Martha MacCallum is doing a great interview Raffensperger, who said that he did not record the call but evaded the key details on taping and timing of the release. I was surprised by the evasive aspects of the interview by someone who has been both credible and unfairly attacked.
...MacCallum pressed him on why release the tape just a day before the election and Raffensperger deflected the questions. He did indicate that he was a party to the release the tape. He indicated that the release was a type of retaliation or response to Trump...
Many of us criticized Pres. Trump for this statement and his past attacks on Raffensperger. However, this response seemed calculated to cause maximum harm. Yet, the blowback will be felt by the Senate candidates. When pressed on that impact, Raffensperger had a curious response.
...Raffensperger responded on the timing of the release (and Perdue's criticism) by saying that he blames Perdue for threats against his wife after calling for his resignation.That seemed more petty than principled, leaving the impression that Perdue may have been his real target
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Trump Administration in blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. However, the Court only did so based on the lack of notice (24 hours) afforded by the Administration. It did not rule on the legality of the use of the AEA...
...The Court expressly stated: "To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18." ...
...That still leaves much to be decided including what notice is required: "it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose."
The Supreme Court argument is now concluded and there was far more heat than light offered inside the courtroom...
...Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh seemed strongly in favor of the Administration. Roberts also made repeated points that seemed to support some of the arguments of the Administration, though it was not clear how he would vote...
...On the left, Kagan repeatedly strived to distinguish this case from her earlier objections to universal injunctions under the Biden Administration. She seemed solidly with Sotomayor and Jackson...
Ok, we are about to start with the oral argument. Keep in mind that the three to watch most closely in the argument will be Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Barrett in my view...
Lawyers who once supported the targeting of firms representing Republicans are now adopting a truly Shakespearean pose as champions of free speech and free thought. For many Republicans, it is about as convincing MacBeth claiming to be a pacifist. thehill.com/opinion/civil-…
...Lawyers like Randall Eliason donated to the Lincoln Project and defended targeting of firms taking Republican causes, noting that “these mega-law firms are also big businesses. Like any business, they can be held accountable by the public — and by their other customers.” Now...
...Now, Eliason is appalled by Trump’s effort “to sanction law firms for doing nothing more than representing clients Trump doesn’t like.” In fairness, the distinction between boycott campaigns and government actions is legally important. However,...
The transcript of President Trump's ABC interview will quickly be raised in the Abrego Garcia case. Trump said that he could get Garcia back, but does not want to do so. The judge can now use that admission as proof of a violation of the order to facilitate his return...
...Trump stated “I could. And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that.” He did add: “I’m not the one making this decision. We have lawyers who don’t want to do this, Terry. … I follow the law. You want me to follow the law. If I were the president that just wanted to do anything, I’d probably keep him right where he is.”...
...The Court upheld the order of "facilitation" but conspicuously failed to define what that meant. However, whatever "facilitate" may mean, counsel will argue that absolutely nothing is unlikely to meet the definition...jonathanturley.org/2025/04/16/jud…
The Supreme Court appears ready to reverse the Fourth Circuit and rule for the parents in the Mahmoud v. Taylor matter. The question is how. Some of us are hoping that it will not just declare that this is a violation of religious freedom but to affirm parental rights...
...The Court once gave a full-throated endorsement parental rights in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). It should do so again, but some justices may not be ready to go that far...
...Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was particularly active and argumentative in challenging the counsel for the parents. However, the most concerning statement was when she declared that parents “can choose to put their kid elsewhere”...