A witness said members of Donald Trump's campaign team led an effort to install fake electors in Michigan.
  • Synthead@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2101·
    11 months ago

    He was directly involved with putting together a team to create a false certificate that said he won the 2020 presidential election.

    Saved you a click.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        345·
        11 months ago

        Nothing except 90+ felony indictments? This dude was never charged with a crime before and this year he got hit with a ton of bricks. People like you would be watching the Nixon resignation saying “he got away with everything”.

        Do you not understand the gravity of these charges? He’s almost guaranteed to be guilty of something, there’s so many options. Once he loses the election he’ll probably plead to whatever just to get house arrest and end the trials.

        • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
          275·
          11 months ago

          People like you would be watching the Nixon resignation saying “he got away with everything”.

          I mean… yeah? You think his resignation and pardon WASN’T him getting away with everything?

          I’m as hopeful as the next guy that the supreme court won’t just rule that nothing bad happened on Jan 6th and that Trump is allowed to be prosecuted, but 3 years on, it seems pretty reasonable to doubt it until it’s done.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              6·
              11 months ago

              Another thing you haven’t mentioned is that Nixon had destroyed McGovern in the 72 election. He won every state but MA!

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election

              It was insane how far he fell. Watergate proved all his opponents right. And yes, his party turned on him. Half of Republican voters still liked him after his resignation but he literally couldn’t get another job anywhere.

              I recommend going to the Nixon presidential library. They really try to whitewash the events but it literally stops listing things he did after Watergate. Other presidents didn’t even hang out with him.

            • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
              42·
              11 months ago

              I can’t possibly disagree more. I don’t think you understand how restrictive an actual prison is. The man got to live out his days eating good food, going where he wanted, and doing what he wanted. We should all be so lucky to be able to do that at the cost of merely getting some dirty looks here and there.

              Given the war and the oil embargo and everything else that was going on at the time

              I don’t see how pardoning Nixon helped solve any of that or how they make the pardon any less of a travesty.

              Ford gained nothing by the pardon

              You know, other than the part where he only got to be president in the first place by making an agreement with Nixon that if he resigned, he’d get a pardon. He got to bail out his buddy and set an example for the rest of his Republican pals that breaking the law is fine, we’ll cover for you from the very top levels of government! No matter what the general public might have thought of it, the people within the party saw it as a huge service to their political machine.

              Nixon got to live out his days comfortable, happy, and carefree. “He did not even have a state funeral.” Give me a break. By this logic, Trump doesn’t really need to be prosecuted! He already lost one election, and if he loses the next, he won’t have what’s REALLY important to him, and isn’t that punishment enough?

              Of course not. Heinous crimes were committed against the integrity of our country’s ability to have democratic elections, and actual, real, legal conquences MUST follow, or the next asshole will comfortably push things even harder. It’s thanks in part to Nixon’s pardon that the rest of the republicans today are so happy to join hands around their lies about the election being stolen and the Jan 6 rioters being on a tour. They’d never have gotten here so easily without the precedent they have of covering for each other no matter what, no matter how serious, and no matter how high the office.

          • nillocEnglish
            51·
            11 months ago

            And Nixon getting away with everything, is also why we are where we are now too.

            If the judges don’t fuck up the timeline and he loses, we’re probably ok for 4 more years (maybe longer if the trials scare off future fascist wannabes), but we need better voting rights, Supreme Court oversight and smarter voters before we can relax and not worry as much.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
            2·
            11 months ago

            Nixon’s pardon was bullshit, but being forced to resign the presidency is not nothing either in the sense that he certainly did face real consequences. I’m with you that he should have faced greater consequences, but it’s simply not the case that he got away with it either. Getting away with everything would mean that he got to finish his term and retire as a respected former president. He didn’t.

        • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          175·
          11 months ago

          Lol Nixon did get away with everything though? And the precedent is what has allowed Trump to trample on our laws.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
            31·
            11 months ago

            No he didn’t. Getting away with everything would have meant finishing his second term and retiring as a respected former president. That didn’t happen. You can’t say that he didn’t face consequences.

          • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            11 months ago

            Our laws for the highest offices are strongly worded recommendations, not absolutes. They’re going after trump’s businesses (which he’s lost) and him raping people (which he also lost). It doesn’t help that the r’s are backing him as much as they can.

        • smeenz@lemmy.nz
          31·
          11 months ago

          You’re assuming both that he doesn’t win, and given the stakes involved, we can assume unheard of levels of cheating, corruption, and voting fraud, and you’re assuming that scotus doesn’t drag this out beyond the election.

          If he wins and he hasn’t been found guilty at that point, then every investigation will be killed on day 1

    • UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world
      2·
      11 months ago

      The problem is the people that support him think it was all in the game to win and it’s okay. They don’t take into consideration that bypassing the law now leaves it open for democracy to crumble more. Anything to win now.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    966·
    11 months ago

    You can screech all about what he did, but if we ultimately aren’t going to stop him from running, then what’s the point of the circus?

    • Szymon@lemmy.caEnglish
      3510·
      11 months ago

      Watch and learn how this is theatre and you have no actual say.

      Maybe we should consider other ways to regain control for the benefit of the 99.99%

      • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
        133·
        11 months ago

        Your comment seems to imply that you think an armed uprising is the solution you’re suggesting. Is that the case?

          • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
            137·
            11 months ago

            Not FBI, but if you think it’s wrong to be mindful about seditious comments on the internet in this day and age, I’d say you have a tenuous connection to reality.

            • Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works
              202·
              11 months ago

              Opposing traitor trump is the furthest thing from seditious there is. It’s the only thing any true patriot can do.

              • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                24·
                11 months ago

                While I agree, unfortunately whoever is in charge gets to decide what’s “seditious” means. Right now we have the freedom (though many of us are probably on lists, which will be passed on to the next admin) to speak up against these fascists.

                But if/when they take power? That’s when there could be a reckoning. I, personally, am not a fan of violent rhetoric, but I wouldn’t be surprised if my outspoken anti-fascist ideals would put me in the crosshairs when the fascist GOP truly gains control.

                Personally? If it comes to Europe pre-WW2 levels of outright, blatant fascism spreading uncontrollably in the US, I would rather die standing up for what I believe in, than to use my white, middle class privilege and knowledge of how Evangelicals think to hide amongst them.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            1·
            11 months ago

            I’m pretty sure the FBI isn’t so stupid that they can’t tell whether or not someone is talking about armed uprising until someone else asks them for clarification.

            Or is this one of those “you can’t arrest me if you tell me you’re a cop” urban legends?

        • Szymon@lemmy.caEnglish
          32·
          11 months ago

          If the bad guys repeat the parts of history that made it bad, does the solution to that original problem become viable again? You’re citing the same precedent, I have no issues with it.

          • wrath_of_grunge@kbin.social
            2·
            11 months ago

            but of course.

            if they’re going to keep forgetting and doing the same shit, the people need to keep remembering and doing the same shit.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      Because if he loses, he’s going to face the consequences of his crimes. That has to matter. The rule of law has to matter.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        2·
        11 months ago

        I understand that, which is the point I am trying to make. He’s got a number of very serious criminal cases going against him, and so far has managed to weasle his way out of any serious consequence for all the shit he’s pulled.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      3·
      11 months ago

      I’m personally hoping for imprisonment, financially debilitating fines, and prohibitions from founding or serving in any kind of corporate or nonprofit organization*, and for that set of punishments to happen to every single scumbag who had the complete disregard for morality and good sense that was required to ever do a favor for Donald Trump. Do that sort of thing to the right 200 or so people in this country and maybe our politics can stop being so fucked up all the time.

      *As an officer/broad member/decision-maker, if they end up with a job as a receptionist or custodian at the local YMCA that’s fine

    • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      42·
      11 months ago

      I’m not defending the guy or saying I agree, but there is already precedent of a Presidential Candidate running from prison: Socialist candidate Eugene Debs.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        6·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, there’s nothing keeping him from running from prison, and that’s probably the way it should be, otherwise you could just jail your political opponents when you don’t want them to win elections. But this guy has participated in an organized coup attempt essentially with his fake electors crap, and trying to get military personnel to step in. If you recall, he also started replacing top level military personnel after he lost, with the presumed intent of keeping himself in office. This goes way beyond the, I’m just your political opponent, and I should be able to run from prison if I want to.

        • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          21·
          11 months ago

          Hey man, I agree. I’m just talking about precedent. Given how things went during Trump’s tenure, I see nothing suggesting anything will be different for Trump despite the nature of his crimes.

  • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
    64·
    11 months ago

    Republicans in Michigan testified in a Lansing court that Donald Trump’s campaign was directly involved with putting together a team to create a false certificate that said he won the 2020 presidential election.

    Former Michigan Republican Party Communications Director Tony Zammit said he thought people such as Trump lawyer Shawn Flynn had taken advantage of people who ended up signing the document.

    “I thought they were going along with what the lawyers were telling them,” he said in a preliminary hearing Thursday, according to The Detroit News. Zammit said the meeting took place on December 14.

    So senior Republican party officials in Michigan are just in the habit of signing their name to legal paperwork without asking what it means? If we can’t trust your signature how can we trust anything you say?

    No, the Trump campaign was a bunch of criminals who came to you with the idea of doing a crime, but MI Republicans knew or should have known what was being asked of them. Everyone involved in this on the Trump campaign side and Republican party side belongs in prison.

  • Nobody@lemmy.worldEnglish
    63·
    11 months ago

    They’ve flipped Meadows. Some random fake elector giving up his handler in the campaign is helpful, but not exactly crucial.

    Jack Smith has a mountain of evidence. He has everything. The cases just need to go to trial before the election.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        24·
        11 months ago

        I honestly don’t think they will. Because if they rule that Trump couldn’t commit any crimes while president, it also means that Biden can’t. Which means Biden can do whatever the hell he wants. I don’t think SCOTUS will go for that.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          14·
          11 months ago

          I would hope at least one justice would be smart enough to figure out that if presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for deeds while in office, the President could just kill a couple Supreme Court judges and install their own people.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
            5·
            11 months ago

            Or the VP could walk down the hall, shoot the president and then, as president, be immune from criminal prosecution. It’s absurd on its face.

            She could also do the same thing if presidents are allowed to pardon themselves.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            61·
            11 months ago

            Exactly. The person I’m talking to seems to think it’s a foregone conclusion that Trump will win the presidency, which is why they would rule in his favor. I do not think they believe it’s a foregone conclusion.

        • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          102·
          11 months ago

          Yeah but they know Biden won’t do whatever he want in that way, and that Democrats will willingly hand over power to Trump if he legitimately wins (which he still could).

          Then once that happens, no more elections.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            5·
            11 months ago

            I don’t think they do know that, nor do they want to risk it. Especially if Trump doesn’t win. And they know that’s a possibility.

            • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              712·
              11 months ago

              What, in the history of the modern Democratic party, suggests that they would do anything besides peacefully hand over power? Liberals love to brag about the “peaceful transition of power” of whatever the fuck, and talk about how they’re able to pass the position onto the next person, even if they’re from the other party (which can be admirable, sure).

              But Obama showed us that liberals will willingly hand the reigns over the outright fascists, and still brag about how civilized and enlightened they are, while the GOP ruins peoples’ lives left and right.

              Biden won’t do shit if Trump wins. He’ll hand over power like liberals always do.

              Don’t get me wrong, I’m not even necessarily saying he shouldn’t. I’m just saying that the GOP knows he won’t.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                92·
                11 months ago

                You seem very fixated on Biden. You seem to think it’s a foregone conclusion that Trump will win and there will never be a Democrat in office again because he will win. I guarantee you that SCOTUS is not assuming he will win and they are not assuming Biden will be the last Democrat ever in office or that a Democrat would never do things Republicans really didn’t want to happen even though the Democrat had the legal right. Because those are not safe assumptions.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  71·
                  11 months ago

                  Biden will hand over power peacefully. The questions are whether he does that in 1 year, or 5 years, and who will receive the powers he currently wields.

                • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  26·
                  11 months ago

                  Huh? Where did I suggest it was a foregone conclusion?

                  I think you’re naive if you think the Democrats would ever do anything meaningful in that situation. If that were the case, something would have been done years ago. They will not do such obviously unethical things (even if the potential outcome is good). That’s not how they have ever operated.

                  Also, what would they even do?

              • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                That only matters if Trump wins. He could, but I don’t think he will. I think we will look back at this time with disbelief that we were so worried about him winning.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
          2·
          11 months ago

          Unless they realize a DNC candidate won’t abuse the power in any meaningful way, making it solely a power wielded by conservatives. What’s Biden gonna do? Shoot Trump with a 9 and claim immunity? In our dreams.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          11 months ago

          Lmao the mental imagery of Joe Biden getting Mission Impossible’d into Clarence Thomas’ bedroom.

      • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        11 months ago

        Meadows has the folder. Or, more correctly, he had it.

        He keeps saying that he did not mishandle classified info. I think Trump declassified the whole thing, specifically so Meadows could either destroy all copies outright, or destroy all but the one Trump sold to to Lavrov. Either way, he insures that nobody in the US will ever see it in its unredacted form.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
          4·
          11 months ago

          I don’t think there’s paperwork of him declassifying it, bringing it up at this point probably wouldn’t help your case. Paperwork for that specific folder being declassified would prove that Meadows and Trump are traitors but their paperwork is in order? Meadows is working for Jack Smith now, so I’m going with the “who cares if there’s paperwork” side.

          • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            Of course there’s no paperwork, Trump believes he can unclassify things by merely stating it. But I think Meadows used that as cover to simply get rid of it.

            In fact, it’s possible that the only reason he’s so chummy with Smith now is that he knows all the really bad, Rosenbergs-level stuff is irrevocably out of reach to Smith.

            • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
              6·
              11 months ago

              In fact, it’s possible that the only reason he’s so chummy with Smith now is that he knows all the really bad, Rosenbergs-level stuff is irrevocably out of reach to Smith.

              Or they have so much on him that he had to fold. Cassidy Hutchinson isn’t really holding back what her boss did.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    171·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Republicans in Michigan testified in a Lansing court that Donald Trump’s campaign was directly involved with putting together a team to create a false certificate that said he won the 2020 presidential election.

    Zammit’s testimony came in the preliminary hearings of six Republican electors charged with “intent to defraud” by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office.

    The 16, all charged with criminal forgery, signed a document that falsely said Trump won Michigan and was filed to the National Archives and Congress.

    Upon reviewing evidence and testimony, Judge Kristen Simmons will rule at the end of the hearings if there is enough to send the cases to jury trial.

    During the hearings this week, former state GOP Chair Laura Cox testified she approved a document that Republican electors would cast votes for Trump if the election result was overturned.

    Also in Michigan this week, the state Court of Appeals confirmed that it would not prevent Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot in 2024.

    The original article contains 435 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    516·
    11 months ago

    Joe Biden won Michigan and its 16 electoral votes by a margin of just 2.78 percentage points. It was the seventh-closest state result in the election

    And the DNC claims to insist on Biden because he’s the SAFEST choice? Ffs! 🤦

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    2479·
    11 months ago

    A politically motivated attack on the greatest president America has ever seen, better than Lincoln even, to uphold the principles of democracy!

    • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
      221·
      11 months ago

      You should probably edit your comment to include a /s tag if you are indeed being sarcastic.

        • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
          261·
          11 months ago

          Given the prevalence of trolls and truly unhinged assholes on the internet these days, I think a /s tag is probably in order.

        • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
          81·
          11 months ago

          Body language and inflections are nuances that are lost in text but contribute heavily to sarcasm.

          Also, it’s been really difficult these last few years to determine the difference between a blatant joke and someone’s perceived reality, which is downright terrifying if you think about it too long.

            • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
              1·
              11 months ago

              It’s not psuedoscience, it’s simply the observation that, as this thread shows, it can often be difficult to tell the difference between satire and honestly held opinions. I question your understanding of the word “psuedoscience,” if you think it applies to Poe’s Law.

              • tegs_terry@feddit.ukEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                That’s not what it means firstly, and secondly sociology is science, semiotics is science, and this waffle is masquerading as similar. Calling it a ‘law’ and wheeling it out as evidence contributes to that, convincing impressionable nerds that they need to backhand their jokes to avoid the dreaded downvote

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          4·
          11 months ago

          The idea that someone would genuinely believe that isn’t very far fetched at all. If they’re being sarcastic, they’re not very good at it.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            It’s Poe’s Law in action. In this age of unreality it can be almost impossible to tell the difference between satire and honestly held opinions.