Imagine this, A fake elector being questioned in front of a federal grand jury.

[fightforfreedom]

Prosecutor; I would like to remind sir you are under oath. Did you know you were not an official elector when you signed this document claiming you were an official elector?

Defendant; Yes, but we were told by Trumps lawyers everything we were doing was legal. I was following legal advise.

Prosecutor; Did you know you were not an official elector.

Defendant; Yes.

Prosecutor; The prosecution rests.

I believe it's fair to say some of the fake electors are going to take plea deals. They are going to turn in order to to save their asses.

I am beginning to believe the fake electors investigation is going to bust open the entire Jan. 6th investigation. It ties everything together.

[Blue Owl]

1. Fingers crossed!

[ProudMNDemocrat]

2. ALL fingers point to TDFG.

Who else had so much riding on making sure he we on no matter the cost?

Prison us in the forecast.

[Pobeka]

3. I predict none will take plea deals.

The fact they were willing to go down this road in the first place tells me how delusional they how horrible they think this country will be if Trump isn't back in power somehow.

They think jail is no worse than living in a country without Trump, and the old white man racist culture in place.

They think if they can prevent Trump's prosecution, he'll get back in power and they'll all get pardons.

100% facist, anti-democracy mindset.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Who's going to pay their legal bills? Not the GOP, and not TFG.

There are 60+ potential defendants, and the odds that more than one will flip to avoid both long prison terms and bankruptcy is high.

[Pobeka]

25. You are thinking rationally.

These folks are not good at rational thinking, or they never would've signed on in the first place.

I hope you are right, and I am wrong.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. One Thing To Consider

These people were sure they would succeed.
Consequences were never a consideration.
They very well could be now & they could be facing penalties beyond anything they imagined.
They imagined ticker tape, not indictments.
That may be quite the slap of reality that changes minds.

[Pobeka]

54. I hope that's true.

This is the crowd literally killing themselves over COVID.

I think they could easily believe TFG would parden them.

Friggin' mass hysteria.

[Gore1FL]

59. Maybe, but the variables have changed if they are looking at possible sedition charges.

Crimes probably seem like good ideas when you assume you won't face consequences. Those feelings go away once caught.

[malaise]

4. Down they all go

That is all

[calimary]

29. That works.

[Mr. Ected]

5. Mail fraud carries a 20 year prison sentence

There is no parole in the federal system. If convicted, they'd be sent away for a long, long time. And the likelihood that DJT is ever coming back to save their asses is slim to none.

They're all going to flip and point upwards in the food chain as to who told who to do what and when.

[lagomorph777]

6. It would be a shame if coup plotters got jailed just for mail fraud.

But I'll take it!

[Mr. Ected]

7. I think the mail fraud counts are a no-brainer

The sedition charges will take time and effort to put together.

Best to threaten these folks with a sure thing and backfill in the meantime. All of these fake electors should do at least 5 years hard time...as long as they give testimony to haul in the crooks up the chain of command.

[gab13by13]

8. Did the people who signed the document

know that it was going to be mailed to the National Archives and to Congress? Maybe the person who authorized the mailing of the document will be the only one liable for mail fraud. I'm just an internet lawyer.

I do listen to former prosecutors on TV though and they all say the same thing, in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove intent.

Don't get me wrong, I believe these people are guilty and need to be squeezed. The plan should be to get a fake elector to flip on the Big Fish, and no, I don't for a minute believe that Rudy was the mastermind behind this.

[Mr. Ected]

10. Seems the bar is pretty high to get a conviction for federal mail fraud

There are two elements: devising a scheme to defraud and use of the mail to effectuate that scheme. Perhaps only the parties who actually placed the documents in the mail are eligible for the charge. That's a good point and one that this internet lawyer has no answer to. Maybe Daniel Goldman or Glenn Kirshner can weigh in.

[fightforfreedom]

12. It doesn't matter if they knew or not.

It was mailed, game over.

