January 6 Select Committee

[Gregg]

The sending of the letters might not have been per se illegal, but they sure as hell could be "one overt act" in a plan to overthrow the election.

"Overthrow an election" is not a crime. It surely is an end, and the means to it may be criminal. But "criminal conspiracy" means conspiring to commit a crime, so the first step is specifying an actual, on-the-books crime.

Okay, forgive my imprecise language, Sedition is illegal and faking documents to give the cover for Sedition might not be illegal, but coordinating with people in your own state, 5 other states and the staff of the geriatric Florida golf cheat so they can do Seditioning by any various means is "one overt act" or more.

This really gets me wound up, mostly because one group of poots in Michigan is one thing, but doing it in 5 states is a test run to do it in 25 states next time and being taken seriously when they do.

What used to be comedy to all us rich white liberals suddenly becomes the way it finally all fell down.

[bob]

After all, the Washington Post said today that Ohio may have saved democracy.

I don't believe that, but we may have added 3 or 4 seats in Congress.

I personally haven't been following the Ohio reapportionment closely. The tea leaves had said, while the maps were being drawn, lawsuits were likely. And more leaves said, while the cases were being litigated, the maps likely were going to be tossed.

While I'm glad the leaves were correct, I don't think they saved democracy. I don't think there are many Lessons Learned applicable to the other states that are also redistricting. I definitely don't believe Democrats will control Congress this time next year. I believe (but less strongly) the Democrats will not control the House.

* * *

I also think that their intent was to disrupt the function of Congress in counting the electoral votes.

There's no evidence of "intent to disrupt," as objections and debate over certifications are part of the process; by definition, objections are just rupting, not disrupting. Even frivolous objections; no one is going to jail for frivolously objecting (or for suborning frivolous objections).

They deliberately did this in an attempt to circumvent the legitimate outcome of the 2020 election.

Likely true, but, again, an end and not a criminal mean.

And I think that they DID imply that they were the authorized representatives of their respective states.

Which "alternative slate" uttered that it was from an authorized state representative?

Political parties are authorized to issue slates of electors. But, without a state's authorization, it is just a slate of electors. Randos aren't "authorized," per se, to issue slates, but their unauthorized claims are, at the end of the day, a constitutionally protected but non-violent way to say you disagree with the election results.

[Kriselda Gray]

It is possible that there were two overlapping conspiracies, working synergistically. And that the LARPers arm didn't know about the violence arm, but the LARPers ignorance might not save them from criminal proceedings.

But what if both arms were part of the same conspiracy? Just theoretically, what if Trump, Meadows, Clark and other various and sundry "master" "minds" came up with a two-track conspiracy with both tracks working toward the overall goal of getting Pence to declare the submitted Biden slates invalid leading to Trump eventually being "re-elected." One track would involve the letter from Clark and the fake Trump elector slates, and the other would be having the insurrectionists overrun the Capitol to put pressure on both Pence - to ensure he went through with his part of the plan - and Congress itself - to ensure no one would interfere with the plan.

Granted, the only "law degree" I have is from the Dick Wolf College of Law & Order, but I've heard it said several times - both fictionally and factually - that in a conspiracy, the right hand doesn't have to know what the left is doing as long as all parties are agreed on achieving a common goal - in this case, the overturning of the election.

Having said that, I'm a card-carrying doomsayer. Without more, the LARPers LARPed; the only consequences they'll face is ridicule and scorn.

The J6 committee won't exist in a year. Before it closes shop, it'll make some recommendations (about election reform) that be duly round-filed. It may make some criminal referrals, but the DOJ will only seize on the lowest hanging of fruits.

And the White House conspirators will apply the lessons learned from the dress rehearsal.

Sadly, this is where I tend to fall, also. Part of me almost doesn't want to live to see what comes next.

[bob]

Granted, the only "law degree" I have is from the Dick Wolf College of Law & Order, but I've heard it said several times - both fictionally and factually - that in a conspiracy, the right hand doesn't have to know what the left is doing as long as all parties are agreed on achieving a common goal - in this case, the overturning of the election.

