site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30714 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump has been indicted (again), this time in Georgia, under RICO charges. The charges against him and a large number of co-conspirators relate to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Full indictment here.

We've seen a range of charges laid against Trump in varying jurisdictions, and I think it's fair to say the cases have varying strength. These new charges seem to me to be on the strong end of the spectrum.

Helpfully, the indictment is painfully clear at every point as to what particular acts constitute which particular crimes or elements of crimes. This makes it a lot easier to assess for an uneducated layman like me. On at least some of the charges, it would appear that he's deeply screwed. E.g. "Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer" seems to be open and shut, and carries a minimum 1 year sentence. He also has no capacity to pardon himself if he is elected President, as these are not federal charges.

As far as I can tell Trump's only hope to escape conviction here is jury nullification.

If solicting a government official to violate their oath of office is a crime punishable by 1 year per instance, then the very second a libertarian government gets in every single democrat and half of republicans will be put in the work camps for repeatedly soliciting politicians to pass gun control and violate their oath to defend the constitution (which includes the second amendment).

Also every single crime will now be a life sentence because asking police officers and judges to go easy on you will now be likewise criminal solicitation to violate the law and not uphold it.

This law is a blatant violation of not only free speech, but the right to petition, it is not on the public not to ask politicians and government officials not to violate their oaths, it is on the government officials not to violate it.

Notably the first president or public official ever convicted in any way related to their oath will not be convicted for violation, which has basically never been adjudicated and has no precedent, not even rank madness like Lincoln bringing in a draft never mentioned in the constitution or the illegally ratified 16th amendment which makes a mockery of every privacy and property right in the constitution or english common law...

But instead the first notable conviction for anything oath related would be of an elected American President, not for any war crime, not for any violation of American's rights, not for corruption, not for colluding with hostile foreign powers (as FDR certainly did with Stalinist Russia), but for asking a state official to review something the state official didn't....

If Trump can go down for this every soul who's ever set foot in DC could be hanged. And I would lead the revolutionary tribunals to do it.

If solicting a government official to violate their oath of office is a crime punishable by 1 year per instance, then the very second a libertarian government gets in every single democrat and half of republicans will be put in the work camps for repeatedly soliciting politicians to pass gun control and violate their oath to defend the constitution (which includes the second amendment).

These are plainly not analogous. In the gun control case, those advocating gun control clearly don't view it as a violation of the second amendment, whereas as I understand it the charge against Trump is that he knowingly advocated an action which would violate oaths of office.

They are well aware via plain reading of the second amendment and any of the surrounding documentation, as their is enough evidence that they did know the text of the second amendment or should have known such as makes no difference.

But even if we allow that by your logic the tens of millions of democrats who have at some point said "The Second Amendment says this, that's why politicians need to get rid of it" Would thenforce be guilty anytime they advocated gun-control, and probably on every individual count.

Think of all the democrats who at some point said something like "the constitution was written by slaveowners, we don't need to listen to what slaveowners wrote about slaveowner's rights to own guns" All of them go to prison under this standard, that's hundreds of thousands if not millions of democrats.

They are well aware via plain reading of the second amendment and any of the surrounding documentation, as their is enough evidence that they did know the text of the second amendment or should have known such as makes no difference.

I think there is ample evidence that a reading of the 2nd Amendment vastly different to that which you advocate can reasonably be taken; even if you disagree with it there is a legitimate perspective that rejects what you consider to be the 'plain reading'. See, for instance, cases like Aymette v. State of Tennessee, which held that the right to 'bear arms' was a political and group right rather than an individual one, such that the 'legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens', as the 2nd Amendment (and the provisions of the Tennessee state constitution) guaranteed the right to employ weaponry only in 'civilized warfare'. Hence it upheld a ban on the concealed carrying of knives. Also, because it exists as a 'group' right for the 'common defense' only, though the general right has to be preserved 'it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed'. See also Buzzard, City of Salina v. Blaskley and US v. Adams (1935, not 1966). This interpretation is not in fashion these days, but it is clearly a legitimate view, and indeed to my mind a very persuasive one.

But even if we allow that by your logic the tens of millions of democrats who have at some point said "The Second Amendment says this, that's why politicians need to get rid of it" Would thenforce be guilty anytime they advocated gun-control, and probably on every individual count.

I'm not so sure. While I don't think there are 'tens of millions' who would concede what they want is in violation of the constitution (most would surely give some rationale, either similar to the above, or arguing about 'well regulated etc. etc., or simply advocate changing the constitution), the level of 'solicitation' is vastly different between the incumbent President pressuring officials into changing election results vs. a man on the street with a placard in favour of a gun control proposal he deep down thinks is contrary to the constitution.

"the constitution was written by slaveowners, we don't need to listen to what slaveowners wrote about slaveowner's rights to own guns"

I think this sort of rhetoric is more about being in favour of a 'living constitution' interpretation, but either way what I said before still applies; we should hold an incumbent President to a much higher standard on this kind of thing than an ordinary person, as the extent and harmful effects of the 'solicitation' are vastly different.

The law wasn't written for presidents, it was written for the general population. Indeed an individual state would not be able to write a law binding only the president.

Ergo if it applies to him Retweeting and commenting on a news piece, it applies to literally everyone for all political speech.

It wasn't just about tweets, it's about a letter he sent to Raffensperger asking him to decertify the election. Of course the law applies to everyone equally, but not everyone has an equal capacity to 'importune' to the same extent.

Note: I strongly dislike Trump

How many times are they going to try this and fail? The Steele dossier was an embarrassment for everyone who pushed it.

I don't know how else to say this but Trump derangement syndrome is a thing (compare similar scandals between Trump and Biden). I've heard people cry wolf too many times to see this as anything other than political persecution.

Oh, that’s a surprise.

On page 9, the grand jury list, three names are struck out by pen. Anyone know what that means?

What I find infuriating about this discussion is how often the term "fake electors" is used. If the electors were "fake" and the electors commited "fraud", can anyone provide me with a count of how many of the fake electors' votes were mistakenly recorded in the Senate? Oh, none? Amazing! Well, what kind of detective work went into distinguishing the fake votes from the real votes? Was the Secret Service called in for their expertise in detecting counterfeit money?

Obviously the accurate term should be "contingent electors", in the sense that these would have been the correct electors if Trump prevailed in his various lawsuits. It's easy to imagine that in the case where he was able to establish fraud and the court determined that he had won the election, they wouldn't want the process to get held up by the need to quickly get some electors together to cast their votes and mail them to Washington, DC. The Georgia "fake slate" is dated December 14, so there would not have been much time to get these votes recorded if they had had to wait for all litigation to be resolved.

There's such egregious question-begging going on by calling them "fake electors", it makes me crazy how little pushback I have seen regarding this term.

the Secret Service

Are they…usually called in for elections? I don’t anything about involving them in Bush v. Gore. How exactly do the fraud claims relate to counterfeit money?

This sounds like special pleading.

As is insisting that the violation was justified because it wouldn’t have inconvenienced the poor, suffering bureaucracy. Such policies are tolerated if and only if they make a nice fig leaf.

My question about the Secret Service was an ironic reference to the idea that if the pieces of paper from these "fake electors" were a big problem when it came time to count the votes, presumably because said papers are difficult to distinguish from the votes cast by "authentic electors," then maybe they would have to call in the Secret Service, who are in charge of prosecuting cases of counterfeiting money and therefore experts in document authentication, to help sort things out.

How are they not fake? Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Now let’s see the manner the Georgia Legislature has directed electors be appointed. Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-499. I won’t quote it here, but the Georgia Secretary of State counts the votes, and the governor certifies the electors for the candidate who got the most votes. The governor certified Joe Biden’s electors on November 20th.

When the Trump electors got together on December 14 and stated, “WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby certify the following:” they LIED. They were not the duly elected and qualified electors. It was public knowledge that the duly elected and qualified electors had been chosen on November 20. Despite this, they mailed the “certification” to the US Government. They also identified the “certification” as being mailed per 3 USC 11, which pertains specifically to presidential elector certificates.

I’m really at a loss here. Do you have some metaphysical objection to the entire concept of “fake electors”? If Donald Trump personally spent the entire early voting period in Georgia driving around to various polling locations and voting in the name of dead people still on the rolls would you concede that he committed fraud to steal the election, or would you say he was just using all of his options to contest what he sees as an unfair process?

the Georgia Secretary of State counts the votes, and the governor certifies the electors for the candidate who got the most votes. The governor certified Joe Biden’s electors on November 20th.

Interesting that these people didn't commit a crime for certifying an election when the number of illegally cast votes was known to exceed the margin of victory.

I think lying is probably the wrong word, as is fake. The people signing this document as far as I can tell we’re, at worst, an alternative slate of electors choosing to take this action because they believe the Georgia election was fraudulent in a way that falsely handed the win to Biden. The reason I object to the terms “lying” and “fake”, is that they assume the conclusion— they assume there was no fraud and thus anyone doing anything on the assumption of that fraud is lying. Keep in mind, Trumps claims never got any sort of hearing, most being summarily dismissed on standings issues. In other words, these guys are trying to rectify a situation where they believe the wrong results were certified and thus it might be dishonest, but I don’t see it as fake and they aren’t necessarily lying.

I think they are lying because even if there was fraud - which there wasn't - that still wouldn't make them the 'duly elected and qualified' electors, because the process for choosing those is clearly set out and they did not satisfy it. They weren't just saying we ought to be the electors, which would be fine and expected from someone who believed there was fraud, but that they were the electors, which is simply false from any perspective - or at least that's how I understand it.

Isn't a really trivial analogy here a sovereign citizen making a false statement to a court about some procedural matter that he believes to be true due to his tortured interpretations of the law but is, as a matter of words and objets as the court would understand, false? Like (meh example) claiming they're a law enforcement officer when they aren't because they were deputized by themselves as a citizen or something.

they LIED. They were not the duly elected and qualified electors. It was public knowledge that the duly elected and qualified electors had been chosen on November 20.