[onenote]

13. Question: are you an attorney

And, if you are, how familiar are you with mail fraud cases?

There are a lot of "internet lawyers" claiming this and that are slam dunk cases. Actual practitioners will tell you that there are very few, if any, "slam dunk" or "open and shut" cases.

[KS Toronado]

27. Wish "My Cousin Vinny" had been about mail fraud so I'd understand it better

I'll wait and see what the DOJ says when the time comes.

[fightforfreedom]

36. What would happen if you or I did what they did?

Pretend were fake electors, sign a fake document and pretend we are completely innocent because we were told by crooked lawyers it's all legal. We would be indicted. What grand jury would believe the excuse, we didn't know it was going to mailed in. This is a slam dunk case and you don't have to be a lawyer to know that.

The AG from Michigan also called it a slam dunk case.

[nvme]

66. THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MINUTE

The doc they were signing had to be transported to DC some how right? So how could they not know what they were signing was going to cross state lines.

[grantcart]

32. Which is why I have higher hopes for the Georgia case against Trump

Intent,as I understand it, is not a factor, simply making the call and asking to change the outcome is a violation of law.

[DLCWIdem]

45. Intent is a factor in the Georgia case

That is what Ms. Willis said on MSNBC last week. Not sure if it was on Rachel or Chris Hayes but she said that is why it was taking so long because he was not hiding it.

[grantcart]

57. I would be very curious on her exact words and context

The Georgia law does not require to prove that he intended to overturn the election results or intended to form a conspiracy, etc.

There are three different statues that Trump violated but one of them is criminal solicitation. Simply making the call is the crime, they don't have to prove that there was a likelihood of success or agreement. Trump did hide it, it only came out when Raffensperger released the call.

Prosecutors will continue investigation for as long as there is a chance for even more discovery, that is why good prosecutors have a 95% conviction rate. In any case DA Willis only requested the Grand Jury two weeks ago and it was only approved last week and will start on May 2nd.

[DLCWIdem]

58. I think it had to do with "guilty mind" (mens rea)

[jmowreader]

43. Not only did they know, that was their intent

Their theory was, the National Archives will accept the document that reaches them first. So they signed these things and shipped them out before the legitimate electors could.

The Archivist (an Obama appointee, btw) took one look at these things that were missing ALL three things that prove the legitimacy of the certificate - two signatures and the state seal, noticed they were claiming the person who came in second really won the election, and said “nope.”

[onenote]

71. The concept of a "specific intent" crime is confusing for law students

So its not surprising that non-lawyers don't quite understand it,what it requires the prosecution to establish, and why prosecutors have to carefully navigate around the good faith/advice of counsel defense.

In other words, its not necessarily the slam dunk that many non-lawyers here seem to believe it would be. I'm not saying the case can't be made, just that no prosecutor is going to rush this case along without a thorough investigation of all of the communications surrounding the creation and submission of the "alternate" certifications.

[jmowreader]

72. What do you think they'll be charged with?

I think mail fraud is a nonstarter charge for most of them.

"We're charging you with mail fraud!"
"I didn't mail that. Go away."

52 USC 20511(2)(b) might be interesting:

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—
(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—
(A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,

This one's good for five years prison time.

I do have a bit of a concern about the viability of a good-faith defense. I know the basic sequence for a presidential election at state level is:

1. The voters cast their ballots and local election boards count the votes.
2. After the county/parish election board does all its work, they report the counts to the secretary of state.
3. The secretary of state sends letters reporting the official count to all the electors, and directs the electors of the candidate who won the state to report to the Statehouse for the official vote.
4. The official vote is placed on certificates which are signed and sealed for transmission to the National Archives.

Trying to pull off a good-faith defense basically comes down to "I saw the official count said Biden won but I didn't believe it so I cast an electoral vote for Trump anyway." This is right up there with "I don't believe there's really a law that says you can't rob banks."

[usaf-vet]

77. Does the driver of the getaway car know the bank robbers are going to kill people in the bank?

I think that is settled law. The driver will be charged with murder along with the folks that pull the triggers.

