Election '20

Donald Trump’s second term is shaping up to be just as much about the past as the future. Not the past as it unfolded, but the version of events as he wants them remembered.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

There are a few troubling examples of how the president and his allies are actively attempting to reshape public views of the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection — and how these efforts are starting to affect real people and real institutions.

Take Oklahoma. Teachers there are now facing updated social studies standards that instruct students to “identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results” — not to examine election systems or to discuss voter confidence, but to presume that the election was flawed. This language is a quiet but profound distortion: It accepts Trump’s false narrative of fraud and requires educators to teach that falsehood as fact.

This illustrates the insidious consequences of partisan narratives hardening into policy. Oklahoma’s education chief, Ryan Walters, has aligned himself with efforts to eliminate so-called left-wing indoctrination in schools. But he’s supporting these new standards, which contradict the facts made plain in every credible post-election review, from Trump’s own first-term Department of Justice to GOP-led audits. Courts, including those with Trump-nominated judges, rejected dozens of spurious legal challenges, and officials in every state certified the results.

These facts have been sidelined in shaping what schoolchildren learn, which has long-term implications for public trust in elections.

Or consider the protests against aggressive immigration raids in Los Angeles. Trump has called the demonstrators there “insurrectionists” and is moving military forces into the city.

And what about the convicted insurrectionists who participated in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol? Trump issued them pardons and commutations as one of the first acts of his second term, erasing the crimes and violence of that day — including threats to execute his vice president — from the historical record. (A plaque honoring law enforcement officials who defended the Capitol that day still hasn’t been installed, despite pleas to House Speaker Mike Johnson.)

Trump’s administration is also reportedly developing a plan to pardon the “fake electors” and other Trump allies charged or convicted in connection with attempts to overturn the election, as well as the plot to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic governor, as part of a broader effort to shield MAGA supporters from legal consequences, and perhaps convey the sense that these events never happened.

That is, the president is using both his immense influence and his constitutional authority to bend justice, public education, and public memory toward a false understanding of the past. And his allies are bending to his will.

What does this tell us about Trump’s capacity to reshape perceptions in the face of actual facts? And can anything stand in his way?

Some answers may come from a federal courtroom in Denver, where one of the more surreal chapters of the 2020 fallout is still playing out. That’s where the defamation trial against Trump ally and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell — brought by former Dominion Voting Systems executive Eric Coomer — is underway.

Lindell, who has claimed that Dominion and Coomer were part of a scheme to steal the election from Trump, once promised that this trial would prove him right. But his lawyers seem to be arguing now that he’s so erratic, so impulsive, that nothing he says could be taken seriously enough to count as defamation.

“It’s just words,” said Lindell’s attorney, according to a Denver reporter covering the trial. “All Mike Lindell did was talk.”

That’s a hell of a defense, and itself a rewriting of history. The problem with it is that millions of people did believe Lindell, and still do.

Coomer may get to clear his name in the case against Lindell, but the broader effort to rewrite the past is gaining ground where it matters most: in classrooms, in Congress, and in the minds of voters. Juries and the judiciary can punish lies, but they can’t reach every classroom or undo every pardon.

With so many institutional guardrails already buckling under pressure, the remaining checks are public memory, a free press, and a willingness — from enough of us — to keep insisting on saying what actually happened.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

State Rep. Rachelle Smit, a former local clerk who believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen from President Donald Trump, will run the Michigan House’s committee on elections under the new GOP leadership.

Smit, a Republican from Martin, was named the chair of the House’s Election Integrity Committee, as it has now been renamed. Her claims that the 2020 election was stolen have been roundly debunked but won her an endorsement from President Donald Trump, who praised her as someone “who knows our Elections are not secure, and that there was rampant Voter Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election.”

“I absolutely think that it was stolen, yeah, and I’m not shy to say that,” Smit said in an interview with Votebeat, repeating false claims that there were “ballot dumps” in the early morning hours after Election Day in 2020.

In 2023, she argued that a group of Michigan Trump supporters charged with creating a forged slate of electors for Trump after the 2020 election, despite Joe Biden’s win in Michigan, had not done anything wrong and said that their actions were “completely legal.” She has also supported Dar Leaf, the Barry County sheriff who has gotten national attention for his efforts to investigate the 2020 election.

Smit, who also serves as speaker pro tempore of the Michigan House, was township clerk in Martin, in southwestern Michigan, before running for state office. Last session, when Democrats still controlled the House, she was the minority vice chair of the elections committee.

Now, as head of the committee, she will direct its progress over the next two years on legislation related to voting, elections, campaign finance, and more. That includes the Republican-led effort to amend Michigan’s Constitution to require voters to show proof of citizenship, which Smit is co-sponsoring. The House joint resolution, introduced Wednesday, will stop first in the election integrity committee before it likely goes before the full House.

“It’s of the utmost importance,” she said. “That’s going to be the first order of business that we take up.”

Like other Republicans in the House, Smit said she has no reason to believe Michigan’s elections aren’t secure. Rather, she said, she hopes to make clear to Michigan residents that legislators take the integrity of the state’s elections seriously.

Leader of clerks group points to successful 2024 election

Groups dedicated to expanding access to the ballot box have approached Smit’s leadership position with cautious optimism. Promote The Vote, a coalition of voting access groups that helped get 2022’s Proposal 2 in front of voters, said in a statement that it looks forward to working with her “to ensure that our elections remain secure and accessible.”

