Alternate Electors vs Fake Electors - What is the Difference.

a reply to: matafuchs

When people get caught in a "yea bu but, what about blah blah blah" they say coping nonsense like this.

Trumps campaign team was caught red handed trying to commit an internal coup to overturn election results with fraudulent elector votes.

a reply to: strongfp

Ah, now you're getting technical in legal terms here. I see where this is going, let's just ignore the intent to commit fraud, and almost carry out fraud. And then jump to legal definitions to circumnavigate around the fraud.

...fraud is a legal term witha legal definition guy.

Now youve had to back up to "intent to commit fraud."

Lets see how far we can go.

They didn't reach an executive of the NM government because it was caught before it would even make it there, but guess what, it would never have made it there if it wasn't caught, it would have gone through because the NM government trusts their vetting processes. Which worked.

I understand that you may not understand but this statement is exactly why there is no fraud.

Because of....the legal definition of fraud.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Sure, if they used proper lobbying, legal lobbying firms to try and find funny business I would agree, but the Republicans didn't in this case. They just made up stuff.

a reply to: JinMI

This isn't a court of law, it's public opinion, and debate. You think it wasn't fraud, myself and other people do. That's where this ends.

We can use casual terms or drag this on into legal mumbo-jumbo. All the information is there for you yo see, the fraudulent names, signatures, the Eastman Memos and strategy. It's all there for you to go through.

Have fun!

a reply to: strongfp

This isn't a court of law, it's public opinion, and debate. You think it wasn't fraud, myself and other people do. That's where this ends.

And now youre backed all the way up.

We can use casual terms or drag this on into legal mumbo-jumbo. All the information is there for you yo see, the fraudulent names, signatures, the Eastman Memos and strategy. It's all there for you to go through.

You may do whatever you wish.

Point being, you brought the claim of fraud and now youre claiming its just your opinion


My work here is done and youve been a perfect co-worker.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Dandandat3

Sure, if they used proper lobbying, legal lobbying firms to try and find funny business I would agree, but the Republicans didn't in this case. They just made up stuff.

Sure; your political opinion is that they mafe up stuff. That's why it's called politics, you can believe anything you want.

But the fact remains that both the Democrats (2016) and the Republicans (2020) believed they we're well with in their rights to subvert the electoral will of the people and they both had their political and legal arguments for why they were in the right to do so. Which one was valid and which one was not is completely up to the political opinion of the observer. No amount of lawyer larping on the internet is going to change the fact that they are two sides of the sane coin. It's only hypocrisy that anyone argues otherwise.

a reply to: JinMI

Just out of curiosity, and with the information you have been presented. What would you call it then?

Outside of the realm of law, how do you describe what happened with the attempted submission of fake elector votes?

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WeMustCare

Electors representing each state are selected by the relevant party authorities and then voted in during general election. Electors who aren't voted in, aren't authorized to represent any votes they have counted or notarized. That's what makes them fake.

I assume you already knew this information given it took me about 90 seconds to Google it.

I don't stop when I reach a search result that makes me happy, as you apparently did. I kept reading and found that "alternate electors" are legal.

Still waiting for relevant text excerpt and article link. I cited my data, why can't you. Anything in the constitution about alternate electors. I'm happy to concede if you can demonstrate your claim.

From the previous link I offered, specifically "State Discretion over Selection":

Various modes of choosing the electors were pursued, as, by the legislature itself on joint ballot; by the legislature through a concurrent vote of the two houses; by vote of the people for a general ticket; by vote of the people in districts; by choice partly by the people voting in districts and partly by the legislature; by choice by the legislature from candidates voted for by the people in districts; and in other ways . . . .

All of which generally involves a public, consensual procedure that satisfies both the constituency and the legislative representation of the district in question. In other words, you have to ask for the job and not merely purchase a license online.

Whenever it's convenient I hope you will enlighten the class should my research prove incomplete.

a reply to: strongfp

Because the Republicans were trying to be prepared for 1/6. The GOP and the left starting lobbying immediately at the electors post election to be a faithless elector. Pressuring people to change their decision and the will of the people.
The difference is no one talks about that because it was against Trump.

The 'fake' electors were there to step in not replace if Pence would have done what he should. He did not.

a reply to: matafuchs

Per the US Constitution, there is no law, provision or statute regarding "faithless electors". More or less they can do what they want because legislature is either lazy or complicit.

¯|_(ツ)_/¯

a reply to: matafuchs

Which democrat cronies were doing what the Republicans were doing?

Is there as many indictments as with what happened with Trumps army or fake electors?

a reply to: TzarChasm

You are correct. There have been 'changes' including editing the Electoral College Act after 2020. They use this over the Constitution which is how thing have eroded over time.

a reply to: strongfp

I will make this real easy. Use this link.

Link

Scroll down to Electoral College lobbying and they Faithless Electors.

NONE of this was in the media at the time because of the hate of Trump but I remember it all.

On December 10, ten electors, in an open letter headed by Christine Pelosi to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, demanded an intelligence briefing in light of Russian interference in the election to help Trump win the presidency. Fifty-eight additional electors subsequently added their names to the letter, bringing the total to 68 electors from 17 different states. On December 16, the briefing request was denied

Using Russian Collusion that we now know never happened.

So please, tell me again how the Democrats did not attempt to steal electors in 2016.

It amazes me how many of you are so blind to all of this....this video is worse than ANYTHING from 1/6.





Amazing how the media makes this out to be just...protesting.....

a reply to: matafuchs

I don't see the purpose in both electoral college and congressional bodies. Congress can do both jobs.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: JinMI

Just out of curiosity, and with the information you have been presented. What would you call it then?

Outside of the realm of law, how do you describe what happened with the attempted submission of fake elector votes?

A contingency.

a reply to: matafuchs

Actual legal electors doing what they do, vote and get lobbied.

Are we trying to compare what Trumps team did to that situation? The only wrong doing I see there is the intimidating of the electors, but that's just alleged, (it's probably true since it's within the realm of politics).

I mean, if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt, he truly did believe he won, and tried every legal route to fight for his win, so why can't we use the same logic for those who perhaps thought Trump did collude with Russians?

At this point, both parties are way off the mark, dems were wrong about most Russia stuff, and Trump stepped way over the line with the Eastman plan and Jan 6th situation.

a reply to: strongfp

I mean, if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt, he truly did believe he won, and tried every legal route to fight for his win, so why can't we use the same logic for those who perhaps thought Trump did collude with Russians?

Because a lawyer for the FBI altered evidence in order to get a FISA warrant that was used for said investigation
Because the Clinton campaign paid for a fake dossier that was used for said investigation.
Because despite the lack of legitimate evidence there was a special council investigation that yielded nothing.


Just to name a few of the differences in the application of this logic.

a reply to: strongfp

I mean, if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt, he truly did believe he won, and tried every legal route to fight for his win, so why can't we use the same logic for those who perhaps thought Trump did collude with Russians?

Because a lawyer for the FBI altered evidence in order to get a FISA warrant that was used for said investigation
Because the Clinton campaign paid for a fake dossier that was used for said investigation.
Because despite the lack of legitimate evidence there was a special council investigation that yielded nothing.


Just to name a few of the differences in the application of this logic.

a reply to: JinMI

That was discovered after the electors made their votes... thats not what is being argued here.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It was designed to allow the states to have control. That is how the constitution was originally designed. A lot of changes were made after the Civil War on how things were handled. Electoral Count Act of 1887.

In 2023 Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act and inside was the following.

Identifies each state's governor as responsible for submitting certificates of ascertainment, unless otherwise specified by state laws or constitutions.

Provides for expedited review, including a three-judge panel with a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, of certain claims related to a state's certificate identifying its electors.

Requires Congress to defer to slates of electors submitted by a state's executive pursuant to the judgments of state or federal courts.

Clarifies that the vice president cannot solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors.

Raises objection threshold from one member of each chamber to 20% of each chamber.

Prohibits state legislatures from declaring a "failed election." They can now move their election only under "extraordinary and catastrophic" circumstances.

So now the threshhold to object is higher, it used to be one House and one Senator. It also takes the VP out of the equation.

THIS is how the destroy the Constitution.