Here's a fascinating story from the @journalsentinel about the supposedly independent 2020 election review being conducted for Wisconsin's legislature. jsonline.com/story/news/pol…
One of the people hired to work as an investigator on the review is the head of a group that sued to overturn the results of Wisconsin's presidential election - twice.
The review is sharing office space with a conservative group that also went to court to try to prevent Congress from counting the 2020 electoral votes. A federal judge said the suit was so flimsy he referred its lawyer for possible professional discipline.
Another staff member spent five years in federal prison for fraud.
The identity of the review's data person is "classified." And two of the people conducting legal work aren't licensed to practice law in Wisconsin.
For those keeping track at home, the Wisconsin legislature's election review is sharing office space with the lawyer who, among other things, tried to serve a summons on the Electoral College.
As it happens, that lawyer has appealed a judge's decision that his conduct should be referred to a grievance committee for a disciplinary investigation. The D.C. Cir. heard arguments this morning.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pillow magnate Mike Lindell has posted a copy of his long-promised election-overturning Supreme Court complaint on his website and it's missing a few things you commonly find in lawsuits, such as a plaintiff and lawyers.
The claim seems to rely on an Electors Clause theory that the Supreme Court declined to hear last year and a state standing argument that it rejected when Texas sued. And until [insert Your State] agrees to file, the court wouldn't have jurisdiction anyway.
Lindell's complaint appears to have been written by the same lawyer who drafted Texas' failed Supreme Court election-overturning lawsuit.
The @rcfp has asked a federal court to unseal FBI's applications for the search warrants it used to seize Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe's phones. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
DOJ told a court its warrant applications for James O'Keefe's phones should remain secret: "this request encompasses materials that, if disclosed, would reveal a substantial amount of non-public, sensitive information that would jeopardize an ongoing grand jury investigation."
The government also doesn't want people playing guess-what's-under-the-redaction if it's forced to release a redacted version.
DOJ opposes James O'Keefe's request that a court appoint a special master to review materials the FBI seized from him. It says there's a big First Am. difference "between stealing documents and disclosing documents that someone else has stolen previously." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Most of the detail is redacted, but DOJ is pretty clearly alleging that it has evidence Project Veritas had a hand in the theft of Ashley Biden's diary.
DOJ says Project Veritas "is not engaged in journalism within any traditional or accepted definition of that word," so to the extent there is a qualified privilege for journalists, it wouldn't qualify.
Judge says briefs on Trump's latest attempt to enjoin production of January 6 documents - this time an injunction pending appeal of the injunction motion he lost last night - are due by 5 p.m.
... and the archivist's response shows up about 30 seconds later.
The Justice Department says Trump's latest request for an injunction blocking the release of records to the Jan. 6 committee "presents no new arguments here, and his second request for an injunction should thus be swiftly denied." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
The twenty-third rule for Trump's planned social media site is that you can't use it to make fun of his new social media site.
The terms of service also include a forum selection clause pretty similar to the ones Trump's lawyers just got done arguing are unenforceable. (They've lost on that in one case and two others are pending.)
Today's Senate Judiciary report has a remarkable inside look at the final weeks of DOJ during the Trump administration. -> judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Can't think of another occasion where an outside lawyer is basically instructing DOJ to file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, apparently acting at the president's behest. But that's what happened.
White House lawyers told Trump's his plan to fire the attorney general and install someone who would make pronouncements about (nonexistent) election fraud was a "murder-suicide pact."
DOJ leaders and the White House lawyers said they'd resign if Trump went through with it.