Former Trump lawyer Ken Chesebro is already facing questions about whether he potentially perjured himself in testimony to Michigan prosecutors, and now New York University Law professor Ryan Goodman has flagged testimony in another state that could prove problematic.
Specifically, Goodman points to a statement Chesebro made to a grand jury in Nevada about the "alternate elector" plan he devised in which a group of Trump supporters falsely asserted themselves to be the legitimate electoral college representatives in states that voted for President Joe Biden in 2020.
After Chesebro was asked whether he saw "pending litigation" as critical to the plan's success, he affirmed that he did.
"The whole point of the alternate elector plan that we arrived at in Wisconsin is the idea is we make sure that we have the extra three weeks to try to win the lawsuit," Chesebro explained. "If there isn't any lawsuit then there's no need for this to be done because there's no lawsuit that would be won before January 6th."
READ MORE: ‘Mean girl on a revenge tour’: Kevin McCarthy has knives out for his ‘Gaetz 8’ tormentors
However, an email sent by Chesebro on December 8th, 2020 shows that the attorney did not believe that litigation was critical to the plan's success.
"I think having the electors send in alternate slates of votes on Dec. 14 can pay huge dividends even if there is no litigation pending on Jan. 6," he argued.
The email went on to say that, "There is no barrier to Congress (here, we're talking the Senate, assuming it's still controlled by Republicans) deliberating on which electoral slate to count, even if one electoral slate is endorsed by the governor, after all litigation is final — indeed, even if the slate met the Dec. 8 'safe harbor' deadline."
In other words, argued Chesebro, there didn't need to be any pending litigation to justify the alternate electors, as Republican senators could simply vote to count their votes instead of the ones who voted for Biden.
This leads Goodman to conclude that "Kenneth Chesebro has a new perjury problem."
