rawstory--2020-11-01--Why Bush v. Gore still matters in 2020

Why Bush v. Gore still matters in 2020

Twenty years after the Supreme Court decision known as Bush v. Gore effectively decided a presidential election , it ’ s back on the country ’ s mind .
President Donald Trump , who is lagging in polls amid a surge in COVID-19 cases and refuses to commit to leaving office quietly should his bid for reelection fail , has said he believes the Supreme Court will intervene in the upcoming election to hand him a second term .
He cited that role to justify rushing the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett , who was sworn in as a justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4-4 tie .
Lawyers representing the president ’ s campaign and the Republican Party have taken to citing Bush v. Gore frequently in preelection court filings .
And the case ’ s echoes are only underscored by the presence of three current justices — Chief Justice John Roberts , Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — each of whom worked for the Republicans in the 2000 ballot recount battles in Florida that culminated in the historic Supreme Court decision .
Democrats got agitated this week when Kavanaugh , appointed by Trump in 2018 , included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gore in an opinion explaining his vote not to reinstate a six-day buffer after Election Day for mail-in ballots , which are expected to lean heavily Democratic , to arrive at election offices in Wisconsin .
Then , only two days later , Democrats were cheered by the news that the court had let stand , at least for now , post-Election Day buffer periods in two other key swing states , Pennsylvania and North Carolina .
The notion of a conservative court handing the presidency to Trump seemed that much more distant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch appended to Wednesday ’ s decisions , when read together with Kavanaugh ’ s opinion , suggest more is afoot .
Bush v. Gore is poised for a revival at the high court .
That will probably occur in a different scenario than what happened in 2000 .
The election forecaster FiveThirtyEight projects only a 4 % chance of the election being decided by a recount .
But Bush v. Gore has never been the dead letter it ’ s popularly perceived to be , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of election battles this year .
Before 2020 , the Supreme Court had mentioned the case only once in two decades .
But in the state courts and lower federal courts , it ’ s quietly but repeatedly taken on new roles over the years , serving to resolve everything from how ballot signatures are reviewed to the deadline for mail-in ballots to reach election officials .
This election cycle , with the help of Kavanaugh , Alito and Gorsuch , as well as a welter of GOP lawyers pushing to take Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case is undergoing a radical transformation .
If completed , legal scholars believe , that transformation will have far-reaching and deleterious consequences for efforts to expand voting rights .
By the early morning hours after Election Day 2000 , it was clear that the election contest between the Republican candidate , George W. Bush , and the Democrat , Al Gore , would come down to Florida ’ s 25 electoral votes .
With Bush up in the state by a very thin margin , Gore moved to have machine-tabulated ballots manually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with litigation pingponging around various Florida state courts , twice reaching the U.S. Supreme Court .
Eventually , the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount but offered little guidance to ballot counters other than that they had to discern the “ clear intent of the voter.
” Many Florida counties used punch card ballots at the time , and some Floridians failed to fully punch out the paper tab , called a “ chad , ” leaving their votes unclear .
New phrases entered the American lexicon : “ hanging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ dimpled chads ” ( indented but not detached ) and so on .
With an important mid-December deadline approaching , Bush ’ s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene .
Late on a Tuesday , just hours ahead of the deadline , the court , by a 5-4 vote , put a stop to the Florida recount , all but declaring Bush the next president .
In an unsigned opinion , five of the court ’ s more conservative justices found that the Florida Supreme Court ’ s recount rules were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arbitrary and disparate treatment ” of ballots .
So , for example , counters in Miami-Dade County might deem a particular hanging chad a vote for president while counters in Palm Beach County might not .
The Constitution gives broad discretion to state legislatures to decide how to appoint the electors it sends to the electoral college .
The Bush v. Gore majority held that the Florida recount procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution , which requires that the state not “ value one person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” On this point there was broad agreement ; two justices from the court ’ s liberal wing , Stephen Breyer and David Souter , largely agreed with the five conservatives .
The question remained : what to do about it ?
Souter and Breyer thought the U.S. Supreme Court should do what it would usually do and send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court with instructions for how to cure the problem .
The five conservatives , however , decided that there wasn ’ t enough time left to fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two decades later , their reasoning remains the subject of widespread criticism .
( The late Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority opinion but privately called the equal protection rationale , “ as we say in Brooklyn , a piece of shit , ” according to “ First , ” a well regarded 2019 biography of retired Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor . )
In essence , the majority read into an earlier Florida Supreme Court ruling the suggestion that the Florida Legislature wanted the vote count finalized before the mid-December deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In that interpretation , Bush v. Gore is a one-off that judges and lawyers are free to ignore .
A binding precedent , by contrast , requires that lower courts ( and the high court itself ) abide by it .
Despite that view , the ruling ’ s influence appears to be very much alive : It has been cited in hundreds of federal and state cases , dating from the years just after the 2000 election to this week .
How can these dueling interpretations coexist ?
Consider the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances , for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
” The not-precedent camp points to the first clause as dispositive .
But others insist the second clause is every bit as important as the first , and if read in that way , the sentence sounds not so much like a disavowal of future relevance as a word of caution for other judges : Don ’ t apply the court ’ s analyses in rote fashion ; be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Disagreements over whether Bush v. Gore should be considered a precedent are widespread , including in federal courts .
For example , judges on the federal appellate court in Cincinnati decided in 2003 that Bush v. Gore was precedent “ we are bound to adhere to.
” Thirteen years later , another set of judges on that same court dismissed the opinion as “ non-precedential.
” Still other judges split the difference , like one on the appeals court in Richmond this year , who called Bush v. Gore “ of limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s widely regarded as an aberration , Bush v. Gore has done all right for itself outside the U.S. Supreme Court .
Not only has it been cited well over a hundred times by state supreme courts and federal courts of appeals , that tally grows to about 500 when lower courts are included — from litigation over the 2003 vote to recall California Gov .
Gray Davis to this year ’ s court battle over felon reenfranchisement in Florida .
That means there ’ s a chance Bush v. Gore could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center of the resolution of the presidential race , should , say , Pennsylvania become to 2020 what Florida was for 2000 .
( Indeed , the case has already been raised as part of the ongoing litigation about how to handle mail-in ballots in the state . )
It could also help decide the outcome of other key races , a particularly consequential possibility given that control of the Senate is at stake this year .
In 2008 , for example , Norm Coleman , an incumbent Republican senator from Minnesota , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge the process by which election officials decided whether absentee ballots were valid .
He was unsuccessful , and his Democratic opponent , the comedian Al Franken , ultimately won the seat .
Over the past two decades , Bush v. Gore has evolved beyond the partisan identity it maintains in the public imagination .
An examination of judicial decisions and court filings in more than 150 cases suggests its invocation won ’ t necessarily benefit one party or the other .
The ruling has continued to be invoked in its original context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That makes it an inviting tool for a president who has repeatedly mused publicly about halting vote tabulations after Election Day .
But the case could just as soon help speed along a recount , as the president has seen firsthand in November 2016 , when Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein petitioned for a recount of votes cast in Michigan , a state Trump then appeared to have won by only a few thousand votes .
Stein ’ s recount didn ’ t change the outcome , but federal judges in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. Gore to ensure the recount got done on time , ruling in favor of Stein ’ s request to waive a waiting period mandated by state law before beginning a recount .
The delay , they reasoned , might prevent the state from completing the recount ahead of a key federal deadline .
Once a state grants a right to a recount , a federal appeals judge wrote , “ the State could not use arbitrary or unreasonable procedural rules to make that right a nullity.
