General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsImagine this, A fake elector being questioned in front of a federal grand jury.
Prosecutor; I would like to remind sir you are under oath. Did you know you were not an official elector when you signed this document claiming you were an official elector?
Defendant; Yes, but we were told by Trumps lawyers everything we were doing was legal. I was following legal advise.
Prosecutor; Did you know you were not an official elector.
Defendant; Yes.
Prosecutor; The prosecution rests.
I believe it's fair to say some of the fake electors are going to take plea deals. They are going to turn in order to to save their asses.
I am beginning to believe the fake electors investigation is going to bust open the entire Jan. 6th investigation. It ties everything together.
Blue Owl
(50,494 posts)ProudMNDemocrat
(16,789 posts)Who else had so much riding on making sure he we on no matter the cost?
Prison us in the forecast.
Pobeka
(4,999 posts)The fact they were willing to go down this road in the first place tells me how delusional they how horrible they think this country will be if Trump isn't back in power somehow.
They think jail is no worse than living in a country without Trump, and the old white man racist culture in place.
They think if they can prevent Trump's prosecution, he'll get back in power and they'll all get pardons.
100% facist, anti-democracy mindset.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,656 posts)There are 60+ potential defendants, and the odds that more than one will flip to avoid both long prison terms and bankruptcy is high.
Pobeka
(4,999 posts)These folks are not good at rational thinking, or they never would've signed on in the first place.
I hope you are right, and I am wrong.
ProfessorGAC
(65,168 posts)These people were sure they would succeed.
Consequences were never a consideration.
They very well could be now & they could be facing penalties beyond anything they imagined.
They imagined ticker tape, not indictments.
That may be quite the slap of reality that changes minds.
Pobeka
(4,999 posts)This is the crowd literally killing themselves over COVID.
I think they could easily believe TFG would parden them.
Friggin' mass hysteria.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)Crimes probably seem like good ideas when you assume you won't face consequences. Those feelings go away once caught.
malaise
(269,157 posts)That is all
calimary
(81,466 posts)Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)There is no parole in the federal system. If convicted, they'd be sent away for a long, long time. And the likelihood that DJT is ever coming back to save their asses is slim to none.
They're all going to flip and point upwards in the food chain as to who told who to do what and when.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)But I'll take it!
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)The sedition charges will take time and effort to put together.
Best to threaten these folks with a sure thing and backfill in the meantime. All of these fake electors should do at least 5 years hard time...as long as they give testimony to haul in the crooks up the chain of command.
gab13by13
(21,402 posts)know that it was going to be mailed to the National Archives and to Congress? Maybe the person who authorized the mailing of the document will be the only one liable for mail fraud. I'm just an internet lawyer.
I do listen to former prosecutors on TV though and they all say the same thing, in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove intent.
Don't get me wrong, I believe these people are guilty and need to be squeezed. The plan should be to get a fake elector to flip on the Big Fish, and no, I don't for a minute believe that Rudy was the mastermind behind this.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)There are two elements: devising a scheme to defraud and use of the mail to effectuate that scheme. Perhaps only the parties who actually placed the documents in the mail are eligible for the charge. That's a good point and one that this internet lawyer has no answer to. Maybe Daniel Goldman or Glenn Kirshner can weigh in.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)It was mailed, game over.
onenote
(42,759 posts)And, if you are, how familiar are you with mail fraud cases?
There are a lot of "internet lawyers" claiming this and that are slam dunk cases. Actual practitioners will tell you that there are very few, if any, "slam dunk" or "open and shut" cases.
KS Toronado
(17,317 posts)I'll wait and see what the DOJ says when the time comes.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Pretend were fake electors, sign a fake document and pretend we are completely innocent because we were told by crooked lawyers it's all legal. We would be indicted. What grand jury would believe the excuse, we didn't know it was going to mailed in. This is a slam dunk case and you don't have to be a lawyer to know that.
The AG from Michigan also called it a slam dunk case.
nvme
(860 posts)The doc they were signing had to be transported to DC some how right? So how could they not know what they were signing was going to cross state lines.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Intent,as I understand it, is not a factor, simply making the call and asking to change the outcome is a violation of law.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)That is what Ms. Willis said on MSNBC last week. Not sure if it was on Rachel or Chris Hayes but she said that is why it was taking so long because he was not hiding it.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)The Georgia law does not require to prove that he intended to overturn the election results or intended to form a conspiracy, etc.
There are three different statues that Trump violated but one of them is criminal solicitation. Simply making the call is the crime, they don't have to prove that there was a likelihood of success or agreement. Trump did hide it, it only came out when Raffensperger released the call.
Prosecutors will continue investigation for as long as there is a chance for even more discovery, that is why good prosecutors have a 95% conviction rate. In any case DA Willis only requested the Grand Jury two weeks ago and it was only approved last week and will start on May 2nd.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Their theory was, the National Archives will accept the document that reaches them first. So they signed these things and shipped them out before the legitimate electors could.
The Archivist (an Obama appointee, btw) took one look at these things that were missing ALL three things that prove the legitimacy of the certificate - two signatures and the state seal, noticed they were claiming the person who came in second really won the election, and said nope.
onenote
(42,759 posts)So its not surprising that non-lawyers don't quite understand it,what it requires the prosecution to establish, and why prosecutors have to carefully navigate around the good faith/advice of counsel defense.
In other words, its not necessarily the slam dunk that many non-lawyers here seem to believe it would be. I'm not saying the case can't be made, just that no prosecutor is going to rush this case along without a thorough investigation of all of the communications surrounding the creation and submission of the "alternate" certifications.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)I think mail fraud is a nonstarter charge for most of them.
"We're charging you with mail fraud!"
"I didn't mail that. Go away."
52 USC 20511(2)(b) might be interesting:
A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office
(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by
(A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,
This one's good for five years prison time.
I do have a bit of a concern about the viability of a good-faith defense. I know the basic sequence for a presidential election at state level is:
1. The voters cast their ballots and local election boards count the votes.
2. After the county/parish election board does all its work, they report the counts to the secretary of state.
3. The secretary of state sends letters reporting the official count to all the electors, and directs the electors of the candidate who won the state to report to the Statehouse for the official vote.
4. The official vote is placed on certificates which are signed and sealed for transmission to the National Archives.
Trying to pull off a good-faith defense basically comes down to "I saw the official count said Biden won but I didn't believe it so I cast an electoral vote for Trump anyway." This is right up there with "I don't believe there's really a law that says you can't rob banks."
usaf-vet
(6,207 posts)calimary
(81,466 posts)Doesnt matter. They got him.
All that matters is - they finally nailed his ass.
Stuart G
(38,445 posts)And it will be clear to all, that he cheated on taxes when it is all over. If Trump thinks he can get away with ...it all
than .....all includes ....paying no taxes, or far less taxes..
..... Donald Trump pulls every kind of trick a person can imagine.
Avoiding taxes is a trick to pay less. (or not pay at all).. That is who Trump is: A Trickster, and a Total Liar...
And that is what will bring Trump down..those 6 words...." A Trickster and A Total Liar"
Fiendish Thingy
(15,656 posts)Max sentence of five years, better than mail fraud or seditious conspiracy, both of which carry up to 20 year sentences.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Not likely. These people are so brainwashed theyll never go for it.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,656 posts)These fraudulent electors are mostly party apparatchiks, wealthier than your average Capitol trespasser, but without access to millions to spend on defending federal and state charges.
There are 60+ potential defendants; some of them are sure to flip.
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)oldsoftie
(12,597 posts)He was standing with Lin Wood for this BS. All because he doesn't like Brian Kemp.
I bet Kemp is laughing his ass off
Casady1
(2,133 posts)Very punchable face.
oldsoftie
(12,597 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)Fraud is a specific intent crime and a good faith belief that one's actions were lawful -- supported by evidence that one was acting on the advice of counsel -- can be an affirmative defense and the burden is on the prosecution to overcome that defense.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-969-defenses-good-faith
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)The intent is obvious, there was no good faith belief in anything. They knew exactly what they were doing. People who sit on a grand jury are not stupid.
onenote
(42,759 posts)But not every indictment results in a guilty verdict or a plea deal. And if the prosecution made no effort to rebut a "good faith" affirmative defense at trial, the judge would have little choice but to grant a directed verdict or face being reversed on appeal.
Again, the defense can be overcome, but "no its not' won't be a successful rebuttal.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,656 posts)Also, its highly unlikely that a potential defendant would testify to a grand jury, they would more than likely not be called, or if called, take the fifth.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)Just because they believed the "election was stolen" they would also know they were not the "duly elected electors of their state" and they knew it was going to be sent in.
onenote
(42,759 posts)and advice of counsel defense comes into play, even at the grand jury stage. See, e.g., US v. Stevens, 771 Fed.Supp. 2d 556 (D. MD. 2011), where the court dismissed an indictment where the prosecution gave an incorrect instruction to the grand jury regarding the advice of counsel defense when it suggested that all that was needed to establish probable cause was that the defendant "reasonably knew that she was making false statements."
"There can be little doubt that the instruction given the grand jury regarding the advice of counsel defense was erroneous. The prosecutors' response to the grand juror's question clearly indicated that the advice of counsel defense was not relevant at the charging stage. Mr. Jasperse stated "the advice of counsel defense . . . is a defense that a defendant can raise, once the defendant has been charged." The second prosecutor, Ms. Bloom, reinforced the statement that the advice of counsel was irrelevant at the charging stage by stating that "while [the advice of counsel defense] can be relevant at trial . . . if you find probable cause for the elements here that the attorney Lauren Stevens reasonably knew that she was making false statements and the elements that Patrick [Jasperse] went through, then that's sufficient to find probable cause." The grand jurors were thus instructed erroneously that the advice of counsel was irrelevant to a determination of whether there was probable cause to indict Stevens."
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)The way I understand the case was the prosecution told the grand jury that it was irrelevant if the defendents were told by their own lawyers that it was legal. But that just means it is relevant what the defendents were told by their own lawyers.
But this case is different because in this case it isn't their own lawyers but the campaign lawyers who are instructing them.
onenote
(42,759 posts)For example, just last year, a federal court ruled that a good faith defense could be based on on legal advice provided by a third party's counsel and passed along to the defendants -- i.e a "derivative advice of counsel" argument can be made to establish a defendant's lack of specific intent.
Scottie Mom
(5,812 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 1, 2022, 01:43 AM - Edit history (1)
See United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 997 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("Because only 'a scheme to defraud' and not actual fraud is required, proof of fraudulent intent is critical." , cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); see also United States v. Costanzo, 4 F.3d 658, 664 (8th Cir. 1993) (intent is an essential element, inquiry is whether defendants intended to defraud).
Eyeball_Kid
(7,434 posts)Giuliani does Trump's bidding and had legal authority to represent Trump.
Giuliani was following Trump's orders to establish fake electors.
Simple.
gab13by13
(21,402 posts)someone like John Eastman or one of the other crooked lawyers was higher up than Rudy.
Captain Zero
(6,823 posts)So they concocted a scheme to submit fraudulent electoral votes and encouraged Pence to accept THOSE. There is no crime there?
ashredux
(2,608 posts)Botany
(70,581 posts)Yup.
The groups that attacked the US Capitol were 2 groups:
MAGA brainwashed racist dumb asses
more organized groups of active or retired police, firefighters, and military such as the oath keepers
and their job was to get the real electoral ballots* which could then be replaced by the forged ones that
were made up by Rudy G and company.
* in the congressional paralmentary's office
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)CanonRay
(14,113 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)Have you ever tried a specific intent case, such as mail fraud? Do you know the different affirmative defenses that can be raised in such a case and that it is the burden of the prosecution to rebut those defenses?
There is nothing "ridiculously easy" about a mail fraud case.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-969-defenses-good-faith
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)and I had numerous successful trials involving specific intent charges, including Mail Fraud. This is avery make able case.
onenote
(42,759 posts)The OP suggests that a claim by a defendant in a fraud case that they were acting pursuant to advice of counsel would not be relevant.
But, in fact, a prosecutor that failed to instruct a grand jury about the advice of counsel defense runs a substantial risk of having the indictment dismissed before trial.
For example, in US v. Stevens, 771 Fed.Supp. 2d 556 (D.MD 2011), the court dismissed an indictment where the prosecutor gave an improper instruction to the grand jury regarding the advice of counsel defense, stating:
"There can be little doubt that the instruction given the grand jury regarding the advice of counsel defense was erroneous. The prosecutors' response to the grand juror's question clearly indicated that the advice of counsel defense was not relevant at the charging stage. Mr. Jasperse stated "the advice of counsel defense . . . is a defense that a defendant can raise, once the defendant has been charged." The second prosecutor, Ms. Bloom, reinforced the statement that the advice of counsel was irrelevant at the charging stage by stating that "while [the advice of counsel defense] can be relevant at trial . . . if you find probable cause for the elements here that the attorney Lauren Stevens reasonably knew that she was making false statements and the elements that Patrick [Jasperse] went through, then that's sufficient to find probable cause." The grand jurors were thus instructed erroneously that the advice of counsel was irrelevant to a determination of whether there was probable cause to indict Stevens."
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)But it's been a while, been retired about 20 years.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)sop
(10,243 posts)leftieNanner
(15,149 posts)The thing is, those folks who signed the Trump elector forms actually thought he won. They believed the voter fraud BS that he was spouting. So they thought they were the "official electors".
I don't know if it's as much of a slam-dunk as we think it is.
Hope I'm wrong here.
dchill
(38,532 posts)...was a crime.
gab13by13
(21,402 posts)Pennsylvania electors knew better and they were part of the scheme. They all knew better.
patphil
(6,207 posts)They wanted to win regardless of the cost. If the election process had to be trashed to do it, they were fully on board.
Their mistake was in believing that the coup could be pulled off.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)They knew exactly what they were doing.
leftieNanner
(15,149 posts)They were somehow convinced by "someone" that this was a good idea.
SMDH
dwayneb
(768 posts)I had not heard that any of them said they thought he had actually won. The excuse that I heard was that they were "just in case" electors if the election was eventually overturned via the various lawsuits that had been filed.
And their claim was that this was a legal maneuver.
First to admit I don't know all the details of this investigation.
3825-87867
(855 posts)Do they have to take an "oath" to serve?
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)You just cannot make yourself an official elector.
Mr.Bill
(24,319 posts)that when you sign certain government documents, you do so under penalty of perjury. This can involve documents as mundane as things from the DMV or the Unemployment Department. I'm sure it would include the types of documents that Electors sign.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)I suspect the only people who will be hit with mail fraud charges will be the seven people who handed the envelopes to postal clerks - which is probably why the initial indictment was for only 14 people. The rest of them are looking at falsifying official documents charges, which max out at five year prison sentences. And under the Separate Sovereigns doctrine they can also be convicted for violating state laws against that.
I also suspect they wont be able to fall back on good faith defenses. Before electors meet, the Secretary of State certifies the election. These individuals all know the states theyre in certified for Biden. We didnt believe the SOS so we voted for Trump anyway wont fly.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)will turn. I doubt many of these people are willing to bankrupt themselves in the name of the Big Lie.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)Hotler
(11,445 posts)RicROC
(1,204 posts)Therefore, even the fake electors should have been on the ballot for them to even be considered as electors.
Seems like there are some people who signed the fake elector forms who were not on the ballot.
In that case, they are really in trouble regarding fraud.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...they don't have to answer a single question.
Proving their illegal signature would therefore be very difficult. Their lawyers, of which there will be many, could simply say it was a political statement.