We are back at the Alfred A. Arraj federal courthouse for Tina Peters’ habeas corpus hearing.

Will post realtime updates when the hearing adjourns. All Rise!

The court: As I see it, petitioner has raised three arguments:
(1) First Amendment: Was raised to CO court of appeals
(2) Due process: Failure to concise retention requirements, was raised to CO court of appeals.
(3) Due process: Intro of evidence of security breach
(4) Due process: Failure to conduct an inquiry into biased juror.
(5) Immunity: Was raised to CO court of appeals

DAY 11 COOMER V LINDELL

Jury deliberation continues. Hearing the jury has asked a question about a specific exhibit and whether it aired on FrankSpeech.

I’ll share more information when I have it! No additional info provided to the jury on this exhibit. The record is the record, and they must deal with what they have.

Thread of Threads of Coomer v. Lindell.

Posts are my summaries from my notes. They are not comprehensive, pls tag for correction or clarification.

IMPORTANT! Posts are not direct quotes! (Some of them are, but I didn’t consistently capture the distinction so don’t take the posts as direct quotes.) DAY 1 — JURY SELECTION

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1929543…

DAY 7 OF COOMER V LINDELL
Back in court. Some motions to include Kill Chain clips — TBD. Will post first update on morning break.

Reminder that these posts are summaries from my notes. Please excuse typos & tag for corrections.

Lindell back on the stand this am. All Rise!

The Court: Video clips are still being reviewed by the parties. Defense to proceed with cross of Lindell that doesn’t require clips. Clips will be dealt with after the parties Defense estimates ~2 hours, proceed in parallel with video evidence being vetted and objections, etc. prepared.

Break to sort exchange of flash drives

DAY FIVE OF COOMER V LINDELL

8:30AM: Attorneys making motions before the court. The jury is not yet here.

Lindell Attorney: Asking the court to allow clients to testify about the basis of their beliefs.

Coomer Attorney: Says nothing has changed to expand the scope, opposes.

The Court: Pending before the court — defense witnesses allowed to testify about the basis of their opinions. Defendants argue that plaintiffs have been given latitude and expanded scope of testimony. The court disagrees. Court will give a little bit of latitude to testify about fraud that is caused or connected to Dr. Coomer. This evidence will be allowed but the court makes clear that this will not be all of the 2020 election, but only for truthfulness as it pertains to Mr. Coomer. Lindell Attorney: Max McGuire is here to testify in person, he is on both witness lists. Kurt Olson will also be in person.

Coomer Attorney: Opposes these witnesses testifying in person. Says this is gamesmanship, and plaintiffs don’t say that lightly. Claims defense never raise McGuire being in person before last night. Unfair to the plaintiffs, they claim it’s a lol delay tactic to keep Lindell off the stand today. The court is within its discretion to deny this. Cites case law.

Lindell Attorney: There is no gamesmanship, and in fact the plaintiffs sandbagged us.

The Court: Cites discretion under rule 611. Court raised this before trial, said it was unclear who was going to be in person vs may be. Cites the record, and discussed pretrial issues with Brannon Howse. The expected method of testimony at trial is in person. Reviewing prior motions to strike. Max McGuire listed as video deposition. Court will bind the parties to that designation. McGuire will not be allowed to testify in person; he will be presented by deposition. The court will bind plaintiffs to representations that Lindell doesn’t need to testify today because it was represented as June 9 or 10. Lindell will testify next week.

Back in Court today in Coomer v. Lindell. The court heard a dispute about Dennis Montgomery testimony. Defendants will file a motion later today. Jury is assembling, court in recess until they’re all here. NOTE: All posts are my personal notes summarizing. Please excuse typos and tag or DM for any corrections or clarifications. Reporting drafted during the proceedings and posted outside the courthouse on breaks (per the courts media order).

Here at the Alfred A. Arraj Federal Court House for Coomer v. Lindell today. Updates will be provided on this thread (on delay because we’re not allowed to post until breaks).

Background: Coomer is suing Lindell for Defamation about voting machines. This case has been going on since 2022. @CannConActual and I went through all the details on Friday:
rumble.com/v6u2c1h-why-we…

House Judiciary released their report on ActBlue fraud last Weds, showing the relaxation of fraud prevention measures by Dem during the 2024 primaries & general election.

ActBlue began in 2004… in 2008, there was a scandal.

@TheAndersPaul’s thread made me think of it.
1🧵13

https://twitter.com/theanderspaul/status/1899324972465578491

In 2008, the Obama campaign made “small donors” a key talking point:

“Obama is a man of the people!”

“Most of his funding is, like, people giving $5!”

“So popular!!”

Also, coincidence of course, small donations don’t have to be disclosed… (March 2008)
2🧵13

1🧵17
Three “get out the vote” NGOs sued us to stop us from canvassing to check the government’s work on turnout.

Gee, I wonder why NGOs would commit & suborn perjury to stop us from canvassing? 👇🏻😬

https://twitter.com/rasmussen_poll/status/1907944048876302471

2🧵17

We knocked ~10K doors across 4 CO counties in 2021 — all volunteer, never raised a single penny or asked any institution for help.

From a change standpoint, this project is what I’m most proud of across my 20yr career doing that kind of work — USEIP was beautiful & IT WAS REAL.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund claims the Trump administration is going to do away with the Voting Rights Act so it needs to be enshrined into state law.

In reality, they want to enshrine THEIR VRA INTERPRETATION into State law, because federal courts have rejected it.
🧵1/5🧵 Their "interpretation" is an expansive view of "intimidation" & doesn't require intent or injury.

They claim that if, "a reasonable person" might be intimidated, then the NAACP can sue you under the VRA & infringe upon YOUR rights.

They've been working on this a while. 2/5

This 30-hour thing is annoying, Senators.

It seems like you’re fabricating power to obstruct the unitary executive.

Obstruction disguised as checks & balances is unconstitutional.

Quick Look at the Senate’s rules.

1🧵10 The Senate can change its rules.

They make their own rules.

They govern themselves.

In other words, their power is imaginary; Wizardry they made up.

Wanna change the rules?

Send your rule change to the Rules Committee.

You need 67 votes to pass.

Unless you don’t…

2🧵10

🧵Pull this thread with me…🪡

The oversight & investigation authorities of Congress are NOT explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution but rather derived from its enumerated powers & historical precedent. 1/10 These authorities stem from Congress’s responsibility to make laws, allocate funds, & check the executive branch.

Congress derives its oversight powers from several constitutional provisions. 2/10

Denver District Court, the Honorable Kandace C. Gerdes presiding in Case No. 24CV33363, LPCO & Wiles vs. Griswold & Beall.

The petitioners @James4Peace_ & @Hannah4Liberty along with counsel @GaryDFielder present. 2 attys for SecState also present.

Set to begin in ~20 minutes. Colorado Deputy Secretary of State Chris Beall has entered the court room.

A quick 🧵 of my favorite moments from the #bigboypressconference.

1/7 Biden has complete confidence in “Vice President Trump.” 2/7

“Mr. Trump now leads Mr. Biden 49% to 43% among likely voters nationally... It is the largest lead Mr. Trump has recorded in a Times/Siena poll since 2015. Mr. Trump leads by even more among registered voters, 49% to 41%.”

We have a new NYT/Siena poll! @CannConActual

🧵1/15🧵 In the age of more than 100% voter turnout, is there a meaningful difference between likely voters and registered voters?
2/15

The impact of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling are much worse for the rights of the people than they are for President Trump.

I’ve been consistent on this point since Judge Wallace’s ruling.

Hear me out…

🧵1/7🧵

https://twitter.com/patel_patriot/status/1737297291721986055

Current legal record says that J6 was insurrection.

President Trump incited this “insurrection” through coded dog whistles.

For example, “peacefully & patriotically” means “overthrow the gov with sharpened flag poles & whatever weapons you can find or make onsite.”

🧵2/7🧵

🧵TRUMP 14A UPDATE🧵

By my count, there are 22 states with 14th Amendment, Section 3 challenges to President Trump’s 2024 candidacy.

1/15 Six states — Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, and now Rhode Island — have declined to prevent President Trump from being on the ballot.

But both the challenges and the rulings are all over the place.

Here are summaries…

2/15

🙋‍♂️Fake voters🙋🏼‍♀️
📄Fake ballots📄
✅Fake counts✅

🧵1/15🧵

https://twitter.com/the_jacq/status/1728456402354729383

⚠️😡PROBLEMS😡⚠️

“Why can’t we vote harder?”

“We have to beat them at their own game!”

“Just register more Republicans!”

2/15

Colorado Case Ruling
THREAD 3

🧵3: Conclusions of Law 🧵

Could also be called, “Chiseling away at the contours of the law.”

https://twitter.com/asheinamerica/status/1725953402503676134

“The Court previously held that pursuant C.R.S. § 1-4-1204(4) the burden of proof in this matter is preponderance of the evidence. That is the
burden the Court has applied. However, the Court holds that the Petitioners have met the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.” (Pg 60, Item 209)

Colorado Case Ruling

🧵2: Findings & Facts 🧵

Could also be called: “Rubber Stamping the J6 Report”

https://twitter.com/asheinamerica/status/1725946835397963989

“The Court finds that Trump had courted these fringe figures for many years through activities such as endorsing far-right conspiracy theories like birtherism.” — re: Bannon and Stone, Pg 30, Item 80.

Colorado Case Ruling

This is NOT a win.

While President Trump will be able on the ballot, there are implications for everyone else who swore an oath and participated in J6. There may also be some Jack Smith implications.

🧵THREAD 1: Evidence Admissibility & Considerations 🧵 “The Court finds Mr. Heaphy’s testimony on this subject to be credible and holds that any perceived animus of the committee members towards Trump did not taint the conclusions of the January 6th Report in such a way that would render them unreliable.” (Pg, Item 26)