Connect with us

Wisconsin

A Reckoning for Fake Elector Masterminds in Wisconsin

Published

on

A Reckoning for Fake Elector Masterminds in Wisconsin


Kenneth Chesebro speaks to Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee during a hearing where Chesebro accepted a plea deal from the Fulton County District Atorney at the Fulton County Courthouse October 20, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. Chesebro was facing seven charges related to his alleged role as the legal architect in using Trump electors in Georgia and other key states to undermine the 2020 elections. (Photo by Alyssa Pointer/Getty Images)

WISCONSIN ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL was ready for the question: Why was his office only just now getting around to criminally charging three individuals who orchestrated a plan to steal the 2020 election for Donald Trump, more than three years after it happened and months before the former president will face voters as a convicted felon?

“Our focus in any investigation and any prosecution is not on the speed with which something’s done,” he said during a press conference last week on the steps of the Wisconsin State Capitol, hours after the charges were announced. “It’s on doing high-quality investigations, conducting high-quality prosecutions, and getting things right. That’s the approach we have taken. That’s the approach we will continue to take, both in this case and in any other cases that we investigate or prosecute.”

The three men charged in Wisconsin for conspiracy to commit forgery, a felony punishable by up to six years in prison, are former Trump attorneys Jim Troupis and Kenneth Chesebro, and former Trump campaign staffer Mike Roman. Troupis is a former judge appointed to the bench by Republican Governor Scott Walker. Chesebro is a Wisconsin native widely known as the architect of the fake electors scheme. And Roman was Trump’s director of Election Day operations when ballots were cast in 2020.

Kaul noted that none of the three is running for office and all are entitled to the presumption of innocence. He also said, eight times in as many minutes, that the investigation is “ongoing.” He vowed, “We will continue to move forward based on the facts, the law, and the best interest of justice.”

Advertisement

The fake electors scheme, hatched in Wisconsin, played out in seven states. In two of them, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, the certificates declaring Trump the winner included explicit provisos that made clear they would be valid only if Trump prevailed in subsequent litigation. No charges have been filed or are expected in those two states.

Get 30 day free trial

In the remaining five states—Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and Wisconsin—there was no such conditional wording and evidently no conditional intent. Charges against the participants have now been filed in all five of those states. In Georgia, Chesebro pleaded guilty to a single felony charge of conspiracy and was sentenced to five years’ probation. In Arizona, Roman has been charged with nine felonies, along with Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, for their roles in that state’s fake electors scheme. On Friday, both pleaded not guilty; a trial has been set for October 31. Roman is also facing charges in Georgia’s elections interference case, now on hold as the courts review whether District Attorney Fani Willis ought to be allowed to prosecute the case.

Wisconsin is different from these other states in that the only people charged—so far—are the Trump campaign officials who hatched and implemented the fake electors plan, not any of the state’s ten fake electors. In Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada, all but one of the fake electors were charged; in Georgia, three fake electors were charged along with Trump, while others cut immunity deals. 

It appears as though Kaul’s office is not unsympathetic to arguments that Wisconsin’s fake electors were “tricked” into believing that the document they signed would not be used unless a court sided with Trump. Its 47-page criminal complaint quotes media accounts where this is argued, including a 60 Minutes segment that aired in mid-February. It shows Andrew Hitt (referred to in the complaint as “Individual B”), then-chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, saying he was told the certificate would “only count if a court ruled in our favor.”

Advertisement

Troupis, Chesebro, and Roman recognized no such constraint. As the complaint spells out, they eagerly proceeded with plans to use the certificates to overturn the election result without the concurrence of any court. And, it appears, this determination was cemented after Troupis and Chesebro met with Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, the idea of convening groups of fake electors was raised in a memorandum dated November 18, 2020 that Chesebro sent to Troupis, who was working as a lawyer for Trump’s Wisconsin campaign. They then proceeded to enlist others and hammer out the details.

On December 7, 2020, Troupis sent a copy of the memorandum to a Trump campaign consultant referred to in the complaint as “Individual A.” Troupis’s accompanying message stated that this memo was “prepared for me on appointing a second slate of electors in Wisconsin. There is no need for the legislators to act. The second slate just shows up at noon on Monday and votes and then transmits the results. It is up to Pence on Jan 6 to open them.”

The next day, December 8, Chesebro sent Troupis an email with further thoughts about “how leverage might be exerted” during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021. He added: “Court challenges pending on Jan. 6 really not necessary.” Troupis responded: “This is an excellent summary of the end game. Thank you.”

And on December 9, “Individual A” asked Troupis to prepare a “sample elector ballot” for Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. According to the complaint, “Defendant Troupis forwarded this email to Defendant Chesebro and others.” 

Advertisement

The fake electors convened, in Wisconsin and these other states, on December 14, 2020. Chesebro attended the Wisconsin meeting in the state capitol. 

Two days later, on December 16, Troupis and Chesebro flew to Washington for a meeting at the White House with then-President Trump. The meeting in the Oval Office had been arranged by Reince Preibus, Trump’s former chief of staff. Prior to this meeting, Troupis sent Chesebro a note: “Ken, Just a reminder: Reince was very explicit in his admonition that nothing about our meeting with the President can be shared with anyone. The political cross-currents are deep and fast and neither you or I have any ability to swim through them. Jim.” 

The New York Times, in its article on the released documents, reported that Chesebro gave an account of this meeting to prosecutors in Michigan who were investigating that state’s fake electors scheme. He recalled telling Trump “we had until January 6 to win.” Chesebro also said that Priebus warned him and Troupis “not to get Mr. Trump’s hopes up about his chances for victory,” as the paper put it, adding, “but Mr. Chesebro acknowledged he had not listened to that advice.”

A source with knowledge of this meeting claimed to the paper it was a mere “photo op” arranged at Troupis’s request. But it appears that Chesebro and Troupis did indeed manage to “get Mr. Trump’s hopes up,” and that paved the way for what followed.

At 1:42 a.m. on December 19, 2020, Trump tweeted his now-infamous call to action: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” A few hours later, Chesebro sent a message to Troupis in response: “Wow. Based on 3 days ago, I think we have a unique understanding of this.”

Advertisement

FOR YEARS, JEFF MANDELL of the progressive Madison law firm Law Forward has been pushing Kaul and others to take action against the fake electors and the lawyers who organized them. In May 2022, the firm sued Troupis, Chesebro, and ten false electors, accusing them of breaking multiple laws, including creating counterfeit public records and illegally interfering with the election. The lawsuit led to two settlements.

The first, announced in December 2023, was with the ten fake electors; they acknowledged that the certificate was created as “part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential election results.” The second, announced in March, was with Troupis and Chesebro; they paid the law firm an undisclosed sum and released a 1,439-page file of primary documents, but made no admissions of wrongdoing.

In an email, Mandell says that while he has not spoken to anyone at Wisconsin DOJ about this, “it is clear to me from reading the complaint” that the Trump campaign consultant mentioned a half-dozen times as “Individual A” is Boris Epshteyn. Epshteyn has also been identified by the New York Times as “Co-Conspirator 6” in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Among other things, Co-Conspirator 6 took part in a conference call in which Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani pressed electors in Pennsylvania to take part in the fake electors scheme.

In 2021, Epshteyn was arrested in Arizona after being accused of groping two women at a nightclub. (“I have no idea what’s going on. I have no idea who these women are,” Epshteyn told police. Remind you of anyone?) He ultimately pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

For Mandell, the charges were welcome news.

Advertisement

“Wisconsin voters have been waiting for accountability for more than three years, seeking to hold responsible for their actions both the fake electors and those who helped them perpetrate this scheme,” he said after the charges were announced. “This coordinated and deliberate effort to subvert democratic votes must not happen again. Today is a good step towards protecting our democracy and ensuring accountability.”

Share

THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT filed by Kaul’s office against the three Trump associates includes references to communications that were not included in the document dump secured by Law Forward. Mandell said the settlement included the release of “all text exchanges between Chesebro and Troupis.” A key text message from December 17, the day after the Oval Office meeting with Trump, was sent by Chesebro to Roman and Epshteyn without Troupis being included; hence, it “falls outside of that agreement.” (No wonder it took the Wisconsin DOJ so long to pull its case together.)

That text message from Chesbro reads:

Things might have been different if we’d won Wisconsin, and that had led other courts, and state legislatures, to take a closer look, but now the idea of the President of the Senate [Mike Pence] throwing a wrench into the Electoral Count Act process seems even less plausible than before, for both legal and political reasons.

But I think the Act can be weaponized.

Advertisement

In response to this missive, Epshteyn asked Chesebro: “What’s the bottom line?” Chesebro answered: “If the Trump campaign were to weaponize the Electoral Count Act in this fashion it could put the Biden camp in a no-win situation.”

The concept of “weaponization,” admitted to as a goal by these pro-Trump plotters, is now being used widely by Trump allies to avoid accountability. Here’s how Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson reacted to news that Kaul had brought charges against the three Trump associates:

It’s hard to imagine that Johnson himself is not worried about facing charges for his role in this scheme. He has publicly claimed he had no idea what was in the envelope from Troupis that he attempted to deliver to Pence. But the documents unearthed by Law Forward tell a different story.

In an email to Chesebro on December 8, 2020, Troupis wrote that he “spoke with Senator Johnson late last night about the Pence angle at the end,” adding, “Just wanted to take his temperature.” And in a text to Chesebro on the morning of January 6, Troupis said he had “been on phone w Mike Roman and Senator Johnson and Johnson’s COS to get an original copy of Wi slate to VP.” Johnson did try to deliver the original copy of the fraudulent certificate, but an aide to Pence rebuffed this attempt.

Chesebro, Troupis, and Roman are due in court on September 19. In the meantime, Troupis continues to serve as an adviser on a state judicial ethics panel, the Wisconsin Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee. It is a position he was reappointed to in 2023, long after his role in the fake electors scheme was known, by what was at the time a majority-conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court.

“Troupis should have stepped down or been removed from his seat overseeing judicial ethics months ago when he admitted to his role in the fake elector plot of 2020,”said Mike Browne, deputy director of A Better Wisconsin Together, an advocacy group that backs Democrats, in a statement last week. “That he now has been formally charged at a felony level for his schemes yet continues to advise on judicial ethics in Wisconsin is wholly unacceptable.”

Advertisement

Meanwhile, one of Wisconsin’s ten fake electors, Robert Spindell, continues to sit on the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which will decide contested issues in the upcoming election.

As it prepares to host the Republican National Convention next month in Milwaukee, the state of Wisconsin still has a lot of cleaning up to do.

Share this article with your favorite cheesehead:

Share





Source link

Advertisement

Wisconsin

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Chris Taylor been ‘pushing noncitizen voting’?

Published

on

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Chris Taylor been ‘pushing noncitizen voting’?


No.

We found no evidence that liberal Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor has supported allowing noncitizens to vote.

Taylor and conservative state Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar are running in the April 7 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

A Lazar ad claimed Taylor is “pushing for noncitizen voting.” 

Lazar’s campaign cited:

Advertisement

Taylor’s opposition, while a Democratic state lawmaker, to the Republican-backed 2011 state law requiring identification to vote.

Her introduction of a 2017 bill, which did not become law. It would have provided driver’s licenses to unauthorized residents, but the licenses would have been labeled: “Not valid for voting purposes.”

Taylor’s opinion, in a 2024 appeals court ruling, which said absentee ballots count even if voters’ witnesses fail to give election clerks their full address. Citizenship is required to vote in Wisconsin, but Wisconsin election officials generally do not verify citizenship when a person registers.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/04/wisconsin-supreme-court-candidate-taylor-lazar-noncitizen-voting-election-campaign-ad/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://wisconsinwatch.org”>Wisconsin Watch</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/cropped-WCIJ_IconOnly_FullColor_RGB-1.png?fit=150%2C150&amp;quality=100&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://wisconsinwatch.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=1315652&amp;ga4=G-D2S69Y9TDB” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/04/wisconsin-supreme-court-candidate-taylor-lazar-noncitizen-voting-election-campaign-ad/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/wisconsinwatch.org/p.js”></script>



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wisconsin

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque detained by US immigration agents

Published

on

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque detained by US immigration agents


The president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque was detained by federal immigration agents, drawing accusations from local officials and religious leaders that the arrest was motivated by his statements against Israel.

Salah Sarsour, a Palestinian-born legal permanent resident of the United States, was taken into custody by nearly a dozen US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on Monday in Milwaukee after he left his home, according to the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

Supporters called for his immediate release on Thursday and his attorneys said he was detained on the grounds that he is a foreign policy threat. His attorneys say the claims have no merit.

Instead, they believe Sarsour, 53, was targeted for speaking out against Israel and for a conviction as a minor by Israeli military courts, which have faced scrutiny over allegations of limited due process and high conviction rates of Palestinians. Israel rejects those claims. The offenses included allegedly throwing rocks at Israeli officers, according to attorney Munjed Ahmad.

Advertisement

“Our government should not be doing the bidding of a foreign government,” Ahmad said of Israel. “There’s no question in my mind is that this is to stifle the discourse on the Palestinian narrative.”

Attorneys said Sarsour, born in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, has no criminal record in the US.

Sarsour’s attorneys have likened the case to that of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University activist who faces deportation because the federal government said he was a foreign policy threat.

An email message left on Thursday for ICE and the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned.

Sarsour has been the president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, the largest Islamic organization in the state, for five years. His attorneys say he’s held a green card for years and lived in the Milwaukee area. His wife and four adult children are US citizens.

Advertisement

His arrest prompted outcry from top elected officials, including Milwaukee’s mayor, Cavalier Johnson, who called it “an outrage”.

“He is a legal permanent resident. There is no substantive evidence he has done anything wrong,” Johnson said in a post on X. “This is another example of overreach and harm from the U.S. Immigration authorities.”

Sarsour is being held at county jail outside Indianapolis. His attorneys have filed a petition seeking his release.

“He is ready to fight tooth and nail to make sure that he’s not drug through the mud,” Ahmad said. “He wants to stay in this country.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Wisconsin police can now test saliva if they suspect drugged driving

Published

on

Wisconsin police can now test saliva if they suspect drugged driving


play

  • A state law signed in March allows police to test a driver’s saliva for meth, cocaine, delta-9 THC and more if they suspect an OWI.
  • No police departments appear to be adopting the test right away, but several expressed interest depending on funding and resources.
  • Other states have similar programs, and the Dane and Manitowoc sheriff’s departments ran successful pilot programs in recent years.

A new state law allows police who suspect drugged driving to perform a rapid roadside test of the driver’s saliva to check for THC, opioids, meth and more, though police departments don’t appear ready to roll it out immediately.

State law already allows police to use breathalyzers to check blood-alcohol levels, but those devices don’t test for other intoxicating substances. The new law allows police to sample oral fluids – mainly saliva – when they suspect an OWI.

Advertisement

Law enforcement groups that advocated for the law change say drug impairment is more difficult to identify than alcohol intoxication. Plus, intoxication levels can decrease between the time police make a traffic stop and a blood sample is collected.

“Oral fluid screening would give officers an additional, objective tool to confirm the presence of drugs – much like a preliminary breath test does for alcohol – before making an arrest decision,” Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett said at a December public hearing.

Wisconsin Act 99 became effective March 15, two days after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers signed it into law. The state Legislature passed it in February with bipartisan support.