” Bush v. Gore has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both to disqualify large numbers of ballots or to ensure that ballots aren ’ t arbitrarily rejected .
Just after the 2018 election , for example , Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson ’ s reelection campaign and a state Democratic Party committee filed a federal lawsuit challenging the way Florida election officials verified signatures on vote-by-mail and provisional ballots .
When a state lets residents vote by mail , the campaign ’ s legal team argued in a filing that relied on Bush v. Gore , the Equal Protection Clause forbids the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a procedurally arbitrary vote-by-mail trap that results in their disenfranchisement.
” In response to Nelson ’ s suit , the courts bemoaned “ Florida ’ s lack of any standards or formal training requirements ” for those who assess ballot signatures , as well as the state ’ s failure to notify some Floridians in time to fix improperly rejected ballots .
A judge ordered the state to give those voters until 11 days after the election to submit affidavits and proof of identity so their votes would count .
( Despite that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lost his seat . )
On the other side of the partisan divide , GOP lawyers this year are deploying Bush v. Gore aggressively .
Attorneys for Republican legislators in North Carolina , for instance , recently argued that a state elections board plan to extend the period of time that officials could accept ballots postmarked by Election Day violated Bush v. Gore .
In essence , they claimed that the case permitted their clients to use the Equal Protection Clause as a tool to reduce the number of eligible voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full appeals court rejected the argument , with one of the judges in the majority calling the plaintiffs ’ argument “ deeply troubling.
” The plaintiffs had suffered no harm , she wrote , and their sole aim was to reduce the number of eligible voters allowed to legally cast their ballot .
( Three of the court ’ s more conservative judges wrote a dissent agreeing with the plaintiffs .
On Wednesday , the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to temporarily block the extension . )
There ’ s more of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a lawsuit filed in Nevada by the Trump campaign and the state Republican Party argues that the state runs afoul of Bush v. Gore because it offers a way to challenge in-person voters but fails to offer a mechanism for challenging voters who send their ballot through the mail , a potential opening salvo in an attack on mail-in voting in an important swing state .
Bush v. Gore and the Ghost of William Rehnquist Until recently , Bush v. Gore ’ s ongoing influence on federal elections has been fairly quiet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration in an incremental , case-by-case manner .
It now seems on the verge of a metamorphosis .
In recent years , Bush v. Gore — or , more precisely , a side note in it , a line of reasoning that indisputably is without precedential effect — has begun to gain currency among conservative jurists and election lawyers .
In the past week , four members of the Supreme Court ’ s conservative wing became advocates for the cause , seeking to transform a long-marginal idea into the law of the land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court embrace the thinking , the court ’ s new right-leaning supermajority will have near-total power over courtroom efforts to shape federal elections — a set of circumstances that election law scholars and voting rights lawyers fear could seriously hinder efforts to expand the franchise in the United States .
Separate from the unsigned majority opinion in Bush v. Gore , the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist , joined by Scalia and Thomas , authored a concurring opinion offering “ additional grounds ” for putting an end to the Florida ballot recount .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules on an issue of state law , that state court decision can ’ t be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court , an outgrowth of the federal system in the United States .
In his concurrence , however , Rehnquist claimed to have identified an exception to this rule in the context of state laws governing presidential elections .
In that context , Rehnquist wrote , the U.S. Supreme Court , in fact , could second-guess a state supreme court ’ s interpretation of its own state ’ s election law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow reading of the U.S. Constitution ’ s Presidential Electors Clause , which says , “ Each State shall appoint , in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , ” the electors that vote for the president and vice president .
In the chief justice ’ s view , the Constitution gave state legislatures exclusive authority to run presidential elections , and when , as in Florida in 2000 , a state court ( or governor ) interfered in the election laws passed by the legislature , that runs afoul of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal Supreme Court can intervene to help preserve the state legislature ’ s power over how the state runs its presidential elections .
The dissenting justices expressed puzzlement and incredulity at Rehnquist ’ s unusual reading of the Presidential Electors Clause .
By his logic , they observed , a state legislature was unconstrained by its state constitution when prescribing laws related to presidential elections .
The Supreme Court ’ s own precedents , the late Justice John Paul Stevens wrote , rejected Rehnquist ’ s interpretation .
“ Legislature ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meant the state legislature acting in its ordinary lawmaking capacity , subject to a gubernatorial veto and the state constitution as interpreted by the courts , not as an all-powerful synod .
This week , Rehnquist ’ s theory not only received the imprimatur of four sitting justices ; it saw its scope expand .
First , on Monday , came Kavanaugh ’ s riff on Bush v. Gore in his concurrence in the Wisconsin vote-by-mail extension case .
It excavated Rehnquist ’ s theory and held it out as the correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an odd place for Kavanaugh to articulate his pro-Rehnquist thesis , because , as Kavanaugh acknowledged , it was entirely irrelevant to the Wisconsin case .
The Wisconsin case was appealed from a federal court , not a state court , and there ’ s no question the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to review the decisions of lower federal courts .
Kavanaugh ’ s footnote suggested he was eager to convey his point of view out into the world , possibly to encourage future litigants to present the court with opportunities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the level of precedent .
That signal may not be necessary .
Throughout the country , Republican election lawyers are already doing just that .
No other justice joined Kavanaugh ’ s concurrence , but just two days later , three of them would join him in extolling the virtues of Rehnquist ’ s theory .
On Wednesday , the Supreme Court declined to roll back similar vote-by-mail buffer periods in two other swing states , North Carolina and Pennsylvania .
Unlike in Wisconsin , the extensions of time were authorized by state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of decision over which the federal Supreme Court ordinarily has no authority .
Given the partisan polarization around voting by mail this year , Democrats celebrated the outcome .
The festivities , however , were muted .
Accompanying each order was a lengthy statement signed by some or all of justices unhappy about the outcome — Alito , Gorsuch and Thomas — and warning that the cases might not be over yet .
Both statements declared their support for adopting Rehnquist ’ s Bush v. Gore concurrence and went further still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legislature also has exclusive control over congressional elections .
( The Constitution authorizes Congress to override the legislature . )
The statement written by Alito , which was appended to the Pennsylvania order , suggested that the Supreme Court might yet intervene after the election , potentially rejecting some large number of ballots that were mailed by Election Day but that arrived at election offices within the three day buffer period .
The more realistic reason for Bush v. Gore to alarm Democrats is that the Supreme Court ’ s four most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh and Thomas — seem to be champing at the bit to cut state courts out of federal elections altogether .
“ Conservative judges have increasingly shown hostility to expanded voting rights , even during a pandemic , ” said Rick Hasen , an election law expert at the University of California , Irvine School of Law .
The approach embodied in the Rehnquist concurrence , known to lawyers as the independent state legislature doctrine , is one of many tools “ that is making it harder for other actors to protect voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice on their side ?
Barrett ’ s views aren ’ t yet known , but Roberts doesn ’ t seem eager to embrace the Rehnquist theory .
This Monday , in a brief opinion , the chief justice distinguished the situation in Wisconsin , where a federal court had modified election rules , and in Pennsylvania , where the state supreme court had done so , relying on “ the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations.
” Still , other courts are running with the interpretation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Thursday , a federal appeals court voted 2-1 to order Minnesota to separate late-arriving mail-in ballots , finding that a state court-ordered buffer period was likely illegal .
Their reasoning ?
Plucked more or less straight from Kavanaugh ’ s Wisconsin concurrence .
Rehnquist ’ s theory poses greater risks to Democrats than Republicans , at least in the near term .
Over the past decade or so , Republicans have done an impressive job of taking over state legislatures .
In the key swing states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal majority on the state supreme court , and a Republican-controlled legislature .
Biden ’ s lawyers surely would prefer their odds in the supreme courts of those states than in a U.S. Supreme Court that ’ s more conservative than it ’ s been in decades .

