Trump's Lawyers should have known better

Faithless electors and fake electors are not the same thing. Not by a long shot. Faithless electors are only legal in a few states, and they are STILL actually elected, unlike the fake electors. I can provide further information if you are still confused about the distinction. By the way, Trump's plan would have violated the ECA, which you claim to care about.

 

So when is it a bad or OK "plot" when it is legal???

Illegal behavior.... not at all... it was a law already on the books..... only the Democrats tried it before and got away with it....
It is the same law the Democrats tried in 2000, 2004, 2017....

January 6, 2017.... seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ho...ion-results-fight-republicans-2020-challenges

 

The Constitution says that Congress is to count all of the EC votes. The ECA votes says that the official EC votes are those that appear under the seal of the state, approved by the state executive. Trump's fake elector plan violated that. First, he wanted Pence to pick the fake votes over the real ones. The next plan was to have Pence declare several states' EC votes as no longer counting due to the "contested" fake electors, then declare Trump the winner based on the remaining EC votes. The next plan was to have Pence use the fake elector to declare that the EC vote shouldn't be used at all, and that the House should decide instead. You can't do these things and respect the Constitution and the ECA.

The people telling you that Dems tried the same thing are pathetic little liars and you should have more self respect than to believe these lies.

 

She's got nothing but a some misdemeanor agreements from attorneys smart enough to settle this for the nuisance value.

She still has the same problem that she has always had. The 'giant hole in her case: the lack of a clear crime to which Trump and his co-defendants can plausibly be said to have agreed.'

RICO is a conspiracy charge. A conspiracy requires multiple people, and criminal conspiracy requires a crime that is the objective of the conspiracy.

'Willis alleges that the 19 people named in her indictment are guilty of conspiracy because they agreed to try to keep Donald Trump in power as president — specifically, to “change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” Maybe they shared such an aim, maybe their 19 minds met regarding that objective, but in and of itself, trying to reverse the result of an election is not a crime. You may have noticed that neither Al Gore nor Stacey Abrams was ever led away in handcuffs.'


'if you don’t have two or more people agreeing on an objective that is a crime, you don’t have a criminal conspiracy.'

Fani tries to get around this in two different ways.

'The first is a tautology: She conclusively asserts, on page 14 of the indictment, that this was a “conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” That is, the lawful objective of changing the election outcome somehow becomes unlawful because she invokes the apparently talismanic word “unlawful.” But there is no crime of unlawfully trying to change an election outcome — not in Georgia law nor any other American law.'

That's why we write down what crimes are, so some bitterly partisan prosecutor can't make up crimes were they didn't previously exist at the time that the actions occurred.

'Trying to change an election outcome is legal; there is no conspiracy unless the objective itself is clearly a crime. You don’t see prosecutors alleging, say, that defendants were in a “conspiracy to unlawfully” commit murder or robbery. Murder and robbery are crimes. If two or more people agree to commit murder or robbery, that is an agreement to commit a crime — a conspiracy. To the contrary, an agreement to try to reverse the result of an election is not an agreement to commit a crime.'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/the-flaw-in-trump-s-georgia-indictment/ar-AA1foMGR

 

And anyone with two braincells to rub together can see the obvious difference. Neither of those people tried to use a fake elector scheme to overthrow democracy. Trump did.

 

That's stretching the facts considerably.

 

You keep repeating this stuff as if it means something. It does not.

A “faithless” elector is not the same thing as a fake elector.

A “faithless” elector (what you refer to as a “Hamilton” elector) is not illegal. The electors in question WERE the "duly elected and qualified electors" they just decided that they did not want to vote to who they had pledged to vote for. At WORST some states have enacted rules that will replace "faithless" electors with electors who promise to vote for the candidate that won the electoral votes.

 

That's Fani's problem and why her case is all sound, fury, and feathers. She is charging a criminal conspiracy for protesting an election, when it's not a crime to protest an election.

'The defendants indicted by Willis did not have an overarching agreement to commit a crime.'

'an agreement to do something legal — to reverse the result of an election — is not a conspiracy. And if the presumption of innocence means anything, we must presume people are innocent if the prosecutor fails to allege that they agreed to do something that was actually a crime.'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/the-flaw-in-trump-s-georgia-indictment/ar-AA1foMGR

 

Not a single member of Congress has been charged for objecting to the election results. That's because that isn't part of the crime. The crime was the submission of a fake electoral certificate. The crime was lying to state officials about supposed voting fraud. The crime was trying to get state officials to violate their oath of office and change election totals. The crime was accessing voting machines by unauthorized persons.

 

Nope... fake elector is exactly like the "Hamilton faithless electors."... typical lefty diversion by changing the name to make it OK in their eyes.......

I noticed you didn't address the Democrats doing the same thing....

 

No they are not the same thing. Saying it over and over and over does not change that basic fact.

 

Not to those of us who bothered to actually pay attention to the facts.

 

Then you don't comprehend the notion of faithless electors. And, no Dems didn't "do the same thing." Neither have any previous Republicans. This particular attempt to overthrow democracy was unique to Trump, and no politician in US history has gone further than he tried to go.

 

Faithless electors and fake electors are exactly the same thing. Keep spinning my liberal friend.. you don't know what you are talking about...

 

Our laws say otherwise. But, hey, keep spinning my anti-Constitutional friend.

 

So the short answer is "The opposing client is always wrong, and I will fight for your Justice until your last dollar!"

 

You know I often wonder what would have happened had Pence gone along with Trump? I have a sneaking suspicion that you would have seen a civil war

 

Nope! Yardmeat has done an excellent job of explaining the difference

 

I'm not really sure. My own position is that the Supreme Court would have ruled "Hey, no more of that in the future," but it would have probably been enough to delay the EC vote and force a House vote.

 

I am thinking more of the immediate aftermath. If word had gotten out that Trump had overturned the election results that way after having his storm troopers assault the Capitol I am sure there would have been riots in the streets of a magnitude that would have made BLM look tame. I think you would have seen Grandmas with brooms attacking Proud Boys. But seriously America has so much civilian weaponry that if dispute ever escalates then a bloody unruly civil war may happen x just as it has in other countries

 

Funny... the Democrats had to run out and change a 135 old law to meet their agenda....Why?

 

There's a reason I'm willing to discuss the facts and you panic when confronted by them. I did not make up the Constitution. I did not make up the ECA. Why do you insist that I did so?

 

What Trump attempted wasn't even in light with said law. You'd you know that if you had read anything about it. Try actually reading the law and seeing what it has to say about the seal of the state. You won't.

 

You don't discuss the facts. You are a fact denier. The facts are in post #3. Those are the facts, not your leftist opinions. Hell, several Democratic secretaries of state have said you cannot keep Trump off the ballot. That's a fact but you ignore the facts.

 

I'm sorry that you think that the Constitution and the ECA are not facts. I disagree. But congrats on your desperation to scramble and change the subject.