I think that’s gono or dia.
1 Like
Have we forgot how gullible the far right is?
They can be both guilty and misled.
Who are the dirtbag officials that were instructing the fakers?
1 Like
They’re not gullible… they just don’t give a shit about the law, unless they can bend it to their benefit. That’s sort of the working definition of fascism, in fact.
Stop assuming they’re just misled, when it’s been made crystal clear that they are malicious.
8 Likes
The 9/11 hijackers believed the US was an evil empire coming to kill them, and they were brainwashed by a charismatic leader who told him what to do, so we really can’t construe their actions as having criminal intent…
1 Like
Just wondering out loud how all of this worked, not trying to defend the fakers.
My assumption was that the fakers were just random people like the heating and plumbing guy in Michigan, but after doing some reading they are mostly political career types and should have known, or at least had the resources and forethought to get a second legal opinion.
it is possible. the point is that – however, misled they were about the election – they are responsible for how they acted on those beliefs.
they signed forms that declared they were the official and valid electors in an attempt to illegally sway an election.
they had plenty of legal options for recourse, and they chose instead the illegal option. they should be held accountable that, and i’m hoping the jury decides so.
easily googleable:
Eighteen other people, including ■■■■■’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, were also indicted, accused of joining ■■■■■ in efforts to unlawfully change the outcome of the election.
eta.
agree 100%.
for the sake of clarity – everything i was saying above is even if we take them at their word. but i think their word is worth less than the paper they signed their names to.
10 Likes
Agreed. Thanks for doing my homework!
oh geez. i didn’t know this was for class. good luck! 
5 Likes
I’d have to look at the specific statute they’ve been charged with violating, but people misunderstand the intent requirement a lot. Even lawyers. It may be here that it’s necessary to prove that they intended fraud, in which case, yes, the AG undermined her case a little (but not fatally) here. Sometimes, however, all that’s necessary is to prove that the actions were intentional, not that some specific end result was intended. Again, you’d have to read the statute, but this is a really easy thing to get wrong. With murder, for example, it’s not necessary to prove that the defendant actually intended for the victim to die, but only that (let’s say the victim was shot) the defendant intentionally shot the victim. That one is an obvious difference, but sometimes it can be more subtle.
14 Likes
No officials were involved. That’s how these fraudulent electors knew they weren’t real electors. Because if they were, there would have been officials involved, and it would have happened in a government building instead of the basement conference room of a Holiday Inn Express.
12 Likes
Wow, what a stupid plan.
Then again the entire party did publicly bend the knee, I guess he finally found their true limit.
I hope it’s lame-ass enough. I keep thinking of the Twinkie Defense and murderer White getting only 5 years in prison.
The original scheme, as I understand it, was that the Founding Fathers did not trust the commoners to elect a leader directly, so they instituted this “college” to make sure that the “right” man was put in power. The electoral college was a check on democracy, by men who liked the idea but were not so sold on the practice. (Probably oversimplified, but broad-strokes correct? Maybe?)
7 Likes
Yep, we were told in 12th grade that, more specifically, it was a backstop in case the majority voted for a demagogue. Which didn’t happen, yet we got one 
7 Likes
Well, no… that’s not how the elector system works. Yes, they are “normal” people, but they are also heavily involved, at the local level in the GOP. they don’t just pick random people off the street to be electors, it’s always someone at the local level with heavy involvement in the party.
No, but they were people loyal to the GOP (or at least the Trump version of it).
5 Likes
Federalist 68
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
So much naivité!
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,‘’ yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.
3 Likes
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
