Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

A federal judge will allow a group of Georgia voters to move forward with a case to disqualify Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for a second term, arguing that her role in the Jan. 6 insurrection disallows her from appearing on the ballot.

The ruling reads that Greene “voluntarily aided and engaged in an insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential power, disqualifying her from serving as a Member of Congress under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment …”

RELATED STORY: Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests it’s ‘wise’ to ban Democrats who move to red states from voting

Judge Amy Totenberg, a President Barack Obama appointee, also denied Greene’s request for an injunction and temporary restraining order, The New York Times reports. Greene’s attorney has argued that without the injunction, the case is unlikely to be resolved before the May 24 primaries, putting her in further jeopardy of having her name in the running.  

“After a thorough analysis of the evidentiary and legal issues presented in this complex matter involving unsettled questions of law, the Court finds Plaintiff has not carried her heavy burden to establish a strong likelihood of success on the legal merits in this case,” Totenberg wrote in the 73-page ruling.

The challenge was filed with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger by five voters represented by Free Speech for People, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded in 2010 offering legal assistance with a focus on election and constitutional issues.

In a news release, one of the voters named in the challenge, Michael Rasbury, said: “Everything I’ve read says Rep. Greene was involved in the Jan. 6th insurrection that was trying to override everything I believe in — Our Constitution, how we run elections, and how our government is set up … She should not be on the ballot.”

In an email to the Times, Ron Fein, the legal director of Free Speech for People, applauded Totenberg’s latest ruling.

“Judge Totenberg’s well-reasoned opinion explains why the Georgia voters who filed this challenge against Greene have the right to have their challenge heard, and why none of Greene’s objections to the Georgia state challenge have any merit,” Fein wrote. “At the hearing on Friday, we look forward to questioning Greene under oath about her involvement in the events of Jan. 6, and to demonstrating how her facilitation of the insurrection disqualifies her from public office under the United States Constitution.”

Greene, 47, an openly unapologetic Trump bootlicker, has denied being involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection on the Capitol, and no evidence has linked her to the attack from Congress, the Jan. 6 congressional committee, or law enforcement.

“This is fundamentally antidemocratic,” said Greene’s attorney, James Bopp Jr., adding that the congresswoman has “publicly and vigorously condemned the attack on the Capitol.”

She has, however, made a lot of ridiculous and incendiary comments. Just this month, she told NBC News: “The American people are fed up with this over-dramatization of a riot that happened here at the Capitol one time … They are sick and tired of Jan. 6 — it’s over, OK?”

On Jan. 5, 2021, Greene appeared on Newsmax for a Facebook Watch interview where she proclaimed that the next day when Congress was meeting in a joint session to formally count the votes of the Electoral College, when asked what she or her party would do, she said, “This is our 1776 moment,” a reference to the American Revolution in 1776 that has become synonymous with far-right extremists.

​​

Greene was famously relieved of her House duties on both the Education and Budget Committees last year after spewing violent, racist, and Islamophobic vitriol on social media. 

According to the Daily Beast, the proudly unvaccinated Greene spent over half her $174,000 salary on mask fines during her first year in Congress.

Let’s not forget the relief we all felt when Greene was banned from Twitter in January after violating the company’s COVID-19 misinformation policies. 

Greene’s challenge will resume Friday with a hearing where the congresswoman will be questioned under oath, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, but the final ruling on whether or not Greene will appear on the ballot will come from Raffensperger.

This post was originally published on this site

John Eastman—he of insurrection memo fame—is petitioning to shield thousands of documents from the House Jan. 6 committee, Politico reports. Eastman filed a new petition this week in which he seeks to shield more than 3,200 documents comprising nearly 37,000 pages, claiming attorney-client privilege.

U.S. District Judge David Carter has proven unsympathetic to Eastman thus far in Eastman’s attempts to drag out the release of documents. Carter has ordered Eastman to produce at least 1,500 pages of records per day from a 19,000-page tranche obtained by a committee subpoena sent to Eastman’s ex-employer, Chapman University, and has further ordered him to prioritize emails for the days immediately before and after the Jan. 6 insurrection: Jan. 4-7.

This filing, however, is for the whole period of Eastman’s use of his Chapman account emails. There were nearly 100,000 pages originally included in the House committee’s subpoena of the records, but about 30,000 have already been removed as they were mass mailings unrelated to Eastman’s work with Trump to subvert the election.

RELATED STORY: Republicans’ Jan. 6 plan called for Pence to declare Trump the ‘winner’ by leaving out seven states

Now Eastman is attempting to shield these emails and the Jan. 6 committee has refused “every claim,” so Eastman is asking Carter for a case-by-case review on the 37,000 or so pages left. Carter has already ruled that Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress in a criminal conspiracy in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” Carter wrote in a March decision.

