Folks on the Twitters felt the need to remind MTG of her own behavior – like her hounding teenager David Hogg in public who survived a mass shooting in Florida – that’s led to this kind of incivility.

Of course, once she was elected to Congress, she began scrubbing her social media accounts of these sort of encounters.
https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1630602804816666629
https://twitter.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1630542590712983553

Arizona’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, is seeking a review of what her office alleges was “likely unethical conduct” by the state’s former attorney general, Mark Brnovich.

A letter sent Friday from the governor’s office to the State Bar of Arizona follows the disclosure on Wednesday of records showing that Brnovich, a Republican, withheld findings by his own investigators refuting claims of fraud in the 2020 election and mischaracterized his office’s probe of voting in the state’s largest county.

The letter, signed by Hobbs’s general counsel, Bo Dul, calls the conduct “harmful to our democracy, our State, and the legal profession itself.”......

Those complaints alleged that Brnovich shirked his responsibilities as the state’s top law enforcement officer to represent two state agencies, the secretary of state’s office and the Arizona Board of Regents, the governing body of Arizona’s public university system. Hobbs was Arizona’s secretary of state at the time of the complaints and the diversion agreements, which were revealed in early 2022.

The letter from Hobbs’s office asks the state bar to review the files released this week and “take any appropriate action.”

Luttig, who doesn’t think much of that plan, has now taken to The New York Times to speak out against Pence’s “gambit,” as he called it (and as I called it previously). He wrote there on Friday:

Inasmuch as Mr. Pence’s claim is novel and an unsettled question in constitutional law, it is only novel and unsettled because there has never been a time in our country’s history where it was thought imperative for someone in a vice president’s position, or his lawyer, to conjure the argument. In other words, Mr. Pence’s claim is the proverbial invention of the mother of necessity if ever there was one.

Importantly, Luttig pointed out that whatever protections Pence has are limited. He went on:

Any protections the former vice president is entitled to under the “speech and debate” clause will be few in number and limited in scope. There are relatively few circumstances in which a former vice president would be entitled to constitutional protection for his conversations related to his ceremonial and ministerial roles of presiding over the electoral vote count. What Mr. Smith wants to know about are Mr. Pence’s communications and interactions with Mr. Trump before, and perhaps during, the vote count, which are entirely fair game for a grand jury investigating possible crimes against the United States.

Luttig concluded that Pence would unquestionably be required to testify. “Even if a vice president has ‘speech or debate’ clause protections, they will yield to a federal subpoena to appear before the grand jury,” the former 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judge wrote.

Though the ex-judge made a decent case, it remains to be seen whether current judges, including the Republican-dominated Supreme Court, reach the same conclusion if it gets that far. Either way, Luttig’s latest output on the subject represents a significant escalation from the man whose counsel Pence apparently took to heart on Jan. 6, 2021. When it comes to the Smith subpoena, however, it doesn’t appear that Pence is keeping the same counsel.

Indeed, depending on what options were available to Luttig, the Times is an interesting place for him to push his case, calling into question whether it’s Pence he's attempting to convince at this point. On that note, I should point out that The Wall Street Journal editorial board put out a piece last week applauding Pence’s defiance, and providing legal arguments that, while potentially weaker than Luttig's, are ones Pence may see fit to deploy. At any rate, and perhaps more important, I think we can guess which paper a majority of the Supreme Court is more likely to read — or at least heed.

Putting trial tactics aside, though, major constitutional impediments make it unlikely Trump will testify at the Proud Boys’ trial. To be sure, the Constitution guarantees every defendant in a criminal trial the right to compel the testimony of witnesses that the defendant believes can offer evidence helpful to their case. The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor . . .” The presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, has not yet decided whether he will approve the subpoena for Trump.

But assuming he does, it may turn out to be a hollow victory for the defendants. Trump is the target of a criminal investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland on Nov. 18, 2022 to investigate “whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021 . . .” Given Trump’s potential criminal exposure in Smith’s investigation, the ex president inarguably has a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment provides, “No person shall . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .”

In the unlikely case we see Trump placed under oath and testify at the Proud Boys trial, the prosecutors would be able to cross-examine him — a prime opportunity to develop testimony that could be used in the future against Trump, in the event he is indicted for crimes in connection with the insurrection. But given recent history, it’s clear Trump is not afraid to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. Indeed, he recently pled the Fifth more than 400 times when questioned under oath as part of a fraud investigation of him, his organization and some of his adult children, brought by New York Attorney General Leticia James. .....

This is a circumstance that I encountered many times as a prosecutor. Typically, the judge will ask the prosecutor if the government is inclined to grant the witness testimonial immunity. Assuming the prosecutors are not so inclined — a safe bet when it comes to Trump — the judge will announce that, given the separation of powers doctrine, he has no authority to order the executive branch to immunize a witness. Doing otherwise would represent an unconstitutional intrusion on prosecutorial discretion. Accordingly, the judge will discharge the subpoena and Trump will never take the witness stand.

Some might observe that it feels unfair that Trump’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination trumps (sorry) the defendants’ right to compel testimony in their defense. Not to worry, as there are some evidentiary workarounds.