A Deeply Fractured US

[mariomike]

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.

You are likely one of the few of us who are eligible to vote in their elections.

My wife voted in it and said basically the same thing.

 

[brihard]

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.

If this is your genuine belief, there’s nothing I nor anyone else can do to help you. I’m gonna walk away from this rabbit hole. I strongly suspect your position will in no way shape or form match the eventual court outcome.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If this is your genuine belief, there’s nothing I nor anyone else can do to help you. I’m gonna walk away from this rabbit hole. I strongly suspect your position will in no way shape or form match the eventual court outcome.

Of course it won't change the outcome. The Argus Filches of the world want to see some punishment.

 

[lenaitch]

As to fraud, it's essentially impossible to defraud almost anyone - the entire nation knows the results and can follow disputes.

Do you really believe the first part? Police services with resources dedicated to nothing else would suggest otherwise.

The clarity of the outcome was likely less clear at the time.

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

You are applying the Canadian definition of 'general fraud' ('property, money, valuable security . . . '). There are a number of other criminal offences for, statements, etc. done in an official or even an unofficial capacity, knowing them to be false and intending that someone act on them.

Without knowing the actual state or federal charges involved, can we assume that prosecutors, jurors, etc. are of the opinion that the foundation of an offence is made out, or are they all part of a grand conspiracy?

An honest believe in the validity of a set of facts that ultimately turn out to be wrong is always a defence to many charges. When people are supposed to be acting in an official capacity and/or exercising an authority, that bar sits higher than it might for a member of the public, and it diminishes further when more people trying to use it.

With (great) power comes (great) responsibility.

I guess we will find out.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Do you really believe the first part? Police services with resources dedicated to nothing else would suggest otherwise.

In US law (at least), it's important to have a victim of fraud in order to prosecute it (based on what I've read by US legal commentators). In the specific case, most commentators assume it's "voters", assuming there is some feasible path by which someone could get an alternate EV slate into the final count in Congress.
I assume the point of police services is to investigate, not prosecute.

I guess we will find out.

Correct.

[Add: but to be cynical, if all the prosecutors are looking for is to punish wrongthinkers and not to decide important points of election law, they could just do the usual and bulk up the charge sheet and go fishing for process crimes such as false statements during interviews, and then invite the suspects to take plea deals which settle nothing except punishment.]

 

[brihard]

For those interested, Hunter Biden appears to have just been hit with a nine count felony indictment on federal tax offences. Twitter thread with some summary (and a link to the indictment) here. I’ve not had a chance to look at much yet, but it appears to cover several years and some pretty blatant alleged criminal tax violations.

https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1732934863747993711

 

[FJAG]

CNN article here"

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/politics/hunter-biden-criminal-case/index.html

Looks like the Bidens don't own the DoJ after all notwithstanding the right wing conspiracy theories.

 

[brihard]

CNN article here"



Looks like the Bidens don't own the DoJ after all notwithstanding the right wing conspiracy theories.

Time will tell. Joe Biden could at any point essentially order the prosecution dropped, pardon his son, or commute an eventual sentence on any federal matter.

 

[KevinB]

Time will tell. Joe Biden could at any point essentially order the prosecution dropped, pardon his son, or commute an eventual sentence on any federal matter.

Pardons are generally done when 'going out of business' though...

 

[FJAG]

Time will tell. Joe Biden could at any point essentially order the prosecution dropped, pardon his son, or commute an eventual sentence on any federal matter.

Which doesn't negate the fact that the DoJ has gone ahead with the charges. TBH, I think this is a little bit of piling on by the DoJ - a not unusual course for prosecutors to take - considering the plea deal that was there before and which was inches away from consummation.

 

[lenaitch]

In US law (at least), it's important to have a victim of fraud in order to prosecute it (based on what I've read by US legal commentators). In the specific case, most commentators assume it's "voters", assuming there is some feasible path by which someone could get an alternate EV slate into the final count in Congress.
I assume the point of police services is to investigate, not prosecute.


Correct.

[Add: but to be cynical, if all the prosecutors are looking for is to punish wrongthinkers and not to decide important points of election law, they could just do the usual and bulk up the charge sheet and go fishing for process crimes such as false statements during interviews, and then invite the suspects to take plea deals which settle nothing except punishment.]

I took your words at book value;

As to fraud, it's essentially impossible to defraud almost anyone

It is important to have a victim. There is an offence up here of 'defraud the public', maybe they have an equivalent. There are also 'attempt' and conspiracy offences (our laws).

In our system, it is the role of the police to investigate, not prosecute, but it must be remembered that the prosecutorial system in the US has a fairly extensive investigative component unto itself. I would be surprised if police were involved in these actions; the FBI perhaps if they are federal charges.

Prosecutors looking "punish wrongdoers" is actually their job description (well, it is likely more neutrally worded, 'bring evidence of crime before the court', or something). Deciding important points of election law is for the courts and they can only rule on a set of facts before them. If the bench starts being activist ('making law') people howl. If they passively interpret law as written, people howl. What's a system to do.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What's a system to do.

Start drinking heavily.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Democratic Coalition Is Falling Apart

Where is the popular front against Trumpism?

www.liberalpatriot.com

The Democratic “base” as a whole. This group isn’t in the Split Ticket data, but is displayed in the DCorps battleground data. In their definition the Democratic base is an amalgamation of Democratic-friendly demographic groups: “Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBTQ+ community, Gen Z, millennials, unmarried and college women”. Overall, across this constellation of groups, Biden trails Trump in the presidential battleground by 4 points—no better for Biden than among all voters in the battleground.

Young voters. The Split Ticket data show Biden carrying 18-29 year olds (primarily Gen Z) by 16 points, a 7-point pro-Trump shift relative to 2020....
Among 30-44 year olds (primarily Millennials), Biden is ahead by only 8 points, a 6-point pro-Trump shift compared to 2020....Trump is 28 points ahead of Biden among white Gen Z voters in the presidential battleground and 25 points ahead among white Millennials....Among white Gen Z voters, Biden’s approval rating is 27 percent compared to 59 percent (!) for Trump; among white Millennials, Biden’s rating is 33 percent while Trump’s is 60 percent.

Hispanic voters. The measured pro-Trump shift here is particularly startling. Biden’s average lead among Hispanics is a mere 5 points, an 18-point decline

Black voters. In the Split Ticket data, Biden is averaging a 52-point lead among black voters. That may sound good but it actually represents a precipitous 29-point drop from Biden’s 81-point lead in 2020.

Women voters. The Split Ticket data show Biden’s average lead among women voters at 6 points, down 7 points from his 2020 showing. ...
white unmarried women (25-point Trump lead) and white working-class (noncollege) women under 50 (47-point Trump lead).


The under 50 white working class women, in fact, give Biden an abysmal 16 percent approval rating compared to 57 percent for Trump.

Working-class voters. The Split Ticket data show Trump averaging solid leads among both high school or less (15 points) and some college (9 points) voters. These leads represent, respectively, a 5-point and a 7.5-point shift toward Trump relative to 2020.

In the DCorps data, Trump has an amazing 21-point lead among the working class as a whole in the battleground states and districts. And that’s 63 percent of the voters in these areas—the areas that, as noted, will decide the outcome in 2024.

Independent and moderate voters. The Split Ticket data show Trump leading Biden by 6 points among independents, a 15-point turnaround from Biden’s 9-point lead in 2020. Biden currently leads by 14 points among moderate voters, which sounds OK, but is actually a 12-point decline from his lead in 2020. And in the DCorps presidential battleground, Trump leads independents by a healthy 18 points.

And those are pro-Democrat numbers.

 

[kkwd]

I would be surprised if police were involved in these actions; the FBI perhaps if they are federal charges.

The IRS is equipped to handle this. Here is a job opportunity if you wish to apply
IRS Jobs
From the job description:

Carry a firearm; must be prepared to protect him/herself or others from physical attacks at any time and without warning and use firearms in life-threatening situations; must be willing to use force up to and including the use of deadly force.

 

[KevinB]

The IRS is equipped to handle this. Here is a job opportunity if you wish to apply
IRS Jobs
From the job description:

That’s boilerplate for any Fed LE job. Postal Inspectors, Health and Human Services Investigators etc.

One can argue (as I have repeatedly) that most of those jobs shouldn’t have a LE aspect, and that the Investigation side should be linked with a Federal LE agency specifically- but generally no one in a true LEA wants to go and do several years at one of those ‘backwater’ jobs. So they have their own.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Democratic Coalition Is Falling Apart

Where is the popular front against Trumpism?

www.liberalpatriot.com

And those are pro-Democrat numbers.

I'd like to see the same comparison for any other candidates like DeSantis, Halley, Newsom , etc and see where they sit on the spectrum. Are their numbers similar, better, worse or does anyone really care about other contenders besides Biden and Trump.

 

[brihard]

That’s boilerplate for any Fed LE job. Postal Inspectors, Health and Human Services Investigators etc.

One can argue (as I have repeatedly) that most of those jobs shouldn’t have a LE aspect, and that the Investigation side should be linked with a Federal LE agency specifically- but generally no one in a true LEA wants to go and do several years at one of those ‘backwater’ jobs. So they have their own.

It makes sure that there actually are investigative resources dedicated for that. Say they nixed the law enforcement positions from a number of those agencies, odds are FBI would inherit them. Thing is, now FBI needs to carve out some bodies to do that work. Which will happen initially and last for a while, but as soon as there’s a big counterterror priority, those bodies disappear and realistically the ‘weird statute’ teams will only ever get a portion of those bodies back. The end result is those statutes end up barely enforced with any investigative horsepower.

 

[RangerRay]

It’s nice to have a single all-singing all-dancing law enforcement agency, but when that agency faces cuts, it will protect its core mandate while cutting the “side” stuff. Hence, you get specialized law enforcement agencies.

 

[brihard]

It’s nice to have a single all-singing all-dancing law enforcement agency, but when that agency faces cuts, it will protect its core mandate while cutting the “side” stuff. Hence, you get specialized law enforcement agencies.

Precisely this. Unless an external agency provides some sort of fenced funding that can only be used for a particular investigative mandate. That works as long as the investigative agency honours that funding and doesn’t just shrug and forego it because the Human Resources simply don’t exist.

Another consideration is that a smaller, more narrowly-scoped agency can tailor its recruiting, selection, and training to their particular mandate. A larger organization may simply have common training standards across the board, and may struggle to attract people who might be really suited to a certain niche but are less interested in rolling the dice and ending up working something completely different.

 

[lenaitch]

The IRS is equipped to handle this. Here is a job opportunity if you wish to apply
IRS Jobs
From the job description:

You're right. I should have spoken more broadly and said 'federal agency'. It could well involve DOJ which has an investigative mandate.

Precisely this. Unless an external agency provides some sort of fenced funding that can only be used for a particular investigative mandate. That works as long as the investigative agency honours that funding and doesn’t just shrug and forego it because the Human Resources simply don’t exist.

Another consideration is that a smaller, more narrowly-scoped agency can tailor its recruiting, selection, and training to their particular mandate. A larger organization may simply have common training standards across the board, and may struggle to attract people who might be really suited to a certain niche but are less interested in rolling the dice and ending up working something completely different.

I was assigned to write a paper on a topic similar to this in relation to Ontario provincial statute/regulatory enforcement back in the 1990s. Senior command wanted background information on the feasibility of the OPP absorbing all enforcement from other ministries. It's not completely comparable since not all regulatory law enforcement ends up in court, but it ultimately went nowhere for a number of valid reasons. Some of the enforcement personnel from some ministries were all for it because enforcement was such a peripheral activity in their particular ministry and they felt they lacked respect and support.