Twenty years after the Supreme Court decision known as Bush v. Gore effectively decided a presidential election, it’s back on the country’s mind. President Donald Trump, who is lagging in polls amid a surge in COVID-19 cases and refuses to commit to leaving office quietly should his bid for reelection fail, has said he believes the Supreme Court will intervene in the upcoming election to hand him a second term. He cited that role to justify rushing the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, who was sworn in as a justice on Monday and could potentially break a 4-4 tie. Lawyers representing the president’s campaign and the Republican Party have taken to citing Bush v. Gore frequently in preelection court filings. And the case’s echoes are only underscored by the presence of three current justices — Chief Justice John Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — each of whom worked for the Republicans in the 2000 ballot recount battles in Florida that culminated in the historic Supreme Court decision.
Democrats got agitated this week when Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump in 2018, included a nearly page-long disquisition on Bush v. Gore in an opinion explaining his vote not to reinstate a six-day buffer after Election Day for mail-in ballots, which are expected to lean heavily Democratic, to arrive at election offices in Wisconsin. Then, only two days later, Democrats were cheered by the news that the court had let stand, at least for now, post-Election Day buffer periods in two other key swing states, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The notion of a conservative court handing the presidency to Trump seemed that much more distant a prospect.
However, opinions by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch appended to Wednesday’s decisions, when read together with Kavanaugh’s opinion, suggest more is afoot. Bush v. Gore is poised for a revival at the high court. That will probably occur in a different scenario than what happened in 2000. The election forecaster FiveThirtyEight projects only a 4% chance of the election being decided by a recount.
But Bush v. Gore has never been the dead letter it’s popularly perceived to be, and it could be a factor in a number of election battles this year. Before 2020, the Supreme Court had mentioned the case only once in two decades. But in the state courts and lower federal courts, it’s quietly but repeatedly taken on new roles over the years, serving to resolve everything from how ballot signatures are reviewed to the deadline for mail-in ballots to reach election officials. This election cycle, with the help of Kavanaugh, Alito and Gorsuch, as well as a welter of GOP lawyers pushing to take Bush v. Gore in a new direction, the case is undergoing a radical transformation. If completed, legal scholars believe, that transformation will have far-reaching and deleterious consequences for efforts to expand voting rights.
What Was Bush v. Gore?
By the early morning hours after Election Day 2000, it was clear that the election contest between the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, and the Democrat, Al Gore, would come down to Florida’s 25 electoral votes. With Bush up in the state by a very thin margin, Gore moved to have machine-tabulated ballots manually recounted. Weeks of legal wrangling ensued, with litigation pingponging around various Florida state courts, twice reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Eventually, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount but offered little guidance to ballot counters other than that they had to discern the “clear intent of the voter.” Many Florida counties used punch card ballots at the time, and some Floridians failed to fully punch out the paper tab, called a “chad,” leaving their votes unclear. New phrases entered the American lexicon: “hanging chads” (partially detached), “dimpled chads” (indented but not detached) and so on.
With an important mid-December deadline approaching, Bush’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Late on a Tuesday, just hours ahead of the deadline, the court, by a 5-4 vote, put a stop to the Florida recount, all but declaring Bush the next president. In an unsigned opinion, five of the court’s more conservative justices found that the Florida Supreme Court’s recount rules were vague and inconsistent, resulting in “arbitrary and disparate treatment” of ballots. So, for example, counters in Miami-Dade County might deem a particular hanging chad a vote for president while counters in Palm Beach County might not.
The Constitution gives broad discretion to state legislatures to decide how to appoint the electors it sends to the electoral college. The Bush v. Gore majority held that the Florida recount procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires that the state not “value one person’s vote over that of another.” On this point there was broad agreement; two justices from the court’s liberal wing, Stephen Breyer and David Souter, largely agreed with the five conservatives.
The question remained: what to do about it? Souter and Breyer thought the U.S. Supreme Court should do what it would usually do and send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court with instructions for how to cure the problem. The five conservatives, however, decided that there wasn’t enough time left to fix the recount process and complete it. Two decades later, their reasoning remains the subject of widespread criticism. (The late Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority opinion but privately called the equal protection rationale, “as we say in Brooklyn, a piece of shit,” according to “First,” a well regarded 2019 biography of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.) In essence, the majority read into an earlier Florida Supreme Court ruling the suggestion that the Florida Legislature wanted the vote count finalized before the mid-December deadline.
Is Bush v. Gore Precedent?
The prevailing view has been no. In that interpretation, Bush v. Gore is a one-off that judges and lawyers are free to ignore. A binding precedent, by contrast, requires that lower courts (and the high court itself) abide by it.
Despite that view, the ruling’s influence appears to be very much alive: It has been cited in hundreds of federal and state cases, dating from the years just after the 2000 election to this week. How can these dueling interpretations coexist? Consider the most often quoted sentence in Bush v. Gore: “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.” The not-precedent camp points to the first clause as dispositive. But others insist the second clause is every bit as important as the first, and if read in that way, the sentence sounds not so much like a disavowal of future relevance as a word of caution for other judges: Don’t apply the court’s analyses in rote fashion; be sensitive to the facts of the case.
Disagreements over whether Bush v. Gore should be considered a precedent are widespread, including in federal courts. For example, judges on the federal appellate court in Cincinnati decided in 2003 that Bush v. Gore was precedent “we are bound to adhere to.” Thirteen years later, another set of judges on that same court dismissed the opinion as “non-precedential.” Still other judges split the difference, like one on the appeals court in Richmond this year, who called Bush v. Gore “of limited precedential value.”
Bush v. Gore Since Bush v. Gore
For a case that’s widely regarded as an aberration, Bush v. Gore has done all right for itself outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only has it been cited well over a hundred times by state supreme courts and federal courts of appeals, that tally grows to about 500 when lower courts are included — from litigation over the 2003 vote to recall California Gov. Gray Davis to this year’s court battle over felon reenfranchisement in Florida. That means there’s a chance Bush v. Gore could reprise its role this year at the center of the resolution of the presidential race, should, say, Pennsylvania become to 2020 what Florida was for 2000. (Indeed, the case has already been raised as part of the ongoing litigation about how to handle mail-in ballots in the state.)
It could also help decide the outcome of other key races, a particularly consequential possibility given that control of the Senate is at stake this year. In 2008, for example, Norm Coleman, an incumbent Republican senator from Minnesota, tried to use Bush v. Gore to challenge the process by which election officials decided whether absentee ballots were valid. He was unsuccessful, and his Democratic opponent, the comedian Al Franken, ultimately won the seat.
Over the past two decades, Bush v. Gore has evolved beyond the partisan identity it maintains in the public imagination. An examination of judicial decisions and court filings in more than 150 cases suggests its invocation won’t necessarily benefit one party or the other.
The ruling has continued to be invoked in its original context, guiding judicial oversight of ballot recounts. That makes it an inviting tool for a president who has repeatedly mused publicly about halting vote tabulations after Election Day. But the case could just as soon help speed along a recount, as the president has seen firsthand in November 2016, when Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein petitioned for a recount of votes cast in Michigan, a state Trump then appeared to have won by only a few thousand votes. Stein’s recount didn’t change the outcome, but federal judges in that case relied in part on Bush v. Gore to ensure the recount got done on time, ruling in favor of Stein’s request to waive a waiting period mandated by state law before beginning a recount. The delay, they reasoned, might prevent the state from completing the recount ahead of a key federal deadline. Once a state grants a right to a recount, a federal appeals judge wrote, “the State could not use arbitrary or unreasonable procedural rules to make that right a nullity.”
Bush v. Gore has been applied in contradictory ways in different cases, both to disqualify large numbers of ballots or to ensure that ballots aren’t arbitrarily rejected. Just after the 2018 election, for example, Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson’s reelection campaign and a state Democratic Party committee filed a federal lawsuit challenging the way Florida election officials verified signatures on vote-by-mail and provisional ballots. When a state lets residents vote by mail, the campaign’s legal team argued in a filing that relied on Bush v. Gore, the Equal Protection Clause forbids the state from luring “its voters into a procedurally arbitrary vote-by-mail trap that results in their disenfranchisement.” In response to Nelson’s suit, the courts bemoaned “Florida’s lack of any standards or formal training requirements” for those who assess ballot signatures, as well as the state’s failure to notify some Floridians in time to fix improperly rejected ballots. A judge ordered the state to give those voters until 11 days after the election to submit affidavits and proof of identity so their votes would count. (Despite that interim victory, Nelson came up short and lost his seat.)
On the other side of the partisan divide, GOP lawyers this year are deploying Bush v. Gore aggressively. Attorneys for Republican legislators in North Carolina, for instance, recently argued that a state elections board plan to extend the period of time that officials could accept ballots postmarked by Election Day violated Bush v. Gore. In essence, they claimed that the case permitted their clients to use the Equal Protection Clause as a tool to reduce the number of eligible voters who got to cast a ballot. The full appeals court rejected the argument, with one of the judges in the majority calling the plaintiffs’ argument “deeply troubling.” The plaintiffs had suffered no harm, she wrote, and their sole aim was to reduce the number of eligible voters allowed to legally cast their ballot. (Three of the court’s more conservative judges wrote a dissent agreeing with the plaintiffs. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to temporarily block the extension.)
There’s more of this to come. On Oct. 23, a lawsuit filed in Nevada by the Trump campaign and the state Republican Party argues that the state runs afoul of Bush v. Gore because it offers a way to challenge in-person voters but fails to offer a mechanism for challenging voters who send their ballot through the mail, a potential opening salvo in an attack on mail-in voting in an important swing state.
Bush v. Gore and the Ghost of William Rehnquist
Until recently, Bush v. Gore’s ongoing influence on federal elections has been fairly quiet, adapting to new issues of election administration in an incremental, case-by-case manner. It now seems on the verge of a metamorphosis. In recent years, Bush v. Gore — or, more precisely, a side note in it, a line of reasoning that indisputably is without precedential effect — has begun to gain currency among conservative jurists and election lawyers. In the past week, four members of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing became advocates for the cause, seeking to transform a long-marginal idea into the law of the land. Should a majority of the high court embrace the thinking, the court’s new right-leaning supermajority will have near-total power over courtroom efforts to shape federal elections — a set of circumstances that election law scholars and voting rights lawyers fear could seriously hinder efforts to expand the franchise in the United States.
Separate from the unsigned majority opinion in Bush v. Gore, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Scalia and Thomas, authored a concurring opinion offering “additional grounds” for putting an end to the Florida ballot recount. Ordinarily, when a state supreme court rules on an issue of state law, that state court decision can’t be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, an outgrowth of the federal system in the United States. In his concurrence, however, Rehnquist claimed to have identified an exception to this rule in the context of state laws governing presidential elections. In that context, Rehnquist wrote, the U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, could second-guess a state supreme court’s interpretation of its own state’s election law.
Rehnquist’s argument hinged on a narrow reading of the U.S. Constitution’s Presidential Electors Clause, which says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” the electors that vote for the president and vice president. In the chief justice’s view, the Constitution gave state legislatures exclusive authority to run presidential elections, and when, as in Florida in 2000, a state court (or governor) interfered in the election laws passed by the legislature, that runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, which means that the federal Supreme Court can intervene to help preserve the state legislature’s power over how the state runs its presidential elections.
The dissenting justices expressed puzzlement and incredulity at Rehnquist’s unusual reading of the Presidential Electors Clause. By his logic, they observed, a state legislature was unconstrained by its state constitution when prescribing laws related to presidential elections. The Supreme Court’s own precedents, the late Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, rejected Rehnquist’s interpretation. “Legislature” in the Presidential Electors Clause, he wrote, meant the state legislature acting in its ordinary lawmaking capacity, subject to a gubernatorial veto and the state constitution as interpreted by the courts, not as an all-powerful synod.
This week, Rehnquist’s theory not only received the imprimatur of four sitting justices; it saw its scope expand. First, on Monday, came Kavanaugh’s riff on Bush v. Gore in his concurrence in the Wisconsin vote-by-mail extension case. It excavated Rehnquist’s theory and held it out as the correct reading of the Constitution. It was an odd place for Kavanaugh to articulate his pro-Rehnquist thesis, because, as Kavanaugh acknowledged, it was entirely irrelevant to the Wisconsin case. The Wisconsin case was appealed from a federal court, not a state court, and there’s no question the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to review the decisions of lower federal courts. Kavanaugh’s footnote suggested he was eager to convey his point of view out into the world, possibly to encourage future litigants to present the court with opportunities to elevate Rehnquist’s concurrence to the level of precedent. That signal may not be necessary. Throughout the country, Republican election lawyers are already doing just that.
No other justice joined Kavanaugh’s concurrence, but just two days later, three of them would join him in extolling the virtues of Rehnquist’s theory. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to roll back similar vote-by-mail buffer periods in two other swing states, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Unlike in Wisconsin, the extensions of time were authorized by state courts relying on state law, the kind of decision over which the federal Supreme Court ordinarily has no authority. Given the partisan polarization around voting by mail this year, Democrats celebrated the outcome. The festivities, however, were muted. Accompanying each order was a lengthy statement signed by some or all of justices unhappy about the outcome — Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas — and warning that the cases might not be over yet.
Both statements declared their support for adopting Rehnquist’s Bush v. Gore concurrence and went further still, indicating that, within state government, the legislature also has exclusive control over congressional elections. (The Constitution authorizes Congress to override the legislature.) The statement written by Alito, which was appended to the Pennsylvania order, suggested that the Supreme Court might yet intervene after the election, potentially rejecting some large number of ballots that were mailed by Election Day but that arrived at election offices within the three day buffer period.
The more realistic reason for Bush v. Gore to alarm Democrats is that the Supreme Court’s four most conservative justices — Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas — seem to be champing at the bit to cut state courts out of federal elections altogether. “Conservative judges have increasingly shown hostility to expanded voting rights, even during a pandemic,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. The approach embodied in the Rehnquist concurrence, known to lawyers as the independent state legislature doctrine, is one of many tools “that is making it harder for other actors to protect voting rights.”
Can they get a fifth justice on their side? Barrett’s views aren’t yet known, but Roberts doesn’t seem eager to embrace the Rehnquist theory. This Monday, in a brief opinion, the chief justice distinguished the situation in Wisconsin, where a federal court had modified election rules, and in Pennsylvania, where the state supreme court had done so, relying on “the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations.”
Still, other courts are running with the interpretation favored by the four conservative justices. On Thursday, a federal appeals court voted 2-1 to order Minnesota to separate late-arriving mail-in ballots, finding that a state court-ordered buffer period was likely illegal. Their reasoning? Plucked more or less straight from Kavanaugh’s Wisconsin concurrence.
Rehnquist’s theory poses greater risks to Democrats than Republicans, at least in the near term. Over the past decade or so, Republicans have done an impressive job of taking over state legislatures. In the key swing states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania, there is a Democratic governor, a liberal majority on the state supreme court, and a Republican-controlled legislature. Biden’s lawyers surely would prefer their odds in the supreme courts of those states than in a U.S. Supreme Court that’s more conservative than it’s been in decades.


