left Mr. Trump in direct contact with people who promoted conspiracy theories or questionable legal ideas, telling him not only what he wanted to hear, but also that they — not the public servants advising him — were the only ones he could trust.“In our long conversation earlier this week, I could hear the shameful and dismissive attitude of the lawyer from White House Counsel’s Office toward you personally — but more importantly toward the Office of the President of the United States itself,” Mr. Olson wrote to Mr. Trump. “This is unacceptable.”The memo was written 10 days after one of the most dramatic meetings ever held in the Trump White House, during which three of the president’s White House advisers vied — at one point almost physically — with outside actors to influence Mr. Trump. In that meeting, the lawyer Sidney Powell and Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, pushed for Mr. Trump to seize voting machines and appoint Ms. Powell special counsel to investigate wild and groundless claims of voter fraud, even as White House lawyers fought back.But the memo suggests that, even after his aides had won that skirmish in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump continued to seek extreme legal advice that ran counter to the recommendations of the Justice Department and the counsel’s office.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 8Making a case against Trump. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Prosecutor Warns Georgia Officials They May Face Charges in Trump Inquiry

      by

      The investigation could prove to be one of the most perilous legal problems facing the former president and his allies.ATLANTA — The breadth, speed and seriousness of the criminal investigation into election meddling by former President Donald J. Trump and his associates in Georgia were underscored on Friday by the revelation that two pro-Trump state senators and the chair of the state Republican Party were sent letters by an Atlanta prosecutor informing them they could be indicted, according to a person familiar with the inquiry.The Fulton County prosecutor, Fani T. Willis, is also weighing whether to subpoena Mr. Trump himself and seek his testimony before a grand jury, just days after she subpoenaed seven of his advisers, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, in an investigation into efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia. The special grand jury is looking into a range of potentially criminal acts, including the selection of a slate of pro-Trump electors in the weeks after the election and Mr. Trump’s now-famous call to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, asking him to “find” nearly 12,000 votes that would reverse his loss there.The letters to David Shafer, the Georgia Republican Party chair, and State Senators Burt Jones and Brandon Beach were first reported by Yahoo News. Neither the men nor their lawyers could be reached for comment on Friday.The potential exposure of the Republican officials could have serious ramifications in Georgia’s November elections, where Mr. Jones is the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor. On Friday, his Democratic opponent, Charlie Bailey, released a statement accusing Mr. Jones of being “anti-American and unpatriotic” for taking part in a “failed attempted overthrow of the American government.”Mr. Shafer’s fealty to Mr. Trump and his baseless claims of a stolen election have put him at odds with Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, as well as Mr. Raffensperger, creating an unusual schism within the state Republican Party. Both Mr. Kemp and Mr. Raffensperger easily defeated Trump-backed primary challengers this year.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 8Numerous inquiries. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Issues Arrest Warrant for Tina Peters in Colorado

      by

      A judge in Colorado issued an arrest warrant on Thursday for Tina Peters, the Mesa County clerk who is under indictment in relation to a breach of election equipment after the 2020 presidential contest, for violating conditions of her bond that prevented her from traveling without court approval.The judge, Matthew D. Barrett of Colorado’s 21st Judicial District, also revoked her $25,000 cash bond and called for her to be held in jail pending a hearing.Ms. Peters traveled to Las Vegas this week to speak at an event hosted by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, a conservative group of county sheriffs and their allies. According to court documents, she did not obtain permission from the judge to travel outside Colorado.Ms. Peters had been deemed a flight risk and was ordered to remain in the state after she was indicted in March on criminal charges, including seven felonies, that stemmed from a scheme to copy sensitive election software from county voting machines in an effort to prove that the 2020 presidential election was tainted by fraud.But because she was running for the Republican nomination for Colorado secretary of state, Ms. Peters was given permission to travel outside the state for political purposes, as long as she notified the court of her plans.She lost her primary bid last month, and on Monday, Judge Barrett ruled that she would again need the court’s approval before traveling out of state. Ms. Peters has continued to claim, without evidence, that her election loss was the result of fraud. In a sign that Ms. Peters had not yet left for Las Vegas when the Monday order arrived, Daniel P. Rubinstein, the Mesa County district attorney, said in a court filing that Ms. Peters was at the Mesa County Detention Facility that day, “nearly five hours after the court restricted any out-of-state travel.”On Thursday afternoon, Harvey A. Steinberg, a lawyer representing Ms. Peters, filed a motion to quash the arrest warrant, arguing that she had told his office of her intent to travel and that his office had not filed the necessary notice with the court, meaning that Ms. Peters did not know the court was unaware of her travel. “Ms. Peters has not knowingly violated bond conditions,” Mr. Steinberg wrote.Ms. Peters did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was not clear if she was still in Las Vegas.During her speech in Las Vegas, Ms. Peters claimed that Representative Lauren Boebert, a Republican who is also from western Colorado, had dinner with multiple people who helped carry out the plot to copy election data.Benjamin Stout, the communications director for Ms. Boebert, said on Thursday that Ms. Peters’s “claims are untrue.”Ms. Peters had previously told The New York Times that Ms. Boebert “encouraged” her to carry through with the operation. Ms. Boebert’s campaign denied those allegations.One of Ms. Peters’s top aides, Sandra Brown, turned herself in on Monday after being indicted over her role in the alleged scheme to extract data from county election machines. Ms. Brown, who was the county’s election manager, faces several felony charges, including conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and attempting to influence a public servant. Her arrest was earlier reported by The Daily Sentinel.Court records suggest that Ms. Brown was involved in the alleged plot from the very beginning. On April 23, Ms. Peters, Ms. Brown, another aide and Sherronna Bishop, a former campaign manager for Ms. Boebert, met with Douglas Frank, a high school math and science teacher in Ohio whose debunked theories have been influential among election conspiracists, according to records.Court documents cite a recorded conversation in which Ms. Peters asked Mr. Frank if he could open the machines, but he said it was against the law based on county contracts. Ms. Bishop then suggested using a routine software procedure known as a “trusted build” to get inside the machines, according to the documents.Ms. Bishop has not been charged with any wrongdoing. She did not immediately respond to a request for comment.In all, three officials in Ms. Peters’s office face criminal charges related to the scheme; Belinda Knisley, Ms. Peters’s deputy, was indicted in March on six charges. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump: A Brat, but Not a Child

      by

      “President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child. Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices.”Those were the words of Representative Liz Cheney on Tuesday in her opening statement at the Jan. 6 House select committee’s seventh hearing, as she swatted away what she said was a new strategy among Donald Trump’s defenders: claiming that he was manipulated by outside advisers and therefore “incapable of telling right from wrong.”Basically, Trump lied about the election because he was lied to about the election.But, as Cheney pointed out, Trump actively chose the counsel of “the crazies” over that of authorities, and therefore cannot, or at least should not, “escape responsibility by being willfully blind.”Willful blindness is a self-imposed ignorance, but as Thomas Jefferson put it: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse, in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect because it can always be pretended.”If Trump is a pro at anything, it is pretending. He is a brat, but he’s not a child.Cheney’s argument immediately recalled for me the case of Pamela Moses, a Black woman and activist in Memphis.In 2019, Moses wanted to register to vote. A judge told her that she couldn’t because she was still on felony probation.So Moses turned to another, lower authority — a probation officer — for a second opinion. The probation officer calculated (incorrectly, as it turns out) that her probation had ended and signed a certificate to that effect. Moses submitted the certificate with her voter registration form.The local district attorney later pressed criminal charges against Moses, arguing that she should have known she was ineligible to vote because the judge, the person with the most authority in the equation, had told her so.Moses was convicted of voter fraud and sentenced to six years and a day in prison, with the judge saying, “You tricked the probation department into giving you documents saying you were off probation.”How is this materially different from what Trump did as he attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election? All the authorities — Bill Barr, head of the Department of Justice; White House lawyers; and state election officials — told him he had lost the election, but he sought other opinions, ones that confirmed his own view.This is not to say that the prosecution and conviction of Moses were justified, but rather to illustrate that we live in two different criminal justice realities: People without power, particularly minorities and those unable to pay expensive lawyers, are trapped in a ruthless and unyielding system, while the rich and powerful encounter an entirely different system, one cautious to the point of cowardice.Earlier this year, Moses’ conviction was thrown out because a judge ruled that the Tennessee Department of Correction had withheld evidence, and the prosecutor dropped all criminal charges against her.Still, by the time the ordeal was over, Moses had spent 82 days in custody, time she couldn’t get back, and she is now permanently barred from registering to vote or voting in the state.This is the least of the consequences Trump ought to face: He should be prohibited from participating in the electoral process henceforth.Some of the laws Trump may have broken in his crusade to overturn the election — like conspiracy to defraud the government — are more complicated than an illegal voter registration, but that is par for the course in a system that tilts in favor of the rich and powerful. Petty crime is always easier to prosecute than white-collar crime.This is a country in which the Internal Revenue Service audits poor families — households with less than $25,000 in annual income — at a rate five times higher than it audits everybody else, a Syracuse University analysis found.The way we target people for punishment in this country is rarely about a pursuit of justice and fairness; it simply reflects the reality that the vise squeezes hardest at the points of least resistance.The fact that Trump has thus far faced few legal repercussions for his many transgressions eats away at people’s faith.I believe this has contributed to our cratering confidence in American institutions, as measured by a recent Gallup poll. There are many factors undermining the faith Americans once had in their institutions, to be sure, but I believe a justice system rife with injustice is one of the main ones. In the poll, only 4 percent of Americans had a great deal of confidence in the criminal justice system.The only institution that did worse on that metric was Congress, with just 2 percent.We have a criminal justice crisis in this country, and people are portraying Trump’s behavior like that of a child in hopes of keeping him from facing consequences in a country that jails actual children.According to the Child Crime Prevention and Safety Center, “Approximately 10,000 minors under the age of 18 are housed in jails and prisons intended for adult offenders, and juveniles make up 1,200 of the 1.5 million people imprisoned in state and federal detention facilities.”There is no excuse for what Trump has done, and if he is not held accountable for it, even more faith in the United States as a “country of laws” will be lost.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      What Happened on Dec. 18 at ‘the Craziest Meeting of the Trump Presidency’?

      by

      Digging into the aftermath of the 2020 election, members of the Jan. 6 committee on Tuesday focused on a meeting between former President Donald J. Trump and outside advisers that devolved into what they described as a chaotic confrontation over a desperate attempt to overturn the election.Drawing from testimony from former Attorney General William P. Barr and others, the committee described in detail a hastily organized meeting in which advisers proposed an executive order to have the military seize voting machines in crucial states Mr. Trump had lost.“On Friday, Dec. 18, his team of outside advisers paid him a surprise visit in the White House that would quickly become the stuff of legend,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. “The meeting has been called unhinged, not normal, and the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency.”According to the panel, in the weeks before the meeting in December, several of Mr. Trump’s advisers including Mr. Barr and Pat Cipollone, the former White House counsel, had publicly and privately dismissed the possibility of wide-scale voter fraud, and urged Mr. Trump to concede. Mr. Barr made a public announcement on Dec. 1 to affirm that he had not found significant evidence of fraud.Just four days before the meeting, on Dec. 14, the Electoral College met to certify the election results, which in a taped interview Mr. Barr told the committee “should have been the end of the matter.”But on the evening of Dec. 18, several of Mr. Trump’s outside advisers, including Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, came to Mr. Trump to urge him to consider the plan to seize voting machines.As the meeting grew heated, Mr. Cipollone told the committee that other plans were discussed, including to grant Ms. Powell a security clearance and name her special counsel, putting her in charge of Mr. Trump’s legal effort to contest the election results.The meeting lasted hours, moving from the Oval Office to other areas of the West Wing before ending in the presidential residence, according to the committee. And arguments broke out throughout the evening, including “challenges to physically fight,” Mr. Raskin said.In a taped interview presented on Tuesday, Derek Lyons, a former White House staff secretary, said, “At times, there were people shouting at each other, hurling insults at each other — it wasn’t just sort of people sitting around on a couch like chit-chatting.”The panel showed evidence suggesting that the meeting ended around midnight, without agreement among participants on how to proceed.But committee members used the hearing on Tuesday to suggest that as Mr. Trump apparently grew frustrated with the lack of options to contest the election results during the meeting in December, it was in that moment that he turned to his supporters, encouraging them to come to Washington on Jan 6.Just over an hour after the meeting was said to have ended, Mr. Trump tweeted at 1:42 a.m. on Dec. 19 that it was “statistically impossible” for him to have lost the election. In the tweet, he also urged supporters to gather in Washington to demonstrate, drawing dozens of responses from people sharing plans to occupy the Capitol building and photos of weapons they said they planned to bring.“Be there, will be wild,” the tweet said. More