Trump Indicted in Georgia

[Seran]

Actually I can... and the term "fake elector" - even though that term just started being used is a bit misleading.

https://whyy.org/articles/pennsylvan...ges-explainer/

"The term “fake electors” arose in the post-2020 election period when, in some states Biden had won, electors for Trump cast electoral votes despite Trump’s loss and then submitted their certificate of votes to Congress as well. Through investigations such as Congress’s select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack, “fake electors,” “false electors,” and “alternate electors” have come to represent the Trump allies who signed their name to those certificates."

So the actual electors for Trump - were the States actual Republican Party electors:

https://www.archives.gov/files/elect...nt-georgia.pdf

Now the document they submitted - the Certificate of the Vote of the 2020 Electors from Georgia (page 7):

https://www.americanoversight.org/am...trump-electors

Would have been valid - had Trump's legal contesting of the votes had overturned any election results.

The document submitted by the winning party in Georgia (Democrats), was counted after State challenges had been ruled upon.

https://www.archives.gov/files/elect...te-georgia.pdf

So before moving on - let's get this straight:

1. The Republican Electors in these States were appointed Electors for their Party - not "fake electors".
2. The Republic Electors signed a Certificate of the Vote of the 2020 Election, and submitted it while State Election results were being contested in numerous legal Proceedings by the Trump campaign all over the country.

So now that we have that clarified - Here's the sticking point that I can agree with you on (I know, I know a surprise that I would actually look at facts and be fair regarding it.)

2 of the 7 States that is at issue added this addendum in their submittal of the Certificate of the Vote:

Pennsylvania’s certificate said the votes they were casting should only be counted if a court found that they were the “duly elected and qualified Electors. The reasoning that we were given for the need to go through with this process was that [the campaign] was concerned that there was a number of court cases that the Trump campaign had not adjudicated yet,” DeMarco said, and the campaign hoped a favorable ruling for Trump in those cases might have changed the outcome of the vote. In that scenario, DeMarco added, the campaign was concerned that if there was no slate of electors submitted under the constitutional process, the court victories would be meaningless. “So I as well as others said ‘Fine, but let’s make the document reflect that,’ ” he said. “So we’re a bit different from the other folks.”

Nevada was the other State to include similar language in submitting the Republican Electors document.

Now the point I can get behind - possibly - is the 5 States that did not include that terminology in their documentation. That seems absurd and extremely stupid not to.

So, can I see where your side might be coming from with this? Sure, potentially.

Can I see where my thinking might be coming from with this? Sure thing.

How it lays out is based on the intent I suppose...

Did Trump really believe certain States had been stolen from him? I'd conjecture yes.
Did Trump contest in the Courts numerous times? Yes.
Is submitting documentation by the "due date" of 14 December to Congress required to certify the Vote by Congress? Yes.

So, laying that out... we've got a real good question moving forward... Officially what should be the process of acquiescence/challenging of the results in the Courts vs. the required date of submittal of appropriate, signed documentation to the Federal level?

Again - The ACTUAL Republican Electors submitted their votes for their Party Candidate, and those Electors votes would have counted had Trumps legal actions been in his favor.

So I suppose you have to determine intent in this case - was it really to "overthrow the election" or "contest the election" due to timeline requirements.

I'll have to think on it for a few days personally.


As to ensure conflicts like this do not arise again, I really hope some clarification/adjustments are made with regards to periods of contention in the Legal System vs. when the appropriate documents are required to be submitted.

Not going to lie, this point is actually intriguing to me now... from a foundational perspective of our Government.

No, he can’t.

You're right, he can't tell the difference. How you know is he's actually trying to argue that felony documents forged to act as the official electoral documents from the State of Georgia are justified under a bogus legal theory. The belief anyone can file their slate of votes, however contradictory while pretending to be a state's official, nominated electoral college delegates is straight out of bizzaro world. Sixteen people were named the delegates, period. That Shaps thinks that as long as you file bogus legal claims, regardless of their being thrown out in Court, acting out a conspiracy to surplant legitimate electors is proof of his mental illness.

[Shaps]

And depending how this plays out... it's going to open up a shit show moving forward for any elections.

ie. Stacy Abrams for years didn't concede and contested her election results - does that require legal action?
ie. The Democrat Party made a FAKE report, submitted it to Federal Authorities, and tried to Impeach a sitting US President based on proven lies.

I mean... if I'm willing to look at the current situation objectively... you're telling me the Democrat Party shouldn't have been scorched for what they did?

Or is it all just "Politics" when it's your side, and a "coup d'état" when your opponents do anything?

You tell me.

[Shaps]

You're right, he can't tell the difference. How you know is he's actually trying to argue that felony documents forged to act as the official electoral documents from the State of Georgia are justified under a bogus legal theory. The belief anyone can file their slate of votes, however contradictory while pretending to be a state's official, nominated electoral college delegates is straight out of bizzaro world. Sixteen people were named the delegates, period. That Shaps thinks that as long as you file bogus legal claims, regardless of their being thrown out in Court, acting out a conspiracy to surplant legitimate electors is proof of his mental illness.

You... are... a... fucking... moron.

And there is no way you actually read all the links or documents I posted.

Just stop already. Dealing with you is worthless at this point.

[Shaps]

As for historical concepts on this...

https://www.justsecurity.org/82233/a...m-hayes-tiden/

"Since then, the question has arisen whether anyone should be criminally prosecuted in connection with these submissions of groundless pro-Trump electoral votes. As part of considering this question, it is worth comparing an historical example in which self-proclaimed electoral votes were sent to, and considered by, Congress. The historical episode sheds light on the answer to how the criminal law should be wielded to address the schemes to overturn the 2020 election."

Now you can read how the 1876 election went down... as Democrats in 1876 did exactly what the Republicans did in 2020...

South Carolina:

"Nonetheless, Tilden’s electors met and voted for him on the congressional designated day for Electoral College balloting. They submitted their spurious electoral votes to the Senate President pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment as though they rather than the Hayes electors were entitled to cast the state’s official Electoral College votes. In their submission, which was labeled in the joint session of Congress held to receive the votes in the 1876 election as “Certificate No. 2” from the state (“Certificate No. 1” being the one submitted in favor of Hayes), the Tilden electors declared themselves as “being electors duly and legally appointed by and for the State of South Carolina, as will hereinafter appear.” They acknowledged that their submission was not “signed by the governor” and “the seal of the State as affixed thereto, as required by law, is not attached.” They continued: “its absence is explained by the following statement.” Then they proceeded to recount the grounds on which they thought themselves rather than the Hayes electors entitled to be considered the true electors for the state."

"Despite this unanimity, reflecting the patent invalidity of their claim to be the state’s “duly and legally appointed” electors, none of these South Carolina individuals (as far as I know from my research) were criminally investigated or prosecuted for making this assertion."


VERMONT

" But a Democratic member of Congress, Abram Hewitt, who later would serve as mayor of New York City, claimed to possess a second submission of electoral votes from Vermont. This package of purported electoral votes was never opened in the joint session. The Senate President refused to accept it, despite protests from hardliner Democrats. He said it had missed the deadline for any such submissions. Although there was a subsequent effort in the House of Representatives to force the joint session to submit Vermont to the Electoral Commission for its consideration, a delay that would have endangered completing the count of electoral votes before the scheduled inauguration of the new president, the Speaker of the House blocked this move even though it was orchestrated by pro-Tilden members of his own party—and even though he had been personally chosen by Tilden to be Speaker in order to represent pro-Tilden interests during the dispute."

So you tell me... is it really that cut and dry?

If we're going off of legal precedent... tell me again how this is supposed to play out "criminally" vs. "politically".

So, as I said... it really comes down to the perspective of intent. Do you consider it "contesting the election" or attempting to "overthrow the election".

Whichever of those words you use, changes how the whole case is approached.

As for me? As I said, I need to think on it a bit to come to a conclusion of how to perceive it.

And I already know... you won't read a fucking thing and just keep spouting your bullshit... so don't bother writing a reply.

[Shaps]

Last note on this topic for consideration:

The big thing in all my readings so far - one thing always is included, or jumps out.

Regardless of the Democrats or Republicans actions in any event - whether you perceive it as "contesting" or "attempting to overthrow" an election...

None of the election results were overturned. The term used is "had no effect on the outcome of the Election".

So is it criminal, or political... the actions the Political Parties take with regards to this?

Thoughts to consider... I know I will be.

[~Rocktar~]

It's all election interference since they know Biden is a goner without more corruption.

[Parkbandit]

It's all election interfearance since they know Biden is a goner without more corruption.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interference

[Seran]

The whataboutisms are particularly sad this time, notably the absence of a criminal nexus such as conspiracy, racketeering, forgery, etc used in Trump's criminal acts that are missing in the other cases.

[~Rocktar~]

The whataboutisms are particularly sad this time, notably the absence of a criminal nexus such as conspiracy, racketeering, forgery, etc used in Trump's criminal acts that are missing in the other cases.

There is no "whataboutism" it's facts, your side did what they are accusing Trump of doing and they did it on tape. You morons love this shit until you learn about the old axiom of what goes around comes around or, to put it more elegantly:

Robespierre’s Law – Power you give government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.

[time4fun]

Last note on this topic for consideration:

The big thing in all my readings so far - one thing always is included, or jumps out.

Regardless of the Democrats or Republicans actions in any event - whether you perceive it as "contesting" or "attempting to overthrow" an election...

None of the election results were overturned. The term used is "had no effect on the outcome of the Election".

So is it criminal, or political... the actions the Political Parties take with regards to this?

Thoughts to consider... I know I will be.

Shaps..EVERY candidate running for office is allowed to contest an election. Everyone can question the results, they can file for recounts, they can report voting irregularities to local and Federal authorities and they can litigate every part of the process. And Trump did ALL of these to an extent this country has never actually seen btw. But once that has all played out, you're out of legal options. No one- including Trump- is in trouble for going through the legal channels here.

What they're not allowed to do is have their legal team hire people to illegally access voting equipment, breach its systems, download the data and then share it publicly. Literally no one is allowed to do that.

And you're not allowed, as a sitting President, to call a state's election officials and order them to change their vote count so you win. Literally no one is allowed to do that period, ESPECIALLY the Head of the Federal Executive Branch.

You're also not allowed to organize a a dozen slates of fake electors, have them register as actual electors and have them submit their "votes" in an effort to sow confusion and rig the electoral college vote results. Again- literally no one is allowed to do that.

And you're not allowed to organize a violent and armed mob, rile them up and send them to attack Congress and your own Vice President in an effort to stop the election certification. And you're certainly not allowed to sit back for a few hours goading them on while everyone is hiding behind barricaded doors from a mob that's out for their blood. No one is allowed to do that.


What Trump and his "friends" are in trouble for is pursuing illegal avenues for ignoring certified election results to stay in power.

And you are SO stuck on defending Trump no matter what he does that you clearly haven't actually stopped to think about the implications of what you're saying. The only way to defend Trump is to say that it's 100% okay to do these things- making them the new normal. Is this how you want every election to play out from now on? I sure as hell don't.