January 6 Select Committee

[RTH10260]

Tinkering on the google machine I find:

The Electoral College

It's a Process, not a Place

The Electoral College is how we refer to the process by which the United States elects the President, even though that term does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. In this process, the States (which includes the District of Columbia just for this process) elect the President and Vice President.

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) is a part of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and, on behalf of the Archivist of the United States, coordinates certain functions of the Electoral College between the States and Congress. Acting as an intermediary, it reviews the Certificates of Ascertainment and Vote before Congress accepts them as evidence of official State action in preparation for the counting of electoral votes in Congress. In addition to posting them on this website, OFR makes the physical Certificates available for public inspection for one year following the election. After that year, the Certificates become part of the National Archives collection.

OFR has no role in appointing electors and has no contact with them.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college

I infer from "OFR has no role in appointing electors and has no contact with them." that this also could mean that they don't accept paperwork sent in from them, therefore no official document that could be forged.

and

Prepare the Certificate of Ascertainment

After the general election, the Governor of each State prepares at least seven** original Certificates of Ascertainment listing the persons appointed as electors. Since Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Ascertainment, the format can vary from State to State. However, Federal law requires that each Certificate of Ascertainment must:

list the names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received.
list the names of all other candidates for elector and the number of votes received.
be signed by the Governor and carry the seal of the State.
**States have the option of creating nine original Certificates or seven original Certificates and two certified copies. They then send three original Certificates or one Certificate along with the two certified copies.

Distribute the Certificate of Ascertainment

Each State must send at least one Certificate of Ascertainment to the Archivist of the United States at OFR as soon as possible after the general election results are finalized. At the very latest, they must be prepared so that the electors are appointed by the meeting of the electors and sent to the Archivist with the Certificates of Vote.

Each State must retain the other six Certificates for legal sufficiency. Each State must retain the other six originals for the State’s meeting of the electors.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-coll ... appointing

All paperwork not coming from state officials will therefore not be considered valid communication. IMHO such fake papers cannot carry an "uttered" quality.

In https://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeI ... 20vote.pdf showing as a sample S.Carolina Certificate with image

Sample Certificate of Vote
Before the Electoral College meeting, the Secretary of State prepares certificates of vote to be signed by the electors at the meeting. In addition, the Governor prepares nine certificates of ascertainment which set forth: (a) names of the candidates for president and vice president; (b) names of the electors; and (c) number of votes received by each. The Governor sends three certificates of ascertainment directly to the Archivist of the United States prior to the Electoral College meeting, and sends to the remaining certificates to the Secretary of State. The certificates of ascertainment are affixed to the certificates of vote at the Electoral College meeting.

[Kriselda Gray]

Per Rachel last night, people from at least 2 of the states involved have said that they were asked by the Trump campaign to create and submit these fake slates. Given how they are all apparently based on the same template, it would seem likely that the Trump campaign requested all of the fake slates.

IANAL, but to me this might bolster the idea that they knew what they were doing was improper. Had they been asked by a group of Congresscritters, the Governor, Election officials or others who could potentially be speaking as state authorities, I might be more willing to buy the idea that they truly believed they were the genuine electors and entitled to have their votes counted. But with the request coming from Trump, it's pretty obvious that it wasn't official - obvious enough that 2 states actually altered the text to say, in essence, that if something like a court order happened and changed the vote total so that Trump carried the state, then here are the votes from his electors so that they can be counted.

The example of Sov Cits and their fake docs not being illegal because they aren't trying to deceive anyone (since they believe their bullshit is real) is a bit different from these fake docs, IMO, because most of the positions they claim give them the authority to issue their "rulings" and "orders" don't actually exist. There aren't any actual "common law" courts, judges, attorneys general or anything else like that. In the case of the electoral slates, however, those are real positions, and they are claiming to be the "duly elected and qualified" ones when they almost certainly knew they weren't.

ETA: I was writing this while RTH was posting his message immediately above this one. While his may make my thoughts irrelevant, I'm leaving it anyway in part because I'm not sure they do, and just in case they can add to the conversation.

[raison de arizona]

FWIW those names on the AZ one aren't random wackjobs, they are important figures in the AZ GOP. Dr. Kelli Ward, for example, is the chair of the GOP in AZ.

[RTH10260]

Makes me wonder how much those T campaign workers actually knew of the Election Law and the formally correct procedure to follow. I now tend to believe that these fake slates were introduced to pressure Pence, especially that the T campaign hoped that some Congress critter among the most stupid would pick them up and promote them during the Electoral Collge counting.

[SuzieC]

Good article about criminal investigations into the fake slates of electors.