Melanie Ryska, Sterling Heights city clerk and the president of the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks, said that her group is committed to supporting voters’ rights and the security of elections. She also wondered at what point elections officials at every level would move on from the false claims and conspiracy theories that grew out of the 2020 presidential election.

Both Ryska and Promote The Vote said that Smit’s time as a clerk was likely to give her “unique insight” into election administration in the state. But given that Michigan is just a few months past another successful presidential election, Ryska questioned the need for more expansive rewrites of election law. She said she felt local officials “answered the call,” despite a flurry of constitutional changes in recent years.

“Our clerks showed that elections are secure and that there are plenty of checks and balances in place,” Ryska said.

Smit’s other priorities for the committee include finding vulnerabilities in the state’s election laws and cleaning up laws on specific government vacancies like the one her district saw last term. When an Allegan County commissioner up for election died in August just before the primary, the remaining commissioners appointed a new member. But the law is fuzzy on who should have been on the ballot in place of the commissioner who died.

Smit introduced a bill with two other Republicans and a Democrat last year to try to address it, but it didn’t make it out of committee after legislative activity in the House effectively collapsed in the last few weeks of the year.

The Michigan Voting Rights Act, which also died late in the session after winning the support of the Michigan Senate, will not make a comeback. The package of bills would have expanded the availability of ballots in different languages and broadly aimed to prevent voter suppression, among other changes. Supporters said it aimed to fill in the gaps in the federal Voting Rights Act that have been eroded by court decisions.

Smit had expressed concerns about that package during committee hearings last session, and now that she’s leading the committee, she said she “can’t get on board” with the bills.

During a hearing on them in December, Smit said she had heard from a number of local clerks who were against it. The state’s clerks associations remained neutral on the proposals, supporting the ideas behind them but expressing concerns about funding and the additional burden on clerks who were already managing a variety of changes to election law in recent years.

“That’s a very strong message that this is not the right way about doing that,” she said last week.

Who is on the election integrity committee?

Other committee members on the Republican side include Rep. Joseph Fox, from Fremont, as the vice chair and Reps. Pat Outman of Six Lakes, Greg Alexander of Carsonville, Mike Hoadley of Au Gres, and Joseph Pavlov of Smiths Creek. Each of those representatives co-sponsored the House joint resolution that proposed the proof-of-citizenship constitutional amendment.

Democrats on the committee are Reps. Stephen Wooden of Grand Rapids, Matt Koleszar of Plymouth, and Mai Xiong of Warren. Wooden, who is in his first term in the legislature, will be the minority vice chair.

Wooden acknowledged he wouldn’t have much control over the agenda, but he told Votebeat that he looked forward to finding common ground with Republican committee members.

“I know that often, the elections committee can be a place where you see some of the most bipartisan, commonsense legislation by working with the clerks to get mechanical changes to our elections and ensure our elections are moving smoothly,” he said.

The committee is expected to meet in the coming days, although no official time has yet been set.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The Department of Justice's internal watchdog released a report Tuesday finding some of the agency's officials under Donald Trump's first presidency "may have violated federal law" ahead of the 2020 election "by pushing for pandemic-related investigations that targeted states with Democratic governors," ABC News exclusively reports.

Furthermore, ABC reports that the same officials may have leaked "private information about those investigations to friendly media outlets in a potential attempt to influence the election," according to the watchdog.

The report, which the news outlet has obtained less than two weeks before Trump takes the White House once more, notes that a senior member of the DOJ's public affairs team sent a text message less than a month before the 2020 election "describing a proposed leak to a major New York-area tabloid about reviews of COVID-related deaths at nursing homes in New York and New Jersey as 'our last play on them before [the] election' -- 'but it's a big one,' he added."

READ MORE: 'Truth must prevail’: Garland urged to 'release the damn report' on Jack Smith’s Trump probe

That same senior public affairs team member, according to the watchdog's report, first launched the alleged ploy to leak the information to media.

ABC reports, "In late August 2020, when the Justice Department then sent letters to the governors of Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York seeking relevant data -- 'despite having been provided data indicating that the nursing homes with the most significant quality of care issues were in other states' -- the Justice Department's public affairs office issued a press release about the move," according to the report.

The inspector general's report, ABC notes, mentioned that "current and former officials more recently described the press release as 'unusual and inappropriate.'"

READ MORE: 'Insane': Experts condemn Trump plan to make DOJ 'manufacture evidence' that he won in 2020

ABC News' full report is available here.

President-elect Donald Trump’s long-held promise to pardon his supporters who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is drawing fresh scrutiny from a government ethics group.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, issued a terse statement Monday calling out Trump and his repeated signals that he is willing to grant clemency to those who breached the Capitol as Congress worked to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.

“Some things are fights worth having,” CREW wrote in a social media post on X. “Not allowing Donald Trump to pardon January 6th insurrectionists is one of those things. Two-thirds of the country is with us on this.”

The warning shot comes just weeks before Trump is set to return to the White House. The incoming president has said he will “most likely” pardon at least some Jan. 6 rioters on the first day he takes office, according to media reports.

A HuffPost analysis this week found that the potential presidential Jan. 6 pardons would put hundreds of violent criminals back onto the streets.

