In this week’s episode, we discuss the recent efforts by Jill Stein and the Green Party to raise funds for Presidential recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Should you rush out and open your wallets to help raise funds for the Green Party?
“Breakin’ Down the Law” returns with a discussion on court structure. If you’re a little bit lost at all of Andrew’s talk of the “Second Circuit of This” and the “Federal District Court of That,” our segment should help clear all that up for you!
Finally, our listener question looks at a standard courtroom trope in TV and movies: is “circumstantial” evidence really just bad evidence? What does it mean, anyway? Listen to this episode, and you too can be pedantic the next time you’re watching Law & Order reruns.
And speaking of movies, remember that patrons will get special access to our 3-hour movie review of The Firm — the movie Andrew considers to be the worst legal movie of all time! So if you’d like to hear Andrew have an aneurysm trying to explain what attorney-client privilege is, or you want some of our other cool rewards, or you just want to support the show, please consider becoming a patron at the link below. Thank you!
Show Notes & Links
- This is a handy map of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal so you can find your circuit.
- Here is a link to the current Jill Stein disclaimer regarding recounts, which may or may not be the same as the one we read on the air.
- Here is a screenshot of the original disclaimer, which has since been edited.
- This is a link to MCL 168.862, which provides that a petitioner must be “aggrieved” by election official(s) to have standing to bring a recount.
- Holland v. U.S., 348 U.S. 121 (1954) is the Supreme Court decision that analyzes circumstantial evidence, holding that it is intrisinically no different than testimonial evidence.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
Recount in Michigan to begin at 12 noon today, as ordered by a federal judge. Hence your claim that Stein lacks standing was incorrect. Will there be a retraction and mea culpa in the next episode?
Nope! The federal ruling did not address the standing issue, which is (a) still pending and (b) potentially mooted by the joinder from the Clinton campaign.
Also, I would point out that the Stein campaign refused to post the $1 million bond required by law in Pennsylvania despite ostensibly raising $7.5 million for the recounts. We stand by our characterization of this stunt as a fundraising scam. It’s not too late to ask for your money back!
It’s undeniable at this point that the recount in MI (and WI) is underway, and so Stein has accomplished an outcome that many, especially Clinton supporters, wanted. Without Stein, the recounts wouldn’t be happening; Clinton declined to lead the effort and only joined after Stein demanded them. So the “scam” is working — at least in MI and WI.
With respect to PA, Stein filed a federal lawsuit and so the effort there isn’t over.
…and the standing issue was resolved today, exactly the way we told you it would be.
From 35:12 – 20: “Once I read the law, it was clear to me that she was not gonna to get a recount in Michigan.”
And yet, Stein has done just that, which is why I’m confused as to why you still stand by the characterization that her recount efforts (in at least MI and WI) are a “scam.”
I think we’ve answered these points on multiple occasions, particularly with respect to the standing issue in Michigan, which changed materially when Clinton joined.
If you don’t think refusing to post the $1 million bond in Pennsylvania (regardless of the frivolous appeal filed) is the sign of a scam, well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Thank you for being a fan of the show.
Andrew, could you comment on 3 USC 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress? On the ability of Congress to reject electoral votes “when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.” On legally what they could and could not do. And would Congress have final say there, or could such an act be challenged in court?
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title3-section15&num=0&edition=prelim
3 USC 15 is part of the Federal Elections Act that we discuss in both OA25 and the “C” segment of OA26 that dropped today.
From a quick glance, it seems as though this provision expressly doesn’t apply when EVs are delivered within the 3 USC 6-7 “safe harbor.”