The real problem is that this whole debate assumes good faith from everyone involved. But the fake elector scheme wasn't good faith - it was designed to deceive Congress, state officials, and the American public. You can't treat a deception campaign like it's just vigorous legal advocacy. At some point we have to acknowledge that what happened was qualitatively different from normal politics or normal lawyering. I worry that if we don't, we're saying it's okay to destroy democratic institutions as long as you have enough money and power.

Look, I'm not even that interested in Trump anymore, but I'm concerned about what this means for the future. If we treat the fake elector scheme as normal political hardball instead of a serious crime, we've established a precedent. Next time - and there will be a next time - someone will try something worse. We have to maintain that there are lines.

Can we talk about why this even worked for as long as it did? The fake electors scheme depended on state officials breaking the law and Congress going along with it. It's terrifying that we came that close. This isn't about being aggressive in court - it's about how close we came to an actual constitutional crisis because one candidate refused to accept losing.

I think people who say this are either lying or don't understand what happened. There's no middle ground.

The funniest part is watching people defend this while simultaneously claiming to care about election integrity. You can't care about fair elections and defend fake electors at the same time.

Here's what actually happened in Georgia: Trump's team created fraudulent documents purporting to be electoral certificates from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona. These weren't legal arguments - they were forged papers designed to deceive Congress and state officials. When you look at the actual indictment, there's no way to characterize this as 'aggressive lawyering.' Aggressive lawyering might involve pushing legal boundaries, reinterpreting statutes, or making novel constitutional arguments. But submitting documents you know to be false crosses into criminal conspiracy to commit fraud. The lawyers involved understood this - that's why some of them withdrew from the case or took plea deals. John Eastman's own memos show he knew this was legally dubious. This defense only works if people don't look at what actually happened.

This is what happens when you have a legal system designed to protect rich people. If any of us submitted fake documents to federal officials, we'd already be doing 20 years. Trump gets indicted and half the country thinks it's persecution.

I mean, his own lawyers abandoned him over this stuff. That tells you something right there.

My take: nobody actually believes this except people who have decided Trump is worth any excuse. The fake elector documents were created with knowledge that they were false. Multiple coordinated states. Forged signatures in some cases. That's not a legal strategy - that's fraud. What bothers me most is how many people will defend this as 'fighting back' when it's actually just corruption. We used to have standards.

I think what's happening is people are using 'aggressive lawyering' as a synonym for 'things I approve of.' The actual definition of 'aggressive lawyering' doesn't include fabricating government documents. But if you say that out loud, it means admitting your guy committed fraud. Easier to just change what the words mean.

This whole 'aggressive lawyering' thing is such a tell. If the lawyers involved thought this was legitimate, why did they eventually distance themselves? Why are some facing disbarment? Why did Trump's own team keep telling him no? Because they knew.

I can see why people are tired of hearing about this, but we can't normalize it. The fake elector scheme was a coordinated multistate effort to create false electoral documents. Even if you think Trump's election claims had merit - and I don't - you can't defend the execution. There's a difference between fighting an election in court (legitimate) and manufacturing fake electoral certificates (criminal). The fact that some people keep reaching for the 'just aggressive lawyering' excuse suggests they know the actual facts are indefensible.

The frustrating thing about this debate is that people conflate 'aggressive lawyering' with 'committing crimes.' These are not the same thing. A lawyer can aggressively argue that a law is unconstitutional. A lawyer cannot create fraudulent government documents. One is lawyering. The other is conspiracy. I think part of why this defense persists is because admitting what actually happened means admitting Trump was willing to break the law to stay in power. That's hard for his supporters to process.

Has anyone actually read what the fake electors were supposed to do? They weren't just being 'aggressive.' They were literally trying to create an alternate slate of electors to submit to Congress. That's sedition, not lawyering.

People use 'aggressive lawyering' to describe a lot of things. But when you're literally creating false electoral certificates and trying to get state officials to sign them, you've crossed from lawyering into criminal conspiracy. Rudy Giuliani's own team distanced themselves from this because they understood the distinction.

I don't understand how people square this circle. You either believe in election integrity or you don't. Fake electors means you don't.

Look, I supported Trump in 2016. But this fake elector thing - you can't explain that away. My brother's a lawyer and even he said there's no legal theory that covers what happened there. It's just crime.

TBH I think we're missing the forest for the trees here. The real question is why did it take years to indict anyone and why are trials still happening? The justice system moves at a snail's pace for powerful people.

The fake electors scheme was coordinated across multiple states with forged documents submitted to Congress. Call it what it is - a conspiracy to defraud the United States. No legitimate attorney advises this.

No reasonable person with a law degree believes this. It's either a cynical talking point or actual delusion at this point.