On November 19, JUSTINRIEMER the RNC Chief Counsel, sent an email to LIZHARRINGTON an RNC spokesperson, warning about inaccuracies in the suit: “Just FYI that I don’t believe the claims in the contest regarding dead voters, those voting from out-of-state, etc. are substantiated. We are working with the campaign on a data matching project and those numbers are going to be a lot lower than what the NV people have come up with. They are also targeting our military voters. To be frank, the contest has little chance of succeeding. Happy to discuss this stuff if you want more info,” LIZHARRINGTON then sent a copy of JUSTINRIEMER email from her personal email account to the personal email account of DANSCAVINO one of the defendant’s White House staffers who also volunteered for the Campaign.

Notwithstanding the RNC Chief Counsel’s warning, the defendant re-tweeted and amplified news of the lawsuit on November 24, calling it “Big News!” that a Nevada Court had agreed to hear it. But the defendant did not similarly promote the fact that within two weeks, on December 4, the Nevada District Cout dismissed Law v. Whitmer, finding in a detailed opinion that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud,” including through the signature-match machines, and that Biden won the election in the state. Four days later, on December 8, Nevada’s Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the District Court’s decision, noting that despite its “earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue, appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none.”Later, in his Ellipse speech on January 6, the defendant repeated multiple claims explicitly rejected by Nevada courts.

On December 18, the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office released a Facts vs. Myths” document to combat disinformation that the defendant and others were propagating about the election, including false claims that the Secretary of State’s Office had not investigated claims of fraud even though it had been presented with evidence of wide-spread fraud'”-to which the Office responded, “While we are pursuing action in a number of isolated cases, we have yet to see any evidence of wide-spread fraud. “The Facts vs. Myths” document also stated publicly that courts had universally rejected fraud claims: “Four separate cases were heard by Nevada judges including the NV Supreme Court. After examining records presented, each case was discounted due to a lack of evidence.”