Lisa Needham writes: "Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas is no right-wing election denier or newbie. She’s been in the job for 10 years and has a background as a public defender and in legal aid. So, this can’t be automatically chalked up to malice or incompetence. However, the affidavit supporting the search warrant is fatally flawed in three glaringly obvious ways."
So WHY did the Magistrate Judge agree to issue a warrant? That's the question I would like to have answered, as I have been wondering from the start what judge would have signed off on this travesty and why that judge would have done so.
Has anyone estimated the number of votes that were lost to voter suppression in the 2024 election? 2021 and 2024 were years that saw draconian voter suppression measures passed in state legislatures. I’m kind of stunned that to my knowledge, no one has quantified how many votes were suppressed.
What a good point. I overconsume news and I’ve never heard an estimate either. It seems likely there’s a study but I’m not sure where to look. Lisa? Or Aaron??
Not only hoovering data about alleged immigrant non-citizens. This is to enable hoovering data about anyone-the-don't-like: you and me. That is control, absolute control.
Reduce the entire 2020 Trump claimed "rigged election in Georgia" argument to the most simplistic of interpretations. Majorities from the vicinities of Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, Savannah, Athens, and Augusta supported Biden. That aside, conservative majority Republican leadership in Georgia rigged the 2020 state vote count to elect Biden? By 11K+ votes?
Regarding election of the president and vice president, Article II says that "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" to choose the president and vice president. Not even Congress can do that.
Regarding election of U.S. Senators and Representatives, Article I says that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." Congress clearly can make some regulations governing state elections for U.S. Senators and Representatives. But there are important and vital limits on such power of Congress.
All federal legislation is subject to the general restrictions in Articles I and VI. The latter permits only federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution, and the former clarifies that means only "laws" that are both "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress's enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So the necessary question is whether the SAVE Act is necessary and proper. I'm pretty sure it's not either necessary or proper.
But the federal government isn't monolithic. For very good reason, our Constitution puts legislators under Article I and judges and juries under Article III, and Article VI (and 5 U.S.C. Section 3331) made them all responsible for supporting our Constitution.
Just to add that the GOP in Georgia was highly active in corrupting the voter rolls. Remember, in 2018, when the current governor, Brian Kemp, was Secretary of State for Georgia, he removed over 340,000 voters less than a month before the election. Those voters had no recourse. So in 2020, either the new Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger, was clean or incompetently corrupt, as Biden won by 11,000 votes.
Trump and the people who are using him and supporting him are attacking our entire Constitution. Their efforts to attack and undermine our right and power to vote are proof of their sedition. Trying to make fake law so a tyrant can suppress our power to choose (and remove) our own representatives clearly is prohibited by our Constitution.
The right to vote is both a right and a privilege. The Constitution says so. The Constitution protects voting as both a right and a privilege. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly protects from state violation all "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." "No State" has any power to "make or enforce any [purported] law" that purports to "abridge" any "privileges or immunities of [U.S.] citizens." The original Constitution emphasized essentially the same regarding at least the federal government (and arguably all state governments). Article IV emphasized that "[t]]he Citizens of each State" are "entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," i.e., citizens of the United States, and "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
The right to vote is essential to republican government, and it clearly is a powerfully protected privilege. Such right and privilege is so important that it is mentioned more often in our Constitution than any other right. The right to vote is expressly and specifically protected in Amendments XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI.
The right to vote also is secured by requiring elections within certain periods. Article I requires that every two years the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate be elected. Article II requires that the president and vice president be elected every 4 years.
The right to vote also is addressed more generally, albeit by a different name, in Amendment I. The First Amendment clearly established and emphasized that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Voting is a particular kind of speech, and it generally involves a particular kind of assembly. It’s also a particularly powerful and particularly protected kind of speech and assembly.
The right to vote also is addressed expressly, albeit by a different name, in the powerful and famous second sentence of our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “to secure [our] Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
Twelve years earlier, Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws” emphasized the reason for the foregoing. "In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject" (of the laws). "The freedom of every citizen constitutes a part of the public liberty; and, in a democratical state, is even a part of the sovereignty [of the people]." "[T]he enjoyment of liberty, and even its support and preservation, consists in every man’s being allowed to speak his thoughts and to lay open his sentiments."
The "exercise of sovereignty" by citizens is most clearly "by their suffrages, which [is an expression of citizens’ sovereign] will: [by voting and other exercises of the freedom of expression] the sovereign’s will is the sovereign himself. The laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage, are fundamental to this government" so it is "important to regulate, in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given."
Thanks for this. We become accustomed to the constant efforts to whittle away voting rights. We need to remember how much they’re violating the Constitution. Call out their sedition!
The Montesquieu quote, that the people are both sovereign (creators of law via representatives) and subjects of law really struck me. It puts POTUS et al in their places, as just more of the cogs in the government machine created to serve US, the people. Trump and his clown cabinet aren’t kings and need to be hit over the head with a history book and Constitution (figuratively I suppose).
There was a county in another state, where the ballots were 'audited' and recounted, examined in every way that could be imagined, looking for even a hint of a crime, it took them months. It was done by an 'outside auditer', owned by a supporter of Trump. They were as thorough as humanly possible. They failed to find a problem or to change the count in any remotely meaningful way.
-
Then there was the fiasco by the 'Pillow guy' who put up a sizable reward for anyone who could debunk his computer evidence of a crime in the election. One of the experts he had invited collected on that evidence, as the result of a lawsuit showing there was no evidence of a crime.
-
The only real problem with this raid is the breaking of the chain of custody and the complete loss of any integrity in the DoJ in this term. We have every reason to believe that behind closed doors they will 'tamper' with the evidence. This DoJ has repeatedly lied in court, repeatedly accused without evidence, repeatedly violated the law on the Epstein files... Reglardless of what they CLAIM to find, unless they took extreme precautions to preserve a chain of custody with video and other measures, any claims they make will be filed with all the rest of their claims.
Absolutely nails that this isn't the compromise of voting systems going from "good" to "bad" but from "bad" to "worse". The Tulsi Gabbard arguments in particular are spot on - imagine any other elected official illegallyusing their formal powers to curry political favour with a political master. Bloody outragous.
If the Magistrate issuing the warrant wasn't straight up a crank or partisan, I'm curious why the warrant was issued at all, given the deficiets in the affidavit....? Incompetence? Risk aversion? What a disgrace....!
Lisa Needham writes: "Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas is no right-wing election denier or newbie. She’s been in the job for 10 years and has a background as a public defender and in legal aid. So, this can’t be automatically chalked up to malice or incompetence. However, the affidavit supporting the search warrant is fatally flawed in three glaringly obvious ways."
So WHY did the Magistrate Judge agree to issue a warrant? That's the question I would like to have answered, as I have been wondering from the start what judge would have signed off on this travesty and why that judge would have done so.
Excellent question!
Me3!
Has anyone estimated the number of votes that were lost to voter suppression in the 2024 election? 2021 and 2024 were years that saw draconian voter suppression measures passed in state legislatures. I’m kind of stunned that to my knowledge, no one has quantified how many votes were suppressed.
What a good point. I overconsume news and I’ve never heard an estimate either. It seems likely there’s a study but I’m not sure where to look. Lisa? Or Aaron??
Not only hoovering data about alleged immigrant non-citizens. This is to enable hoovering data about anyone-the-don't-like: you and me. That is control, absolute control.
Reduce the entire 2020 Trump claimed "rigged election in Georgia" argument to the most simplistic of interpretations. Majorities from the vicinities of Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, Savannah, Athens, and Augusta supported Biden. That aside, conservative majority Republican leadership in Georgia rigged the 2020 state vote count to elect Biden? By 11K+ votes?
Regarding election of the president and vice president, Article II says that "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" to choose the president and vice president. Not even Congress can do that.
Regarding election of U.S. Senators and Representatives, Article I says that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." Congress clearly can make some regulations governing state elections for U.S. Senators and Representatives. But there are important and vital limits on such power of Congress.
All federal legislation is subject to the general restrictions in Articles I and VI. The latter permits only federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution, and the former clarifies that means only "laws" that are both "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress's enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So the necessary question is whether the SAVE Act is necessary and proper. I'm pretty sure it's not either necessary or proper.
Yeh, but Jack, you're insisting that the law matters when the federal government is behaving like it doesn't apply to them! 😞
But the federal government isn't monolithic. For very good reason, our Constitution puts legislators under Article I and judges and juries under Article III, and Article VI (and 5 U.S.C. Section 3331) made them all responsible for supporting our Constitution.
Just to add that the GOP in Georgia was highly active in corrupting the voter rolls. Remember, in 2018, when the current governor, Brian Kemp, was Secretary of State for Georgia, he removed over 340,000 voters less than a month before the election. Those voters had no recourse. So in 2020, either the new Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger, was clean or incompetently corrupt, as Biden won by 11,000 votes.
Trump and the people who are using him and supporting him are attacking our entire Constitution. Their efforts to attack and undermine our right and power to vote are proof of their sedition. Trying to make fake law so a tyrant can suppress our power to choose (and remove) our own representatives clearly is prohibited by our Constitution.
The right to vote is both a right and a privilege. The Constitution says so. The Constitution protects voting as both a right and a privilege. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly protects from state violation all "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." "No State" has any power to "make or enforce any [purported] law" that purports to "abridge" any "privileges or immunities of [U.S.] citizens." The original Constitution emphasized essentially the same regarding at least the federal government (and arguably all state governments). Article IV emphasized that "[t]]he Citizens of each State" are "entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," i.e., citizens of the United States, and "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
The right to vote is essential to republican government, and it clearly is a powerfully protected privilege. Such right and privilege is so important that it is mentioned more often in our Constitution than any other right. The right to vote is expressly and specifically protected in Amendments XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI.
The right to vote also is secured by requiring elections within certain periods. Article I requires that every two years the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate be elected. Article II requires that the president and vice president be elected every 4 years.
The right to vote also is addressed more generally, albeit by a different name, in Amendment I. The First Amendment clearly established and emphasized that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Voting is a particular kind of speech, and it generally involves a particular kind of assembly. It’s also a particularly powerful and particularly protected kind of speech and assembly.
The right to vote also is addressed expressly, albeit by a different name, in the powerful and famous second sentence of our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “to secure [our] Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
Twelve years earlier, Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws” emphasized the reason for the foregoing. "In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject" (of the laws). "The freedom of every citizen constitutes a part of the public liberty; and, in a democratical state, is even a part of the sovereignty [of the people]." "[T]he enjoyment of liberty, and even its support and preservation, consists in every man’s being allowed to speak his thoughts and to lay open his sentiments."
The "exercise of sovereignty" by citizens is most clearly "by their suffrages, which [is an expression of citizens’ sovereign] will: [by voting and other exercises of the freedom of expression] the sovereign’s will is the sovereign himself. The laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage, are fundamental to this government" so it is "important to regulate, in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given."
Thanks for this. We become accustomed to the constant efforts to whittle away voting rights. We need to remember how much they’re violating the Constitution. Call out their sedition!
The Montesquieu quote, that the people are both sovereign (creators of law via representatives) and subjects of law really struck me. It puts POTUS et al in their places, as just more of the cogs in the government machine created to serve US, the people. Trump and his clown cabinet aren’t kings and need to be hit over the head with a history book and Constitution (figuratively I suppose).
So someone needs to have a chat with Salinas. Do it.
There was a county in another state, where the ballots were 'audited' and recounted, examined in every way that could be imagined, looking for even a hint of a crime, it took them months. It was done by an 'outside auditer', owned by a supporter of Trump. They were as thorough as humanly possible. They failed to find a problem or to change the count in any remotely meaningful way.
-
Then there was the fiasco by the 'Pillow guy' who put up a sizable reward for anyone who could debunk his computer evidence of a crime in the election. One of the experts he had invited collected on that evidence, as the result of a lawsuit showing there was no evidence of a crime.
-
The only real problem with this raid is the breaking of the chain of custody and the complete loss of any integrity in the DoJ in this term. We have every reason to believe that behind closed doors they will 'tamper' with the evidence. This DoJ has repeatedly lied in court, repeatedly accused without evidence, repeatedly violated the law on the Epstein files... Reglardless of what they CLAIM to find, unless they took extreme precautions to preserve a chain of custody with video and other measures, any claims they make will be filed with all the rest of their claims.
I guess in Trumplandia it’s okay to vote … but only for whites of a conservative bent … and restrict the 19th Amendment to Barbies only.
Great article,
Absolutely nails that this isn't the compromise of voting systems going from "good" to "bad" but from "bad" to "worse". The Tulsi Gabbard arguments in particular are spot on - imagine any other elected official illegallyusing their formal powers to curry political favour with a political master. Bloody outragous.
If the Magistrate issuing the warrant wasn't straight up a crank or partisan, I'm curious why the warrant was issued at all, given the deficiets in the affidavit....? Incompetence? Risk aversion? What a disgrace....!