In Beau of the FIfth Column’s recent video on the topic, he thinks they had been waiting for the DOJ to do something, and finally decided the clock was running out.
I believe the video was actually taken by news reporters. Seems to be a professional job, their spokesman is speaking as if to a reporter, and it was uploaded by Michigan Free Press.
So glad to see this. In my humble opinion these are the people who were actively trying to implement a coup in the United States.
I just hope Fani Willis will soon follow suit. From what I’ve read, it seems she may have a few fake electors who have turned and may be willing to spill to save their own skins. Apparently they have pointed to Rudy and Sydney Powell as parties who were providing direction.
Of the two apparent leaders in the Georgia fake electors scheme, one was the state R-party Chair. He did not stand for another term in that role, possibly because it’s becoming apparent that he’ll be busy over the next year or two. The other is the newly elected Lt. Governor who apparently plans to be Governor after Brian Kemp’s second term. Let’s hope he becomes “otherwise occupied.”
Dunno’ if I agree with this.
What percent of registered voters can name the three branches of government? The two houses of Congress? The nine Supreme Court justices? Their own US Senators?
What we’re talking about here is essentially an effort to subvert the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
And I can’t imagine how many registered voters could passably explain the Electoral College or the difference between a Direct and a Representative Democracy (or a Constitutional Republic).
Giving the context necessary for the average juror to understand the very nature of the crime is no easy feat. If I were the Michigan AG, riding on Jack Smith’s coattails on this one could really ease my burden, I would think.
There’s no rule that you can’t be charged at both the state and federal level. I understand that, often, one of the two will decide to take precedence but both can move forward independently.
Michigan could continue to work up the chain and (conceivably, if called for) prosecute Eastman and Trump. And, given the non-zero chance that Trump could get elected and immunize himself, the Michigan AG might think that it’s not worth the risk to cede way to the Feds in this very specific case.
If Eastman, Giuliani, and Trump conspired to commit a crime in Michigan then, even though they’re not residents, they should still be prosecutable:
IANAL but my understanding is that the Michigan authorities can require testimony from a person from across state lines and they can issue arrest warrants, but they can’t execute a search warrant on their out-of-state premises and personal belongings (?). If so, this limits their ability to go after out-of-state residents compared to the Feds. Can any lawyers confirm?
Plausibly, Michigan has enough information via those being charged to continue up the ladder but, quite plausibly, they would be dependent on the Feds for any prosecutions at a higher level due to a lack of access to a greater pool of evidence.
Minus the ability to climb higher, the Michigan AG might consider negotiating lenience for some one of the fraudulent electors, at the request of the US DOJ, if they believed that it would help and be necessary for having any chance at a prosecution of Eastman, Giuliani, and Trump.
But, likewise, the Feds might (?) have the option of passing evidence down to the state level, so that all prosecutions against Eastman, Giuliani, and Trump are proof against Federal immunity and pardons.
True. That part isn’t simple. But it’s going to be just as complex now as it would have been two years ago. Meanwhile, the alleged crimes are simple from the POV of the people bringing the charges, who presumably understand these things. So what took so long?
Also, another poignant reminder that being cocky is generally ill-advised:
That … did not age well 
They’re not simple charges to investigate and make charging decisions about. Forgery is not a simple crime, because of the question of intent; conspiracy is not a simple crime, becuase of the requirement to prove that each member of the alleged conspiracy was part of the plot; conspiracy to commit forgery magnifies those complexities.
There’s also the issue of activities in other states.
The Michigan AG started earlier, but hoped that the feds would take it on:
But then there’s this:
I think it’s a “stay-tuned” situation.
OK, I give up. Ignorance fought!
But your cite seems to indicate that the Michigan team was ready to roll at least 18 months ago, holding off in deference to the feds (and not because the charges were so complex).
I don’t know that Michigan was ready to go 18 months ago. I read it that they started looking at it, hoped the feds would take it because of complexity and cross-border issues, but then started up again this year. But, we should wait to see what else comes out.
Here’s an example of why intent is so important. CNN has an article with short sketches of each of the 16 who are charged. Here’s the sketch for one of them:
Michele Lundgren , 73, was the Republican nominee in 2022 for a Detroit-based seat in the Michigan House of Representatives, but lost the heavily Democratic district in a landslide. Regarding the fake electors plot, she told CNN last year, “We were called on the phone, asked if we’d come and support President Trump and sign something, and we all went to Lansing. … We were just told to show up and sign this paper. If we had any information about it being untoward or illegal, we would not have done it.”
That’s what I mean about the intent element of forgery. It’s not enough to show that she signed the document, you have to show that she had the intent to use the document in a fraudulent way.
If she’s right, that she didn’t know what the paper she signed was about, or how it would be used, then she walks. Even if she raises a reasonable doubt about her intent, she walks.
If instead the prosecutor can lead evidence that shows that not only did she sign it, she knew full well what was going on and that the paper would be used in an attempt to change the election, that’s quite different. The jury may convict her.
But how do you show that intent, as a prosecutor? You have to talk to witnesses. You have to find people who will say that “Michele knew exactly what she was doing”, under oath. And those people have to be credible and in the know themselves.
Gathering that kind of evidence for all 16 takes time.
I’m not so sure. More evidence is always better, but in the forms they signed the signers refer to themselves as “being duly elected and qualified electors.” They must have known that was false. If I sign something under oath that says “I’m the owner of the house at 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue,” can’t just say “I was told to come in and sign this paper.”
Were they part of the group demanding to be let into the state house becasue they were rightful delegates and had documents to proved it? I would assume that all 16 were there and that they stated their intent quite clearly. Hard to argue that you didn’t know what you signed when you show up at the state house demanding your rightful seat at the table.
Sure, but that gets into questions like what the content of the document was, what she was told at the time she signed it, whether any part of the document was covered up when she signed, whether she was told it was only going to be used in case one of the court actions worked, and so on.
The prosecution has to be prepared to bat down all those possibilities. That takes time for them to be sure they can go, and in this case, can go with the same set of charges against all 16.
Read in another article that one of the people they tried to get to sign it refused unless they added language reflecting that it was continent on court cases or other events that threw out the Biden win. The drafters (whoever they were) refused to add the qualifiers, so she refused to be a signer. I’ll try to find the article and add.
In any case, this is at least one bit of evidence that it was known, or was knowable, that the attestation as written was fraudulent.
Yes, that would be good evidence. And that sort of evidence needs to be tracked down, by the prosecution, and see if it’s credible and can be used in Court.
Similarly, I’ve seen some reference to the signing being done in a private room, with no-one else being admitted, but someone else saying it was being done all open and aboveboard.
All I’m saying is that this is a complex case because intent is so important and needs to be proven. That will have taken time.
That’s the sort of thing that the prosecution had to investigate and nail down. And that takes time.
As I recall. that language was used in Pennsylvania, and in my mind, made the document perfectly legitimate (although completely unnecessary).
Here it is:
While Trump supporters in five states used identical language outright declaring themselves “the duly elected and qualified electors,” their Pennsylvania counterparts insisted on saying they would only cast their votes for Trump “if, as a result of a final non-appealable court order or other proceeding prescribed by law, we are ultimately recognized as being the duly elected and qualified electors.” Trump electors in New Mexico added similar language.
“We were not going to sign unless the language was changed to say ‘if.’ This was in no way, shape or form us trying to go around the election,” said Allegheny County Republican Committee Chairman and Trump elector Sam DeMarco. DeMarco has been among the highest-profile Republicans in the state to push back against false allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election made by Trump and his allies
I’m aware of one of the 16, he’s the mayor of Wyoming, a suburb of Grand Rapids. Wyoming leans blue, so I’m surprised a MAGAt was elected mayor there. Must’ve been a name recognition thing, as he’s been in Wyoming politics for years.
Gift link
"So she said she proposed an alternative: Instead of submitting the electors as if Trump had won, the party would sign a document merely offering the electors as a contingency in case the courts somehow awarded Michigan to Trump.
Those involved did not adopt Cox’s plan."