Here’s what to know about the new law:

What does the law allow police to do when they suspect an impaired driver?

If police have probable cause to believe a driver is intoxicated, the officer can request a saliva or breath test, or both. That’s in addition to field sobriety tests.

Advertisement

The officer places a mouth swab inside the driver’s cheek or under the tongue and runs it through a handheld device, such as Abbott’s SoToxa or Alere DDS2.

The legislation was amended to allow the tests for suspected intoxicated operation of vehicles other than cars, such as boats, snowmobiles, ATVs, UTVs and more.

Are the oral drug tests admissible in court?

No. The test results aren’t admissible in court and must be destroyed or returned to the person after the test is completed.

The preliminary tests are used only to help police decide whether to make an arrest and pursue laboratory confirmation testing.

Advertisement

Have police in Wisconsin tried saliva drug tests before?

Yes. The Dane County and Manitowoc County sheriff’s offices piloted the program in 2016 and 2019, finding that oral fluid testing devices were accurate and consistent with blood tests.

Dane County conducted its study with the State Laboratory of Hygiene and published the results in an academic journal. The study found that 64% of participants arrested for an OWI also had one or more drugs in their blood, with THC the most common.

Manitowoc County worked with the State Laboratory of Hygiene and the Wisconsin State Patrol on its study, which collected 100 voluntary samples. Results showed 41% of OWI offenders were positive for THC, 20% for amphetamine and 14% for methamphetamine.

Which police agencies plan to use the new saliva drug test?

Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association President Danny Thompson said he wasn’t aware of any agencies immediately using the test.

“Although this roadside test will be very beneficial to arresting dangerous, impaired drivers, we have not heard of any agencies ready to implement this kind of testing right away,” Thompson said in a statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Advertisement

A Milwaukee Police Department spokesperson said the department isn’t using the tests “at this time and are still looking into it.” A Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The two departments that piloted the program also don’t plan to bring it back right away.

Manitowoc County Sheriff Daniel Hartwig said his office is monitoring guidance related to the new law but doesn’t have plans to implement it at this point. A Dane County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson said the county would use it “given the appropriate funding and resources.”

How much would the program cost?

Each SoToxa device appears to cost around $4,500 to $5,000, according to news reports on programs in North Dakota and San Diego.

Law enforcement groups said agencies in Wisconsin would likely pursue funding for the devices through federal grants.

Advertisement

Do other states use saliva screening?

Yes. A state-by-state analysis from the National Alliance to Stop Impaired Driving shows 10 states have statewide roadside oral fluid testing programs, and another eight have the program in some jurisdictions.

A 2021 report from the National Conference of State Legislatures found nearly half of states have the law, but few used it. One that does is Indiana, where over 200 handheld test devices are used across 110 law enforcement agencies.

Who authored and supported the law?

The bill was authored by Republicans, including Sen. Jesse James from Thorp and Rep. Barbara Dittrich from Oconomowoc. Several Democrats became cosponsors, including Rep. Lori Palmeri from Oshkosh and Rep. Ryan Spaude from Ashwaubenon.

Supporters of the bill included AAA Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Police Association, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. No groups registered in opposition to the bill.

Advertisement

What qualifies as operating while intoxicated in Wisconsin?

According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and state law, a driver is considered to be operating while intoxicated if:

  • The driver is under the influence of an intoxicant, controlled substance or other drug that impairs their ability to safely operate a vehicle, even if the vehicle isn’t in motion at the time of the traffic stop.
  • The driver has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in their blood. That includes cocaine, heroin, meth, delta-9 THC (if at a concentration of one or more nanograms per milliliter in a person’s blood) and more.
  • The driver has a BAC over what the law allows, such as above 0.08 for first-time offenders, 0.04 for commercial drivers or 0.02 for drivers with three or more prior OWIs.

Hope Karnopp can be reached at HKarnopp@usatodayco.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending