{"id":4687,"date":"2023-08-04T00:24:09","date_gmt":"2023-08-04T00:24:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=4687"},"modified":"2023-08-04T01:03:30","modified_gmt":"2023-08-04T01:03:30","slug":"wisconsin-fake-electors-11-facts-that-exonerate-them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=4687","title":{"rendered":"Wisconsin \u2018Fake Electors\u2019: 11 Facts That Exonerate Them"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.wisconsinrightnow.com\/wisconsin-fake-electors\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\"wisconsin<\/p>\n

Here are 11 facts that exonerate the so-called Wisconsin \u201cfake electors.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

After Jack Smith\u2019s flawed, second indictment<\/a> against former President Donald Trump, the Wisconsin news media lurched into overdrive in an attempt to smear the so-called Wisconsin \u201cfake electors,\u201d repeatedly asking Democratic state Attorney General Josh Kaul whether he will prosecute them.<\/p>\n

However, the new Trump indictment would make a Kaul prosecution exceptionally difficult. There are a number of mitigating facts about Wisconsin\u2019s alternate electors that you might not have heard. Furthermore, there are key differences between the criminally charged \u201cfake electors\u201d in Michigan and those in Wisconsin. Instead of carefully presenting these facts, some in the media are running \u201cbios\u201d of the so-called fake electors; one even gratuitously and irrelevantly mentioned who had kids.<\/p>\n

Look, we don\u2019t think President Trump won the 2020 election, and we wish he would have stopped talking about the 2020 election a long time ago and shifted the narrative to the future. We don\u2019t think the \u201cfake elector\u201d schemes were a good idea, or should have occurred, although that\u2019s a far cry from whether they were criminal.<\/p>\n

However, when it comes to Wisconsin\u2019s slate of \u201calternate electors\u201d (to use a warring term), the facts known now point away from criminal wrongdoing.<\/p>\n

In Wisconsin, Kaul previously said<\/a> he wanted to see how federal prosecutors proceeded before making a decision and, after the 3rd indictment, he said he\u2019s reviewing it \u201ccarefully.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here are the 11 facts you may not know:<\/p>\n

1. The evidence shows Wisconsin\u2019s electors believed their votes would only be used if Trump prevailed in court
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Former Wisconsin GOP chair Andrew Hitt, one of the alternate electors, gave a detailed deposition<\/a> before the House Committee investigating Jan. 6. In it, he repeatedly states that he and others thought the alternate electors would only be used if Trump prevailed in court.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is an extremely important point. Far from a plot to subvert the system, the Wisconsin alternate electors were waiting to see what the system did, and whether it would side with Trump.<\/p>\n

In that deposition, Hitt made it clear that he didn\u2019t think the alternate electors would have any force of law if the courts did not side with Trump. Hitt repeatedly testified that he was not aware of any plan to present the alternate electors as valid absent a court victory.<\/p>\n

The indictment cites a November 18 memo by a Wisconsin-focused attorney (and alleged \u201cco-conspirator\u201d of Trump) that the electors should meet and cast votes on December 14 to present an alternative to the Wisconsin elector slate \u201cin the event the Defendant ultimately prevailed in the state.\u201d (Our emphasis).<\/strong><\/p>\n

The indictment says this switched to a plan at the national level to have the vice president open and count the \u201cfraudulent votes\u201d on Jan. 6 to set up a fake controversy and derail the proper certification.<\/p>\n

However, Hitt\u2019s testimony indicates that the Wisconsin electors (and the Republican National Committee chairwoman) weren\u2019t aware of that alleged scheme.<\/p>\n

\u201cI was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor,\u201d Hitt testified. \u201cSo that would have been using our electors \u2013 well it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren\u2019t told about and wouldn\u2019t have supported.\u201d In fact, he said that he did not want the alternate electors used on the basis of Trump\u2019s fraud allegations alone, but only if a court agreed with Trump.<\/p>\n

\u201cDid anyone ever tell you that your alternate \u2014 this alternate slate of Republican Party electors could be counted on January 6th even if the litigation did not overturn the, you know, certified results of the vote in Wisconsin?\u201d he was asked.<\/p>\n

Hitt responded, \u201cNo.\u201d And he added, \u201cI even said it at our electors meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n

2. The indictment says some so-called fake electors were \u201ctricked\u201d by the Trump campaign<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is probably the KEY point. According to the indictment, some of the alternate electors in the seven targeted states were tricked. The RNC chair was also misled, the indictment says.<\/p>\n

