Jack - Jack Smith’s Final Report | Volume 1

Episode Date: January 14, 2025

Allison reads the first volume of Jack Smith’s final report. Final Report on the Special Counsel's Investigations and Prosecutions Volume OneThe co-conspirators:1 - Rudy Giuliani 2 - John Eastman��3 - Sidney Powell4 - Jeffrey Clark5 - Kenneth Chesebro6 - Boris Epshteyn Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to knowRule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C.  § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Hello and welcome to a very special episode or episodes of the Jack podcast. It's just after midnight on Tuesday, January 14th and Merrick Garland has released volume one of the Jack Smith report. It begins with a letter from Jack Smith delivered by hand to the Honorable Merrick Garland, it says, Dear Mr. Attorney General, In the fall of 2022, former President Donald J. Trump was a subject of two separate criminal investigations by the Department of Justice. The first was an investigation into whether any person violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election.

The second investigation focused on the possession of highly classified documents at Mr. Trump's Mar-a-Lago Social Club following his presidency. On November 15, 2022, Mr. Trump declared his candidacy to unseat President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who had previously stated his intention to stand for reelection. Mr. Trump's announcement created a highly unusual situation in which the department, an agency within the executive branch headed by President Biden, was conducting a criminal investigation regarding his newly declared challenger.

Based on a long-standing recognition that, quote, in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution. You, as the attorney general, promptly did so here to, quote, underscore the department's commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland remarks on the appointment of a special counsel in Washington, D.C. November 18, 2022. On the day I was appointed, I pledged I would exercise independent judgment,

follow the best traditions of the Department of Justice, and conduct my work expeditiously and thoroughly to reach whatever outcome the facts and law dictated. With the aid of an outstanding team, that is what I did. Upon my appointment, I organized a staff of experienced career federal prosecutors, and together we conducted the investigation and subsequent prosecution under our mandate, consistent with the department's traditions of integrity

and non-partisanship that have guided all of us throughout our careers. Attorney General Edward H. Levi, who assumed the Department's helm in the wake of Watergate, summed up those traditions best. One paramount concern must always guide our way. This is the keeping of the faith in the essential decency and even-handedness in the law, a faith which is the strength of the law and which must be continually renewed or else it is lost. In a society that too easily accepts the notion that everything can be manipulated,

it is important to make clear that the administration of federal justice seeks to be impartial and fair. Addressed to the Los Angeles County Bar Association Los Angeles, California November 18th 1976. Attorney General Levi's remarks shared 46 years to the day before my appointment. Ring is true now as they did then. I have been a career prosecutor in local, national, and international settings over the last three decades, working shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of prosecutors in that time. The prosecutors and staff of

the Special Counsel's office are, in my estimation, without peer in terms of accomplishment, capability, judgment, and work ethic. More importantly in my book, they are people of great decency and the highest personal integrity. The intense public scrutiny of our office, threats to their safety, and relentless unfounded attacks on their character and integrity did not deter them from fulfilling their oaths and professional obligations. These are intensely good people who did hard things well. I will not forget the sacrifices they made and the personal resilience they and their families have shown over the last two years.

Our country owes them a debt of gratitude for their unwavering service and dedication to the rule of law. Without pause, they have upheld the department's commitment to the impartial and independent pursuit of justice. For that, I am grateful, as I know you are as well. Staffed by some of the most experienced prosecutors in the department, my office operated under the same department policies and procedures that guide all federal prosecutors. The regulations under which I was appointed required that we do so. C-28 CFR 600.7a and our work benefited from those processes. The department has long recognized that proceeding with uniformity of policy is necessary to the prestige of federal law. Robert H. Jackson, the federal prosecutor, April 1, 1940.