[calimary]

37. Don't forget: they finally got Al Capone - for tax evasion.

Doesn’t matter. They got him.

All that matters is - they finally nailed his ass.

[Stuart G]

55. I agree ...They, (whoever "they" are) will get Donald Trump for exactly the same crime.

And it will be clear to all, that he cheated on taxes when it is all over. If Trump thinks he can get away with ...it all

than .....all includes ....paying no taxes, or far less taxes..

..... Donald Trump pulls every kind of trick a person can imagine.
Avoiding taxes is a trick to pay less. (or not pay at all).. That is who Trump is: A Trickster, and a Total Liar...

And that is what will bring Trump down..those 6 words...." A Trickster and A Total Liar"

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Conspiracy to defraud the United States is a likely plea bargain

Max sentence of five years, better than mail fraud or seditious conspiracy, both of which carry up to 20 year sentences.

[jmowreader]

44. Possible

Not likely. These people are so brainwashed they’ll never go for it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. They have more to lose than the January 6 insurrectionists who are taking plea deals

These fraudulent electors are mostly party apparatchiks, wealthier than your average Capitol trespasser, but without access to millions to spend on defending federal and state charges.

There are 60+ potential defendants; some of them are sure to flip.

[monkeyman1]

74. plus 147 republican's that is j-6 committee sight's !!

[oldsoftie]

9. I'd love to see the ass-kissing David Schaefer (GA) get questioned.

He was standing with Lin Wood for this BS. All because he doesn't like Brian Kemp.
I bet Kemp is laughing his ass off

[Casady1]

63. Schaefer has a

Very punchable face.

[oldsoftie]

64. Lololol

[onenote]

11. If the prosecution rested at that point in a trial, they would lose.

Fraud is a specific intent crime and a good faith belief that one's actions were lawful -- supported by evidence that one was acting on the advice of counsel -- can be an affirmative defense and the burden is on the prosecution to overcome that defense.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-969-defenses-good-faith

[fightforfreedom]

14. Not if people like myself were on that grand jury.

The intent is obvious, there was no good faith belief in anything. They knew exactly what they were doing. People who sit on a grand jury are not stupid.

[onenote]

16. And maybe a grand jury would issue an indictment

But not every indictment results in a guilty verdict or a plea deal. And if the prosecution made no effort to rebut a "good faith" affirmative defense at trial, the judge would have little choice but to grant a directed verdict or face being reversed on appeal.

Again, the defense can be overcome, but "no its not' won't be a successful rebuttal.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. Grand juries do not convict, they issue indictments.

Also, it’s highly unlikely that a potential defendant would testify to a grand jury, they would more than likely not be called, or if called, take the fifth.

[DLCWIdem]

46. I would think it would depend on what "good faith" means

Just because they believed the "election was stolen" they would also know they were not the "duly elected electors of their state" and they knew it was going to be sent in.

[onenote]

47. The issue is whether they had specific intent to defraud

and advice of counsel defense comes into play, even at the grand jury stage. See, e.g., US v. Stevens, 771 Fed.Supp. 2d 556 (D. MD. 2011), where the court dismissed an indictment where the prosecution gave an incorrect instruction to the grand jury regarding the advice of counsel defense when it suggested that all that was needed to establish probable cause was that the defendant "reasonably knew that she was making false statements."



"There can be little doubt that the instruction given the grand jury regarding the advice of counsel defense was erroneous. The prosecutors' response to the grand juror's question clearly indicated that the advice of counsel defense was not relevant at the charging stage. Mr. Jasperse stated "the advice of counsel defense . . . is a defense that a defendant can raise, once the defendant has been charged." The second prosecutor, Ms. Bloom, reinforced the statement that the advice of counsel was irrelevant at the charging stage by stating that "while [the advice of counsel defense] can be relevant at trial . . . if you find probable cause for the elements here that the attorney Lauren Stevens reasonably knew that she was making false statements and the elements that Patrick [Jasperse] went through, then that's sufficient to find probable cause." The grand jurors were thus instructed erroneously that the advice of counsel was irrelevant to a determination of whether there was probable cause to indict Stevens."

[DLCWIdem]

56. Yes I read that

The way I understand the case was the prosecution told the grand jury that it was irrelevant if the defendents were told by their own lawyers that it was legal. But that just means it is relevant what the defendents were told by their own lawyers.
But this case is different because in this case it isn't their own lawyers but the campaign lawyers who are instructing them.

[onenote]

68. I don't think that is necessarily a controlling limitation.

For example, just last year, a federal court ruled that a good faith defense could be based on on legal advice provided by a third party's counsel and passed along to the defendants -- i.e a "derivative advice of counsel" argument can be made to establish a defendant's lack of specific intent.

[Scottie Mom]

69. I believe mail fraud is not a specific intent crime. EOM

[onenote]

70. You are mistaken.

Last edited Tue Feb 1, 2022, 01:43 AM - Edit history (1)

See United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 997 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("Because only 'a scheme to defraud' and not actual fraud is required, proof of fraudulent intent is critical.&quot , cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); see also United States v. Costanzo, 4 F.3d 658, 664 (8th Cir. 1993) (intent is an essential element, inquiry is whether defendants intended to defraud).

[Eyeball_Kid]

15. Giuliani answers to Trump. Giuliani coordinated the fake electors conspiracy.

Giuliani does Trump's bidding and had legal authority to represent Trump.

Giuliani was following Trump's orders to establish fake electors.

Simple.

[gab13by13]

17. Giuliani did not draw up the documents,

someone like John Eastman or one of the other crooked lawyers was higher up than Rudy.

[Captain Zero]

73. And Rudy and Trump PRESSURED Pence to ACCEPT the fraudulent electors

So they concocted a scheme to submit fraudulent electoral votes and encouraged Pence to accept THOSE. There is no crime there?

[ashredux]

20. Yes... I believe you are correct. They can't hide this

[Botany]

22. "The fake electors investigation ties everything together."

Yup.

The groups that attacked the US Capitol were 2 groups:

MAGA brainwashed racist dumb asses

more organized groups of active or retired police, firefighters, and military such as the oath keepers
and their job was to get the real electoral ballots* which could then be replaced by the forged ones that
were made up by Rudy G and company.

* in the congressional paralmentary's office

[L. Coyote]

23. Question Michigan's GOP leaders, Sen Maj Leader Mike Shirkey and House Spkr Lee Chatfield.

What did #FailedCoupGuy urge them to do?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[CanonRay]

24. It's a ridiculously easy case to prove.

[onenote]

33. Again: are you an attorney?

Have you ever tried a specific intent case, such as mail fraud? Do you know the different affirmative defenses that can be raised in such a case and that it is the burden of the prosecution to rebut those defenses?

There is nothing "ridiculously easy" about a mail fraud case.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-969-defenses-good-faith

[CanonRay]

39. Actually, I was a Federal Agent for 28 years

and I had numerous successful trials involving specific intent charges, including Mail Fraud. This is avery make able case.

[onenote]

42. Was the advice of counsel/good faith defense in issue in any of them?

The OP suggests that a claim by a defendant in a fraud case that they were acting pursuant to advice of counsel would not be relevant.

But, in fact, a prosecutor that failed to instruct a grand jury about the advice of counsel defense runs a substantial risk of having the indictment dismissed before trial.

For example, in US v. Stevens, 771 Fed.Supp. 2d 556 (D.MD 2011), the court dismissed an indictment where the prosecutor gave an improper instruction to the grand jury regarding the advice of counsel defense, stating:

"There can be little doubt that the instruction given the grand jury regarding the advice of counsel defense was erroneous. The prosecutors' response to the grand juror's question clearly indicated that the advice of counsel defense was not relevant at the charging stage. Mr. Jasperse stated "the advice of counsel defense . . . is a defense that a defendant can raise, once the defendant has been charged." The second prosecutor, Ms. Bloom, reinforced the statement that the advice of counsel was irrelevant at the charging stage by stating that "while [the advice of counsel defense] can be relevant at trial . . . if you find probable cause for the elements here that the attorney Lauren Stevens reasonably knew that she was making false statements and the elements that Patrick [Jasperse] went through, then that's sufficient to find probable cause." The grand jurors were thus instructed erroneously that the advice of counsel was irrelevant to a determination of whether there was probable cause to indict Stevens."

[CanonRay]

49. Not that I can recall

But it's been a while, been retired about 20 years.

[fightforfreedom]

38. Thank you.

[sop]

26. It will never get to Trump, though...he had a lot of buffers.

[leftieNanner]

28. Had an interesting conversation with a neighbor yesterday

The thing is, those folks who signed the Trump elector forms actually thought he won. They believed the voter fraud BS that he was spouting. So they thought they were the "official electors".

I don't know if it's as much of a slam-dunk as we think it is.

Hope I'm wrong here.

[dchill]

30. Nevertheless, they knew the specific thing they did...

...was a crime.

[gab13by13]

31. I don't believe that,

Pennsylvania electors knew better and they were part of the scheme. They all knew better.

[patphil]

34. I agree, these people are not your typical mindless Trumpsters.

They wanted to win regardless of the cost. If the election process had to be trashed to do it, they were fully on board.

Their mistake was in believing that the coup could be pulled off.

[fightforfreedom]

40. They know Trump did not win, come on.

They knew exactly what they were doing.

[leftieNanner]

61. I agree with you

They were somehow convinced by "someone" that this was a good idea.

SMDH

[dwayneb]

60. I thought they said it was a "just in case" set of alternate electors

I had not heard that any of them said they thought he had actually won. The excuse that I heard was that they were "just in case" electors if the election was eventually overturned via the various lawsuits that had been filed.

And their claim was that this was a legal maneuver.

First to admit I don't know all the details of this investigation.

[3825-87867]

35. Are the electors sworn in ?

Do they have to take an "oath" to serve?

[fightforfreedom]

41. I know there is some sort of process.

You just cannot make yourself an official elector.

[Mr.Bill]

65. It's not uncommon to have a policy

that when you sign certain government documents, you do so under penalty of perjury. This can involve documents as mundane as things from the DMV or the Unemployment Department. I'm sure it would include the types of documents that Electors sign.

[jmowreader]

50. It won't be quite that simple

I suspect the only people who will be hit with mail fraud charges will be the seven people who handed the envelopes to postal clerks - which is probably why the initial indictment was for only 14 people. The rest of them are looking at falsifying official documents charges, which max out at five year prison sentences. And under the Separate Sovereigns doctrine they can also be convicted for violating state laws against that.

I also suspect they won’t be able to fall back on good faith defenses. Before electors meet, the Secretary of State certifies the election. These individuals all know the states they’re in certified for Biden. “We didn’t believe the SOS so we voted for Trump anyway” won’t fly.

[Vinca]

51. When you get to ordinary people with ordinary financial resources for lawyers, the worm

will turn. I doubt many of these people are willing to bankrupt themselves in the name of the Big Lie.

[ecstatic]

52. There's no way a lawyer told them to FORGE their state's seal

I don't even think ghouliani is that stupid. lol.

[Hotler]

62. Rendition and waterboard. nt

[RicROC]

67. Jill Wine-Banks pointed out, voters vote for electors and not directly for a Presidential candidate.

Therefore, even the fake electors should have been on the ballot for them to even be considered as electors.

Seems like there are some people who signed the fake elector forms who were not on the ballot.
In that case, they are really in trouble regarding fraud.

[joshcryer]

75. I would like to remind you...

...they don't have to answer a single question.

Proving their illegal signature would therefore be very difficult. Their lawyers, of which there will be many, could simply say it was a political statement.

[bucolic_frolic]

76. Too bad speculation is not reality