What evidence contradicts the claim that the fake electors lacked criminal intent because they thought their actions were legal?

Question

Accepted Answer

The fake electors' actions demonstrate intent to submit false documents, contradicting Skandalakis's "lack of criminal intent" defense.

On Dec. 14, 2020, when the 16 Georgia fake electors met at the State Capitol, Biden's 11,779-vote victory had been certified by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Nov. 20, 2020, after three separate counts confirmed the results. Courts had rejected every Trump challenge alleging fraud.

Despite knowing these certified results, the fake electors signed certificates declaring "we, the undersigned, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby certify" that Trump received Georgia's electoral votes.

This language mirrors the official certificates Biden's legitimate electors signed, but the fake electors knew they weren't "duly elected and qualified." Biden's certified electors held that status.

The evidence of intent includes: nearly identical fraudulent certificates across all seven states demonstrating coordination, secret meetings rather than public proceedings, submission to Congress alongside legitimate certificates creating manufactured ambiguity, and Chesebro's memos showing the scheme aimed to give Pence a pretext to reject Biden's electors on Jan. 6.

Criminal intent doesn't require defendants to know they're breaking the law. It requires knowing the facts that make conduct criminal. The fake electors knew they were signing certificates declaring facts they knew were false.

The "attorney advice" defense typically requires full disclosure to lawyers and reasonable reliance. Did the fake electors tell lawyers they were claiming to be "duly elected" despite Biden's certified victory?

Skandalakis's dismissal prioritized defendants' self-serving claims over documentary evidence of knowing falsehoods.

What evidence contradicts the claim that the fake electors lacked criminal intent because they thought their actions were legal?

Explanation

Sources

Related Questions