Talk:Trump fake electors plot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image request

We have "The authentic 2020 certificate of ascertainment from the state of Oregon", but do we have an image of a fake one? --Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLDITIS

Hi @Valjean:, I'm happy with the outcome of the RM, I just think spitting out the title in the lead like that is a really strange and awkwardly worded Wikipedia-ism, for the reasons given at WP:BOLDITIS: It also gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title; in actuality, it is just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage. So, in the case of purely descriptive titles, we should not bold the article title in the introduction, and there is no need to repeat it verbatim at the beginning of the article and fit an awkwardly worded sentence around it. I'm not sure what you find problematic with this wording. Endwise (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as awkward or in violation of the BOLDITIS essay, which is not a PAG. It also eliminates the mention of "fake electors" and "plot" from the beginning of the lead, where they should both be mentioned. "Plot" is completely removed from the lead, and "fake electors" is only mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. This move seems to bury/hide the topic and is an unnecessary change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased propaganda

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The term “fake electors” is false propaganda and should not be used on Wikipedia. In 2020 due to COVID - multiple states engaged in irregular ballot handling practices in violation of their state constitutions. The US constitution requires electors to be selected in accordance with rules set by state legislatures. In 2020 this did not happen - instead governors, secretaries of state and local ejection boards invoked COVID-based procedures not legislatively approved. The controversy over whether these discrepancies were allowable under the U.S. constitution was unresolved by congress or the courts as the electoral college prepared to finalize the 2020 election. For this reason there were two sets of possible electors available depending on how the controversy was resolved. There were no “fake electors” - simply a set of electors available on each side depending on how the controversy was settled. On January 6th 2021 congress voted to accept the electors despite these irregularities and not remit the question back to the state legislators (as the constitution allowed them to do). For this reason the electors arising from these irregular means were accepted. There were no “fake electors” any more than there were “fake candidates” Wikipedia cannot retain its credibility as an objective source when it recognizes deceptive constructs like “fake electors” 2600:1700:2210:BDE0:242B:95E2:E40:7DB5 (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reliable sources describe this as a fake electors plot. Since encyclopedias simply summarize reliable sources, we will summarize it this way. The idea that these were not fake electors is a bit WP:FRINGE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC) there were two sets of possible electors available depending on how the controversy was resolved is not supported by evidence in reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Are the words of the U.S. Constitution not considered a reliable source? Loltardo (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) There are countless people who insist they know what the constitution says, and some of them are even lawyers. soibangla (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) "the U.S. Constitution not considered a reliable source" By definition, the constitution is an unreliable source. "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" Neither the constitution, nor the people who wrote it have any reputation concerning fact-checking. Dimadick (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead removals

Obviously, the removals from the lead were sourced and accurate, but I've added additional references to the lead, even though we don't require them. Andre🚐 16:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

"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)

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)

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)

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)

"Fake" is actually sourced to Jack Wilenchik, one of the plotters. Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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.  

• The charged defendants are:
  • Kathy Berden, 70, of Snover
  • William (Hank) Choate, 72, of Cement City
  • Amy Facchinello, 55, of Grand Blanc
  • Clifford Frost, 75, of Warren
  • Stanley Grot, 71, of Shelby Township
  • John Haggard, 82, of Charlevoix
  • Mari-Ann Henry, 65, of Brighton
  • Timothy King, 56, of Ypsilanti
  • Michele Lundgren, 73, of Detroit
  • Meshawn Maddock, 55, of Milford
  • James Renner, 76, of Lansing
  • Mayra Rodriguez, 64, of Grosse Pointe Farms
  • Rose Rook, 81, of Paw Paw
  • Marian Sheridan, 69, of West Bloomfield
  • Ken Thompson, 68, of Orleans
  • Kent Vanderwood, 69, of Wyoming

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

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

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))

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)

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

October 2023

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

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)

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)

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)

Fake and fraudulent are effectively synonyms, so they aren't competing for weight. Andre🚐 21:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

Do you utterly discount the mule videos of D'Sousa as impossible? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC))

Not me, Reuters does. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

I consider it group polarization and confirmation bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alternate elector certificates

Shouldn't some of these be labeled "fake elector certificates"? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title mention them? They are just as much a part of the "fake" as the electors. Trump fake electors and certificates plot. Just something to think about. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As a title, I think "fake electors" is succinct and clear. The article should mention the certificates in depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly an option. By dropping "plot" we remove the ambiguity. The article can go in-depth about the plot. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought "plot" in the title emphasized the lack of convictions (yet) and not jumping the gun on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed a plot, and a secret one at that. IIRC, Bannon was the first to give a clue that something was being planned in the background and to prepare for a violent day. To avoid any ambiguity, we could try Trump's plot to use fake electors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"The plot to use their own electors"

What exactly is this section? It looks like a jumbling of news reports about J6 committee findings of various people, from Mike Lee to Trump jr. texting/emailing Meadows or others about their own ideas about how to do fake electors. There doesn't seem to be a coherent "plot" from this content as the title would suggest. There is also little indication that these suggestions were incorporated into the actual Chesebro-implemented plan (I moved a section about his memos down to "planning", where it seemed more appropriate). Example from Huffington Post article cited for Roger Stone's mention: MSNBC’s Ari Melber notes it’s not clear what Stone did next or whether this message was actually given to Trump and used by his team.

The news reporting seems to be largely in the vein of "Did you know notable name X texted Meadows/others about fake electors?", which should probably be summarized somewhere with Multiple Republican politicians and conservative activists, such as Scott Perry, Mike Lee, Donald Trump Jr., and Ginni Thomas contacted Mark Meadows and other Republican officials to suggest utilizing false electors. As it reads now, it seems like a clear example of why WP:NOTNEWS exists. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I might prefer "Development of the plot," but otherwise I'm fine with the text as it is, though things can always be tweaked soibangla (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to make the heading more descriptive of the actual content, and if the content is jumbled, then improve it and use an appropriate heading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, I refocused most of the content around early efforts to contact Meadows, since that is the most prominent connecting factor. Roger Stone was removed, since the cited source itself says there is no indication his dictation was relevant to the eventual plot. Retained Ginni Thomas and renamed it to "Early proposals to use fake electors" KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla

What details were so important to retain? Trump Jr. is just WP:OVERQUOTE with no analysis of any significance behind his words. Andy Biggs' passage is also similarly unnotable on its own, unless Meadows' saying "I love it" is really all that important. As mentioned earlier, the cited Roger Stone portion is from a huffpo article that notes no indication of whether his dictation actually was even sent to anyone. I kept Mike Lee being the source of the idea of fake electors, and the earliest msg from potentially Rick Perry, since those are significant for their prominence. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The plot was in harmony with Trump's refusal to ever leave office

I placed that summary of content in the body into the lead at the end of the first paragraph, but I think it's important enough as a motivational prehistory to the whole plot that it belongs at the very beginning. Can we work out a nice wording that does that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The claim that he privately refused to leave office has not been substantiated with evidence. The claim is made by a single former tabloid reporter in her book she is selling. It has not been corroborated by others, and is based on anonymous hearsay of what supposedly occured in a closed meeting.

In fact the linked article factually quotes Trump stating the direct opposite as follows: "On November 26, 2020, he was asked by a reporter whether he would leave the White House if the Electoral College voted for Biden. “Certainly I will, and you know that,” Trump said in response"

Language indicating that this is an unsubstantiated claim should be added instead of presenting the alleged conversation as a statement of certain fact. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree actually per BLP and the high burden of proof needed that this sentence doesn't belong. Maggie Haberman is alleging that Trump made comments of that sort to aides, and we can include that if it's properly attributed. But, I don't know that we can say he definitively planned to never leave office based on this alone. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's examine this before trashing it because Bringjustthefactsplease's allegations above are simply ignoring some facts presented in the body of the article. BTW, Muboshgu, I do agree with attribution. This has long been my motto: "When in doubt, use attribution." Feel free to improve this.

The information is documentation provided by Maggie Haberman, a top-notch reporter, not a gossip monger, and anything but a "tabloid reporter". It is largely backed by the testimony of Trump's own people (Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell) and Georgia bail bondsman Scott Hall. This is not hearsay, and even if it was, we document what the RS say, proven or not. "Substantiated with evidence" is not a requirement at Wikipedia. "Substantiated with reliable sources" is our requirement. As for Trump, BLP's WP:Public figure applies, which is a lower burden than for private persons. (That's why I used three RS.) Also, when putting Trump's denials up against what nearly anyone else says, you can usually count on him lying and the others telling the truth. That's the case 95% of the time. So some informed skepticism should always be applied to his denials.

Now let's start by looking at the content:

LEAD:

The plot was in harmony with Trump's refusal to ever leave office.

BODY:

Trump's refusal to ever leave office

The fake electors plot was in harmony with Trump's refusal to ever leave office and the White House after he lost the election. Maggie Haberman has described how Trump initially recognized he had lost the election, but then expressed he would "never" leave:

"Trump seemed to recognize he had lost to Biden. He asked advisers to tell him what had gone wrong. He comforted one adviser, saying, 'We did our best.' Trump told junior press aides, 'I thought we had it,' seemingly almost embarrassed by the outcome, according to Haberman."

Then his attitude seemed to change:

"I'm just not going to leave," Trump told one aide, according to Haberman. "We're never leaving," Trump told another. "How can you leave when you won an election?"... He was even overheard asking the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, "Why should I leave if they stole it from me?"

This was confirmed by the testimony of Jenna Ellis in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution. In December 2020, after Trump lost the election, while he was standing in a hallway near the Blue Room of the White House, Dan Scavino told Ellis that Trump would refuse to leave office. Ellis recalled: "And he said to me, you know, in a kind of excited tone, 'Well, we don't care, and we're not going to leave.'" "The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power."

