Lawyers for some of the Nevada Republican fake electors have made a harsh accusation against the state, saying that important evidence was hidden from the grand jury that charged them. They are being charged because they are said to have lied about giving the state’s six electoral votes to Donald Trump in the 2020 election.
The people who were charged, including well-known people like Jim DeGraffenreid, Republican National Committeeman, and Michael McDonald, Chairman of the Nevada GOP, face two counts each for their part in a national scheme that Trump’s campaign planned. The goal of this plan was to get Trump electoral votes in Nevada and other states where he didn’t win.
Aaron Ford, the attorney general, made the case to the grand jury based on evidence from Kenneth Chesebro, a lawyer for Trump’s campaign. Chesebro said that the fake elector plan was legal because there was a lawsuit going on at the time of the fake ceremony challenging the election results. But the defense says that the state didn’t show important proof that would have cleared them and that they only gave them thousands of pages of emails and text messages from Chesebro after being asked several times in March.
In a recent motion, the defense says that the state was careless during both the grand jury hearings and the discovery that followed, which could make the trial less fair. Their case is based on emails from Chesebro that offer legal ways to challenge Nevada’s election results. These emails, they say, go against the state’s claim that the fake electors did something illegal and on purpose.
In one email, Chesebro suggested submitting different lists of votes, which shows that he thought this was legal even though there was no lawsuit going on at the time. In another email, the idea of asking the Supreme Court to get involved was talked about, though it was noted that this would be very difficult to do in Nevada.
Even with these messages, Chesebro was not optimistic about Nevada’s chances and suggested that the fake election event be canceled. But later, he told them that DeGraffenreid was sure that the Nevadans would work with them, leaving the choice up to higher-ups in the campaign.
The defense says these conversations show that it’s not clear whether the fake election event was legal, which calls into question the state’s case against them. Their motion asks for permission to reply to the state’s arguments, which could change the course of the January 2025 trial.
The Attorney General’s office wouldn’t say anything about current litigation, but they are still sure that their case is strong. The ongoing court case shows how complicated and controversial the days following the 2020 election will be, with effects going far beyond Nevada’s borders.
