BMX Bandit said:

---

to me, its when someone tried to deliver these "fake electors" to pence in the capitol that this rises to potentially criminal. however, when its a former president/current candidate, I think you need unequivocal theories on crimes and clear evidence of it.

i just don't see that here based on what I read in the indictment.

---

Dangerous to make something a crime after it happened, then prosecute the offender. That's what the left is doing to Trump and his circle.

Don't disagree. But don't see what that has to with my post.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Don't disagree. But don't see what that has to with my post.

---

I was referring to these novel theories that create new crimes out of the emanations and penumbras of existing law. Like Bragg did by tying a federal process crime to a local crime to defeat the expired SoL, promote it to a felony and present 37 charges. Like Manhattan did to change the law to allow E. Jean Carroll to bring a 30-year old rape charge in civil court. And now this Smith chode, already slapped down even by the socialists on SCOTUS, for his McDonald prosecution.

From the Halderman link above.

Quote:

---

Here is an example of a ballot produced by an ICX in Georgia. It will help illustrate what an attacker could potentially do by installing malware on the BMDs. Notice that the voter's selections are printed as a long list of small text at the bottom of the page. The computer scanners that count the ballots ignore that text. Instead, the votes they count come entirely from data in the QR code (the square barcode in the middle of the page).

---

Quote:

---

An attacker who wants to change votes has two good strategies: (1) Change only the data in the QR code; or (2) Change both the QR code and the text, in a way that agrees. The vulnerabilities we found would let an adversary carry out either attack by tampering with the ICX's software.

If an attacker changes only the QR code, voters have no way to detect the change by looking at their ballots, since voters can't read the QR code. The change might be detected in a manual recount or a risk-limiting audit (RLA) based on a review of the printed text, but that is unlikely given Georgia's weak audit requirements, which have recently been further diluted.

Absent a rigorous audit of the paper ballots for the affected contest, this style of attack could change an election outcome without detection.

The other possible attack strategy is to change both the QR code and the ballot text. In that case, there's no possibility for an audit to detect the fraud, since all records of the vote will be wrong. Only voters could detect the fraud, by carefully reviewing the printed ballot text and raising alarms if it didn't match their intended selections.

This is a problem, because we know that only a small fraction of voters carefully review their ballots. My students and I ran a mock election with BMDs that we secretly hacked to change one vote on every printout, yet only about 6% of our test voters reported the errors.

Real voters probably wouldn't fare much better. In a study commissioned by the Georgia Secretary of State's Office, University of Georgia researchers observed BMD voters during the November 2020 election. Even when poll workers prompted the voters to review their ballots, 51% barely glanced at them, and less than 20% inspected them for even 5 seconds. The ballot image above is from that same election. How long does it take you just to spot that one selection is for a Democrat?

---

The real coup is being run against the right. The democrats are more corrupt than we realize and we are hesitant to believe it even though it's right in front of us.

John Eastman, the so-called "Co-Conspirator 2," just made a GREAT point on our program: The First Amendment doesn't just include a right to freedom of speech. It also includes a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Now, Jack Smith wants to criminalize the…

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 2, 2023

BREAKING: @RepMattGaetz gives House Republicans an ACTUAL PLAN to FIGHT BACK! 👊👇

1. Demand that Jack Smith present himself before the House Judiciary Committee for a transcribed interview in the next 15 days.

2. If not he does not do that, we should send a subpoena.

3. If he… pic.twitter.com/PM5gwxUIxU

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) August 2, 2023

captkirk said:

---

The intel operators who signed the letter used to dismiss the Hunter laptop as Russian disinformation in advance of the election are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to deprive voters of their civil rights.

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) August 2, 2023

---

True. And that puts Tony Blinken on the impeachment list too.

captkirk said:

---

BREAKING: @RepMattGaetz gives House Republicans an ACTUAL PLAN to FIGHT BACK! 👊👇

1. Demand that Jack Smith present himself before the House Judiciary Committee for a transcribed interview in the next 15 days.

