GOP Electors in seven battleground states have been targeted by the Jan 6 Committee for submitting false slates of electors in dispute of the certified slates presented to Congress.

The U. S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol began hearing testimony on July 27^th 2021 and by the end of the year, had interviewed over 300 witnesses.  They now have a much broader criminal conspiracy in their sights.  They are alleging that the Trump team orchestrated a massive scheme to coerce all seven battleground states to submit alternate certificates, file lawsuits, and have Vice President Mike Pence not accept the Biden slates on January 6^th, then follow that with a planned insurrection if all else failed.

Of course if all of that were true, there should be consequences and legislation should be introduced to amend the statutes in an effort to eliminate that possibility from happening again.  But are those allegations true, or was the Trump team simply following a completely legal precedent set by presidential candidate John F. Kennedy in 1960?

On December 14^th 2020, as 20 “prominent Democrats” gathered in Harrisburg Pennsylvania with then Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, to certify that Joe Biden had defeated Trump by about 80,000 votes, 20 Republicans were meeting at another location to sign alternate certificates for submittal to the National Archives and Congress, as required by law.  The Republicans called their conditional maneuver a “procedural vote”, claiming they were cast just in case a court ruling overturned Biden’s victory.  GOP State Chairman Bernie Comfort stated, “We took this procedural vote to preserve any legal claims that may be presented going forward.  This was in no way an effort to usurp or contest the will of the Pennsylvania voters.” [1]

Is that maneuver legal, or does it represent fraud, or forgery, as the January 6^th Committee alleges?

From the verbatim excerpt of a Politico article [2], it’s obvious that the Trump legal team felt confident in the legality of submitting what some states said were conditional slates of electors, to wit:

“Republicans at the time emphasized that their decision to hold unsanctioned elector votes had a precedent. In 1960, three Democratic electors from Hawaii met to cast votes for John F. Kennedy, even though the election results showed that Richard Nixon had narrowly prevailed in the state. With a recount underway, those pro-Kennedy electors met to cast their votes anyway and submitted those results to Congress and the National Archives, the clearinghouse for elector certificates.

Hawaii’s recount ultimately reversed the outcome, showing Kennedy had won by fewer than 200 votes, and the state’s governor then certified the Democratic slate as well. On Jan. 6, 1961, the Democratic electors were the ones counted by Congress, with Nixon, then vice president, presiding.”

In the Hawaii case, a recount had narrowly overturned the results in Kennedy’s favor in time for the Governor to certify the Democrat slate, but those differences are not relevant because there were limited recounts in 2020 and Trump had pending lawsuits.  The legal basis established in the Kennedy case, was similar in that the opposing party submitted alternate slates of electors pending some future decision.

Of the seven contested battleground states (AZ, GA, MI, NV, NC, PA, and WI), only Georgia performed a statewide recount, and Wisconsin recounted votes in two counties.  None of the recount efforts produced any significant results that would have overturned the electoral votes.  Trump filed six lawsuits in Pennsylvania, challenging the vote counting process, primarily due to election laws being unconstitutionally modified without going through the state legislature.  All those suits were dismissed, and all of which takes time.

From the same Politico article, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), member of the January 6^th Committee, said, “We want to look at the fraudulent activity that was contained in the preparation of these fake Electoral College certificates.”  Apparently, he is either ignorant of the 1960 precedent, or he was misrepresenting the facts, and expects the public to take his word for it.

Referring back to the Philadelphia Inquirer article [3], the Pennsylvania officials having hedged their maneuver by attaching the caveat that those certificates should only be counted in the event of Trump’s legal victory, seems to have dodged the forgery charge.  It would be reasonable to afford the same leniency to the other five states (AZ, GA, MI, NV, and WI) that submitted the alternate certificates, in consideration of the Kennedy precedent. 

Food for thought:  If the entire legal challenge had been coordinated from the White House, don’t you think that each state would have submitted their alternate slates under the exact same advice?  Why was Pennsylvania the only state submitting with the aforementioned caveat?  Without any evidence that those states colluded to collectively overturn the election, the entire Democrat conspiracy theory is deflated.    

[1]  Philadelphia Inquirer article, dated 13 Jan 2022

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/fake-electoral-college-certificates-january-6-investigation-20220113.html

[2]  Politico article, dated 21 Jan 2022

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/january-6-committee-precedent-pro-trump-electors-527528

[3]  Philadelphia Inquirer article, dated 13 Jan 2022

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/fake-electoral-college-certificates-january-6-investigation-20220113.html

Could Trump’s January 6th rally be considered “Incitement to Riot”? Federal judge, Amit Mehta, appointed by Barack Obama on Dec 22^nd 2014 to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seems to think so. He has reprimanded Jesse Binnall, lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump, to “stick with the facts”, [1] in a hearing on Monday, January 10^th, 2022, concerning Trump’s alleged incitement to riot at a rally held on January 6^th, 2021, that preceded the so-called “insurrection” on the U.S. Capitol.

Binnell has claimed, correctly, that Trump told the crowd,

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” [2]

Judge Mehta claims that qualifying statement should be ignored because later in the speech Trump said, “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

What Business Insider and the MSM in general don’t want you to know, is the context of that statement.  Just a few sentences prior to the abovementioned quote Trump said, “We are the greatest country on Earth and we are headed and we’re headed in the right direction.

You know, the wall is built. We’re doing record numbers at the wall. Now, they want to take down the wall. Let’s let everyone flow in. Let’s let everybody flow in. We did a great job in the wall. Remember, the wall, they said it could never be done. One of the largest infrastructure projects we’ve ever had in this country, and it’s had a tremendous impact, that we got rid of catch and release. We got rid of all of this stuff that we had to live with.  But now, the caravans, I think Biden’s getting in, the caravans are forming again. They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.  As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth and justice on our side. We have a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts. We love our country.  We have overwhelming pride in this great country and we have it deep in our souls. Together, we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Frankly, the media doesn’t show any respect whatsoever to their followers.  They just assume people are too lazy and too stupid to investigate anything on their own.  They are counting on the masses to believe anything they say, and don’t care about anyone who questions their “authority”, ridiculing all opposition as conspiracy theorists.  The media controls the social consciousness and if they want to put a certain spin on a story through omission, or deception, that’s what most folks will believe.

Elsewhere in the speech Trump said, “There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting.”

Trump is using the word “fighting” in a different context than actual fisticuffs and acts of violence, you know, just like Democrats “fight” for their favorite causes.  Evidently, when it comes to Trump, Mehta thinks “fighting” can only be physical and violent. He’s painted himself as a moron.  

Mehta also forced Trump lawyers to explain his “hours of silence” during the January 6^th attack, asking in court whether the President’s “inaction could be considered a tacit endorsement of the day’s violence”.

To which Binnett replied, “”The president cannot be subject to judicial action for any sort of damages for failing to do something,”  Trump didn’t even “fail to do something” at all, he did go on Twitter just two hours after the initial breach of the Capitol and called for his supporters to disband and go home.  But apparently there is a two hour time limit for such action to be recognized.

The headline of an NBC News article, dated Jan 14, 2021, [3] admitted that, “Trump’s speech is probably defensible in every court – except, perhaps, the Senate”.  In other words, even the far-left media admits there was no incitement to riot as defined by the actual federal statute.  They further admit that a speaker is not automatically liable for the actions of anyone who was at an intended peaceful demonstration, the speaker must have the intent to engage in the criminal conduct.

View the full text of the actual statute; 18 U.S. Code § 2101 – Riots at:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2101

Of course, despite the Democrat controlled House impeachment of Trump , the Senate acquitted him of “incitement of insurrection” on Feb 13^th 2021. 

Yet here we are, almost a year later, entertaining oral arguments in civil lawsuits brought by House Democrats and Capitol Police, determined to destroy a political comeback by any means necessary.  Maybe Judge Mehta should be advised of the facts.  Instead, we are awaiting the absurd findings of a kangaroo court.

Comments welcome  

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-obliterates-trump-lawyer-claim-peaceful-protest-capitol-riot-2022-1?amp

[2] https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-speech-probably-defensible-every-court-except-perhaps-senate-n1254258