A Deeply Fractured US

[Fishbone Jones]

And an additional detail that makes this make more sense: Ken Chesebro, Trump’s lawyer who pled guilty in the Georgia RICO election case, has in face flipped, and assisted Nevada investigators in the past few days.

Trump ‘fake electors’ attorney begins cooperating in Nevada probe

Kenneth Chesebro orchestrated ‘fake electors’ plot

www.the-independent.com

It would be nice to know what they threatened him with in order to get him to cooperate. People seldom just decide to flip and help the prosecution from a sense of justice. It's more about bargaining for what they are going to get if they don't help. Kind of a legal extortion.

 

[brihard]

Good to know we can gauge the worth of any claim by counting votes, and not actually inquiring into events.

[Add: the whole point of contingent electors is to produce a document by a required deadline, in case the document is needed later. In principle, there should be no objection to the slate of electors for any candidate, regardless of circumstances, without having to give any reasons whatsoever, formally meeting and producing the document subject to the understanding that the document isn't used unless the candidate to which they are pledged wins the vote count certified by the state.]

I only just saw your ‘edit to add’, sorry. Had they simply done that - created a document, even if false, that would have been one thing. My understanding (the indictment was short on detail) is that they, like in other states, actually sent their false electoral vote slate in to be counted. Here’s the indictment. Both felony counts they’re each charged with appears to require that a forged document was ‘uttered’, or that they submitted it for filing. So they weren’t charged merely for drafting and signing it.

It would be nice to know what they threatened him with in order to get him to cooperate. People seldom just decide to flip and help the prosecution from a sense of justice. It's more about bargaining for what they are going to get if they don't help. Kind of a legal extortion.

Likely to mitigate sentencing in Georgia would be my guess- he got a plea deal there; deal implies he gives something to receive leniency.

If Nevada goes to trial, the defense will get to challenge the veracity and admissibility of anything Chesebro provided to the prosecution. My guess - and this is just a guess from the larger context of his role outlined in Georgia - is that he would help the prosecution to actually establish intent on the parts of the accused. If Chesebro was part of brokering the false electors scheme, he would probably be decently positioned to paint the picture of who knew what and what they intended. That’s the end of my speculation on that; it’s just my best appreciation of what makes sense and fits.

This should be a very simple and straightforward prosecution with only the two counts and a simple fact set.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Say that again, but slowly.

You missed the point, or you have nothing to say?

 

[Brad Sallows]

If Trump runs and loses a close election by a few EVs, even if there is a facially feasible challenge there are probably enough motivated people where it matters to make the result stick. It won't require imaginative malfeasance; all that has to happen is enough delay to run the clock out.

If Trump wins by a few EVs, at least two things are going to happen. People are going to look for close results that could flip the election if overturned, and people are going to try to flip some electors. (I assume that what happened before can happen again.) For the first pursuit, time is a problem. Democrats benefited from a contingent slate in 1960; they talked about using one in Florida in 2000 in order to gain a little more time. Blowing a bridge that might be needed in 12 months is foolish.

 

[brihard]

If Trump runs and loses a close election by a few EVs, even if there is a facially feasible challenge there are probably enough motivated people where it matters to make the result stick. It won't require imaginative malfeasance; all that has to happen is enough delay to run the clock out.

If Trump wins by a few EVs, at least two things are going to happen. People are going to look for close results that could flip the election if overturned, and people are going to try to flip some electors. (I assume that what happened before can happen again.) For the first pursuit, time is a problem. Democrats benefited from a contingent slate in 1960; they talked about using one in Florida in 2000 in order to gain a little more time. Blowing a bridge that might be needed in 12 months is foolish.

That’s still silly. If there are valid concerns with election results, means exist to challenge them, including through the courts. In a hypothetical future election, the Democrats are free to do that. If they do so and lose, which in the case at hand the Republicans in fact did, these hypothetical future democrats would be ill-advised to send false electoral votes anyway.

Again, what you seem to have blown past is that these false electoral votes were actually transmitted to Washington to be counted. That’s a key element of the prosecution. I’ve linked the indictment already if you wish to read it. If this ‘closes a door’, that’s only the case because the court in this instance ends up finding the actions criminal. If THAT’s the case, the door should be closed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That’s still silly. If there are valid concerns with election results, means exist to challenge them, including through the courts. In a hypothetical future election, the Democrats are free to do that. If they do so and lose, which in the case at hand the Republicans in fact did, these hypothetical future democrats would be ill-advised to send false electoral votes anyway.

