It’s absurd to claim that Ms. Ellis should have—or could have—independently verified whether there was fraud in the 2020 election.
Jenna Ellis, young attorney and formerly a Colorado Christian University professor, has pleaded guilty to a single count of “aiding and abetting false statements and writings.” She did so in a deal with prosecutors in the Georgia conspiracy case against former President Donald Trump and his campaign organization.
Ms. Ellis read an in-court statement presumably worked out with the prosecutors. She said she had failed to do “due diligence.” Why? Because she didn’t independently verify her superiors’ claims that the 2020 election had been corrupt.
But the standard she supposedly violated makes no sense. In the short time available for challenging the 2020 election, there was no way she should have—or even could have—made an independent investigation. In the absence of evidence her superiors were lying to her, her professional obligation was to rely on the information they gave her.
Associates employed by law firms, accounting firms, and other professional organizations routinely rely on information their superiors give them. Usually they have no choice: Relying on information your co-workers give you is required both by everyday practicalities and your duty to the firm. This was Ms. Ellis’s situation when she worked for the Trump team challenging the claimed election results.
Media Myths
To understand why this is so, let’s first clear away some myths propagated by the left-leaning media:
Media myth #1: “There were no serious irregularities in the 2020 popular vote.”
Reality: The media were making this claim almost immediately in the wake of the popular vote, and before any objective investigation was possible.
I don’t know if there was much actual fraud. But other irregularities included (1) the decision of many states to conduct their elections in a way that violated federal law and benefited the Biden campaign, (2) widespread and improper intervention by left-leaning non-profits in election administration (the “Zuckerbucks” issue), and (3) alteration of election procedures in some swing states by courts and executive officials, despite the U.S. Constitution’s commitment of presidential election procedures to the state legislatures.
We may never know whether these irregularities swung the election. But Ms. Ellis, like other members of the Trump team, had reasons to be suspicious.
Media myth #2: “The failure of the Trump lawsuits shows the election was clean.”
Reality: This claim ignores the extremely high standards of proof required in election-challenge lawsuits. More importantly, it disregards that nearly all those suits were dismissed on procedural grounds (usually standing), not on the merits.
Media myth #3: “The Ellis guilty plea is more proof that there was never any evidence of serious irregularities in the 2020 election.”
Reality: The plea more likely represents the effort of a young professional woman to avoid more damaging publicity, to forestall the (probably remote) threat of jail time, and to get on with her life.
By Rob Natelson
