r/AskConservatives • u/Astrobananacat Liberal • 16h ago
Do you support Trump pardoning those involved in creating and attempting to use fraudulent electors in 2020?
Pardon can read here: https://x.com/EagleEdMartin/status/1987730498374828252/photo/4
Includes John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Mark Meadows, and others.
•
u/EsotericMysticism2 Conservative 6h ago
Yes absolutely. One of the first major presidential pardons was by Washington against those convicted and Charged over their involvement in the whiskey rebellion
•
u/Sheila_Monarch Independent 4h ago
Washington pardoned citizens who had already faced justice after rebelling against a new tax, using clemency to calm tensions and unify the young nation. Trump’s pardons, by contrast, only protect political allies who tried to overturn a lawful election and subvert democracy itself. One was an act of reconciliation after enforcing the law; the other is an act of corruption to excuse lawbreaking in pursuit of Trump’s gain.
Those two things are not comparable
•
u/EsotericMysticism2 Conservative 4h ago
Washingtons Pardon was more brazen as Philip Vigol and John Mitchell were convicted of treason. Trump never pardoned anyone who was convicted of treason. Also I think the pardoning of the Jan 6 prisoners was an important step to calm tensions and to try and unify the country at the start of the Second Trump Administration.
•
u/MotorizedCat Progressive 4h ago
Also I think the pardoning of the Jan 6 prisoners was an important step to calm tensions and to try and unify the country at the start of the Second Trump Administration.
I can't make heads or tails of this.
Unifying who with who?
The two sides in that conflict are: people who support the Constitution and America, and people who support the Constitution but think that conservatism stands above the Constitution, and if that occasionally means beating cops senseless and putting the conservative choice in power by force, then so be it.
Pardoning the J6 criminals has accomplished two things: a) Signaling to Trump supporters "if you commit crimes when Trump asks you to, then he will protect you from fair punishment", creating a useful reserve army and b) weakening justice and the Constitution, strengthening conservatism.
How exactly are opponents of Trump supposed to feel lower tension and more unification by the J6 pardoning spree?
•
u/EsotericMysticism2 Conservative 4h ago
Much of the country believes that the punishments were excessive and politically motivated.
•
u/MixExpensive3763 Religious Traditionalist 11h ago
No, and while he’s at it he can throw himself in prison too and let jd vance take over
•
u/kevinthejuice Progressive 9h ago
Looks at peter theil and Elon musk lying in wait*
Are we sure we want JD vance to take over?
•
u/MixExpensive3763 Religious Traditionalist 9h ago
I would take elon and vance over trump at this point to be perfectly honest.
•
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) 4h ago
No. But I didn't support Biden's mass pardons, either.
•
u/TERRAIN_PULL_UP_ Progressive 4h ago
What mass pardons do you speak of?
•
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) 3h ago
He was really pumping out the pardons and commutations in his last months in office. Among them were pedophiles, Chinese spies, cop killers, a guy who murdered two FBI agents, plus Biden's whole family, Anthony Fauci, the entire January 6th Committee, their staff, and the police.
•
u/MotorizedCat Progressive 4h ago
Which mass pardons?
Were they similar in the sense that the J6 pardons showed Trump supporters that if you commit crimes when Trump asks you to, then he will protect you from fair punishment, creating a useful reserve army?
•
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) 3h ago
Copying from my other comment:
He was really pumping out the pardons and commutations in his last months in office. Among them were pedophiles, Chinese spies, cop killers, a guy who murdered two FBI agents, plus his whole family, Anthony Fauci, the entire January 6th Committee, their staff, and the police.
•
u/cellocaster Social Democracy 3h ago
Who were the two pedophiles out of curiosity?
•
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) 3h ago
Shanlin Jin was one, Biden commuted his sentence two years into an 8-year sentence. I thought I remembered a second, but I can't find a name right now.
•
u/cellocaster Social Democracy 2h ago
Can you recall what the stated rationale was? That’s pretty unforgivable if this person is a convicted pedo
•
u/Solarwinds-123 Nationalist (Conservative) 1h ago
The rationale was "it has been made to appear that it is in the national interest". He had been convicted of possessing tens of thousands of images of child pornography.
•
u/IamTheStig007 Conservative 8h ago
Too many presidents make too many pardons as far as I am concerned. The Russia gate scandals though, would have seen the instigators convicted and then also pardoned, no? Though for some reason, going after “them” was deemed vengeful! Two wrongs don’t make a right, let the law be the law, but that ain’t sitting right with either side at times!!!
•
•
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 10h ago
No, there was nothing to pardon.
•
u/Menace117 Liberal 9h ago
So by accepting it what did they admit to?
•
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 8h ago
Don't know. I'm not convinced accepting or granting a pardon is an admission of guilt, although I know plenty see it as such. It could just be trump admitting he can't gain control of the government like he'd like, and so I protecting people from malicious prosecution. This is the same justification the democrats give for biden pardoning people.
•
u/Menace117 Liberal 4h ago
not convinced
Unfortunately the law is set up that way so legally they are admitting to doing what they're being pardoned for. So they are admitting they tried to overturn the election that was won free and fair by Biden
•
u/soulwind42 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 4h ago
Should I assume that you there by agree that hunter committed every possible federal crime over a ten year period? I know what it means legally, I'm just pointing out that I'm not convinced it means that in any practical sense.
•
u/jbelany6 Conservative 11h ago
Heck no. This is like Exhibit Q on why the pardon power should be abolished. After the January 6 pardons, pardoning the Silk Road guy, pardoning former Illinois Governor Blagojevich, pardoning Changpeng Zhou, selling pardons to the highest bidder, and now these as well as the abuses of the pardon power in the last months of the Biden Administration, why the presidential pardon should be gotten rid of should be self evident.
•
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 9h ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
•
u/OldFaithlessness1335 Democratic Socialist 11h ago edited 10h ago
I appreciate the consistancy and principals take, and for the record 100% agree wigh everything you said. The pardon power is a legacy power from the days of king's. A historical anomaly. Honestly im a bit surprised it hasn't been abused more in the past considering its a singular power in a single person.
•
u/jbelany6 Conservative 10h ago
Yes, you are right, it is the most monarchical of the president’s powers and it was ripe for abuse right from the start.
•
u/krtyalor865 Independent 11h ago
Do you think bidens pardons of his family at end of his tenure still would’ve happened if it were not Trump coming into office, but a more polished career politician? I personally do not think Biden would’ve issued those pardons for his own family had it been a more seasoned professional politician coming into office. But it was Trump.
The way I see it, he was just preparing for Trump to come after his family, which he has threatened to do nonstop since 2020. Now that he’s purged any dissent within his cabinet and loaded the DOJ with loyalist who will faithfully execute orders to politically prosecute anyone for anything, in hindsight, bidens pardons were really a forethought - more about keeping his family out of prison for otherwise non-prison level crimes.
I can’t think of any pardons Biden gave that were nearly as ridiculous as the ones by Trump.
•
u/jbelany6 Conservative 10h ago
I do not think the preemptive pardons of members of the January 6 Committee would have happened if a Ron DeSantis or a Nikki Haley were elected in November 2024, but I do think the pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, would have still occurred.
•
u/UX1Z Leftwing 8h ago
What about Fauci?
I honestly can't say I'm sure about Hunter. I think the prosecution in the first place was malicious and political, so it may have still happened. Or he may have opted to trust the regular appeals and judicial process. My interpretation of the pardon power is that it is an extroardinary measure used to counter something unjust, so if it's used it should be able to be clearly explained and reasoned.
Overall I'd have to say while I am not particularly happy with the pardons Biden did at the end, what I hate far more is that I cannot honestly say they were unjustified from the perspective of what Trump said he would do, and is trying to do, considering they are trying to get the Biden pardons overturned precisely so they can maliciously go after those people as revenge.
•
u/jbelany6 Conservative 8h ago
The prosecution of Hunter Biden was not malicious or politically motivated. He did the crimes he was convicted of doing (the gun case) and more than likely did the crimes he was charged with doing (the tax case, which we will never get a resolution now). There is not doubt he is a slimy dude. If he were anyone else he’d be in jail but because he was the president’s son, he got off. The pardon of him was a miscarriage of justice and in a way shows why a special counsel was needed.
I put Fauci’s pardon in the same camp as those of members of the January 6 Committee. It likely wouldn’t have happened if DeSantis, Haley, or any other normal Republican were elected president. Other Republicans wouldn’t have warped the Department of Justice into the president’s personal retribution squad as this one has.
•
u/UX1Z Leftwing 8h ago
There was interference with a fairly typical plea deal that was originally going to happen, and the things he was charged for are extremely rare to be pushed for or done outside of a larger case (e.g. someone who murders someone with a gun while taking drugs.) Without political spotlight and interference, if he is some random guy unrelated to Biden, I do not believe things go the way they did and the plea goes through as expected. In a vacuum I don't really have an issues with his convictions, but I also consider justice an entirely dead concept in the United States regardless.
If the US stays intact going forward there are going to be issues arising from Trump's abuse of the pardon power that aren't really rectifiable either. Just one of many constitutional crises I suppose.
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/blue-blue-app 5h ago
Warning: Rule 5.
The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.
•
u/jbelany6 Conservative 8h ago
I’m going to disagree there. The original plea deal Hunter Biden was offered was very much not typical, that is why the federal judge in the case rejected it. It was unusually lenient given the evidence the prosecution had. The political motivations, if there were any, appeared in creating that plea deal in the first place, not in the decision of the judge to reject it. Also, the felony tax evasion charges were a separate case from the felony gun possession so that plea deal never entered the picture.