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/republ ... wNFcX8wu14

I read in the book "The Steal" (pp. 178-79) that as the winning Democratic electors met in the Governor's Office in Madison Wis. to formally cast their votes for Biden the defeated Trump electors met in another room in the capitol building to cast their votes. They didn't view it as a symbolic gesture because they were sure Trump had won their state.

[raison de arizona]

[raison de arizona]

HMMM: In a new court filing, Jan. 6 defendant Brandon STRAKA said prosecutors' questions for him suggested they were trying to establish "an organized conspiracy" between Trump and allies to disrupt Congress.

https://politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-6eb ... fe60bf0000

Straka says he denied existence of such a conspiracy, but the suggestion DOJ was asking about Trump-related things cuts against the public perception that DOJ hasn't done this so far.

[Kriselda Gray]

I'm curious about Straka's comment that in Aug 2021 the FBI found there was no evidence the violence was centrally coordinated by any individual or group. I hadn't heard this before, has anyone else? That doesn't seem to fit with the recent Oaf Keepers indictment which certainly seems to find that there was coordinated violence on their part at the very least...

[filly]

You can't believe a goddamn word Brandon Stratka says, so there's that.

[pipistrelle]

You can't believe a goddamn word Brandon Stratka says, so there's that.

Yes. And if he’s a defendant, wouldn’t Mike Dunford be telling him to STFU?

[raison de arizona]

You can't believe a goddamn word Brandon Stratka says, so there's that.

Yes. And if he’s a defendant, wouldn’t Mike Dunford be telling him to STFU?

IANAL, but this is his response to the government’s sentencing memorandum. I'm not sure that this is time for him to STFU anymore. Thoughts?

[Estiveo]

You can't believe a goddamn word Brandon Stratka says, so there's that.

Yes. And if he’s a defendant, wouldn’t Mike Dunford be telling him to STFU?

A classic example of having the right to remain silent, but not the ability.

[bob]

At least one of them (from Arizona) used the State Seal.

Yes, and the state sent a nastygram telling them to stop. But, notably, the state didn't pursue criminal charges.

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.

But the fake slate wasn't forged; it is a true document that represents what it is.

The reference to counterfeiting was intended only to show the heightened requirement for intent for criminal charges.

They knew exactly what they were doing.

That they knew what they were doing doesn't make it illegal.

That they had bad motives doesn't mean they had illegal motives.

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.

They weren't fraudulent because they made no fake representation.

There's no law with communicating with the federal archivist.

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.

So "everybody," which means nobody in particular. There was no intent to defraud a particular person. Who was duped?

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.

Which is all just cosplaying because it isn't from the state's executive. Inventing fancy sound names is sad but not criminal.


So it unsurprising that this stunt over 13 months ago didn't lead to any arrests or charges.

[bob]

Per Rachel last night, people from at least 2 of the states involved have said that they were asked by the Trump campaign to create and submit these fake slates. Given how they are all apparently based on the same template, it would seem likely that the Trump campaign requested all of the fake slates.

That is evidence of co-ordination, but not necessarily criminal conspiracy.

IANAL, but to me this might bolster the idea that they knew what they were doing was improper. Had they been asked by a group of Congresscritters, the Governor, Election officials or others who could potentially be speaking as state authorities, I might be more willing to buy the idea that they truly believed they were the genuine electors and entitled to have their votes counted.

Members of Congress also have no authority over electors. An appeal to authority requires an authority that has the authority to do something.

But there's an interesting issue that the campaign's lawyers may have told them this was legitimate. Which might be bad news for the campaign's lawyers, but it is good news for the LARPers because they can now say they were relying on the advice of counsel, which often defeats other kinds of fraudulent-intent crimes.

But with the request coming from Trump, it's pretty obvious that it wasn't official - obvious enough that 2 states actually altered the text to say, in essence, that if something like a court order happened and changed the vote total so that Trump carried the state, then here are the votes from his electors so that they can be counted.

Those changes make the case for criminality even weaker: they told the reader they knew they were just cosplaying unless subsequent conditions occurred, but those conditions never happened.

The example of Sov Cits and their fake docs not being illegal because they aren't trying to deceive anyone (since they believe their bullshit is real) is a bit different from these fake docs, IMO, because most of the positions they claim give them the authority to issue their "rulings" and "orders" don't actually exist.

Just like a group of people can call themselves electors; the "authority" to do so exists only in their minds.

In the case of the electoral slates, however, those are real positions, and they are claiming to be the "duly elected and qualified" ones when they almost certainly knew they weren't.

"Duly" in this context ultimately is an opinion; they honestly and sincerely believe their candidate received the most votes.

But they never said the state executive branch agreed with them.

