Election integrity and the transfer of power

[LawBeefaroni]

Proud Boys leader arrested in DC.

I've seen various reports, but all include the charge of destruction of private property (BLM material on a black church in their last DC showing). The gun charges referenced here are an interesting wrinkle.

I think anything over 10-rounds is "high capacity" in DC. This is a bad dude but don't let the fear words do their thing.

No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

[Alefroth]

This is him basically saying they don't need to bring in any of the Dominion issues because they have enough votes that they don't need to.

[gbasden]

They're innocent (as in not convictable) unless you can prove that they couldn't have a reasonable belief that [blank] was true. If they had an unreasonable belief, they're either really stupid, they're guilty and lying, or they're insane.

I don't have to prove that I knew that robbing a bank was wrong. Doing it will get me arrested even if I have unshakeable faith that the money in the vault was mine. How is it not the case that threatening an election official to find you votes isn't an illegal act regardless?

[stessier]

I have to agree with Kurth - which was not my original plan when I went to read the transcript. Trump said "Here are issues A, B, C, and D. We need 11,800 votes. Pick one to investigate and it will be enough to get us over the top." I also don't see the legal thing as threatening in the context. It was a throwaway - Trump was spewing everything he could think of. There was no rational plan to do anything but to either get them to investigate further (which in his mind would guarantee him the win) or get his team access to the data (which they apparently aren't entitled to).

The big thing it drives home is how far gone he is. You can't read the transcript and come to any other conclusion than that he truly believes all the conspiracies. He's nuts.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

This is him basically saying they don't need to bring in any of the Dominion issues because they have enough votes that they don't need to.

I'm not sure that would qualify as "shak[ing] up the whole world". Maybe I'm reading too much into it (and God knows Trump's bluster is often toothless), but it reads to me like some sort of military intervention. Perhaps it's not coincidental that those 10 Secretaries of Defense released their op-ed the same day the call came out.

[Blackhawk]

They're innocent (as in not convictable) unless you can prove that they couldn't have a reasonable belief that [blank] was true. If they had an unreasonable belief, they're either really stupid, they're guilty and lying, or they're insane.

I don't have to prove that I knew that robbing a bank was wrong. Doing it will get me arrested even if I have unshakeable faith that the money in the vault was mine.

In some crimes, the attempt includes assumption of intent. For instance, in some places, it's only burglary if you broke in intending to commit a felony. Yet it is assumed that if you broke in, you had the intention of committing a felony. Likewise, in some places burglary tools aren't illegal in and of themselves, yet the fact that you possess them without a legitimate reason (say, you're a locksmith) is considered to 'prove' that you intend to use them.

As for the election official, all the wording he used was vague. We both see it as a threat, we both know it was a threat, but it wasn't an overt threat. It was carefully implied, but not spoken overtly. It isn't a question of whether what he did was illegal or not, it is a question of whether it could ever be proven conclusively in court, and Trump's lawyers could, fairly easily, show that there could be another interpretation of what was said, especially coming from a man who has a very well-documented record of choosing the wrong words, saying 'apples' when he meant 'oranges.' They aren't going to drag him into court when he has an easy out.

[malchior]

The US Attorney in Atlanta resigned suddenly last night and Trump bypassed the next in line for an acting AUSA. Shenanigans afoot!

[LawBeefaroni]

The US Attorney in Atlanta resigned suddenly last night and Trump bypassed the next in line for an acting AUSA. Shenanigans afoot!

The new acting U.S. attorney in Atlanta will be Bobby Christine, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, according to the email. Christine will continue simultaneously in both roles, according to the email.

That always works out well.

[ImLawBoy]

But when we're talking about whether he broke a specific law and whether criminal charges can or should be brought against him, that's a different matter.

I'm curious - legally what does someone have to do to commit election fraud if not ask for someone to come up with the votes they need to win?

Not to be too glib about it, but it really depends on the elements of the crime spelled out in the specific statute you want to charge someone under. Speaking in generalities isn't that helpful when it comes to a discussion like this because so much is dependent on the text of the law (and the facts of the case, and the judicial interpretation of the law in the relevant jurisdiction).

[LordMortis]

The big thing it drives home is how far gone he is. You can't read the transcript and come to any other conclusion than that he truly believes all the conspiracies. He's nuts.

Sadly, that is reasonable when he's up there suggesting to career virologists and medical top tier professionals that they hadn't thought through the idea of introducing chlorine to kill virii or light as an antiviral and then apply the ideas to our bodies but that he can see such things clearly because of his stable genius.

[Smoove_B]

Saw this:

The criminal statutes are meant to address things like shredding ballots and making payoffs, not conversations a candidate has with election officials,

Maybe we should update that?

Prosecutors, however, "would need to demonstrate he knows he lost the election," Sanderson said, adding, "I think that's a tough case to bring against an individual who seems pathologically unable to recognize his own loss."

This also seems unthinkable. He seems like he doesn't accept he lost, therefore we can't make the case against him?

I'm glad he's poking all these holes in legal theory and forcing us to ask tough questions when a President acts the way Trump has acted. Now lets fix this to make sure it never freaking happens again.

[El Guapo]

Bearing in mind that "The Constitution gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.”"...hell yeah. trump is going to try to pardon himself for the entirety of the past four years. Democrats should have been impeaching him every other Tuesday just to create a basket of unpardonable acts.

I suspect that only applies if the Senate actually votes to impeach. Not that it's ever been tested.

I believe that the point of that provision is that the President cannot prevent someone from being impeached by pardoning them for the underlying "high crime or misdemeanor".

[El Guapo]

Saw this:

The criminal statutes are meant to address things like shredding ballots and making payoffs, not conversations a candidate has with election officials,

Maybe we should update that?

Prosecutors, however, "would need to demonstrate he knows he lost the election," Sanderson said, adding, "I think that's a tough case to bring against an individual who seems pathologically unable to recognize his own loss."

This also seems unthinkable. He seems like he doesn't accept he lost, therefore we can't make the case against him?

I'm glad he's poking all these holes in legal theory and forcing us to ask tough questions when a President acts the way Trump has acted. Now lets fix this to make sure it never freaking happens again.

The first part is silly. Obviously crimes can be committed in calls with election officials. Crimes can be committed in calls with anyone. If Trump asked Raffensberger to murder someone that would be illegal notwithstanding being part of a conversation with an election official.

The point of the second part is that bad intent is an element of any criminal offense. The point is that if Trump genuinely believed that he won the election, and therefore in his mind he's merely asking an election official to check the results expecting that a check will show that he won, while accepting the results if it shows that he lost, then that's not a crime.

Now, I think the best explanation is that Trump knows that he lost and wants the official to come up with fake votes or do whatever he needs to (whether criminal or not) to swing the election in his favor. But the challenge for any prosecutor is that "Trump is just delusional stupid and crazy" is also a fairly compelling story that's consistent with available facts.

OTOH there's a decent chance that Trump's criminal defense team would be Rudy Guiliani and Lin Wood, which would make any case against him winnable.

[stessier]

Now, I think the best explanation is that Trump knows that he lost and wants the official to come up with fake votes or do whatever he needs to (whether criminal or not) to swing the election in his favor.

Did you listen to the tape or read the transcript? I don't think he's faking - he's not that good of an actor. I think he believes it all.

OTOH there's a decent chance that Trump's criminal defense team would be Rudy Guiliani and Lin Wood, which would make any case against him winnable.

Are there rules against jury members eating popcorn during a trial? Because I think it would be a crime not to allow it in that situation.

[Holman]

The point of the second part is that bad intent is an element of any criminal offense. The point is that if Trump genuinely believed that he won the election, and therefore in his mind he's merely asking an election official to check the results expecting that a check will show that he won, while accepting the results if it shows that he lost, then that's not a crime.

Now, I think the best explanation is that Trump knows that he lost and wants the official to come up with fake votes or do whatever he needs to (whether criminal or not) to swing the election in his favor. But the challenge for any prosecutor is that "Trump is just delusional stupid and crazy" is also a fairly compelling story that's consistent with available facts.

There are two points of context that I haven't seen people mention, and I wonder if they matter at all. Both seem relevant whether or not Trump actually believes that Joe Biden is a mind-flayer who altered the vote totals with psionic powers.

1) Trump is a president making personal demands on state officials regarding 100% internal state business, and he's doing it in a phone call rather than through some official legal challenge. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was something Federal officials bent over backwards to avoid doing. Is that just a traditional norm, or are there laws/regs involved?

2) Trump is demanding that state officials re-intervene in an issue that has already been handled by court challenges and rejected. The required and requested state recounts and audits have been concluded, but Trump is exerting the (implied, sure) power of his office and the DOJ to demand a re-do. Again, is he just trampling weakened norms?

[pr0ner]

There are conflicting reports on Twitter right now that Pence may not show up at Congress tomorrow to certify the Electoral College results. Chuck Grassley, president pro tempore of the Senate, is going to preside over the proceedings if that doesn't happen.

[pr0ner]

2) Trump is demanding that state officials re-intervene in an issue that has already been handled by court challenges and rejected. The required and requested state recounts and audits have been concluded, but Trump is exerting the (implied, sure) power of his office and the DOJ to demand a re-do. Again, is he just trampling weakened norms?

There's another court challenge about Georgia going on right now.

[Holman]

If it's true, it's because Trump berated Pence at his rally last night and ordered him not to count all the votes.

Counting the EC votes is the VP's Constitutional duty. If he ignores it, he's breaking his oath of office.

EDIT: now this:

[Smoove_B]

Counting the EC votes is the VP's Constitutional duty. If he ignores it, he's breaking his oath of office.

Well, that's definitely a line the GOP and the Trump Administration haven't crossed before, so no worries there.

[Daehawk]

Still seeing people online posting "Pray that Trump wins this election"

Need some baseball bat beatings.

[Daveman]

Counting the EC votes is the VP's Constitutional duty. If he ignores it, he's breaking his oath of office.

Well, that's definitely a line the GOP and the Trump Administration haven't crossed before, so no worries there.

Apparently this has happened before. Hubert Humphrey was attending an overseas funeral and missed the certification so the president pro tempore stepped in.

Add that to the pile of useless electoral college trivia no one cared about until this shitshow.

[Daehawk]

Just admit it...this country is broken and will never heal. The GOP fans are shouting the Dems are trying to steal the election. But if it was the other way around and the Dems were in power doing all this the GOP fans would still be yelling the Dems are trying to steal the election. They'd throw their "its our right" crap right out the window. It will be like this until civil war and the country rips itself apart and rebuilds.

[pr0ner]

Still seeing people online posting "Pray that Trump wins this election"

Need some baseball bat beatings.

That's not going to help anything.

[YellowKing]

I think it's important to note that not ALL Republicans are in the "Trump didn't lose" camp. If you lump Democrats, independents, and Republicans who haven't drunk the cult Kool-Aid, they far outnumber the crazies. We're battling a minority, albeit a very vocal one. The division in this country is being led (and provoked) from the top down. Just an observation, I don't have a solution for it.

[Jaymann]

Countdown to Biden inauguration as President:

15 DAYS

A blue ribbon commission has confirmed Agolf received 100% of the dead mother vote in PA. Meanwhile Agolf tells Ryan Germany he has a nice last name. Just why is he so enamored with Germany...

[Smoove_B]

I think it's important to note that not ALL Republicans are in the "Trump didn't lose" camp.

Until they're out in numbers doing and saying things to condemn and countermand the whackjobs in their own party, they're complicit enablers.

[Zaxxon]

A little levity... Whole thread's entertaining.

[Blackhawk]

Just admit it...this country is broken and will never heal.

No, we won't heal, and I don't know that we should try. What we need isn't to heal back to what we were before (that's what got us here), it's to rebuild into something better. Not that the chances of doing so are encouraging.

[YellowKing]

Well Democrats have a branding problem when the partisan divide is so severe that an otherwise reasonable person would rather vote for an anti-democracy madman than to vote for a Democrat.

I have many Republican friends and colleagues who believe Biden won, think Trump is completely off his rocker, hate everything that comes out of his mouth, but won't pull the lever for a Democrat because....socialism. Even eight years of Obama was not enough to convince people that the Democrats aren't going to turn American into a communist abortion clinic.

[Little Raven]

When you only have two parties, you’re always going to be making compromises.

Back in the day, most of the die hard Republicans I knew were heavily Pro-Life. They could not bring themselves to support ‘killing babies.’ For most of my Republican friends these days, the bridge they won’t cross is guns. As long as Democrats say they’re coming for their guns (thank you, Beto ) they won’t vote blue.

[El Guapo]

Well Democrats have a branding problem when the partisan divide is so severe that an otherwise reasonable person would rather vote for an anti-democracy madman than to vote for a Democrat.

I have many Republican friends and colleagues who believe Biden won, think Trump is completely off his rocker, hate everything that comes out of his mouth, but won't pull the lever for a Democrat because....socialism. Even eight years of Obama was not enough to convince people that the Democrats aren't going to turn American into a communist abortion clinic.

A core part of the problem is that our system is anti-democratic due to the Senate and the electoral college (and somewhat due to gerrymandering). McConnell and Trump's shit wouldn't work if they had to get an actual majority of votes.

[Isgrimnur]

When you only have two parties, you’re always going to be making compromises.

Back in the day, most of the die hard Republicans I knew were heavily Pro-Life. They could not bring themselves to support ‘killing babies.’ For most of my Republican friends these days, the bridge they won’t cross is guns. As long as Democrats say they’re coming for their guns (thank you, Beto ) they won’t vote blue.

Biden isn't exactly making that any easier.

ABC News

Democratic President-elect Joe Biden has vowed sweeping new restrictions on guns.
...
Biden, who declared gun manufacturers "the enemy" during his 2020 campaign, plans a gun safety crackdown on day one of his administration.

He said he will ask Congress to repeal liability protections for gunmakers and close loopholes for background checks, according to his campaign. He also wants to ban production of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require registration for existing assault weapons, limit individual gun purchases to one per month and end all online sales.

All proposals will require legislative action, which will be a tough sell in a narrowly divided Congress.

[xenocide]

Well Democrats have a branding problem when the partisan divide is so severe that an otherwise reasonable person would rather vote for an anti-democracy madman than to vote for a Democrat.

I have many Republican friends and colleagues who believe Biden won, think Trump is completely off his rocker, hate everything that comes out of his mouth, but won't pull the lever for a Democrat because....socialism. Even eight years of Obama was not enough to convince people that the Democrats aren't going to turn American into a communist abortion clinic.

This. I was playing golf with some guys before the election and one was a vocal Trump supporter, one was a vocal Trump dissenter, and me and the last guy stayed out of it. Walking away I hear the last guy say quietly to the supporter "you know I don't really like Trump but Biden is so crazy liberal I could never vote for him". Joe Biden, crazy liberal. And I kind of know this guy, he may not be a genius but he is not stupid. And I'm surrounded by like minded people, average level intelligence people who honestly believe like Yellowking said, that all Dems are insane liberals who hate America and want to turn it into 1980s USSR. I don't know how to change that for the 40+ year olds, they are too set in their minds.

I do worry we are only in for a short term "fix". Biden is too middle of the road for big changes so not much will happen in the next 4 years. Apathetic Dems won't have the hate for Trump driving them to the polls and the GOP will be nursing the sting of this loss and will be as motivated as ever. I think in 4 years the GOP sweeps the Pres, house, and senate. I truly hope I'm wrong.

[Kurth]

When you only have two parties, you’re always going to be making compromises.

Back in the day, most of the die hard Republicans I knew were heavily Pro-Life. They could not bring themselves to support ‘killing babies.’ For most of my Republican friends these days, the bridge they won’t cross is guns. As long as Democrats say they’re coming for their guns (thank you, Beto ) they won’t vote blue.

Biden isn't exactly making that any easier.

ABC News

Democratic President-elect Joe Biden has vowed sweeping new restrictions on guns.
...
Biden, who declared gun manufacturers "the enemy" during his 2020 campaign, plans a gun safety crackdown on day one of his administration.

He said he will ask Congress to repeal liability protections for gunmakers and close loopholes for background checks, according to his campaign. He also wants to ban production of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require registration for existing assault weapons, limit individual gun purchases to one per month and end all online sales.

All proposals will require legislative action, which will be a tough sell in a narrowly divided Congress.

Should probably be in different thread, but I see this time and time again, and I have to shake my head. To me, it's a macro cost/benefit analysis, and gun control just isn't worth the social and political costs, at least, not as it's usually formulated (see Biden proposals above). Banning assault weapons is just not worth the lift.

[Isgrimnur]

We have Gun Politics.

[Daehawk]

Im a gun owner and user. I love guns .Had them since I was a kid. But I have no problem with those rules.

[Jaymann]

Here is a fantastic article of what will actually happen on January 6, and why.

[Archinerd]

It's still scary to stand at the edge with only a guardrail preventing us from being dragged into the abyss.

[Enough]

When you only have two parties, you’re always going to be making compromises.

Back in the day, most of the die hard Republicans I knew were heavily Pro-Life. They could not bring themselves to support ‘killing babies.’ For most of my Republican friends these days, the bridge they won’t cross is guns. As long as Democrats say they’re coming for their guns (thank you, Beto ) they won’t vote blue.

Biden isn't exactly making that any easier.

ABC News

Democratic President-elect Joe Biden has vowed sweeping new restrictions on guns.
...
Biden, who declared gun manufacturers "the enemy" during his 2020 campaign, plans a gun safety crackdown on day one of his administration.

He said he will ask Congress to repeal liability protections for gunmakers and close loopholes for background checks, according to his campaign. He also wants to ban production of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require registration for existing assault weapons, limit individual gun purchases to one per month and end all online sales.

All proposals will require legislative action, which will be a tough sell in a narrowly divided Congress.

Should probably be in different thread, but I see this time and time again, and I have to shake my head. To me, it's a macro cost/benefit analysis, and gun control just isn't worth the social and political costs, at least, not as it's usually formulated (see Biden proposals above). Banning assault weapons is just not worth the lift.

The NRA is at a weak moment and you can bet regardless of what Biden admin does or says they will be ginning up all sorts of scare-mongering to up those members and dollars. So Dems should cower in fear over action on gun laws but protecting abortion is now a safe electoral maneuver? The mind boggles.

Pepperidge Farms remembers back in GG days when RM9's bro SquireSCA went off on Lott's more guns less crime theories and that didn't go well at the time and now said source is pushing Trump won the vote bs with his "science." It may be costly and take bravery, but meaningful gun reform is clearly needed. Isn't change always hard? Or do Dems need to put away action on guns, climate, social justice, etc to keep that powder dry for what? I might be persuaded that cleaning up the drumpf dreck is all we have bandwidth for, but reject theories that issues ought to be avoided based on how scary the opposition might be while I know any elected official will have this top of mind.

[hepcat]

It's still scary to stand at the edge with only a guardrail preventing us from being dragged into the abyss.

It's more like being on the Death Star where there WERE no guardrails...

Pepperidge Farms remembers back in GG days when RM9's bro SquireSCA went off on Lott's more guns less crime theories and that didn't go well at the time

Good lord almighty, that sent me on a 20 minute history lesson using the search function of OO. 20 minutes I'll never get back...