He described the work of the committee as urgent in ordering Eastman to cough up the records, but now will have to look through this tranche of documents. The committee has questioned whether Eastman was actually acting as Trump’s lawyer that early, making his claim for attorney-client privilege at that point moot. Carter’s determination that Eastman was eventually Trump’s attorney puts all this in the chunk of stuff that needs to be reviewed page by page.

Ultimately, though, Eastman now has 3,200 documents that he refuses to turn over, which is not suspicious at all.

“Defendants made no objection to Dr. Eastman’s claims of privilege over 643 documents totaling 3,006 pages, but did object to every claim of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection that Dr. Eastman asserted with respect to his representation of former President Trump and/or his campaign committee,” Eastman’s attorney, Charles Burnham, wrote in this request to Carter. “Those 3,264 documents, totaling 37,650 pages, have therefore been submitted for in camera inspection.”

This is a delaying tactic as much as anything else. Meanwhile, Eastman is still at it. He took his “alternate electors” show on the road last month to Wisconsin, pressuring the legislature to decertify the election results.

This is a legal argument Eastman has been working on since 2000 when he helped the Florida Republican Party formulate a plan to steal that election for George W. Bush. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to do that dirty work, so he didn’t get to put the plan in action. By the way, the current Supreme Court has three justices—Chief Justice John Robert Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—who were in on that Bush conspiracy in Florida.

Back to the present: The good news is Carter has already shown he’s not particularly willing to countenance Eastman’s claims. The bad part is that the process demands he consider them, and that’s going to eat up more time.

RELATED STORIES:

This post was originally published on this site

A series of text messages newly poured into the record for the impending seditious conspiracy trial of extremist Oath Keepers leader Elmer Rhodes and his cohort has exposed often frantic correspondence where members discussed providing security details for Trump World figures like Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, and others. 

The texts also appear to show a working relationship with the Proud Boys, another extremist network once headed by ringleader Henry Tarrio, who now sits in jail as he—and his minions—await trial for numerous charges related to the events of Jan. 6, including conspiracy to obstruct Congress and assaulting police.

RELATED STORY: Oath Keeper leader wants charges dropped, joins push for new trial venue

From December 2021 onward, the text messages made public late Monday demonstrate a startling pathway to Jan. 6. They were released as part of the exhibits that accompanied a pretrial release motion filed by Oath Keeper Edward Vallejo. A hearing will be held on that matter on April 29.

Rhodes, as the apparent ground zero for the group, served as a touchstone for the daily concerns, schemes, and strategy of fellow Oath Keepers coming from all around the U.S. to Washington, D.C., for Jan. 6. He would add people to the group chat, introduce them, and explain their roles. 

In the hundreds of texts that were made public, some stand out more than others, like those from late afternoon on New Years Day.

It was hours after Oath Keepers held a conference call for “DC Leadership,” when they began chatting about firearm restrictions and magazine limits in Washington. They also spoke about possible loopholes they believed might exist for private security guards. 

In one exchange, Jessica Watkins—who prosecutors say was in one of the Oath Keeper stack formations that marched on the Capitol during the breach—mentioned that she heard GOP fink and convicted felon Roger Stone call for security during his appearance on Alex Jones’ show, Infowars. 

Florida Oath Keeper division leader Kelly Meggs, using his handle “OK Gator 1” initially told Watkins: “We have Stone.”

Then moments later, Meggs said he “just texted him.”

When another person in the chat believed to be an Oath Keeper—their name or handle is redacted—chimed in that they wanted to shake Stone’s hand, Meggs boasted that he could arrange it since he had been to Stone’s home “a few times.” 

“I’m down for doing PSD for folks,” Watkins replied, using shorthand for “private security detail.”

“I don’t want to be a spectator. I want to be useful,” she added. 

“As per Stewart,” a reply from a redacted sender began, “We are all likely to be doing PSD most of the time …” 

Stone has tried to put distance between himself and the Oath Keepers, albeit poorly.

He has also denied being in Washington on Jan. 6, though he was filmed fleeing D.C. that day by a group of documentarians. And in that same film, a screenshot shows he was in a group chat with Rhodes as well as Tarrio.

RELATED STORY: Documentary featuring Roger Stone is an embarrassment of riches for Jan. 6 probe

Joshua James, the Alabama Oath Keeper chapter leader who pleaded guilty to the seditious conspiracy charges in March, served as security detail for Stone on Jan. 5. He also hauled him to meetings at the Willard Hotel where Trump and his cronies Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, attempted coup strategist John Eastman, and others would often meet in their self-described “war room.”

Sal Greco, a former New York Police Department officer, allegedly worked alongside James when they did private security for Stone on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6. Greco has denied being anything more than a friend to Stone. Greco is facing a police department trial in New York for misconduct. 

RELATED STORY: Oath Keeper: I was ready to protect Trump by force

James, however, admitted that on Jan. 6 he used a stolen golf cart with co-defendant Robert Minuta to evade police as they beelined for the Capitol. From there, James has admitted, he was part of an organized effort to breach the Capitol as lawmakers conducted the counting of electoral votes, a necessary step toward the peaceful transfer of power. 

