Trump Legal Adviser Jenna Ellis Censured for Falsehoods in 2020 Election Claims, Admits Misrepresenting Evidence of Fraud

A former attorney for President Donald Trump has been censured by multiple judges after admitting to spreading false information about the 2020 election. Jenna Ellis, a legal adviser to Trump during his campaign, has been accused of misrepresenting evidence of election fraud by several courts in different parts of the country. The Colorado Supreme Court was the latest body to admonish her for her actions.

Ellis, who served as a staff attorney for the James Dobson Family Institute prior to joining Trump’s legal team, has repeatedly claimed that the election was rigged or fraudulent. She had a particularly high profile in the aftermath of the election, appearing on cable news shows and social media to promote outlandish conspiracy theories about voter fraud and other issues related to ballot counting.

In March, however, she admitted that many of the claims she had made regarding the election were false. During a court hearing in Michigan, she acknowledged that she had falsely claimed that Dominion Voting Systems had manipulated votes to favor President-elect Joe Biden. She also admitted that she had no evidence to support her claims that Dominion had any connection to the Venezuelan government.

Ellis was subsequently accused of violating professional ethics and standards by a number of courts. The Colorado Supreme Court issued a censure against her last week, while a federal judge in Michigan ordered her to pay $1,000 in sanctions as a result of her admission that she had spread false information about the election.

Despite the legal setbacks and the fact that the election is now several months in the past, Ellis continues to defend her actions. In an op-ed published on her website last week, she claimed that she was being targeted by “the leftist agenda” and that her free speech rights were being trampled upon. She also vowed to continue to fight against what she views as election fraud, even though numerous court rulings have now held that no evidence of such fraud exists.