for potential inclusion in the fraudulent elector certificates. A Campaign official cautioned not to offer the conditional language to other states because “[t]he other States are signing what he prepared – if it gets out we changed the language for PA it could snowball.” In some cases, the Defendant’s electors refused to participate in the plan.
62. On December 13, Co-Conspirator 5 sent Co-Conspirator 1 an email memorandum that further confirmed that the conspirators’ plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant’s litigation was successful in one of the targeted states—instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress’s certification proceeding.
63. On December 13, the Defendant asked the Senior Campaign Advisor for an update on “what was going on” with the elector plan and directed him to “put out [a] statement on electors.” As a result, Co-Conspirator 1 directed the Senior Campaign Advisor to join a conference call with him, Co-Conspirator 6, and others. When the Senior Campaign Advisor related these developments in text messages to the Deputy Campaign Manager, a Senior Advisor to the Defendant, and a Campaign staffer, the Deputy Campaign Manager responded, “Here’s the thing the way this has morphed it’s a crazy play so I don’t know who wants to put their name on it.” The Senior Advisor wrote, “Certifying illegal votes.” In turn, the participants in the group text message refused to have a statement regarding electors attributed to their names because none of them could “stand by it.”
64. Also on December 13, at a Campaign staffer’s request, Co-Conspirator 5 drafted and sent fraudulent elector certificates for the Defendant’s electors in New Mexico, which had not previously been among the targeted states, and where there was no pending litigation on the Defendant’s behalf. The next day, the Defendant’s Campaign filed an election challenge suit in
- 25 -
