alternet--2020-12-09--Michael Flynn goes after Obama: ‘He should have been afraid of me and he still should be afraid’

Disgraced Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn on Wednesday asserted that former President Barack Obama should be afraid of him .
During an interview on Fox Business , host Maria Bartiromo asked Flynn why Obama had warned President Donald Trump about him before the 2017 inauguration .
`` So imagine the transition of the entire country , the United States of America , and here you have this sort of transition conversation between two incoming and outgoing presidents and they mention two people : dear leader Kim Jong Un and Gen. Michael Flynn , '' Flynn complained .
`` I 'm public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , I would like somebody to pin him down and ask him . ''
`` And he should have been afraid of me and he still should be afraid , '' he added .
`` Obama talking about me is outrageous .
I will not give him any more time on your show . ''
Bartiromo also asked Flynn , who recently received a pardon for lying to the FBI , about Trump 's attempt to overturn the 2020 election .
For his part , Flynn predicted that the Supreme Court will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will select Trump as the next president even if he lost the state 's popular vote .
`` All these people that worry about the 8th of December of the 14th of December , you know , there 's really only one date that really matters right now and that 's the inauguration date , '' he opined .
`` And if you ask Mike Flynn on a scale of one to 10 who 's going to be the next president , I 'll tell you that it 's 10 and it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Watch the video below from Fox Business .
Michael Flynn : Obama should be afraid of me

Disgraced Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn on Wednesday asserted that former President Barack Obama should be afraid of him.
During an interview on Fox Business, host Maria Bartiromo asked Flynn why Obama had warned President Donald Trump about him before the 2017 inauguration.
"So imagine the transition of the entire country, the United States of America, and here you have this sort of transition conversation between two incoming and outgoing presidents and they mention two people: dear leader Kim Jong Un and Gen. Michael Flynn," Flynn complained. "I'm public enemy number one. One of these days, I would like somebody to pin him down and ask him."
"And he should have been afraid of me and he still should be afraid," he added. "Obama talking about me is outrageous. I will not give him any more time on your show."
Bartiromo also asked Flynn, who recently received a pardon for lying to the FBI, about Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
For his part, Flynn predicted that the Supreme Court will allow state legislatures to designate electors who will select Trump as the next president even if he lost the state's popular vote.
"All these people that worry about the 8th of December of the 14th of December, you know, there's really only one date that really matters right now and that's the inauguration date," he opined. "And if you ask Mike Flynn on a scale of one to 10 who's going to be the next president, I'll tell you that it's 10 and it's going to be Donald Trump."
Watch the video below from Fox Business.


alternet--2020-12-09--Here's how Trump undermined Texas' Hail Mary election lawsuit with a single tweet: law professor

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this week sued four key battleground states lost by President Donald Trump in the hopes @ @ @ @ @ election .
Legal experts have picked apart the lawsuit and have said it stands little @ @ @ @ @ by the United States Supreme Court , let alone succeeding .
And according to University @ @ @ @ @ professor Stephen Vladeck , Trump may have further undermined an already-shaky case with a tweet @ @ @ @ @ morning .
Specifically , Trump tweeted that `` we will be INTERVENING in the Texas @ @ @ @ @ hyping up the Paxton lawsuit as `` the big one . ''
According to Vladeck @ @ @ @ @ would harm the case 's chances of success .
`` The central purpose of SCOTUS @ @ @ @ @ for disputes between states that ca n't be resolved elsewhere , '' he explained .
@ @ @ @ @ party would prove that the dispute *could* be resolved elsewhere — and that there 's @ @ @ @ @ claims . ''

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this week sued four key battleground states lost by President Donald Trump in the hopes of overturning the 2020 presidential election.
Legal experts have picked apart the lawsuit and have said it stands little chance of even being heard by the United States Supreme Court, let alone succeeding.
And according to University of Texas School of Law professor Stephen Vladeck, Trump may have further undermined an already-shaky case with a tweet that he posted on Wednesday morning.
Specifically, Trump tweeted that "we will be INTERVENING in the Texas case," while also hyping up the Paxton lawsuit as "the big one."
According to Vladeck, however, Trump intervening would harm the case's chances of success.
"The central purpose of SCOTUS's 'original' jurisdiction is for disputes between states that can't be resolved elsewhere," he explained. "Successful intervention by another party would prove that the dispute *could* be resolved elsewhere — and that there's nothing unique about Texas's claims."


alternet--2020-12-09--Republican Arkansas AG voices support for Texas lawsuit challenging election results in 4 battlegrou

Republican Arkansas AG voices support for Texas lawsuit challenging election results in 4 battleground states

Ken Paxton , Republican Texas attorney general under Gov .
Greg Abbott , has filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the 2020 presidential election results in four battleground states that President-elect Joe Biden won : Michigan , Pennsylvania , Georgia and Wisconsin .
And another Republican state attorney general , Arkansas ' Leslie Rutledge , is voicing her support for Paxton 's lawsuit .
The Arkansas attorney general , in an official statement released this week , announced , `` Arkansans and Americans across the country have real concerns about the lack of integrity in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviewing the motion filed by Texas in the U.S. Supreme Court , I have determined that I will support the motion by the State of Texas in all legally appropriate manners .
The integrity of our elections is a critical part of our nation and it must be upheld . ''
No evidence of widespread voter fraud has been found , and numerous lawsuits from Trump 's campaign and its Republican allies have been rejected or outright dismissed by the courts .
On December 8 , the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ken Paxton, Republican Texas attorney general under Gov. Greg Abbott, has filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the 2020 presidential election results in four battleground states that President-elect Joe Biden won: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin. And another Republican state attorney general, Arkansas' Leslie Rutledge, is voicing her support for Paxton's lawsuit.
The Arkansas attorney general, in an official statement released this week, announced, "Arkansans and Americans across the country have real concerns about the lack of integrity in our federal elections this year. After reviewing the motion filed by Texas in the U.S. Supreme Court, I have determined that I will support the motion by the State of Texas in all legally appropriate manners. The integrity of our elections is a critical part of our nation and it must be upheld."
No evidence of widespread voter fraud has been found, and numerous lawsuits from Trump's campaign and its Republican allies have been rejected or outright dismissed by the courts. On December 8, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously refused to even consider a Pennsylvania-related election lawsuit.


alternet--2020-12-09--Conservative law professor tears Texas AG's ‘insane’ election lawsuit to pieces — bit by bit

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton , a far-right Republican who serves in Gov .
Greg Abbott 's administration , has filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that President-elect Joe Biden won : Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan and Wisconsin .
Conservative law professor Kimberly Wehle offers a comprehensive analysis of Paxton 's arguments in an article published by The Bulwark on December 8 , and she tears them apart , one by one .
Wehle , who teaches at the University of Baltimore Law School and is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Here we go again : another insane lawsuit , another assault on the legitimacy of the only remaining branch of the federal government that 's still functioning post-Trumpdom — the judiciary .
Today , Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of Texas against four other states : Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
The lawsuit claims that the four defendant states did n't comply with their own laws for changing how the 2020 election would be held , that it hurt Texans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right that wrong . ''
Wehle adds that although Republican supporters of President Donald Trump have filed around 50 lawsuits against the election results and claimed , without evidence , widespread voter fraud , Paxton 's is especially flawed .
The law professor notes that Paxton `` brought the suit by filing a complaint directly in the U.S. Supreme Court '' and ignored the usual `` judicial hierarchy '' of the United States ' federal courts — and Paxton , according to Wehle , is approaching the High Court with incredibly bad arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes a slew of audacious factual allegations that are unestablished and untested , '' Wehle observes .
`` Basically , he argues that the state defendants should n't have allowed mail-in balloting the way they did and cites 'mysterious late-night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers ; illegally backdating thousands of ballots , ' and videos of 'poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers ' — among an avalanche of other unsubstantiated and previously repudiated factual claims . ''
`` Bald allegations , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to get relief '' in a `` routine case '' — and Paxton is approaching the highest judicial body in the U.S. with his allegations .
Wehle notes , `` Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline on which each state 's electors will cast their slates of Electoral College votes according to the laws of the respective states… .
Paxton is asking five unelected justices with jobs for life to cancel the millions of votes legitimately cast in four states and tell the legislatures in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Even ( Texas Sen. ) Ted Cruz only wants to wipe out all the votes from just one state . ''
The state that Wehle is referring to is Pennsylvania .
Cruz offered to make oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the Pennsylvania-related election lawsuits filed by Republican Trump supporters .
But on December 8 , the U.S. Supreme Court refused to even consider that lawsuit .
Wehle , along with CNN legal analyst Elie Honig , discussed that Pennsylvania lawsuit as well as Paxton 's lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN show on Tuesday , December 8 .
Honig and Wehle both stressed that the High Court had so low an opinion of the Pennsylvania lawsuit that they would n't even give it the time of day .
In The Bulwark , Wehle describes Paxton 's lawsuit as `` a wholesale assault on 'We the People ' — citizens of a country founded on principles of self-government .
And it 's an assault on the sovereignty of fellow states .
Truly breathtaking . ''
The University of Baltimore law professor adds , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complaint , including Paxton 's strained claim of 'standing ' — i.e.
, the particularized injury that 's necessary to get before a court — which verges on laughable .
Paxton claims that Texas 'is acting to protect the interests of its respective citizens in the fair and constitutional conduct of elections used to appoint presidential electors . '
What about the interests of the rest of American voters ?
And for that matter , what about the interests of Texas voters who chose Biden ?
Paxton does n't seem to bother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let 's not forget that Trump is on a pardon spree and Paxton was indicted in 2015 for felony securities fraud charges but has yet to be tried . ''

