Motion to Recuse Justice Barrett Filed, But County Wants It Withdrawn

The motion was submitted on behalf of the Luzerne County Board of Elections but Luzerne County has voted to have the motion withdrawn.

On Tuesday morning, lawyers for the Luzerne County Board of Elections filed a motion seeking to have Justice Amy Coney Barrett recuse from Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, in which Pennsylvania Republicans are challenging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation and application (and, in the plaintiffs' telling, rewriting) of Pennsylvania election law. The motion cites my Monday evening blog post on whether Justice Barrett should recuse from 2020 election litigation.

On Tuesday evening, the Luzerne County Council voted 7-4 to withdraw the motion. Among the reasons is that the attorneys for the County BOE apparently filed the motion without first raising the issue with county officials. From a PAHomepage Eyewitness News report:

Luzerne County officials were surprised to learn lawyers representing the county filed a motion asking Justice Amy Coney Barret to recuse herself in the United States Supreme Court decision over the mail-in ballot deadline in Pennsylvania. . .

Larry Moran of Joyce Carmody and Moran filed the motion along with Joseph Cosgrove of Selingo and Guagliardo. The county hired Moran's private firm when the Trump campaign filed civil action against 67 Pennsylvania counties this summer, citing the handling of mail-in-ballots. Moran says this motion is part of that.

"It was a decision by me, the owner of the firm that was assigned with the task of winning the lawsuit and defending Luzerne County," Moran said. . . .

During Tuesday night's council meeting Vito Deluca said the Luzerne County Office of Law was not involved in the filing.

"We will be just as interested to hear what possible reason there would be for filing this without having any discussion with council and putting Luzerne County in the spotlight," Deluca said. . . .

As detailed in this news report, the County initially voted 6-5 not to request a withdrawal of the motion, but two council members reversed their position after an extensive debate.

According to this report, the lawyer who filed the motion claims other Pennsylvania counties joined in the motion, though no other counties are listed on the motion or otherwise identified as supporting the motion on the docket. While justices will consider any motion to recuse that is filed by a party to a case, such a motion is not necessary for a justice to recuse.

Comments

[ThePublius]

Should a lawyer having done something like this without consulting with his client be sanctioned or otherwise disciplined?

[The Grand Moff Tarkin]

I guess it depends on whether the lawyer made false allegations in the filing. If so, then the lawyer violated Rule 11(b) FRCP (among others).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even setting aside the fact that Rule 11 doesn't apply in the Supreme Court, what does that have to do with ThePublius's question?

[loki13]

Should?

Probably.*

Will?

No.

*It really depends on a lot of factors. For example, many litigation attorneys have authority, either explicit or implicit, to file motions, etc., on their client's behalf without consulting them. On the other hand, some clients want explicit conferral prior to any filing, and in other circumstances (settlement offers) it would be unethical for an attorney not to relay the settlement offer to the client; this comes up when, for example, an attorney might refuse an offer "an behalf of" their client because it's not in the attorney's pecuniary interest.

[Goat]

This is a good answer, though I would come down on the side of "probably not."

The particulars of this case make it tricky: who typically is the outside firm's contact with the county? what is that communication relationship like? To what degree was the county participating in developing the strategy for the case prior to the motion?

The issue is further complicated by the fact that the client entity (the county) is controlled by council members whose personal or political objectives may not be aligned with the county's legal position.

In a vacuum, seeking recusal of a judge who is likely to rule against your client a reasonable thing to do without consulting your client first (though the best practice would be to discuss it with the client anyway). In context, seeking recusal of a SCOTUS justice, when your client is controlled by elected officials, is probably something you should confer with your client contact about before doing. I'm not sure the failure to do it is sanctionable though.

[rspct]

The lawyers' interests in a case such as this can be different than the county's legal position.

If the motion succeeds, and likely if it fails, the lawyer who filed it is famous within a particular, powerful set of lawyers and politicians. This can have enormous financial reward for the firm, whether it turns out that the motion helped the county or not.

