Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office confirmed that he will not “consent” to reconvening the Senate before Jan. 19, effectively killing hopes for removing President Donald Trump from office before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration.
A McConnell spokesman confirmed that their office told Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s staff that McConnell won’t “consent” to reconvening the Senate before Jan. 19 after a report broke Tuesday night that McConnell is reportedly considering voting to convict Trump in an impeachment trial.
Schumer was reportedly trying to use the authority granted to the two Senate leaders in 2004 to reconvene the Senate in times of emergency to impeach Trump.
According to Axios founder and former Politico Playbook editor Mike Allen, there is a “50-50 chance” McConnell will vote to impeach Trump. McConnell is reportedly considering his own legacy and wants to defend the Senate and the institution. If McConnell voted to impeach, it is likely other Senate Republicans would jump on board, making it possible for the Senate to impeach Trump.
“The Senate institutional loyalists are fomenting a counterrevolution” to Trump, a top Republican close to McConnell reportedly told Axios.
The New York Times released a report Tuesday, citing anonymous sources, saying that McConnell is pleased Democrats will try to impeach Trump, as it will help separate the Republican Party from Trump. Rioters supporting Trump stormed the U.S. capitol Wednesday, committing acts of vandalism and violence and postponing the electoral college certification process, forcing members of Congress to evacuate the building.
Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced at least one article of impeachment Monday morning against Trump after the pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The House impeachment resolution charges Trump with one article of “incitement of insurrection” and the effort is being led by Democratic Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Ted Lieu of California.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer introduced the resolution, which calls on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office, NBC News reported.
The House is set to vote on impeachment Wednesday.
Republican Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger announced Tuesday that he will vote to impeach Trump, joining Republican Republican Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney and Republican New York Rep. John Katko.
It’s no secret that social media site Twitter was hit hard after banning the President of the United States. After the controversial move, even foreign leaders from France and Germany condemned it. Stock prices of the company fell. And evidence suggests countless users fled the site to join alternatives.
We can’t say for sure what the long-term repercussions are to this move. Other social sites have joined Twitter to silence or ban Trump and right-leaning accounts. This could lead to an unprecedented season of “purging,” where conservatives are kicked off sites (or leave voluntarily). Or backlash could force social media to end their growing acts of censorship.
In an attempt to explain his company’s decision, CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, posted a long thread. He defended banning Trump, but then admitted it was a failure.
Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday evening composed a 13-tweet-long thread on the social media platform he leads in which he defended the company’s recent permanent ban of President Donald Trump while still claiming that the ban constituted a “dangerous” “failure.”
… “While there are clear and obvious exceptions, I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation,” Dorsey said. “And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us.”
I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?— jack (@jack) January 14, 2021 [Source: Just the News]
We can argue all day long about whether Twitter really gave Trump “a clear warning.” Social media sites are notorious for ripping down a user’s posts or account without warning or even direct evidence of offending content. The very broken system used by Twitter and others gives users power to report an account they don’t like. Enough reports and the site will automatically shut the account down—whether the reports are legitimate or not.
(Leftists use this tactic frequently to target and harass conservative users.)
Dorsey claims banning Trump was a failure of the site to “promote healthy conversation,” whatever that means. I thought social media sites were about encouraging free speech, not deciding for themselves what “healthy conversation” is. Just like in physical health, nobody can adequately explain what “healthy” speech looks like—which can lead to abuse and censorship.
Jack then says banning Trump “sets a precedent [he feels] is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation” can wield to control “global public conversation.”
If that’s true, here’s an idea: STOP BANNING USERS. If Jack is really worried that this move will lead to more censorship (and he thinks that’s bad), then why does the company keep doing it?
He admits that banning Trump sets a precedent that is bad. Yet he keeps the decision in place. This is a perfect example of doublethink. Jack doesn’t want social media sites censoring or control conservation, yet this site did it to Trump and many others.
Should we believe Jack’s comments? Does he really want to prevent censorship or allow corporations to control the conversation? Or is he just putting out a statement to quell his stockholders and protect his own ass?
