You'll never guess who is raising red flags on Kris Mayes' fake elector case

Kris Mayes has told Arizonans she knew she would be criticized for prosecuting the Republicans who posed as electors in the 2020 presidential election.

That was a given.

The Democratic state attorney general is pursuing more than a dozen state and national Republican Party leaders to possibly put them in prison.

Cries of partisanship were guaranteed.

But so far, the loudest and most significant critic of her prosecution has not been Republicans.

In fact, it has been a voice that rises from the friendly confines of mainstream media.

Politico raises more questions about Mayes

Politico, no friend of Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again movement, has for a second time raised questions about Mayes, her tactics and the grand jury she used to indict 18 Trump loyalists accused of trying to subvert the 2020 election.

On Friday, the national political news site took aim at the way prosecutors in the Arizona Attorney General’s Office had assured certain witnesses they were not targets of the probe.

Politico reported that former Trump attorneys Jenna Ellis and Christina Bobb “were assured by prosecutors that they were not targets of the probe, only to learn that the grand jury indicted them anyway.”

“I have never seen anything like that in any Arizona criminal case that I can think of,” Omer Gurion, a Phoenix criminal defense lawyer, told Politico. “Not one.”

Gurion, who has no connections to the elector case, said it is “pretty unusual” for a person to go from being untargeted to indicted in just four days — as was the case for former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis.

The case of former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti told Politico, “It’s bad form, and something I would never do as a prosecutor.

“That said, I’ve practiced criminal law across this country and gone up against prosecutors of all stripes, and I’ve learned there are many prosecutors who do things I would not do.”

Mayes’ prosecutors made first contact with Jenna Ellis months after she had pleaded guilty in Georgia to participating in the fake electors scheme there. As reported by Politico:

“They asked her to appear for an interview in their office to determine whether they might benefit from her cooperation, a so-called ‘free talk’ interview.

“On April 19, the prosecutor followed up with another version of the same letter working to arrange an interview, reiterating that Ellis was not a target of their probe.

“Four days later, the grand jury indicted her. The interview never happened.” 

Former Arizona prosecutor Paul Charlton told Politico the Ellis episode “is peculiar. It may have a very reasonable explanation –– you certainly hope it does. But at the end of the day, the prejudice that she suffers seems marginal, only because she never participated in the discussion with them.”

Christina Bobb also was told she was a witness

On Feb. 28, Christina Bobb, who assisted Trump’s effort to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden, got a letter from Arizona prosecutors that told her she is “not a person under investigation by the State Grand Jury,” Politico reported.

Less than two months later, an Arizona grand jury indicted her.

Gurion said it is unlikely state prosecutors didn’t know she was under investigation when it sent the letter, he told Politico.

“I cannot imagine that they didn’t know that she was being investigated and was going to be mentioned to the grand jury two months prior. That doesn’t make sense. ... This timeline is troubling.”

Mariotti told Politico he’d never seen anything like it.

“In my over 20 years practicing criminal law, I’ve never encountered someone who was a witness being indicted less than two months later, who was told in writing that they’re a witness and not under investigation.”

Irregularities mount in Arizona electors case

This story has particular resonance in that it follows a March 28 Politico report that Mayes’ prosecutors broke convention by forcing Arizona Republicans who had invoked their Fifth Amendment rights to appear before the grand jury.

Pleading the fifth is not an admission of guilt, but a protection against self-incrimination. However, less informed grand jurors are capable of seeing it differently.

Fake electors were charged: It's about darn time

“The tactic is ... highly unusual and risks biasing the grand jury against key targets of the probe, according to independent legal experts who have worked as both prosecutors and defense lawyers,” Politico reported.

It’s way out of the ordinary, said former Arizona prosecutor David Lish, now a criminal defense attorney, to Politico.

“I’ve never had a client who’s been ordered to appear in front of a state grand jury who was the target of that investigation. That’s not normal practice.”

Was a grand jury driving Mayes' case?

While highly questionable, the tactics used by Mayes’ office could have explanations.

Sources familiar with the investigation told Politico that a highly aggressive faction of the Arizona grand jury was at times driving it.

In high-profile cases, such as this, it is not unusual for grand juries to assert their independence and drag in witnesses and pursue indictments beyond the scope of prosecutors, Politico explained.

Nonetheless, this is a case that will unavoidably be perceived as criminalizing politics.

It is, after all, a prosecution that could put Mayes’ political rivals in prison. Given the circumstances, she has an obligation to ensure that every step she takes is above board.

For the moment, a high-profile national political news site is raising doubts about that.

And it appears something is rotten in Denmark.

Phil Boas is an editorial columnist with The Arizona Republic. Email him at phil.boas@arizonarepublic.com. 

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Kris Mayes is taking heat for 'unusual' tactics in fake elector case