Leonard Leo operated the dark-money court capture operation from his @FedSoc perch. It was a $250 million dark-money operation.
Down the hall (literally) was the Judicial Crisis Network, which took anonymous $15-17 million donations to fund campaign ads for the Supreme Court nominees the FedSoc-hosted operation selected.
When the @washingtonpost outed Leo and Trump polling tanked, Leo jumped ship to “Honest Elections Project” to move from court capture (which needs a Republican president) to voter suppression (to make good use of those judges).
“Honest Elections Project” turns out to be corporate alias for Judicial Education Project, which is the sister organization to — wait for it — Judicial Crisis Network. Small world.
The dark-money court capture operation has swiveled to become a dark-money voter suppression operation as forces behind it try to reshape the electorate to one that will elect Republicans. Whom they control with dark money.
The Heritage dark-money operation video pretty much confesses to the scam, and shows dark money behind the “quiet” operation of “sentinels” and interests “writing the laws” for Republicans to implement.
Look for dark-money-funded “American Legislative Exchange Council” @ALEC_states and “State Policy Network” @StatePolicy in that scheme. Dark money is the common element.
And the dark-money operation is now in front of The Court Dark Money Built asking for a constitutional right to dark money. Watch that space.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Looks like Trump’s BS-artist attorneys may have crossed the line from BS to something much more serious. cnn.com/2021/02/12/pol…
A review of Trump’s abominable lawyers in which the authors did not yet know about evident lies. Pretty damning stuff, even without that. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Trump’s lawyers are likely under ethics obligation to clean this up: duty of candor to a tribunal. You don’t get as counsel to make misrepresentations; if you do, you have an affirmative duty to clean it up. Tomorrow just got a lot more interesting.
Just reading the Trump pleading on impeachment,& it’s a headspinner. Calling the impeachment a Bill of Attainder is weird because that’s guilt of crime without trial & impeachment is (a) not criminal & (b) has a trial (coming right up).
Saying that the removal penalty is a “condition precedent” to the disqualification penalty is weird because (a) it’s a contract law term, (b) that “condition” isn’t in the Constitution & (c) it ignores Senate precedent on point (Belknap), usually something lawyers try to address.
Misstating the act in question (that Trump said “the election results were suspect”) so as to call it “unpopular” “protected” speech is weird because it ignores (a) everything we know Trump actually said, & (b) that criminal/fraudulent speech (like incitement) isn’t protected.
The Senate needs to oversee federal investigation of the attack and ransacking of our national Capitol, through Judiciary and perhaps Homeland Security. We may also be the client in federal civil suits for damages and for restraining orders, likely also under Judiciary purview.
The Senate will need to conduct security review of what happened and what went wrong, likely through Rules, Homeland and Judiciary. The Senate Ethics Committee also must consider the expulsion, or censure and punishment, of Sens. Cruz, Hawley, and perhaps others.
Because Congress has protections from DOJ under separation of powers, specifically Speech and Debate Clause, significant investigation will need to be done in Senate.
With dark money groups stoking mob rally, SCOTUS takes case where dark money cabal plans to create dark money right. Sometimes evil rampages, sometimes it creeps. law360.com/compliance/art…
I’m going to go on about this a bit because it’s really important. Fact: Big dark-money entities have started claiming a constitutional right to dark money anonymity and “pled the First” refusing to answer congressional oversight questions. It’s real.
Their problem is this: to get around the corruption consequences of unleashing unlimited money, Citizens United 8-1 required (but never enforced) transparency. Only Thomas said anonymity was protected over transparency.