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a far-right Republican who serves in Gov. Greg Abbott's administration, has filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that President-elect Joe Biden won: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Conservative law professor Kimberly Wehle offers a comprehensive analysis of Paxton's arguments in an article published by The Bulwark on December 8, and she tears them apart, one by one.
Wehle, who teaches at the University of Baltimore Law School and is a former assistant U.S. attorney, explains, "Here we go again: another insane lawsuit, another assault on the legitimacy of the only remaining branch of the federal government that's still functioning post-Trumpdom — the judiciary. Today, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of Texas against four other states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The lawsuit claims that the four defendant states didn't comply with their own laws for changing how the 2020 election would be held, that it hurt Texans, and that Paxton's the guy to right that wrong."
Wehle adds that although Republican supporters of President Donald Trump have filed around 50 lawsuits against the election results and claimed, without evidence, widespread voter fraud, Paxton's is especially flawed. The law professor notes that Paxton "brought the suit by filing a complaint directly in the U.S. Supreme Court" and ignored the usual "judicial hierarchy" of the United States' federal courts — and Paxton, according to Wehle, is approaching the High Court with incredibly bad arguments.
"(Paxton's lawsuit) makes a slew of audacious factual allegations that are unestablished and untested," Wehle observes. "Basically, he argues that the state defendants shouldn't have allowed mail-in balloting the way they did and cites 'mysterious late-night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots,' and videos of 'poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers' — among an avalanche of other unsubstantiated and previously repudiated factual claims."
"Bald allegations," according to Wehle, are "not enough to get relief" in a "routine case" — and Paxton is approaching the highest judicial body in the U.S. with his allegations.
Wehle notes, "Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline on which each state's electors will cast their slates of Electoral College votes according to the laws of the respective states…. Paxton is asking five unelected justices with jobs for life to cancel the millions of votes legitimately cast in four states and tell the legislatures in those states to give the electors to Trump. Even (Texas Sen.) Ted Cruz only wants to wipe out all the votes from just one state."
The state that Wehle is referring to is Pennsylvania. Cruz offered to make oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the Pennsylvania-related election lawsuits filed by Republican Trump supporters. But on December 8, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to even consider that lawsuit.
Wehle, along with CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, discussed that Pennsylvania lawsuit as well as Paxton's lawsuit when she appeared on Don Lemon's CNN show on Tuesday, December 8. Honig and Wehle both stressed that the High Court had so low an opinion of the Pennsylvania lawsuit that they wouldn't even give it the time of day.
In The Bulwark, Wehle describes Paxton's lawsuit as "a wholesale assault on 'We the People' — citizens of a country founded on principles of self-government. And it's an assault on the sovereignty of fellow states. Truly breathtaking."
The University of Baltimore law professor adds, "There are numerous other legal flaws in the complaint, including Paxton's strained claim of 'standing' — i.e., the particularized injury that's necessary to get before a court — which verges on laughable. Paxton claims that Texas 'is acting to protect the interests of its respective citizens in the fair and constitutional conduct of elections used to appoint presidential electors.' What about the interests of the rest of American voters? And for that matter, what about the interests of Texas voters who chose Biden? Paxton doesn't seem to bother with them. But then again, let's not forget that Trump is on a pardon spree and Paxton was indicted in 2015 for felony securities fraud charges but has yet to be tried."


alternet--2020-12-09--Georgia GOP senators aren't done selling their souls to Trump

As Georgia 's two GOP senators eye their January runoffs , there 's clearly no line they wo n't cross to keep Donald Trump and his cultists in their corner .
So when it came time to back a doomed pro-Trump lawsuit filed against their own state by the indicted attorney general of Texas , they were all in .
`` We fully support President Trump 's legal recourses and Attorney General [ Ken ] Paxton 's lawsuit , '' Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue wrote in a joint statement Tuesday .
As if their support for Paxton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia 's twice-certified vote count was n't enough of a slap in the face to the state 's GOP leadership , they added , `` No one should ever have to question the integrity of our elections system and the credibility of its outcomes . ''
Georgia 's votes have been counted and recounted a total of three times now and , not surprisingly , Joe Biden has prevailed every time because ... well ... he won the state .
Trump simply ca n't accept being a loser , which is what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sided with Trump over state GOP officials when they called the state 's elections an `` embarrassment '' and pushed for Georgia 's secretary of state to resign .
But Loeffler and Perdue giving Paxton their imprimatur at the expense of their own state 's GOP leadership team once again is so transparently desperate and spineless .
The lawsuit seeks to overturn the votes of Georgia and three other states—Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
The notion that the Supreme Court is going to let Texas interfere with the votes of four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So laughable , in fact , that Paxton 's most likely motivation for filing such ridiculousness is that he 's in search of a pardon Trump reportedly plans to dish out like candy to all his criminal friends .
Additionally , Georgia 's Republican attorney general wasted zero time in calling Paxton 's suit `` constitutionally , legally and factually wrong . ''
But hey , once you 've made a deal with the devil , there 's no turning back .
Loeffler and Perdue—two of the richest and most corrupt members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little thing like integrity stand in the way of keeping their incredibly lucrative public service posts .
Those two Senate seats have been nothing short of gold for the pair of them , so why not throw Trump another bone ?
If they win their runoffs , the two of them will laugh all the way to the bank .

As Georgia's two GOP senators eye their January runoffs, there's clearly no line they won't cross to keep Donald Trump and his cultists in their corner. So when it came time to back a doomed pro-Trump lawsuit filed against their own state by the indicted attorney general of Texas, they were all in.
"We fully support President Trump's legal recourses and Attorney General [Ken] Paxton's lawsuit," Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue wrote in a joint statement Tuesday. As if their support for Paxton's ludicrous challenge to the validity of Georgia's twice-certified vote count wasn't enough of a slap in the face to the state's GOP leadership, they added, "No one should ever have to question the integrity of our elections system and the credibility of its outcomes."
Georgia's votes have been counted and recounted a total of three times now and, not surprisingly, Joe Biden has prevailed every time because ... well ... he won the state. Trump simply can't accept being a loser, which is what he is—a loser.
Both Republican senators already sided with Trump over state GOP officials when they called the state's elections an "embarrassment" and pushed for Georgia's secretary of state to resign. But Loeffler and Perdue giving Paxton their imprimatur at the expense of their own state's GOP leadership team once again is so transparently desperate and spineless. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the votes of Georgia and three other states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The notion that the Supreme Court is going to let Texas interfere with the votes of four other states is laughable on its face. So laughable, in fact, that Paxton's most likely motivation for filing such ridiculousness is that he's in search of a pardon Trump reportedly plans to dish out like candy to all his criminal friends.
Additionally, Georgia's Republican attorney general wasted zero time in calling Paxton's suit "constitutionally, legally and factually wrong."
But hey, once you've made a deal with the devil, there's no turning back. Loeffler and Perdue—two of the richest and most corrupt members of Congress—aren't going to let a little thing like integrity stand in the way of keeping their incredibly lucrative public service posts. Those two Senate seats have been nothing short of gold for the pair of them, so why not throw Trump another bone? If they win their runoffs, the two of them will laugh all the way to the bank.


alternet--2020-12-09--Far-right Oath Keepers are making disturbing inroads in this Texas county: report

Far-right militia groups have felt emboldened by Donald Trump 's presidency .
And in Hood County , Texas , according to Politico 's Ciara O'Rourke , members of the Oath Keepers are infiltrating the local government .
Hood County is a Republican-leaning county near Fort Worth .
Although Dallas leans Democratic — not unlike Houston , Austin and El Paso — Hood County is more Republican and predominantly White .
And O'Rourke , in a Politico article published on December 9 , describes some of the inroads that the Oath Keepers have been making there .
O'Rourke notes that John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a `` sworn member of the Oath Keepers '' — which , she reports , has `` in recent months… .
been warning of a civil war . ''
On August 31 , Shirley called for the execution of Democratic Portland , Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler , who he blamed for the shooting death of a member of the far-right militia group Patriot Prayer by an Antifa activist .
Shirley , on Facebook , posted , `` Ted Wheeler needs to be tried , convicted and executed posthaste .
He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's time for justice . ''
O'Rourke explains , `` By the time he was posting about Wheeler , Shirley had been an Oath Keeper for more than a decade , serving on the organization 's board of directors as its national peace officer liaison and as the Texas chapter president .
But he is n't the only elected official in Hood County affiliated with the group .
One member , a newly elected justice of the peace , said in February that Oath Keepers was having a 'surgence ' there .
Shirley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Oath Keeper . ''
According to O'Rourke , `` What 's happening in Hood County may represent a shift for a group that was once seen as a governmental antagonist but is now establishing itself inside the halls of the elected officialdom .
And it is setting up potentially dangerous conflicts between officials with different ideas of what constitutes legitimate government authority . ''
O'Rourke points out that the Oath Keepers , founded in 2009 , have been joining President Donald Trump in claiming , without evidence , that the election was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud .
The Oath Keepers posted in an e-mail blast , `` Our POTUS will not go down without a fight .
He WILL NOT concede .
This election was stolen from We The People .
We will prevail but we need your help ! ''
On November 7 , Shirley — typing in all caps — posted on Facebook , `` NO WHINING , NO CRYING , NO PEARL CLUTCHING !
DONALD TRUMP WON THE ELECTION .
YOU CAN FEEL IT IN YOUR BONES .
THIS WAS TAKEN FROM US ILLEGALLY .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ WE DO N'T FIGHT .
LEAVE IT ALL ON THE FIELD .
ITS TIME TO SEPARATE THE WINTER SOLDIERS FROM THE SUNSHINE PATRIOTS . ''

