Skip to content

339 search results for "certification"

For ye have the truthiness always with you

Anti-intellectualism on the right keeps peasants in line

A lengthy article by Matt McManus in Current Affairs (h/t Greg Sargent) studies the impulses driving anti-intellectualism on the right. What intellectuals on the right mean to defend (and conserve) is power and privilege. The existential threat, the wolf at the door, as it were, is any idea(s) that might make the ruled take issue with their rulers:

The heart of the problem for conservatives is this: they instinctively fear that excess and critical intellectualism will induce anyone and everyone to “submit” authority to the “discussion” of each individual. In other words, the individual might have thoughts and ideas that lead them to question authority figures like kings and presidents. Imagine that!

Egalitarianism of the sort Jefferson advanced in the Declaration stands at odds with preserving the presumed natural hierarchy atop which the elite sit. Defense of the natural order, as it’s seen, may “take the form of doubling down on even more extreme authoritarianism and inequality.” Or it might require attaching “transcendent qualities” to “profane (worldly or non-sacred) institutions, beliefs, and hierarchies which the right values.” 

McManus adds:

These transcendent qualities are usually further dolled up with a mysterious and even paradoxical quality to make them appear even more dazzling in the eyes of the beholder. The transcendent qualities of sublime idealizations are both comprehensible to human reason while exceeding the limitations of its understanding—usually just comprehensible enough so that we may submit to their excellence, but not so transparent that they could be scrutinized and or criticized.

Should sublimation fail, the right falls back on “that’s just the way it is” fatalism. Get over it.

“That’s the way God planned it |That’s the way God wants it,” as Billy Preston sang.

Like many a faith, relying on reason is discouraged. Don’t question. Believe.

The Good Liars make comedy out of that feature of MAGA insanity. Their videos hold up to mockery unsuspecting Trump fans who checked their brains at the door. But there are occasionally clever debunks in them.

Jason Selvig points out the essential nonsense in believing ANTIFA was behind the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

“Why would ANTIFA interrupt the certification of an election in which their candidate won?” Selvig asks.

“If you think about it,” Stephen Colbert said in explaining truthiness in 2005, it makes no sense. But doesn’t it feel right that ANTIFA, not MAGA, perpetrated the sedition?

In another clip, the Liars suggest that schools ban a book with a story about daughters who get their father drunk to get pregnant by him. People heartily agree until told it is the Bible (Genesis 19).

Reason itself is less valued on the right. Referencing the right-wing defense of Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse, one Kenneth Ray McClain argues, “If your recourse to the terrorist is to look up the criminal history of the victims, it is no different from looking up the criminal past of everyone that died on 9/11 in order to justify the hijackers.”

“This shit is ridiculous,” McCain writes. But that is what the right’s up-is-downism delivers. By design.

Just for free, a couple of other “snappy comebacks” that popped up over the weekend.

https://twitter.com/mhdksafa/status/1594399541314588673?s=20&t=7IXTqdQdeQvl2uvX-pvsmQ

Are there no community theatres?

GOP House plans new season

Republicans don’t want to govern, they want to rule, I’ve insisted repeatedly. What that formulation misses is their need for revenge and to perform. Watch any of the professional wrestling-inspired introductions at conservative conventions for proof of the latter.

Turning Point USA is just previews. Now that the GOP will have control of the U.S. House in January, they’ll be bringing the full stage show to Capitol Hill sans the pyrotechnics and rock show lighting.

Prior to Nov. 8, Republicans wailed about inflation. They screamed about crime in the streets. Until they didn’t (Media Matters). Don’t expect them to spend their time addressing the issues they ran on:

“Remember when democrats spent all that time and taxpayer money trying to figure out what ivanka and her husband did in the White House? Oh wait,” tweets Molly Jong-Fast.

The play’s the thing. All of Capitol Hill’s a stage.

Associated Press:

Even with their threadbare House majority, Republicans doubled down this week on using their new power next year to investigate the Biden administration and, in particular, the president’s son.

[…]

But House Republicans used their first news conference after clinching the majority to discuss presidential son Hunter Biden and the Justice Department, renewing long-held grievances about what they claim is a politicized law enforcement agency and a bombshell corruption case overlooked by Democrats and the media.

That’s “bombshell,” if it wasn’t clear. Biden’s son is not in government and did not help instigate an attack on the Capitol or interfere with a peaceful transfer of power, as some of his salivating prosecutors may have.

Marcy Wheeler reads into Merrick Garland’s announcement Friday of a special prosecutor for Trump investigations:

When he announced the appointment of a Special Counsel yesterday, Merrick Garland described that “recent developments,” plural, led him to conclude that he should appoint Jack Smith as Special Counsel to oversee the investigations into Donald Trump.

The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution.

Based on recent developments, including the former President’s announcement that he is a candidate for President in the next election, and the sitting President’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a Special Counsel.

The recent developments he focused on were presidential: Trump’s announcement he’d run again and Joe Biden’s stated plan to run for reelection. But he also described the basis for the appointment not as a conflict (as Republicans and Trump are describing the investigation by a Biden appointee by his chief rival), but as an extraordinary circumstance.

Unsurprisingly, Garland never named Trump as the reason for the appointment. The only time he referenced Trump, he referred to him as the former President. That’s DOJ policy.

When he described the subjects of the January 6 investigation, he included both “any person” but also any “entity” that interfered in the transfer of power.

The first, as described in court filings in the District of Columbia, is the investigation into whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.

The scope of the January 6 investigation that Smith will oversee is far broader than Trump and will almost certainly lead to the indictment of multiple people in addition to Trump, if it does include Trump — people like Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, possibly Mark Meadows.

But if we assume that everyone who has had their phone seized in that investigation is a subject of it, then Scott Perry, the Chair of the House Freedom [sic] Caucus, would also be included. Perry was the one who suggested that Trump replace Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark so DOJ would endorse Trump’s challenges to the election outcome. He pushed a number of conspiracy theories at the White House and DOJ (including the whack Italian one). Along with Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, Perry was putting together plans for Trump to come to the Capitol on January 6. After one meeting with Perry, Meadows burned some papers.

Perry isn’t even the only one who was closely involved in the plot to steal the election. Jim Jordan, the incoming Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, was closely involved as well and is very close to likely subject Mark Meadows.

