Proof Of Trump's Attempted Coup

[Bradley K. Sherman]

| ...
| The scheme put forward by controversial lawyer John Eastman
| was outlined in a two-page memo obtained by the authors for
| "Peril," and which was subsequently obtained by CNN. The
| memo, which has not previously been made public, provides
| new detail showing how Trump and his team tried to persuade
| Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the
| election results on January 6.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/politics/trump-pence-election-memo/index.html>

--bks

[Jonathan]

Remember election night when Trump demanded the voting
be stopped before the mail in ballots could be counted?


At the 8:15 mark of the video...

"We'll be going to the Supreme Court, we want
all voting to stop, we don't want anyone to
find any ballots at 4 in the morning and
add them to the list"

"As far as I'm concerned we already won"

~ Trump

Trump claims victory in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan
and Wisconsin even though the votes are some
2/3rds counted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9d6j2uO6MI&ab_channel=CNBCTelevision





Even though EVERYONE knew the heavily democratic
mail-in ballots were COUNTED LAST, Trump tries
to stop the election mid stream so the mail-in
ballots can't be counted.

And the Packers were ahead at half time, so
that means they won. What a dolt.








--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

[Obama is a failure]

On 20 Sep 2021, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) posted some
news:sib0uu$hjc$1...@panix3.panix.com:

> | ...
> | The scheme put forward by

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat party, aided and abetted by communist
Chinese BIO WARFARE, i.e, COVID.

[David Hartung]

This is not an attempted coup, it was one opinion on the legality of
some of the votes.

[Jonathan]

Our justice system is slow, but it plods along.

Sooner or later one of these investigations
will bury the Liar and Cheat in Chief Trump.

Sorry for taking up so much bandwidth...



Key Takeaways

1. E. Jean Carroll Defamation and Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation

Carroll is suing Trump for defamation after he publicly accused her of
fabricating a rape allegation against him. The parties are currently
involved in an appeal before the Second Circuit, where Trump (and so
far, the Justice Department as well) is arguing that he had official
immunity from Carroll’s defamation claim under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA).

2. Summer Zervos Defamation Suit

Summer Zervos, a former contestant on the Apprentice, has filed a civil
suit against former President Trump for defamation after he claimed her
allegations of his inappropriate sexual conduct were lies designed to
help the Clinton campaign and improve her fame. The case is currently at
the New York Court of Appeals, the highest New York state court.

Update: On Mar. 30, the New York Court of Appeals denied Trump’s appeal
on his motion to dismiss the case. Trump originally filed the motion
claiming that a state court could not hear a suit against a sitting
president. The court stated that the issues were now moot, and the case
can now go forward.

3. Mary Trump Fraud Litigation

Mary Trump is suing Donald Trump for defrauding her out of millions of
dollars in an inheritance dispute. The suit is pending in New York state
court, where the parties are currently battling over former President
Trump’s move to dismiss the case.

4. Panama Hotel Fraud and Tax Litigation

Ithaca Capital is suing Trump’s hotel management company for fraud in
federal court. Primarily, Ithaca claims that Trump representatives
exaggerated the value of a Panama hotel during Ithaca’s negotiations to
purchase it.

5. Doe v. The Trump Corporation Class Action

A group of anonymous plaintiffs have filed a class action against the
Trump family and their business, alleging that the Trumps used their
brand to scam investors into paying for worthless business
opportunities. The district court denied the Trumps’ bid to force the
case into arbitration, and the Trumps are now appealing.

6. DC Civil Suit over Misuse of 2017 Inauguration Funds

In a non-criminal suit, the DC Attorney General is suing several
Trump-affiliated entities for misusing inauguration funds to enrich
Trump’s family business. The suit is currently in discovery before DC’s
local court, where the AG’s office is deposing key Trump executives,
notably including his children.

7. Reps. Karen Bass et al. Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack

Ten members of the House of Representatives, represented by the NAACP,
are suing Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and two right wing militia groups for
conspiring to forcibly prevent Congress from counting the Electoral
College votes on Jan. 6.

8. Eric Swalwell Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

On Mar. 5, 2021, Representative Eric Swalwell sued Donald Trump, Rudy
Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr., and Congressman Mo Brooks in federal court
over the Jan. 6 riots. Swalwell alleges that the defendants violated
federal civil rights laws–including the Ku Klux Klan Act–when they
conspired to interfere with the Electoral College Count on Jan 6. Beyond
that, Swalwell also says the defendants should be held liable for
negligently violating DC criminal codes on incitement, encouraging the
rioters’ violent conduct, and intentionally inflicting emotional
distress on members of Congress.

9. Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

Two Capitol Police officers–both on duty during the Jan. 6
insurrection–sued Donald Trump for injuries they sustained while
protecting the Capitol. Both allege that the rioters physically attacked
them with fists, chemical spray, and other weapons. They allege that the
former president, by his incendiary words and conduct, directed the
physical attack and emotional distress.

10. Second Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

A second group of Capitol Police officers filed suit against Trump, the
Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other affiliates involved in allegedly
planning and executing the Jan. 6 riots. The seven officers claim that
they were physically and emotionally injured by attackers that Trump
instigated, and that Trump and his co-defendants conspired to disrupt
congressional business in the certification of electoral votes.

11. NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Voting Rights Case for Post-Election Actions

The LDF is suing Trump, the Trump Campaign, and the RNC for their
efforts to overturn the 2020 election in violation of the Voting Rights
Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act. While the litigation is still at its early
stages, Trump faces damages and a declaratory judgment that he did
indeed violate these provisions of the law.

12. New York Attorney General’s Civil and Criminal Investigations

Since Mar. 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James has been
investigating allegations that the Trump Organization altered property
values to avoid tax liabilities. The investigation began after Trump’s
former attorney Michael Cohen provided congressional testimony that
Trump engaged in fraud. In Oct. 2020, James’s office deposed Eric Trump,
and in Jan. 2021 a state court judge ruled that Trump’s tax attorneys
must turn over thousands of documents.

Update: On May 18, 2021, a spokesperson for New York’s Attorney General
said, “We have informed the Trump Organization that our investigation
into the organization is no longer purely civil in nature. We are now
actively investigating the Trump Organizations in a criminal capacity,
along with the Manhattan DA.”

