Kenneth Chesebro, ‘architect' of pro-Trump 2020 fake elector scheme, disbarred in N.Y.
The Republican efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election were multifaceted, but among the strikingly partisan tactics was the fake electors scheme: GOP officials and operatives in key states created forged election materials and sent the documents to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Archivist (among others) as if the materials were legitimate. They were not.
Though the relevant players didn't know it at the time, the controversy has become one of the most consequential political scandals in a generation, racking up indictment totals unseen since Watergate and Iran-Contra.
The man widely credited as the 'architect' of that scheme is still confronting the consequences of his misjudgment. The Hill reported:
Ex-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who helped devise President Trump's alternate electors strategy in 2020, has been disbarred in New York. A panel of judges on the Appellate Division — New York's midlevel appeals court — ruled Thursday that Chesebro's guilty plea in Georgia's probe of efforts to subvert the state's 2020 election results qualifies as a 'serious crime,' a finding that begets disciplinary action.
The judicial panel didn't pull any punches, concluding that Chesebro's guilty plea on one felony count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents was 'unquestionably serious' and reflected on his 'integrity and fitness to continue engaging in the practice of law in New York.'
They added that the Republican's misconduct undercut 'the very notion of our constitutional democracy that he, as an attorney, swore an oath to uphold.'
It was nearly two years ago when Chesebro, among others, was first indicted in Georgia as part of the Republican effort to overturn the state's election results. It was those charges that led to a plea deal, which in turn has led to his disbarment in New York.
But this does not bring an end to his saga: Chesebro is still facing criminal charges in Wisconsin as part of his role in implanting the Badger State's fake electors scheme.
Because both the Georgia and Wisconsin cases relate to state charges, a presidential pardon wouldn't help him.
Indeed, it's worth appreciating the unusual nature of the broader circumstances: Chesebro is still being punished for trying to overturn the results of a free and fair American election, while Trump — who went even further to try to overturn that same election — was rewarded with the presidency.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
Megabill delay 'possible,' Johnson says
Democrats say the Senate's rules keeper has nixed several tax provisions from Republicans' domestic policy megabill, including a special carveout for religious schools from a proposed hike in a college endowment tax. A separate break for private and religious schools was also dropped, as were regulations pertaining to guns. Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is also said to be objecting to a section in the sprawling tax, energy, immigration and defense bill aimed at reducing improper payments of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a wage supplement for the working poor. She also struck plans to up penalties for leaking private taxpayer information — a provision inspired by the leak of President Donald Trump's and other wealthy people's tax information to the news media. The deleted items are relatively small, especially compared to the health provisions MacDonough has struck in recent days that have forced Republicans to scramble to shore up the package. But the provisions nevertheless helped win support for the overall plan from individual lawmakers. Dropping a proposed charitable credit benefiting religious schools could save Republicans money. Still on deck, Democrats said, are their challenges to parts of the bill addressing a tax incentive program for economically struggling areas called Opportunity Zones; a section related to foreign entities claiming a clean energy production tax credit; provisions aimed at preventing undocumented workers from claiming refundable tax credits; and a new savings vehicle for children, dubbed Trump accounts. MacDonough has also not yet considered a Democratic bid to kill Republican plans to use a so-called current policy baseline to measure the cost of their tax package, said Sen. Ron Wyden , the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, in a statement. The announcement comes as part of a so-called Byrd Bath, a process by which MacDonough goes through lawmakers' legislation, provision by provision, to ensure it abides by the Senate's strict rules about what may be included in the so-called reconciliation bill. They're supposed to be exclusively focused on budgetary matters, though, because they are filibuster-proof, lawmakers frequently try to include other provisions as well. The decisions about which items fail sometimes leave lawmakers scrambling to rewrite them so they'll conform. MacDonough does not comment publicly on her determinations, and it's unclear whether the provisions could still be salvaged if they are rewritten. A spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It's generally easier to include tax provisions in reconciliation bills, because they are so closely tied to revenues, than legislative language dealing with other subjects.
Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Newsom sues Fox News for defamation over Trump phone call
California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday for $787 million, accusing the outlet of defamation in its reporting on a phone call between him and President Trump. Why it matters: Newsom's demand for $787 million is nearly the same figure Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit over the network's coverage of the 2020 election. Fox News, Newsom's office and the White House did not respond to Axios' requests for comment. Driving the news: Newsom's lawsuit accuses Fox host Jesse Watters of misleadingly editing a video of Trump to support the president's disputed assertion that the two spoke before Trump deployed the National Guard in response to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles, multiple outlets reported. Newsom denied that Trump contacted him before deploying more National Guard troops to Los Angeles, after the president claimed he had spoken with the governor. "No more lies," Newsom said on X Friday morning. Friction point: Trump's decision to federalize the California National Guard over the governor's objections only exacerbated a brewing feud between the two men. Trump has repeatedly targeted California, threatening to withhold funding for education and disaster recovery and to strip the state's ability to regulate vehicle emissions. The governor sued
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sotomayor joined by Jackson, Kagan on fiery birthright citizenship dissent
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices issued fiery dissents on Friday in response to the conservative majority's decision to let President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order go into effect in some parts of the country. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson that the decision, which cuts back judges' ability to issue injunctions blocking the president's policies nationwide, that the majority played into Trump's hand. She noted that the government has not asked for complete stays of the injunctions because, to get such relief, it would have to prove that Trump's order narrowing birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil who don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status is likely constitutional. 'So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game,' she said, pointing to the Trump administration's bid to tear down nationwide injunctions. 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,' she said. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' Sotomayor argued that the rule of law is 'not a given,' and the high court 'abdicates its vital role' in fighting for its survival in America today. 'With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' She read her dissent from the bench, the second time this term she has done so. In a separate, solo dissent, Jackson went a step further. She called the court's 6-3 decision along ideological lines an 'existential threat to the rule of law.' 'It is important to recognize that the Executive's bid to vanquish so-called 'universal injunctions' is, at bottom, a request for this Court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior,' Jackson wrote in her dissent. 'When the Government says 'do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,' what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution— please allow this. That is some solicitation.' Jackson suggested that the Constitution was designed to 'split the powers of a monarch' between three governing branches to protect the American people from overreach. She said those core values are 'strangely absent' from the majority ruling. 'With deep disillusionment, I dissent,' she wrote. In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett forcefully pushed back against Jackson's suggestion that the court shirked on its duty to protect the people from government overreach. She said she would 'not dwell' on Jackson's argument, claiming it is at odds with 'more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.