\u201cSome fraudulent electors were tricked<\/strong> into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the defendant never did,\u201d the indictment says. Our emphasis. Although the indictment doesn\u2019t specify which state\u2019s electors were \u201ctricked,\u201d Hitt\u2019s testimony indicates Wisconsin\u2019s were among them.<\/p>\n

Trump and his alleged co-conspirators \u201cultimately used the certificates of these fraudulent electors to deceitfully target the government function, and did so contrary to how fraudulent electors were told they would be used<\/strong>,\u201d the indictment says. Our emphasis. The co-conspirators are NOT the Wisconsin alternate electors, per the indictment. They are five attorneys operating on a national level (including Rudy Giuliani and a lawyer based in another state working closely with Wisconsin) and an unidentified political consultant.<\/p>\n

An alleged co-conspirator told the RNC chairwoman falsely that \u201csuch electors would be used only if ongoing litigation in one of the states changed the results in the Defendant\u2019s favor,\u201d the indictment says.<\/p>\n

The indictment alleges that Trump and \u201cco-conspirators\u201d developed a plan in early December 2020 to marshal individuals who would have served as his electors and cause<\/strong> those individuals to send to the Vice president and Congress \u201cfalse certifications that they were legitimate electors.\u201d<\/p>\n

The memo \u201cdid not reveal the intended fraudulent use of the defendant\u2019s electors,\u201d it\u2019s alleged.<\/p>\n

3. There was pending litigation in Wisconsin at the time & it was not frivolous but rather based on serious legal issues
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

That wasn\u2019t true in all other states, but in Wisconsin it was; at the time the alternate electors in Wisconsin met, they still thought Trump had valid legal arguments relating to the election.<\/p>\n

These were not crazy or frivolous arguments. For example, as the indictment pointed out, Trump was raising questions about absentee ballots. On the same day the electors met, on December 14, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against Trump. However, he appealed, and that was pending.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear \u201cformer President Donald Trump\u2019s lawsuit challenging the 2020 presidential election results in Wisconsin,\u201d WBAY-TV reported in March 2021.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

That was months after Wisconsin\u2019s alternate electors met.<\/p>\n

In his deposition, Hitt repeatedly stressed that there was pending litigation.<\/p>\n

Specifically, Trump\u2019s campaign was appealing a 4-3 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Republican officials like Hitt believed Trump had a chance of prevailing because the deciding vote, Brian Hagedorn, used a rare legal argument, the vote was so close, and the U.S. Supreme Court was conservative-controlled.<\/p>\n

In other words, at the time the electors met, the president was still following the legal process, which was his very right, and there was a chance he could prevail.<\/p>\n

As with indefinitely confined voters and Democracy in the Park, legal concerns were not prima facie ridiculous in Wisconsin. They were serious legal arguments.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s two groups of cases going on. There is some Federal election \u2014 or Federal cases going on that didn\u2019t seem like they were going to be very successful,\u201d Hitt said in his testimony.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd then we had our Wisconsin recount and Wisconsin Supreme Court case. That seemed, you know, potentially that it very much could change things. It was a 4-3 decision and being appealed to what I would say a much more conservative United States Supreme Court case \u2014 or United States Supreme Court. So, you know \u2014 and \u2014 and it was very clear that the elections commission really didn\u2019t \u2014 they didn\u2019t follow the letter of the law, you know, in a number of things that they did.\u201d (In fact, the Racine County Sheriff later referred criminal charges against some commissioners, although DAs declined to pursue them.)<\/p>\n

State GOP Executive Director Mark Jefferson said in a statement after the indictment, \u201cas the Wisconsin electors have consistently said, all action taken to produce an alternate slate was only done to preserve an ongoing legal strategy and only to be used in the event a court of law gave the alternate slate meaning. We were not informed of any use of the alternate electors contrary to preserving the legal strategy and would not have approved any other use. Yesterday\u2019s Trump indictment does not allege that the Wisconsin electors took any steps whatsoever to knowingly join a conspiracy.\u201d<\/p>\n

4. Wisconsin alternate electors were operating on the advice of attorneys<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019ve reviewed the names of the Wisconsin alternate electors who the media are listing ad infinitum in stories post-indictment. We know who some of them are. Although some, like Hitt, are more legally sophisticated, others are elderly party volunteers who aren\u2019t lawyers.<\/p>\n