13. Scotland Unexplained Wealth Orders

The Scottish Parliament voted to reject calls from the opposition party,
the Scottish Greens, to investigate the Trump Organization’s golf
courses through an Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO). UWOs are a mechanism
designed to prevent suspected corrupt foreign officials from laundering
potentially stolen funds into the UK. They require an individual or
organization to reveal the sources of their unexplained wealth and,
while they do not automatically trigger criminal proceedings, they can
result at least in confiscation of assets.

On Aug. 11, 2021, Lord Sandison of the Scottish Court of Session ruled
the petition seeking “judicial review of the approach of the Scottish
ministers in determining whether to apply to the court for UWOs” should
“proceed without condition or restriction.” He ruled that their case has
“real prospects of success.” Scotland’s High Court will likely hear the
case later this year.

14. Criminal Investigations into Trump’s Finances

During his presidency, the Manhattan District Attorney investigated
Trump’s finances. Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance recently gained access to
Trump’s tax information in the course of a criminal investigation into
potential tax crimes, insurance fraud, and other financial crimes under
state law. Criminal charges have not been filed.

Update-1: New reporting on Mar. 1 revealed that Vance’s investigation
has focused on Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen
Weisselberg, whose potential cooperation with prosecutors could be a
significant breakthrough in the investigation. On Mar. 31, the New York
Times reported that prosecutors have subpoenaed Mr. Weisselberg’s
personal bank records, and on Apr. 8, investigators took possession of
financial records from Weisselberg’s daughter-in-law.

Update-2: New reporting on Mar. 8 revealed that Vance’s probe has
expanded to include an investigation of a loan the Trump Organization
received to build its Chicago tower, and whether the forgiveness of that
loan was reported as income.

Update-3: Vance has convened a special grand jury that is “expected to
decide whether to indict former president Donald Trump, other executives
at his company or the business itself should prosecutors present the
panel with criminal charges,” the Washington Post reported on May 25,
2021. “The move indicates that District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.’s
investigation of the former president and his business has reached an
advanced stage …. It suggests, too, that Vance believes he has found
evidence of a crime — if not by Trump then by someone potentially close
to him or by his company.”

Update-4: On Jun. 4, ABC News and the New York Times report that Trump
Organization senior vice president and controller, Jeff McConney is
among a number of witnesses to have already appeared before the special
grand jury. He is reportedly the first employee of the company called to
testify.

Update-5: The DA charged the Trump Organization and its chief financial
officer Weisselberg on Thursday, July 1 for an alleged 15-year-long tax
fraud scheme. The indictment includes reference to an “unindicted
coconspirator,” who is Jeff McConney, the Trump Organization’s
controller, a person familiar with the investigation told CNN.

15. DC AG Incitement Criminal Investigation

The DC Attorney General, Karl Racine, has announced a criminal
investigation into Trump’s alleged role in provoking the Jan. 6th riots.
No charges have been filed, though Racine’s office is reportedly looking
into a local DC code that makes it a misdemeanor to incite violence.

16. Fulton County, Georgia Criminal Election Influence Investigation

The Fulton County DA’s Office has opened a criminal investigation into
attempted election interference by Trump. The DA’s Office has requested
that all official and unofficial emails concerning the election be
preserved and has reportedly also planned to look into a call between
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
as part of the investigation as well as Rudy Giuliani’s potential false
statements to Georgia officials.

Update-1: Officials are reportedly expected to seek a grand jury
subpoena the week of March 1, 2021 for documents and witnesses connected
to the investigation.

Update-2: On Mar. 11, a recording of a call between then-President Trump
and the chief investigator of the Georgia Secretary of State’s office,
Frances Watson, was released by the Wall Street Journal. On the call,
Trump urged Watson to look for fraud in mail-in ballots. The Fulton
County DA’s Office has said that they will request a copy of the phone
call.

Update-3: As of Mar. 28, there are reportedly two grand juries
considering subpoenas for documents relevant to the investigation.

CIVIL CASES

1. E. Jean Carroll Defamation Suit
Carroll v. Trump, No. 20-cv-07311, 2020 WL 6277814 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27,
2020), appeal docketed, No. 20-03977 (2d Cir. Nov. 25, 2020)

Plaintiff: E. Jean Carroll, a journalist and advice columnist

Case Summary: In 2019, Carroll publicly accused then-President Trump of
sexually assaulting her in a New York City department store in the
1990s. A few hours later, Trump denied Carroll’s allegation and accused
her of fabricating the story to drum up publicity for her upcoming book.
Carroll then sued Trump for defamation in New York state court, alleging
that Trump defamed her when he publicly accused her of falsifying the
assault story.

After nearly a year of state court proceedings–and with Carroll’s
counsel angling to sample Trump’s DNA–the Justice Department moved to
intervene on Trump’s behalf under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
This move threatened to quash the suit. In effect, the FTCA (as amended
by the Westfall Act) provides blanket immunity to federal employees who
commit certain torts–including defamation–arising out of their official
duties. According to the DOJ, the president’s official duties include
speaking to the press about public matters–which would mean that Trump
had immunity from any defamatory statements he made about Carroll.

The DOJ’s intervention also derailed the state court proceedings:
because FTCA claims must be litigated in federal court, Carroll’s suit
was automatically removed to the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
In federal court, Carroll argued that Trump’s statements were not
protected by the FTCA. In short, Carroll contended that (i) Trump was
not covered by the FTCA because the president is not an “employee”; and
(ii) Trump’s statements about Carroll fell outside of his official
presidential duties.

On both counts, the court agreed. Though removal was irreversible, the
court held that the FTCA did not cover Trump’s actions, so Carroll’s
defamation suit could proceed against Trump in his personal capacity.
Acting separately, the DOJ and Trump both appealed. Trump also requested
the court stay the district court proceedings until that appeal is
resolved.

Case Status: In the SDNY proceedings, the parties filed opposing
memoranda on Trump’s motion to stay in Dec. 2020.

At the Second Circuit, the DOJ and Trump filed separate opening briefs
on Jan. 15, 2021. Carroll’s attorneys then requested an Apr. 16, 2021
due date for their brief. Notably, her counsel explicitly selected that
date so the Biden DOJ would have time to reassess the Trump
administration’s position that Trump was acting within the scope of his
employment when he allegedly defamed Carroll. The Second Circuit granted
that scheduling request.

Update: Carroll filed her brief on Apr. 16, 2021, urging the appeals
court to uphold the decision below.

Update: Despite the change in administration, the Biden DOJ filed a
reply brief on June 7, 2021, that backed Trump’s argument that the FTCA
covered his conduct. It echoed the core arguments from the Trump DOJ’s
opening brief that the president is an “employee” under the FTCA and
that elected officials act within the scope of their employment when
they respond to media inquiries.

Update: On Sept. 15, 2021, the district court denied Trump’s motion to
stay (i.e., halt) the proceedings while the case is on appeal before the
Second Circuit.

2. Summer Zervos Defamation Suit
Zervos vs. Trump, No. 150522/2017 (N.Y. Sup Ct. Jan. 17, 2017), appeal
docketed, No. APL-2020-00009 (N.Y. Mar. 9, 2020)

Plaintiff: Summer Zervos, former contestant on the Apprentice

Case Summary: On Jan. 17, 2017, Zervos filed a suit in New York State
Court against Trump for defamation. During Trump’s campaign, many women,
including Zervos, accused Trump of inappropriate sexual conduct. In her
complaint against Trump, Zervos claims that in 2007, while she sought
employment from Trump, he kissed her on the lips and touched her
inappropriately. After she rejected his advances, his attitude became
very business-like and he later offered her a job for half the salary
she was seeking. She attempted to contact Trump, noting that she felt
she was being “penalized for not sleeping with him.” Trump said he could
not discuss it with her at the time. Zervos says she decided to come
forward with these allegations after the Billy Bush Access Hollywood
Tape showed Trump speaking in a derogatory manner toward women. In
response to her allegations, Trump claims she was lying and was only
making these accusations to help the Clinton campaign or to get fame.

Zervos alleges that, as a result of Trump’s claims, she has suffered
both emotional and financial harm.

Case Status: Trump filed a motion to dismiss and a stay for the duration
of his presidency. On Oct. 3, 2018, the court denied Trump’s motion,
finding that, if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true, she has a
reasonable claim to recover for defamation. The court also found that
there were no federalism or comity concerns that would suggest that a
state court could not hear suit against the sitting president for
nonofficial acts. A panel of New York appellate judges affirmed this
judgment in Oct. 2019, finding that the president is “not above the law”
and that the defamation suit can go forward.

This motion has been appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the
highest New York state court.

Pending the decision from the New York Court of Appeals, in Mar. 2020,
the court ruled that Zervos cannot “dig for evidence” in the interim. In
2021, with Trump out of office, Zervos has filed a motion to move the
lawsuit forward.

Update: On Mar. 30, the New York Court of Appeals denied Trump’s appeal
on his motion to dismiss the case. Trump originally filed the motion
claiming that a state court could not hear a suit against a sitting
president. The court stated, in a one-sentence order, that issues were
now moot, and the case can now go forward.

3. Mary Trump Fraud Litigation
Trump v. Trump, No. 654698/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Sept. 24, 2020)

Plaintiff: Mary Trump, the former president’s niece

Case Summary: In Sept. 2020, Mary Trump sued Donald Trump, her uncle,
for allegedly defrauding her out of tens of millions of dollars. When
Mary’s father–Donald Trump’s brother–died in 1981, he left Mary a
valuable stake in the Trump property empire. Mary was a minor at the
time, so Donald Trump and his siblings took control of her share,
ostensibly to look after Mary’s interest over the long run.

But according to Mary, that didn’t happen. In her lawsuit, she alleges
that the Trump siblings siphoned off revenue from her share and set up
an ongoing scheme to artificially devalue her assets. This went on for
nearly two decades. Then, when Trump patriarch Fred Sr. (Donald Trump’s
father) died in 1999, Mary took issue with the terms of his will. The
Trump siblings immediately pushed back and started maneuvering to force
Mary out of the family holdings altogether. After lengthy probate
proceedings, and with Mary’s legal fees steadily climbing, the siblings
delivered an ultimatum: they would not settle the probate case unless
Mary relinquished all interests in the family fortune, including those
from her late father.

According to Mary, the Trumps offered a settlement figure that woefully
undervalued her share of the family holdings. Still, she ultimately
accepted a settlement in Apr. 2001, apparently still unaware she was
being sold short.

Then, over fifteen years later, the New York Times broke its 2018 story
that the Trump Organization had long been fraudulently manipulating the
values of its assets. From there, Mary says she realized that she had
settled for tens of millions of dollars less than what her stake was
actually worth.

Two years later, Mary published a book accusing the Trumps of shorting
her out of her rightful share. She then filed this lawsuit in New York
state court on Sept. 24, 2020, accusing Donald Trump and his siblings of
fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Case Status: Trump moved to dismiss the case on Jan. 4, 2021. Mary filed
a response on Feb. 26, 2021. As of September 2021, the court has not yet
ruled on the motion.

4. Panama Hotel Fraud and Tax Litigation
Ithaca Cap. Invs. v. Trump Pan. Hotel Mgmt., No. 18-cv-00390 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 30, 2020)

Plaintiff: Ithaca Capital, a real estate holding company that purchased
a majority of the Trump International Hotel in Panama

Case Summary: Donald Trump’s private hotel business–Trump International
Hotels Management–is embroiled in federal litigation over a hotel
management deal gone bad. Until 2018, Trump International operated a
luxury hotel in Panama. As was its standard business practice, Trump
International contracted with a separate owner to provide management
services and use of the “Trump” label. When a prior owner went bankrupt
in 2015, Ithaca Capital moved to purchase a majority of the hotel’s
units. But per Ithaca, Trump representatives made a series of fraudulent
claims that oversold the hotel’s profitability. Unaware, Ithaca went
ahead with the purchase.

The hotel soon ran into financial trouble, and the relationship between
the two parties collapsed. Once Ithaca ended the partnership, it claims
to have discovered that Trump International had allegedly underreported
costs, diverted hotel revenue, and failed to pay income taxes.

After a brief round of arbitration proceedings, Ithaca sued Trump
International in the Southern District of New York. Ithaca made several
claims against Trump. First, Ithaca argued that Trump
representatives–including Eric and Donald Jr.–made exaggerated claims
about the hotel’s value. Second, they argued that Trump International
breached their agreement by mismanaging the hotel. And third, Ithaca
asserted that Trump International improperly diverted hotel revenues for
their own use.

Case Status: Trump International challenged each of Ithaca’s claims and
asserted several counterclaims of its own. On Mar. 30, 2020, the
district court upheld all three of Ithaca’s claims and dismissed all but
one of Trump’s counterclaims. Trumps’ remaining counterclaim–for
tortious interference–alleges that Ithaca interfered with Trump’s other
hotel contracts when Ithaca forced him out of their partnership.

The parties are currently in discovery and are due to finish by Fall
2021.

5. Doe v. The Trump Corporation Class Action
Doe v. Trump Corp., No. 18-cv-09936 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 29, 2018), appeal
docketed, No. 20-01706 (2d Cir. May 28, 2020)

Plaintiffs: (Anonymous) Jane Doe, Luke Loe, Mary Moe, Richard Roe

Case Summary: On Oct. 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Trump Corporation, Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and
Eric Trump. The complaint alleges that the defendants used their brand
name to defraud thousands of working class individuals by promoting
numerous businesses in exchange for “secret payments.” The companies
include ACN Opportunity, LLC (a business based on a controversial
multi-level marketing scheme), the Trump Network, LLC (another
multi-level marketing scheme), and Business Strategies Group, LLC (a
seminar claiming to sell the Trump secrets to success). The lawsuit also
claims that the defendants are liable for a “pattern of racketeering
activity” violating the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act) as well as activity violating numerous state consumer
protection laws concerning fair business practices and competition.

On July 24, 2019, the District Court judge partially granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed the RICO claims
because the Complaint did not “sufficiently plead that Defendants’
conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ losses.” However, she
ruled that the other claims concerning the state laws will not be
dismissed under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Case Status: The Trumps’ moved to compel forced arbitration and the
district court judge denied the motion in Apr. 2020. The court held that
the defendants were not party to the arbitration agreement (between ACN
and the plaintiffs) and thus, could not compel arbitration. She also
found that the motion to compel arbitration was in bad faith as they are
acting in a manner that is “substantively prejudicial towards the
plaintiffs” and not within the spirit of the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA). The Trumps have filed an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit.

Following the denial of compelled arbitration, the Trumps also filed a
motion to stay, or a motion to halt the legal process. The district
court denied this motion, citing the four traditional factors that must
be balanced when granting a stay and finding that the defendants have
not met the requirements to grant a stay.

6. DC Civil Suit over Misuse of 2017 Inauguration Funds
District of Columbia v. 58th Presidential Inauguration Comm., No.
2020-CA-00488-B (D.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 9, 2020)

Prosecuting Office: DC Attorney General (AG)

Case Summary: In the run-up to Trump’s 2017 swearing-in, his inaugural
committee raised a record $107 million to spend on inauguration
festivities. As a nonprofit, the inaugural committee was bound to use
these charitable funds for the public good, namely by organizing events
to celebrate the 2017 presidential inauguration.

But as the DC AG alleges, the inaugural committee used over $1 million
of those funds in an improper bid to enrich the Trump family’s private
businesses. DC’s attorneys are now suing the inaugural committee, the
Trump International Hotel, and the Trump Organization over that alleged
misspending. Chief among the allegations, the DC AG claims that the
committee paid exorbitant rates to rent space in the Trump International
Hotel in downtown DC. The committee, for instance, allegedly paid
$175,000 to rent the main ballroom on the same day that another
nonprofit paid only $5,000–a rate 35 times higher. On top of that, the
committee allegedly ignored much better deals available at other upscale
locations, settling instead on overpaying for space at the Trump location.

The DC AG frames these payments as an under-the-table attempt to divert
charitable funds to the Trumps’ private holdings. The complaint focuses
on possible misconduct by committee executive Rick Gates, who also held
key roles in the Trump campaign. (Gates would later cooperate with the
Mueller investigation.) To tie in the Trump entities, the complaint
asserts that the Trump businesses knew it was overcharging the
non-profit committee, and points to internal negotiations between the
parties that allegedly show both sides were aware of the extreme rates.
The DC AG is asking the court to compel the Trump business to put the
misspent funds into a trust where they can be put toward charitable
purposes.

Case Status: The defendants–the committee itself along with the two
Trump businesses–moved to dismiss the suit, but the district court
denied that motion in Sept. 2020. On Jan. 11, 2021, the DC AG added a
new allegation that the committee improperly used its nonprofit funds to
pay a hotel bill on behalf of Trump’s private business. The suit is
currently in discovery, and the AG’s office has already deposed several
high-level Trump executives, including Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

Update: The DC AG moved for summary judgment on Mar. 24, 2021. All three
defendants responded by filing their own motions for summary judgment on
Apr. 8, 2021.

Update: On July 28, 2021 in a 3-0 decision, the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the district court’s judgement and ruled that the Trump
family could not compel arbitration. The court found that since there
was no “close relationship” between Trumps and ACN such that the
plaintiffs could reasonably infer that their arbitration agreement
extended to the Trumps. Thus, the court concluded, the “defendants are
not entitled to compel the plaintiffs to arbitrate this dispute.” As of
September 2021, the court has not yet ruled on the summary judgment motions.

7. Karen Bass et al. Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
Thompson v. Trump, No. 21-cv-00400 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 16, 2021)

Plaintiff: Rep. Karen R. Bass, Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, Rep. Veronica
Escobar, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Rep. Henry C. Johnson, Jr., Rep. Marcia
C. Kaptur, Rep. Barbara J. Lee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Maxine Waters,
and Rep. Bonnie M. Watson Coleman, represented by the NAACP

Case Summary: On Feb. 16, 2021, Mississippi Congressman Bennie Thompson
sued former President Trump and Rudy Giuliani along with two right-wing
militia groups known as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, for
violating the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1). In the
complaint, Thompson alleges that Trump violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by
inciting the rioters with the intent to prevent Members of Congress from
discharging their official duties of the timely approval of the
Electoral College vote. He argues that after Trump’s loss in the Nov.
2020 election, the then-President set out on a campaign to mobilize his
supporters, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. It
portrays Trump’s rhetoric on the morning of Jan. 6 as a call to arms and
as intended to prevent the certification of the election.

