Fake Wisconsin Trump Electors, Already Under DOJ Investigation, Now Face Civil Suit, Too
The fake Donald Trump electors who signed official documents falsely claiming that their candidate had won Wisconsin in 2020 and whose actions are already under review by federal prosecutors are now facing a state lawsuit that could cost each of them $200,000 in damages.
The suit, prepared by the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection in Washington, D.C., and the Law Forward pro-democracy group in Wisconsin, was filed on behalf of two electors who cast their ballots for the state’s actual winner, Democrat Joe Biden, as well as a Wisconsin voter not involved in the Electoral College vote but who argues that the fraud adversely affected her as well.
“The scheme to overturn the election nevertheless caused permanent and irreparable damage to the country’s political institutions generally, and to representative government in Wisconsin specifically,” the complaint states. “Defendants not only helped lay the groundwork for the events of January 6, 2021, but also inflicted lasting damage on Wisconsin’s civic fabric.”
It was filed Tuesday in Dane County, Wisconsin, home of the state Capitol, where the false documents were signed on Dec. 14, 2020, the same day the real electors certified Biden’s narrow win in that state in the Nov. 3 election. It accuses the fake electors of engaging in fraud and conspiracy and asks the court to declare such conduct illegal and award punitive damages to the plaintiffs.
“Without some accountability, there could be a repeat of this in the future,” said Mary McCord, a former top official at the Justice Department and now the director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University’s law school.
The 10 fraudulent Trump electors and two lawyers who worked for the former president’s efforts could not immediately be reached for comment.
“The fraudulent electors tried to contradict the will of Wisconsin’s voters, and that’s dangerous for our democracy,”Khary Pennebaker, one of the two legitimate Wisconsin electors among the plaintiffs in the suit, said in a statement. “There must be consequences for their behavior and this suit gives our court system the chance to prevent this from happening again.”
After losing his reelection bid, Trump launched a weeks-long battle to reverse the results through dozens of lawsuits in the six states where he had expected to win but lost. He lost every single suit.
He and his campaign, however, then pushed ahead with a different strategy: having his supporters in those states meet as if they constituted the “duly elected” slates of Electoral College electors and cast “ballots” for Trump. The plan was for then-Vice President Mike Pence, seeing “competing” slates of electors from these states, to either choose the Trump slates or drop those contested states from the count entirely, leaving Trump with a majority when Pence presided over the congressional vote certification ceremony on Jan. 6, 2021.
“It really was because Pence refused to capitulate that the scheme failed,” McCord said. “Even though it didn’t work, it came perilously close.”
In addition to Wisconsin, the Trump campaign organized fake elector slates in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. They also pushed for them in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, but Trump “electors” in those states insisted on inserting language into their paperwork acknowledging that their attestations were only valid if a court or other legal proceeding ruled that Trump, and not Biden, had, in fact, won that state.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in January referred the fake elector activity in her state to the U.S. Department of Justice. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul issued a concurring statement, and Deputy U.S. Attorney General Lisa Monaco confirmed in late January that the department was looking into the matter.
Since that time, however, there have been no additional statements from the Justice Department regarding the status of the fake elector probe, and Trump supporters in several states, including Wisconsin, continue to push to “decertify” the 2020 election results ― even though there is no constitutional process for such an effort.
And that is the reason, McCord said, that having a judge rule that what Trump supporters did in Wisconsin broke both state and federal criminal laws is important for future elections.
If nothing else, the prospect of facing court-ordered punitive damages, which under Wisconsin law can be as much as $200,000 for each defendant, could dissuade those inclined to try the fake elector scheme again.
“That could be a pretty heavy financial hit,” she said.
Trump, despite losing the election by 7 million votes nationally and by 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, became the first president in more than two centuries of elections to refuse to hand over power peacefully. His incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol ― his last-ditch attempt to remain in office ― led to the deaths of five people, including one police officer, and the injuries of an additional140 officers and four police suicides.
Nevertheless, Trump remains the dominant figure in the Republican Party and is openly speaking about running for the presidency again in 2024.
________
-
Dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mules Is a Hilarious Mockumentary
A tour de force exploring the limits of how many suckers there are willing to pay for fantasy.
Dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mules is Plandemic for election truthers. For the non-insane, it’s a hilarious mockumentary. Not that D’Souza cares what the non-insane think: He has discovered that there are enough suckers out there to keep him laughing all the way to the bank.
