POPULARITY
5 episodes with michael luttig
4 episodes with michael luttig
2 episodes with michael luttig
2 episodes with michael luttig
2 episodes with michael luttig
2 episodes with michael luttig
2 episodes with michael luttig
2 episodes with michael luttig
2 episodes with michael luttig
Constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro, Stephen Vladeck, and Adam White join NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the Trump administration has overreached on executive power, analyze the relationship between the federal courts and the president, and put the present moment in historical context. This conversation was originally recorded on May 21, 2025, at George Washington's Mount Vernon. Resources J. Michael Luttig, “The End of Rule of Law in America,” The Atlantic (May 14, 2025) Stephen Vladeck, “What the Courts Can Still Do to Constrain Trump,” The Atlantic (April 15, 2025) Ilya Shapiro, “Don't Throw My Executive Power in That Briar Patch!,” Shapiro's Gavel Substack (April 24, 2025) Adam White, “WTH Is Going On with Birthright Citizenship? Adam White Explains” WTH Is Going On podcast (Jan. 30, 2025) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
As the US federal government drifts further into anti-climate rhetoric and abandons its national and international commitments, can non-state actors hold the line?With Christiana Figueres away in Vanuatu, Tom Rivett-Carnac and Paul Dickinson take the reins to explore how climate progress is increasingly being driven by - or being left to - businesses and non-profits. They unpack the mounting challenges facing climate-aligned companies, the promise and complexity of existing voluntary initiatives, and the role that the private sector can play in driving innovation, accountability, and ambition in the absence of strong national leadership.Later, they speak with Helen Clarkson, CEO of the Climate Group, about the shifting reality for businesses trying to lead on climate in the US and beyond. And they ask her to address some of the rumours surrounding Climate Week NYC: Is it happening? Will it definitely be held in New York? And how can it become a beacon of action in an age of political uncertainty?Plus: Tom and Paul consider the upcoming ruling in a ground-breaking climate liability case with potentially seismic impacts.Learn more ⚖️ Details and documents on the Luciano Lliusya v. RWE EG legal case
A task force from the American Bar Association is urging attorneys to defend democracy against authoritarianism in the country by getting involved in election efforts. Amna Nawaz discussed the task force's work with its co-chairs, Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama, and J. Michael Luttig, a former appeals court judge and a leading conservative legal voice. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
A task force from the American Bar Association is urging attorneys to defend democracy against authoritarianism in the country by getting involved in election efforts. Amna Nawaz discussed the task force's work with its co-chairs, Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama, and J. Michael Luttig, a former appeals court judge and a leading conservative legal voice. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
Tonight on The Last Word: The United Auto Workers Union endorses Vice President Kamala Harris for president. Also, GOP election deniers win primary races in Arizona. And a retired federal judge support President Biden's push to limit presidential immunity. Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Austin Davis, Rep. Ruben Gallego, Mayor John Giles, and J. Michael Luttig join Ali Velshi.
Nicolle Wallace is joined by Andrew Weissmann, Tim Heaphy, Marc Elias, Dahlia Lithwick, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Claire McCaskill, Ian Bassin, Maya Wiley, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and J. Michael Luttig.
Ali Velshi is joined by NBC's Aaron Gilchrist, Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School Laurence Tribe, former Federal Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit J. Michael Luttig, Professor of Constitutional Law & Global Health Policy at Georgetown Law Michele Goodwin, President & CEO of the National Constitution Center Jeffrey Rosen, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Executive Director & Chief Counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Donald Sherman, Law Professor at Harvard Law School Jeannie Suk Gersen, President of Mount Holyoke College Danielle Holley
Nicolle Wallace is joined by Claire McCaskill, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Melissa Murray, Lisa Rubin, Tim Heaphy, Mike Schmidt, Barbara McQuade, Andrew Weissmann, J. Michael Luttig, and Mary McCord.
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/
Ali Velshi – in for Nicolle Wallace – is joined by Andrew Weissmann, Tim Heaphy, Claire McCaskill, Dahlia Lithwick, Vaughn Hillyard, Basil Smikle, Lisa Rubin, Rep. Madeleine Dean, Ari Melber, Ryan Nobles, David Jolly, Amanda Carpenter, Basil Smikle, Ryan Reilly, and J. Michael Luttig.
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
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 Colorado Supreme Court ruled Donald Trump cannot appear on the state's presidential primary ballot. The decision came from the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment. Then, schools have become battlegrounds for America's culture wars. PragerU, a conservative nonprofit, is working to get their videos into classrooms. Juanita Tolliver, Matthew Dowd, Charles Coleman, Michael Luttig, Antonia Hylton, and Michael McFaul join.
Ali Velshi – in for Nicolle Wallace – discusses the release of more Israeli hostages, worries of threats to the extended humanitarian pause in Gaza, a look at life inside Gaza since October 7th, revelations from former Vice President Mike Pence about just how close he was to abstaining from the 2020 election certification process, Rep. George Santos' troubled road ahead as he faces expulsion, today's memorial service for late First Lady Rosalynn Carter, and more. Joined by: Richard Engel, Avril Benoit, Tim Heaphy, Neal Katyal, J. Michael Luttig, Majd Almashharawi, Kamal Almashharawi, Lisa Rubin, Harry Litman, Susanne Craig, Rep. Eric Swalwell, Eddie Glaude, Katty Kay, and Michael Beschloss.
Alicia Menendez – in for Nicolle Wallace – discusses Israel's government meeting on a potential hostage release deal, an update in the Fulton County election case, House Speaker Mike Johnson's trip to meet with the ex-president as he faces backlash from the right, the ex-president's threat to democracy, and more – featuring a surprise guest with a big announcement. Joined by: Nicolle Wallace, Ruby Chen, Rick Stengel, Raf Sanchez, Andrew Weissmann, Greg Bluestein, Rep. Colin Allred, Molly Jong-Fast, Claire McCaskill, Carol Leonnig, Charlie Sykes, J. Michael Luttig, Marc Elias, and Basil Smikle.
Ali Velshi is joined by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Majed Bamya, former federal judge Michael Luttig, former chair of the Ohio Democratic Party David Pepper, former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Washington Post Opinion Writer Jennifer Rubin, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, NBC's Josh Lederman, NBC's Aaron Gilchrist & NBC”s Erin McLaughlin.
With primaries set to start in spring of 2024, an upcoming presidential election, and a number of federal & state indictments against former President Trump, including the January 6th indictment, section 3 of the 14th amendment has taken center stage. It reads "no person who has taken an oath as an officer of the United States can hold office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. So, will Section 3 of the 14th Amendment actually impact the presidential election and eliminate Donald Trump from the running? In this episode, host Craig Williams is joined by guest Ron Fein, the Legal Director for Free Speech For People. as they spotlight Section 3 and what this could mean for the upcoming presidential election. Mentioned in this Episode: The Sweep and Force of Section 3 by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 by Adam Liptak The 14Point3 Campaign Trump is Disqualified
With primaries set to start in spring of 2024, an upcoming presidential election, and a number of federal & state indictments against former President Trump, including the January 6th indictment, section 3 of the 14th amendment has taken center stage. It reads "no person who has taken an oath as an officer of the United States can hold office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. So, will Section 3 of the 14th Amendment actually impact the presidential election and eliminate Donald Trump from the running? In this episode, host Craig Williams is joined by guest Ron Fein, the Legal Director for Free Speech For People. as they spotlight Section 3 and what this could mean for the upcoming presidential election. Mentioned in this Episode: The Sweep and Force of Section 3 by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 by Adam Liptak The 14Point3 Campaign Trump is Disqualified
This week, John Dickerson is back and joins Emily Bazelon and David Plotz to discuss the first Republican primary debate and the simulcast Tucker Carlson interview of Donald Trump; the Republican law professors' debate about whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits another Trump presidency; and the United Diners of America. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Colectivo Coffee in Madison, Wisconsin Josh Dawsey, Michael Scherer, and Marianne LeVine for The Washington Post: “Republican rivals clash sharply in combative debate with no Trump” Sam Levine for The Guardian: “Could Trump be barred under the constitution's ‘engaged in insurrection' clause?” William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe in The Atlantic: “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again” Eric Segall in Dorf on Law: “Of Insurrections, Presidents, and the Utter Failure of Constitutional Law to Address the Real Issues” Catherine Rampell for The Washington Post: “Where do socioeconomic classes mix? Not church, but Chili's.” Maxim Massenkoff and Nathan Wilmers: “Rubbing Shoulders: Class Segregation in Daily Activities” Freevee original “Jury Duty” on Amazon Julie V. Iovine for The New York Times: “Dog Parks Are Great for People. Too Bad They're Terrible for Dogs.” Applebee's America: How Successful Political, Business, and Religious Leaders Connect with the New American Community by Ron Fournier, Douglas B. Sosnik, and Matthew J. Dowd “Fancy Like (feat. Kesha)” by Walker Hayes Here are this week's chatters: John: “Weathervanes” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit; “Jason Isbell: Running With Our Eyes Closed“ on Max; “Volunteer” and “Cast Iron Skillet” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit Emily: Jeff Amy for AP: “Georgia prosecutors are suing to strike down a new state law that undermines their authority” David: Emily Heil for The Washington Post: “Eggo's ‘Brunch in a Jar' sippin' cream is a boozy, diabolical disaster”; Cheez-It Snap'd; City Cast DC 1 Year Anniversary Live Taping Listener chatter from Leonie: Ronan Casey for Classic Rock: “Meat Loaf, a flying wheelchair, and the greatest story ever told” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, John, Emily, and David debate calendar invitations. In this month's edition of Gabfest Reads, Emily, David, and John talk with Barbara Kingsolver about her best-selling book, Demon Copperhead. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com or X us @SlateGabfest. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jared Downing and Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Hosts Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz Follow @SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfest Slate Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week, John Dickerson is back and joins Emily Bazelon and David Plotz to discuss the first Republican primary debate and the simulcast Tucker Carlson interview of Donald Trump; the Republican law professors' debate about whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits another Trump presidency; and the United Diners of America. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Colectivo Coffee in Madison, Wisconsin Josh Dawsey, Michael Scherer, and Marianne LeVine for The Washington Post: “Republican rivals clash sharply in combative debate with no Trump” Sam Levine for The Guardian: “Could Trump be barred under the constitution's ‘engaged in insurrection' clause?” William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe in The Atlantic: “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again” Eric Segall in Dorf on Law: “Of Insurrections, Presidents, and the Utter Failure of Constitutional Law to Address the Real Issues” Catherine Rampell for The Washington Post: “Where do socioeconomic classes mix? Not church, but Chili's.” Maxim Massenkoff and Nathan Wilmers: “Rubbing Shoulders: Class Segregation in Daily Activities” Freevee original “Jury Duty” on Amazon Julie V. Iovine for The New York Times: “Dog Parks Are Great for People. Too Bad They're Terrible for Dogs.” Applebee's America: How Successful Political, Business, and Religious Leaders Connect with the New American Community by Ron Fournier, Douglas B. Sosnik, and Matthew J. Dowd “Fancy Like (feat. Kesha)” by Walker Hayes Here are this week's chatters: John: “Weathervanes” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit; “Jason Isbell: Running With Our Eyes Closed“ on Max; “Volunteer” and “Cast Iron Skillet” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit Emily: Jeff Amy for AP: “Georgia prosecutors are suing to strike down a new state law that undermines their authority” David: Emily Heil for The Washington Post: “Eggo's ‘Brunch in a Jar' sippin' cream is a boozy, diabolical disaster”; Cheez-It Snap'd; City Cast DC 1 Year Anniversary Live Taping Listener chatter from Leonie: Ronan Casey for Classic Rock: “Meat Loaf, a flying wheelchair, and the greatest story ever told” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, John, Emily, and David debate calendar invitations. In this month's edition of Gabfest Reads, Emily, David, and John talk with Barbara Kingsolver about her best-selling book, Demon Copperhead. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com or X us @SlateGabfest. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jared Downing and Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Hosts Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz Follow @SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfest Slate Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week, John Dickerson is back and joins Emily Bazelon and David Plotz to discuss the first Republican primary debate and the simulcast Tucker Carlson interview of Donald Trump; the Republican law professors' debate about whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits another Trump presidency; and the United Diners of America. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Colectivo Coffee in Madison, Wisconsin Josh Dawsey, Michael Scherer, and Marianne LeVine for The Washington Post: “Republican rivals clash sharply in combative debate with no Trump” Sam Levine for The Guardian: “Could Trump be barred under the constitution's ‘engaged in insurrection' clause?” William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe in The Atlantic: “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again” Eric Segall in Dorf on Law: “Of Insurrections, Presidents, and the Utter Failure of Constitutional Law to Address the Real Issues” Catherine Rampell for The Washington Post: “Where do socioeconomic classes mix? Not church, but Chili's.” Maxim Massenkoff and Nathan Wilmers: “Rubbing Shoulders: Class Segregation in Daily Activities” Freevee original “Jury Duty” on Amazon Julie V. Iovine for The New York Times: “Dog Parks Are Great for People. Too Bad They're Terrible for Dogs.” Applebee's America: How Successful Political, Business, and Religious Leaders Connect with the New American Community by Ron Fournier, Douglas B. Sosnik, and Matthew J. Dowd “Fancy Like (feat. Kesha)” by Walker Hayes Here are this week's chatters: John: “Weathervanes” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit; “Jason Isbell: Running With Our Eyes Closed“ on Max; “Volunteer” and “Cast Iron Skillet” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit Emily: Jeff Amy for AP: “Georgia prosecutors are suing to strike down a new state law that undermines their authority” David: Emily Heil for The Washington Post: “Eggo's ‘Brunch in a Jar' sippin' cream is a boozy, diabolical disaster”; Cheez-It Snap'd; City Cast DC 1 Year Anniversary Live Taping Listener chatter from Leonie: Ronan Casey for Classic Rock: “Meat Loaf, a flying wheelchair, and the greatest story ever told” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, John, Emily, and David debate calendar invitations. In this month's edition of Gabfest Reads, Emily, David, and John talk with Barbara Kingsolver about her best-selling book, Demon Copperhead. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com or X us @SlateGabfest. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jared Downing and Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Hosts Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz Follow @SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfest Slate Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The left is getting desperate, I mean, very, very desperate! If you thought the weaponized legalism constituting these four separate indictments against President Trump was bad enough, now legal scholars are joining the chorus. Highlights: “This argument is coming from two constitutional scholars at the Federalist Society, which is Leonard Leo's group that's considered ironically to be the very backbone of the conservative renewal in the legal sphere, but for some reason, two of them, J. Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe, are actually arguing in the Atlantic of all places, the ultra-leftist woke Atlantic, that the constitution bars Trump from running again, I kid you not, because he's an insurrectionist, and the 14th Amendment bars a person for running for the office of the presidency if they've been involved in an insurrection against the US government!” “What establishment hacks are trying to do here is they're trying to apply that amendment to what happened on J6! Now, the problem, right away, is the fundamental question of whether J6 was actually an insurrection? I know the woke media and the Democrats and Liz Cheney like to call it that, but these people don't even know what a woman is?!? So was J6 an insurrection; was it a planned deliberate attempt to overthrow the US government?” “Despite the fact that the legacy media have been pushing this term, it's noteworthy that when Special Counsel Jack Smith finally indicted Trump for J6, he notably did not charge him with any such crime as insurrection. And the reason for that is obvious. The evidence and constitutional standards would not have supported a charge of incitement or insurrection.” “They don't actually have any process by which Trump can objectively be found guilty of such, they just claim it and think that's enough! Trump actually went through a process, a senate trial, and was exonerated, he was acquitted of that charge! But the woke left is SO desperate, they're just running around calling him an insurrectionist and they think that's enough to bar him from the ballot! It's beyond bizarre!” Timestamps: [01:04] Is Trump constitutionally barred from running for the presidency? [02:11] Jonathan Turley's woke bedtime story about Trump [06:03] What is the 14th amendment of the constitution? [08:08] 14th amendment theory is absolutely absurd - Allan Dershowitz Resources: Reclaim sovereignty over your health TODAY with Nature's Morphine HERE: https://www.bh3ktrk.com/2DDD1J/2CTPL/ The Courageous Patriot Community is inviting YOU! Join the movement now and build the parallel economy at https://join.turleytalks.com/insiders-club-evergreen/?utm_medium=podcast HE'LL BE BACK! Get your limited edition TRUMPINATOR 2024 Bobblehead HERE: https://offers.proudpatriots.com/ Learn how to protect your life savings from inflation and an irresponsible government, with Gold and Silver. Go to http://www.turleytalkslikesgold.com/ Watch Dr. Steve's FREE 2-hour training on DESTROYING WOKENESS and receive a free copy of his best selling Ebook at https://events.turleytalks.com/ Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review. Sick and tired of Big Tech, censorship, and endless propaganda? Join my Insiders Club with a FREE TRIAL today at: https://insidersclub.turleytalks.com Make sure to FOLLOW me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks BOLDLY stand up for TRUTH in Turley Merch! Browse our new designs right now at: https://store.turleytalks.com/ Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture! If you would like to get lots of articles on conservative trends make sure to sign-up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts.
First, Kasie Hunt goes one-on-one with FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell. They discuss how California is preparing for a dangerous storm, the increasing threat from severe weather events in the future, and challenges FEMA faces in its response to the Maui wildfires. Next, GOP presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson speaks with Kasie about qualifying for the GOP debate, what his strategy will be, and why he asserts Trump is constitutionally unable to be president again. Plus, Kasie interviews Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy about what he is doing to address the climate crisis, whether he supports more money going to FEMA amid proposed GOP budget cuts, and whether he thinks Trump should be running for president given his 91 criminal charges.Then, Kasie speaks with No Labels National Co-Chair Larry Hogan and CNN's David Axelrod about why the third-party group could play a spoiler in the 2024 campaign, and why the first GOP debate is a “make or break moment” for DeSantis.After that, constitutional law experts J. Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe join Kasie to discuss their suggestion that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from serving as president again. Finally, the panel joins Kasie to preview the first Republican debate.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
An influential group of Republican legal voices called for a Jan. 2024 trial date to be set for Donald Trump for his attempt to overturn the presidential election. The group included former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and one of the nation's leading conservative legal minds. Judy Woodruff spoke with Luttig for her series, America at a Crossroads. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
An influential group of Republican legal voices called for a Jan. 2024 trial date to be set for Donald Trump for his attempt to overturn the presidential election. The group included former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and one of the nation's leading conservative legal minds. Judy Woodruff spoke with Luttig for her series, America at a Crossroads. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
Previously U.S. Senate legal counsel and general counsel of Brigham Young University, Judge Thomas B. Griffith was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush. President Biden later appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court. Judge Griffith authored Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Biden Won and Trump Lost the 2020 Presidential Election along with former federal appeals court judges Michael McConnell and Michael Luttig. He is currently a lecturer on law at Harvard and Stanford, a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at BYU, and active in rule-of-law projects in Central and Eastern Europe. Inspired by the scholarship of Elder Matthew Holland, Judge Griffith devotes a great deal of his time to speaking and writing about the need to emphasize “civic charity” in American political life. After graduating from BYU and before beginning his legal studies at the University of Virginia, Judge Griffith was a full-time employee of the Church Educational System, directing Seminary and Institute of Religion programs in the Baltimore, Maryland area. His service in the Church includes a full-time mission to southern Africa, bishop of a family ward in northern Virginia, president of a campus stake at BYU, and teaching young single adult Institute. He also serves on the advisory board of the Faith Matters Foundation. A convert to the Church, Brother Griffith married fellow-convert Susan Stell Griffith. They live in rural northern Virginia and are the parents of six and the grandparents of eleven. Highlights 02:00 Kurt introduces the episode and Thomas Griffith. 04:20 Thomas introduces himself and his professional and religious background. 07:00 Thomas' conversion story 13:30 His first career was in the church education system. He later became a lawyer and judge. 15:00 Speaking at the BYU devotional and his popular talk, The Very Root of Christian Doctrine and his time as a stake president. Every talk and every lesson given in the stake needed to have a direct link to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 23:30 After one year of getting everyone in the stake to make the Atonement the main focus of every single talk and lesson they saw amazing results. The bishops reported back with excitement. 27:15 What it actually means to focus on and teach doctrine at church. 28:00 The most important thing that a bishop can do is put on a GREAT sacrament meeting! When Thomas was bishop he sat down with each speaker to discuss the topic and how to link it to the atonement. It was a lot of work but he focused on the details. 32:15 Where the idea and vision came from to focus more on Christ at church 35:45 The hard work that goes into establishing a culture and vision in our wards and stakes. They had to be persistent and repetitive with their messages. 38:00 Refocus the core message on Jesus and redemption so that people leave feeling uplifted and not bogged down. Speakers should be told that they aren't there to call people to repentance. “Refresh” people's hearts and make them feel encouraged and nourished. 43:45 Additional tips for making sacrament meeting great. Everything ought to flow out of the experience that we have partaking of the sacrament. You don't just take it and then move on. 45:45 Thomas' time as a judge 47:30 Lessons learned from being a judge that can also be applied to church leadership. We should also always use the counsel system and not make decisions alone. Decisions should be made through the process of discussion and disagreement. This is where revelation happens. 52:20 Thomas shares principles that he learned while serving as stake president at BYU. They wanted a pure religion community instead of the activities committee. Every ward was to form a partnership with a service provider and those would be the church activities. 58:10 You can't do everything.
