POPULARITY
6 episodes with judge luttig
3 episodes with judge luttig
3 episodes with judge luttig
3 episodes with judge luttig
2 episodes with judge luttig
2 episodes with judge luttig
2 episodes with judge luttig
2 episodes with judge luttig
2 episodes with judge luttig
Ali Velshi is joined by Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian Jennifer Rubin, Executive Director of Aspen Digital Vivian Schiller, Co-Founder of The Contrarian Norman Eisen, Investigative Reporter with The New York Times Eric Lipton, former Federal Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest J. Moniz, Law Professor and Historian at UC Davis Law School Mary Ziegler, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Professor of Philosophy at Yale University Jason Stanley, Professor of History at NYU Ruth Ben-Ghiat
MSNBC look at Trumps authoritarianism, Steven Harper on Nazi comparison to GOP, conservative Judge Luttig on corruption of rule of law under DJT and why Trump is unfit for office, COVID excess deaths of 400,000 under DJT, foreign interference in US elections - again, James Risen musings, the "secret plan" of Trump and Mike Johnson to derail the election certification via The House of Representatives
MSNBC look at Trumps authoritarianism, Steven Harper on Nazi comparison to GOP, conservative Judge Luttig on corruption of rule of law under DJT and why Trump is unfit for office, COVID excess deaths of 400,000 under DJT, foreign interference in US elections - again, James Risen musings, the "secret plan" of Trump and Mike Johnson to derail the election certification via The House of Representatives
You're nervous. We're nervous. As we stop for gas with almost two weeks to go before November 5th, we're kicking the tires of American democracy to see if it's roadworthy. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Matthew Seligman, one of the authors of How to Steal a Presidential Election, to examine the legal avenues available to Donald J Trump and his band of merry lawyers to subvert the presidential election. Seligman answers Amicus listeners' most common election question: Can MAGA electors refuse to certify the election if they disagree with the outcome? Next, Dahlia talks to retired respected conservative federal judge J Michal Luttig, who is raising the alarm about the Supreme Court's willful ignorance when it comes to defending democracy from Donald J Trump. Judge Luttig says part of the blame for the January 6th insurrection lies with the Supreme Court, and warns the court's majority is poised to tip the scale for Trump this time around. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
You're nervous. We're nervous. As we stop for gas with almost two weeks to go before November 5th, we're kicking the tires of American democracy to see if it's roadworthy. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Matthew Seligman, one of the authors of How to Steal a Presidential Election, to examine the legal avenues available to Donald J Trump and his band of merry lawyers to subvert the presidential election. Seligman answers Amicus listeners' most common election question: Can MAGA electors refuse to certify the election if they disagree with the outcome? Next, Dahlia talks to retired respected conservative federal judge J Michal Luttig, who is raising the alarm about the Supreme Court's willful ignorance when it comes to defending democracy from Donald J Trump. Judge Luttig says part of the blame for the January 6th insurrection lies with the Supreme Court, and warns the court's majority is poised to tip the scale for Trump this time around. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
You're nervous. We're nervous. As we stop for gas with almost two weeks to go before November 5th, we're kicking the tires of American democracy to see if it's roadworthy. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Matthew Seligman, one of the authors of How to Steal a Presidential Election, to examine the legal avenues available to Donald J Trump and his band of merry lawyers to subvert the presidential election. Seligman answers Amicus listeners' most common election question: Can MAGA electors refuse to certify the election if they disagree with the outcome? Next, Dahlia talks to retired respected conservative federal judge J Michal Luttig, who is raising the alarm about the Supreme Court's willful ignorance when it comes to defending democracy from Donald J Trump. Judge Luttig says part of the blame for the January 6th insurrection lies with the Supreme Court, and warns the court's majority is poised to tip the scale for Trump this time around. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
You're nervous. We're nervous. As we stop for gas with almost two weeks to go before November 5th, we're kicking the tires of American democracy to see if it's roadworthy. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Matthew Seligman, one of the authors of How to Steal a Presidential Election, to examine the legal avenues available to Donald J Trump and his band of merry lawyers to subvert the presidential election. Seligman answers Amicus listeners' most common election question: Can MAGA electors refuse to certify the election if they disagree with the outcome? Next, Dahlia talks to retired respected conservative federal judge J Michal Luttig, who is raising the alarm about the Supreme Court's willful ignorance when it comes to defending democracy from Donald J Trump. Judge Luttig says part of the blame for the January 6th insurrection lies with the Supreme Court, and warns the court's majority is poised to tip the scale for Trump this time around. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Harry sits down with Judge J. Michael Luttig, a leading conservative jurist and fierce critic of Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and the Supreme Court. Judge Luttig explains why Trump is the very menace to the Constitution that the Framers feared, and excoriates Republicans in Congress for enabling his authoritarian ambitions. The two move on to 3 pro-Trump Supreme Court decisions that Luttig disparages, singling out for special reproach the Court's immunity decision, which Judge Luttig characterizes as an "abomination". It's a hard-hitting, essential discussion with one of Trump's most formidable conservative critics.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
We cover several stories in the news this week: The information regarding Georgia Governor Eugene Talmadge removing more that one million voters from his state's voter registration came from political scientist Rober Mickey in "American Needs Georgia Republicans to Defend Democracy Again," Mary Gay, The New York Times, August 29, 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/29/opinion/georgia-election-board-certification.html "Top Military officer says he was wrong to accompany Trump on church walk through Lafayette Square," June 11, 2020: https://m.abc3340.com/news/nation-world/milley-says-he-was-wrong-to-accompany-trump-on-church-walk The photo with the words "All Are Welcome" at St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, DC, can be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opinion/trump-st-johns-church-protests.html Stephen Carter was quoted from "Trump Isn't Going to Like the Supreme Couirt's Immunity Decision," (Bloomberg News, July 1, 2024: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07-01/supreme-court-immunity-ruling-is-not-a-gift-to-trump Eric Foner's quote is from Reconstruction, America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1870, (N.Y., Harper & Row, 1988) at p. 423. Trump special counsel files new election interference indictment A new rule in Georgia could allow local election boards to refuse to certify results Conservative Republican Luttig endorses Harris, calls Trump a threat to democracy | CNN Politics Others Have Politicized Arlington, but Trump's Approach Has No Precedent - The New York Times
In an Exclusive Legal AF by Meidas Touch interview, Michael Popok is joined again by conservative icon, constitutional and presidential scholar, former federal appellate and lifelong Republican, Judge J. Michael Luttig, to discuss in detail his strongly held view that the very soul of America and its Rule of Law and Constitutional Republic is on the ballot this November. Judge Luttig tells Popok this battle for the soul of our country, combined with his love and country and faith, compelled Judge Luttig to not only oppose Trump's “highjacking” of democracy and his party, but to strongly endorse VP Kamala Harris for President. As Judge Luttig so eloquently puts it during the interview, we are one party short of a 2-party system, and the choice is clear for November in that the Democratic party is the only party left to serve as the guardian of our democracy. Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Federalist Society and conservative icon and lifelong Republican Judge Luttig has just given his full-throated endorsement of Kamala Harris, calling the Democratic Party the only true protector of the flame of democracy in America. Michael Popok who has interviewed Judge Luttig provides his commentary. Sign up for a one-dollar per month trial at https://shopify.com/legalaf Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Tuesday, August 20th 2024Today, the Democratic National Convention is underway in Chicago and Governor Pritzker confirms members of the Illinois National Guard are on standby; DA Alvin Bragg does not oppose Trump's request to postpone his sentencing but is leaving it up to the discretion of the court; Judge Luttig has endorsed the Harris/Walz ticket; the House Republicans have released their Biden impeachment report; Kamala Harris outlines her economic policy agenda; despite what we hear from the right, violent crime is plummeting; Trump shared a fake Taylor Swift endorsement on Truth Social; Democrats project anti-Trump messages on his Chicago hotel; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.StoriesDemocrats project anti-Trump campaign messages onto his Chicago hotel (NBC News)Harris unveils economic plans on inflation, housing. Here's what economists think (ABC News)Dear Reader, Taylor Swift Endorsing Trump Is an AI-Generated Fairytale (Time)Violent crime is plummeting. Why? (Vox)Give to the Kamala Harris Presidential CampaignKamala Harris (MSW Media Donation Link) — Donate via ActBlueCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsAffordable Care Act (ACA) (healthcare.gov)Biden Marks Anniversary of Law Aiding Veterans Exposed to Toxic Substances (defense.gov)MoveOn.org Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Saturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts
In the second hour of the Greg Kelly Show, Greg started talking about Judge Luttig and his role in the Boeing scandals amid his recent comments criticizing the Supreme Court granting partial immunity to Donald Trump. Moreover, Greg mentioned the sailor looking into Biden's medical records and the Chicago mayor blaming Richard Nixon for the latest violence incident that took place on the 4th of July. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In a special Legal AF interview, conservative icon and defender of the Constitution, former Judge J. Michael Luttig joins Michael Popok for a candid and hard hitting critique of the Supreme Court's unprecedented decision to give absolute immunity for crimes against democracy to Donald J Trump. Judge Luttig doesn't pull any punches, as he calls the decision an “abomination” and one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history, and one purposefully designed to benefit just one person—Trump. Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