I guess you’ll have to decide that, if you still use Twitter.
Conservatives have been calling for a reform of tech company power for some time, including the reformation of Section 230. Moreover, politicians talk a big game about coming down on these tech companies but never really seem to move on their threats or declarations.
Ever wonder why? Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard will tell you.
Gabbard sat down with the Daily Caller and revealed just why politicians seem to freeze when it comes to acting against big tech and the reason is simple and predictable; it all boils down to money.
The clip picks up with Gabbard explaining that Google does indeed pick and choose what search results come up at the top of every search and she experienced that herself during her campaign for President. She then transitioned that to section 230.
“What this comes down to is, section 230 gives them this legal immunity because the idea is that they are just this neutral platform, kind of like a town square,” said Gabbard.
“This is distinct and different from somebody like the New York Times, for example, or any major media platform that does not have legal immunity because they are publishers, and they do pick and choose what news stories they publish, what letters do the editor’s ar printed, what kind of op-eds are put on their platform, and they make those decisions knowing they are legally liable.”
Gabbard noted that these platforms are now acting as publishers as they are now making editorial decisions while maintaining a legal immunity under section 230.
Gabbard then discussed her recent legislation that would reform section 230, which would remove the broad protections provided by the law and make things a bit more precise in what Silicon Valley giants can get away with.
It seems like a pretty obvious move so why hasn’t it been done yet? Gabbard lets us in on a little Capitol Hill secret.
“The real question we should all be asking is ‘why hasn’t it been fixed yet?’” said Gabbard.
Gabbard notes that despite all the committee hearings and big talk, nothing has been done. So why?
“I’ve seen it happen,” she continued. “Google will have a bit reception and members of congress will go and pick up their checks. Facebook will have a big reception and they’ll go and ‘hey, where’s my check?’”
"It goes to money… Google will have a big reception, members of Congress will go, and then they'll pick up their checks."@TulsiGabbard explains why Congress has failed to act on big tech censorship pic.twitter.com/i7TOJYQ7lv
It’s an Occam’s razor situation where the simplest answer is usually the right one. As Gabbard reveals, the reason no one is acting on big tech is that the companies are inviting our elected members of congress into their very deep pockets.
This is a massive abuse of power on several levels and if our elected officials can’t resist the temptation of extra money in their pockets, then they need to be removed.
Trump has received significant condemnation and pushback following the siege of the Capitol, with Twitter and Facebook banning him from their platforms, Democrats launching an impeachment effort, and other organizations cutting ties with him and his administration.
Big Tech companies banned the president, which he was known to use on a regular basis, out of fear that he would incite further violence akin to Wednesday’s events.
“We believe the risks of allowing the president to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement. “Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”
President-elect Joe Biden’s appointment to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department argued in a 1994 letter to Harvard’s student newspaper that black people have “greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities” than white people, and also was accused of inviting a professor to campus that Jewish groups denounced as anti-Semitic.
Kristen Clarke, who was president of the Black Students Association at Harvard when she wrote the letter to the editors of the Harvard Crimson, explained how blacks have superior abilities following the release of “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life,” a book that linked intelligence to class and race.
The letter was in response to those who defended the book, written by Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholar Dr. Charles Murray. The authors argue in the book that IQ is largely a genetic phenomenon and that low IQs can be linked to societal issues like crime and poverty.
A few days prior to Clarke’s letter, a student wrote an article defending debate on the substance of the book, rather than dismissing it outright due to its “rather unsettling contentions.”
Clarke’s letter advised the book’s defenders to refer to several theories that link melanin to mental and physical superiority in blacks to assist in the “search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites.”
She cited Dr. Richard King, a psychiatrist who authored the book “Melanin: A Key To Freedom” and who she said revealed that the locus coeruleus structure in the human brain “is Black because it contains large amounts of (neuro) melanin which is essential for its operation.” She later also mentioned Dr. Carol Barnes, who also wrote a book on melanin, linking melanin to the “superior physical and mental abilities” of black people.
