Why is the trial not taking place until 2026? The wheels of justice seem to grind exceptionally slow, especially since some of those accused have flipped to help prosecutors with the cases.
Fake elector plots seem like a kid trying to be sneaky -- "I don't like Mom's decision, so I'll tell Dad she said the opposite." Not well thought out, easily auditable, land you in hot water with both parties, and erode their trust in you moving forward.
Why aren't these people in jail? Why is Guliani running around continuing to spread his lies? The rest of us poor schm**ks would be in jail awaiting trial.
At first I thought the year for the trial was a mistake but then realized it wasn’t. Why such a long time before the trial? Any reason other than just backed-up courts?
Could it also be that the DOJ is strongly urging state attorneys general to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that all i's are dotted and t's crossed? As with the indictments against Trump himself -- they want no (or as little as possible) perception that this is politically motivated.
That is a losing battle. It doesn’t matter how many i’s are dotted or t’s are crossed, if it’s a Democrat in the Oval, Republicans who are indicted and or convicted of, federal crimes, even in the face of mountains of evidence, will cry political witch hunt. Just ignore the fact that the Justice Dept under Biden tried and convicted his own son and convicted Democrat Senator Bob Menendez on multiple felonies.
Honestly, I'm baffled that mainstream media appears to be hiding their heads in the sand on this. Yes...we all know that there was illegal activity that occurred with the 2020 election, and the 'major' players. But details of charges and indictments is non-existent in reporting from major media outlets. And, I do find it interesting that history supports the notion that politicians used to be accountable, even when there was no precedent event to guide them. E.g. Congressional Republicans with regard to 'Watergate' -- encouraging Nixon to resign, and earlier (also Nixon) following the rule of law with respect to the electoral votes. Historically, I believe Richard Nixon set the low end of the bar for presidential integrity. Although, I think we've experienced the new bearer of that distinction.
I’m very pleased that Jenna Ellis has chosen to cooperate with the prosecution in exchange for charges being dropped against her. She will have LOTS of evidence to present!
I noticed that the former President wasn't mentioned in those charged. Was he excluded , or were the charges dropped against him in these cases due to the new immunity created by SCOTUS? It would seem odd for the attorneys involved to be found guilty of crimes related to the electoral scheme and the former President was somehow immune.
In late spring of 2020 my husband & I listened to Donald Trump speak on tv and the first thing I said when he finished was that there was a plan in place to contest the election. My husband said I was reading too much into things but it turned out I was right. He has had four years to ‘correct’ all of the mistakes that were made in 2020, including the fake elector scheme. There were 16 fake electors in the State of Georgia. I live in GA and the new rules created by members of the Election Board concerning certification are designed for disruption and underhandedness. Every person who lives here should be up in arms. Governor Kemp, who has a testy relationship with Trump at best (but will still vote for him), has “recently asked the state attorney general for “guidance” on whether Kemp has the authority to fire the three MAGA board members who are responsible for the new rules.” We’ll see how that pans out. Hopefully the lawsuit brought by the Democrats will be successful.
It strikes me every time I dig into this topic how much of our election process seems almost like an "honor" system. I am sure I am over simplifying it, but that these people thought they could confuse the process with documents they printed on their home printer is WILD. Didn't they think that someone on the other end would know they are fake? Isn't there a seal or a watermark that was missing?
While I can't say with 100% certainty--my guess would be that the documents they submitted did include the signature(s) of the respective state's Secretary of State. I believe this is where the "forgery" charges come from. And, even though the documents were crude--with that signature affixed--it would create a delay in the certification, as it would only be proper to first verify the validity (or invalidity) before discounting it out-of-hand.
And now that we know what was attempted, and they know what failed, who else thinks it’ll be done better or in a way that will cause more chaos and doubt? Like, oh I don’t know, how Georgia can now refuse to certify election results, for instance? I don’t know what has gotten into the Republican Party, but playing by the rules no longer applies. Apparently, losing fairly isn’t appropriate either. The party who tried to overturn the election, but accused the one who wasn’t, is still making every effort to interfere or win by any means. It’s very disappointing.
Curious if the names of the chosen electors are submitted to congress/national archives in advance of the certification process. Seems to me that having a “certified” list of those representing your state would alleviate confusion/chaos.
What are your thoughts Sharon? (Or anyone else, really)
It's my understanding that names of each candidate's electors are submitted/certified by the state's Secretary of State. So, "fake" electors in this case were in fact certified electors...for Trump. Since Trump lost the popular vote in these states--they were not legally allowed to cast an electoral college vote. Sharon--please correct me if I'm wrong.
Couldn't anyone following the election closely know who won the state and which electors should be making an appearance? These are the worst criminals ever, I feel like I am in an episode of Scooby Doo.
On another note, I am curious what qualifies someone to be "awarded" the role of elector. What makes someone a "good" Democrat or Republican. I have to imagine qualification number one is how much money you have donated? *eyeroll*
Money donations can be a factor, but is minor in most cases. When a state's party leaders go about choosing electors, their number one objective is choosing "loyalists." They want to avoid anyone who would have ANY inclination of casting their electoral vote for a candidate other than the party's assigned nominee. In some states, it's actually illegal to do so. Most often, a named "elector" is one who is first--a member in good standing of the local/county/state Party's 'club.' Of these individuals, electors usually have a longstanding relationship with the party as a volunteer. Door knocking during every election (not just 'general' elections)...Making phone calls/answering phones...Helping to organize rallies...(you get the picture). By the way--while it's extremely rare--in the past, there have been "disloyal" electors. However--never has one cast a vote for the other 'major' party's candidate, and their vote proved insignificant to the outcome of the election.
Can an elector for the party/candidate that wins opt to cast their elector vote for the other candidate/party? Has this happened anytime in history. In other words can they bail on their commitment? Friend's billionaire brother seems to think that electors can be bought and that if Harris wins electoral college this might be the outcome. Would love your take on this and if it's even possible.
Why is the trial not taking place until 2026? The wheels of justice seem to grind exceptionally slow, especially since some of those accused have flipped to help prosecutors with the cases.
Fake elector plots seem like a kid trying to be sneaky -- "I don't like Mom's decision, so I'll tell Dad she said the opposite." Not well thought out, easily auditable, land you in hot water with both parties, and erode their trust in you moving forward.
Why aren't these people in jail? Why is Guliani running around continuing to spread his lies? The rest of us poor schm**ks would be in jail awaiting trial.
At first I thought the year for the trial was a mistake but then realized it wasn’t. Why such a long time before the trial? Any reason other than just backed-up courts?
Great question. I don’t have a good answer, but it could also be related to the number of defendants.
Could it also be that the DOJ is strongly urging state attorneys general to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that all i's are dotted and t's crossed? As with the indictments against Trump himself -- they want no (or as little as possible) perception that this is politically motivated.
That is a losing battle. It doesn’t matter how many i’s are dotted or t’s are crossed, if it’s a Democrat in the Oval, Republicans who are indicted and or convicted of, federal crimes, even in the face of mountains of evidence, will cry political witch hunt. Just ignore the fact that the Justice Dept under Biden tried and convicted his own son and convicted Democrat Senator Bob Menendez on multiple felonies.
and...as well, they should be facing jail time!...It's like they thought it was some sort of game...ridiculous!
Honestly, I'm baffled that mainstream media appears to be hiding their heads in the sand on this. Yes...we all know that there was illegal activity that occurred with the 2020 election, and the 'major' players. But details of charges and indictments is non-existent in reporting from major media outlets. And, I do find it interesting that history supports the notion that politicians used to be accountable, even when there was no precedent event to guide them. E.g. Congressional Republicans with regard to 'Watergate' -- encouraging Nixon to resign, and earlier (also Nixon) following the rule of law with respect to the electoral votes. Historically, I believe Richard Nixon set the low end of the bar for presidential integrity. Although, I think we've experienced the new bearer of that distinction.
Yet another way the electoral college introduces additional steps where corruption, greed and dare I say delusion can wreak havoc.