Hitt testified that the alternate electors and the state GOP were relying on the advice of lawyers, who said that, if the alternate electors did not meet and Trump prevailed in court, there would be nothing they could do. They met to preserve his ability to prevail if the courts agreed<\/strong>, Hitt testified.<\/p>\n

Hitt testified that he was told by an RPW lawyer that \u201cthe only way these electors would really count is if a court said so. And then, ultimately, also, the Governor would have to send a certificate of, I think, it\u2019s called a certificate of final determination that would also indicate that these were the electors to be utilized.\u201d<\/p>\n

And obviously the lower-level electors would likely follow the heed of Hitt, the state RPW chair.<\/p>\n

Hitt said he was told that \u201cif we didn\u2019t meet, that it was completely waived. And what I mean by that is, if we \u2014 if we didn\u2019t meet and a court subsequently ruled that these challenges in Wisconsin were successful, the guidance I was given is it would be irrelevant because the elector meeting had not taken place.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cDo you recall a theory that was reportedly advocated by individuals associated with the Trump campaign where Vice President Pence, as the President of the Senate, if presented with dueling slates of electors, could pick which slate of electors to count on January 6th during the joint session?\u201d Hitt was asked.<\/p>\n

He responded, \u201cI never talked to anybody about that, that I recall. And it certainly would have directly conflicted with what our legal counsel was telling us. He had indicated that basically these \u2014 what we\u2019re doing \u2014 the documents are meaningless unless a court would rule in their favor and the Governor would send that certificate.\u201d<\/p>\n

5. An alternate elector from a regional committee was operating at the direction of the state GOP and also testified she believed they were voting in case the courts sided with Trump<\/strong><\/p>\n

If GOP leadership was listening to its lawyers, alternate electors were following the direction of GOP leadership.<\/p>\n

One of the alternate electors, Kelly Ruh, testified to the House Committee<\/a> on Jan. 6 that she learned her vote would be needed by text message \u201cthat was putting me on notice that I may still need to attend the meeting on December 14th<\/sup> in the event that Donald Trump would be declared the winner of Wisconsin after going through various court processes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ruh was 8th Congressional District GOP chair.<\/p>\n

A text message to her from Jefferson was produced that said, \u201cGiven all of the court cases pending we were advised to reach out to the electors over that possibility.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ruh said she did not recall whether she had any understanding at that time as to whether Trump or Joe Biden had been certified as the winners of the State of Wisconsin.<\/p>\n

She sent a text message to another person, though, that said, \u201cI\u2019m being sent to do the electoral vote. What a waste of a day off. I\u2019m so pissed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked to explain, she said, \u201cI was \u2013 you know, for a long time, obviously had planned to potentially be in Madison on the 14th<\/sup>, and then, after Biden had won the State, was not planning to do that. It was a very stressful season at work \u2026 and so, with, you know, many court cases and things being contested after the election, after election day, it was looking like, yes, we would be signing these papers as a backup, you know, on the remote chance that Donald Trump would be declared the winner in Wisconsin.<\/strong>\u201d Our emphasis.<\/p>\n

She added that she was not expecting Trump to prevail in the courts so she was upset about having to use a personal day off. She explained, \u201cWhen you get into arguing these things in the courts, my experience, whether it was business or otherwise, family court, whatever, is that you just don\u2019t \u2013 you hope you don\u2019t have to go there.\u201d<\/p>\n

But she didn\u2019t say there was no chance. She clearly believed the votes were needed IN CASE Trump prevailed in court.<\/p>\n

She said she wasn\u2019t aware of much else, including the Pence approach or the memos. In other words, she seemed to be getting her information from the news or party officials.<\/p>\n

She also testified that she did not believe her electoral vote would be counted.<\/p>\n

Ruh asked Jefferson on Dec. 13, \u201cDo you really think there\u2019s going to be a favorable ruling?\u201d and he responded with a thumb\u2019s down emoji. She was asked \u201cwhy do this anyway\u201d if there was a low likelihood Trump would prevail and she said, \u201cTo preserve the right of the electoral votes if the courts would\u2019ve overturned the decision<\/strong> and declared Trump the winner. That\u2019s it. It\u2019s that simple.\u201d Our emphasis.<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> The state Legislature didn\u2019t get involved<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ruh testified that she believed there was never any legal significance to the electoral college vote she signed because no court or State Legislature ever ratified or adopted them. Although the vote took place at the Capitol, it was a function of RPW.<\/p>\n