Also, an attorney's fear that the entity responsible for final decision might make a poor choice is not a justification for the attorney not raising the issue with the county. I'm not sure that's the case here, but it is one of the factors being cited as mitigating the attorneys' failure to confer.

[loki13]

Eh, there is another way to look at it, too.

The attorney probably sees this correctly; based upon reading the tea leaves, the worst that can happen is the Barret is intemperate, hates the motion, and votes against you, which (based on what we know) is the likely outcome without the motion. Best outcome is that you get recusal. So there is little downside to filing the motion; assumedly, she won't hold this motion against your client.

OTOH, the interests of the ELECTED OFFICIALS (as opposed to the public body qua public body) is to be re-elected; to the extent that they want to avoid controversy on this issue in terms of their electors, it's easy enough to say that they don't want to authorize this.

I think a lot of people overlook just how political things are locally.

[rspct]

I don't think the attorney would go directly to the council. They would go to the county attorney assigned to the case, presumably the head honcho in a case like this. The county attorney could escalate or not, depending on the actual structure of the county government.

But the hired lawyer is definitively not the person to decide that he knows better and therefore need not consult with the client. Far more than the effect on this case needs to be taken into account.

[loki13]

The hired attorney DID go to the person. It says so in the article.

They consulted the county manager. So ... yeah. The attorney did everything correctly, and then the local county council did some grandstanding, and now we have the usual commenters doing the usual (1. Grandstanding on topics they don't know about, and 2. Demanding that this is an ethics violation).

Do you know what annoys me the most about these threads? That over and over again we see people demanding that these political issues that are nothing but partisan contretemps be treated as ethics violations, while actual serious ethical violations (such as issues with trust accounts, or settlements, or civility and decorum) go unremarked.

[rspct]

Agreed the law firm acted correctly.

Don't agree this is a minor thing had the law firm not consulted.

And I haven't seen any discussion of situations here that involved trust accounts, settlements, or civility/decorum to comment on.

[loki13]

The one constant you see here is that in anything with any partisan valence, there is a constant drumbeat of "DERP ETHICS! DERP MODEL RULES!"

And the sad truth is that if you ever want a laugh, read the actual bar grievances in your state. You know, "Solicited sex from clients and stole their money. That's worthy of a reprimand!" Or "Eh, it's just a pattern of Brady violations. No harm, no foul."

If you're a practicing attorney, you find the comments both distasteful and laughable. Distasteful because people constantly try to turn things into ethics violations when they aren't. Laughable because you know how much rope attorneys in the real world are given to hang themselves with.

[Bored Lawyer]

Agreed. Other than stealing money from a client account, lawyers get off way too easily, IMO.

Not only ethically, but sanctions in court. We once had our opposing counsel file a completely frivolous motion. We could not move under Rule 11, but moved under 28 USC 1927 for fees. It was clear that their motion was legally foreclosed by controlling authority.

Judge denies the motion. There was an "alternative plausible explanation," said Her Honor, the lawyers were just incompetent, and so no bad faith, and no fees.

The acronym of "alternative plausible explanation" is APE. Since then we have joked about the APE principal -- the lawyer is just an APE, so no sanctions.

[loki13]

Ugh! Don't get me started on sanctions!

I love having that conversation with a client.

"They can't do that."

"Okay. So ... can we do something?"

"We can ask for sanctions."

"Are we going to?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Because we won't get them."

"But you said that they weren't allowed to do that, and it was sanctionable."

"I did say that, and it sanctionable. But we wont get them, and I'm not going to lie to you and spend your money pursuing something that the judge will deny."

Rinse, repeat.

[Goat]

Agreed, particularly on your last point. So many VC posters are obsessed with punishing people they disagree with. Even if the punishment is disconnected from the disagreement. It's not healthy.

[loki13]

^
|
That.

[Bored Lawyer]

As I always say, the answer to every legal question is, "It Depends."

