3 Alleged Pro-Trump Fake Electors Move to Court With New Demand About Their Trial

by Jessica

As prosecutors pursue those accused of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the fate of three Georgia Republicans hangs in the balance.

David Shafer, Shawn Still, and Cathy Latham find themselves entangled in a web of controversy, facing criminal charges for their alleged involvement in the scheme, whose aim was helping Donald Trump remain in power after his loss to President Joe Biden.

As the legal battle intensifies, these individuals are making a bold move, seeking to shift the venue of their trial from state court to federal court.

Their argument revolves around the belief that federal jurisdiction offers a more neutral and less politically charged environment for their case, as reported by the Associated Press on Wednesday, September 20.

If successful, this move will mean a broader jury pool, potentially less Democratic-leaning, but it will at the same time mean no cameras allowed inside the courtroom.

However, even if their cases are transferred to federal court, any convictions will still fall under state law, barring any future presidential pardons.

At the heart of the indictment lies claims of casting false Electoral College votes at the Georgia Capitol in December 2020, with the intent to disrupt and delay the congressional joint session on January 6, 2021.

Prosecutors claim that Shafer, Still, Latham, and others “falsely impersonated” electors, resulting in charges such as impersonating a public officer, forgery, false statements, and attempting to file false documents.

The defense argues that they were acting as contingent U.S. presidential electors, performing duties mandated by the U.S. Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.

The defense believes their actions were in service of federal officers and thus protected by federal laws.

On the opposing side, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis contends that they were not federal officers but were instead impersonating legitimate electors at the behest of Trump’s campaign, with the goal of unlawfully keeping him in power.

Willis says that “contingent electors” are not presidential electors and that even if Trump’s election challenge succeeded, the remedy would have been a new election, not a substitution of electors.

The complexity of the legal arguments, combined with the backdrop of a polarised political landscape, makes this case a high-stakes battle with potentially far-reaching implications.

Their request will be determined by U.S. District Judge Steve Jones.

Related Posts