7. There was a precedent out of Hawaii<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hitt testified about a Hawaii precedent that some of the alternate electors were aware of.\u00a0 The Wisconsin State Journal reported that this was when \u201cHawaii electors from both parties convened in public regarding a genuine dispute over the 1960 presidential election.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cOf course, there is precedent for such a meeting. Democrats convened in Hawaii in 1960,\u201d Hitt testified.<\/p>\n

Of course, that wording \u2013 \u201cgenuine dispute\u201d \u2013 seems to unfairly imply that legal theories in Wisconsin were not a \u201cgenuine dispute.\u201d They were. We weren\u2019t talking about secret algorithms programming voting machines here; the legal questions were legitimate.<\/p>\n

8. The indictment doesn\u2019t charge the alternate electors or list them as co-conspirators
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The indictment charges only Trump and lists six people as alleged co-conspirators. Again, they have been identified as five out-of-state attorneys (including one, Ken Chesebro, who worked closely with Wisconsin but was not an alternate elector), and one unidentified political consultant. None is a Wisconsin alternate elector.<\/p>\n

Nowhere does the indictment paint the Wisconsin alternate electors as controlling the process or criminally liable. Rather, it paints the alternate electors throughout the country as tricked and misled.<\/p>\n

9. The State Republican Party told the public what it was doing
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Wisconsin Republican Party was very open about the alternate electors, releasing a statement that emphasized the legal angle on the date they voted.<\/p>\n

In a Dec. 14, 2020, statement on the Wisconsin GOP website, Hitt said:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile President Trump\u2019s campaign continues to pursue legal options for Wisconsi<\/strong>n, Republican electors met today in accordance with statutory guidelines to preserve our role in the electoral process with the final outcome still pending in the courts.<\/strong>\u201d Our emphasis.<\/p>\n

\u201cI did not want anyone to think that we were saying we were the proper or the only proper slate of electors,\u201d Hitt testified of the statement. \u201cSo I didn\u2019t \u2014 I didn\u2019t want to make a big deal out of this. This was a contingency plan in case the \u2014 you know, the court ruled in the Trump campaign\u2019s favor.\u201d<\/p>\n

10. The alternate electors\u2019 votes weren\u2019t legal anyway<\/strong><\/p>\n

The votes weren\u2019t legal under federal law, an attorney is quoted in the indictment as saying, absent a governor\u2019s signature.<\/p>\n

11. The state GOP\u2019s leadership raised serious questions about some election claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

The state GOP chair (Hitt) and executive director (Mark Jefferson) expressed concerns about Wisconsin voter fraud arguments being made by Trump\u2019s national team repeatedly, the deposition shows.<\/p>\n

It appears they were very skeptical of the crazier claims and were focusing on the strict, reasonable legal cases in Wisconsin instead (cases where several justices sided with Trump).<\/p>\n

At one point Jefferson asked Hitt, \u201cNow, how are we gonna get this silly electors meeting canceled? I fear that we won\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

In fact, Hitt testified that the RPW left out some contact information for Wisconsin\u2019s slate because they didn\u2019t want the Trump campaign to be able to contact them. \u201cI was concerned that they were going to try to push us to say we were the only proper electors. And I didn\u2019t want them doing that to our individual electors across the State,\u201d he said, adding, \u201cThese are just volunteers who felt like they\u2019re doing a public service.\u201d<\/p>\n

A brief timeline, per the indictment. On Nov. 29, 2020, the Wisconsin recount ended, without changing the result. On Dec. 14, the alternate electors met. On Dec. 21, the governor signed a certificate of final determination.<\/p>\n

The alternate electors are Hitt; Wisconsin Election Commissioner Robert Spindell; Mary Buestrin, a vice chair for the Republican National Committee; 8th Congressional District GOP chair Kelly Ruh; 1st Congressional District GOP vice chair Carol Brunner; former Dane County Republican Party chair Scott Grabins; La Crosse County Republican Party chair Bill Feehan; 5th Congressional District GOP chair Kathy Kiernan; 6th Congressional District GOP chair Darryl Carlson; and 1st Congressional District GOP vice chair Pam Travis.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/www.wisconsinrightnow.com\/wisconsin-fake-electors\/ Here are 11 facts that exonerate the so-called Wisconsin…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":4689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-wi-right-now"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4687"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4687\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4690,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4687\/revisions\/4690"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}