Fani’s Scam: Electors Were Not ‘Fake’ – The American Spectator
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ RICO indictment charges Donald Trump and 18 others with criminally conspiring to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election. One of its major allegations is that the conspirators illegally fielded a slate of alternate electors. The legacy media have characterized these individuals as “fake electors” who were part of a nefarious scheme to undermine the Electoral College.
One of those “fake electors” is David Shafer, the former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and member of that state’s senate. (READ MORE: The Big Lie of ‘Fake Trump Electors’)
Willis’ indictment alleges that Shafer and others “unlawfully falsely held themselves out” as Georgia’s “duly elected and qualified” presidential electors. It further alleges that these persons, assisted by Trump campaign lawyer Ray Smith, deliberately sought to “mislead” officials such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Vice President Mike Pence “into believing that they actually were such officers.”
Terrible, right? Why did these creeps think that they could get away with pulling such a transparent and easily exposed fraud?
Well, as with so much else in Willis’ fanciful indictment, it turns out that the “fake electors” claim is complete nonsense. And even worse, it has come to light that, when Willis and her team of creative writers drafted the indictment, they were in possession of a transcript of a December 14, 2020 meeting of the Georgia Republican electors that thoroughly undermines the prosecution’s “fake electors” fantasy. The transcript spells out in detail that the Republican’s designation of alternate electors was not part of a scam. To the contrary, the clearly stated purpose was to legally preserve Trump’s ongoing legal challenge to Georgia’s election results.
That transcript begins with Chairman (and now Defendant) Shafer calling to order “this meeting of the Republican nominees for the Electoral College from the State of Georgia.” (Emphasis added)
“The President [Trump] has filed a contest to the certified returns,” Shafer continued. “That contest has — is pending. It’s not been decided or even heard by any judge with the authority to hear it. And so, in order to preserve his rights, it’s important that the Republican nominees for Presidential Elector meet here today and cast their votes.” (Emphasis added)
Later in the meeting, Defendant Shafer introduced Defendant Smith.
“Ray Smith is a lawyer for President Trump. Do you wish to make any comments at this time?”
Smith replied, “Yes. We’re — we’re conducting this as Chairman Shafer said, we’re conducting this because of the contest of the election in Georgia is ongoing. And so we continue to contest the election of the electors in Georgia. And so we’re going to conduct this in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, and we’re going to conduct the electorate (sic) today similar to what happened in 1960 in Hawaii.” (Emphasis added)
“If we did not hold this meeting,” asked Shafer, “then our election contest would effectively be abandoned, is — ?”
“That’s correct,” Smith replied.
Shafer then asked Smith, “And so the only way for us to have any judge consider the merits of our complaint, the thousands of people we allege voted unlawfully, is for us to have this meeting and permit the contest to continue?”
“That’s correct,” replied Smith. “That’s correct, Mr. Chairman.”
After the attendees voted, Shafer adjourned “this meeting of the Republican Nominees for the Electoral College.” (Emphasis added)
Now the referenced legal contest was Trump’s lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger filed in Fulton County Superior Court on December 4, 2020. As of the date of the meeting, that case had yet to be heard. But the Republican nominees for the Electoral College from the State of Georgia were legally required to meet no later than December 14, 2020. (READ MORE: Why Georgia Should Run Off Brad Raffensperger)
The issue of which slate of electors — Republican or Democrat — would be certified by the state to the Electoral College was awaiting resolution by the court.
Defendant Smith’s reference to “what happened in 1960 in Hawaii” pertained to a dispute over that state’s electoral votes in the presidential election between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. In that contest, although Hawaii’s Republican governor initially certified the election for Nixon, the Republican and Democrat electors proceeded to vote for their respective candidates.
This preserved Kennedy’s challenge to the outcome pending a recount which later awarded the state’s electoral votes to the Democrat.
Similarly, Trump’s legal challenge was pending in court when the Republican slate of electors met. Consequently, if the court had later found in Trump’s favor, the votes cast by the so-called “fake electors” would have been certified and counted by the Electoral College.
In short, the actions of the Republican “nominees for the Electoral College from the State of Georgia” were legally indistinguishable from those of Kennedy’s electors in 1960.
So, if the Fulton County prosecutors were in possession of the transcript, did they read it? And, if they read it, did they understand it? They should have. There are no big, complicated words or concepts in the transcript. In fact, the language is so simple and the concept behind having an alternate slate of electors is so straightforward that anyone with half of an elementary school education would have readily comprehended that the nomination of these alternate electors was not unlawful, misleading, or illegal. Instead, as set forth in the transcript, it was nothing more or less than a legal undertaking to preserve Trump’s court challenge in the same way Kennedy’s challenge had been preserved in Hawaii in 1960.
All of which raises these questions.
Why did Fani Willis and her staff discount the motives of the defendants as expressed in the transcript and proceed to accuse them of concocting a ridiculous fraudulent scheme that would have had absolutely no chance of deceiving anyone? Why does the indictment blatantly and ham-fistedly mischaracterize and misrepresent the actions of the Georgia Republican nominees for the Electoral College?
And what does this twisting of the truth tell us about Willis’ ethics and integrity?
Her “fake elector” allegations are damning proof of Willis’ attempt to trick and deceive the courts and America into believing a fantasy. It’s her scam on all of us.
They are also an indicator of the radical left’s mounting desperation and hysteria over the prospect of Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2024.
George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor. He blogs at knowledgeisgood.net.
READ MORE from George Parry:
Meadows Might Thwart Fani’s Plan
Read More: Fani’s Scam: Electors Were Not ‘Fake’ – The American Spectator