Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

January 6 Select Committee

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1201

Post by Luke »

It's a darn shame Orly Taitz isn't a member here anymore, she was the expert on the Electoral College.

Hearty congratulations were in order for Boris, Jenna & Roodles! Squidney, of course, lost her Twitter account last year. Foggy, if you talk with The Squid, would you please pass along our congrats?

Boris issued a statement. Since 2016 he's been on our list of most detestable people. He's totally connected to the Russians.











Hope they take it in the spirit in which it was intended! 8-) :P
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1202

Post by noblepa »

RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:32 am 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.
Isn't that sort of like if I print up a very bad version of a $100 bill, take it to the bank and attempt to deposit it in my checking account? If the bank declines to accept the bill, I don't think that the Treasury Department would think that I had not attempted to counterfeit US currency.

I agree that the OFR personnel are probably smart enough to know that the documents were not legitimate, but I don't believe for a moment that those who sent them were not trying to substitute them for the real ones. They were simply stupid enough to believe that this would work. Nor do I believe for a moment that they committed no crime. And, if what they did is NOT a crime, it damn well should be.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1203

Post by bob »

noblepa wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:47 pm I agree that the OFR personnel are probably smart enough to know that the documents were not legitimate, but I don't believe for a moment that those who sent them were not trying to substitute them for the real ones.
There is, of course, a world of difference between the subliminal voices in the brainbone and the vocalized, proffered defense in a court of law.

Anyone can believe LARPers had ill intent. Evidence to counter their anticipated defense based on plausible deniability (should it ever come to that) is altogether different.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14354
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1204

Post by RTH10260 »

noblepa wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:47 pm
RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:32 am 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.
Isn't that sort of like if I print up a very bad version of a $100 bill, take it to the bank and attempt to deposit it in my checking account? If the bank declines to accept the bill, I don't think that the Treasury Department would think that I had not attempted to counterfeit US currency.

I agree that the OFR personnel are probably smart enough to know that the documents were not legitimate, but I don't believe for a moment that those who sent them were not trying to substitute them for the real ones. They were simply stupid enough to believe that this would work. Nor do I believe for a moment that they committed no crime. And, if what they did is NOT a crime, it damn well should be.
Forgery of coins and banknotes has a precedent of thousands of years and has been criminalized since the beginning of time.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1205

Post by p0rtia »

Just a note that the Select Committee was not formed to hold trials or convict wrongdoers. Yes, I hope they will make criminal referrals, but I'm pretty sure their purposes and goals should not be rigidly compared to those of a court of law.

In our year 2022, they are perceived to be a truth finding body, mandated to explain to the citizenry wtf was up with Jan 6.

Let 'em rip.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1206

Post by Gregg »

bob wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:54 pm
raison de arizona wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:39 pm 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.
:nope: :fingerwag: :talktothehand:

But here's the thing with me. They didn't intend to fool the Archivist of the United States, or the Federal District Judges or the United States Senate or any of the other places they sent them as the law requires real ones to be sent.
They intended to fool the mob, and even them for just long enough to give Pence cover to toss out votes because (I have conflicting ballots here so I'm going to discount them all" and thus steal the election. You can do 25 legal things that add up in total to a crime. Perfectly legal to cosplay that you're Batman, but show up at the Commissioner's office with the beat to a pulp criminals you rounded up last night and someone is gonna have questions.

Not illegal to carry a gun in public (in Texas anyhow) but walk in a bank with one you better be very careful what you say. Or better, you better be careful that when you walk in the bank with your AR-15, there isn't another guy at the teller window pointing at you and saying "Give me all the money or he's gonna open up on y'all".

Now, when everyone gets caught in the bank heist, the guy with the gun can say he never heard of the guy at the teller window. How straight a face can he keep when he says it? I dunno, but its plausible he can get a jury to believe him. Even more so if he doesn't mind getting caught and doing the time, as long as the money is waiting on him when he gets out.

Our legal system is complicated and full of smart lawyer tricks, and everyone knows, I think, that this bunch of clowns were the useful idiots of a full on conspiracy to steal the election that at the top was known by and possibly directed by Donald J Trump. If they Justice Department doesn't at least try to prove that, then something's broken, IMHO.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1207

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1 ... rtificates
Criminal Statutes Applicable To The Forged Electoral College Certificates.

False Statements: 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

This is the statute that Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen and others were prosecuted under when they lied to Congress or the FBI. In relevant part the statute reads as follows:

whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years

Conspiracy To Commit An Offense Against Or Defraud The United States: 18 U.S.C. § 371.

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years
Election Fraud: 52 U.S.C. § 20511.

In relevant part this statute states that whoever:

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, shall be . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years.

Conclusions

It turns out there was wide ranging election fraud that was aimed at overturning the results of the election. It was committed by dozens of Republican lawmakers and officials who forged counterfeit electoral college certifications and submitted them to the National Archives and Congress. This fraud was illegal and should be prosecuted.

There should be a statute that more directly criminalizes creating counterfeit electoral college certificates, but I can find none. That does seem like a statutory recommendation that should come from the 1/6 Committee.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1208

Post by filly »

I think you should listen to bob about these electoral certificates. Lots of people on the internets have their opinions about lots of stuff, but bob understands the law and I guess everyone is having fun jousting with him.

I think they are an evidentiary data point in the multifaceted attempts to overthrow the election. I'm more interested in learning who was behind this effort.
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1209

Post by Foggy »

filly wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:30 am I think you should listen to bob about these electoral certificates.
... and to filly, IMHO.

I've read bob's and filly's posts for many, many years now. I know that bob doesn't like shooting down one argument after the next, and if the people who did forge those certificates could be successfully prosecuted, I know he'd enjoy that a hell of a lot more than what he's doing now.

But sometimes you have to face reality, and bob is as good at that as anyone I know. He and filly are not only excellent lawyers*, they're very grounded in reality, which is how they found their way here, after all.

In any event, I'd prefer to see state prosecutions that will never happen over any federal prosecution that will never happen, just because there will be less blowback on my favorite current president.

But that will never happen. :daydreaming:


* :whisper: (It has never been successfully proven that bob is a lawyer. Just a sneaking suspicion I have. :think: )
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 11592
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:06 am
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired mechanical engineer
Verified:

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1210

Post by Volkonski »

Ana Cabrera
@AnaCabrera
·
6h
NEW: Sidney Powell, a lawyer who pushed unfounded fraud conspiracies after the 2020 election on Trump’s behalf, says in a statement through her attorney she will appear before the 1/6 Committee & answer qs.

But her attorney says Powell still believes there was election fraud.
“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1211

Post by filly »

This is good I guess. She will not tell the truth and I guess is banking on OSG getting re-elected and getting a pardon or she will appear and assert a number of privileges. The latter is the correct procedure but what will we learn?
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1212

Post by bob »

p0rtia wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:52 am Just a note that the Select Committee was not formed to hold trials or convict wrongdoers. Yes, I hope they will make criminal referrals, but I'm pretty sure their purposes and goals should not be rigidly compared to those of a court of law.
Yeah. The most the J6 committee can do is make referrals and recommendations.

I expect the committee to discuss the fake electors. I would be a little surprised if the committee specifically recommended legislation to attempt to prevent fake electors in the future, as that seems to be a less pressing issue when compared to, say, democracy itself.

I have every faith the committee's report will make clear that its opinion is exactly just that: an opinion from the committee. Just as I have faith the committee, when making referrals, will have better arguments than "well, seems criminal-y to me."


* * *
Foggy wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:48 pmI've read bob's and filly's posts for many, many years now. I know that bob doesn't like shooting down one argument after the next
Rondeau and Her Three Remaining Birthers might disagree. :batting:
and if the people who did forge those certificates could be successfully prosecuted, I know he'd enjoy that a hell of a lot more than what he's doing now.
OMG, YES. The rule of law is so eroding these days, but if it isn't against the law, the solution always is to change the law.
But sometimes you have to face reality, and bob is as good at that as anyone I know. He and filly are not only excellent lawyers*, they're very grounded in reality, which is how they found their way here, after all.
:fingerwag: I have a long list of people who disagree. (About me, that is; filly is the tops.)


* * *

Maybe a separate thread for the fake electors is warranted, as the committee is doing many different things.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1213

Post by p0rtia »

The Watergate Select Committee changed the world.

They did this with their public hearing--Not their report, not their recommendations for legislation of campaign finance reform.

They never got the tapes.

They made no criminal referrals.

And yet they change the world.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1214

Post by bob »

p0rtia wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:55 pm The Watergate Select Committee changed the world.

They did this with their public hearing--Not their report, not their recommendations for legislation of campaign finance reform.
Great point, and against a sitting president.

Meanwhile:

"For completeness," Thomas' "dissent" (i.e., he would have granted the stay application) had no explanation. Kavanaugh issued a separate statement, which essentially is a partial dissent.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1215

Post by Reality Check »

Thomas, whose wife was on the Stop the Steal Committee. Asshole. :fingerwag:
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1216

Post by RVInit »

Foggy wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:48 pm
filly wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:30 am I think you should listen to bob about these electoral certificates.
... and to filly, IMHO.

I've read bob's and filly's posts for many, many years now. I know that bob doesn't like shooting down one argument after the next, and if the people who did forge those certificates could be successfully prosecuted, I know he'd enjoy that a hell of a lot more than what he's doing now.

But sometimes you have to face reality, and bob is as good at that as anyone I know. He and filly are not only excellent lawyers*, they're very grounded in reality, which is how they found their way here, after all.
:snippity:
I haven't chimed in because I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said, and IANAL, so I can't possibly have an informed opinion about whether any of those activities were criminal. But I have the same opinion as Foggy when it comes to evaluating what bob and filly have to say. I believe they know what they are talking about, and also that they are being realistic.

I'm as unhappy as anyone else that these actions don't rise to the level of a crime. I do think they suggest an overall intention by a scary large percentage of Republicans to do anything they can to test the waters for stealing an election in the future, probably 2022. We have turned a corner with OSG breaking down all the norms of political discourse and behavior. Yes, we've always had some buttholes that were always like this, but now we have an entire party successfully destroying and eliminating any of it's own members that refuse to get down to OSG's level. TL, I know, sorry about that.

I'm also a member of the DoomSeers. I think we need an official DoomSeer group with our own color. What say you, Fogmeister?
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am
Location: Blue oasis in red state
Occupation: retired lawyer; yoga enthusiast
Verified:

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1217

Post by SuzieC »

Bravo! Sometimes SCOTUS does the right thing. I almost wish the Fucking Former Asshole was still on Twitter so we could see his fat orange head explode in real time.
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1218

Post by Greatgrey »

Another win, Court rejects “John Doe’s” request to keep his phone records private.

(I’m old enuf to remember when Sharon tried filing under a pseudonym.)

What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1219

Post by Kendra »

Just looked at Fox website. Unless I'm missing the boat (always possible for :oldlady:), but it's crickets over there on this breaking story.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1220

Post by p0rtia »

Kendra wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pm Just looked at Fox website. Unless I'm missing the boat (always possible for :oldlady:), but it's crickets over there on this breaking story.
It's become a bit of a ritual for me to visit the Faux Gnus website after major events that go against their Earth2 narrative. Seems there's never any coverage right away, but within 12 hours or so, there'll be a mention, often with a false take. I wonder if they have to have a meeting to decide the way to present such news so that it works the best for them.
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1221

Post by Kendra »

p0rtia wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:27 pm
Kendra wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:17 pm Just looked at Fox website. Unless I'm missing the boat (always possible for :oldlady:), but it's crickets over there on this breaking story.
It's become a bit of a ritual for me to visit the Faux Gnus website after major events that go against their Earth2 narrative. Seems there's never any coverage right away, but within 12 hours or so, there'll be a mention, often with a false take. I wonder if they have to have a meeting to decide the way to present such news so that it works the best for them.
That's kinda the way I see it too.

Meanwhile:


The
@January6thCmte
subpoenas two white nationalists in its investigation of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

* Nick Fuentes, founder of the Groypers
* Patrick Casey, ex-leader of the American Identity Movement
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1222

Post by noblepa »

bob wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:13 pmGreat point, and against a sitting president.

Meanwhile:

"For completeness," Thomas' "dissent" (i.e., he would have granted the stay application) had no explanation. Kavanaugh issued a separate statement, which essentially is a partial dissent.

I can just hear TFG now, fuming in Mar a Lago, or wherever he happens to be: "Those dirty double-crossing MOFO's. How could MY supreme court justices betray me this way?"

Although I'm sure that his words are much more profane than that, you just know that he thinks that the justices he appointed OWE it to him to vote in his favor.
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1223

Post by Kendra »


The Supreme Court’s action tonight is a victory for the rule of law & American democracy.

The Select Committee has already begun to receive records that the former President had hoped to keep hidden & we look forward to additional productions regarding this important information
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1224

Post by bob »

The warm takes from the legal talking heads:

1. SCOTUS' declaring some of the Court of Appeal's ruling as dicta is ... unusual. Some think SCOTUS' "however" is Big Deal; others say it is just an invitation for the repeached Florida Man to throw yet more paper -- in other words, buy some (costly) delay.

2. Kavanaugh's "separate statement" (which sounds so mild!) is a much bigger middle finger than Thomas' silent vote to grant enjoin production. "People are saying" the conservatives' theory of a unified executive branch sure does change when it isn't their preferred executive.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1225

Post by Ben-Prime »

bob wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:13 pm "For completeness," Thomas' "dissent" (i.e., he would have granted the stay application) had no explanation. Kavanaugh issued a separate statement, which essentially is a partial dissent.
Thanks for clarifying that -- I had read the NYT article and even though they noted only Thomas dissented, every single quote they issued from Justice Bart O'K read like it came from a dissent and it left me all :confuzzled: :shrug:
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
Post Reply

Return to “The January 6 Insurrection, including Criminal Cases”