Clarke asserted that melanin is the “chemical basis for the cultural differences between Blacks and whites”
“Some scientists have revealed that most whites are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcification or non-functioning,” she wrote. “Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent, Asians 15 to 25 percent and Europeans 60 to 80 percent.”
She added that “Black infants sit, stand, crawl, and walk sooner than whites” and that “melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.”
Clarke said that “The Bell Curve” only further burdened black children who she said are at a disadvantage regardless of their social and economic backgrounds and face abuse that white children “never have to face,” even if they come from similar backgrounds.
She accused “conservative whites” of exacerbating the impact of racism on black children, while “liberal whites” underestimate it. She added that it appeared that “whites have grown tired of hearing about racism” so they accepted the notions described in “The Bell Curve.”
“Attacks on Black people such as those in The Bell Curve are not unique. Black children face this abuse daily through television shows, jokes aired on the radio, textbooks with truncated history, etc. Liberal whites underestimate the damage which racism causes on the minds of Black children, and conservative whites know all too well how to enlarge that damage.”
“No matter how rich or supportive a Black person’s home might be, by the time she is ready to take the SAT or apply to college, she has struggled far more extensively than any white person of the same social and economic background.”
Roughly two weeks after Clarke’s article linking melanin to racial superiority was published, a Harvard student mentioned that Clarke had equivocated on “the melanin theory” in a subsequent letter.
“[The Melanin Theory] is not necessarily something we believe, but some information we think those pursuing a true understanding of The Bell Curve should either address, ignore or refute,” Clarke said, according to a Harvard Crimson columnist.
Months after Clarke’s letter was published, Jewish students at Harvard rebuked Clarke for inviting Wellesley College professor Tony Martin, the author of a book entitled “The Jewish Onslaught,” to speak on campus.
Martin Lebwohl, a Harvard student, wrote that Martin used the opportunity to “denounce the Jewish tradition and the Jewish people for holding a ‘monopoly’ on centuries-worth of the notion of divinely ordained African inferiority,” referring to “The Bell Curve.” Martin also reportedly asked students to consider the book as “only the latest manifestation of a racist tradition spawned by Jews.” Lebwohl said that Clarke had praised Martin as an intellectual “who bases his information of indisputable fact.”
After nearly 25 years, “The Bell Curve” continued to spark protest at Harvard’s campus. In 2017, students protested Murray’s lecture on campus, accusing him of white supremacy while other students held an event where they implied Murray’s book was premised on eugenics.
Herrnstein, Murray’s co-author, had died in Sept. 1994.
Clarke currently serves as president and executive director of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
It’s no secret that, despite being one of the most successful conservative presidents in our lifetime, Trump was not entirely supported by the GOP. Plenty of so-called Republicans opposed him from day one. Only a few, however, were willing to openly defy him over his years in office.
Since Congress certified the 2020 election results, it appears these RINOs have comes out to show their true colors. In addition to administration staff resigning in a huff, plenty of D.C. Republicans have drawn knives to stab in Trump’s back.
They claim it’s because they believe he was behind the events of January 6. But it’s far more likely they never supported his America First agenda and are finally able to revert back to their globalist ways.
Now, as Democrats push for impeachment, House Republican Conference chairwoman Liz Cheney is back the effort. So, some of her colleagues want her out.
House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) called for Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-WI) ouster as the House Republican Conference chairwoman Tuesday night after she came out in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump…
“When Representative Cheney came out for impeachment today, she failed to consult with the Conference, failed to abide by the spirit of the rules of the Republican Conference, and ignored the preferences of Republican voters,” Rosendale said in a statement Tuesday.
“She is weakening our conference at a key moment for personal political gain and is unfit to lead. She must step down as Conference Chair.” [Source: Breitbart]
Rosendale and Biggs used very strong language to condemn Cheney’s last-ditch effort to save her own skin. But her turncoat actions should not be a huge shock to most. The daughter of Dick Cheney, one of the most notorious RINOs in American history, never backed Trump’s America First agenda. Like many others connected to the Bush era, she found ways to oppose Trump since he entered office.
