What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states (1 Viewer)

The General

Footballguy
There was already precedent for this. The precedent is Hawaii, 1960

Doesn’t matter what Trump felt. The alternate electors we’re not certified by the state and appointed by state legislators. They didnt have legal authority and could not affect the counting of Electoral College votes.

Can you point to the crime they committed?
The issue for me is that yes this is crazy but the actual President was going on about this. It was the plan he ran with. For months, while he was still in office, he was focused on this. Still is.

Would you agree this should have him viewed as a political pariah? 

 

The Commish

Footballguy
These "clarifications" seems to be merely different variations of "I'm inept, so my attempt shouldn't really matter" and "The moron wasn't going to be able to pull off the bank heist, so his attempt should be ignored" kinds of arguments we've seen up there with "It's their fault that someone wasn't there to try and stop my attempt" nonsense from the thread the zealots got shut down.

 

Philo Beddoe

Footballguy
I post a lot of articles. I get it now. You're talking about the OP's article. Not mine.

Did you read the article I posted from The Washington Examiner?
I did. What’s the crime? That some republicans objected to the electoral vote certification? Dems did that in 2000, 2004 and 2016.

 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Are you aware of the Eastman Memo, and its significance to all this?

I don't think anyone here is arguing with you.


I'm familiar with the Eastman Memo. John Eastman is a mediocre legal hack who has a huge axe to grind against Kamala Harris and he didn't understand the realistic landscape of how California elections are practically won in a Blue stronghold. He didn't really want to help Trump and he didn't really want to punish Biden, he just wanted to lay wood down on Kamala Harris.

Eastman pushed a legal "theory' with no basis in practical reality. There are lots of lawyers who parade their law degrees around on the forums here for years who do that all the time, we don't see them being set on fire and burned alive like Shireen Baratheon. Ken Paxton's gambit was legally far more interesting.

Eastman is not an elected official. Mike Lee and Lindsey Graham immediately shelved his notions. Pence did due diligence  to understand the argument (Which is what he should have done. Trying to understand something is not the same as conspiring for something)  Then Pence walked away from it.

Pin point the criminal behavior here.

This is the point where you'll likely drive forward Trump calling Raffensperger and then Brian Kemp. The first call is little murkier but Trump did not threaten him, nor offer some enticement nor bribe for it. The call to Kemp asked him to use his emergency powers as Georgia governor to override the Secretary of State's office. Kemp actually has those powers granted to him by his state legislature. Unethical? Sure. I won't argue that. Illegal and criminal? That's a different bridge to cross.

I want to be fair here. Unlike most of the radical leftists here, at least you'll try to source things.

But the application of law and the application of justice are two different things. You appear upset and angry that Trump did not suffer "justice" for his actions. But to actually formally punish Trump requires an actual legal pathway to do so. This is not a defense of Donald Trump. And this is not a defense of what happened on J6. It's a defense of the principles of law. Our legal system was designed to be bigger than just one man or one incident or one scandal. That might taste like #### going down your throat, and I wouldn't blame you for it, but it's how our system works meant for the long term good of all, not just what some consider needed retribution in the moment.

Why don't you explain to all of us what you see as the significance of the Eastman Memo.

Now I'm going to be fair on the other end of the spectrum. It appears more and more clear you don't understand the law ( no shame in that, lots of people don't) and you don't understand how the electoral college fully works.

The same principles that protect Donald Trump skirting the line today are the same principles that will protect your children tomorrow. The legal system was designed to give you what you need ( which is why SCOTUS stays on the fringes of this issue) and not your personal conception of what you want.

 

The General

Footballguy
I'm familiar with the Eastman Memo. John Eastman is a mediocre legal hack who has a huge axe to grind against Kamala Harris and he didn't understand the realistic landscape of how California elections are practically won in a Blue stronghold. He didn't really want to help Trump and he didn't really want to punish Biden, he just wanted to lay wood down on Kamala Harris.

Eastman pushed a legal "theory' with no basis in practical reality. There are lots of lawyers who parade their law degrees around on the forums here for years who do that all the time, we don't see them being set on fire and burned alive like Shireen Baratheon. Ken Paxton's gambit was legally far more interesting.

Eastman is not an elected official. Mike Lee and Lindsey Graham immediately shelved his notions. Pence did due diligence  to understand the argument (Which is what he should have done. Trying to understand something is not the same as conspiring for something)  Then Pence walked away from it.

Pin point the criminal behavior here.

This is the point where you'll likely drive forward Trump calling Raffensperger and then Brian Kemp. The first call is little murkier but Trump did not threaten him, nor offer some enticement nor bribe for it. The call to Kemp asked him to use his emergency powers as Georgia governor to override the Secretary of State's office. Kemp actually has those powers granted to him by his state legislature. Unethical? Sure. I won't argue that. Illegal and criminal? That's a different bridge to cross.

I want to be fair here. Unlike most of the radical leftists here, at least you'll try to source things.

But the application of law and the application of justice are two different things. You appear upset and angry that Trump did not suffer "justice" for his actions. But to actually formally punish Trump requires an actual legal pathway to do so. This is not a defense of Donald Trump. And this is not a defense of what happened on J6. It's a defense of the principles of law. Our legal system was designed to be bigger than just one man or one incident or one scandal. That might taste like #### going down your throat, and I wouldn't blame you for it, but it's how our system works meant for the long term good of all, not just what some consider needed retribution in the moment.

Why don't you explain to all of us what you see as the significance of the Eastman Memo.

Now I'm going to be fair on the other end of the spectrum. It appears more and more clear you don't understand the law ( no shame in that, lots of people don't) and you don't understand how the electoral college fully works.

The same principles that protect Donald Trump skirting the line today are the same principles that will protect your children tomorrow. The legal system was designed to give you what you need ( which is why SCOTUS stays on the fringes of this issue) and not your personal conception of what you want.
Not a bad thing to continue to highlight the radical authoritarian behavior of the losing Prez. 

 

Herb

Footballguy
There was already precedent for this. The precedent is Hawaii, 1960

Doesn’t matter what Trump felt. The alternate electors we’re not certified by the state and appointed by state legislators. They didnt have legal authority and could not affect the counting of Electoral College votes.

Can you point to the crime they committed?
2022 and 1960 are not comparable politically. I'm not a lawyer, so no, I do not have intimate knowledge of the law(s) that may have been broken. I just want to make damn sure that the next guy that tries this, who will undoubtedly be smarter and more savvy than Trump in how they go about it, is smacked down HARD before they even get a chance. Trump laid the foundation. If changes aren't made, the next one will succeed, especially given the voting reforms being passed in Republican state legislatures.

 

Herb

Footballguy
You should be considered a leader in the party and top contender for the Presidency.
I'm not self-important enough to want the job. One of the problems we currently have is that no stable, normal person would ever WANT to be POTUS.

 

Philo Beddoe

Footballguy
Nonetheless, I assume these actions would remove a candidate from your list. 
Sure I don’t recall ever supporting Trump here. Doesn’t change the fact that the corrupted corporate media and ruling class are tearing this country apart and are hysterically gaslighting J6. A protest got out of hand. Some people caused violence. They are now being punished for it. End of story.

 

2Squirrels1Nut

Footballguy
Breaking WaPo: Thousands of Rudy Giuliani's communications — more than 3,000 — have been turned over to the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, which has been investigating his dealings in Ukraine while he was representing Trump.

https://t.co/S6GdJbYwCO

Ru-DEE! Ru-DEE! Ru-DEE! 
Interesting as the same defense was used.  "We didn't ask Ukraine to announce they were investigating Hunter Biden and even if we did, Ukraine didn't do it so no crime!" 

 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
"We didn't ask Brad Raffensperger to fraudulently invent 11,000 votes, we just asked him to locate exactly the number of votes that had been unfairly uncounted and which would coincidentally provide us with the winning count.

It was a perfect phone call. Which was illegally recorded."

 

2Squirrels1Nut

Footballguy
Sure I don’t recall ever supporting Trump here. Doesn’t change the fact that the corrupted corporate media and ruling class are tearing this country apart and are hysterically gaslighting J6. A protest got out of hand. Some people caused violence. They are now being punished for it. End of story.
Yes, the media summoned an armed crowd on the day of certification and told them their country was being stolen from them unless they fight like hell. The media "gleefully watched" the attack on the Capitol and refused to call in the national guard for hours. The media coordinated with seven states to send in forged documents declaring Trump the winner. The media had plans to seize voting machines. The media has been declaring that the election was stolen for the last 14 months without evidence. 

 

The General

Footballguy
Sure I don’t recall ever supporting Trump here. Doesn’t change the fact that the corrupted corporate media and ruling class are tearing this country apart and are hysterically gaslighting J6. A protest got out of hand. Some people caused violence. They are now being punished for it. End of story.
Thanks.

That this was fabricated by the President is the issue. This isn’t a ruling class, whatever that means, issue. 

Stories like these shining light on this dude’s act should continued to be highlighted until his ilk is cut out of the Republican party. 

 

2Squirrels1Nut

Footballguy
I'd like this to be the end of story, too. So let's make sure Trump is disqualified from ever holding office again, send a message to future losing candidates about how to conduct themselves and move on in our efforts to reach the top of the global democracy rankings.
A more appropriate end of this story is if you attempt to pressure officials or cheat in any way to win an election, you go to jail for the rest of your life. 

 

2Squirrels1Nut

Footballguy
Thanks.

That this was fabricated by the President is the issue. This isn’t a ruling class, whatever that means, issue. 

Stories like these shining light on this dude’s act should continued to be highlighted until his ilk is cut out of the Republican party. 
Dictatorships always have at least one scapegoat. 

 

massraider

Footballguy
It was Rudy and these misfit characters who started calling the shots," a former Trump campaign staffer said. "The campaign was throwing enough ##### at the wall to see what would stick. 

Probably the only reason this thing failed. 

Next time there might not be morons trying this. 

 

supermike80

Footballguy
The headline is definitely an eye popper. Id like to see more.  And if there is criminal activity here it should be dealt with

 

supermike80

Footballguy
Ok what gives.  When I saw it was in like 700pt font on CNN.  Now its kinda gone. Something this major would get major coverage, especially on CNN.  Why are they backing off this?  Does anyone see that as weird???

 

massraider

Footballguy
Obviously, Trump supporters will ignore, deflect, whatabout, bothsides, and/or downplay this. But the bolded is a great example of why most conspiracy theories simply aren’t realistic - once you start operationalizing the theory, you realize it would take a lot of people to pull it off, and people can’t shut the #### up about it, especially when they feel like a special person that was part of a secret and important plot. We’re all basically Dustin Hoffman from Wag the Dog.

Conrad 'Connie' Brean : 


Stanley


, don't do this. You're playing with your life here.


Stanley


Motss :  #### my life! I want the credit.
This movie is immediate stop and watch till the end, why is it never on?

 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Ok what gives.  When I saw it was in like 700pt font on CNN.  Now its kinda gone. Something this major would get major coverage, especially on CNN.  Why are they backing off this?  Does anyone see that as weird???




Why Stacey Abrams is still saying she won.

I saw that recently you said something like you’d won your election but you just didn’t get to have the job(?) "Yes".... Is there any fear on your part that using that kind of language fans the same flames that President Trump has fanned about delegitimizing our elections? "I see those as very different. Trump is alleging voter fraud, which suggests that people were trying to vote more than once. Trump offers no empirical evidence to meet his claims. I make my claims based on empirical evidence, on a demonstrated pattern of behavior that began with the fact that the person I was dealing with was running the election. If you look at my immediate reaction after the election, I refused to concede."... After her attempts to force a runoff fell short, Abrams ended her campaign for governor with a speech in which she said, ‘‘So let’s be clear — this is not a speech of concession, because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper.’’ She added, ‘‘Democracy failed Georgians.’’...."It was largely because I could not prove what had happened, but I knew from the calls that we got that something happened. Now, I cannot say that everybody who tried to cast a ballot would’ve voted for me, but if you look at the totality of the information, it is sufficient to demonstrate that so many people were disenfranchised and disengaged by the very act of the person who won the election that I feel comfortable now saying, “I won.”"

By David Marchese April 28, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/28/magazine/stacey-abrams-election-georgia.html

*****

In terms of long term political strategy, three things are happening here

1) Establishment Democrats have been running on identity politics for four straight general cycles now. They have cornered themselves into pushing forward a minority woman who is ALREADY A POLITICAL BRAND NAME in the national daily media cycle to headline the 2024 DNC ticket.  You can't push systematic racism around every corner and then get away with driving forward Newsom, a frat boy wealthy white privilege archetype raised by the Gettys and protected by nepotism ( Pelosi)

2) The next best option is/was Gavin Newsom. Pushing forward Abrams means A) Pelosi's power base is waning and many establishment Democrats don't believe she cna make it to 2024. B) He's had a 2nd scandal cheating on his wife with a staffer. That's two wives and two different incidents gapped apart in time. The first time was his campaign managers wife in SF. Part of the reason he spent so long toiling as Lt Governor was that his optics were bad to push further up. He sabotaged his own political career. A harder push for Abrams means there's more than the 2nd incident. You can get one mulligan with suburban women voters if you bridge some time, you can't spin away multiple in a near time frame. 3) No one knows where the California COVID19 narrative will go in three years and Newsom is watching over 40+ million in his state. He's also lost Elon Musk, added with Afghanistan that loses him the military establishment on a nation wide basis,  and add in inflation and crime plus his previous lockdowns and he's got too many negatives working against him. He's the best of the bench left but it's a very difficult projection.

3) Michelle Obama privately turned DNC HQ and big corporate juggernaut special interests down and won't be swayed. Without Abrams, the argument then might be one of Hillary Clinton and Gavin Newsom. Which is basically spitting on all the working class minority voters which are primed to leave them. You have an out of touch psychopath who already lost and people despise who is actually caught on tape laughing at rape victims and her own husband has a history of "alleged" rape. It's basically demanding suburban women voters that lean left to sit out the 2024 election. Or they can focus on a wealthy Plump Jack discount rate wannabe Obama in Newsom who looks and will be perceived as every man who has ever cheated on a liberal woman voter in America across their entire lifetimes. And still basically demanding suburban women voters that lean left to sit out the 2024 election.You need Abrams on the ticket but you can't have her be VP to Clinton nor Newsom. Kamala Harris is still name brand but she self implodes every time she opens her mouth. AOC is a Progressive and The Squad's Anti-Semetic leanings will drive away many big money donors to the GOP.

The constant beating of the J6 drum is happening because it's all the establishment Democrats have left. "No matter how bad it gets, at least we aren't Donald Trump"  That's what they are trying to sell but it's getting real bad out there. That's just not selling to most Americans right now.

What's going on media wise is some desperate needle threading where somehow Jaime Harrison and Susan Rice believe you can somehow convince the public that the Abrams 2018 Governor race was clearly and irrefutably stolen but not proven but Trump's 2020 general cycle "loss" was clearly and irrefutably NOT stolen and not proven.

A media narrative like that just isn't possible. The more your administration sows endless chaos, the more the average voter will stop being a "low information voter"  Half baked lies don't hold up to direct sunlight.

The lesson here is the more you try to cook things, the more it backfires. If Trump just shut his mouth from 2016-2020, he'd be the 2024 favorite right now.  All the cooking Clinton tried with the Steele Dossier and the first impeachment and on and on and on is backfiring on her now for 2024. While her chances were already dim, all the post election whining and toxicity she did only makes her look older, more jilted and carrying the same baggage from 2016. Abrams had a fair point in that Brian Kemp was Georgia Secretary Of State at the time and also running for Governor against her. That's a major and legitimate claim she has in her favor. But everything she said and did afterwards only hurt her chances for 2024 too. Susan Rice wanted a "big win" by exiting Afghanistan on a specific date without a plan or any kind of common sense and that backfired to all but eliminate Biden for 2024 ( there are other reasons but that's the heaviest hitter of all of them)  Obama juiced judicial standards then Cocaine Mitch retaliated with Merrick Garland, then it shifted to the Kavanaugh mess and then bled into Amy Coney Barrett. Every time someone tried to cook things, it only made the entire situation worse for themselves. Clinton and Obama cooked up how to turf Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. While I have doubts Sanders would win in 2016, he would have had a better chance than Clinton. And Gabbard, for whatever criticisms people have of her, is EXACTLY the kind of candidate the Party desperately needs right now.

No one needs to thread this ridiculous "My elections losses were proof of something stolen but your election wins were clearly rigged thus my election wins are the most secure in political history" happy horse #### if people just stopped trying to cook their personal situation beyond reason.

Susan Rice is quite possibly the dumbest politician on the planet today. Her own political legacy is built around enabling genocide in Rwanda. While pushing identity politics non stop today. She's got an entire administration pushing how many black people are dying because of the "system" yet it's quite apparent more black people died because of her "systematic" incompetence than anyone else in the world right now.

Somehow she has to take Stacey Abrams and sell

2015-2020  was nothing but election interference and voting/elections/democracy is at risk of being totally destroyed

2020 general cycle was the purest cleanest election in American political history

2021-2024 goes back to being nothing but election interference and cheating and lying and attacking black people and voting/elections/democracy is at risk ONE MORE to be totally destroyed again.

While tap dancing around how Abrams somehow didn't generate 100 plus million in fund raising off of stolen election claims like Trump did when that's exactly what happened.

What gives? Susan Rice is a complete nimrod, empowered by Barack Obama, and her brand of politics is putting her middle finger in the face of all Americans and try to sell to them that the only reason they should disagree with her is because they are too stupid and racist and bigoted to understand her Sheldon Cooper level social logic.

CNN's ratings are massively down. Some people and some Republicans think that's because Trump is out of office. That's a factor, but what's going on is more and more Americans are looking at their gas receipts and their grocery store shelves and the crime around them and their kids in educational limbo and have made a bigger commitment to empowering themselves with more information about modern American politics. The more you seek beyond the shock marketing clickbait, the more one comes to terms that identity politics is a death sentence for our children and for any hope of functional practical governance. 

Here's the boiling water that will cook your noodle - Think about how pathetic a political Party's power base needs to be to make AOC look like the smartest person in the entire room.

 

lazyike

Footballguy
This article is absolute garbage and this was also covered last year by NYT, Vox, AP and others.

Yes there is precedent for this - 

"Since the Electoral Count Act was enacted in 1887, a situation akin to “dueling electors” has happened only once, when Hawaii was in the throes of a close recount in 1960. The governor of Hawaii signed off on a Republican slate of electors for Richard M. Nixon before the recount was completed; when it was finished and showed John F. Kennedy ahead, the governor had to send a new Democratic slate to Congress. The Democratic slate was accepted."

NYT

"CLAIM: Republicans in several battleground states put up their own sets of electors for President Donald Trump. This sets the stage for dueling slates of electors on Jan. 6, where Vice President Mike Pence decides whether to accept or reject them.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Partly false. Republicans in a handful of battleground states are trying to appoint themselves as “alternate electors” who cast votes for Trump, but their votes aren’t official, and their competing slates won’t deny President-elect Joe Biden the presidency. Pence’s role on Jan. 6 is to open and tally electoral college votes, not decide whether or not they are valid."

AP
The election in Hawaii in 1960 was razor thin with Kennedy leading by just 92 votes. A recount flipped it to Nixon and further challenges turned it back to Kennedy. The alternate electors were not something that was done secretly. Let’s not make the same comparison. Good lord Trump lost by 11,000 votes in some states they picked alternate electors up to 200,000 in Michigan. All in states he lost election fraud challenges.
From Wikipedia:

Early unofficial totals suggested that Kennedy had won the state by 92 votes. However, errors in the official tabulation sheets reversed this result, instead suggesting a 141-vote victory for Nixon. Democrats highlighted various apparent errors in the tabulation, including 34 precincts where the number of total votes cast in the precinct was smaller than the sum of Nixon's and Kennedy's vote totals, and other precincts where the number of total votes cast was much larger than the combined votes for Nixon and Kennedy.[1]

On November 22, attorney Robert G. Dodge filed a recount petition on behalf of thirty members of the Hawaii Democratic Party in a Honolulu circuit court. Dodge did not allege any voter fraud, instead merely observing that the tabulation sheets were not consistent in various precincts. State Republican Party officials also considered supporting the recount petition, but were internally divided and eventually declined to join it. One elector on the Republican slate, O. P. Soares, opposed the recount petition. All three electors on the Republican slate were named as defendants, along with Republican Lieutenant Governor James Kealoha, who at the time was serving as acting governor of the state and would be required to sign any certificate of ascertainment. Attorney General Shiro Kashiwa also joined the suit to represent the state's interests.[7][1][8]

Despite the apparent tabulation errors, Acting Governor Kealoha certified Nixon's 141-vote victory on November 28.[9] Kealoha certified the result after two audits of the tabulation sheets by his office,[10] and may have had no option other than to certify, as he lacked authority to inspect or retabulate the actual ballots cast.[1]

Litigation was still ongoing on December 13, the safe harbor deadline for certification under the Electoral Count Act. As only the Republican slate had so far been certified by the state's governor, its votes would be the only ones eligible for safe harbor status. Republicans argued that the litigation should end, since even if the recount should result in a Kennedy victory, under the rules of the Electoral Count Act Congress was required to presume that the Republican electors were the validly appointed electors for Hawaii.[8]

However, the following day, the presiding circuit court judge Ronald B. Jamieson ordered a partial recount to begin. A limited retabulation showed Nixon's margin over Kennedy decreasing, and as more ballots were opened and retabulated on subsequent days, Nixon's lead shrank and eventually disappeared. By December 18, the partial recount showed Kennedy leading Nixon in the state by 55 votes.[8]

The recount was thus still ongoing on December 19, the day specified in the Constitution for the casting of votes by the members of the Electoral College. As a consequence, both the officially certified Republican slate of electors (Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worrall, and O. P. Soares) and an "unofficial" Democratic slate of electors (Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger) convened in the ʻIolani Palace and cast competing electoral votes for Nixon and Kennedy just one minute apart.[1][11] Certificates for both slates' electoral votes were sent to Franklin G. Floete, the Administrator of General Services.[7]

Also on December 19, Jamieson ordered a complete statewide recount, which concluded on December 28 and showed a Kennedy victory by 115 votes.[8] Based on this recount, Jamieson ordered that the Democratic slate of Wilson, Heen, and Metzger be named the validly appointed presidential electors for the state of Hawaii on December 30. Attorney General Kashiwa declined to appeal the verdict, and Governor William F. Quinn, a Republican, certified the Democratic slate of electors on January 4, 1961, in a letter to Administrator Floete.[7][1] The state government also rushed a letter to Congress by air mail to indicate that a new certification was on its way.[11]

During the Congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates. To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats such as Representative Daniel K. Inouye,[6] Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent".[12][7]

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ruffrodys05

IBL Representative
The election in Hawaii in 1960 was razor thin with Kennedy leading by just 92 votes. A recount flipped it to Nixon and further challenges turned it back to Kennedy. The alternate electors were not something that was done secretly. Let’s not make the same comparison. Good lord Trump lost by 11,000 votes in some states they picked alternate electors up to 200,000 in Michigan. All in states he lost election fraud challenges.
From Wikipedia:

Early unofficial totals suggested that Kennedy had won the state by 92 votes. However, errors in the official tabulation sheets reversed this result, instead suggesting a 141-vote victory for Nixon. Democrats highlighted various apparent errors in the tabulation, including 34 precincts where the number of total votes cast in the precinct was smaller than the sum of Nixon's and Kennedy's vote totals, and other precincts where the number of total votes cast was much larger than the combined votes for Nixon and Kennedy.[1]

On November 22, attorney Robert G. Dodge filed a recount petition on behalf of thirty members of the Hawaii Democratic Party in a Honolulu circuit court. Dodge did not allege any voter fraud, instead merely observing that the tabulation sheets were not consistent in various precincts. State Republican Party officials also considered supporting the recount petition, but were internally divided and eventually declined to join it. One elector on the Republican slate, O. P. Soares, opposed the recount petition. All three electors on the Republican slate were named as defendants, along with Republican Lieutenant Governor James Kealoha, who at the time was serving as acting governor of the state and would be required to sign any certificate of ascertainment. Attorney General Shiro Kashiwa also joined the suit to represent the state's interests.[7][1][8]

Despite the apparent tabulation errors, Acting Governor Kealoha certified Nixon's 141-vote victory on November 28.[9] Kealoha certified the result after two audits of the tabulation sheets by his office,[10] and may have had no option other than to certify, as he lacked authority to inspect or retabulate the actual ballots cast.[1]

Litigation was still ongoing on December 13, the safe harbor deadline for certification under the Electoral Count Act. As only the Republican slate had so far been certified by the state's governor, its votes would be the only ones eligible for safe harbor status. Republicans argued that the litigation should end, since even if the recount should result in a Kennedy victory, under the rules of the Electoral Count Act Congress was required to presume that the Republican electors were the validly appointed electors for Hawaii.[8]

However, the following day, the presiding circuit court judge Ronald B. Jamieson ordered a partial recount to begin. A limited retabulation showed Nixon's margin over Kennedy decreasing, and as more ballots were opened and retabulated on subsequent days, Nixon's lead shrank and eventually disappeared. By December 18, the partial recount showed Kennedy leading Nixon in the state by 55 votes.[8]

The recount was thus still ongoing on December 19, the day specified in the Constitution for the casting of votes by the members of the Electoral College. As a consequence, both the officially certified Republican slate of electors (Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worrall, and O. P. Soares) and an "unofficial" Democratic slate of electors (Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger) convened in the ʻIolani Palace and cast competing electoral votes for Nixon and Kennedy just one minute apart.[1][11] Certificates for both slates' electoral votes were sent to Franklin G. Floete, the Administrator of General Services.[7]

Also on December 19, Jamieson ordered a complete statewide recount, which concluded on December 28 and showed a Kennedy victory by 115 votes.[8] Based on this recount, Jamieson ordered that the Democratic slate of Wilson, Heen, and Metzger be named the validly appointed presidential electors for the state of Hawaii on December 30. Attorney General Kashiwa declined to appeal the verdict, and Governor William F. Quinn, a Republican, certified the Democratic slate of electors on January 4, 1961, in a letter to Administrator Floete.[7][1] The state government also rushed a letter to Congress by air mail to indicate that a new certification was on its way.[11]

During the Congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates. To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats such as Representative Daniel K. Inouye,[6] Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent".[12][7]
None of this appears even remotely similar to what was being done by Giuliani and "friends" in late 2020/early 2021. 

 

Dinsy Ejotuz

Footballguy
The election in Hawaii in 1960 was razor thin with Kennedy leading by just 92 votes. A recount flipped it to Nixon and further challenges turned it back to Kennedy. The alternate electors were not something that was done secretly. Let’s not make the same comparison. Good lord Trump lost by 11,000 votes in some states they picked alternate electors up to 200,000 in Michigan. All in states he lost election fraud challenges.
From Wikipedia:

Early unofficial totals suggested that Kennedy had won the state by 92 votes. However, errors in the official tabulation sheets reversed this result, instead suggesting a 141-vote victory for Nixon. Democrats highlighted various apparent errors in the tabulation, including 34 precincts where the number of total votes cast in the precinct was smaller than the sum of Nixon's and Kennedy's vote totals, and other precincts where the number of total votes cast was much larger than the combined votes for Nixon and Kennedy.[1]

On November 22, attorney Robert G. Dodge filed a recount petition on behalf of thirty members of the Hawaii Democratic Party in a Honolulu circuit court. Dodge did not allege any voter fraud, instead merely observing that the tabulation sheets were not consistent in various precincts. State Republican Party officials also considered supporting the recount petition, but were internally divided and eventually declined to join it. One elector on the Republican slate, O. P. Soares, opposed the recount petition. All three electors on the Republican slate were named as defendants, along with Republican Lieutenant Governor James Kealoha, who at the time was serving as acting governor of the state and would be required to sign any certificate of ascertainment. Attorney General Shiro Kashiwa also joined the suit to represent the state's interests.[7][1][8]

Despite the apparent tabulation errors, Acting Governor Kealoha certified Nixon's 141-vote victory on November 28.[9] Kealoha certified the result after two audits of the tabulation sheets by his office,[10] and may have had no option other than to certify, as he lacked authority to inspect or retabulate the actual ballots cast.[1]

Litigation was still ongoing on December 13, the safe harbor deadline for certification under the Electoral Count Act. As only the Republican slate had so far been certified by the state's governor, its votes would be the only ones eligible for safe harbor status. Republicans argued that the litigation should end, since even if the recount should result in a Kennedy victory, under the rules of the Electoral Count Act Congress was required to presume that the Republican electors were the validly appointed electors for Hawaii.[8]

However, the following day, the presiding circuit court judge Ronald B. Jamieson ordered a partial recount to begin. A limited retabulation showed Nixon's margin over Kennedy decreasing, and as more ballots were opened and retabulated on subsequent days, Nixon's lead shrank and eventually disappeared. By December 18, the partial recount showed Kennedy leading Nixon in the state by 55 votes.[8]

The recount was thus still ongoing on December 19, the day specified in the Constitution for the casting of votes by the members of the Electoral College. As a consequence, both the officially certified Republican slate of electors (Gavien A. Bush, J. Howard Worrall, and O. P. Soares) and an "unofficial" Democratic slate of electors (Jennie K. Wilson, William H. Heen, and Delbert E. Metzger) convened in the ʻIolani Palace and cast competing electoral votes for Nixon and Kennedy just one minute apart.[1][11] Certificates for both slates' electoral votes were sent to Franklin G. Floete, the Administrator of General Services.[7]

Also on December 19, Jamieson ordered a complete statewide recount, which concluded on December 28 and showed a Kennedy victory by 115 votes.[8] Based on this recount, Jamieson ordered that the Democratic slate of Wilson, Heen, and Metzger be named the validly appointed presidential electors for the state of Hawaii on December 30. Attorney General Kashiwa declined to appeal the verdict, and Governor William F. Quinn, a Republican, certified the Democratic slate of electors on January 4, 1961, in a letter to Administrator Floete.[7][1] The state government also rushed a letter to Congress by air mail to indicate that a new certification was on its way.[11]

During the Congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates. To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats such as Representative Daniel K. Inouye,[6] Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent".[12][7]
So exactly the same?

 

Coach Beard

Footballguy
All joking aside.  Shouldn't this be a HUGE deal? I mean the headline says so.  Wtf??
It is a huge deal.

However, one side of the political aisle is so unsurprised by this news doesn’t induce outrage, just confirms what Trump and his team have been saying and doing for the past few years.  The other side of the political aisle is so convinced Trump can’t do anything disqualifying, they downplay it by first denying that it happened, next blaming the media for blowing it out of proportion, then claiming that no laws had been broken, and finally claiming that whatever was done is no big deal and Democrats have done the same or worse.
 

So, this particular plot to falsify electors and overturn election results won’t get much traction.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sabertooth

Footballguy
I'm familiar with the Eastman Memo. John Eastman is a mediocre legal hack who has a huge axe to grind against Kamala Harris and he didn't understand the realistic landscape of how California elections are practically won in a Blue stronghold. He didn't really want to help Trump and he didn't really want to punish Biden, he just wanted to lay wood down on Kamala Harris.

Eastman pushed a legal "theory' with no basis in practical reality. There are lots of lawyers who parade their law degrees around on the forums here for years who do that all the time, we don't see them being set on fire and burned alive like Shireen Baratheon. Ken Paxton's gambit was legally far more interesting.

Eastman is not an elected official. Mike Lee and Lindsey Graham immediately shelved his notions. Pence did due diligence  to understand the argument (Which is what he should have done. Trying to understand something is not the same as conspiring for something)  Then Pence walked away from it.

Pin point the criminal behavior here.

This is the point where you'll likely drive forward Trump calling Raffensperger and then Brian Kemp. The first call is little murkier but Trump did not threaten him, nor offer some enticement nor bribe for it. The call to Kemp asked him to use his emergency powers as Georgia governor to override the Secretary of State's office. Kemp actually has those powers granted to him by his state legislature. Unethical? Sure. I won't argue that. Illegal and criminal? That's a different bridge to cross.

I want to be fair here. Unlike most of the radical leftists here, at least you'll try to source things.

But the application of law and the application of justice are two different things. You appear upset and angry that Trump did not suffer "justice" for his actions. But to actually formally punish Trump requires an actual legal pathway to do so. This is not a defense of Donald Trump. And this is not a defense of what happened on J6. It's a defense of the principles of law. Our legal system was designed to be bigger than just one man or one incident or one scandal. That might taste like #### going down your throat, and I wouldn't blame you for it, but it's how our system works meant for the long term good of all, not just what some consider needed retribution in the moment.

Why don't you explain to all of us what you see as the significance of the Eastman Memo.

Now I'm going to be fair on the other end of the spectrum. It appears more and more clear you don't understand the law ( no shame in that, lots of people don't) and you don't understand how the electoral college fully works.

The same principles that protect Donald Trump skirting the line today are the same principles that will protect your children tomorrow. The legal system was designed to give you what you need ( which is why SCOTUS stays on the fringes of this issue) and not your personal conception of what you want.
So much misdirection and obfuscation.  It’s like you think more words makes you right. 

 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
It is a huge deal.

However, one side of the political aisle is so unsurprised by this news doesn’t induce outrage, just confirms what Trump and his team have been saying and doing for the past few years.  The other side of the political aisle is so convinced Trump can’t do anything disqualifying, they downplay it by first denying that it happened, next blaming the media for blowing it out of proportion, then claiming that no laws had been broken, and finally claiming that whatever was done is no big deal and Democrats have done the same or worse.
 

So, this particular plot to falsify electors and overturn election results won’t get much traction.  
It’s like the 9th craziest thing this week.  

 

dozer

Footballguy
Eastman wasn’t the only Trump ally pushing the ridiculous and illegal plan to subvert the electoral outcome.

Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn associate, Lt. Col. Ivan Raiklin had a similar plan…

“Before former President Donald Trump enlisted lawyer John Eastman to help him persuade Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the electoral outcome, an Army Reserves lieutenant colonel associated with retired Lt. General Michael Flynn promoted a fanciful legal theory that the vice president held the power to set aside Biden electors from states narrowly won by the Democratic nominee.”

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top