Connect with us

News

Harvard Law Professor Brilliantly Debunks the Defense of Trump’s Push for Voters to Vote Twice

Published

on

After spending months making the baseless claim that mail-in voting is bad because it promotes voter fraud, President Donald Trump encouraged voter fraud this week when he recommended that voters in North Carolina vote twice in order to test election security in that state. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, called out the utter lunacy of Trump’s suggestion by pointing out that breaking into a bank to test its alarm system would be a major crime.

Speaking at the Wilmington International Airport in North Carolina, Trump suggested that voters mail in their ballots and then see if they can also vote by mail after that — which, he argued, would be a good way to test election security.

“So, let them send it in and let them go vote — and if their system’s as good as they say it is, then obviously, they won’t be able to vote,” Trump said. “If it isn’t tabulated, they’ll be able to vote.”

Of course, voting by mail and then trying to vote in person in the same election is flat-out illegal. Tribe, on Twitter, posted that “I was just testing whether this state can detect voter fraud when I showed up to vote a second time” would be “about as good a defense as ‘I broke into the bank just to test whether it has a good alarm system.’”

Tribe also tweeted, “Memo to Mr. Trump: You’re committing a felony by urging North Carolinians to cast illegal second votes. Not that you care.”

Tribe wasn’t the only legal expert or political voice to weigh in on Trump’s very bad recommendation. Here’s what others had to say on Twitter:

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

29 Months Later Bill Barr’s Super Secret Russia Special Counsel Files His Second Indictment – for Alleged Lying

Published

on

In April of 2019 then-Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut to open and lead an investigation into Russia – not into how Russia has been attacking the United States via cyber warfare, undermining Americans’ trust in American institutions, and using social media to do it, but into whether or not the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been warranted in opening an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, including its investigation of Donald Trump.

On Thursday, 29 months after Barr first appointed John Durham (photo, right) to lead that super-secret investigation, 11 months after Barr secretly turned Durham into a special counsel to ensure the investigation would continue past his and Trump’s tenure, and after spending untold millions of taxpayer dollars, the Dept. of Justice has announced Durham has obtained a second indictment.

“A prominent cybersecurity lawyer was indicted on a charge of lying to the F.B.I. five years ago during a meeting about Donald J. Trump and Russia, the Justice Department announced on Thursday,” The New York Times reports.

The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, “of the law firm Perkins Coie, which has deep ties to the Democratic Party — is accused of making a false statement about his client at the meeting.”

Mr. Sussmann’s defense lawyers have denied the accusation, saying that he did not make a false statement, that the evidence he did is weak and that who he was representing was not a material fact in any case. They have vowed to fight any charge in court.

At issue is who was Sussman working for when he “relayed concerns by cybersecurity researchers who believed that unusual internet data might be evidence of a covert communications channel between computer servers associated with the Trump Organization and with Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked Russian financial institution.”

Apparently not at issue is if the Trump Organization or campaign had a secret communications channel to a Kremlin-linked organization.

Frequent viewers of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow are likely familiar with her reporting on Alfa Bank, including this segment from October 2018:

Durham has not obtained any indictment against anyone in Russia, any Russian operatives, any Trump Organization or campaign official, or anyone who may have been involved in Russia’s attack on the United States.

The only other indictment Durham has obtained from his two-plus year investigation? The Times in 2019 reported on a “low-level” FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who “altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap,” on Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor.

One expert calls the indictment “weak.”

 

Continue Reading

News

Newly Unredacted Documents Reveal a Litany of Allegations Against Pompeo, His Wife, and State Dept. Staffers

Published

on

Newly unredacted records from a whistleblower complaint in the State Department have shed light on more allegations against former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and members of his former staff.

According to documents obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Pompeo and others were accused of misconduct.

The publication reports: “The alleged misconduct included false or misleading statements to the agency’s legal department, misuse of government resources on personal and political activities potentially prohibited by the Hatch Act, verbal abuse of employees by Mike and Susan Pompeo and directives to staff not to communicate in writing in order to evade transparency laws.”

The unredacted documents come two years after the redacted version of the whistleblower complaint was filed with the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is said to have excluded many of the previous redactions in the version of the documents released to CREW.

“The complaint alleges “[s]everal senior career Foreign Service officials who held positions of responsibility within the Executive Secretariat” turned a blind eye to Pompeo’s “questionable activities” and, in some cases, “facilitat[ed]” them, according to CREW.

Employees in the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser “expressed concern that some of these activities may have violated [the] Hatch Act or other regulations,” but the whistleblower was “unaware that any resolution was reached, potentially because senior officials in the Executive Secretariat repeatedly declined to seek clarification or guidance from [the Office of the Legal Adviser] despite requests from subordinates to do so.”

The new documents also detail the aftermath of former Inspector Steve Linick’s removal from his post, which was part of a larger Trump-led effort to oust inspectors. The report also indicated that staff members were “stunned” by the directive.

“[T]his is all so surreal three days later. I’m nervous about the future,” the OIG employee wrote in a May 18, 2020 email. In a later email, the official added, “I just heard Trump say we needed to get rid of the ‘Attorney Generals’ as a whole…Oh dear.”

CREW has also received other documentation as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit aimed at uncovering information about Pompeo’s attempts to hinder the investigation into the allegations of misconduct against him.

Continue Reading

News

‘This Is Crazy’: Dem Blasts GOP for Attacking Milley – a Trump-Ordered Nuclear Strike Would Have Been ‘Illegal’

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) is going on the offensive against Republicans, conservatives, and media attacks against the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, over reports he assembled top Pentagon officials and made them vow to not launch a nuclear strike without him being part of the “procedure.” Gen. Milley also spoke with his counterpart in China assuring them the U.S. would not launch an attack in the crazed, waning days of the Trump presidency.

Calling it “crazy,” Congressman Lieu, an Air Force Colonel who serves in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) reserves, says it would have been illegal for then-President Donald Trump to launch a “rogue nuclear first strike” without provocation. He’s calling on the press to “slam” Republicans for wrongly saying Trump should have been able to:

Congressman Lieu, who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was asked why it would be illegal. Lieu had an easy answer:

Earlier in the week, responding to a tweet from Naval War College Professor of National Security Affairs, Tom Nichols, Congressman Lieu made the same point:

And urged passage of his legislation making it more difficult for a rogue president to launch nuclear weapons:

Related:

Psaki Nukes Former President and Republicans Attacking ‘Patriot’ Gen. Milley: Trump Was ‘Fomenting an Insurrection’

Top National Security Attorney Shuts Down Trump’s Claim Gen. Milley Committed ‘Treason’ in Just Four Words

‘National Emergency’: Experts Warn After Bombshell Report Reveals Top General Feared Trump Would Stage Military Coup

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.