I’m very pleased that Jenna Ellis has chosen to cooperate with the prosecution in exchange for charges being dropped against her. She will have LOTS of evidence to present!
I noticed that the former President wasn't mentioned in those charged. Was he excluded , or were the charges dropped against him in these cases due to the new immunity created by SCOTUS? It would seem odd for the attorneys involved to be found guilty of crimes related to the electoral scheme and the former President was somehow immune.
In late spring of 2020 my husband & I listened to Donald Trump speak on tv and the first thing I said when he finished was that there was a plan in place to contest the election. My husband said I was reading too much into things but it turned out I was right. He has had four years to ‘correct’ all of the mistakes that were made in 2020, including the fake elector scheme. There were 16 fake electors in the State of Georgia. I live in GA and the new rules created by members of the Election Board concerning certification are designed for disruption and underhandedness. Every person who lives here should be up in arms. Governor Kemp, who has a testy relationship with Trump at best (but will still vote for him), has “recently asked the state attorney general for “guidance” on whether Kemp has the authority to fire the three MAGA board members who are responsible for the new rules.” We’ll see how that pans out. Hopefully the lawsuit brought by the Democrats will be successful.
It strikes me every time I dig into this topic how much of our election process seems almost like an "honor" system. I am sure I am over simplifying it, but that these people thought they could confuse the process with documents they printed on their home printer is WILD. Didn't they think that someone on the other end would know they are fake? Isn't there a seal or a watermark that was missing?
While I can't say with 100% certainty--my guess would be that the documents they submitted did include the signature(s) of the respective state's Secretary of State. I believe this is where the "forgery" charges come from. And, even though the documents were crude--with that signature affixed--it would create a delay in the certification, as it would only be proper to first verify the validity (or invalidity) before discounting it out-of-hand.
And now that we know what was attempted, and they know what failed, who else thinks it’ll be done better or in a way that will cause more chaos and doubt? Like, oh I don’t know, how Georgia can now refuse to certify election results, for instance? I don’t know what has gotten into the Republican Party, but playing by the rules no longer applies. Apparently, losing fairly isn’t appropriate either. The party who tried to overturn the election, but accused the one who wasn’t, is still making every effort to interfere or win by any means. It’s very disappointing.
Curious if the names of the chosen electors are submitted to congress/national archives in advance of the certification process. Seems to me that having a “certified” list of those representing your state would alleviate confusion/chaos.
What are your thoughts Sharon? (Or anyone else, really)
It's my understanding that names of each candidate's electors are submitted/certified by the state's Secretary of State. So, "fake" electors in this case were in fact certified electors...for Trump. Since Trump lost the popular vote in these states--they were not legally allowed to cast an electoral college vote. Sharon--please correct me if I'm wrong.
Couldn't anyone following the election closely know who won the state and which electors should be making an appearance? These are the worst criminals ever, I feel like I am in an episode of Scooby Doo.
On another note, I am curious what qualifies someone to be "awarded" the role of elector. What makes someone a "good" Democrat or Republican. I have to imagine qualification number one is how much money you have donated? *eyeroll*
Money donations can be a factor, but is minor in most cases. When a state's party leaders go about choosing electors, their number one objective is choosing "loyalists." They want to avoid anyone who would have ANY inclination of casting their electoral vote for a candidate other than the party's assigned nominee. In some states, it's actually illegal to do so. Most often, a named "elector" is one who is first--a member in good standing of the local/county/state Party's 'club.' Of these individuals, electors usually have a longstanding relationship with the party as a volunteer. Door knocking during every election (not just 'general' elections)...Making phone calls/answering phones...Helping to organize rallies...(you get the picture). By the way--while it's extremely rare--in the past, there have been "disloyal" electors. However--never has one cast a vote for the other 'major' party's candidate, and their vote proved insignificant to the outcome of the election.
Can an elector for the party/candidate that wins opt to cast their elector vote for the other candidate/party? Has this happened anytime in history. In other words can they bail on their commitment? Friend's billionaire brother seems to think that electors can be bought and that if Harris wins electoral college this might be the outcome. Would love your take on this and if it's even possible.