Stories Chosen For You
The select committee investigating Donald Trump's coup attempt has two new critical categories of evidence against the former president, a legal expert argued on MSNBC on Saturday.
"As we learn more about potential witness tampering during the Jan. 6 committee's investigation, this week's testimony of former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson could explain why those in Trumpworld were so worried about what she might have to say," MSNBC's Cori Coffin reported.
For analysis, Coffin interviewed former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner.
"According to Hutchison, Trump knew that some of his supporters would be armed that day, sent them to the Capitol anyway, even hoping to join them," she noted. "So, does this open up the former president to be criminally liable?"
"Yeah, this is what I would call smoking gun evidence," Kirschner replied.
"And interestingly, at the last J6 public hearing, we got both smoking gun evidence, and we got loaded gun evidence," he continued. "And what I mean by that is, as you just played in your lead-in, Cori, the president knew. He was briefed that his crowd was armed with assault rifles and pistols and knives and brass knuckles and bear spray, etc."
"And you would think a reasonable response from a president would be, oh my goodness, let's make sure the metal detectors are operating properly," he explained. "He said just the opposite, take them down, let the armed members of the group in, and they can march to the Capitol from there. To do what? To stop the certification of his political opponent's election win. So in a very real sense, that smoking gun evidence that Donald Trump wanted to lead what we now know is an armed attack on the Capitol. The loaded gun evidence is, the witness tampering information, and you know, witness tampering just strikes at the very heart of the integrity of investigations, whether congressional or criminal."
Watch below or at this link.
Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced—a story that has largely flown under the nation's political radar—that they'll consider pre-rigging the presidential election of 2024.
Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate.
Here's how one aspect of it could work out, if they go along with the GOP's arguments that will be before the Court this October:
It's November, 2024, and the presidential race between Biden and DeSantis has been tabulated by the states and called by the networks. Biden won 84,355,740 votes to DeSantis' 77,366,412, clearly carrying the popular vote.
But the popular vote isn't enough: George W. Bush lost to Al Gore by a half-million votes and Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton by 3 million votes but both ended up in the White House. What matters is the Electoral College vote, and that looks good for Biden, too.
As CNN is reporting, the outcome is a virtual clone of the 2020 election: Biden carries the same states he did that year and DeSantis gets all the Trump states. It's 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, a 74-vote Electoral College lead for Biden, at least as calculated by CNN and the rest of the media. Biden is heading to the White House for another 4 years.
Until the announcement comes out of Georgia. Although Biden won the popular vote in Georgia, their legislature decided it can overrule the popular vote and just awarded the state's 16 electoral votes to DeSantis instead of Biden.
An hour later we hear from five other states with Republican-controlled legislatures where Biden won the majority of the vote, just like he had in 2020: North Carolina (15 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Arizona (11).
Each has followed Georgia's lead and their legislatures have awarded their Electoral College votes—even though Biden won the popular vote in each state—to DeSantis.
Thus, a total of 88 Electoral College votes from those six states move from Biden to DeSantis, who's declared the winner and will be sworn in on January 20, 2025.
Wolf Blitzer announces that DeSantis has won the election, and people pour into the streets to protest. They're met with a hail of bullets as Republican-affiliated militias have been rehearsing for this exact moment and their allies among the police refuse to intervene.
After a few thousand people lay dead in the streets of two dozen cities, the police begin to round up the surviving "instigators," who are charged with seditious conspiracy for resisting the Republican legislatures of their states.
After he's sworn in on January 20th, President DeSantis points to the ongoing demonstrations, declares a permanent state of emergency, and suspends future elections, just as Trump had repeatedly told the world he planned for 2020.
Sound far fetched?
Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced that one of the first cases they'll decide next year could include whether that very scenario is constitutional or not. And it almost certainly is.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution lays out the process clearly, and it doesn't even once mention the popular vote or the will of the people:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress... [emphasis added]
"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons … which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…"
It's not particularly ambiguous, even as clarified by the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
Neither mentions the will of the people, although the Electoral Count Act requires each state's governor to certify the vote before passing it along to Washington, DC. And half of those states have Democratic governors.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court's probable 2023 decision. As Robert Barnes wrote yesterday for The Washington Post:
"The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider what would be a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats."
While the main issue being debated in Moore v Harper, scheduled for a hearing this October, is a gerrymander that conflicts with North Carolina's constitution, the issue at the core of the debate is what's called the "Independent State Legislature Doctrine."
It literally gives state legislatures the power to pre-rig or simply hand elections to the candidate of their choice.
As NPR notes:
"The independent state legislature theory was first invoked by three conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices in the celebrated Bush v. Gore case that handed the 2000 election victory to George W. Bush. In that case, the three cited it to support the selection of a Republican slate of presidential electors."
That doctrine—the basis of John Eastman and Donald Trump's effort to get states to submit multiple slates of electors—asserts that a plain reading of Article II and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution says that each state's legislature has final say in which candidate gets their states' Electoral College vote, governors and the will of the voters be damned.
The Republicans point out that the Constitution says that it's up to the states—"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"—to decide which presidential candidate gets their Electoral College votes.
But the Electoral Count Act requires a governor's sign-off, and half those states have Democratic governors. Which has precedence, the Constitution or the Act?
If the Supreme Court says it's the US Constitution rather than the Electoral Count Act, states' constitutions, state laws, or the votes of their citizens, the scenario outlined above becomes not just possible but very likely. Republicans play hardball and consistently push to the extremes regardless of pubic opinion.
After all, the Constitution only mentions the states' legislatures—which are all Republican controlled—so the unwillingness of the Democratic governors of Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to sign off on the Electoral College votes becomes moot.
Under this circumstance DeSantis becomes president, the third Republican president in the 21st century, and also the third Republican President to have lost the popular vote election yet ended up in the White House.
This scenario isn't just plausible: it's probable. GOP-controlled states are already changing their state laws to allow for it, and Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate.
Those state legislators who still embrace Trump and this theory are getting the support of large pools of rightwing billionaires' dark money.
As the highly respected conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig recently wrote:
"Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine … and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency."
I take no satisfaction in having accurately predicted—in March of 2020—how Trump and his buddies would try to steal the election in January of 2021. Or how the Supreme Court would blow up the Environmental Protection Agency.
Trump's January 6th effort failed because every contested state had laws on the books requiring all of their Electoral College votes to go to whichever candidate won the popular vote in the state.
That will not be the case in 2024.
As we are watching, the Supreme Court—in collaboration with state legislatures through activists like Ginny Thomas—are setting that election up right now in front of us in real time.
We damn well better be planning for this, because it's likely coming our way in just a bit more than two short years.
Reacting to reports that Donald Trump is thinking of moving up his announcement that he will be running for president in 2024, political analyst and pollster Fernand Amandi said the threat of the former president jumping into the race at such an early time is creating problems for the Republican Party.
Appearing on MSNBC's "The Katie Phang Show," Amandi explained that Trump has three main reasons for wanting to make the jump sooner than later -- two of which are designed to ensure his political survival.
"What would be the fallout for announcing so early before the November midterms?" host Phang asked.
"Katie, it would be classic Donald Trump to deal with an impending crisis, which right now is dealing with the Jan 6th hearings by creating another crisis -- this time though within the Republican Party by announcing," he began.
"The Trumpian logic would be as follows, " he continued. "One, it would help him in his mindset avoid some of the legal complications that have clearly now been put on the table. The Justice Department is now in a situation, based on, especially, on Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony this past week where they are going to have to act and that will probably end up in an indictment against Trump for seditious conspiracy."
"Having said that, Trump's logic is, if I am a political candidate it might delay or pushback or allow at least Trump to say this is a legal witch hunt as opposed to anything based on reality," he elaborated.
MSNBC 07 03 2022 07 06 29 youtu.be