rawstory--2020-11-01--North Carolina Trump rally blares song from ‘Titanic’ as president’s campaign continues to sink

President Donald Trump is headed to North Carolina Sunday , where his supporters were already cramming together for another campaign @ @ @ @ @ While Kaitlan Collins reported from the site for CNN , the song “ My Heart @ @ @ @ @ Titanic was playing on a loudspeaker for supporters to join .
“ I do believe @ @ @ @ @ to Titanic playing behind you , ” noted CNN host Brianna Keilar .
“ Sort @ @ @ @ @ on as we discuss the politics of the home-stretch here.
” For months , political @ @ @ @ @ of the “ unsinkable ” Titanic to Trump and his 2020 reelection .
There have @ @ @ @ @ chairs on the Titanic of the Trump reelection to no avail .
And in the @ @ @ @ @ , Trump ’ s team has been compared to the quintet that continued to play @ @ @ @ @ .
It was something noticed and mocked by several on Twitter as well : See @ @ @ @ @ below :

President Donald Trump is headed to North Carolina Sunday, where his supporters were already cramming together for another campaign rally without social distancing.
While Kaitlan Collins reported from the site for CNN, the song "My Heart Will Go On" from Titanic was playing on a loudspeaker for supporters to join.
"I do believe I hear the theme song to Titanic playing behind you," noted CNN host Brianna Keilar. "Sort of a weird moment going on as we discuss the politics of the home-stretch here."
For months, political analysts have used the comparison of the "unsinkable" Titanic to Trump and his 2020 reelection. There have been attempts to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic of the Trump reelection to no avail. And in the final days of the race, Trump's team has been compared to the quintet that continued to play music as the Titanic sank.
It was something noticed and mocked by several on Twitter as well:
See the moment in the video below:


rawstory--2020-11-02--Republican staffer caught on tape attacking a woman’s car — but has not yet been arrested: report

In 2017 , Republican Greg Gianforte bodyslammed a reporter on the eve of a special election in Montana .
Gianforte lied to investigators , but Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin refused to arrest Gianforte for obstruction of justice or malicious intimidate , allowing him to instead plead guilty to a misdemeanor .
Gootkin had previously donated to Gianforte , but refused to recuse himself from the case .
Now Gianforte is in another scandal as people wonder if violence by a Republican is once again be excused by the powers that be in Bozeman .
“ Now one of Gianforte @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s bid for Montana ’ s governorship has allegedly committed a violent incident of his own , attacking a parked car , according to a police report , ” The Daily Beast reported Monday .
“ An incident report filed by the Montana police says that Daniel Duffey , Gianforte ’ s political director and spokesman , bashed a parked car next to his pickup truck on Oct. 26 , repeatedly slamming his truck ’ s door into the other vehicle .
Duffey ‘ opened his car door and struck the side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visible damage to Vehicle 2 , ’ the report from the Bozeman Police Department reads.
” “ Andre Zollars , a Montana resident whose daughter owns the damaged car , told The Daily Beast that the incident occurred outside a sushi restaurant in Bozeman on Oct. 26 .
Zollars said Duffey ’ s truck was parked over the line separating parking spaces , but that her daughter was able to fit into the parking space anyway , ” The Beast reported .
“ When her daughter returned to the car later , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been damaged .
Zollars claims Duffey also keyed her daughter ’ s car , although that isn ’ t mentioned in the police report .
The car received more than $ 1,600 worth of damage during the incident , according to an mechanic ’ s estimate Zollars provided to The Daily Beast.
” Duffy has not been criminally charged in the case .
“ As soon as we first learned of this , Mr. Duffey was terminated and is no longer with the campaign , ” the campaign told KBZK in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current Lt. Gov .
Mike Cooney .

In 2017, Republican Greg Gianforte bodyslammed a reporter on the eve of a special election in Montana.
Gianforte lied to investigators, but Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin refused to arrest Gianforte for obstruction of justice or malicious intimidate, allowing him to instead plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Gootkin had previously donated to Gianforte, but refused to recuse himself from the case.
Now Gianforte is in another scandal as people wonder if violence by a Republican is once again be excused by the powers that be in Bozeman.
"Now one of Gianforte’s top campaign staffers in Gianforte’s bid for Montana’s governorship has allegedly committed a violent incident of his own, attacking a parked car, according to a police report," The Daily Beast reported Monday. "An incident report filed by the Montana police says that Daniel Duffey, Gianforte’s political director and spokesman, bashed a parked car next to his pickup truck on Oct. 26, repeatedly slamming his truck’s door into the other vehicle. Duffey 'opened his car door and struck the side of Vehicle 2 several times, causing visible damage to Vehicle 2,' the report from the Bozeman Police Department reads."
"Andre Zollars, a Montana resident whose daughter owns the damaged car, told The Daily Beast that the incident occurred outside a sushi restaurant in Bozeman on Oct. 26. Zollars said Duffey’s truck was parked over the line separating parking spaces, but that her daughter was able to fit into the parking space anyway," The Beast reported. "When her daughter returned to the car later, however, she discovered that her vehicle had been damaged. Zollars claims Duffey also keyed her daughter’s car, although that isn’t mentioned in the police report. The car received more than $1,600 worth of damage during the incident, according to an mechanic’s estimate Zollars provided to The Daily Beast."
Duffy has not been criminally charged in the case.
“As soon as we first learned of this, Mr. Duffey was terminated and is no longer with the campaign," the campaign told KBZK in a statement.
Gianforte is running for governor against current Lt. Gov. Mike Cooney.


rawstory--2020-11-05--Mitch McConnell already challenging Joe Biden’s authority to govern

Joe Biden hasn ’ t even won the presidential election , but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is already challenging his authority to govern .
The GOP appears likely to hold onto their Senate majority , although President Donald Trump may lose the White House , and McConnell is signaling that he plans to interfere with Biden ’ s ability to staff his cabinet , reported Axios .
“ A source close to McConnell tells Axios a Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees but no ‘ radical progressives ’ or ones who are controversial with conservatives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden agenda would be severely restricted by GOP control , the source added.
” That could force Biden to stay away from Stacey Abrams , Susan Rice and Sally Yates , according to sources who suggested centrist Lael Brainard for Treasury or Tony Blinken for State — both of whom served with the former vice president in the Obama administration .
McConnell ’ s posture could force Biden to reject progressive favorites Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders , although Biden has already signaled reluctance in naming any Democratic senators to join his cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

“It is relentless,” wrote one attorney about Cross’ allegedly abusive behavior.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
One complaint submitted by an attorney in the office accused Cross of pitting employees against each other to sow mistrust, which the complaint says caused "numerous" workers to resign or retire, and another complaint accused Maddox of gender discrimination, "sabotage" and “threatening/intimidating/humiliating behavior.”
Cross was accused of "bullying" employees in his division and using personal information about them to criticize workers in front of their colleagues.
“He has made several people, including myself, cry hysterically and seek mental health assistance to deal with the toxic and hostile work environment,” one complaint alleged. “It was so bad that my direct supervisor, who was attending the meeting, checked on me afterward and told me it was brutal and he almost cried with me. I am not the only person who has been subjected to such behavior. Several people have quit. Several are struggling mentally and emotionally, including myself.”
Cameron's predecessor, former Kentucky attorney general Greg Stumbo, said his office never received complaints of that type, and he said swift action would be taken to ensure workers felt safe and treated fairly on the job.
“Those kinds of complaints — harassment, intimidating behavior — they have to raise concerns,” Stumbo. “If you don’t manage it appropriately, that stuff spreads like wildfire. I’ve seen it in my private capacity. It’s a cancer that has to be dealt with as soon as you see it, no matter who it is, be that my closest adviser or confidant. I wouldn’t put up with it.”
MUST READ: 'Tell the truth': CNN panel whacks GOP strategist for justifying 'complicated' response to election lies
The complaint that led to a lawsuit last year accused the director of the office's cybercrimes unit of capturing "zoomed-in" photos of a detective's breast and other "immoral behavior," which caused the woman to fear for her safety in the workplace.
“The conduct that he has been engaging in has been slowly escalating to the point that I am fearful of physical violence,” the detective wrote in her complaint, saying her supervisor’s actions “mimic those of an abuser in a domestic violence situation.”
Cameron's office did not take action on the detective's allegations, finding only that the supervisor “should be reprimanded” for public intoxication and reminded him of the attorney general's expectations, but it's not clear whether that happened, and Cameron's office defended the response and said the claims "lacked merit."
“The Attorney General’s office has the utmost respect for its employees and takes all complaints seriously," said a spokesman for Cameron, who is the Republican nominee challenging Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear in November's election. "When a complaint is filed, the office investigates the matter and takes action when warranted. Every employee is also aware of the process for filing complaints with the Personnel Cabinet. We take these matters seriously and address them appropriately."
“Here, the office investigated the complaints and found that the first three complaints mentioned lacked merit," the spokesperson added.


rawstory--2020-11-07--‘You’re fired!: Internet explodes in a frenzy of joy after Biden ousts Trump

As one might expect , the announcement that now-President-elect Joe Biden beat Donald Trump to become the 46th president of @ @ @ @ @ an explosion of joy on Twitter for commenters who have waited since Tuesday for the @ @ @ @ @ network calling the election after analyst handed Biden Pennsylvania ’ s 20 electoral votes , @ @ @ @ @ ” immediately trended on Twitter

According to an expert on authoritarianism, comments made by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on Saturday while standing with former president Donald Trump should raise flags as he promised to use "force" to create change in Washington, D.C.
Considering the former president was recently indicted for conspiracy related to the Jan. 6 insurrection that led to lawmakers fleeing for their lives, historian and author Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Gaetz comments alarming.
Speaking before a crowd at the Iowa State Fair on Saturday, Gaetz stated, "Mr. President, I cannot stand these people that are destroying our country. They are opening our borders. They are weaponizing our federal law enforcement against patriotic Americans who love this nation as we should," before adding, "But we know that only through force do we make any change in a corrupt town like Washington, D.C. And so to all my friends here in Iowa, when you see them come for this man, know that they are coming for our movement and they are coming for all of us."
Reacting to Gaetz's proclamations, Ben-Ghiat told MSNBC's Ayman Mohyeldin, "What he is saying is that they are not going to have change through elections or through legislation or through reform. They are going to have change through violence."
"And that's how fascists talk," she added. "So, even if Trump is out of the picture, these are people who have adopted methods very familiar to me as a historian of fascism, that violence and corruption and lying that's what the party is today."
Watch below or at the link:
MSNBC 08 13 2023 07 35 24 youtu.be


rawstory--2020-11-09--Trump plans to hold rallies to lead his followers in a legal war to stop Biden from taking office: r

Trump plans to hold rallies to lead his followers in a legal war to stop Biden from taking office: report

President Donald Trump is taking his show on the road in his administration ’ s final days , attempting to get his supporters to follow him into the war against President-elect Joe Biden taking office .
Axios reported Sunday that the president ’ s team will publish obituaries they say of people who allegedly voted in the 2020 election , despite being dead .
While Trump may find a few examples of questionable votes or fraudulent behavior , he won ’ t find enough to nullify the election .
He ’ ll then take the illegal ballots to campaign-style rallies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t been able to justify their claims that the election was a fraud , thus far , but they are apparently working to find examples .
“ Team Trump is ready to announce specific recount teams in key states , and it plans to hold a series of Trump rallies focused on the litigation , ” said Axios .
“ We want to make sure we have an adequate supply of manpower on the ground for man-to-man combat , ” an adviser told Axios .
They ’ re also creating a campaign-style media-operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pump out “ regular press briefings , releases on legal action and obviously things like talking points and booking people strategically on television , ” an adviser explained .
They ’ ll do a big push for money for the legal defense , but the reality is that the majority of the money is being spent to retire Trump ’ s debt .
“ Reps .
Jim Jordan and Scott Perry , as well as former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus , are also heavily involved , ” in the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll coordinate heavily with the White House team , including chief of staff Mark Meadows and son-in-law Jared Kushner .
“ We all have the same goal in mind , which is using the legal process over the next many days and weeks ahead to make sure that the president is re-elected , ” an adviser said .
It may take a lot of support from his team , however , as the past several days revealed the president is very sad and his allies have begged supporters to show up with flags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The indictment describes Individual 1 as talking about a draft speech on or about Oct. 21, 2020, that falsely declared victory and alleged voter fraud. It matches what was found by the House Select Committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack and the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. Fitton wrote a draft speech he emailed to Trump through two aides on Oct. 31.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
That matches material the Jan. 6 congressional committee released last year, revealing that Fitton had written a draft speech and emailed it to Trump via two aides on Oct. 31, noting he had recently discussed the draft with the then-president.
“Dear Mr. President,” the email begins. “Please see below a draft statement as you requested.”
They can't say with absolute certainty that Fitton is the one, but it's their best guess. Just Security agreed with the assessment, naming Fitton, too.
Individual 2, they believe, is a fake elector that was among one of the most engaged, based on the descriptions in the indictment, according to both sites. No name is included.
Individual 3 is likely Boris Epshteyn, one of Trump's longtime aides that has provided legal advice. The indictment says that he was on stage with Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and Sidney Powell, which narrows things down.
He sent an email that investigators have from John Eastman where he admits to constitutional questions about the Electoral Count Act before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which “could invite counter views that we do not believe should constrain Pence.”
Just Security agreed that Epshteyn is Individual 3, specifically citing Act 109 of the indictment.
Individual 4, the Daily Beast confirmed is Robert Sinners, who ran operations for Election Day for the Trump campaign. Indicted co-conspirator David Shafer, former Republican Party chair of Georgia, and Sinners exchanged emails on Nov. 20, 2020, which claimed that indicted Georgia bail bondsman Scott Hall “has been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of [Trump adviser] David Bossie." He then asked Individual 4 to contact Hall and lend a hand.
Just Security also named Sinners, saying that "the same email is accounted for in Curling v. Raffensperger ."
Sinners now works "with an institutional bulwark that brooked some of the most severe abuse and violent threats while holding the Trump team’s anti-democratic efforts at bay—the office of Georgia’s GOP Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger," said the Beast.
Individuals 5 and 6 are likely Bernie Kerik (5), and Phil Waldron (6). Kerik is the longtime Rudy Giuliani pal who was in the war room at the Willard Hotel on Jan. 6. But he was also chatting with Waldron about a conspiracy theorist in Texas who had a PowerPoint roadmap to overturning the election using China and Venezuela.
Just Security agreed, too, noting that the two men are in some of the same places or meetings as previously known. Waldron, for example, told The Washington Post that he was at the Nov. 25 meeting.
"The indictment then puts Individuals 5 and 6 together during similar back-to-back presentations that Giuliani’s team made days later to a group of Arizona GOP lawmakers. Kerik describes those meetings in detail to the Jan. 6 committee, matching details in the indictment," the Beast concluded.
Individual 7 was unknown to the Daily Beast, but Just Security can narrow it down to five people: "G. Michael Brown or others on email chain: James Fitzpatrick, Shawn Flynn, Thomas Lane, Valerie McConahay."
"Act 77 of the indictment alleges that Mike Roman sent an email on 12/14/2020 to Robert Sinners, Individual 7, and others stating: 'Please send me an update as soon as the State Electoral College has adjourned and all paperwork is secured.'"
The House Select Committee had the email, showing the possible people that were also on the email.
Individual 8 appears to be Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, both sites said. He was a state senator at the time, and was one of the 16 fake electors.
"The indictment makes it easy to identify Individual 8, who is portrayed as a central figure in the alleged fake elector scheme, appearing in 11 overt acts," said the report. "But the glaring tip that Willis included might not sit well with the purportedly anonymous Individual 8. Last year, Jones successfully barred the DA from publicly naming him in connection with the grand jury probe."
Still, he was quoted from an identifiable Dec. 7 tweet, that Rudy Giuliani shared.
“Georgia Patriot Call to Action: today is the day we need you to call your state Senate & House Reps & ask them to sign the petition for a special session,” the tweet says. “We must have free & fair elections in GA & this is our only path to ensuring every legal vote is counted. @realDonaldTrump.”
Jones is the author, making it easy to identify him. He refused to comment, but did attack D.A. Fani Willis on Twitter for "pursuing 'political vendettas of the past' and spending 'millions of taxpayer dollars' on the sprawling criminal investigation for 'the sole purpose of the furthering of her own political career.'"
Individual 9 the Daily Beast thinks is former Georgia Republican Party treasurer Joseph Brannan, but Just Security isn't as certain. They only identify 9 as a fake elector.
"Individual 9 is alleged in the indictment to have been on the receiving end of a Dec. 10 email from indicted pro-Trump lawyer Ken Chesebro, who is said to also be unindicted co-conspirator 5 in Smith’s federal indictment," said the Beast.
The House Select committee has an email from that as well, showing Chesebro trying “to help coordinate with the other 5 contested States, to help with logistics of the electors in other States hopefully joining in casting their votes on Monday.”
The recipients match Brannan's description, the report explained, which also featured indicted former Georgia GOP chair David Shafer along with “unindicted co-conspirator Individual 9.” The two other people on the email are women, and 9 is referred to as male.
Individuals 10-19 are all fake electors both sides said.
Individual 20, which was cited by some of the legal analysts after the indictment dropped, was someone who was in the Oval Office during one of the key meetings on 12/18/2020. While the Daily Beast won't say, Just Security narrows it down to Michael Flynn, Patrick Byrne, or Emily Newman.
Individual 21, the Beast said was unknown, but Just Security identifies Todd Sanders or Conan Hayes. They use Act 91, which refers to an email sent by Sidney Powell that mentions both men along with Waldron, who was identified as Individual 6. The email was also included in the records from Curling v. Raffensperger.
Individual 22 would reportedly be the other of Todd Sanders or Conan Hayes.
Individual 23, which the Beast also said was unknown. Citing Act 115, Just Security said that Individual 23 was on one of the phone calls with Harrison Floyd and others on Jan. 3, 2021, at 8:11 p.m. Act 27 also references a four-way call that included Floyd, Trevian Kutti, Stephen Lee, and individual 23 on Jan. 5, 2021.
Individual 24 is Alex Cruce, Just Security said, using Act 143 which references the individual flying into Coffee County with Scott Hall, something Cruce admitted in Curling v. Raffensperger.
Individual 25, both sites believe to be Doug Logan, the CEO of the Cyber Ninjas.
Act 154 refers to Misty Hampton, one of the people who allowed Individual 25 into non-public areas of the Coffee County Election Board offices on Jan. 18, 2021. The videos were reported by ABC News and showed Logan and Jeff Lenbert being allowed in on that time. Act 150 refers to Individual 25 downloading the information from the county and putting it on legal technology company Sullivan Strickler's ShareFile, which showed Logan downloading the data on several dates in Jan. 2021.
Individuals 26 and 27, Just Security writes are probably Michael Pospieszalski or Jovan Pulitzer. They cite Acts 151 and 152 accusing Individuals 26 and 27 of downloading Coffee County data. There were six people who did this according to Curling v. Raffensperger. Others have already been identified, leaving these two men.
Individual 28, both believe is Jim Penrose, a former National Security official who ultimately went to work for Sidney Powell. Act 155 alleging an email on April 22, 2021 to SullivanStrickler COO Paul Maggio, asking that the voting data taken from Coffee County be sent to an attorney working with Powell.
“On or about the 22nd day of April 2021, unindicted co-conspirator Individual 28, whose identity is known to the grand jury, sent an email to the chief operations officer of SullivanStrickler LLC directing him to transmit all data copied from Dominion Voting Systems equipment at the Coffee County Board of Elections & Registration Office in Coffee County, Georgia, to unindicted co-conspirator Individual 30, whose identity is known to the grand jury, an attorney associated with Sidney Katherine Powell and the Trump campaign,” the indictment says.
Individual 29 is likely Jeffrey Lenberg, the Beast and Just Security believes, citing Act 154 of the indictment. Lenberg was with Logan on Jan. 18, 2021, when going into the board of elections.
Individual 30 is probably Stefanie Lambert, the sites agree, citing Act 155.
Jim Pemrose, though to be Individual 28, sent an email that was available in Curling v. Raffensperger, indicating Stefanie Lambert was to get the data from Coffee County. Penrose wrote to send the materials to "the same address as before," and "[i]nvoice Stefanie Lambert for the work like last time."
The Daily Beast spoke to Lambert's lawyer, Michael Smith, who said, “My client is a brilliant and zealous advocate for her clients. Stefanie Lambert has done nothing illegal. Like all law firms, Lambert hires experts to opine on potential cases or cases in active litigation. She intends to file suit against any person or entity falsely implying her legal work was improper.”
Read both reports at Just Security and the Daily Beast for significantly more details.