#THATSWHATUP Show! ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL w#Trista4SenateGov&Prez! #comedy #music #politics
It's in the news a lot diaper Donald can't handle being roasted he would rather fart & shart his way thru court One of the things that diaper Donald's is most afraid of is being ridiculed publicly probably the reason he ran for president was because Obama made him feel humiliated at these roasts of the White House correspondents dinner This is a fascinating end important cash. My Desert Storm veteran associate and I but first victim of easily verifiably false reports by a malicious ex-friend lying and hounding authorities I have dozen times until they squatted us, as it's called. So, malicious false reports ARS 13 29 07.01, because false reporting is a crime. Pay my Sheriff's officer detective men #7977 in particular under Sergeant roars r o h e r supervision obtained a warrant search warrant that was invalid based on numerous reasons including there was no probable cause to search and seize just as animals prima facia, there is no case. There was no crime committed when Tristan took her dog, or arranged through what she thought was a friend to get her dog too Veterinary attention. The veterinarian did not report Trista for any mistreatment but for some reason the police and pacc took that face value the outrageous exaggerations Beth and Zoe related to the police, in order to abuse public emergency system resources and mount to what turned out to be a 50-man raid and gestapo like search and seizure, violating numerous civil rights and therefore subject of two Federal 1983 lawsuits so far and a few civil suits to try to get back our service dogs and animals so cruelly taken from us@n@Netflix Is A Joke
In a special Legal AF no holds barred exclusive interview, conservative constitutional scholar former appellate Judge J Michael Luttig joins Michael Popok again to explain why he is so disheartened with the Supreme Court oral argument on whether Trump should be granted immunity from criminal prosecution, and why it could lead to it “cutting the heart out of” and “unsouling” of our constitutional democracy. Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Trump's unanimous 9-0 win at the Supreme Court not only protects him against state level ballot attacks, but might also cover him if he were to get a J6-related criminal conviction.Remember when Judge Luttig said the Colorado decision to remove Trump was "totally unassailable and irrefutable" on CNN? Keith Olbermann takes SCOTUS TDS to a whole new level.Democrats Raskin and Swalwell are already working on legislation to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot after their removal attempts got obliterated by the Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
J. Michael Luttig was one of the earliest, and most prominent, conservative voices to publicly condemn the effort to overturn the 2020 election. A few days before the Capitol insurrection, he advised Mike Pence that the Vice President has no constitutional authority to overturn a presidential election. Three years later, he discusses whether Donald Trump should be disqualified from holding office for his role in the Capitol insurrection based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Then and now, Judge Luttig has acted in defense of the Constitution, the rule of law, and American democracy. J. Michael Luttig served on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991 to 2006. From 2006 to 2020, he was executive director, vice president, and general counsel of Boeing. He is currently counselor and special advisor to the Coca-Cola Company. Luttig is a trustee of Franklin-Templeton Mutual Funds, a trustee of the National Constitution Center, a board member of the nonprofit Society for the Rule of Law, and cochair of the American Bar Association Task Force on American Democracy. He also serves as a senior fellow for the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. https://www.kettering.org/resources/judge-luttig-says-sec-3-of-the-14th-amendment-should-disqualify-trump-for-reelection/
Judge J. Michael Luttig, former federal appellate judge, one of the early proponents of the case for disqualifying Trump under the 14th Amendment, counselor to then-Vice President Mike Pence's team in the days before the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack, witness for the Jan 6 Committee, author of numerous “friend of the court” briefs to the United States Supreme Court on the Constitution and the presidency, and one for the foremost Constitutional scholars in America joins Legal AF anchor Michael Popok to share his reaction to: the oral argument at the Supreme Court on whether to apply the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 to Trump; the DC Court of Appeals' decision that there is no absolute presidential immunity to dismiss Trump's DC indictment, and the Special Counsel's report on President Biden's handling of classified documents after he left the Vice Presidency. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
BigTent hosted Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice and retired Judge J. Michael Luttig. They joined us to discuss the 2024 election, and whether Trump is ineligible for the presidency in accordance with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section bars anyone who has violated their oath to uphold the US Constitution by “engaging in insurrection”, from holding public office. Judge Luttig has said that the Supreme Court's decision to take up the question of Trump's eligibility will be “one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions since the founding of the nation.”Links discussed on the PodcastDonate to Brennan CenterJudge Luttig on MSNBCNY Times Article:The Trump Threat Is Growing. Lawyers Must Rise to Meet This MomentAtlantic Article: The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President AgainPolitico Article: ‘The Opposite of Politics': A Conservative Legal Scholar Says Kicking Trump Off the Ballot Is ‘Unassailable'About our Speakers:Michael Waldman is president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to revitalize the nation's systems of democracy and justice. He was director of speechwriting for President Bill Clinton from 1995 to 1999 and is the author of The Second Amendment: A Biography and The Fight to Vote. Waldman was a member of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court. A graduate of Columbia College and NYU School of Law, he comments widely in the media on law and policy.J. Michael Luttig served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for 15 years, from 1991 to 2006. He was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, and served as assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice and counselor to the attorney general of the United States. He was assistant counsel to the president at the White House from 1981 to 1982 under President Ronald Reagan. From 1982 to 1983, he was a law clerk to then-Judge Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. From 1983 to 1985, he served as a law clerk and then special assistant to the chief justice of the United States. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com
SERIES 2 EPISODE 104: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) Trump made another threat of political violence and terrorism and once again escaped being treated like any other terrorist or criminal trying to blackmail the nation by promising mass death and destruction if he doesn't get his way. After attending the appeals court hearing on his "presidential immunity" nonsense, Trump said if the prosecution of him continued "It'll be bedlam in the country." But he hasn't engaged in insurrection. Not since Noon Eastern yesterday. Meanwhile his attorney, Judge Luttig's former law clerk, insisted that no, if he hadn't been impeached and removed from office, Trump could not be prosecuted for ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. But he's not saying HE would CAUSE the bedlam. Besides the background drumbeat of Trumpist political violence, the point of the "presidential immunity" action is to stall. And the Just Security website has game-planned when this Jack Smith prosecution is likely to end. Two of the answers end within plenty of time, the third begins to brush up against an old favorite: the DOJ tradition of not acting within 60 days of an election. And speaking of oldies but goodies, Trump reverts to birtherism. This time his victim is Nikki Haley. And his own mother. And just for laughs, it was in an 1814 book of witticisms that our ancestors first read "Every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client." So guess who intends to deliver some of the closing arguments in his Business Fraud Trial case in New York tomorrow? Our resident Fool. B-Block (17:48) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: I knew there was a reason not to say anything about the "disappearance" of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin: his "minor medical procedure" was surgery for prostate cancer. And the ESPN/Big Sleeveless Pat/Aaron Rodgers/Jimmy Kimmel disaster escalates: Rodgers denies he implied anything about Kimmel, uses ESPN as a platform to spread vaccine disinformation, and attacks an ESPN VP who had been protecting his buddy's show. Like ESPN's Rush Limbaugh disaster 20 years ago, this will end in tears. (25:15) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORD: political and journalistic accounts mysteriously disappear on Ketamine Musk's site. Judge Judy makes a presidential endorsement. And Lou Dobbs, Tulsi Gabbard, Don Lemon and Jim Rome are too desperate to just stand in front of a mirror and do their new shows to an audience that cares. C-Block (31:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: Since it's ESPN time, why not tell again the events of 32 years ago this month when I met the wonderful actress Elizabeth Montgomery on a flight, we became great friends, and she... helped me to launch the ESPN Radio Network? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Rundown - Judge Luttig Interview Highlights and Analysis - 00:36 Corey Hutchins - 51:05 Troubadour Dave Gunders - 01:54:58 "Whatever the Future May Bring" by Dave Gunders - 02:17:22 Show begins by analyzing the best parts of a historic interview with Judge Luttig. On February 8, 2024, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Colorado Supreme Court case. Take a listen to the logic of Judge Luttig and how so much of this occurred in Colorado. Corey Hutchins is Co-Director of The Colorado College Journalism Institute and a Contributor to the Columbia Journalism Review. In addition, he authors the Colorado Sun's Hutchins' Year in Review. https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/01/colorado-news-media-journalism/ Hutchins discusses his article and the state of Colorado's media. Hutchins discusses his article and the state of Colorado's media. We discuss the most influential news outlets, such as the Sun. Also analyzed is the decline of Colorado talk radio. We examine the impact of artificial intelligence. There have also been closures of various Colorado media outlets. The differences and impacts of radio and podcasts are discussed. Learn how journalism is taught in colleges today. Troubadour Dave Gunders brings terrific song for the first show of 2024. As we embark on the uncertain future brought about by Trump's insurrection, "Whatever the Future May Bring" is poignant. At Valley Forge, President Joe Biden gave an excellent speech. Learn all about it!
SEASON 2 EPISODE 98: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: You and I have 305 days until the election and the GOOD news is: if the Supreme Court rules Trump is immune from prosecution for anything he did while president OR if the Supreme Court rules the 14th Amendment DOESN'T disqualify him from the ballot OR if the Supreme Court rules both… Joe Biden can declare himself president for life, he can arrest the Supreme Court, and he can detain Trump without charges or trial and the Supreme Court has just ruled there's not a goddamned thing anybody can do about it, including them. Well thank god THAT'S settled. Happy New Year! I am mystified by the sanctimonious criticisms of Maine striking Trump from the ballot from its Senator Angus King and "Democratic" Congressman Jared Golden. They have decided the Constitution wasn't enough and decided on their own that we needed HIGHER BARRIERS before as a nation we could defend ourselves against a psychotic dictator-in-waiting who wants to turn the government into a personal revenge factory and oh by the way the only thing he's going to remember about YOU Angus King, is that you voted to impeach him. “Under the established Constitutional process," said Senator King from atop his high horse, "absent a final judicial determination of a violation of the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause, I believe the decision as to whether or not Trump should rest with the people as expressed in free and fair elections. This is the ultimate check within our Constitutional system,” This isn't a matter of interpretation for the courts, or for you, Senator King. It's what the 14thAmendment SAYS as opposed to what a fragment of your voters want you to tell them it says. What it SAYS is, your Senate AND the House have a right to REMOVE the disqualification of Donald Trump by a two-thirds vote. It exists. It exists right now. It only STOPS existing if you OVERRIDE IT. By 75 to 25, thank you. That's what it says. THAT is the ultimate check within our Constitutional System. I hope you can hear me up there floating on that cloud above it all. Speaking of, congratulations to The New York Times, which addresses disqualification by quoting Judge Michael Luttig, and balancing him with someone who wrote commercial scripts for Dunkin' Donuts and an L.A. democrat who went on Fox to say he's mad at Joe Biden. And congratulations to The Washington Post for buying out the only one of its reporters who got it - Greg Sargent. But genuine thinks to Green Day, which did what the rest of us can almost never do - pierce the MAGA/Trump Cult/Fascist bubble and show its cultists, to their shock, that they are not a majority and not at all liked. It's shocking that such penetrations come during Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's Eve - but it's worth singing about! B-Block (27:45) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: She allegedly liquored up underaged teenagers at her daughter's 17th birthday party. Is she A) a drag queen B) a trans-gendered swimmer C) a librarian or D) the founder of the “Keeping Kids In School PAC” and former Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor?; The right-wing pundit who boasts of how The Statue of Liberty is better than any European art; The passing of Tom Foty. (35:25) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Fox kills the wrong Frank Thomas. Aaron Rodgers has now descended into using antisemitic tropes. And Michael Flynn Jr. sticks his father with a new name: "General Flynn-Bitch." C-Block (41:55) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: We're now in the 25th anniversary year of the night - before Game 1 of the World Series which I was covering for Fox - where an Atlanta hotel gave me a room next to a choir that spent the entire night practicing for a competition the next day. It then tried to make it up to me by offering me, instead...THE PRESIDENTIAL SUITE.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week, we are joined by Judge J. Michael Luttig to go over the brief helped write to the District Court on DC in support of DoJ's proposed trial date and against Trump's claims of immunity. Judge Luttig reminds us that it is the Constitution, not politics, that disqualifies Trump from holding federal office, again.Then, we discuss DoJ's motion to limit specific arguments and evidence that Trump may try to bring up at trial.Plus, we have some great listener questions.Our Guest:Judge J. Michael Luttighttps://twitter.com/judgeluttigAMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfAri Fleischer's irresponsible take on attempts to keep Trump off of ballots was still up at the time of publishing this episode.https://x.com/AriFleischer/status/1740752537320669411?s=20“Make no mistake: Attempts to throw Trump off the ballot are white-collar insurrections, carried out by Democrats in powerful positions, who falsely use the "law" as a weapon. They fear a vote of the people, so they resort to this. This is an insurrection.” Good to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512Brian Greer's Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ https://apple.co/3YNpW3P Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcasts
Rundown - Intro with Troubadour Dave Gunders - 00:35 "Fire In My Hearth" by Dave Gunders - 09:37 Judge J. Michael Luttig - 15:40 Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative jurist 1991 -2006, worked as Boeing's general counsel from 2006 - 2019. Beginning his career in the Jerry Ford White House, he developed close ties with Supreme Court members and was a lawyer for President Ronald Reagan. In 1991, George H.W. Bush appointed him to the Fourth Circuit. Republican leaders know Judge Luttig as an expert on the US Constitution, which is why VP Pence wanted Judge Luttig to weigh in publicly on whether the VP had any right to not count the electoral college votes on January 6. Thrilling US history comes alive in the captivating and vibrant narrative Judge Luttig provides. Born in Texas, Judge Luttig became the federal appellate court judge who fed clerks like John Eastman to the most conservative members of the United States Supreme Court. Judge Luttig and the late Justice Scalia were close. Judge Luttig tells us what Scalia would do with the Article Three - 14th Amendment case. He'd affirm the Colorado Supreme Court. Discover how Judge Luttig discovered our show—it all began with Craig Silverman's Colorado Sun column, caught by Judge Luttig during his time in Vail. Impressed, he reached out, on X of all places. Xitter played a huge role 3 Christmas breaks ago as Luttig and Pence saved democracy. https://coloradosun.com/2023/12/23/colorado-supreme-court-trump-opinion-silverman/ Learn more about this historic and legendary American attorney. Judge Luttig delves deep into American history, highlighting pivotal moments post Civil War, 3 years ago and last week as CO S/Ct followed his Article Three, Fourteenth Amendment trail with an epic opinion resonating across Maine and the entire nation. Judge Luttig commends the exceptional scholarship and historical significance evident in the majority ruling of Anderson v Griswold. His expertise in Constitutional writing lends weight to his high praise. Judge Luttig's view may influence justices like Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh and conservatives who hold his opinion in high regard. Show Troubadour Dave Gunders' music sets the scene as Judge Luttig candidly shares insights, sitting by his historic Vail fireplace. “Fire in My Hearth” echoes the warmth felt for Judge and Elizabeth Luttig, honoring their pivotal role in safeguarding America. This musical ode is dedicated to their valor! Is there a special obligation on lawyers now? You bet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=SaHK3aZYiWE The Craig Silverman Show - Every Saturday morning at 9 a.m. Colorado time
The Breakdown is live hosts Tara Setmayer and Rick Wilson Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy” – Judge Luttig at J6 Committee Hearing #3. Trump's plans were – and remain – a plot against America. How much worse can this get? Join Tara Setmayer and Rick Wilson for a special episode of The Breakdown on Tuesday, right after hearing #4. Join us for this all new episode of The Breakdown and follow The Lincoln Project on social media below!FOLLOW Rick WilsonTWITTER: @TheRickWilsonFOLLOW Tara SetmayerTWITTER: @TaraSetmayer DONATE TO THE LINCOLN PROJECThttps://action.lincolnproject.us/paypal FOLLOW LINCOLN PROJECTTWITTER: https://bit.ly/3zwZFva INSTAGRAM: https://bit.ly/31yyrHR FACEBOOK: https://bit.ly/3zCBHhT PODCAST: https://apple.co/3G7zr4L
Yes, Greg Dworkin watched at least some of the debate, not that any of us ever had to. DeSantis' loss was a given, and it seems his leaked strategy to “hammer Ramaswamy” was co-opted by everyone else. And with good reason! He's the candidate Greg says it'll take you mere seconds to come to hate. Which is why Gop goons swooned for him. (Even as the “normies” couldn't get any sicker of the culture war fixations.) Meanwhile, TFG skipped the debate as expected, pretending to be on white nationalist “television,” instead. Though it's unclear if anyone saw it. Useless or not, there's no escaping the polls. The courtroom and motions action continues down in Georgia. Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Jonathan Turleys. Judge Luttig speaks out — probably very slowly — on the hot topic of 14th amendment remedies, and says the answer is both self-evident and self-executing. But is that a good idea in the age of birtherism, forged Electoral College votes, and baseless impeachment fever?
President Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows files a major motion to dismiss himself as a co-defendant in the Big Fani Willis' Georgia RICO case against 19 co-defendants. Meadows invokes his status as a federal officer and the Supremacy clause to make the case that Fani's prosecution is unconstitutional. Another report reveals that Mark Meadows told Special Counsel Jack Smith that Trump did not ask him to declassify documents and Mike Pence reacts.A new report from Politico reveals that Hunter Biden's lawyers threatened and bullied the Biden Department of Justice into granting Hunter an unprecedented plea deal. The documents show Hunter Lawyer's threatened to haul Joe Biden in to testify. Biden refuses to comment and Rep. James Comer weighs in on the government's obstruction.The "Trump is already disqualified" narrative starts to go mainstream on the cable news networks, with Judge Luttig and Lawrence Tribe explaining the theory. GOP presidential hopeful Asa Hutchinson endorses the theory, Senator Bill Cassidy urges Trump to drop out and Schiff reacts. Where is the GOP? Senator Tom Cotton weighs in.
This week: Allison and Andy discuss the conspiracy against rights case; charges have been brought against a woman for threatening to kill Judge Chutkan; Trump files his motion for a trial date as Judge Luttig files an amicus brief in support of the DoJ's recommendation of January 2nd; images show Kenneth Chesebro was with Alex Jones at the Capitol on January 6th; transcripts of the hearing over Trump's Twitter account have been unsealed; grumblings in Cannonland; plus a couple of listener questions and more!Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG:Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The Threathttps://www.amazon.com/Threat-Protects-America-Terror-Trump-ebook/dp/B07HFMYQPGWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyhttp://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P
As we await yet another likely Trump indictment, former federal judge Michael Luttig joins Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord to talk about his role in advising Mike Pence ahead of Jan. 6th, why he says Trump wants to be charged for 1/6 – and whether he thinks that trial could happen before the 2024 election.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit nealkatyal.substack.comThis week's episode focuses on one of the most moving things I've seen in my life: the US Supreme Court using its powers to ensure that marriage equality is the law of the land. When I was in law school from 1992-1995, if you said the Supreme Court would require states to recognize same-sex marriage within two decades, you likely would have been laughed out of the classroom. And yet, that is precisely what happened.Courtside is an entirely reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. I'm donating all profits to charity, and your subscription covers considerable production costs.This outcome was the result of brilliant advocacy and foresight by so many different people. One of them is our guest for this week, the legendary Rob Reiner, who is going to take you behind the scenes of how this monumental victory was achieved. It's an amazing story. Rob is the gold standard of Hollywood, a truly accomplished Director. When Harry Met Sally. Spinal Tap. Princess Bride. American President. The list goes on and on.He's also a dear friend. When I argued Moore v. Harper, Rob came to watch and hold my hand. Perhaps my favorite moment at the lunch afterwards was when Judge Luttig admitted he didn't know who Rob Reiner was, or what any of his movies were. The Judge is truly a man of tradition!Rob and I have been collaborating on a TV show for families about the Constitution — something of a revival of Schoolhouse Rock. With Jordan Klepper!The episode begins with a bit of legal news of the week, and in particular, an examination of Donald Trump's claim that the Presidential Records Act allowed him to take classified information home and bring it to Mar a Lago. (Spoiler: it doesn't.)This week, we are doing a deep dive into Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision that made marriage equality the law of the land. The case began in the early 2010s in four states — Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky — all of which defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. These states, however, were not outliers; few States recognized same sex marriage.Recognizing that their rights were being trampled on, fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners had died filed lawsuits against their respective state governments. James Obergefell was one of these people. More than two decades earlier, Obergefell had met and fallen in love with his future life partner: John Arthur. In 2011, however, Arthur was diagnosed with a debilitating illness called ALS. Realizing that Arthur's death was imminent, the duo resolved to get married. To do so, they had to travel to a different state (Maryland) where same-sex marriage was legal; by this point, however, Arthur could barely move, meaning the couple had to be wed inside a medical transport plane on the airport tarmac. Arthur died three months later, but Ohio law forbade his death certificate from listing Obergefell as the surviving spouse. Grieving the loss of his loved one and pained by this state-imposed separation, Obergefell filed a lawsuit, alleging that Ohio state law violated his civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.By the time the case arrived at the Supreme Court, however, Obergefell wasn't the only plaintiff. More than a dozen similar lawsuits had been launched across the country, and they all merged into one case. Indeed, it was clear that this was the moment to decide the future of same-sex marriage for the country. And there were only two questions before the Court, both of which were relatively straightforward. First, is same-sex marriage a constitutionally protected right? And second, if someone receives a marriage license in one state, are other states required to recognize that marriage license as valid?The Court answered yes. Learn about how it got there on the podcast. And stay tuned for a remarkable conversation with Rob, not only about how he directs Hollywood movies, but how he directs public movements. Paid subscribers will have access to the full conversation, all the episode notes (including short excerpted versions of the opinions in Obergefell along with the full version), and bonus material from my interview with Rob later in the week.
This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. We consider this coverage so essential that we're taking down the paywall for all of it. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. And sign up for the pop-up newsletter to see the latest every week in your inbox. In deciding against the bonkers (technical legal term) “Independent State Legislature Theory” in Moore v Harper, the Supreme Court chose not to take a wrecking ball to American democracy. Judge Michael Luttig, a counsel of record in the case, is relieved but not surprised. In this emergency episode of Amicus, Judge Luttig tells Dahlia Lithwick that Tuesday's decision may have big repercussions at the Department of Justice, in Jack Smith's investigation of former President Trump's role in January 6th. Sign up for Slate Plus now to support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. We consider this coverage so essential that we're taking down the paywall for all of it. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. And sign up for the pop-up newsletter to see the latest every week in your inbox. In deciding against the bonkers (technical legal term) “Independent State Legislature Theory” in Moore v Harper, the Supreme Court chose not to take a wrecking ball to American democracy. Judge Michael Luttig, a counsel of record in the case, is relieved but not surprised. In this emergency episode of Amicus, Judge Luttig tells Dahlia Lithwick that Tuesday's decision may have big repercussions at the Department of Justice, in Jack Smith's investigation of former President Trump's role in January 6th. Sign up for Slate Plus now to support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. We consider this coverage so essential that we're taking down the paywall for all of it. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. And sign up for the pop-up newsletter to see the latest every week in your inbox. In deciding against the bonkers (technical legal term) “Independent State Legislature Theory” in Moore v Harper, the Supreme Court chose not to take a wrecking ball to American democracy. Judge Michael Luttig, a counsel of record in the case, is relieved but not surprised. In this emergency episode of Amicus, Judge Luttig tells Dahlia Lithwick that Tuesday's decision may have big repercussions at the Department of Justice, in Jack Smith's investigation of former President Trump's role in January 6th. Sign up for Slate Plus now to support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Trump's incitement of Jan 6 and his call to terminate the constitution were treason-like. And the Republicans who won't renounce him have betrayed the sacred trust Americans have conferred on them. Judge Luttig joins Charlie Sykes on today's podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Trump's incitement of Jan 6 and his call to terminate the constitution were treason-like. And the Republicans who won't renounce him have betrayed the sacred trust Americans have conferred on them. Judge Luttig joins Charlie Sykes on today's podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The January 6th Committee investigation is over and four criminal charges against former President Donald Trump have been referred to the Justice Department by the Committee. In this episode, hear a summary of 23 hours of testimony and evidence presented by the Committee which prove that former President Trump went to extraordinary and illegal lengths to remain President, despite losing the 2020 Election. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd266-contriving-january-6th Executive Producer Recommended Sources “PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders Files Amendment on Microchip Legislation to Restrict Blank Check Corporate Welfare.” Jul 19, 2022. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD228: The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump The Final Committee Report “Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol,” [House Report 117-663] 117th Congress Second Session. Dec 22, 2022. U.S. Government Publishing Office. The January 6th Committee “Inside the Jan. 6 Committee.” Robert Draper and Luke Broadwater. Dec 23, 2022. The New York Times Magazine. 2020 Election Litigation “Litigation in the 2020 Election.” Oct 27, 2022. The American Bar Association. “‘Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered.'” Daniel Funke. Feb 9, 2021. PolitiFact. January 6th Security Failures “Capitol Attack: The Capitol Police Need Clearer Emergency Procedures and a Comprehensive Security Risk Assessment Process,” [GAO-22-105001] February 2022. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Electors and Vote Certification Process “Who Are Electors And How Do They Get Picked?” Domenico Montanaro. Dec 14, 2020. NPR. “About the Electors.” May 11, 2021. U.S. National Archives. John Eastman “Who is John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the Jan. 6 investigation?” Deepa Shivaram. Jun 17, 2022. NPR. “About Us.” The Federalist Society. “The Eastman Memo.” Trump and Georgia “The Georgia criminal investigation into Trump and his allies, explained.” Matthew Brown. Nov 22, 2022. The Washington Post. “Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger.” Amy Gardner and Paulina Firozi. Jan 5, 2021. The Washington Post. AG Bill Barr Interview “In exclusive AP interview, AG Barr says no evidence of widespread election fraud, undermining Trump.” Mike Balsamo. Dec 11, 2020. “Barr tells AP that Justice Dept. hasn't uncovered widespread voting fraud that could have changed 2020 election outcome.” Dec 1, 2020. The Associated Press. Past Electoral Vote Challenges “Post Misleadingly Equates 2016 Democratic Effort to Trump's 2020 ‘Alternate Electors.'” Joseph A. Gambardello. Jun 29, 2022. FactCheck.org. “Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes.” Ted Barrett. Jan 6, 2005. CNN. Fake Electors “What you need to know about the fake Trump electors.” Amy Sherman. Jan 28, 2022. PolitiFact. “Exclusive: Federal prosecutors looking at 2020 fake elector certifications, deputy attorney general tells CNN.” Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed. Jan 26, 2022. CNN. “American Oversight Obtains Seven Phony Certificates of Pro-Trump Electors.” Mar 2, 2021. American Oversight. Censure of Cheney & Kinzinger “Read the Republican Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger.” Feb 4 2022. The New York Times. Audio Sources 12/19/22 Business Meeting December 19, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 10/13/22 Business Meeting October 13, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Featured speakers: Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary Molly Michael, Former Executive Assistant to the President Pat Cipollone, Former White House Counsel Clips Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Why would Americans assume that our Constitution, and our institutions, and our Republic are invulnerable to another attack? Why would we assume that those institutions will not falter next time? A key lesson of this investigation is this: Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. Any future president inclined to attempt what Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. And also please consider this: The rulings of our courts are respected and obeyed, because we as citizens pledged to accept and honor them. Most importantly, our President, who has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws, swears to accept them. What happens when the President disregards the court's rulings is illegitimate. When he disregards the rule of law, that my fellow citizens, breaks our Republic. January 6 Committee Lawyer: To your knowledge, was the president in that private dining room the whole time that the attack on the Capitol was going on? Or did he ever go to, again only to your knowledge, to the Oval Office, to the White House Situation Room, anywhere else? Kayleigh McEnany: The the best of my recollection, he was always in the dining room. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the President, at all during that brief encounter that you were in the dining room? What do you recall? Gen. Keith Kellogg: I think they were really watching the TV. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining room when you talked to him on January sixth? Molly Michael: It's my understanding he was watching television. January 6 Committee Lawyer: When you were in the dining room in these discussions, was the violence of capital visible on the screen on the television? Pat Cipollone: Yes. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania wrote, quote, "charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." A federal judge in Wisconsin wrote, quote, "the court has allowed the former President the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Another judge in Michigan, called the claims quote, "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were either destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden." A federal judge in Michigan sanctioned nine attorneys, including Sidney Powell, for making frivolous allegations in an election fraud case, describing the case as a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. Recently, a group of distinguished Republican election lawyers, former judges and elected officials issued a report confirming the findings of the courts. In their report entitled "Lost, Not Stolen," these prominent Republicans analyzed each election challenge and concluded this: Donald Trump and his supporters failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. On December 11, Trump's allies lost a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance of success in the courts. Alyssa Farah: I remember maybe a week after the election was called, I popped into the Oval just to like, give the President the headlines and see how he was doing and he was looking at the TV and he said, "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?" Cassidy Hutchinson: Mark raised it with me on the 18th and so following that conversation we were in the motorcade ride driving back to the White House, and I said, like, "Does the President really think that he lost?" And he said, "A lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it and he thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but, you know, he pretty much has acknowledged that he, that he's lost. 07/12/22 Select Committee Hearing July 12, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesperson Stephen Ayres, January 6th Defendant Clips Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): According to White House visitor logs obtained by the Committee, members of Congress present at the White House on December 21 included Congressmen Brian Babin (TX), Andy Biggs (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (R-GA), Jim Jordan (OD), and Scott Perry (PA). Then Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) was also there. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): We've asked witnesses what happened during the December 21 meeting and we've learned that part of the discussion centered on the role of the Vice President during the counting of the electoral votes. These members of Congress were discussing what would later be known as the "Eastman Theory," which was being pushed by Attorney John Eastman. 06/28/2022 Select Committee Hearing June 28, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Special Assistant to the President and Aide to the Chief of Staff Clips 9:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Today's witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, is another Republican and another former member of President Trump's White House staff. Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican whip Steve Scalise, but she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House Legislative Affairs Office, and later was the principal aide to President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. 10:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Miss Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office. Miss Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornato, who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House. In short, Miss Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House. 24:20 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On January 3, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington DC on January 6, and indicated that quote, "unlike previous post election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter protesters, as they were previously, but rather, Congress itself is the target on the Sixth. 27:45 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6. Let's listen. Police Officer #1: Blue jeans and a blue jean jacket and underneath the blue jacket complaintants both saw the top of an AR 15. Police Officer #2: Any white males brown cowboy boots, they had Glock-style pistols in their waistbands. Police Officer #3: 8736 with the message that subject weapon on his right hip. Police Officer #4: Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree South side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the "Don't tread on me" flag, American flag facemask cowboy boots, weapon on the right side hip. Police Officer #5: I got three men walking down the street in fatigues and carrying AR-15s. Copy at Fourteenth and Independence. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): We're going to show now an exchange of texts between you and Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato, and these text messages were exchanged while you were at the Ellipse. In one text, you write, "but the crowd looks good from this vantage point, as long as we get the shot. He was f---ing furious." But could you tell us, first of all, who it is in the text who was furious? Cassidy Hutchinson: The he in that text that I was referring to was the President. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): And why was he furious, Miss Hutchinson? Cassidy Hutchinson: He was furious because he wanted the arena that we had on the Ellipse to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. The advanced team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing. Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in, but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in. Cassidy Hutchinson: And that's what Tony [Ornato] had been trying to relate to him [President Trump] that morning. You know, it's not the issue that we encountered on the campaign. We have enough space. They don't want to come in right now, they have weapons they don't want confiscated by the Secret Service. They're fine on the Mall, they can see you on the Mall and they want to march straight to the Capitol from the Mall. But when we were in the off stage announced tent, I was part of a conversation -- I was in the, I was in the vicinity of a conversation -- where I overheard the President say something to the effect of you know, "I don't think that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the effing mags away." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had now not found evidence of widespread election fraud, sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news? Cassidy Hutchinson: I left the office and went down to the dining room, and I noticed that the door was propped open in the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Miss Hutchinson, Attorney General Barr described to the Committee the President's angry reaction when he finally met with President Trump. Let's listen. Former Attorney General Bill Barr: And I said, "Look, I I know that you're dissatisfied with me and I'm glad to offer my resignation" and then he pounded the table very hard. Everyone sort of jumped and he said "Accepted." Reporter: Leader McCarthy, Do you condemn this violence? Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we're currently watching unfold is un-American. I'm disappointed, I'm sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the First Amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a Presidential Pardon related to January 6? Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma'am. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness. And we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern. Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they'd been contacted by any of their former colleagues, or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony, without identifying any of the individuals involved. Let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question. First, here's how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness's testimony. "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee." Here's another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses. "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal, and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. 06/23/22 Select Committee Hearing June 23, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue, Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Engel, Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Clips Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): From the time you took over from Attorney General Barr until January 3, how often did President Trump contact you or the Department to push allegations of election fraud? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: So between December 23 and January 3, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day, with one or two exceptions like Christmas Day Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Barr to immediately let us know what he's doing. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): We're already working on challenging the certified electors. And what about the court? How pathetic are the courts? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): January 6, I'm joining with the fighters in the Congress, and we are going to object to electors from states that didn't run clean elections. Democracy is left undefended if we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The ultimate date of significance is January 6. This is how the process works. The ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check and balance, is the United States Congress. And when something is done in an unconstitutional fashion, which happened in several of these states, we have a duty to step forward and have this debate and have this vote on the 6th of January. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So both the Acting Attorney General [Rosen] and I tried to explain to the President on this occasion, and on several other occasions that the Justice Department has a very important, very specific, but very limited role in these elections. States run their elections. We are not quality control for the states. We are obviously interested in and have a mission that relates to criminal conduct in relation to federal elections. We also have related civil rights responsibilities. So we do have an important role, but the bottom line was if a state ran their election in such a way that it was defective, that is to the state or Congress to correct. It is not for the Justice Department to step in. And I certainly understood the President, as a layman, not understanding why the Justice Department didn't have at least a civil role to step in and bring suit on behalf of the American people. We tried to explain that to him. The American people do not constitute the client for the United States Justice Department. The one and only client of the United States Justice Department is the United States government. And the United States government does not have standing, as we were repeatedly told by our internal teams. Office of Legal Counsel, led by Steve Engel, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General researched it and gave us thorough clear opinions that we simply did not have standing and we tried to explain that to the President on numerous occasions. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Let's take a look at another one of your notes. You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, "DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election." How did the President respond to that, sir? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking you to do. What I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: There were isolated instances of fraud. None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual State. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And was representative Gaetz requesting a pardon? Eric Herschmann: Believe so. The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things. A pardon that he was discussing, requesting, was as broad as you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things. He had mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons? Cassidy Hutchinson: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, both advocated for, there to be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting and a handful of other members that weren't at the December 21 meeting as the preemptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon and he was doing so since early December. I'm not sure why. Mr. Gaetz had reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a Presidential pardon. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did they all contact you? Cassidy Hutchinson: Not all of them, but several of them did. January 6 Committee Lawyer: So you'd be mentioned Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks. Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talks about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House is going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too, I'm sorry. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Mr. Perry, did he talk to you directly? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, he did. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Clark was the acting head of the Civil Division and head of Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Do either of those divisions have any role whatsoever in investigating election fraud, sir? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: No. And and to my awareness, Jeff Clark had had no prior involvement of any kind with regard to the work that the department was doing. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Is there a policy that governs who can have contact directly with the White House? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. So across many administrations for a long period of time, there's a policy that particularly with regard to criminal investigations restricts at both the White House and the Justice Department and those more sensitive issues to the highest ranks. So for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been that only the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General from the DOJ side can have conversations about criminal matters with the White House, or the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General can authorize someone for a specific item with their permission. But the idea is to make sure that the top rung of the Justice Department knows about it, and is in the thing to control it and make sure only appropriate things are done. Steven Engel: The purpose of these these policies is to keep these communications as infrequent, and at the highest levels as possible, just to make sure that people who are less careful about it who don't really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clark, don't run afoul of those contact policies. Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: He acknowledged that shortly before Christmas, he had gone to a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. That, of course, surprised me. And I asked him, How did that happen? And he was defensive, he said it had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as "General Perry," but I believe is Congressman Perry, and that, unbeknownst to him, he was asked to go to a meeting and he didn't know it, but it turned out it was at the Oval -- he found himself at the Oval Office. And he was apologetic for that. And I said, Well, you didn't tell me about it. It wasn't authorized. And you didn't even tell me after the fact. You know, this is not not appropriate. But he was contrite and said it had been inadvertent and it would not happen again and that if anyone asked him to go to such a meeting, he would notify [Former Acting Deputy Attorney General] Rich Donohue and me. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): On the same day Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clark to stop talking to the White House, Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clark within the Department of Justice. You can now see on the screen behind me a series of tasks between representative Perry and Mr. Meadows. They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clark be elevated within the department. Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26, that quote, "Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down, 11 days to January 6 and 25 days to inauguration. We've got to get going!" Representative Perry followed up and says quote, "Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done." Mr. Meadows responds with "I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Mr. Donohue on December 28, Mr. Clark emailed you and Mr. Rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to Georgia State officials. This letter claims that the US Department of Justice's investigations have quote, "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the state of Georgia." The letter also said this: quote, "in light of these developments, the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session," end quote, and consider approving a new slate of electors. Steven Engel: The States had chosen their electors, the electors had been certified, they'd cast their votes, they had been sent to Washington DC. Neither Georgia nor any of the other States on December 28, or whenever this was, was in a position to change those votes. Essentially, the election had happened. The only thing that hadn't happened was the formal counting of the votes. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: I had to read both the email and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing because it was so extreme to me, I had a hard time getting my head around it initially. But I read it and I did understand it for what he intended and I had to sit down and sort of compose what I thought was an appropriate response. In my response, I explained a number of reasons this is not the Department's role to suggest or dictate to State legislatures how they should select their electors. But more importantly, this was not based on fact, that this was actually contrary to the facts, as developed by Department investigations over the last several weeks and months. So I responded to that. And for the Department to insert itself into the political process's way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a Constitutional crisis. And I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he didn't seem to really appreciate it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): President Trump rushed back early from Mar-a-Lago on December 31, and called an emergency meeting with the Department's leadership. Mr. Donohue, during this meeting, did the President tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: Toward the end of the meeting, the President, again was getting very agitated. And he said, "People tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership, put Jeff Clark and maybe something will finally get done." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Rosen during a January 2 meeting with Mr. Clark, did you confront him again about his contact with the President? And if so, can you describe that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: We had -- it was a contentious meeting where we were chastising him that he was insubordinate, he was out of line, he had not honored his own representations of what he would do. And he raised again, that he thought that letter should go out. And we were not receptive to that. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): So in that meeting, did Mr. Clark say he would turn down the President's offer if you reversed your position and sign the letter? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. Subsequently, he told me that on the on Sunday the 3rd. He told me that the timeline had moved up, and that the President had offered him the job and that he was accepting it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): White House Call Logs obtained by the Committee show that by 4:19pm, on January 3, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clark as the Acting Attorney General. Let's ask about that, what was your reaction to that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Well, you know, on the one hand, I wasn't going to accept being fired by my subordinate. So I wanted to talk to the President directly. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So the four of us knew, but no one else, aside from Jeff Clark of course, knew what was going on until late that Sunday afternoon. We chose to keep a close hold, because we didn't want to create concern or panic in the Justice Department leadership. But at this point, I asked the Acting AG [Rosen], what else can I do to help prepare for this meeting in the Oval Office, and he said, You and Pat [Cipollone] should get the Assistant Attorney Generals on the phone, and it's time to let them know what's going on. Let's find out what they may do if there's a change in leadership, because that will help inform the conversation at the Oval Office. We got most, not all, but most of the AAGs on the phone. We very quickly explained to them what the situation was. [They] essentially said they would leave, they would resign en mass if the President made that change in the department leadership. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): DOJ leadership arrived at the White House. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: The conversation this point was really about whether the President should remove Jeff Rosen and replace him with Jeff Clark. And everyone in the room, I think, understood that that meant that letter would go out. And at some point, the conversation turned to whether Jeff Clark was even qualified, competent to run the Justice Department, which in my mind, he clearly was not. And it was a heated conversation. I thought it was useful to point out to the President that Jeff Clark simply didn't have the skills, the ability and the experience to run the Department. And so I said, "Mr. President, you're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who's never conducted a criminal investigation, he's telling you that he's going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible. It's absurd. It's not going to happen, and it's going to fail. He has never been in front of a trial jury, a grand jury. He's never even been to Chris Wray's office." I said at one point, "if you walked into Chris Wray's office, one, would you know how to get there and, two, if you got there, would he even know who you are? And you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following you orders? It's not going to happen. He's not competent." And that's the point at which Mr. Clark tried to defend himself by saying, "Well, I've been involved in very significant civil and environmental litigation. I've argued many appeals and appellate courts and things of that nature." And then I pointed out that, yes, he was an environmental lawyer, and I didn't think that was appropriate background to be running in the United States Justice Department. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Did anybody in there support Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: No one. Along those lines, he [former President Trump] said, "so suppose I do this, suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark, what would you do?" And I said, "Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy [Clark], who I just declared was completely incompetent." And so the President immediately turned to to Mr. Engel. Steven Engel: My recollection is that when the President turned to me and said, "Steve, you wouldn't leave, would you?" I said, "Mr. President, I've been with you through four Attorneys General, including two Acting Attorneys General, but I couldn't be part of this." Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And I said, and we're not the only ones. No one cares if we resign. If Steve and I go, that's fine, it doesn't matter. But I'm telling you what's going to happen. You're gonna lose your entire Department leadership, every single AAG will walk out on you. Your entire Department of leadership will walk out within hours." And I said, "Mr. President, within 24...48...72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, all anyone is going to sort of think about when they see this...no one is going to read this letter....all anyone is going to think is that you went through two Attorneys General in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. And so the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed results of the election. It's going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. I think at that point Pat Cipollone said, "Yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this letter." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Cipollone, the White House Counsel, told the Committee that Mr. Engels response had a noticeable impact on the President, that this was a turning point in the conversation. Mr. Donohue, towards the end of this meeting, did the President asked you what was going to happen to Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He did. When we finally got to, I'd say, the last 15 minutes of the meeting, the President's decision was apparent, he announced it. Jeff Clark tried to scrape his way back and asked the President to reconsider. The President double down said "No, I've made my decision. That's it. We're not going to do it." And then he turned to me and said, "so what happens to him now?" Meaning Mr. Clark. He understood that Mr. Clark reported to me. And I didn't initially understand the question. I said, "Mr. President?" and he said, "Are you going to fire him?" And I said, "I don't have the authority to fire him. He's the Senate confirmed Assistant Attorney General." And he said, "Well, who has the authority to fire him?" And I said, "Only you do, sir." And he said, "Well, I'm not going to fire him." I said, "Alright, well, then we should all go back to work." 06/21/22 Select Committee Hearing June 21, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Secretary of State Chief Operating Officer Wandrea ArShaye, “Shaye” Moss, former Georgia election worker Ronna Romney McDaniel, RNC Chair Justin Clark, former Trump Campaign lawyer Robert Sinners, former Trump campaign staffer Andrew Hitt, Former Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Laura Cox, Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Josh Roselman, Investigative Counsel for the J6 Committee John Eastman, Former Trump Lawyer Mike Shirkey, Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate Angela McCallum, Trump Campaign caller Rudy Giuliani Clips Josh Roselman: My name is Josh Roselman, I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Beginning in late November 2020. The President and his lawyers started appearing before state legislators, urging them to give their electoral votes to Trump, even though he lost the popular vote. This was a strategy with both practical and legal elements. The Select Committee has obtained an email from just two days after the election, in which a Trump campaign lawyer named Cleata Mitchell asked another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, to write a memo justifying the idea. Eastman prepared a memo attempting to justify this strategy, which was circulated to the Trump White House, Rudy Giuliani's legal team, and state legislators around the country and he appeared before the Georgia State Legislature to advocate for it publicly. John Eastman: You could also do what the Florida Legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. And when you add in the mix of the significant statistical anomalies in sworn affidavits and video evidence of outright election fraud, I don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, I think you have a duty to do that to protect the integrity of the election here in Georgia. Josh Roselman: But Republican officials in several states released public statements recognizing that President Trump's proposal was unlawful. For instance, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called the proposal unconstitutional, while Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers wrote that the idea would undermine the rule of law. The pressure campaign to get state legislators to go along with this scheme intensified when President Trump invited delegations from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Either you or speaker Chatfield, did you make the point to the President, that you were not going to do anything that violated Michigan law? Mike Shirkey: I believe we did. Whether or not it was those exact words or not, I think the words that I would have more likely used is, "we are going to follow the law." Josh Roselman: Nevertheless, the pressure continued. The next day President Trump tweeted quote, "hopefully the Courts and/or Legislatures will have the COURAGE to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our Elections, and the United States of America itself. THE WORLD IS WATCHING!!!!" He posted multiple messages on Facebook, listing the contact information for state officials and urging his supporters to contact them to quote "demand a vote on decertification." These efforts also involves targeted outreach to state legislators from President Trump's lawyers and from Trump himself. Angela McCallum: Hi, my name is Angela McCallum, I'm calling from Trump campaign headquarters in Washington DC. You do have the power to reclaim your authority and send us a slate of Electors that will support President Trump and Vice President Pence. Josh Roselman: Another legislator, Pennsylvania House Speaker Brian Cutler, received daily voicemails from Trump's lawyers in the last week of November. Cutler felt that the outreach was inappropriate and asked his lawyers to tell Rudy Giuliani to stop calling, but Giuliani continued to reach out. Rudy Giuliani: I understand that you don't want to talk to me now. I just want to bring some facts to your attention and talk to you as a fellow Republican. Josh Roselman: These ads were another element in the effort. The Trump campaign spent millions of dollars running ads online and on television. Commercial Announcer: The evidence is overwhelming. Call your governor and legislators demand they inspect the machines and hear the evidence. Fake electors scheme Casey Lucier: My name is Casey Lucier. I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. On November 18, a lawyer working with the Trump campaign named Kenneth Chesebro wrote a memo arguing that the Trump campaign should organize its own electors in the swing states that President Trump had lost. The Select Committee received testimony that those close to President Trump began planning to organize fake electors for Trump in states that Biden won in the weeks after the election. At the President's direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did the President say when he called you? Ronna Romney McDaniel: Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing change the result of any dates, I think more just helping them reach out and assemble them. But the My understanding is the campaign did take the lead, and we just were helping them in that in that role. Casey Lucier: As President Trump and his supporters continued to lose lawsuits, some campaign lawyers became convinced that convening electors in states that Trump lost was no longer appropriate. Justin Clark: I just remember I either replied or called somebody saying, unless we have litigation pending this, like in the states, like, I don't think this is appropriate, or no, this isn't the right thing to do. I'm out. Matt Morgan: At that point, I had Josh Findlay email Mr. Chesebro, politely, to say, "This is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward". And this was my way of taking that responsibility to zero. Casey Lucier: The Committee learned the White House Counsel's Office also felt the plan was potentially illegal. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And so to be clear, did you hear the White House Counsel's office saying that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in states that he had lost was not legally sound? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, sir. Casey Lucier: The Select Committee interviewed several of the individual fake electors, as well as Trump campaign staff who helped organize the effort. Robert Sinners: We were just, you know, kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point. You know, a strong part of me really feels that it's just kind of as the road continued, and as that was failure, failure, failure that that got formulated as what do we have on the table? Let's just do it. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And now after what we've told you today about the Select Committee's investigation about the conclusion of the professional lawyers on the campaign staff, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan and Josh Findlay, about their unwillingness to participate in the convening of these electors, how does that contribute to your understanding of these issues? Robert Sinners: I'm angry, I'm angry. Because I think in a sense, you know, no one really cared if people were potentially putting themselves in jeopardy. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Would you have not wanted to participate in this any further, as well? Robert Sinners: I absolutely would not have had I know that the three main lawyers for the campaign that I've spoken to in the past, and were leading up, we're not on board. Yeah. Andrew Hitt: I was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor. So that would have been using our electors. Well, it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren't told about and we wouldn't have supported. Casey Lucier: Documents obtained by the Select Committee indicate that instructions were given to the electors in several states that they needed to cast their ballots in complete secrecy. Because the scheme involved fake electors, those participating in certain states had no way to comply with state election laws, like where the electors were supposed to meet. One group of fake electors even considered hiding overnight to ensure that they could access the State Capitol, as required in Michigan. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did Mr. Norton say who he was working with at all on this effort to have electors meet? Laura Cox: He said he was working with the President's campaign. He told me that the Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the Capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote per law in the Michigan chambers and I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate. Casey Lucier: In one state, the fake electors even asked for a promise that the campaign would pay their legal fees if they got sued or charged with a crime. Ultimately, fake electors did meet on December 14, 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. At the request of the Trump campaign, the electors from these battleground states signed documents falsely asserting that they were the quote, "duly elected" electors from their state and submitted them to the National Archives and to Vice President Pence in his capacity as President of the Senate. In an email produced to the Select Committee, Dr. Eastman told the Trump campaign representative that it did not matter that the electors had not been approved by a state authority. Quote, "the fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough." He urged that Pence "act boldly and be challenged." Documents produced to the Select Committee show that the Trump campaign took steps to ensure that the physical copies of the fake electors' electoral votes from two states were delivered to Washington for January 6. Text messages exchanged between Republican Party officials in Wisconsin show that on January 4, the Trump campaign asked for someone to fly their fake electors' documents to Washington. A staffer for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson texted a staffer for Vice President Pence just minutes before the beginning of the Joint Session. This staffer stated that Senator Johnson wished to hand deliver to the Vice President the fake electors' votes from Michigan and Wisconsin. The Vice President's aide unambiguously instructed them not to deliver the fake votes to the Vice President. Even though the fake elector slates were transmitted to Congress and the Executive Branch, the Vice President held firm and his position that his role was to count lawfully submitted electoral votes. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Brad Raffensperger is the 29th Secretary of State of Georgia, serving in this role since 2019. As an elected official, and a Republican Secretary, Raffensperger is responsible for supervising elections in Georgia and maintaining the state's public records. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. You're the speaker of the Arizona House and a self-described conservative Republican. You campaigned for President Trump and with him during the 2020 election. Is it fair to say that you wanted Donald Trump to win a second term in office? Please? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Thank you. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): And is it your understanding that President Biden was the winner of the popular vote in Arizona in 2020? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Before we begin with the questions that I had prepared for you, I want to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued, which I received just prior to the hearing. Former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, Republican in Name Only. He then references a conversation in November 2020, in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged, and that he had won Arizona. To quote the former President, "during the conversation, he told me the election was rigged and that I won Arizona," unquote. Is that false? Rusty Bowers: Anywhere, anyone, anytime that has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when the former President, in his statement today, claimed that you told him that he won Arizona, is that also false? Rusty Bowers: That is also false. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election, you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, in which they discussed the result of the presidential election in Arizona. If you would, tell us about that call. Rusty Bowers: Mr. Giuliani came on first. And niceties...then Mr. Trump, President Trump, then-President Trump came on. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): During the conversation did you ask Mr. Giuliani for proof of these allegations of fraud that he was making? Rusty Bowers: On multiple occasions, yes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when you asked him for evidence of this fraud, what did he say? Rusty Bowers: He said that they did have proof. And I asked him, "Do you have names?" [He said] for example, we have 200,000 illegal immigrants, some large number, five or six thousand, dead people, etc. And I said, "Do you have their names?" Yes. "Will you give them to me?" Yes. The President interrupted and said, "Give the man what he needs Rudy." He said, "I will." And that happened on at least two occasions, that interchange in the conversation. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call, after the call, or to this day? Rusty Bowers: Never. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): What was the ask during this call? Rusty Bowers: The ones I remember, were first, that we would hold -- that I would allow an official committee at at the Capitol so that they could hear this evidence, and that we could take action thereafter. I said, "to what end? To what end the hearing." He said, well, we have heard by an official high up in the Republican legislature that there is a legal theory or a legal ability in Arizona, that you can remove the the electors of President Biden and replace them. And we would like to have the legitimate opportunity, through the committee, to come to that end and and remove that. And I said that's, that's something that's totally new to me. I've never heard of any such thing. And I would never do anything of such magnitude without deep consultation with qualified attorneys. And I said, I've got some good attorneys, and I'm going to give you their names. But you're asking me to do something against my oath and I will not break my oath. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you also receive a call from US Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona on the morning of January 6? Rusty Bowers: I did. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And what did Mr. Biggs asked you to do? Rusty Bowers: I believe that was the day that the vote was occurring in each state to have certification or to declare the certification of the electors. And he asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my State, and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors. And I said I would not. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Speaking Bowers, did the President call you again later in December? Rusty Bowers: He did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but that you are not going to do anything illegal for him? Rusty Bowers: I did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Nevertheless, his lawyer John Eastman called you some days later, and what did Dr. Eastman want you to do? Rusty Bowers: That we would, in fact, take a vote to overthrow -- or I shouldn't say overthrow -- that we would decertify the electors, and that we had plenary authority to do so. But I said, "What would you have me do?" And he said, "Just do it and let the court sorted out." And I said, "You're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the United States. And I'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof? And that's going to be good enough with me? That I would, I would put us through that, my state that I swore to uphold, both in Constitution and in law? No, sir." Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I want to look even more deeply at the fake electoral scheme. Every four years, citizens from all over the United States go to the polls to elect the President. Under our Constitution, when we cast our votes for president, we are actually voting to send electors pledged to our preferred candidate to the Electoral College. In December, the electors in each state meet, cast their votes, and send those votes to Washington. There was only one legitimate slate of electors from each state. On the Sixth day of January, Congress meets in a joint session to count those votes, and the winner of the Electoral College vote becomes the president. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Secretary Raffensburger, thank you for being here today. You've been a public servant in Georgia since 2015, serving first as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, and then since January 2019, as Georgia Secretary of State as a self described conservative Republican. Is it fair to say that you wanted President Trump to win the 2020 election? Brad Raffensperger: Yes, it is. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Secretary Raffensperger, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and by what margin? Brad Raffensperger: President Biden carried the state of Georgia by approximately 12,000 votes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Bear in mind as we discuss this call today that by this point in time, early January, the election in Georgia had already been certified. But perhaps more important, the President of the United States had already been told repeatedly by his own top Justice Department officials that the claims he was about to make to you about massive fraud in Georgia were completely false. 06/16/22 Select Committee Hearing June 16, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence J. Michael Luttig, Retired judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and informal advisor to Mike Pence Julie Radford, Former Chief of Staff for Ivanka Trump Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Nicholas Luna, Former Assistant to President Trump Gen. Keith Kellogg, Former National Security Advisor to VP Pence Clips 16:45 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Greg Jacob was Counsel to Vice President Pence. He conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the Vice President in the Joint Session of Congress under the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and 230 years of historical practice. But he also has firsthand information about the attack on the Capitol because he lived through it. He was with the Vice President and his own life was in danger. 31:05 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Eastman was, at the time, a law professor at Chapman University Law School. He prepared a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6. 32:50 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Dr. Eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight. Referring to the fake electors as, quote "dead on arrival in Congress" end quote, because they did not have a certification from their States. 46:40 Greg Jacob: We had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year, multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates [sic]. And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of "which ones?" had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had to resolve that question. And the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities. Now I'm in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the Vice President does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment. And so the notion that the Vice President could do that certainly is not in the text. But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was, we had all seen that in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states. And those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an Amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting. And yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So we started with that. 1:20:45 Greg Jacob: He again tried to say, but I don't think the courts will get involved in this. They'll invoke the political question doctrine and so if the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we'll have the 10 days for the States to weigh in and resolve it. And then, you know, they'll send back the Trump slates of electors, and the people will be able to accept that. I expressed my vociferous disagreement with that point, I did not think that this was a political question. Among other things, if the courts did not step in to resolve this, there was nobody else to resolve it. You would be in a situation where you have a standoff between the President of the United States and, counterfactually, the Vice President of the United States saying that we've exercised authorities that, Constitutionally, we think we have by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election. You would have an opposed House and Senate disagreeing with that. You would have State legislatures that, to that point, I mean, Republican leaders across those legislatures had put together, had put out statements, and we collected these for the Vice President as well, that the people had spoken in their States and that they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election. We did receive some signed letters that Mr. Eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those States, but no State had any legislative house that indicated that added any interest in it. So you would have had just a an unprecedented Constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. And as I expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets. Because if we can't work it out politically, we've already seen how charged up people are about this election. And so it would be a disastrous situation to be in. So I said, I think the courts will intervene. I do not see a commitment in the Constitution of the question, whether the Vice President has that authority to some other actor to resolve there. There's arguments about whether Congress and the Vice President jointly have a Constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues. I don't think that they have any authority to object or reject them. I don't see it in the 12th Amendment, but nonetheless. And I concluded by saying, "John, in light of everything that we've discussed, can't we just both agree that this is a terrible idea?" And he couldn't quite bring himself to say yes to that. But he very clearly said, "Well, yeah, I see we're not going to be able to persuade you to do this." And that was how the meeting concluded. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): We understand that the Vice President started his day on January 4 with a rally in Georgia for the Republican candidates in the US Senate runoff. When the Vice President returned to Washington, he was summoned to meet with the President regarding the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. Mr. Jacob, during that meeting between the President and the Vice President, what theories did Dr. Eastman present regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral votes? Greg Jacob: During the meeting on January 4, Mr. Eastman was opining there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the Vice President could exercise two days later on January 6. One of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. The other was that he could use his capacity as Presiding Officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10-day recess during which States that he deemed to be disputed, there was a list of five to seven states, the exact number changed from conversation to conversation, but that the Vice President could sort of issue and demand to the State Legislatures in those States to re-examine the election and declare who had won each of those States. So he said that both of those were legally viable options. He said that he did not recommend, upon questioning, he did not recommend what he called the "more aggressive option," which was reject outright, because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. The imprimatur of State Legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have public acceptance of an outcome in favor of President Trump. And so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the Joint Session and sending the election back to the States. And again, the Vice President's first instinct here is so decisive on this question, there's just no way that the framers of the Constitution who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III, and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person, the authority to determine who was going to be President of the United States. And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. And critically, no Vice President, in 230 years of history, had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the States. In the entire history of the United States, not once had a Joint Session, ever returned electoral votes back to the States to be counted. So the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000, that he had authority to just declare himself President of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn't think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that? And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. So at the conclusion of the meeting on the 4th, the President had asked that our office meet with Mr. Eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he had expressed at that meeting, and the Vice President indicated that....offered me up as his counsel, to fulfill that duty. We had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on January 5. What most surprised me about that meeting was that when Mr. Eastman came in, he said, "I'm here to request that you reject the electors." So on the 4th, that had been the path that he had said, "I'm not recommending that you do that." But on the 5th, he came in and expressly requested that. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Mr. Jacob did you, Mr. Short, and the Vice President have a call later that day, again, with the President and Dr. Eastman? Greg Jacob: So, yes, we did. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): And what did Dr. Eastman requested on that call? Greg Jacob: On that phone call, Mr. Eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning, we were not going to be rejecting electors. But would we be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the 4th, which would be to suspend the Joint Session and request that State Legislatures reexamine certification of the electoral votes? Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Trump issued a statement claiming the Vice President had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election, despite the fact that the Vice President had consistently rejected that position. Mr. Jacob, how did the Vice President's team reacts to the stat
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Judge Michael Luttig for the definitive conversation on a giant elections case now on the calendar at the Supreme Court. Moore v Harper is a North Carolina redistricting case that is also a vehicle for the Independent State Legislature Theory - a so-called doctrine that could radically re-order democracy in America. Judge Luttig - a stalwart of conservative legal circles for decades - will argue the case as co-counsel alongside former Acting Solicitor General under Obama, Neal Katyal. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to talk about the blossoming of bonkers gun cases in the wake of last term's SCOTUS decision in Bruen, a big case concerning consumer protections and much more… Dahlia's new book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25% discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Judge Michael Luttig for the definitive conversation on a giant elections case now on the calendar at the Supreme Court. Moore v Harper is a North Carolina redistricting case that is also a vehicle for the Independent State Legislature Theory - a so-called doctrine that could radically re-order democracy in America. Judge Luttig - a stalwart of conservative legal circles for decades - will argue the case as co-counsel alongside former Acting Solicitor General under Obama, Neal Katyal. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to talk about the blossoming of bonkers gun cases in the wake of last term's SCOTUS decision in Bruen, a big case concerning consumer protections and much more… Dahlia's new book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25% discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Former federal judge John Michael Luttig joins Sarah and David to detail his involvement in the events leading up to January 6, 2021. He reveals the story behind his tweet thread on January 5 that ended up on the front page of the New York Times, and the problems with the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Plus: Luttig walks us through his comprehensive, published study refuting election fraud claims in the 2020 election. Show Notes:-Judge Luttig's January 6 testimony-Judge Luttig's January 5 tweet thread-Lost Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Election-The Dispatch: A 2020 Election Report ‘By Conservatives, For Conservatives'
Welcome to another episode of Where The Party At? – your favorite political podcast. Today's show covers Renters' Rights; Housing Strike Force; Early Voting / Primary Runoff; Stacey Proposes Big Pay Raise for Teachers; Herschel Walker; Jan. 6 Committee -- the latest... And of course our Party Poopers and Party Starters. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics/read-luttig-statement/index.html (Judge Luttig's statement to the Jan. 6 select committee ) WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! LEAVE A VOICE NOTE - https://www.speakpipe.com/WhereThePartyAt (Click Here) To keep up with Where The Party At?, connect with us on Instagram or Twitter. Stay tuned and get informed! We are laying the foundation down to be able to have competent political conversations and discourse, all for the greater good. Subscribe and tune in for our “Who Runs Atlanta,” series of interviews with political candidates. Watch or listen to Where The Party At?: https://linktr.ee/wherethepartyatpod (https://linktr.ee/wherethepartyatpod) Visit https://www.justeldredge.media/ (Justeldredge.media) for more shows and content! Watch or listen to Where The Party At?: https://linktr.ee/wherethepartyatpod (https://linktr.ee/wherethepartyatpod) Visit Justeldredge.media for our other shows and content.
Last week, Republican Mayra Flores won a special election for an open congressional seat in South Texas. Her win over Democrat Dan Sanchez was a major breakthrough for Republicans who have been trying to make inroads in the Rio Grande region. Plus, Juneteenth and a question about Judge Luttig. You can read today's podcast here. You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/tanglenews/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tanglenews/support
GreatAmericanMail (@mail_american) interprets the events of June 20, 2022 through the lens of the Constitution, law, and history, including:· Joy Behar lies about Blacks being denied the right to vote· Judge Luttig isn't a Republican, he's an anti Trumper· Debunking Judge Luttig's 2024 Election theories· Why Biden's bike fall really is important · Explaining why Trump didn't commit a crime on his call with Raffensperger
Two highlights from the most recent January 6 committee public hearings include 1. the revelation that former President Donald Trump's enraged mob was just 40 feet away from Mike Pence as the former Vice President was being whisked to safety by Secret Service officers, and 2. the testimony of retired federal court judge J. Michael Luttig, a darling of Republican Party, said that Donald Trump and his supporters still "represent a clear and present danger to democracy." In his recent speech to an evangelical group in Tennessee, Donald Trump ridiculed, demeaned and mocked Mike Pence for not overturning the election results on January 6, 2021, proving Judge Luttig's point - Trump remains a clear and present danger to democracy. For our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise shop, please visit: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkirschner/ Please consider becoming a #TeamJustice patron at: https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschner My podcast, "Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner" can be downloaded where you get your podcasts. To subscribe to the podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/JusticeMatters Follow me on: Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirschner2 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week's most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. This week, Ben and Popok discuss and analyze: 1. Sessions 2 and 3 of the Jan6 Committee Hearings, including Republican witnesses Bill Stepian, Greg Jacob, Jason Miller, and Judge Luttig. 2. Whether “Presidential pocket pardons” are a thing and constitutional. 3. Bannon's efforts to exclude references to Jan6 from his upcoming trial. 4. Developments in the Proud Boy conspiracy prosecution and the revelation of a planning memo to “infiltrate” and “occupy” 7 other Capitol buildings. 5. Google agreeing to settle a landmark “pay inequity” class action case for $118mm based on their past practices of discriminating against women in the workplace. 6. The continued attack on class actions and other representative and collective action type cases by the Supreme Court who instead strengthen corporate mandatory arbitration agreements. And so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: https://athleticgreens.com/LegalAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Two highlights from the most recent January 6 committee public hearings include 1. the revelation that former President Donald Trump's enraged mob was just 40 feet away from Mike Pence as the former Vice President was being whisked to safety by Secret Service officers, and 2. the testimony of retired federal court judge J. Michael Luttig, a darling of Republican Party, said that Donald Trump and his supporters still "represent a clear and present danger to democracy." In his recent speech to an evangelical group in Tennessee, Donald Trump ridiculed, demeaned and mocked Mike Pence for not overturning the election results on January 6, 2021, proving Judge Luttig's point - Trump remains a clear and present danger to democracy. For our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise shop, please visit: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkirschner/ Please consider becoming a #TeamJustice patron at: https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschner My podcast, "Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner" can be downloaded where you get your podcasts. To subscribe to the podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/JusticeMatters Follow me on: Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirschner2 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
J. Michael Luttig is the former federal appeals court judge who advised Vice President Mike Pence that the VP had no authority to reject electors on Jan. 6. Back in February, Playbook co-author Ryan Lizza spent four hours interviewing Luttig for a Deep Dive episode that ended up being mostly about his extraordinary role advising Mike Pence on Jan. 6. Given the interest in Luttig this week, we went back through what was left on the cutting room floor to create a new show that goes deep on who Luttig is and where he comes from, which will help you understand why this lifelong right-winger is saying what he's saying now about the threat to democracy.
CLR Show 1741. Air Date June 17, 2022. The 1/6 Select Committee is doing a skillful job of spelling out the criminal intent and activities of Donald Trump and others––the same Donald Trump who has frequently claimed he could shoot people in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it. But the failure of the Justice Department to indict under these circumstances will cause irreparable damage to the nation and, in the words of Judge Luttig, only encourage Trump and his ilk to do worse. With Friday CLR Co-Host, David Bach.
In the last episode before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack holds its first public hearing on June 9th at 8:00 PM eastern time, we look at some of the potential bombshells that could be revealed at the hearings, including links between the attackers and the funders behind the coup attempt, the possibility of evidence from witnesses covered under sealed indictments, the various reconnaissance tours conducted by members of the Sedition Caucus on January 5th, testimony from Marc Short and Judge Luttig, and the arrest of Peter Navarro for contempt of Congress. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/27/1101841769/former-army-reservist-and-alleged-white-supremacist-found-guilty-in-capitol-riot https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/justice-department-fake-elector-plot-trump-lawyers-advisers/index.html https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/26/meadows-burned-papers-meeting-scott-perry-00035411 https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20211109%20Hutchinson.pdf https://cnu.edu/news/2018/10/19-pols-s19_hutchinson/#.YpjffPrMLIU https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/donald-trump-january-6-mike-pence-chants/index.html https://www.dailydot.com/debug/barry-loudermilk-january-6/
The Claremont Institute is the intellectual home of America's Trumpist right — as well as election theft mastermind John Eastman. The Atlantic's Emma Green joins Charlie Sykes on today's podcast. Is the conservative think tank just giving words and ideas to the ball of energy that elected Trump, or further inflaming our already inflamed politics? Special Guest: Emma Green.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