Again, what you seem to have blown past is that these false electoral votes were actually transmitted to Washington to be counted. That’s a key element of the prosecution. I’ve linked the indictment already if you wish to read it. If this ‘closes a door’, that’s only the case because the court in this instance ends up finding the actions criminal. If THAT’s the case, the door should be closed.

From the Reason.com article: "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.""

There is not an indefinite amount of time - or even a very long time - to challenge presidential election results. Obviously it wasn't silly in 1960 - the contingent slate was crucial to a proper accounting of Hawaii's result. The electors have a specific date on which they have to meet, vote, and certify. There's also a fixed date by which the certified votes have to be received by the people who receive them. Obviously a challenge can continue past the first date (I don't know about the second), but without the electors' certified voting results being received on time, there's no point. As long as the formality of having actual electors persists, the value of allowing a contingent slate to properly prepare its vote persists, as does the value of allowing the result to be "transmitted to Washington".

The public outcry over losing electors occasionally certifying a result and sending it to Washington is probably nothing compared to the public outcry if an overturned state result capable of flipping an election eventuated and the (completely correct and legal) response was "Sorry, the electors didn't vote on time/didn't get their vote to Washington on time". Allowing the certification and transmission is a safety valve.

 

[KevinB]

From the Reason.com article: "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.""

There is not an indefinite amount of time - or even a very long time - to challenge presidential election results. Obviously it wasn't silly in 1960 - the contingent slate was crucial to a proper accounting of Hawaii's result. The electors have a specific date on which they have to meet, vote, and certify. There's also a fixed date by which the certified votes have to be received by the people who receive them. Obviously a challenge can continue past the first date (I don't know about the second), but without the electors' certified voting results being received on time, there's no point. As long as the formality of having actual electors persists, the value of allowing a contingent slate to properly prepare its vote persists, as does the value of allowing the result to be "transmitted to Washington".

The public outcry over losing electors occasionally certifying a result and sending it to Washington is probably nothing compared to the public outcry if an overturned state result capable of flipping an election eventuated and the (completely correct and legal) response was "Sorry, the electors didn't vote on time/didn't get their vote to Washington on time". Allowing the certification and transmission is a safety valve.

I don’t see the parallel.

 

[lenaitch]

Kind of a legal extortion.

Or an effort to mitigate the personal impact of previous decisions now called into question. No one is compelled to plead guilty; they can always roll the dice.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don’t see the parallel.

They met, voted, certified, and transmitted their vote while Nixon was the winner of the initial count. A recount confirming Kennedy as the winner happened after that and before the formal session in Congress.

 

[brihard]

From the Reason.com article: "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.""

There is not an indefinite amount of time - or even a very long time - to challenge presidential election results. Obviously it wasn't silly in 1960 - the contingent slate was crucial to a proper accounting of Hawaii's result. The electors have a specific date on which they have to meet, vote, and certify. There's also a fixed date by which the certified votes have to be received by the people who receive them. Obviously a challenge can continue past the first date (I don't know about the second), but without the electors' certified voting results being received on time, there's no point. As long as the formality of having actual electors persists, the value of allowing a contingent slate to properly prepare its vote persists, as does the value of allowing the result to be "transmitted to Washington".

The public outcry over losing electors occasionally certifying a result and sending it to Washington is probably nothing compared to the public outcry if an overturned state result capable of flipping an election eventuated and the (completely correct and legal) response was "Sorry, the electors didn't vote on time/didn't get their vote to Washington on time". Allowing the certification and transmission is a safety valve.

And if we absolutely must continue discussing the colour of your herring we could also go into the ongoing judicial recount that was underway at that time as a result of succesful legal action, the fact that results had already reversed from recount once and ultimately then did again, the fact that litigation was still ongoing, etc. But 2020 isn’t 1960; Hawaii isn’t Nevada; Trump didn’t actually win and Kennedy actually did; the Hawaii electors acted in good faith in the honest and correct belief that they won, the Nevada fake electors had tens of thousands of reasons to know they had lost, AND two levels of court had already looked at their case and flatly rejected it.

This is one of the most absurd positions I’ve ever seen you take. I can’t believe you actually buy that there’s an equivalency.

The Nevada fake electors had best hope their lawyers have something better.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And if we absolutely must continue discussing the colour of your herring we could also go into the ongoing judicial recount that was underway at that time as a result of succesful legal action, the fact that results had already reversed from recount once and ultimately then did again, the fact that litigation was still ongoing, etc. But 2020 isn’t 1960; Hawaii isn’t Nevada; Trump didn’t actually win and Kennedy actually did; the Hawaii electors acted in good faith in the honest and correct belief that they won, the Nevada fake electors had tens of thousands of reasons to know they had lost, AND two levels of court had already looked at their case and flatly rejected it.

This is one of the most absurd positions I’ve ever seen you take. I can’t believe you actually buy that there’s an equivalency.

The Nevada fake electors had best hope their lawyers have something better.

Hindsight is irrelevant, as is whether or not the single state result can materially affect the election - this is about process. Either the standalone process (certifying and transmitting a contingent or alternate slate) is legitimate or not; the "equivalency" of the overall election big picture does not bear on the process. The "fact" is that without the certified and transmitted results, the winner of the original count has a legally strong position to maintain the win despite what any recount shows. The ongoing recount isn't much use unless there is a valid record of the electors' votes that has passed through the required gates. Sure, the side that wins the recount could go to court and argue that they should prevail despite an absence of a certified vote completed on time, or with a certified vote received after the deadline, but they'd basically be arguing against the rules as written - and at one stroke vacating all the rhetoric about no-one-is-above-the-law, rule-of-law, dangers-to-democracy, etc. Whether or not electors can in good faith believe that a deficit of thousands of votes is likely to be overcome is also not relevant because it's entirely situational (in particular, depends on what is alleged to have happened) - the electors do not have, nor are they likely to be able to assimilate in time, all of the information.

This is only going to matter if another "Florida 2000" situation arises, but if it arises, it's really going to matter.

 

[brihard]

Hindsight is irrelevant, as is whether or not the single state result can materially affect the election - this is about process. Either the standalone process (certifying and transmitting a contingent or alternate slate) is legitimate or not; the "equivalency" of the overall election big picture does not bear on the process. The "fact" is that without the certified and transmitted results, the winner of the original count has a legally strong position to maintain the win despite what any recount shows. The ongoing recount isn't much use unless there is a valid record of the electors' votes that has passed through the required gates. Sure, the side that wins the recount could go to court and argue that they should prevail despite an absence of a certified vote completed on time, or with a certified vote received after the deadline, but they'd basically be arguing against the rules as written - and at one stroke vacating all the rhetoric about no-one-is-above-the-law, rule-of-law, dangers-to-democracy, etc. Whether or not electors can in good faith believe that a deficit of thousands of votes is likely to be overcome is also not relevant because it's entirely situational (in particular, depends on what is alleged to have happened) - the electors do not have, nor are they likely to be able to assimilate in time, all of the information.

This is only going to matter if another "Florida 2000" situation arises, but if it arises, it's really going to matter.

You are essentially arguing for letting alleged blatant criminality slide in case it too closely resembles a potentially legitimate use case in the future. Such a future case would be for the courts to set out. It’s not an argument for allowing forgery and fraud in the present. In such a future case a prosecutor could assess the facts and determine if they should not prosecute, and then even if they did the court can decide if in fact there’s criminal culpability.

An essential aspect of prosecuting crime is intent. The intent between Hawaii 1960 and Nevada 2020 (or Georgia, or Michigan, or…) could not be more different.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You are essentially arguing for letting alleged blatant criminality slide in case it too closely resembles a potentially legitimate use case in the future. Such a future case would be for the courts to set out. It’s not an argument for allowing forgery and fraud in the present. In such a future case a prosecutor could assess the facts and determine if they should not prosecute, and then even if they did the court can decide if in fact there’s criminal culpability.

An essential aspect of prosecuting crime is intent. The intent between Hawaii 1960 and Nevada 2020 (or Georgia, or Michigan, or…) could not be more different.

I'm arguing for common sense. The position is that a slate of electors should be able to prepare and submit their record of votes without legal harassment, even if they are not manifestly the slate of the election winner and there is skepticism that their candidate might prevail. The existence of their submission isn't going to pollute the process; there is nothing which inexorably binds Congress to count their votes in lieu of those of the winning slate if someone accidentally opens the envelope in Washington or becomes temporarily confused between the two or any other mix-up occurs. Everyone who matters will know exactly which EVs are to be counted. Instead, their submission can support the process, by providing a required document in case it is needed. It's not as if the process is unimportant and that there are steps which can be elided; we have the furor over the delay of part of the process in Washington last time as evidence of that.

Clearly preparing a document properly isn't forgery. As to fraud, it's essentially impossible to defraud almost anyone - the entire nation knows the results and can follow disputes. There is no practical risk worth measuring that electors can send up a contingent record of votes in the hopes that Congress will be coerced or deluded into counting it incorrectly. Therefore it should be easy to draw a "bright line" and simply not go after electors, so that none are worried about liability in cases where it might actually be important to have the alternate record.

 

[KevinB]

I'm arguing for common sense. The position is that a slate of electors should be able to prepare and submit their record of votes without legal harassment, even if they are not manifestly the slate of the election winner and there is skepticism that their candidate might prevail. The existence of their submission isn't going to pollute the process; there is nothing which inexorably binds Congress to count their votes in lieu of those of the winning slate if someone accidentally opens the envelope in Washington or becomes temporarily confused between the two or any other mix-up occurs. Everyone who matters will know exactly which EVs are to be counted. Instead, their submission can support the process, by providing a required document in case it is needed. It's not as if the process is unimportant and that there are steps which can be elided; we have the furor over the delay of part of the process in Washington last time as evidence of that.

Clearly preparing a document properly isn't forgery. As to fraud, it's essentially impossible to defraud almost anyone - the entire nation knows the results and can follow disputes. There is no practical risk worth measuring that electors can send up a contingent record of votes in the hopes that Congress will be coerced or deluded into counting it incorrectly. Therefore it should be easy to draw a "bright line" and simply not go after electors, so that none are worried about liability in cases where it might actually be important to have the alternate record.

There is a difference in preparing EV’s in the case of flipping wins due to recounts, and a clear attempt at subverting democracy.

This is why I don’t see any parallel towards the 1960 Hawaii issue and the current ones before the court. If you are affirming something you believe is true based on votes, that then is reversed by recount and a different EV submitted that is significantly different than how some of the current cases were handled. The cases before the court where losses that where attempted to be reversed not from recount, but attempts to subvert the system and order a fraudulent EV to be transferred.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The cases before the court where losses that where attempted to be reversed not from recount, but attempts to subvert the system and order a fraudulent EV to be transferred.

Fraud usually requires a defrauded party, which isn't the case here.

 

[KevinB]

Fraud usually requires a defrauded party, which isn't the case here.

As an American, I would say that every American was defrauded as the actions helped weaken the believe in the validity and fairness our elections.

 

[QV]

As an American, I would say that every American was defrauded as the actions helped weaken the believe in the validity and fairness our elections.

Until a deep dive is done, election integrity is not unquestionable. There are a lot of issues going on that are not reported in the main stream media.

When every single institution has demonstrated to be corrupted in some fashion, at one time or another, in a big or small way, it is not logical to assume that all 50 state election processes have managed to remain free from malfeasance or corruption. There are legitimate questions not suitably unanswered because "orange man bad".

When the opposition establishment labels Trump "Hitler" or "dictator" etc, it creates a situation where doing anything to stop "Hitler" is acceptable.

 

[KevinB]

Until a deep dive is done, election integrity is not unquestionable. There are a lot of issues going on that are not reported in the main stream media.

When every single institution has demonstrated to be corrupted in some fashion, at one time or another, in a big or small way, it is not logical to assume that all 50 state election processes have managed to remain free from malfeasance or corruption. There are legitimate questions not suitably unanswered because "orange man bad".

When the opposition establishment labels Trump "Hitler" or "dictator" etc, it creates a situation where doing anything to stop "Hitler" is acceptable.

I don't disagree with you, however one of the biggest issues we face is the vote harvesting - which both parties are guilty of - and a result neither party will deal with it, until it hits a visible criminal issue (which those cases have been linked here before)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Trump Jokes He Would be a Dictator

I've been flipping through US stations and tapes. The left has picked up on his statement and is going apoplectic over it. 'Trump admits he'll be a dictator!! This is an excersise in trolling. Trump tossed out the bait and they hit it before it reached the water. It is both comical and sad at the same time, but completely expected from the likes of Morning Joe and others that like setting fire to their own hair.

 

[QV]

Hilarious! If he gets in again... imagine the hair on fire reaction.