@georgetakei

No, you misunderstand his argument.

Firstly, it wasn't a question of overturning the election. The election hadn't happened yet, as it was legally scheduled to happen in January.

However, the Electoral Count Act, and various state laws, did provide Trump with legal opportunities to raise concerns over procedures that states used to pick their electors going into the election. Which he botched.

So his longtime legal advisors gave him legal advise that he was too stupid and ignorant to judge properly, so he really screwed things up.

But the fact remains: he was acting on legal advise about what laws said ahead of the upcoming January election, even if he really botched things in the process.

@volkris @georgetakei The key is conspiracy to commit fraud: the fake elector scheme. It's not a free speech issue at all. Speech in service of committing a crime isn't covered by the 1A.

@textualdeviance

So firstly, it's really relevant that you make this distinction since so many, including legal people involved in the case, muddle that distinction kind of going both ways with it.

But directly to the point, that was a legal strategy provided for by statute and by precedent.

Even if it was boneheaded, it was not fraudulent as it was a legal way of engaging with the laws that had been passed to govern the January election.

@georgetakei

@volkris @georgetakei It was actually fraudulent, though. The fake electors signed paperwork attesting that they were something they weren't: the official electors of the state in question. The plan was to disrupt the electoral count proceeding, declare the fraudulent electors as the real ones, and thereby overturn the will of the voters in those states. The objections raised during the proceedings were allowable parts of the process, but the fake electors and switching to them? Nope.

@volkris @georgetakei The objection process exists when there are legit issues with whether an elector or slate of electors are the official ones. But there was no such situation here. There were the real ones, certified by the states, and the fraudulent ones. The latter were never legit. Ever.

@textualdeviance

But that stance begs the exact question that the objection process exists to adjudicate.

The objection process existed. Trump used it, poorly, because he is a moron.

But regardless, the objection process existed, and we'd be much better off to recognize that and call the guy out on having failed honestly instead of promoting his claims by revoking his access to the reasonable adjudication process.
@georgetakei

@volkris @georgetakei Again, the problem here isn't the objection. It the fraudulent electors, and the plan to use a legit process to install non-legit electors.

@textualdeviance

And again, the process was to determine who are and aren't legit electors!

You're assuming the end of the process that is itself set up specifically to determine who is and isn't legit.

It's somewhat akin to charging a guy with criminal activity for having claimed that he was innocent before a trial.

We have a process for sorting disputes out, and the act of engaging that process is legally sanctioned. it's silly to skip to the end and proclaim that a person engaging that legal process is doing something illegal by engaging the law.
@georgetakei

@volkris @georgetakei Conspiracy to commit fraud is a crime regardless of whether it was successful, though.