[EL] ELB Quick Hits 1/22/21

[Rick Hasen]

Bonkers NYT Story That Adds to Reasons to Disqualify Trump from Running Again: Trump Almost Fired the Acting Attorney General To Install at DOJ Someone to Push Baseless Voter Fraud Claims, and Only Threat of Mass Resignations Stopped It from Happening<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120606>
Posted on January 22, 2021 5:08 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120606> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Truly frightening story:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-department-election.html?referringSource=articleShare>

The Justice Department’s top leaders listened in stunned silence this month: One of their peers, they were told, had devised a plan with President Donald J. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen as acting attorney general and wield the department’s power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results.

The unassuming lawyer who worked on the plan, Jeffrey Clark, had been devising ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trump’s continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. Rosen had refused the president’s entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark.

The department officials, convened on a conference call, then asked each other: What will you do if Mr. Rosen is dismissed?

The answer was unanimous. They would resign.

Their informal pact ultimately helped persuade Mr. Trump to keep Mr. Rosen in place, calculating that a furor over mass resignations at the top of the Justice Department would eclipse any attention on his baseless accusations of voter fraud. Mr. Trump’s decision came only after Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark made their competing cases to him in a bizarre White House meeting that two officials compared with an episode of Mr. Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice,” albeit one that could prompt a constitutional crisis.

The previously unknown chapter was the culmination of the president’s long-running effort to batter the Justice Department into advancing his personal agenda. He also pressed Mr. Rosen to appoint special counsels, including one who would look into Dominion Voting Systems, a maker of election equipment that Mr. Trump’s allies had falsely said was working with Venezuela to flip votes from Mr. Trump to Joseph R. Biden Jr.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D120606&title=Bonkers%20NYT%20Story%20That%20Adds%20to%20Reasons%20to%20Disqualify%20Trump%20from%20Running%20Again%3A%20Trump%20Almost%20Fired%20the%20Acting%20Attorney%20General%20To%20Install%20at%20DOJ%20Someone%20to%20Push%20Baseless%20Voter%20Fraud%20Claims%2C%20and%20Only%20Threat%20of%20Mass%20Resignations%20Stopped%20It%20from%20Happening>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


Watch Archived Video: “Elections, Insurrection and Inauguration: What’s Next for Democracy?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120604>
Posted on January 22, 2021 4:03 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120604> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Watch archived video <https://freespeechcenter.universityofcalifornia.edu/programs-and-resources/elections-event/> of my conversation this week with Michelle Deutchman of the UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D120604&title=Watch%20Archived%20Video%3A%20%E2%80%9CElections%2C%20Insurrection%20and%20Inauguration%3A%20What%E2%80%99s%20Next%20for%20Democracy%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Shell companies and ‘dark money’ may hide details of Trump ties to DC protests”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120602>
Posted on January 22, 2021 10:37 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120602> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Anna Massoglia<https://www.opensecrets.org/news/author/amassoglia/> for Open Secrets<https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/01/trump-tied-to-dc-protests-dark-money-and-shell-companies/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twitt_trump-ties-dcprot-012220>:

Former President Donald Trump<https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/donald-trump/candidate?id=N00023864>’s presidential campaign aides played key roles orchestrating a rally protesting certification of President-elect Joe Biden<https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/candidate?id=N00001669>‘s victory in the 2020 presidential election before hundreds<https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/us-capitol-lockdown/index.html> of rioters breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

But the full extent of the Trump campaign’s ties to the protests may not be not fully known due to its use of shell companies that hide details of its financial dealings and the central role “dark money” played in the protests.

Multiple individuals listed on the permit granted by the National Park Service<https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20458554-nps-permit> worked for Trump’s presidential campaign, as first reported by the Associated Press<https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-capitol-siege-campaigns-elections-d14c78d53b3a212658223252fec87e99> over the weekend. That raises new questions about the Trump campaign’s lack of spending transparency and the unknown extent of the event’s ties to Trump aides.
[cid:image002.png at 01D6F0E1.957551D0]<https://cdn1.opensecrets.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/21170216/download-1-e1611266572583.png>

Trump’s campaign disclosed paying more than $2.7 million to the individuals and firms behind the Jan. 6 rally. But FEC disclosures do not necessarily provide a complete picture of the campaign’s financial dealings since so much of its spending was routed through shell companies, making it difficult to know who the campaign paid and when.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D120602&title=%E2%80%9CShell%20companies%20and%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%20may%20hide%20details%20of%20Trump%20ties%20to%20DC%20protests%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Referring Former President Trump’s Suspension From Facebook to the Oversight Board”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120600>
Posted on January 21, 2021 9:23 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120600> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Big news:<https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/referring-trump-suspension-to-oversight-board/>

Today, Facebook is referring its decision to indefinitely suspend<https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/responding-to-the-violence-in-washington-dc/> former US President Donald Trump’s access to his Facebook and Instagram accounts to the independent Oversight Board<https://oversightboard.com/>. The board was established last year to make the final call on some of the most difficult content decisions Facebook makes. It is an independent body and its decisions are binding — they can’t be overruled by CEO Mark Zuckerberg or anyone else at Facebook. The board itself is made up of experts and civic leaders from around the world with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives.

We believe our decision was necessary and right. Given its significance, we think it is important for the board to review it and reach an independent judgment on whether it should be upheld. While we await the board’s decision, Mr. Trump’s access will remain suspended indefinitely. We look forward to receiving the board’s decision — and we hope, given the clear justification for our actions on January 7, that it will uphold the choices we made. In addition to the board’s determination on whether to uphold or overturn the indefinite suspension, Facebook welcomes any observations or recommendations from the board around suspensions when the user is a political leader.

Our decision to suspend then-President Trump’s access was taken in extraordinary circumstances: a US president actively fomenting a violent insurrection designed to thwart the peaceful transition of power; five people killed; legislators fleeing the seat of democracy. This has never happened before — and we hope it will never happen again. It was an unprecedented set of events which called for unprecedented action.

In making our decision, our first priority was to assist in the peaceful transfer of power. This is why, when announcing the suspension on January 7, we said it would be indefinite and for at least two weeks. We are referring it to the Oversight Board now that the inauguration has taken place.

The reaction to our decision shows the delicate balance private companies are being asked to strike. Some said that Facebook should have banned President Trump long ago, and that the violence on the Capitol was itself a product of social media; others that it was an unacceptable display of unaccountable corporate power over political speech.

We have taken the view that in open democracies people have a right to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can be held to account. But it has never meant that politicians can say whatever they like. They remain subject to our policies banning the use of our platform to incite violence. It is these policies that were enforced when we took the decision to suspend President Trump’s access.

Whether you believe the decision was justified or not, many people are understandably uncomfortable with the idea that tech companies have the power to ban elected leaders. Many argue private companies like Facebook shouldn’t be making these big decisions on their own. We agree. Every day, Facebook makes decisions about whether content is harmful, and these decisions are made according to Community Standards we have developed over many years. It would be better if these decisions were made according to frameworks agreed by democratically accountable lawmakers. But in the absence of such laws, there are decisions that we cannot duck.

This is why we established the Oversight Board. It is the first body of its kind in the world: an expert-led independent organization with the power to impose binding decisions on a private social media company. Its decision will be available at the board’s website<https://www.oversightboard.com/news/> when it is issued.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D120600&title=%E2%80%9CReferring%20Former%20President%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Suspension%20From%20Facebook%20to%20the%20Oversight%20Board%E2%80%9D>
Posted in cheap speech<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>, Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>



--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210123/7d2764ae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210123/7d2764ae/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 417722 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210123/7d2764ae/attachment-0001.png>