Heather Cox Richardson, in a post describing the mounting evidence of an extensive seditious conspiracy and an insurrection to keep Trumpie in power highlighted the increased determination of the Republican Party to turn the clock all the way back to pre-Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment days with the so-called Independent state Legislature Doctrine. This doctrine is a variation on the old slavers’ states’ rights argument, publicly embraced by four of the Trump Six so far. The theory would allow Republican-controlled state legislatures to throw out any votes they didn’t like and send their own electors in 2024. They’d use this legal theory, codified in state law, instead of staging a series of frivolous lawsuits and launching a desperate riot. Here’s the fucking religiously and politically zealous bagpiper, William Pelham Barr:

Trump’s attorney general William Barr has just published a book detailing how Trump lied about the election and threatened democracy. And yet, on a tour to sell the book, Barr on Monday told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie that he would nonetheless vote for Trump if he were the Republican nominee in 2024. “Because I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party, it’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee,” he said.

Today’s NY Times. under its headline on yesterday’s filing by the January 6th Conmittee to compel litigious Trumpist John Eastman’s compliance with its subpoena:

In a court filing, the panel said there was enough evidence to suggest that the former president might have engaged in a criminal conspiracy as he fought to remain in office.

To “suggest” there “might have been” a crime? Very daintily put, Grey Lady. Seems from the rest of the article that the January 6th Committee laid out a detailed, evidence rich argument for criminal conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding. Attoney-client privilege does not protect discussions of criminal plans, or conspiracies to defraud. How about this rewrite?

In a court filing, the panel cited evidence to establish that the former president’s communications with his private lawyer must be turned over under the “crime/fraud exception” to attorney-client privilege, laying out the elements of a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently keep the defeated candidate in office.

I have to admit, the rest of the article was not as weak kneed as the subheadline. Here’s a good paragraph:

The filing laid out a sweeping if by now well-established account of the plot to overturn the election, which included false claims of election fraud, plans to put forward pro-Trump “alternate” electors, pressure various federal agencies to find irregularities and ultimately push Vice President Mike Pence and Congress to exploit the Electoral Count Act to keep a losing president in power.

My only correction is lose the “if” in describing the well-known facts, as “if” might suggest (hah) that the evidence being well-known somehow weakens it, à la Barr’s corrupt dismissal of Mueller’s mountain of well-known evidence. Leaving in the unnecessary qualifier betrays an eagerness to show your ass, for some reason (see previous post).

The Washington Post ran this paragraph in its story:

“The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” according to the filing.

Dig it, Merrick.