When Denisha Mitchell was asked why she filled out paperwork to serve as an Arizona elector for the independent presidential candidate Cornel West, her first response was “What?!” Her second: What’s an elector?
“I was shocked and surprised by it all. I didn’t even know what an elector was,” Mitchell told The Associated Press on Friday. “The crazy thing is it was all forged. None of it was my handwriting. It was definitely not my signature. My email was wrong, my address was wrong.”
Mitchell’s case is the latest example of dubious tactics used in an effort to qualify West, a left-wing academic, for the ballot in states across the U.S. It’s also among the more egregious. It’s an effort that West himself apparently knows nothing about. His campaign did not immediately respond for comment Friday evening.
But as the presidential election enters a critical three-month period, there are efforts around the country to subvert the integrity of the ballot, many of them coming from a collection of conservative activists and Republican-aligned operatives pushing West’s candidacy.
I’d be more surprised if they had an answer ready to go. That’s, like, proof they knew.
A denial would be a ready-to-go answer…
Yeah, but you’d need to think in your campaign room “What if someone asks why we’re certifying fake electors?” which, admittedly, in a sane world seems like an insane thing to worry about.
We’re not in a sane world but “Well, we don’t have a comment at this time but we’re looking into the matter.” could be construed as “didn’t immediately respond to our question.”
Generally when someone gives a response but an ambiguous one like that, it is reported as something like, “when contacted, we were told they did not have a comment at this time, but were looking into the matter.”
Because in that case, claiming they did not respond would be a lie. They did respond, they just didn’t give an answer. There’s a difference.