Court Dismisses BLM Lawsuit Against Federal Agencies Over Lafayette Park Protests

We recently discussed the Inspector General report on the Lafayette Park protests and the debunking of claims that the federal government and specifically Attorney General Bill Barr cleared the area for the controversial photo op of President Donald Trump in front of St. John’s Church. For a year, legal and media experts have stated as fact that area was cleared for that purpose and that Barr was lying about the federal agencies using tear gas as opposed to pepper balls (even though the legal and practical difference is largely immaterial). Some tried to keep the myth alive by criticism the IG report and its scope. Now, federal judge Dabney L. Friedrich has dismissed the lawsuit by the ACLU and Black Lives Matter as based on unsupported and unsubstantiated claims against the federal agencies. Ironically, the court allowed the lawsuit against the MPD under Mayor Muriel Bowser to continue. The Bowser Administration admitted recently that it used tear gas near the park on that night and that such use was perfectly reasonable. Both the Bowser and Biden Administrations sought to dismiss the BLM lawsuit as unfounded and unsupportable — a striking departure from what Bowser has stated publicly.

I testified in Congress not long after the clearing of the area and stated that the conspiracy theory was already contradicted by the available evidence. I encouraged Congress to investigate the question and establish the truth of the matter.

As previously discussed, there was ample evidence in the days after the protests to reinforce the account of Barr and others that the plan to clear the park area was proposed days before any plan for a photo op. There was never any evidence that Barr knew of the photo op plan before approving the operation.  Nevertheless, media and legal experts continued to claim as a fact that this was all done for the photo op.  University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated the conspiracy theory about the photo op and the Washington Post ran an article by Philip Bump titled “Attorney General Bill Barr’s Dishonest Defense of Clearing of Lafayette Square.” Not only did the Post refer to the “debunked claim” that no tear gas was used by the federal government, but goes on to state incredibly:

“It is the job of the media to tell the truth. The truth is that Barr’s arguments about the events of last Monday collapse under scrutiny and that his flat assertion that there was no link between clearing the square and Trump’s photo op should be treated with the same skepticism that his claims about the use of tear gas earns.”

It turns out that both assertions were true.

The Inspector General of the Department of Interior has conducted an investigation over the last year and found that the clearing was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

That is not the only contraction of the almost universal media accounts. The federal government has long denied using “tear gas” in its operation as opposed to pepper balls in the clearing operation on June 6th. The difference has little real significance either legally or practically. However, critics latched on the denial to show that Barr and others were lying. The IG found that “the USPP incident commander did not authorize CS gas for this operation. Expecting that CS gas would not be used, most USPP officers did not wear gas masks.”

The IG found no evidence of approval or use of tear gas by the federal operation. However, it confirmed “and the MPD confirmed, that the MPD used CS gas on 17th Street on June 1. As discussed above, the MPD was not a part of nor under the control or direction of the USPP’s and the Secret Service’s unified command structure.”

Now the federal court has completed its review of the evidence put together by the ACLU and found no credible basis for the conspiracy theory put forward by Vladeck and others. Judge Friedrich noted that “merely alleging that the defendant officials communicated, without alleging any details of those communications that suggest an unlawful agreement” is not enough. It was however enough for legal and media figures to repeat this conspiracy theory as fact for over a year.

What is most striking in the opinion is the utter lack of evidence presented by ACLU, which encouraged the Court to assume a conspiracy to clear the park for the photo op and to deny the right to protest.  There was nothing but pure conjecture, as the Court noted:

These allegations, taken as true, do not show sufficient “events, conversations, or documents indicating an agreement or meeting of the minds’ amongst the defendants to violate [plaintiffs’] rights based on [their] membership in a protected class.” Barber v. D.C. Gov’t, 394 F. Supp. 3d 49, 66 (D.D.C. 2019) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, they demonstrate only that these officials were communicating with each other on June 1, prior to and after the clearing of Lafayette Square. Merely alleging that the defendant officials communicated, without alleging any details of those communications that suggest an unlawful agreement, cannot justify inferring the requisite agreement for a § 1985(3) conspiracy.

As we discussed with Bump’s coverage of the IG investigation, there is little acknowledgment of the false conspiracy claims made by the media or legal experts like Vladeck. Just as there was little interest in confirming key facts when the protests occurred, there is even less interest in admitting that these figures at the Washington Post, CNN, and other outlets maintained a false and unsupported factual claims.

There is also little recognition of the striking disconnect between what Bowser has claimed publicly and what her Administration has argued in court. Bowser continued to slam the federal government for the use of tear gas, for example, and never admitted that it was the MPD that used the tear gas.  Ironically, it is the District’s MPD that will be continuing as a litigant, not Barr or the federal agencies.

Here is the opinion: Lafayette Park decision

58 thoughts on “Court Dismisses BLM Lawsuit Against Federal Agencies Over Lafayette Park Protests”

  1. @Turley

    You said you testified in front of Congress concerning this.
    You also raise the issue of Pelosi lying about ‘facts’ on this topic.

    Pelosi and others do not have full immunity but a qualified immunity concerning their statements. (Even when not under oath.)

    Would this not be a good chance to get SCOTUS to weigh in on Congresses qualified immunity?

  2. “The Inspector General of the Department of Interior has conducted an investigation over the last year and found that the clearing was not done ‘to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.’”

    A reminder that the DOI IG only investigated the actions of the USPP, as the USPP are the only LE actors from that day who fall under the purview of the DOI.

    The DOI IG’s report acknowledges this: “As noted above, we focused on the USPP’s conduct, so we sought interviews and information from individuals outside of the USPP when doing so would provide us with information about the USPP’s activities. Accordingly, we did not seek to interview Attorney General William Barr, White House personnel, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officers, MPD personnel, or Secret Service personnel regarding their independent decisions that did not involve the USPP.” (emphasis added)

    Here is a more thorough discussion of the report: nycsouthpaw.com/p/reading-the-park-police-ig-report
    As Luppen notes, “This report does not address all the conduct of law enforcement at Lafayette Park on June 1st. The investigators didn’t look into any “independent decisions that did not involve the USPP.” Consequently, when the report speaks about the USPP’s knowledge or how the actions of the Attorney General did or didn’t affect the USPP, those findings can’t be extrapolated to all the federal forces present at the park.” (emphasis added) He later notes that “thanks to a report from the Project on Government Oversight, we know that Homeland Security quashed an investigation by its own Inspector General into the Secret Service’s part in the events of June 1st.” The DOI IG could not investigate the Secret Service’s actions that day. His report notes that “The USPP incident commander told us … the plan was “thrown off a little bit” when the Secret Service deployed early,” but he wasn’t in a position to explore why they deployed early or who ordered that. Luppen also discusses the implications of a partly redacted section in the DOI IG’s repoort about an unnamed official. Why is anything in this report redacted? The redactions in the DOI IG’s report don’t say.

    Turley ignores these relevant details, trying to make the report out to be more comprehensive than it actually is. Why?

    Steve Vladeck responded to JT’s tweets yesterday about this ruling (twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1407413584783724545), saying “Just hear to point out that (1) you’re continuing to misrepresent both what I said and when I said it; and (2) as you well know, yesterday’s ruling was on procedural grounds, not based on any factual determination as to what actually happened: …” referring people to an earlier thread where he discussed what he said and when, twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1402702646088249344

    Quinta Jurecic notes “Judge Friedrich, perhaps aware of arguments her ruling might inspire, clarifies that she’s not weighing in on why police cleared protestors from Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20969745/6-21-21-black-lives-matter-dc-v-trump-opinion.pdf ” and adding an image from the ruling with a quote from the Judge: “it would be premature for the Court to draw any conclusions about why Lafayette Square was cleared on June 1 or whether the law enforcement officers’ actions were justified.”
    twitter.com/qjurecic/status/1407068452536389636

    The conservatives here are misconstruing the judge’s ruling AND the DOI IG’s report.

    1. You are out of place. The remarks of clearing the park for a photoshoot were unsubstantiated and therefore should never have been made. All you do is post cr-p

      1. In part, I quoted from the DOI IG Report. It’s telling that you include that in what you call “cr-p.”

        Your ad hominem is a sign of weakness.

    2. “it would be premature for the Court to draw any conclusions about why Lafayette Square was cleared on June 1 or whether the law enforcement officers’ actions were justified.”

      Its not premature. It’s nothing the court has jurisdiction over.

      City councils, School boards, boards of supervisors across the nation are clearing their their public meetings of citizens, an on almost daily basis. Either the govt posses the power, or they don’t.

      Which is it?

    3. @Anonymous

      Sorry, but you seemed to miss the point…

      The judge dismissed the case because the complaint had no credible evidence to support their claim.
      While you focused on the fact that the DOI IG is limited to interviewing only the USPP, who do you think Barr would have ordered to clear the park but no the USPP?

      1. You seem to have missed the point that JT’s discussion is inaccurate. The report suggests the Secret Service pushed to speed things up for the photo op.

  3. You say that the notion that Barr arranged to h ave the park cleared to make way for the fat one to parade over from the White House with an entourage to pose with a bible was “debunked”. Exactly how was it “debunked”? Because Barr denies knowing about it? You state: “The IG found no evidence of approval or use of tear gas by the federal operation.” Not finding evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. But, as we all know, since you are on the payroll of the Hate Network and are pals with Barr, you will defend him. So, I ask: is it just a coincidence that a respiratory irritant was used to clear away protesters BEFORE the curfew? How was it arranged for 35 armed Secret Service agents to be hidden in bushes and up in trees to protect the fat one, so he wouldn’t look like the wimp he is, so he could stroll over to the church and pose with a Bible? This didn’t just happen without notice to those who participated, including Barr, and planning, and just because “evidence of approval” by Barr wasn’t found doesn’t prove there wasn’t any. An operation like this doesn’t happen on the spur of the moment. SOMEONE arranged it. It defies logic to believe that Barr was ignorant of how this came to pass. But, never let an opportunity pass to criticize Democrats and accuse them of lying.

    You also claim that Mayor Bowser used tear gas “near” the park that night. It later on, after the curfew, and was blocks away, and there were violent protests in that area, in contradistinction to Lafayette Park, where there were protesters, but they weren’t violent. Keep on throwing that red meat, Turley.

      1. The IG reported on probable cause, which is hardly plausible, let alone politically congruent. Perhaps another 16 trimesters of insurrections in several Democrat districts, redistributive change (e.g. looting), murder, neighborhood incursions, and Occupations would gerrymander the vote.

  4. This is further evidence that the Washington Post and Nancy Pelosi cannot be trusted. Without documented evidence, nothing they say should be taken as true. All both have been doing the past several years is promoting lies to satisfy personal political aims.

    1. “ Without documented evidence, nothing they say should be taken as true. ”

      Like Trump’s voter fraud claims. Apparently in Michigan Republican senate investigation on Trump’s claims have been found to be without merit.

      1. You clearly do not understand the English language. Trump provided his opinion, and despite your claims, he stepped down from the Presidency. The Washington Post and Nancy Pelosi lied. Both have been lying for a long time. They started with the Russia hoax and working their way down lie after lie that has been disproven.

        SM

        1. SM,

          “ Trump provided his opinion, and despite your claims, he stepped down from the Presidency.”

          Trump provided his opinion as fact AND made claims which he acted upon by filing numerous lawsuits. Trump stepped down? He didn’t quit dumba$$. He got voted out of office. Surely someone with “normal” intelligence would know the difference.

          1. “Trump stepped down? He didn’t quit dumba$$. He got voted out of office.”

            Trump has his opinion, but he stepped down to the reality that the vote count didn’t go in his favor whether his opinion was right or wrong. Maybe you are short a few too many IQ points to absorb that fact. Instead you use the slur dumba$$ a lot. I’ll bet that is what your betters used to call you.

            Learn the difference between fact and opinion. Even if your IQ is 85 or a bit less, you should be able to learn that difference.

            SM

            1. SM,

              “ Trump has his opinion, but he stepped down to the reality that the vote count didn’t go in his favor whether his opinion was right or wrong.”

              LOL!!

              It’s cute how you try to wiggle your way out of a false statement. You never alluded to “Trump stepping down to the reality”. All you said was “Trump stepped down.”

              Clearly inferring that he…stepped down, as in quit. You said he stepped down FROM THE PRESIDENCY. Stepping down from the presidency is quitting SM. Then you claimed he stepped down “to the reality of the vote not going his way.” as what you said. Those are two very different sets of claims SM. Both are BS.

              For an claiming to be an “intelligent” guy, you sure make it easy to prove that to be false. Hence the correct application of the “slur”. You earned it fair and square.

              1. “All you said was “Trump stepped down.””

                For a normally intelligent person, that would be all that was needed.

                “Both are BS.”

                You can say that but you don’t have the smarts to make that comment look good. All my versions are correct. You can’t read or think that is why you are a weak link.

                SM

                1. SM says, “ good. All my versions are correct.”

                  LOL! No they are not. First you say Trump stepped down from the presidency, then you switched to stepping down from the reality. Both are BS claims.

                  SM, come on man, you clearly are not running on all cylinders.

                  1. ” First you say Trump stepped down from the presidency”

                    Trump stepped down from the presidency. That is true.

                    “he stepped down to the reality that the vote count didn’t go in his favor whether his opinion was right or wrong. “

                    That is true as well.

                    Tell us what is false. You couldn’t do that above so you threw an insult. The same 2 statements exist so we wait for you to show how those statements are not correct. You keep spinning your wheels and demonstrate an arrogant ignorance that you can’t get rid of.

                    SM

                    1. SM,

                      “ ” First you say Trump stepped down from the presidency”

                      Trump stepped down from the presidency. That is true.”

                      No it’s not. Trump never stepped down. He was forced to when he was voted out of office. Stepping down from the presidency as you literally said, means he quit. He didn’t. He was forced out by way losing an election.

                      Richard Nixon stepped down from the presidency, stepping down is quitting, resigning. Get it?

                      Here’s a better way to understand what you literally said. “The ceo stepped down from his company”. He quit.

                    2. “No it’s not. Trump never stepped down. He was forced to when he was voted out of office. Stepping down from the presidency as you literally said, means he quit. He didn’t. He was forced out by way losing an election.”

                      Svelaz, you are having a lot of trouble twisting words. Trump didn’t quit but followed the law and procedure. Biden then took office.

                      Take note of MSN and news reporting. You are such a putz.

                      “Search domain msn.comhttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-said-he-would-leave-the-white-house-peacefully-if-he-lost-the-election-despite-fears-by-biden-that-he-would-refuse-to-step-down/ar-BB15qZhU
                      Trump said he would leave the White House peacefully if he lost the election despite fears by Biden that he would
                      ***** refuse to step down**** “

                      You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts or dictionaries. But, I forget that you have never demonstrated that you know the difference between fact and opinion despite our many discussions on the subject.

                      “Here’s a better way to understand what you literally said. “The ceo stepped down from his company”. He quit.”

                      How about the CEO or the Prime Minister learning that he could not overcome the vote decided to step down instead of fighting. Trump thought he won the election because of the lawless behavior of many states. Rather than fight a battle, he stepped down, and Biden took the position of President.

                      SM

            2. Trump didn’t “step down”–he exhausted all options to remain in the White House. Biden publicly stated that we know how to handle trespassers in the White House. He left to avoid the humiliation of having the Capitol Police haul him away. He lost the election and immediately began whining about fraud, just like he claimed in 2016 when Hillary beat him in the popular vote, and which was disproven. He went on a “Stop the Steal” campaign to whip up the faithful into action–hoping they could pressure Congress into preventing the truth of the drubbing he got. He went on a social media tirade, insisting that his disciples were cheated out of the landslide “victory” he claims he won. He tried to pressure GA election officials to steal ballots from Biden and award them to him, and tried to pressure Pence into refusing to accept the certified vote totals of the Electoral College. He tried to get the DOJ involved, but there was no evidence. His fired his own cyber security expert who contradicted his claim of widespread fraud. He filed 60+ lawsuits trying to obtain an injunction without any evidence whatsoever, and every one of these failed. His last gasp hope was to have the faithful storm the Capitol to prevent Congress from accepting Biden’s victory. That failed, too. He still won’t give up. Why? Is it because he really did win, even though every poll predicted his loss, despite the fact that he set a record for low approval ratings, and the economy went to hell on his watch? No. It’s because of his narcissistic personality disorder. That explains Trump. How do you explain the Republicans who go along with the Big Lie, even though they KNOW it is a lie, and the faithful who continue to believe, despite all proof to the contrary? Fear of losing power. Fear because more and more Americans are rejecting them.

              Republicans are desperate to hold onto power. That’s why they passed all of the voter suppression laws that disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics. That’s why NO Republicans in Congress would even allow discussion of the voter protection bill.

  5. The next BLM law suit will be to allow Macy Gray and Barry Soetoro to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” and replace the American flag.

  6. Splitting hairs.

    No, a paper trail of whether the Square was cleared for the purpose of the photo op can’t be established. It would amazingly boneheaded on the part of the administration if it could. Even the trump administration.

    But surprise, surprise a photo op did in fact occur immediately after the Square was cleared. So the tea leaves were read in somewhere on the part of the White House. Spanky had to get snapped with an upside down bible to counteract reports of his punking out to the basement in days prior. Keep up appearances of strength you know!! Hmmm…, when would be the best time to make this happen…, could it be immediately after the Square is cleared??? Then we’ll get JT on hair splitting detail…, yeah, that’s it!!

    For those trying to keep track of this legal 3 card monty, here’s what to focus on…

    Riot squad with an established perimeter, shields and batons (plus tear gas & rubber bullets) moves hard on people in the Square with Spanky getting snapped looking like a tool holding a bible in front of a church in the summer vs. Capitol Police left hanging with no plan against an infinitely more hostile crew actually moving on the Capitol on 1/6. Hey, we’ll call them sightseers!!!! Yeah, that’s the ticket!!

    Good work if you can get it in the middle of that compare and contrast, ay Turley???

    eb

    1. EB either does not know the difference between correlation and causality or denies it for political gain. EB’s cause and effect is akin to claiming fast food causes those whom consume it to rob banks because most bank robbers consume fast food before robbing banks.

      Are you really that naive EB or are you just lying like the average prog?

    2. Even though you have exactly zero evidence. None of the actions are in violation of any law. (shhh, quiet, shhh, that’s why the law is NEVER cited shh)

    3. @Anon,
      Your comment already shows why the courts dismissed this case…

      There was no evidence.
      *Shock* no paper trail….

      So you make a claim in court filings. On the surface its assumed to be true.
      However when you go to trial, You need to establish evidence to show your fact to be true so that the judge can rule as to the veracity of the claim.
      You fail to establish supporting evidence of your claim… you lose the lawsuit.

  7. Facts and evidence. Something Pelosi and her impeachment hoard believed were the equivalent of their political feelings.

    1. Olly says, “ Facts and evidence. Something Pelosi and her impeachment hoard believed were the equivalent of their political feelings.”

      Funny, apparently this is the same situation with trump and his “stolen election”. He feels it was stolen, but no evidence of it has ever been presented in court.

      1. Svelaz sees two situations as the same between what was known as Trump’s personal opinion that Trump didn’t act on and facts falsely created by Pelosi and the Washington Post.

        Svelaz still hasn’t learned the difference between fact and opinion. That is a big reason nothing Svelaz says can be considered credible without significant proof.

        SM

        1. SM,

          “ Svelaz sees two situations as the same between what was known as Trump’s personal opinion that Trump didn’t act on and facts falsely created by Pelosi and the Washington Post.”

          Trump wasn’t just stating his personal opinion, he literally claimed fraud was being committed by the millions. He acted on it by filing lawsuits which went to court and were tossed out, either due to lack of standing or lack of evidence.

          1. That was Trump’s opinion. It was proven to be an opinion because the new President took office.

            Opinion is why people justify their beliefs and sometimes sue to prove their opinion correct.

            Over and over I have told you that you have to learn the difference between fact and opinion. You don’t seem to know the difference. To you what you like is fact and what you don’t like you will call a lie or on rare occasions say it was an opinion but not a good one. That is how a child thinks.

            SM

            1. SM,

              Fact: Trump claimed there was massive voter fraud that cost him the election. Fact: Trump filed multiple lawsuits claiming voter fraud, switched votes, etc, and failed to present evidence in court.

              Fact: Trump’s “opinion” was his claim that the election was stolen using massive voter fraud as justification for calling election officials to “find” votes and demand election officials overturn their state results. He acted on those “opinions”, because he claimed they as fact. He can’t sue in court based solely on his opinion. That’s where lack of standing comes in.

              1. Svelaz, while we speak a lot of evidence of election irregularities are being brought forward. Some of the stuff I am reading that seems to have happened is banana republic stuff. That gives rise to suspicions that the election in many places was loaded with fraud.

                People are collecting data and trying to put the pieces together. That adds to Trump’s opinion. If enough stuff is obtained it will go to court. If solid evidence isn’t found the claim will die even if some continue to hold that opinion.

                That you can’t understand these simple things is indicative of your deficient intellect.

                1. SM, so you admit Trump didn’t have any evidence when he was pursuing his lawsuits. The fact that people are now looking at “evidence” the same “evidence” they had back then. Turns out that AZ audit is just a freak show for Trump supporters.

                  1. “SM, so you admit Trump didn’t have any evidence when he was pursuing his lawsuits. “

                    Trump had substantial evidence, but not enough. There is more evidence now then there was before but to the present it is not enough. However, what is being proven is that lawlessness existed in this past election.

                    You still don’t know the difference between fact and opinion. You have a very think skull.

                    SM

      2. Much like his case, this one was thrown out of court too. Interestingly enough, I would bet that the politicians double down and insist there was a conspiracy non-the-less. Amazing the parallels.

        Once again though, we see the stark contrast between politics and the law.

      3. Funny, apparently this is the same situation with trump and his “stolen election”. He feels it was stolen, but no evidence of it has ever been presented in court.

        You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a candidate that believed an election was stolen. The difference between the LaFayette Park conspiracy theory and the stolen election conspiracy, is the latter actually has evidence that has been presented to the courts. Outcomes might be similar, but that’s it.

        1. Olly,

          “ The difference between the LaFayette Park conspiracy theory and the stolen election conspiracy, is the latter actually has evidence that has been presented to the courts. ”

          Actually no evidence was presented to the courts. The majority of the lawsuits claiming voter fraud by the Trump campaign ended up being thrown out due to lack of evidence. Meaning zero evidence. The rest involved lack of standing. Belief that fraud occurred is not evidence.

          1. The majority of the lawsuits claiming voter fraud by the Trump campaign ended up being thrown out due to lack of evidence. Meaning zero evidence. The rest involved lack of standing. Belief that fraud occurred is not evidence.

            Lack doesn’t mean zero. In context, it would mean insufficient. Regarding the BLM lawsuit, they didn’t even have that.

            1. Olly, whichever way you want to phrase it, insufficient, a lack of, or whatever it still comes down to no evidence to present. Meaning none was evidence the Trump campaign could present as proof.

              It’s the equivalent of claiming a dump truck worth of dirt was stolen from my property. My evidence? This spoonful of dirt which cannot be proven it came from my property or if it was that same dirt in question. I would have to show evidence of a dump truck in my property being loaded with the dirt in question in order to have a valid claim in court.

          2. @Svelaz,

            Actually that’s not correct.
            In terms of lawsuits… not all were filed by Trump or his team. Many were filed by others who saw the irregularities.

            However many were either dismissed outright or delayed until they became moot.

            Of those where actual evidence was heard, Trump’s team along with the other lawsuits… the Republicans did surprisingly well.

            In terms of fraud… consider the following.

            1) A state’s constitution says that any changes to election law must be done thru the legislative branch. In that state, the executive branch makes a unilateral change due to COVID.

            Do you consider that to be fraud or even legal?
            (The courts don’t or didn’t. )

            2) Consider Election officials provide guidance which is not consistent with that state’s elections laws.
            Would that be a case of fraud?

            3) Consider that in some states, the election laws require observers from both the Democrat and Republican parties.
            Would it be considered fraudulent or illegal if observers from one party were denied entrance to monitor the vote counting?

            There’s more and that’s the thing.
            You have a consistently high level of affidavits that allege irregularities along in some cases video evidence detailing the fraudulent activity.

            As to evidence…
            You have a full audit of Maricopa County AZ going on. What happens if/when they show that there was evidence of fraud.
            Would you agree to doing more audits?

            Keep in mind… I didn’t bring up the Antrim County case where they found that they could manipulate the machine’s count and backdate the tape. In other words… it was possible to commit fraud. The only way to prove it would be to do a full manual recount in the effective area. Like we have in AZ.

            -Gumby

            1. Anonymous (Gumby),

              “ In terms of lawsuits… not all were filed by Trump or his team. Many were filed by others who saw the irregularities.”

              That’s true, however because it was filed by others NOT associated with Trump or his team they had no standing to sue. The people filing the lawsuit were not being directly injured by the outcome. That’s why standing is important.

              Only 1 case was successful out of over 50. And that was because of a procedural irregularity not fraud.

              “ 1) A state’s constitution says that any changes to election law must be done thru the legislative branch. In that state, the executive branch makes a unilateral change due to COVID.

              Do you consider that to be fraud or even legal?
              (The courts don’t or didn’t. )”

              I assume you’re referring to Pennsylvania. The claim that the law was not followed turned out to be that it was. Because the local elections office needed to extend the voting time due to COVID state law allowed local elections officials to ask their MUNICIPAL COURT for an extension of time and it was granted. The state legislature created that law in the first place. Trump team lawyers were claiming election officials were unilaterally changing the rules. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court points out in its opinion the exact part of the law those local officials followed. Republicans were upset about the changes that unfortunately WERE indeed allowed as long as the local office asked the municipal court as per the law.

              “ 2) Consider Election officials provide guidance which is not consistent with that state’s elections laws.
              Would that be a case of fraud?”

              No, because the law allowed election officials to make those changes at the local level. This is why those laws were CHANGED after the election. So it wouldn’t happen again.

              “ 3) Consider that in some states, the election laws require observers from both the Democrat and Republican parties.
              Would it be considered fraudulent or illegal if observers from one party were denied entrance to monitor the vote counting?”

              Yes it would be illegal if observers were denied entrance, but observers were not denied entrance. Trump’s own lawyers admitted in court that their observers were indeed in the room. What they were not allowed to do is literally look over the shoulders of election workers which is what Trump lawyers were complaining about. The law only stipulated that observers be in the room. None were denied entry.

              “ There’s more and that’s the thing.
              You have a consistently high level of affidavits that allege irregularities along in some cases video evidence detailing the fraudulent activity.”

              The majority of affidavits you mention were requested by those making them to me retracted because many people didn’t realize they could be charged with perjury if their claims were proven to be not true. The rest involved claims of election officials violating the rules which were later proven in court that they were not. This is why so many court cases were dismissed or thrown out.

              “ As to evidence…
              You have a full audit of Maricopa County AZ going on. What happens if/when they show that there was evidence of fraud.
              Would you agree to doing more audits?”

              The Arizona audit has already been compromised by sheer incompetence. They didn’t keep a chain of custody, made claims of data being deleted then backtracked upon realizing they didn’t understand what they were reading, then there’s the issue of sending ballots to a “lab” in Montana without any chain of custody records or knowing who was it being sent to.

              That audit has already been so compromised by incompetence and mismanagement that it’s results will be in question. Even republicans who supported the Audit are now complaining it’s become a farce.

              “ Keep in mind… I didn’t bring up the Antrim County case where they found that they could manipulate the machine’s count and backdate the tape. In other words… it was possible to commit fraud. ”

              It WAS possible, but actually proof and evidence that it happened shows fraud was not an issue.

Leave a Reply