7. James Cooper

As indicated, Defendant James Cooper also worked with True the Vote to find volunteers to make Section 230 challenges before the Georgia Senate runoff election. PX 96, 33:2–7, 138:9–12; PX 21 (“I’m working with True the Vote on this very important issue”). Co-defendant Mark Williams introduced Cooper and TTV. Tr. 1345:12–14. Cooper perceived that Williams included him because “[h]e thought that I would be interested in what they was going to discuss.” PX 96, 137:7–138:2. TTV later named Cooper as a recruiter of volunteers in its press release announcing the Section 230 challenges in Georgia. PX 42; see also PX 10, 11 (“James Cooper . . . assisted with recruiting hundreds of voter challengers across the state of Georgia.”). Davis did not speak with Cooper about his and Somerville’s voter challenges. Tr. 1647:19–21.

Cooper focused on recruiting volunteer challengers in South Georgia. PX 96, 33:12–13. He sent emails and other correspondence to fellow members and leaders in the Georgia GOP and to other people he knew personally. PX 96, 36:11–37:3. He did not know everyone he contacted about this effort because he used the Georgia GOP database of county chairpersons as a source of contact information. PX 96, 36:21–37:19. Cooper did not submit Section 230 challenges himself because TTV had a volunteer in his county. PX 96, 63:14–22.

In the recruitment email he sent to potential volunteers, Cooper indicates that he had been assured the challenged voter file was 99.9% accurate. PX 21 (“True the Vote has assured me that the list they are challenging is 99.9% likely to be incorrectly registered.”). This assurance came from Gregg Phillips at OpSec Group, which TTV used to make their challenge list. PX 96, 66:4–17. True the Vote also assured Cooper that “they were checking the accuracy of the list by canvassing.” PX 96, 66:18–22.

One volunteer challenger that Cooper recruited was Joseph Martin.28 PX 94, 16:20–17:1. Martin and Cooper knew each other as acquaintances from their involvement in the Georgia GOP. PX 94, 17:2–12. Martin agreed to serve as the volunteer challenger for Taliaferro County. PX 94, 23:5–19. Martin believed Cooper contacted him as a member of the GOP and only later learned of TTV’s involvement. PX 94, 21:13–22. Martin ultimately emailed Cooper (and others associated with TTV) and retracted his challenge because of concerns with the data. PX 43; PX 80. Cooper’s response to Martin’s retraction did not acknowledge Martin’s concerns about the challenge file and instead reassured Engelbrecht that he would look for another challenger in Taliaferro County. PX 80. Cooper also indicated frustration with county Boards of Elections requiring challengers to “make their case” for a challenge submitted because it was “running off” (i.e., deterring) volunteer challengers. PX 80; see also PX 96, 112:1–8 (“[T]he counties were making people have to come make their case . . . and it was making recruiting a challenger extremely difficult.”).

Cooper did not testify at trial. Thereby, like Johnson, the Court could not assess his demeanor to make a credibility determination. Nevertheless, much of the evidence submitted regarding Cooper (without objection from Defendants), especially his deposition, was subject to cross examination. Cooper’s deposition testimony and the other evidence submitted does not contradict Martin’s testimony, which the Court finds to be highly credible. See Section (II)(B)(2)(d) infra. Accordingly, the Court credits Cooper’s testimony and the evidence of his involvement in the TTV voter challenges and weighs it accordingly.