rawstory--2020-11-10--Kyle Rittenhouse’s mom blames protesters and cops after teen guns down two protesters

Kyle Rittenhouse blamed everyone but her teenage son for his killing of two protesters this summer in Wisconsin .
The 17-year-old Rittenhouse faces first-degree intentional homicide and attempted intentional homicide charges for the Aug. 25 shootings , and his mother Wendy Rittenhouse laid blame on the protesters and law enforcement , reported the Chicago Tribune .
“ No one should have been there , ” she said .
“ The protesters should not have been there , also .
My son shouldn ’ t have been there either.
” The teenager traveled about a half hour from his home in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where protests broke out over the police shooting of 29-year-old man Jacob Blake , and Rittenhouse joined militia groups and other counter-protesters to protect local businesses from property damage .
“ The police should have helped the businesses out instead of having a 17-year-old kid helping him , ” Wendy Rittenouse said .
“ The police should have been involved with these people that lost their businesses .
They should have stepped up .
I ’ m not mad at the police .
I ’ m not .
They have a hard enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she had no idea her son had joined the clash across state lines , and refused to say whether she knew the teen owned a rifle , but said she sees nothing wrong with teenagers having access to powerful firearms .
“ I ’ m 100 percent right to bear arms , ” she said .
“ You have to respect the gun , and I told my son , ‘ You have to respect the gun , ’ and everything like that.
” A friend , 19-year-old Dominick Black , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifle for Rittenhouse in May .

This morning, though, I’d like to write about a part of the story that we do know. We know that law enforcement officials raided the office of a news outlet and carted away computers and cellphones. On its own, with no other background or context, this sets an incredibly destructive precedent.
Not just in Marion.
“Newsroom raids in this country receded into history 50 years ago,” said John Galer, chair of the National Newspaper Association and publisher of the Journal-News of Hillsboro, Illinois.
“Today, law enforcement agencies by and large understand that gathering information from newsrooms is a last resort and then done only with subpoenas that protect the rights of all involved. For a newspaper to be intimidated by an unannounced search and seizure is unthinkable in an America that respects its First Amendment rights. NNA stands by its community newspapers and calls upon top officials in Kansas to immediately return any property seized by law enforcement so the newspaper can proceed with its work.”
An attack on a newspaper office through an illegal search is not just an infringement on the rights of journalists but an assault on the very foundation of democracy and the public’s right to know. This cannot be allowed to stand. – Emily Bradbury, executive director of the Kansas Press Association
Emily Bradbury, executive director of the Kansas Press Association, added strong words on behalf of local outlets: “An attack on a newspaper office through an illegal search is not just an infringement on the rights of journalists but an assault on the very foundation of democracy and the public’s right to know. This cannot be allowed to stand.”
Imagine for a moment that you’re the editor and publisher of a small weekly newspaper somewhere else in Kansas. Imagine too that you’ve been speaking with a source about potential wrongdoing by a prominent resident. That resident happens to have a friendly relationship with the local police department. You know that publishing the story, even in the best of times, will create a firestorm in your little community.
Now imagine that you read the coverage coming out of Marion County. You see that printing such a story — or even reporting it — might put you at risk of being raided. It might put your employees at risk. It might threaten the entire financial stability of your business.
So do you publish the story? Or do you think twice? Do you potentially delay the piece for a couple of weeks until this all blows over?
Well, do you?
That’s the damage already done in Marion. That’s the damage already done to Kansas journalism. No matter how the story shakes out — if officials return all the seized computers and cellphones this afternoon — a message has been sent. That message conflicts with the tenets of an open society. It conflicts with free expression. It shuts down the ability of democracy’s defenders to do their jobs, informing and educating the public.
Or as Record publisher and editor Eric Meyer told us yesterday: “It’s going to have a chilling effect on us even tackling issues.” What’s more, it will have “a chilling effect on people giving us information.”
A toothpaste tube has been squeezed, hard, and there’s no getting all that minty fresh goo back inside its container.
No matter the size of the outlet, no matter the reporter, the memory of this raid will linger. Stories will be slowed or go unwritten. Towns, cities, counties and entire states will lose out on vital knowledge about the misdeeds of powerful people. That’s why I care, and that’s why the Reflector cares. That’s why journalists across this country, when they learn about what happened in Marion County, will care too.
Look, I understand. Journalists and journalism can be pretty annoying at times. But no one should doubt our commitment to doing our best for both readers and our communities. Folks who stand in the way of us doing that job don’t just pick a fight with us. They pick a fight with the people we serve.
One more point. If you revere the Constitution — as so many conservatives and liberals claim to do these days — don’t just sit back and watch. Step up to defend our shared freedoms. Because if the Marion County Record can’t report and print freely, neither can the rest of us.
And neither can you.
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.


rawstory--2020-11-13--Trump lost the election in some surprising places — and not just in large cities

Since the day after Election Day , President Donald Trump has falsely accused larger urban cities like Philadelphia and Detroit of stealing the election from him , but details actually suggest otherwise .
On Wednesday , Trump released a lashing campaign email claiming : “ Democrat-run cities , like Detroit and Philadelphia , two of the most politically corrupt places in America , can not be responsible for deciding the outcome of this race.
” The dangerous claim is one the Republican Party has aimed at Democratic cities , mostly comprised of large Black populations , suggesting an inability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have failed to acknowledge that fair does not always mean favorable .
Contrary to Trump ’ s allegations , President-elect Joe Biden ’ s election results in Detroit , Milwaukee , and Philadelphia were relatively the same as Hillary Clinton ’ s results in 2016 .
Trump even managed to gain votes in those metropolitan areas compared to his outcome in the previous presidential election .
However , Biden managed to expand his support also capturing voters in America ’ s suburbs and exurbs—the areas outside of the major cities .
By capturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attract more voters .
However , the larger metropolitan cities still did not “ decide ” the outcome of the election although Trump has suggested so , according to USA Today .
In a nutshell , the suburbs and exurbs ultimately contributed to Trump ’ s defeat—not metropolitan areas , as he has repeatedly suggested .
On Wednesday , Trump attacked Philadelphia city commissioner , Al Schmidt , via Twitter as he accused him of failing to review the so-called “ mountain of corruption & dishonesty.
” Schmidt quickly fired back at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the most outlandish allegations with no evidence to support any of the claims .
“ I have seen the most fantastical things on social media , making completely ridiculous allegations that have no basis in fact at all , and see them spread , ” Schmidt said .
“ I realize a lot of people are happy about this election and a lot of people are not happy about this election .
One thing I can not comprehend is how hungry people are to consume lies.
” He added , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are bad actors who are lying to them .
”