The facts do not stand with Cheney. Even if the House manages to pass their one article of impeachment, it stands no chance in the Senate. The Senate will not reconvene until January 19, one day before the Inauguration. Will the Senate bother to vote on impeachment of a president no longer in office? Unlikely. Even if they do, they will not have the 67 votes needed to convict.
So, is Cheney doing this because she thinks it is the right thing? That Congress can actually remove Trump and prevent him from running again? Or because she thinks this will put her in the good graces of the D.C., which never supported Trump and wanted him gone for years?
Honestly, you’ll have to make up your mind on this one. But it doesn’t bode well for the Wisconsin representative, after two key leaders in her conference called her out. Republicans by and large, continue to support Trump, including the millions who voted for him. To turn on him now doesn’t seem to be the “right” thing to do, but the thing that could protect a person’s career.
And those kinds of moves never work well for Republicans.
As we first reported last night, Vice President Mike Pence confirmed in a letter addressed to Nancy Pelosi late on Tuesday that he will not invoke the 25th amendment to remove President Trump from office, just hours before the House was set to vote on a resolution formally calling on him to do so.
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Pence said he does not “believe that such a course of action is in the best interest of our Nation or consistent with our Constitution”, and adding that he did “not yield to pressure to exert power beyond my constitutional authority to determine the outcome of the election, and I will not now yield to efforts in the House of Representatives to play political games at a time so serious in the life of our Nation.” Instead, Pence, urged Pelosi and “every member of Congress to avoid actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment,” in reference to last week’s deadly Capitol riots.
Every American was shocked and saddened by the attack on our Nation’s Capitol last week, and I am grateful for the leadership that you and other congressional leaders provided in reconvening Congress to complete the people’s business on the very same day. It was a moment that demonstrated to the American people the unity that is still possible in Congress when it is needed most.
But now, with just eight days left in the President’s term, you and the Democratic Caucus are demanding that the Cabinet and I invoke the 25th Amendment. I do not believe that such a course of action is in the best interest of our Nation or consistent with our Constitution. Last week, I did not yield to pressure to exert power beyond my constitutional authority to determine the outcome of the election, and I will not now yield to efforts in the House of Representatives to play political games at a time so serious in the life of our Nation.
As you know full well, the 25th Amendment was designed to address Presidential incapacity or disability. Just a few months ago, when you introduced legislation to create a 25th Amendment Commission, you said, “[a] President’s fitness for office must be determined by science and facts.”
You said then that we must be “[v]ery respectful of not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior that we don’t like, but based on a medical decision.” Madam Speaker, you were right.
Under our Constitution, the 25th Amendment is not a means of punishment or usurpation. Invoking the 25th Amendment in such a manner would set a terrible precedent.
After the horrific events of this last week, our Administration’s energy is directed to ensuring an orderly transition. The Bible says that “for everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven…a time to heal, … and a time to build up.” That time is now. In the midst of a global pandemic, economic hardship for millions of Americans, and the tragic events of January 6th, now is the time for us to come together, now is the time to heal.
I urge you and every member of Congress to avoid actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment. Work with us to lower the temperature and unite our country as we prepare to inaugurate President-elect Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. I pledge to you that I will continue to do my part to work in good faith with the incoming administration to ensure an orderly transition of power. So help me God.
Pence’s expected announcement paves the way for House Democrats to move forward with impeachment legislation.
The House is currently weighing a resolution that would call on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, which allows a majority of the Cabinet to remove the president from office. House Democrats have previously said they will move forward on Wednesday with a vote on impeaching President Trump if Pence declines.
Trump brushed aside calls for his removal over last week’s attack at the Capitol, saying the 25th Amendment is “of zero risk to me, but will come back to haunt Joe Biden.”
“Be careful what you wish for,” Trump said in Alamo, Texas, during a visit to the border earlier in the day. He said the impeachment effort mounted by House Democrats is “dangerous for the USA, especially at this very tender time.”
