Jump to content

Talk:Trump fake electors plot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lasati (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 28 December 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Mr. Trump and his allies"

"the longest-running and most expansive of the multiple efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election"

"But the effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to create competing slates of electors in seven different states at once would have dramatically altered the results if it had been successful."

"Mr. Trump and his allies sought to convince Mr. Pence to count the pro-Trump slates, reject those saying Mr. Biden had won and thus unilaterally keep the former president in office"

"Mr. Trump and his allies thought Mr. Pence could choose to delay the certification of the electors count"

"Mr. Trump and his allies barreled ahead with the electors plan nonetheless"

"Mr. Trump and his allies turned to the second part of the plan"

I recommend the lead be restored to its long-standing state

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html

soibangla (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Defendants at Michigan

At Lansing, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced felony charges against 16 Michigan residents for their role in the alleged false electors scheme following the 2020 U.S. presidential election.  

2A02:8071:B87:7F20:A1DA:3E78:49E4:1165 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Michigan prosecution of fake electors rootsmusic (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation, reliable source needed

Article says, "A senator's aide tried to pass fraudulent certificates to Pence minutes before the vice president was to certify the election."

I took a look at the following footnote, but when I went to the source, I found no such statement as above. Will the editor who wrote this assertion, please provide reliable sources for it? Thanks. (AltheaCase (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I am wondering about rhe reliability of this information as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:A110:B513:F840:4022:9A79:BEAE (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AltheaCase: fixed[1] soibangla (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV Warning Attached

The entire debate around the use of alternate/fake electors precisely hinges around whether they are "alternate" and part of a standard legal procedure during contested elections or "fake," meaning illegal. Thus even the title of this page is wildly biased and requires the POV label. Additionally the article is LOADED with weasel words such as "scheme" "fake" "fraudulent" or "plot." This article needs to be MASSIVELY cleaned up before the POV label can be removed. I might suggest "2020 Electoral College Controversy" as a substitute neutral title.

I should add that User Andrevan not only removed the POV label from the main page, which was unwarranted as the page is extremely biased and pushes a fringe narrative that alternate electors are not a thing, but then went on to vandalize the talk section of this page in bad faith, and then went on to threaten me with being blocked on my own page. I reverted the vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.5.103 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, no article-tagging by random IP editors, that has been removed. Have your say with this talk page discussion if you must, but the matter is largely a settled issue, per the reliable souces used in the article. The notion that Donald Trump's preferred slate of electors is anything but fraudulent is a WP:FRINGE point-of-view. Zaathras (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Trump alternate electors are NOT a legitimate thing. This is fringe and the POV tag should be removed and any fringe talk posts should also be removed. Andre🚐 22:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fake" is actually sourced to Jack Wilenchik, one of the plotters. Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

expand state details under "Events in individual states"

The state details under this page's section for "Events in individual states" are pretty paltry. Now that more details have been published in the indictments for The State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump, et al. and for Michigan prosecution of fake electors, I suggest expanding that section to illustrate the plot's highly coordinated planning by Trump's Chief of Staff and by the 2020 campaign. Both state indictments detail general findings in the January 6th Committee's Final Report and the Special Counsel's indictment. rootsmusic (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgia and Michigan subsections are already summaries of the descriptions in those two articles. The other states definitely need expansion though. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

@NotJackhorkheimer and Zaathras: less edit warring, more discussion, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for sources to be cited and I'm still waiting. People can have different editing styles, but to me it's poor form to re-insert contested claims without fixing their citation, or at least pointing out an existing citation in a different place. I see zero citations that state unequivocally that the electoral certificates were fraudulent. Rather, I can find on my own many, many articles that describe this as an allegation made by the US DOJ. I do at least see one reference that uses the word obstruct in the 3rd person, but again many, many sources say that obstruction is a charge made by the DOJ. If there are sources for a contentious claim, they should be immediately following when the claim was first made.
Even if there are a few sources that may use the words fraudulent or obstruct/obstruction, the overwhelming majority do not. I had replaced the terms when possible with close substitutes that conveyed roughly the same meaning, without carrying the baggage of implying that Wikipedia is objectively stating someone committed a crime of which they have yet to be convicted. I do not see why those small changes were worth objecting to. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the changes you propose, they don't appear to be improvements. Fraudulent is well sourced, particularly in light of recent guilty pleas. While we cannot state someone has been convicted of fraud or obstruction if they haven't been, it's not a BLP violation to acknowledge a fraudulent scheme did exist. Feoffer (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say "well sourced" when the sources aren't cited. Once again, I am asking for a single source. Sydney Powell's pleas weren't related to the electors. Kenneth Chesebro pled guilty to "conspiracy to commit filing false documents"--fraud is not a necessary condition of the Georgia statute. Looking at the first page of Google News for "kenneth chesebro guilty plea" and picking out news reports from high quality sources, not a single one uses the word fraudulent except once inside a quote. CNN NYT WaPo USA Today NBC News CNBC
Even if a few sources are found for the claim, though, it seems to me that it would be undue weight to insist that "fraudulent" be the one descriptor, given that the overwhelming majority of sources use the word "fake". --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 21:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fake and fraudulent are effectively synonyms, so they aren't competing for weight. Andre🚐 21:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's some wiggle room on which of two near-synonyms we use -- note "fake" is still used in title, while "fraudulent" is probably more appropriate when the talk turns legal. But a phrasing like "alleged fraudulent elector scheme" isn't appropriate. We can add "alleged" about the actions of specific defendants who have yet to face trial, but we can't deny the crime occurred. Defendant allegedly passed counterfeit money, not Defendant passed allegedly-counterfeit money. Feoffer (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article violation of NPOV? Are not a vast number of persons who claim that the issue is Election Fraud?

Is this article an NPOV violation? Do not a huge number of persons believe that the election of Biden in 2020 was the result of voting fraud? Is there not evidence of fraud, as in Fulton County with GOP watchers shut out as if counting would stop, but then Democrats stayed & did "counting", like pulling a trunk out from under a table? Is it correct as someone claims "WP:Fringe"? Are there not videos of ballot-box stuffing in the night? How can it be fringe when CNN reported: "https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html --- All told, 69% of Republicans and Republican-leaners say Biden’s win was not legitimate, up from 63% earlier this year and through last fall, ...." Is that fringe? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]

There is no evidence of fraud. There are no videos of "ballot box stuffing in the night". Yes, believing that there was fraud in spite of the lack of any evidence is FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you utterly discount the mule videos of D'Sousa as impossible? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Not me, Reuters does. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it really is amazing how many believe the election was stolen, especially since they continue to cite examples of alleged fraud that have been decisively refuted for years. it's sorta like ... a cult, you know? soibangla (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it group polarization and confirmation bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's mass delusion largely caused by poor sources, Fox News's pushing of what it knew were lies, and believing Trump's lies. The MAGA cult is impervious to evidence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Electors Plot, or legitimate rump electors submission?

Did not the so-called fake electors believe that Trump in fact won for their electorship, and they in fact were the true electors? Didn't something much like this happen in Hawaii not so many years ago, & did not the rump electors end up being accepted? Does not the US Code state that the President of the Senate shall open all PURPORTED elector envelopes? So is it possible that these rump electors honestly purported to be the true electors? And did they have the freedom of speech right to say so in writing to the President of the Senate? Is there not yet a day of reckoning to occur when these issues reach the SCOTUS? Is not the principle to assume good faith? Does it make sense to criminalize a political claim that "we wuz robbed" as after a sporting event? Didn't Hillary say the same when she lost? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]

WP:AGF refers to Wikipedia activity. It is why I am calmly replying here rather than reverting these talk page posts. Whether or not the fake electors believe Trump won or not, they did not go through the proper channels of becoming certified electors, as laid out in indictments. I have no idea what you're talking about in Hawaii, you'll have to provide some sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your questions aren't aimed at Wikipedia editors.
Did not the so-called fake electors believe that Trump in fact won for their electorship, and they in fact were the true electors?
No, the fake electors knew they were not the real electors. See Michigan prosecution of fake electors, where the fake electors tried to pose as real ones and were denied entry into the state Capitol. The people who organized the plot even called them fake. Feoffer (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the question "Do you utterly discount the mule videos of D'Sousa as impossible?", we can answer, "D'Sousa and his conspiracist 2000 Mules film have been soundly debunked. He cannot be trusted. He produces political propaganda and pseudohistory. He and his books and other products lack credibility." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article likely incorrectly states the intent of the "scheme" and without citing any sources.

"The intent of the scheme was to pass the fraudulent certificates to then-vice president Mike Pence in the hope he would count them, rather than the authentic certificates, and thus overturn Joe Biden's victory." This does not appear to be correct. While the "intent" of the scheme has not clearly been established, several sources including the Eastman Memo, the Chesebro emails, and statements by multiple people involved including the alternative slates of electors contradict the statement above.

For example, according to the Eastman memos, the "intent" was to have former VP Pence declare that discrepancies invalidate the votes from the states in question such that the votes would not be counted at all. In other words, the intent was not to replace authentic certificates with fraudulent ones, but rather to demonstrate a discrepancy in order to cause the votes from those states to be thrown out entirely. Signers of the alternative slates confirmed this intent. The reason this is important is because it may make the difference between illegal fraudulent activity and legal albeit ineffective activity. As such, it will likely play a significant role in defense strategies in the related criminal proceedings. 160.2.168.216 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the reliable sources say, which is what we go by. If you have a problem with the assertions in the article that are based on reliably-cited sources, then the onus is on you to find reliable sources that back up what you claimed above. Incidentally, many of the currently-cited sources directly contradict what you were trying to assert. And in subsequent court cases, many of the sources you mentioned (which would not meet the standard for inclusion here) have been directly contradicted by the evidence that has come forward and the witnesses that have given open testimony in Congress and in the court system. But again, if you have reliable sources that contradict any assertions in this article, by all means, present them. Your commment about the sources you cited used speculative language, while the cited sources use assertive language, based on actual evidence and not on speculative language or suppositions. So you'll have to do better than that if you want anything changed in this article. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your thoughtful comments and I encourage you to provide reliable sources to support them soibangla (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Comment

Going to start this by expressing my love and appreciation for Wikipedia. I use it daily, for everything from a starting point for work related research tasks, to recreational learning about various historic or current topics. On everything from Napoleonic battles to particle physics. For context, this account was created in 2007, and I've been using Wikipedia since 2001.

Today I saw a ten minute news segment which touched on the "fake elector scheme," which I vaguely remember from the news cycle when it happened (which I was really into at the time -- I very closely followed the election on a day-to-day basis like many people) So, I hop on wikipedia to read about it in order to refresh my memory and maintain an informed opinion about reality.

To be 100% honest, this article reads like a propaganda piece for a particular narrative. Thank God for the talk page where I can get both sides of the issue.

This is clearly a polarizing subject with very strong opposing opinions, as the country is deeply divided on the fundamental question of whether Trump committed an insurrection with the help of rogue Republican state legislatures, or Biden committed a coup with the help of the Democrat party aligned intel agencies. I've never seen anything like this in life.

There was a time when Wikipedia was a neutral information repository, citing dispassionate news and textual sources, because in 2001 you could find sources that had not yet become overly politicized. There was a time when news desks for major networks lost money, on purpose, because the point of the news wasn't to make money -- it was for prestige. The money making arm of the corporation that owned the media company would fund the news desk, the news desk would win awards that fed back, or basically itself be an advertisement for the respectability of the network. The Internet changed this and the news suddenly was given a different role in the information ecosystem.

Today, everything has basically become yellow journalism, because the new business model in the social media age is everybody preaching to their niche choir setting up the other side with the greatest possible strawman to burn down. Or it has some other ideological agenda conditional to its funding. Following politics has always been a premier American pastime, so most of our lives have presently been roped into the daily cycle of confirmation bias, including quite sadly my beloved Wikpedia.

On this specific topic, the reality is the USA method for selecting the president is deliberately byzantine. I remember following Bush v Gore when it happened, and the legal conclusion of that affair was states have the right to send whatever electors they want, as long as the state follows its own constitution. And this fits with the design of the country at its founding to be a union of states. A state doesn't even need to have an public election, its own legislature could just decide who that state should vote for in the electoral college (which is what the electors are for). And this is exactly how it worked, until gradually states shifted to the current method, with the last holdout South Carolina stopped appointing electors in 1864. And ultimately, why Bush became president. If states have the right to appoint electors as they wish, then the outcome of the presidential election in a given state isn't actually material, unless it happens to be under state law. Hence, the outcome of the Bush v Gore, was that Florida had to follow its own election laws and nothing more. This is just facts.

So in a nutshell Trump lawyers apparently decided to mount a challenge by convincing legislatures in states which they thought (or claim they thought) election fraud happened to somehow appoint or send electors contrary the resultant outcome. And then, somehow force those states to either investigate the fraud, or simply appoint the electors (which again is how things worked in at least one state until 1864). It's not quite clear from the outside exactly what they were doing or their endgame, but it's something along these lines. Basically, lawyers either using or abusing the law, depending on who you ask.

Did it cross the line to be illegal? Does it rise to the level of fraud? Or, conversely, is it a legitimate constitutional check-and-balance on election fraud (whether or not you think it happened in this case, and whatever your feelings are about the current or previous president). These are questions for courts and constitutional scholars, not for talking heads on the media, decided by who has the most reach and can shout their opinions the loudest. And, sadly, the endless parade of people calling themselves constitutional lawyers and the like on those programs are just as bad. This needs to be decided by the US Supreme Court, or Congress.

The problem is, we are so politicized as a country, everyone wants to decide it in the court of public opinion, which is the court of talking points and political narratives. And even more unfortunately, Wikipedia and this page in particular seem to be roped into that arena, so when people like me hear the term "fake Trump electors" they come to this page and get one side of the story. That is how you manufacture consensus, as a propaganda tool.

Somewhat ironically, the language and wording of this page is so over-the-top biased and skewed to one side, it ends up being self-defeating. Because neutral people like me who come here just to learn about a thing they heard can see it for what it is. That is how I ended up on this talk page.

To be clear, I'm not blaming anyone or suggesting bad faith, since everyone has biases they aren't aware of, especially in this age, where nearly everything we read and hear has an agenda. So just writing out my honest opinion and reaction to the article as presented. Do with it as you wish.

Take care everyone! Lasati (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)lasati[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump_fake_electors_plot&oldid=1192358699"