Prosecute The Fake Electors
Donald Trump's Big Lie wasn't just a political ploy. Parts of it were criminal, because people (including Trump himself) didn't just theorize or promote the falsehood that the election had been somehow "stolen" from Trump, they acted on it. And -- the violence of January 6th aside -- some of those actions were indeed criminal. The most obvious was the fact that in seven states groups of Republicans took it upon themselves to proclaim themselves the rightful slate of electors to the Electoral College, and they tried to foist this fraudulent proclamation upon the rest of the country. That is election fraud, and every single participant in this scheme should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -- if only to deter others from doing anything like it in the future.
This may already be in the works. Today -- one day after the House Select Committee hearing that exposed some of this fraudulent activity -- the F.B.I. acted:
The Justice Department's investigation of the Jan. 6 attack ratcheted up Wednesday as federal agents dropped subpoenas on people in at least two states, in what appeared to be a widening probe of how political activists supporting President Donald Trump tried to use invalid electors to thwart Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory.
Agents conducted court authorized law enforcement activity Wednesday morning at two locations, FBI officials confirmed to The Washington Post. One was the home of Brad Carver, a Georgia lawyer who allegedly signed a document claiming to be a Trump elector. The other was the Virginia home of Thomas Lane, who worked on the Trump campaign's efforts in Arizona and New Mexico. The FBI officials did not identify the people associated with those addresses, but public records list each of the locations as the home addresses of the men.
Separately, at least some of the would-be Trump electors in Michigan also received subpoenas on Wednesday, according to a person who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
I would hope that this effort is either already more widespread than this report, or that it soon will be. I would like to see each and every person who participated in creating fake elector slates questioned by the F.B.I. and then handed over to the Justice Department for prosecution. Because they deserve it.
The process of electing a president is a complicated one. Voters in every state think they are actually voting for president, but they are not -- at least not technically. They are instead voting for a slate of electors who will cast their official votes for president (and vice president). The electors' votes are the ones that matter in determining the election, but the slates are duly chosen by the people voting on Election Day.
Once the election is over and all the votes are counted, in early December the chief elections officer of the state (often the secretary of state) meets with the winning candidate's electors, certifies them to be the proper slate, and they all sign documents which actually cast these votes for president.
Six of these "Certificates Of The Vote" are signed by all electors, a certificate of ascertainment is attached to each, and they are sent to four places: one to the president of the Senate (the Vice President of the United States), two to the archivist at the National Archives, two to the state's secretary of state, and one to the chief federal judge of the district court where the meeting of the electors took place.
What happened on the specified day (the second Wednesday in December) in 2020 was that in seven states -- Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- two groups of people met. One was the official slate of electors, some of whom had to meet in specified places (often the statehouse) to comply with state election laws. The other were total frauds -- groups of Republicans who anointed themselves "electors" and signed bogus documents designed to look like a Certificate Of The Vote. Assumably, they then sent the six signed originals of these bogus documents to the four specified people, just like the real electors did. No state official in any of these states certified these fraudsters. In some of the states, the group was locked out of the building where they had to (by law) meet, so they met in some other place instead.
In two states, these groups were smart enough to leave themselves a legal "out." In the text of the document, they included a line about how they would be the official electors only if the courts overturned the results of the election. The participants in New Mexico and Pennsylvania can thus claim they weren't trying to actually defraud anyone, but were instead just being prudent -- creating an "alternate slate" of electors for Trump, who had indeed met and signed something on the correct day, just in case they were later needed (after the courts overturned the election results). By doing so, they can argue that they merely presented themselves as an alternative if such a scenario were to happen.
The groups in the other five states weren't as crafty, though. They didn't leave themselves any "out." They just signed a document that baldly and falsely stated that they were the duly certified slate of electors and thus the true members of the Electoral College.
Their intent was clear. They forged a Certificate Of The Vote and tried to pass it off as authentic. This is the document that transmits the official Electoral College votes for president and vice president. It is not some minor legal document, in other words. They falsely stated, in the document, that they were "duly elected" to this group. They weren't -- that was a lie. They all signed their names to the document -- clear proof of their participation. They all expressed the desire that their forgery would be accepted and thus their fraud would be successful. There really aren't two ways to look at it at all -- that is the only possible interpretation.