* * *

They didn't view it as a symbolic gesture because they were sure Trump had won their state.

Which is another argument against criminality; they believed they were doing the proper thing. They didn't secretly believe Biden had won but were doing what they did to steal anything from Biden.

[p0rtia]

Thanks for posting!

[raison de arizona]

no link yet

BREAKING: The Jan. 6 committee has subpoenaed

-Rudy Giuliani
-Sidney Powell
-Jenna Ellis
-Boris Epshteyn

Details TK w/ @nicholaswu12 @woodruffbets

Edit: link: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/rudy-gi ... probe.html

[Kendra]

Moar!

FLASH: House Jan 6 Committee has subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Boris Epshteyn, Jenna Ellis

Chairman says they "advanced unsupported theories about election fraud, pushed efforts to overturn the election results, or were in direct contact w/ the former President..."

[filly]

At this point, it seems like the Committee is issuing subpoenas not with any expectation that any of these miscreants will show up but rather so they can draw justifiable negative inferences about them.

I guess Garland isn't going to indict Mark Meadows, so why should anyone show up?

[bob]

At this point, it seems like the Committee is issuing subpoenas not with any expectation that any of these miscreants will show up but rather so they can draw justifiable negative inferences about them.

Yup. And name-n-shame, for posterity's sake.

[p0rtia]

Posterity, yes, but also, for right now.

The cover letters for these subpoenas are drafted to get the facts as they see them on the record for the USA right now (since no one else seems to be in a hurry to do it).

We NEED this as a country. This stuff needs to be out there; the slow-rolling coup is THE story of our time, and I applaud what the Select Committee is doing and how they're doing.

I think I would just roll over and die if they shrugged and said "no point in doing subpoenas, since no one will comply." Let them be seen to not comply, for those who want to know this stuff. Like us!

[filly]

Issuing subpoenas with nobody willing to attempt to enforce them seems a bit dicey to me.

They could just put out a press release.

[filly]

Exclusive: Eric Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle's phone records subpoenaed by January 6 committee

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/18/politics ... index.html

Subpoened and Obtained.

[raison de arizona]

Some thoughts on why this writer thinks the fraudulent slates of electors are prosecutable. For what they are worth (free click!) I don't know enough about this to have an opinion other than I trust bob on these things.

It’s Long Past Time to Prosecute Phony GOP Electors

Start with state law. As you can imagine, every state in the union has criminal laws prohibiting all forms of election fraud. For present purposes, one example will suffice: In Arizona, a person who knowingly forges or counterfeits returns of an election is guilty of a “class 3 felony,” the minimum penalty for which is two and a half years in prison.

However, there is one federal criminal statute that appears to cover this situation specifically and squarely. Under 52 U.S.C. § 20511, it is a crime punishable by a fine or up to five years in prison—or both—if any person:

knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by . . . the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held. [Emphasis added.]

There is some debate in the academic community about whether the votes of presidential electors are “ballots” as that term is used in this statute. The reference to “ballots” may be intended to refer only to the popular vote, not the votes cast by the electors, the argument goes.

But the statute doesn’t say that. It just says “ballots.” The common understanding is that a ballot is simply the mechanism by which votes are cast. Moreover, the Constitution explicitly and repeatedly refers to the votes of presidential electors as “ballots.” Here’s the applicable language from the Twelfth Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President. [Emphasis added.]

https://www.thebulwark.com/its-long-pas ... -electors/

[bob]

Some thoughts on why this writer thinks the fraudulent slates of electors are prosecutable.

Executive summary: "They said, 'duty duly.'"

In other words, "lying is FRAUD!," but not every lie is fraud, from a criminal-law standpoint.

If I send very fancy notes saying, "I'm Christopher Walken's duly married spouse," you are free to throw my paper throwing away.

If I send very fancy letters saying, "Attached is proof that I'm Christopher Walken's duly married spouse, so please drain his bank account into mine," well, now I've forged something and I'm intending to defraud.

The article also has some handwaving about throwing paper at the archivist is tantamount to casting a fake ballot. "Tantamount" doing all the work, of course.


I get that the author, Philip Protner is a retired very successful attorney. And? The proof is in the pudding: No one is biting.

For what they are worth (free click!) I don't know enough about this to have an opinion other than I trust bob on these things.

[northland10]

I think I would just roll over and die if they shrugged and said "no point in doing subpoenas, since no one will comply." Let them be seen to not comply, for those who want to know this stuff. Like us!

I am reminded of a line from Babylon 5, "When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be."

The committee is a political/legislative group and will always have a bunch of political games going on around it. What they can do is just keep digging and pushing and documenting those who are being intentionally obtuse or avoiding responsibility.