😉

[rsteinmetz]

That the usual answer to pretty much every question.

[Bored Lawyer]

Except lawyers get to bill for that answer. 😉

[Lee Moore]

Thus demonstrating that it is not the case that "it depends" is the answer to every legal question. The answer to

"can we bill for that ?"

is never

"it depends"

[MatthewSlyfield]

What do adult diapers have to do with the answers to legal questions?

[rspct]

I think a motion to recuse is so momentous that an attorney must discuss it with her client before filing one.

I'd need to do a lot of research to determine if not conferring is actually against the rules of the particular state or court. But the risks are too big for the client not to have the opportunity to refuse to ask a judge to recuse.

Ironically, I suspect the litigation risks are much lower in front of the Supreme Court than in front of a trial judge who, if he refuses to recuse, will be overseeing the case for months, maybe years.

[Bored Lawyer]

I agree. The attorney here should have consulted with the "client," which in this case is a governmental entity. You don't have to consult with the client on every small issue, but big decisions yes. And this is a big one.

We once had a judge make a really bad decision. We drafted a detailed mandamus petition to the Court of Appeals, but at the last minute the client said, don't file it, we don't want to get the judge mad at us. I did not necessarily agree, but that was definitely the client's call.

[Krayt]

The lawyer explained it: he was hired to win!

[damikesc]

I was wondering that too. Seems there should be repurcussions for doing something "for a client" than the client clearly opposes.

[Tabman]

Is it not the case that the individual justice--not the justices-- makes the decision?

[Goat]

Yes. For SCOTUS the decision tor recuse is entirely up to the individual judge, with no recourse.

For lower courts there are enforceable rules.

[Pavel Petrovich]

Another stupid attorney filing sh*t unrelated to law, grandstanding, abuse of process. Maybe a dumb lawyer would move to recuse a judge because she is jewish? Because she has a uterus? Because she went to the wrong law school.

Sad thing is the bozo lawyer filed it based on bullish*t drivel of the blog poster who is basically an idiot. What a nice world it would be without the scam of the American lawyer, who is little more than a hooligan with a brief case and an attitude.

Grievance on these idiots who filed the motion to recuse should result in dis-barment, but that will never happen in the den of thieves known as the Bar.

[ReaderY]

There is no reason to think the motion is frivolous. As Professor Adler noted in his earlier blog post, the recusal question is definitely debatable.

However, it may well not be politic. It is understandable why a local political body might think it unwise to start out a new Justice’s first case by impugning the Justice’s neutrality. It might anger the new Justice and end up biasing her against them. After all, the issue is debatable, and Justices don’t tend to recuse unless the issue is clear. Filing the motion and then having Justice Barrett not recuse might understandably make the board worse off than not filing it.

[WillDD]

Would the motion not be "frivolous" if the client is not actually seeking the relief asked for in the motion?

[loki13]

That's really not the case.

Look, particulars can vary from place to place. Normally, when you represent a public body (such as this one) in litigation, they cannot convene and deliberate on every single litigation decision you make, especially when they have hired outside counsel. There is a scope of representation that you will have (authority) in which to act.

Having just litigated multiple cases for public entities, I am fully aware of this - they don't want to have to meet to decide every single decision, and assume you are dealing with the litigation once authorized. That said, you certainly don't want to be caught with the egg on your face of having made a litigation decision that your public body then disagrees with (or, sometimes, you will have to take the heat ... it's politics, after all, and someone gets to go under the bus, and it's not going to be an elected official 🙂 ).

The line between litigation needs to proceed, and CYA, can often be a fine one.

[rspct]

Agreed. In this case, though, there was plenty of time to confer about it, and it's an important decision about the means to achieve the client's litigation ends. After a brief analysis, I think it falls squarely under a situation where conferring would be required under 1.4(a)(2). But I have not researched any Pennsylvania ethics opinions.

