Shaw: Shame on Drew Wrigley and Kevin Cramer

Columnist Jim Shaw responds to reports North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley sent a message to Sen. Cramer outlining a "last-ditch effort" to reverse the 2020 election.

Jim Shaw
Jim Shaw
We are part of The Trust Project.

Drew Wrigley and Kevin Cramer knew better. Former North Dakota U.S. Attorney Wrigley (now the state’s attorney general) and Sen. Cramer knew shortly after the 2020 presidential election that Joe Biden had won, and Donald Trump had lost. Heck, even Trump knew it. He just wouldn’t admit it.

None of the states found any significant election fraud, nor did election cybersecurity director Chris Krebs, nor did dozens of judges (including several appointed by Donald Trump) nor did Attorney General Bill Barr, who also happened to be Wrigley’s boss.

So, it’s appalling to learn now that several weeks after the election, Wrigley told Cramer of an idea that could keep Trump in office. Cramer liked it so much that he texted it to Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. We know all this because of a book written by former Republican Congressman Denver Riggelman called “The Breach” and an article in the Guardian. Wrigley and Cramer have confirmed the accuracy of the reports. Their actions were inexcusable.

Wrigley’s idea was called a “last ditch effort.” He demanded statewide recounts of absentee/mail-in ballots in the crucial swing states, even though there was no evidence of election fraud there.

Related stories and columns
Book reveals he sent message to Sen. Kevin Cramer outlining 'last-ditch effort,' which Cramer forwarded to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows

So, what’s the big deal you ask? Because Wrigley also said, “If state officials refuse that recount, the legislature would then act under the constitution, selecting the slate of electors.” Well, those legislatures are dominated by Republicans, and we know what they would have done. They would have sent phony electors to Congress. Wrigley shockingly said, rejecting the recounts would lend “credibility” to the phony electors. Those imposter electors would have made the difference, so Trump would have remained in the White House.


It was an attempted end-run on the U.S. Constitution. You know, that pesky document that Wrigley and Cramer pledged to support and defend. It was a devious plan to cheat and steal to keep Trump in office. In essence, it was an alarming attempt to overturn a free and fair election and nullify the will of the American people.

On top of that, Wrigley might have broken federal laws because U.S. attorneys are not allowed to engage in partisan politics.

Here’s what Wrigley should have told Cramer: “Don’t get me involved in your bogus schemes to overturn the election. Joe Biden won the election fair and square. It’s over. Tell Trump that he should concede, and work with the Biden transition team on the peaceful transfer of power.”

Sadly, Cramer’s actions are no surprise. This is the man who pledged 100% loyalty to Trump at a Fargo rally. Kind of like what they do to dictators in fascist countries. He also participated in the dishonest “Stop the Steal” rally shortly after the election, and attended a meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, about overturning the election.

I expected better from Wrigley. He’s a smart guy and did an excellent job as U.S. attorney. Now, Wrigley admits that Joe Biden was legitimately elected as president. Too bad he’s almost two years late in acknowledging that.

Shaw is a former WDAY TV reporter and former KVRR TV news director.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

Columnist Jim Shaw offers critical remarks after North Dakota Sens. John Hoeven and Kevin Cramer voted against the Respect for Marriage Act. "Hoeven and Cramer are using religion as a cover to justify bigotry and discrimination," Shaw writes. "History will not be on their side."

Opinion by Jim Shaw
InForum columnist Jim Shaw is a former WDAY TV reporter and former KVRR TV news director.
What to read next
"Do we want conservatism to be seen as a pragmatic set of principles for balancing our collective need for a government with the rights of individuals? Or the gospel of some fire-and-brimstone bible-thumper who has never met a conspiracy theory he didn't cotton to?"
Columnist Roxane B. Salonen writes, "Only time can heal the great loss we feel when our loved ones die—and even that, imperfectly. But there is something deeper, and truer, than what we can hold in this world. It is love. And the love of a mother does not end at death."
Jenny Schlecht explains how a "where are you" call led to an evening of protecting barn cats and hunting raccoons.
Columnist Scott Hennen takes time to be thankful for the local community's generosity.