Since the day after Election Day, President Donald Trump has falsely accused larger urban cities like Philadelphia and Detroit of stealing the election from him, but details actually suggest otherwise.
On Wednesday, Trump released a lashing campaign email claiming: "Democrat-run cities, like Detroit and Philadelphia, two of the most politically corrupt places in America, cannot be responsible for deciding the outcome of this race."
The dangerous claim is one the Republican Party has aimed at Democratic cities, mostly comprised of large Black populations, suggesting an inability to hold fair elections. However, Republicans have failed to acknowledge that fair does not always mean favorable.
Contrary to Trump's allegations, President-elect Joe Biden's election results in Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia were relatively the same as Hillary Clinton's results in 2016. Trump even managed to gain votes in those metropolitan areas compared to his outcome in the previous presidential election. However, Biden managed to expand his support also capturing voters in America's suburbs and exurbs—the areas outside of the major cities.
By capturing those voters, Biden did manage to attract more voters. However, the larger metropolitan cities still did not "decide" the outcome of the election although Trump has suggested so, according to USA Today.
In a nutshell, the suburbs and exurbs ultimately contributed to Trump's defeat—not metropolitan areas, as he has repeatedly suggested. On Wednesday, Trump attacked Philadelphia city commissioner, Al Schmidt, via Twitter as he accused him of failing to review the so-called "mountain of corruption & dishonesty."
Schmidt quickly fired back at the president as he admitted he has seen some of the most outlandish allegations with no evidence to support any of the claims.
"I have seen the most fantastical things on social media, making completely ridiculous allegations that have no basis in fact at all, and see them spread," Schmidt said. "I realize a lot of people are happy about this election and a lot of people are not happy about this election. One thing I cannot comprehend is how hungry people are to consume lies."
He added, "I think people should be mindful that there are bad actors who are lying to them."


rawstory--2020-11-13--China sends ‘congratulations’ to Joe Biden on US election win

China congratulated US President-elect Joe Biden on Friday nearly a week after he was declared winner of the American election .
US-China ties have grown increasingly strained in recent years under the administration of incumbent Donald Trump , and relations are as icy as at any time since formal ties were established four decades ago .
“ We respect the choice of the American people .
We express our congratulations to Mr Biden and Ms Harris , ” said foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin at a regular press briefing , referring to incoming vice president Kamala Harris .
Wang said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US election will be determined in accordance with US laws and procedures ” .
China was previously among a handful of major countries including Russia and Mexico that had not congratulated the president-elect , with Beijing commenting earlier this week simply that it had “ noticed Mr Biden declared he is the winner ” .
Since US media called the presidential race , Trump has not conceded to Biden as is traditional practice once a winner is projected .
Trump ’ s four years in the White House have been marked by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Beijing and Washington also sparring over blame for the Covid-19 pandemic and China ’ s human rights record in Xinjiang and Hong Kong .
Under his “ America First ” banner , Trump has portrayed China as the greatest threat to the United States and global democracy .


rawstory--2020-11-15--Conservatives are flocking to ‘alt’ social media

Conservatives backing President Donald Trump ’ s claims of election malfeasance have sparked a migration to alternative social media sites which have refrained from filtering unverified claims .
The shift has boosted right-wing favorites like Parler , Newsmax and Rumble which have rejected the approach of Facebook and Twitter in labeling and limiting the reach of conspiracy theories .
Parler , founded in 2018 , saw more than 3.3 million downloads from Apple and Google marketplaces since November 3 to reach 7.3 million installs globally , according to market tracker Sensor Tower .
Large gains were also seen for other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump himself endorsed — as well as MeWe and Rumble .
These sites have left up Trump ’ s claims of manipulation of election results in states he lost .
While alternative social networks have seen ephemeral gains in the past , the post-election trend “ has reached more mainstream conservatives ” who are frustrated with the large internet platforms , according to Bret Schafer , a disinformation specialist at the nonprofit Alliance for Securing Democracy .
“ It ’ s not unprecedented to see migrations like these after a crackdown ” by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schafer .
Sites like Parler have attracted Republican lawmakers as well as the Trump campaign , which has used the app for some of its recent statements .
Fox Business TV host Maria Bartiromo in recent days announced she would be leaving Twitter , with a tweet saying , “ I ’ ll be posting on Parler bc as you know I won ’ t tolerate censorship.
” Bartiromo and others called on their Twitter followers to migrate to Parler .
“ We don ’ t know if this is a symbolic protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to be more real and lasting , ” said Daniel Kreiss , a professor specializing in politics and social media at the University of North Carolina ’ s Center for Information , Technology , and Public Life .
“ But the dynamic is clear — conservatives are upset at content moderation , particularly against the president.
” Kreiss added that because the dominant platforms had been unevenly enforcing their policies and only recently began aggressive moderation , “ there is a fair conservative complaint about why they doing this now.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the download charts for online marketplaces .
“ Cancel culture has no hold here , ” said one App Store reviewer using the name Minishrink .
“ Either you believe those who will attempt to silence the majority or you believe in free speech , real free speech .
If you believe in the first amendment , then this is THE APP FOR YOU.
” As they have become increasingly important to the political conversation , Twitter and Facebook have struggled with manipulation and misinformation , while at the same time seeking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of viewpoints .
But Schafer said the alternative sites have become “ filter bubbles ” for conservatives , and their hands-off approach could potentially allow for incitation to violence .
Parler and similar sites have become a magnet for racist and anti-Semitic tropes along with groups which have been banned from other platforms for posting hateful content or promoting violence .
“ They can turn into toxic places , ” Schafer said .
“ We ’ ve seen this movie before.
” Schafer said the growth of fringe networks , whether on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fragmentation of the internet which he said “ is not a good thing for civic discourse.
” Kreiss noted that the split threatens “ to erode the shared conversation ” on public issues which is important for democracy .
“ It makes resolving our collective crises that much harder , ” he said .
Still , few believe these services are likely have a major impact on the large platforms which dominate the online space .
The ” alt ” social media sites have little content other than the latest complaints on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be attracting enough users and advertisers to create a sustainable business model .
While many conservatives are joining Parler , “ I haven ’ t seen them stop using Twitter , ” Kreiss said .
“ They need to go where the audience is .
”

Conservatives backing President Donald Trump's claims of election malfeasance have sparked a migration to alternative social media sites which have refrained from filtering unverified claims.
The shift has boosted right-wing favorites like Parler, Newsmax and Rumble which have rejected the approach of Facebook and Twitter in labeling and limiting the reach of conspiracy theories.
Parler, founded in 2018, saw more than 3.3 million downloads from Apple and Google marketplaces since November 3 to reach 7.3 million installs globally, according to market tracker Sensor Tower.
Large gains were also seen for other conservative-friendly services such as Newsmax -- which Trump himself endorsed -- as well as MeWe and Rumble.
These sites have left up Trump's claims of manipulation of election results in states he lost.
While alternative social networks have seen ephemeral gains in the past, the post-election trend "has reached more mainstream conservatives" who are frustrated with the large internet platforms, according to Bret Schafer, a disinformation specialist at the nonprofit Alliance for Securing Democracy.
"It's not unprecedented to see migrations like these after a crackdown" by the social media giants, according to Schafer.
"But this does feel a bit different."
Sites like Parler have attracted Republican lawmakers as well as the Trump campaign, which has used the app for some of its recent statements.
Fox Business TV host Maria Bartiromo in recent days announced she would be leaving Twitter, with a tweet saying, "I'll be posting on Parler bc as you know I won't tolerate censorship."
Bartiromo and others called on their Twitter followers to migrate to Parler.
Symbolic or real?
.
"We don't know if this is a symbolic protest against Twitter and Facebook or whether this is going to be more real and lasting," said Daniel Kreiss, a professor specializing in politics and social media at the University of North Carolina's Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life.
"But the dynamic is clear -- conservatives are upset at content moderation, particularly against the president."
Kreiss added that because the dominant platforms had been unevenly enforcing their policies and only recently began aggressive moderation, "there is a fair conservative complaint about why they doing this now."
Parler has been at the top of the download charts for online marketplaces.
"Cancel culture has no hold here," said one App Store reviewer using the name Minishrink. "Either you believe those who will attempt to silence the majority or you believe in free speech, real free speech. If you believe in the first amendment, then this is THE APP FOR YOU."
As they have become increasingly important to the political conversation, Twitter and Facebook have struggled with manipulation and misinformation, while at the same time seeking to keeping their platforms open to a variety of viewpoints.
But Schafer said the alternative sites have become "filter bubbles" for conservatives, and their hands-off approach could potentially allow for incitation to violence.
Parler and similar sites have become a magnet for racist and anti-Semitic tropes along with groups which have been banned from other platforms for posting hateful content or promoting violence.
"They can turn into toxic places," Schafer said. "We've seen this movie before."
Eroding 'shared conversation'
Schafer said the growth of fringe networks, whether on the right or left, suggest a further fragmentation of the internet which he said "is not a good thing for civic discourse."
Kreiss noted that the split threatens "to erode the shared conversation" on public issues which is important for democracy.
"It makes resolving our collective crises that much harder," he said.
Still, few believe these services are likely have a major impact on the large platforms which dominate the online space.
The"alt" social media sites have little content other than the latest complaints on the election, and don't appear to be attracting enough users and advertisers to create a sustainable business model.
While many conservatives are joining Parler, "I haven't seen them stop using Twitter," Kreiss said. "They need to go where the audience is."


rawstory--2020-11-20--Mike Pence motorcade stuck in traffic after making wrong turn outside Atlanta: reports

Vice President Mike Pence ’ s motorcade went the wrong direction on 285 – east instead of west – on @ @ @ @ @ back to the correct direction .
They then had to ease their way through gridlocked @ @ @ @ @ Base .
Pence was in Georgia to support the two GOP candidates whose races will @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Senate – Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue .
“ I couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ standing with two Senators and serving alongside a President who stands without apology for the @ @ @ @ @ ” Pence said as he addressed the crowd .

