MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell filed a federal lawsuit Thursday in Minneapolis claiming that electronic voting machine companies are “weaponizing the litigation process” to silence political dissent over the 2020 election.
A few hours later, Lindell’s Minneapolis attorney Alec J. Beck , a respected 30-year litigator, was dumped from his white shoe law firm, Barnes & Thornburg LLP. The web site Law & Crime quoted a Barnes & Thornburg spokesperson as stating Beck failed to obtain prior authorization from the firm before filing the Lindell lawsuit.
Social media erupted with insults aimed at Lindell, who claims the 2020 election was stolen from GOP Pres. Donald J. Trump, calling him a conspiracy theorist, delusional, insane, “a loser crack head,” source of baseless information, etc.
Most of the national media ignored Lindell’s lawsuit but Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ anti-Trump newspaper, The Washington Post, took the opportunity to declare Lindell’s claims are not only false but ridiculous.
Gina Carano, who plays a feminist badass warrior in the Star Wars franchise, The Mandalorian, which is showing on Disney+, has been fired for supposedly “abhorrent” social media posts.
Lucasfilm and Disney+ have permanently banned Gina Carano to the dark side, and she also was dropped by talent agency UTA.
Variety reports a representative from Lucasfilm, owned by George Lucas, said Carano’s “social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”
Upon inspection, her posts reflect fairly mainstream conservative thought with a hint of satire and hyperbole.
“In time, the suffering of your people will persuade you to see our point of view.” – George Lucas, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.
The final straw, apparently, was a post questioning what many see as the on-going cancel-culture vilification of conservative speech.
Carano said the precursor to the Holocaust was a campaign by the German government to make average Germans hate Jews. She said neighbors beat Jews before the Nazis rounded them up. “How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?” she asked.
This question may seem naïve but is it a ‘you are now doomed to wander the galaxy forever without shoes” kind of offense?
The Democrats unwise push for an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate is shaping up to become the Democrats worst nightmare.
Instead of allowing GOP President Joe Biden’s administration to move smoothly ahead, the trial will open up a Pandora’s Box of unexpected troubles and drag the country back to the issue of whether Biden was rightfully elected.
The article of impeachment against former President Donald J. Trump was poorly drafted and hastily passed by House Democrats without an real evidentiary hearing. If the Democrats had taken more time and given the article more thought, they could have closed potential lines of inquiry about the legitimacy of the election. For whatever reason, they did not take the time and now, to compound the damage, they are insisting on moving ahead with a trial in the U.S. Senate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she will send the article of impeachment to the U.S. Senate on Monday, rejecting a request by Republican Senate leaders to delay the start of the trial until February. Possibly it dawned on Pelosi that delay gives Trump more time to prepare for the hearing.
The article accuses Trump of abusing his power by making “false claims” to his supporters at a rally on Jan. 6, the day a group of thugs broke into the Capitol Building on national television and sent legislators scurrying in fear.
One such claim, according to the article of impeachment, was Trump’s statement that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.” This statement is the equivalent of an invitation for Trump to defend himself by introducing evidence that the election was indeed stolen and the claim is true.
This Article contains an invitation for Trump to defend himself by introducing evidence the election was stolen.
Here’s the latest from the bullying, virtue signaling, mostly Democratic, anti-President Donald J. Trump segment of the legal profession.
Superior Court Judge Craig A. Karsnitz of Baltimore ruled last week that former Trump adviser Carter Page could not be represented by his choice of legal counsel, L. Lin Wood, in a defamation case stemming from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.
Judge Karsnitz said a couple of hyperbolic tweets by Wood in support of Trump’s claims of election fraud “no doubt” helped “incite” the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol. It’s not clear how Judge Karsnitz knows this, let alone know it to a certainty. He did not point to any actual evidence that Wood’s impassioned (some would say inflammatory) tweets incited anything but backlash against Wood.
No Election Fraud?
Judge Karsnitz’ ruling bordered on breathless.
For one thing, he concluded there was no election fraud in Georgia and that Wood’s lawsuit to that effect was “without basis in law or fact.”
Georgia U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten’s ruled that Wood, who was only a party in the Georgia lawsuit, lacked standing to bring the case. Moreover, Batten’s ruling is being appealed.
You could see the turmoil on U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, face as he criticized fellow Republicans.
He said he could not support overruling the Congressional count of state Presidential electors at Wednesday’s Joint Committee of Congress because “If we overrule them, it would damage our republic forever.”
He said he couldn’t justify such damage when “dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms across our country. But over and over, the courts rejected these claims.”
Courts played a central role in creating the election crisis and exacerbated it by refusing to get involved.
Despite McConnell’s hesitancy, some 100 GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives and a half dozen dozen members of the U.S. Senate stepped up to oppose certification of the electors in a handful of swing states.
Among other things, they cited new election rules approved by partisan courts shortly before (or even during) the election. They said these judicially sanctioned rules set new election dates and procedures that invited fraud and chaos. They alleged the judicially-sanctioned rules violate the U.S. Constitution, which assigns exclusively to state legislatures the responsibility for elections.