We recently discussed the Politico poll showing that a majority of people were now calling for President Donald Trump to concede the election while a plurality supported such an immediate concession. We discussed that the number calling for concession would likely continue to increase and a new Hill-Harris poll would seem to support that view. Some sixty-one percent in the poll believe Trump should give a concession speech. At a minimum, some of us have called for President Trump to call for “ascertaining” the election for Biden so that a transition can proceed unimpeded. That would not concede the election, but it would be the responsible course of action. It is long overdue. Some of us called for ascertainment over two weeks ago. Continue reading “Hill-Harris Poll: Sixty-One Percent Of Voters Now Support A Trump Concession Speech”
The press conference held by the Trump legal team was not for the faint of heart. The team alleged a global, Communist-backed conspiracy to “inject” and “change” votes through the use of the Dominion computer system. It was exhausting and breathtaking. I was critical of the press conference as being long on heated rhetoric and short on hard evidence. Dominion issued a statement categorically denying the allegations. The question is whether Dominion itself will now sue. The company denied the allegations but I often measure such denials by whether anyone actually sues. Dominion could do so and force the Trump team to reveal the evidence supporting their allegations or face potentially significant liability. These are not just colorful but criminal allegations against named companies and by implication corporate officials and political allies.
I have been highly critical of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for her misrepresentation of a state supreme court ruling that she violated the state constitution in her pandemic orders, a false account echoed by NBC’s Chuck Todd. However, the move today to impeach Whitmer is wrong for many of the same reasons raised in my testimony against the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Whitmer did violate the Constitution, as have other public officials in other states. However, this was a legal dispute on the scope of her discretion that was resolved by the state courts. We cannot have impeachment as a type of “no confidence” vote on chief executives.
Just as you thought that the 2020 election could not get more bizarre, the controversy in Wayne County over the certification of the election took a new turn on Wednesday after two Republicans — Monica Palmer and William C. Hartmann, on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers sought to rescind their votes to certify. They claim that they were coerced by threats against them and their families by Democratic voters. The threats against Palmer and Hartmann are all-too-familiar in an election where Democratic members are calling for blacklists and others denounce any questioning of the Biden victory as akin to “Holocaust denial.” The Lincoln Project has led a national effort to harass any lawyers who represent Republicans or the Trump campaign. While it will be difficult to rescind such a vote, the silence in the media and from Democratic leaders on this harassment is chilling. Indeed, Democratic leaders have joined in the personal attacks. Continue reading “Two Republican Michigan Officials Attempt To Rescind Certifications Of Election Results”
There is more rage than reason being expressed in the country over election challenges, but there are some interesting legal issues. One is found in Pennsylvania where the Trump campaign is alleging that counties used different approaches to “curing” ballots. The issue brings back memories of Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), under equal protection. Notably, while academics have uniformly dismissed this claim, they largely refer not to the claim but to the relief. The fact is that there does not seem a sufficient number of votes that could change the outcome of the election. The question however is whether there is still a colorable claim of an equal protection violation. This could come down to the two distinct parts of Bush v. Gore.
Continue reading “Is “Curing” A Colorable Claim Under Equal Protection? [Updated]”
We previously discussed the unrelenting drumbeat of censorship on the Internet from Democratic leaders, including President-elect Joe Biden. This growing campaign against free speech is continuing to grow despite the hearing yesterday when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey that the company wrongly blocked the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s influence peddling before the election. There was no acknowledgement from the many academics or politicians who supported the action by Twitter. Instead, Democratic senators called for more such censorship. Continue reading “Twitter CEO Admits Censoring The Hunter Biden Story Was “Wrong” . . . Democrats Call For More Censorship”
In a vivid demonstration of our political divide, less than half of the country believes that President Donald Trump should immediately concede. Only a majority of Democrats (by a wide margin) holds that view. Once again, the poll shows the hardened silos of American politics. It also shows how the media has detached itself and its coverage from half of this country. As it did before the election, the media continues to coddle Biden in press conferences and frame the news in a familiar slant. Within 24 hours of the election being called for Biden, many in the media declared any challenges to the election to be “conspiracy theories” and demanded an immediate concession of defeat from Trump. While I have expressed great skepticism over many challenges and I have been critical of the failure of the Administration to “ascertain” the election for Biden for weeks, I have maintained that it is important for these challenges to be heard and resolved if we have any hope to unify this country. While the media and many Democrats were correct in calling for “every vote to be counted,” they have opposed efforts to recount those votes or address whether they have been counted correctly. Again, there is no evidence of systemic fraud or errors, but the overwhelming pressure in the media to stop the challenges after the calling of the election has only deepened the suspicion and divide in this country — as has the President’s own rhetoric on a stolen election. A recount in Georgia has found the type of human error that we have previously discussed and thousands of uncounted votes. Yet, that has not stopped the attacks on anyone, including lawyers, who are seeking such reviews.
For those of us who have been critical of the growing anti-free speech movement in the Democratic Party, the Biden transition team just took an ominous turn. The New York Post reports that Biden tapped Richard Stengel to take the “team lead” position on the US Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. As I previously addressed in a column, Stengel has been one of the most controversial figures calling for censorship and speech controls. For a president-elect who just called for everyone to “hear each other,” he picked a top aide who wants to silence many. Since it would be difficult to select a more anti-free speech figure to address government media policy, one has to assume that Biden will continue the onslaught against this core freedom as president. This is not the first Biden aide to indicate a crackdown on free speech in the new Administration and Biden himself has called for greater censorship on the Internet.
Attorney Bryan Lee Simmons, 50, has been sentenced to 48 months in federal prison for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. What is most striking is that Simmons cannot engage in the practice of law for three years. However, while unlikely to resume practicing in that time, it is a striking contrast to the alleged misconduct.
From July 2019 to August 2019, Simmons was part of a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in the Cass County Jail. He used attorney-client meetings to distribute the drugs while, on at least one occasion, traveling with a Colt MK IV .45 caliber pistol.
The plea agreement will result in the dismissal of a number of counts including two linked to the weapon.
Since his sentence is for four years, the three year bar on practicing law is likely to be easily satisfied. What would be interesting is whether advising other inmates as a “jailhouse lawyer” would be included. That is not necessarily “practicing law” since he is not filing papers or standing in a formal representational capacity. Moreover, he is free to represent himself in filings as an individual.
Below is my column in The Hill on the successful campaign that has forced firms to drop Donald Trump or the Republican Party as clients in the ongoing litigation over the 2020 election. Notably, this campaign started soon after the election was called for President-Elect Joe Biden.
Here is the column: Continue reading ““The First Thing We Do”: The Lawless Campaign To Harass Lawyers Representing The Trump Campaign”
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the growing pressure on prosecutors during the lame duck period to move forward in their investigations into the Russian investigation or Hunter Biden. House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff again strongly suggested that such investigations should end with the entry of a Biden Justice Department. Schiff told MSNBC that investigations of a president-elect constitute “tearing down our democracy” and a way to “delegitimize” a president. This is precisely what I raised in my column on the expected effort by some to scuttle the Biden related investigations. The statement was only the latest indication that Democrats are likely to push to end any investigations touching on the Bidens, including statements from individuals known to be under consideration for Attorney General. In doing so, they will likely have the support of many members of the media who would be embarrassed by any findings of wrongdoing after insisting that there was nothing to cover and refusing to ask Biden specific questions on the campaign trail on these allegations.
Here is the column:
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Having decided to go on a long road trip, I came across the remnants of a wildfire and the subsequent rebirth of rolling fields of grass. The fire burned through this rural neighborhood yet to my amazement I could find no lost homes or outbuildings in or around the path of destruction. I initially attributed this to a supremely adept firefighting operation. Yet in the end, according to a resident there who I spoke with, it was more nature that took care of its own.
Continue reading “Weekend Photos: The Fire And The Resurrection”
This week I criticized Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito for a speech that he gave to the Federalist Society. That should come as no surprise since I have spent two decades criticizing justices for such controversial public addresses. However, I was struck in the last couple days by the politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and liberal faculty members who are falling over themselves in utter disgust with such public commentary from a sitting justice. For years, I criticized the far more egregious comments from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg without a peep of protest from people like Warren. Instead, Ginsburg became the “Notorious RBG.” There is, however, no place for a Notorious SAA in the media or academia.
We have been discussing how the celebration of Joe Biden’s election as a “unifying” and “healing” moment has been lost on many who are calling for blacklists and retaliatory actions against anyone viewed as “complicit” in the Trump period. Indeed, for years, I have been writing about a rising McCarthyism in our country and the growing threat to both free speech and academic freedom. This hateful or unhinged rhetoric has on occasion come from law professors, but most academics have retained a modicum of restraint and tolerance. For that reason, it was disappointing to read a bizarre attack from University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos who compared my discussion of possible voting irregularities to Holocaust denial.
Continue reading “Law Professor Compares Questioning Voting Results To Holocaust Denial [Updated]”
We have previously discussed the claim of President-elect Joe Biden that he will impose a nationwide mask mandate. While most of what Biden promised as part of his pandemic plan (like free vaccinations) are already part of the federal plan, Biden insistence that he would impose a nationwide mask mandate was a distinction between the candidates during the campaign. The pledge was questioned by some of us in terms of the federal authority to enforce such a mandate. Now, Biden is emphasizing the mandate in his transition and his new Chief of Staff Ron Klain seemed to make a considerable qualification last night in an interview with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. Klain is now clarifying that the Biden Administration would fulfill its promise of a national mandate only “where the federal authority extends.” He then added that they would simply “urge” states to follow suit. That again sounds like what is currently being done by the CDC and what is already required in federal buildings, enclaves, installations, and bases. A presidential urging is a considerable downgrade from a federal mandate. Legally, it is like going from a promise of a moon shot to a promise to visit the local planetarium. Continue reading “The National Urging Plan: Biden Appears To Downgrade His Mask Pledge From A “Mandate” To An “Urging””