Replies

Quick comments on strategy...

The bifurcation between Rudy and Sidney is, in part, one about bonafides: Rudy is Trump’s lawyer and Sidney is not. It is also a division between campaign $ and externally funded efforts independent of the campaign, with the money limiting if not controlling key aspects of where each effort is allowed to go. And, it is certainly about a division in effort, a dividing of forces to mount a two pronged attack, where the forces are specialized to and focused on their respective tasks... perhaps even including divisions in information flows and variable access (being limited or not able to be limited) to particular flows where that might prove critical, and/or where it might alter or limit risks, and/or inform other elements of strategy or tactics.

All of that should have been apparent before yesterday.

New, or clearer today, perhaps, is the awareness... that it is also a division between Pennsylvania and Georgia. While it is clearly crafted as a division in focus between physical fraud and computer based fraud... it is also one between proceedings filed yesterday in Federal court (Powell in Georgia) and proceedings yesterday undertaken before the ultimate election authority short of the SCOTUS (by Giuliani’s team in Pennsylvania) where it was addressed as an issue to the state legislature.

Widely overlooked... a judge... in Georgia, I think... has already made a decision that admits awareness of the element of fraud occurring, not dismissing it as a reckless assertion without foundation in a dispute, but as an element of fact in context, making it a part of his decision, while including it within his RULING. Don’t ignore that.

I think it evidences that Trump’s team think they’ve already won the legal case in Pennsylvania... as they have the legislature on one hand, and the state Supreme Court on the other, acting in direct conflict with the law as passed and with the intent made clear in the Constitution.

To win at the SCOTUS, Trump only needs to win ONE of the contests re the constitutionality of the extra-legal changes imposed by state executives.

So, one element is that a second prong in the attack will tend to provide options enabling them in circumventing potential error in technical rulings. If one case blows up for some reason... there’s a fall back.

But, there’s also likely going to be an interplay occurring between the two at some point. One informs the other... and underpins it with support beyond a Plan B potential.

And, a key issue there... is the point of division between errors made within a state, even requiring a conspiracy existed within a state, and a larger conspiracy that would need to exist to connect similar outcomes in different states. A result internal to a state doesn’t address an over-arching conspiracy that includes planning to attack systems in more than one state... which may include both citizens engaged in meta level wrongdoing... and foreign actors working with them, or through them.

Pennsylvania’s is a Constitutional case... clearly being crafted with the ultimate goal of winning at SCOTUS.

Georgia’s is, thus far, a civil case...

Obviously, there’s also already over-whelming evidence of fraud occurring in multiple venues... requiring the existence in parallel of at least one CRIMINAL case.

And, there is a separate state interest (ie., a U.S. government interest) in national security... wherein compromise of the elections might present existential risks to the Constitutional order that all government personnel are sworn to defend and uphold? Blurred lines might exist... between what the state interest is... and what national security requires... and what the Constitution demands ?

But, while authorizing active investigation of frauds, Bill Barr has explicitly limited the U.S. Attorney’s purview to focusing ONLY on evidence “within a state”... thus obviating the potential for disclosing any larger conspiracy ? Except... Durham was and is already tasked with working on that larger element in the context above the limit imposed re focus within a single state ?

The nature of that firewall between “within a state” and discovery of “a grand conspiracy” seems it is in Barr’s hands ? Except, that is true only in relation to the DOJ’s efforts, action, or inaction.

The DOJ “should” be actively pursuing civil rights cases under 18USC242 by taking action against state officers where wrongful action under color of law has disenfranchised entire communities ? In Atlanta and Detroit... a significant portion of the black community has been specifically disenfranchised by having the Trump voters in those cities suffer unique outrages at the hands of state and local officials.

Of course, the DOJ has long been engaged in enabling that outcome... and there’s no evidence I see suggesting the FBI is doing anything other than working to “contain” the risk made apparent already.

So, any change that occurs... will likely not be coming from the system working the way it is intended that it should work.

Instead, change will require sustaining those citizen based actions undertaken OUTSIDE of government control... like the Powell case, or Lin Wood’s efforts... that operate to expose the fraud, AND expose the conspiracy... including exposing those actors inside government, at every level, as the source of the problem... or as enabling the problem.