The NYT reports.
Three of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s allies appeared before a judge on Thursday in Wisconsin in a criminal case related to 2020 election interference.... The defendants in Wisconsin... are all expected to plead not guilty to the 11 felony charges. They include Kenneth Chesebro, a Wisconsin native who devised a plan to deploy fake electors for Mr. Trump in swing states that he lost in 2020, and Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign adviser who played a major role in carrying out the plan. The third defendant, James R. Troupis, is a Wisconsin lawyer who circulated the fake elector plan within the Trump campaign....Meade was on the scene and recorded this video of Troupis speaking in his own defense outside the courtroom: "The attorney general has today doubled down on a vicious strategy to destroy our very faith in the system of justice by using the courts for his own personal political game. Everyone here knows that this is a political case. This has nothing to do with the law. The attorney general should be ashamed of himself. Having spent more than 40 years defending our judges, defending our system of justice, having been honored to serve as a judge in this very courthouse, I am saddened by this gross misuse of our courts by the Wisconsin Attorney General. I have faith that the latest abuse will be exposed, and I pray every day that others will not suffer the enormous pain that my family and I have suffered by this unending war."
In Wisconsin, the three defendants were charged in June with a single count of forgery-uttering, a felony that carries a penalty of up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. On Tuesday, the office of Josh Kaul, Wisconsin’s attorney general, brought 10 new forgery-related charges in an amended complaint, claiming that the 10 Wisconsin residents who were recruited to be fake Trump electors in 2020 were deceived into signing an election certificate that was sent to Congress....
Posts
35 comments:
Does the Times ever identify Kaul as a Democrat?
Not super familiar with this case, but how could submitting an alternate set of electors be "fraudulent" when it was openly being done at the time? Did they seek to have the Congress believe it was the actual Evers-approved set of electors?
The legal argument is complicated, so I'm not going to try to restate it. I'm just going to refer you to the brief for Troupis's motion to dismiss: https://www.wpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Troupis-First-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
Once you have eliminated the concept of grace from your mental lexicon, you have also eliminated the concept of disgrace. Josh Kaul will walk away from this disgrace with an enhanced reputation for loyalty, toughness and correct thought. His future will be brighter than ever. His victims, even after "winning", will walk away knowing that they have no remedy against the powers that be in Wisconsin.
The argument is complex
It contains legal jargon
The defense ought to rest
Cause I smell a pardon!
I haven't followed this case at all, but I suspect that it is very much a political prosecution. The giveaway is that the NYT uses the language of the Left and calls them "fake" electors and my sense is that they were an alternate slate of electors. Weren't two slates of electors submitted by HI when JFK won that stolen election?
"Cause I smell a pardon!"
It's state court. The President can't pardon.
I heard Troupis for over an hour on Madison radio Tuesday. The story he tells of democrat lawfare is appalling.
"Fake electors" is a deceptive term (shocker!). According to Troupis there have been several instances of alternate electors in past elections. He also argued that for legal reasons (that I didn't follow) they had to establish alternate electors to proceed to challenge the results. He also said Al Gore made a major blunder in the 2000 election by NOT establishing alternate electors. Supposedly Ginsburg claimed Gore would have won at the USSC if he had established alternate electors. There was a lot more in the interview.
Given two slates of electors, a governor could plausibly flip a coin and submit the wrong one, thus the persecutorial fraud apology.
Not only that, but a democrat running for governor.
No, Trump can’t pardon them for WI state crimes. But here’s what he can do:
- go after the prosecutor for federal civil rights crimes.
- find a district judge who is willing to resurrect the state-legislative supremacy theory, and enjoin the WI prosecution. What’s the USG’s standing? The Guaranty Clause.
- charge the defendants for the analogous federal crimes. This prosecution takes precedence. Then drag it out. Then lose. Catch prosecution witnesses in perjury traps along the way, to make them useless in state court. Rinse and repeat if there’s a MAGA president in 2029.
- direct commission the defendants into the military and assign them to the White House as special military advisors. The state case will have to wait until their discharge.
Would be really funny if he did all the above at the same time.
JSM
it's a Wisconsin State case.. Isn't it? Who's going to pardon? Evers?
i LIKE the direct commission into the military angle..
i'm ASSUMING there's some such legal thing? lawyers?
If so.. Isn't THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES covered by this angle? You CAN'T really get MORE into the military than THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
don't lawyers learn thespian skills = how to speak to public so that they can hear clearly?
Joe weaponized the federal government against his enemies. Sauce for the goose.
Chicago's top administrative aide to Mayor "Conehead" Johnson was recently outed as having voted in Texas in Nov 2024 election, when by law he's required to be a legal full-time resident of City of Chicago to be employed by City of Chicago. Oh, and he voted in Johnson's 2022 mayoral election, citing his home address as Mayor Johnson's own home address as his full-time residency; highly likely he also voted absentee in Chicago for Nov presidential election because there's zero residency or ID confirmation for Chicago residents - after all, Chicago is known for slogan "vote early, vote often", dating back to Daley Machine years.
Nobody is going to prosecute this guy for voter fraud, though obviously he's committing voter fraud, whether at small scale or at larger organized fashion as is known to be in Chicago Machine politics.
The winning side submits the slate of electors. Given that, it seems to me common sense that when there are competing claims of victory, there will necessarily be competing slates.
Prof, thank you for the link. I’ll do my best to make sense of it, but the mere fact it is too complicated to describe tells me it’s bullshit. Just like all the cases against Trump—it’s never a straightforward “he did this, which broke that law.” No, it’s always “complicated.”
I made my comment before I listened to the video. The judge should toss this criminal case based on the pleadings.
I was under the impression that the electors were all selected- for all candidates- before the general election is held. So if for some strange reason a 3rd party candidate actually won a state (or CD in ME or NE) the electors would already be known and ready to go. Less chance of slipping in a ringer who is going to vote for someone else. After all, the election is to select electors- not to delegate a party to select electors.
Would really throw a wrench in the works if some state were to put electors on the ballot- those in each district and who they're pledged for, and those running for the two statewide positions. Were I in charge of a state legislature....
There's no such thing as a "fake" elector. Either an elector is adjudged to have the right to vote for President, or not. It's similar to a lawyer offering an insanity defense for a client - it's not fraud to claim one's client is insane, simply something that a judge or jury accepts or rejects. It's just someone's opinion. In fact, it's a first amendment right to claim to be an elector. It's only become a crime because Orange Man Bad.
Gospace: "Would really throw a wrench in the works if some state were to put electors on the ballot"
I dimly remember in the 70s in Illinois, the electors' names were on the ballot, maybe even more prominent than the actual candidates' names. I think it was a typical Chicago Machine/Illinois Combine thing to nudge people into just voting straight tickets rather than read all the fine print.
(I am not old enough to have voted in the 70s, but I've always had a habit of picking up and reading any free pamphlets, leaflets, etc. At some point I must have gotten my hands on a sample ballot. Or maybe this is false memory. I volunteer for recovered-memory therapy if it can help lock up some nonagenarian crooked politicians!)
JSM
Looks like Trump is going to have to investigate Josh Kaul, his friends, and his family.
No, it’s always “complicated.”
Not that complicated, when you recognize that they're using the "Trump's guilty, we'll figure out why later" approach.
Jim Troupis' family has been tormented by these defenders of Our Democracy, so fair's fair.
Having read the link the Prof3essor provided, as well as the grievance filed by Law Forward! to the Wisconsin Bar seeking to have Troupis disbarred. As near as I can tell, the fraud argument is solely that they presented a slate of alternate electors to the U.S. Senate. This was all well publicized, and I cannot see anything that suggests they were actually trying to fool the Senate into thinking these were the electors approved of by the Wisconsin Sec. of State (or whoever certifies federal election results in Wisconsin).
Who was allegedly defrauded? How is this a crime? Other, of course, than attempting to criminalize the challenge of an election in which a Dem was declared the winner?
Why doesn’t the NYT use the word “allegedly “ when describing the charges?
Of course, we had the same issue in the Trump property-valuation case - there was no defrauded party, but a NY judge determined nonetheless that a fraud had been committed.
If they were selected by the governor would they not by definition be the valid electors ?
It's only OK for the Democrats to show up with alternate electors. Would not be surprised for some to show up from Wisconsin. They would not be charged.
I don't know what culpability Troupis has but I believe anyone trying to execute on the Cheseboro plan should be held accountable. If you disagree, remember which individual will be "counting the votes" in January. How will you feel if Kamala decides that "Pennsylvania was way too close and we think something fishy happened" so we will throw those votes out? That was the Cheseboro memo and I would like some accountability, thank you.
I feel bad about the "fake electors" that had no idea what was going on, but Ken Cheseboro should have to face the music. I think all the January 6 protestors should be pardoned, but I think Ken Cheseboro should face the music. We don't treat the Constitution like a challenge to be defeated and there are more important things than a single election. Fuck that guy.
Alternate slates of electors is an old tradition in this country. Making it illegal to challenge the results of an election is not likely to end well. Perhaps it is time for special prosecutors for all those seeking to punish people for questioning a questionable election. Pour encourage les autres.
I agree with the first two sentences. That's not what this is about though. You have to read the Cheseboro memo to understand what the scheme/fraud that was planned. The plan was the submit two slates of elector to Pence NOT to "wait and see what the courts would do" but so that PENCE (not the courts) could unilaterally say that he couldn't determine which slate was the "real" slate and use that as a phony pretext to get the entire election discarded.
If you support that how are you going to feel when Kamala counts the votes?
That part is true. But that's hiding the ball. The plan was not to wait to see what the court system did with the challenges, the plan was create a legal fiction and make Pence claim that "he couldn't really determine" which slate was the real slate and throw the whole election out.
The alternative slate of electors were kept completely in the dark of the Cheseboro memo.
Why wouldn't a Texas prosecutor charge him if this is true? Explain.
Post a Comment