Far-right militia groups have felt emboldened by Donald Trump's presidency. And in Hood County, Texas, according to Politico's Ciara O'Rourke, members of the Oath Keepers are infiltrating the local government.
Hood County is a Republican-leaning county near Fort Worth. Although Dallas leans Democratic — not unlike Houston, Austin and El Paso — Hood County is more Republican and predominantly White. And O'Rourke, in a Politico article published on December 9, describes some of the inroads that the Oath Keepers have been making there.
O'Rourke notes that John D. Shirley, the Hood County constable, is a "sworn member of the Oath Keepers" — which, she reports, has "in recent months…. been warning of a civil war."
On August 31, Shirley called for the execution of Democratic Portland, Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler, who he blamed for the shooting death of a member of the far-right militia group Patriot Prayer by an Antifa activist. Shirley, on Facebook, posted, "Ted Wheeler needs to be tried, convicted and executed posthaste. He has blood on his hands, and it's time for justice."
O'Rourke explains, "By the time he was posting about Wheeler, Shirley had been an Oath Keeper for more than a decade, serving on the organization's board of directors as its national peace officer liaison and as the Texas chapter president. But he isn't the only elected official in Hood County affiliated with the group. One member, a newly elected justice of the peace, said in February that Oath Keepers was having a 'surgence' there. Shirley has described an incoming county commissioner as an Oath Keeper."
According to O'Rourke, "What's happening in Hood County may represent a shift for a group that was once seen as a governmental antagonist but is now establishing itself inside the halls of the elected officialdom. And it is setting up potentially dangerous conflicts between officials with different ideas of what constitutes legitimate government authority."
O'Rourke points out that the Oath Keepers, founded in 2009, have been joining President Donald Trump in claiming, without evidence, that the election was stolen from him because of widespread voter fraud. The Oath Keepers posted in an e-mail blast, "Our POTUS will not go down without a fight. He WILL NOT concede. This election was stolen from We The People. We will prevail but we need your help!"
On November 7, Shirley — typing in all caps — posted on Facebook, "NO WHINING, NO CRYING, NO PEARL CLUTCHING! DONALD TRUMP WON THE ELECTION. YOU CAN FEEL IT IN YOUR BONES. THIS WAS TAKEN FROM US ILLEGALLY. THE ONLY WAY WE LOSE IS IF WE DON'T FIGHT. LEAVE IT ALL ON THE FIELD. ITS TIME TO SEPARATE THE WINTER SOLDIERS FROM THE SUNSHINE PATRIOTS."


alternet--2020-12-10--Georgia Sen. Perdue sold his home to a finance industry official whose organization was lobbying the

Georgia Sen. Perdue sold his home to a finance industry official whose organization was lobbying the Senate

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Sen. David Perdue , R-Ga. , sold his Washington , D.C. , home last year to a brokerage industry official whose organization is under the purview of a committee Perdue sits on .
The deal was made off market , without the home being listed for sale publicly .
Though an appraisal provided to ProPublica by the buyer found that Perdue sold for slightly under market value , four local real estate experts disagreed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million sale price Perdue garnered seemed high .
Their estimates of the premium ranged from a few thousand dollars to as much as about $ 140,000 .
A fifth expert said the price was squarely fair market value .
Ultimately , congressional ethics experts said , their concern was that Perdue sold privately and to someone whose organization that he oversaw as a senator .
“ Determining fair market value is always a gray area , unless the sales are done in a competitive open market , '' said Craig Holman with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the purchase and sale of this property by Sen. Perdue was not done on the open market , it raises serious suspicions as to whether the sale was in fact at fair market value . ''
If the price was above fair market value , Holman said , “ this would be a violation of his ethical obligations and an opportunity for those with business pending before Perdue 's committee to curry favor . ''
A Perdue spokesperson said that the senator and his wife sold the townhouse at fair market price , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ None of this had anything to do with the senator 's official role , '' the spokesperson said .
“ The Perdues did not know any of the individuals , and they used the same realtor during the purchase and sale of the property . ''
Perdue 's office provided a statement from the couple 's real estate agent , Justin Paulhamus : “ Since inventory was so limited at the time of the sale , we priced it at market value and were fortunate to get an offer . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ real estate agent “ floated it off market first , and they would have put it on market , but got an offer at their asking price which was fair market value . ''
Perdue is locked in a runoff campaign against Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff .
Along with fellow Georgia Republican Kelly Loeffler 's race against Raphael Warnock , his contest could determine which party controls the Senate and with it , whether President-elect Joe Biden can implement much of his agenda .
Perdue has faced multiple allegations that he has mixed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
The most prolific stock trader in the Senate , he bought and sold shares in companies that the committees he sits on have jurisdiction over .
Some of his trades came at fortunate times .
Earlier this year , the Justice Department investigated him and other lawmakers for possible insider trading .
Perdue denied the allegations .
Prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring charges against him .
Perdue 's home buyer in October 2019 was Hillary Sale , a board governor for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority , a privately funded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The organization falls under the purview of the Senate Banking Committee , which Perdue sits on .
Earlier in 2019 , FINRA was lobbying on a bill out of the banking committee that would have required the organization to establish a fund to pay investors bilked by brokers .
A FINRA spokesman said the organization has not lobbied Perdue specifically .
In a statement , Sale said she learned of the home though her real estate agent and never interacted with Perdue .
She provided ProPublica with an appraisal from her lender showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million , $ 11,000 over the amount she paid .
Samer Kuraishi , who leads a real estate agency in Washington , said appraisals are done after a price is agreed to , and that they typically are engineered to match the sales price .
Perdue may have saved thousands by not putting his house on the open market .
Kuraishi and other experts said that when doing off-market deals , sellers can negotiate to pay their agents a smaller commission .
“ In that scenario , an agent spends less on staging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open houses , less on virtual tours , '' he said .
“ It 's typically an easier sale . ''
Perdue 's spokesperson said the senator paid broker fees , but did not respond to questions about whether the fees were discounted .
Perdue 's Capitol Hill home and many of those around it were built in the early 2000s by EYA , a developer that specializes in luxury townhomes that maintain the look and feel of historic buildings but come with amenities typically reserved for more suburban locales .
They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's home featured a rentable separate unit , connected to the main house through interior stairs .
At the time of the sale , FINRA was lobbying the Senate , according to its disclosure forms , and earlier that year its lobbyists were specifically focused on a bill that would have required the organization to establish a relief fund to provide investors with arbitration awards that went unpaid by FINRA 's brokerage firms and brokers .
The bill was authored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, and fell under the jurisdiction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had also held hearings that included harsh assessments of how well FINRA was policing its own .
In 2018 , an AFL-CIO official charged that FINRA was failing as a regulator because it was not forcing its members to pay the arbitration settlements .
Perdue 's office declined to answer questions about where the senator stood on the bill , which did not pass , or whether he took any actions on it .
Ethics experts are generally troubled when politicians enter into transactions with people who have business before them .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the home was purchased at fair market value .
If it was Apurchased for more than that , it would be considered a gift .
Gifts of significant value to senators are required to be publicly disclosed .
Perdue did not disclose any such gifts .
Earlier this year , ProPublica reported that Sen. Richard Burr , R-N.C. , sold his Washington townhouse to a donor and powerful lobbyist who had business before him .
Burr 's office said the lawmaker notified the Senate Ethics Committee before the sale .
Perdue 's office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps .
The committee does not typically make such guidance public , and it did not respond to questions about whether Perdue sought advice in this case .
In order to avoid the appearance of a conflict , members of Congress who are buying or selling properties should do so on the open market to help ensure the price paid is fair and to avoid deals with people who have business before them , ethics experts say .
The five local real estate agents who reviewed the transaction for ProPublica had somewhat differing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price and , if so , how inflated .
All cautioned that valuing a property is not an exact science .
One agent , assuming Perdue did not make significant improvements to the property while living there , priced the home at around $ 1,650,000 .
That would mean Perdue sold for about 8 % over market .
His office declined to say whether he had made those kinds of upgrades , but photos , the agent said , suggest he did not .
A second agent said the price also seemed high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market value .
The agent said prominent officials selling homes in private deals will often get a premium .
“ Buyers do n't haggle at that point .
If it 's a senator , you 're not going to go back and say , 'Actually , I 'll give you 1.7 . '
They either pay the price or do n't buy it . ''
A third agent said it seemed slightly above market .
A fourth said the expected range for that property at the time would have been between $ 1.75 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shade under Perdue 's $ 1.789 million sale price .
A fifth agent said the price Perdue got was squarely at fair market value .
All of the agents asked that their names not be used so as not to affect their ability to continue buying and selling homes in the neighborhood .
The agents said that the price Perdue purchased the home for in 2015 , $ 1.6 million , was about market rate at the time .
That sale was made on the open market .
In that case , Perdue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of the trade group lobbying for credit unions ; Cheney is currently president of a California-based credit union .
Perdue has received donations from the trade group and , as a senator , has helped loosen regulations on credit unions .
One of the real estate agents who spoke with ProPublica noted the short time the home spent on the market before Perdue bought it .
The home was put on the market on a Wednesday and Perdue agreed to a deal to buy it that Friday before there could be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was atypical for a seller to commit to Perdue without holding an open house to find backup options .
Cheney and his wife told ProPublica they had an open house for brokers only before the home was put on the market .
Perdue got no special treatment , they said , and they had no direct contact with him .
Perdue 's spokesperson said the senator bought the townhouse above asking price .
“ Absolutely nothing about the purchase or sale of the property had anything to do with the senator 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the buyers or sellers , there could be no conflict of interest whatsoever , '' the spokesperson said .

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., sold his Washington, D.C., home last year to a brokerage industry official whose organization is under the purview of a committee Perdue sits on.
The deal was made off market, without the home being listed for sale publicly.
Though an appraisal provided to ProPublica by the buyer found that Perdue sold for slightly under market value, four local real estate experts disagreed, telling ProPublica that the almost $1.8 million sale price Perdue garnered seemed high. Their estimates of the premium ranged from a few thousand dollars to as much as about $140,000. A fifth expert said the price was squarely fair market value.
Ultimately, congressional ethics experts said, their concern was that Perdue sold privately and to someone whose organization that he oversaw as a senator.
“Determining fair market value is always a gray area, unless the sales are done in a competitive open market," said Craig Holman with the watchdog group Public Citizen. “Since the purchase and sale of this property by Sen. Perdue was not done on the open market, it raises serious suspicions as to whether the sale was in fact at fair market value."
If the price was above fair market value, Holman said, “this would be a violation of his ethical obligations and an opportunity for those with business pending before Perdue's committee to curry favor."
A Perdue spokesperson said that the senator and his wife sold the townhouse at fair market price, and that the lender appraisal confirmed that.
“None of this had anything to do with the senator's official role," the spokesperson said. “The Perdues did not know any of the individuals, and they used the same realtor during the purchase and sale of the property."
Perdue's office provided a statement from the couple's real estate agent, Justin Paulhamus: “Since inventory was so limited at the time of the sale, we priced it at market value and were fortunate to get an offer."
Perdue's spokesperson said the senator's real estate agent “floated it off market first, and they would have put it on market, but got an offer at their asking price which was fair market value."
Perdue is locked in a runoff campaign against Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff. Along with fellow Georgia Republican Kelly Loeffler's race against Raphael Warnock, his contest could determine which party controls the Senate and with it, whether President-elect Joe Biden can implement much of his agenda.
Perdue has faced multiple allegations that he has mixed his private financial interests with his official work. The most prolific stock trader in the Senate, he bought and sold shares in companies that the committees he sits on have jurisdiction over. Some of his trades came at fortunate times. Earlier this year, the Justice Department investigated him and other lawmakers for possible insider trading. Perdue denied the allegations. Prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring charges against him.
Perdue's home buyer in October 2019 was Hillary Sale, a board governor for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a privately funded self-regulatory body for the securities industry. The organization falls under the purview of the Senate Banking Committee, which Perdue sits on. Earlier in 2019, FINRA was lobbying on a bill out of the banking committee that would have required the organization to establish a fund to pay investors bilked by brokers.
A FINRA spokesman said the organization has not lobbied Perdue specifically. In a statement, Sale said she learned of the home though her real estate agent and never interacted with Perdue. She provided ProPublica with an appraisal from her lender showing the home was valued at $1.8 million, $11,000 over the amount she paid. Samer Kuraishi, who leads a real estate agency in Washington, said appraisals are done after a price is agreed to, and that they typically are engineered to match the sales price.
Perdue may have saved thousands by not putting his house on the open market.
Kuraishi and other experts said that when doing off-market deals, sellers can negotiate to pay their agents a smaller commission.
“In that scenario, an agent spends less on staging, less on marketing, less on open houses, less on virtual tours," he said. “It's typically an easier sale."
Perdue's spokesperson said the senator paid broker fees, but did not respond to questions about whether the fees were discounted.
Perdue's Capitol Hill home and many of those around it were built in the early 2000s by EYA, a developer that specializes in luxury townhomes that maintain the look and feel of historic buildings but come with amenities typically reserved for more suburban locales. They have individual garages and private courtyards. Perdue's home featured a rentable separate unit, connected to the main house through interior stairs.
At the time of the sale, FINRA was lobbying the Senate, according to its disclosure forms, and earlier that year its lobbyists were specifically focused on a bill that would have required the organization to establish a relief fund to provide investors with arbitration awards that went unpaid by FINRA's brokerage firms and brokers. The bill was authored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and fell under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee.
The committee had also held hearings that included harsh assessments of how well FINRA was policing its own. In 2018, an AFL-CIO official charged that FINRA was failing as a regulator because it was not forcing its members to pay the arbitration settlements.
Perdue's office declined to answer questions about where the senator stood on the bill, which did not pass, or whether he took any actions on it.
Ethics experts are generally troubled when politicians enter into transactions with people who have business before them. The legality of this sale hinges on whether the home was purchased at fair market value. If it was Apurchased for more than that, it would be considered a gift. Gifts of significant value to senators are required to be publicly disclosed. Perdue did not disclose any such gifts.
Earlier this year, ProPublica reported that Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., sold his Washington townhouse to a donor and powerful lobbyist who had business before him. Burr's office said the lawmaker notified the Senate Ethics Committee before the sale. Perdue's office declined to say if he took similar steps. The committee does not typically make such guidance public, and it did not respond to questions about whether Perdue sought advice in this case.
In order to avoid the appearance of a conflict, members of Congress who are buying or selling properties should do so on the open market to help ensure the price paid is fair and to avoid deals with people who have business before them, ethics experts say.
The five local real estate agents who reviewed the transaction for ProPublica had somewhat differing opinions about whether Perdue got an inflated price and, if so, how inflated. All cautioned that valuing a property is not an exact science.
One agent, assuming Perdue did not make significant improvements to the property while living there, priced the home at around $1,650,000. That would mean Perdue sold for about 8% over market. His office declined to say whether he had made those kinds of upgrades, but photos, the agent said, suggest he did not.
A second agent said the price also seemed high, but only about 2% over market value. The agent said prominent officials selling homes in private deals will often get a premium. “Buyers don't haggle at that point. If it's a senator, you're not going to go back and say, 'Actually, I'll give you 1.7.' They either pay the price or don't buy it."
A third agent said it seemed slightly above market. A fourth said the expected range for that property at the time would have been between $1.75 million and $1.785 million, a shade under Perdue's $1.789 million sale price. A fifth agent said the price Perdue got was squarely at fair market value. All of the agents asked that their names not be used so as not to affect their ability to continue buying and selling homes in the neighborhood.
The agents said that the price Perdue purchased the home for in 2015, $1.6 million, was about market rate at the time. That sale was made on the open market.
In that case, Perdue bought from Bill Cheney, the outgoing president of the trade group lobbying for credit unions; Cheney is currently president of a California-based credit union. Perdue has received donations from the trade group and, as a senator, has helped loosen regulations on credit unions.
One of the real estate agents who spoke with ProPublica noted the short time the home spent on the market before Perdue bought it. The home was put on the market on a Wednesday and Perdue agreed to a deal to buy it that Friday before there could be a weekend open house. The agent said it was atypical for a seller to commit to Perdue without holding an open house to find backup options.
Cheney and his wife told ProPublica they had an open house for brokers only before the home was put on the market. Perdue got no special treatment, they said, and they had no direct contact with him.
Perdue's spokesperson said the senator bought the townhouse above asking price.
“Absolutely nothing about the purchase or sale of the property had anything to do with the senator's official role, since they did not know the buyers or sellers, there could be no conflict of interest whatsoever," the spokesperson said.


alternet--2020-12-10--Federal judge reminds Sydney Powell how US elections work in yet another blow to 'kraken' conspiracy

Federal judge reminds Sydney Powell how US elections work in yet another blow to 'kraken' conspiracy suits

Things are not going well for President Donald Trump 's former lawyer Sydney Powell after a federal judge on Wednesday reminded her of how elections work in the United States .
In a 45-page ruling on Powell 's lawsuit in Wisconsin , U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper reminded Powell that federal judges do not appoint the President of the United States , according to Law & Crime .
`` Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country , '' Pepper wrote .
`` One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes odd and often harried litigation , the court is no closer to answering the 'why . '
But this federal court has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief the remaining plaintiff seeks . ''
While she did acknowledge how passionate Trump 's legal team is , Pepper noted that the ruling was simple as she explained the ramifications surrounding jurisdictions .
`` The election that preceded this lawsuit was emotional and often divisive , '' the judge wrote .
`` The pleadings that have been filed over the past week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong , deep feelings about the right to vote , the freedom and opportunity to vote and the value of their vote .
They should . ''
Pepper also made it clear that there was no way to provide the extent of relief the election lawsuit seeks .
She added , `` But the legal question at the heart of this case is simple .
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction .
Does a federal court have the jurisdiction and authority to grant the relief this lawsuit seeks ?
The answer is no .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a federal judge in Arizona handed down a similar ruling .
Echoing arguments similar to Pepper 's , U.S. District Judge Diane Joyce Humetewa said Powell 's voter fraud claims in the Arizona lawsuit were `` entirely unsupported . ''
`` Not only have Plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with factual support for their extraordinary claims , but they have wholly failed to establish that they have standing for the Court to consider them , '' Humetewa said .
`` Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court .
They most certainly can not be the basis for upending Arizona 's 2020 General Election . ''

Things are not going well for President Donald Trump's former lawyer Sydney Powell after a federal judge on Wednesday reminded her of how elections work in the United States.
In a 45-page ruling on Powell's lawsuit in Wisconsin, U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper reminded Powell that federal judges do not appoint the President of the United States, according to Law & Crime.
"Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country," Pepper wrote. "One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so. After a week of sometimes odd and often harried litigation, the court is no closer to answering the 'why.' But this federal court has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief the remaining plaintiff seeks."
While she did acknowledge how passionate Trump's legal team is, Pepper noted that the ruling was simple as she explained the ramifications surrounding jurisdictions.
"The election that preceded this lawsuit was emotional and often divisive," the judge wrote. "The pleadings that have been filed over the past week are passionate and urgent. People have strong, deep feelings about the right to vote, the freedom and opportunity to vote and the value of their vote. They should."
Pepper also made it clear that there was no way to provide the extent of relief the election lawsuit seeks.
She added, "But the legal question at the heart of this case is simple. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Does a federal court have the jurisdiction and authority to grant the relief this lawsuit seeks? The answer is no."
Pepper's ruling came just hours after a federal judge in Arizona handed down a similar ruling. Echoing arguments similar to Pepper's, U.S. District Judge Diane Joyce Humetewa said Powell's voter fraud claims in the Arizona lawsuit were "entirely unsupported."
"Not only have Plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with factual support for their extraordinary claims, but they have wholly failed to establish that they have standing for the Court to consider them," Humetewa said. "Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona's 2020 General Election."


alternet--2020-12-10--Kelly Loeffler asked Donald Trump’s supporters for money on Parler — and it massively backfired

Appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) attempted to raise money on the right-wing-friendly social media site Parler .
It @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler , like other Republican Senators , is n't doing anything about President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ senator , Loeffler could propose a bill giving confidence to Trump around the election and @ @ @ @ @ vote on it .
Sen. David Perdue ( R-GA ) could do the same , @ @ @ @ @ on the subject .
So , when Loeffler took to Parler asking for election help @ @ @ @ @ that she was faced with a slew of attacks .
`` I hope you lose @ @ @ @ @ Help Trump and then go away .
But you cant ( sic ) even do @ @ @ @ @ ) bought and paid for , '' said one person .
`` Your net worth @ @ @ @ @ dollars ( sic ) .
Quit begging for money and write your own check , @ @ @ @ @ the comments in the tweet below :

Appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) attempted to raise money on the right-wing-friendly social media site Parler. It didn't go well.
Loeffler, like other Republican Senators, isn't doing anything about President Donald Trump's loss. As a senator, Loeffler could propose a bill giving confidence to Trump around the election and call for all Republicans to vote on it. Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) could do the same, but he too is mum on the subject.
So, when Loeffler took to Parler asking for election help, it wasn't shocking that she was faced with a slew of attacks.
"I hope you lose you stuck up b*tch. Help Trump and then go away. But you cant (sic) even do that. Your (sic) bought and paid for," said one person.
"Your net worth is literally $500 MILLION dollars (sic). Quit begging for money and write your own check," said another.
See the comments in the tweet below:


alternet--2020-12-10--Rudy's star witness tells SarahPalin.com: 'The Obamas funded that Wuhan lab to make COVID'

So you probably heard that Benito Shit-giggles is trying to overturn our election , and he 's sent Four Seasons @ @ @ @ @ out to the wastelands to do his bidding .
And you probably saw some of @ @ @ @ @ Rudy — screwy-as-an-Argentine-bluebird-duck's-penis Rudy Focking Giuliani — tried to shush his ( presumably drunk and @ @ @ @ @ .
Well , there 's more .
Carone did an interview with SarahPalin.com today — @ @ @ @ @ toppings for the shit sundae — and … erm … this happened : MY EYES @ @ @ @ @ !

So you probably heard that Benito Shit-giggles is trying to overturn our election, and he's sent Four Seasons Total Lawyering founder Rudy Giuliani out to the wastelands to do his bidding.
And you probably saw some of that fake hearing in which Rudy — screwy-as-an-Argentine-bluebird-duck's-penis Rudy Focking Giuliani — tried to shush his (presumably drunk and loony) witness Mellissa Carone.
Yeah, you remember.
Well, there's more. Carone did an interview with SarahPalin.com today — because 2020 needed far more toppings for the shit sundae — and … erm … this happened:
When it comes to her feelings on politics or just about anything, Carone doesn't mince words. While she's been called 'a drunk' and 'stupid' by the basement dwellers, this mother of a four-year old and a four-month old keeps telling her story with a smile.
"This is what they do to Trump," Carone said. It's not going to work with me. I won't back down because I am very religious and I know God is watching over me. This started with COVID. The Obamas funded that Wuhan lab to make COVID. Then the impeachment process. They've used every avenue possible to cheat, they used Dominion. Dominion software was created to cheat. I have a binder from Dominion that proves this. There's so much more that will be exposed."


alternet--2020-12-10--Indicted Texas AG accused of 'going for a pardon' with last-ditch lawsuit for Trump

Embattled Texas attorney general Ken Paxton was widely derided after he filed a longshot lawsuit on Tuesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block electors in key battleground states from casting `` unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes . ''
There is no evidence of fraud in the presidential election , according to election officials in every state .
President-elect Joe Biden won with a record-setting 81 million votes — a margin of victory of more than seven million votes over Donald Trump .
Paxton 's complaint charges Wisconsin , Georgia , Michigan and Pennsylvania with what he claims were illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to limit the spread of the coronavirus , allegations that Pennsylvania already successfully argued could violate due process rights for millions of voters .
At one point , Paxton 's filing repeats the debunked claim that a mysterious late-night dump of ballots boosted Biden 's chances in Pennsylvania , alleging that Trump 's opponent had `` less than one in a quadrillion '' odds of winning all four states .
All four states have certified their results , and all but Wisconsin met Tuesday 's `` safe harbor '' deadline , the accepted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all post-election challenges , such as recounts .
State courts will likely toss any new challenges filed after that date .
Legal experts quickly dismissed the lawsuit and some questioned whether Paxton , currently the target of an FBI bribery investigation , is angling for a pardon from the outgoing president .
Attorneys general from the targeted states also pushed back against the suit .
With all due respect , the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally , legally and factually wrong about Georgia , '' Katie Byrd , spokeswoman for Republican Georgia attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
The other three attorneys general , all Democrats , issued a joint statement calling Paxton 's effort an attempt to `` mislead the public and tear at the fabric of our Constitution . ''
But on Wednesday afternoon , 17 Republican-led states , led by Missouri , signed on to an amicus brief in support of Texas .
Reuters justice correspondent Brad Heath pointed out that several of those states had implemented the same election procedures that they criticize as unlawful .
`` I suspect a lot of these Republican states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reluctant to sign on to these kinds of legal arguments — which would expose them to tons of litigation over their own laws — if they thought it had any chance of success , '' Heath said .
Trump allies on Capitol Hill , some under pressure from the Oval Office , also pushed ahead .
Rep. Mike Johnson , R-La.
, on Wednesday sent an email asking every House Republican to add their signatures to an amicus brief for Paxton 's suit .
Trump , Johnson told his colleagues , had called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final list '' of signatories .
`` Are we the party of list-making now ? ''
one lawmaker asked CNN 's Jake Tapper .
The 154-page filing , a hard copy of which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany held aloft for the benefit of viewers during a Tuesday night interview with Fox News personality Sean Hannity , comes as the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence rejection of a GOP challenge to Pennsylvania 's use of mail ballots .
While Paxton may have won support from MAGA-world , Republican attorney George Conway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kellyanne Conway , called the exercise `` insane . ''
`` The notion that the Supreme Court is going to have a litigation .
.
.
where states are attacking each others ' rules for choosing electors is insane , '' Conway told CNN , adding that `` the biggest election fraud of the 2020 cycle '' is `` the lie that [ Donald Trump ] won the election . ''
Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman wrote in a Bloomberg op-ed : `` In Trump 's fantasy world , apparently shared by Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court will engage in a constitutional coup d'état and give Trump a second term . ''
`` This idea is based on a view of the court as entirely partisan , '' he continued .
`` It 's disrespectful of the rule of law .
And it 's wrong , whether held hopefully on the right or fearfully on the left . ''
Rick Hasen , top election law expert and professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California Irvine , said the case was a `` publicity stunt '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas case is not serious .
Far from it .
It 's a publicity stunt masquerading as a lawsuit , '' Hasen tweeted on Tuesday .
`` AG Paxton should be sanctioned for it .
It goes against the will of millions of voters .
He 's going for a pardon with Trump . ''
Indeed , Paxton has legal exposure of his own .
He is currently the target of a federal probe into allegations that he committed bribery and abused his office on behalf of a wealthy political donor .
Beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for felony securities fraud , for convincing investors to buy shares of a tech firm without disclosing that he would get commission on the sale .
The case has bounced around Texas trial courts for five years , reaching the state 's highest criminal court before dropping back down to the county level .
Paxton himself has still not faced trial .
The president 's pardon power does not extend to state charges .

Embattled Texas attorney general Ken Paxton was widely derided after he filed a longshot lawsuit on Tuesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block electors in key battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes."
There is no evidence of fraud in the presidential election, according to election officials in every state. President-elect Joe Biden won with a record-setting 81 million votes — a margin of victory of more than seven million votes over Donald Trump.
Paxton's complaint charges Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania with what he claims were illegal procedural changes made ahead of the election to limit the spread of the coronavirus, allegations that Pennsylvania already successfully argued could violate due process rights for millions of voters. At one point, Paxton's filing repeats the debunked claim that a mysterious late-night dump of ballots boosted Biden's chances in Pennsylvania, alleging that Trump's opponent had "less than one in a quadrillion" odds of winning all four states. All four states have certified their results, and all but Wisconsin met Tuesday's "safe harbor" deadline, the accepted final date by which states must complete all post-election challenges, such as recounts. State courts will likely toss any new challenges filed after that date.
Legal experts quickly dismissed the lawsuit and some questioned whether Paxton, currently the target of an FBI bribery investigation, is angling for a pardon from the outgoing president.
Attorneys general from the targeted states also pushed back against the suit.
With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia," Katie Byrd, spokeswoman for Republican Georgia attorney general Chris Carr, said in a statement. The other three attorneys general, all Democrats, issued a joint statement calling Paxton's effort an attempt to "mislead the public and tear at the fabric of our Constitution."
But on Wednesday afternoon, 17 Republican-led states, led by Missouri, signed on to an amicus brief in support of Texas. Reuters justice correspondent Brad Heath pointed out that several of those states had implemented the same election procedures that they criticize as unlawful.
"I suspect a lot of these Republican states would've been been a lot more reluctant to sign on to these kinds of legal arguments — which would expose them to tons of litigation over their own laws — if they thought it had any chance of success," Heath said.
Trump allies on Capitol Hill, some under pressure from the Oval Office, also pushed ahead.
Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday sent an email asking every House Republican to add their signatures to an amicus brief for Paxton's suit. Trump, Johnson told his colleagues, had called him personally and is "anxiously awaiting the final list" of signatories.
"Are we the party of list-making now?" one lawmaker asked CNN's Jake Tapper.
The 154-page filing, a hard copy of which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany held aloft for the benefit of viewers during a Tuesday night interview with Fox News personality Sean Hannity, comes as the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence rejection of a GOP challenge to Pennsylvania's use of mail ballots.
While Paxton may have won support from MAGA-world, Republican attorney George Conway, husband of former top Trump official Kellyanne Conway, called the exercise "insane."
"The notion that the Supreme Court is going to have a litigation . . . where states are attacking each others' rules for choosing electors is insane," Conway told CNN, adding that "the biggest election fraud of the 2020 cycle" is "the lie that [Donald Trump] won the election."
Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman wrote in a Bloomberg op-ed: "In Trump's fantasy world, apparently shared by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, the Supreme Court will engage in a constitutional coup d'état and give Trump a second term."
"This idea is based on a view of the court as entirely partisan," he continued. "It's disrespectful of the rule of law. And it's wrong, whether held hopefully on the right or fearfully on the left."
Rick Hasen, top election law expert and professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California Irvine, said the case was a "publicity stunt" for a presidential pardon.
"The Texas case is not serious. Far from it. It's a publicity stunt masquerading as a lawsuit," Hasen tweeted on Tuesday. "AG Paxton should be sanctioned for it. It goes against the will of millions of voters. He's going for a pardon with Trump."
Indeed, Paxton has legal exposure of his own. He is currently the target of a federal probe into allegations that he committed bribery and abused his office on behalf of a wealthy political donor.
Beyond that, Paxton is still under indictment for felony securities fraud, for convincing investors to buy shares of a tech firm without disclosing that he would get commission on the sale. The case has bounced around Texas trial courts for five years, reaching the state's highest criminal court before dropping back down to the county level. Paxton himself has still not faced trial.
The president's pardon power does not extend to state charges.


alternet--2020-12-10--Mitch McConnell's rush to confirm FEC commissioners is aimed at undermining election watchdog: legal

Mitch McConnell's rush to confirm FEC commissioners is aimed at undermining election watchdog: legal expert

The Senate voted to confirm three new commissioners to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday after the agency spent years without a quorum or the ability to enforce campaign finance laws .
But legal experts expect little to change due to partisan gridlock .
The Senate on Wednesday voted to confirm Republicans Allen Dickerson and Sean Cooksey and Democrat Shana Broussard , all of whom were nominated by President Donald Trump , filling all six seats for the first time since 2017 .
Broussard was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support while the votes on the two Republicans split mostly down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have no more than three members of one party .
It now has three Republicans , including FEC Chair Trey Trainor , Democrats Ellen Weintraub and Broussard , and independent Steven Walther , who typically votes with Democrats .
The agency has been without a quorum for most of the past year and without a full slate since 2017 .
The lack of a quorum left the agency unable to conduct any business during the 2020 campaign , resulting in a backlog of nearly 400 cases .
But the FEC 's inability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further than that .
The panel requires at least four affirmative votes to pursue any action but has frequently deadlocked 3-3 , with Democrats voting to investigate potential campaign violations and Republicans voting in opposition .
The `` last-minute '' vote by the Senate to approve the nominees after the election appears to be aimed at undermining the agency ahead of Joe Biden 's presidency , Carl Tobias , a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law , told Salon .
`` These are last-minute kind of pushes by the outgoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' he said , meant to ensure that `` the commission [ will ] not be very effective heading into Biden 's presidency .
`` It does seem like there is likely to be gridlock and the commission is not likely to do very much that 's substantive , '' Tobias added .
`` That 's unfortunate , given what we 've just come off of in terms of four years of Trump and dark money and all that was spent up and down the ballot . ''
An estimated $ 14 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more than twice as much as during the previous presidential election cycle .
Tobias said he hopes the new members may `` break that deadlock '' but is not very optimistic given the backgrounds of the Republican commissioners .
Cooksey worked as general counsel to Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo .
and as an attorney for Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas .
Dickerson is the legal director for the Institute of Free Speech , a group funded by Charles Koch and other prominent conservative billionaires , and has long defended the rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` The two GOP picks are pretty closely aligned or worked for people who have engaged in a lot of the most vitriolic partisanship , '' Tobias said .
The Senate already confirmed Trainor earlier this year .
He worked as a lawyer for the Trump campaign but has refused to recuse himself from cases related to the campaign .
Last month , Trainor echoed Trump 's unfounded claims that there was `` voter fraud '' in the election , which he described as `` illegitimate '' despite no evidence of fraud or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government watchdog group , criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for prioritizing the controversial votes over much-needed coronavirus relief that has languished in Congress for months .
`` The McConnell Senate still has n't passed a pandemic relief bill for hurting families facing hunger and homelessness , but it found the time to pack the FEC with partisans in an apparent effort to let President Trump and allies off the hook for a stack of backlogged potential violations , '' said spokesperson Jeremy Funk , in a statement to Salon .
`` These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leave as big a mess for the incoming Biden administration as humanly possible . ''
Meredith McGehee , the head of Issue One , a bipartisan advocacy group that opposes dark money in elections , argued that even aside from the latest slate of commissioners the seemingly permanent deadlock is a feature of the FEC , not a bug .
`` Congress intentionally structured the FEC to be weak at its creation , '' she said in a statement .
`` After all , the FEC 's jurisdiction is candidates for federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has frequently shown itself to be a prime example of a 'captured agency ' that is more interested in pleasing politicians and the lawyers who appear before it than in protecting the public interest . ''
McGehee added that Trump and McConnell `` appear to have advanced a set of commissioners this year who are likewise likely to put their own personal ideologies over their responsibilities to enforce the letter — and the spirit — of the law . ''
Some Democratic lawmakers have called to reform the agency by reducing the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to the makeup of both the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission , Business Insider reported .
`` It 's the most dysfunctional agency I know , and unless you think a damaged commission with party loyalists lined up in it is a desirable outcome , you want significant reform , '' Rep. David Price , D-N.C. , told the outlet .
The FEC is `` dysfunctional and toothless , '' added Rep. John Sarbanes , D-Md.
, arguing that the structure of the agency needs to be overhauled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce the undue influence of wealthy donors and corporations , sniff out foreign money in our political system , and restore trust in our democracy . ''

The Senate voted to confirm three new commissioners to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday after the agency spent years without a quorum or the ability to enforce campaign finance laws. But legal experts expect little to change due to partisan gridlock.
The Senate on Wednesday voted to confirm Republicans Allen Dickerson and Sean Cooksey and Democrat Shana Broussard, all of whom were nominated by President Donald Trump, filling all six seats for the first time since 2017. Broussard was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support while the votes on the two Republicans split mostly down party lines.
The panel is required to have no more than three members of one party. It now has three Republicans, including FEC Chair Trey Trainor, Democrats Ellen Weintraub and Broussard, and independent Steven Walther, who typically votes with Democrats. The agency has been without a quorum for most of the past year and without a full slate since 2017. The lack of a quorum left the agency unable to conduct any business during the 2020 campaign, resulting in a backlog of nearly 400 cases.
But the FEC's inability to enforce election laws goes back even further than that. The panel requires at least four affirmative votes to pursue any action but has frequently deadlocked 3-3, with Democrats voting to investigate potential campaign violations and Republicans voting in opposition. The "last-minute" vote by the Senate to approve the nominees after the election appears to be aimed at undermining the agency ahead of Joe Biden's presidency, Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told Salon.
"These are last-minute kind of pushes by the outgoing administration and the Republican Senate majority," he said, meant to ensure that "the commission [will] not be very effective heading into Biden's presidency.
"It does seem like there is likely to be gridlock and the commission is not likely to do very much that's substantive," Tobias added. "That's unfortunate, given what we've just come off of in terms of four years of Trump and dark money and all that was spent up and down the ballot."
An estimated $14 billion was spent in the 2020 election alone, more than twice as much as during the previous presidential election cycle.
Tobias said he hopes the new members may "break that deadlock" but is not very optimistic given the backgrounds of the Republican commissioners. Cooksey worked as general counsel to Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. and as an attorney for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Dickerson is the legal director for the Institute of Free Speech, a group funded by Charles Koch and other prominent conservative billionaires, and has long defended the rise of dark money in American elections.
"The two GOP picks are pretty closely aligned or worked for people who have engaged in a lot of the most vitriolic partisanship," Tobias said.
The Senate already confirmed Trainor earlier this year. He worked as a lawyer for the Trump campaign but has refused to recuse himself from cases related to the campaign. Last month, Trainor echoed Trump's unfounded claims that there was "voter fraud" in the election, which he described as "illegitimate" despite no evidence of fraud or widespread irregularities.
Accountable.US, a progressive government watchdog group, criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for prioritizing the controversial votes over much-needed coronavirus relief that has languished in Congress for months.
"The McConnell Senate still hasn't passed a pandemic relief bill for hurting families facing hunger and homelessness, but it found the time to pack the FEC with partisans in an apparent effort to let President Trump and allies off the hook for a stack of backlogged potential violations," said spokesperson Jeremy Funk, in a statement to Salon. "These are the priorities of people who want to leave as big a mess for the incoming Biden administration as humanly possible."
Meredith McGehee, the head of Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group that opposes dark money in elections, argued that even aside from the latest slate of commissioners the seemingly permanent deadlock is a feature of the FEC, not a bug.
"Congress intentionally structured the FEC to be weak at its creation," she said in a statement. "After all, the FEC's jurisdiction is candidates for federal office. Since then, the FEC has frequently shown itself to be a prime example of a 'captured agency' that is more interested in pleasing politicians and the lawyers who appear before it than in protecting the public interest."
McGehee added that Trump and McConnell "appear to have advanced a set of commissioners this year who are likewise likely to put their own personal ideologies over their responsibilities to enforce the letter — and the spirit — of the law."
Some Democratic lawmakers have called to reform the agency by reducing the number of commissioners from six to five, similar to the makeup of both the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, Business Insider reported.
"It's the most dysfunctional agency I know, and unless you think a damaged commission with party loyalists lined up in it is a desirable outcome, you want significant reform," Rep. David Price, D-N.C., told the outlet.
The FEC is "dysfunctional and toothless," added Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., arguing that the structure of the agency needs to be overhauled in order to "effectively combat corruption, reduce the undue influence of wealthy donors and corporations, sniff out foreign money in our political system, and restore trust in our democracy."


alternet--2020-12-10--Here's why legal experts say Texas lawsuit to overturn election results is a long shot

Sign up for The Brief , our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news .
President Donald Trump on Wednesday latched on to a long-shot Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn a presidential election that handed the White House to Joe Biden .
Legal experts say Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton 's effort to contest election results of four key battleground states is all but certain to fail .
But it has drawn support from the Republican attorneys general of 17 other states .
As the president 's legal team loses case after improbable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Texas lawsuit offers a major advantage : It goes straight to the top .
Under a special legal avenue unique to states , Paxton filed the case directly with the U.S. Supreme Court , a body Trump has suggested could deliver him the victory that voters did not .
“ This is the big one ! ''
the president tweeted Wednesday morning .
His legal team sought to intervene in the case later Wednesday .
The Texas lawsuit takes issue with changes to election procedures in four battleground states : Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paxton argues those changes were unlawful and call into question Biden 's victories in those states .
He is asking the high court to block the critical battlegrounds from participating in the Electoral College .
Trump personally asked U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , to argue the case before the court if the justices agree to hear it , The New York Times first reported Wednesday .
Cruz — who argued several cases at the high court as Texas solicitor general — agreed , his office confirmed .
Although the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three justices appointed by Trump , it has so far shown no interest in siding with him in the election cases his campaign has lobbed .
On Tuesday , it decisively rejected Pennsylvania Republicans ' effort to overturn Biden 's victory there in a one-sentence order with no dissents .
Legal experts and court watchers expect a similar outcome in the Texas case .
The court has asked for a response from the four battleground states Texas is suing , setting a Thursday deadline , but has given no indication about how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the Hail Mary with time running out the clock kind of play here , '' said David Coale , an appellate attorney in Dallas .
“ This is really the last little window to sort of sneak in there and try to get a court involved . ''
States have a special legal ability to take cases directly to the Supreme Court , though such cases are rare , and more typically involve boundary disputes like water rights .
If the high court accepts Texas ' argument that it can sue the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ then any state can sue any other state about just about anything . ''
Even if the court gets past tricky procedural issues , Texas ' case faces an uphill battle .
Officials in the battleground states have roundly rejected Paxton 's argument , calling it “ false , '' “ irresponsible , '' “ a publicity stunt , '' “ genuinely embarrassing , '' “ beyond reckless '' and “ beneath the dignity of the office of attorney general . ''
They also point out that many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their states have already been litigated and roundly rejected .
Experts , state election officials and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr have all said there is no evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could have affected the outcome of the election .
“ Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia , but they do n't bring forward a single person who this happened to .
That 's because it did n't happen , '' said Jordan Fuchs , Georgia 's deputy secretary of state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas case have not kept it from sparking hope among Republicans in Texas and across the country .
Lt. Gov .
Dan Patrick , a firebrand conservative who has served as Trump 's Texas campaign chairman , said Paxton was right to challenge the battleground states , as did state GOP Chairman Allen West .
Gov .
Greg Abbott , a former Texas attorney general , treaded a characteristically careful line , signaling support for the lawsuit insofar as it “ tries to accelerate the process , providing certainty and clarity about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. John Cornyn , who is also a former Texas attorney general , was more critical of the lawsuit , telling a reporter , `` I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it . ''
`` Why would a state , even such a great state as Texas , have a say so on how other states administer their elections ? ''
Cornyn asked .
`` I 'm not convinced . ''
Texas was alone in filing the case this week , but on Wednesday , 17 states with Republican attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the high court backing Texas .
“ Missouri is in the fight , '' said the state 's attorney general , Eric Schmitt , who led the filing .
Beyond its unusual requests , the case was unusual for the attorneys who are arguing it .
Paxton was listed as the state 's lead attorney on the case , a highly unusual move for the attorney general , who has rarely been involved in such a hands-on way in the state 's cases .
Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins , the state 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the U.S. Supreme Court , did n't sign his name to the filing .
Hawkins is the agency 's appellate expert , so it 's unusual for him not to appear on the case , legal experts said .
Neither Hawkins nor the agency answered questions about why he was not involved .
Instead , the agency appears to have brought on an outside attorney , Lawrence Joseph , to handle the high-stakes case .
But court documents show he has often played a role in politically hot litigation .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2003 to undertake “ politically incorrect '' representation .
In 2014 , Joseph authored a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of dozens of Texas Republicans , including U.S. Sens .
John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and a number of members of Congress .
In it , he argued against the Affordable Care Act .
The case was filed by Steve Hotze , a prominent conservative activist in Houston who has sued Abbott and others numerous times this year over pandemic-related restrictions and changes to election protocols .
In 2020 , Joseph wrote another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of the conservative group Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund .
He argued that Congress lacked the power to subpoena Trump 's tax returns .
The Texas attorney general 's office did not respond to questions about how much Joseph is being paid for his work on the case .
Paxton , who has been indicted since 2015 on felony securities fraud charges , has been facing fresh legal trouble this fall after eight of his top deputies told authorities they believed he broke the law in using the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FBI is reportedly investigating the allegations .
Paxton has fired five of the eight whistleblowers and now faces a lawsuit from four of them , alleging wrongful termination .
He has denied wrongdoing .

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday latched on to a long-shot Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn a presidential election that handed the White House to Joe Biden.
Legal experts say Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's effort to contest election results of four key battleground states is all but certain to fail. But it has drawn support from the Republican attorneys general of 17 other states.
As the president's legal team loses case after improbable case in federal district and appellate courts, the Texas lawsuit offers a major advantage: It goes straight to the top. Under a special legal avenue unique to states, Paxton filed the case directly with the U.S. Supreme Court, a body Trump has suggested could deliver him the victory that voters did not.
“This is the big one!" the president tweeted Wednesday morning.His legal team sought to intervene in the case later Wednesday.
The Texas lawsuit takes issue with changes to election procedures in four battleground states: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Paxton argues those changes were unlawful and call into question Biden's victories in those states. He is asking the high court to block the critical battlegrounds from participating in the Electoral College.
Trump personally asked U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to argue the case before the court if the justices agree to hear it, The New York Times first reported Wednesday. Cruz — who argued several cases at the high court as Texas solicitor general — agreed, his office confirmed.
Although the Supreme Court has a six-member conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump, it has so far shown no interest in siding with him in the election cases his campaign has lobbed. On Tuesday, it decisively rejected Pennsylvania Republicans' effort to overturn Biden's victory there in a one-sentence order with no dissents.
Legal experts and court watchers expect a similar outcome in the Texas case. The court has asked for a response from the four battleground states Texas is suing, setting a Thursday deadline, but has given no indication about how it will decide the matter.
“This is the Hail Mary with time running out the clock kind of play here," said David Coale, an appellate attorney in Dallas. “This is really the last little window to sort of sneak in there and try to get a court involved."
States have a special legal ability to take cases directly to the Supreme Court, though such cases are rare, and more typically involve boundary disputes like water rights. If the high court accepts Texas' argument that it can sue the four battlegrounds in this case, Coale said, “then any state can sue any other state about just about anything."
Even if the court gets past tricky procedural issues, Texas' case faces an uphill battle.
Officials in the battleground states have roundly rejected Paxton's argument, calling it “false," “irresponsible," “a publicity stunt," “genuinely embarrassing," “beyond reckless" and “beneath the dignity of the office of attorney general."
They also point out that many of the claims Paxton makes about election irregularities in their states have already been litigated and roundly rejected. Experts, state election officials and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr have all said there is no evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could have affected the outcome of the election.
“Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don't bring forward a single person who this happened to. That's because it didn't happen," said Jordan Fuchs, Georgia's deputy secretary of state.
Still, the long-shot odds of the Texas case have not kept it from sparking hope among Republicans in Texas and across the country.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a firebrand conservative who has served as Trump's Texas campaign chairman, said Paxton was right to challenge the battleground states, as did state GOP Chairman Allen West.
Gov. Greg Abbott, a former Texas attorney general, treaded a characteristically careful line, signaling support for the lawsuit insofar as it “tries to accelerate the process, providing certainty and clarity about the entire election process."
But U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who is also a former Texas attorney general, was more critical of the lawsuit, telling a reporter, "I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it."
"Why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections?" Cornyn asked. "I'm not convinced."
Texas was alone in filing the case this week, but on Wednesday, 17 states with Republican attorneys general signed onto an amicus brief at the high court backing Texas.
“Missouri is in the fight," said the state's attorney general, Eric Schmitt, who led the filing.
Beyond its unusual requests, the case was unusual for the attorneys who are arguing it.
Paxton was listed as the state's lead attorney on the case, a highly unusual move for the attorney general, who has rarely been involved in such a hands-on way in the state's cases.
Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, the state's top appellate attorney and a former clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court, didn't sign his name to the filing. Hawkins is the agency's appellate expert, so it's unusual for him not to appear on the case, legal experts said. Neither Hawkins nor the agency answered questions about why he was not involved.
Instead, the agency appears to have brought on an outside attorney, Lawrence Joseph, to handle the high-stakes case.
But court documents show he has often played a role in politically hot litigation. According to his website, he formed his firm in 2003 to undertake “politically incorrect" representation.
In 2014, Joseph authored a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of dozens of Texas Republicans, including U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and a number of members of Congress. In it, he argued against the Affordable Care Act. The case was filed by Steve Hotze, a prominent conservative activist in Houston who has sued Abbott and others numerous times this year over pandemic-related restrictions and changes to election protocols.
In 2020, Joseph wrote another amicus brief, siding with Trump, on behalf of the conservative group Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund. He argued that Congress lacked the power to subpoena Trump's tax returns.
The Texas attorney general's office did not respond to questions about how much Joseph is being paid for his work on the case.
Paxton, who has been indicted since 2015 on felony securities fraud charges, has been facing fresh legal trouble this fall after eight of his top deputies told authorities they believed he broke the law in using the agency to do favors for a political donor. The FBI is reportedly investigating the allegations. Paxton has fired five of the eight whistleblowers and now faces a lawsuit from four of them, alleging wrongful termination. He has denied wrongdoing.


alternet--2020-12-10--'Worse than Ajit Pai': Senate confirms Trump's unqualified FCC nominee

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted to confirm Nathan Simington , President Donald Trump 's parting nominee to the Federal Communications Commission , despite serious questions regarding his lack of qualification for the crucial post .
The senators voted along party lines , 49-46 , to confirm Simington , an attorney and former senior adviser at the Department of Commerce 's National Telecommunications and Information Administration .
Simington is a Trump loyalist who backed the president 's May 2020 executive order to reinterpret Section 230 , described by the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) as `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Simington said he was acting in the name of protecting free online expression .
However , critics called this claim highly dubious , noting the president issued the order after Twitter added warnings to two of his tweets for the first time , labeling his lies about mail-in voting as `` potentially misleading . ''
Trump tapped Simington after withdrawing Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly 's nomination for a new term in August following the commissioner expressing skepticism over whether the agency even had the constitutional authority to issue new social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greer , deputy director of the advocacy group Fight for the Future , called Simington `` even worse than Ajit Pai , '' the outgoing FCC chairman .
`` His only qualifications are his steadfast loyalty to an outgoing wannabe tyrant and his undying love for convoluted attacks on internet freedom , '' Greer wrote .
Simington 's appointment , and the impending departure of Pai—who will step down on Trump 's final day in office—means the FCC will be deadlocked with two Republican and two Democratic commissioners when President-elect Joe Biden is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FCC would effectively thwart any early efforts to restore net neutrality rules repealed during Pai 's tenure as chair .
While progressives and digital rights advocates applauded last month 's announcement that Pai would be stepping down , those same voices expressed deep concerns about Simington .
Matt Wood , general counsel and vice president of policy at Free Press , called Simington 's confirmation `` a cynical Republican ploy to deadlock the Biden FCC . ''
`` This is a desperate bid by Senate Republicans as their majority still hangs in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it leaves the FCC with a profoundly unqualified commissioner placed there to prioritize industry pipe dreams and purposeful gridlock over the serious work the agency must do to help people connect and communicate during a national emergency . ''
Democratic lawmakers also expressed their staunch opposition to Simington 's appointment .
Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) called Simington `` the wrong person at the wrong time for the FCC . ''
Biden—who has expressed support for net neutrality—has not indicated whether he will promote one of the two Democratic FCC commissioners—Jessica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or if he will look outside the agency for the next chairperson .

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted to confirm Nathan Simington, President Donald Trump's parting nominee to the Federal Communications Commission, despite serious questions regarding his lack of qualification for the crucial post.
The senators voted along party lines, 49-46, to confirm Simington, an attorney and former senior adviser at the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Simington is a Trump loyalist who backed the president's May 2020 executive order to reinterpret Section 230, described by the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as "the most important law protecting internet speech." Simington said he was acting in the name of protecting free online expression.
However, critics called this claim highly dubious, noting the president issued the order after Twitter added warnings to two of his tweets for the first time, labeling his lies about mail-in voting as "potentially misleading."
Trump tapped Simington after withdrawing Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly's nomination for a new term in August following the commissioner expressing skepticism over whether the agency even had the constitutional authority to issue new social media regulations.
In October, Evan Greer, deputy director of the advocacy group Fight for the Future, called Simington "even worse than Ajit Pai," the outgoing FCC chairman.
"His only qualifications are his steadfast loyalty to an outgoing wannabe tyrant and his undying love for convoluted attacks on internet freedom," Greer wrote.
Simington's appointment, and the impending departure of Pai—who will step down on Trump's final day in office—means the FCC will be deadlocked with two Republican and two Democratic commissioners when President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated on January 20. A deadlocked FCC would effectively thwart any early efforts to restore net neutrality rules repealed during Pai's tenure as chair.
While progressives and digital rights advocates applauded last month's announcement that Pai would be stepping down, those same voices expressed deep concerns about Simington.
Matt Wood, general counsel and vice president of policy at Free Press, called Simington's confirmation "a cynical Republican ploy to deadlock the Biden FCC."
Wood added that:
The whole point is to prevent a duly elected new administration and its appointees from getting to work. That's unacceptable, considering everything that a Biden FCC must do to promote broadband equity, increase media diversity, and ensure people can get and stay connected during this pandemic.
[Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell rammed this confirmation through despite Simington's utter lack of experience and expertise. But Simington needed only one qualification to pass muster with McConnell: a willingness to obstruct the incoming Biden administration from repairing the damage done under four years of Chairman Pai's incompetent and unpopular leadership.
All that the Trump FCC has to show for four years of negligence is nearly 80 million people without adequate home-internet service—tens of millions of them Black and Indigenous people of color, and all of them lacking affordable broadband choices in urban, rural, and tribal areas alike.
"This is a desperate bid by Senate Republicans as their majority still hangs in the balance," Wood said. "But it leaves the FCC with a profoundly unqualified commissioner placed there to prioritize industry pipe dreams and purposeful gridlock over the serious work the agency must do to help people connect and communicate during a national emergency."
Democratic lawmakers also expressed their staunch opposition to Simington's appointment. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called Simington "the wrong person at the wrong time for the FCC."
Biden—who has expressed support for net neutrality—has not indicated whether he will promote one of the two Democratic FCC commissioners—Jessica Rosenworcel or Geoffrey Starks—to replace Pai, or if he will look outside the agency for the next chairperson.