Ken Chesebro's central defense trashed in court filing by legal experts

Former Ethics Czar and impeachment lawyer Norm Eisen pointed out that a single ruling in court Thursday could determine whether or not Ken Chesebro joins Sidney Powell in making a deal on the racketeering cases.

Looking at a court filing, Eisen explained that any plea could "depend on how the judge rules on the district attorney's motion to bar his key defense." The defense from Chesebro is that it was perfectly legal to have fake electors that could be used during the election certification process.

But a motion in limine has been filed. That is a "procedural mechanism that allows litigators to seek to exclude certain evidence from being presented to a jury – typically evidence that is irrelevant, unreliable, or more prejudicial than probative," a law firm explained.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

The brief was filed by nine conservative legal experts, made up of "former federal and state criminal justice officials, including judges, senior U.S. Department of Justice officials, a state Attorney General and United States Attorneys, one of whom also served as a governor."

The legal experts wrote: "All four motions respond to the same profoundly mistaken legal position advanced by defendant Kenneth Chesebro: that legally defective 'alternate' electoral slates for a losing presidential and vice presidential candidacy can be utilized by the same unsuccessful vice president during the January 6th meeting of Congress to assert unilateral power to usurp the legal authority of Congress and refuse to recognize the certificates of the successful candidate.

"In Mr. Chesebro's theory, the vice president has the power to recognize himself and his running mate as the winners of the election despite the fact that the electorate and every court that had reviewed the matter decided they lost—or to send the choice of who won to partisan state legislatures aligned with them."

Their amicus brief goes on to walk through the laws that support the State's motions, pointing out the mistake of the law and curbing how such an excuse could be used at trial.

You can read the full brief below or at the link here.