By Maggie Haberman and Luke Broadwater
July 26, 2022 Updated 2:15 p.m. ET
Previously
undisclosed emails provide an inside look at the increasingly desperate and
often slapdash efforts by advisers to President Donald J. Trump to reverse his
election defeat in the weeks before the Jan. 6 attack, including
acknowledgments that a key element of their plan was of dubious legality and
lived up to its billing as “fake.”
The dozens of emails
among people connected to the Trump campaign, outside advisers and close
associates of Mr. Trump show a particular focus on assembling lists of people
who would claim — with no basis — to be Electoral College electors on his
behalf in battleground states that he had lost.
In emails reviewed by
The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump
campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions
repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were
intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in
Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the
outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump
electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.
“We would just be sending in ‘fake’
electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection
when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should
be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump
electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a
strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.
In
a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a
better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji.
The emails provide
new details of how a wing of the Trump campaign worked with outside lawyers and
advisers to organize the elector plan and pursue a range of other options,
often with little thought to their practicality. One email showed that many of
Mr. Trump’s top advisers were informed of problems naming Trump electors in
Michigan — a state he had lost — because pandemic rules had closed the state
Capitol building where the so-called electors had to gather.
The emails show that
participants in the discussions reported details of their activities to Rudolph
W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, and in at least one case to Mark
Meadows, the White House chief of staff. Around the same time, according to the
House committee investigating Jan. 6, Mr. Meadows emailed another campaign
adviser saying, “We just need to have someone coordinating the electors for
states.”
Many
of the emails went to Mr. Epshteyn, who was acting as a coordinator for people
inside and outside the Trump campaign and the White House and remains a close
aide to Mr. Trump.
Mr.
Epshteyn, the emails show, was a regular point of contact for John Eastman, the
lawyer whose plan for derailing congressional certification of the Electoral
College result on Jan. 6, 2021, was embraced by Mr. Trump.
Mr.
Epshteyn not only fielded and passed along to Mr. Giuliani the detailed
proposal for Jan. 6 prepared by Mr. Eastman, he also handled questions about
how to pay Mr. Eastman and made the arrangements for him to visit the White
House on Jan. 4, 2021, the emails show.
That was the day of
the Oval Office meeting in which Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman unsuccessfully
pressured Mr. Pence to adopt the plan — an exchange witnessed by Mr. Pence’s
two top aides, Marc Short and Greg Jacob, both of whom testified last week to the
federal grand jury investigating the assault on the Capitol and
what led to it.
The emails highlight
how much of the legwork of finding ways to challenge Mr. Trump’s losses in the
battleground states was done by Mike Roman, director of Election Day operations
for Mr. Trump’s campaign.
Mr. Epshteyn and Mr.
Roman, the emails show, coordinated with others who played roles in advising
Mr. Trump. Among them were the lawyers Jenna Ellis and Bruce Marks; Gary Michael Brown ,
who served as the deputy director of Election Day operations for Mr. Trump’s
campaign; and Christina Bobb, who at the time worked for One America News
Network and now works with Mr. Trump’s PAC.
The emails were
apparently not shared with lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office, who
advised that the “fake electors” plan was not legally sound, or other lawyers
on the campaign.
Some of the participants also expressed
approval in the emails for keeping some of their activities out of the public
eye.
For
instance, after Mr. Trump hosted Pennsylvania state legislators at the White
House in late November to discuss reversing the election outcome, Mr. Epshteyn
celebrated when news of the meeting didn’t quickly leak. “The WH meeting hasn’t
been made public, which is both shocking and great,” he wrote to Ms. Ellis.
On Dec. 8, 2020, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that Kelli Ward, one of
the Republicans in Arizona participating in the fake electors plan, recommended
trying “to keep it under wraps until Congress counts the vote Jan. 6th (so we can
try to ‘surprise’ the Dems and media with it) — I tend to agree with her.”
Mr. Epshteyn, Mr.
Wilenchik, Mr. Roman, Mr. Eastman, Ms. Bobb and James Troupis, another lawyer
involved in the plan, either declined to comment or did not respond to emails
or calls seeking comment.
Mr. Marks, in an
email, disputed that there was anything inappropriate or improper at work.
“I do not believe
there was anything ‘fake’ or illegal about the alternate slates of delegates,
and particularly Pennsylvania,” he said. “There was a history of alternate
slates from Hawaii in 1960. Nothing was secret about this — they were provided
to the National Archives, as I understand the procedure, and then it was up to
Congress to decide what to do.”
Mr. Marks added: “I
had no involvement with Professor Eastman’s advice regarding the vice
president’s role, which I only learned about after the fact, and do not
support.”
The House committee investigating the Jan.
6 attack on the Capitol has produced evidence that Mr. Trump was aware of the
electors plan. Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National
Committee, said in a deposition to the panel that Mr. Trump had called her and
put Mr. Eastman on the phone “to talk about the importance of the R.N.C.
helping the campaign gather these contingent electors.”
The
panel has also heard testimony from
Mr. Jacob , who was
Mr. Pence’s counsel in the White House, that Mr. Eastman admitted in the Jan. 4
Oval Office meeting — with Mr. Trump present — that his plan to have Mr. Pence
obstruct the electoral certification violated the Electoral Count Act.
The emails show less
than lawyerly precision at times. Mr. Marks repeatedly referred to Cleta
Mitchell, another lawyer helping Mr. Trump, as “Clita” and “Clavita,” prompting
Mr. Epshteyn to reply: “It’s Cleta, not Clavita.”
Another time, Mr.
Epshteyn wrote to Mr. Marks: “Do you mean Arizona when you say Nevada???”
By early December,
Mr. Epshteyn was seemingly helping to coordinate the efforts, conferring
repeatedly with Mr. Marks and others. Mr. Wilenchik told his fellow lawyers he
had been discussing an idea proposed by still another lawyer working with the
campaign, Kenneth Chesebro, an ally of Mr. Eastman’s, to submit slates of
electors loyal to Mr. Trump.
“His idea is
basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their
votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law — because they’re
not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about
whether they should be counted on January 6th,” Mr. Wilenchik wrote in the
email on Dec. 8, 2020, to Mr. Epshteyn and half a dozen other people.
“Kind
of wild/creative — I’m happy to discuss,” Mr. Wilenchik continued. “My comment
to him was that I guess there’s no harm in it, (legally at least) — i.e. we
would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in
Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start
arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted.”
As they organized the fake elector scheme,
lawyers appointed a “point person” in seven states to help organize those
electors who were willing to sign their names to false documents. In
Pennsylvania, that point person was Douglas V. Mastriano ,
a proponent of Mr. Trump’s lies of a stolen election who is now the Republican
nominee for governor.
But
even Mr. Mastriano needed assurances to go along with a plan other Republicans
were telling him was “illegal,” according to a Dec. 12 email sent by Ms. Bobb
that also referred to Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City.
“Mastriano needs a
call from the mayor. This needs to be done. Talk to him about legalities of
what they are doing,” she wrote, adding: “Electors want to be reassured that
the process is * legal * essential for greater strategy.”
The emails showed the
group initially hoped to get Republican state legislatures or governors to join
their plans and give them the imprimatur of legitimacy. But by December, it was
clear no authorities would agree to go along, so the Trump lawyers set their
sights on pressuring Mr. Pence, who was scheduled to preside over a joint
session of Congress on Jan. 6.
On Dec. 7, Mr.
Troupis, who worked for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, wrote to Mr. Epshteyn
that there was “no need for the legislators to act.” He cited Mr. Chesebro’s legal analysis that
the key to Mr. Trump’s hopes was not blocking state certification of the
electors on Dec. 14, but creating a reason for Mr. Pence to block or delay
congressional certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6.
“The second slate
just shows up at noon on Monday and votes and then transmits the results,” Mr.
Troupis wrote of organizing Republican slates of electors to cast ballots for
Mr. Trump on Dec. 14. “It is up to Pence on Jan 6 to open them. Our strategy, which
we believe is replicable in all 6 contested states, is for the electors to meet
and vote so that an interim decision by a Court to certify Trump the winner can
be executed on by the Court ordering the Governor to issue whatever is required
to name the electors. The key nationally would be for all six states to do it
so the election remains in doubt until January.”
The documents also demonstrated the legal
team had relied on widely debunked information to point to broad claims of
election fraud. On Dec. 17, Mr. Epshteyn wrote to Mr. Giuliani that a document
on election fraud created by Mr. Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro — which
has been discredited in public reporting, by state officials and courts —
“appears to be the most comprehensive summary of voter fraud from this election
season.”
The
lawyers were aware their legal efforts were being ridiculed. On Dec. 23, Mr.
Marks wrote: “You folks are getting killed in the media on litigation strategy,
even on Fox and among conservatives.”
But they were
undeterred.
By Christmas Eve, Mr.
Eastman seemed to want to harness the power of Mr. Trump’s millions of
supporters.
At 8:04 p.m. that
night, Mr. Eastman sent Mr. Epshteyn an email that he had received in which a
woman implored him to ask Mr. Trump “to put out what he would like his 74
million followers to do to help.” She added: “We need to be one voice, with
laser focus, SPEAKING AS 74 MILLION STRONG.”
In his email to Mr. Epshteyn, Mr. Eastman wrote, “Thought I’d
forward this. 74 Million strong. Let’s figure out a targeted way to deploy
them. Rolling thunder? One legislature at a time? The others can see it
coming.”
Days earlier, Mr.
Trump had told his supporters to descend on Washington on Jan. 6 for a
“protest” that he promised would “be wild.”
On
Dec. 27, Mr. Epshteyn wrote that Mr. Trump “liked” an aggressive approach being
proposed by the lawyers, and that Mr. Eastman would be the “face of the media
strategy” along with Mr. Giuliani.
“We
need one voice out there,” Mr. Epshteyn wrote of Mr. Eastman, saying he’s
“already been out/liked by POTUS.”
Jan. 6 was just days
away.