The left denies vote fraud exists even when their own leaders admit it.  An example that surfaced yesterday is of Rep. Jerrold Nadler, one of the leaders of House Democrats' impeachment efforts, speaking on vote fraud in 2004.

Jerry Nadler in 2004: “Paper ballots are extremely susceptible to fraud...I can show you experience which would make your head spin.” pic.twitter.com/L7zJhoB3O8

— Danny De Urbina (@dannydeurbina) May 25, 2020

Apparently both the left and the right are outraged at aspects of Judge Sullivan's decision to delay granting the Department of Justice’s motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.  But while one side respects the separation of powers and the rule of law, the other side is acting like a schoolyard bully making threats.

To our minds, Judge Sullivan blurs separation of powers when he appointed a retired judge who publicly expressed opinions against Flynn to review the case and accept amicus curiae briefs.  Judge Sullivan seems to be acting like a prosecutor, not an “umpire” judge.  While we consider Judge Sullivan’s decision extremely troubling, we think Flynn’s lawyers took the appropriate course of action in this case by requesting a writ of mandamus. 

Every fraudulent vote suppresses the vote of a real, eligible voter.  Yet liberal groups whose stated missions are to “protect the vote” care nothing about this voter suppression.  Why?  Because it benefits Democratic Party establishment candidates and does not fit their narrative that vote fraud does not exist. 

An example happened today in Philadelphia.  As U.S. Attorney William McSwain explained:

I am here to announce that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has unsealed criminal charges against Domenick J. DeMuro, a former Judge of Elections for the 39th Ward, 36th Division in South Philadelphia. DeMuro has been charged with two counts: first, for conspiring to deprive Philadelphia voters of their civil rights by fraudulently stuffing the ballot boxes for specific Democratic candidates in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections, and second, for a violation of the Travel Act, which forbids the use of any facility in interstate commerce (here, a cell phone) with the intent to promote certain illegal activity (here, bribery). DeMuro has pled guilty to both of these charges.

General Michael Flynn's attorneys have requested a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit ordering that the Department of Justice's unopposed motion to dismiss be granted.  While mandamus is an extraordinary writ, the district judge's actions in the past two weeks have also been extraordinary.  As Hans von Spakovsky explained:

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues and state and local governments take different approaches in responding it, an increasing number of cases have been filed against alleged government overreach.  At first they were largely First Amendment cases, as we have previously covered (5/5, 4/22, 4/16, 4/13, 4/9, and 3/27), but now litigation is pending on nearly every government action in response to the pandemic, including challenges to governors' entire executive orders.  

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down Governor Tony Evers' "safer-at-home" order.  RNLA member Jake Curtis analyzed the decision, which was made on state separation of powers grounds:

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument (virtually) in two "faithless electors" cases, Chiafalo v. Washington and  Colorado Department of State v. Baca.  Presidential electors who wished to vote in 2016 for persons other than Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote in both states, were sanctioned by the states, with a $1,000 fine for the Washington electors and removal for the Colorado electors.  These cases present interesting constitutional, jurisdictional, and legal policy questions, and the justices seemed to consider them close cases during oral argument.  Here are some highlights from arguments presented to the Court by amici, and part II will focus on oral argument and analysis of the case.

Carrie Severino wrote today about liberals' attacks on the rule of law and Attorney General Bill Barr, all as part of their efforts to "resist" the presidency of Donald Trump:

What we have been witnessing is an all-out assault on the rule of law from the woke Left, which has elevated its political ideology to something resembling a secular religion. By this mentality, Trump and his agents are monomaniacally recast as totems of sinister forces who must be stopped at all costs. Never mind notions of fair process and democratic deliberation that made the American system of law what it is.

While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to push a federal power grab for elections with the HEROES Act, the problems with her attempted election administration dictates have been exposed. Just yesterday in Pelosi’s birthplace of Baltimore, Maryland, a story came out about how one of her top priorities, vote by mail, disenfranchises people:

Nearly 1 in 10 ballots could not be delivered to Baltimore City voters during the special election in April, raising concerns for the June 2 primary, which is also being conducted by mail.

The data, released by the Maryland Board of Elections late Tuesday, shows that 20,367 of the more than 230,500 ballots sent to Baltimore City voters could not be delivered before the April 28 special election. An additional 4,355 ballots were undeliverable to Baltimore County voters, while 3,886 were not delivered to Howard County voters — about 3% of all ballots in those two jurisdictions. . . .

An additional 660 were not counted because they lacked a signature.

While the Democrats seem to continuously reward bad actors who falsely accuse, such as Rep. Adam Schiff, with leadership roles, it looks as if they know will award the original such bad actor with their party's Presidential nomination.  The original bad guy Chairman may have been presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden.  Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the term “borking" was created after the travesty done to Judge Robert Bork.  As Webster’s defines "bork": “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification.”

After Ukraine and the Russia-hoax, it seems likely the Democrats in the U.S. House's quest for Donald Trump’s tax returns is just the latest effort to damage the President politically.  During oral argument over President Trump’s tax returns, USA Today sums up that point as follows:

On the other hand, all the conservatives and some liberal justices wondered whether the subpoenas go too far in seeking a decade of private data involving not only the president but members of his family. They suggested such extensive probing could harass and distract both Trump and future presidents.

. . .

“How can we both protect the House’s interest in obtaining information it needs to legislate but also protect the presidency?" Kavanaugh asked House general counsel Douglas Letter. . . .

But even liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer noted the subpoenas "go way, way beyond tax returns," a concern voiced by several conservative colleagues.