Previously U.S. Senate legal counsel and general counsel of Brigham Young University, Judge Thomas B. Griffith was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush. President Biden later appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court. Judge Griffith authored Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Biden Won and Trump Lost the 2020 Presidential Election along with former federal appeals court judges Michael McConnell and Michael Luttig. He is currently a lecturer on law at Harvard and Stanford, a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at BYU, and active in rule-of-law projects in Central and Eastern Europe. Inspired by the scholarship of Elder Matthew Holland, Judge Griffith devotes a great deal of his time to speaking and writing about the need to emphasize “civic charity” in American political life. After graduating from BYU and before beginning his legal studies at the University of Virginia, Judge Griffith was a full-time employee of the Church Educational System, directing Seminary and Institute of Religion programs in the Baltimore, Maryland area. His service in the Church includes a full-time mission to southern Africa, bishop of a family ward in northern Virginia, president of a campus stake at BYU, and teaching young single adult Institute. He also serves on the advisory board of the Faith Matters Foundation. A convert to the Church, Brother Griffith married fellow-convert Susan Stell Griffith. They live in rural northern Virginia and are the parents of six and the grandparents of eleven. Highlights 02:00 Kurt introduces the episode and Thomas Griffith. 04:20 Thomas introduces himself and his professional and religious background. 07:00 Thomas' conversion story 13:30 His first career was in the church education system. He later became a lawyer and judge. 15:00 Speaking at the BYU devotional and his popular talk, The Very Root of Christian Doctrine and his time as a stake president. Every talk and every lesson given in the stake needed to have a direct link to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 23:30 After one year of getting everyone in the stake to make the Atonement the main focus of every single talk and lesson they saw amazing results. The bishops reported back with excitement. 27:15 What it actually means to focus on and teach doctrine at church. 28:00 The most important thing that a bishop can do is put on a GREAT sacrament meeting! When Thomas was bishop he sat down with each speaker to discuss the topic and how to link it to the atonement. It was a lot of work but he focused on the details. 32:15 Where the idea and vision came from to focus more on Christ at church 35:45 The hard work that goes into establishing a culture and vision in our wards and stakes. They had to be persistent and repetitive with their messages. 38:00 Refocus the core message on Jesus and redemption so that people leave feeling uplifted and not bogged down. Speakers should be told that they aren't there to call people to repentance. “Refresh” people's hearts and make them feel encouraged and nourished. 43:45 Additional tips for making sacrament meeting great. Everything ought to flow out of the experience that we have partaking of the sacrament. You don't just take it and then move on. 45:45 Thomas' time as a judge 47:30 Lessons learned from being a judge that can also be applied to church leadership. We should also always use the counsel system and not make decisions alone. Decisions should be made through the process of discussion and disagreement. This is where revelation happens. 52:20 Thomas shares principles that he learned while serving as stake president at BYU. They wanted a pure religion community instead of the activities committee. Every ward was to form a partnership with a service provider and those would be the church activities. 58:10 You can't do everything.
Earlier this month, President Trump was indicted in federal court in Washington, D.C. for conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential elections. Judge J. Michael Luttig joins Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation about the constitutional and historical questions raised by the indictment. Resources: Jeffrey Rosen, “The Founders Anticipated the Threat of Trump,” Wall Street Journal (Aug. 4, 2023) “Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig on Jan. 6 indictment and American democracy,” Washington Post (Aug. 9, 2023) Indictment, United States of America v. Donald Trump, Department of Justice (Aug. 1, 2023) “How to Prevent Another January 6th,” We the People podcast (June 16, 2022) “The Mob, the Capitol, and the Constitution” We the People podcast (Jan. 7, 2021) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Washington Post editorial page editor David Shipley speaks with one of the country's best known conservative jurists who advised former vice president Mike Pence against overturning the electoral college vote after the 2020 election, J. Michael Luttig, about the Jan. 6 indictment against former president Donald Trump and how he sees the future of American democracy.
In today's Three Minutes That Matter, Charles talks about the Trudeau's Separation and J.Michael Luttig calling out the GOP for their continued adulation of Donald Trump.
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.
EPISODE 247: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:42) SPECIAL COMMENT: Why did Trump imply he was quote “being charged under the Insurrection Act?” Why did Trump put that out THOSE words – “Insurrection Act” on his social media propaganda site and then delete the post within half an hour and replace “Insurrection Act” with “Espionage Act”? Is there a chance somebody has told him that he may actually BE charged under the Insurrection Act? Could Jack Smith be prosecuting him under the Disqualification Clause of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment? Could the Special Counsel try to get Donald Trump DISQUALIFIED from ever again holding office in this country? The very thought of it is breathtaking. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Any person will make tens of thousands of mistakes with words in his life and Trump, more than that, but almost all substitution mistakes – you MEAN one word but SAY or WRITE another – have one minimum threshold: the person who substitutes the one for the other – the person who writes “Insurrection Act” when he INTENDED to write “Espionage Act” – has been thinking about The Insurrection Act. The word “insurrection” did not fall off a shelf and hit Trump in the head and he suddenly wrote it when he MEANT to write “Espionage.” If I haven't been clear let me state this explicitly: I don't have a source in the Special Counsel's office. I don't have a cousin whose meter maid's twin brother's spiritual advisor's uncle's nephew types up the daily notes. Nor have any of the people I actually DO know who MIGHT have those kinds of sources said anything. Nor is there anything – ANYTHING – from any of the solid dozen or so reporters covering the coming Trials of Trump that suggests… anything. Nobody has said Smith is think about prosecuting him on Insurrection. And yet I am still sitting here wondering why he wrote what he wrote and I am absolutely convinced Trump has been thinking about the Insurrection Act. So setting aside the one thing you and I most WANT to be true – that even some of Trump's idiot legal advisers including the non-lawyer ones have told him they may charge him with it… what else could it be? B-Block (20:50) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: Tucker Carlson goes off the deep end and as he attacks six presidential contenders to their face it finally dawns on me whose career his has always reminded me of: it was the top American political commentator of 1938. He too was fired while at the pinnacle. He never returned - and he was dead six years later. (27:33) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: The Michigan GOP bank account is down to five figures, Eric Adams is still rhetorically beating up the 84-year old holocaust survivor, and Steve Bannon makes me an offer I cannot refuse. C-Block (33:00) IN SPORTS: A brilliant idea! Bring in an aging ex-GOAT from another country to finally make MLS a big deal. Sure it didn't work the first 50 times but Messi's different. Isn't he? And the Buck may not stop here as the Mets near a purge (36:30) Meaning I have to tell the story of the day 30 years ago next month Buck Showalter locked all his players in the trainers' room at Yankee Stadium to teach me a lesson and blame it on them. And I LIKE Buck!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit nealkatyal.substack.comThis week, we get into whether the human genome can be patented. A lot of people, when they think about the Supreme Court, think about big constitutional issues, abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, guns, etc. All of that is of course super important, but the Court has an outsized influence on so many other areas of our lives.The Myriad case is a perfect example. The case might actually influence your life more than just about any other. It concerns whether the human genome can be patentable. That is, can a company assure assert that is, can a company assert ownership over a gene sequence that exists in your body? And the stakes are huge. The case Myriad Genetics's facts concerned patenting BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are two genes that, if you have them, mean you have a very high risk of getting an aggressive form of breast cancer. But the case reaches far beyond those two genes to reach all gene patents. The Reagan Administration onward issued gene patents, and roughly 20,000 had been issued until the US Supreme Court got involved.We'll break it down with Katie Couric, someone who is crazy talented at breaking down complex ideas. She's also got her own personal connection to these issues, and we'll get into that as well.But before getting into all of that, I'm going to cover this week's legal news, and focus in particular on two big Supreme Court cases that were recently decided, Moore v. Harper and the affirmative action cases. Moore v Harper was my big win, and I'm going to take you behind the scenes. The Court invalidating the Republican party's “independent state legislature theory,” which posited that state legislatures could act unconstrained from their own constitutions and courts in setting rules for federal elections. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion by the Chief Justice, rejected this argument, a win that former appeals judge Michael Luttig said was the most important case for democracy in the nearly 250 years of the Court's existenceBut, as always, you come for the deep dive on a Supreme Court case, and Katie does not disappoint with a fascinating discussion about Myriad Genetics. We will learn all about the Court's unanimous ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas. And you'll learn a ton about Katie Couric, and her interview secrets.My substack on Courtside has all sorts of additional materials about the case, including a short 3 pager about it, a longer 20 page abridged version, and the full version of the judicial opinion, for paid subscribers.Courtside has no ads and is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber, joining at nealkatyal.substack.com. There are no ads on Courtside, everything is listener supported and all profits go to charity.
This week, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision relating to elections in America in the Moore v. Harper case. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, finding that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive power over elections, and upholding the power of judicial review in electoral cases, including redistricting decisions. In this episode of We the People, guests Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Evan Bernick join to break down the Moore decision – including why the Court decided to reject the independent state legislature theory; why conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented; and what this means for the future of judicial review of election laws. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources: Moore v. Harper (2023) Judge Michael Luttig, “The Court Is Likely to Reject the Independent State Legislature Theory: And that offers hope for American democracy”, The Atlantic, April 13, 2023 Judge Michael Luttig, “There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature' Theory”, The Atlantic, October 3, 2022 J. Michael Luttig, et al, Brief for Non-State Respondents, Moore v. Harper Brief of Professor Evan Bernick in support of respondents in Harper v. Moore Check out previous We the People episodes on the Moore v. Harper case: Part 1 (March 2022) and Part 2 from (July 2022), and Part 3 (Dec. 2022) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Janet Yellen said Monday that the debt limit X-date has potentially moved to June 1, jolting White House and congressional leaders as they eye talks next week. And this morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up one of the newsiest topics around: Supreme Court ethics reform. Check out Playbook for an exclusive with the written testimony of two people who didn't want to testify in person: former federal judge J. Michael Luttig and Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe. Playbook co-author Ryan Lizza talks with Senior Legal Affairs Reporter Josh Gerstein.
Iconic Conservative Judge --- . J. Michael Luttig --- . Declares - Republicans Are --- . A Grave Threat To --- . American Democracy! .
#THATSWHATUP Show! ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL w#Trista4SenateGov&Prez! #comedy #music #politics
Everybody pls keep in mind!!! NONE, I repeat NONE of the Republican traitors who orchestrated the Jan6th insurrection should be on floor of OUR Congress r.n.!!! Y'all are too fn COMPLACENT; & COWED
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
Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin laid out the four criminal referrals the January 6th Committee made to the DOJ recommending that Donald J. Trump and others be investigated for the events relating to the attack on the US Capitol. The report included some startling new disclosures including testimony from a former White House staffer that is a potential case of witness tampering. How do we assess the report from the Jan 6 Committee and where do the investigations go from here? We talk to Rep. Raskin and one of the Committee's star witnesses, retired Federal Appellate Court Judge J. Michael Luttig.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
In an all-star hearing, the Supreme Court considers a melange of legal and philosophical arguments concerning the “independent state legislature” doctrine. But first, David and Sarah revisit 303 Creative and debate the Tough (with a capital T) line between law and morality. Also: Should Judge Cannon be impeached?Out of context: “For the record, Sarah, there are Mean Girls in Dune.”Show Notes:-J. Michael Luttig for The Atlantic against the Independent State Legislature doctrine
J. Michael Luttig is a retired judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals and a prominent legal mind in conservative circles, close with figures including Clarence Thomas and William Barr. On January 5, 2020, he got a call from Vice-President Mike Pence's then-lawyer asking Luttig to publicly back Pence's decision not to attempt to overturn the election the next day. Luttig tweeted that the Vice-President had no constitutional authority to stop the election, and suddenly the judge was thrust into the center of the crisis.Now Luttig is siding with Democrats as co-counsel on the Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper, which he tells David Remnick is “the most important case, since the founding, for American democracy.” At the heart of the debate is the independent-state-legislature theory, a once-fringe legal concept that Donald Trump and his allies believe should have allowed Pence to reject the popular vote in 2020. If the court adopts the theory, it could grant legislatures essentially unfettered authority to run national elections; they could not be challenged even if the election violated the state constitution. Such power, in the hands of a gerrymandered legislature, could be used to bypass the popular vote and appoint a new slate of electors, effectively empowering state lawmakers to choose a winner. The court will hear the case on December 7th.
J. Michael Luttig is a retired judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals and a prominent legal mind in conservative circles, close with figures including Clarence Thomas and William Barr. On January 5, 2020, he got a call from Vice-President Mike Pence's then-lawyer asking Luttig to publicly back Pence's decision not to attempt to overturn the election the next day. Luttig tweeted that the Vice-President had no constitutional authority to stop the election, and suddenly the judge was thrust into the center of the crisis. Now Luttig is siding with Democrats as co-counsel on the Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper, which he tells David Remnick is “the most important case, since the founding, for American democracy.” At the heart of the debate is the independent-state-legislature theory, a once-fringe legal concept that Donald Trump and his allies believe should have allowed Pence to reject the popular vote in 2020. If the court adopts the theory, it could grant legislatures essentially unfettered authority to run national elections; they could not be challenged even if the election violated the state constitution. Such power, in the hands of a gerrymandered legislature, could be used to bypass the popular vote and appoint a new slate of electors, effectively empowering state lawmakers to choose a winner. The court will hear the case on December 7th.
Will Congress pass bipartisan legislation to fix the Electoral Count Act, that Donald Trump tried to exploit in 2020? Is the new Electoral Count Reform Act the right way to go to stop election subversion? Are there ways of improving the act before Congress may pass it as soon as this fall? On Season 4, Episode 1 of the ELB Podcast, we hear a recent conversation that I moderated with Norm Eisen, Ned Foley, Rebecca Green, J. Michael Luttig and Janai Nelson.
Congressional hearings into the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol have concluded for the summer after weeks of testimony. Among the key witnesses to appear before the committee was J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge and renowned conservative legal scholar. On this special edition of The FRONTLINE Dispatch, listen to excerpts from an extensive interview with Luttig, as well as with U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), one of only two Republicans on the House select committee investigating January 6. The interviews with J. Michael Luttig and Rep. Adam Kinzinger are available online in full as part of FRONTLINE's Transparency Project. These interviews were conducted by producer Mike Wiser and the Kirk Documentary Group for FRONTLINE's upcoming documentary Lies, Politics, and Democracy.
Setting up mail and contact sync on an iPhone. Replacing or repairing a MacBook Pro with a malfunctioning keyboard. Troubleshooting Wyze Cam connectivity issues. Sourcing parts for a custom-built PC. Using online manuals for family tech support. Unclogging an InkJet printer's printheads. Troubleshooting battery drain for a SimpliSafe keypad. Logging in to Gmail on an iPhone. Finding a replacement for Quickbooks. Plus, conversations with Johnny Jet, Scott Wilkinson, and Dick Debartolo. Ignoring the Jan. 6 hearings? Michael Luttig explains why you shouldn't. - The Washington Post @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) / Twitter Gmail - Email by Google on the App Store Add an email account to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch - Apple Support DM-50D - Pioneer DJ - USA Turntables, Home Theater Surround Sound Speaker Systems and Home Audio Products | Fluance MacBook Pro 13" Retina Display Late 2013 Keyboard Replacement - iFixit Repair Guide Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU - Gold - Apple Wyze Cam v3 | Wired Security Camera How to reset your Wyze Cam v3 – Wyze Amazon.com: 20Pcs Mounting Plastic Pins for Intel LGA 775 Socket CPU Cooler Heatsink Fans : Electronics LGA 1366/Socket B Computer Fan/Heatsink Brackets and Accessories for sale | eBay TCL Support Amazon.com: Amazon Brand - Solimo 99% Isopropyl Alcohol For Technical Use, 16 Fl Oz (Pack of 12) : Health & Household SimpliSafe Home Security Systems | Wireless Home Security Alarms Keypads drain batteries in 1 week | SimpliSafe Community Use our built-in browser in QuickBooks Desktop Invoice and Accounting Software for Small Businesses - FreshBooks What's The Worst Thing About Having A Food Processor? | Giz Wiz Biz Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Mikah Sargent, Scott Wilkinson, Johnny Jet, and Dick DeBartolo Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Show notes and links for this episode are available at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy/episodes/1907 Download or subscribe to this show at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy Sponsors: UserWay.org/twit meraki.cisco.com/twit itpro.tv/twit promo code TWIT30
Setting up mail and contact sync on an iPhone. Replacing or repairing a MacBook Pro with a malfunctioning keyboard. Troubleshooting Wyze Cam connectivity issues. Sourcing parts for a custom-built PC. Using online manuals for family tech support. Unclogging an InkJet printer's printheads. Troubleshooting battery drain for a SimpliSafe keypad. Logging in to Gmail on an iPhone. Finding a replacement for Quickbooks. Plus, conversations with Johnny Jet, Scott Wilkinson, and Dick Debartolo. Ignoring the Jan. 6 hearings? Michael Luttig explains why you shouldn't. - The Washington Post @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) / Twitter Gmail - Email by Google on the App Store Add an email account to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch - Apple Support DM-50D - Pioneer DJ - USA Turntables, Home Theater Surround Sound Speaker Systems and Home Audio Products | Fluance MacBook Pro 13" Retina Display Late 2013 Keyboard Replacement - iFixit Repair Guide Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU - Gold - Apple Wyze Cam v3 | Wired Security Camera How to reset your Wyze Cam v3 – Wyze Amazon.com: 20Pcs Mounting Plastic Pins for Intel LGA 775 Socket CPU Cooler Heatsink Fans : Electronics LGA 1366/Socket B Computer Fan/Heatsink Brackets and Accessories for sale | eBay TCL Support Amazon.com: Amazon Brand - Solimo 99% Isopropyl Alcohol For Technical Use, 16 Fl Oz (Pack of 12) : Health & Household SimpliSafe Home Security Systems | Wireless Home Security Alarms Keypads drain batteries in 1 week | SimpliSafe Community Use our built-in browser in QuickBooks Desktop Invoice and Accounting Software for Small Businesses - FreshBooks What's The Worst Thing About Having A Food Processor? | Giz Wiz Biz Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Mikah Sargent, Scott Wilkinson, Johnny Jet, and Dick DeBartolo Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Show notes and links for this episode are available at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy/episodes/1907 Download or subscribe to this show at: https://twit.tv/shows/all-twittv-shows Sponsors: UserWay.org/twit meraki.cisco.com/twit itpro.tv/twit promo code TWIT30
Setting up mail and contact sync on an iPhone. Replacing or repairing a MacBook Pro with a malfunctioning keyboard. Troubleshooting Wyze Cam connectivity issues. Sourcing parts for a custom-built PC. Using online manuals for family tech support. Unclogging an InkJet printer's printheads. Troubleshooting battery drain for a SimpliSafe keypad. Logging in to Gmail on an iPhone. Finding a replacement for Quickbooks. Plus, conversations with Johnny Jet, Scott Wilkinson, and Dick Debartolo. Ignoring the Jan. 6 hearings? Michael Luttig explains why you shouldn't. - The Washington Post @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) / Twitter Gmail - Email by Google on the App Store Add an email account to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch - Apple Support DM-50D - Pioneer DJ - USA Turntables, Home Theater Surround Sound Speaker Systems and Home Audio Products | Fluance MacBook Pro 13" Retina Display Late 2013 Keyboard Replacement - iFixit Repair Guide Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU - Gold - Apple Wyze Cam v3 | Wired Security Camera How to reset your Wyze Cam v3 – Wyze Amazon.com: 20Pcs Mounting Plastic Pins for Intel LGA 775 Socket CPU Cooler Heatsink Fans : Electronics LGA 1366/Socket B Computer Fan/Heatsink Brackets and Accessories for sale | eBay TCL Support Amazon.com: Amazon Brand - Solimo 99% Isopropyl Alcohol For Technical Use, 16 Fl Oz (Pack of 12) : Health & Household SimpliSafe Home Security Systems | Wireless Home Security Alarms Keypads drain batteries in 1 week | SimpliSafe Community Use our built-in browser in QuickBooks Desktop Invoice and Accounting Software for Small Businesses - FreshBooks What's The Worst Thing About Having A Food Processor? | Giz Wiz Biz Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Mikah Sargent, Scott Wilkinson, Johnny Jet, and Dick DeBartolo Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Show notes and links for this episode are available at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy/episodes/1907 Download or subscribe to this show at: https://twit.tv/shows/radio-leo Sponsors: UserWay.org/twit meraki.cisco.com/twit itpro.tv/twit promo code TWIT30
Setting up mail and contact sync on an iPhone. Replacing or repairing a MacBook Pro with a malfunctioning keyboard. Troubleshooting Wyze Cam connectivity issues. Sourcing parts for a custom-built PC. Using online manuals for family tech support. Unclogging an InkJet printer's printheads. Troubleshooting battery drain for a SimpliSafe keypad. Logging in to Gmail on an iPhone. Finding a replacement for Quickbooks. Plus, conversations with Johnny Jet, Scott Wilkinson, and Dick Debartolo. Ignoring the Jan. 6 hearings? Michael Luttig explains why you shouldn't. - The Washington Post @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) / Twitter Gmail - Email by Google on the App Store Add an email account to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch - Apple Support DM-50D - Pioneer DJ - USA Turntables, Home Theater Surround Sound Speaker Systems and Home Audio Products | Fluance MacBook Pro 13" Retina Display Late 2013 Keyboard Replacement - iFixit Repair Guide Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU - Gold - Apple Wyze Cam v3 | Wired Security Camera How to reset your Wyze Cam v3 – Wyze Amazon.com: 20Pcs Mounting Plastic Pins for Intel LGA 775 Socket CPU Cooler Heatsink Fans : Electronics LGA 1366/Socket B Computer Fan/Heatsink Brackets and Accessories for sale | eBay TCL Support Amazon.com: Amazon Brand - Solimo 99% Isopropyl Alcohol For Technical Use, 16 Fl Oz (Pack of 12) : Health & Household SimpliSafe Home Security Systems | Wireless Home Security Alarms Keypads drain batteries in 1 week | SimpliSafe Community Use our built-in browser in QuickBooks Desktop Invoice and Accounting Software for Small Businesses - FreshBooks What's The Worst Thing About Having A Food Processor? | Giz Wiz Biz Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Mikah Sargent, Scott Wilkinson, Johnny Jet, and Dick DeBartolo Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Show notes and links for this episode are available at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy/episodes/1907 Download or subscribe to this show at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy Sponsors: UserWay.org/twit meraki.cisco.com/twit itpro.tv/twit promo code TWIT30
Setting up mail and contact sync on an iPhone. Replacing or repairing a MacBook Pro with a malfunctioning keyboard. Troubleshooting Wyze Cam connectivity issues. Sourcing parts for a custom-built PC. Using online manuals for family tech support. Unclogging an InkJet printer's printheads. Troubleshooting battery drain for a SimpliSafe keypad. Logging in to Gmail on an iPhone. Finding a replacement for Quickbooks. Plus, conversations with Johnny Jet, Scott Wilkinson, and Dick Debartolo. Ignoring the Jan. 6 hearings? Michael Luttig explains why you shouldn't. - The Washington Post @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) / Twitter Gmail - Email by Google on the App Store Add an email account to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch - Apple Support DM-50D - Pioneer DJ - USA Turntables, Home Theater Surround Sound Speaker Systems and Home Audio Products | Fluance MacBook Pro 13" Retina Display Late 2013 Keyboard Replacement - iFixit Repair Guide Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU - Gold - Apple Wyze Cam v3 | Wired Security Camera How to reset your Wyze Cam v3 – Wyze Amazon.com: 20Pcs Mounting Plastic Pins for Intel LGA 775 Socket CPU Cooler Heatsink Fans : Electronics LGA 1366/Socket B Computer Fan/Heatsink Brackets and Accessories for sale | eBay TCL Support Amazon.com: Amazon Brand - Solimo 99% Isopropyl Alcohol For Technical Use, 16 Fl Oz (Pack of 12) : Health & Household SimpliSafe Home Security Systems | Wireless Home Security Alarms Keypads drain batteries in 1 week | SimpliSafe Community Use our built-in browser in QuickBooks Desktop Invoice and Accounting Software for Small Businesses - FreshBooks What's The Worst Thing About Having A Food Processor? | Giz Wiz Biz Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Mikah Sargent, Scott Wilkinson, Johnny Jet, and Dick DeBartolo Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Show notes and links for this episode are available at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy/episodes/1907 Download or subscribe to this show at: https://twit.tv/shows/all-twittv-shows Sponsors: UserWay.org/twit meraki.cisco.com/twit itpro.tv/twit promo code TWIT30
Setting up mail and contact sync on an iPhone. Replacing or repairing a MacBook Pro with a malfunctioning keyboard. Troubleshooting Wyze Cam connectivity issues. Sourcing parts for a custom-built PC. Using online manuals for family tech support. Unclogging an InkJet printer's printheads. Troubleshooting battery drain for a SimpliSafe keypad. Logging in to Gmail on an iPhone. Finding a replacement for Quickbooks. Plus, conversations with Johnny Jet, Scott Wilkinson, and Dick Debartolo. Ignoring the Jan. 6 hearings? Michael Luttig explains why you shouldn't. - The Washington Post @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) / Twitter Gmail - Email by Google on the App Store Add an email account to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch - Apple Support DM-50D - Pioneer DJ - USA Turntables, Home Theater Surround Sound Speaker Systems and Home Audio Products | Fluance MacBook Pro 13" Retina Display Late 2013 Keyboard Replacement - iFixit Repair Guide Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU - Gold - Apple Wyze Cam v3 | Wired Security Camera How to reset your Wyze Cam v3 – Wyze Amazon.com: 20Pcs Mounting Plastic Pins for Intel LGA 775 Socket CPU Cooler Heatsink Fans : Electronics LGA 1366/Socket B Computer Fan/Heatsink Brackets and Accessories for sale | eBay TCL Support Amazon.com: Amazon Brand - Solimo 99% Isopropyl Alcohol For Technical Use, 16 Fl Oz (Pack of 12) : Health & Household SimpliSafe Home Security Systems | Wireless Home Security Alarms Keypads drain batteries in 1 week | SimpliSafe Community Use our built-in browser in QuickBooks Desktop Invoice and Accounting Software for Small Businesses - FreshBooks What's The Worst Thing About Having A Food Processor? | Giz Wiz Biz Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Mikah Sargent, Scott Wilkinson, Johnny Jet, and Dick DeBartolo Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Show notes and links for this episode are available at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy/episodes/1907 Download or subscribe to this show at: https://twit.tv/shows/total-mikah Sponsors: UserWay.org/twit meraki.cisco.com/twit itpro.tv/twit promo code TWIT30
Setting up mail and contact sync on an iPhone. Replacing or repairing a MacBook Pro with a malfunctioning keyboard. Troubleshooting Wyze Cam connectivity issues. Sourcing parts for a custom-built PC. Using online manuals for family tech support. Unclogging an InkJet printer's printheads. Troubleshooting battery drain for a SimpliSafe keypad. Logging in to Gmail on an iPhone. Finding a replacement for Quickbooks. Plus, conversations with Johnny Jet, Scott Wilkinson, and Dick Debartolo. Ignoring the Jan. 6 hearings? Michael Luttig explains why you shouldn't. - The Washington Post @judgeluttig (@judgeluttig) / Twitter Gmail - Email by Google on the App Store Add an email account to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch - Apple Support DM-50D - Pioneer DJ - USA Turntables, Home Theater Surround Sound Speaker Systems and Home Audio Products | Fluance MacBook Pro 13" Retina Display Late 2013 Keyboard Replacement - iFixit Repair Guide Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air Apple M1 Chip with 8‑Core CPU and 7‑Core GPU - Gold - Apple Wyze Cam v3 | Wired Security Camera How to reset your Wyze Cam v3 – Wyze Amazon.com: 20Pcs Mounting Plastic Pins for Intel LGA 775 Socket CPU Cooler Heatsink Fans : Electronics LGA 1366/Socket B Computer Fan/Heatsink Brackets and Accessories for sale | eBay TCL Support Amazon.com: Amazon Brand - Solimo 99% Isopropyl Alcohol For Technical Use, 16 Fl Oz (Pack of 12) : Health & Household SimpliSafe Home Security Systems | Wireless Home Security Alarms Keypads drain batteries in 1 week | SimpliSafe Community Use our built-in browser in QuickBooks Desktop Invoice and Accounting Software for Small Businesses - FreshBooks What's The Worst Thing About Having A Food Processor? | Giz Wiz Biz Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Mikah Sargent, Scott Wilkinson, Johnny Jet, and Dick DeBartolo Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Show notes and links for this episode are available at: https://twit.tv/shows/the-tech-guy/episodes/1907 Download or subscribe to this show at: https://twit.tv/shows/radio-leo Sponsors: UserWay.org/twit meraki.cisco.com/twit itpro.tv/twit promo code TWIT30
On this Thursday episode of THE POLITICRAT daily podcast: The grim, chilling January 6th committee testimony of former federal 4th circuit judge J. Michael Luttig, a Federalist judge and staunch conservative Republican. Plus: The responsibility of U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict and prosecute Republican politicians who are traitors. Plus: The Golden State Warriors are NBA champions for the fourth time in eight years. Also: Stop cheerleading Republicans who do the bare minimum, and stop now. June 16, 2022. Register to vote NOW: https://vote.org The ENOUGH/END GUN VIOLENCE t-shirts on sale here: https://bit.ly/3zsVDFU Donate to the Man Up Organization: https://manupinc.org FREE: SUBSCRIBE NOW TO THE BRAND NEW POLITICRAT DAILY PODCAST NEWSLETTER!! Extra content, audio, analysis, exclusive essays for subscribers only, plus special offers and discounts on merchandise at The Politicrat Daily Podcast online store. Something new and informative EVERY DAY!! Subscribe FREE at https://politicrat.substack.com Buy podcast merchandise (all designed by Omar Moore) and lots more at The Politicrat Daily Podcast Store: https://the-politicrat.myshopify.com The Politicrat YouTube page: bit.ly/3bfWk6V The Politicrat Facebook page: bit.ly/3bU1O7c The Politicrat blog: https://politicrat.politics.blog Join Omar on Fanbase NOW! Download the Fanbase social media app today. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE to this to this podcast! Follow/tweet Omar at: https://twitter.com/thepopcornreel
Today we're bringing you another episode of Lawfare No Bull, a podcast featuring primary source audio from the world of national security law and policy. Today's episode features audio of the third of a series of public hearings held by the House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The committee heard in-person testimony from former Vice President Pence's general counsel Greg Jacob and retired federal judge Michael Luttig. Learn more and subscribe to Lawfare No Bull.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
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.
SPONSOR: https://www.adammale.com USE OFFER CODE: DEWEY AT CHECK-OUT FOR 50% OFF OF ALMOST ANY ONE ITEM & FREE/DISCREET SHIPPING! SPONSOR: http://webhostingpad.com/ Get 20% off by using code deweyshow at checkout! Business banking, open an account, we both get $$$! https://app.nearside.com/bba/signup?referralCode=6DoSdf LEAVE A VOICEMAIL: (202) 335-8533 ARE YOU INTERESTED IN SPONSORING The Dewey show™? LEARN MORE: https://bit.ly/3GERhfi Join The Dewey show™ Patreon!: http://join.dews.news/ MAKE A ONE TIME DONATION TO THE SHOW: https://cash.app/$Deweyshow STORE: https://bit.ly/3mATTDJ THE DEWEY SHOW: LISTEN/SOCIAL MEDIA https://bit.ly/3rYRLc8 https://bit.ly/2ZN1xSO SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/deweyshow Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deweyshow Personal Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dewtheright Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/deweyshow TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@deweyshow CONTACT: info@dews.news SOURCES Hon. Michael Luttig
Die derde openbare verhoor van die gekose komitee wat die opstand op 6 Januarie ondersoek het gefokus op die gevaar waarin oud-president Donald Trump se adjunk, Mike Pence in was. Trump het baie druk op Pence geplaas om hom in die kongres as president te verklaar. Trump se ondersteuners het ook herhaaldelik geskree dat Pence gehang moet word en het ‘n galg buite Capitol Hill opgerig. Die konserwatiewe oud-regter Michael Luttig sê sou Pence Trump verklaar het, sou dit ‘n revolusie veroorsaak het.
Donald Trump's extraordinary effort to overturn his 2020 election defeat came into ever-clearer focus Thursday, with testimony describing his pressuring Vice President Mike Pence in vulgar private taunts and public entreaties to stop the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the run-up to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.Trump's closest advisers viewed his last-ditch efforts to halt congressional certification of his loss as “nuts,” “crazy” and even likely to incite riots if Pence followed through, witnesses revealed in stark testimony Thursday.The panel revealed how Trump put his vice president in danger as Pence was presiding over a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, when the defeated president sent his supporters to the Capitol to “fight like hell” over his false claims of a fraudulent election.Rioters came within 40 feet of the place at the Capitol where Pence and others had been evacuated. Never-before-shown photos showed Pence and his team sheltering.“He deserves to be burned with the rest of them,” one rioter is heard saying on video as the mob prepares to storm the iconic building.“Pence betrayed us,” says another rioter, wearing a Make America Great Again hat in a selfie video inside the Capitol.Pence's counsel Greg Jacob testified that he could “hear the din” of the rioters nearby. Asked if Trump ever checked on Pence during the siege, Jacob said, “He did not.”With live testimony and other evidence from its yearlong investigation, the panel held its third hearing this month aiming to demonstrate that Trump's repeated false claims and desperate attempt to stay in power led directly to the Capitol insurrection.All told, the committee is pulling together a dark portrait of the end of Trump's presidency as the defeated Republican was left grasping for alternatives as courts turned back dozens of lawsuits challenging the vote.Trump latched onto conservative law professor John Eastman's obscure plan to defy historical precedent of the Electoral Count Act and reverse Joe Biden's victory.Trump aides and allies warned bluntly in private about his efforts, even as some publicly continued to stand by the president's false election claims. Nine people died in the insurrection and its aftermath.“Are you out of your effing mind?” Eric Herschmann, a lawyer advising Trump, told Eastman in recorded testimony shown at the hearing.“You're going to turn around and tell 78-plus million people in this country that your theory is, this is how you're going to invalidate their votes?” Herschmann said. He warned, “You're going to cause riots in the streets.”A text message from Fox News' Sean Hannity to Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows about the plan in the run-up to Jan. 6 read, "I'm very worried about the next 48 hours."Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller said those around Trump called the plan “crazy.”The committee has said the plan was illegal, and a federal judge has said “more likely than not” Trump committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification.Eastman later sought to be “on the pardon list,” according to an email he sent to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, shared by the committee.In a social media post Thursday, Trump decried the hearings anew as a “witch hunt," lambasted coverage by “the Fake News Networks” and exclaimed, “I DEMAND EQUAL TIME!!!”On Capitol Hill, panel Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., cited Pence's own words that there was “almost no idea more un-American” than the one he was being asked to follow — reject Americans' votes.By refusing Trump's demands, Pence “did his duty,” said the panel's vice-chair, Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming.The panel heard from Jacob, the vice president's counsel who fended off Eastman's ideas for Pence, and retired federal judge Michael Luttig, who called the plan from Eastman, his former law clerk, "incorrect at every turn.”Jacob said it became clear to Pence from the start that the founding fathers did not intend to empower any one pers...
The committee centered its third hearing around one person in particular: former Vice President Mike Pence, honing in on the pressure put on him by former President Trump to overturn the 2020 election. Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney began the hearing by saying: "What the president wanted the vice president to do was not just wrong. It was illegal and unconstitutional." The hearing featured live testimony from two Pence legal advisors, Greg Jacob and retired fourth circuit judge Michael Luttig.Read more: https://www.npr.org/1105513685This episode: Voting correspondent Miles Parks, congressional reporter Claudia Grisales and senior political editor and correspondent Ron Elving.Support the show and unlock sponsor-free listening with a subscription to The NPR Politics Podcast Plus. Learn more at plus.npr.org/politics Connect:Email the show at nprpolitics@npr.orgJoin the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio station.
A State Court sensibly says elephants aren't people. But when a court case is filed, it gives legitimacy to an argument no matter how fetched. Also, Former United States Circuit Judge and conservative icon Michael Luttig lets the January 6 commission know that Donald Trump is still a clear and present Danger. Plus, former Barak Obama Aid and Pod Save America host Dan Pfeiffer joins us to discuss if jettisoning objectivity helps us all and where he places his podcasting endeavors in the media firmament. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As the congressional hearings for the events of January 6, 2021, continue, we'll hear from The Honorable J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as he recounts a story of his historical tweet that contributed to Vice President Mike Pence's decision to certify the results of the 2020 election, along with his reflections on how to prevent another January 6. He's then joined by three experts—Ned Foley of The Ohio State University, Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute—who are each leading a team on a bipartisan project for the National Constitution Center, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy. They discuss other potential reforms including whether changes should be made to the Electoral Count Act and preview their forthcoming reports for the project, which will be published later this summer. Together, our panelists consider ways to strengthen American constitutional and democratic institutions against current and future threats. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was originally part of a live, private event hosted by the National Constitution Center in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded in May 2022 with permission from the speakers. The Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project is made possible with the support of Mike and Jackie Bezos. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
David Waldman and Greg Dworkin are here today for your KITM pre-hearing briefing. No one lies like Georgia Republican Barry Loudermilk, at least no one innocent. Loudermilk promises to stop lying, soon, right after this one more, maybe two… The photos showing Barry leading tourists around to Capitol security points, tunnels, stairwells, exits, etc. were problematic enough, but there's also the footage of one of those tourists on January 6 talking about assaulting members of the Congress and Senate with other, armed, tourists. Oh, you were you talking about that tour? OOPS! The Proud Boys planned to occupy Capitol buildings on January 6. An actual written-out plan. By the way, who planted those pipe bombs? Steve KG Bannon is a habitual criminal, who lies constantly, and has plenty to hide. John Eastman says there was a heated fight in the Supreme Court about whether to intervene in the 2020 elections. Eastman is probably lying, after all that's his job. One thing is true, Eastman was rooting for riots on January 6. Staunch conservative, retired federal Judge, J. Michael Luttig is testifying today that January 6 was a “well-developed plan” by Trump Donald Trump begs to be sworn in by the committee to testify under oath immediately. Donald did say a thing or two in the past, but is he really a criminal? David is so glad that you asked that question! The Otero County, New Mexico Board of County Commissioners has gone off the deep end for the Big Lie, but what are they going to do, throw them in jail? If the FBI is looking for extremist ringleaders, they should check on who's running for office. Reporters know American democracy is under threat, but don't know where to focus their cameras. Dr. Anthony Fauci told you that stuff was contagious, didn't he?
As the congressional hearings for the events of January 6, 2021, continue, we'll hear from The Honorable J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as he recounts a story of his historical tweet that contributed to Vice President Mike Pence's decision to certify the results of the 2020 election, along with his reflections on how to prevent another January 6. He's then joined by three experts—Ned Foley of The Ohio State University, Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute—who are each leading a team on a bipartisan project for the National Constitution Center, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy. They discuss other potential reforms including whether changes should be made to the Electoral Count Act and preview their forthcoming reports for the project, which will be published later this summer. Together, our panelists consider ways to strengthen American constitutional and democratic institutions against current and future threats. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was originally part of a live, private event hosted by the National Constitution Center in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded in May 2022 with permission from the speakers. The Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project is made possible with the support of Mike and Jackie Bezos. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
People are flocking to pools, beaches and cooling centers in a swath of the Midwest and South spanning from northern Florida to the Great Lakes, as a heat wave pushed temperatures into the 90s and beyond and may have caused the deaths of at least two people in the Milwaukee area. The National Weather Service maintained an excessive heat warning through Wednesday evening for most of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, which have been dealing with the sticky humidity and soaring temperatures since Tuesday. And the heat advisory in place for the Midwest and South stretched all the way eastward to the South Carolina shoreline, covering an area that is home to roughly a third of the country's population. The Jan. 6 committee is plunging into Donald Trump's last-ditch effort to salvage the 2020 election by pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to reject the electoral count — powers Pence didn't have. Thursday's hearing is expected to focus on how Trump latched onto a strategy from conservative law professor John Eastman to pressure Pence days before the vice president was to preside over the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to certify Joe Biden's election victory. Testimony is expected from the vice president's counsel, Greg Jacob, and a retired federal judge, Michael Luttig, who called the plan “incorrect at every turn.” Two U.S. veterans from Alabama who were in Ukraine assisting in the war against Russia haven't been heard from in days and are missing. Members of the state's congressional delegation say relatives of 27-year-old Andy Tai Ngoc Huynh of Trinity and 39-year-old Alexander Drueke of Tuscaloosa have been in contact with Capitol Hill offices seeking information about the men's whereabouts. The U.S. State Department says it is looking into reports that Russian or Russian-backed separatist forces in Ukraine had captured at least two American citizens. If confirmed, they would be the first Americans fighting for Ukraine known to have been captured since the war began Feb. 24. After five weeks of declining coronavirus deaths, the number of fatalities reported globally increased by 4% last week, according to the World Health Organization. In its weekly assessment of the pandemic issued on Thursday, the U.N. health agency said there were 8,700 COVID-19 deaths last week, with a 21% jump in the Americas and a 17% increase in the Western Pacific. WHO said coronavirus cases continued to fall, with about 3.2 million new cases reported last week, extending a decline in COVID-19 infections since a peak in January. A fisherman confessed to killing a British journalist and an Indigenous expert in Brazil's remote Amazon and took police to a site where human remains were recovered, a federal investigator said, after a grim 10-day search for the missing pair. Authorities said Wednesday night that they expected to make more arrests soon in the case of freelance reporter Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira of Brazil, who disappeared June 5. A federal police investigator says the fisherman who had been the prime suspect confessed Tuesday night and detailed what happened to Phillips and Pereira. Investigator Eduardo Alexandre Fontes says Amarildo da Costa de Oliveira told officers he used a firearm to kill the pair and then led them deep into the forest to the spot where he buried them. The Avalanche top the Lightning in OT, the Astros clobber the Rangers, the Yankees and Braves win again, the Brewers get a record win for their manager and the Dodgers just miss a no-hitter. The Federal Reserve intensified its drive to tame high inflation by raising its key interest rate by three-quarters of a point — its largest hike in nearly three decades — and signaling more large rate increases to come that would raise the risk of another recession. The move the Fed announced after its latest policy meeting will increase its benchmark short-term rate, which affects many consumer and business loans. The central bank is ramping up its drive to tighten credit and slow growth with inflation having reached a four-decade high of 8.6%, spreading to more areas of the economy and showing no sign of slowing. The gunman who is accused of killing 10 Black people in a racist attack at a Buffalo supermarket has been charged with federal hate crimes that could potentially carry a death penalty. The filing of the new charges against 18-year-old Payton Gendron on Monday coincided with a visit to Buffalo by Attorney General Merrick Garland. He is due in court on Thursday. Garland met with families and laid flowers at a memorial outside the Tops Friendly Market. Investigators say Gendron's radical, racist worldview and extensive preparation for the May 14 mass shooting are laid out in online documents. Garland said “families and the survivors will be consulted” as the Justice Department weighs whether to seek capital punishment. Gendron's lawyer declined to comment. Officials say a Michigan police officer charged with murder after shooting Patrick Lyoya in the back of the head has been fired. Grand Rapids City Manager Mark Washington said Wednesday that Christopher Schurr waived his right to a hearing and was dismissed, effective last Friday. Schurr was a Grand Rapids officer for seven years. Police Chief Eric Winstrom recommended Schurr's dismissal after a second-degree murder charge was filed Thursday. Lyoya, a Black man, was killed at the end of a traffic stop on April 4. He ran and physically resisted Schurr after failing to produce a driver's license. Schurr, who is white, has claimed Lyoya had control of his Taser when he shot him. Defense lawyers say the officer feared for his safety. The U.S. says it will send an additional $1 billion in military aid to Ukraine, as America and its allies work to provide longer-range weapons they say can make a difference in a fight where Ukrainian forces are outnumbered and outgunned by their Russian invaders. President Joe Biden and his top national security leaders say the U.S. is moving as fast as possible to get critical weapons into the fight, even as Ukrainian officials protest that they need more, and faster, in order to survive. The aid will include anti-ship missile launchers, howitzers and more rounds for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems that U.S. forces are training Ukrainian troops on now. John Hinckley Jr. has been freed from court oversight. The action ends decades of supervision by legal and mental health professionals. Hinckley shot and wounded President Ronald Reagan in 1981. The European Central Bank has vowed to come up with a new, unspecified market backstop that could be used to buffer some countries against bond market turmoil similar to what shook the 19-country eurozone during a debt crisis more than a decade ago. The statement came after an unscheduled meeting of the bank's governing council Wednesday. It aims to address a selloff in Italian and Spanish government debt in the wake of the bank's decision to start raising interest rates in July for the first time in 11 years. The Environmental Protection Agency is warning that two nonstick and stain-resistant compounds in drinking water pose health risks at levels so low they cannot currently be detected. Most uses of so-called “forever chemicals” known as PFOA and PFOS have been voluntarily phased out by U.S. manufacturers. Americans trimmed their spending unexpectedly in May compared with the month before, underscoring how surging inflation on daily necessities like gas is causing them to be more cautious about buying discretionary items. U.S. retail sales fell 0.3% last month, down from a revised 0.7% increase in April. A third arrest has been made in a mass shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where three people died and 14 were injured. News outlets cited an affidavit filed with the U.S. District Court for Eastern Tennessee in reporting that 31-year-old Rodney Harris was charged Tuesday in federal court with possession of a firearm by a felon. Ford is recalling over 2.9 million vehicles in the U.S. to fix a transmission problem that can increase the risk of inadvertent rollaway crashes. The recall covers certain 2013 to 2019 Escape, 2013 to 2018 C-Max, 2013 to 2016 Fusion, 2013 to 2021 Transit Connect, and 2015 to 2018 Edge vehicles. Automakers reported nearly 400 crashes of vehicles with partially automated driver-assist systems, including 273 involving Teslas, according to new statistics from U.S. safety regulators. —The Associated Press See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In a recent article, Judge J. Michael Luttig warns that the last presidential election was a dry run for the next. As he explains, since 2020, our political leaders have yet to do what is necessary to protect against future efforts to overturn elections. In this Conversation, Luttig, a former United States Circuit judge, discusses the role that he played in January 2021, when he advised Vice President Pence on the Constitutional arguments for resisting President Trump's pressure to overturn the election results. As Luttig wrote and posted on Twitter on January 5, and Vice President Pence cited in his letter on January 6, The only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast... and The Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise. But Luttig stresses that serious dangers and threats remain. Given potential loopholes that might be exploited in the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, it is possible or even likely that future candidates will engage in efforts to subvert elections. Luttig calls for a national effort to protect the integrity of our electoral system, and explains the urgent need to reform the Electoral Count Act to make efforts to overturn elections less likely to succeed.
In a recent article, Judge J. Michael Luttig warns that the last presidential election was a dry run for the next. As he explains, since 2020, our political leaders have yet to do what is necessary to protect against future efforts to overturn elections. In this Conversation, Luttig, a former United States Circuit judge, discusses the role that he played in January 2021, when he advised Vice President Pence on the Constitutional arguments for resisting President Trump's pressure to overturn the election results. As Luttig wrote and posted on Twitter on January 5, and Vice President Pence cited in his letter on January 6, The only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast... and The Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise. But Luttig stresses that serious dangers and threats remain. Given potential loopholes that might be exploited in the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, it is possible or even likely that future candidates will engage in efforts to subvert elections. Luttig calls for a national effort to protect the integrity of our electoral system, and explains the urgent need to reform the Electoral Count Act to make efforts to overturn elections less likely to succeed.
On today's very special episode, we share the exciting events that happened at the National Constitution Center earlier this week. To celebrate the unveiling of the First Amendment tablet—once featured on the facade of the Newseum in Washington, D.C., now at its new home in the Grand Hall Overlook of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia—free speech defenders Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School, former ACLU President Nadine Strossen of New York Law School, and Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education join for a discussion of why the First Amendment matters today. A dedication ceremony with remarks from the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Jan Neuharth, chair and CEO of the Freedom Forum; and Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, follows. This program was presented in celebration of the newly installed First Amendment tablet at the National Constitution Center donated by the Freedom Forum, which works to foster First Amendment freedoms for all. The design and installation of the tablet was made possible by the Honorable J. Michael Luttig and Elizabeth A. Luttig. Watch the program video here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/town-hall-video/why-the-first-amendment-matters-today Read Jeff's remarks here: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/remarks-from-the-first-amendment-tablet-ceremony Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
On today's very special episode, we share the exciting events that happened at the National Constitution Center earlier this week. To celebrate the unveiling of the First Amendment tablet—once featured on the facade of the Newseum in Washington, D.C., now at its new home in the Grand Hall Overlook of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia—free speech defenders Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School, former ACLU President Nadine Strossen of New York Law School, and Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education join for a discussion of why the First Amendment matters today. A dedication ceremony with remarks from the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Jan Neuharth, chair and CEO of the Freedom Forum; and Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, follows. This program was presented in celebration of the newly installed First Amendment tablet at the National Constitution Center donated by the Freedom Forum, which works to foster First Amendment freedoms for all. The design and installation of the tablet was made possible by the Honorable J. Michael Luttig and Elizabeth A. Luttig. Watch the program video here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/town-hall-video/why-the-first-amendment-matters-today Read Jeff's remarks here: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/remarks-from-the-first-amendment-tablet-ceremony Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
On today's very special episode, we share the exciting events that happened at the National Constitution Center earlier this week. To celebrate the unveiling of the First Amendment tablet—once featured on the facade of the Newseum in Washington, D.C., now at its new home in the Grand Hall Overlook of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia—free speech defenders Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School, former ACLU President Nadine Strossen of New York Law School, and Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education join for a discussion of why the First Amendment matters today. A dedication ceremony with remarks from the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Jan Neuharth, chair and CEO of the Freedom Forum; and Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, follows. This program was presented in celebration of the newly installed First Amendment tablet at the National Constitution Center donated by the Freedom Forum, which works to foster First Amendment freedoms for all. The design and installation of the tablet was made possible by the Honorable J. Michael Luttig and Elizabeth A. Luttig. Watch the program video here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/town-hall-video/why-the-first-amendment-matters-today Read Jeff's remarks here: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/remarks-from-the-first-amendment-tablet-ceremony Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
Joy Reid leads this episode of The ReidOut with the observation that Republicans seem to agree 100 percent that they are all in on getting it right, if and when they repeat a coup against our democracy. This is the warning from retired conservative federal judge, J. Michael Luttig. Laurence Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, joins Joy Reid to express his agreement. And, Russian forces struck in the heart of Kyiv on Thursday as UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres wrapped up a meeting with President Zelenskyy. Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman joins Joy Reid to discuss this and more. Plus, yesterday the Oklahoma legislature advanced two bills modeled after the Texas anti-abortion "bounty hunter" law. Paola Ramos, VICE News host and MSNBC contributor, joins us with her analysis. Finally, Joy Reid and her guests mark that it has been 30 years since the LA riots. All this and more in this edition of The ReidOut on MSNBC.
I took the day off yesterday, not to rest up or have fun, but to fight with my health insurance extortionists. For as long as I can remember, I've called our for-profit system of heath noncare "government-sanctioned extortion," because that's the best description of this predatory system. Yesterday, I found out that due to a few elements aligning in just the right way, I'm no longer eligible for the help from the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the more obscenely expensive prescription drug I take nightly that allows me minor relief from the RLS that prevents me from sleeping! So, instead of paying $10 a month (which I've been paying for the past few years), that same prescription will now cost between $700 and $850 or so each month. That's simply money I do not have (and if I did, would go to other expenses currently not being met, certainly not to a price gouging pharmaceutical company!). Anyway, that the Dems have done nothing to fix this pharmaceutical price gouging, the practice continues out of control. But that's not even the nightmare I alluded to at the top of this missive. No, that would be the essay published earlier this week by CNN, written by a very conservative judge who was appointed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals 15 years ago by GW Bush, Michael Luttig. In no uncertain terms, he lays out the ultimate game his party is playing, "The Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election." I'm afraid that Democrats are blind to what's happening right under their eyes, and that we're in serious trouble. So I'll read that commentary at the top of the show. At the bottom of the hour we'll switch tracks, and talk with a woman who knows that ANYTHING is possible! Danica Roem is a delegate in the Virginia House of Delegates.... who, before she made history, described herself as a "trans woman and first-time candidate in a district represented by a Republican for 25 years"... Roem has now held that seat for three terms, making history as the first openly transgender individual serving in any legislature in the country. Her book, released this week, is titled, "Burn the Page: A True Story of Torching Doubts, Blazing Trails and Igniting Change"
Dan reads through and analyzes an Op-Ed published by CNN and written by former Judge J. Michael Luttig called "The Republican Blueprint to Steal the 2024 Election."
For most of his life, J. Michael Luttig has operated behind the scenes at the top of the conservative legal world. He started his career as a young aide at the U.S. Supreme Court, worked as an attorney in the Reagan White House, clerked for Judge Antonin Scalia before he was a legal icon, helped guide the appointment of two other Supreme Court justices, and was appointed to a federal judgeship by President George H.W. Bush. During Luttig's time on the bench, one of his clerks was a young attorney named John Eastman. In recent months, Eastman's name has become inextricably tied to the legal advice he offered to then-President Donald Trump in December 2020 and January 2021: In a now-infamous legal memo, Eastman argued that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the ability to discard certified electoral votes from contested states — a notion that has been roundly debunked, but which Trump's closest allies clung to (and which helped to inspire some of his supporters to storm the Capitol in rage). That story is, by now, well known. But there's another part of the story — one that hasn't been told until now. Today, in his first in-depth interview on the topic, Luttig shares the story of those days before the insurrection, when he was unknowingly enlisted to help Pence reject Trump's efforts on Jan. 6. For “Playbook Deep Dive,” Ryan Lizza talks with Luttig about his advice to Pence then, what needs to be done to rewrite the Electoral Count Act now, and why he's choosing this moment to make his legal commentary loud, clear and very public — in panel discussions and op-eds in publications like The New York Times Ryan Lizza is a Playbook co-author for POLITICO. J. Michael Luttig is a former judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Kara Tabor is a producer for POLITICO audio. Carlos Prieto is a producer for POLITICO audio. Jenny Ament is the senior producer for POLITICO audio.
QUESTION PRESENTED:This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important jurisdictional qNew York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to the States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens' fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense. The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Dec 17 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 22, 2021)Dec 23 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al.Jan 08 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 22, 2021 to February 22, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Jan 11 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 22, 2021.Jan 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation filed.Jan 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Korte Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Korte Tree Care filed.Jan 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of State of Missouri.et al. filed.Jan 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups filed.Feb 12 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Neal Goldfarb filed. (Brief corrected 3/1/21)Feb 22 2021 | Brief of respondents Keith M. Corlett, et al. in opposition filed.Mar 10 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.Mar 10 2021 | Reply of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 29 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.Apr 12 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.Apr 19 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/23/2021.Apr 26 2021 | Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.May 07 2021 | Motion for an extension of time file the briefs on the merits filed.May 11 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 2, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 23, 2021.May 27 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al.Jun 16 2021 | Motion for an further extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jun 25 2021 | Motion to further extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 13, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including September 14, 2021.Jul 09 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty filed.Jul 13 2021 | Brief of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.Jul 13 2021 | Joint appendix filed.Jul 13 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Professors of Second Amendment Law, et al. filed.Jul 14 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.Jul 14 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Bay Colony Weapons Collectors, Inc. filed.Jul 15 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. filed.Jul 15 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Italo-American Jurists and Attorneys filed.Jul 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of National African American Gun Association, Inc. filed.Jul 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep and Bear Arms filed.Jul 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of George K. Young Jr. filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Representative Claudia Tenney and 175 Additional Members of the U.S. House of Representatives filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The DC Project Foundation; Operation Blazing Sword—Pink Pistols; Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Patrick J. Charles in support of neither party filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of J. Joel Alicea filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Constitutional Rights Union filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Independent Institute filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of State of Arizona, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Governor of Texas filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Liberal Gun Club and Commonwealth Second Amendment filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Heller Foundation filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of William English, Ph.D. and The Center for Human Liberty filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Second Amendment Foundation, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Lambert Henry, Russell Davenport, and Peter Fusco filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United States Senator Ted Cruz, and 24 Other U.S. Senators filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Foundation for Gun Rights and National Association for Gun Rights filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Black Guns Matter, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Robert Leider and Nelson Lund, and the Buckeye Firearms Association filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of FPC American Victory Fund, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Madison Society Foundation, Inc. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Goldwater Institute filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Firearms Policy Coalition and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Independent Women's Law Center filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of California Gun Rights Foundation filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Second Amendment Law Professors in support of neither party filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Crime Prevention Research Center filed.Aug 16 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, November 3, 2021.Sep 01 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.Sep 01 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit has been electronically filed.Sep 01 2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. Northern District of New York has been electronically filed.Sep 13 2021 | Brief amici curiae of J. Michael Luttig, et al. filed.Sep 14 2021 | Brief of Kevin P. Bruen, et al. not accepted for filing. (September 15, 2021)Sep 14 2021 | Brief of respondents Kevin P. Bruen, et al. filed.Sep 14 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Neal Goldfarb filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of League of Women Voters filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Amnesty International USA, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | CIRCULATEDSep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Everytown for Gun Safety filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Violence Policy Center filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former Major City Police Chiefs filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Americans Against Gun Violence filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United States Senators Charles E. Schumer, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. and National Urban League filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of City of New York filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Medical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Professors of History and Law filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of New York County Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former National Security Officials filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of March For Our Lives Action Fund filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Brady filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of City of Chicago and Eleven Other Cities filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Citizens Crime Commission of New York City filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Members of the Business Community filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Partnership for New York City filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of John Elson filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Amicus brief of The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and 35 Other Organizations not accepted for filing. (September 29, 2021 - Corrected version submitted).Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and 35 Other Organizations filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Social Scientists and Public Health Researchers in Support of Respondents filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Amicus brief of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence not accepted for filing. (Compliant PDF version submitted October 25, 2021)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence filed. (Distributed)Sep 23 2021 | Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by Criminal Legal Scholars.Oct 12 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Oct 12 2021 | Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by Criminal Legal Scholars GRANTED.Oct 14 2021 | Reply of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 18 2021 | The time for oral argument is allotted as follows: 35 minutes for petitioners, 20 minutes for respondents, and 15 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General.Nov 03 2021 | Argued. For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, New York, N. Y.; and Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
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