2. If not he does not do that, we should send a subpoena.

3. If he… pic.twitter.com/PM5gwxUIxU

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) August 2, 2023

---

They can't even bother to get a subpoena to Ray Epps! And you think they will make demands of Jack Smith???? Ha!

FECKLESS

Quote:

---

They can't even bother to get a subpoena to Ray Epps! Anything for your tongue to make demands of Jack Smith???? Ha!

---

What? Many Jan 6ers have demanded subpoenas for Epps. They have all been denied.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They can't even bother to get a subpoena to Ray Epps! Anything for your tongue to make demands of Jack Smith???? Ha!

---

What? Many Jan 6ers have demanded subpoenas for Epps. They have all been denied.

---

Congress is who we are discussing. Congress can subpoena him. But they don't. It's pathetic!

I admire Gaetz for saying it, but McCarthy and Jordan aren't gonna do anything

(Boy, voice to text butchered that last post!)

One thing that is important to remember is that we must consider case law in addition to the statutory law.

It seems to me that many are looking at the statutes and interpreting them to mean what they wish them to mean without looking at how they have been interpreted.

In https://popehat.substack.com/p/people-are-lying-to-you-about-the Popehat looks at the charges and points out a few things.

For example, Count 1 charges Trump with a violation of 18 U.S. Code 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States:

Quote:

---

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

---

Some have argued that this is clearly inapplicable because Trump was not seeking to defraud the government of money or property. Note, however, that nothing in the statute refers specifically to money or propery.

As Popehat said:

Quote:

---

Count One, conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 371. Section 371 has two parts. It's most commonly used to charge a conspiracy to violate some specified federal crime: for instance, conspiracy to violate money laundering statutes. But it has another clause for conspiracies "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

...

Federal courts have upheld convictions under Section 371 for a very broad range of conduct designed to interfere with or obstruct government functions. More than a hundred years ago the Supreme Court said:

Quote:

---

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government. Assuming, as we have, for it has not been challenged, that this statistical side of the Department of Agriculture is the exercise of a function within the purview of the Constitution, it must follow that any conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operations and reports as fair, impartial, and reasonably accurate would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.

---

A conspiracy to generate lies to submit to the Senate to derail vote tabulation and certification is plausibly within that definition.

...

The Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly and specifically ruled that Section 371 doesn't require a scheme to take money or property.

---

It would be interesting to read a completely unbiased analysis of the charges in the indictment that includes a review of how the laws alleged to be violated in those charges have been applied in past cases.

Quote:

---

Some have argued that this is clearly inapplicable because Trump was not seeking to defraud the government of money or property.

---

lots of twitter experts claiming this because of a recent supreme court case. they are either not reading the statutes at issue here and in that case, or are purposefully deceiving their audience.

I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.

will25u said:

---

I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.

---

You are talking to super republican eric76. No way he would break left on a hot topic political issue. You know like he has in every one.

The Green Dragon said:

---

jja79 said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

All the people crying that a former president has never been indicted are likewise saying to prosecute a sitting president.

---

Because we've seen him on TV commiting a crime (SOB he got fired}, we have seen the bank records, the existence of shell companies, etc. In decades of banking I've never even heard of anyone having more than 2 SARs and these thieves have 170+.

---

So the record is clear, I say prosecute both to the fullest extent of the law.

---

They attempted that with Hunter and it showed the man behind the curtain. You really feel that the Hunter plea deal was an honest attempt by both sides or was it slanted because of who he is?

Quote:

---

They attempted that with Hunter

---

very fake news. he was never prosecuted with fullest extent of the law. most o what he has done wrong he hasn't even been charged with.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

They attempted that with Hunter

---

very fake news. he was never prosecuted with fullest extent of the law. most o what he has done wrong he hasn't even been charged with.

---

Yeah, it's pretty sad on what he's allegedly done versus what he was actually tried for, but that's about all I have in this extremely even handed system we have now.

