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

January 6 Select Committee

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1251

Post by RTH10260 »

RVInit wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:47 pm :snippity:
The consensus when looking at it from the point of view of Eastman coming up with the plan, the Trump campaign asking various people to complete their particular step in the plan, and the fact that virtually every step was completed, with the exception of Pence - he was the one who did not complete the step Trump asked. From that point of view they say the submission of the fake elector records is another piece of evidence of the attempt to overturn the election, whether executed well or not executed well.
:snippity:
For what it's worth.
To note that the final step, "Pence", did not even happen as the conspirators intended. All the Electoral College numbers were sent from the National Archive in heavily seald continers to Congress. The National Archive had already separated the fake stuff, it never did get anywhere near Congress and Pence. What may have directly been sent to the Congress building never reached the recipients (in a manner that it would have been taken serious).

I think it was bob who posted a nice picture of the saeled containers further up.
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

#1252

Post by Gregg »

RVInit wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:47 pm I am listening to CNN where some legal pundits are discussing those fake elector letters sent to the National Archives. They have an interesting take on the issue of those fake electors that puts it all in perspective.

Since I'm not a lawyer, and sometimes I know that I don't communicate in as precise language as lawyers tend to communicate, please take this as just a layman's take on the legal discussion. I will do my best to accurately state what I believe I heard them say.

So, they are not discussing whether each action, in and of itself, is strictly legal or illegal. They are looking at the series of actions that took place, connecting the dots on who asked who to do what, and then that person or group doing something.

The Trump campaign initiated the request for the seven states to submit Trump electors. They requested Eastman to write a memo that outlined the steps everyone would use. And they requested Mike Pence to use all of this information, including the Trump electors submitted to the National Archives, as his justification for not counting Biden electors on Jan 6.

So, their take was essentially that those fake electors were part of a total conspiracy to deny the certification of Biden as president-elect and declare Trump to be the president-elect. The really didn't go into any discussion as to the form of those fake electors, i.e. did they "do it right" as in "a perfect actual forgery". They simply discussed it in terms of putting all of these actions in perspective by connecting all the dots - so and so asked who and who to do this step - and who and who did, in fact do that step (regardless of how well they did it, they still did it).

The consensus when looking at it from the point of view of Eastman coming up with the plan, the Trump campaign asking various people to complete their particular step in the plan, and the fact that virtually every step was completed, with the exception of Pence - he was the one who did not complete the step Trump asked. From that point of view they say the submission of the fake elector records is another piece of evidence of the attempt to overturn the election, whether executed well or not executed well.

I think I have basically in layman's terms conveyed what I heard "legal experts" (sorry, I neglected to catch their names) said during this discussion on CNN.

For what it's worth.

I see it as a series of very carefully legal actions that in total add up to the ''one overt act'' that is required for conspiracy. I also think no one thought the fake electors would or needed to be admitted, only that they constituted a dispute that Pence could use as cover to say "well, since Arizona has sent conflicting slates of electors, I am not going to count any of them, so after we disregard the 6 states that can't make up their mind, Trump wins the majority of the votes cast, just like the Constitution says. Pence saying no was the hard wall they didn't quite get over and so, as scary as it is to say, America was saved by Mike Pence refusing to leave the Capitol on January 6th as much as it was by Joshua Chamberlain refusing to leave the end of the line on July 3rd, 1863 just down the road from my home.

Anyhow, how the big picture looks from here in Der Dachshündbünker. If I were on a jury in DC I wouldn't have any trouble voting to convict half the Republicans I can name from memory on that evidence alone. I can keep an open mind, but I'd have to be talked into voting to acquit.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1253

Post by RVInit »

Like I said, For what it's worth.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1382
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:42 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1254

Post by much ado »

RTH10260 wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:10 pm I think it was bob who posted a nice picture of the saeled containers further up.
Posting another...