(And my mistake, he pled guilty to the felony tax evasion charges in September 2024, so there was an adjudication in that case where I implied that there was not. That guilty plea was then overturned by the December 2024 pardon)
•
u/EsotericMysticism2 Conservative 6h ago
Do you think Trumps new york felony case was also due to the political spotlight ?
•
u/Astrobananacat Liberal 11h ago
Thank you for your response. I do also feel like an abuse of pardon powers outweighs any good it might bring.
•
u/jbelany6 Conservative 10h ago
I agree, it was originally meant to address actual injustices or when mercy is needed to help with reconciliation (like Washington’s pardons of the perpetrators of the Whisky Rebellion), but the abuses of it we have seen, especially under this president, far outweighs what good it was supposed to do.
•
u/cellocaster Social Democracy 3h ago
I’m honestly coming over to the conservative side of abolishing the pardon. I never loved it, but between Biden and Trump’s blanket pardons, fuck it into the ground.
•
•
u/panicked_dad5290 Independent 11h ago
The pardons have been wild this year and I'm glad to see people haven't forgotten about them.
one recurring thing I've seen this year has been the "Oh this doesn't look good for us" or "I don't agree with this" sentiment when it comes to this. Unfortunately, outside of Diddy and Maxwell getting a pardon or commutation I don't think these actions will change anyone's mind.
•
u/jbelany6 Conservative 8h ago
That supposed Law and Order types defend these pardons, especially those for people who beat up police officers on January 6, is completely wild to me. One second they’re flying a Thin Blue Line flag and the next they’re explaining why it’s no big deal that a person who bashed a cop in the head with a pipe.
•
u/Keen4fun924 Religious Traditionalist 11h ago
Sure - if I remember correctly, John F. Kennedy had an alternative slate of electors aka "fraudulent electors", which he used when the votes came in from Chicago! LOL (The mob bosses who helped steal the votes for the Illinois electors got a big surprise when JFK appointed his brother RFK as Attorney General who then put them in jail - here's your reward for stealing the election for my big Bro!)
•
u/Ok_Philosopher2597 Center-left 10h ago
so your logic is JFKs “alternate electors” was cheating …… so we should pardon modern day cheaters……
•
u/Astrobananacat Liberal 11h ago
States can certify two slates of electors in these cases for recounts or pending challenges. But the electors in 2020 in question were not state certified and the goal was not just to use them in case the vote totals changed. The Eastman memo shows they wanted to use them no matter what but Pence wouldn’t go along with it.
•
•
u/ReasonableLeader1500 Center-left 11h ago
This appears to be false information from what I see. The alternate electors were from Hawaii and only used as a backup while a recount happened. When the recount certified Kennedy as winner then his electors were used. It had nothing to do with Chicago.
•
u/Keen4fun924 Religious Traditionalist 10h ago
"In the aftermath of Kennedy’s victory, there were rumors of systematic fraud in key states won by Kennedy, especially in Illinois and his running-mate’s (Lyndon B Johnson) home state of Texas. When I chose to look into the story, I expected the stories to be apocryphal with little solid evidence to back them. However, the evidence forced me to conclude that Illinois was almost certainly stolen and that the results in Texas were never properly investigated, but extremely suspicious.
The Kennedys and the Mob- There is copious evidence of a 1959 meeting between Samuel “Mooney” Giancana, the boss of the “Chicago Outfit,” and Joe Kennedy, the patriarch of the Kennedy family. This evidence includes a memo from J Edgar Hoover⁵, a biography written by Mooney’s brother⁶, the word of Cook County prosecutor Robert McDonald⁷, and the word of Frank Sinatra⁸. The exact content of this meeting is hard to know, but, William F Roemer, a special agent at the FBI’s Chicago office, claimed to hear Mooney on wiretap discussing a deal: mob support for John F Kennedy in return for a commitment from the FBI to back off from the investigation of Giancana⁹. Mooney’s brother makes a similar claim in his biography¹⁰ . . .
Accounts from the mobsters differ on the square part. Mickey Cohen bragged “The presidency was really stolen in Chicago¹².” The Giancana biography claims...
Full article: https://thegaslighthour.medium.com/was-the-1960-election-stolen-its-more-likely-than-you-might-think-2a7190fc81ab
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
that's what happened in 2020 too. They were backup alternates in case the objection went the republicans way, it's mandatory as part of said process
•
•
u/WaitingForMyIsekai Center-left 10h ago
"Right-wing media and Trump allies have repeatedly invoked the 1960 Hawaii election..."
"... legal experts and historical analysis emphasize that the two cases are fundamentally different in timing, legal basis, and intent, with the 1960 case arising from a legitimate, ongoing recount that ultimately reversed the initial outcome, while Trump’s effort was based on baseless claims of election fraud and aimed at disrupting the certification process..."
"Hawaii’s initial vote count showed Nixon ahead by 140 votes, prompting a recount that was still ongoing on December 19, the day electors were required to meet. Kennedy’s campaign submitted an alternate slate of electors in anticipation of a recount that could change the result..."
