Lisa Rubin

They succeeded in getting those dismissed, saying this is an inherently federal proceeding.

The state of Georgia had no business bringing state election charges against us for the process of certifying electors.

Perhaps we could see that argument sort of being revivified if Mr. Scandaculis goes forward, because that is the basis on which the administration has justified its pardons of folks all across these fake-door-elector schemes from Georgia to Michigan to Wisconsin to Nevada.

If it stays a state case, the president cannot do anything about it other than to advance the arguments that he has on the basis for which he made these pardons.

You and I both know that constitutionally, the president has no power to pardon anyone for a state crime.

But again, his position here is that

These pardons are justifiable because these aren't, in fact, state crimes.

They are federal crimes for which these folks were never charged and the state had no right to bring them.

So look to see whether or not any of these folks in the Georgia case or in any of the other cases, as they move forward, feel like they need to go back to that and say, hey, wait a second, I have a new argument that I need to make that pertains to my defense.

And so many more.

Download the Getter app now.

No, it's all been right and it's all terrifying, Rachel. Thank you for having me.

No, it's all been right and it's all terrifying, Rachel. Thank you for having me.

There's not always a process, but if there are circumstances where the judge feels that he or she needs to get to the bottom of a nali prosequi motion, and that's what this is, this is a motion to dismiss after prosecution has already been brought, that judge has some latitude to call for... hearings or other processes that allow them to understand what happened.

There's not always a process, but if there are circumstances where the judge feels that he or she needs to get to the bottom of a nali prosequi motion, and that's what this is, this is a motion to dismiss after prosecution has already been brought, that judge has some latitude to call for... hearings or other processes that allow them to understand what happened.

The most recent example I can think of in the Southern District itself involves a case in 2020 and 2021, where after the defendant was convicted, it came out that the prosecutors had essentially buried a piece of evidence that would have been exculpatory for the defendant. And the judge in that case actually asked for affidavits and evidence from the U.S.

The most recent example I can think of in the Southern District itself involves a case in 2020 and 2021, where after the defendant was convicted, it came out that the prosecutors had essentially buried a piece of evidence that would have been exculpatory for the defendant. And the judge in that case actually asked for affidavits and evidence from the U.S.

Attorney's Office trying to understand how did this happen? Was this purposeful? Did this constitute prosecutorial misconduct? And while she determined that none of it was intentional, she did refer all of the attorneys who were involved to the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice.

Attorney's Office trying to understand how did this happen? Was this purposeful? Did this constitute prosecutorial misconduct? And while she determined that none of it was intentional, she did refer all of the attorneys who were involved to the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice.

Those are the sorts of things that are within the power of a judge facing a motion like this, Rachel.