You understand that lying involves more than just uttering a false statement, right? Merriam Webster says: "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". No intent to deceive, therefore not a lie. As to your question "How are they not fake?" Same answer. No intent to deceive.

Obviously the accurate term should be "contingent electors", in the sense that these would have been the correct electors if Trump prevailed in his various lawsuits.

If Trump had won his lawsuits with decisive implications for the election, his slate of electors still had to be appointed by the state legislature. In the absence of that, they're not contingent electors, they're nobody. The only contingency is whether or not he won, which he didn't. In Michigan, for example, the fake electors gathered and selected themselves after all the lawsuits had been resolved (not to Trump's favor, needless to say). They subsequently represented themselves to Congress as the true electors from Michigan despite not being appointed by the legislature. That Congress wasn't fooled doesn't make it less a crime, any more than my attempts to shoot you don't cease to be a crime because my gun jams (nor is my sincere belief that murdering you is justified and legal a defense).

Attempted crimes should be punished, but the details of why the "attempt" failed are relevant to determining whether it was a genuine attempt at all. In your attempted murder analogy, yes, you couldn't shoot me because your gun jammed, but if prior to that attempt you purposely manipulated the gun by jamming up the chamber so that a spent round would get stuck in there and be impossible to eject, that would be evidence that you never intended your "murder attempt" to be effective.

The fact that Congress wasn't fooled doesn't by itself make election fraud not a crime, but the fact that apparently Trump tried this maneuver in several states and in no cases were the "fake elector" votes counted, indicates that there is something suspicious about the narrative that he was trying to deceive Congress. Yes, they sent a piece of paper to Congress saying they were the duly-chosen electors and they were voting for Trump etc., but that paper was presented as what it was, an alternate slate of electors. At no point was Pence saying, "well, now I have no idea which ones are the real votes!"

Ineptitude is not a defense.

the fact that apparently Trump tried this maneuver in several states and in no cases were the "fake elector" votes counted, indicates that there is something suspicious about the narrative that he was trying to deceive Congress.

That his deceit attempts were transparently absurd?

This isn’t an apt analogy because the gun not firing was a mechanical issue and you really did try to kill them.

I don’t think anyone believes sending in a bunch of Trump electors would have worked but well got lost in the mail.

It's the same with the phrase "Overturning the election". When the media declared Biden the winner, the election was over, apparently, so all of Trump's efforts to contest the election get called "overturning the election". They can never concede that Trump genuinely believed himself wronged, that filing lawsuits and contesting results is normal. So Trump never "contested" the election, he always "attempted to overturn" it.

Coverage around the election was better at first. Even NBC.

By December, when the legal battles are falling apart, it starts to be called overturning. Possibly because of the “safe haven” limit, December 8th, and of course the actual certification on the 14th. Some outlets were sticki by with “contest,” though. Then the Capitol riots really turn media opinion.

can anyone provide me with a count of how many of the fake electors' votes were mistakenly recorded in the Senate?

I think the idea is that they were in a conspiracy to commit fraud, one is still guilty even if one fails. But more importantly, the fraud laws I have seen always require deception. In what way were these "fake" electors trying to deceive anyone?

The Georgia indictment includes a charge of Conspiracy to Defraud the State, but it doesn't directly relate to the false elector scheme. It relates to the plan to steal voter data.

Deception is not an element of the relevant offence, found in OCGA 16-10-21:

A person commits the offense of conspiracy to defraud the state when he conspires or agrees with another to commit theft of any property which belongs to the state or to any agency thereof or which is under the control or possession of a state officer or employee in his official capacity. The crime shall be complete when the conspiracy or agreement is effected and an overt act in furtherance thereof has been committed, regardless of whether the theft is consummated. A person convicted of the offense of conspiracy to defraud the state shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

You're probably thinking of last week's indictment. That does have fraud charges relating to the false elector scheme. I don't think deception is an element of those offences either, but I haven't gone back to check.

I can't imagine a definition of fraud that wouldn't involve some kind of deception. Merriam-Webster:

1a : DECEIT, TRICKERY

specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

I literally just quoted a legal definition that does not include deceit. If you can't imagine it after having it placed right in front of your eyes, that's a truly profound failure of imagination.

Technically I said fraud not defraud, so that makes me the best kind of correct. Here is the relevant Georgia law, since you are a big fan.

That said, as humorous as you are, you are still wrong. What do you think is involved in the theft? Let's use our imaginations and imagine that Donald Trump says to the official who controls election data, "hey, it's me, Donald Trump, your favorite president. Way better than Carter, obviously. Anyway, I suspect there was fraud in your state, so I need access to your voter data, please send it to me by December 1st." If the official then sends Trump the election data, do you think he would be guilty of theft?

I'm going to skip the part where you answer. The only way Trump and his allies "defrauded the state" in the case at hand is if they falsely claimed that they had the right to voter data.

Technically I said fraud not defraud, so that makes me the best kind of correct. Here is the relevant Georgia law, since you are a big fan.

How is that law in any way relevant? Neither Trump nor his co-conspirators have been charged with it.

I'm going to skip the part where you answer. The only way Trump and his allies "defrauded the state" in the case at hand is if they falsely claimed that they had the right to voter data.

I am once again begging you to read the actual statute.

They are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the state if they agree to steal something and commit an overt act in the furtherance of the conspiracy. It's got nothing to do with what they claim or don't claim.

The first person to use the word fraud (without de-) was you. You stated that you didn’t think deception was an element. I commented that fraud would seem to always involve deception. That’s why it’s relevant.

I’ll ask you once again to consider the method by which Trump stole the relevant voter data. It involved lying. A lot. Do you think Trump would have been charged with theft if his claims about the election had been true? The indictment sure makes it seem like the fact he was lying is relevant.

Also, stepping back for a second, there are so many counts in the indictment related to forgery, false documents, and false statements, I don’t know how you managed to start a debate over the one count that (arguably, in your opinion) doesn’t involve deception.

More comments

I guess if they tried to hack the polls or something.

Why do these things keep occurring during election years by the Dems and whose orchestrating the conspiracy?

2016 - Spy on Trump campaign. Russian plot.
2020 - BLM. Everyone is racists vote Biden. Plus nationwide mail-in ballots. And a massive plot by the media to deny any narrative in unison that would help Trump 2024 - Charge Trump everywhere lawfare. Create law or come up with novel legal theories to make it happen

Or in Movie Terms Trump: The Russian Agent “Save America from installing Putin in office” Trump 2: The White Supremacists “Save America from Racism” Trump 3: He’s Literally a Criminal

I wonder if some red state can whip up some Rico Charges on Kamela for bailing out BLM protestors. She was bailing out and promoting the cause which was to get her elected while knowing the underlines were committing violence. Maybe everyone in 2024 can have charges pending.

Plus nationwide mail-in ballots.

Yeah, those evil Democrats making mail-in ballots allowed for all in Arkansas, Montana, Utah, Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Oklahoma...

Since it is in fact not an election year, I suspect that one answer to your question is that about 40-50% of America's time is now considered to be "election year" in some sense.

Honestly, your political season is exhausting.

I listen to talk radio and conservative hosts are exhausted by American election cycles and preemptively burned out by the upcoming election.

Biden might be going to get charged for something hunter Biden related.

Give me odds you actually think that and I might take you up on them.

How much do you really believe?

On at least some of the charges, it would appear that he's deeply screwed. E.g. "Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer" seems to be open and shut, and carries a minimum 1 year sentence

I guess you're easily impressed? Complaining that politicians are violating their oaths of office is one of the most common attacks in the books. There probably isnt a single prominent politician of whom it hasn't been said. This is why we're destroying norms and legitimacy? Ok then, let's see how this shakes out on a 20-year timescale.

Also you didn't mention that these charges were posted on the internet before the Grand Jury had even voted on them, which sort of makes a mockery of the whole pretense.

Anyways, if it's a crime to ask officials to do something that is later determined to violate their oath of office, everyone is a criminal.

Sorry to come back to this comment but I just saw this video and had to share it.

The article, entertaining though it is, appears to be aimed at dumb civil plaintiffs. A DA bringing criminal charges, one would hope, would exhibit a higher level of sophistication.

This DA in particular appears to have a history of bringing successful RICO charges, including against non-mafia targets.

Georgia's RICO law is supposedly also broader than its federal equivalent, though I'm not going to pretend I understand the differences.

As Ken noted a day ago, this is georgia RICO, and his claim is scoped to federal RICO! It's a great article though.

Members of the enterprise also corruptly solicited Georgia officials, including the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to violate their oaths to the Georgia Constitution and to the United States Constitution by unlawfully changing the outcome of the November 3, 2020, 16 presidential election in Georgia in favor of Donald Trump.

Are you joking or something? There's no way I'm reading a ~100 page indictment, but if that is your idea of a strong charge then the rest of it is probably not worth reading anyways.

Have you listened to the Raffensberger call? It's extremely clear (to me) that Trump is claiming that there are many fraudulent ballots in Georgia (he goes on and on about it, and why he thinks so) -- then asks the people on the call to try to locate some of them. It's right there in the first few minutes.

It may be less clear to you for whatever reasons, but surely this is at least a plausible interpretation of what Trump is trying to say -- and if this were the case, he is definitely not asking anyone to violate their oath. Finding such votes would be required by their oath, surely?

I'm aware that the media has widely reported that Trump was asking R. to fabricate some votes so he could win (probably significantly poisoning the jury pool in the process) but presumably the court will hear the actual call rather than reading Washington Post clippings -- and if you think this interpretation is open-shut I really don't know what to say.

Don't forget the Raffensberger call was a settlement conference between attorneys and clients and its disclosure itself is illegal and should have resulted in sanction. It was leaked only in part in order to give the media the chaff to craft this entire narrative. Listening to the entire call makes it clear what was going on, especially given the context of this being a settlement conference protected by the requirement of confidentiality!

They used the settlement conference as a trap in order to get some Trump soundbites which they could leak and then they and the media could knowingly lie about to craft this entire setup.

Interesting, I did not know this! Thanks.

While I don’t know that the “oath of office” stuff holds up, I did listen to the Raffensperger call back in the day. Commentary here. For anyone else who wants to read the transcript, it’s here.

Trump was making his preferred outcome very clear. If there was fraud, the President of the United States would be happy. If there wasn’t, he would be unhappy, and some people might face criminal charges.

You can see how this is truth-agnostic. Trump may well have believed it. But he would say the same things whether or not he did. More importantly, he was suggesting what Raffensperger should report, whether or not he did.

Again, I’m not sure that this rises to the intent standard used by OCGA 16-4-7. It is plausibly deniable. I just don’t know how one can read that transcript and come away thinking the guy wanted the truth. He wanted to win.

I just don’t know how one can read that transcript and come away thinking the guy wanted the truth. He wanted to win.

And I don't know how one can read it and come away with the idea that he didn't think there'd been massive fraud -- at least 90% of the call is him railing on about various instances of fraudulent balloting he claims his team had uncovered, and pushing the Georgia officials for data that they were holding back so that he could prove more that he was sure existed but couldn't prove. I'm not sure what evidence you are using to claim that he would have made these claims regardless -- it seems unfalsifiable. New Hampshire and Maine had similar percent margins (and fewer absolute votes) for Biden as compared to Wisconsin -- why didn't Trump try to flip those states too, if he was making allegations unrelated to whatever evidence of fraud that he thought he had?

Anyways my point is that I don't see how anyone can think that this is open-and-shut in anything but Trump's favour -- we are now talking about serious criminal indictments, and this tape surely raises at least a reasonable doubt in terms of mens rea? He lays out all kinds of specific stuff that he (claims to) believe to be true evidence of fraud.

If anything, the Raffensberger call seems like decent evidence for the defense on the Smith (I think? I may be confused now that there are so many) indictment -- it's hard to listen to the guy and believe that he is lying about his beliefs as to whether there was fraud in Georgia (and elsewhere, bleeding into the call). He sounds quite emotional at times.

I do wonder if Stacey Abrams consent decree could fit into this rubric somehow.

Also included in your quote is the request made to David Ralston, speaker of the house, asking him to convene a special session of the house for the purpose of appointing fake electors.

What's illegal about asking the House to convene for that purpose? It's like saying we have proof Trump illegally ordered a Hawaiian pizza, we even have recordings of him requesting one. Ok -- but what about that is illegal?

Trump is charged under OCGA 16-4-7, which says

A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

The felonious conduct he is accused of trying to solicit from Ralston is under OCGA 16-10-1, which says

Any public officer who willfully and intentionally violates the terms of his oath as prescribed by law shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

The oath taken by Ralston includes swearing to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States requires that presidential electors are chosen by the manner directed by the state legislatures.

The elector-selection manner directed by the state legislature of Georgia is described in OCGA 21-2-499, which says

(a) Upon receiving the certified returns of any election from the various superintendents, the Secretary of State shall immediately proceed to tabulate, compute, and canvass the votes cast for all candidates described in subparagraph (a)(4)(A) of Code Section 21-2-497 and upon all questions voted for by the electors of more than one county and shall thereupon certify and file in his or her office the tabulation thereof.  In the event an error is found in the certified returns presented to the Secretary of State or in the tabulation, computation, or canvassing of votes as described in this Code section, the Secretary of State shall notify the county submitting the incorrect returns and direct the county to correct and recertify such returns.  Upon receipt by the Secretary of State of the corrected certified returns of the county, the Secretary of State shall issue a new certification of the results and shall file the same in his or her office.

(b) The Secretary of State shall also, upon receiving the certified returns for presidential electors, proceed to tabulate, compute, and canvass the votes cast for each slate of presidential electors and shall immediately lay them before the Governor.  Not later than 5:00 P.M. on the seventeenth day following the date on which such election was conducted, the Secretary of State shall certify the votes cast for all candidates described in subparagraph (a)(4)(A) of Code Section 21-2-497 and upon all questions voted for by the electors of more than one county and shall no later than that same time lay the returns for presidential electors before the Governor.  The Governor shall enumerate and ascertain the number of votes for each person so voted and shall certify the slates of presidential electors receiving the highest number of votes.  The Governor shall certify the slates of presidential electors no later than 5:00 P.M. on the eighteenth day following the date on which such election was conducted.  Notwithstanding the deadlines specified in this Code section, such times may be altered for just cause by an order of a judge of superior court of this state.

The elector appointment method advocated by Trump obviously does not accord with these requirements.

In conclusion, Trump asked Ralston to participate in appointing presidential electors in a manner contrary to Georgia law, which is contrary to the US Constitution, which is contrary to the oath of office Ralston took, therefore Trump is guilty of Solicitation of Violation of Oath by a Public Officer.

Trump is charged under OCGA 16-4-7, which says

A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

The felonious conduct he is accused of trying to solicit from Ralston is under OCGA 16-10-1, which says

Any public officer who willfully and intentionally violates the terms of his oath as prescribed by law shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

The oath taken by Ralston includes swearing to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

By this logic, every time a President does something unconstitutional (eg, Biden's student loan forgiveness plan), then everyone in Georgia who promoted that policy or petitioned for that policy committed a felony. The prosecutor's use of this law is absolute madness, it criminalizes the losing side of any political battle involving Constitutional issues.

I think the importance difference though is whether those petitioning for a policy themselves know/consider it to be contrary to the constitution, rather than whether it actually is ruled as such by courts. So the point is that Trump didn't care if it was contrary to the constitution, he wanted it done anyway.

He said it on the phone and everything, lock him up!

You're just criminalizing the First Amendment, obviously Trump has a right to ask officials to consider his schemes, this is a crazy reinterpretation of existing norms that would never be tolerated if the target wasn't Trump. Your argument is inherently contradictory, look:

The Constitution of the United States requires that presidential electors are chosen by the manner directed by the state legislatures.

So, if the Georgia state legislature changed the way presidential electors were chosen, what would be unconstitutional about that? What would he incorrect about Trump asking for such if Georgia had actually granted it?

You can Frankenstein together different parts of the law code to create whatever outcome you want, but the result is still a legal abomination. Trump asked for something we decided was illegal, therefore he cajoled officers into violating their oath of office, therefore, jail! If this really impresses you, if this really strikes you as a sound legal and moral argument, I don't know what to say man. This is a blueprint for destroying democracy, because anything could be defined as asking an official to violate their oath of office. Did you protest against the vaccine, when vaccines are in the public interest, and the public interest is in the oath of office? Did your remarks incite hatred by soliciting officials to [...]? You're crazy if you don't see the implication here, and you're sticking your head in the sand if your only counterargument is to cite more laws at me, as if the existence of a statute is evidence in favor of the validity of your interpretation of it.

Give state officials the power to jail federal politicians for making requests of other politicians, and you literally do not have a democracy. It's just rule by lawfare.

So, if the Georgia state legislature changed the way presidential electors were chosen, what would be unconstitutional about that? What would he incorrect about Trump asking for such if Georgia had actually granted it?

Process, my dude. The legislature of Georgia has every right to change their method for selecting electors. They just need to amend the law. And Trump would be entirely in his rights to ask them to do that.

Trump did not ask them to change the prescribed method for choosing electors. He asked them to violate it. The distinction matters. You're allowed to change the law but you're not allowed to break the law.

This is a blueprint for destroying democracy, because anything could be defined as asking an official to violate their oath of office. Did you protest against the vaccine, when vaccines are in the public interest, and the public interest is in the oath of office?

Which oath of office would that be?

Don't be obtuse, you know what my argument is and you have constructed a technicality that in no way addresses it. Who decides the difference between asking for the law to be broken and the law to be changed? You make it sound as though your problem isn't with anything Trump did, but if only he had worded his request slightly differently, everything would have been fine. Come on, charging Trump with "soliciting" officers to "violate their oaths" is crazy, and the fact that this impresses you makes me question your credibility. Do you really not see any problems with this line of argument? The oath of office is a formality that is never enforced, you aren't worried about any precedents here, any unintended consequences, at all? Not even a little bit?

Who decides the difference between asking for the law to be broken and the law to be changed?

The difference is very clear. There is a prescribed process for changing the law. You introduce a bill, it gets voted on, it gets signed, it becomes an act. You don't just appoint someone as an elector who has not met the legislated requirements, which is what Trump asked for.

if only he had worded his request slightly differently, everything would have been fine.

I wouldn't describe it as "slightly" differently, the distinction is large and important in my eyes. It would not have been the same request. But yes, if he had done legal things instead of illegal things, he would indeed have been fine.

you aren't worried about any precedents here, any unintended consequences, at all? Not even a little bit?

If enforcing the law on a criminal sets a precedent, it would be a good precedent to set.

Now, please answer my question. What oath of office includes "the public interest"? I looked and couldn't find one. I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up.

More comments

Putting pineapple on pizza is a crime against God and Nature (and pizza), and accordingly subject to universal jurisdiction even in the absence of specific local statutory law . I thought this was common knowledge on a forum where high IQ and good taste were the default.

I strenuously disagree with a lot of your political positions but I'm extremely glad that, in the spirit of the Motte, I'm able to reach across the aisle and give you a fist-bump in recognition of your excellent taste in this matter.

deleted

If Trump thinks the election has been stolen, then the electors aren't fake (from Trump's point of view, obviously).

This sounds about the same as the Smith indictment, and is far from open-shut for the same reasons. (mens rea, essentially)

It's the same principle as - you think your wife conspired with a corrupt family court to take your children, so you forge documentation to get a school to turn them over to you, breaking a court order. Maybe you're right. But there are processes for addressing that, and if you ignore those (or in trump's case try them but perform terribly and don't prevail), you don't have a right to lie and manipulate other processes.

This is a fundamental way modern governance works. The process prevents conflict by giving both individuals and the state a - usually fair - 'final authority' to appeal to, instead of using violence, coercion, or deception. Even if it's sometimes wrong, it's better to have a single source of truth to prevent conflict - whether that's individual conflict over who owns what or who deserves what, or political conflict over who has power. It's known who wins and how that's decided, according to the process and the court, the monopoly on violence enforces it, so nobody bothers to even fight. If you're wrongfully convicted, your supporters don't suicide bomb the cops/accusers and start a blood feud, they collect evidence and appeal. If someone screws you on a deal, you sue based on the contract both parties signed. If you lose an election and are upset, you file a lawsuit.

It could be argued this is a fundamental pillar holding up modern life. I'm not entirely sure - certainly a neoreactionary government would have less of this at the top-level, but that isn't ours. And if the election wasn't stolen (and I'm very unconvinced by arguments that it was), then Trump's actions is not good for democracy.

Maybe you're right. But there are processes for addressing that, and if you ignore those (or in trump's case try them but perform terribly and don't prevail), you don't have a right to lie and manipulate other processes.

This is a fundamental way modern governance works. The process prevents conflict by giving both individuals and the state a - usually fair - 'final authority' to appeal to, instead of using violence, coercion, or deception.

This is exactly what the neoreactionary critique gets at, though. In this scenario, the process is your king; your final authority. And because those processes are carried out by people, ultimately those people are your kings.

In short, this way of thinking creates and sustains an oligarchic form of government. Don’t like the process? Don’t like who runs it? Then appeal. By what means? A process. Who runs that process? You’ve already guessed.

Honestly, I agree with you that this is probably the best way of doing things a lot of the time, as opposed to direct personal power or mob democracy. But this flaw is inherent and IMO when the bureaucracy gets too powerful and too uniform then this form of government starts to curdle.

Who runs that process? You’ve already guessed.

You're allowed to change the people who run the process.

(How? By a process...)

But still. You can indeed change the people in charge and they can indeed change the processes of government. Even if in theory you can get into a closed loop where the people in power use their power to stay in power, that is not currently the case in reality. Although Trump did give it the old college try.

Even if in theory you can get into a closed loop where the people in power use their power to stay in power, that is not currently the case in reality.

That’s exactly the point under discussion, no? The allegation from trump’s side is that this has already happened, and that following standard procedure for resolving disputed elections is therefore meaningless because the entire bureaucracy is controlled by the enemy.

Personally, though, I was thinking of the Civil Service, who I very definitely can’t vote out of office. From where I’m standing Britain has been in that closed loop for at least 20 years now.

I assure you that politicians very much do have the power to shut down departments, fire civil servants, etc. And if none of the options on your ballot paper are promising to do that, you can stand for election yourself.

The obstacle you face is not that the civil service is all-powerful. It's that your fellow citizens disagree with you.

More comments

You can indeed change the people in charge and they can indeed change the processes of government.

I thought that's what we voted on in 2016, but instead the people in charge of the process didn't play fair, and instead hamstrung the duly elected executive at every opportunity. The uniparty did not play fair.

Instead the 2016 election remains Trump's greatest crime. He defied the uniparty and must be punished for doing so. I have yet to see anything that contradicts this interpretation, and so it remains the lens through which I view these developments.

Might there be other explanations for Trump's failure than the forces of Mordor using dark plots to defeat our lone hero? Maybe Trump was an ineffective executive with a lot more bluster than execution, who was too stubborn to not commit crimes that didn't benefit him at all?

More comments

Even if in theory you can get into a closed loop where the people in power use their power to stay in power, that is not currently the case in reality.

Yes it is. The deep state is in power and will forever be in power unless someone can fire 3/4 of the federal government which is impossible due to lawfare. The bureaucracy is a self-sustaining cancer at this point.

If Trump thinks the election has been stolen, then the electors aren't fake (from Trump's point of view, obviously).

I don't believe this is true. Even if you think fraud has occurred, you can't just appoint electors based on what you think the result would have been. There's a process that has to be followed.

Even if Trump believes that the process has been corrupted, it's still illegal for him to solicit a public official to subvert the process.

By analogy, let's say I buy a lottery ticket but then someone steals it from me. The lottery gets drawn, and I am convinced I had the winning numbers. The lottery won't pay me out based on my insistence that I would have had the winning numbers if they hadn't been stolen. I am not then allowed to rob the lottery office to rectify the theft I suffered - even if I am correct that I had the numbers.

Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding the law in some important way here - I am not a lawyer, and much less a Georgia lawyer. But my understanding here is that the effort to solicit a public official in a plan to appoint electors who could not be lawfully appointed is straightforwardly illegal.

The electors aren't fake either way. They are proposed alternative electors, which is how past elector disputes have been done. There was never any conspiracy to present them as the primary electors.

The irregular Georgia electors submitted a "Certificate of Vote" to Pence's office where they claimed to be the primary electors, as did the irregular electors in Arizona, Michigan and Nevada. The irregular electors in Michigan are being prosecuted locally for falsifying an official document. It looks like most of the irregular electors in Georgia have rolled and are going to testify against Trump.

The irregular electors in New Mexico and Pennsylvania worded their certificates to be contingent on their later being determined to be the real electors, which keeps them out of legal trouble, but means the certificates are less useful for the Eastman/Chesebro scheme to have Pence overturn the election on Jan 6th.

worded their certificates to be contingent

Aha! The whole time I was writing about the Georgia charges, I was thinking “this wouldn’t have been a criminal charge if they’d covered their asses better.” It’s good to know some of the other groups agreed.

I don't believe this is true. Even if you think fraud has occurred, you can't just appoint electors based on what you think the result would have been. There's a process that has to be followed.

Others disagree -- there was an arguably legal path to this, and it has happened in the past. Obviously much depends on the particulars, but criminalizing the advancement of legal theories which may or may not apply in a given case seems like a bad idea. (not to mention conflicting pretty badly with the first amendment)

I am not then allowed to rob the lottery office to rectify the theft I suffered - even if I am correct that I had the numbers.

But you are allowed to write a letter to the head of the state lotto suggesting that they should give you the money -- you can even go to the press and say that's what they should do!

But my understanding here is that the effort to solicit a public official in a plan to appoint electors who could not be lawfully appointed is straightforwardly illegal.

If this is true, then everyone who issued tweets encouraging faithless electors in 2016 is also straightforwardly guilty.

If this is true, then everyone who issued tweets encouraging faithless electors in 2016 is also straightforwardly guilty.

Do members of the electoral college swear an oath of office to uphold the constitution? Does Georgia have a law requiring electors to cast their votes according to the election results? These are serious questions, I sincerely don't know.

If they do, and a person called an elector from Georgia and asked them to violate the law by being a faithless elector, then yes it does appear that such a person would be straightforwardly guilty.

Do members of the electoral college swear an oath of office to uphold the constitution?

No - among other places, this is discussed in Baude essay on Section 3, because it creates an interesting lacuna (a presidential elector who engages in an insurrection is not disqualified from future office, but an oath-taking officer who engages in an insurrection is disqualified from being a presidential elector).

Does Georgia have a law requiring electors to cast their votes according to the election results? These are serious questions, I sincerely don't know.

No - see here (although that is the status now, not as of 2020). According to that map, the only states where being a faithless elector is a crime (and thus the only ones where secondary liability for advocating a crime could conceivably trigger) are both Carolinas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. The more normal approach is to declare the faithless elector's vote void and to allow the other electors for that state to replace them.

In addition, a rando tweeting into the aether would be protected by the 1st amendment in a way that a high government official making a personal phone call to an individual elector backed up by detailed (false) arguments of why the election was fraudulent and vague threats of criminal prosecution for covering up the fraud would not be - the law distinguishes between non-serious and serious crime-encouraging speech.

Not sure whether things were much different in 2016, but I do seem to recall some electors not from any of those states being penalized -- it's irrelevant though.

Regardless of which states attach penalties, electors in most (all?) states do in fact swear an oath to vote according to the results in their state -- the debatable part would be whether they can be considered "public officials" -- which I'd argue against, but "parts of this indictment are based on debatable legal theories" does not seem to be holding anybody up in this business!

Anyways, if you acknowledge that certain states would consider faithless electorism to be some kind of crime, even one would be enough -- this was very much a nationwide, organized, and well funded advocacy exercise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Public_outreach_to_electors

A conspiracy, if you will! So while random twitterati might squeak by on whatever's left of the 1A, I think your assertion that (say) The Hamilton Electors would be in a different position here than Trump and his cohorts is unsupported.

(I'd say it's actually somewhat worse in that their justification was not "We think Trump committed fraud" but rather "We don't like Trump and want to subvert the will of the voters", and also that they actually succeeded in flipping some electors! At least a few were fined as I recall.)

Thank you!

I find it a bit bemusing when people pose these questions with the implication that if someone in a somewhat-similar-but-somewhat-different situation wasn't charged with the same crime, there must be some kind of corruption or double standard. Most the time it's just that details are different and details matter.

Biden swore to uphold the Constitution, but created the "Covid" eviction moratorium, which was unconstitutional. If he asks someone to violate the law by preventing a landlord from getting rid of a tenant, is he straightforwardly guilty?

Under OCGA 16-4-7? I wouldn't think so, no. I don't believe that a landlord failing to evict a tenant would constitute a felony.

Was there some other statute you were thinking of? If so you'll need to point me to it.

More comments

On the tweeting for faithless electors that gets a lot of Logan Act vibes. Where if that was a crime then everyone is guilty whoever once tweeted about geopolitics

Wouldn't it have been nice if all the indictments were like this.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats