Hey folks, another busy, weak, politically charged legal news making the headlines last week, president from pardoned format, security adviser, Michael Flynn, prompting Democrats to call them move and abuse of power. Meanwhile, from suffered more election litigation setbacks as courts continue to reject his campaigns, efforts to block vote certification and battleground states and the Supreme Court struck down New York's covert nineteen restrictions. On houses of worship, citing religious freedom violations and, and I discussed all this and more on the cafe insider podcast today were sharing a clip from the episode would listeners of stay tuned to hear our full conversation and action All other cafe. Insider content. Try the membership free for two weeks. You can do coffee, dot, com, slash insider, that's cafe. Dot com ash insider college students with it Don T you email can had to Cathy dot com, slash student,

and sign up at a lower rate. Again, that's capita com, slash student. We look forward to having you as part of the insider community and one programme, no I'll be joined by my friend bill browser on December tenth at five p m eastern time. For a start. Zoom conversation to sign up for that free event. Gotta cafe, dot com, slash preach, that's cafe, dot com, slash preach. I so election litigation were still talking about election litigation because you know what down from pistol not conceded the election. Meanwhile, all these states we came up: Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, they ve all certified and once if certified came over right, I mean for purposes of it becoming formal on December eighth, when that Period is over and all those elect all the election results have been certified and the process starts to move forward, and then I think I think it's done, but the president is still

he's, still variegated. He still fighting the case I drew out last week in Pennsylvania that they ve now appealed. They ve asked the Supreme Court to take the case. And our listeners will remember. The Supreme Court doesn't have to take that case. It's not it. There's not a right for that type of case to be taken by the Supreme Court. They get to decide. I dont think they'll. Take it. It's a very each case- and there are only asking for the federal district court to allow them to amend their complain again, to try to find a cause in which a cause of action to allege that there is a problem with the ballots So I don't know how you feel, but I I think it's largely it's done it, but is symbolic and again it allows the president to serve keep this. Keep the narrative going that the election, as has been stolen from him.

Or to two examples of why this litigation is crazy. Ever get it bears speaking about it for a moment. So they brought the case industry court. They complained that it was an Obama appointed judge, even though, as we talked about last week in Pennsylvania, even those we talked about it, that was an arrangement with a republican senator and it was actually republican who is part of the federal society who ruled against the president, because that's what the law required and then it goes to the circuit panel of three judges, which is the one step before the Supreme Court, and it is an unfortunate thing and I've seen people say this and I agree with them that we keep talking about whether not judges are a bomb appointed or Trump a pointer Bush appointed republican, undemocratic charges when voters are not supposed to be political. But to me it seems like one has to do that, to show the lie of the argument

that the Trump folks make again and again and again when they claim the only reason they lost. A particular case is because the judge was in the tank for a bomb, because a judge was appointed by Osama or Clinton or some other Democrat. And so to prove that silly and nonsensical people, like you and me, have to talk about the that. You know what the origins of that judge ship are, and here the opinion was written by STI Beavis deafness be pursue. Four brief period of time was actually it was a in the southern district of New York who pretty strongly slammed the president's election lawyers case and the other to judges. On the panel he was appointed by press bright president trunk with some fanfare back and twenty seventeen. And he writes for a majority whether we all three judges appointed by Republicans. He was appointed by trap, the other two by George, W Bush and he says: voters, not. Lawyers choose the president. Valets not briefs, decide elections and he writes very flatly. The campaigns claims have

Oh merit tossing out millions of mail and ballots would be drastic and unprecedented disenfranchises a huge swathes of the electorate and upsetting all down ballot races to, and he goes on and on very strong language to say, there's nothing here, and they can't point to the fact that this was an Obama appointed judge. It again, I don't know too. Much of that, it's mostly to rebut the claim that the only times they lose is because someone has bias on the bench and that's just not true here. Yeah one of my favorite parts of the opinion that was written Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfair are serious but calling an unfair does not make it so charges requires, civic allegations and then proof we have neither here I mean not just sort of sir, up, in my view of the election litigation that we ve seen we see from the trunk campaign and by the just as an aside when I worked for that senator chorodyne on the hill Judge Cigar

was nominated by George W Bush and, and I worked with him as part of the process in the home state, senators and centre. Of course, and then send her a lot about how to by partisan committee that used to recommend judges, and this was one of George W Bush nominations, and so I agree with you. I also really think it's. It does a disservice to the judges to paint them as Democratic Republic and the problem is that, once the allegations are made that these are over the judges, the allegation is that, Judges are acting politically that they are not making a decision on the facts and the law which could be further from the truth. And so I think it's not just a deserves to these judges. It's just service to like our fair and independent judiciary, of which present Trump has put a lot of people on the bed

and you know again, we should assume that that people and judges come with a non political ends, and I know look that's not always the case and I'm I'm not naive about it, but but I really think that, as a rule, the judiciary tries to stand outside of Anne and beyond politics, and this just it's not good for our short of institutions of government, as as we ve seen repeatedly in the last four years, can, I ask you m spelling. I know we don't dispelling based on the show all too often or for That's not! Are you ready right, I'm surprising for having any warning about this- as you are I'm going in a moment, I want to prove a point because my good friend and is tremendously talented lawyer, anodyne how'd, you spell the word district, the eye ass tee. I see tee sisterhood surprising that what they say is prevailing wishes.

We can use in a sense. I have the origin. Please do I waited a word pyramid like our sexual does, and you know I M asking right because, yes notorious lawyers, Sidney Powell, who I don't know you know I again out- enjoy disparaging particular lawyers other than regionally ani of late, but Sidney Powell spews a lot of crazy nonsense and she's rapid The present hide states in all these actions around the country and in Georgia by the way and claims by. We boasts that she's gonna bring cases and in lawsuits that are biblical in effect, and instead she made a filing in Georgia in which the word district was misspelled twice on the First page of the document, the I s t r. I Cctv District, Sir. His eye opener said he. I was surprised by the

I mean that that's district court yeah yeah, I read any number of middle age and it gets some people have a role in their eyes: mammography preventive, being covered noxious. No, I was just there resides towards preparation. Yeah I mean I don't I don't think it's it's innate scale and anyway I am obviously you know she's practice off for a long time. I hear tat, I would say if it you were the? U S attorney, and someone filed this under your name, you'd be upset because they didn't you spell check and they didn't check it carefully and, Oh you know, this is sort of alone. The caption. For the time and I think that on page thirty four footnote, but then someone's name. But this is. I mean this is its federal district

word, and so it's not it's the kind of thing lawyers right all the time, but this is further proof that this is all family land and it's become kind of a joke, not just among lawyers but among lay people also, and this at last week. I think I think all these lawsuits actually have backfired and president, because now you see case after case is such a rhetoric that it's hard to know pinpoint whether its correct or not correct, because of its rhetoric, you know, uttered a podium. You can still stand by it, but now the getting beaten in court, their lorries you're being shown to be apt to getting shot down by people who were appointed by the President himself in a universe in which he and his allies think that personal loyalty is owed to him right. Maybe it's also, as president, I think, understand some zone,

recently that the president has such a limited understanding of civics and the judicial system that he probably just stopped because he's the president, he can just say: hey, I'm going to take them into the Supreme Court and because it's stock three of his own nominees he's gonna win he's at night- and he also said recently on this in future- crazy interview with the the erstwhile journalist Maria Border Roma. I say I don't understand human as president of the United States. I dont have static what kind of a court system as it does because he's the president. He can soon any court for whatever reason, no matter what the legal principles or do you think you just doesn't get it or told us

rhetoric for him for his face here are some or some combination of the jail. I mean. I think he may sincerely believe that the president should have standing whenever he wants to bring a case of Supreme Court and again, I think, eight of which are to others before, but the president is largely transactional, he's all about sort of what we have to give to get something are sort of, and- and I think that that's how he sincerely views the world and so he I think, has a very hard time understanding systems that are not purely transactional systems that are based on other things and so I don't know, I mean I'll, tell you what what concerned me more because the present can say why should I outstanding, but he doesn't in, and the constitution doesn't make it so and the laws I could tell the thing that concern me more over the past week was the sort of re framing of a new, and I've talked about how the president is. It is always working to frame issues this sort of, framing of the election. As my votes, stolen and Joe Biden has to prove that he legitimately got eighty million votes.

That real gatherer travel graphite. He everything the bar that that's exactly what we would say as lawyers, and we think that that is what you know. So, let's take criminal cases first, where it's a sacrosanct principle: that the burden of proof lies with the government that people have to prove their innocence. That's where you have something called the presumption of innocence. That's why the defence doesn't have to make any case at all. The defence doesn't have to make an opening statement, doesn't have to make a closing argument does not to put on any witnesses all the defence has to say, because a burden rests with the government that the government has not met its burden of proof, right, that's a very, very powerful allocation of burden right. It lies with the government, and the same is true with less you no consequence could it's not about liberty and life, but in civil cases too person, who is making the charge person whose alleging negligence, the person whose alleging some tort defamation over. The case may be that person has the burden of proof and hears the press.

Making the allegation of some wrong doing. He has the burden, not the other guy, and you can almost imagine the president supporters parroting that language rights, as somebody could save them. Look the election, the electors of certified the election after that started. Biden has won the election and you could almost see somebody's angle, prove it and it's like, of course the proof is there. That's why the elect? certified the election. But it's it's really just a reef framing it just another. To try to undercut Action and to do it by sort of shifting by shifting the and look. I should note the president tweeted that out twitter flag. That tweet, as you know, not rely information could savvy say not accurate, but again I just I sort of. I worry about the sort of sub current of a belief of it. Oh, seventy million plus Americans, who think or many of whom might think that the Elect

that there is like an prior that the election was stolen when the present has failed to have any shred of proof of that. So obviously there then some good NEWS in the fight against covered their multiple vaccines. There's some discussions about how effective they are, which ones are gonna, be able to be distributed more quickly than others with the temperature has to meet transporting them in distributing them by reality, thanks for listening the full episodes had the cafe dot com Action cider and try out the member free for two weeks, interested stew, with a valid dot. Eda you email can have the cafe dot com, slash student, to the many,

who have chosen to join the insider community. Thank you for supporting our work.