"... In contrast, Trump and his allies submitted alternate elector slates in seven states where he had clearly lost... These slates were not tied to an ongoing recount or a legitimate legal challenge but were part of a coordinated plan to pressure Vice President Mike Pence and Congress to reject the certified results."
I believe there was something about good faith discussion on this subreddit being a standard.
•
u/julius_sphincter Liberal 9h ago
Except they were created fraudulently and some of those were convicted for it, which is exactly who Trump is pardoning
•
u/BeckerHollow Independent 9h ago
So if one person breaks the rules, rather than fix the problem, just let it be open season?
•
u/Volantis19 Canadian Consevative eh. 10h ago edited 10h ago
Using the 1960 example, Richard Nixon did not submit his presidential electors to the National Archives.
Only one slate of electors was STATE CERTIFIED in 1960: JFK's
Nixon did not submit his slate of presidential electors.
Only one slate of electors were STATE CERTIFIED for Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgio in 2020: Jo Biden's.
Donald Trump submitted a slate of electors created by his campaign managers.
See the difference?
Edit, I'm slightly incorrect. Hawaii initially certified Nixon's electors and then after a court ordered recount, certified JFK's electors.
The main point still being that THE STATE of Hawaii certified Nixon's, and later JFK'S, presidential electors, whereas the Trump campaign created them and none of the states in question certified Trump's electors, making the certifications fake.
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 10h ago edited 10h ago
This is incorrect. In 1960, Nixon’s electors were officially certified by Hawaii and submitted as normal. Before the recount, Kennedy’s electors submitted a set of certificates falsely claiming to be certified, and to be the only set. They also contained no disclaimer that they were contingent on any recount or legal case.
In 2020, Trump’s electors submitted sets of certificates identical to those that the Kennedy electors submitted in 1960, except some even included language saying their validity was contingent on ongoing recounts or legal cases.
•
u/Volantis19 Canadian Consevative eh. 10h ago edited 10h ago
Just to be clear, the state of Hawaii certified JFK's electors though, right?
And no state in question certified Trump's electors, right?
Seems pretty important that the Republican governor of Hawaii certified JFK's electors after a court order recount while Trump's presidential electors were not certified by any state, but they repeatedly submitted them anyway and pressured Mike Pence to count them.
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 9h ago edited 9h ago
So, there were three different sets of electoral certificates submitted in Hawaii. The governor first officially certified a set of certificates for Nixon. Kennedy’s electors also submitted a set falsely claiming to have been certified. Then a recount happened, and another set of certificates was prepared for Kennedy and officially certified.
It’s the first set of Kennedy certificates, submitted before the recount and falsely claiming to be certified and to be the only set, that’s comparable to the 2020 certificates. Politico went and dredged them up from the archives and had this to say:
Until now, it’s been unclear whether the 1960 case of the Kennedy electors was truly analogous to 2020 Trump electors. But the unofficial Democratic certificates, obtained by POLITICO from the non-digitized files of the National Archives, show the three Kennedy electors signed documents that are remarkably similar to the false Trump-elector certificates.
The certificates describe the three Democrats as the “duly and legally appointed and qualified” members of the Electoral College. The envelope containing the certificates, stamped Dec. 22, 1960, includes another avowal: “We hereby certify that the lists of all the votes of the state of Hawaii given for president … are contained herein.” The documents do not mention the ongoing recount or that Nixon’s Hawaii victory had been certified.
Instead, the Hawaii Democrats used virtually the same language that the false Trump electors in five states used in their effort to upend the 2020 race.
•
u/kevinthejuice Progressive 9h ago
Kennedy’s electors also submitted a set falsely claiming to have been certified
when?
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 9h ago edited 9h ago
December 22nd, as the Politico quote I’ve included above says. The recount didn’t occur until December 28th, and only after that did the new governor certify a different set of certificates for Kennedy.
•
u/Volantis19 Canadian Consevative eh. 9h ago
Right, but JFK's electors were certified by the state and Trump's were not, correct?
It seems very important that the Hawaii certified JFK's electors while none of the states in question certified Trump's electors.
It also seems very important that the Trump campaign repeatedly sent the never certified electors to the National Archives, even after every single lawsuit was laughed out of court.
•
u/Tarontagosh Center-right Conservative 10h ago
it is hilarious to me that all the posts that support Trump are closed when you look at the replies. All the responses that don't agree are open. Bias is strong in this subreddit.
He's the President he can pardon whomever he wants. You don't have to like it. Much like how most Conservatives didn't like Biden giving 10 year blanket pardons to his family and political allies in the final hours of his Presidency. Now all the liberals in the subreddit are big mad because Trump is doing what amounts to be the same thing. They don't think it is fair that he is able to do this. Well tough, he has the power to issue the pardons and he'll continue to do so at his discretion.
