2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[N.E. Brigand]

Actually, the charges pending against Paxton are state securities fraud charges, not federal charges. So a pardon is not going to do him any good with regard to the existing charges. As for the bribery allegations, who knows what will happen with those; they should also lead to state charges, but since he is the head of Texas's judicial system currently, that seems unlikely.

Oops. I apologize for the error, and I thank you for the correction. I was confusing the two federal civil enforcement actions filed by the SEC against Paxton in 2016 and 2017, both of which were dismissed (the second time with prejudice), with the state criminal charges filed in 2015 against Paxton for the same conduct. Charges for which he has yet to go on trial, five years later.

Since this thread is still active for other reasons, I'll use it to note that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today reached a $3.3 million settlement with four former employees who had reported to the FBI about possible crimes that Paxton may have committed.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[N.E. Brigand]

NBC today joined CBS in reporting that Donald Trump plans to try and claim executive privilege.

The thing is, Mike Pence could end this simply by saying, "I don't care if the former president has invoked executive privilege, because even if the court upholds that privilege, I'm still going to tell everyone what he said to me."

Pence of course doesn't want to do that because he's afraid of making Trump supporters even angrier at him than they already for not having been hanged on January 6th. But he could do it, and no court could stop him.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The most Trump can accomplish is delay the testimony. All the same reasons why he lost his efforts to block the testimony of Pence's aids apply equally to Pence.

[N.E. Brigand]

Ugh: "Pence to fight special counsel subpoena on Trump’s 2020 election denial" (Politico).

Pence is arguing that the testimony the Dept. of Justice pertains to his role as President of the Senate and therefore is protected by the Speech & Debate clause of the Constitution. This appears to be stronger grounds on which to challenge the subpoena than Trump's executive privilege claims, and likely will delay any possible prosecution for many months.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Stronger, but not strong. The main problem with the argument is that the special counsel is not interested in Pence's speech, he is interested in what Trump said to him. I agree, however, that it is likely to delay things significantly because it does raise legal issues that have not really been addressed before.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think Pete Strzok had the best comment on this that I have seen.

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm very interested in possible arguments against Mike Pence's new position that Allison Gill's raises here and here.

Asha Rangappa offers some other arguments here.

(And V has already noted Peter Strzok's comment that Mike Pence, having previously cited executive privilege when asked to testify before Congress, is now claiming congressional privilege to avoid answering questions from the executive branch. Apparently Pence thinks he's the one person who never has to testify to anyone.)

[RoseMorninStar]

Pence is witness to a crime.

[N.E. Brigand]

Per stories in the Orlando Sentinel and Tampa Bay Times, three more people have been charged in this scheme, in which individuals were paid to be phony candidates in an effort to dilute the vote and help Republicans win.

It is worth noting that while he is not under investigation in this case (though he is still under investigation for sexual misconduct), the candidate that the ghost candidate was designed to benefit is a close associate of Rep. Matt Gaetz as well as Joel Greenberg, the former tax collector who has been charged in the sexual misconduct case and is cooperating in the investigation of Gaetz.

Charges Filed In Gaetz-Linked Florida Ghost Candidate Scheme

The Washington Post reports that federal prosecutors have decided not to file charges relating to sexual misconduct against Rep. Matt Gaetz, apparently because potential witnesses have credibility issues.

I am mindful of another famous case in which federal prosecutors in Florida failed to bring (most) charges of sexual misconduct against someone who turned out to be very, very guilty. I hope that prosecutors in this case are making the right decision.

Edited to add: It's probably worth pointing out that the most of the sources for stories about the investigation into Gaetz are probably witnesses: people who were asked about Gaetz by the FBI.

Oh, and one more thing: the FBI investigation into Gaetz, a Republican, apparently was opened while Donald Trump, a Republican, was president, and apparently will be closed while Joe Biden, a Democrat, is president.

Gaetz skates. Or so CNN is reporting regarding the FBI's investigation into whether Rep. Matt Gaetz (Republican of Florida) engaged in sex trafficking: he won't be charged for that.

[N.E. Brigand]

Some very interesting testimony in the Proud Boys trial today about texts that a D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer sent to the Proud Boys' leader Enrique Tarrio. The cop was feeding Tarrio information about law enforcement activity. Clearly very inappropriate.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Lt. Shane Lamond, the D.C. police officer N.E.B. refers to above, was suspended without pay in early 2022:

Lamond Suspended without Pay ...D.C. police lieutenant suspended

However, to the best of my knowledge he has not been charged with any crimes, and one has to wonder why.

[N.E. Brigand]

One of the Proud Boys attorneys complained today that the government dragged a "decorated officer" through the mud. Then the following exchange happened. As usual, these are as paraphrased by the reporter; the trial is not being recorded or broadcast:

Judge Kelly: You (Mr. Juaregui [attorney for one of the Proud Boys]) made thrust of your cross that Lamond and Tarrio had an appropriate relationship. Why wasn't that redirect fairly within [the scope of your cross?

Juaregui: We did not know this agent reviewed Lamond's phone extractions. I never said they had an appropriate relationship. I said, isn't it true that Tarrio [had cooperative communications with Lamond]. They raised issue of inappropriateness of relationship. Also characterized the relationship as having no use to law enforcement.

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure "when we asked the witness about this subject, we didn't realize he actually knew what he was talking about" is a great argument.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's not entirely clear to me (in part because I haven't been able to read the hundreds, if not thousands, of tweets over the course of the trial), but it appears that Judge Kelly has sanctioned Juaregui for his inappropriate conduct throughout the trial.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Also, apparently before the trial started, Juaregui had indicated that he wanted to call Lamond as a witness but that Lamond indicated that the he would assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if he was called, and the DOJ (correctly) refused to grant him immunity.

A Disputed Witness at the Proud Boys Sedition Trial: A Police Officer

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One of the strongest takedowns of Pence's Speech and Debate clause argument that I have seen comes from the conservative National Review legal columnist, Andrew McCarthy:

Mike Pence’s Immunity Claim Sure Seems Frivolous

[RoseMorninStar]

It's not a good look, that's for sure. Cowardly and dishonest.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]