As a result, throughout our work, we regularly consulted with the Justice Manual, the Department's publicly available guidebook on policies and procedures, and adhered to its requirements. Our work rested upon the fundamental value of democracy that we exist as quote, a government of laws and not of men. John Adams. In making decisions of special counsel, I considered at first principle whether our actions would contribute to upholding the rule of law and acted accordingly. Our committed adherence to the rule of law is why we not only followed the department policies and procedures, but strictly observed legal requirements

and dutifully represented the judicial decisions and precedents our prosecutions prompted. That is also why in my decision-making, I headed the imperative that, quote, no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. United States v. Lee, 1882. Simply put, the Department of Justice's guiding mandate, which my office strove to uphold, is that power, politics, influence, status, wealth, fear, and favor should not impede justice under the law. When I assumed responsibility for the matters you assigned to me, I came to the work with no preconceived notion of what the just outcome of the investigations would be. I was not yet familiar with all of the relevant

facts and had not yet researched the relevant law. Depending upon what the investigations revealed, I was equally comfortable closing the investigations or moving forward with prosecutions in one or both of the matters, having done both in high-profile matters throughout my career. To make prosecutorial determinations, my office gathered relevant evidence and examined whether that evidence established violations of federal criminal law. In doing so, I was guided by the principles of federal prosecution, a series of considerations designed to promote the fair and even-handed application of the law. As set forth in my report, after conducting

thorough investigations, I found that, with respect to both Mr. Trump's unprecedented efforts to unlawfully retain power after losing the 2020 election and his unlawful retention of classified documents after leaving office, the principals compelled prosecution. Indeed, Mr. Trump's cases represented ones, quote, in which the offense was the most flagrant, the public harmed the greatest, and the proof the most certain." Jackson, the federal prosecutor. As directed by the principals,

I made my decision in these cases without regard to Mr. Trump's political association, activities, or beliefs, or the possible personal or professional consequences of a prosecution for me or any member of my office. consequences of a prosecution for me or any member of my office. Quoting the Justice Manual, Section 9-27.260, quote, the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his cause, unquote,

or the converse were not factors in my prosecutive decisions. My office also adhered at all times to the department's policy against interfering in elections. As a former chief of the department's public integrity section, it was important to me, as it is to you, that we adhere to both the letter and spirit of this policy.

I can assure you that neither I nor the prosecutors on my team would have tolerated or taken part in any action by our office for partisan political purposes. Throughout my service as special counsel, seeking to influence the election one way or the other or seeking to interfere in its outcome played no role in our work. or seeking to interfere in its outcome played no role in our work. My office had one North Star to follow the facts and law wherever they led. Nothing more and nothing less. While I relied greatly on the counsel, judgment, and advice of our team, I wanted to be clear that the ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine.

It is a decision I stand behind fully. To have done otherwise on the facts developed during our work would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and public servant. After nearly 30 years of public service, that is a choice I could not abide. It is equally important for me to make clear that nobody within the Department of Justice ever sought to interfere with or improperly influence my prosecutorial decision-making. The regulations under which I was appointed provided you with the authority to countermand my decisions, but you did not do so. Nor did you, the Deputy Attorney General or members of your staff,

ever attempt to improperly influence my decision as to whether to bring charges against Mr. Trump. And to all who know me well, the claim for Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable. While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters.

I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters. The facts, as we uncovered them in our investigation and as set forth in my report, matter. Experienced prosecutors know that you cannot control outcomes. You can only do your job the right way for the right reasons. I conclude our work confident that we have done so and that we have met fully our obligations to the department and to our country. Accompanying this letter I'm providing you with quote a confidential report explaining the prosecution or

declination decisions reached by the special counsel unquote. The report consists of two volumes. Volume one addresses the election case and volume two addresses the classified documents case. I understand that you are considering whether all or part of my report can be made public consistent with applicable legal restrictions. Both volumes minimize the identification of witnesses and co-conspirators consistent with accepted department practice,

and we have provided a redacted version of Volume 2 that identifies certain information that remains under seal or is restricted from public disclosure by federal rule of Criminal Procedure 6E. Because Volume 2 discusses the conduct of Mr. Trump's alleged co-conspirators in the classified documents case, Waltine Nauda and Carlos de la Vera, consistent with department policy, volume 2 should not be publicly released while their case remains pending. Though not required, prior to finalizing the report, my office provided an opportunity for counsel for Mr. Trump to review both volumes and for counsel of his former co-defendants in the classifieduments case to review

Volume 2. After their review, counsel for Mr. Trump wrote a letter to you and we have provided a written response to you, both of which you will find as an addendum to this report. With this report, my service and the service of my staff is complete. I thank you for the trust you placed in me and my team and for affording us the independence necessary to conduct our work. Public service is a privilege

and we deeply appreciate the opportunity to serve our nation in seeking to uphold the rule of law. Sincerely yours, Jack Smith. We'll be right back with the final report on the Special Counsel's Investigations and Prosecutions, Volume 1, The Election Case. Hey everybody, thanks for listening. We are now on to page 5 of the final report on the Special Counsel's investigations and prosecutions.