RELATED STORY: Trail from Oath Keepers to Trump via Roger Stone comes into view with sedition guilty plea

Other text messages from Meggs to the group also indicate a through-line between the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. 

Video has already emerged showing Rhodes meeting with Tarrio in a parking garage on the evening of Jan. 5 in D.C.

Tarrio was arrested just a day before on an outstanding warrant for his December theft and burning of a Black Lives Matter banner from a prominent church.

The Miami, Florida, resident was ordered out of Washington after his release, but before he left, he met with Rhodes, Oath Keeper lawyer Kellye SoRelle, Josh Macias, and Bianca Garcia in the D.C. garage. Macias is the founder of Vets4Trump and Garcia is the president of Latinos for Trump.

As news of Tarrio’s arrest first spread, Meggs told the group he tried reaching out. 

“I just called him no answer. But he will call [when] he’s out,” Meggs said of Tarrio. 

That evening, another redacted speaker in the chat responded to the news of the arrest.

“They [think] chopping the head off kills it or something? Damn fools should have left him alone,” the text said. 

RELATED STORY: Tarrio is back in jail as feds find chilling plans to storm federal buildings

This is also far from the first time that prosecutors have exposed a unity between the groups. 

In a Dec. 19 message entered into the record by prosecutors last month, Meggs tells a person on Facebook that he spent the week doing outreach to Proud Boys leadership. 

“This week I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys. We have decided to work together and shut this shit down,” Meggs wrote. 

The Three Percenters are an anti-government extremist militia. 

A week later, according to exhibits attached to Meggs’ request for pretrial release, the Florida Oath Keeper told members their groups had a plan in place to deal with “antifa,” or supporters of the anti-fascist movement. 

Meggs explained how they would coordinate together on Jan. 6:

“We’re going to march with them for awhile then fall to the back of the crowd and turn off,” Meggs wrote in December 2021. “Then we will have the Proud Boys get in front of them [and]] the cops will get between antifa nad Proud Boys.”

He continued: “We will come in behind antifa and beat the hell out of them.” 

Many of the Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy who have pleaded guilty have maintained they only came to Washington because they believed Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act.

If he did so, then, in short, they believed they would then have the green light to proceed and assist him as necessary. 

The messages revealed Monday also offered a brief glimpse into the network’s ties to 1AP, or the First Amendment Praetorian, a self-styled militia. That pro-Trump group was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee already for its connections to Michael Flynn. Flynn used its members as bodyguards at “Stop the Steal” rallies. The group also threw its support behind proposals to seize voting machines as a part of Trump’s bid to stay in power.

Like the Oath Keepers had in the past, 1AP also reportedly had members assigned to protect Jones. 

Rhodes appeared enthralled by the prospect of working with Jones again in a text Rhodes sent to members on Dec. 31, 2020.

“Bottom line, is those of you wanting to do PSD details will get plenty of opportunity. We may also end up assisting the PSD for Alex Jones again. Which was a great feather in our cap. We worked subperbly well with both Alex Jones security team (who are awesome guys) and with the Praetorian Guard (also awesome veterans led by SF and SEAL veterans),” Rhodes wrote. “They LOVE working with us because of our legit ‘quiet professional’ demeanor and skillsets.” 

Rhodes continued: “It’s incredibly important for us to be front and center and again very visible for the patriots AND the domestic enemies. Heck, also to our foreign enemies, who will surely be watching as well.”

Jones was subpoenaed by the committee months ago. He had a private meeting with investigators in January and when he emerged, he went on his own show to unpack the day. He vowed that he “stayed silent” and said he didn’t know answers to half of what he was asked. 

Jones also swore that same day that he did not use members from the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys as his private security. Instead, he said, he hired 12 or 14 people from a private security firm in Texas. He simultaneously claimed that some of those members were D.C. or Maryland police officers. 

Jones also didn’t think the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys were threat. He chalked up their activities to “live action role playing.” 

According to the texts, Oath Keepers were also interested in providing security to Ronny Jackson during the insurrection itself. Jackson was the former White House physician under Trump who turned into a congressman for Texas. 

“Dr. Ronnie Jackson on the move,” one message from an unidentified person stated on Jan. 6 at 3:08 PM. “Needs protection. If anyone inside  cover him. He has critical data to protect.”

Rhodes sent a text asking what Jackson needed and then offered up his cell phone number. 

“Rep. Jackson is frequently talked about by people he does not know. He does not know nor has he ever spoken to the people in question,” a spokesperson for Jackson said Tuesday morning. 

In another message appearing to involve U.S. lawmakers, on Jan. 3 Meggs told the group that friends to the Oath Keepers mentioned the group “on the call with congressmen,”

“[They] wanted to say thank you all for providing and protecting us,” Meggs wrote. 

