January 6 Select Committee

[Kendra]

Reporting on CNN right now, Committee wants to talk to Kevin McCarthy.

Edit: The letter sent: https://january6th.house.gov/sites/demo ... Carthy.pdf

[RVInit]

Scroll down and listen to the video response to the tweet. This.

[raison de arizona]

Oh Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. They are going to make you eat those words and serve them back up for Sunday Dinner.

[Kendra]

NBC News: Ex-Trump White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany met virtually today with the Jan. 6 Committee.
@NBCNews

[Dr. Ken]

They created false certifications in 7 states for Trump and sent them to the archivist
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... 0174-a.pdf

How is this not mail and wire fraud as well as conspiracy to defraud the United States?

[Kriselda Gray]

They created false certifications in 7 states for Trump and sent them to the archivist
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... 0174-a.pdf

How is this not mail and wire fraud as well as conspiracy to defraud the United States?

Rachael's opening last night was about the 5 of those fake slates - I guess 2 more surfaced today. It was really interesting. She noted that while all of the genuine certificates look different from one state to another in terms of paper used, typefaces, spacing, wording and so forth, the five forgeries she had are either identical or nearly identical, as if each state were given a template to use to create their faked forms. And Georgia actually had 2 separate fake slates that were submitted - one that matched the format of the other 4 states and one that was different. On top of that, there was another state - I think Pennsylvania - that had a slate of Trump electors they submitted that stated they were to be the electors if a court found that the election results in PA were invalid. The fake slates submitted by the other states all said that these were the actual electors, not contingency electors depending on court rulings.

Additionally, the draft letter that Jeffery Clarke* wrote which was to be sent to Georgia (and other states) instructing them NOT to submit their slate of electors actually made reference to these alternate slates of electors. She also said that several of the names of electors had been substituted on the forged forms when compared to who the actual list of the people who would have been Trump electors had he won that particular state. One person whose name had been removed and replaced by someone else said that they knew that the fake slate was being drawn up and signed and did not want to be a part of it.

*Clarke is the guy Trump wanted to make Acting AG so he could send out letters like the one represented by the GA draft letter referred to above. What stopped him was several other top DOJ people threatened to quit en mass if he made Clarke Acting AG.

[Greatgrey]

They created false certifications in 7 states for Trump and sent them to the archivist
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... 0174-a.pdf

How is this not mail and wire fraud as well as conspiracy to defraud the United States?

[bob]

They created false certifications in 7 states for Trump and sent them to the archivist
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... 0174-a.pdf

How is this not mail and wire fraud as well as conspiracy to defraud the United States?

The short answer is there's no fraud.

This is akin to what citizens grand juries do: they make official-looking papers that have no legal effect. "Oh, it was Larry Klayman who indicted me? Well, let me clear my calendar!"

If you look at the certificates, they all sign with their names and the names of their LARP groups. At no point do they purport to represent a state. No one forged an election official's signature.

They may look official, but actually aren't. And nb.: "The Electoral College" isn't a thing; there isn't one. It certainly isn't a government entity.

So when the federal archivist received these papers, the first step was to see if they were duly signed by a representative of a state's executive branch. Since they weren't, they then were stamped "received," filed for posterity, and not thought about it again.

In other words, no intent to deceive; it was WYSIWYG.

A more interesting scenario would have been they were signed by members of a state's legislative branch. (Classic dueling electors, a la 1876.) That's when the Electoral Count Act would have kicked in. (And litigation would have followed.)

Given that time is the J6 committee's enemy, this isn't worth pursuing.

[Greatgrey]

IANAL Bob, but…

If someone presents a counterfeit $20 bill in payment, it’s still forgery wether there’s a Sec of Treasury signature on it or not.

[bob]

If someone presents a counterfeit $20 bill in payment, it’s still forgery wether there’s a Sec of Treasury signature on it or not.

True, and that's a good rough analogy. Proving that providing a cashier with fake green rectangles evinced an intent to defraud is doable but by no means easy, as there are many possible defenses, such as ignorance or mistake.

The anticipated defense to possible criminal charges for these fake certificates would be that nothing was forged or counterfeit. They were "genuine" "certificates" that were exactly what they claimed to be (i.e., a bunch of randos declaring themselves to be electors). No one ever said that their certificates were intended to be the executive branch's certificates; they're just somebody's certificates.

Making this whole scheme brilliant and stupid. Stupid because, if it wasn't intended to confuse the archivist, then it was a waste (which it was). But also brilliant because, even if there was a secret desire to confuse the archivist, there's the plausible deniability of claiming the sending of the useless certificates was a protected First Amendment act of protest, petitioning of grievances, etc.*

And such deniability is probably just enough (legally, politically, or both) to avoid the initiation of criminal proceedings.


* Dumb criminals that they may be, they probably left a paper/digital trial of their criminal intent. That an investigator (including the J6 committee's staff) likely lacks the tools (or will) to discover.

[Volkonski]

Ana Cabrera
@AnaCabrera
·
1m
JUST IN: Bernard Kerik, the former NYC police commissioner, is meeting with the House select committee investigating January 6.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the panel’s chairman, says the interview began about an hour ago.

[SuzieC]

Making this whole scheme brilliant and stupid. Stupid because, if it wasn't intended to confuse the archivist, then it was a waste (which it was). But also brilliant because, even if there was a secret desire to confuse the archivist, there's the plausible deniability of claiming the sending of the useless certificates was a protected First Amendment act of protest, petitioning of grievances, etc.*

But it was more than a scheme to confuse the archivist. The fake slates of electors were intended to be used to overturn the election. The real electors of each state would have been defrauded. Isn't fraudulently interfering with or obstructing an election a crime in every state and under federal law? As always, intent matters. The people who perpetrated this scheme intended these fake slates of electors to be put to use.

[bob]

But it was more than a scheme to confuse the archivist. The fake slates of electors were intended to be used to overturn the election. The real electors of each state would have been defrauded. Isn't fraudulently interfering with or obstructing an election a crime in every state and under federal law? As always, intent matters. The people who perpetrated this scheme intended these fake slates of electors to be put to use.

But was it? Was that their intent? Or, to paraphrase A Few Good Men, what is believed, what is known, and what can be proved?

There clearly was an intent, as some of the fake slates were designed to look much like 2016 genuine slates. But does this translate to an actual, on-the-books crime?

And any trial would ultimately be about what was in people's brains when they did what they did. Intent always may be inferable from the surrounding circumstances, of course, but given the rather uncharted nature of everything, I'm not surprised no one so far has taken both legal and political gambles to prosecute, as convictions would be far from slam dunks. Doubly so for the J6 committee, which has much bigger fishes to attempt to fry (and the link between LARPing sore losers and the actual insurrection is not direct).

Meanwhile, the statute of limitations continues to tick away.

[Dr. Ken]

Making this whole scheme brilliant and stupid. Stupid because, if it wasn't intended to confuse the archivist, then it was a waste (which it was). But also brilliant because, even if there was a secret desire to confuse the archivist, there's the plausible deniability of claiming the sending of the useless certificates was a protected First Amendment act of protest, petitioning of grievances, etc.*

But it was more than a scheme to confuse the archivist. The fake slates of electors were intended to be used to overturn the election. The real electors of each state would have been defrauded. Isn't fraudulently interfering with or obstructing an election a crime in every state and under federal law? As always, intent matters. The people who perpetrated this scheme intended these fake slates of electors to be put to use.

The fake electors were point 2 and 3 of John Eastman's plan in his infamous memos. It was meant to use that as a springboard for pence to supposedly say there were conflicting slates of electors and to throw out those states electoral votes. Pence wouldn't play ball.

[New Turtle]

The fake electors were point 2 and 3 of John Eastman's plan in his infamous memos. It was meant to use that as a springboard for pence to supposedly say there were conflicting slates of electors and to throw out those states electoral votes. Pence wouldn't play ball.

Yes. They didn't need the fake slates to be accepted by the archivist as actual electors. What we saw over the last few days with the pictures, that's what they wanted on the news in the runup to Jan 6. Some of the floor speeches by objecting senators mentioned other electors, but it came off as confusing, plus the other part of the plan involving Pence fell through.

[bob]

The fake electors were point 2 and 3 of John Eastman's plan in his infamous memos. It was meant to use that as a springboard for pence to supposedly say there were conflicting slates of electors and to throw out those states electoral votes. Pence wouldn't play ball.

Yes. They didn't need the fake slates to be accepted by the archivist as actual electors. What we saw over the last few days with the pictures, that's what they wanted on the news in the runup to Jan 6. Some of the floor speeches by objecting senators mentioned other electors, but it came off as confusing, plus the other part of the plan involving Pence fell through.

I'm aware of Eastman's memo and the plan for the fake electors.

But the fake electors themselves didn't present an actual, forged certificate of ascertainment from a state's executive branch. The "citizens' slate of electors" were what they were, nothing more.

Now, the question of whether Eastman's memo was merely criminally stupid or actually criminal is being hotly debated (by, notably, Eastman himself). Eastman will die on the hill that his memo was advocacy and advice, but not a crime. And his viewpoint seems to be carrying the day thus far, because he too remains uncharged.

So even assuming the fake electors conspired with Eastman in their scheme, the ultimate question is whether they conspired to break an actual law. But the focus of those kinds of questions will be the head of the rotting fish (i.e., the repeached Florida Man, Eastman, Giuliani, etc.) -- and not the day players who provided the props.

Unless Georgian LARP Elector No. 3 is willing to testify, "Why, yes, John Eastman called me and told me this plan was a crime but we should do it anyway," a criminal intent will be difficult to prove. Because Eastman has publicly said he believed (and still believes) his advice was legal and following the U.S. Constitution.

[Kendra]

https://january6th.house.gov/news/press ... anuary-6th

Washington—Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) today announced that the Select Committee has issued subpoenas to four social media companies as a part of its investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and its causes. After inadequate responses to prior requests for information, the Select Committee is demanding records from Alphabet, Meta, Reddit, and Twitter relating to the spread of misinformation, efforts to overturn the 2020 election, domestic violent extremism, and foreign influence in the 2020 election.

Chairman Thompson issued the following statement:

“Two key questions for the Select Committee are how the spread of misinformation and violent extremism contributed to the violent attack on our democracy, and what steps—if any—social media companies took to prevent their platforms from being breeding grounds for radicalizing people to violence. It’s disappointing that after months of engagement, we still do not have the documents and information necessary to answer those basic questions. The Select Committee is working to get answers for the American people and help ensure nothing like January 6th ever happens again. We cannot allow our important work to be delayed any further.”

The Select Committee issued subpoenas for records to the following social media companies:

Alphabet’s YouTube was a platform for significant communications by its users that were relevant to the planning and execution of January 6th attack on the United States Capitol, including livestreams of the attack as it was taking place.

[SuzieC]

Rachel reporting that criminal investigations are pending in Michigan and Wisconsin into the phony fake forged slate of electors documents in those states.

[Dr. Ken]

Rachel reporting that criminal investigations are pending in Michigan and Wisconsin into the phony fake forged slate of electors documents in those states.

Should we create a new thread on the Fake certifications?
Michigan AG says she referred the 16 republicans who signed the Michigan certifications to federal prosecutors

[filly]

I don't think we need a new thread. I think this is a piece of the larger puzzle. Bob is probably correct about the criminality (or lack thereof) of the fake electors, but there was clearly communication between these bozos about doing it. Who was organizing it? And why?

[New Turtle]

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

[RTH10260]

Handwriting the address and the return address?

Looks really professional

[Kendra]

An interesting moment to look back on, not only because we've recently heard a lot about the forged state elector certificates, but because Kayleigh recently appeared before the Jan. 6 committee.

[bob]

Michigan AG says she referred the 16 republicans who signed the Michigan certifications to federal prosecutors

Referrals generally don't impress me, as rarely does the prosecuting agency require one; if the prosecutor wanted to prosecute, the prosecutor would just prosecute.

And, in this case, Michigan's referring to the feebs all but says no state law was broken.

Referrals, especially noisy ones, are often done for political purposes. I mean, didn't the Arizona Senate refer the Cyber Ninjas report to the AGoAZ?

I think the Republican-countenanced fake electors is an "interesting development" (read: we're doomed), but I presume the J6 committee's interest, if any, will focus on the masterminds ("master" and "minds" being quite generous).

[Estiveo]

If/when the "Master Mind(s)" get charged with something, might these chuckle-heads then get rounded up for some flavor of conspiracy, seditious or otherwise?