During an Election Day Fox News special, the right-wing network's chief political analyst Britt Hume suggested that the January 6 attack on the US Capitol that Donald Trump inspired, continues to haunt the MAGA hopeful.

On Tuesday night, Washington Post reporter Jeremy Barr pointed out via X: "Hume now says that Jan. 6/Democracy is a 'BS issue.'"

Barr included a screenshot of a social media post written by right-wing commentator on the day of the attack.

READ MORE: Elections expert explains how to spot 'very first clues of the Trump phenomenon'

On January 6, 2021, National Review editor Rich Lowery tweeted: "This is obviously why we’ve always expected and demanded that our presidents say that they will respect the peaceful transfer of power."

Hume replied to Lowery's post, writing: "Instead, Trump has fueled the worst suspicions of his supporters with wild claims that the election was stolen. And now we see the result."

Hume appears to have changed his mind.

According to Media Matters for America — referring to the attack on the US Capitol that day — the right-wing commentator added, "It was the premise of the January 6 Special Committee that we -- as the co-chairman of the Committee put it, 'We came critically close to losing our democracy.' It's ridiculous. I mean, our democracy is pretty sturdy. Our checks and balances worked. The thing was over in a matter of hours. And yet, here we are, it's still a factor."

READ MORE: 'They tried to kill': Fox host explodes when pushed on unity with left if Harris wins

One of the police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the deadly Trump-incited January 6 insurrection is pushing back against the the ex-president’s claim that it was a “day of love.”

During a Univision-hosted town hall in Miami on Wednesday for undecided Latino voters the GOP presidential nominee was asked about the attack.

“I want to give you the opportunity to try to win back my vote,” Ramiro Gonzalez, a 56-year old “no longer registered” Republican told Trump. “Your — I’m going to say, action and maybe inaction during your presidency, and the last few years, sort of, was a little disturbing to me. What happened during January 6 and the fact that, you know, you waited so long to take action while your supporters were attacking the Capitol.”

“Coronavirus,” Gonzalez added, “I thought the public was misled, and many more lives could have been saved if we would have been informed better.”

READ MORE: ‘Aghast’: Trump Dodges and Dismisses Latino Voters’ Concerns at Univision Town Hall

After blasting his former vice president, Mike Pence, Trump distanced himself from the events of that day, claiming his supporters “didn’t come because of me — they came because of the election. They thought the election was a rigged election, and that’s why they came.”

“There were no guns down there, we didn’t have guns,” Trump also told Ramirez. “The others had guns, but we didn’t have guns. And when I say we, these are people that walked down. This was a tiny percentage of the overall, which nobody sees and nobody shows. But that was a day of love from the standpoint of the millions, it’s like hundreds of thousands, it could have been the largest group I’ve ever spoken before. They asked me to speak, I went, and I spoke. And I used the term peacefully and patriotically.”

Trump’s “day of love” remark clearly hit Aquilino Gonell, the former U.S. Capitol Police sergeant who had to retire after being gravely injured on January 6.

READ MORE: ‘What’s Going On?’: Critics Charge ‘Very Weak’ as Trump Pulls Out of Another TV Interview

Gonell had “joined the Army, fought in Iraq and became a police officer at the U.S. Capitol,” WBUR reported earlier this year. “On Jan. 6, 2021, Sargeant Gonell was attacked and beaten by rioters as he and his fellow officers tried to hold the line.”

“Gonell and his fellow officers were badly outnumbered. The mob beat them with pipes, sticks and rocks, sprayed them with chemicals, as they tried to hold the line and defend the Capitol and the peaceful transfer of power.”

He told WBUR, “I almost lost my life a couple of times,” on January 6.

On Thursday, responding to Trump’s “day of love” comment, Gonell posted video of him being attacked on January 6.

“Here’s me receiving an outpouring amount of affection during the ‘day of love’—January 6, 2021,” he wrote. A few minutes later, he added, “They almost loved me to death.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Is He OK?’: Trump’s Dark of Night Rage Posting Backfires

Former President Donald Trump has long pushed what has become known as the "Big Lie" that President Joe Biden did not actually win the 2020 election — he did.

The lie is what stoked the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, and it's what has landed the ex-president in legal trouble with Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Although Trump and many of his MAGA allies still push the same claim today, Vanity Fair co-Editor-in-Chief and author Ramin Setoodeh revealed on Wednesday that the former president does, in fact, know that he lost to Biden.

READ MORE: George Conway urges 'full-blown discussion' about Trump’s mental health over bizarre book interview

During an interview with MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, the Apprentice in Wonderland: How Donald Trump and Mark Burnett Took America Through the Looking Glass author shared a glimpse into one of his many conversations with Trump.

"He slips," Wallace said to Setoodeh. "You talk about the mask coming off moment, when [Trump] told you that he lost."

The award-winning journalist replied, "He does. In one of our conversations we were watching clips of The Apprentice, and I showed him a clip of Geraldo Rivera, who was a contestant. And he got worked up over their falling out and the feud that they had, and he said 'when I lost the election.'

And that was a really revealing moment to me and proved something I'd been thinking about, is Donald Trump is playing a character. He's a reality show character that projects this image that people want to see. And I think truthfully, if we were able to get inside of his head and find the truth, he would admit that he lost the election, because he said it to me."

READ MORE: GOP's Big Lie about 2020 is 'more about identity than evidence': expert

Watch the video below or at this link.

'When I lost the election': Author shares 'revealing moment' during Trump interviewwww.youtube.com

Attorney Kenneth Chesebro was one of three former President Donald Trump allies charged by the state of Wisconsin Tuesday in connection to the 2020 fake elector's scheme led by the ex-president's campaign in efforts to overturn the election.

The fake elector ploy architect was indicted alongside Wisconsin lawyer James Troupis and former Trump campaign officialMichael Roman — each on one count of forgery. CBS News reports, "The three are set to make their initial appearances in Dane County Circuit Court on Sept. 19, court records show. The charge carries a sentence of up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000."

MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin explained to host Katy Tur how the Wisconsin charges differ from 2020 election fake elector charges in Georgia and Arizona, and why Chesebro is the "most important person charged in this document today."

READ MORE: Kenneth Chesebro among Trump allies hit with new fake elector indictments in Wisconsin

Rubin explained, "There are five suits now with respect to these fake elector schemes. Ken Chesebro is charged only in two of them. He was charged in Georgia, where he pled guilty and, now today, he's charged in Wisconsin. I want to tell you what makes this different, because Ken Chesebro's involvement in Wisconsin is qualitatively different. First of all, Wisconsin is where it all began. This is the state for which he wrote the original memo about fake electors in early December of 2020."

The legal expert continued, "Secondly, he attended the meeting of fake electors in Wisconsin. He basically crashed it, even though he had no right to be there."

Tur asked, "Isn't the argument in Georgia that he never went to Georgia and he couldn't be involved in the conspiracy because he never stepped in the state?"

Rubin replied, "It may have been one of his arguments before he pled guilty, but now having pled guilty, whether or not he stepped into the state of Georgia is irrelevant."

READ MORE: Watch: Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro strikes last-minute plea deal with Georgia prosecutors

"But here, he was in Wisconsin?" Tur added.

Rubin emphasized, "But here he was in Wisconsin, definitely involved in the meeting itself, then with the Wisconsin documents don't reach Washington, DC, and aren't received by members of congress, the Wisconsin republican party has a part-time aide fly them out there, who is there to receive them from her? None other than Ken Chesebro. And finally, while he did conduct an interview with wisconsin investigators, they discovered that he lied to them about his Twitter account, something that Michigan investigators also discovered. So, unlike in other states where he is theoretically a cooperator and an unindicted co-conspirator, here, he's probably the most important person charged in this document today.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Why Kenneth Chesebro is 'most important person charged' in Wisconsin: legal expertyoutu.be

US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was one of the 17 Texas Republicans who refused to certify the 2020 election results, according to the Texas Tribune.

During a Wednesday night interview with the GOP senator, CNN's Kaitlan Collins noted Cruz's refusal to acknowledge President Joe Biden win over Donald Trump in 2020, and asked whether the Texas leader plans to accept the November election results in the case Biden wins again.

"Do you plan to object or will you accept the results regardless of who wins the election?" Collins asked.

READ MORE: Ted Cruz slapped with campaign finance laws violation complaint

"Kaitlan, I got to say, I think that's actually a ridiculous question," Cruz replied.

"It's a yes or no question," Collins insisted.

"Let me explain why it's ridiculous question," the Texas leader said, asking, "Have you've ever asked a Democrat that?"

Collins replied, "Have you ever had a sitting president who refused to facilitate the peaceful transition of power, refused to acknowledge that his successor won the presidency?

Cruz claimed, "We had peaceful transfer of power, I was there on January 20."

"Barely," Collins replied, before noting that in 2016, when Biden was vice president, "he went to the Senate floor and certified the votes."

READ MORE: 'Ted Cruz isn’t fooling anyone': Texas senator slammed over outreach to Democrats

Cruz said, "You only ask Republicans" this question.

Collins replied, "Because it was Republicans who tried to block the transition of power. You have to acknowledge that. We've never seen it on a scale of what happened in 2020. And We've never seen the president refuse. He wouldn't even let Joe Biden get classified briefings at the beginning.I recall that. So my question for you again: Free and fair election, will you accept the results regardless of who wins?"

The senator replied, "If the Democrats win, I will accept the result, but I'm not going to ignore fraud," before claiming there was voter fraud in 2020. Collins replied, "No there wasn't, and you still objected."

"Oh you know, for a fact, there were zero voter-fraud?" Cruz asked. "What's your basis for that? Show me your evidence.'

Collins said, "We've spoken with [Georgia Republican] Governor [Brian] Kemp. They did three hand recounts in the state of Georgia. the director of CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] said that this was one of the safest most legitimate elections."

READ MORE: 'Taking a lot of ribbing': Ted Cruz now the butt of senators’ jokes amid FAA bill markup

The CNN host emphasized, "Republicans are twisting themselves in knots."

Cruz claimed Collins never asks Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, or Al Gore whether they will certify election results.

"I haven't had any of them on my show," Collins said. "We'll talk to them, but I don't remember there being a president who was refusing to turn over the transition of power."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Republicans are twisting themselves in knots': Kaitlan Collins flattens Ted Cruz on election denialwww.youtube.com

Following a New York Times report earlier this week reporting that US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito flew an upside down American flag outside of his home after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, top Democratic law makers are calling for his recusal from any cases related to the insurrection.

"Flying an upside-down American flag — a symbol of the so-called 'Stop the Steal' movement — clearly creates the appearance of bias," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) Durbin told the Hill.

"Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection, including the question of the former President’s immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court is currently considering. The Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making, and Justice Alito and the rest of the Court should be doing everything in their power to regain public trust, Supreme Court justices should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest.”

READ MORE: Senate Judiciary Committee Chair calls for Samuel Alito’s recusal from January 6 cases

Bloomberg opinion columnist Stephen L. Carter, in a Sunday, May 19 op-ed suggests Alito's claim that the upside down flag "display signaled his wife’s exasperation at her inability even to walk down the street without suffering the frequent and often obscene verbal assaults of neighbors."

The Yale law professor writes, this explanation, if true, "still raises important questions, about both the ethical rules governing judges and the imposition of similar restrictions on their families."

"So let’s suppose that Alito’s tale is correct, and what was really happening was the suburban front lawn equivalent of an online flame war," the Yale law professor writes. "Nevertheless, the inversion of the flag remains a problem."

"There’s nothing in what we might call the ethics of marriage requiring a spouse to surrender the right to many forms of public expression, and we shouldn’t assume that one spouse’s beliefs are the same as the other’s."

READ MORE: Alito tells Fox News story behind his 'Stop the Steal' flag — but critics unconvinced

Carter writes:

But the burden that rests upon the spouse of a public official is heavy, and the one that rests upon the spouse of a Supreme Court justice might be weightiest of all. Even if the significance of the inverted flag has been misconstrued, those restrictions remain the same. Whatever other spouses might be free to do, the ethics that must govern this particular marriage require even the justice’s spouse (and sometimes other family members as well) to bend over backwards to avoid misconstrual.

Carter's full op-ed is available at this link.

Former Donald Trump lawyer John Eastman — who aided the former president in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election — was handed a loss Wednesday amid in his efforts to continue practicing law.

Politico's Kyle Cheney reports via X (formerly Twitter), "JUST IN: The judge who recommended John Eastman’s disbarment denies his urgent request to delay her ruling, which resulted in his automatic suspension from practicing law. She cites the gravity of his misconduct and his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing."

This comes one month after California State Bar Judge Yvette Roland ruled that "Eastman violated ethics rules when he helped to orchestrate the ex-president's ploy to overturn the 2020 election," according to Politico.

READ MORE: 'I’m sure Trump will compensate him': Experts praise John Eastman’s disbarment ruling

Although the former Trump attorney was given the option to appeal, Politico noted that Roland's ruling forced Eastman's law license into 'inactive' status during pending review — meaning he was barred from practicing law in California.

Roland's Wednesday ruling reads: "[Eastman] has provided declarations from his current clients who express a strong desire for him to continue representing them in their ongoing matters. However, the court made no finding that Eastman's ethical violations resulted in client harm. Instead, the court found that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Eastman's misconduct in part to safeguard the public."

It continues, "The court's decision determined that Eastman made deceptive and misleading claims in legal documents, public forums, and other contexts concerning the 2020 presidential election and the extent of Vice President Michael R. Pence's authority to override the electoral process."

Furthermore, the judge wrote, "Eastman's motion fails to demonstrate that he no longer presents a threat to the public. Despite his clients' desire for Eastman to continue representing them, based on the gravity of Eastman's transgressions, particularly those involving moral turpitude, and the increased likelihood of future misconduct due to his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, there is insufficient evidence to justify a stay of his involuntary inactive enrollment.'"

READ MORE: Trump ally and January 6 architect John Eastman now on the verge of losing his law license

Roland concluded, "Accordingly, Eastman's motion to stay the court's March 27, 2024 order placing him on inactive enrollment or in the alternative, imposing interim remedies in lieu of inactive enrollmentis DENIED, no good cause having been shown."

Former Donald Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the House January 6 Committee in 2022 that her former boss attempted to take control of the steering wheel from his Secret Service agent in an effort to make his way to join rioters at the US Capitol.

Nearly two years later, Politico's Kyle Cheney reported that the former president confirmed his actions during a Wednesday rally.

"Trump just said at his rally that he did, in fact, ask his Secret Service driver on Jan. 6 to take him to the Capitol," Cheney wrote via X (formerly Twitter). "'I sat in the back. And you know what I did say? 'I’d like to go down there.' ... They said 'Sir, it’s better if you don’t.'"

READ MORE: Secret Service agents may have told grand jury about Trump’s desperation to join Jan. 6 riots: reporter

The Politico reporter added, "Of course, his driver told investigators Trump was adamant about going and was frustrated when he wasn't allowed. Testimony to the Jan. 6 committee also showed the mad scramble this caused among security agencies while also responding to threat to [former Vice President Mike] Pence/Capitol."

According to CNN, the MAGA hopeful "attempted to cast Hutchinson’s testimony" before Congress "as revenge, claiming she was 'very upset and angry that I didn’t want her' at his Palm Beach residence."

During a June 2022 Deadline: White House interview, host Nicolle Wallace spoke with Washington Post journalist Carol Leonnig about how Hutchinson's testimony.

"We don't know what Jack Smith and his team are asking those agents, but any former or current agent who's being questioned about Donald Trump's activities and White House activities in the days leading up to Jan. 6th is bound to get an earful about things that we've all reported on for more than a year," Leonnig said.

READ MORE: Mark Meadows and Trump’s Secret Service agents have testified

"What else is it that Jack Smith is going to learn from agents?" the Post reporter asked. "They could learn about Donald Trump's state of mind heading into Jan. 6th. Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, which you aired just now about Donald Trump being completely comfortable with his supporters having weapons, pistol, rifles, knives, flak jackets, bulletproof vests, bear spray, all of these things were being communicated to him in a risk assessment on the day of. Yet, he said I don't care. Take the magnetometers down. They can come and march with me to the Capitol."

CNN reported just days after Leonnig's interview, "Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as 'demanding' and that the former President said something similar to: 'I’m the f—king President of the United States, you can’t tell me what to do.'"

READ MORE: Security official confirms Donald Trump's Secret Service scuffle

Dominion Voting Systems filed a defamation suit against the right-wing network, Newsmax, in 2021, seeking $1.6 billion in damages for pushing 2020 election lies.

Three years later, ahead of trial, The Daily Beast exclusively reported Monday that the MAGA network petitioned the court in efforts to get longtime Donald Trump ally John Catsimatidis to testify, "alleging the right-wing channel knowingly peddled election lies."

The Beast notes the trial for Dominion's defamation case against Fox News was originally scheduled for September, but has been delayed. Trial for Smartmatic's defamation suit against Newsman will begin in September instead.

READ MORE: An ominous sign for Fox News: Media critic breaks down pre-trial hearings in Dominion defamation suit

In addition to requesting Catsimatidis' testimony, Newsmax is also highlights the billionaire's "media companies, Red Apple Media and WABC Radio, in its petition to enforce a subpoena."

The conservative cable network also points to the fact "that Dominion has sued former Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell for baselessly accusing the voting software firm of flipping millions of votes from Donald Trump to President Joe Biden." The voting company "cites statements Powell made on Catismatidis’ syndicated radio show, The CATS Roundtable, in its lawsuit against Powell," according to the petition.

Furthermore, the news outlet reports:

Additionally, Newsmax appears to suggest that Dominion’s chief executive John Poulos may have taken mercy on Catsimatidis because of his close relationship with famed Greek Orthodox priest Father Alexander Karloutsos. “'fter Dominion settled its defamation lawsuit against Fox News, a National Herald article... reported that Dominion CEO John Poulos had stated that, in late 2020, he had conferred with Mr. Catsimatidis’ mentor, Father Alexander Karloutsos, concerning allegations of voter fraud and Dominion.'

"Dominion has sued neither Mr. Catsimatidis nor any of his media companies notwithstanding that they broadcast essentially the same news stories, statements and content at issue in Dominion’s lawsuits against Newsmax, One America News Network, and Fox News," the network's petition says.

READ MORE: 'Hot mess': Report reveals Rupert Murdoch’s state of 'denial' about Dominion voting settlement

The petition continues, "Notably, Mr. Catsimatidis and his media company, WABC radio, broadcast essentially the same news stories at issue in the Newsmax and Fox News litigations. For example, WABC broadcast numerous statements by Rudy Giuliani concerning Dominion and allegations of voter fraud."

The Daily Beast's full report is available here (subscription required).

US Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) have been subpoenaed by Arizona investigators to testify for a grand jury in connection to their efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Politico exclusively reports.

Politico notes as far-right Freedom Caucus chair at the time, Biggs, along "with Gosar were among the most vocal congressional supporters of Trump’s efforts to overturn Biden’s victory in Arizona," and both GOP lawmakers sought "to challenge the state’s presidential electors on Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress met to certify the results of the Electoral College."

The news outlet adds, "Gosar was mounting that challenge at the same moment a pro-Trump mob broke into the Capitol and halted proceedings."

READ MORE: 'We have to worry about physical violence': AZ elections chief preps for threats from MAGA

Although there's no proof Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes will bring criminal charges against the pair, "the subpoenas themselves — in conjunction with a series of other aggressive recent moves — show that Mayes, a Democrat, has cast a far wider net in her probe than previously understood," Politico notes.

"Getting a subpoena to testify in front of a grand jury is kind of rare," American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Legal Director Jared Keenan said. "And that’s why I think no one has challenged the secrecy law."

Some of the Arizona lawmakers' attempt to overturn the election according to investigators, includes Gosar's ongoing "relationships with activists organizing 'Stop the Steal' protests targeting Congress’ Jan. 6 session."

Regarding Biggs' actions, Politico reports, "text messages obtained by the Jan. 6 committee" show that "Biggs quickly contacted Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, after Election Day 2020 to push for state legislatures to overrule the results in multiple states Biden won."

READ MORE: 'Resigning as Lake requested': AZ GOP chair quits amid threat of more leaks from Kari Lake

Additionally, "Biggs also told Meadows that Trump should not concede the election and reportedly worked with other Arizona Republicans to advance the fake elector effort."

Politico's full report is available here.

California State Bar Judge Yvette Roland on Wednesday ruled that former Donald Trump lawyer John Eastman violated ethics rules when he helped to orchestrate the ex-president's ploy to overturn the 2020 election, Politico reports.

Per the report, "Though Eastman may appeal Roland’s decision, including to the state Supreme Court, the ruling forces his law license into 'inactive' status while any review is pending, meaning he can no longer practice law in California."

Brookings Governance senior fellow and States United Democracy Center co-founder Norm Eisen shared the news via X (formerly Twitter), writing, "The CA Bar just delivered an important 2020 accountability outcome – recommending John Eastman for permanent disbarment. Kudos to our team @statesunited who filed the initial ethics complaint against him in 2021, along with me & dozens of bipartisan signers."

READ MORE: Trump ally and January 6 architect John Eastman now on the verge of losing his law license

Adam Klasfeld reported, "A blistering line from John Eastman's disbarment recommendation: The Bar finds that the 'scale and egregiousness' of Eastman’s 'unethical actions far surpasses the misconduct' by Nixon henchman Donald Segretti, who coined the word 'ratf***ing' for political dirty tricks."

CNN's Zachary Cohen noted, "All signs pointed to this being the decision. Eastman has still avoided criminal charges except for in Georgia."

Former federal prosecutor and legal analyst Renato Mariotti commented, "One of Donald Trump’s lawyers will no longer be a lawyer. It is rare for lawyers to be disbarred for acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. But Eastman’s legal advice — to overturn an election and subvert our democracy — were unprecedented."

Jim Roberts, publisher at The 74, wrote, "Good."

READ MORE: Former Trump White House lawyer reveals new details about Trump’s 2020 election ploy: report

Mother Jones DC Bureau Chief David Corn said, "I’m sure Trump will compensate him."

MSNBC's Katie Phang wrote, "Taking away the ability for Trump to abuse the legal system with the help of (disbarred-) lawyers like Eastman and Jeff Clark is critical to protecting our democracy."

Environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clark, who the former president wanted to take over the Justice Department in the days before the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a disbarment hearing Wednesday," according to NBC News.

READ MORE: 3 Trump lawyers who tried to overturn election will now have to defend their law licenses

As Jeffrey Clark, ex-US Department of Justice official and Donald Trump co-defendant in the Georgia 2020 election interference case faces the possibility of losing his law license, according to Politico, new details regarding Clark's role in Trump's ploy to overturn the election came to light Tuesday.

Per Politico, During Clark's March 26 disbarment hearing in Washington, DC, former Trump Deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin gave "his first public testimony about the chaotic final days of the Trump presidency since" leaving his post in 2021.

"I believe that he felt that he essentially had a duty," Philbin said, according to the report, of his longtime colleague. "I think Jeff’s view was that there was a real crisis in the country and that he was being given an opportunity to do something about it."

READ MORE: Jack Smith has new evidence about 'very angry' Trump's Jan. 6 actions: report

In the days leading up to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol — as Joe Biden was set to be confirmed as president, Politico reports, "Trump had suddenly resuscitated a plan to replace the leadership of the Justice Department with Jeffrey Clark, a little known DOJ official who Trump expected to mount a sweeping nationwide effort to help him remain in power."

The former Trump White House counsel, according to Politico, "described Clark as wildly misinformed about claims of election fraud — countenancing a theory about 'smart thermostats' being used to manipulate voting machines — and not sufficiently cognizant of the havoc it would wreak on the country if his plan succeeded. But he said Clark seemed '100 percent sincere' in his beliefs.'"

Furthermore, the report notes that "when Philbin warned Clark that there would be riots in every major American city if Trump reversed the outcome of the election, Clark responded, 'Well, Pat, that’s what the Insurrection Act is for,' Philbin recalled."

"I tried to explain to him that it was a bad idea for multiple reasons," Philbin emphasized in his testimony. "He would be starting down a path of assured failure … If by some miracle somehow, it worked, there’d be riots in every major city in the country and it was not an outcome the country would accept."

READ MORE: 'Hunters will become the hunted': Convicted J6er running for Congress makes a new promise

In mentioning "the Insurrection Act," Politico reports:

Clark, in Philbin’s telling, was referring to a 19th-century federal law that permits the president to use the military to quell civil unrest, an indication that he recognized the grave implications of his efforts. Though it was Philbin’s first time publicly discussing the exchange, the conversation was captured in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump — without naming either Philbin or Clark, though the identities of both speakers were easily discerned. On Tuesday, Philbin was asked to elaborate on this discussion.

The news outlet also notes:

Philbin was the second witness to testify in a disciplinary proceeding that could result in the loss of Clark’s license to practice law. D.C. Bar investigators have charged him with attempting to coerce DOJ leaders to embrace false claims of election fraud in order to pressure state legislators to consider reversing Trump’s defeat in Georgia and other swing states. Trump, fuming at his DOJ leadership for what he contended was a failure to pursue fraud investigations, repeatedly flirted with appointing Clark as their leader but ultimately backed down amid a mass resignation threat.

READ MORE: Court smacks down subpoena to Jeffrey Clark citing Fifth Amendment violation: report

Politico's full report is available at this link.

NBC host Kristen Welker pressed former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel about her past statements suggesting the 2020 presidential election was not legitimate.

"Ronna, ultimately, there were 250 audits," Welker said Sunday on Meet the Press. "They never found any corruption."

"Did you not have a responsibility as the RNC chair to say before January 6th that the election is not rigged, that Donald Trump lost given that there were audits, given that there were more than 60 court cases that occurred all across the country, and that Donald Trump lost?" she asked.

"The reality is Joe Biden won," McDaniel replied. "I have always said, and I continue to say, there were issues in 2020. I believe that both can be true."

"But you acknowledge you acknowledge those what you're talking about did not rise to the level in any way of overturning any of the state's election results," Welker pressed.

"You know there were precincts that didn't align," she continued. "That's a fact. That's not propaganda. That's a fact. He's the president. He's the legitimate president."

Welker interrupted: "Let me just let me just stop you because you did say you just said Joe Biden's a legitimately elected president. This is the first time you have said this."

The NBC host then presented a video clip of McDaniel telling Chris Wallace that Biden did not win fairly.

"Ronna, why has it taken you until now to say that?" Welker wondered.

"I'm gonna push back a little because I do think it's fair to say there were problems in 2020," McDaniel quipped. "And to say that does not mean he's not the legitimate president."

Welker pointed out, "Even the Supreme Court, Ronna, didn't take up concerns about the election results in Pennsylvania and a slew of other states."

Many legal experts publicly slammed a brief Donald Trump lawyers filed with the US Supreme Court Tuesday, urging the justices to grant the former president absolute immunity from prosecution in his DC January 6 election interference case.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked CNN legal commentator Elie Honig about his thoughts on how he believes the high court may respond to the brief.

Collins noted in the brief, Trump lawyers "include statements like this, saying that [Trump] communicated with the vice president, the vice president's official staff, members of congress to urge them to exercise their official duties and the election certification process in accordance with the position decision based on voluminous information available to President Trump in his official capacity, that the election was tainted by extensive fraud and irregularities."

READ MORE: Trump’s 'astounding' SCOTUS Jan. 6 immunity brief blasted by legal experts

The CNN host then emphasized, "It's not true."

"That's some spin, right?" Honig said.

"So how does the Supreme Court read something like that?" Collins asked.

"That's the problem," Honig replied. "The argument that he if he was within a scope, he's covered. That's potentially legitimate. But the twisting of logic and reality that Trump has to do to get there, to get what he did within the scope of the presidency is facially ridiculous. He says, 'Well, I was just calling the vice president and asked him to do his job. I was just calling the georgia secretary of state and ask him to do his job.' No, he wasn't. I mean, We've seen the calls. We've heard the testimony."

The legal expert continued, "He's asking them to violate their oaths of office. That's where I think he's going to run into trouble. And there's one more thing that I have to note about the brief. Donald Trump's lawyers make the mistake of saddling a good, decent argument about whether he's in the scope or not with a ridiculous argument which is this impeachment argument, that he can only be indicted if he's been impeached and then convicted by the Senate."

READ MORE: Former military leaders would 'refuse' Trump order to kill political rivals: SCOTUS amicus brief

He emphasized, "I don't know why they include that. They don't need that. And to me that sinks the arguments. So, if I'm advising Trump's legal team — which I'm not — but if I'm advising any normal person, I would say, 'leave out the lousy argument, just bank on the good one here.'"

Watch the video below or at this link.

'That’s some spin, right?' Legal expert highlights Trump lawyers' one 'mistake' in SCOTUS briefwww.youtube.com

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Jeffery S. Matis issued a bench warrant for Attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila, granting a request from the prosecution after she repeatedly failed to provide fingerprints and a DNA sample as required by law.

Lambert Junttila did not appear at the Thursday show cause hearing and will have 24 hours to turn herself in, with prosecutor Tim Maat requesting that the warrant not be executed until 5 p.m. Friday in line with a previous agreement he had made with Lambert Junttila, where she asked that Maat not send officers to her home to arrest her.

“One of the conversations I had with her, with her counsel present, was, ‘If the grand jury decides to indict, can you promise me you won’t send the police to my house and have me arrested?’ I said yes. She says, ‘I got kids. I don’t want them to see that.’ I said, ‘No problem; just let us work with your lawyer,’” Maat said.

Lambert Junttila is one of three individuals indicted as part of a probe into alleged tampering with voting tabulators following the 2020 election where President Joe Biden defeated former President Donald Trump. Attorney and former Republican attorney general nominee Matthew DePerno and former state Rep. Daire Rendon (R-Lake City) were also indicted.

The court had issued multiple orders for Lambert Junttila to have her fingerprints and a DNA sample taken, as is required by law. Matis noted the initial order requesting fingerprints and DNA sampling was issued on Aug. 4, 2023, with a deadline of Aug. 10, 2023.

Matis also noted this order said a refusal to submit to fingerprinting may subject the defendant to contempt or criminal charges.

Matis also read multiple emails between Maat and Lambert Junttila’s defense counsel saying she would have her fingerprints taken.

“Of course, it hasn’t been done. So with that said, today’s hearing was scheduled. I did order the defendant to be present. Candidly, if she had shown up with proof she had done it that would have been fine. But obviously she’s not present,” Matis said.

While the case was initially scheduled for 3 p.m., Matis did not call the case until after 4 p.m. Thursday.

“What I want to emphasize here is I have no doubt that defense counsel has been honest with us, but I don’t think she’s been honest with them. And everything that’s been communicated to us I now question,” Maat said, listing a number of excuses from Lambert Junttila as to why her fingerprints had not been taken.

Maat, who traveled three hours to the court in Oakland County, also requested that Lambert Junttila cover the travel costs for himself and a state police trooper who appeared as a witness and waited for her to appear. Matis granted the request.

Lambert Junttila’s attorney, Michael J. Smith, argued she was confused as to whether the show cause hearing would be held, but Matis rejected that argument before agreeing to issue a bench warrant.

At the time of publication, Lambert is scheduled for trial on April 1.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Susan J. Demas for questions: info@michiganadvance.com. Follow Michigan Advance on Facebook and Twitter.