Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul’s social monster chase against Trump supporters via a sham “fake votes” case is crumbling, propped up by a legitimate apostrophe.  ,
In a stinging court filing that shreds the leftist AG’s deeply flawed legal arguments, Madison attorney Joseph Bugni asserts that the problem is n’t that the government ca n’t prove its case, “it’s that there’s not a case to prove” . ,
After the contentious 2020 presidential vote, past Dane County Judge Jim Troupis and former long-time attorney Jim Bugni represent past long-time attorney Jim Troupis as his legal counsel.  ,
In a press conference held in June, Kaul announced the accusations against Troupis and his co-defendants, along with brother attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and political agent Michael Roman, that they had falsely described as “fake votes schemes” by the lawyer colonel and his companions in commercial advertising. In a situation that one previous U.S. Department of Justice lawyer and member of the Federal Election Commission called “abusive social prosecution” that should be dismissed and finally resulted in sanctions against a highly partisan attorney general, the state Department of Justice charged the three defendants with squeezed forgery.  ,
Was John F. Kennedy an Election Denier?
Sealed documents in Dane County Circuit Court, as The Federalist reported last month, revealed the esoteric legal arguments Kaul and personnel use to try to prosecute the 2020 Wisconsin alternate electors emergency plan. The original judge’s attorney contends that a previously unreleased lawsuit that does not adhere to the fundamental principles of possible cause in a crime that is unsolved is being challenged by Troupis.  ,
The defendants are accused by the attorney general of intentionally promoting a false granite of voters as accurate or at least uttering while little.  ,
In the months that followed the hotly contested 2020 presidential election, in which Democrat Joe Biden won by less than 21, 000 seats, Troupis and Chesebro represented Trump’s plan. Communist election integrity opponents pounced on the lawyers ‘ audacity to reflect their clients and bring legal challenge to some of the battleground state’s numerous election irregularities and instances of damaged election law.  ,
Republican met at the state capitol on December 14, 2020, according to the lawyers ‘ prepare for an alternate stone of electors, in order to cast their ballots for Trump in the event that many legal challenges are raised. Alternate delegates have been used in previous presidential elections throughout U.S. past, as the court filings that challenge the summons details. In 1960, Democrat member John F. Kennedy’s plan employed the same approach in Hawaii that Trump’s strategy used in 2020. Kennedy and his constitutional managers were not portrayed as “election deniers” for making wise use of fluctuates. As the Troupis security points out, Al Gore’s national strategy has long complained about not using alternative votes to defend his position in the tense 2000 election, which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Florida.  ,
” Exactly What it Says It’s Doing”
Kaul alleges that Troupis, Chesebro and Roman committed the criminal of “forgery-uttering” through the use of the vote of different electors, a complete misunderstanding and interpretation of the statue, Troupis ‘ attorney argues.  ,
In the original motion, Bugni wrote,” T]here is not probable cause to believe that the alternate electors ‘ ballot was a forgery, nor is there probable cause to believe Troupis was plotting a forged document,” For one, Wisconsin law makes it clear that a forged document is one that has been altered to appear as though it is. There is no disputing that the document ( an electoral ballot ) appears to be exactly what it claims to be. And under Wisconsin law, that is n’t forgery. Likewise, you can only’ utter’ a forged document, you cannot utter a document that is what it purports to be”.
