withdrawn, might have been off-topic
[monty burns] Excellent! [/mb]
Can someone a lot smarter than me look at this response from Jim Jordan and tell me if he has a shot with any of these?
Well, IANAL but I’m pretty sure the answer is “no”. The crux of it appears to be the spurious argument that the committee has standing to intervene because it has the right to oversee such cases in the interest of “informing future legislation”. Which is a desperate, if not outright stupid, argument.
In my inexpert opinion, pretty much every legal assertion put forth in that letter appears to be equally tenuous if not moreso. Willis has a far stronger argument that the committee is politically motivated than the other way around (largely because it’s true).
I’m looking at the footnotes now. I wasn’t aware that Federalist articles applied to legal arguments, nor articles in the Ohio Capital Journal, and certainly not those of the Washington Examiner. This is not a freshman-level Poli Sci paper, Jim.
And does Jordan really want to open up the “Members of Congress were acting in their official capacity when attempting to interfere with the election in Georgia” can of worms again?
Just by way of background, I remember a few years ago when Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows were the Bobbsey Twin Trumpists in Congress. Later on when Meadows became chief of staff it was Jordan who sent him a text, demonstrating the same legal prowess on display here, telling Meadows that Mike Pence for sure had the power to overturn the 2020 election.
Jordan is undoubtedly angling for a spot in the next Trump administration, maybe chief of staff, since Meadows is likely to be in a Georgia state prison at that time. Jordan doesn’t have a reputation for high intelligence.
The significant footnote would seem to be this one:
As I understand the case law, the initial court said that Pomerantz needed to go in front of Congress. The NY AG appealed, but eventually decided to settle and let Pomerantz go talk to the House before the matter got to the Supreme Court. I.e. it’s still a bit squishy since it didn’t go to the Supreme Court but, so far as the courts have decided, they lean towards the position that you have to go talk to Congress - even if just to say that you’re not allowed to reveal information that is confidential under state and federal law but you can and do need answer general questions that might be relevant to widely applicable anti-corruption/anti-politicization draft legislation. Congress is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And, where they are guilty, you can simply abide by your legal duties while in front of them.
That said, Pomerantz was a person who had left the case and was no longer involved in the investigation. The rule for him might be different than a rule for the active prosecutor.
Personally, I think that the Supreme Court’s general position is and will continue to be that if you’re summoned by Congress then you have to go talk to them. If they ask questions relevant to drafting legislation then you have to answer it. If they ask questions about confidential matters then either you will be allowed to maintain confidentiality but you could ask Congress what legislative purpose they have for asking that specific question, and offer feedback based on any relevant experience.
Willis will probably need to go sit for Jordan.
If she does, I hope she pleads the fifth to each and every question.
That would imply that she’s covering a crime and would reasonably support any million conspiracy theories.
She’d do much better to cite Federal and State statutes on confidentiality and warn about Obstruction of Justice.
Trump lawyers decline to try to move his Georgia case to federal court. They say the awesome fairness of the “Honorable Court” in Georgia is good enough for their totally innocent client. Translation: his lawyers have watched the pathetic attempts of some of his co-defendants to have their case removed to federal court, especially that of Mark Meadows, and the severity with which they’ve been slapped down, and concluded that a more conciliatory whining is a better approach. This is probably not sitting well with the Orange One, who prefers to insult and sue “so-called judges”.
Scott hall is accepting a plea deal as I type. Per msnbc. His charges overlap with Powell.
Scott hall is charged in count 1 and 32-37. Count one is the Rico, 32-37 are conspiracy to commit election fraud, conspiracy to commit computer thief, tresspass, and invasion of privacy; conspiracy to defraud the state.
Quite the news day today.
Will be misdemeanours and no jail time, since he’s a first time offender.
Prisoners’ dilemma is starting to bite. Always want to be the first one to flip.
I’m wondering what the chances are that Trump will also get off lightly, and I’m thinking probably not, because he isn’t likely to go for a plea deal no matter what his lawyers tell him.
We may see Scott hall testifying in the Powell part of next month’s trial.
I’d love to see a few more “low level” grunts do the same to solidify things as it were, and then all the main players get the smug “We don’t -need- your testimony” follow up.
But this is good enough news to consider a celebratory drink. Not the best stuff, but something nice for the weekend.
sure, but not yet 
By the time he gets convicted in Georgia, he may already have a federal rap sheet…
This article gives a handy-dandy list of all the players, positions played, seasonal stats, and backgrounds.
And they begin to fall. Long, but quickly, may the falling continue.
I don’t see “bats left, throws right” anywhere.
Clark’s request to move to federal court has been denied. Judge said he did not meet the burden of proof.
Ruling in the article.