I can't believe Jack Smith's history isn't getting more airplay. Smith's prosecution of Gov Bob McDonnell was UNANIMOUSLY overturned by SCOTUS, ruling that Smith overcharged. He also helped Lois Lerner's IRS targeting of conservatives, when he led DOJ's public integrity unit. Now he claims to know what's in Trump's mind.

This POS has quite the record.

eric76 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government. Assuming, as we have, for it has not been challenged, that this statistical side of the Department of Agriculture is the exercise of a function within the purview of the Constitution, it must follow that any conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operations and reports as fair, impartial, and reasonably accurate would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.

---

A conspiracy to generate lies to submit to the Senate to derail vote tabulation and certification is plausibly within that definition.

---

---

First, you have to prove that there is a conspiracy of lies. End of story. There's not belief at all that there could have concievably been something wrong with the election. That's an awfully high bar.

Second, and more important, if an attempt to petition the Senate a redress to a potential wrong is now criminal, then what about:

• A group of individuals stopping traffic to protest climate change that effects commerce?
• Any group whatsoever that dares to protest in or outside a government building?
• Questioning an EPA directive outlawing consumer appliances or taking of land to "protect the environment"?

If Trump's actions can be construed as "impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government", then why wouldn't ANY action opposing any aspect or decree of government now not be considered criminal?

Are you sure you want to give the government THAT much power? Can you not see where that would take us? People are so blinded by the prospect of "getting Trump" that they're failing to see the Pandora's Box that will be opened if the attempt is successful.

none of your example involve having electors sign certificates falsely claiming they were the actual electors and trying to get the VP to throw out the real electors.

as said earlier, I don't see the leap to this being a clear crime in what was actually done (not just thought about doing). but it its disingenuous to say he is being charged for just an "attempt to petition the Senate a redress to a potential wrong"

BMX Bandit said:

---

none of your example involve having electors sign certificates falsely claiming they were the actual electors and trying to get the VP to throw out the real electors.

as said earlier, I don't see the leap to this being a clear crime in what was actually done (not just thought about doing). but it its disingenuous to say he is being charged for just an "attempt to petition the Senate a redress to a potential wrong"

---

Not the point. My point is that if the statute is broadened to cover this instance, it can be broadened to cover virtually anything that disagrees with the government in charge, as it could be construed as "obstruction".

But with respect to your comment, this is not the first time alternate slates of electors have been used. See 1876. No one was prosecuted. The Senate can accept or reject the slate. But existence of the slate itself has never been criminal.

Furthermore, the development of alternate electors was not some "dead of night" conspiracy. They were very clear that they were attempting to follow a legal process as they saw it at the time...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/530092-stephen-miller-alternate-electors-will-keep-trump-challenge-alive-post/

Quote:

---

But with respect to your comment, this is not the first time alternate slates of electors have been used. See 1876. No one was prosecuted

---

because those were actual alternate electors. signed by state officials saying they were correct.


not like here, where it was just people that decided they were the right electors. zero state officials signed off on any of these.

no one claims it was a "Dead of night" conspiracy. thats not the allegation. your link shows what the issue in the indictment is:

Quote:

---

Miller indicated that Trump supporters will act as "alternates" in a handful of contested states, including Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, to submit their own, unofficial results. Should the Trump campaign succeed in overturning the outcome in any of those states, Miller said, the alternate electors could then be recognized by Congress.

---

that never happened. yet the fake electors were still pushed as legitimate, without any legal authority. its at that point the notion of "testing legal theories" ended.

Quote:

---

Are you sure you want to give the government THAT much power?

---

the party that used to be anti-establishment, anti-big business, and anti-war has been commandeered in front of everyone's' noses to be the opposite now and yes, the brainwashed masses who are team blue no matter what certainly want more and more and more absolute power to a government they want to keep growing bigger and bigger and bigger because America sucks, capitalism sucks, and a maoist system will work this time and also because, right now, they'll spy, censor, vilify, and imprison anti-communists who oppose them so it's their team, and they are winning.. for now.