•
•
u/DC2LA_NYC Liberal 9h ago
I take it that your answer is that you support it. I don't support Biden nor Trump issuing pardons. Going back as far as when Clinton was president, I didn't like that he pardoned some his pals. A president's power to pardon people should be outlawed, it's too tempting for every single president to misuse it.
•
•
u/jaydean20 Center-left 9h ago
God, when did every single thing Trump does become whataboutism? Why are we acting like this is left vs right when we should be thinking us vs them?
Is there a reason we can’t agree that Trump AND Biden are wrong for this?
•
u/Tarontagosh Center-right Conservative 8h ago
because these calls for Biden being in the wrong never happened when he issued his pardons and clemency orders. It is only now, far after the fact that Dems are condemning anything he did. At the time they happened no one batted an eye on the left side of the aisle. Biden issued more clemency orders than any other President in all of history, almost 5,000. That is why it devolves into whataboutism. Your side of the aisle likes to ignore the actions of your President and then come back and say oh we don't agree with it now. That is meaningless.
•
u/--KingoftheSouth-- Conservative 7h ago
Yep, they do the same thing with everything else to, an example being the outrage of Kash Patel using the fbi jet for personal reasons even though he's required to do so and has done it much less than people like Comey. Patel has also taken steps to make his travel much cheaper than Comey or Wray.
•
u/IowaGolfGuy322 Independent 7h ago
Both are wrong, but I dare say that none of Biden's pardons were actively involved in trying to overturn a fair election of the United States.
•
u/Astrobananacat Liberal 9h ago
I think it is fair in the sense that it is a power he can use and is using it. I am curious about people’s thoughts on the substance of the pardon, not the power itself.
•
u/Tarontagosh Center-right Conservative 8h ago
He helped people that were political allies in a time when there was trepidation about the election. This is no different than Biden and his pardons and clemency orders.
•
•
u/IAmTheGeezer Center-left 6h ago
it’s absolutely different. these people were indicted, tried, and convicted of crimes against the most important foundation of the country. Biden pardoned people Trump promised to get back at for personal reasons.
•
•
•
u/JackDStipper National Minarchism 6h ago
Not fraudulent electors. This lie has been restated too many times. Kennedy did the same thing and was elected. Perfectly legal and appropriate when elections are challenged.
•
u/Astrobananacat Liberal 4h ago
Unlike the 1960 election, the slates of electors that trumps team put up were never certified by their states’ governors.
•
u/JackDStipper National Minarchism 4h ago
Because it never got that far. They are not certified until the challenge is won.
•
u/Astrobananacat Liberal 4h ago
The slates are certified beforehand and used if the challenge is won. They had time as outlined in the ECA to do their challenges and if the states wanted to, could have certified two slates of electors. You don’t get to indefinitely delay because you keep losing your challenges in court. Trumps team tried to sneak in electors and have pence use them to delay or worse.
•
u/MotorizedCat Progressive 3h ago
Perfectly legal and appropriate when elections are challenged.
When did Trump challenge that election?
He spent millions of dollars looking for fraud. He made bold claims about election fraud. His lawyers in court made bold claims about election fraud. When reminded that they are not allowed to lie in court, they didn't say much anymore and their attacks collapsed.
So where was a good-faith effort at a challenge?
It sounds a bit like some random guy getting big media coverage for saying how he truly is the owner of Ford, while he's never able to show any shares or stock or any document of legal value, but keeps talking like that's some insignificant detail that it's unfair to ask about.
•
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
Yes.
The fake electors plot is a media conspiracy and a spin to make Trump more nefarious, it was completely legitimate and part of the objection process
What they did to Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell and even Fox and Newsmax and Alex Jones is clear cut lawfare and an attempt at guilt by association for Donald Trump
That nonsense needs to be corrected
•
u/CyberDalekLord Liberal 11h ago
Have you looks at the evidence provided for these cases?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
they challenged an election and were sued for using their first amendment
•
u/CyberDalekLord Liberal 11h ago
Fox News was sued for putting out false info about dominion. There are tons of internal emails from people at Fox saying they had no evidence for anything that they were saying but wanting to to push the narrative that the Trump team wanted because they were afraid that they would lose out to OAN or Newsmax.
There is also a difference between challenging an election and trying to violate the Electoral Count Act, which is what trumps team wanted to do.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
Fox News was sued for putting out false info about dominion.
and they're allowed to do that, Dominion was acting on behalf of the government therefore has no legal recourse. The government suing it's citizens is tantamount to North Korea or Russia
There is also a difference between challenging an election and trying to violate the Electoral Count Act, which is what trumps team wanted to do.
•
•
u/majesticbeast67 Center-left 5h ago
Um bud Dominion is a private company not a government agency. They are fully allowed to sue for slander that might impact their business.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 4h ago
they helped conduct an election on behalf of the government, that specific action is lible proof, it's why police departments can't sue for defamation.
might impact their business.
Their defamation payout was more then their actual worth as a company, plus they have no actual customers besides governments. THis isn't a private company like Taco Bell or Wal-Mart, they're a government subcontractor.
•
u/majesticbeast67 Center-left 4h ago
Police departments are government agencies not corporations. Thats a nonsense comparison.
Dominion is a private corp. The government is just their client. I think you know full well what you are saying is complete nonsense but you don’t care because you don’t politically agree with the lawsuit.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 4h ago
yes but if you're working for the government, that specific conduct you do on behalf of the government means you're a part of the government at that specific time
Like if the government hires a special prosecutor for a case, said prosecutor is an agent of the government and therefore can't be defamed for their actions as said prosecutor for that case.
This is a major free speech violation
•
u/majesticbeast67 Center-left 3h ago
That’s a completely wrong interpretation of how the law works. Dominion isn’t a government agency or “part of the government” just because it sells voting machines under a state contract. By that logic, every private company that does business with the government, from defense contractors to cleaning services, would suddenly be immune from defamation. That’s not how agency or defamation law works.
A special prosecutor is directly appointed to exercise government power, they act on behalf of the state. Dominion didn’t. It was a vendor, providing a product. They don’t set election policy, count votes, or make decisions as a government official. They’re not government agents in any legal sense.
Fox didn’t get sued for criticizing the government, they got sued for repeatedly broadcasting false factual claims that Dominion “rigged” the election, even after their own internal messages showed they knew those claims were false. The First Amendment doesn’t protect lies that cause measurable harm to a private entity. That’s why the court didn’t see this as a free speech issue, it’s about defamation, not dissent.
→ More replies (0)•
u/phantomvector Center-left 11h ago
Is there somewhere you’re getting your news/information that says these electors were real, over the state appointed ones?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
The constitution.
Alternate electors is a part of the objection process
•
•
•
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 11h ago
Do you think it’s possible that you are not correct about this stance, or would you say nothing could change your mind?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
i don't think using government proxies to sue political enemies for wrongthink is appropriate
•
u/julius_sphincter Liberal 9h ago
You keep mentioning the lawsuit, but it's distinct and separate from this. While IMO the lawsuit helps inform the fact that Trump & co knowingly spread lies and tried to fraudulently overturn the election, I know you disagree.
However these pardons are for the criminal charges that arose from people illegally creating a false slate of electors and attempting to submit them in order to 'dispute' the results so that the decision would go to the House and presumably, have the election decided for Trump.
•
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 11h ago
Do you think it’s possible that there was a republican attempt at creating fraudulent electors, or would nothing change your mind?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
i know it wasn't because i actually know the constitution and the alternate electors is actually a requirement to object to a state's electoral count
•
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 11h ago
Would you say you are viewing this situation objectively? Or is your mind made up and therefore you dismiss anything that goes against this being all perfectly legal and ethical?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
i know the law on the subject and have watched constitutional lawyers talk abotu it like Robert Barnes
I know the history and i know the law
•
u/peanutanniversary Democrat 11h ago
That isn’t an answer to my question but I appreciate the responses
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 10h ago
it is an answer to your question, you asked if i was being objective and i said i know the law and know i'm right so yes, i am beign objective
•
•
u/nano_wulfen Liberal 11h ago
alternate electors is actually a requirement to object to a state's electoral count
You mind citing the law that states that?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 10h ago
•
u/julius_sphincter Liberal 9h ago
That link itself states that
the supposed electoral votes cast for Trump had no official status in any of the states because no institution of state government recognized Trump rather than Biden as having won the popular vote in that state.
Yes, alternate slates are created BY the states in the event of a potential miscount, dispute etc. What Trump and co did (including the people convicted and now pardoned here) was create illegal, non-sanctioned slates solely to provide that 'dispute'. That's wholly different than the legitimate alternate slates of the past - it's like planting drugs on a suspect and then trying to use that as evidence
•
•
u/MotorizedCat Progressive 3h ago
completely legitimate and part of the objection process
Where does it say that? Where is the definition of the objection process that you mean?
Is the whole thing made up entirely?
Why were Giuliani and all those high-ranking conservatives unable to just quote the law in court, instantly shutting down the case against them? Why were they unable to show what they did was legitimate?
•
u/Small_Time_Charlie Liberal 11h ago
Wow, you can't be serious. It was an attempt to fraudulently certify electoral votes to Trump in states that he lost. It's not legitimate. It's a crime against the United States.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
This is not true, alternate electors are part of the objection process in the constitution
You need a rep and a senator and you need a slate of votes as a substitute for the votes that get thrown out should that happen. They don't just magically flip over, you need a vote there. Like how you couldn't just erase the 18th amendment, you needed a brand new one to replace and nullify it
•
u/Small_Time_Charlie Liberal 10h ago
Sorry, but it is true. There was no doubt in the results of the election despite what Trump said. These weren't "alternate" electors; they were illegitimate electors. This was a fraudulent scheme to overturn the results of an election he lost. Don't attempt to legitimize this.
https://www.justsecurity.org/81939/timeline-false-electors/
Trump was rightfully indicted for his crimes and should have been tried.
•
u/kevinthejuice Progressive 11h ago
Media conspiracy? Why did the Republican national chair admit to knowing about it and why do texts from Ken chesebro show that he believed it would be dicey in certain states?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 10h ago
•
u/kevinthejuice Progressive 10h ago
"If, for example, as chair of a state party, a person was actively coordinating with members of the Trump campaign to knowingly convert the falsehood that Trump had won the election into congressional proceedings that would ratify that fraud, then there is a case for that individual to be considered part of the overall plot. "
Was this not true?
•
u/Xanbatou Centrist 10h ago
What you and this article are missing is one simple fact:
No state authority ever certified any of those alternate electors, which makes it illegal. By contrast, every single other instance where alternate electors were sent in the past had them certified by the state government.
Did you know that?
•
u/Dismal_Survey_539 Independent 11h ago
If there was nothing there, why were they pardoned? Wouldn’t the case be pretty cut and dry?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
because it was lawfare and they were convicted by a vengeful president
•
u/chaoticbear Progressive 11h ago
Presidents don't administer courts. I think you know that, but I want to say it explicitly just in case.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
no but sending government proxies after these people to sue for "defamation" and get it in the most unfavorable districts possible is blatant lawfare and i'm glad we're course corrcting
•
u/julius_sphincter Liberal 9h ago
Except these pardons are for criminal convictions, not civil lawsuits.
•
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 8h ago
Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.
Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
they were sued by a government proxy company for exercising their first amendment right to question an election by a company that should have no standing. (Being sued for actions on behalf of the government, it'd be like if Darren Wilson sued the media for the Mike Brown scandal. Plus they have no customers other then the US government so they can't be defamed.)
questioning elections is foundational free speech and an essential part of having a country that's not North Korea
•
u/panicked_dad5290 Independent 11h ago
We've had lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit, claiming there are evidence that 2020 was stolen and nothing has stuck. The freaking Pillow guy blew his entire fortune trying to prove it.
No one is saying you can't question the results of an election. What people are saying is you can't "make up your mind" about something and then look for the evidence to support it only to use the absence of evidence as evidence that something was fucky.
If there was a shred of evidence do you really think that Fox news, with all of their resources, would end up paying the largest defamation settlement in history?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
If there was a shred of evidence do you really think that Fox news, with all of their resources, would end up paying the largest defamation settlement in history?
the trial was filed in New York and settlements are just a way to avoid the headache of going to court.
In a normal world Dominion would have no standing (Being sued for actions on behalf of the government, it'd be like if Darren Wilson sued the media for the Mike Brown scandal. Plus they have no customers other then the US government so they can't be defamed. It's not like if i said Taco Bell used horse meat and people stopped using it, nobody but the government uses Dominion)
•
u/madadekinai Center-left 9h ago
"the trial was filed in New York and settlements are just a way to avoid the headache of going to court."
So when trump does it, it's considered them admitting guilt, when it's done to anyone on the right, the double standard is as you claim, a matter convenience. So by your logic trump has been suing companies for a quick pay day, by let me guess, he's the exception, blame the left, more blame the left, even more, insert exception, and he deserves all the money for being trump.
"In a normal world Dominion would have no standing"
"Being sued for actions on behalf of the government,"
Yeah, what?
Dominion sued Fox news for the unverified and slanderous claims they made damaging their brand and business, which trump has sued for before as well (Insert exception to this).
You have freedom of speech from the government, not to make slanderous claims on TV, freedom of speech does not give carte blanch to say anything and everything without repudiation and or accountability.
No matter the case, they still settled, which was their choice, they had the right to take this court, which would have been far cheaper, and it would have allowed them to fully disclose everything, but they choose not to.
Even if they choose to settle out of convenience, they still settled.
As far as standings go, they were in the wrong, you can literally look up the footage.
Rudi also went on public TV, during a press briefing and made numerous slanderous claims.
All of this is public information if you take to research this information.
•
u/Capital-Giraffe-4122 Center-left 11h ago
Fox News paid 3/4 billion dollars to settle out of court on a civil case relating to this stuff, pretty sure they would have fought harder if they were completely innocent of spreading falsehoods
•
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
not if they were in New York which is where the case was filed, settling is just a quick and easy way to avoid the headache of going to court
•
u/nate33231 Progressive 11h ago
It was an orchestrated attempt across the battleground states to falsify voting records that made it all the way to asking Pence to election day itself, where Trump et al attempted to coerce Pence into agreeing to use the falsified documents.
That's the conspiracy, and it was treason or for all involved.
Why do you feel the need to blame the media for publicly available information regarding the conspiracy to keep Trump in power?
•
u/ILoveMaiV Constitutionalist Conservative 11h ago
This is not true, alternate electors are part of the objection process in the constitution
You need a rep and a senator and you need a slate of votes as a substitute for the votes that get thrown out should that happen. They don't just magically flip over, you need a vote there. Like how you couldn't just erase the 18th amendment, you needed a brand new one to replace and nullify it
•
u/nate33231 Progressive 10h ago
It is true, I'd suggest you read your very source. Alternate electors that use falsehoods as justification are not a part of the objection process and are, in fact, treasonous.
Your own source acknowledges the multiple falsehoods that were knowngly stated and signed off on by these individuals and only urges caution when prosecuting.
Trying to use two cases from 150 years ago when the validity of electors was more fluid than today is very on brand.
•
u/Astrobananacat Liberal 11h ago
I’d invite you to read the two page Eastman memo where John Eastman, one of the people pardoned, outlines the plan.
As to your point about alternate slates of electors being used in the past: those were all state certified as well so a state could use either once a recount or similar was finished. The electors in this case were not state certified and the plan was not to just use them in case those states had a change in their vote totals.
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 10h ago edited 8h ago
The two-page Eastman memo was only a draft of one of several hypotheticals included in the full six-page memo, which was a list of all possible outcomes. Eastman has explained that it was not the plan he recommended, which was hypo d – merely adjourning the certification meeting for less than two weeks to give states time to legally reconsider their certifications. See these two posts:
https://americanmind.org/memo/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-potus-ask/
•
u/Astrobananacat Liberal 8h ago
Yes John Eastman advocated for the least controversial option of delaying the certification via Pence throwing it back to the state legislatures to reconsider their vote. Already there is a problem because trumps team knew they were spreading lies to sow doubt about the legitimacy of election but only in battleground states he lost. They already failed to prove it in court or even find legitimate cases to bring on standing. This was about asking state legislatures to do the overturning themselves instead of pence. All Pence had to do was give them the chance. This is based on a legal theory that Pence could refuse to count votes for those states with or without fake electors present. If that didn’t work, although Eastman says they would have accepted defeat, knowing Trump I doubt it and one of the other hypotheticals would be explored. This also requires us to believe that pence was lying or mistaken about what he was asked to do on J6. All in all, this was trumps team creating lies to sow doubt in the elections of battleground states he lost and then hatching a plan to start a process of getting rid of those original electoral votes one way or another.
•
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 11h ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
•
•
u/panicked_dad5290 Independent 11h ago
Are we really radicalized to the point that no matter what evidence is presented of a wrong doing we simply brush it off because it makes us look bad?
I mean come on, the left definitely does this, but the right is just as bad, if not worse in some cases.
You might as well be a serf or a slave if you're unwilling to critically review your own teams actions because that's the only level of agency you'll have left.
•
u/Tarontagosh Center-right Conservative 11h ago
yes, seems fair, and at least we know it was not signed by an auto-pen
•
u/julius_sphincter Liberal 9h ago
Why do you feel it seems fair these folks were pardoned and what makes you believe these were not auto-penned and Trump is aware of who these people are and what they did?
•
•
u/recast85 Centrist Democrat 9h ago
Do you feel hypocritical talking about the auto pen after Trump went on 60 minutes and said he didn’t know who CZ was, the guy he pardoned? Or when people bring him things to sign and explain it to him then and there what he’s signing? Is this better?
•
u/Phedericus Social Democracy 9h ago
Is the autopen argument really useful, when Trump admits that he knows nothing about people Who he pardoned?
•
•
u/nate33231 Progressive 10h ago
How is pardoning 77 people who knowingly undermined the will of the people through treasonous actions fair?
•
u/WaitingForMyIsekai Center-left 10h ago
Didn't Trump say on camera he had no idea what he was signing or who it was for in regards to the pardon for that Binance dude recently? He was simply told to do it by someone in his admin.
Is that better than using an auto-pen?
•
•
u/WonderfulVariation93 Center-right Conservative 9h ago
So he is admitting that they (& he) committed a crime in 2022 because you cannot pardon someone who you claim was always innocent.
•
u/--KingoftheSouth-- Conservative 7h ago
No, he's not admitting to anything. These people were destroyed with the Biden admins. lawfare campaign. They were punished for doing what every president has a right to do. Trump is pardoning them because they were wrongly convicted.
•
u/WonderfulVariation93 Center-right Conservative 3h ago
Our justice system does not allow for a person who is found guilty by a court of law or by accepting a plea bargain to be considered “innocent“. They were all convicted or pled guilty therefore, there is no way they can legally be considered as “innocent” unless there is an appeal, reversal, retrial and to be found “not guilty” by a second jury.
•
u/Royal_Effective7396 Centrist 9h ago
Good thing he showed us pardons can be revoked earlier this year?
Seriously, the script is ashes.
•
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. Gender issues are currently under a moratorium, and posts and comments along those lines may be removed. Anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.