The Act was passed in 1871 in response to violence and intimidation by
the KKK intended to stop Black people from voting. The legislation
allows Members of Congress to sue individuals who conspire to violently
“molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede” the discharge of a public
official’s duties.

Thompson seeks compensatory damages for his emotional distress suffered
during the attack in addition to punitive damages.

Case Status: On Apr. 7, 2021, ten additional members of Congress joined
the lawsuit as plaintiffs. The defendants then moved to dismiss on May
26. In Trump’s motion, he argued (i) that he has absolute immunity
because he was acting as president; (ii) that even if he did not have
absolute immunity, the Westfall Act shields him from any personal
liability; (iii) that members of Congress cannot sue under the KKK Act;
and (iv) that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. As of
September 2021, the court has not ruled on the motions.

Update: On July 21, 2021, Rep. Thompson announced that he would withdraw
from the lawsuit to avoid any conflict with the Jan. 6 House Select
Committee, which Thompson is chairing. The other plaintiffs–all members
of Congress who are not on the Committee–confirmed that they would
continue the lawsuit.

8. Eric Swalwell Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
Swalwell v. Trump, No 21-cv-00586 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 5, 2021)

Plaintiff: Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA)

Case Summary: On Mar. 5, 2021, Representative Eric Swalwell sued Donald
Trump and several associates in DC federal court over the Jan. 6 riots.
Much like Representative Bennie Thompson’s related suit, Swalwell
alleges that Trump and his co-defendants–Donald Trump Jr.,
Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL), and Rudy Giuliani–violated the Ku Klux
Klan Act by conspiring to interfere with the Electoral College count on
Jan. 6.

Swalwell’s suit also goes one step further: it claims that the
defendants should be held civilly liable for negligence because they
committed criminal incitement under DC’s local code, which establishes
the standard of care. Notably, Swalwell says that Trump violated the
same DC code–§22-1321(a)(2)–that DC AG Karl Racine is apparently
focusing on in his own criminal investigation into Trump’s conduct.

Beyond the civil rights and incitement counts, Swalwell also claims that
the defendants are liable for encouraging (aiding and abetting) the
rioters’ violent conduct and for intentionally inflicting emotional
distress on members of Congress in connection with the attack on the
Capitol.

Case Status: Swalwell filed his complaint on Mar. 5, 2021.

Update: On May 17, 2021, Giuliani filed a motion to dismiss the claims
against him. He argued that his speech did not qualify as incitement,
that he never formed a conspiracy with the other defendants or the
rioters, and that his speech was ultimately protected by the First
Amendment.

Update: On May 24, 2021, Donald Trump and his son Donald Jr. filed their
own motion to dismiss. Most notably, former President Trump argued that
he had absolute immunity against Swalwell’s claims because Trump’s
alleged misconduct was within the scope of his official duties as
president. Both Trump and Trump Jr. also contended that their speech was
protected under the First Amendment and the canonical Brandenburg test.
The Trumps also advanced various other arguments ranging from standing
to the political question doctrine to even a claim that Swalwell was
barred from suing Trump over the same conduct for which Trump was
acquitted at his impeachment trial.

Update: On July 1, 2021, Swalwell filed a motion for default judgment
against Brooks, arguing that Brooks had missed the deadline to respond
to the lawsuit. Brooks responded with his own motion urging the court to
dismiss the lawsuit because he was acting within the “scope of his
employment,” which would essentially block the case under the Westfall
Act. The district court denied Swalwell’s motion for a default judgment
on July 5 but has not yet ruled on Brooks’s motion.

Update: On July 27, 2021, the Justice Department submitted a brief
stating that Brooks was not acting within the scope of his employment
and thus not shielded by the Westfall Act. The House of Representatives
filed a response taking a “non-participation approach” (silence) on the
question whether Brooks acted within his scope of employment. The
Chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration submitted a brief
stating that Rep. Brooks was not acting within his scope of employment.

9. Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
Blassingame v. Trump, No. 21-cv-00858 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 30, 2021)

Plaintiff: James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, two Capitol police officers

Case Summary: On Mar. 30, 2021, two Capitol Police Officers sued Donald
Trump for injuries they sustained during the Jan. 6 riots in DC. The
officers–James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby–say they were maced with
bear spray, attacked with fists and flagpoles, and even crushed against
a door as they tried to protect the Capitol from pro-Trump intruders.

Much like the other Jan. 6 suits against Trump, the officers pin their
injuries on Trump’s incendiary rhetoric before and during violence. Both
allege that Trump directed the rioters to assault them, aided the
rioters in committing those assaults, and negligently incited the riot
in violation of DC’s public safety codes. Blassingame also accuses Trump
of directing intentional infliction of emotional distress, pointing to
the racial slurs and taunts that the intruders allegedly hurled at him
during the violence.

Case Status: The officers filed their suit in DC federal court on Mar.
30, 2021. On Apr. 28, 2021, the plaintiffs added two new conspiracy
claims against Trump, one based on the KKK Act and the other on common
law conspiracy. They allege that Trump illegally conspired with the
Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers to storm the Capitol, which in turn
caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

Update: Donald Trump filed a motion to dismiss on June 24, 2021.

10. Second Capitol Police Suit over the Jan. 6 Riots
Smith v. Trump, No. 21-cv-02265 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 26, 2021)

Plaintiff: Seven Capitol Police officers

Case Summary: On Aug. 26, 2021, a second group of Capitol Police
officers filed suit over injuries they suffered while defending the
Capitol on Jan. 6. The officers allege that Trump and his
co-defendants–including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers–conspired to
incite a riot and attack the Capitol, leaving the officers physically
and emotionally injured.

Like the other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump, the complaint asserts that
Trump violated the KKK Act by conspiring to instigate the riots. The
complaint also alleges that unnamed defendants–listed as “John Does” who
carried out the attack–physically assaulted the officers at Trump’s
provocation, which could make Trump liable for the officers’ injuries.

The plaintiffs also add in a unique claim not found in other Jan. 6
lawsuits against Trump: that the defendants violated the DC Bias-Related
Crimes Act, a local hate-crime statute. According to the complaint, the
defendants were motivated by political bias against the Democratic Party
when they instigated and executed the Capitol attack.

Case Status: The officers filed their suit in DC federal court on Aug
26, 2021.

11. NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Voting Rights Case
Mich. Welfare Rights Org. v. Trump, No. 20-cv-03388 (D.D.C. filed Nov.
20, 2020)

Plaintiff: Michigan Welfare Rights Organization and the NAACP,
represented by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund (LDF).

Case Summary: On Nov. 20, 2020, LDF sued then-President Trump and the
Trump campaign alleging that their post-election conduct violated
Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b). After
losing the election, Trump spent weeks pressuring Republican election
officials not to certify the election—in particular, the complaint
examines the actions of Wayne County Republican election officials who
first voted not to certify the election, though they eventually did.
Section 11(b) forbids intimidation of voters, those aiding voters, and
certain election officials. Voting is broadly defined in the Voting
Rights Act, covering “all action necessary to make a vote effective[,] …
including … having such ballot counted properly and included in the
appropriate totals of votes cast.”

In Dec. 2020, the complaint was amended to include the NAACP as a
plaintiff, the Republican National Committee as a defendant, and alleged
a new claim: that defendants violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, which
prohibits conspiracies to deprive someone of equal protection under law
or the right to vote. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). LDF argues that Trump’s
efforts to discard votes in cities with large Black populations meets
the statutory definition.

LDF seeks statutory damages, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive
relief that would prevent defendants from intimidating voters and
election officials in the future.

Case Status: On Feb. 25, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the case.
They had a variety of arguments, including that the case was filed in
the wrong court, that the cited statutes do not allow a private party to
bring litigation, and that their conduct did not violate the statutes.
As of September 2021, the court has not yet ruled on the motions.

12. NY Civil Suit over Fraudulent Real Estate Practices
People v. Trump Org., No. 451685/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 15, 2020)

Plaintiff: New York Attorney General (AG)

Case Summary: In Mar. 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James
launched a civil probe investigating allegations that the Trump
organization inflated and deflated property values to avoid tax
liability and for other financial benefits. She began her investigation
after Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress
that Trump had engaged in fraud. While there is some overlap, James has
noted that her investigation differs from and is independent of the
Manhattan DA criminal investigation.

Much of her probe has focused on Seven Springs, a Trump-owned property
in New York. In Dec. 2019, James subpoenaed the Trump Organization,
seeking records related to a $21 million tax deduction that Trump
claimed against the property in 2015. Per her court filings, James is
exploring whether Trump improperly inflated the property’s value to
boost the size of the tax benefit.

James is also looking into other transactions relating to Trump
properties. She is investigating whether Trump failed to pay taxes on
debt forgiven during the financial restructuring of the Trump Hotel &
Tower in Chicago and the appraisal of the LA Trump National Golf Club
used for his conservation tax break, which was substantially higher than
metrics typically used to value golf properties.

Case Status: In connection with the Seven Springs subpoenas, James’s
office deposed Eric Trump in Oct. 2020. She also sought related records
held by Trump’s tax lawyers. His counsel initially refused to produce
them, claiming they were shielded by attorney-client privilege. The
state court judge disagreed, ruling on Jan. 29, 2021 that the tax
attorneys must turn over thousands of documents about the tax deductions.

Update: On May 18, 2021, Fabien Levy, a spokesperson for New York’s
Attorney General said, “We have informed the Trump Organization that our
investigation into the organization is no longer purely civil in nature.
We are now actively investigating the Trump Organizations in a criminal
capacity, along with the Manhattan DA.”

13. Scotland Unexplained Wealth Orders
Plaintiff: Avaaz Foundation against the Scottish Ministers and Others

Case Summary: On February 3, 2021, the Scottish Parliament voted to
reject calls from the opposition party, the Scottish Greens, to
investigate the Trump Organization’s golf courses through an Unexplained
Wealth Order (UWO). UWOs are a mechanism designed to prevent suspected
corrupt foreign officials from laundering potentially stolen funds into
the UK. They require an individual or organization to reveal the sources
of their unexplained wealth and, while they do not automatically trigger
criminal proceedings, they can result at least in confiscation of
assets. The concerns that led to the push to investigate Trump arose
when Trump spent many hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase and
refurbish golf courses within Scotland with all-cash transactions. This
was particularly suspicious since Trump had financed large scale
purchases with debt prior to these transactions. It is disputed whether
Eric Trump made a statement indicating that the funds had come from Russia.

The co-leader of the Scottish Greens stated, “Scotland cannot be a
country where anyone with the money can buy whatever land and property
they want, no questions asked, and the Scottish Greens will continue to
challenge vested interests that protect people like Trump rather than
our communities.” Eric Trump criticized the suit, stating that “at a
critical time when politicians should be focused on saving lives and
reopening businesses in Scotland, they are focused on advancing their
personal agendas.”

Case Status: The non-profit global rights pressure group, Avaaz
Foundation, sought to challenge the Scottish Parliament vote and, in
May, filed a petition in the highest civil court in Scotland to review
the decision not to pursue a UWO. On Aug. 11, 2021, Lord Sandison of
the Scottish Court of Session ruled the petition seeking “judicial
review of the approach of the Scottish ministers in determining whether
to apply to the court for UWOs” should “proceed without condition or
restriction.” He ruled that their case has “real prospects of success.”
Scotland’s High Court will likely hear the case later this year.



CRIMINAL CASES

14. Criminal Investigations into Trump’s Finances
Trump v. Deutsche Bank, No. 19-cv-03826 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2019)

Trump v. Vance, No. 19-cv-08694 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019)

Prosecuting Office: In 2019, then-President Trump sued to block
subpoenas issued by three House Committees and the Manhattan District
Attorney seeking his financial information in 2019. As of Feb. 22, the
Manhattan DA now has access to Trump’s tax information.

Case Summary: In 2019, the House Intelligence and Finance Committees
issued subpoenas to both Deutsche Bank and Capital One seeking
information about then-President Trump’s finances. Before the banks
complied with the subpoenas, Trump sued, seeking a declaratory judgment
that they were unenforceable and an injunction that would have prevented
the banks from disclosing Trump’s financial information. In addition,
the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Mazars, Trump’s accounting
firm, demanding additional accounting information. Trump again sued to
block the subpoena.

In parallel, Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., subpoenaed
Mazars, for access to Trump’s tax records. Trump again sued to prevent
the disclosure of this information.

All three cases reached the Supreme Court, where they were decided on
the same day, July 9, 2020. The congressional subpoenas were combined
into one case, and were remanded so the lower courts could consider
separation of powers concerns raised by congressional committees
subpoenaing a sitting president. In the Vance case, the Court ruled that
a president’s financial information could be subpoenaed by a local
district attorney.

Case Status: With the seating of the new Congress in Jan. 2021, the
Congressional subpoenas expired. The Vance subpoena again reached the
Supreme Court, which on Feb. 22, refused to block it. His spokesperson
has confirmed that the office now has access to Trump’s tax returns,
including millions of pages of documents. Charges have not been filed.

Update-1: New reporting on Mar. 1 revealed that Vance’s investigation
has focused on Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen
Weisselberg, whose potential cooperation with prosecutors could be a
significant breakthrough in the investigation. On Mar. 31, the New York
Times reported that Vance’s office has subpoenaed Weisselberg’s personal
bank records, and on Apr. 8, investigators took possession of financial
records from Weisselberg’s daughter-in-law.

Update-2: New reporting on Mar. 8 revealed that Vance’s probe has
expanded to include investigation of a $130 million loan the Trump
Organization received to build its Chicago tower, and whether the
forgiveness of that loan was reported as income, as required by the IRS.

Update-3: On May, 25, 2021, the Washington Post reported that Vance has
convened a special grand jury that is “expected to decide whether to
indict former president Donald Trump, other executives at his company or
the business itself should prosecutors present the panel with criminal
charges.” According to the Post, “The move indicates that District
Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.’s investigation of the former president and
his business has reached an advanced stage …. It suggests, too, that
Vance believes he has found evidence of a crime — if not by Trump then
by someone potentially close to him or by his company.”

Update-4: On Jun. 4, ABC News and the New York Times report that Trump
Organization senior vice president and controller, Jeff McConney is
among a number of witnesses to have already appeared before the special
grand jury. He is reportedly the first employee of the company called to
testify.

Update-5: On July 1, prosecutors indicted the Trump Organization and
the chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg with running a tax fraud
scheme for over fifteen years. The indictment charges Weisselberg, the
Trump Organization, and the Trump Payroll Co. with compensating
Weisselberg and other Trump Organization executives with off-the-books
funds that were unreported or misreported to federal, state, and local
tax authorities.

The indictment includes a reference to the former President. It states
that “as part of the scheme to defraud, Trump Corporation personnel …
arranged for tuition expenses for Weisselberg’s family members to be
paid by personal checks drawn on the account of and signed by Donald J.
‘Trump.” The indictment also refers to an “unindicted co-conspirator,”
who is Jeff McConney, the Trump Organization’s controller, a person
familiar with the investigation told CNN.

15. DC Attorney General Incitement Investigation for Attack on U.S. Capitol
Prosecuting Office: DC Attorney General (AG)

Case Summary: DC Attorney General Karl Racine has said he is exploring
whether to charge Trump with incitement. So far, his office has focused
on a DC statute that makes it a misdemeanor to “incite or provoke
violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.”
Presumably, DC prosecutors are looking into Trump’s statements and
tweets before and during the riot, gauging whether they amount to
criminal incitement.

That said, Racine has cautioned that prosecuting Trump would be an
uphill battle. Though the former president no longer could claim
presidential immunity, the First Amendment may still shield his speech
from prosecution. Under Brandenburg–the controlling case here–a speaker
can be prosecuted for incitement only when their speech is both intended
and likely to cause imminent lawless action. This is a notoriously
difficult standard to meet, especially on the intent side. Even though
some rioters have claimed they were following Trump’s instructions,
Racine would need to actually prove it was Trump’s actual goal for them
to do so. Despite the trail of incriminating statements Trump left
behind, Racine may still have trouble meeting such a high bar.

Not only that, Racine has limited options in terms of what offenses he
can charge. Because DC splits criminal jurisdiction with the U.S.
government, Racine’s office can enforce only low-level crimes. As a
result, he cannot charge Trump with arguably more applicable felonies,
and is effectively limited to DC’s incitement statute. And as defense
attorneys in DC have noted, this misdemeanor offense is typically
charged in street-level disorderly conduct cases, arguably making it a
poor fit.

Case Status: Racine’s office is investigating Trump’s conduct but has
not filed charges.

Note: In the Department of Justice investigations, prosecutors are
apparently more focused on charging the rioters themselves rather than
investigating the former president. Though DC’s top federal prosecutor
refused to rule out criminally investigating Trump, nothing since then
has suggested a federal probe is in the works. Justice Department
officials have reportedly debated whether to open a criminal
investigation of Trump associate, Roger Stone.

16. Fulton County, Georgia Criminal Election Influence Investigation
Prosecuting Office: Fulton County, GA District Attorney’s Office.

Case Summary: On Feb. 10, 2021, the Fulton County DA’s Office opened an
investigation into attempted election interference by former President
Trump. The investigation is looking into potential violations of Georgia
election laws, including the “solicitation of election fraud, the making
of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy,
racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in
violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”

Case Status: On Feb. 10, 2021, the Fulton County DA’s Office sent
letters to Governor Brian Kemp, Lieutenant Governor Duncan, Secretary of
State Raffensperger, and Attorney General Carr informing them of the new
investigation and requesting that all records relating to the election,
including emails sent by employees from non-government accounts, be
preserved.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis also reportedly plans to investigate a
phone call between Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Georgia Secretary
of State Brad Raffensperger where Raffensperger claims Graham asked the
Secretary of State if he could throw out legally cast ballots. Graham’s
spokesperson claims that this is not true and Graham was instead asking
about the signature verification process. The DA’s office is also
reportedly looking into whether Rudy Giuliani violated election laws in
making false statements to Georgia officials.

The week of March 1 2021, prosecutors are expected to seek grand jury
subpoenas for documents and witnesses connected to the investigation.

On Mar. 6, Willis brought on John Floyd, a national expert on state
racketeering prosecution, to assist in racketeering investigations. He
has not been brought on specifically for the Trump investigation, but as
Willis is investigating racketeering in the Trump case, this development
suggests that racketeering charges could play a larger role.

On Mar. 11, a recording of a call between then-President Trump and the
chief investigator of the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, Frances
Watson, was released By the Wall Street Journal. On the call, Trump
urged Watson to look for fraud in mail-in ballots. The Fulton County
DA’s Office has said that they will request a copy of the phone call.

Update: As of Mar. 28, there are reportedly two grand juries considering
subpoenas for documents relevant to the investigation.

Photo of Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis on the Rachel Maddow
Show; Photo of Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance by Andrew
Burton/Getty Images; Photo of NY Attorney General Letitia James by
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images.
Signups for A.M. & P.M. Emails
Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. They cover
the stairs and the bleachers set up for the inauguration. They carry
American flags, Trump flags, anti-Semitic flags, and other white
supremacist flags.
January 6 Clearinghouse




https://www.justsecurity.org/75032/litigation-tracker-pending-criminal-and-civil-cases-against-donald-trump/

[Jonathan]

And 'fair-minded' Trump wanted to stop the election counting
while he was still ahead. Gee, wouldn't that be cool?

Remember election night when Trump demanded the voting
be stopped before the mail in ballots could be counted?


At the 8:15 mark of the video...

"We'll be going to the Supreme Court, we want
all voting to stop, we don't want anyone to
find any ballots at 4 in the morning and
add them to the list"

"As far as I'm concerned we already won"

~ Trump

Trump claims victory in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan
and Wisconsin even though the votes are some
2/3rds counted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9d6j2uO6MI&ab_channel=CNBCTelevision

So if Detroit is ahead of the Packers at half time tonight
then Detroit should win, right

[Siri Cruise]

In article <BvKdnfwUMsUjltT8...@giganews.com>,

The federal government doesn't do elections. A president has no
say in one.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Bradley K. Sherman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> | ...
>> | The scheme put forward by controversial lawyer John Eastman
>> | was outlined in a two-page memo obtained by the authors for
>> | "Peril," and which was subsequently obtained by CNN. The
>> | memo, which has not previously been made public, provides
>> | new detail showing how Trump and his team tried to persuade
>> | Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the
>> | election results on January 6.
>> | ...

>This is not an attempted coup,

> ...

Wrong again, David. Here's the step-by-step plan for the coup:
<https://twitter.com/UrbanAchievr/status/1440062663967461387/photo/1>

--bks

[Rudy Canoza]

It is. That's exactly what it is.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:BvKdnfwUMsUjltT8...@giganews.com:

Bullshit.

Every Sec of State in the country certified
the accuracy of the vote counts they sent to
the EC. Every. Single. One. There was no dispute
about "legality of votes". They were legal by
definition.

Even the GOP Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY
on this, THREE TIMES.

The election was legal, the vote count was
legal, the certification was legal, end of story.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 9/20/2021 3:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:

That's complete bullshit. Eastman didn't say one fucking thing about the
"legality" of any state votes. It was advice and a *plan* for how to try to
game the procedure to prevent the electoral votes of states that went for Biden
from being counted. Eastman was advocating that Pence do things he had no power
to do. That means that if those actions weren't actually illegal, i.e.
prohibited by statute, they were *extra-legal*, i.e. outside the law.

It was a coup attempt. This is not in rational dispute. Biden won a free, fair
and clean election — you know this — and what Eastman was advocating was an
*unlawful* installation of Trump as president for a second term. That's a coup.
Fuck off.

[David Hartung]

In your imagination.

[Rudy Canoza]

In fact.

Your concession of defeat is noted. Whenever you write these lame, stale
lie/tropes, you are conceding defeat.

It was an attempted coup; nothing less.

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<super70s-A3A7D1...@reader02.eternal-september.org>,

super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:

> > The federal government doesn't do elections.
>

> But for federal offices (at the very least) it should since the
> Republican party in desperation is corrupting the system.

The federal government has no system for voter registration.
Congress would have to set it up. That would mean republican get
to disenfranchise citizens nationwide instead of just some
states. Democrats, even when they are the majority party, will
let republicans get away with it because the democrats are
queuing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KcTCRSZBUU

[Bradley K. Sherman]

> | The scheme put forward by controversial lawyer John Eastman

Eastman is a dead-center Trumpling Republican and honcho in
the Federalist Society.

Here's the text of Trump's step-by-step plan to overthrow
the legitimate government of the USA:
<http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf>

Right-wing legal pundit Patterico:
|
| An aspiring fascist does not write his own Enabling Act. He
| has a flunky like John Eastman write one for him.
| ...
<https://twitter.com/Patterico/status/1440126825192034306>

Reason's Volokh Conspiracy is also nauseated:
| ...
| The memo, reportedly authored and distributed in advance of
| the January 6 electoral vote count, suggests a scenario
| under which Vice President Pence excludes the electoral
| votes of seven states--on the false pretense that competing
| slates of electors had been submitted by those states--so
| as to give Trump a majority of the electoral votes cast.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/21/the-eastman-memo-poor-lawyering-for-a-disreputable-cause/>

--bks

[Byker]

On 9/20/2021 3:29 PM, Obama is a failure wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2021, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) posted some
> news:sib0uu$hjc$1...@panix3.panix.com:
>
>> | ...
>> | The scheme put forward by
>
> Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat party,

No such party, shitbag. There is, however, a *Democratic* party. It's one of
the two major American parties, the other being the Republiscum/QAnon party.

[NoBody]

On 20 Sep 2021 22:11:42 -0000, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:

CNN and Bradley: Propaganda together....

[David Limbaugh]

Nice little /ad hominem/ there, you shitbag.