‘Counsel apologizes to the court’: DOJ commits “BIGGEST mistake yet," BEGS forgiveness

This is Democracy Watch. Mark, this is being called the DOJ's biggest mistake yet, and it's left the DOJ begging for the court's forgiveness. Can you explain what just happened?

Yeah, you know, Brian, I oftentimes say that it is easy to file a lawsuit, but hard to win it. In this case, the Department of Justice barely got out of the box before it screwed up. So this is a really important issue and a very important case. You know, we've talked about how the Department of Justice is trying to access the most sensitive voter information that states collect. This is information on who you are, where you live, your social security number, your voting history, your party registration.

I mean, all kinds of important information. And they have sued states far and wide throughout the entire country to get this information. Well, in Washington state, they filed this lawsuit and they figured, great, we're ready to roll. Except when they went to actually serve it on the state of Washington, that's when the troubles began.

I mean, first, they had 90 days to serve the case and they wound up missing the 90 days. When this was called to their attention, they then tried to serve it in a way that doesn't comply with either state law or the federal rules.

Like this is the Department of Justice. This isn't some like first year lawyer who hung out their own shingle. This is supposed to be the best of the best. This is supposed to be the people that Pam Bondi wants to entrust your sensitive voting information with.

They couldn't figure out how to serve not some like foreign government, not some person evading service, you know, by hiding. They couldn't figure out how to serve the state of Washington, the state of Washington. They couldn't figure out how to do it. And so they got called on the carpet over this and in a absolutely humiliating display of groveling, the head of the voting section, like literally the top person in the voting

section in Washington, D.C., had to submit an affidavit and beg forgiveness of the court and basically say, it's all my fault. You know, we got we couldn't figure out how to do this in Washington state, but we've now relied on, wait for it, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington state. Yeah, the Department of Justice has a whole group of lawyers located in Washington state, and now we're, now we've asked them to help us figure this out, your honor. Please, please don't dismiss our lawsuit. Now,

the result of this may very well be that the lawsuit gets dismissed, and then, you know, where are they in state of Washington trying to get this information?

Can you talk about the broader effort? And this is something you've been covering relentlessly on Democracy Docket. So highly recommend for everybody who's watching right now, if you're not yet subscribed to Democracy Docket, this is where I get all of my legal news,

all of my voting rights news. So if you're interested in this stuff, absolutely the number one outlet you should make sure that you're subscribed to is Democracy Docket. I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description. Can you talk about the broader effort by the DOJ to try and get these voter rolls? Because this is something you're intimately familiar with. It's you and your law firm who are litigating this stuff, meaning you are the one standing in between the voter rolls being at the state level where they belong and getting sent to the federal government, which the Trump administration is trying to do. So can you just

speak on the status of all of this? Yeah. And so there are 30 cases or so that have been filed. The state of Oklahoma just settled with the Department of Justice, so they capitulated. But let's still call it 30-ish, including the District of Columbia. My law firm, we have moved to intervene or have already been granted intervention in all of those cases because we think it's important that there are lawyers who are fighting for the voters to protect their sensitive information from these attacks. And look, the Republicans want this information badly.

Like this is their top priority. The Department of Justice is dedicating an enormous number of resources to get access to your most sensitive voting information because this voter file is the building block of anything that they may want to do to purge lists

or to suppress voting rights or to target people for disenfranchisement. It all begins with this basic building block that states have. And we have been fighting them inch by inch, tooth and nail in every state. And we watched as this unfolded in Washington state.

But look, you know, in Georgia, you may remember they actually sued in the wrong court. Like they didn't even sue in the right federal district in Georgia. And they tried to explain that away and also got bounced and had to refile. But you know, I think that on one level, you could say this is just incompetence on the part of the government lawyers. And it's, you know, part and parcel of what you see when Donald Trump comes to office, and all of the

good people are either fired or forced out. But here's the thing, Brian, what they want access to, like your Social Security number, your date of birth, your personal information, as well as a lot of other sense of information about who you are and where you've lived and the like, do you really want it in the hands of people who can't figure out how to serve the state of Washington?

Do you really want it in the hands of people who can't figure out which district Atlanta is in? Right, I mean, like, it's easy to laugh this off, but the reason why the Department of Justice felt the need to beg this court, and plead, and throw itself at its mercy, is because they understand what an absolute calamity

this is for their reputation in federal courts around the country. The Department of Justice, they're supposed to be the best of the best. They're supposed to be representing the people of the United States. They're the ones who judges are supposed to take at their word. And not only have we seen them in other cases forfeit that by lying and not telling the truth, but in this case, where, you know, kudos, they have owned up to this. The reason why they feel the need to own up to it, I think, is because they understand just how corrosive what is going on is to their ability in the need to own up to it, I think, is because they understand just how corrosive

what is going on is to their ability in the future to tell judges that they follow the rules, they know what they're doing, you know, that if they file a pleading, it's in good faith. If they choose a particular procedural mechanism, it's well-founded.

And here, they can't even figure out how to serve the state of Washington in 90 days. And in the interim, I mean, I've cut out a whole bunch of other things where they where they attempted service one way and it was wrong and they said something else and it wasn't right. I mean, it was just the Keystone cops. And the Keystone cops are funny until the Keystone cops are given badges and guns. Yeah. And are all of a sudden told that they're going to, you're told that they're going to have, you know, your elections in their hands. And so this, you know, we can laugh about it,

but this is serious stuff. And that's why I'm proud of the job that my law firm has done in these cases. And I'm proud of the job that Democracy Docket has done in keeping on top of this and reporting it so that people understand. People understand that the folks who are after your voting information want you to

trust them, that this is what they're doing. And I'm glad that you brought up the fact that they are both ham-handed and bumbling at moments when they shouldn't be, but that when given a badge and a gun, they can be dangerous. And I think that it's not one or the other. Like, these things are not mutually exclusive. You can both be an idiot in court, but when you get your way, when they get to the natural conclusion

of what it is they're seeking to do, that can still be dangerous for Americans. And so I wanna take this opportunity to give you the floor and let people know what it would mean if they are able to carry out these nefarious plans.

Like why should we be worried when people hear that the federal government is trying to take your voter data or gain access to the voter rolls or know what your social security is and your political affiliation, your voter registration, all that stuff. Like what is at its worst,

what could that mean they're able to do?

Yeah, so I think you need to look at this through two potential scenarios. One is malevolence. And like you said, there is, it's not inconsistency that you have both bumbling and malevolence. But let's just start with the malevolence first, right? If the Department of Justice is seeking access to the most sensitive voter information that

states have, then it would go a long way in helping Donald Trump take over the counting and certification of ballots, which is something he has said he believes he has the power to do because the states act as his agents. It would allow him to undermine free and fair elections. It would allow him to purge voters, even in violation of what federal law provides, because he has said that if he fails to pass the SAVE Act, that's not going to be the end of the

story. He's going to do it anyway. He's going to do it with or without Congress. So you have an autocrat that has said he is going to take control of the elections. He thinks Republicans should take control of the voting. He thinks that the vote counting and tabulation of ballots are at his discretion. The states are only his agents. Right? So if you have a White House that thinks it has that power, even though it doesn't, even though Congress is turning down his legislative demands, even though courts have rejected over and over again

his efforts to assert powers he doesn't have. If the Department of Justice is getting this data, if they're able to get this data, what confidence should you have, what confidence should a voter have that Pam Bondi is going to stand in the way of the misuse of that data by a politicized White House. Like, really, do you have any confidence that if the Department of Justice gets this data, that somehow Pam Bondi is going to be like, now, Mr. President, this data is very sensitive, and it cannot be misused for political purposes. It may only be used for these narrow purposes.

I mean, I don't have any confidence in that. I think that anyone who believes that is either lying to you, they're hopelessly naive, or they belong to some legacy media outlet where they are told to act as if up is down and down is up and Donald Trump is a normal president, right? Like, so that's option one, which is malevolence.

So I wanna go down the other track, which is just bumbling incompetence. Well, as the Attorney General of Washington said to Democracy Docket in reporting on this story, quote, we would expect the US Department of Justice to know how to properly file a lawsuit in federal court. Well, let's assume they don't know how to properly file a lawsuit in federal court. What else does that tell us about the way in which

they would be able to safeguard the information that they might get in response to that lawsuit? Right, I mean, they're offering all kinds of assurances. Well, don't worry, the information won't be misused. It'll be used only for these purposes, not those purposes. If they can't figure out how to file a lawsuit, you think they're gonna know

how to follow a protective order? You think they're gonna know how to ensure chain of custody? You think they're gonna know how to prevent the White House from getting its mitts on this information if it's acting in good faith, right? Let's just assume that Pam Boddy is saying there is this firewall and you cannot abuse this data.

A Department of Justice that can't figure out how to file a lawsuit and serve it on the Attorney General of Washington or know where to file a lawsuit in Georgia? You think that's a Department of Justice that can be entrusted with the sophisticated data

and the protections of it? I mean, either way, whether it's malevolence or it's incompetence, these are not people who should be trusted with the most sensitive voting information that states have. And it is particularly true, particularly true

because the Constitution gives the states the authority of setting the time, place, and manner of elections. And it is only subject to congressional enactment otherwise. And so like here we stand with the Department of Justice having filed all these lawsuits,

the only places where it's been adjudicated on the merits they have lost, right? They're over three in that, in those instances, including before a Trump appointedappointed trial judge in Michigan. They're expediting appeals to the Ninth Circuit and to the Sixth Circuit, so they're losing on the merits.

So what about this is anything other than an absolute five-alarm fire about what will happen if this Department of Justice is able to succeed.

I think that was perfectly put. And all of this underscores the need to continue highlighting everything that's happening at the hands of this DOJ, which frankly is not being done, not nearly enough by legacy media. So that is just one more indication of why it's so important for folks who are watching right now to support independent media that is actually important for folks who are watching right now to support independent media that is actually talking about this stuff. Again, there is no better outlet when it comes to democracy the world.