This is entitled, Volume One, The Election Case, Reports on Efforts to Interfere with the Lawful Transfer of Power Following the 2020 Presidential Election or the Certification of the Electoral College Vote, held January 6th, 2021, submitted by Special Counsel Jack Smith pursuant to 28 CFR section 600.8c, January 7th, 2025. Then there is quite a long table of contents and we are now on page, well, Roman numeral three, but page nine of the report, volume one, the election case. On November 18th, 2022, the attorney general appointed the special counsel to oversee an ongoing investigation into, quote, whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the electoral college vote held on or about January 6, 2021. As a result of that investigation, on August 1, 2023,

a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia charged Donald J. Trump with four felony offenses arising from his efforts to unlawfully retain power by using fraud and deceit to overturn the 2020 election results. After the Supreme Court held last summer that Mr. Trump was immune from prosecution for certain misuse of official power alleged in the indictment, a second grand jury found probable cause to return a superseding indictment charging the same offenses based on his non-immunized conduct. Mr. Trump was thereafter re-elected as President of the United States and as a result on November 25th 2024, the special counsel moved to dismiss the case against Mr. Trump because of the Department of Justice's

long-standing position that the Constitution forbids the federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting president. This volume focuses on the election case against Mr. Trump and, consistent with the applicable regulations, provides an explanation of the prosecution decisions reached by the Special Council. provides an explanation of the prosecution decisions reached by the special counsel. The first section of this volume sets forth a summary of key facts gleaned from the investigation, a vast majority of which are already a matter of public record through litigation that occurred before the district court. The second section discusses the statutes that Mr. Trump was charged with violating, applying the facts developed during the investigation to the law as special counsel's office understood it. This section also addresses other charges that the office considered but did not pursue

and the defenses that the office expected Mr. Trump to raise at trial. The third section explains why the special counsel's decision to prosecute Mr. Trump was fully consistent with and indeed was compelled by the principles of federal prosecution. The fourth section describes the Office's investigative procedures and policies. And finally, the fifth section of this volume discusses a series of investigative and prosecutive issues that the Office confronted in the election case. Section 1. The Res confronted in the election case. Section one, the results of the investigation. In 2020, then President Donald J. Trump ran for reelection against Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Mr. Trump lost. As alleged in the original and superseding indictments, substantial evidence demonstrates that Mr. Trump then engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power. Although he did so primarily in his private capacity as a candidate and with the assistance of multiple private co-conspirators, Mr. Trump also attempted to use the power and authority of the United States government in furtherance of his scheme.

As set forth in the original and superseding indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power. This included attempts to induce state officials to ignore true vote counts, to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost, to force Justice Department officials and his own vice president, Michael R. Pence,

to act in contravention of their oaths, and to instead advance Mr. Trump's personal interests, and on January 6, 2021, to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the Congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters' violence to further delay it. In service of these efforts,

Mr. Trump worked with other people to achieve a common plan to overturn the election results and perpetuate himself in office. These individuals included co-conspirator 1, a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that Mr. Trump's campaign attorneys would not. Co-Conspirator 2, a private attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the vice president's ministerial role in the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification.

Co-Conspirator 3, a private attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud Mr. Trump privately acknowledged were crazy but which he embraced and publicly amplified nonetheless. Co-Conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with Mr. Trump, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud. Coconspirator 5, a private attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and co-conspirator 6, a private political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential

electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. The through line of all of Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of election fraud. And the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States' democratic process. Mr. Trump's false claims included dozens of specific claims regarding certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for Mr. Trump to votes against him. These claims were demonstrably and, in many cases,

obviously false. The office investigated whether Mr. Trump believed the claims he made. Evidence from a variety of sources established that Mr. Trump knew that there was no outcome, determinative fraud in the 2020 election, that many of the specific claims he made were untrue and that he had lost the election. He knew this because some of the highest ranking officials in his own administration, including the vice president, told him directly that there was no evidence to support his claims. Mr. Trump's private advisors, both within and outside of his campaign, told him the same. On November 13th, his own campaign conceded its litigation in Arizona, a state pivotal

to his reelection prospects. State officials and legislators, whom Mr. Trump pressured to change vote tallies or to stop certifications of results, rebuffed him and informed him that his fraud claims were wrong, both privately and through public statements. Mr. Trump also monitored legal developments regarding the election and was on notice that the state and federal courts rejected every post-election lawsuit that Mr. Trump and his allies filed claiming outcome-determinative election fraud. Mr. Trump and co-conspirators could not have believed the specific fraud claims that they

were making because the numbers they touted, for instance of dead voters in a particular state, frequently vacillated wildly from day to day or were objectively impossible, including, for example, co-conspirator 3's claims about voting machines that Mr. Trump privately acknowledged sounded crazy. That's Sidney Powell. Before he publicly amplified them. Finally, at times, Mr. Trump made comments implicitly acknowledging that he knew he had lost the election.

For example, on January 3rd, 2021, Oval Office meeting regarding a national security matter, Trump stated in part, quote, It's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy. Meaning President-elect Biden. Mr. Trump aimed his deceit at the United States' process of collecting, counting, and certifying votes, which flows from the Constitution and a federal law enacted in 1887 called the Electoral Count Act. The Constitution provides that the United States President is selected through the votes

of individuals called electors and that each state determines how to appoint its electors. Through state laws, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to select electors based on the popular vote. Therefore, after election day, pursuant to the Electoral Count Act, each state formally determines or ascertains its electors based on the popular vote. The ascertained electors meet on a day determined by the Electoral Count Act and cast their votes based on their state's popular vote. And that ascertained electors mail their electoral votes along with certification from a state executive that they are the state's legitimate electors

to the United States Congress to be counted and certified in an official proceeding. The Constitution and the Electoral Count Act provide that on the 6th of January following election day, the Congress meets for that certification proceeding, which is presided over by the vice president as president of the Senate. The legitimate electors' votes are opened and counted, and the winner is certified. Until Mr. Trump obstructed it, this democratic process

has operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years. All right everybody, we have more to get to in this report and we'll be right back with it. Stick around. Everybody welcome back. We are on page eight of Jack Smith's final report. This is volume one. We are now in section 1A, Mr. Trump's pressure on state officials.

One of Mr. Trump's efforts to change the results of the election involved targeting the electoral process at the state level through politically aligned state officials. Mr. Trump contacted state legislators and executives, pressured them with false claims of election fraud in their states, and urged them to take action to ignore the vote counts and change the results. Significantly, he made election claims only to state legislators and executives who shared his political affiliation and were his political supporters, and only in states that he had lost. For instance, Mr. Trump and co-conspirator won, called the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives on November 22nd, and used false fraud claims to try to convince the speaker to call the state legislature into session and replace Arizona's legitimate electors with Mr. Trump's illegitimate ones.

Co-conspirator 1 tried to coerce the Arizona speaker, including by telling him, quote, we are all kind of Republicans and we need to be working together, unquote. The Arizona speaker refused to do what he was asked and requested that co-conspirator one provide evidence to support his fraud claims. Co-conspirator one not only failed to ever provide such evidence, but he conceded to the Arizona speaker

at an in-person meeting a week later that quote, we don't have the evidence, but we conceded to the Arizona speaker at an in-person meeting a week later that quote, we don't have the evidence, but we have lots of theories. Despite this lack of fraud evidence, Mr. Trump and others continued to pressure the Arizona speaker to overturn the election results. And I'm just going to interject here, co-conspirator one is Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Trump similarly leaned on other state officials, always those of the same political party. On January 2nd, 2021, just days before the election results were to be certified, he called Georgia's Secretary of State and

pressed him to quote, find 11,780 votes, unquote, Mr. Biden's margin of victory in the state. When the Secretary of State refuted Mr. Trump's false fraud claims, Mr. Trump issued a threat, stating that because the Secretary of State knew, quote, what they did and you're not reporting it, that's a criminal offense, and you know you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you." Unquote. Mr. Trump also pressed state legislators in Michigan by inviting them to the White House on November 20th, raising false claims of election fraud and bringing co-conspirator one into the meeting by phone.