"I am appointing Judge Andrew Bain to step in and take over the duties of the State Attorney’s Office in the 9th Circuit," DeSantis announced on social media. "The people of Central Florida deserve a State Attorney that will prosecute criminals and keep our communities safe."
Florida State Attorney Monique Worrell won her office in 2020. Her term runs for four years. Judge Bain, a member of the right-wing Federalist Society, was appointed to the bench by Gov. DeSantis in 2020.
One year ago, almost to the day, Governor DeSantis suspended from office Andrew Warren, another Black elected State Attorney, also for alleged "neglect of duty."
The New York Times on Wednesday called Gov. DeSantis' removal of the state attorneys a "drastic and exceedingly rare step."
"Critics, and even a federal judge," The Times reported, "decried Mr. DeSantis’s ouster of Mr. Warren as politically motivated. But Mr. Warren remains out of office — and Mr. DeSantis mentions his removal in just about every campaign stump speech."
Critics are again blasting DeSantis.
"This is literally just a dictator overruling the people, kicking out a duly elected official he doesn't agree with and putting in his own pawn. This shouldn't happen in America. And the guy who did it shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House," said David Rothkopf, a noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs expert and commentator.
U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost, Democrat of Florida, blasted Gov. DeSantis as a "Fascist" who "hates democracy."
"Struggling to raise money for his failing campaign and trailing by 40 points in the polls, Ron DeSantis removes a Black woman, Monique Worrell, from her duly elected office in Florida in a desperate, antidemocratic ploy to win MAGA voters," observed attorney, former White House aide, author, and political commentator Keith Boykin.
"This is absolutely disgusting," wrote Florida state Democratic Rep. Anna V. Eskamani. "State Attorney Monique Worrell is a duly elected official and the only Black woman serving as State Attorney in Florida right now. Her removal is a complete slap in the face to Orange and Osceola County residents and another example of Governor DeSantis eroding our local control and democracy. This politically motivated action by the Governor in a predominantly democratic part of the state should alarm everyone. DeSantis is extreme, unfit to serve, and must be held accountable."
U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres, Democrat of New York, slammed the Florida governor.
"Ron DeSantis not only punishes corporations, like Disney, for advancing causes, like LGBTQ rights, that he disfavors. He also removes from office duly elected officials who dare criticize the imperial Ron DeSantis. The latest victim is a Florida State Attorney, Monique Worrell, a black woman elected by the people, only to be removed by a tyrant."
"The self-proclaimed small-government conservatives are actually authoritarians who are all too willing to use big-government power to enforce cancel culture against their political opponents," Torres added. "There’s a word for this: hypocrisy."


rawstory--2020-11-21--US allows convicted spy Jonathan Pollard to move to Israel

An American jailed in 1985 for spying for Israel was released from strict parole conditions Friday , allowing his move to Israel , the US Justice Department said .
Jonathan Pollard served 30 years for giving away classified US documents and had been confined by parole terms to the United States since his release in 2015 , despite Israeli pressure to allow him to leave .
“ After a review of Mr. Pollard ’ s case , the US Parole Commission has found that there is no evidence to conclude that he is likely to violate the law , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 66 , was a US Navy intelligence analyst in the mid-1980s when he made contact with an Israeli colonel in New York and began sending US secrets to Israel in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars .
Pollard , who is Jewish , passed thousands of crucial US documents to Israel , straining relations between the two close allies .
Israel ’ s October 1985 raid on the Palestinian Liberation Organization ’ s Tunis headquarters that killed around 60 people was planned with information from Pollard , according to CIA documents declassified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1985 and was sentenced to life in prison two years later , despite pleading guilty in a deal his attorneys expected would result in a more lenient sentence .
After his release in 2015 , he was kept in the United States by parole rules and not allowed to travel to Israel where his wife , whom he married after he was jailed , lived .
He remained subject to a curfew , had to wear a wrist monitor , and was prohibited from working for any company that lacked US government monitoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition he was restricted from traveling abroad .
The restrictions , his lawyers said , had been “ insurmountable impediments on Mr. Pollard ’ s ability to earn a living.
” Israel , where he is regarded as a hero and which awarded him citizenship in 1995 , repeatedly pressured Washington for the release of Pollard , making it one of the top issues of bilateral relations .
But the US intelligence community was reportedly deeply opposed to giving him anything less than the sentence he received , which was similar to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Russia .
According to the New York Times , in 1998 , as president Bill Clinton presided over Middle East peace talks , CIA director George Tenet threatened to resign if Clinton bowed to Israeli pressure to include Pollard ’ s release in any peace deal .
“ It ’ s going to be pretty damn annoying if this traitor gets a celebratory heroes welcome in Tel Aviv .
If Israelis are smart , this is done very low key , ” tweeted former CIA case officer Marc Polymeropoulos .
Pollard ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Semmelman , said in a statement that they are “ grateful and delighted that our client is finally free of any restrictions , and is now a free man in all respects.
” “ We look forward to seeing our client in Israel , ” they said .
“ Mr .
Pollard is happy to finally be able to assist his beloved wife Esther , who is fighting an aggressive form of cancer , ” they added .
“ Mr .
Pollard would like people to know that it was his wife , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him alive during all the years he was in prison.
” In the statement Pollard also thanked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Ambassador Ron Dermer for their efforts on his behalf .
There was little immediate reaction from US Jewish organizations or political figures , perhaps reflecting the sensitivity of commenting on a US citizen who spied against his country for one of its closest allies .
In 2005 , a US defense department official , Larry Franklin , was charged with passing US secrets to Israel via the influential lobby the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AIPAC .
Franklin had verbally shared classified information regarding Iran with two AIPAC officials , who then informed Israel .
Franklin was sentenced to 13 years in prison in 2009 .
But three years later the sentence was cut to 10 months under house arrest , after prosecutors dropped their spying conspiracy cases against the two AIPAC officials .

An American jailed in 1985 for spying for Israel was released from strict parole conditions Friday, allowing his move to Israel, the US Justice Department said.
Jonathan Pollard served 30 years for giving away classified US documents and had been confined by parole terms to the United States since his release in 2015, despite Israeli pressure to allow him to leave.
"After a review of Mr. Pollard's case, the US Parole Commission has found that there is no evidence to conclude that he is likely to violate the law," the Justice Department said.
Thousands of documents passed
Pollard, 66, was a US Navy intelligence analyst in the mid-1980s when he made contact with an Israeli colonel in New York and began sending US secrets to Israel in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars.
Pollard, who is Jewish, passed thousands of crucial US documents to Israel, straining relations between the two close allies.
Israel's October 1985 raid on the Palestinian Liberation Organization's Tunis headquarters that killed around 60 people was planned with information from Pollard, according to CIA documents declassified in 2012.
He was arrested in 1985 and was sentenced to life in prison two years later, despite pleading guilty in a deal his attorneys expected would result in a more lenient sentence.
After his release in 2015, he was kept in the United States by parole rules and not allowed to travel to Israel where his wife, whom he married after he was jailed, lived.
He remained subject to a curfew, had to wear a wrist monitor, and was prohibited from working for any company that lacked US government monitoring software on its computer systems.
In addition he was restricted from traveling abroad.
The restrictions, his lawyers said, had been "insurmountable impediments on Mr. Pollard's ability to earn a living."
Israel, where he is regarded as a hero and which awarded him citizenship in 1995, repeatedly pressured Washington for the release of Pollard, making it one of the top issues of bilateral relations.
But the US intelligence community was reportedly deeply opposed to giving him anything less than the sentence he received, which was similar to the sentences given in serious spying cases related to Russia.
According to the New York Times, in 1998, as president Bill Clinton presided over Middle East peace talks, CIA director George Tenet threatened to resign if Clinton bowed to Israeli pressure to include Pollard's release in any peace deal.
"It's going to be pretty damn annoying if this traitor gets a celebratory heroes welcome in Tel Aviv. If Israelis are smart, this is done very low key," tweeted former CIA case officer Marc Polymeropoulos.
Few comments
Pollard's lawyers, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, said in a statement that they are "grateful and delighted that our client is finally free of any restrictions, and is now a free man in all respects."
"We look forward to seeing our client in Israel," they said.
"Mr. Pollard is happy to finally be able to assist his beloved wife Esther, who is fighting an aggressive form of cancer," they added.
"Mr. Pollard would like people to know that it was his wife, more than anyone else, who kept him alive during all the years he was in prison."
In the statement Pollard also thanked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Ambassador Ron Dermer for their efforts on his behalf.
There was little immediate reaction from US Jewish organizations or political figures, perhaps reflecting the sensitivity of commenting on a US citizen who spied against his country for one of its closest allies.
In 2005, a US defense department official, Larry Franklin, was charged with passing US secrets to Israel via the influential lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.
Franklin had verbally shared classified information regarding Iran with two AIPAC officials, who then informed Israel.
Franklin was sentenced to 13 years in prison in 2009.
But three years later the sentence was cut to 10 months under house arrest, after prosecutors dropped their spying conspiracy cases against the two AIPAC officials.