It appears that Marc E. Elias is back. The Perkins Coie lawyer was the focus of stories related to the Steele dossier and the long-denial of the Clinton campaign that it actually funded investigation. Despite such false statements by the campaign before the election, the money was found to have been paid out as a legal expense through Elias as counsel for the campaign. Elias also reportedly was present when this funding was denied to the media and to Congress. The Biden campaign enlisted Elias to lead efforts in election challenges despite that history. He is now making a curious argument in New York for a Democratic lawyer: he is alleging that thousands of votes may have been switched or changed by Dominion voting machines.
I previously wrote about Elias’ role in what many view as an effort to hide and deny the role of Clinton in the dossier, which was later discredited on many of its allegations. He was present when any connection to the Clinton campaign was denied to congressional investigators. No one was charged for making false statements in the interview. Likewise, while legal blogs have called for disbarments of Trump lawyers for making false statements, there is no call to determine if Elias should face similar scrutiny and whether, as alleged, he lied about the funding of the dossier or assisted others in making such false or misleading statements.
As discussed previously, Elias played a key role in allowing Clinton to deny any involvement in the dossier.
Throughout the campaign, and for many weeks after, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates during the Obama administration. Journalists later discovered that the Clinton campaign hid the payments to Fusion as a “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel at the time said that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias had “vigorously” denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman likewise wrote: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Even when Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the false information given to Congress.
Later, confronted with the evidence, Clinton and her campaign finally admitted that the dossier was a campaign-funded document that was pushed by Steele and others to the media.
Later Elias was mentioned in a government report in a critical meeting with John Podesta and congressional investigators: Here is the nut of the report:
“Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources. Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta’s attorney and not as a witness.”
It is not clear if Podesta’s denial was immediately or later formally corrected since Elias could have informed Podesta after the meeting that there was indeed such a relationship. Indeed, one would think that this issue would have been discussed before a meeting on that very subject.
There seems little interest in the statement by Podesta to investigators or Elias’ role in what Haberman denounced as lies to the media. Perkins Coie was also not apparently concerned by his role since he holds the position of “firmwide chair.” Indeed, Perkins Coie appears entirely satisfied with its firmwide chair engaging in personal and juvenile attacks when confronted on such allegations.
Now, Elias is leading election challenge efforts. One of those cases concern Democratic candidate Anthony Brindisi efforts against former Republican representative Claudia Tenney. Tenney now holds a 125-vote lead after weeks of rechecking by the 22nd Congressional District’s eight counties. Rowan Scarborough notes that Elias seems to be “taking a page out of the Donald Trump playbook” in arguing in court that “there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi.”
The tabulation machines are reportedly Dominion Voting machines and a spokeswoman for the Oswego County Board of Election insisted the Elias’ claims are meritless.
Scarborough noted that Elias attacked me when I raised a controversy related to district using the Dominion system where thousands of Trump votes were initially recorded for Biden. I noted in the interview that this was purely “human error” and that there is no evidence of system fraud or anything that would change the outcome of the election. Nevertheless, Elias attacked me for referencing the controversy (which was to be raised in court) as outrageous. I was not surprised by the attack given my past criticism of Elias. Somehow I think I can discuss the Democratic challenge to these machines as a legal commentator and not be accused of being a virtual holocaust denier by another law professor. Moreover, Elias’ attack on the legitimacy of the vote counts and the Dominion system will not be treated as an attack on democracy.
I am less surprised by Elias challenge to the Dominion Voting Systems as I am that he remains one of the leading lawyers enlisted by Biden and the Democratic party after the Steele dossier scandal.
Update: Elias seems more concerned with the suggestion that he has not been in the news than the allegation that he lied to reporters and stayed silent as Podesta allegedly gave false information to Congress. After engaging in in unprofessional name calling and taunts, Elias objected that I said that he was “back” in the news. He indicated that he is high profile and much in the news. He said that I must be living under a “rock” not to have seen his high media profile. I must confess that I have not seen Elias back at the center of the news, but I take his word for it. Now perhaps he can respond to the allegations of false statements as a much-in-the-news lawyer.
TRUMP WON.
It’s not the crime that is of concern, it is the abject forbearance of justice.
Elias and everyone else know that votes were tampered with.
Probable cause exists by the truck load.
There has been no evidence, no testimony and no trial of the crimes of election fraud and vote tampering.
There has been no republican/conservative/opposition inspection of Dominion Voting Systems, other election apparatuses and evidence.
In the NFL, there are scrutiny and audits of the Super Bowl by 400 million eyes in real time, and abundant and repeated reviews by Instant Replay.
