As nationwide unrest continues over the tragic death of George Floyd, conversations continue on how to prosecute individuals who resort to violent tactics including rioting and looting. Attorney General William Barr has suggested that the Anti-Riot Act be utilized to hold criminals who co-opt peaceful protests accountable for their destructive behavior. 

On May 29th, businessman Shaun McCutcheon (of McCutcheon v. FEC fame) filed a request with the Federal Election Commission to issue an advisory opinion on whether he can transfer the $50,000 that he personally contributed to his campaign committee, McCutcheon for Freedom, to the Libertarian National Committee without violating campaign finance law. McCutcheon was a candidate for the Libertarian nomination for President during the current election cycle.

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:

At a recent hearing, numerous attorneys and First Amendment scholars provided testimony on the IRS’s proposed change to eliminate the requirement that certain exempt organizations disclose the names and addresses of contributors. Former Federal Election Commission Commissioner Hans A. von Spakovsky, of the Heritage Foundation, highlighted the burden put on nonprofits as well as the First Amendment and privacy implications of disclosure in his testimony:

While election officials need to make sure that no voters are disenfranchised during the COVID-19 crisis, they also need to make sure that the integrity of the election is still protected.  The expected and understandable increase in mail voting will present unique challenges, as mail voting is uniquely susceptible to disenfranchising voters through fraud and mistake.  After describing some specific examples of fraud through ballot harvesting, former RNLA Ed Meese Award Winner Hans von Spakovsky and Christian Adams wrote today:

Thanks to the leadership of Senators Mitch McConnell. Richard Shelby and Roy Blunt and the constant vigilance of House Administration Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats were unsuccessful in their efforts to hijack the COVID-19 relief bill for the legislative priorities on matters such as elections.  But the left is not done and will undoubtedly keep fighting for their own election desires over the needs of the American people.   

Two conservative leaders are hitting back hard against the Democrats' unprecedented and fortunately ultimately unsuccessful federal power grab in the recent CARES Act.  Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky wrote:

We always knew that liberals considered federalizing control over elections to be an important priority. We just never dreamed it was more important than fighting the coronavirus pandemic or preserving American jobs. . . .

For years liberals have used the courts to get what they could not get from voters, the President or Congress.  President Trump and Senators like Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham are doing a great job of nominating and confirming judges that respect the rule of law and not liberals' political wishes.  So now liberal politicians are taking to threatening the courts to get what they want.  As the Wall Street Journal opined last week:

The future of the Electoral College has become an increasingly important topic as the 2020 presidential election approaches. Democratic candidates Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all called for the Electoral College to be abolished. What the candidates fail to tell their supporters is that abolishing the Electoral College is a dangerous prospect that would hurt the voice of smaller states in presidential elections.

Now that the Mueller report has confirmed that there is no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, what will change and what will remain the same in the political landscape?  First, as RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen pointed out yesterday, Democrats will continue to cast doubt on the 2016 election because they still cannot accept that Hillary Clinton lost to President Trump.  The collusion narrative was one way how they justified this inconceivable loss, and being a "sore loser" has become a feature of the modern Democratic Party establishment:

The Department of Justice has zealously investigated President Trump for the myth of "Russian collusion" for over two years. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has stretched federal election laws far beyond their reasonable boundaries to criminalize a payment to an alleged paramour, a personal expense.  Chairman Cummings hosted a known liar as his star witness.  Chairman Nadler has decided to substitute himself for the FBI, issuing over 80 investigative requests for information about the President.  Once he realized, to his chagrin, there was no "Russian collusion" finding forthcoming from Mr. Mueller, Chairman Schiff announced a broadened probe into the President's business affairs.