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.)
Many people send things to the Supreme Court. This is not the same as having filed something there. To do the former, you need a stamp. To do the latter, you also need to comply with the court's rules for getting a case on the docket.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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…
Confirming @Reuters' reporting on the damage The Gateway Pundit caused, the site re-upped false claims that two GA workers had rigging the 2020 election. They've been in hiding over numerous threats.
"The Gateway Pundit NEVER condones threats or violence but ..."
The election-rigging claims against the two GA election workers are false. The Gateway Pundit has aired them repeatedly anyway, prompting death threats. Even now, a year later, people are still repeating these false claims online.
Gateway Pundit pushed many other false claims. It alleged that a Wis. clerk had created fake ballots. (She hadn't.) Its bogus claims prompted one reader to recommend a specific bullet for killing her – a 7.62 millimeter round for an AK-47 assault rifle. reuters.com/investigates/s…
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.
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.