This ethically challenged groyper is 100% a criminal even notwithstanding this election fuckery
Printable View
This ethically challenged groyper is 100% a criminal even notwithstanding this election fuckery
Here's the Arizona documents. 4 of the other states provided nearly identical documents, almost as if they had gotten a template from somewhere while Trump's administration was pressuring their election officials to ignore the election results and send Electors who would vote for him instead of Biden. None of the ones that look like this one actually resemble the real version of that state's documents.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FI8lEU0VcAEJ04d?format=png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FI8lEU6VgAErfKg?format=png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FI8lEUzVkAAedjz?format=png
I'm probably posting too much about this, but it's extremely grating that there are people who signed their names to a coup and are still just walking around free and barely concealing their plots to try again.
Hoping against hope that those clowns opened themselves up to federal prosecution by sending those certificates to the national archives.
The hope for the survival of the republic rests on the shoulders of AG Garland right now, and I know that things could be moving that none of us can see, but the lack of evidence of action is getting increasingly unnerving.
edit: Well, shit. Seditious Conspiracy charges filed agains Oath Keepers leader literally within a minute of this post. I'll take this as a good sign.
https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watc...n-130796613864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
My understanding is that submitting your own electoral slate does not constitute any kind of federal criminal fraud. Dealing with competing slates is left in the hands of Congress by the 1887 law. They might run afoul of local state laws though.
I would think that presenting yourselves as the "duly elected and qualified Electors ... from the state of Arizona" when they are not, in an effort to overturn presidential election results would be in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 595, which makes it illegal for any federal, state, or local official to use "his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector". But I'm not a lawyer.
Pictured: Roger Stone hanging out with some of the people just charged with seditious conspiracy, taken on the morning of January 6th.
https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politic...n_16x9_992.jpg
When asked what was going on here by the Jan 6 committee, Roger Stone refused to answer and invoked his constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
But it doesn't interfere unless Congress chooses to let it, and if Congress does allow it then it's valid and can't be considered interference after all.
That is probably why "or affecting" is included.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Michigan AG seems to think there is a federal side to it. On state laws he mentions forgery of a public document and election forgery.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...3fa3ab962f764b
The article indicates Nessel is referring to the coordinated multi-state effort. I'm personally clueless as to the interactions with state and federal law and prosecution regarding efforts that cross state lines like that. Even if there isn't federal criminal fraud (which I suspect there isn't), there might well be federal law violated by coordinated efforts to violate laws against election fraud in multiple states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Are you saying that it wouldn't count because the law doesn't cover failed attempts at the crime's commission, and that making the national archives distinguish between the genuine and the fake, and the police turn them away when they tried to enter the Capitol wouldn't count as interference? That they could've only been prosecuted if they had succeeded? I'm genuinely asking, I just don't know how to write it so it doesn't sound sarcastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I did get to hear an actual lawyer give an opinion on this - according to them, this is probably illegal, but there's no precedent because it's never come up before, so it could be a difficult prosecution. The lawyer didn't bring it up, but given the obvious coordination on these attempts I'd guess that it'd help bring conspiracy charges too.
Anyways, here's another source on Flixy's story, which has the addition of the relevant statement by the Michigan AG: "We think this is a matter that is best investigated and potentially prosecuted by the Feds"
I'm saying that the crime cited doesn't really cover alternate/competing electoral slates and that their adjudication falls to Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Also, I now have another question: I've seen you guys talk about the electors, and I've seen talk of legislators signing/witnessing/affirming these submissions. Neither of those fall under this law though. They're not administrative employees, they're elected officials. If this were criminal fraud the people are the national archive would be an example of those falling under this law, if they forwarded these submissions and not the official certified ones, as would similar state-level administrative figures (note the Secretarys of State would also be elected officials though none of them were involved). This is mainly the law forbidding administrative personnel from using their official positions to engage in electioneering. No endorsing, campaigning, etc, in their position as Secretary of Defense, Chief of the State Police, etc, isn't it?
What's this, I missed this part of the alleged offense.Quote:
and the police turn them away when they tried to enter the Capitol wouldn't count as interference?
Okay, that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I don't think so, but the only laws I've seen cited do use the phrase "administrative employees", and although that sounds like what the legislators were elected to be, I'll buy that the legal meaning may not include them. I don't want to go digging for other fraud/election interference laws that may have been violated, but if this isn't already illegal for some reason, it should be.Quote:
Also, I now have another question: I've seen you guys talk about the electors, and I've seen talk of legislators signing/witnessing/affirming these submissions. Neither of those fall under this law though. They're not administrative employees, they're elected officials. If this were criminal fraud the people are the national archive would be an example of those falling under this law, if they forwarded these submissions and not the official certified ones, as would similar state-level administrative figures (note the Secretarys of State would also be elected officials though none of them were involved). This is mainly the law forbidding administrative personnel from using their official positions to engage in electioneering. No endorsing, campaigning, etc, in their position as Secretary of Defense, Chief of the State Police, etc, isn't it?
State capitol, not national: "When Michigan’s electors cast 16 votes for Biden in December 2020 following the certification of his 2.8 percentage point win, a separate group that included some Republican state House members tried to enter the state Capitol with Donald Trump’s Electoral College candidates. They were turned away by state police but claimed in the certificates that they met “in the State Capitol.”"Quote:
What's this, I missed this part of the alleged offense.
I don't know which/how many of the other states had their fake delegates try to cast fake electoral votes in person; I didn't know about this one until the articles with the state AG referring the case to the feds. Flixy's article is the source of the above quote, and I was able to find articles from Dec 15, 2020 that mention it, but nothing that has substantially more information.
Ah ok, that's what threw me. I thought you were talking about the federal Capitol. I'd have to check but I think there's actually a constitutional requirement that electors gather in their respective capitols to cast their votes in person (though not necessarily a state Capitol building, which might not have existed in all cases).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Relevant:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
There better be some prison sentences before the season finale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Breaking: All elections lost by Republicans are now fraudulent, no matter how big the loss. I guess since 300 million people apparently committed fraud in the 2020 election, 43,663 people committing fraud here is pretty small comparatively.Quote:
With all precincts reporting, Cherfilus-McCormick defeated Mariner 78.7% to 19.6% in Florida's 20th District — a 59.1-percentage-point victory. She received 43,663 votes to her opponent's 10,883 votes.
But in a move reminiscent of former President Donald Trump, who continues to dispute his election loss to President Joe Biden, Mariner has made claims of irregularities in the South Florida district.
What a mess. Obviously, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 needs updating -- to close procedural loopholes so big (or vague) the Trump Train almost succeeded in driving thru/around guardrails at the state level.
So much is left to interpretation of law, and proving nefarious intent or conspiracy has a high bar standard for good reason. But it's twisted when elected officials can only be prosecuted for document fraud or forgery when they were really part of an attempted coup.
Twitter Link
Well that sounds super illegal
Unplugging voting machines? Definitely illegal. Bringing guns to the polling place? Not illegal in many states or federally, though individual acts of voter intimidation are prosecutable. Not sure what the current status of it is in Michigan. I know in 2020 the Secretary of State there declared a ban on open-carry within 100' of a polling place by executive order and that order got blocked (first by a temp injunction than on appeal) but I don't know whether any later action was taken. Probably not. My state bans 'em. And of course the speeches above, while reprehensible, are themselves also legalQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless