On December 6, the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 called the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee to ensure that the plan was in motion. During the call, CoConspirator 2 told the Chairwoman that it was important for the RNC to help the Defendant's Campaign gather electors in targeted states, and falsely represented to her that such electors' votes would be used only if ongoing litigation in one of the states changed the results in the Defendant's favor. After the RNC Chairwoman consulted the Campaign and heard that work on gathering electors was underway, she called and reported this information to the Defendant, who responded approvingly.
...
On [December 14], at the direction of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1, fraudulent
electors convened sham proceedings in the seven targeted states to cast fraudulent electoral ballots in favor of the Defendant. In some states, in order to satisfy legal requirements set forth for legitimate electors under state law, state officials were enlisted to provide the fraudulent electors access to state capitol buildings so that they could gather and vote there. In many cases, however, as Co-Conspirator 5 had predicted in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, the fraudulent electors were unable to satisfy the legal requirements.
Nonetheless, as directed in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, shortly after the fraudulent electors met on December 14, the targeted states' fraudulent elector certificates were mailed to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and others. The Defendant and co-conspirators ultimately used the certificates of these fraudulent electors to deceitfully target the government function, and did so contrary to how fraudulent electors were told they would be used.
...
That evening, at 6:26 p.m., the RNC Chairwoman forwarded to the Defendant, through his executive assistant, an email titled, "Electors Recap - Final," which represented that in "Six Contested States"—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— the Defendant's electors had voted in parallel to Biden's electors. The Defendant's executive assistant responded, "It's in front of him!"
Contesting an election isn’t criminal. But criminalizing political speech is. — NOS4A2
Any chance this Jan 6 trial is over before the next election? I assume trump has the resources to delay it for an unreasonable amount of time. — flannel jesus
I think Trump, and his movement is fast becoming one of the most destructive and corrosive forces against the image of 'all things American,' on the global stage and the longer the circus is allowed to continue, — universeness
The best analogy I've heard so far is that these attempts to hide behind the 1st amendment are equivalent to a bank robber claiming that his instructions to have the teller hand over money are covered under the 1st amendment. — EricH
I can imagine a better analogy with a relationship to the perpetrator's belief, not merely what he said in an operational sense. Consider someone who sells a medicine that is actually is a chemical that makes people sick. He is accused of fraud and tried in court. Evidence is presented that he was given data, repeatedly, demonstrating that the medicine didn't make people better but made them sick. Yet he kept selling it and advertising it as a medicinal cure. Those who worked for him and demonstrated this were fired or resigned. He sought out people to work for him who would tell him what he wanted to hear about how the medicine worked. Meanwhile, more and more people got sick from his medicine as he got wealthy from selling it. His defense in court is that he "really believed" it was medicine, and so he wasn't lying he was simply exercising his free speech by advertising what he believed was true.
The way you frame it sounds criminal, but the alternate electors scheme has precedent in the JFK/Nixon election of 1960. The judge there seemed to think them legitimate. Would you call that scheme criminal? An effort to overthrow/subvert an election? — NOS4A2
As I kvetched earlier, the world's obsession with the US could use some whittling down, for your sake and ours. — T Clark
The judge there seemed to think them legitimate. Would you call that scheme criminal? An effort to overthrow/subvert an election? — NOS4A2
What should happen to Biden if he did all that shit? — flannel jesus
What I would say to anybody still defending Trump right now, after everything that's happened is, consider how you would react if Biden loses the election in 2024 and he pulls all the same shit Trump did. — flannel jesus
Or maybe there was some context there that made sense that's absent here. — flannel jesus
The claims that he did so knowingly and fraudulently are without evidence and therefor bullshit. Maybe some evidence will drop in the future but here is nothing. — NOS4A2
he's talking about it like the elector thing is the only thing Donald Trump is in hot water for. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe if is. I'm not even sure it's ONE of the things he's in hot water for. — flannel jesus
I’m sure you could find it if pressed. But comments from Stone and Bannon don’t mean much, I’m afraid. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.