I think such an outcome is possible but not probable, because what you believe, what you know, what you can prove, what you are willing to take to court, what will convince a jury, and what will stick on appeal are all serious, serious roadblocks.

[poplove]

This jackwagon lost his 2020 bid for congress in my district, NV-04, and is currently running for SOS.

Sarah Ashton-Cirillo
@SarahAshtonLV
Proud Republican conspirator Jim Marchant admits to Lin Wood that the Nevada GOP came up with the fake electoral college scheme.

[RTH10260]

Question, please refresh my memory: were those letters with fake electors only sent to the archivar? Or had a copy also been sent to the Capitol! Cause i would see the latter as potentially interfering, although they came from the wrong source, not a SoS.

[bob]

Question, please refresh my memory: were those letters with fake electors only sent to the archivar? Or had a copy also been sent to the Capitol! Cause i would see the latter as potentially interfering, although they came from the wrong source, not a SoS.

I don't know if the fake slates were sent to Congress, but under the Electoral Count Act, the states' legit certificates of ascertainment are sent to the archivist. Then there's a whole ceremony about transporting the original certificates to Congress for them to be counted (as they were on January 6, 2021).

So, if the intent was to create dueling slates, they should have gone to the archivist. But if the intent was to give Pence, etc., a prop to wave around on TV, it really didn't matter to where they were sent (Congress, EEOB, Naval Observatory, etc.). If Pence believed he had the authority to stop the count, that authority would not have depended on where the doubt originated, or the doubt originators' proper use of the postal system.

While the insurrection was happening, the original certificates were saved and secreted away. If the seditionists had obtained the original certificates (and destroyed at least some of them), the resumed count during the early hours of January 7 might not have happened.

[bob]

"For the record," I think the theory of one large conspiracy is a reasonable working hypothesis.* That one component of the conspiracy was for the fake electors to be used as a figleaf for Pence to declare a doubt and stop the count. Meanwhile, the mob outside Congress was another component: it was intended to both pressure Pence and prevent law enforcement from effectively mobilizing; a siege (in the literal sense). Whether violence was explicitly part of the siege is debatable ("more will be revealed" with the Oathkeepers criminal cases), but its occurrence was foreseeable (and was, in fact, foreseen). And reasonable people are debating whether the Ellipse speeches met the legal definition of incitement of violence.

The pinnacle of this conspiracy is very obvious; the inner circle around it are also so, but individuals in that cadre might have had differing levels of knowledge. Regardless, under criminal conspiracy liability, even the lowliest of soldiers could be legally culpable. Even if their own actions were legal, e.g., the LARPing electors.

So I think the J6 committee will recommend to the DOJ either: a traditional Mafia prosecution, where little fishes flip on upstream fishes until the head is reached; or to just aim for the head because the evidence is so blatant.

And I think the DOJ will choose door number three: punt.


* The conspiracy itself was very stupid because it had no endgame. Assuming all went as planned and Pence refused to count: Then what? Pelosi had various parliamentarian tactics to counter or at least combat that; the Democrats weren't going to just shrug like some Scooby Doo villain of the week. The most likely scenario would have been chaos and then Pelosi declaring herself Acting President on January 20. Assuming the Second War Between the States Civil War hadn't started by then.

[roadscholar]

The letters could be considered stochastic terrorism… a ploy intended and designed to avoid criminal blame, thus ensuring that those who actually commit political violence at their behest get punished and they don’t. Even though the useful idiots were plainly realizing their wishes.

This is but a new paradigm of an ageless horror.

[bob]

The letters could be considered stochastic terrorism… a ploy intended and designed to avoid criminal blame, thus ensuring that those who actually commit political violence at their behest get punished and they don’t.

"Could be" and the passive voice are doing all the work.

I very strenuously doubt there's any evidence that a Fake Elector LARPed with the intent to cause or encourage others to commit violence.

Whether someone higher up on the food chain had this intent is part of the working hypothesis about the J6 "master" "minds" (which, at this point, still is only a theory about a conspiracy).

[Suranis]

I remember reading the law at the time, and only electoral votes certified by the State could be accepted as valid

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/6

It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration.

[Kendra]

NBC News: Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller has met with the Jan. 6 Committee.

Miller was acting Def Sec on Jan. 6 and has previously said Trump "encouraged the protestors."
@NBCNews

[RTH10260]

I remember reading the law at the time, and only electoral votes certified by the State could be accepted as valid

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/6

BUT... But.... but.... we don't need no f***g law, we make the rules!

(what to my horror I see too many times spoken by officials when 1AA confront them)

I understand that in the next repeat they will make sure that state Congress will decertify in time and replace the voters decision with....

[Gregg]

Could be big news for Anna Von State Assemblies.

[Chilidog]

There's one slate of electors that came from the Nevada Republican Party.

Did they also send a copy to the local federal district judge?

[roadscholar]

The letters could be considered stochastic terrorism… a ploy intended and designed to avoid criminal blame, thus ensuring that those who actually commit political violence at their behest get punished and they don’t.

"Could be" and the passive voice are doing all the work.

I very strenuously doubt there's any evidence that a Fake Elector LARPed with the intent to cause or encourage others to commit violence.

Whether someone higher up on the food chain had this intent is part of the working hypothesis about the J6 "master" "minds" (which, at this point, still is only a theory about a conspiracy).

I was in fact assuming they were part of an intentionally-assembled series of efforts aimed at the eventual violent insurrection. But as we discussed, the letters have a whole raft of plausible deniability.

[bob]

[keith]

IANAL, obviously, but you guys seem to be focusing on whether these things are counterfeit or not, and ignoring the uttering.

Professor Wikipedia says this:

Uttering

Uttering is a crime involving a person with the intent to defraud that knowingly sells, publishes or passes a forged or counterfeited document. More specifically, forgery creates a falsified document and uttering is the act of knowingly passing on or using the forged document.
...
United States
In the U.S., uttering is the act of offering a forged document to another when the offeror has knowledge that the document is forged.[9] Uttering does not require that the person who presented the document actually forged or altered the document. For example, forging a log for personal profit might be considered uttering and publishing. Another example would be the forging of a university diploma. As an example of the law itself, the State of Michigan defines the offense (MCL 750.249): "Any person who utters and publishes as true any false, forged, altered or counterfeit record, deed, instrument or other writing specified, knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to injure or defraud is guilty of uttering and publishing."[10]

Forging or illegal "publishing" of an official or unofficial document is not the essence of uttering. Uttering is the actual presentation of forged or official documentation as one's own.

I notice that Michigan has referred the fraudulent works to the AG, and the Wikipedia article give Michigan law as an example. I am guessing that every State and the Feds has laws against uttering.

Every one of those 'fake electors' KNEW exactly what they were doing and knowingly signed the document and the Party 'Official' who sent those documents to the Congress or the Archives (or wherever they went) knew exactly what they were doing. They all said specifically "we the undersigned being the duly elected and qualified electors", not "we the losers give you this for posterity and to stroke our egos". They knew what they were doing and they "uttered and published" fraudulent documents meant to defraud the United States.

Stephen Miller went on TV to 'brag' about exactly this process and how they were claiming that they were real. Trump allies' fake Electoral College certificates offer fresh insights about plot to overturn Biden's victory (see his statement at about the 2 minute mark).

How can there be any doubt that this was in fact uttering and publishing as true a "false, forged, altered or counterfeit record, deed, instrument or other writing specified, knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to injure or defraud"?

I have wanted to see some assholes go down for uttering since the early Obama Birthering days.

I so want this to be the time my fantasy comes true!

[bob]

They all said specifically "we the undersigned being the duly elected and qualified electors"

But they believed it. They honestly and sincerely believed they were duly elected because they believed their preferred candidate won. (Which is why innocently passing along a counterfeit bill you received from another isn't a crime: no intent to defraud.)

not "we the losers give you this for posterity and to stroke our egos".

Which in actuality was what it was. They may not believe so, but they are not the only ones entitled to opinions, including opinions about them.

How can there be any doubt that this was in fact uttering and publishing as true a "false, forged, altered or counterfeit record, deed, instrument or other writing specified, knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to injure or defraud"?