TRUMP LOST.
TRUMP WON!
You are compelled to make your false statement precisely because you know that TRUMP WON.
If you knew with certainty that your false statement was true, you would have had no rationale or need to respond, and you would not have.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have blocked access to the voting apparatuses and the counts; to the evidence.
Why?
2020 was rigged and stolen.
TRUMP WON.
And you know it.
No, I know that Biden won.
Then you would have demanded a REAL independent Audit, rather than this
I can not see the bad consequences of my own lawless actions nonsense of the courts.
Elias is challenging DVS systems – his arguments are much the same as Sydney Powell’s.
There is no rational world in which they are not both right or both wrong.
Trump lost… Literally everyone that isn’t a Trump sycophant agrees. Ever confront the idea you were lied to?
Elias asks for a manual recount in this Congressional race in New York, much as occurred in Georgia’s President race and affirmed Biden’s victory there. The Georgia margin was about 12,000 votes. This margin in the NY Congressional race is 124 votes. So the margin in Georgia was 100 times larger and much less likely to be impacted by a machine count.
But sure, Turley, continue with the false equivalence. This election was not the 2000 Presidential election either, where the margin was much closer.
Numnuts in Georgia we all plainly saw on video the lady run the same ballots multiple times thru the machine. We also saw her daughter do the same thing. Of course you don’t believe your lying eyes.
Link to the video you’re referring to. Let’s test whether your claim is true.
Find it yourself. Let’s test whether you have any initiative (and desire for the truth).
No. The person who made the claim has the burden to demonstrate it’s true. Not my job to hunt for it.
Also, your test is faulty, since my refusal to do someone else’s job doesn’t demonstrate a lack of desire for the truth. If I lacked that desire, I wouldn’t have responded in the first place.
Yes, lets actually test these claims. Properly in court, with witnesses testifying under oath.
Not with judges sticking their heads in the sand.
It is far easier and far better for the country to actually test these claims then it is to throw legal spittle arround and pretend that nonsense like standing and laches will restore public trust.
We can determine of the same ballots were counted multiple times by verifying that the number of voters, numer of actual ballots and the number of votes counted tie with a tiny margin for error.
If the total number of voters recorded matches the total number of ballots that have been preserved, matches the total number of votes recorded – it is reasonable to assume that there is no significant amount of fraud by counting the same ballots over and over.
There are other checks for other types of error. There are excellent statistical and forensic methods to detemine if duplicate or conuterfeit ballots were introduced.
The claim that DVS miscounts ballots can easily be checked by ACTUALLY hand counting ballots and comparing results.
It is not even necescary to recount every machine – a random sample can be done.
The envelope identification of mailin ballots can be checked to confirm the legitimacy of the voter.
Beyond signatures, Addresses can be checked, State ID (DL) #’s can be checked. DOB’s can be checked.
Citizenship can be checked, residence can be checked.
We have the means to check and correct any errors in in person ballots.
Unfortunately where mailin voters are found to be fraudulent – there is no correction possible.
Regardless, we should KNOW.
In NY, accross the country, in 2020, and in every election.
If the plaintiff lacks standing, court is not the correct place for the plaintiff’s claims to be heard.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
“So the margin in Georgia was 100 times larger . . .”
Sure, if you ignore a crucial number: the total votes cast in the 22nd District versus the total votes in GA. If you include that number, as a responsible person would, you’d see that the conclusion is the exact opposite of yours. The margin is actually about five times higher in the 22nd District.
Further, there was not a manual recount in the state of GA. There was only a small-sample recount in one county. And a recount it *not* the issue. It’s the authenticity of the ballots and the integrity of the voting machines and the individuals operating them (especially the issue of adjudication).
False, you missed the part about, after rechecking for weeks by eight counties the vote tally remains the same. See paragraph 5, fourth sentence. We are sure it is just your oversight and not your design. Right?
“See paragraph 5, fourth sentence.”
Is that for me? If so, I don’t know what doc you’re referring to.
That said, thanks for the comment. It made me realize that I misspoke. I didn’t mean the GA recount. I meant the small-sample signature checks.
On the recount, though: According to various experts, it was a chaotic mess — and far from reliable.
“On-the-ground observers of the count included Harri Hursti, an election cybersecurity expert who has studied elections in five countries, including the United States. “This whole thing was originally called a risk-limiting audit, then a hand recount, then an audit—I don’t know what it is; I don’t think anyone else knows,” he said.
“Hursti noted that he had looked at the software being used to manage the hand count, an easy thing to do, given that Voting Works uses open-source code. He had seen more than a dozen changes to the code since the count began—a security concern, he said, since no entity had approved the original software or the changes.
“Hursti also noted that staffers and volunteers in different counties—and sometimes in the same county—were following different procedures for counting the ballots. “Hand recounts only work when people are trained in and apply consistent methodologies,” said Richard DeMillo, computer science professor and interim chairman of the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy at Georgia Tech. “You could look at live feeds [of the hand count] and see that this is not the case.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/georgia-recount/
Tit: I just realized that your comment refers to “eight counties,” which makes me think you’re referring to FE’s comment about NY’s 22nd District. Ugh, I’m confused.
Tit: Never mind. I see from your comment, below, that you were referring to FE’s comment.
GA did a recount of the ballot scans. That is not a hand recount.
If Elias gets the same thing in NY it will change nothing.
The official count in GA does NOT include the corrections that were later found the margin in GA is a bit over 5000 votes.
Out of almost 5M
Tenney won by 124 votes out of less than 300K.
Further out of a thousand controversial ballots Tenney GAINED almost 100 votes – that is a 10% error rate in the original adjudication.
Fulton county alone adjudicated 105K ballots – If the adjudication error rate in Fulton county alone resulted int he same shift as occured when those ballots were checked Trump would win GA by about 4000 votes.
Thus far, all comments have only proven that wealthy people and/or their corporations are able to buy the most persuasive legal representation that will convince a court of law and Congress that
guilty parties should exonerated by targeting other individuals. The review of the election process in both 2016 and 2020 was unfair by any standards of fairness b/c in the aftermath of the 2016 election Congress spent 4 years trying to remove the Potus based on lies that were fabricated by the outgoing WH administration. In aftermath of the 2020 election, Congress relied on a riot in the Capitol consisting of 200 BLM and Antifi professionally trained agents does not justify ignoring that ballots were counted that violated State Lawseuing the 2020 election b/c thousands of peaceful protestors waited outside for Congress to address a remedy for posssible election fraud. The biased news of this event is proven by the fact that the reported news and Congress never attacked leading Democrats for supporting and funding the BLM riots that distroyed property and killed people for nearly 6-months in 2020. I hope my views are those of many who may be still be able to understand controversial and/or illegal political events from different perspectives….wiithout being programmed to hate any person or group of individuals based on biased news media and biased social media that removes comments that liberal democrats dispute.
Antifa/BLM are the ‘political militia’ of the Democrat Party.
Trump would have needed to overturn three states’ votes in his favor with margins of tens of thousand of votes in each state.
I believe Elias is challenging an election where the margin is roughly a hundred votes, and he does not need to also overturn two other districts.
So not exactly the same thing. There are often election challenges when the margin is around a hundred votes, whether a Democrat or Republican is on the losing end. There are often errors of that magnitude.
There are never errors of the magnitude Trump was challenging in his election, and which Turley was pushing for a while.
“I believe Elias is challenging an election where the margin is roughly a hundred votes . . . So not exactly the same thing.”
You’re right, but not in the way you mean. The Elias challenge is Georgia on steroids. The margin in the 22nd District is about six times higher than Georgia’s.
Difference, the votes in eight counties were rechecked for weeks. Do you have a problem with the definition of rechecked or the definition of weeks. Now the Democrats say the voting machines were wrong after weeks of rechecking. It’s really easy to go to Google to find a definition. You must have missed that class in school.
Democrat snakes slither out from underneath the rocks.
Yes Professor, you have continued to attribute the Dominion Voting theft to “human error” despite clear evidence to the contrary. You seem to believe that the fact that you have decreed the 2020 elections to be the best in the best of all possible worlds, in true Panglossian style, should be enough to quell any dissent. Hubris, clueless, or all of the above? Nothing you write matters until you are willing to actually look at the evidence of fraud from 2020. You like to pick and choose which elements of the law are worthy of protection, but that’s not how it’s supposed to work. You either care about the law or you don’t. If you don’t, please find something else to blog about.
Once again, Turley doesn’t bother to link to the filing so we can read it. He relies on a single-sentence quote from the Washington Times.
Here’s the filing –
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/2021.02.01_Memorandum-of-Law.pdf
Turley omits the very next sentence, which is quite relevant, “In addition, Oswego County admittedin a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”
The tabulations were rechecked by the counties for weeks. Just a simple fact so conveniently overlooked. You defend a lawyer who denied that the funding of the Steele dossier was from the Clinton campaign. I appreciate your defense of such an example of great integrity. Birds of a feather indeed.
“You defend a lawyer…”
I haven’t defended anyone. I quoted a sentence.
Are you truly so ignorant that you don’t understand that the latter doesn’t imply the former?
Or do you understand that, but purposefully choose to make a false statement about it?
“I appreciate your defense…”
I don’t appreciate your ignorance or dishonesty. I think it’s harmful.
Lawyers will do what lawyers will do, represent their clients interest. I expect this to lose like Trump did. Amazing though, how the other side says exactly the same things when the shoe is on the other foot.
I readily concede that there are conservative as well as liberal liars. Duh! And if Elias violated his ethical duty as an officer of the court by lying or allowing a misrepresentation by his silence, he should be disbarred. Fine by me. But I have never read on this blog you Trumpists conceding that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar. You swallow his claim that “people are saying” that he is the most honest man alive.
Turley: “Somehow I think I can discuss the Democratic challenge to these machines as a legal commentator and not be accused of being a virtual holocaust denier by another law professor.”
You may be a legal commentator, but you are not an independent and impartial one. You are prejudiced as you must be toward your employer Fox News. For all we know, your employment contract includes a non-disparagement clause for the duration of your service and after your termination.
Now, Smartmatic has sued Lou Dobbs, Pirro, and Maria Bartiromo and attorneys Giuliani and Sidney Powell for over 2 Billion dollars for defamation for repeatedly stating the Big Lie that the election was stolen by this company’s software as well as Dominion’s. Let’s see if Turley mentions this lawsuit and, if so, what lengths he will go to defend the conduct of his employer in knowingly broadcasting the lies of these individuals which the lawsuit alleges.
Jeffery, Turley is also prejudiced toward the GOP and that is undeniably obvious. We get the occasional “Many of us have criticized President Trump for drowning puppies, however….” routine all the time,but NEVER the “Trump Must Stop Drowning Puppies” column.. Yet he pretends to be all legal and objective. It’s a bad joke at this point.
Friday, I’m not prepared as of yet to throw in the towel! There is no question that Turley has not and will not pass judgment on the liars on Trump TV. And for that matter, I don’t believe he has ever criticized Newsmax or OAN. I am losing faith in him. And I think his true colors will soon be revealed unmistakably when more undeniable evidence of Trump’s corruption comes to light and he is forced to choose a side- either Trump TV or reality. He cannot continue to straddle both sides of this cold war by declaring his liberalism (and his not voting for Trump) while at the same time ignoring the liars on Trump TV who defend Trump no matter what. If Turley does not “comment” on this Smartmatic lawsuit, then I will join you in your utter contempt for him.
He already mentioned the lawsuit. He gave his analysis of why or why not it can win or move forward.
Since the Smartmatic lawsuit was just filed yesterday, I don’t believe Turley has yet reacted to it.
But I have never read on this blog you Trumpists conceding that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar. You swallow his claim that “people are saying” that he is the most honest man alive.
Trump is both a serial liar *and* by far the most honest present in my lifetime. Lying isn’t dishonest if it isn’t believed. Trump’s lies were always about matters of no consequence and . . .transparent! He never lied to conceal or mislead. He lied to self-aggrandize. So what?
This contrasts starkly with the lies of the Left, which are necessary to conceal their evil agenda and the dishonest and illegitimate means by which they seek to advance it.
William_JD: “Lying isn’t dishonest if it isn’t believed.“
Now that is quite a rationalization! Bravo!
Someone on the Clinton campaign hired Fusion to complete the Steele investigation originally funded by GOP donors opposed to Trump. That the Clinton campaign reaped exactly 0 – zero! – benefit from it indicates most in the campaign didn’t know about it or deemed it unsubstantiated. The campaign never used it in ads, debates, nowhere.
As to Dominion, lawyers will try anything, that’s their job. Good luck, but like the Trump accusations, this will go nowhere for good reason.
Joe F, The completion of the dossier was brought about by the Clinton campaign. You conveniently don’t take into account that the dossier was used as evidence to surveil an American citizen in the employ of an opposition party. Had they succeeded he would have lost his ability to make a living. Hearts of gold. The second result would have had to be the incarceration of the leader of the opposition party for treason. The damage to the nation can not be adequately described. To the Democrats, power was more important than the continuance of a free nation. Anything is allowed when the principles of your religion are at stake. Brother Joe, you are indeed a credit to the Preisthood.
TiT, the dossier was never completed, and no one in the DOJ ever suggested Trump was guilty of treason. Trump, on the other hand, wanted several people tried for treason, good thing it wasn’t in his power.
Why has Marc Elias not been disciplined or disbarred?
Because he is with the Deep State.
Nothing is preventing you from filing a complaint with the Bar. Why haven’t you?
Elias is working very hard at being a victim of an “Arkancide” if he is not careful…..he knows too much about the Clintons and that is always a grave concern.
Now the Democrats want their Kate and Edith too….Dominion’s Lawyers might just decide to include some Democrats in their Billion Dollar lawsuit…and that would be very entertaining.
How would those Democrats defend their allegation the Voting Machines were corrupt and at the same time say they were accurate?
Democrats….always shooting themselves in the foot!
Doesn’t this beg for bi partisan agreement to do a full and thorough audit of the Dominion systems or is the opportunity to make this claim the result that is desired?
As they note in the memorandum, “Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”
That’s not the case across the country, so no, this doesn’t “beg for bi partisan agreement to do a full and thorough audit of the Dominion systems.”
“That’s not the case across the country . . .”
How do you know that?
If counties across the country “admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate,” we’d know, because such statements would have been included in other lawsuits.
Nice use of the fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam.
No, it’s not a use of that fallacy. In an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the person claims that X is true because X hasn’t been proved false (or false because it hasn’t been proved true), whereas I’m pointing out that it simply isn’t the case that counties across the country “admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”
These sworn statements get filed with the courts.
Anon, I’ll take your word for it that the voting machines were not calibrated for weeks. You and Trump have something in common. You both say that there may have been a problem with the voting machines. You then proclaim that it could not have happened on a larger scale. You would have us believe that your proclamation is from truth on high. After all, we know that your message is to be found on the tablet revealed to you by the gods. We will be waiting for your next explanation of the calibration prophecy bestowed upon you.
Don’t take my word for it. It’s not my word. It’s a quote from this legal filing, a link to which I provided earlier, before I quoted from it –
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/2021.02.01_Memorandum-of-Law.pdf
It should be obvious to you that it’s a quote, since it has quotation marks around it. Here’s a slightly longer quote, “Oswego County admittedin a sworn statement to this Courtthatitstabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state lawand necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate. (See supra at 5; NYSCEF Doc No. 104).” So you don’t have to take their word for it either, you can read Doc No. 104 from the suit.
“You both say that there may have been a problem with the voting machines.”
Again, I’m not the one who said it, I only quoted it. Why is it so hard for you to pay attention to who said what?
“You then proclaim that it could not have happened on a larger scale.”
No, I absolutely did NOT say that it “could not have happened on a larger scale.” I said that it DID not happen across the country, because if it HAD happened across the country, we’d see similar statements in the lawsuits across the country.
“You would have us believe that your proclamation is from truth on high.”
You are fond of pretending that people think things that come from your mind rather than theirs. It’s a form of trolling.
Anon. I said that I take your word for it that the quote is correct. It is your proclamation that your seeing eye dog has told you that it couldn’t have happened across the nation that I question. You have no way of knowing for sure. If it happened in one part of the nation it would the follow that it could have happened elsewhere. It is easy to see that you anticipated the response to your post and you did a CYA when you then tell us there is no way it could ever be found in other instances. Nice try but that dog just won’t hunt. Too clever by half.
You’re so brainwashed. There was no evidence of fraud. You were lied to you pathetic, Trump worshipping imbecile.
Anon, when you post a quotation it must follow that you yourself are agreeing with the conclusion. We are now supposed to somehow believe that you did not post it as proof of your position. What other reason could you have for bringing the quotation to our attention? When the hole is above your head you should stop digging. Like Rosana Rosana Dana you should just say “Never mind”.
“Anon, when you post a quotation it must follow that you yourself are agreeing with the conclusion.”
What total BS. You think everyone who quotes Trump and Obama agrees with their conclusions? LMAO.
“It is your proclamation that your seeing eye dog has told you that it couldn’t have happened across the nation that I question.”
FO troll.
Anon, now you admit that faulty voting machines could have happened on a small scale and a large scale but not across the nation. Now it’s a matter of quantification. Perhaps you could enlighten us with more specificity. We are confused about how much you mean. In the old west a disrespect for the handling of firearms was voiced in a statement. “Going off half cocked”. If you were smart it never happened again.
Yeah, that’s why all those Trump legal experts and certain news agencies are facing multi-billion dollar lawsuits. They even pulled Lou Dobbs off of Fox and put disclaimers up before Rudy speaks… You were lied to.
These people have no shame.
Both parties have them; the only difference is the sanctimonious braying of the Dems: “Trump is worse”.
Lefties on this blog should recognize that their side has its disgusting people.
It’s honestly comical how obsessed you folks are with him. I’ve never seen people worship one man like he’s a god so hard. You’d probably get on your knees and immediately suck him off if he requested you to.