At minimum **EVERYONE** who mailed forged fake election docs SHOULD GO TO JAIL !!

[uponit7771]

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2022, 11:38 PM - Edit history (2)

It looks to me the forged Trump electorate documents were the linchpin "proof" that Pence could have used if he wanted to overturn the 2020 election.

The people who decided it was OK to forge federal documents and send them through US mail should go to jail.

They ***KNEW*** they were lying and sending fake documents to the US government through mail to the US National Archives even if they didn't know they were part of a bigger coup d'etat.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-election-forged-letters-arizona-michigan-b1989975.html

The National Archives received fake certificates of ascertainment that then-President Donald Trump and then-Vice President Mike Pence had won Michigan and Arizona in the 2020 election, according to a report.

The secretaries of state in those states have passed along the forgeries to the House Select Committee investigating 6 January, Politico reported. Communications between state officials and the National Archives have also been shared with the panel.

[Novara]

1. I call them "elector impostors"

It's more accurate. They were impersonating government officials or at least fraudulently participating in a government action and producing fraudulent/forged official documents. That needs to be prosecuted.

I mean, think about what would happen if you or I decided not to pay the car registration fee and forged a motor vehicle registration. Think we'd be ignored for that? What about people who impersonate the police? Are they ignored by the justice system?

[uponit7771]

3. Exactly !!!! Something at the bases of this seems like its a slam dunk case against forging federal

... or state docs and sending them through the mail for any reason.

We would be put under the jail before we could plead the fifth, it seems like the elector imposters are the low hanging fruit for any state or federal investigators.

[Novara]

4. I think they will be prosecuted, and successfully

The DOJ is already investigating them.

[Novara]

14. Oh, I see you must be a DOJ lawyer

Because you know exactly how long this should take.

Come on. Have some humility. You don't know how long it takes. I don't know how long it takes. None of us here knows how long it takes.

[Lonestarblue]

19. The investigation and indictment of Timothy McVeigh took roughly four months.

It took another two years to try and convict him. Merrick Garland was the investigator and prosecutor. He took only 4 months to secure an indictment for a major crime. There was far more investigation needed for the Oklahoma City bombing case than with the fraudulent electors case, yet it is still ongoing a year and a half later.

The facts are in public. Republicans in several states created fake slates of electors and signed their names to fraudulently attest that the electors were the real ones and sent them to the Library of Congress. Their names are known, they obviously committed a crime, there are documents to prove their crime. What am I missing here to make a years-long investigation and delayed indictment necessary?

[kacekwl]

21. You're missing nothing.

Just another lame excuse not to prosecute Republican law breakers. I'm getting very tired of it.

[stopdiggin]

43. one of the major differences

is that McVeigh was (practically) a lone wolf terrorist. By contrast, the issue with the fake 'electors' involves many multiples of that in terms of actors, different layers of involvement (or not, which needs to be sorted out) - and the very likely involvement of elected officials and powerful political interests. So, this case has all sorts of elements that McVeigh did not - leaving the analogy a strikingly poor one.

I'll stick with the post saying that these people (at least those directly involved as given in the OP) almost certainly WILL be arrested and tried - with the very likely result being a conviction. Sorry that it's taking longer than you wish, but ... Them's the breaks.

----- -----

[uponit7771]

47. +1, IINM the indictment of McVeigh was public too

[BlueIdaho]

2. Conscientious of Guilt

They knew what they were doing was wrong. When they signed that paperwork, they signed their guilty plea.

[Novara]

18. "consciousness"

Yes, they knew.

[BlueIdaho]

20. Thanks!

That’s what I get for trusting spell check.

[Effete Snob]

22. They took great care to make sure they were guilty

They kept records and put their names on everything.

So, sure, they were conscientious about being guilty.

[Novara]

23. True enough!

[uponit7771]

30. +1

[Baltimike]

5. knr

[Effete Snob]

6. linchpin

[Harker]

15. In Pence's case, documents may have been written and signed

with "lynch pens" by those who might have wished him hanged.

[Effete Snob]

16. Well, there you go

...and in expectation of a final Coup Taa Daa!

[uponit7771]

31. Thx

[SheltieLover]

7. Along with the slob & coconspirators in Congress!

WHY are traitors still in Congress?

[Tetrachloride]

8. None of the elector imposters can claim ignorance.

They are / were politicians or local leaders of their areas Republican party.

They know elections.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. It's coup d'etat.

[Effete Snob]

12. After the coup de ta...

...they take everyone to the lynch pen.

[Cracklin Charlie]

10. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I seem to remember, way on back in 2020, that Pence had announced that he would not be at the certification. He would be out of the country (like Pompeo) for that ceremony. But, then he cancelled his trip, and would be at the certification after all.

Now, I could be confusing the certification with the inauguration, but the thought just occurred to me a couple days ago.

Help me out, du…Did Pence ever announce that he wouldn’t be at the certification of the electoral votes?