So now we see that it's multiple RS, not just Haberman (who would be enough), and this is also based on video and testimony evidence. Bringjustthefactsplease, you need to be more careful here, and be more skeptical of Trump. When you see "Trump stating the direct opposite", your first reaction should be to disbelieve him. Fact-check the matter with RS, because Trump is never a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I neglected to check the text in the body. I wonder though, with imprecise language, was it really a refusal to "ever" leave office, or was it just a refusal to leave office on Jan 20 2021? "The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power." doesn't read to me as him thinking he's president-for-life, but who really knows. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, with him one can never be sure, and that's a tactic of his. He says things. He wants to be president for life, the Constitution be damned. That's what I get out of that. He said it as a wish. He'd love to do it but knows he can't get away with it...yet. For us, the question of whether he really meant it is irrelevant. We document that he said it. End of story. If reelected, he will succeed in doing it. No one, not even in the military/police/national guard/CIA/FBI will be left to stop him as everyone in leadership will be some loyalist he put there, and the GOP congresscritters will help him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Electoral College rules

@soibangla Regarding this diff where you deleted the entire section on Electoral College procedure in Background.

This entire article focuses on people alleged to have crafted a plot to circumvent and exploit the Electoral College procedure. It makes multiple references to minutia of Electoral College procedure, such as certificates of ascertainment, the Electoral Count Act, the deadlines of certification, the differences between authentic and alternate certificates, the vice president's role in counting certificates, the delivery of electoral ballots, exploiting contingent elections by lowering electoral count thresholds, etc. This entire controversy stems from how the electoral college process in American works.

It would be clearly useful to have a section that lays the relevant procedure out in a coherent manner so that readers can understand what the proper procedure is, how it contrasted with the fake electors scheme, and what elements were exploited to develop it. RS have made such explainers themselves when covering various portions of Trump's fake electors scheme, giving background context on the relevant electoral college procedure that it relates to. I'm struggling to comprehend the standard you are using to determine that this is not useful for the article, but that it is necessary to include lengthy content on news reports of people who may or may not be connected to the actual plan making comments and communications of undetermined notability. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No it would not be useful to have that bloat in the article. An encyclopedia is not a 5th-grader's civics textbook. Zaathras (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm more than open to suggestions for edits on what to prune to include. The idea that there should be no explainers, at least on certificates of ascertainment and related EC processes, sounds ridiculous. This is the English encyclopedia, not the Americans only encyclopedia, and the electoral processes here are found nowhere else in the world and are not intuitive on their own. KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the deleted section contain the most directly relevant background (although the second paragraph contains unnecessary details about certificates of ascertainment), and parts of the third are also relevant for explaining certification. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

plot

I've never liked the term plot. can we change it to scheme? soibangla (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

soibangla already decided. rootsmusic (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

prosecution cases

Currently, the Prosecutions section is a narrative. Since there are several prosecutions now, I suggest adding a table for case summaries. Alternatively, the Prosecutions section can move (and add) to 2021 United States Electoral College vote count#Aftermath. rootsmusic (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

annotated timeline

Since this article is a narrative overview of the plot masterminded by several of Trump's lawyers, I suggest adding an annotated timeline as a supporting article. (Example: Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack is supported by Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack.) Such an annotated timeline for this plot would split-off events from and reduce the length of the embedded timeline in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. (One reference is Just Security's timeline.) rootsmusic (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I still think a timeline for the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election article would make more sense here, per my comment on that talk page. At the moment this article is around 5,600, so per WP:SIZERULE, it's length alone does not justify division or trimming, whereas the other is 21,000 and is in dire need of it. I'm also assuming not all of the November 2020 to January 2021 timeline is directly related to fake electors plot, so splitting the timeline up would make it incomplete. Whereas all of the Trump plot timeline is/should be part of the attempts to overthrow timeline. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not implying that this article needs splitting. I suggest spinning-off into a separate article as an annotated timeline: 1. this article's sections for Planning and Events in individual states, 2. relevant events in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. In the second article's embedded timeline, the plot's events are embedded within the following subsections:

• "Fake" electors.
• Trump's attempt to pressure state officials: 12/4/2020, 12/5/2020.
• Supreme Court petitions: 11/21/2020, late 12/2020.
• Planning for Congress to overturn the election on January 6: 12/21/2020.
• "Pence Card" conspiracy: early 1/2021 (Eastman memos#First memorandum), 1/5/2021.
• December timeline: 12/13/2020.
• Pressure on Justice Department: 12/28/2020.
• Ellis memos: 12/31/2020, 1/5/2021.
• January 2021: 1/1/2021,
• Gohmert v. Pence: 12/27/2020.
• Calls with state officials: 1/2/2021.
• Preparations by chief of staff: early 1/2021, 1/5/2021.
• More pressure on Pence: 1/5/2021, 1/6/2021.
• Later developments: more dates.

rootsmusic (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References