Democrats have moved quickly in their efforts to remove Trump from office – and prevent him from running again in 2024 – following the assault last week on the Capitol. An article of impeachment introduced in the House on Monday and backed by more than 200 Democrats accuses Trump of “incitement of insurrection,” and says he “gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government.” Three House Republicans, including House GOP leadership member Liz Cheney, said they will vote to impeach the president.
Earlier on Tuesday, the House Judiciary released a 76-page impeachment report which claimed that “President Trump remains a clear and present danger to the Constitution and our democracy.”
In the aftermath of the demonstration at the US Capitol last week, the Democrats have finally realized that they have let the genie of mob action that they unleashed and encouraged all last summer with the BLM riots out of the bottle for good, and they have no way of controlling it. So now they are approaching it in the only way they know how which is using the coercive power of the state to force you to do what they want. This is the strategy they have used an ingraining the horrendous and uncivilized practice of abortion into our legal code. This is how they make you publicly acknowledge that two men can be married and that by cutting off one’s genitals and changing a hairstyle that a man is suddenly a woman. This is how they make you wear face masks and refuse to socialize with friends and family on holidays.
Two different tracks are at work. On the one hand, the Democrats seem to be pressing ahead with another impeachment fo President Trump over something because no sane person can claim there was any incitement in his speech last Wednesday (US Attorney for DC Is Allegedly Investigating President Trump’s Speech for Evidence of a Criminal Act), Given that there is only a week left in his presidency, this is more of a stunt than real. The two-thirds vote of the Senate needed to remove him from office is not there. The real reason is to lock in Republicans on the subject because the Democrats actually believe that supporting President Trump will damage them (it won’t). The transparency of this ploy was made clear yesterday when the Democrats said that an impeachment probably would not take place until after Biden had been granted his “hundred days” to attempt to crush freedom and free enterprise in the United States (see I Support the Democrats’ Effort to Impeach President Trump and so Should You).
The other track is a fanciful reading of the US Constitution to arbitrarily remove from office members of Congress who challenged the votes of the Electoral College and to bar President Trump from running for office again in 2024.
Con Law folks: Does anyone have any idea how 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 plays out in real life? 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2383 appears to be the criminal manifestation of it, but the constitutional text doesn't seem to require a conviction by a court (or through impeachment) to apply pic.twitter.com/wPnH5CUWsT
The only time the left is interested in the US Constitution is when they find an excuse to tie it to the rack and torture it until it screams the answer that they want. When the Supreme Court decided that it would invalidate state laws governing the availability of contraceptives, the anti-American justice William O. Douglas relied upon “penumbras, formed by emanations” from the Bill of Rights to find a right of privacy (SPOILER ALERT: there is no such right). This same practice of using wishcasting as legal analysis forms the underpinning of our time’s great social tragedies: Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.
This section of the Fourteenth Amendment has a very specific history and meaning. It was designed to prevent people who had been federal and state officials and military officers before the Civil War but who had thrown their lot in with the Confederacy from holding such positions again unless Congress specifically granted an exception.
Words have meanings. There is no universe in which what happened last week can be construed as an “insurrection” or “rebellion” unless we go full-bore Alice in Wonderland and declare that words mean whatever the hell we decide they mean. There was literally no attempt to overthrow the government or to establish an alternative government. The people involved were not armed (read Opinion: Enough! There Was No Riot, Insurrection, or “Storming!”).
This is not to say that Nancy Pelosi can’t use her narrow House majority to expel Republicans who stood firm in defending the idea of ballot integrity when all the courts would do was suddenly find “no standing” when the same courts could find ample standing to change the rules and create a situation where it was impossible to have a free, fair, and plausible election.
In fact, it is rather hard seeing the Democrats being able to resist the impulse to go totalitarian. That is really who they are. That is definitely who the woke progressives are. It isn’t enough that they can express their views; you must publicly agree with their views, or they will attempt to bankrupt your business and deprive you of a livelihood, and silence you. They are confronted with the fact that half of the nation is adamantly opposed to their agenda and must have the sneaking suspicion that number will grow once we see what they have planned.
If they do move forward to expel a hundred or so Republicans and insurrectionists, I think it is safe to say that last Wednesday will be looked upon as a rather minor disturbance.
Stringer’s complaints follow reports of hospitals in the city being forced to throw away doses of the vaccine.
Dr. Neil Calman, president of the Institute for Family Health, complained to the NYT that the Family Health Center of Harlem had to throw away doses when patients didn’t show up to their appointments, since they couldn’t turn around and instead administer the doses to others.
And despite the fact that legal repercussions could further slow the process, state authorities have investigated healthcare providers that may have violated vaccination plans, including the city’s ParCare Community Health Network, which authorities say may have ignored the state’s vaccine prioritization guidelines.
In other news, Gov. Andrew Cuomo delivered his “State of the State” address on Monday, and during it, he appeared to finally hit upon something small business owners and restauranters around the city have been saying for months: if we don’t do something about this lockdown soon, there won’t be an “economy” left to reopen once COVID vaccinations have hit critical mass.
We simply cannot stay closed until the vaccine hits critical mass. The cost is too high. We will have nothing left to open. We must reopen the economy, but we must do it smartly and safely.#SOTS2021
Cuomo’s words were markedly different from his commentary from last spring, when he insisted that no American in their right mind would push to reopen the economy at the expense of human lives.
“I understand what the president is saying that this is unsustainable that we close down the economy and we continue to spend money. There is no doubt about that,” Cuomo said at a news conference in New York City. “But if you ask the American people to choose between public health and the economy then it’s no contest. No American is going to say ‘accelerate the economy at the cost of human life,'” Cuomo argued.
On Sunday, the city opened mass vaccination sites in Brooklyn and the Bronx, where shots can be doled out on Monday to people 75 and over.
Circling back to Stringer’s comments, the Comptroller complained about the complexity of the sign-up websites, which required a multi-step process to set up an account, and another to make an appointment. To sign up, numerous questions must be answered and fields filled in. All of these steps might be preventing elderly eligible residents from signing up, since – as Stringer pointed out – there were more than 200 slots still available for Monday last night.
This very minute, there are more than 200 vaccination slots available on TUESDAY on the @nycHealthy website.
I am concerned this signals twin failures of outreach and technology by the City.
ew York City finally reached its initial goal of vaccinating 100K people last week. But now Mayor Bill de Blasio is setting his sights even higher, telling reporters during a press briefing on Monday that he hopes to vaccinate 1MM New Yorkers – roughly 1 in 10 of the 9MM people who live in NYC – by the end of January.
For older residents who are having trouble navigating the site, de Blasio said a new hotline to allow for sign-ups over the phone would be launched immediately. New York currently has 160 sites and will be expanding sites and availability as soon as possible, de Blasio warned.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to expedite a series of election challenges raised by President Trump and his allies. The court’s orders mean it won’t weigh in on the merits of the cases until after President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated, essentially shutting down the last efforts to overturn his win.
The cases, filed in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, disputed the states’ mail-in ballot procedures as unconstitutional. Trump last year demanded that the Supreme Court throw out mail-in votes, hoping that the move would push the swing states in his favor. Trump’s legal team, however, turned up little success in its fight against Biden’s win.
Trump sought especially to overturn the election results by Jan. 6, a date many of his legal advisers referred to as the date of “ultimate significance.” When that did not occur, and when Vice President Mike Pence did not attempt to throw out the Electoral College votes following a failed legal ploy instituted by Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, Trump essentially conceded the election in a video on his Twitter account, which is now permanently suspended.
John Eastman, Trump’s attorney in one of his Pennsylvania challenges, stressed in his filing to the Supreme Court that if the cases were not expedited, the president and his allies could expect no victory in 2020. Eastman told the Washington Examiner that by waiting several weeks to respond to a request he filed in December, the court “effectively” had already shut down any chance at expedition.
Eastman added that he believes the cases could still be important to future elections, even if there is no longer a chance that the outcome could help Trump.
“Our legal issue,” he said, referring to the way in which Pennsylvania conducted the 2020 election, “remains important and in need of the court’s review.”
Among the cases the court denied expedition were those filed by Trump, Georgia attorney Lin Wood, and Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly.