Let's talk about what happens when objections are made to the counting of electoral votes from a state.
Some Trump tryhards are telling each other that an objection immediately sets up the state delegations to vote instead of counting the electoral votes. That isn't true.
First, for an objection to a state's electoral votes to even be considered, it must be (1) made in writing and (2) signed by at least one Senator and one Representative.
If those conditions are met, then the joint session of Congress is suspended, and the Senators leave the House chamber and go back to the Senate chamber.
Each house then has not more than two hours to debate the objection and vote to accept or reject it.
Both houses must vote by simple majority to accept the objection to a state's electoral votes.
If either house rejects the objection (or if both do), then the state's electoral votes will be counted.
You see where this is going. The House is not going to agree to objections to electors from the contested states where Biden won, regardless if Sen. Hawley and Rep. Cawthorn object in all four states.
They'll just achieve eight-ish hours of futile delay.
As I observed earlier today, much like Sen. Cruz's futile gov't shutdown over Obamacare in 2013, I have no doubt this will be a fundraising bonanza for Hawley.
As Sen. Cruz would learn three years later, tho, there's always someone crazier ready to jump in and steal your shot.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The last batch of Michigan fake electors has been arraigned.
They are charged with forgery, conspiracy to commit election forgery, and publishing a counterfeit record—namely, the false electoral certificate they sent to D.C. as part of Trump's scheme. cnn.com/2023/08/10/pol…
Here's a copy of the fake elector certificate the false electors from Michigan sent to D.C.
There are several lies in this document. Not only were they lying about being the 2020 electors from Michigan, they also lied that they "convened and organized in the State Capitol." In fact, they were turned away by the Michigan State Police when they tried to enter.
Okay, I've tweeted a lot about the § 371 count, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., which is, I think, the easiest charge to prove. One of those threads is QTed here.
But let's talk about the second count, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
For the second count, DOJ will have to prove Trump (1) knowingly (2) entered into an agreement (3) to obstruct an official proceeding (4) corruptly and (5) at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The sticking point for this one will be what "corruptly" means. There's not a lot of precedent discussing it. The DC Cir. has this exact question already before it bc of the Jan. 6 cases.
This continues to fail to grapple with Tanner, Dennis, Haas, Hammerschmidt.
Trump is not charged with wire fraud or honest services fraud. And clear (and binding on the lower courts) precedent says that conspiracy to defraud the U.S. does not require loss of money or property.
It is true that SCOTUS has in recent years pared back the meaning of fraud in wire fraud and honest services fraud prosecutions. But they have not altered conspiracy to defraud the U.S., which goes back A LOT further than the wire fraud or honest service fraud statutes.
Ninety-nine years ago SCOTUS explained that conspiracy to defraud the U.S. does not require "property or pecuniary loss."
The claim that Jack Smith has offered a "novel" or "unprecedented" theory of the conspiracy fraud crime is simply and obviously false.
He is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceedings, obstruction of an official proceeding, and civil rights conspiracy. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Co-Conspirator 1 is Rudy Giuliani.
Co-Conspirator 2 is John Eastman.
Co-Conspirator 3 is Sidney Powell.
Co-Conspirator 4 is Jeffrey Clark.
Co-Conspirator 5 is Kenneth Chesebro.
Co-Conspirator 6 is ???
I see conservative pundits suggesting that Trump was just exercising free speech in falsely claiming to have won the election, but they're not really getting to the meat of the fraudulent electors scheme.
"But some of them got away with it, and FBI is, like, finding all the Jan. 6 rioters n stuff."
Uh, okay??
"It's not fair!"
Did the Jan. 6 rioters post their rioting on Facebook?
"..."
Yeah.
"How dare these state and local agencies not hunt down every person who under cover of darkness and chaos rioted!!!"
Same people: "How dare the FBI find these people who rioted in broad daylight and then posted their crimes to social media! This is a double standard!!!!"
The fun thing about being a pundit is they don't have to struggle with things like "evidence" or "burden of proof" or "the rule of law" or any of the hard things that might crop up during chaotic multi-night riots.
Instead, they happily whine that not enough people are in jail.
Here's why it's frustrating when, for example, Gov. DeSantis says he would pardon Jan. 6 rioters for "technical violations of the law" if Summer 2020 rioters didn't get prosecuted.
First, as we've seen, the hypothetical isn't actually true, but he won't tell his followers that.
But second, most Summer 2020 riots were state crimes, not federal crimes. Of course DOJ didn't prosecute state crimes, that's not DOJ's job, that's state prosecutors.
This stuff about "uneven application of justice" doesn't involve DOJ's area of authority at all.
And again, to come back to the first part, where the Summer 2020 rioters actually committed federal crimes, like vandalizing federal courthouses, DOJ, in fact, did prosecute.