[wnylib]

38. I don't remember Pence ever saying or suggesting

that he would not be present for the J6 certification. He always intended to be there.

There was some question about the inauguration since Trump announced that he would not go. But Pence decided to be there as a symbol of the transition of one administration to the next.

[Cracklin Charlie]

41. Maybe I'm confusing with inauguration.

Hard to keep the criming straight.

[wnylib]

42. I know. Too many to keep track of.

[BumRushDaShow]

39. I think it was the confusion about ASSley making a comment about possibly presiding over the count

as Pro Tem of the Senate rather than Pence, who was the "official" President of the Senate -

Grassley suggests he may preside over Senate debate on Electoral College votes

By: Linh Ta - January 5, 2021 12:46 pm


Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he would preside over the U.S. Senate debate surrounding disputes of the 2020 election results if Vice President Mike Pence does not show up. He suggested Pence was not expected to attend but Grassley’s staff later said that was a “misinterpretation” and that Pence was expected to be there.

On Wednesday, Congress will meet to formally count the Electoral College votes after they were certified by states last month. At least 12 GOP senators and dozens of House Republicans say they intend to object to the Electoral College results as those votes are read, state by state, in a joint session that begins at noon CT Wednesday. During an exchange with reporters on Tuesday, Grassley was asked how he plans to vote.

“Well, first of all, I will be — if the Vice President isn’t there and we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate,” according to a transcript of his remarks sent by a spokesperson. Grassley serves as the president pro tempore of the Senate and will preside over any portion of the debate that Pence does not attend. But Grassley expects Pence to be present on Wednesday, according to his spokesperson.

President Donald Trump has continued to claim that he won the November 2020 election, resulting in a historic number of Republicans in the House and Senate saying they will vote to reject the election results, according to USA Today. Both Grassley and Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst have acknowledged Biden as the winner of the election, based on “the Constitution,” according to the Des Moines Register, but haven’t ruled out raising objections. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he acknowledges Biden as the winner of the election.

(snip)

https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2021/01/05/grassley-suggests-he-may-preside-over-senate-debate-on-electoral-college-votes/

Link to tweet

Geoff Bennett
@GeoffRBennett
·
Jun 1, 2022
CNN: The Jan. 6 committee has obtained a Dec. 2020 proposal from a lawyer to Rudy Giuliani that sketched out an early, rough plan to stop Biden becoming president by throwing the election certification into the hands of then Senate pro tem Chuck Grassley.
cnn.com
House January 6 committee obtains email outlining early plan to try to overturn Trump's 2020 loss
The House select committee has obtained a December 2020 proposal from a lawyer to Rudy Giuliani and others that sketched out an early, rough plan to halt Joe Biden becoming president by throwing the...
Geoff Bennett
@GeoffRBennett
Flashback: Grassley suggests he may preside over Senate debate on Electoral College votes
iowacapitaldispatch.com
Grassley suggests he may preside over Senate debate on Electoral College votes - Iowa Capital...
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Senate president pro tempore, suggested he may preside over the U.S. Senate debate regarding counting Electoral College votes.
10:16 PM · Jun 1, 2022

[ancianita]

13. Maybe not all.

New Mexico. They purposely added a caveat they probably hoped would protect them as it recognized Biden as winner. But it might not be enough.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. PA's had the same

and thanks for confirming that other state (NM) that did do that!

I had posted some related stuff here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2932080

[ancianita]

26. Right! I wasn't sure but they both were mentioned as not technically being fraudulent from the start

because they both stipulated that they'd exist ONLY if Biden's win was overturned. Which technically is a clear statement that he won.

Glad you confirmed PA.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. IMHO

the fact that they sent it in to Congress and NARA and apparently didn't even have the GOP state legislature here agree to go along with it, even if their stipulation of some fictional court overturning the votes had come to pass, and should make them still liable for something.

As far as I know, there's nothing codified in state law or the state Constitution that even spells out whatever random process they came up with.

[ancianita]

33. Good point about the state laws. Speaking of sending electoral certificates to NARA & Congress, this

is a relevant, interesting read from NARA.

https://www.archives.gov/research/alic/reference/nara-and-electoral-college.html

...Governors and secretaries of state may change once or even twice between Presidential elections. Some states may have completely new staff members with no experience in carrying out electoral college duties. Sometimes the Federal Register's letter or follow-up phone call marks the first time any current state official has thought about the electoral college.

The next step in the process is the meeting of electors in each state (December 18 in 2000). They generally gather in the state capitol or another state office building.

The short time allotted for submission of electoral votes is perhaps the Federal Register's greatest concern. In 1996 a small southern state shut down its government offices—all of them—between Christmas Day and New Year's weekend. It became apparent that there was a misunderstanding among state offices as to which one would authenticate the certificates and send in the votes.

"It was really coming down to the wire," White recalls, "and not one state official was available to answer the phone." The Federal Register has the authority under law to take some extraordinary actions, such as hiring a plane or sending U.S. Marshals to obtain certificates from the state or a backup copy from a Federal judge. But that authority isn't worth much if the certificates have not been executed.

"I decided to call the state police and dictated a message to the governor over the phone," White recalls. "A state trooper hand-carried the message to the governor's mansion. We made contact with the governor's counsel and got the state's votes to the Congress in time for the official counting. But it was a very near miss."

Albert Kapikian
Policy and Communications Staff
National Archives and Records Administration

[BumRushDaShow]

36. From what I understood back in 2020 when this was going on

I had heard that the states were to prepare 6 Certificates of Ascertainment, but as I found here, there were to be 7 (originals), and one of those was to be sent to NARA (along with 2 copies), The other 6 would be kept in the state records

NARA actually created a brochure for the states so they would know what the process was - https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/state-officials/presidential-election-brochure.pdf (PDF)

The detail may have been to avoid what happened in the example you gave of Certificates possibly not making it in time (and creating stop gaps for that)!

That brochure is a wealth of knowledge as it indicates stuff like this -

(snip)

3. Mid-November through December 14, 2020

Sending Certificates of Ascertainment to NARA:

The Certificates of Ascertainment list the names of the electors
appointed and the number of votes cast for each person.

The States prepares no less than SEVEN originals, which are
authenticated by the Governor’s signature and the State seal,
and TWO certified copies. Alternatively, NINE originals may be
prepared.

One original along with two certified copies (or three originals,
if nine were prepared) must be sent to the Archivist, David S.
Ferriero, c/o Office of the Federal Register (F).

The Governors must submit the Certificates of Ascertainment
“as soon as practicable” after their States certify election re-
sults.

The remaining SIX original Certificates of Ascertainment will
be attached to the Certificates of Vote at the State meetings.

(snip)

Then it talks about "certificates of votes" done by the Electors and how many -

(snip)

The electors record their votes on SIX “Certificates of Vote,” which are then paired with the SIX remaining original Certificates of Ascertainment.

After signing the Certificates of Vote, the electors seal
and certify the electoral votes in packages containing a
paired original Certificate of Ascertainment and original
Certificate of Vote. They immediately distribute the
paired certificates as follows:

One pair of original certificates is sent to the President
of the Senate (Michael R. Pence)

Two pairs of original certificates are sent to the Archi-
vist, David S. Ferriero, c/o Office of the Federal Register
(F)

The Archivist holds one pair subject to the order of the
President of the United States Senate in case the elec-
toral votes fail to reach the Senate. The other pair is held
by the Office of the Federal Register for public inspection
for one year.

Two pairs of certificates are sent by registered mail to
the Secretary of State of each State, who holds one pair
subject to the order of the President of the United States
Senate in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Sen-
ate.

One pair of original certificates is sent to the Chief
Judge of the Federal District Court located where the
electors meet. It is held subject to the order of the Presi-
dent of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the
United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the
Senate or the Archivist.

(snip)

NARA also set up a special eFOIA page with links to copies of the fake electors here - https://www.archives.gov/foia/2020-presidential-election-unofficial-certificates

NOTE ABOUT THAT NARA LINK - I didn't realize that AZ actually sent a fake Certificate of Ascertainment and the other states (per that brochure's descriptions of different certificates) sent the fake "certificates of votes".

[ancianita]

37. Thanks.Cool about the brochure, that all states are informed no matter the new SoSs or Govs elected.

The Certificate of Ascertainment and "certificates of votes" weirdness is exactly why the DOJ has to investigate to see that those states actually follow their own laws and federal NARA guidelines. These people can't play stupid about what they've done.

More and more it looks evident that alt-elector fraud is more prevalent than voter fraud. I'll bet that we have CISA capability to read.

There have to be DOJ indictments. If there aren't and we're thus forced to stay vigilant, it's an unnecessary destabilizing of election processes.

[moonshinegnomie]

17. the ringleaders should get a couple of punishments

Loooooong prision terms
upon release stripped of citizenship and send to a country in anarchy

[FakeNoose]

24. K & R

Lock them up!

[Samrob]

27. I agree. They even referred to them as fake election docs themselves. nt

[rockfordfile]

29. I agree

[YoshidaYui]

40. Lock them up

Lock them up

[Kablooie]

44. Is there written law that they violated by doing this?

If not they can’t be charged.
But it could be used as evidence in other cases that they were trying to overthrow the government.

[Kid Berwyn]

45. Election Fraud as Treason

Any politician who supports this should be out of office, too.

That will speed up Reconstitution.

[BobTheSubgenius]

46. Any information about conspiracy charges? I couldn't find any in the linked article.

The beauty of a conspiracy charge - assuming your goal is to dismantle and punish - is that the L hand doesn't have to know what the R hand is doing. Doesn't even have to know about the R hand's existence.

There must be more stringent requirements to bring these charges than I have always thought. To my mind, the Jan 6 miscreants were part of a conspiracy, and conspiracy charges would bring both some well-deserved punishment, and an excellent tool of leverage...especially if the charges included a heaping helping of wrongful death that they could all share.