I'm just going to leave this right here. Make of it what you will...
https://standtogethertrust.org/stories/the-criminalization-of-everything/

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

But with respect to your comment, this is not the first time alternate slates of electors have been used. See 1876. No one was prosecuted

---

because those were actual alternate electors. signed by state officials saying they were correct.


not like here, where it was just people that decided they were the right electors. zero state officials signed off on any of these.

no one claims it was a "Dead of night" conspiracy. thats not the allegation. your link shows what the issue in the indictment is:

Quote:

---

Miller indicated that Trump supporters will act as "alternates" in a handful of contested states, including Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, to submit their own, unofficial results. Should the Trump campaign succeed in overturning the outcome in any of those states, Miller said, the alternate electors could then be recognized by Congress.

---

that never happened. yet the fake electors were still pushed as legitimate, without any legal authority. its at that point the notion of "testing legal theories" ended.

---

So they tried a political gambit that failed. I fail to see where that in itself is a crime. We're talking willful criminal activity here.

Again, the desire to "get Trump" is ignoring the Pandora's Box of what could - and will - follow a successful attempt in doing so.

Quote:

---

as said earlier, I don't see the leap to this being a clear crime in what was actually done (not just thought about doing).

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

as said earlier, I don't see the leap to this being a clear crime in what was actually done (not just thought about doing).

---

---

The "alternate elector scheme" followed a wall of state officials, judges in court filings, members of Trump's cabinet, senior advisers, and some of his own attorneys telling him there was no basis that there was outcome determinative election fraud. Yet, the pushed forward with the scheme on the "theory" that their votes would count if they proved outcome determinative election fraud.

Further, the indictment includes multiple statements from people involved in the scheme affirmatively acknowledging that the scheme wasn't exactly above board, legally speaking.

The defense being laid out here appears to be the "yell la la la la la, put your fingers in your ears, then put your head in the sand" defense about whether they had a reasonable factual and legal basis for their actions, which really stretches credulity.

yeah; the idea of alternate electors was only cool all the times democrats did it before.

NEW: Lawyer for ex-NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik says special counsel may not have reviewed records before indicting Trump via @CBSNews https://t.co/jmUVN8mfKM

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) August 3, 2023

Quote:

---

Parlatore said he was "stunned" when, after the indictment came down, the prosecutor contacted him asking for the records he said he had already provided. Parlatore said the "records are absolutely exculpatory."

"They bear directly on the essential element of whether Rudy Giuliani, and therefore Donald Trump, knew that their claims of election fraud were false," Parlatore said. "Good- faith reliance upon claims of fraud, even if they later turn out to be false, is very different from pushing fraud claims that you know to be false at the time."

---

will25u said:

---

NEW: Lawyer for ex-NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik says special counsel may not have reviewed records before indicting Trump via @CBSNews https://t.co/jmUVN8mfKM

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) August 3, 2023

Quote:

---

Parlatore said he was "stunned" when, after the indictment came down, the prosecutor contacted him asking for the records he said he had already provided. Parlatore said the "records are absolutely exculpatory."

"They bear directly on the essential element of whether Rudy Giuliani, and therefore Donald Trump, knew that their claims of election fraud were false," Parlatore said. "Good- faith reliance upon claims of fraud, even if they later turn out to be false, is very different from pushing fraud claims that you know to be false at the time."

---

---

Well of course! The timing of the indictment is much more important than the need to get it right...

Priorities, people!!

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills

---

It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.

---

Okay, I agree. But neither does Trump. Its really funny that the immediate response for any dig at Trump is 'But Biden'. We all are well aware of Bidens faults. Isn't it a given on here? Who has ever actually defended Biden in F16?

facts really don't matter when you already have the judge and jury in the bag and you have a populist anti-marxist movement to stamp out.