Prosecution Possesses Evidence Showing Perfectly Lawful Intent Of Trump’s Slate Of ‘Alternate Electors’
Should this be enough to throw the case out?
As anyone who has seen David Brock’s 49-page Never Trump document, “Media Matters: War Plan 2017” will know, a plan to dirty up Trump and destroy him was solidly in place long before he was even sworn in as President.
The prosecution we are seeing now — which Trump is adamantly denouncing as election interference — happens to fall perfectly in line with one subset of that document’s agenda. We’ll come back to that agenda in a moment. First, an update on the prosecution.
The Federalist uncovered this critical information about what Trump’s legal team was attempting with the alternate slate of electors. Does this fit with the ‘sedition’ narrative we’ve been fed in the media?
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
Specifically, Willis claimed Shafer and the other alternate electors “unlawfully falsely held themselves out” as Georgia’s “duly elected and qualified” presidential electors. She further insisted these electors — with Smith’s assistance — intentionally attempted to “mislead” figures such as then-Vice President Mike Pence and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger “into believing that they actually were such officers.”
However, among the documents Willis obtained during her years-long investigation of Republicans was a meeting transcript refuting her allegations.
A transcript of the Georgia Republican electors’ Dec. 14, 2020, meeting, obtained by The Federalist, explicitly shows the intent behind casting alternate electors was not to impersonate public officers, as Willis alleged, but to lawfully preserve Trump’s legal challenge to the state’s election results. At the meeting’s outset, Shafer specifically noted how he and his fellow Republicans were acting as “Republican nominees for Presidential Elector,” not as “duly elected and qualified” presidential electors.
“[President Trump] has filed a contest to the certified returns. That contest — is pending [and has] not been decided or even heard by any judge with the authority to hear it,” Shafer said. “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.” — The Federalist
Pay particular attention to the wording ‘lawfully preserve Trump’s legal challenge’ to the election results and the fact that a court decision was still pending at the time. If the court were to have ruled in Trump’s favor, that ruling could do him no good unless there were electors available to affirm his win. If you have heard Hawaii mentioned in this case before it is because they faced a similar situation in the 1960 election.
Trump’s claim is that ordinary, lawful acts have been criminalized in an effort to destroy him and sway the election. That might sound a little bit paranoid if we didn’t have a history like Crossfire Hurricane as precedent.
Now consider the Federalist’s reporting of what the prosecution obviously knew about the ‘lawful preservation’ of Trump’s legal challenge to the court results against strategies explicitly laid out by Hillary acolyte David Brock’s white paper, referenced above.
(What follows are screenshots from that document, with key portions highlighted.)