It is worth mentioning that these groups of Republican "electors" were not exactly the same as the group of electors that would have been certified if Trump had actually won these states. Not everyone involved went along with this attempt at fraud -- many Republicans who would have become electors if Trump had won the state (those in the official slate before the election, in other words) did not agree to join the group of fake "electors." Assumably some of them knew it was wrong and/or knew it was illegal for them to do so.
Of course, the Justice Department shouldn't only look at the "electors" involved in this conspiracy to commit election fraud. The people who got the groups together, the people from the White House or the Trump campaign who organized the efforts -- there are indeed others who may also be in legal jeopardy because of these fake election documents. Senator Ron Johnson is already backpedalling away from his involvement (he reportedly had the bogus certificates from both Michigan and Wisconsin on January 6th and wanted to hand them to Mike Pence on the floor of the Senate). So the net should be cast as wide as possible to deter this from ever happening again at any level.
But the obvious start to this process is exactly what seems to already be underway -- closely examining the actions of the fake "electors" themselves. Because the entire fraud was to create documents with all their signatures on it, this seems from a layman's point of view to be a slam-dunk of a guilty case. What are they going to argue in court? Someone forged their name? They didn't know what they were signing? They somehow weren't aware that they weren't the certified electors? None of these holds the slightest water whatsoever. Their guilt is pretty plain for all to see, and I would certainly call it "beyond a reasonable doubt."
So I am hoping a whole slew of indictments will soon follow the raids which started today. I am hoping the Department of Justice starts prosecuting each and every signatory to these forged documents. They deserve it. They committed a crime, on the face of it. They tried to perpetrate a fraud on the federal government and the American people, they tried to overthrow a free and fair presidential election, and they tried to substitute some sort of authoritarian process (in essence: "Trump won because we said he did!") in place of our democratic and constitutional method of choosing our country's leaders. So they should pay the legal price for doing so.
There were indeed people who tried to "steal" the 2020 election. And the fake "electors" were at the fraudulent forefront of this attempted theft, so it is entirely fitting that they should be prosecuted first.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I knew there was election fraud! There is just way too much projection going on with Republicans for there not to have been any. :)
At the very least, and the easiest to prove: Mail Fraud took place.
To join EM wrt projection, the places the GOP significantly outperformed polls were all using ES&S machines.
I'm loathe to call out machines, but the correlation is striking.
ES&S? Is that what Diebold are calling themselves now?
Well, I'll be. It IS Diebold.
screwing up elections since 1999
Another reason to end the Electoral College. When the low-population, over-represented states scream about fairness, they can be reminded they've had a couple of hundred years of unfairness in their favor.
MC,
Trump will be reelected! No way he loses to #BasementJoe!
Or here's kind of a lowlight for you,
Trump will win so many new black voters that I'll accept your wagers... ;D
And those predictions would have come to pass if not for Democrats and their Zuckerbucks Fraud and the Hunter Biden Laptop fraud..
Its been factually DOCUMENTED that the election would have gone to President Trump had either of those not occurred..
Both together??
It's amazing that the election was so close..
A testament to how America REALLY feels about President Trump..
@mezzomamma
All you have to do is change the US Constitution and you can get rid of the Electoral College..
Get on it, eh? :^/
Prosecute the fake electors, eh??
Funny how ya'all were perfectly OK with "fake electors" when President Trump legitimately won the 2016 Election..
Funny how ya'all ENCOURAGED "fake electors" back then..
Ironically, ya'all pushed EXACTLY what ya'all accuse President Trump of today...
The hypocrisy of the Democrat Party knows no depths.. :eyeroll:
It's uncanny...
Democrats are ALWAYS guilty of what they accuse Republicans of..
But, once again, allow me to help ya'all out..
"Er.. uh.. well.. THAT'S different!!"
:D
Is today the day??? SCOTUS has no more opinions released scheduled, but there are some 19 +/- decisions left to release...
Ooopss.. Scratch that...
An extra day has been added.. Tomorrow.. 24 Jun..
It makes a certain amount of sense that the SCOTUS would release THE opinions (Dobbs & Bruen) right before the weekend..
So, I would say that today is not likely but tomorrow is.
We'll see... The fun starts at 1000hrs EDT...
A testament to how America REALLY feels about President Trump..
Of course, that should read how America REALLY feels about Biden's Handlers... :^/
And here we have another commentary about The Big Lie??
But it doesn't specify if it's HILLARY's BIG LIE (IE The Russia Collusion Delusion)
Or if it's Stacey Abrams BIG LIE that she actually won the Georgia Gov election??
Which BIG LIE is it???
@m,
you know full well that donald went a few steps further than anybody else when it came to insisting that up was down and two plus two made five. he lost, and there was zero (zip, zilch, nada, etc.) evidence otherwise. then he misused the power of the presidency to try to reverse that result. false equivalency between that and other, lesser sore losers is really not the hill where it pays to make your stand.
Funny how ya'all ENCOURAGED "fake electors" back then..
can you explain this one to me? as far as i know, 2020 and 1876 are the only two elections where more than one slate of delegates claimed to represent the electoral college from the same state.
you know full well that donald went a few steps further than anybody else when it came to insisting that up was down and two plus two made five. he lost, and there was zero (zip, zilch, nada, etc.) evidence otherwise.
Not factually accurate..
Hillary spent over 3 years and 30 million taxpayer dollars trying to prove that she actually won the election..
When it comes to sore luserism, Hillary is queen bee..
But I understand why you see things differently..
false equivalency between that and other, lesser sore losers is really not the hill where it pays to make your stand.
Except it's not a false equivalency... Your Democrats have plenty of BIG LIES... All the way back to when President Bush beat Al Gore in 2000... In 2004, it was the same BIG LIE when Bush slapped down John I VOTED FOR IT BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST IT Kerry....
EVERY TIME Democrats lost the election, they indulged in the BIG LIE...
So, you'll forgive me if I can't get all excited about this ONE big lie, that is actually not even a lie..
President Trump was the rightful winner of the election..
The Zuckerbucks Fraud and the Hunter Laptop Fraud are all well documented and either one, had they not been perpetrated, would have given the election to President Trump..
That's not a lie.. That is documented FACT...
can you explain this one to me?
Sure.. Back in 2016, blue state electors were going to vote for Hillary, even though President Trump won their state..
Back then they were called Faithless Electors.. And ya'all encouraged those electors to be faithless...
It's all part and parcel to the hysterical PTDS...
President Trump Derangement Syndrome..
@m,
Back then they were called Faithless Electors.. And ya'all encouraged those electors to be faithless...
faithless electors are legal. fake electors are illegal. as former law enforcement, i hope you have some facility to process that distinction.
Hillary spent over 3 years and 30 million taxpayer dollars trying to prove that she actually won the election..
hillary had no post in government, and no ability to reverse her result, so as a private citizen she can be as sore a loser as she wants and nobody need care. al gore went as far as the law allowed, and then stopped when his legal case came to an end.
when donald's supporters lost in court, they broke the law, and in america the law ALWAYS wins. again, we're talking about the difference between legal and illegal. that's a distinction even a ground pounder such as yourself can appreciate.
faithless electors are legal. fake electors are illegal. as former law enforcement, i hope you have some facility to process that distinction.
It IS a distinction..
Not a difference..
So if one supports one but doesn't support the other, that's hypocrisy...
hillary had no post in government, and no ability to reverse her result, so as a private citizen she can be as sore a loser as she wants and nobody need care. al gore went as far as the law allowed, and then stopped when his legal case came to an end.
And yet, they STILL whined and cried and stamped their feet about the BIG LIE...
In other words, they did exactly what President Trump is doing..
Whining and crying about the Big Lie...
When one looks at the FACTS of modern history (2000 on), Democrats have many MANY more big lies than GOP'ers...
when donald's supporters lost in court, they broke the law, and in america the law ALWAYS wins.
While that may or may not be factually accurate, the fact remains that President Trump has not broken the law...
And that's all that matters...
For Trump supporters that DID break the law, fine.. Throw the book at them... I'll feed you the books, you throw 'em!
As long as it clearly understood that President Trump has broken no laws...
Now, you can say, "That remains to be seen" and yes, indeed it does..
BUT... in the HERE AND NOW, at this point in time.. President Trump is 1000% INNOCENT...
exqueeze me? legal and illegal are not different? well then, let's bring out all those undocumented visitors and treat them the same as those who do have documents.
what, so THAT'S different?
Backlash over Disney’s woke agenda blamed as ‘Lightyear’ fizzles at box office
Go woke.. Go Broke...
but in all sincerity it's a good point, "fake" electors really doesn't capture what these people have done.
ILLEGAL electors would be a more accurate descriptor.
exqueeze me? legal and illegal are not different?
As you said, it's a distinction, not a difference...
In THIS context of faithless/fraudulent electors illegality is not relevant..
When the improper elector was in DEMOCRATS favor, ya'all loved the improper elector..
When it's AGAINST Democrats, then ya'all hate the improper elector..
You get it??
ILLEGAL electors would be a more accurate descriptor.
And, in THIS context, the legality is not the point.
It's the fact that electors are not doing what they SHOULD do...
THAT is the point..
a faithless elector is a real, legal elector who chooses for their own reasons to go against the vote of their state and party. That's a quirk of the electoral college. if we don't like it, as you say, we can change the constitution.
an illegal elector is committing fraud against the United States of America. unless rule of law means nothing to you, that is a distinction that makes a HUGE difference.
unless rule of law means nothing to you, that is a distinction that makes a HUGE difference.
NOT in the context of PTDS...
The beef is an elector is not doing what they SHOULD be doing in favor of a POTUS candidate ya'all don't like..
So, THAT is bad...
But then you have an elector who is not doing what they SHOULD be doing in favor of a POTUS candidate that ya'all DO like..
Well, that's just perfectly acceptable.. THAT is good...
In ya'all's way of looking at things...
it's not MY way of looking at things.
let's put the shoe on the other foot. say for example that some democratic electors thought hunter biden's laptop was just too suspicious and decided to go against their state to vote for trump, would you support them?
on the other hand, what if in 2016 hillary had decided that russia had caused pennsylvania and wisconsin to go for trump, so she sent a slate of her own electors to washington to vote instead of the slate of electors that the state had duly elected.
would you consider those two scenarios different or the same?
They are the same in the context of going against the Electoral College as it stands...
In the context of this commentary, they are the same..
In the first example, ya'all would be completely and totally against it..
In the second example, ya'all would be all for it..
THAT'S my point..
OK We're set for SCOTUS opinions..
"Hold onto your butts.."
-Samuel L Jackson, JURASSIAC PARK, KONG-SKULL ISLAND
i'm skeptical of that conclusion.
They are the same in the context of going against the Electoral College as it stands...
no, one is following the constitutional law and the other is breaking it. don't get me wrong, i'd HATE if some of biden's electors turned faithless and i'd want to investigate whether or not they were bribed, but without evidence of lawbreaking i couldn't fault the legality of their decision.
if hillary had sent illegal electors to washington, i might sympathize with their goal but i'd have to admit that they were breaking the law and should be jailed for it.
I missed the first 2.. Connection issues..
Vega v. Tekoh
It is by Justice Alito, and the vote is 6-3.
The Court holds in Vega v. Tekoh that a violation of Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a federal civil rights claim under Section 1983.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Since Vega was an Alito decision, that means that Dobbs will likely not be today...
WE HAVE BRUEN!!!!!!
It is by Justice Thomas, and it is 6-3.
The court holds that New York's "proper-cause" requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
BAM!!!!
All Democrat MAY ISSUE states NOW become SHALL ISSUE States!!!!
The New York "proper cause" requirement violates the Constitution, Thomas explains, because it only allows public-carry licenses when an applicant shows a special need for self-defense.
WOOT!!!!
Stick it in yer ear, MAY ISSUE states!!!!
Now, you MUST ISSUE barring felony considerations...
In this case, Thomas explains, nothing in the Second Amendment distinguishes between home and public "with respect to the right to keep and bear arms."
The 2nd is sacrosanct... Democrats need to get that thru their heads...
Two things: First, I find it "interesting" that Thomas and other conservatives separate the language of the 2nd amendment from the original intention of a well-regulated militia and center the individual's right to keep and bear arms in the individual's best interest, not the society's (viz a militia). Second, did Thomas identify schools as "sensitive spaces?"
Once again.. "well regulated" meant something different when the 2nd was written...
Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling
What's funny here is that New York Democrats tried to pull the case out from under the SCOTUS..:D
The states, including New York, that had used proper cause requirements "may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States."
MAY ISSUE states now become SHALL ISSUE states.. :D
That's it for today.. No Dobbs... Probably tomorrow..
There are 9 more opinions to be released..
But WOW.. What a win for Americans, eh?? :D
it's definitely thomas's writing. he's heavy on the historical analogies.
Yea, a 63 page opinion!! :D
Alito made a very good point..
The dissent cited the Buffalo shooting..
Yet, NY's MAY ISSUE did not prevent the Buffalo shooting..
Ergo, the MAY ISSUE process has no bearing on whether mass shootings will occur or not..
In fact, there is NO CORRELATION between law abiding citizens legally carrying and criminal mass shootings..
In fact, it can be logically said that the MORE people who are legally carrying, the LESS likely there is to be a mass shooting.
The facts bear this out..
In mass shootings where one or more of the crowd is armed, the average death toll is 4...
Mass shootings where the crowd is completely unarmed, the average death toll is 11..
So, MORE legally carrying people = LESS fatalities...
in his historical analysis thomas seems to be advocating in favor of open carry and against concealed carry.
in his historical analysis thomas seems to be advocating in favor of open carry and against concealed carry.
Open Carry is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment..
But even if FL was an Open Carry state, I would likely still conceal carry...
Biden reacts to Supreme Court gun decision: 'Deeply disappointed'
The Supreme Court found that New York's gun law overly restricted access to concealed carry permits
Stick it, Biden's Handlers!!! :D
"Elections have consequences"
-Barack Hussein Odumbo
:D
So, looks like tomorrow is the BIG DAY, eh?? :D
I expected Bruen and Dobbs to go down the same day...
Got ta hand it to the SCOTUS... They know how to build the drama... :D
"The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public."
-SCOTUS Justice Thomas
That's what I have always told ya'all..
The freedom to keep and bear arms is NO DIFFERENT than the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the freedom to vote...
It's about time that Democrats got on board with this slice of Americana.....
Today is a good day...
Democrats get slapped down good and hard...
And my lovely wife is coming home to me tonight!!! :D
Yep.... Doesn't get much better than this.. :D
Oh, and we have SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to watch tomorrow night.. :D
"How's it going? Well, that depends. For me personally, it's good. Things are good. "
-Griffin, MEN IN BLACK 3
:D
OK, so Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck break into a distillery...
Daffy asks, "Is this whiskey??"
Elmer replies, "Yeth, but not as whiskey as wobbing a bank..."
:D
Enraged Keith Olbermann calls for Supreme Court's dissolution after New York concealed carry ruling
Olbermann also blasts Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a 'paralegal' after Supreme Court gun ruling
Apparently, sore luserism isn't solely reserved for Presidential candidates.. :D
It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?
-Keith Olbermann
WOW... Olbermann is sounding kinda insurrection'y....
I thought you Democrats were AGAINST insurrections???
Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Hey Elizabeth!
The European Union has accelerated their process and Ukraine and Moldova are now promoted to Candidate Status.
Corruption in Ukraine is still real but this decision demonstrates that Ukraine is making headway.
More Ukraine later -- I just had a ton of tax work land in my lap.
The European Union has accelerated their process and Ukraine and Moldova are now promoted to Candidate Status.
Corruption in Ukraine is still real but this decision demonstrates that Ukraine is making headway.
Which will mean exactly squat unless EU is willing to step up with troops to oppose Russia..
"Cool, whatever you say, slick. But I need to tell you something about all your skills. As of right now, they mean precisely... dick. "
-Agent J, MEN IN BLACK