Election '20

During an Election Day Fox News special, the right-wing network's chief political analyst Britt Hume suggested that the January 6 attack on the US Capitol that Donald Trump inspired, continues to haunt the MAGA hopeful.

On Tuesday night, Washington Post reporter Jeremy Barr pointed out via X: "Hume now says that Jan. 6/Democracy is a 'BS issue.'"

Barr included a screenshot of a social media post written by right-wing commentator on the day of the attack.

READ MORE: Elections expert explains how to spot 'very first clues of the Trump phenomenon'

On January 6, 2021, National Review editor Rich Lowery tweeted: "This is obviously why we’ve always expected and demanded that our presidents say that they will respect the peaceful transfer of power."

Hume replied to Lowery's post, writing: "Instead, Trump has fueled the worst suspicions of his supporters with wild claims that the election was stolen. And now we see the result."

Hume appears to have changed his mind.

According to Media Matters for America — referring to the attack on the US Capitol that day — the right-wing commentator added, "It was the premise of the January 6 Special Committee that we -- as the co-chairman of the Committee put it, 'We came critically close to losing our democracy.' It's ridiculous. I mean, our democracy is pretty sturdy. Our checks and balances worked. The thing was over in a matter of hours. And yet, here we are, it's still a factor."

READ MORE: 'They tried to kill': Fox host explodes when pushed on unity with left if Harris wins

One of the police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the deadly Trump-incited January 6 insurrection is pushing back against the the ex-president’s claim that it was a “day of love.”

During a Univision-hosted town hall in Miami on Wednesday for undecided Latino voters the GOP presidential nominee was asked about the attack.

“I want to give you the opportunity to try to win back my vote,” Ramiro Gonzalez, a 56-year old “no longer registered” Republican told Trump. “Your — I’m going to say, action and maybe inaction during your presidency, and the last few years, sort of, was a little disturbing to me. What happened during January 6 and the fact that, you know, you waited so long to take action while your supporters were attacking the Capitol.”

“Coronavirus,” Gonzalez added, “I thought the public was misled, and many more lives could have been saved if we would have been informed better.”

READ MORE: ‘Aghast’: Trump Dodges and Dismisses Latino Voters’ Concerns at Univision Town Hall

After blasting his former vice president, Mike Pence, Trump distanced himself from the events of that day, claiming his supporters “didn’t come because of me — they came because of the election. They thought the election was a rigged election, and that’s why they came.”

“There were no guns down there, we didn’t have guns,” Trump also told Ramirez. “The others had guns, but we didn’t have guns. And when I say we, these are people that walked down. This was a tiny percentage of the overall, which nobody sees and nobody shows. But that was a day of love from the standpoint of the millions, it’s like hundreds of thousands, it could have been the largest group I’ve ever spoken before. They asked me to speak, I went, and I spoke. And I used the term peacefully and patriotically.”

Trump’s “day of love” remark clearly hit Aquilino Gonell, the former U.S. Capitol Police sergeant who had to retire after being gravely injured on January 6.

READ MORE: ‘What’s Going On?’: Critics Charge ‘Very Weak’ as Trump Pulls Out of Another TV Interview

Gonell had “joined the Army, fought in Iraq and became a police officer at the U.S. Capitol,” WBUR reported earlier this year. “On Jan. 6, 2021, Sargeant Gonell was attacked and beaten by rioters as he and his fellow officers tried to hold the line.”

“Gonell and his fellow officers were badly outnumbered. The mob beat them with pipes, sticks and rocks, sprayed them with chemicals, as they tried to hold the line and defend the Capitol and the peaceful transfer of power.”

He told WBUR, “I almost lost my life a couple of times,” on January 6.

On Thursday, responding to Trump’s “day of love” comment, Gonell posted video of him being attacked on January 6.

“Here’s me receiving an outpouring amount of affection during the ‘day of love’—January 6, 2021,” he wrote. A few minutes later, he added, “They almost loved me to death.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Is He OK?’: Trump’s Dark of Night Rage Posting Backfires

Former President Donald Trump has long pushed what has become known as the "Big Lie" that President Joe Biden did not actually win the 2020 election — he did.

The lie is what stoked the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, and it's what has landed the ex-president in legal trouble with Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Although Trump and many of his MAGA allies still push the same claim today, Vanity Fair co-Editor-in-Chief and author Ramin Setoodeh revealed on Wednesday that the former president does, in fact, know that he lost to Biden.

READ MORE: George Conway urges 'full-blown discussion' about Trump’s mental health over bizarre book interview

During an interview with MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, the Apprentice in Wonderland: How Donald Trump and Mark Burnett Took America Through the Looking Glass author shared a glimpse into one of his many conversations with Trump.

"He slips," Wallace said to Setoodeh. "You talk about the mask coming off moment, when [Trump] told you that he lost."

The award-winning journalist replied, "He does. In one of our conversations we were watching clips of The Apprentice, and I showed him a clip of Geraldo Rivera, who was a contestant. And he got worked up over their falling out and the feud that they had, and he said 'when I lost the election.'

And that was a really revealing moment to me and proved something I'd been thinking about, is Donald Trump is playing a character. He's a reality show character that projects this image that people want to see. And I think truthfully, if we were able to get inside of his head and find the truth, he would admit that he lost the election, because he said it to me."

READ MORE: GOP's Big Lie about 2020 is 'more about identity than evidence': expert

Watch the video below or at this link.

'When I lost the election': Author shares 'revealing moment' during Trump interview www.youtube.com

Attorney Kenneth Chesebro was one of three former President Donald Trump allies charged by the state of Wisconsin Tuesday in connection to the 2020 fake elector's scheme led by the ex-president's campaign in efforts to overturn the election.

The fake elector ploy architect was indicted alongside Wisconsin lawyer James Troupis and former Trump campaign officialMichael Roman — each on one count of forgery. CBS News reports, "The three are set to make their initial appearances in Dane County Circuit Court on Sept. 19, court records show. The charge carries a sentence of up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000."

MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin explained to host Katy Tur how the Wisconsin charges differ from 2020 election fake elector charges in Georgia and Arizona, and why Chesebro is the "most important person charged in this document today."

READ MORE: Kenneth Chesebro among Trump allies hit with new fake elector indictments in Wisconsin

Rubin explained, "There are five suits now with respect to these fake elector schemes. Ken Chesebro is charged only in two of them. He was charged in Georgia, where he pled guilty and, now today, he's charged in Wisconsin. I want to tell you what makes this different, because Ken Chesebro's involvement in Wisconsin is qualitatively different. First of all, Wisconsin is where it all began. This is the state for which he wrote the original memo about fake electors in early December of 2020."

The legal expert continued, "Secondly, he attended the meeting of fake electors in Wisconsin. He basically crashed it, even though he had no right to be there."

Tur asked, "Isn't the argument in Georgia that he never went to Georgia and he couldn't be involved in the conspiracy because he never stepped in the state?"

Rubin replied, "It may have been one of his arguments before he pled guilty, but now having pled guilty, whether or not he stepped into the state of Georgia is irrelevant."

READ MORE: Watch: Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro strikes last-minute plea deal with Georgia prosecutors

"But here, he was in Wisconsin?" Tur added.

Rubin emphasized, "But here he was in Wisconsin, definitely involved in the meeting itself, then with the Wisconsin documents don't reach Washington, DC, and aren't received by members of congress, the Wisconsin republican party has a part-time aide fly them out there, who is there to receive them from her? None other than Ken Chesebro. And finally, while he did conduct an interview with wisconsin investigators, they discovered that he lied to them about his Twitter account, something that Michigan investigators also discovered. So, unlike in other states where he is theoretically a cooperator and an unindicted co-conspirator, here, he's probably the most important person charged in this document today.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Why Kenneth Chesebro is 'most important person charged' in Wisconsin: legal expert youtu.be

US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was one of the 17 Texas Republicans who refused to certify the 2020 election results, according to the Texas Tribune.

During a Wednesday night interview with the GOP senator, CNN's Kaitlan Collins noted Cruz's refusal to acknowledge President Joe Biden win over Donald Trump in 2020, and asked whether the Texas leader plans to accept the November election results in the case Biden wins again.

"Do you plan to object or will you accept the results regardless of who wins the election?" Collins asked.

READ MORE: Ted Cruz slapped with campaign finance laws violation complaint

"Kaitlan, I got to say, I think that's actually a ridiculous question," Cruz replied.

"It's a yes or no question," Collins insisted.

"Let me explain why it's ridiculous question," the Texas leader said, asking, "Have you've ever asked a Democrat that?"

Collins replied, "Have you ever had a sitting president who refused to facilitate the peaceful transition of power, refused to acknowledge that his successor won the presidency?

Cruz claimed, "We had peaceful transfer of power, I was there on January 20."

"Barely," Collins replied, before noting that in 2016, when Biden was vice president, "he went to the Senate floor and certified the votes."

READ MORE: 'Ted Cruz isn’t fooling anyone': Texas senator slammed over outreach to Democrats

Cruz said, "You only ask Republicans" this question.

Collins replied, "Because it was Republicans who tried to block the transition of power. You have to acknowledge that. We've never seen it on a scale of what happened in 2020. And We've never seen the president refuse. He wouldn't even let Joe Biden get classified briefings at the beginning.I recall that. So my question for you again: Free and fair election, will you accept the results regardless of who wins?"

The senator replied, "If the Democrats win, I will accept the result, but I'm not going to ignore fraud," before claiming there was voter fraud in 2020. Collins replied, "No there wasn't, and you still objected."

"Oh you know, for a fact, there were zero voter-fraud?" Cruz asked. "What's your basis for that? Show me your evidence.'

Collins said, "We've spoken with [Georgia Republican] Governor [Brian] Kemp. They did three hand recounts in the state of Georgia. the director of CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] said that this was one of the safest most legitimate elections."

READ MORE: 'Taking a lot of ribbing': Ted Cruz now the butt of senators’ jokes amid FAA bill markup

The CNN host emphasized, "Republicans are twisting themselves in knots."

Cruz claimed Collins never asks Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, or Al Gore whether they will certify election results.

"I haven't had any of them on my show," Collins said. "We'll talk to them, but I don't remember there being a president who was refusing to turn over the transition of power."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Republicans are twisting themselves in knots': Kaitlan Collins flattens Ted Cruz on election denial www.youtube.com

Following a New York Times report earlier this week reporting that US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito flew an upside down American flag outside of his home after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, top Democratic law makers are calling for his recusal from any cases related to the insurrection.

"Flying an upside-down American flag — a symbol of the so-called 'Stop the Steal' movement — clearly creates the appearance of bias," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) Durbin told the Hill.

"Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection, including the question of the former President’s immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court is currently considering. The Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making, and Justice Alito and the rest of the Court should be doing everything in their power to regain public trust, Supreme Court justices should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest.”

READ MORE: Senate Judiciary Committee Chair calls for Samuel Alito’s recusal from January 6 cases

Bloomberg opinion columnist Stephen L. Carter, in a Sunday, May 19 op-ed suggests Alito's claim that the upside down flag "display signaled his wife’s exasperation at her inability even to walk down the street without suffering the frequent and often obscene verbal assaults of neighbors."

The Yale law professor writes, this explanation, if true, "still raises important questions, about both the ethical rules governing judges and the imposition of similar restrictions on their families."

"So let’s suppose that Alito’s tale is correct, and what was really happening was the suburban front lawn equivalent of an online flame war," the Yale law professor writes. "Nevertheless, the inversion of the flag remains a problem."

"There’s nothing in what we might call the ethics of marriage requiring a spouse to surrender the right to many forms of public expression, and we shouldn’t assume that one spouse’s beliefs are the same as the other’s."

READ MORE: Alito tells Fox News story behind his 'Stop the Steal' flag — but critics unconvinced

Carter writes:

But the burden that rests upon the spouse of a public official is heavy, and the one that rests upon the spouse of a Supreme Court justice might be weightiest of all. Even if the significance of the inverted flag has been misconstrued, those restrictions remain the same. Whatever other spouses might be free to do, the ethics that must govern this particular marriage require even the justice’s spouse (and sometimes other family members as well) to bend over backwards to avoid misconstrual.

Carter's full op-ed is available at this link.

Former Donald Trump lawyer John Eastman — who aided the former president in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election — was handed a loss Wednesday amid in his efforts to continue practicing law.

Politico's Kyle Cheney reports via X (formerly Twitter), "JUST IN: The judge who recommended John Eastman’s disbarment denies his urgent request to delay her ruling, which resulted in his automatic suspension from practicing law. She cites the gravity of his misconduct and his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing."

This comes one month after California State Bar Judge Yvette Roland ruled that "Eastman violated ethics rules when he helped to orchestrate the ex-president's ploy to overturn the 2020 election," according to Politico.

READ MORE: 'I’m sure Trump will compensate him': Experts praise John Eastman’s disbarment ruling

Although the former Trump attorney was given the option to appeal, Politico noted that Roland's ruling forced Eastman's law license into 'inactive' status during pending review — meaning he was barred from practicing law in California.

Roland's Wednesday ruling reads: "[Eastman] has provided declarations from his current clients who express a strong desire for him to continue representing them in their ongoing matters. However, the court made no finding that Eastman's ethical violations resulted in client harm. Instead, the court found that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Eastman's misconduct in part to safeguard the public."

It continues, "The court's decision determined that Eastman made deceptive and misleading claims in legal documents, public forums, and other contexts concerning the 2020 presidential election and the extent of Vice President Michael R. Pence's authority to override the electoral process."

Furthermore, the judge wrote, "Eastman's motion fails to demonstrate that he no longer presents a threat to the public. Despite his clients' desire for Eastman to continue representing them, based on the gravity of Eastman's transgressions, particularly those involving moral turpitude, and the increased likelihood of future misconduct due to his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, there is insufficient evidence to justify a stay of his involuntary inactive enrollment.'"

READ MORE: Trump ally and January 6 architect John Eastman now on the verge of losing his law license

Roland concluded, "Accordingly, Eastman's motion to stay the court's March 27, 2024 order placing him on inactive enrollment or in the alternative, imposing interim remedies in lieu of inactive enrollmentis DENIED, no good cause having been shown."

Former Donald Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the House January 6 Committee in 2022 that her former boss attempted to take control of the steering wheel from his Secret Service agent in an effort to make his way to join rioters at the US Capitol.

Nearly two years later, Politico's Kyle Cheney reported that the former president confirmed his actions during a Wednesday rally.

"Trump just said at his rally that he did, in fact, ask his Secret Service driver on Jan. 6 to take him to the Capitol," Cheney wrote via X (formerly Twitter). "'I sat in the back. And you know what I did say? 'I’d like to go down there.' ... They said 'Sir, it’s better if you don’t.'"

READ MORE: Secret Service agents may have told grand jury about Trump’s desperation to join Jan. 6 riots: reporter

The Politico reporter added, "Of course, his driver told investigators Trump was adamant about going and was frustrated when he wasn't allowed. Testimony to the Jan. 6 committee also showed the mad scramble this caused among security agencies while also responding to threat to [former Vice President Mike] Pence/Capitol."

According to CNN, the MAGA hopeful "attempted to cast Hutchinson’s testimony" before Congress "as revenge, claiming she was 'very upset and angry that I didn’t want her' at his Palm Beach residence."

During a June 2022 Deadline: White House interview, host Nicolle Wallace spoke with Washington Post journalist Carol Leonnig about how Hutchinson's testimony.

"We don't know what Jack Smith and his team are asking those agents, but any former or current agent who's being questioned about Donald Trump's activities and White House activities in the days leading up to Jan. 6th is bound to get an earful about things that we've all reported on for more than a year," Leonnig said.

READ MORE: Mark Meadows and Trump’s Secret Service agents have testified

"What else is it that Jack Smith is going to learn from agents?" the Post reporter asked. "They could learn about Donald Trump's state of mind heading into Jan. 6th. Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, which you aired just now about Donald Trump being completely comfortable with his supporters having weapons, pistol, rifles, knives, flak jackets, bulletproof vests, bear spray, all of these things were being communicated to him in a risk assessment on the day of. Yet, he said I don't care. Take the magnetometers down. They can come and march with me to the Capitol."

CNN reported just days after Leonnig's interview, "Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as 'demanding' and that the former President said something similar to: 'I’m the f—king President of the United States, you can’t tell me what to do.'"

READ MORE: Security official confirms Donald Trump's Secret Service scuffle

Dominion Voting Systems filed a defamation suit against the right-wing network, Newsmax, in 2021, seeking $1.6 billion in damages for pushing 2020 election lies.

Three years later, ahead of trial, The Daily Beast exclusively reported Monday that the MAGA network petitioned the court in efforts to get longtime Donald Trump ally John Catsimatidis to testify, "alleging the right-wing channel knowingly peddled election lies."

The Beast notes the trial for Dominion's defamation case against Fox News was originally scheduled for September, but has been delayed. Trial for Smartmatic's defamation suit against Newsman will begin in September instead.

READ MORE: An ominous sign for Fox News: Media critic breaks down pre-trial hearings in Dominion defamation suit

In addition to requesting Catsimatidis' testimony, Newsmax is also highlights the billionaire's "media companies, Red Apple Media and WABC Radio, in its petition to enforce a subpoena."

The conservative cable network also points to the fact "that Dominion has sued former Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell for baselessly accusing the voting software firm of flipping millions of votes from Donald Trump to President Joe Biden." The voting company "cites statements Powell made on Catismatidis’ syndicated radio show, The CATS Roundtable, in its lawsuit against Powell," according to the petition.

Furthermore, the news outlet reports:

Additionally, Newsmax appears to suggest that Dominion’s chief executive John Poulos may have taken mercy on Catsimatidis because of his close relationship with famed Greek Orthodox priest Father Alexander Karloutsos. “'fter Dominion settled its defamation lawsuit against Fox News, a National Herald article... reported that Dominion CEO John Poulos had stated that, in late 2020, he had conferred with Mr. Catsimatidis’ mentor, Father Alexander Karloutsos, concerning allegations of voter fraud and Dominion.'

"Dominion has sued neither Mr. Catsimatidis nor any of his media companies notwithstanding that they broadcast essentially the same news stories, statements and content at issue in Dominion’s lawsuits against Newsmax, One America News Network, and Fox News," the network's petition says.

READ MORE: 'Hot mess': Report reveals Rupert Murdoch’s state of 'denial' about Dominion voting settlement

The petition continues, "Notably, Mr. Catsimatidis and his media company, WABC radio, broadcast essentially the same news stories at issue in the Newsmax and Fox News litigations. For example, WABC broadcast numerous statements by Rudy Giuliani concerning Dominion and allegations of voter fraud."

The Daily Beast's full report is available here (subscription required).

US Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) have been subpoenaed by Arizona investigators to testify for a grand jury in connection to their efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Politico exclusively reports.

Politico notes as far-right Freedom Caucus chair at the time, Biggs, along "with Gosar were among the most vocal congressional supporters of Trump’s efforts to overturn Biden’s victory in Arizona," and both GOP lawmakers sought "to challenge the state’s presidential electors on Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress met to certify the results of the Electoral College."

The news outlet adds, "Gosar was mounting that challenge at the same moment a pro-Trump mob broke into the Capitol and halted proceedings."

READ MORE: 'We have to worry about physical violence': AZ elections chief preps for threats from MAGA

Although there's no proof Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes will bring criminal charges against the pair, "the subpoenas themselves — in conjunction with a series of other aggressive recent moves — show that Mayes, a Democrat, has cast a far wider net in her probe than previously understood," Politico notes.

"Getting a subpoena to testify in front of a grand jury is kind of rare," American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Legal Director Jared Keenan said. "And that’s why I think no one has challenged the secrecy law."

Some of the Arizona lawmakers' attempt to overturn the election according to investigators, includes Gosar's ongoing "relationships with activists organizing 'Stop the Steal' protests targeting Congress’ Jan. 6 session."

Regarding Biggs' actions, Politico reports, "text messages obtained by the Jan. 6 committee" show that "Biggs quickly contacted Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, after Election Day 2020 to push for state legislatures to overrule the results in multiple states Biden won."

READ MORE: 'Resigning as Lake requested': AZ GOP chair quits amid threat of more leaks from Kari Lake

Additionally, "Biggs also told Meadows that Trump should not concede the election and reportedly worked with other Arizona Republicans to advance the fake elector effort."

Politico's full report is available here.

California State Bar Judge Yvette Roland on Wednesday ruled that former Donald Trump lawyer John Eastman violated ethics rules when he helped to orchestrate the ex-president's ploy to overturn the 2020 election, Politico reports.

Per the report, "Though Eastman may appeal Roland’s decision, including to the state Supreme Court, the ruling forces his law license into 'inactive' status while any review is pending, meaning he can no longer practice law in California."

Brookings Governance senior fellow and States United Democracy Center co-founder Norm Eisen shared the news via X (formerly Twitter), writing, "The CA Bar just delivered an important 2020 accountability outcome – recommending John Eastman for permanent disbarment. Kudos to our team @statesunited who filed the initial ethics complaint against him in 2021, along with me & dozens of bipartisan signers."

READ MORE: Trump ally and January 6 architect John Eastman now on the verge of losing his law license

Adam Klasfeld reported, "A blistering line from John Eastman's disbarment recommendation: The Bar finds that the 'scale and egregiousness' of Eastman’s 'unethical actions far surpasses the misconduct' by Nixon henchman Donald Segretti, who coined the word 'ratf***ing' for political dirty tricks."

CNN's Zachary Cohen noted, "All signs pointed to this being the decision. Eastman has still avoided criminal charges except for in Georgia."

Former federal prosecutor and legal analyst Renato Mariotti commented, "One of Donald Trump’s lawyers will no longer be a lawyer. It is rare for lawyers to be disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. But Eastman’s legal advice — to overturn an election and subvert our democracy — were unprecedented."

Jim Roberts, publisher at The 74, wrote, "Good."

READ MORE: Former Trump White House lawyer reveals new details about Trump’s 2020 election ploy: report

Mother Jones DC Bureau Chief David Corn said, "I’m sure Trump will compensate him."

MSNBC's Katie Phang wrote, "Taking away the ability for Trump to abuse the legal system with the help of (disbarred-) lawyers like Eastman and Jeff Clark is critical to protecting our democracy."

Environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clark, who the former president wanted to take over the Justice Department in the days before the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a disbarment hearing Wednesday," according to NBC News.

READ MORE: 3 Trump lawyers who tried to overturn election will now have to defend their law licenses

As Jeffrey Clark, ex-US Department of Justice official and Donald Trump co-defendant in the Georgia 2020 election interference case faces the possibility of losing his law license, according to Politico, new details regarding Clark's role in Trump's ploy to overturn the election came to light Tuesday.

Per Politico, During Clark's March 26 disbarment hearing in Washington, DC, former Trump Deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin gave "his first public testimony about the chaotic final days of the Trump presidency since" leaving his post in 2021.

"I believe that he felt that he essentially had a duty," Philbin said, according to the report, of his longtime colleague. "I think Jeff’s view was that there was a real crisis in the country and that he was being given an opportunity to do something about it."

READ MORE: Jack Smith has new evidence about 'very angry' Trump's Jan. 6 actions: report

In the days leading up to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol — as Joe Biden was set to be confirmed as president, Politico reports, "Trump had suddenly resuscitated a plan to replace the leadership of the Justice Department with Jeffrey Clark, a little known DOJ official who Trump expected to mount a sweeping nationwide effort to help him remain in power."

The former Trump White House counsel, according to Politico, "described Clark as wildly misinformed about claims of election fraud — countenancing a theory about 'smart thermostats' being used to manipulate voting machines — and not sufficiently cognizant of the havoc it would wreak on the country if his plan succeeded. But he said Clark seemed '100 percent sincere' in his beliefs.'"

Furthermore, the report notes that "when Philbin warned Clark that there would be riots in every major American city if Trump reversed the outcome of the election, Clark responded, 'Well, Pat, that’s what the Insurrection Act is for,' Philbin recalled."

"I tried to explain to him that it was a bad idea for multiple reasons," Philbin emphasized in his testimony. "He would be starting down a path of assured failure … If by some miracle somehow, it worked, there’d be riots in every major city in the country and it was not an outcome the country would accept."

READ MORE: 'Hunters will become the hunted': Convicted J6er running for Congress makes a new promise

In mentioning "the Insurrection Act," Politico reports:

Clark, in Philbin’s telling, was referring to a 19th-century federal law that permits the president to use the military to quell civil unrest, an indication that he recognized the grave implications of his efforts. Though it was Philbin’s first time publicly discussing the exchange, the conversation was captured in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump — without naming either Philbin or Clark, though the identities of both speakers were easily discerned. On Tuesday, Philbin was asked to elaborate on this discussion.

The news outlet also notes:

Philbin was the second witness to testify in a disciplinary proceeding that could result in the loss of Clark’s license to practice law. D.C. Bar investigators have charged him with attempting to coerce DOJ leaders to embrace false claims of election fraud in order to pressure state legislators to consider reversing Trump’s defeat in Georgia and other swing states. Trump, fuming at his DOJ leadership for what he contended was a failure to pursue fraud investigations, repeatedly flirted with appointing Clark as their leader but ultimately backed down amid a mass resignation threat.

READ MORE: Court smacks down subpoena to Jeffrey Clark citing Fifth Amendment violation: report

Politico's full report is available at this link.

NBC host Kristen Welker pressed former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel about her past statements suggesting the 2020 presidential election was not legitimate.

"Ronna, ultimately, there were 250 audits," Welker said Sunday on Meet the Press. "They never found any corruption."

"Did you not have a responsibility as the RNC chair to say before January 6th that the election is not rigged, that Donald Trump lost given that there were audits, given that there were more than 60 court cases that occurred all across the country, and that Donald Trump lost?" she asked.

"The reality is Joe Biden won," McDaniel replied. "I have always said, and I continue to say, there were issues in 2020. I believe that both can be true."

"But you acknowledge you acknowledge those what you're talking about did not rise to the level in any way of overturning any of the state's election results," Welker pressed.

"You know there were precincts that didn't align," she continued. "That's a fact. That's not propaganda. That's a fact. He's the president. He's the legitimate president."

Welker interrupted: "Let me just let me just stop you because you did say you just said Joe Biden's a legitimately elected president. This is the first time you have said this."

The NBC host then presented a video clip of McDaniel telling Chris Wallace that Biden did not win fairly.

"Ronna, why has it taken you until now to say that?" Welker wondered.

"I'm gonna push back a little because I do think it's fair to say there were problems in 2020," McDaniel quipped. "And to say that does not mean he's not the legitimate president."

Welker pointed out, "Even the Supreme Court, Ronna, didn't take up concerns about the election results in Pennsylvania and a slew of other states."

Many legal experts publicly slammed a brief Donald Trump lawyers filed with the US Supreme Court Tuesday, urging the justices to grant the former president absolute immunity from prosecution in his DC January 6 election interference case.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked CNN legal commentator Elie Honig about his thoughts on how he believes the high court may respond to the brief.

Collins noted in the brief, Trump lawyers "include statements like this, saying that [Trump] communicated with the vice president, the vice president's official staff, members of congress to urge them to exercise their official duties and the election certification process in accordance with the position decision based on voluminous information available to President Trump in his official capacity, that the election was tainted by extensive fraud and irregularities."

READ MORE: Trump’s 'astounding' SCOTUS Jan. 6 immunity brief blasted by legal experts

The CNN host then emphasized, "It's not true."

"That's some spin, right?" Honig said.

"So how does the Supreme Court read something like that?" Collins asked.

"That's the problem," Honig replied. "The argument that he if he was within a scope, he's covered. That's potentially legitimate. But the twisting of logic and reality that Trump has to do to get there, to get what he did within the scope of the presidency is facially ridiculous. He says, 'Well, I was just calling the vice president and asked him to do his job. I was just calling the georgia secretary of state and ask him to do his job.' No, he wasn't. I mean, We've seen the calls. We've heard the testimony."

The legal expert continued, "He's asking them to violate their oaths of office. That's where I think he's going to run into trouble. And there's one more thing that I have to note about the brief. Donald Trump's lawyers make the mistake of saddling a good, decent argument about whether he's in the scope or not with a ridiculous argument which is this impeachment argument, that he can only be indicted if he's been impeached and then convicted by the Senate."

READ MORE: Former military leaders would 'refuse' Trump order to kill political rivals: SCOTUS amicus brief

He emphasized, "I don't know why they include that. They don't need that. And to me that sinks the arguments. So, if I'm advising Trump's legal team — which I'm not — but if I'm advising any normal person, I would say, 'leave out the lousy argument, just bank on the good one here.'"

Watch the video below or at this link.

'That’s some spin, right?' Legal expert highlights Trump lawyers' one 'mistake' in SCOTUS brief www.youtube.com

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Jeffery S. Matis issued a bench warrant for Attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila, granting a request from the prosecution after she repeatedly failed to provide fingerprints and a DNA sample as required by law.

Lambert Junttila did not appear at the Thursday show cause hearing and will have 24 hours to turn herself in, with prosecutor Tim Maat requesting that the warrant not be executed until 5 p.m. Friday in line with a previous agreement he had made with Lambert Junttila, where she asked that Maat not send officers to her home to arrest her.

“One of the conversations I had with her, with her counsel present, was, ‘If the grand jury decides to indict, can you promise me you won’t send the police to my house and have me arrested?’ I said yes. She says, ‘I got kids. I don’t want them to see that.’ I said, ‘No problem; just let us work with your lawyer,’” Maat said.

Lambert Junttila is one of three individuals indicted as part of a probe into alleged tampering with voting tabulators following the 2020 election where President Joe Biden defeated former President Donald Trump. Attorney and former Republican attorney general nominee Matthew DePerno and former state Rep. Daire Rendon (R-Lake City) were also indicted.

The court had issued multiple orders for Lambert Junttila to have her fingerprints and a DNA sample taken, as is required by law. Matis noted the initial order requesting fingerprints and DNA sampling was issued on Aug. 4, 2023, with a deadline of Aug. 10, 2023.

Matis also noted this order said a refusal to submit to fingerprinting may subject the defendant to contempt or criminal charges.

Matis also read multiple emails between Maat and Lambert Junttila’s defense counsel saying she would have her fingerprints taken.

“Of course, it hasn’t been done. So with that said, today’s hearing was scheduled. I did order the defendant to be present. Candidly, if she had shown up with proof she had done it that would have been fine. But obviously she’s not present,” Matis said.

While the case was initially scheduled for 3 p.m., Matis did not call the case until after 4 p.m. Thursday.

“What I want to emphasize here is I have no doubt that defense counsel has been honest with us, but I don’t think she’s been honest with them. And everything that’s been communicated to us I now question,” Maat said, listing a number of excuses from Lambert Junttila as to why her fingerprints had not been taken.

Maat, who traveled three hours to the court in Oakland County, also requested that Lambert Junttila cover the travel costs for himself and a state police trooper who appeared as a witness and waited for her to appear. Matis granted the request.

Lambert Junttila’s attorney, Michael J. Smith, argued she was confused as to whether the show cause hearing would be held, but Matis rejected that argument before agreeing to issue a bench warrant.

At the time of publication, Lambert is scheduled for trial on April 1.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and Twitter.

After the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from federal prosecution next month, the March 4 start date for the ex-president's DC election interference trial was rescheduled to an unknown date.

In a Wednesday, March 6 op-ed for MSNBC, legal and national security journalist Marcy Wheeler draws attention to the fact that many have specifically criticized Attorney General Merrick Garland for the trial delay. She argues that the criticism is "unwarranted."

She writes, "Garland’s record as attorney general is far from flawless," and "Naysayers will complain that we all saw" Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election "in public, and they’re right. But behind every one of those public acts lies a chain of evidence without which Trump would win the case, the hunt for which started well before Smith came along."

READ MORE: Prosecutors give Trump 'favorable' evidence in classified documents case: Jack Smith filing

Wheeler notes:

Those often ignored early moves against Trump’s co-conspirators — and other investigative developments, such as the purported cooperation of Jan. 6 defendant Brandon Straka, investigative steps implicating Roger Stone, and the prosecution of Alex Jones’ sidekick— go unmentioned in reports that claim Garland delayed the investigation. For good reason: Most happened where reporters and pundits weren’t looking.

But the popular narratives attributing delay to Garland also ignore several factors that did take time.

The legal writer emphasizes, "The delays created by Covid, use of encryption, attorney-client and executive privilege claims were unavoidable, even for the most obvious evidence." The legal writer points to Trump's Jan. 6, 2021 tweet saying, "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage." Though the tweet "was right there in public," Wheeler emphasizes "to present that in court first required the exploitation of at least two phones, nine months of fights over executive privilege, a 23-day stall from Twitter and two sets of interviews with at least eight different top aides."

Wheeler adds:

Plus, investigating Trump was like investigating a very corrupt law firm. According to a filingfrom Jack Smith, “at least 25 witnesses withheld information, communications, and documents based on assertions of the attorney-client privilege under circumstances where the privilege holder appears to be the defendant or his 2020 presidential campaign.” Some of these witnesses are obvious — and central to the plot to steal the election: Giuliani, John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro were all described as co-conspirators. Several lawyers worked for Giuliani — people such as Christina Bobb and Jenna Ellis. Others worked for the campaign, or participated in state-level conspiracies or lawsuits.

Wheeler insists that following the US Supreme Court's "delayed consideration" of the former president's immunity argument until April, the "criticism" from progressives to not only the high court, but also Garland — instead of SCOTUS justices like Clarence Thomas — are simply "misplaced."

READ MORE: House GOP moves to upstage SOTU with new Hur investigation subpoena and hearing

Wheeler's full op-ed can be read at this link.

Former President Donald Trump Georgia co-defendant and lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, according to a slew of text messages and email released Monday, continued to suggest ways to overturn the 2020 election after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, CNN reports.

Chesebro, along with former Trump attorneys Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, has since flipped on the ex-president by taking plea deals in the Fulton County case against them over their election interference efforts.

Per CNN, "The new materials were disclosed after Chesebro and former Trump lawyer Jim Troupis, who are both from Wisconsin, settled a lawsuit brought by Wisconsin’s real Democratic electors from 2020. These revelations build on what is known about Trump’s efforts to cling to power, which led to federal and state election subversion indictments. Chesebro pleaded guilty in Georgia and has been identified by CNN as one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the federal case. Trump has denied wrongdoing."

READ MORE: Top Trump attorney in fake electors plot hid secret Twitter account 'BadgerPundit'

According to The New York Times, the former Trump lawyer wrote Troupis, "At minimum, with such a cloud of confusion, no votes from WI (and perhaps also MI and PA) should be counted, perhaps enough to throw the election to the House."

The Times reports:

On the morning of Jan. 6, Mr. Chesebro said he had worked with Michael Roman, the director of the Trump campaign’s Election Day operations, and given documents for the false slates of electors a day earlier to an aide to Representative Mike Kelly, Republican of Pennsylvania. That aide took them to the Senate parliamentarian, he said.

'Excellent,' Mr. Troupis replied. 'Tomorrow let’s talk about SCOTUS strategy going forward. Enjoy the history you have made possible today.'

Mr. Chesebro later sent a photo of himself with the crowd at 12:26 p.m. on Jan. 6.

Mr. Troupis responded with an emoji of hands clapping.

The texts, according to CNN, also show that a Trump attorney "claimed to have sent a memo to the White House – 'the real decision makers' – about how to carry out the fake electors plot across the country."

Last month, Talking Points Memo's Josh Kovensky reported newly uncovered documents revealed the role lawyers played in Trump's plan to steal the election.

"Chesebro, an appellate lawyer, provided a legal framework in which, he contended, Trump could still win — or at least cause enough confusion and chaos that the conservative Supreme Court would have to get involved in picking the president," Kovensky wrote. "His plan envisioned several gambits which have now become familiar building blocks of the legal portion of the coup attempt, and the basis for criminal charges across the country: creating slates of fake electors, having Mike Pence refuse to count Biden's electoral votes on January 6, and ultimately tossing the whole issue to the High Court."

READ MORE: A 'trove' of newly obtained docs detail Trump lawyers’ scheme to keep him in the White House: report

CNN's full report is available at this link. The New York Times' report is here (subscription required).

Former US Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) — once a supporter of Donald Trump — has vocalized her criticism of the ex-president since his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. In 2022, the longtime GOP leader was censured by the Republican National Committee after she voted to impeach Trump and chose to serve on the House January 6 investigative committee.

Cheney's book, "Oath and Honor, a Memoir and a Warning — released in late 2023 — sheds light on her experience as a Republican lawmaker on the committee investigating the former president, and, according to "staunch, almost redneck conservative" Jim Young, is "extremely detailed", "well organized", "objective", "factual", and "fair."

In a Sunday, March 3 op-ed for The Oklahoman, the Republican columnist — who says he thinks President "Joe Biden and his followers in Washington have been in the top five of the worst political leaders we have ever seen in this country’s history" — emphasizes the impact Cheney's book had on his decision to abandon MAGA world. He suggests "the future of our society depends on" Americans' understanding the totality of Trump's efforts to overturn the election.

READ MORE: 'Personal spat' between Cheney and Stefanik exposes 'raw and angry wounds' in GOP: report

"After reading Liz Cheney’s book, the committee findings and the DOJ indictment, I do not understand how Donald Trump can possibly be considered as a legitimate candidate for the most important job in the world. Frankly, I don’t understand how he is not in jail right now," Young writes.

The columnist writes:

This book is a very frightening story! It is scary because it shows how incredibly obsessed Trump was about being cheated out of the election. He was totally irrational and willing to believe anything he was told that would lead to a verification of fraudulent voting activities. No matter how hard his advisers and supporters tried to tell him there was simply no substantial evidence that the election was stolen, he continued to connive, coerce and threaten people to overturn the results. He filed some 60 lawsuits in various states attempting to show fraudulent voting activity, all of which he lost.

After he read Cheney's work, Young adds:

I was very surprised and proud of myself having read the entire book! More surprising is what an impact it has had on my thinking about Trump’s role in the whole process of attempting to overturn the results of the election and the incitement of the Jan. 6 mob attack on the Capitol. I even went further after finishing Liz’s book. I was inspired to read the entire Executive Summary of the official finding of the Jan. 6 Select Committee, which is about 100 pages of a pdf document not including about 800 footnotes! Finally, I have read the actual indictment filed by the Justice Department against Mr. Trump. All three documents, the book, the findings and the indictment are very clear, well documented and all tell a very consistent story.

READ MORE: 'Lying about the evidence in all caps': Liz Cheney shoots down Trump’s biggest Jan. 6 lies

Read Young's full op-ed here.

Ex-Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark cannot be subpoenaed for "documents that might have justified his efforts to put the weight of the Justice Department behind efforts to overturn" the 2020 election in Georgia "and other states," according to the DC Court of Appeals' Monday, February 26 ruling, Politico reports.

Along with 17 others — including Donald Trump — Clark faces criminal charges in Fulton County for election interference, and the reports notes he was also "identified as one of six key Trump co-conspirators by special counsel Jack Smith in a Washington, D.C., indictment also related" to his attempt to overturn the election.

Per Politico, "Officials with the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel — which enforces professional ethics for attorneys who practice in the nation’s capital — subpoenaed Clark last year and demanded he produce any documents that might have justified his efforts to put the weight of the Justice Department behind efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia and other states."

READ MORE: 'Materially changes this case': Trump gets involved in Jan. 6 accomplice’s disbarment

Months later, the three-judge panel with the DC court ruled "the investigators’ effort to subpoena documents from Clark 'infringes on Mr. Clark's Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.'"

Politico notes the ruling is "the latest setback for bar authorities who have spent nearly two years attempting to discipline Clark for his role in Trump’s schemes," as the ex-Trump lawyer "has forced numerous delays in part by seeking to remove the case to federal court and rejecting the D.C. Bar’s authority over his conduct as a federal official."

READ MORE: 3 Trump lawyers who tried to overturn election will now have to defend their law licenses

Politico's full report is here.