In any event, as a government attorney managing a private firm, I'd be pissed if the expense of drafting that motion were incurred without prior approval. Unless there is a fixed fee agreement between the county and firm covering the whole of litigation, I expect the county to refuse to pay for that motion and the firm conceding.

[rspct]

My analysis on fees doesn't apply, because the firm consulted the county manager.

[jjrzw72]

"Would the motion not be 'frivolous' if the client is not actually seeking the relief asked for in the motion?"

Nope. That's not what frivolous means.

[jimc5499]

How about some of the County Government is up for re-election next year and doesn't want the publicity?

[Noscitur a sociis]

According to this report, the lawyer who filed the motion claims other Pennsylvania counties joined in the motion

Actually, the article says that the other counties "have enjoined" the filing—which should give you and idea of how reliable its account of the procedural details is.

[DaveSs]

I suppose Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ought to recuse as well since they were also appointed by Trump

Maybe Thomas and Alito for good measure too

[Cal Cetín]

Plus any Justice appointed by a President who later endorsed Biden.

Let's see...then the Court could dismiss the petition by a divided vote of 0-0.

[Bubba Jones]

The lawyer was tasked with winning the case.

This was probably procedurally correct, but politically problematic.

IANAL.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The lawyer was tasked with winning the case."

Was a motion with little chance of success a good choice to make?

Kagan was a senior justice dept. official for Obama and still heard the Obamacare case. It was his signature accomplishment, the impact of the decision had far more political effect than some election case.

[loki13]

It's pretty basic. There are four possible outcomes.
1. The motion succeeds (and she recuses).
2. The motion fails (and she does not recuse).

1a. The motion succeeds, and she would have voted for you. So you lost her vote.
1b. The motion succeeds, and she would have voted against you. So you gained.
2a. The motion fails, and she is so angry and spiteful that she ignores the law and votes against you solely because you filed the motion.
2b. The motion fails, and she is able to put aside the fact that you asked for her recusal and cast her vote on based on what the law is.

Now, if the 1a+2a < 1b+2b, then you file. Based on what I know, I would file. Do you have any special knowledge of her jurisprudence in election law, or any knowledge of this case, that says otherwise.

HA! That's rhetorical.

[rspct]

No good lawyer nor informed client only looks to the effect on the current case when making a decision like this. Later cases were a constant issue in deciding tactics and strategy during my government litigation practice.

[loki13]

This has nothing to do with "later cases" unless you expect this attorney, or this client, to be litigating additional cases ... in front of the Supreme Court.

So ... no. That might apply if you they were filing a recusal motion against the trial court. Not here.

[David Nieporent]

This is SCOTUS, and the county of Luzerne (or some subentry; it's unclear. The description mentions the Luzerne County Board of Elections, but then it's the Luzerne County Council making a big deal of this, and I wouldn't think the board of elections would fall under that, but maybe they do). It's not exactly likely that Luzerne County is going to be involved in a whole lot of cases at SCOTUS in the near future.

[EscherEnigma]

You're making this more complicated then it needs to be.

Unless I'm mixing up cases, this is the one where the GOP already lost at the state Supreme Court, then appealed to the SCOTUS and lost 4-4 (leaving the State's decisions tanding), and they are now re-appealing it because they think Barrett will give them a win.

So if Barrett recuses, it's still 4-4, and the state still wins: both 1a and 1b are "wins".

That said, wouldn't scenario 2a just validate that the request to recuse was correct?

[loki13]

So, the 4-4 was procedurally different.

This would be on a (more) full briefing on the merits; theoretically, the votes might align differently.

I was being (hopefully) facetious about 2a; most judges don't take motions to recuse personally, although there is some truth to the "If you come at the King, you better not miss" philosophy.

[EscherEnigma]

This would be on a (more) full briefing on the merits

Nah. They asked for an emergency injunction†, lost. Then with Barrett about to be confirmed, they're asking the same damn thing again. The only difference will be that Barrett will be a ninth vote (if she doesn't recuse).

