21 Comments
User's avatar
Ron Spangler's avatar

I used to laugh along with you, Liz. Then came Aileen Cannon.

Expand full comment
Emmy's avatar

This is a really great essay, thank you. And besides this: When I donated to Biden's campaign, I never said "oh and don't let Kamala have any of it". My intention was that it goes to THE CAMPAIGN, which was both of them. The law reflects my intent. Isn't that NICE?

Expand full comment
Carol Madere, Ph.D.'s avatar

These legal maneuvers just make the Republicans look desperate and pathetic.

Expand full comment
Andrew Torrez's avatar

I have to say I'm enjoying this moment.

Expand full comment
🦡 🍄 🐍's avatar

Desperate and pathetic is a feature, not a bug.

Expand full comment
Birb-General of the US's avatar

Fortunately Kamala raised a zillion dollars in the first 24 hours, just in case.

Expand full comment
Joe Napoli's avatar

Liz, I’m shocked to hear Republicans are doing “lawfare”.

Expand full comment
Sherry's avatar

Lawfare is used very loosely. THEY can do it but not a fierce contender for President that they know is kicking butt and taking names.

Perhaps if the GOP had spent time on creating reasonable policies instead of paying for lawyers they may have been better off. They’re just the party of grievances now.

Expand full comment
marcus816's avatar

Good points. So a complete and total waste of fucking time.

It’s practically a done deal.

Expand full comment
marcus816's avatar

Even if they somehow managed to find a corrupt judge to further this bullshit suit it wouldn’t help them. It’s not about cash for one thing, for another, the outrage donations would replace those funds in virtually no time at all. IMNSHFO, Trump is finding himself in the same double-bind that hampered Clinton.

He is damned if he does and he is damned if doesn’t. FTG!

Expand full comment
Andrew Torrez's avatar

It would be especially amusing because the net result of a "win" would be:

1. Biden would just transfer the money to a super PAC or the DNC, which is (slightly) less efficient but still, it's not like the money would disappear;

2. Every individual donor would immediately become eligible to give Kamala another $3,300 right now for the "primary" campaign and then, in three weeks, yet another $3,300 for the general campaign.

Expand full comment
Trux Mint In Box's avatar

SCOTUS to step in with a stay based on a Tom Fitton amicus brief in 3. 2…

Expand full comment
EuphmanKB's avatar

The operative words are horseshit and ratfucker. Both capture the entire Trump/Vance/MAGA campaign perfectly.

Expand full comment
Jeff Steck's avatar

Wouldn’t this nonsense also apply to the Republicans. How did they file?

Expand full comment
Andrew Torrez's avatar

It actually wouldn't, because the Republicans have already had their convention and named Trump as the nominee, so all Trump was required to do was add Vance on line 3 of his amended Form 1.

Expand full comment
Nae Kings!'s avatar

I wondered that myself, I’d imagine Donny would not add another candidate’s name on the bank account if he could help it

Expand full comment
Ann Higgins's avatar

There are whispers that Trump is not over happy with Vance. What happens to his donations so far if he sacks Vance who has been confirmed as the nominee by the RNC?

Expand full comment
The Modesto Kid's avatar

What the heck?!! A complaint with the fec -- had no-one thought to file suit in Amarillo?

Expand full comment
The Modesto Kid's avatar

They could probably even get the fec declared unconditional

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

Is this the sort of thing that, while BS, might be a basis for a federal judge in Amarillo Texas to issue an injunction?

Expand full comment
Andrew Torrez's avatar

I would never presume that there's a bar low enough to stop Matthew Kacsmaryk from limboing under, but in this case, no. As you'll see from the timeline at the end, 52 USC 30106 requires administrative exhaustion before any party can go to court and seek judicial relief (which would include an injunction).

Expand full comment