Released by the Salem Media Group, 2000 Mules aspires to be a work of serious investigative reporting which will rock the foundations of American democracy. In reality, 2000 Mules is an investigative documentary in roughly the same way Reno 911 was a hard-hitting look at real-life police work. Though that doesn’t mean that D’Souza’s cash-grab won’t further pollute the political system. For instance, Kari Lake, who can’t wait to get elected governor of Arizona so she can jail her political opponents, is championing the film—which ends with a plea for law enforcement to take up D’Souza’s cause.
Here’s the elevator pitch for 2000 Mules: D’Souza’s buddies at True the Vote spent $2 million on cellphone geotracking data—which he describes as “digital DNA”—that they say proves “mules” were paid to illegally “traffick” thousands of ballots from non-profit “stash houses” into drop-off ballot boxes.
All D’Souza really has—if the cellphone data is real and is really what he represents it as being—is some evidence that some people made frequent trips in areas around ballot drop-off boxes which, by design, were usually placed in heavily-traveled areas for convenience. Putting that aside, who are these mules? Who paid them? Where is the evidence of people making repeated trips to illegally stuff drop-boxes with ballots? What non-profits were involved? These questions are not even asked, let alone answered, in the movie. The theory of the case relies almost entirely on digital maps with dots and squiggles, supposedly demonstrating the questionable movement of the “mules.” Boom-Diggity. All that’s left is for the FBI to take it from here. Or something.
2000 Mules doesn’t survive the most basic fact-checks to support its most important claims. See them here, here, here, and here. But, let’s stipulate that the film’s purpose isn’t really to present facts. Because if it were true that D’Souza had rock-solid evidence of widespread voter fraud in his possession, would a true patriot like him be selling that evidence for $29.99 per download? Bwahahaha. (In defense of D’Souza, that $29.99 was only the premium VOD price. This week he dropped it to $19.99 to buy or just $14.99 to rent. Or you can get the movie free by purchasing an annual subscription to his Rumble channel!)
It’s better to view the film as a performance piece, a comedic triumph where the joke is on the rubes gullible enough to give D’Souza their money.
Some quick backstory: The people behind True the Vote—Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips–have been unsuccessfully hunting the Loch Ness Monster of voter fraud for many years. After the 2016 election, Phillips claimed he “verified” that more than 3 million votes were illegally cast by “non-citizens.” Piggybacking on Phillips, Trump launched a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity” to pursue this and other claims. Chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the commission ultimately found no evidence of widespread voter fraud and disbanded without ever producing a report. (Since producing such a report would contradict Trump’s kooky allies.)
After the 2020 election, True the Vote sought $7 million to chase down new voter fraud stories and shop them to GOP consultants in hopes of getting some courtroom or member of Congress to take them seriously. But even in the cluster that was the Kraken #StopTheSteal show, they had no takers. It was such a disaster that one of True the Vote’s biggest donors, who gifted the organization $2.5 million, took the group to court to get his money back, citing their failed efforts.
All of which goes to say that True the Vote’s tall tales are too dumb even for its biggest supporters to go along with anymore. D’Souza, however, is happy to scrape up the bullshit and repackage it for the direct-to-consumer market.
Some of the film’s funniest moments come when D’Souza summons his fellow Salem Media Group talkers—Dennis Prager, Eric Metaxes, Seb Gorka, and Charlie Kirk—for a meeting of the minds to discuss their thoughts about election fraud before and after viewing D’Souza’s movie.
The “before” meeting amounts to an assortment of pronouncements about how none of these very fine people believe that Biden won. They cite the massive turnout in the election, GOP success down-ballot, Trump’s ability to draw large crowds, and apparent popularity in the face of withering media coverage.
Kirk offers that “millions of Americans know something went wrong, and they have little pieces, and no one’s really put it together.” Prager, somewhat of an outlier in the group, says he wants someone to “show me the proof” of fraud. Which sets the stage for D’Souza to helpfully put the pieces together.
The movie draws heavy suspicions about people who dropped off ballots early in the morning, wore gloves to drop off ballots, and took photos of drop boxes. All this is drummed up as proof of nefarious activity captured on surveillance video. Coupled with the True the Vote’s geotracking data, the viewer is led to believe these were the “mules” making repeat trips to unnamed non-profit offices to collect ballots and “traffick” them to drop boxes. One problem: They have no video showing these individuals making repeat trips to said non-profits or drop locations, or evidence they were paid to do so. Also, one of the so-called “mules” presented in the film has already been investigated by Georgia officials and no evidence of wrongdoing was found.
No matter. Engelbrecht and Phillips make their presentation to the group and the guys jump on the clips accordingly. What Salem wants, Salem gets.
Questioning why someone would drop off ballots late at night or early in the morning is a common refrain, even though drop boxes were implemented precisely so voters could drop off their ballots any time they chose. For this, these unnamed individuals are depicted as dangerous people. Phillips described them as “not grandma out walking her dog.” They have “bad backgrounds, bad reputations, we’ve had encounters with several who are not terribly positive.”
“Violent guys?” D’Souza asked.
“Can be,” Phillips replied. “They are interested in one thing, that’s money.”
But even the Salem hosts seem wise to the game and acknowledge that D’Souza hasn’t, and won’t be able to prove anything. Gorka sums it up with this non sequitur: “It’s the perfect crime because it cannot be curated after it’s committed.”
Kirk says: “I don’t think we will ever know the full story and what makes this crime so compelling and unique is that once the ballot enters the system it’s really hard to reverse engineer it. But when you have the cell phone geolocation data and then the actual footage . . . it explains the sudden spike of Biden support that we saw late at night.”
At this point, all that’s left is for law enforcement to intervene. “There’s an easy way to bust it,” D’Souza says. “Law enforcement has to step in . . . go interview the mules. Who paid you? Where did you get the money?”
Which satisfies Prager enough to bellow:
“They have ruined election day in the United States of America. That’s provable, and that is enough for me to fight the left with every fiber in my body!” This counts as a conversion. But, considering the fact Prager is someone who also believes the “left is destroying Western civilization,” it’s not like he needed any pretext from D’Souza to declare total war on the Democrats. That’s just a regular day at the office for the old man.
The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro reviewed 2000 Mules and said, “my problem with the documentary” is that “there are dots that need filling in.” He said:
.You can question all the ballot harvesting; you can take for granted that all the geolocation data that they’re using is actually true . . . that does not mean all those ballots are illegal votes. . . . . What you need is actual evidence of people going to multiple drop boxes that isn’t just the cell phone data moving past the drop boxes. . . I guess what I would say is an answer that’s gonna make nobody happy. I think that the data is really interesting. I think that it’s really suspicious for sure, I don’t think it’s just positive that this alone shifted the election . . . I think the conclusion of the film is not justified by the premises of the film itself. There are a bunch of dots that need to be connected. Maybe they will be connected, but they haven’t been connected in the film.
But I suspect that D’Souza is delighted with even the critical reviews. A hate watch is still a watch. All the people talking and writing about 2000 Mules means more relevance and more downloads and more income. Despite being released only on “non-cancelable” platforms, D’Souza says the film has grossed $10 million.
What burns D’Souza are the people who won’t give him attention—especially those at Fox News and Newsmax. And why shouldn’t he be? The movie’s storyline, complete with a brown menace subplot, is tailor-made for their audiences. At one point in the film, a woman, who keeps her identity hidden, says she worked as a “mule” in Yuma County, Arizona, on behalf of an organization that collected ballots from Hispanic people who were unable for various reasons to get to the polls. “Most of the Hispanics that live in the town are not well educated as far as the law . . . I call it the Mexican mafia, seriously because they work like that.”
How could Fox and Newsmax resist this premium content? Probably because the executives at these infotainment companies are wary of fighting another round of lawsuits for pushing bogus election claims. Dinesh D’Souza is judgment proof. Fox and Newsmax aren’t.
Donald Trump is mad about the Fox blackout, too. He gave the film a glitzy premiere at Mar-a-Lago, and still, no love from Tucker Carlson. Waaaah.
“Fox News is no longer Fox News,” Trump posted on his Truth Social account. “They won’t even show or discuss the greatest & most impactful documentary of our time, “2000 Mules.” The Radical Left Democrats are thrilled – They don’t want the TRUTH to get out.”
In a way, the pairing of 2000 Mules and Truth Social is perfect: A pretend social media company doing PR for a fake documentary, with both siphoning off dollars from gullible superfans.
It would be funny if these people weren’t also the past and possible future of the United States government.
________
In a nutshell: There are plenty of delusional Trump-worshiping suckers willing to pay for a fantasy, or at the very least, desperate for something new to grasp onto to convince themselves that the 2020 election was somehow illegitimate.
Leave a comment:
-
No.Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
You can indulge in all manner of lunacy about how I'm a "member of the left" and "rules" and "living by them" and blah blah blah, but you've just crossed a line (again) and I will not tolerate it any longer. I brushed it off as absurdity the first time, there won't be a second.
I have never committed an act of insurrection against the United States, I've never planned such an act nor even thought about it and I am not about to listen to accusations or snark or even a hint of that vile shit from you or anyone else.
If you want to play around in your own malignant reality, do it elsewhere, because you are not doing it on the WAB.
The only rules that matter here are these right here and you should know them better than anyone else.
I don't recommend that you test me on this one. Not even a little. This subject is closed and I don't recommend you test me on that either. Fuck around and find out.Leave a comment:
-
Actually I rather neatly highlight your hypocrisy. The fact you can't see it is neither here nor there.Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
Nope. it's called highlighting your hypocrisyOriginally posted by TopHatter View Post
Personally no, collectively as a member of the left, yes, by your own rules.Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
You are responsible for any and all actions of the left, just as you claim any conservative is responsible for any and all actions of the right.
lets have a look at this statement by you, in every one of your posts.
"Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value"
and lets change it
"Supporting or defending the left is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at the actions of the left and find redeemable value"
Your rules, now you get to live by themLeave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
1. Very widespread, because no one trusts the information being provided. Case in point the 2000 Mules fact check. Authored by a liar pretending to be a truth teller. Trolls can only exist in the shadows and shadows can only exist when media picks sides.
2. Non-partisan fact based journalism that won't pull punches for anyone.
3. Term limits and a lifetime ban on anyone who serves in Congress as a rep or aide, or in the WH from working in media or lobbying. Congress and government to media pipeline drives a lot of the fear porn narratives.
4. A government committed to placing the needs of the citizen as the first and most important filter through which any decision is made and made in a transparent manner.
5. Replace Section 230 with a law making social media platforms officially public spaces where view point discrimination is forbidden.
6. Actual real civics education that doesn't just say 3 branches blah blah but that is designed to foster civic pride.
7. Related to 6, real historical education. Not just the good, not just the bad but how they interacted to achieve progress. Racist and race hustlers are both types of trolls who peddle lies.
Just my point 02
Leave a comment:
-
The MIGB or whatever abc jargon it gets does not have its own armed officers like CBP does. It doesn't really matter though because it's parent organization does. The government at any level should not be passing judgment on truth. That is de facto view point discrimination. The fact that such an entity is housed inside an executive agency with a clear law enforcement/defense mandate makes it doubly bad.Leave a comment:
-
Just mostly? Somewhat? Seriously, I'm trying to understand what your post truly meant.Originally posted by zraver View Post
Let's put it another way: Are you concerned/worried/predicting that this advisory board will be nothing of the kind, but instead a bird dog for DHS agents to hunt down and arrest people they suspect of being guilty of wrongthink?Leave a comment:
-
Yeah, in to. I caught that. So my question stands: Were you directly implying that Biden's "ministry of truth" by default also has the power arrest and subpoena of its parent agency?Originally posted by zraver View Post
If not, then I'll apologize for putting words in your mouth. I have no problem doing so.Leave a comment:
-
In to an executive agency.... IN TO....
Sorry but it's not DHS' job to determine what speech is or is not allowed.advisory or not it directly runs afoul of the 1A and is likely to have a chilling effect especially given the admins previous comments about working with tech companies to censor speech the admin doesn't like.Leave a comment:
-
My thoughts? No, once again, these are your words.Originally posted by zraver View Post
But let me guess, you actually weren't directly implying that Biden's "ministry of truth" by default also has the power arrest and subpoena of its parent agency, is that correct?Originally posted by zraver View Post
If that is correct, then I'll immediately apologize to you, I have absolutely no problem acknowledging when I'm wrong.Leave a comment:
-
No, I stated the truth, DHS has powers of arrest and subpeona. You really should stop adding your thoughts to my words and then accusing me of your thoughts.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: