Fani Willis holds proof clearing Georgia’s alternate electors.

Fulton County ⁣District Attorney Possesses Exonerating Evidence

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis possesses evidence ​that exonerates several Republicans she’s⁣ targeting in her‌ legal crusade against former President Donald⁣ Trump⁢ and other Republicans for their lawful⁢ contesting of Georgia’s flawed 2020 election.

In ​her⁤ Aug. 14 indictment,⁣ Willis alleged the existence of Republican electors for‌ Trump constituted an unlawful “conspiracy” to overturn the Peach State’s 2020 election​ results. Among ⁢those charged for partaking in this so-called “conspiracy” are David‌ Shafer, ​one of⁢ Georgia’s 2020 Republican ‍electors, and Ray Smith, who served as one of Trump’s lawyers at the ⁤time of the contest.

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.”

For context, Shafer and Trump filed a​ lawsuit against⁢ Secretary⁣ of​ State Raffensberger in Fulton County‌ state court⁤ on‍ Dec. 4, ⁣2020, alleging tens of thousands of illegal‌ votes ‍had been cast in the state’s presidential election. The suit came after a recount, requested by Trump, deemed Biden the winner of Georgia’s 16 electoral votes by a margin of ⁤11,779. The recount prompted Raffensberger to recertify the election on Dec. 7 while Trump’s legal challenge ‍remained ongoing.

By the time‍ Dec. ⁤14, 2020,‍ arrived‍ — the⁢ day ⁤on which nominees for​ presidential electors are required by federal⁣ law to meet — Trump and Shafer’s lawsuit‌ was ⁢still pending. As⁤ such, Georgia’s ​Republican nominees, including⁢ Shafer, cast their electoral votes for Trump‌ while the state’s Democrat nominees cast theirs for Biden.

During the Dec. 14, 2020, meeting, Shafer further clarified the legal rationale for‍ filing alternate electors in a conversation with Smith, asking‌ Trump’s then-lawyer: “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,” Smith replied.

The​ ‘Fake Electors’ Charges Are ⁣Fake​ News

Contrary to Willis’ indictments,‍ constitutional law specialists such as Todd Zywicki, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin​ Scalia Law ⁣School, have argued the‍ casting ‌of⁢ alternate electors⁣ in Georgia was perfectly legitimate and adheres to existing legal precedent. In a July 18 letter requesting a meeting with Willis, Shafer’s legal team enclosed an expert declaration issued by⁢ Zywicki, in which he ⁢contended the actions undertaken by Trump’s legal⁣ team and ​the⁣ Republican electors in Georgia “followed the Hawaii ⁣precedent ‌precisely” and used “materially identical forms and the same⁤ procedures as ‍the contingent 1960 Hawaii Democratic Presidential​ Electors.”

“At ⁤the same time, the contingent Georgia Republican Presidential Electors publicly announced that the votes they cast and related actions they took were expressly contingent on the outcome of the pending ​election contest ‍and were cast‍ only to protect ⁣and preserve ​the remedies for that ‍contest and ⁢the ability of the ​State​ of Georgia to have ‍a valid electoral ballot for Congress to count on ⁤January 6, 2021 regardless ⁣of the⁣ ultimate outcome [of] that contest,” Zywicki wrote.

The law professor furthermore noted that ⁤in casting their votes for⁤ Biden, Georgia’s ‌Democrat electors were also “acting contingently … as their status as Presidential Electors⁣ was directly contingent on the outcome” of Trump’s contesting of the state’s election results in court. Similar to their Republican counterparts, the Democrat electors​ “made no⁤ similar announcement that their votes and actions on December 14, 2020 were contingent on the outcome of the election contest.”

Shafer’s Ongoing Legal Fight

In light of the charges levied ​against their client, Shafer’s legal‍ team filed a motion last week to have​ his case moved from Fulton County Superior Court to the⁣ U.S. District Court ⁣for the Northern District of Georgia.

In the filing,⁢ Shafer’s ‍lawyers argued that neither Georgia nor Willis possesses the legal authority to charge Shafer ‌for actions he took in‌ his capacity as a ‌lawful presidential elector and ⁣further⁣ requested ⁣the federal court “assert its habeas⁣ or⁢ equitable jurisdiction to bar the State’s‌ prosecution.” Shafer’s team further ⁣contended the state’s ‌prosecution “seeks to criminalize a political dispute that only Congress possesses the⁤ authority to‍ resolve.”

“Like⁢ Members of ⁣Congress, presidential electors are created by the Constitution, elected by the States, but serve a federal role under​ federal authority,” the motion reads. “Just as Members of Congress are federal officers” under federal⁤ law, “so too then,‌ by the‍ same analogy, are presidential electors. Mr. Shafer was an officer of the United States for the broad purposes of ​removal under” the same statute.