Attorneys for Rhodes, Tarrio, and Meggs did not immediately return a request for comment. 

This post was originally published on this site

Sometimes, the best defense is a good offense.

Democrats are heading into a difficult midterm defending a very narrow majority in the U.S. House. Republicans need to flip just five seats to take control, and we’re defending a lot of vulnerable members.

But that’s only part of the story. Thanks to Republican retirements, the continued defection of suburban voters from the GOP, and unexpected Democratic successes in redistricting, there’s a whole host of districts where Democrats can go on offense and flip seats from red to blue.

These are the sorts of opportunities Daily Kos has always prioritized, and which you’ve always responded to with such enthusiasm. These races not only give us the chance to stick it to the GOP, they offer us greater bang for the buck, since challengers invariably don’t have access to the kinds of resources that incumbents do.

We’ve identified 10 different races where our people-powered donations can make the most difference. These are all seats where Republicans are on defense, and they’re also districts that, under the new lines, Joe Biden would have carried in 2020.

Can you give $1 now to turn each of these GOP House seats blue?

Here’s our complete target list:

If we can win across this battleground, then we can vastly improve our odds of holding our House majority and ensuring that President Biden gets at least two more years to enact his agenda.

Primaries are still underway in these districts, but fortunately, our partners at ActBlue have made it possible for us to get involved right now via their nominee funds. These funds hold all donations in escrow until each state holds its primary. The money collected is then given in one fell swoop to the Democratic nominee in each race—giving them, if we do our part, a huge injection of resources just as they start their general election campaigns to beat their Republican opponents.

Please donate $1 now to each of these 10 races where Democrats can flip Republican seats from red to blue!

This post was originally published on this site

Attorneys for the Texas mom who is facing death for the 2007 accidental death of her toddler have made an urgent plea to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to stop her execution, set for April 27. Innocence Project said the filing on Friday is the first time a court will see ”new scientific and expert evidence showing that Melissa’s conviction was based on an unreliable, coerced ‘confession’ and unscientific false evidence that misled the jury.”

It may also be the last time a court is able to intervene in her execution, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her case last fall.

Innocence Project said the petition to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals “details how the police investigation and prosecution were infected by gender bias,” using interrogation tactics “that replicated the dynamics of domestic violence” in order to get her to confess to a crime she didn’t commit. Lucio, a childhood sexual abuse and domestic abuse survivor, was berated for hours by detectives on the night of her daughter’s death. Prosecutors then used a coerced statement against her in court.

The petition notes a technique where police, “intentionally or unintentionally, often ‘prompt the suspect’ on how they believed the crime happened, thereby allowing an innocent suspect without any knowledge of the crime to ‘parrot back an accurate-sounding narrative.’”

Like previously noted, one of the jurors who has since expressed remorse over sentencing Lucio to death has said that he was never told her history as a sexual and domestic abuse survivor made her particularly vulnerable to interrogation tactics, “or how she repeated the same words the interrogators fed to her.” Johnny Galvan Jr. wrote last month that “no evidence was presented of that and it would have mattered to me.”

“’New linguistic analysis shows that while the police treated Melissa as a suspect, they treated her partner like an innocent victim—even though he was also Mariah’s caretaker, and had a history of intra-familial violence. He is now a free man,’ said Professor Sandra Babcock, Director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, and one of Ms. Lucio’s attorneys,” Innocence Project continued.

Support for halting Lucio’s execution has also won backing from of a majority of the Texas House of Representatives, which has urged Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant her clemency or a reprieve.

Lucio’s advocates have also pleaded to Cameron County District Attorney Luis Saenz, who has power to stop the execution. KHOU reported that Saenz gave conflicting statements during a “combative” hearing last week, after first defending the process that sentenced Lucio, then saying that if she “does not get a stay by a certain day,” he would “do what I have to do and stop it.”

“Because of Saenz’s conflicting statements, and without any court motions or rulings, it’s still not certain Lucio’s execution will be stopped,” KHOU said. Armando Villalobos, the Cameron County district attorney who charged Lucio, was himself sentenced to prison on charges of bribery and extortion, further adding to the doubt around Lucio’s case.

“If the jury had heard evidence about the coercive tactics used in Melissa’s interrogation and the medical evidence showing that Mariah’s cause of death was consistent with an accident, they would have found there was no murder, Melissa would have been acquitted, and she would be preparing for Easter mass with her children, not facing execution,” said Innocence Project Director of Special Litigation Vanessa Potkin. “She deserves a new trial.

“Melissa’s children are also urging the Governor and the Board not to execute their mother,” Innocence Project said. “They are Mariah’s brothers and sisters and Texas law requires that their wishes be taken into account.”

There are a number of steps you can take right now to help spare Melissa Lucio’s life. You can click here to send a Daily Kos petition to Gov. Abbott, as well as clicking here to sign Innocence Project’s petition. You can also call 956-446-2866 and leave a message urging the governor to prevent an irreversible injustice.

This post was originally published on this site

Lawmakers hellbent on making their own Manifest Destiny will gather in Lincoln, Nebraska, on Earth Day to hold an anti-environmentalist summit. The “Stop 30×30 Summit” is meant to address an ambitious plan proposed by the Biden administration to protect at least 30% of the U.S.’s land and 30% of its oceans by 2030. Instead of looking toward conservation and environmental justice for the sake of combatting climate change, the Republicans featured in this summit will mostly pitch bringing back colonialism by way of land grabs. According to Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, the 30×30 plan constitutes government overreach and could prevent states like his from making the most out of the land it has a history of destroying. So hurt was Ricketts that he wasn’t consulted by the Biden administration on this plan that he sent a letter to the president last year opposing 30×30 and has billed himself ever since as being the first governor to oppose the plan.

Ricketts eventually signed an executive order in an attempt to prevent the 30×30 plan from taking effect in Nebraska even though the Biden administration admitted the program would be voluntary, albeit with incentives offered for adopting it. In an interview with Nebraska Public Media, Nebraska Farm Bureau President Mark McHargue, comically explained that Ricketts was on to something since the government didn’t check with Nebraskans who use the lands its looking to protect. “We need to make sure that the people that use the land every day have good input, ’cause I think that we’re the best decision-makers,” McHargue told the outlet. “The failure of the administration to reach out and have a solid conversation with those that actually control the land, that’s concerning.” You know who really has great insight on America’s lands? The Indigenous community essential to the 30×30 plan.

Joining Ricketts for this anti-Earth Day summit as keynote speakers are former Interior Department Secretary David Bernhardt, who literally spent years lobbying for the oil and gas industry before joining the Trump administration, and Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Republican with a 0% rating from the League of Conservation Voters who introduced a bill to prevent 30×30 from taking effect. Boebert, who recently flexed her political might to rally against adding gray wolves to the endangered species list, is pretty much the exact person I think of if I want to make sure I’m doing right by the environment. She’s like a bizarro barometer: If I’m doing something she hates, chances are it’s for the benefit of the planet. Fellow anti-30×30 bill co-sponsor Sen. David Cramer of Nebraska will also be in attendance, as will Beck Norton Dunlop, who the website tells me is a Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow with the Heritage Foundation—an honor I wouldn’t bestow on my worst enemy.

This $75-per-ticket event ($125 per person if you didn’t buy before April 7) is a fairly clear attempt to continue lining the pockets of its organizers, the American Stewards of Liberty. According to research from Accountable.US, the group “is largely funded by taxpayer dollars, raking in over $700k from county governments in recent years. It also received a $54,000 forgivable loan through the Paycheck Protection Program in 2020. The nonprofit uses the vast majority of its money—94%—to pay hefty salaries to its husband-wife executive duo, Margaret and Dan Byfield.” The organization has consistently pushed back against conservation efforts, raking in donations in the process. In Kern County, Utah, alone, the group received $483,000 from officials who wanted their expertise in blocking the 30×30 plan. It’s anyone’s guess just how much the American Stewards of Liberty will receive for this event, where sponsorship registration ranges from $1,000 to $10,000.

This post was originally published on this site

A super PAC aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made a record-breaking amount of ad reservations, mostly starting in August, for the midterm election.

The Senate Leadership Fund’s $141 million ad buy outpaces the Democratic Senate Majority PAC’s early investment of $106 million by some $35 million, but it’s not exactly a show of strength despite what the head of the Republican super PAC would have us believe.

“This is such a strong year that we need to invest as broadly and deeply as we can,” Senate Leadership Fund President Steven Law told Politico.

Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard

The truth is, Senate Republicans are tantalizingly close—just one seat away—to retaking the majority, and yet they will be trying to carry a bunch of Trumpian misfits across the finish line.

Take the PAC’s heaviest commitment of $37 million in Georgia, where Republicans have one of their best pickup chances but are saddled with alleged wife abuser Herschel Walker, who has written about his struggles with violent episodes partially fueled by his multiple personalities.

Walker reported strong Q1 fundraising of $5.5 million, but it pales in comparison to the whopping $13.6 million raised by Democratic incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia. 

So Senate Republicans’ brightest pickup hope maintains a couple-point edge in polling, but he’s carrying a load of personal baggage and is being significantly outraised by his opponent. All that context puts a slightly different spin on the GOP’s heavy investment in Georgia from show of strength to sign of concern.

Law admitted as much, saying Democratic candidates’ advantages in fundraising nearly across the board necessitated the Senate GOP super PAC to “try to level that playing field.”

Even so, Law insists Senate Republicans are still huge favorites this fall.

“The only thing that ever concerns me when you’re in an environment that’s this good, and there’s so much talk about the red wave, is that complacency sets in,” Law said.

But the president of Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC had a different take on the hefty Republican spending in 2022. “The GOP carries the burden of bad candidates and a badly damaged brand,” noted JB Poersch.

And if fundraising is any measure, Senate Democrats have a fighting chance in November, with their four most vulnerable senators—Raphael Warnock in Georgia, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire—all surpassing the hauls of their leading GOP challengers.

Interestingly, Hassan didn’t make the Leadership Fund’s top target list after the GOP failed to recruit New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu to run for the seat. However, both the McConnell- and Schumer-aligned super PACs will surely pour additional funds into the races depending on how they take shape.

Here’s where the GOP’s Senate Leadership Fund has planned its initial investments:

• Georgia (offense): $37 million
• North Carolina (defense): $27 million
• Pennsylvania (defense): $24 million
• Nevada (offense): $15 million
• Wisconsin (defense): $15 million
• Arizona (offense): $14 million
• Alaska (defense): $7.4 million

This post was originally published on this site

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday to refuse to hear a death row inmate’s appeal, even with a juror’s admittance to holding racist sentiments. In the case of Kristopher Love, a Black man convicted of capital murder in the course of a robbery in Texas, prospective jurors were asked if they harbor bias against members of certain races or ethnic groups and if they believe some races or ethnic groups “tend to be more violent than others,” according to elements of the case laid out in Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion.

The juror in question, No. 68, answered “no” to the first question but “yes” to the second. “He explained that ‘[s]tatistics show more violent crimes are committed by certain races. I believe in statistics,’” Sotomayor wrote of the juror’s words.

She said in her opinion: “When racial bias infects a jury in a capital case, it deprives a defendant of his right to an impartial tribunal in a life-or-death context, and it ‘poisons public confidence’ in the judicial process.”

The juror also claimed that he had seen statistics to this effect in “news reports and criminology classes” and that his answer was based on those statistics, rather than his “personal feelings towards one race or another.” He said according to court documents that he did not “think because of somebody’s race they’re more likely to commit a crime than somebody of a different race” and he told the defense that he would not feel differently about Love “because he’s an African American.”

Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard

Love’s attorney tried to get the juror excluded before he was seated, arguing that “leaving this man on the jury would be an invitation” to a possible death sentence based “on his preconceived notions and beliefs that have to do with the race of the defendant.” The court denied the attorney’s challenge without explanation, and Love was convicted and sentenced to death, according to Sotomayor’s dissent.

Love argued on appeal that he was “denied the constitutional right to an impartial jury” because the trial court seated a “racially biased juror.”

Sotomayor wrote:

Rather than address this federal constitutional claim on the merits, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that, ‘even if we assume that the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s challenges [to the juror at issue and another prospective juror] for cause,’ Love could not show any harm under Texas law.

Sotomayor deemed the lack of appeal review a violation of the Sixth and 14th Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing the right to an impartial jury. She wrote:

Instead, the Court of Criminal Appeals “assume[d]” that the juror at issue was biased, but concluded that allowing him to sit on the jury was harmless.2021 WL 1396409, *24. That is an inherently contradictory determination. If the juror were indeed biased, then because he sat on the jury, Love’s conviction and sentence “would have to be overturned.”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion. “Over time, we have endeavored to cleanse our jury system of racial bias. One of the most important mechanisms for doing so, questioning during voir dire, was properly employed here to identify a potential claim of bias,” Sotomayor wrote. “Safeguards like this, however, are futile if courts do not even consider claims of racial bias that litigants bring forward.

“The task of reviewing the record to determine whether a juror was fair and impartial is challenging, but it must be undertaken, especially when a person’s life is on the line.”

Legal experts and journalists called out Republican justices and appeals court officials alike for their inaction. Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern tweeted: “The court’s refusal to consider Love’s case is another good example of how the six conservative justices can effectively overrule left-leaning precedent by simply letting bad decisions stand.”

Shanlon Wu, a former federal prosecutor, tweeted that “racism in the law can never be ‘harmless error.'”

“Justice Sotomayor dissent rightly states that Texas appeals court reached an ‘inherently contradictory determination’ by reasoning that allowing a biased juror could be harmless error,” Wu said in another tweet. “In upholding this decision SCOTUS upholds racism in the law by pretending it can be ‘harmless.’”

Contribute to organizing and advocacy to end capital punishment

This post was originally published on this site

The Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest is compiled by David Nir, Jeff Singer, Stephen Wolf, Daniel Donner, and Carolyn Fiddler, with additional contributions from David Jarman, Steve Singiser, James Lambert, David Beard, and Arjun Jaikumar.

Subscribe to our podcast, The Downballot!

Leading Off

● WI Redistricting: The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 on Friday to adopt new legislative maps proposed by the state’s Republican-run legislature, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned the state court’s earlier decision to enact maps drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

The Wisconsin court had selected Evers’ plans because they best complied with its earlier directive that any new maps represent the “least change” possible compared with the existing districts. That decision effectively locked in the GOP’s already considerable gerrymanders, despite the fact that the court went with maps submitted by the state’s Democratic governor.

But in an opinion castigated as “bizarre” and “shocking” by legal experts, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Evers maps last month because the Wisconsin court had failed to conduct a full-blown analysis as to whether the Voting Rights Act required the drawing of a seventh majority-Black Assembly district in the Milwaukee area. That ruling prompted Wisconsin Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative who originally joined with the court’s three liberals to pick Evers’ proposals, to switch sides and pick GOP lawmakers’ maps—the same maps that Evers had vetoed, prompting the impasse that led to the courts taking over the redistricting process in the first place.

Hagedorn explained his change of heart in a brief concurrence, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling would have required an intensive factual analysis under the VRA for which there was insufficient time remaining this year. As a result, he wrote, the only “race-neutral” plan available to the court was the one submitted by Republican legislators, which reduces the number of Black seats from six to five.

In a detailed dissent joined by her two fellow liberals, Justice Jill Karofsky excoriated the majority, pointing out that the removal of a Black-majority seat in Milwaukee was “an equally suspect, if not more egregious, sign of race-based line drawing.” She insisted instead that the court should further develop the evidentiary record, despite Hagedorn’s protests, and pointed out that a bare majority of the court was, in effect, overriding Evers’ veto on its own—an act that otherwise requires a supermajority of the legislature.

This may not be the end, however. Both Hagedorn and, in particular, Karofsky indicated that the Republican map the court wound up picking could itself be vulnerable to further litigation on similar grounds—namely, that it fails to comply with the Voting Rights Act’s mandate to ensure sufficient representation for Black voters. But given the overt partisanship on display in both high courts—the one in Washington and the one in Wisconsin—such claims might nevertheless fail to gain traction.

Redistricting

● KS Redistricting: Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly has signed the new maps for the state House and Senate passed late last month by Kansas’ Republican-held legislature, though they must first undergo a mandatory review by the state Supreme Court. The exact deadline for the court to act is not yet set: The legislation enacting the new districts must first be published in the state’s official newspaper, the Kansas Register, at which point Attorney General Derek Schmidt has 15 days to ask the Supreme Court to review the maps. Once he does, the justices have 10 days to issue a ruling.

Senate

● CA-Sen: Businessman Dan O’Dowd is running for Senate in California, but he’s apparently not looking to unseat incumbent Alex Padilla. Instead, Politico reports, he wants to put the hurt on Elon Musk … who, you may have noticed, is not on this year’s ballot, in the Golden State or any other.

O’Dowd, who filed to run as a Democrat, has reportedly booked $650,000 worth of TV time to air ads attacking Musk, whose software for “self-driving” Tesla vehicles O’Dowd has blasted as dangerously unsafe. It also so happens O’Dowd runs a company called Green Hills Software, which he says has made him a billionaire, that competes in this space. (The spots aren’t available yet, but Politico’s Christopher Cadelago says they’re being made by high-profile Democratic ad-maker Mark Putnam.)

As Cadelago notes, O’Dowd is entitled to much cheaper ad rates as a Senate hopeful than he would be as a private individual, under an FCC rule that guarantees candidates what’s known as the “lowest unit rate.” The ins and outs of that rule are complex, but it can yield huge savings, which is why super PACs, for instance, can pay twice as much or more than campaigns.

But if O’Dowd really is a billionaire, this penny-pinching seems like a rather minor consideration. However, as Cadelago suggests, there may be another advantage at play: The Federal Trade Commission’s “truth-in-advertising” rules don’t apply to political ads, which might allow O’Dowd to level charges against Musk that might otherwise run afoul of the FTC. In addition, as we point out whenever third-party advertisements get yanked for inaccuracies, stations are obligated to air candidate ads no matter their content. As long as O’Dowd is willing to stomach a Musk lawsuit, then, he can blanket the airwaves with whatever accusations he likes.

Of course, some unnamed Democrats are fretting that O’Dowd could in fact secure the second slot in June’ top-two primary and join Padilla on the general election ballot in an all-Democratic matchup—something that happened in California in both 2016 and 2018. O’Dowd has tried something like this before, though, and was quite unsuccessful: In 1994, back when California still used traditional primaries, he tried to prevent Sen. Dianne Feinstein from winning renomination but finished third with just 12% of the vote.

● NV-Sen: Republican firm OH Predictive Insights has conducted a poll on behalf of the nonpartisan Nevada Independent that finds Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto holding modest leads against both of her prospective Republican opponents. Cortez Masto bests former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who has the support of Donald Trump and national Republicans, by 42-34, and she edges out Army veteran Sam Brown by 43-35. OH Predictive Insights’ previous poll from late January had Cortez Masto defeating Laxalt by a similar 44-35; their prior release didn’t include Brown.

These latest results are notably better for the incumbent than a recent Suffolk University poll that showed her trailing Laxalt by 43-40 and beating Brown by only 40-39, but OH Predictive Insights indicated that one key reason for the difference was that their survey sampled all registered voters. By contrast, Suffolk had polled those whom they viewed as likely voters, implying that they thought turnout would favor Republicans this fall.

● OH-Sen: Late on Friday afternoon, Donald Trump endorsed venture capitalist J.D. Vance with just weeks to go until the May 3 Republican primary, frustrating many Republicans in Ohio who had scrambled to dissuade him after it was first reported that Trump could throw his backing to Vance and raising eyebrows among many observers questioning the logic of Trump’s pick.

Before reinventing himself as the most sycophantic of Trump supporters and as someone who delights in trolling liberals on Twitter by making outrageous statements in order to generate a backlash that he can ride to greater media attention and visibility among conservatives, Vance was unambiguous about his disgust for Trump in the 2016 election cycle. He once labeled himself a “never Trump guy,” and in a number of since-deleted tweets, Vance among other things called Trump “reprehensible” and stated he was voting for conservative independent Evan McMullin that year.

Vance’s total about-face on Trump may have won him the race to the bottom for Trump’s endorsement between himself and primary rivals such as former state Treasurer Josh Mandel, who similarly stokes liberal backlash on Twitter, but it remains to be seen whether it will successfully win him the nomination. Indeed, most polls have found Vance lagging behind in third or fourth place in a crowded field where Mandel and businessman Mike Gibbons have frequently led. However, those same polls have also found a significant share of voters still undecided, and Vance may be counting on Trump’s endorsement to persuade those GOP voters still up for grabs.

To that effect, Vance has already put half a million behind a TV ad that showcases Trump’s endorsement and vows that Vance will “continue Trump’s fight” on immigration, abortion, and opposing Joe Biden.

● PA-Sen: Former hedge fund manager Dave McCormick’s latest Republican primary ad features shots of the candidate riding in a long convoy of motorcycles while he promises via a voiceover to take on the left and “keep America great.”

● Senate: The Mitch McConnell-aligned Senate Leadership Fund, which is the main super PAC on the Republican side in Senate races, has reserved a whopping $141 million in TV ads from Sept. 6 through Election Day across seven states:

• Alaska: $7.4 million
• Arizona: $14 million
• Georgia: $37 million
• Nevada: $15 million
• North Carolina: $27 million
• Pennsylvania: $24 million (begins Sept. 13)
• Wisconsin: $15 million

Republicans currently hold Alaska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, while Democrats are defending Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. Reporting earlier this month indicated that Senate Majority PAC, which is SLF’s counterpart on the Democratic side, had reserved $108 million across six of these same states with the exception of Alaska.

Notably absent from either party’s reservations was Democratic-held New Hampshire, which is the only remaining state up this fall where Joe Biden won by just single digits.

Governors

● MN-Gov: First quarter fundraising reports are available for all candidates in Minnesota’s election for governor, and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz led the pack with $1 million raised and $4.1 million cash-on-hand. Walz’s numbers were far ahead of his potential GOP rivals below, though the governor doesn’t have any notable primary challengers:

• Former state Sen. Scott Jensen: $256,000 raised, $774,000 cash-on-hand
• Former state Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka: $99,000 raised, $406,000 cash-on-hand
• Healthcare executive Kendall Qualls: $467,000 raised, $168,000 cash-on-hand
• Former Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek: $149,000 raised, $40,000 cash-on-hand
• State Sen. Michelle Benson: $53,000 raised, $38,000 cash-on-hand
• Dermatologist Neil Shah: $75,000 raised, $22,000 cash-on-hand

● NE-Gov: In the wake of last Thursday’s story from the Nebraska Examiner where several women accused businessman Charles Herbster of sexual assault, state Sen. Brett Lindstrom has unveiled a poll of the May 10 Republican primary from 3D Strategic Research to argue that Herbster’s advantage in the polls was eroding even before the publication of last week’s bombshell news. The survey, which was conducted from April 10-12, finds Lindstrom tied 27-27 with University of Nebraska Regent Jim Pillen while Herbster, who has Trump’s endorsement, is close behind in third at 23% and state Sen. Theresa Thibodeau is far back at 6%.

Lindstrom had previously released another poll from the same firm taken in early March that had Herbster ahead of Pillen by 30-23 and Lindstrom back in third with 20%, and the few other publicly available polls to date had also found Herbster in the lead, all of which were also conducted before the accusations against Herbster became public.

● WI-Gov: Former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, who was elected to four terms between 1987 and 2001, says he has decided not to run for his old job again. The 80-year-old was last on the ballot in 2012 when he was the GOP’s unsuccessful nominee against Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin.

House

● OH-11: Democratic Majority for Israel PAC, which is backing Rep. Shontel Brown ahead of her rematch with former state Sen. Nina Turner in the May 3 Democratic primary, is running a new ad that praises Brown for standing with Joe Biden and voting for his infrastructure spending law last year.