Indeed, if you include all the members of Congress who discussed or asked for pardons, the number grows longer, in addition to Perry, including at least Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Jordan, Perry, Gaetz, Biggs, Gohmert, and Marge would amount to most of the probable seven person majority in the House.

Marge, as it turns out, is already dreaming up ways to defund this investigation (the means by which she wants to do this, the Holman Rule, probably wouldn’t work; I believe there’s a preauthorized fund from which Special Counsel expenses come from).

In any case, the GOPers mentioned above plan to put on a series of shows in the House meant to distract from possible DOJ investigations/prosecutions coming their way.

Maybe Jordan, Perry, Gaetz, Biggs, Gohmert, and Greene should have stuck to community theatre.

The wanted to get the case to Clarence

After all, Ginni was their pen pal

Remember when Ginni Thomas wrote to personal friend and former Thomas clerk John Eastman encouraging him to help overturn the election?

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol has obtained email correspondence between Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and lawyer John Eastman, who played a key role in efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, according to three people involved in the committee’s investigation.

Right. How about this new information today?

Donald Trump’s attorneys saw a direct appeal to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as their best hope of derailing Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election, according to emails newly disclosed to congressional investigators.

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a Dec. 31, 2020, email to Trump’s legal team. Chesebro contended that Thomas would be “our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress.”

“I think I agree with this,” attorney John Eastman replied later that morning, suggesting that a favorable move by Thomas or other justices would “kick the Georgia legislature into gear” to help overturn the election results.

The messages were part of a batch of eight emails — obtained by POLITICO — that Eastman had sought to withhold from the Jan. 6 select committee but that a judge ordered turned over anyway, describing them as evidence of likely crimes committed by Eastman and Trump. They were transmitted to the select committee by Eastman’s attorneys last week, but they have not been publicly released.

Thomas is the justice assigned to handle emergency matters arising out of Georgia and would have been the one to receive any urgent appeal of Trump’s lawsuit to the Supreme Court — a fact that seemed to be part of the Trump legal team’s calculus…

In another Dec. 31 email, Chesebro explicitly laid out this strategy:

“[I]f we can just get this case pending before the Supreme Court by Jan. 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice, hopefully Thomas, I think it’s our best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress,” Chesebro said.

Recall also that Eastman emailed to one of the other lawyers that he understood there to be “a heated fight underway” in the Court and while nobody knows for sure it seems logical that the only way he would know that is through his pals Ginni and Clarence.

But whatever. It’s totally cool that Thomas didn’t recuse himself from all the 2020 election cases. Who could possibly see a conflict of interest in any of that?

I noted the “I know you are but what am I” strategy many moons ago

Now it’s gone mainstream

Those of you who read this blog know where you heard it first. But here’s the Daily Beast getting it too:

After almost two years of being called “election deniers” for aiding and abetting Donald Trump’s failed coup attempt, supporting his “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, and chiseling away at the democratic process by insinuating that any election they lose is automatically suspect—Republicans have finally come up with a snappy comeback.

It’s essentially the juvenile clapback, “I know you are, but what am I”—best known as Pee Wee Herman’s 1980s-era go-to retort.

Yep:

Sen. Ted Cruz brought it to the mainstream this week during an appearance on The View, when he read some quotes from Hillary Clinton and other Democrats calling their past election defeats illegitimate. The hosts took the bait, replying that at least Dems didn’t set out to murder the Republican vice president and sack the Capitol at the behest of the President of the United States.

That, predictably, led to a prepared Cruz riposte about “antifa riots,” and the whole segment quickly devolved into a screaming shitshow.

viral clip from the Republican National Committee showing “10 Minutes of Democrats Denying Election Results” also continues to be widely shared by the right-wing Pee Wee Hermans of Twitter.

The montage mostly consists of Clinton and others talking about Russian interference in the 2016 election, which they said makes Trump an “illegitimate president.” There’s also a smattering of Dems talking about possible vote-counting malfeasances in Ohio in 2004. Appearing near the end are some even dustier clips of liberals saying that George W. Bush in 2000 was “appointed” by the Supreme Court, rather than “elected.”

And of course, there’s Stacey Abrams’ repeated claims that her defeat to Brian Kemp in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election was illegitimate. She has long alleged that Kemp, in his then role as secretary of state, suppressed the vote by wrongly canceling over a million voter registrations and closing hundreds of polling sites during his tenure in office. But as USA Today’s fact checker noted, “those actions can be explained as routine under state and federal law, and an expert explained there’s not much empirical evidence supporting the assertion that Kemp either suppressed the vote or ‘stole’ the election from Abrams.”

Abrams never officially conceded her defeat, which Republicans have fairly used as evidence that she’s an “election denier.”

Ok, so what?

Is the point that Abrams and Clinton are sour grapes losers, therefore Trump’s coup attempt, ongoing Republican efforts across the country to seize control of election processes, and widespread intimidation efforts—all stemming from a demonstrably false theory that the 2020 election was stolen in a multi-state conspiracy (that supposedly included Republican elected officials)—are fair play?

Here’s the thing. Al Gore conceded the 2000 election after the Supreme Court halted the Florida recount. John Kerry conceded the 2004 election the very next day, and objections to the certification of Bush’s reelection were quickly batted down by Democratic leadership. And Clinton, for all her subsequent “illegitimate president” talk, also conceded the next day.

None of them pushed a lie—and this is not debatable, it is a lie—that makes every U.S. election for the foreseeable future a potential civil war flashpoint. Trump will never concede, and directed a violent mob toward the U.S. Capitol to take over Congress and overturn our election. Spot the difference?

Here’s a very small sample of things we know for a fact, in large part thanks to the Jan. 6 Committee hearings (which mostly featured testimony from Trump administration officials, MAGA diehards, and police officers).

“Is the point that Abrams and Clinton are sour grapes losers, therefore Trump’s coup attempt [and] ongoing Republican efforts across the country to seize control of election processes…are fair play?”

There was coordination in the high echelons of Trump’s inner circle with the neo-fascist groups who tried to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory. Trump nakedly abused his power by leaning on local officials after the election to “find votes” for him to win—a request that, under any other presidency, would have been, and should have been, treated as an impeachable offense. And numerous people in his administration—from his loyal attack dog attorney general, Bill Barr, to his own daughter, Ivanka—tried to make the president listen to reason, face the unimpeachable facts, and accept that he lost a thoroughly vetted, free, and fair election.

