The Arizona Senate released a big pile of records related to its election audit last night, in response to litigation by @weareoversight. If you have an appetite for a 4gb zip file, it's here: statecraftlaw.app.box.com/v/senateauditp…
Looks like the chair of the Arizona GOP had pretty extensive interactions with the gov't liaison for what the Senate claimed was a non-partisan audit, including arranging Newsmax and OANN hits for him.
Meanwhile, the president of the Ariz. Senate, @FannKfann, had some observations about the chamber's liaison to the Cyber Ninjas.
And we get a little look at the OANN sausage-making, in texts between correspondent (and audit fundraiser and Trump legal team member!) @christina_bobb and @FannKfann.
There's also a contract between Cyber Ninjas and a guy who made some fantastical claims that the 2020 election was rigged because it was mathematically impossible (and boldly claims to have invented email!) to conduct a "business intelligence analysis" of Arizona ballot images.
One of the documents the Arizona Senate produced about its audit is a copy of the failed election-overturning "Kraken" lawsuit in Michigan, for which ex-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell and a handful of other attorneys were just sanctioned by a federal judge.
The list of names from the Arizona audit document dump is indeed interesting ->
One of the most interesting parts of the pile of Arizona Senate election audit documents released in response to a @weareoversight lawsuit is what's not there: In tens of thousands of pages, there's very little mention of the private groups that paid > 95% of the audit's bills.
(And most of the mentions of the private groups funding the audit that show up in the 22,000 documents released today are in news clippings or copies of people's public records requests trying to figure out who was paying for all of this.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Twitter's lawyers told a federal court yesterday that nothing in the "Twitter Files" cited by Donald Trump actually show that the social media platform was a tool of government censorship.
Twitter also says the appointment of a new CEO won't result in any changes to its content moderation strategy.
Twitter's lawyers also point out the problem with claims -- echoed by the company's CEO -- that the government was paying it to censor people. (The gov't was paying it to comply with search orders, which it is required to do by law.)
The Mar-a-Lago special master is telling Trump's lawyers to say once and for all whether they really think the FBI planted evidence during its search, as the former president has publicly alleged.
This isn't the first time Judge Dearie has told Trump's lawyers to essentially put up or shut up about the things they've been saying in TV but not in court.
A lawyer from the Texas Attorney General's office just entered an appearance in the 11th Cir. case over classified records at Mar-a-Lago. He claims to represent Texas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Louisiana, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.
Texas' brief is quite a document. It's basically a litany of why-Biden-is-bad-and-shouldn't-be-trusted, going through everything from immigration litigation to theories about COVID's origin to the Vice President's assertion that the border is secure.
Texas - with support from 10 other states - says courts should mistrust this administration. It argues Judge Cannon was right to set aside the "presumption of regularity," though she didn't actually do that.
A federal court in Florida has dismissed - for many different reasons - former President Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, various government officials and various others over "Russiagate." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Judge: Trump's 193-page conspiracy allegation "is neither short nor plain, and it certainly does not establish that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief."
The judge said Trump's lawsuit that he was the victim of a plot by Hillary Clinton and others relied on misrepresented evidence, legal theories rejected by the Supreme Court and hyperbole to settle political scores. And that's just what you see before page 5.
One of the lawyers who asked a federal court to invalidate two of the three branches of government, @kellyesorelle, says she's filed another case in the Supreme Court to invalidate the 2020 election.
I checked with the clerk today. There is no such case.
This is not surprising. You can't just file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court (unless you happen to be a state and are suing another state or similar things). And even then you can't just file a lawsuit; you have to file a motion for leave to file. None of that has happened.
(Many thanks to the person who took the time to call me to ask about this.)
A large part of the totally-unsubstantiated theory that the FBI actually incited the Jan. 6 riot started with people not understanding how to read charging documents and making assumptions about their misunderstanding. And it's gone downhill from there.
Guys, there were federal agents in the crowd on Jan. 6. We know because one of them, a DEA agent, was prosecuted.
Here he is showing his creds.
He was with his brother, an FBI agent, who was investigated but not charged. He even went on Tucker Carlson's show to talk about it.
Here's the story. The DEA learned one of its agents was at the Capitol (with his weapon) because he was group-texting pics to a bunch of other agents. reuters.com/article/us-usa…