And yes, ideally judges are perfect divine beings, immune from human foibles, and always leave their very obvious biases at the door. I don't think my contempt for this fiction is any secret.
________
†Again, if I'm remembering which case this is right. There are a lot of election cases getting to the SCOTUS right now.

[loki13]

"Nah. They asked for an emergency injunction†, lost. Then with Barrett about to be confirmed, they’re asking the same damn thing again. The only difference will be that Barrett will be a ninth vote (if she doesn’t recuse)."

According to the docket, they are not asking for another stay. They filed a petition for certiorari on October 24, 2020, and a motion to expedite consideration.

Do you know something I don't?

"And yes, ideally judges are perfect divine beings, immune from human foibles, and always leave their very obvious biases at the door. I don’t think my contempt for this fiction is any secret."

I don't disagree with this. But assuming it's a standard motion for recusal, and not deeply personal ("Judge is a big doodyhead who takes bribes") most judges don't view it personally. It's just litigation practice.

[EscherEnigma]

Do you know something I don’t?

Probably not. There's a reason I caveat-ed my armchair analysis twice.

Regardless, I think my conclusion is about the same: Without Barrett, this is almost certainly a win for the state. With Barrett, it's theoretically unknown.

Honestly, if Barrett was at-all concerned about legitimacy, reputation, and court-packing, the smartest thing she could do is recuse herself and prove that her detractor's worst fears were baseless.

[loki13]

"Regardless, I think my conclusion is about the same: Without Barrett, this is almost certainly a win for the state. With Barrett, it’s theoretically unknown."

I'm not so sure. Look, I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are definitely trying to "revolutionize" election law.

But the vote from Roberts wasn't on the merits; he really hates granting stays (injunctions) from the Supreme Court. I could see him going either way.

[EscherEnigma]

Roberts has been pretty consistent that he thinks the SCOTUS should defer to the states on these things, and that's in-line with him being against this injunction, but for similar ones where it was a *federal* court that acted.

So I'd be surprised if Roberts flips.

[David Nieporent]

I was being (hopefully) facetious about 2a; most judges don’t take motions to recuse personally, although there is some truth to the “If you come at the King, you better not miss” philosophy.

As above, "It depends." A trial judge might take it personally; a Supreme Court justice, not likely. If your argument for recusal is "The judge is an incompetent racist crook who hates me," she's a lot more likely to take it personally than, "The justice was appointed by someone who has a stake in the case."

[Bored Lawyer]

"This was probably procedurally correct, but politically problematic."

Yes, but the client, unlike the lawyer, has to take into account all aspects, including the PR effect.

A bank might decide that they don't want to foreclose on the house of a poor widow and throw her out in the street, not because the bank is not legally entitled, but because it wants to avoid bad PR. Which is an issue beyond the lawyer's expertise.

[loki13]

"A bank might decide that they don’t want to foreclose on the house of a poor widow and throw her out in the street, not because the bank is not legally entitled, but because it wants to avoid bad PR. Which is an issue beyond the lawyer’s expertise."

That's a really bad example.

1. Instituting litigation (filing a foreclosure) is ALWAYS the client's decision. That's not at all comparable to motion practice within litigation.

2. It is certainly not true that this would not be within the lawyer's expertise. A lawyer (a "counselor") should be advising their clients of not just the legal effects of litigation, but the extra-legal effects. If I had a dime for every time I had to tell my client that they should not exercise their legal rights because of collateral NON-LEGAL issues, well, then I would be billing 10 cents more an hour.

3. Finally, the "client" (in terms of the County Manager) was advised; the vote by the Council was to tell the County Manager to tell the Outside Counsel to withdraw the motion AFTER the County Manager was consulted on it. I really wish Adler would note that in the OP to avoid some of these comments.

[loki13]

So, having read the article ....

It appears that this is pretty standard practice (assuming the Pennsyltucky functions somewhat like my state). The County Manager was consulted on the motion prior to it being filed; usually, outside counsel will have a point of contact with the "County" for litigation decisions (the County Manager or similar position) because you don't want to convene the Council or Board or other political body for every single decision (except major things like initiating the litigation or settlement).

It looks like it made headlines, and that was what caused the disagreement. And then, of course, what appears to be a partisan vote by the County Council with the Republican switching their vote.

I hate this year, in every way.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It looks like it made headlines, and that was what caused the disagreement."

Yes, a recusal motion against a brand new justice would do that.

The County Manager is the one at fault, not the lawyer really, he or she should have known better, it was bound to get publicity and put the council in a bad position. I assume the County Manager can count GOP and Democrats on the council. If he couldn't canvass everyone, he should have at least consulted one GOP council member.

[loki13]

Eh. He may be taking the bullet, but I wouldn't say he is to blame.

Depending on the openness/public access laws of the state, a lot of times you don't want the County Manager (or similar position) running all litigation decisions by the council; remember, it's all public.

Normally, you just let the attorneys do their jobs, and if something goes public, the public official can grandstand later. C'est la vie.

[Paladin_44]

"I hate this year, in every way."

Join the crowd!

[rspct]

The county manager messed up, then, and not the firm. That changes my analysis above about fees.

[rsteinmetz]

I'm amazed that so many people are so sure how she will rule on pretty much every case. But the same people are willing to let Kavanaugh and Gorsuch sit on those same cases. They have the would seem to have the same bias as Barrett. Kavanaugh in particular seems more likely to hold a grudge.

My own take on Barrett is that she is likely to be conservative in the old fashioned sense, that is not ideological bur simply careful and not move the needle too far on any given case

I could be wrong now, but I don't think so.
- Rand Newman

[Life of Brian]

I’m amazed that so many people are so sure how she will rule on pretty much every case. But the same people are willing to let Kavanaugh and Gorsuch sit on those same cases.

Here I doubt they're all that sure at bottom how she would rule, but it really doesn't matter. As respondents they'd be just peachy with a 4-4 decision, and Roberts is their best shot for deadlocking a tight vote. There's no realistic scenario where Barrett's vote does anything good for them, so they're taking a free swing to try to improve their odds. They can get away with that with her given the current political optics, but they'd get laughed out of town if they tried to get any of the others to recuse.

[EscherEnigma]

I’m amazed that so many people are so sure how she will rule on pretty much every case.

I mean, his confidence in how she would rule is why President Trump chose her. Trump may not care how she votes on some issues, and those may be surprises, but on the issues that Trump actually cares about (the election being the biggest one at the moment) there really aren't going to be any surprises.

Kavanaugh in particular seems more likely to hold a grudge.

So you think requests for Kavanaugh to recuse would have a legitimate basis then.

My own take on Barrett is that she is likely to be conservative in the old fashioned sense, that is not ideological bur simply careful and not move the needle too far on any given case

Based on her performance for the last three years, no. She will be deeply conservative, around Alito and Thomas, and yank that need right-ward.

[jb]

It's probably helpful to read Adler's article on the case for recusal rather than just assuming that everyone you disagree with is an idiot. (FWIW, he concludes that she likely doesn't need to, but acknowledges it's a closer call than it should be.) The rationale for her recusal has nothing to do with knowing how she's going to vote one way or the other so you're just having a fight with a strawman at the moment.

[Jerry B.]

Apparently, convention dictates that a Supreme Court Justice can decide to recuse themselves, but is mute about them being forced to recuse.

Looks more like a law firm grandstanding than anything else.

[loki13]

Eh, I wouldn't call it grandstanding. I think it's a slamdunk that someone is going to be raising it; if not Luzern, then another county, and if not another county, then some election litigation.

As to the effect of, inter alia, Caperton? Who knows.... after all, the Supreme Court makes its own rules, and there is only one Justice (Breyer) left from that 5-4 majority opinion, and three justices (Roberts, Thomas, and Alito) from the dissent; I don't think it's a big stretch to say that even if you assume Caperton would apply to the facts and circumstances of this cases (SCOTUS, different facts), that there is probably an easy majority for overturning it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Capeton ultimately lost anyways. Probably no way to determine it, but I would guess that is common in recusal cases.

[loki13]

I mean, no?

Having practiced in different jurisdictions, it really, really depends on the rules.

Some jurisdictions are "one free shot" (in other words, you get to remove any judge, once, without really needing to do much other than file a motion saying you don't want them). But then you're stuck with whatever judge you get next.

Some jurisdictions are "never, unless cause." Which is probably what most people think of (you have to file a motion, stating the cause, and then get a ruling).

Others are a hybrid - for example, the first recusal might be with a low standard (is it procedurally valid) but require procedural safeguards, and later attempts at recusal might be difficult.

....and that's just for the trial court.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think Bob is saying that most cases would ha e come out the same way if the recused judge had stayed on the case. I don't have any idea whether I agree with that, but I agree there's probably not a very reliable way to find out. (I suppose you can to an extent on. multi-judge courts that reach decisions by more than a one vote margin, but of course in theory the recused judge might still have persuaded enough colleagues to join the other side.)

[Commenter_XY]

Meh, much ado about very little. I don't think there is anything here to get agitated about.

[Cal Cetín]

Nonsense, this is the Internet, if you can't get agitated over such things, you're not trying.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL

[Liberty Lover]

Agitated? You must get "OUTRAGED"! You are not trying hard enough.

[Liberty Lover]

If Barrett recluses herself there is no chance of a fair election. There will be legal challenges, both sides are lawyer-ed up for that. That means a tied court would go to the House. Seeing the House has already impeached Trump based on a known to be fake Dossier how can the House not be prejudiced? Every Rep that voted to impeach Trump and every Senator that voted to convict Trump should therefore recluse themselves.
Actually every member of the House and every Senator that knew the Steele Dossier was a fake, and voted for impeachment or conviction should be removed from office and tried for sedition.
That would include Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff and at least the Republican Romeny.
Definition of sedition: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.

[jjrzw72]

A tired Court means the federal circuit court or state supreme court is affirmed, not that the election goes to the House.

Also, if the election goes to the House (which, in a two-year person race, can only happen if there's a tie in the Electoral College) the House votes by state not by roll call of members.

Finally, you're an idiot.

[David Nieporent]

Seeing the House has already impeached Trump based on a known to be fake Dossier how can the House not be prejudiced?

Setting aside that it's not the same body — the 116th vs. 117th Congresses — the dossier had nothing whatsoever to do with impeachment.

By the way, you'd look a tad bit less stupid — though only a tad — if you would learn the difference between "recuse" and "recluse." (They're not even the same parts of speech.)

[Liberty Lover]

Reason does not allow an edit. It should be recuse, not recluse.

[Aktenberg78]

It's clear that Democrats are going to cheat, whether or not it's necessary for them to win. That's because they're disgusting, subhuman vermin.

[Vanessa Russ]

I had my first outbreaks last year and i was tested for both HSV-1 and HSV-2 . Both my husband and i tested positive for HSV-1 but negative for HSV-2. Last year I found out my husband was cheating, so I decided to do a retest on all STDs including HSV-1 and HSV-2. Only difference is that this time i went to a different clinic. Anyway, I tested positive for HSV-1 which i knew i had but surprisingly HSV-2 as well. I was so upset and i got divorced with my husband. 4 months ago a friend recommended me to an African herbalist Dr Ajayi, I explained my problems to him and he encouraged me that i will be cured. I ordered for his herbal protocol and used it accordingly to his directions . I'm so relieved to say that I've not had even one outbreak and i was tested negative by my doctor. I'm feeling great from within. I truly endorse this product, it really works. You can contact him on email... [e-mail]
You can also call or write him on whatsapp [phone]...