Trump, a loser of the sorest kind, would do no such thing. And now he has inspired a movement hellbent on salting the earth.

It’s perfectly in keeping with the essentially juvenile nature of Trumpism. They are suffering from a mass case of arrested development. Just watch a Trump rally if you don’t believe me.

The New Mexico standoff

Election deniers are making life hell for local officials

This story from Bolt magazine is just chilling:

The lawyer was clear: what the commissioners of Otero County, New Mexico were thinking of doing this fall was against the law. If they followed through they could be removed from office and could face criminal charges. 

But Commissioner Couy Griffin was adamant. As the founder of Cowboys For Trump, he was steeped in election conspiracy theories that sprung up after Trump’s loss in 2020. At an August 11 meeting Griffin pushed for their county to eliminate election ballot drop boxes and voting machines, which he argued could be tools for voter fraud. He also wanted to sue Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, who months earlier had gone to court to force them to certify primary election results that Griffin didn’t trust. 

The other two commissioners, also Republicans, weren’t buying it. As their county lawyer RB Nichols made clear, the use of voting machines and drop boxes is dictated by state law. “It won’t matter what we vote, we have no authority to do anything,” said Gerald Matherly. Fellow Commissioner Vickie Marquardt agreed, saying “this is out of our purview.”

Hours later, after a raucous community meeting that included shouting, allegations of fraud, and calls for resignations, Griffin prevailed. The commission voted 2-1 to do away with drop boxes and voting machines, as well as to sue the secretary of state. 

These moves kicked off an intra-party showdown between Republican elected officials following the rule of law and others who are trying to overturn the system as they pursue election conspiracies in a county that voted 62 percent for Trump in 2020. 

They offer a preview for the types of fights that could ensue as more election deniers seek positions of electoral power in New Mexico. So far those on the side of following the law are winning, but that is only true as long as key positions are filled by people willing to resist pressure from constituents who have bought into Trump’s Big Lie conspiracies. 

Otero County Clerk Robyn Holmes, also a Republican, is refusing to comply with the commission’s directive. Holmes says she has the power to decide how local elections are run and the voting machines and drop boxes will stay.

“They cannot create laws. I took an oath of office to follow the law and that’s what I’m going to do,” Holmes told Bolts

Holmes has the benefit of knowing that in her showdown with the commission, she has Toulouse Oliver backing her up. Back in June the Otero Commission refused to certify primary election results—despite one commissioner, Matherly, being on the ballot and needing his own candidacy to be certified. The commission had no discretion to refuse to certify results under state law, and Toulouse Oliver went to court to force the commission to reverse course. The state supreme court stepped in and sided with her. Asked if having an election denier as secretary of state would change the dynamic and make her job more difficult, Holmes said “I think absolutely it would.” 

New Mexico is one of several states this fall where an election denier is vying to take over the secretary of state position. The Republican challenger to Toulouse Oliver is Audrey Trujillo, a pro-Trump candidate who rejected the results of the 2020 presidential election and called Biden’s victory a “coup.”

Trujillo has endorsed various conspiracy theories and claimed that school shootings were conducted by “the deep state” in order “to push an agenda” to take away guns. She is campaigning heavily on conspiracies about election security, saying that current New Mexico leaders weaponized voter laws and the Covid-19 pandemic to “secure their elections for at least 100 years.” Similar to the movement in Otero County, she claims voting machines manipulated election results and has called for hand counting ballots. In June, Trujillo publicly urged the state’s county commissioners to not certify their primary election results without a hand recount and encouraged them to stop using voting machines from Dominion Voting Systems.

“I just want to improve the system we have in place; I’m not here to recreate the wheel,” Trujillo told the Las Cruces Sun News in September. “But if there are questions on those machines, we’re going to do our damnedest to do our research and see how we can do it a better way and an easier way.”

“Do our research” is a tip off that she’s down the wingnut rabbit hole in a big way.

The source of many of these theories is a husband and wife couple, David and Erin Clements, who have traveled all across the country to evangelize their brand of election denialism. They happen to be from New Mexico, one county over from Otero. In their home state they have dubbed themselves the New Mexico Audit Force and released an extensive report full of voter fraud allegations that fall apart under scrutiny.

Neither have a background in elections. Erin Clements was a civil engineer. David Clements was a business professor at New Mexico State University who was fired after refusing to comply with the school’s Covid safety policies on masking or vaccinations. He amassed a large following online and raised over $300,000 from a crowdfunding campaign.

The couple travels from state to state urging people to show up at their local government meetings to demand voting machines and drop boxes be removed. They have been particularly active in New Mexico—and it’s working. County clerks have been receiving steady pressure to dismantle the machinery of elections. 

“It’s consistent, it is unrelenting, it is sometimes aggressive. I’ve had to report a couple of threats to the FBI,” said Doña Ana County clerk Amanda López Askin. “I hate to say it but it’s part of the job at this point, sadly.”

She counted 141 Freedom of Information Act requests from election deniers, including requests for in-person tours to audit election machinery. “They have really weaponized public records requests. If I let them they would incapacitate my office to the point where we would not be able to run an election,” said López Askin.

In Otero County, this dynamic exploded into a chaotic community meeting the evening of August 11.

The Clementses were welcomed onstage to discuss their report. When County Attorney RB Nichols reiterated that the commission had no legal authority to do away with voting machines or ballot drop boxes, David Clements lambasted the local officials for cowardice.  “It’s tyranny. And you don’t help them. You don’t help us. You don’t fight. You just do whatever the secretary of state tells you to,” he said.

Supporters in the public gallery cheered along. Nichols was insistent, saying he would not go along with the Clementses demands that the county sue the secretary of state. “I’m not going to file a frivolous lawsuit, David. I have to have a good-faith basis.”

When an audience member called for following the law, Clements said that Nazis under the direction of Hitler were also following the law. When commissioner Matherly discussed downgrading the motion to a request so that they would not risk going to jail, Clements shamed him. “And why are you scared of going to jail?”

The Clementses, along with commissioner Griffin, waged a steady pressure campaign. Griffin argued that the commission should sue Toulouse Oliver for forcing them to certify primary results that he claimed were later proven to be fraudulent.

The basis for Griffin’s fraud claim is that a hand recount changed the results of one primary race by three votes. Clerk Holmes explained that three people filled out their ballot incorrectly and that the machine would have notified them of their mistake and directed them to get a new ballot, but sometimes people do not want to start over and submit it anyway. She said during the hand recount election workers determined that voter intention of those three ballots were clear enough to be counted.

Despite this explanation, Griffin continued to insist that the discrepancy was proof of voter fraud.  “If there were three votes that weren’t counted in that race, how many other races were the same?” he said. “And how does that affect the big picture, OK? Again, I’m just fighting for the truth up here and I see it pretty clearly right now.”

David Clements jumped up to a microphone to shout down Holmes. “You need to resign,” he said. “Disgusting how you fight the people.”

Griffin and the Clementses won the day, convincing commissioner Marquardt to vote for removing drop boxes and voting machines, as well as for suing the secretary of state. 

For everything they say about hand counting I think we know what they really want. They want Republicans to be able to count the votes and ensure they win. Otherwise they would not be against machine votes that could be audited in case of a close result. Trump has even said it out loud (of course.)

López Askin, the Doña Ana County clerk, is one of the most vocal clerks in the state in responding to election conspiracy theories, which she finds are regularly brought up at community meetings. She recalled one resident at a meeting shaking with anger and demanding officials look into fraud as she held up the Clementses self-described audit.

López Askin said that she and her colleagues try to explain the multiple levels of security built into the system—certification of machines, accuracy tests, recounts in close races, post-election audits of results—but ultimately she fears people will opt out of the democratic process because they believe the people telling them it’s a sham.

“These folks get up there and they are fully angry and emotional. They believe it. I don’t know if there’s anything I could say at this point that could continue otherwise,” she said. “So I actually feel mostly compassion for them.”

I don’t. They have agency. They are adults. And they are in love with anger, lies and hate. It has become their entire identity. This is not something that happens to decent people.

What about this Eastman business?

In case you just don’t have it in you to read the Judge’s 18 page order, Joyce Vance lays it out:

Today, federal judge David Carter ruled that John Eastman’s emails, which he has been fighting to protect from the January 6 committee’s subpoena since January of this year, must be turned over. Eastman argued that he was Trump’s attorney, and the communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Judge Carter disagreed and found that the privilege didn’t apply because of the crime-fraud exception. You can read his full order here.

Share

This is not a criminal judgment against the former president. This is a civil case and the issue before Judge Carter is whether to enforce the subpoena the J6C sent to Eastman. We should not overread it. It doesn’t mean an indictment of Trump will automatically follow. But it is still highly significant. Judge Carter’s 18-page opinion is careful and deliberate. He’s not taking any leaps of faith to stretch to his conclusions that some of these emails were about committing crimes, namely obstruction of Congress and a conspiracy to defraud the government. It’s the measured approach Judge Carter takes that’s so compelling here. He could have gone further, but he didn’t. And the emails that Congress will now have access to are deeply damaging to the former president.Subscribe

Who is John Eastman? This is how he’s described in the court’s order: Plaintiff Dr. John Eastman (“Dr. Eastman”), a former law school dean at Chapman University (“Chapman”), is a “political conservative who supported former President [Donald] Trump” and a self-described “activist law professor.” While he was a professor at Chapman, Dr. Eastman worked with President Trump and his campaign on legal and political strategy regarding the November 3, 2020 election.

More than 500 disputed emails, each of which the Judge reviewed, are involved in this order. After his review, he reached this conclusion: the crime-fraud exception applies to a number of emails related to President Trump and Dr. Eastman’s (1) court efforts to delay or disrupt the January 6 vote; and (2) their knowing misrepresentation of voter fraud numbers in Georgia when seeking to overturn the election results in federal court.

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between attorney and clients, so long as they are made for the purpose of facilitating the provision of professional legal advice. To be confidential, communications must be limited to attorney and client, or in some cases their representatives. They must be for the purpose of seeking legal advice. If communications are used to commit or are in furtherance of crimes, they lose the protection the privilege normally provides.

That’s what happened here. The procedure is a little bit complicated. First, the Judge decided that 536 of the communications he reviewed were protected by either the attorney-client privilege or because they were attorney work product (to which the crime-fraud exception also applies). Second, he had to consider whether any of those documents should be disclosed to the committee, nonetheless, because they went afoul of the crime-fraud exception.

There’s a two-part legal test used to decide when the crime-fraud exception applies. The client must have consulted an attorney “for advice that will serve [them] in the commission of a fraud or crime,” and the communications must be both “sufficiently related to” and made “in furtherance of” the crime. It doesn’t matter whether the defendant successfully pulled off the crime or not, it’s the abuse of the confidential relationship between lawyer and client that shuts off the protection these communications would normally receive.

Judge Carter found in earlier proceedings that Trump had, more likely than not been involved in:

— A plan to obstruct Congress’s official proceedings to confirm the electoral college vote on January 6, 2021, and

— A conspiracy to defraud the United States

when he consulted Eastman. So, his consideration here involved whether the communications were sufficiently related to and in furtherance of those two crimes. He concluded there were eight documents where the crime-fraud exception applied.

That may be sound like a small percentage of the total number of communications, but it’s an astonishing conclusion to reach regarding a then-sitting president of the United States. Eight communications indicates an ongoing course of conduct instead of an inquiry that was quickly abandoned. And there were still more documents that the Judge considered to be “close calls” —for instance, some were related to disrupting the January 6 vote, but that the Court couldn’t “conclusively determine” furthered the obstruction—and didn’t order disclosed. But there was no question in Judge Carter’s mind about the eight.

There are four communications in which Eastman and other attorneys suggest that the primary goal of filing lawsuits “is to delay or otherwise disrupt the January 6 vote.” In one of the emails, Trump’s attorneys advise that “merely” having a case pending in the Supreme Court may delay consideration of Georgia’s election results. Judge Carter concludes Trump filed suits, not to get legal relief he was entitled to, but to disrupt the certification of the election. He finds that the communications Eastman tried to withhold from the committee were in furtherance of the obstruction. In other words, they were all involved in committing that crime together.

Judge Carter ruled that four additional emails involved the effort by Trump and his attorneys to make false claims in federal court to delay the January 6 vote. He says there is evidence of this in at least one Georgia lawsuit. In my experience with Alabama elections, Republicans spend a lot of time on claims Democrats engage in voter fraud. A lot of their complaints center on unfounded allegations of dead people, people with prior felony convictions, and unregistered people voting. That’s what Trump argued in Georgia. He attached specific numbers to each of the claims: 10,315 deceased people, 2,560 felons, and 2.423 unregistered people. He did it first in a lawsuit filed in state court in Georgia in early December and then again, in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Georgia to challenge the election.

Before the federal case was filed, Eastman relayed what the Court calls “concerns” about the specific numbers and Trump’s “resistance” to signing when the specific numbers were included. Eastman explained in one of the communications he tried to withhold from the committee that after signing the Georgia state complaint, Trump had “since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate.”

Nonetheless, Trump attached a signed verification to the federal lawsuit when it was filed, attesting that the information in it was correct, or at least believed to be to the best of the his knowledge, as he had previously done with the state lawsuit. And that’s a serious problem because before the federal case was filed, Eastman communicated that the numbers were made up junk. Those numbers were still incorporated into the federal complaint and attested to by Trump, without any effort to correct or delete them. Judge Carter concludes, “The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public. The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States” and orders Eastman to disclose these four, along with the earlier four communications to the committee.

Eastman managed to delay the committee’s work for nine months at a critical juncture in the nation’s history. That delay is likely not over—he could still appeal. But this ruling should be all that both the Justice Department and Fani Willis, the Fulton County DA, need to get to work on these materials if they weren’t already on it. The devil is always in the details, but it sounds as though these documents go a long way towards establishing Trump’s intent to obstruct the January 6 election certification and specifically, the count of the Georgia votes. It’s more proof, and from the mouth of his own attorney, that he knew the Big Lie was a Big Lie. The wheels of justice may move slowly, but they do move. They moved a lot today.

Yesterday on Ari Melber, the former head of the SDNY David Kelley pointed out that we don’t know if Trump himself was on those emails, which calls into question whether this means they might be hearsay. Trump famously doesn’t use email. But that’s unclear.

I remain very pessimistic that Trump will be held legally liable for January 6th by the DOJ. He should, but I doubt it will happen. Eastman and the others involved in the phony electors scheme, maybe. But Trump himself? I just can’t see it happen.

Georgia maybe — they have him on tape, after all. Perhaps these emails could help with that case. But it will take a tremendous amount of courage for Fanni Willis to indict the former president who has a rabid following of radical, gun-toting, insurrectionists. I’ll believe it when I see it.

I honestly think the only thing that can stop him is illness or losing the 2024 election so badly that most of his voters can’t refute it. Since he came close in the electoral college in 2020 (which is subject to manipulation in the battleground states in 2024 where election deniers are all poised to win in this election) after his egregious pandemic response, I have to wonder if that’s even possible.

How many strikes does Trump get?

He’s a one-narcissist crime spree

If the Department of Justice does not indict Trump for this, Merrick Garland may as well close up shop and turn out the lights. The rest of the country will not be far behind (New York Times):

Former President Donald J. Trump signed a document swearing under oath that information in a Georgia lawsuit he filed challenging the results of the 2020 election was true even though his own lawyers had told him it was false, a federal judge wrote on Wednesday.

The accusation came in a ruling by the judge, David O. Carter, ordering John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who strategized with the former president about overturning the election, to hand over 33 more emails to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Judge Carter, who serves with the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, determined that the emails contained possible evidence of criminal behavior.

“The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” Judge Carter wrote. He added in a footnote that the suit contained language saying Mr. Trump was relying on information provided to him by others.

The committee has fought for months to get access to hundreds of Mr. Eastman’s emails, viewing him as the intellectual architect of plans to subvert the 2020 election, including Mr. Trump’s effort to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to block or delay congressional certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6, 2021. Repeatedly, the panel has argued that a “crime-fraud exception” pierces the typical attorney-client privilege that often protects communications between lawyers and clients.

On Wednesday, Carter agreed, writing that in their effort to delay vote certificationTrump and Eastman knowingly misrepresented “voter fraud numbers in Georgia when seeking to overturn the election results in federal court.” That is, their legal efforts were “not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the Jan. 6 congressional proceedings through the courts.”

That would be … bad. Marcy Wheeler (Emptywheel) observes that obtaining these emails will help prosecutors in both the Georgia and Jan. 6th plot investigations:

These emails are going to have all sorts of ramifications — in Fani Willis’ investigation and the DOJ investigation. And they’ll likely make it easier for both Willis and Thomas Windom (who is leading the Trump fraud investigation) to obtain related emails that were seized from Mar-a-Lago.

All I want for Christmas….

Cruella Taylor Green

She’s even worse than you thought

This profile in the NY Times will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. And she is gaining power. A lot of it:

“There’s going to be a lot of investigations,” Marjorie Taylor Greene said, describing what she anticipates if the Republicans regain the House majority this November. “I’ve talked with a lot of members about this.”

It was early September, two months before the midterm elections, and Greene, the first-term congresswoman from Georgia, was sitting in a restaurant in Alpharetta, an affluent suburb of greater metropolitan Atlanta. Among the fellow Republicans with whom Greene said she had been speaking about these investigations was the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy. Just a couple of weeks later, on Sept. 23, Greene sat directly behind McCarthy in a manufacturing facility in Monongahela, Pa., as he publicly previewed what a House Republican majority’s legislative agenda would look like. Among the topics she and her colleagues have discussed is the prospect of impeaching President Joe Biden, a pursuit Greene has advocated literally since the day after Biden took office, when she filed articles of impeachment accusing Obama’s vice president of having abused his power to benefit his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine. “My style would be a lot more aggressive, of course,” she told me, referring to McCarthy. “For him, I think the evidence needs to be there. But I think people underestimate him, in thinking he wouldn’t do it.”

This article is adapted from “Weapons of Mass Delusion: When the Republican Party Lost Its Mind,” published this month by Penguin Press.

In Greene’s view, a Speaker McCarthy would have little choice but to adopt Greene’s “a lot more aggressive” approach toward punishing Biden and his fellow Democrats for what she sees as their policy derelictions and for conducting a “witch hunt” against former President Trump. “I think that to be the best speaker of the House and to please the base, he’s going to give me a lot of power and a lot of leeway,” she predicted in a flat, unemotional voice. “And if he doesn’t, they’re going to be very unhappy about it. I think that’s the best way to read that. And that’s not in any way a threat at all. I just think that’s reality.”

Though the 48-year-old self-described “Christian nationalist” possesses a flair for extreme bombast equal to that of her political role model Trump, Greene’s assessment of her current standing within the Republican Party — owing to the devotion accorded her by the party’s MAGA base — would seem to be entirely accurate.

Over the past two years, Greene has gone from the far-right fringe of the G.O.P. ever closer to its establishment center without changing any of her own beliefs; if anything, she has continued to find more extreme ways to express them. When she entered electoral politics in 2019, she had spent much of her adult life as a co-owner, with her husband, of her family’s construction company. (Her husband, Perry Greene, recently filed for divorce.)

She threw herself into her first campaign, that May, with almost no strategic planning or political networking, and a social media history replete with hallucinatory conspiracy theories. When she switched to a more conservative district in the middle of the 2020 campaign and won, she was roundly dismissed as an unacceptable officeholder who could be contained, isolated and returned to sender in the next election. And yet in 2021, her first year in Congress, Greene raised $7.4 million in political donations, the fourth-highest among the 212 House Republicans, a feat made even more remarkable by the fact that the three who outraised Greene — McCarthy, the minority leader; Steve Scalise, the minority whip; and Dan Crenshaw of Texas — were beneficiaries of corporate PACs that have shunned Greene. (As Trump did during his candidacy, Greene maintains that it is in fact she who refuses all corporate donations.)

In another measure of her influence within the national party, Greene’s endorsement and support have been eagerly sought by 2022 G.O.P. hopefuls like the Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake and the Ohio U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance. Within the House Republican conference, McCarthy has assiduously courted her support, inviting her to high-level policy meetings (such as a discussion about the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets Department of Defense policy for the year) and, according to someone with knowledge of their exchanges, offering to create a new leadership position for her.

McCarthy’s spokesman denies that the minority leader has made such an offer. When I asked Greene if the report was inaccurate, she smiled and said, “Not necessarily.” But then she added: “I don’t have to have a leadership position. I think I already have one, without having one.”

Greene’s metamorphosis over the past year and a half from pariah to a position of undeniable influence presents a case study in G.O.P. politics in the Trump era. The first time I saw Greene in person was on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021. She was barreling down a crowded corridor of the Longworth House Office Building, conspicuously unmasked at a time when masks were still mandated by U.S. Capitol rules. Her all-male retinue of staff members striding briskly beside her were also maskless. In the late hours after that day’s insurrection — one that the Georgia freshman arguably had egged on with her innumerable claims that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen and her assertion to a Newsmax interviewer that Jan. 6 would be “our 1776 moment” — Greene stood on the House floor and objected to the Michigan election results, a move that was promptly dismissed by the presiding officer, Vice President Mike Pence, because the congresswoman had no U.S. senator to join her in the motion as the rules prescribed.

The day after the insurrection, Greene sat in a corner of her office in the Longworth building, being interviewed for a right-wing YouTube show by Katie Hopkins, a British white nationalist who had been banished from most social media outlets for her Islamophobic and racist comments (the channel that carried her show has since been taken down by YouTube). The Georgia freshman reflected somberly on the events of the previous day: “Last night and into the early-morning hours was probably one of the saddest days of my life. Scariest and loneliest days of my life. On the third day on the job as a new member of Congress, um, just having our Capitol attacked, being blamed on the president that I love, and I know it’s not his fault; and then having it blamed on all the people that support him, 75 million people — 75-plus million people that have supported President Trump and have truly appreciated all his hard work and America First policies and everything about Make America Great Again.” (Trump received 74.2 million votes in 2020.) “It was extremely lonely in there, watching, basically, the certification of the Electoral College votes for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, even though we know the election was stolen, and the Democrats were working so hard on it, but Republicans too, there were Republicans also.”

Hopkins listened attentively, her face knotted with anguish, and observed, “It’s almost as if you’re one of them — you’re almost like one of those who could’ve been at the rally.”

“I am one of those people,” Greene said emphatically. “That’s exactly who I am.”

Hastily, as if realizing the implication of what she had said, she added: “I’m not one of those people that attacked the Capitol yesterday. I completely condemn that. I completely condemn attacking law enforcement; I support our police officers. And I thank them for their courage yesterday in keeping us safe. I know there were bad actors involved and investigations are underway — and it’s Antifa.” (In subsequent months, Greene would blame the F.B.I. for possibly instigating the violence on Jan. 6. She also voted against awarding police officers who defended the Capitol that day the congressional gold medal, its highest honor.)

Greene also said to Hopkins, “I’m not a politician.” Like much of what she said during their interview, this statement was not altogether accurate. Her precocious gift for offending and demonizing qualified her as a natural for the trade as it had come to be reimagined by Trump and his acolytes.

She is the Queen of the Trump Cult. And she is evil. Read it all if you can. Oy….

All the president’s criming

Are the Mar-a-Lago informants a game-changer?

U.S. Department of Justice headquarters, August 12, 2006. No attribution, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).

The Washington Post’s Wednesday leak ups the pressure on the Department of Justice to indict former president Donald Trump over national security documents he removed from the White House and attempted to conceal:

A Trump employee has told federal agents about moving boxes of documents at Mar-a-Lago at the specific direction of the former president, according to people familiar with the investigation, who say the witness account — combined with security-camera footage — offers key evidence of Donald Trump’s behavior as investigators sought the return of classified material.

The witness description and footage described to The Washington Post offer the most direct account to date of Trump’s actions and instructions leading up to the FBI’s Aug. 8 search of the Florida residence and private club, in which agents were looking for evidence of potential crimes including obstruction, destruction of government records or mishandling classified information.

A Trump spokesman dismissed suggestions that Trump broke the law, accusing the Justice Department of being un-American.

Trump told people to move boxes to his residence at the property

To be sure, FBI interviews and subpoenaed security tapes supported the August Mar-a-Lago search warrant. The FBI knew some documents had been moved and by whom.

The people familiar with the investigation said agents have gathered witness accounts indicating that, after Trump advisers received a subpoena in May for any classified documents that remained at Mar-a-Lago, Trump told people to move boxes to his residence at the property. That description of events was corroborated by the security-camera footage, which showed people moving the boxes, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

The Post story does not identify the Mar-a-Lago witness. A follow-up story in the New York Times suggests the aide caught on camera is former military aide Walt Nauta, now a Trump employee.

In the first interview, these people said, the witness denied handling sensitive documents or the boxes that might contain such documents. As they gathered evidence, agents decided to re-interview the witness, and the witness’s story changed dramatically, these people said. In the second interview, the witness described moving boxes at Trump’s request.

The witness is now considered a key part of the Mar-a-Lago investigation, these people said, offering details about the former president’s alleged actions and instructions to subordinates that could have been an attempt to thwart federal officials’ demands for the return of classified and government documents.

If there is a game being changed, it involves the amount of public pressure now on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department to bring charges.

The reporting represents “as powerful a case of obstruction of justice as you could imagine,” counsel for the first Trump impeachment Barry Berke told MSNBC’s Alex Wagner on Wednesday. And Donald Trump is “at the center of it.” It also buttresses bringing a charge under the espionage act.

“I will tell you the powerful case to bring is the January 6th case,” Berke said. “You don’t need to charge him with seditious conspiracy … you only need to charge him with interfering with an official proceeding — the certification of the vote — and the evidence of that is overwhelming.”

As many crimes as Trump committed, deterrence is the most important issue, Berke continued. There are people running for office in November pledging to do just what Trump did: obstruct official proceedings and overturn elections. If the department does not bring the case, those people will see that they are above the law as well.

Former federal prosecutor Daniel Goldman told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell that bringing charges against Trump carries risk. Physical risk. When he led the impeachment investigation of Trump, Goldman received threats from Trump supporters. He’d prosecuted mob bosses and violent Russian organized criminals, but “the most fear I ever had was during the impeachment investigation.”

Nevertheless, if the reporting is accurate, Garland’s Justice Department has no choice except to indict Trump for obstruction (if not more) or else close up shop and turn out the lights. The rule of law in this country is dead.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us

Christina Bobb, a woman in a hurry

She jumped into Trumpism head first

The recent story about Trump attorney Christina Bobb speaking with federal prosecutors and making sure she wasn’t left holding the bag with the FBI may sound as if we are looking at another Cassidy Hutchinson but I wonder. She seems like a Trumper to the end:

This spring, one of the lawyers representing former President Donald J. Trump made an urgent, high-stakes request to Christina G. Bobb, who had just jumped from a Trump-allied cable network to a job in his political organization.

The former president was in the midst of an escalating clash with the Justice Department about documents he had taken with him from the White House at the end of his term. The lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran, met Ms. Bobb at the president’s residence and private club in Florida and asked her to sign a statement for the department that the Trump legal team had conducted a “diligent search” of Mar-a-Lago and found only a few files that had not been returned to the government.

Ms. Bobb, a 39-year-old lawyer juggling amorphous roles in her new job, was being asked to take a step that neither Mr. Trump nor other members of the legal team were willing to take — so she looked before leaping.

“Wait a minute — I don’t know you,” Ms. Bobb replied to Mr. Corcoran’s request, according to a person to whom she later recounted the episode. She later complained that she did not have a full grasp of what was going on around her when she signed the document, according to two people who have heard her account.

Ms. Bobb, who relentlessly promoted falsehoods about the 2020 election as an on-air host for the far-right One America News Network, eventually signed her name. But she insisted on adding a written caveat before giving it to a senior Justice Department official on June 3: “The above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.”

Her sworn statement, hedged or not, was shown to be flatly false after the F.B.I.’s search of Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, which recovered about 100 additional highly sensitive government documents, including some marked with the highest levels of classification. And prosecutors are now investigating whether her actions constitute obstruction of justice or if she committed other crimes.

On Friday, Ms. Bobb sat for a voluntary interview with Justice Department lawyers in Washington, according to three people familiar with the situation. She told them that another Trump lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, contacted her the night before she signed the attestation and connected her with Mr. Corcoran. Ms. Bobb, who was living in Florida, was told that she needed to go to Mar-a-Lago the next day to deal with an unspecified legal matter for Mr. Trump.

In her meeting with the department — a development reported by NBC News on Monday — Ms. Bobb emphasized that she was working as part of a team rather than as a solo actor when she signed the statement attesting to the return of all the documents, the people said.

Mr. Corcoran, she told the Justice Department, had walked her through how he had conducted a search of a storage facility at Mar-a-Lago for the documents. She said she had believed at the time she signed the attestation in June that it was accurate, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

Ms. Bobb has made clear that she is not taking an adversarial position toward Mr. Trump in answering the Justice Department’s questions. She told investigators that before she signed the attestation, she heard Mr. Trump tell Mr. Corcoran that they should cooperate with the Justice Department and give prosecutors what they wanted — an assurance that would come to ring hollow as the investigation proceeded and became a bitter court fight.

See what I mean? She may have thrown the other lawyers under the bus but her mission is to protect Dear Leader and she will do it come what may.

Ms. Bobb’s trajectory is a familiar one in Mr. Trump’s orbit: a marginal player thrust by ambition and happenstance into a position where her profile and prospects are elevated, but at the cost of serious legal and reputational risk.

But she stands out for a varied background — she is a former Marine who served in Afghanistan and a failed political candidate who jettisoned a conventional career to become a far-right cable news host — and for the tensile strength of her baseless conviction that the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump.

In the past two years, Ms. Bobb has emerged as one of his truest of true believers, embracing conspiracy theories with a fervor that have at times seemed over the top even to her colleagues, according to interviews with a dozen people who have worked with her over the past several years. Ms. Bobb has not been shy about expressing her opinions on conservative news outlets, speaking expansively about the court-authorized F.B.I. search and her low opinion of those who executed it. “I don’t believe that there was any classified material in there, though I’m sure the F.B.I. will say that there is,” she said in an interview with the conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza two days after the warrant was executed. Another conservative activist, Mike Farris, asked if she was concerned by the Justice Department’s aggressive approach. “I’m not too worried about it,” she replied. “They are all a bunch of cowards; they don’t have anything.”

Ms. Bobb was present in the pro-Trump “command center” at the Willard Hotel in Washington before the Capitol attack, along with Rudolph W. Giuliani and other Trump stalwarts. She acted as Mr. Giuliani’s go-between with state officials in Arizona and helped fund-raise for a recount in Maricopa County that Republican leaders called a “sham.” She drafted a memo and participated in meetings to discuss a plan to appoint alternate slates of electors to reverse legitimate state election results. And Ms. Bobb created the computer file used to draft a proposal, never carried out, for Mr. Trump to issue an executive order for the federal government to seize voting machines.

Dominion Voting Systems is suing Ms. Bobb and OAN for promoting unsubstantiated claims that the company was part of a vote-switching scheme to favor Joseph R. Biden Jr. The House committee investigating the Capitol riot subpoenaed Ms. Bobb in March to testify about her “attempts to disrupt or delay” certification of the election and her reported involvement in drafting the executive order. She complied, but provided no proof when pressed on her claims about the election, according to a congressional aide with knowledge of her testimony.

She offered a dour after-action report of the failed attempt to appoint alternate electors to overturn the election in a previously undisclosed memo she sent to Mr. Trump on March 29, 2021, while working for OAN. The memo, obtained from a person to whom it was later forwarded, was marked “ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE” even though she was not on Mr. Trump’s legal team at the time. “If three states changed their electors, the result of the election would have flipped,” Ms. Bobb wrote, adding a caveat at the end: It was “unclear” whether the Supreme Court would have supported the elector scheme.

It is not known if Mr. Trump read it. He seems to have a mixed opinion of Ms. Bobb’s on-air work, however, grousing that she was too flattering to him in several OAN interviews, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

Ms. Bobb, a standout soccer and volleyball player during her high school years in the Phoenix area, graduated with a joint business and law degree from San Diego State University and California Western School of Law in 2008. She enlisted in the Marine Corps, completing a grueling basic training course in May 2010 as one of 16 women in a class of 280. She served in the Judge Advocate General’s office, representing Marines in disciplinary hearings, and was assigned for a time in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, as an operational law attorney consulting combat commanders on the legality of military operations.

Those experiences, Ms. Bobb has suggested, were front of mind as she stood in the sweltering Mar-a-Lago parking lot angrily observing F.B.I. agents carrying out the search warrant. “Every service member can tell you that you have an affirmative obligation to disregard an unlawful order,” she told Mr. Farris in August.

Ms. Bobb left the Marines after two years to work for a law firm in San Diego, where she served as a junior lawyer in three trademark infringement cases brought by CrossFit against local gym operators, according to court records.Ms. Bobb, second from right, during a meeting about a ballot review at the Arizona Senate in Phoenix in July 2021. In the postelection period, she blurred the lines between her work for One America News and her advocacy of Mr. Trump. Around that time, she made her first foray into politics, running as an independent for a House seat in a predominantly Democratic district in San Diego. She kept a defiantly low profile, criticizing politicians who craved the “limelight,” maintaining a bare-bones website and raising no money. “I understand that it might not work, but it might,” she told a reporter covering the race in 2014.

It did not. Ms. Bobb finished last in a field of eight, with 929 votes. She did not challenge the result.

A few years later, she moved to Washington; in mid-2019, she was selected for an administrative job at the Department of Homeland Security — executive secretary. She served as a conduit for external correspondence, and her name was often attached to important memos, largely drafted by others, such as a list of locations where Mr. Trump’s border wall was to be built.

The job also entailed another responsibility: ensuring compliance with federal records laws. Colleagues remember Ms. Bobb as hardworking and professional, with a bearing more military than political (she retained the habit of referring to superiors as “sir” and “ma’am”). But it soon became clear that the department’s leadership, while satisfied with her work, was not wowed with it and had no intention of promoting her, two former co-workers said.

In late 2019, she requested a position in the policy unit of Customs and Border Protection but left after only a few months, they said. At that point, Ms. Bobb made an abrupt career shift, applying for a job with the San Diego-based OAN, where her connection to homeland security seemed to have been a selling point. The network’s conservative owners viewed immigration as their top priority and wanted to bolster their coverage. Ms. Bobb’s first on-air interview was with her former boss Chad Wolf, the acting homeland security secretary.

It was after Election Day 2020 that she seemed to find her calling, airing multiple reports of unproven electoral fraud, culminating in a lengthy February 2021 segment, “Arizona Election Heist,” which promoted debunked and dubious claims about her home state. After the election, Ms. Bobb was also a fixture at meetings where Trump hard-liners like John Eastman and Sidney Powell discussed plans to reverse the results — which initially raised questions about whether she was embedded for reporting purposes or committed to the cause. Participants quickly concluded it was the latter, according to one of them.

By December, she was back-channeling requests from Mr. Giuliani to Republican state officials in Arizona, pressuring them to authorize a recount of the Maricopa voting, despite a statewide canvass that confirmed Mr. Biden’s 10,000-vote margin of victory. “Mayor Giuliani asked me to send you these declarations,” Ms. Bobb wrote to one leader, accompanied by affidavits, according to an email obtained by American Oversight, a left-leaning watchdog group.

By March 2022, Ms. Bobb decided to leave OAN and relocated to Florida to be closer to Mr. Trump and some of the senior leadership of the Trump-affiliated Save America PAC, taking a staff job that paid $144,600 a year, according to federal campaign finance records. While she has been a fixture on the airwaves and social media, Ms. Bobb requested that her name be redacted from the signed attestation about the documents when it was unsealed in late August, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

It leaked anyway.

I think she’s actually a true believer but you never know with these people. She’s a woman in a very big hurry who hitched her wagon to Trump because it’s pretty easy. He’s always in the market for a lawyer, especially one who can do TV. It was a good career move and she took to it with gusto.

By the way, she also hosts all the Trump rallies on Right Side Broadcasting for which, I assume, she’s been paid. If you’re curious about her tune in some time. You will not see a more enthusiastic sycophant in the crowd. You’ll see why even Trump finds her praise a little bit too effusive.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try refining your search: