• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Special counsel trades immunity for fake elector testimony as Jan 6 probe heats up

dcsports said:
Not a good comparison at all. Again, they were very clear about the purpose.

The electors are appointed by the winning party. The issue was the deadlines involved, and concern that if a state's results were overturned in one of the challenged states, there wouldn't be electors at all - cancelling the vote. There is no contingency for that. So the hope was that the losing party would appoint a slate of alternates, and if the results of a state were overturned, the alternate slate would be available. It obviously was a longshot, and given that no state changed, was never used. But they didn't lie about the purpose or attempt to pass the electors off as the appointed ones.

This is more histrionics, and an attempt to use lawfare to try to 'punish' people who disagree.
Click to expand...

Private citizens don't get to decide what slate they like best.

You said they didn't lie about the purpose. They sent fakes. They're not the legislature.

I don't think they're being punished for their disagreement. They're offered immunity for having submitted fake documents when the certificates of vote were sent to NARA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpn
soap box said:
Private citizens don't get to decide what slate they like best.

You said they didn't lie about the purpose. They sent fakes. They're not the legislature.

I don't think they're being punished for their disagreement. They're offered immunity for having submitted fake documents when the certificates of vote were sent to NARA.
Click to expand...
Again, no 'fakes' submitted. These were party officials, and were clear about what they were doing. In most cases (if not all) it was even on video, with reporters in tow. You can argue in circles, but it doesn't change that.
 
But...but...Hunters laptop
 
dcsports said:
I didn't. I removed the deflections, and clearly noted that. Again.... take care.
Click to expand...
Lying, as usual, my post did not contain the phrase you inserted. There is not a single post in our exchanges where you did not lie.
 
dcsports said:
Again, no 'fakes' submitted. These were party officials, and were clear about what they were doing. In most cases (if not all) it was even on video, with reporters in tow. You can argue in circles, but it doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
Even if they were party officials that does not meet the requirements of any state law. They may have been party officials, but none of them were members of their state legislature.

All I'm saying is that's the law.
I would put it this way - they're not in trouble if they just tell investigators the truth. Lawfare is an inappropriate claim as they're not facing trial, they are granted immunity for the full story to be revealed.

You're not against having them tell the truth, are you?
 
So, in Trumplandia:

What they did was not illegal. Just, ya know, "alternative" slates of electors. Like, "Alternative facts".

But some electors have accepted immunity deals (no doubt at the advice of their council), deals that would have to be accepted by a judge.

Is this the dEePStaiT I have been hearing about? So the prosecuors, defense lawyers, judges, and electors are all just incompetent, or lying, or both?

Oooooor....

It was probably illegal.
 
dcsports said:
It was an alternate slate of electors. Again, they were upfront about what they were doing.

There was no established process for the situation they were in, and they hedged their bets in case the results for one of the states was overturned.
Click to expand...

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2014-title3/pdf/USCODE-2014-title3-chap1-sec5.pdf

§6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration.

There is no such thing as an "alternate slate of electors", the law required (requires) that the electors are those submitted under the seal of the State (meaning the Governor or possibly the Secretary of State, may vary by state). There is only one slate submitted under the state seal, any others submitted by a party (even if they process some sort of "state" blanket) are not valid.

[Note: I refernce the law as it existed in 2014 in the PDF, because the current section of 3 USC Section 15 "Counting Electoral Votes in Congress" was updated in 2022. So I'm citing the language as it existed prior to that change.]

WW
 
dcsports said:
Again, no 'fakes' submitted. These were party officials, and were clear about what they were doing. In most cases (if not all) it was even on video, with reporters in tow. You can argue in circles, but it doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

"Parties" don't get to submit the electoral votes to Congress and the Archivist.

They official EC votes are transmitted under the seal of the State, not the party.

WW
 
My-Post-Copy-58.png


Screen-Shot-2022-12-23-at-2.45.12-PM.png




On the left of the images is the valid submission under seal of the state. On the right are the fake submissions.

#1 You can see the language is virtually verbatim between the two fakes meaning they were orchestrated (i.e. a conspiracy existed to produce them).

#2 Read the text of the first paragraph of the fake. It says they are the duly qualified slate electors from that state which is false. They were not duly qualified as the electors for that state, the duly qualified slate of electors is submitted under the state seal.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2014-title3/pdf/USCODE-2014-title3-chap1-sec5.pdf

§6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration.

There is no such thing as an "alternate slate of electors", the law required (requires) that the electors are those submitted under the seal of the State (meaning the Governor or possibly the Secretary of State, may vary by state). There is only one slate submitted under the state seal, any others submitted by a party (even if they process some sort of "state" blanket) are not valid.

[Note: I refernce the law as it existed in 2014 in the PDF, because the current section of 3 USC Section 15 "Counting Electoral Votes in Congress" was updated in 2022. So I'm citing the language as it existed prior to that change.]

WW
Click to expand...
Again, there is no process for the situation faced. It was an attempt at a contingency plan, and it was well broadcast what they were doing. As you can see from post #113, the two could be differentiated.
 
dcsports said:
Again, there is no process for the situation faced. It was an attempt at a contingency plan, and it was well broadcast what they were doing. As you can see from post #113, the two could be differentiated.
Click to expand...
Think we are all about to find out just how "legal"it was. I expect that we will soon see indictments out of GA and it looks like Smith is on it too.
 
WorldWatcher said:
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2014-title3/pdf/USCODE-2014-title3-chap1-sec5.pdf

§6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment,
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, the "alternate electors" the "fake electors" were set up in states where Trump was in litigation on his claim that the electors, as voted by the legislature, were the 'fake electors" inasmuch as their election was as the result of election.

The concern was, if Trump was to prevail in his lawsuit and somehow that election of those electors were thrown out (which itself is of dubious constitutional validity) there might not be enough time to beat the safe harbor proviso and elect a slate to represent the state in the electoral college.
Hence, the 'alternate' slate of electors being set and ready to go.

You guys are really reaching here. It really was a clown show-- and the only reason it is being treated seriously is because of the riot on Jan 6.
 
dcsports said:
Again, there is no process for the situation faced. It was an attempt at a contingency plan, and it was well broadcast what they were doing. As you can see from post #113, the two could be differentiated.
Click to expand...

Yes there was a process.

I quoted the law. The electors had to be submitted under seal of the state, the fake electors were not yet they claimed to have been duly elected and represented the the state. That is false.

And yes, there is a "contingency plan".

Normal Process:
  • States select their electors,
  • Electors meet in the State capitol on the appointed day and cast their votes,
  • The state tallies to votes and submits them under the state seal to the Archivist and Congress,
  • On the appointed day (by law) the President of the Senate (embodied in the Vice President) opens the votes for tally,
  • The person receiving a majority of EC votes (IIRC right now it's 270) is declared the winner of the Presidential and Vice Presidential races respectively.
Contingency Plan A:
  • During the counting of the votes a Senator and Representative jointly and in writing submit and objection to the President of the Senate,
  • Counting is suspended and the two houses of Congress adjourn to their respective chambers,
  • In their chambers each house debates the objection and then votes,
  • If BOTH houses sustain the objection the EC votes for that state are rejected,
  • The counting continues,
  • The person receiving a majority of EC votes (IIRC right now it's 270) is declared the winner of the Presidential and Vice Presidential races respectively.
Contingency Plan B:
  • If after the counting is complete and no individual has received a majority of possible EC votes,
  • Then the houses adjourn to their respective chambers,
  • The House votes for the President, based on 1 vote for each state caucus of representatives from the top (IIRC) two EC vote recipients,
  • The Senate votes for the Vice President from the top (IIRC) three EC vote recipients,
  • The selected President from the House vote and selected Vice President from the Senate vote are declared the winners.
.
.
.
.
If you mean there is no contingency plan for the loser of an election to remain in power having lost the election, then in that regards I would agree.

WW
 
Athanasius68 said:
As has been pointed out, the "alternate electors" the "fake electors" were set up in states where Trump was in litigation on his claim that the electors, as voted by the legislature, were the 'fake electors" inasmuch as their election was as the result of election.

The concern was, if Trump was to prevail in his lawsuit and somehow that election of those electors were thrown out (which itself is of dubious constitutional validity) there might not be enough time to beat the safe harbor proviso and elect a slate to represent the state in the electoral college.
Hence, the 'alternate' slate of electors being set and ready to go.

You guys are really reaching here. It really was a clown show-- and the only reason it is being treated seriously is because of the riot on Jan 6.
Click to expand...

The lawsuits pertaining to the validity of the election were over and had been settled by the respective states prior to the voting of the valid EC electors on December 14th.

WW
 
Callen said:
Think we are all about to find out just how "legal"it was. I expect that we will soon see indictments out of GA and it looks like Smith is on it too.
Click to expand...

🤷‍♂️All this boils down to is seeking to criminalize a specious constitutional theory.

On a different level, if you guys can't say for certain that the idea was "illegal" then I would suggest a big failure on your end.
Laws should be clear cut.
 
WorldWatcher said:
The lawsuits pertaining to the validity of the election were over and had been settled by the respective states prior to the voting of the valid EC electors on December 14th.

WW
Click to expand...

Yes-- that was the deadline.
 
Athanasius68 said:
🤷‍♂️All this boils down to is seeking to criminalize a specious constitutional theory.

On a different level, if you guys can't say for certain that the idea was "illegal" then I would suggest a big failure on your end.
Laws should be clear cut.
Click to expand...

Filing false documents to the Archivist and Congress is for certain illegal.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
Filing false documents to the Archivist and Congress is for certain illegal.

WW
Click to expand...

Without the riot, it would be seen for what it was-- nonsense.

And if that is all you got after two years-- a few people had an asinine constitutional and political theory-- then you have nothing.
 
soap box said:
Even if they were party officials that does not meet the requirements of any state law.
Click to expand...

So then what is the concern?
soap box said:
They may have been party officials, but none of them were members of their state legislature.
Click to expand...

soap box said:
All I'm saying is that's the law.
I would put it this way - they're not in trouble if they just tell investigators the truth.
Click to expand...

The truth about what? That they think the Constitution gives the VP and Congress certain authority when it comes to electoral votes?
That sounds more like a college seminar (or a subject on DP), than anything a special prosecutor should be devoting his time to.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Without the riot, it would be seen for what it was-- nonsense.

And if that is all you got after two years-- a few people had an asinine constitutional and political theory-- then you have nothing.
Click to expand...

Filing false documents to Congress has nothing to do with the riots that tried to prevent Congress from doing it's duty.

The fake electors signed and mailed the documents weeks before the riot.

WW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom