smcphail.bsky.social
LightNews LightNews
banner
smcphail.bsky.social
smcphail.bsky.social
@smcphail.bsky.social
100 followers 110 following 260 posts
Director of Campaign Finance Litigation at Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Posts Replies Media Videos
smcphail.bsky.social
In other words, in the campaign finance world built by SCOTUS:
September 22, 2026 at 2:22 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
“Vigilant enforcement,” SCOTUS just told us this summer, is the best means to prevent wrongdoing. But that ignores the reality – unlike observable and verifiable metrics like contribution limits, quid pro quos aren’t done in the open for people to see.
September 22, 2026 at 2:22 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
The record shows—even putting aside the allegations of bribery—this influence worked: Collins made efforts to benefit the donating contractor.
September 22, 2026 at 2:22 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
But the super PAC was in fact closely associated with Senator Collins and made sure she knew who was donating, even if the public didn't. The donor clearly understood it was important Senator Collins knew they were behind this supposedly low-value contribution.
September 22, 2026 at 2:22 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Court found it wasn't a riot - riots are uncoordinated and lack a unity of purpose. January 6 was a concerted attack to prevent a transfer of power: an insurrection.
January 6, 2026 at 9:30 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
In all, it found "evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection"
We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed a trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection, President Trump's direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
The Court concluded "Trump intended that his speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action on January 6 to prevent the peaceful transfer of power."
In conducting our independent review of the district court's factual findings, we agree that President Trump intended that his speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action on January 6 to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Despite his knowledge of the anger that he has instigated, his calls to arms, his awareness of the threats of violence that had been leading up to January 6, and the obvious fact that many in the crowd were angry and armed, President Trump told his riled-up supporters to walk down to the Capitol and fight. He then stood back and let the fighting happen, despite having the ability and authority to stop it (with his words or by calling in the military), thereby confirming that this violence was what he intended.
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Trump's past interactions with his supporters showed his "calls to 'fight', which most politicians would mean only symbolically," were understood by violent far-right extremists as "literal calls to violence"; contrary statements were only attempts to "obfuscate and create plausible deniability."
He testified, according to the court's summary, that (1) "violent far-right extremists understood that [President] Trump's calls to 'fight,' which most politicians would mean only symbolically, were, when spoken by [President] Trump, literal calls to violence by these groups, while [President] Trump's statements negating that sentiment were insincere and existed to obfuscate and create plausible deniability," ... and that (2) "[President] Trump's speech took place in the context of a pattern of [President] Trump's knowing 'encouragement and promotion of violence' to develop and deploy a shared coded language with his violent supporters. The district court found that: Professor Simi reviewed [President] Trump's relationship with his supporters over the years, identified a pattern of calls for violence that his supporters responded to, and explained how that long experience allowed [President] Trump to know how his supporters responded to his calls for violence using a shared language that allowed him to maintain plausible deniability with a wider public.
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
On the day, the crowd reacted to Trump's speech to "fight like hell" with "unsurprising[] ... calls for violence" to "[s]torm the capitol."
"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." ... 214. Unsurprisingly, the crowd at the Ellipse reacted to President Trump's words with calls for violence. Indeed, after President Trump instructed his supporters to march to the Capitol, members of the crowd shouted, "[S]torm the capitol!"; "[I]nvade the Capitol Building"; and "[T]ake the Capitol."...
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Trump's call to rally on January 6 "were a call to his supporters to fight and ... his supporters responded to that call." Trump "had reason to know of the potential for violence on January 6."
The foregoing evidence established that President Trump's messages were a call to his supporters to fight and that his supporters responded to that call. The record reflects that President Trump had reason to know of the potential for violence on January 6. As President, he oversaw the agencies reporting the foregoing threats. ... In addition, Katrina Pierson, a senior advisor to both of President Trump's presidential campaigns, testified, on behalf of President Trump, that at a January 5, 2021 meeting, President Trump chose the speakers for the January 6 event at which he, too, would speak (avoiding at least some extremist speakers) and that he knew that radical political extremists were going to be in Washington, D.C. on January 6 and would likely attend his speech. ...
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Trump knew his supporters were using "harassment and violent threats" against the targets of his ire, yet continued to "fan the flames of his supporters' ire, which he had ignited, with ongoing false assertions of election fraud."
On this point, and relevant to President Trump's intent in this case, many of the state officials targeted by President Trump's efforts were subjected to a barrage of harassment and violent threats by his supporters. ... President Trump was well aware of these threats, particularly after George election official Gabriel Sterling issued a public warning to President Trump to "stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence" or "[s]omeone's going to get killed." ... President Trump responded by retweeting a video of Sterling's press conference with a message repeating the very rhetoric that Sterling warned would result in violence. ... 200 And President Trump continued to fan the flames of his supporters' ire, which he had ignited, with ongoing false assertions of election fraud, propelling the "Stop the Steal" movement and cross-country rallies leading up to January 6. ...
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Turning to Trump, the Court found he "engaged" in the insurrection, by "laying the ground for a claim that the election was rigged," attempted to overturn the results despite knowing there was "no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
The question remains whether the record supported the district court's finding that President Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection by acting overtly and voluntarily with the intent of aiding or furthering the insurrectionists'' common unlawful purpose. Again, mindful or our applicable standards of review, we conclude that it did, and we proceeding to a necessarily detailed discussion of the evidence to show why this is so. Substantial evidence in the record showed that even before the November 2020 general election, President Trump was laying the groundwork for a claim that the election was rigged. For example, at an August 17, 2020 campaign rally, he said that "the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged." ... Moreover, when asked at a September 23, 2020 press briefing whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election, President Trump refused to do so President Trump then lost the election, and despite the facts that his advisors repeatedly advised him that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud and that no evidence showed that he himself believed the election was wrought with fraud, President Trump ramped up his claims that the election was stolen from him and undertook efforts to prevent the certification of the election results. For example, in a December 13, 2020 tweet, he stated, "Swing States that have found massive VOTER FRAUD, which is all of them, CANNOT LEGALLY CERTIFY these votes as complete & correct without committing a severely punishable crime." ... And President Trump sought to overturn the election results by directly exerting pressure on Republican officeholders in various states. ...
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
It recognized "a large group ... forcibly entered the Capitol," that "the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons," and "repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers." And unlike a riot, the attack was "coordinated" and carried out with a "unity of purpose": to prevent a transfer of power.
It is undisputed that a large group of people forcibly entered the Capitol and that this action was so formidable that the law enforcement officers onsite could not control it. Moreover, contrary to President Trump's assertions that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found--and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case--that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons. ... The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol's premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers' batons and riot shields and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol. ... The fact that actual and threatened force was used that day cannot reasonably be denied. 187 Substantial evidence in the record further established that this use of force was concerted and public. As the district court found, with ample record support, "The mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose .... They marched through the [Capitol] building chanting in a manner that made clear they were seeking to inflict violence against members of Congress and Vice President Pence." ... And upon breaching the Capitol, the mob immediately pursued its intended target -- the certification of the presidential election--and reached the House and Senate chambers within minutes of entering the building. ... 188. Finally, substantial evidence in the record showed that the mob's unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the Twelfth Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election; that is, to preclude Congress from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power. As noted above, soon after breaching the Capitol, the mob reached the House and Senate chambers, where the certification processing was ongoing. ... This breach caused both the House and the Senate to adjourn, halting the electoral certification process. In addition, much of the mob's ire--which included threats of physical violence---was directed at Vice President Pence, who, in his role as President of the Senate, was constitutionally tasked with carrying out the electoral count. ... As discussed more fully below, these actions were the product of President Trump's conduct in singling out Vice President Pence for refusing President Trump's demand that the Vice President decline to carry out his constitutional duties. ...
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
It had "little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence" showed J6 was "more than a riot": it was "concerted and public use of force or threat ... by a group of people to hinder or prevent ... a peaceful transfer of power." In sum, "January 6 constituted an insurrection."
Finally, we note that at oral argument, President Trump's counsel, while not providing a specific definition, argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of related conduct. ... Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of "insurrection" for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country. The required force or threat of force need not involve bloodshed, nor must the dimensions of the effort be so substantial as to ensure probable success. ... Moreover, although those involved must act in a concerted way, they need not be highly organized at the insurrection's inception. ... 185 The question thus becomes whether the evidence before the district court sufficiently established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. We have little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection.
January 6, 2026 at 9:14 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Mr. Griffin's disqualification, recognizing states could disqualify state officers for insurrection.
Certiorari Denied 23-279 Griffin, Couy v. New Mexico, Et al. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office.
January 6, 2026 at 4:12 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Based on these facts, the Court concluded J6 was an "insurrection" and the Mr. Griffin engaged in it by inciting it, mobilizing others toward it, joining the mob attack, and was therefor disqualified from office.
22. The Court concludes that the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol and the surrounding planning, mobilization, and incitement constituted an "insurrection" within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
January 6, 2026 at 4:12 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Fitting with the general aftermath, the Court found Mr. Griffin "lack[ed] [] Credibility," had "fundamentally inconsistent" characterizations of the events, relied on unsubstantiated "conspiracy theories", and his "after-the-fact characterizations ... were self-serving and not credible"
86. In making the factual findings set forth above, the Court did not find Griffin to be a credible witness at trial. 87. Video evidence of Mr. Griffin's statements from January 2021 contradict aspects of his trial testimony, including that he did not witness violence on January 6. ... 88. Mr. Griffin's testimony with respect to his characertization of the events at the United States Capitol on January 6 and his witnessing any violence that day has evolved over the time of this litigation and is fundamentally inconsistent. 89. At his deposition, Mr. Griffin characterized the events at the Capitol on January 6 while he was there only as "peaceful" and denied seeing any violence, even in the face of video evidence to the contrary. ... indicates his intent was to mobilize a violent mob for the events of January 6. ... The Court finds that Mr. Griffin's after-the-fact characterizations of his prior statements were self-serving and not credible. 95. Mr. Griffin's trail testimony also reference a number of January 6 conspiracy theories that he failed to substantiate with credible evidence. ...
January 6, 2026 at 4:12 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
On J6, the court recounted Trump's speech, the resulting march on & breach of the Capitol by an armed mob, the "brutal[] attack[] [on] police officers with a variety of ... weapons," and the "synchronized" mob effort to crush officers. "The size of the mob was the mob's greatest weapon."
37. Just before noon, President Trump took the state at his Stop the Steal rally at the White House Ellipse, where he repeated his false claim that the election was "rigged" and "stolen," and urged Vice President Pence to "do[] the right thing" by unconstitutionally refusing to certify the election. ... President Trump then told the crowd to march to the Capitol to "demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated," insisting "we must stop the steal." ... He pushed them to "fight like hell," warning that, "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." ... 38. Before the speech ended, thousands of Trump supporters began marching to the Capitol, some armed with weapons and wearing full tactical gear. ... "They were wearing helmets, goggles, gas masks, and respirators. They were in tactical vests, exterior loading bearing vests that appeared to be designed to be capable of holding within it a ballistic panel which would protect the wearer from firearms. Many had padded loves, tactical boots and backpacks with equipment [law enforcement] could not observe." ... 39. The mob, including Mr. Griffin, illegally breached security barriers surrounding the Capitol complex on the Capitol's West Front grounds, ignoring clear signage prohibiting entry. ... The mob that Mr. Griffin joined then quickly and violently breached other barricades around the Capitol perimeter, overwhelmed law enforcement, and scaled walls. ... By 2.11 p.m., the mob breached the Capitol buliding, where they confronted law enforcement, smashed windows, and wreaked further havoc. ... 40. The mob also utilized "classical form[s] of intimidation," ... including displaying a noose and gallows and chanting "hang Mike Pence" on Capitol grounds .... In another act of intimidation, members of the mob charged toward the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, chanting menacingly, "Nancy! Nancy! Nancy!" ... 41. The mob brutally attacked police officers with a variety of actual and improvised weapons, engaged them in hand-to-hand combat, and sprayed them with chemical irritants. ... Officers were shocked with cattle prods, bludgeoned with flag poles and metal poles broken apart from security barricades, and beaten with their own stolen batons and riot shields. 42. The mob crushed Plaintiffs' witness Officer Daniel Hodges of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in a metal door frame and bashed in his face with his own baton while he was trapped there. ... The mob, including Mr. Griffin, chanted "Heave! Ho!" as they synchronized their movement in an attempt to ram through Officer Hodges and other police officers guarding an entrance tunnel on the Capitol's West Terrace. 43. Some officers lost their lives, others suffered broken bones, concussions, lacerations, and psychological trauma. ... All told, the attack led to seven deaths, injuries to more than one hundred police officers, and millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol complex. ... 44. The "size of the mob is what enabled them to achieve the level of success that they did." 8/51/22 Tr. 157:12-14 (Hodges) ("The size of the mob was the mob's greatest weapon."). The thousands of individuals in the mob overwhelmed and outnumbered law enforcement by approximately 50 or 75 to 1. ... Because of the mob's size and the chaotic atmosphere it created, law enforcement could not use their firearms, make arrests, or freely move around the Capitol grounds.... 45. Law enforcement's efforts to secure the Capitol building were impeded by violent and non-violent members of the mob alike. ... Police officers could not tell in the moment which individuals were going to be violent; every trespasser within the restricted area was a potential threat and needed to be treated as such. ... Non-violent members of the mob camouflaged violent members of the mob and contributed to law enforcement being overwhelmed by a "sea of potential threats." ... Every trespasser took up space and made it harder for law enforcement to defend the Capitol building and disperse the mob away from Capitol grounds. 46. The mob also made clear--through their words, chants, flags, banners, and clothing--that they came to the Capitol for the explicit purpose of stopping the certification of the 2020 election and the transfer of presidential power by force. ...
January 6, 2026 at 4:12 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Although Mr. Griffin argued his militancy was figurative, the court found otherwise based in part on evidence that Mr. Griffin had said this battle was "a man's place" and not a woman's -- inconsistent with a figurative political battle--and lack of surprise over violence after-the-fact.
32. In another January 4 video recorded in Atlanta, Mr. Griffin again anticipated possible violence in Washington D.C. on January 6, calling :men from across our nation to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6, because it might be a battle ... If it comes down to a fight, if it boils down to what it could come to, we're gonna need men standing strong should to shoulder ... I encourage you to come , don't let the media try to keep you home... Whenever you're in a battle... that's a man's place ... If it comes down to ... those kind of instances. 65. Mr. Griffin later confirmed that he saw and egged on the violence at the Capitol on January 6. In one video recorded while driving from Washington, D.C., Mr. Griffin stated with laugher, "It was funny, whenever those guys -- all those guys were down there on that one line where they were trying to push into the Capitol, and everybody that was gathered in the dome area, we were all screaming "Heave! Ho! Heave! Ho!" ... Mr. Griffin appeared to be describing joining the attackers in screaming "Heave! Ho!" as they brutally crushed Officer Hodges in a metal doorframe in the West Terrace tunnel. 66. In another video from later in January, Griffin boasted "I watched it all.. I saw some windows getting broken out of the Capitol and I saw some people pushing on police officers down below." ... 67. In a video posted to Facebook on January 7 that Mr. Griffin recorded in Roanoke, Virginia, he acknowledged that the events at the Capitol the preceding day were violence and celebrated them. He gloated that he "climbed up on top of the Capitol building" and "saw a little bit of action on ... the inside." ... He characterized the mob as "unleashing [the] whirlwinds" and a "shot over the bow." ... He explained the purpose of the attack was to stop the transfer of presidential power and threatened further action to achieve that goal, stating, "[y]ou saw America rise up ... You saw a people that had had enough ... because we will. not lose. And Joe Biden will never be President ... you thought yesterday was a big day? It'll be nothing like -- compared to like the next one." ... Mr. Griffin previewed a more brutal attack to prevent Biden from taking office, stating "You wanted to say that was violence? ... No, we could have a Second Amendment rally on those same steps that we had that rally yesterday, you know, and if we do, then it's going to be a sad day because there's going to be blood running out of that building.
January 6, 2026 at 4:12 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Mr. Griffin used his platform to "normaliz[e] [] violence" as "necessary to keep President Trump in office"; rallied supporters to come to January 6 with calls to join the "war" and "battle" over the presidential election results; and brought weapons with him to D.C. that day.
22. On social media and in public speeches, Mr. Griffin and Cowboys for Trump spent months normalizing that violence may be necessary to keep President Trump in office, and urged their followers to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6 to answer President Trump's call. 24. On this tour, Mr. Griffin aided the Stop the Steal mobilization and recruitment efforts with increasing fervor, calling on crowds to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6 to join the "war" and "battle" over the presidential election results. 26. Mr. Griffin brought three firearms and ammunition with him on this cross-country trip to Washington, D.C.
January 6, 2026 at 4:12 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Griffin was a participant in the "Stop the Steal" movement, a "extra-legal scheme" that included pressuring Vice President Pence to take "unconstitutional action" to overturn the 2020 election.
14. As their strategy failed in the courts, Trump's team turned their focus to January 6, 2021, the date on which a joint session of Congress (with Vice President Mike Pence serving as presiding officer) would convene to certify the results of the election as required by the Twelfth Amendment and the Electoral Count Act. ... They ultimately devised and carried out an extra-legal scheme to pressure Vice President Pence--both privately and publicly--to take the unconstitutional action of refusing to count electoral votes from several states during the January 6 proceedings. 15. The public-facing component of this pressure campaign was carried out through the "Stop the Steal" movement, which championed the lie that the election was stolen and that the constitutionally-mandated transfer of presidential power needed to be stopped. 16. Leaders of the Stop the Steal movement undertook an expansive effort to mobilize Trump supporters across the country to travel to Washington, D.C. to intimidate Vice President Pence and Congress to not certify the election on January 6. ... Participants in these efforts planned to use mob intimidation and violence to stop the transfer of presidential power. ... Ahead of January 6t, they held Stop the Steal rallies in various states, including New Mexico, where they ginned up support for the movement with violent and inflammatory rhetoric. 17. These state-level Stop the Steal rallies brought together a variety of groups, including "violence specialist[]" militia groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, groups that could rally and mobilize an armed intimidatory presence, and individuals who could simply add to the size of the mob. 19. Mr. Griffin and his organization Cowboys for Trump played a key role in the Stop the Steal movement's mobilization efforts ahead of the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol.
January 6, 2026 at 4:12 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Will the Court that has adamantly insisted any incidental inhibition on spending on electioneering is unconstitutional agree Americans cant be taxed to watch, e.g., "Life is Beautiful"?
September 29, 2025 at 2:05 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
Speaking of instigating political violence, Colorado Supreme Court had some thoughts (based on actual evidence and after adversarial proceeding):
supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary. Moreover, the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power. "violent far-right extremists understood that [President] Trump's calls to 'fight,' which most politicians would mean only symbolically, were, when spoken by [President] Trump, literal calls to violence by these groups, while [President] Trump's statements negating that sentiment were insincere and existed to obfuscate and create plausible deniability," id. at 9 84; and that (2) "[President] Trump's speech took place in the context of a pattern of [President] Trump's knowing 'encouragement and promotion of violence' to develop and deploy a shared coded language with his violent supporters," Pur independent review of the record in this case brings us to the same conclusion: President Trump incited and encouraged the use of violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. The tenor of President Trump's messages to his supporters in exhorting them to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6 was obvious and unmistakable: the allegedly rigged election was an act of war and those victimized by it had an obligation to fight back and to fight aggressively. And President Trump's supporters did not miss or misunderstand the message: the cavalry was coming to fight. In conducting our independent review of the district court's factual findings, we agree that President Trump intended that his speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action on January 6 to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Despite his knowledge of the anger that he had instigated, his calls to arms, his awareness of the threats of violence that had been made leading up to January 6, and the obvious fact that many in the crowd were angry and armed, President Trump told his riled-up supporters to walk down to the Capitol and fight. He then stood back and let the fighting happen, despite having the ability and authority to stop it (with his words or by calling in the military), thereby confirming that this violence was what he intended.
September 15, 2025 at 11:34 PM
smcphail.bsky.social
A court had this to say about those who attended the January 6 insurrection when disqualifying a state official under the 14th Amendment. www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/u...
August 14, 2025 at 1:28 AM
smcphail.bsky.social
Notable that permanent residents are entitled to *contribute to political campaigns*, which even then judge Kavanaugh recognized.
March 12, 2025 at 8:46 PM