There certainly was no conspiracy. The plan to protect Donald Trump’s electoral rights was made on numerous occasions by Tulipis and others as litigation challenging Wisconsin’s results progressed through the Wisconsin Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court, a case that was n’t finished until February 2021. At the time, Kaul’s Justice Department was aware of it. The media and the courts both had this effect.  ,
Nothing, according to a memo from the Wisconsin DOJ to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, “above all other restrictions” for a party to convene to cast electoral votes when contesting an election tabulation. The statutes do not specifically prohibit a slate of electors from casting votes in order to preserve their votes in the event that pending legal challenges prove successful. They do not say anything about an alternative set of electors casting votes. The commission twice turned down complaints from a leftist lawfare group pushing the “fake electors” narrative after consulting with Kaul’s agency.  ,
A’ CYA ‘ Asterisk ,
The DOJ now insists that the alternate electors ballot was somehow a forgery because it did not include an asterisk indicating that the votes for Trump should only be counted if a court determined in favor of the president in light of a shaky probable cause argument. The government mentions the 20 Pennsylvanian Republican alternate electors who, according to the government, “were legally determined to be the duly elected and qualified electors” and were not charged with crimes.
However, according to the Wisconsin court filing,” there had never been an asterisk on an alternate-elector ballot until some lawyers in Pennsylvania thought adding it in 2020.”  ,
The attorney for the Troupis called Kaul’s asterisk argument” specious logic,” which does not change what qualifies as a forgery under Wisconsin law.  ,
” Forgery is the practice of using a real document as if it were authentic or to make a false one.” And nowhere on that ballot, according to Bugni, is either false or falsified, he argued in the reply brief, bitingly stating,” The law does n’t turn attorneys into criminals simply because they did n’t add a CYA.”
‘ Abusive, Meritless Prosecution ‘
The response goes on to say that” criminal law does n’t turn on novel interpretations of statutes, especially those that have existed since Roman times,” something that even a partisan hack like Kaul should be able to comprehend.
” And it does n’t turn attorneys into criminals just because they represent a client who lost the election, for that matter.” Instead, it’s important that a lawyer’s actions be judged according to the profession’s demands”.
What the legal profession demands is a client’s fair and comprehensive representation. Troupis, his attorney argues, would have committed “legal malpractice” by not protecting the Trump campaign’s electoral rights while litigation remained unsettled. Had the Wisconsin Supreme Court or the U. S. Supreme Court ruled differently, in his favor, Trump, like Gore in 2000, would have had no legal recourse to claim victory. More so, the 1, 610, 184 Wisconsin voters who cast their ballots for the incumbent would have been disenfranchised.  ,
The court filing also notes that the state, much like the Trump-hating corporate media, has “loosely and imprecisely” used terms such as “certifications” and “certificates” in connection to the slate of alternate electors.  ,
” The State’s language breeds confusion and makes it seem as though Troupis claimed the ballot had some sort of certification— namely, the Governor’s Certificate of Ascertainment— when he had n’t”, the reply brief states.  ,
It’s all part of Kaul’s attempt to paint a legal strategy as some sort of plot to “overthrow the 2020 election” and undercut “democracy” — central to the left’s election year talking points on Trump, who is seeking another term in the White House. In similar alternate elector case cases, Democratic attorneys general in swing states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada are prosecuting Trump allies.  ,
Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative, says the cases have been spurred by politics not legal principles. Kaul, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and assistant attorney general for civil rights, claimed that he has no case.  ,
In a phone interview, von Spakovsky stated that it is obvious that the attorney general is engaging in an abusive political prosecution without regard to any kind of legitimate case. ” And if there was a good judge assigned to this case, a judge who actually cared about the law and the constitution, that judge would not only dismiss the case, he would sanction the attorney general for filing an abusive, meritless prosecution” . ,
Judge Everett Mitchell, one of the more liberal judges in one of America’s most extreme county courts, presides the case. In 2015, Mitchell told a panel that he did n’t think shoplifters should be held accountable for stealing from big box stores. He was the University of Wisconsin’s director of communications.  ,
” I do n’t believe that Target, and all other big boxes that have insurance, should be using the people who steal from there as justification to start engaging in aggressive police behavior,” he said.  ,
Before the election of the following month, it’s unlikely that Mitchell will make a decision on the subpoena. Turopis wo n’t be scheduled to appear in court for his first time until early December.  ,
Matt Kittle covers The Federalist’s senior elections coverage. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.