Image
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
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

#1255

Post by Luke »

The "draft" EO used the ridiculous Antrim County BS as its basis. Incredible. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e ... f3fd720000
I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, find that the forensic report of the Antrim
County, Michigan voting machines, released December 13, 2020, and other evidence submitted
to me in support of this order, provide probable cause sufficient to require action under the
authorities cited above because of evidence of international and foreign interference in the
November 3, 2020, election
And they say they don't know who wrote this but this sure seems like a tell:
(7) The appointment of a Special Counsel to oversee this operation and institute all criminal
and civil proceedings as appropriate based on the evidence collected and provided all resources
necessary to carry out her duties consistent with federal laws and the Constitution.
Here's the whole thing, it's not that long. Insane.
► Show Spoiler
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
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1256

Post by RVInit »

Here is a question that I have for the lawyers only, based on what I am quoting from FindLaw. It's only a question, I am in no way suggesting that I have any idea what the answer would be in any reasonable likely terms. Or unlikely for that matter.

My question: For a conspiracy, does it matter if every person and every step is completed in the conspiracy for any other party to an attempted conspiracy to be convicted of a conspiracy? So, let's say 4 people conspire to rob a bank. They each have steps they are supposed to take. Three of them take their assigned steps, but the fourth person chickens out and doesn't do his or her part. Can the others still be considered to have committed a conspiracy? According to FindLaw, the actual act doesn't have to be committed, i.e. the bank doesn't have to be robbed, in order for the crime of conspiracy to have taken place. In my example the fourth person didn't do their step, so all of the acts didn't take place, although all the planning for them did take place. Since the conspiracy involved four steps, I guess that means the conspiracy itself wasn't committed, since the fourth step wasn't carried out?
What Do the Courts Consider in a Conspiracy Case?
By FindLaw Staff | Reviewed by Maddy Teka, Esq. | Last updated June 02, 2020

A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed.

For example, Jason, Alice, and Hank plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess its security, and 2) pool their money and buy a gun. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is ever attempted or completed.

The "Agreement" Requirement
You might be wondering how exactly an agreement between two co-conspirators is formed. There's no need for formalities. For instance, in the above example, Hank isn't required to tell Jason and Alice in unequivocal terms, "I agree to commit a crime with you" (although that statement would surely be a prosecutor's dream). Instead, an agreement may be implied from the circumstances, such as where Hank and his two companions hold a meeting to plan the crime.

The Element of "Intent"
As with other specific intent crimes, a person's intention is key. But the court will also care about the mental states of the alleged partners in crime. Other individuals in the conspiracy must intend to agree, and all must intend to achieve the outcome.

Merely associating with people known to be involved in crime doesn't make you a co-conspirator. For instance, just because your friend tells you he is going to burglarize a house doesn't mean you are part of the conspiracy. Not unless you also agree to participate by acting as a getaway driver or helping him scope out the property ahead of time.


FINDLAW NEWSLETTERS

Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life
Enter your email address to subscribe

Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The "Overt Act" Requirement
In most jurisdictions, at least one co-conspirator must take some concrete step in furtherance of the plan. In the bank robbery example, this could be rental of a car to use in the crime. The requirement of an overt act prevents people from being thrown in jail for merely talking about a crime. If three drunken friends at a bar speculate about how they would rob a bank together, and none of them ever undertakes any sort of actual action, there's no criminal conspiracy. The intent requirement likely wouldn't be satisfied in that scenario, either.

Penalties
Under the federal conspiracy statute, the offense is punishable by up to five years imprisonment, plus fines. A significantly lower penalty applies if the object of the conspiracy was merely a misdemeanor (e.g., you conspire to commit vandalism); in that case, the sentence for conspiracy can't exceed the maximum penalty for the misdemeanor. Under state law, the punishments for conspiracy vary.

Prosecutors commonly charge conspiracy whenever two or more offenders act in tandem. A person can be convicted both of an underlying crime and of conspiracy to commit it, and receive separate punishments for each offense.

Charged With Criminal Conspiracy? You'll Want a Good Attorney
If you've been charged with conspiracy or any other crime, you'll need a strong advocate on your side. Be sure to speak with an experienced attorney who knows the ropes and how to persuasively argue your case and protect your rights. Contact a criminal defense lawyer near you today to get started.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1257

Post by bob »

RVInit wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:55 pmFor a conspiracy, does it matter if every person and every step is completed in the conspiracy for any other party to an attempted conspiracy to be convicted of a conspiracy? So, let's say 4 people conspire to rob a bank. They each have steps they are supposed to take. Three of them take their assigned steps, but the fourth person chickens out and doesn't do his or her part. Can the others still be considered to have committed a conspiracy? According to FindLaw, the actual act doesn't have to be committed, i.e. the bank doesn't have to be robbed, in order for the crime of conspiracy to have taken place. In my example the fourth person didn't do their step, so all of the acts didn't take place, although all the planning for them did take place. Since the conspiracy involved four steps, I guess that means the conspiracy itself wasn't committed, since the fourth step wasn't carried out?
A criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime and an overt act in furtherance of the crime. And a conspiracy doesn't have to be completed for the conspiracy to have existed, or be prosecuted.

But there are many areas that can be litigated for conspiracies, especially failed ones. Including whether there ever actually was an agreement. Was the overt act a substantial step toward the conspiracy's goal? (Or, alternatively, can evidence of the step also be explained away in a benign way, such that it wasn't step "toward" anything illegal? If the getaway driver puts gas in the car, was the gas for the robbery, or just because cars need gas?) As for the person who didn't complete their task, did they just fail or actively withdraw from the conspiracy? Did they tell their fellow co-conspirators about their withdrawal?


But, as this relates to the 2020 election, it has to be an agreement to commit an unlawful act; it is perfectly legal to "conspire" to commit a lawful act. (It is just called "teamwork" or "cooperation" then.)

So, again, what unlawful act did the LARPers conspire to do? "Smells like fraud" or "it should be a crime" is not going to cut it for a real prosecutor to file real charges in a real court. And a case based on a LARPer's belief about the meaning of "duly" has reasonable doubt written all over it.

In theory, I can see how to link the LARPers to the recently arrested seditionists, but I don't think the evidence is there yet; I have doubts it'll ever get there; and I'm confident no prosecutor is going to try to fly on such a problematic case.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1258

Post by RVInit »

Thanks bob!

So, here is one more question. As pertains to the election, there is a defined way to legally submit electors for each state. I understand that some of these people "believed" that Trump "really" won. These people knew that the duly elected Secretaries of State used the legally stated means defined by their own legislatures to legally determine who won the election and those legally defined means were used to determine that Biden won those states. Attempts to use other means to force Congress to recognize Trump electors doesn't show an intent to use different (illegal means) to establish who will be declared the winner?

Do you think there was at least in legal terms, intent to overthrow an election that had been already determined by legal means, using illegal means, i.e. NOT the steps that are defined by each state legislature?
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1259

Post by bob »

RVInit wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:38 pm So, here is one more question. As pertains to the election, there is a defined way to legally submit electors for each state. I understand that some of these people "believed" that Trump "really" won. These people knew that the duly elected Secretaries of State used the legally stated means defined by their own legislatures to legally determine who won the election and those legally defined means were used to determine that Biden won those states. Attempts to use other means to force Congress to recognize Trump electors doesn't show an intent to use different (illegal means) to establish who will be declared the winner?
The obvious argument will be that different (or invalid) doesn't mean illegal. The LARPers undoubtedly aware that their states' executive branches had certified a winner. But they'll die on the hill that the election wasn't "duly" certified because the election itself (and by implication, perhaps also the certification thereof) was fraudulent.

For example, I can "duly" certify the truck arrived empty, because the truck did arrive and it was empty. But it was empty because I sold the cargo at a black market before the truck had arrived.
Do you think there was at least in legal terms, intent to overthrow an election that had been already determined by legal means, using illegal means, i.e. NOT the steps that are defined by each state legislature?
"Intent to overthrow an election" sounds crime-y, but it isn't. It circles back to their sincerely held belief that their preferred candidate actually won. I would be very surprised if there's a smocking gun (to quote Taitz) that someone had said outloud, "Hey, Biden won, but let's run this crazy play because we love power so much."

Were the losers in 2000, 1876, and 1800 intending to "overthrow the election," or did they have legitimate bases to draw out the process? But, regardless of what you believe, they believed they were pursuing legal remedies.

In contrast, the seditionists were prepared to commit violence, and there's no First Amendment "I'm just petitioning for redress of my grievances" fig leaf to cover that.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1260

Post by RVInit »

Thanks bob! Your explanations actually make sense to me, I'm just puzzled why so many legal pundits insist there was all this crime involved. I guess that could possibly be filed under the category of "entertainment" posing as "news".

When cable news first came on the scene I really loved it because I could watch the news at my convenience. But at this point I'm convinced it's less helpful than harmful, in so many ways. I'd rather go back to news from 6-7 and 11-12 pm. And if you can't watch during those hours, just record it.

But, I digress, sort of.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1261

Post by humblescribe »

tek wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:36 am Nice to see them use an everyday word like "quotidian"

:batting:
I saw what you did there. :lol:
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
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

#1262

Post by Luke »

Greatgrey wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:58 pm 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.)

GG -- You might want to sit down for this -- it was Dan Scavino. What a shock! :lol:
1 HOUR AGO
The mystery figure from Trump world who filed a lawsuit against the Jan. 6 panel is a mystery no more: Social media manager Dan Scavino.
A federal judge ruled Donald Trump's social media manager could not file the lawsuit anonymously.
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congre ... y-no-more/
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
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1263

Post by Kendra »

Sweet.
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1264

Post by Greatgrey »

orlylicious wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:22 pm
Greatgrey wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:58 pm 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.)

GG -- You might want to sit down for this -- it was Dan Scavino. What a shock! :lol:
1 HOUR AGO
The mystery figure from Trump world who filed a lawsuit against the Jan. 6 panel is a mystery no more: Social media manager Dan Scavino.
A federal judge ruled Donald Trump's social media manager could not file the lawsuit anonymously.
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congre ... y-no-more/
I was betting on McEneany or KellyAnne
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1265

Post by filly »

Scavino, what a fucking coward!
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
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

#1266

Post by Luke »

Funny you said that Filly, we totally agree. Posted this 5 hours ago 8-)


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
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1267

Post by Kendra »


"We do know that a potential person was identified to become the attorney general of the United States who would communicate with certain states that the election on their situation had been fraudulent and not to produce certified documents" -- Rep. Bennie Thompson
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1268

Post by raison de arizona »

Scott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNews wrote: House Jan 6 Select Committee has spoken with former Attorney General Bill Barr. Via @FaceTheNation ===>
Richard Escobedo @RichardEscobedo wrote: Replying to @RichardEscobedo
“We’ve had conversations with the former attorney general already,” Jan 6 Committee Chair @BennieGThompson tells @margbrennan when asked if the committee will meet with Bill Barr.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1269

Post by bob »

Image ImageImage
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:34 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1270

Post by June bug »

:eek: OMG :eek: Who’s the federal judge??

David O Carter!!!
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1271

Post by bob »

June bug wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:59 pm :eek: OMG :eek: Who’s the federal judge??

David O Carter!!!
Yeah. But it basically a TRO until the next court hearing, which is tomorrow.
Image ImageImage
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

#1272

Post by noblepa »

bob wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:44 pm
Question for the lawyers here.

I know that attorney/client privilege can be pierced if the attorney is shown to be an active participant in a crime.

However, I don't think that a prosecutor can "bootstrap" the allegation that the lawyer is involved in a crime by saying "if we get the information we have subpoenaed, it will prove the lawyer was part of a crime", can they? IOW, the prosecutors would need probable cause SEPARATE FROM THE SUBPOENAED INFORMATION wouldn't they?

It seems analogous to police saying that, if they search my home and find stolen goods, it will be probably cause to search my home. Can you say "recursive"?
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1273

Post by filly »

Just because you are a lawyer doesn't mean that every contact you have with somebody is protected by attorney-client privilege. We've discussed that in granular detail here over the years.

Remember, Eastman was flapping his gums to many people about the election and January 6. The Committee is well within their rights to question him about that stuff.
Edit: Reminder: Eastman's memo setting out the blueprint for the coup was widely circulated. No privilege there.
Unless David O. Carter has had a lobotomy, I think he will reach the right conclusions here.
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: January 6 Select Committee

#1274

Post by filly »

User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9546
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

#1275

Post by Foggy »

Difficult to believe that Judge Carter acted without consulting Orly Tai- ... or wait, maybe behind the scenes he brought in the expert ... :think:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
Post Reply

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