Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
March 1, 2023

MTG Whines After Being Treated How She Treats Others

This idiot can dish it out but is unable to deal with the same treatment she inflicts on others
https://twitter.com/randyslovacek/status/1630644893004513289
https://therandyreport.com/mtg-whines-after-being-treated-how-she-treats-others/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Folks on the Twitters felt the need to remind MTG of her own behavior – like her hounding teenager David Hogg in public who survived a mass shooting in Florida – that’s led to this kind of incivility.

Of course, once she was elected to Congress, she began scrubbing her social media accounts of these sort of encounters.
https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1630602804816666629
https://twitter.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1630542590712983553
February 27, 2023

Arizona governor seeks ethics review of former attorney general

The former Arizona AG is a TFG supporter/election denier who hid evidence that there were no voter fraud. I love the letter reporting this asshole for discipline.
https://twitter.com/isaacstanbecker/status/1629551872477474819
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/25/brnovich-state-bar-arizona-election/

Arizona’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, is seeking a review of what her office alleges was “likely unethical conduct” by the state’s former attorney general, Mark Brnovich.

A letter sent Friday from the governor’s office to the State Bar of Arizona follows the disclosure on Wednesday of records showing that Brnovich, a Republican, withheld findings by his own investigators refuting claims of fraud in the 2020 election and mischaracterized his office’s probe of voting in the state’s largest county.

The letter, signed by Hobbs’s general counsel, Bo Dul, calls the conduct “harmful to our democracy, our State, and the legal profession itself.”......

Those complaints alleged that Brnovich shirked his responsibilities as the state’s top law enforcement officer to represent two state agencies, the secretary of state’s office and the Arizona Board of Regents, the governing body of Arizona’s public university system. Hobbs was Arizona’s secretary of state at the time of the complaints and the diversion agreements, which were revealed in early 2022.

The letter from Hobbs’s office asks the state bar to review the files released this week and “take any appropriate action.”

February 27, 2023

How Judge Luttig escalated his push against Mike Pence's subpoena 'gambit'

Pence's speech and debate clause defense will be rejected by the courts. Judge Howell has already ruled on a similar defense.
https://twitter.com/DeadlineWH/status/1629466303038668804
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/luttig-pence-subpoena-jack-smith-rcna72223

Luttig, who doesn’t think much of that plan, has now taken to The New York Times to speak out against Pence’s “gambit,” as he called it (and as I called it previously). He wrote there on Friday:

Inasmuch as Mr. Pence’s claim is novel and an unsettled question in constitutional law, it is only novel and unsettled because there has never been a time in our country’s history where it was thought imperative for someone in a vice president’s position, or his lawyer, to conjure the argument. In other words, Mr. Pence’s claim is the proverbial invention of the mother of necessity if ever there was one.


Importantly, Luttig pointed out that whatever protections Pence has are limited. He went on:

Any protections the former vice president is entitled to under the “speech and debate” clause will be few in number and limited in scope. There are relatively few circumstances in which a former vice president would be entitled to constitutional protection for his conversations related to his ceremonial and ministerial roles of presiding over the electoral vote count. What Mr. Smith wants to know about are Mr. Pence’s communications and interactions with Mr. Trump before, and perhaps during, the vote count, which are entirely fair game for a grand jury investigating possible crimes against the United States.


Luttig concluded that Pence would unquestionably be required to testify. “Even if a vice president has ‘speech or debate’ clause protections, they will yield to a federal subpoena to appear before the grand jury,” the former 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judge wrote.

Though the ex-judge made a decent case, it remains to be seen whether current judges, including the Republican-dominated Supreme Court, reach the same conclusion if it gets that far. Either way, Luttig’s latest output on the subject represents a significant escalation from the man whose counsel Pence apparently took to heart on Jan. 6, 2021. When it comes to the Smith subpoena, however, it doesn’t appear that Pence is keeping the same counsel.

Indeed, depending on what options were available to Luttig, the Times is an interesting place for him to push his case, calling into question whether it’s Pence he's attempting to convince at this point. On that note, I should point out that The Wall Street Journal editorial board put out a piece last week applauding Pence’s defiance, and providing legal arguments that, while potentially weaker than Luttig's, are ones Pence may see fit to deploy. At any rate, and perhaps more important, I think we can guess which paper a majority of the Supreme Court is more likely to read — or at least heed.

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PM
Number of posts: 149,072
Latest Discussions»LetMyPeopleVote's Journal