I'm a bit worried about the part in section 1 which requires they have the "intent to defraud falsely" given that I'm not sure any of the participants had the intent to convince anyone that the documents were created in anything other than the manner that they were -- yes they wanted people to believe that this manner made them the electors but I'm not sure that's sufficient. Wasn't it an intent to defraud non-falsely if they didn't try to hide how the item was created?
I mean they weren't trying to trick the people in Congress, the Trump allies in Congress were in on the scheme.
Would you read this statute to cover the medium who claims to be signing a document for the deceased (by being possesd by them after death) even if they were candid about how the signature was made? If that document is produced to give an excuse to a corrupt judge who absolutely knows it's legally bogus does that fit the crime?
It certainly seems like something criminal has gone on here but I'm struggling with whether forgery is really the right fit.
At minimum, Chesebro, Roman, and Troupis all told the Wisconsin cosplay electors that they were signing a genuine document. I think it's pretty clear they also were trying to trick the American public; hell, they're still doing that to this day.
Your point about them telling the electors they were signing a genuine document is compelling. Though on that interpretation it seems hard to say the electors are themselves were engaged in forgery as well no? And wait, what is the forgery then? The blank document that he tries to convince them to fill out? Or is it somehow the document that they then create which then he represents to the people who signed it as genuine? That's weird but I guess it fits.
Re: telling the public at large doesn't that theory implicate Trump and all the people who told the public it is genuine under part 2 because they are representing this thing as genuine knowing it isn't? Like that seems like the logical implication of the view that it's the public who are falsely defrauded.
And while I like that reading doesn't it run into 1a issues given that they disclose all the underlying facts justifying their opinion?
I guess my worry is how is the intent to defraud falsely realized.
It can't be that it's realized in the presentation to the house, VP or whatever in that those actors are completely aware of just how phony this certificate really is and I see more of an attempt to get them to participate in the conspiracy than to defraud them.
But if that's true then who is being falsely defrauded? Is it about the lie being told to the voters at large? But if so doesn't that interpretation mean the politicians/aids/whoever and even Trump himself who pushed these letters as justifications for a different outcome or suggested they be accepted are guilty of violating sec 2 of the act (they uttered as genuine) or at least conspiracy to do so?
That seems like quite a broad interpretation and maybe that's correct but it seems weird to draw the line at the people who helped make the document.
I'm going to do an Andrew Was Wrong on the show tomorrow, but as it turns out, the New Mexico fake electors also got a version of the Pennsylvania disclaimer. Theirs says "on the understanding that it might later be determined" that they are the duly elected electors of New Mexico. So it's only five states, not six, where these cosplay weirdos perjured themselves by saying they were actual electors.
In Chesebro's GA plea deal he agreed to testify, and provide documents and evidence. If he lied about his anonymous BadgerPundit account on Twitter, to GA prosecutors (as he did to WI prosecutors), will this affect his GA plea deal? I understand once WI prosecutors discovered the BadgerPundit account, after Chesebro lied about it's existence, he ended up being indicted.
Fani Willis could unwind Chesebro's plea deal for lying, but I find it highly doubtful that she would want to do so. The point of cutting a deal with Kenny the Cheese was to squeeze him for information and to flip, and he's done that. I don't think he has anything else to give that would be worth doing so.
Really appreciate deep drives like this - both the information and the tone.
I wish everyone would read this and get as insensed about these assholes, as we should be.
Trump himself is too dumb to accomplish anything, but he has willing and eager co-conspirators, cheerfully trying to kill the remnants of our democracy and everything else that holds value.
And for what? What was Chesebro even getting out of it, other than a pat on the head by Trump?
Such pathetic lack of any values or morals or character.
When you read his documents -- and yes, I went through all 1000+ pages -- a picture emerges of this eager, sycophantic lapdog just desperate to be told he's right by some of the very worst criminal scumbags on earth.
I'm a bit worried about the part in section 1 which requires they have the "intent to defraud falsely" given that I'm not sure any of the participants had the intent to convince anyone that the documents were created in anything other than the manner that they were -- yes they wanted people to believe that this manner made them the electors but I'm not sure that's sufficient. Wasn't it an intent to defraud non-falsely if they didn't try to hide how the item was created?
I mean they weren't trying to trick the people in Congress, the Trump allies in Congress were in on the scheme.
Would you read this statute to cover the medium who claims to be signing a document for the deceased (by being possesd by them after death) even if they were candid about how the signature was made? If that document is produced to give an excuse to a corrupt judge who absolutely knows it's legally bogus does that fit the crime?
It certainly seems like something criminal has gone on here but I'm struggling with whether forgery is really the right fit.
At minimum, Chesebro, Roman, and Troupis all told the Wisconsin cosplay electors that they were signing a genuine document. I think it's pretty clear they also were trying to trick the American public; hell, they're still doing that to this day.
Your point about them telling the electors they were signing a genuine document is compelling. Though on that interpretation it seems hard to say the electors are themselves were engaged in forgery as well no? And wait, what is the forgery then? The blank document that he tries to convince them to fill out? Or is it somehow the document that they then create which then he represents to the people who signed it as genuine? That's weird but I guess it fits.
Re: telling the public at large doesn't that theory implicate Trump and all the people who told the public it is genuine under part 2 because they are representing this thing as genuine knowing it isn't? Like that seems like the logical implication of the view that it's the public who are falsely defrauded.
And while I like that reading doesn't it run into 1a issues given that they disclose all the underlying facts justifying their opinion?
I guess my worry is how is the intent to defraud falsely realized.
It can't be that it's realized in the presentation to the house, VP or whatever in that those actors are completely aware of just how phony this certificate really is and I see more of an attempt to get them to participate in the conspiracy than to defraud them.
But if that's true then who is being falsely defrauded? Is it about the lie being told to the voters at large? But if so doesn't that interpretation mean the politicians/aids/whoever and even Trump himself who pushed these letters as justifications for a different outcome or suggested they be accepted are guilty of violating sec 2 of the act (they uttered as genuine) or at least conspiracy to do so?
That seems like quite a broad interpretation and maybe that's correct but it seems weird to draw the line at the people who helped make the document.
I'm going to do an Andrew Was Wrong on the show tomorrow, but as it turns out, the New Mexico fake electors also got a version of the Pennsylvania disclaimer. Theirs says "on the understanding that it might later be determined" that they are the duly elected electors of New Mexico. So it's only five states, not six, where these cosplay weirdos perjured themselves by saying they were actual electors.
I regret the error.
Oh no, and there we were all using this info in our briefs :)
Dear Andrew, it's nice that you caught this, but perhaps "I regret this error" is a bit too much self castigating? :).
In Chesebro's GA plea deal he agreed to testify, and provide documents and evidence. If he lied about his anonymous BadgerPundit account on Twitter, to GA prosecutors (as he did to WI prosecutors), will this affect his GA plea deal? I understand once WI prosecutors discovered the BadgerPundit account, after Chesebro lied about it's existence, he ended up being indicted.
You are correct on both counts.
Fani Willis could unwind Chesebro's plea deal for lying, but I find it highly doubtful that she would want to do so. The point of cutting a deal with Kenny the Cheese was to squeeze him for information and to flip, and he's done that. I don't think he has anything else to give that would be worth doing so.
Thanks. Makes sense. Hoping the additional indictments and possible convictions will be enough for Chesebro to face some actual prison time.
"(Apparently, while the Stringer Bell rule precludes taking notes, it is silent as to whether you should scrapbook your criminal conspiracy.)"
See: VIDEOTAPING THIS CRIME SPREE IS THE BEST IDEA WE EVER HAD!
Despicable behavior by idiots claiming to be lawyers. ALL POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT.
Really appreciate deep drives like this - both the information and the tone.
I wish everyone would read this and get as insensed about these assholes, as we should be.
Trump himself is too dumb to accomplish anything, but he has willing and eager co-conspirators, cheerfully trying to kill the remnants of our democracy and everything else that holds value.
And for what? What was Chesebro even getting out of it, other than a pat on the head by Trump?
Such pathetic lack of any values or morals or character.
When you read his documents -- and yes, I went through all 1000+ pages -- a picture emerges of this eager, sycophantic lapdog just desperate to be told he's right by some of the very worst criminal scumbags on earth.
Just.... pathetic. I thought he made off on some cryptocurrency investment? It's like crypto is a virus