to supplant legitimate electors with the Defendant’s fake electors and certify the Defendant as president.
54. The plan capitalized on ideas presented in memoranda drafted by Co-Conspirator 5, an attorney who was assisting the Defendant’s Campaign with legal efforts related to a recount in Wisconsin. The memoranda evolved over time from a legal strategy to preserve the Defendant’s rights to a corrupt plan to subvert the federal government function by stopping Biden electors’ votes from being counted and certified, as follows:
a. The November 18 Memorandum (“Wisconsin Memo”) advocated that, because of the ongoing recount in Wisconsin, the Defendant’s electors there should meet and cast votes on December 14—the date the ECA required appointed electors to vote—to preserve the alternative of the Defendant’s Wisconsin elector slate in the event the Defendant ultimately prevailed in the state.
b. The December 6 Memorandum (“Fraudulent Elector Memo”) marked a sharp departure from Co-Conspirator 5’s Wisconsin Memo, advocating that the alternate electors originally conceived of to preserve rights in Wisconsin instead be used in a number of states as fraudulent electors to prevent Biden from receiving the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure the presidency on January 6. The Fraudulent Elector Memo suggested that the Defendant’s electors in six purportedly “contested” states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) should meet and mimic as best as possible the actions of the legitimate Biden electors, and that on January 6, the Vice President should open and count the fraudulent votes, setting up a fake controversy that would derail the proper certification of Biden as president-elect.
c. The December 9 Memorandum (“Fraudulent Elector Instructions”) consisted of Co-Conspirator 5’s instructions on how fraudulent electors could mimic legitimate electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Co-Conspirator 5 noted that in some states, it would be virtually impossible for the fraudulent electors to successfully take the same steps as the legitimate electors because state law required formal participation in the process by state officials, or access to official resources.
- 22 -
