This is my first post after deciding to re-evaluate any and all views and opinions regarding Donald Trump, his supporters, his opponents, his Presidency and the charges against him..thus a Clean Slate: Forbes story: ‘Fake’ Pro-Trump Electors Indicted In Nevada From the story: Why the reversal? Reason story: Here Is Why Trump's 'Contingent' Electors Say They Did Nothing Illegal From the story: Are Trumps alternate electors really illegal?? Yes ..or .. No Why.. or .. why not?
In Nevada, six Republicans, including state GOP chair Michael McDonald, signed fake certificates on Dec. 14, 2020, falsely declaring themselves to be the state’s duly appointed Electoral College representatives. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/15/nevada-false-electors-trump-investigation-00127369 Were they duped by Trumpists? I think so, but I don't know. If they were willing participants in the coup plot they need to be held accountable.
I'm aware of the story. I'm asking if they are really illegal. Calling them "fake" isn't making a case for that.
What is confusing you? They signed fake certificates on Dec. 14, 2020, falsely declaring themselves to be the state’s duly appointed Electoral College representatives. They were not the real electors.
They are illegal because they are not in the law. There is no such thing as "alternate electors" in the law. Therefore, they are illegal. Prefixes like "il", "im", "in"... added to a word are a negation of that word. So just like "impatient" means "not patient", "inconvenient" means "not convenient",... also "illegal" means "not legal". Now... if your intention was to ask if they are criminal, that's a whole different topic. It depends on how the illegal electors are used. If they are used to scare children in Halloween, then they're not criminal. If they are used to overturn the results of an election, then they are. So, bottom line, I believe your question should have been whether or not the fake electors were used to commit a crime or not. I think it's pretty well established that they were. But it's up to a judge and a jury to decide whether that crime raises to the level required to convict people, and who needs to be convicted.
Yes, they are. Every state votes for who they want to consider to be president. Whichever person wins that state, once certified by the canvassing board of that state, also elects the electors to make the vote on a particular day in December by which ever party wins that state per their party's nomination. That is how it works. Anything else is illegal, and violates the law from impersonating a public official to forgery, to creating false documents.
They engaged in illegal and criminal acts. Two of the states may have gotten around this by including language in their certificates stating that their elector status was contingent on the result of legal challenges to the elections. The other five states inserted no such language and therefore have no defense.
The title gives away that this is yet another spin job, and yet another attempt to criminalize political disagreement. These are not 'fake' Electors they are "contingent' electors. The legal advice they were following came from 'the 1960 Hawaii case, the convening of our electors and their casting of ballots in favor of President Trump in the specifically required form and manner is necessary in order to preserve our state and party's say in the presidential contest." 'The "1960 Hawaii case" refers to a dispute over whether Richard Nixon or John F. Kennedy won the state in that year's presidential election. Nixon initially was declared the winner by a razor-thin margin of 140 votes. Democrats challenged that outcome in court, and a recount ultimately awarded Hawaii's three electoral votes to Kennedy. In the meantime, however, Electoral College nominees from both parties convened on December 19, 1960, the deadline that year. Both groups signed certificates identifying themselves as "duly and legally appointed and qualified" members of the Electoral College, and both sets of certificates were sent to Washington, D.C.' 'On January 4, 1961, a state judge, Ronald Jamieson, retroactively validated the Democrats' seemingly premature certificates. According to Jamieson's ruling, it was crucial that the electors had convened on December 19, even though their certificates contradicted the official results at the time. Two days later, while overseeing the congressional tally of electoral votes as vice president, Nixon acknowledged that he had received three sets of certificates from Hawaii: the dueling December 19 slates, plus a subsequent Democratic slate that Hawaii's governor certified after the recount. Nixon concluded that the third slate, comprised of the same Democrats who had signed the December 19 certificates, "properly and legally portrays the facts with respect to the electors chosen by the people of Hawaii."' 'a pending legal challenge made the outcome of the election uncertain, and the best way to deal with that uncertainty was by submitting a list of "contingent" Republican electors who could be recognized by Congress should the challenge succeed.' In the GA case "two lawyers who participated as contingent Republican presidential electors, Brad Carver and Daryl Moody," faced Georgia State Bar complaints as a result. The State Disciplinary Board "reviewed the conduct of the contingent Republican presidential electors" and dismissed the complaints as unsubstantiated. In Carver's case, the board noted that he "relied upon representations" that "it was necessary for the Republican nominees for Presidential Elector to meet and cast votes so that their then-pending election challenge would not be rendered moot." The board therefore "did not find probable cause to believe that Mr. Carver acted with the intent to mislead." That's all they did. All these cases are going to collapse for exactly these reasons. And everyone with a brain has known this, the entire time. The crooked prosecutors timed the indictments for the news cycles, they will time the conviction for the same, knowing that overturns at the appellate level will be after the elections.
For one thing, they used fake certificates of attainment and sent them to the government---a judge, the archives and congress that is forging documents and highly illegal Aside from this point... Chesebro got the Trump team to try to use the electors to get Pence to remand the electoral votes back to the states and if they failed to deal with the alleged contestations Pence was to replace them with Trumps electors. That was one leg of the scheme. If that didn't succeed then they wanted Pence to throw a contested election which would result in Trump retaining power.. Therefore it's illegal because that is using stand by electors beyond the standby point -- past the court challenges.. So even we accept the dubious standby alternate elector scheme, noting that no state has a legislative protocol for alternate or stand by electors, this certainly makes it illegal
It's illegal to send forged certificates of attainments to the government. And it's illegal to defraud the electorate. See #11
You just repeat things other make up. The contingent electors simply followed the instructions by the court that litigated the 1960's contingent electors case. Have you already forgotten that you spent 3 years loudly claiming that the 14a Section 3 blocked Trump from being on the ballot, only to find out that, no it doesn't, for the very reasons we told you, for 3 years.
No they did not. The 1960 Hawaii case does not apply here. 1. There was no secrecy. ;Both parties agreed to have their electors sign certificates. There was no such agreement in 2020 2. There had been no recount in Hawaii. This was pre computer days. Hawaii had not even completed a partial recount by the time the electors signed the certificates. There had been THREE recounts in Georgia by the time the certificates were signed. There was no question who had won the race (Hint: It was Biden) 3. In Hawaii there were no false allegations of fraud. The election had simply been so close that a recount was initiated (but not completed, see 1). Trumps lies about fraud in Georgia had been rejected by the courts. There was no chance that the results of the election were going to change. Claiming that 1960 Hawaii is somehow a precedent for this case is just a lie someone made up that you are repeating.
Yes it does. You have not controlling legal authority for your absurd stretch, and good legal authority that these contingent electors were acting under the color of law. Not with signature matching. That was the entire controversy. There were chain of custody issues all over the place, and there was the video of democrat counters, hauling trunks of ballots out from under tables after they pretended to stop counting and sent all the GOP poll watchers home. Then the contingent electors would have no real world effect. Once again we have Leftists pretending that it's a 'crime' to disagree with them. We've already told you why these claims will ultimately fail, just like we told 3 years ago why the 14a Sec 3 claims the clowns you follow were making would fail.
The FAKE electors were used to try and overturn the election. They WOULD have had an effect if things had gone according to the plan that Trump and his people tried to pull off. The crimes in Georgia are O.C.G.A 16-10-23 A person who falsely holds himself out as a peace officer or other public officer or employee with intent to mislead another into believing that he is actually such officer commits the offense of impersonating an officer and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. O.C.G.A. 16-9-1(b) A person commits the offense of forgery in the first degree when with the intent to defraud he or she knowingly makes, alters, or possesses any writing, other than a check, in a fictitious name or in such manner that the writing as made or altered purports to have been made by another person, at another time, with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority and utters or delivers such writing.
Ok so what was the plan? To trick people into thinking Trump won the state so that his "fake" electors would be counted? How do you trick anyone into thinking Trump won a state that he didn't win?
I outlined the plan earlier but I'll do it again. The plan depended on Pence's cooperation. He refused. The plan had four possible outcomes any one of them, if successful, would result in Trump being declared the winner. 1. Pence counts the votes from the fake electors and rejects the votes from the real electors - Trump wins 2. Pence declares that there is a "controversy" over which electors to count and sends it back to the states for the legislatures to determine which ones to count. The legislatures, controlled by Republicans, choose the Trump slates - Trump wins 3. Pence declares that because there are two slates of electors from these states that he counts neither of them. Trump then has the majority of the electoral votes counted (although short of 270) - Trump wins 4. Pence declares that because there are two slates of electors from these states that he counts neither of them. Since no candidate has reached the 270 threshold he throws the election to the House of Representatives where each state delegation gets one vote. The Republicans control more delegations and they vote for Trump. - Trump wins