Because the Electoral Count Act says a state's executive branch sends the certificate of ascertainment to the archivists.

Randos may send all the fanfic they wish as well. But as long as didn't say it was official ascertainment, it is just cosplaying.

Or, stated differently, who, specifically, were the LARPers intending to injure and defraud? The archivist, who knew what to look for? Pence, whose only job was to (direct others to) open envelopes (or, as some suspect, is/was in on the conspiracy)?

[RTH10260]

IMHO "uttering" does not apply here. Uttering requires a fake or falsified official document. As discussed prior in this thread the letters sent to the archivar are not considered official documents but only letters puporting to list electors. The letters did not copy official letterhead of the Secretary of State, nor carry a fake signature of the SoS.

[keith]

IMHO "uttering" does not apply here. Uttering requires a fake or falsified official document. As discussed prior in this thread the letters sent to the archivar are not considered official documents but only letters puporting to list electors. The letters did not copy official letterhead of the Secretary of State, nor carry a fake signature of the SoS.

At least one of them (from Arizona) used the State Seal.
(edit: I have a magazine article source for that statement, but this document is not in the documents pulled by American Oversight's FOIA)

Uttering does not require that the receiver to believe that the forged document is true - it only requires that the utterer knows it is counterfeit and presents it as true.

[keith]

But they believed it.

Bullshit. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Because the Electoral Count Act says a state's executive branch sends the certificate of ascertainment to the archivists.

EXACTLY.

Whether they honestly thought the election had been stolen or not, they KNEW they were not the legal authority to make that determination or to communicate the result to the Archives, never-the-less they did it. They knew the documents were fraudulent, period.

Whether or not the Archives recognized the fraud is irrelevant - they presented the documents as true.

Their purpose was to sow FUD - (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), gee up the rabble, and provide some pretence of cover for their ongoing coup attempt.

Or, stated differently, who, specifically, were the LARPers intending to injure and defraud?

The voters of the State that they purported to have been elected by, and the American people in general. The electoral workers and systems in the several States. Congress. The Electoral College. Pence. Biden. The Democratic Party.

[keith]

Here is a link to the actual fake documents.

American Oversight: FOIA request for fake electoral documents from NARA (PDF)

They aren't pretending here. And they sent these documents to the recipients that should legally receive the true documents. That means they KNOW EXACTLY what the correct process is and knowingly uttered fake documents intending them to be taken as true.

The Arizona one that supposedly used the State Seal is not among this trove. I assume that the Archives chose to reject it out of hand and notified the Arizona Attorney General about it because of the fraudulent use of the State Seal so it was not available for the FOIA request.

[RTH10260]

and H/T for supplying the link.

Just skimmed the first (3?) of the state declarations, and all are from "We the electors" and that's not how it works to my IANAL knowlege. It's the SoS who sends the list of Electors and signs it.

Just my IANAL opinion re utterances, still believes that most (all) papers do not qualify as sufficient forgery cause they lack to be a copy of a real document as submitted by a SoS.

[keith]

and H/T for supplying the link.

Just skimmed the first (3?) of the state declarations, and all are from "We the electors" and that's not how it works to my IANAL knowlege. It's the SoS who sends the list of Electors and signs it.

Just my IANAL opinion re utterances, still believes that most (all) papers do not qualify as sufficient forgery cause they lack to be a copy of a real document as submitted by a SoS.

Just glancing at the first one from Az, the 'official' claims to be "Chairperson of the Electoral College of Arizona" and claims to be the originals of Arizona's votes.

The documents are prefaced with the words "We the undersigned being the duly elected and qualified Electors"

The documents purport to be THE votes from THE duly elected and qualified Electors.

Yes, it is a bad counterfeit, but it is a counterfeit, quality of the counterfeit is irrelevant. Knowingly presenting that counterfeit as if it is real is the point here.

Making a fake official document (no matter how badly) is counterfeiting. (I'm ignoring stuff like film set money)

Trying to convince someone that the fake is real in order to gain some benefit thereby is uttering.

Taking film set money off set and attempting to buy cigarettes znd beer with it would be uttering.