Michigan Senate majority leader told Trump that he had lost the election, not because of fraud, but because he had lost the election not because of fraud, but because he had underperformed with educated females, an assessment that displeased Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump engaged in these efforts even though trusted state and party officials had told him from the outset that there was no evidence of fraud in the election. In Arizona, Mr. Trump called the governor on November 9th, a week after election day, and after both Fox News and the Associated Press had projected that Trump had lost the

state. Using a baseball metaphor, the governor told Mr. Trump, quote, it was the ninth inning, two outs, and he was several runs down." During a call, Mr. Trump raised false claims of election fraud. The governor asked Mr. Trump to send evidence of the alleged fraud, and Mr. Trump suggested he would do so. He never did. In Pennsylvania, just two days after the election, the chairman of the state's Republican Party,

who had represented Mr. Trump in previous election litigation, refuted Mr. Trump's claim that it was suspicious that his early lead was slipping away. The chairman explained that there were still roughly 1.75 million mail-in ballots to be counted, which were expected to weigh heavily in Mr. Biden's favor. In the course of conversations like these, state officials, better positioned than Mr. Trump to know the facts in their states, repeatedly told Mr. Trump that his fraud claims were unfounded and that there was no evidence of substantial election fraud in their states. And apart from Georgia's Secretary of State, Mr. Trump never contacted other election officials to determine whether there was merit to any specific allegation

of election fraud in their states, even though they would have been the best sources to confirm or refute such claims. Section 1B. We are now on page 11. Mr. Trump's fraudulent elector plan. As December 14th, the date that the Electoral Count Act requires each state's electors to vote and send their certificates of vote to Congress, approached, Mr. Trump and co-conspirators launched another plan. Under this plan, they would organize the people who would have served as Mr. Trump's electors, had he won the popular vote, in seven states

that Mr. Trump had lost, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and caused them to sign and send to Washington false certifications claiming to be the legitimate electors. Ultimately, as explained below, Mr. Trump and co-conspirators used the fraudulent certificates to try to obstruct the congressional certification proceeding. The fraudulent electors plan arc is reflected in a series of memoranda drafted in late November and early December by co-conspirator five, who initially portrayed it as a contingency

to preserve the possibility that Mr. Trump's electors' votes would be counted on January 6th if he prevailed in ongoing election litigation. But as described below, the plan quickly transformed into a corrupt strategy to obstruct the certification proceeding and overturn the valid election results. Mr. Trump set the fraudulent elector plan into motion in early December, ensured that it was carried out by co-conspirators and campaign agents in the targeted states, and monitored its progress.

On December 6th, for instance, Mr. Trump and co-conspirator two called the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and told her that it was important for the RNC to help organize Mr. Trump's elector nominees in the targeted states. During the call, co-conspirator two told a lie that the co-conspirators would use to induce the cooperation of many of the fraudulent electors. That Mr. Trump's electors' votes would be used only if ongoing litigation in their state proved successful for Mr. Trump.

From that point on, Mr. Trump communicated with co-conspirators one and two about the plan, and they in turn communicated with co-conspirators five and six. At co-conspirators one direction, co-conspirator five generated and sent directions to the Trump electors in each targeted state on how to best mimic the manner in which the state required valid electors to gather and vote, and campaign staff and agents helped carry out Co-Conspirator 5's plan. For the most part, the co-conspirators deceived Mr. Trump's elector nominees in the targeted states by falsely claiming that their electoral votes would be used only if ongoing litigation were resolved in Mr. Trump's favor.

Indeed, the co-conspirators deliberately withheld from the elector nominees information showing otherwise. The deception was crucial to the conspiracy, as many who participated in the fraudulent electors would not have done so had they known the true extent of the co-conspirators plans. Not all of Mr. Trump's elector nominees were persuaded forcing the co-conspirators to recruit substitutes in some of the targeted states. For example, one Trump elector nominee in Pennsylvania recognized the plan as illegal and an attempt, quote, to overthrow the government, and he declined to participate. Conversely, a select few of Mr. Trump's agents and elector nominees had insight into the

ultimate plan to use the fraudulent elector certificates to disrupt the congressional certification on January 6th and willingly assisted. On December 9th, after a phone call with Co-Conspirator 5, one of the campaign's agents wrote in an email that Co-Conspirator 5's plan for the electors to, quote, send in fake electoral votes to Pence unquote was quote kind of wild slash creative unquote two and a half hours later he replied to his own email and as cover wrote that quote alternative votes is probably a better term than fake votes and then he agreed with the suggestion quote to keep the plan under wraps until Congress counts the vote on January 6th.

In each of the targeted states, Mr. Trump and his co-conspirators successfully organized enough elector nominees and substitutes to gather on December 14th, cast fraudulent electoral votes on his behalf and send them to Washington DC for the congressional certification. A fact that the RNC chairwoman relayed to Mr. Trump on the evening of December 14th. At the same time that Mr. Trump's elector nominees in the targeted states were preparing to gather and cast fraudulent votes, his co-conspirators were planning to use them to overturn the election results of the January 6th certification. On December 13th, co-conspirator five sent co-conspirator one a memorandum that envisioned

a scenario in which the vice president would use the fraudulent slates to claim there were dueling slates of electors from the targeted states and negotiate a solution for Mr. Trump to seize power. And on December 16th, co-conspirator five traveled to Washington with a group of private attorneys who had done work for Mr. Trump's campaign in Wisconsin for a meet and greet with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office. As the group left, co-conspirator Five had a direct private conversation with Mr. Trump. Days later, on December 19th, Mr. Trump publicly posted a tweet demonstrating his own focus on the

certification proceeding and directing his supporters to gather in Washington, D.C. to oppose it. At 1.42 a.m., he posted a copy of a report falsely alleging outcome-determinative election fraud and wrote, quote, Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there. Will be wild. That same day, co-conspirator five notified another attendee of the December 16th Oval Office meeting of mr Trump's tweet and indicated that mr. Trump had privately foreshadowed his plans for January 6th Writing quote Wow based on three days ago. I think we have unique understanding of this

unquote All right, we'll be back with section C, and I am on page 16, but we have to take a quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. We are reading volume one of Jack Smith's final report submitted on Tuesday, just after midnight in the morning, Monday night, Tuesday morning, just after midnight Eastern time. We're on page 16, section 1C, Mr. Trump's misuse of official power through the Justice

Department. As his efforts to directly pressure state officials to discount legitimate votes failed and the fraudulent elector plan unfolded, Mr. Trump also tried another tack. He attempted to wield federal power to perpetuate his fraud claims and retain office. Mr. Trump was frustrated with the Justice Department because its criminal investigations had identified no evidence of substantial fraud, and the Attorney General had publicly acknowledged this fact in an interview on December 1st by saying, among other things, quote, to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different

outcome in this election, unquote. As a result, Mr. Trump considered appointing co-conspirator for a Justice Department attorney who worked on civil matters to be the acting attorney general, because as described below, co-conspirator for, and I'm interjecting here, this is Jeffrey Clark, was willing to use the Justice Department to spread Mr. Trump's lies and pressure targeted states to overturn election results. Throughout the post-election period, Justice Department officials reviewed Mr. Trump's claims of election fraud, found no support for any of them, and informed him of such.

In one such discussion, when the acting attorney general advised Mr. Trump that the Justice Department could not just, quote, snap its fingers and change the election outcome, Mr. Trump told the acting attorney general and acting deputy attorney general that they should, quote, just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressman. In the same call, alluding to replacing Justice Department leadership if they did not do as he directed, Mr. Trump also said, quote, people tell me co-conspirator for is great that I should just put him in unquote. Mr. Trump knew about co-conspirator for because he had been introduced to co-conspirator four by a member of Congress.

And I'm interjecting here that Scott Perry and had been secretly engaging with co-conspirator four who was communicating with Mr. Trump in contravention of policies designed to protect the independence of the justice department on December 28th, as his secret communications with Mr. Trump continued co-consConspirator 4 emailed the acting Attorney General and acting Deputy Attorney General a proposed letter that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had, quote, identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states and recommended

that those state legislatures convene in special session to reconsider certification of their electoral votes. Co-Conspirator Four proposed to quote, send it to the governor, speaker, and president pro temp of each relevant state to indicate that in light of time urgency and sworn evidence of election irregularities presented to courts and to legislative committees, that the legislatures thereof should each assemble and make a decision about electoral appointments in light of their deliberations.

Within about an hour of receiving the draft letter, the acting Deputy Attorney General pointedly rejected co-conspirator for his proposal, Jeffrey Clark's proposal, writing, quote, "'I know of nothing that would support the statement. We have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, unquote. That's the statement that the acting deputy attorney general pointedly rejected. He also observed that the Justice

Department had no role in state's administration of their own elections, writing, quote, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the department would recommend that a state assemble its legislature to determine whether already certified election results should somehow be overridden by legislative action. Nonetheless, Mr. Trump continued to circumvent Justice Department leadership and engaged directly with Jeffrey Clark. With Mr. Trump's intervention, Jeffrey Clark obtained a highly classified briefing on foreign interference in the 2020 election of January 2nd, 2021, a briefing that yielded nothing

to support the conspirators allegations as demonstrated by contemporaneous electronic messages between Jeffrey Clark and the same member of Congress who had introduced co-conspirator for to Mr. Trump. Oh wow, he's got text messages between Jeffrey Clark and Scott Perry and those text messages say that there's nothing to support the allegations as demonstrated. Oh my goodness. Okay. So this is new to me. This is something I didn't know yet. And this obviously the member of Congress who introduced co-conspirator for Jeffrey Clark to Mr. Trump is Scott Perry. And Merrick Garland sees Scott Perry's phone

and then spent a really long time cracking it and then had to spend another really long time suing to get its contents because Scott Perry sued to stop it using the speech or debate clause. So oh my gosh Scott Perry's phone comes into play I didn't know this this is new to me. All right, sorry back to the report yet the following day Mr. Trump attempted to install co-conspirator for as the acting attorney general. On January 3rd, after Mr. Trump offered the position to co-conspirator for and co-conspirator for informed Justice

Department senior leadership, he was accepting it. Mr. Trump and co-conspirator for and senior officials from the Justice Department and White House counsel's office gathered for a hastily scheduled meeting in the Oval Office. Mr. Trump made clear that he wanted to appoint co-conspirator for, this is Jeffrey Clark, because co-conspirator for would cause the Justice Department to send the targeted states the false letter that the acting attorney general and the acting deputy attorney general had rejected as inaccurate and improper. Mr. Trump ultimately did not do so only because he was informed that if he did, mass resignations within the Justice Department and the White House would result in co-conspirator for leading a graveyard, quote unquote. Near the end of the meeting,

when co-conspirator for raised the idea of the Justice Department opining on the vice president's role during the congressional certification, Mr. Trump told all those assembled that no one other than him should be talking to the vice president. That's also new. All right, section 1D. We're now on page 20. Mr. Trump's pressure on the vice president. Mr. Trump wanted no one else speaking with the vice president because he and co-conspirators were already implementing a secret plan to use Mr. Pence's ministerial role as president of the Senate to Mr. Trump's advantage. president of the Senate to Mr. Trump's advantage. Co-Conspirator 2, with the assistance from Co-Conspirators 5 and 6, spearheaded the execution of the strategy, which Co-Conspirator 2 had

recently conceded was not supported by the Constitution or federal law. For Mr. Pence to decline to count the legitimate electoral certificates in the targeted states where Mr. Trump's electors had signed fraudulent ones. In the weeks before the certification, Mr. Trump began pressuring Mr. Pence to cooperate both directly and by mobilizing Mr. Trump's supporters. In repeated conversations day after day, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Pence to use his ministerial position as president of the Senate to change the election outcome, often by citing false claims of election fraud as justification. He even falsely told Mr. Pence that the, quote, Justice Department was finding major infractions,

unquote. When Mr. Pence repeatedly refused to act as Mr. Trump wanted. Mr. Trump told him that quote, hundreds of thousands of people would hate his guts and think he was stupid and that Mr. Pence was quote, too honest. Surrounding these communications, Mr. Trump frequently took to Twitter to exhort supporters to travel to Washington for January 6th, such as when he tweeted on January 1st, quote, the big protest rally in Washington, DC will take place at 11 a.m. on January 6th.

Locational details to follow, stop the steal. On January 4th, two days before the certification proceeding, Mr. Trump arranged for Mr. Pence to meet with co-conspirator 2 in the Oval Office in hopes that Co-Conspirator 2 could convince Mr. Pence to accede. During the meeting, Co-Conspirator 2 outlined two ways that he claimed Mr. Pence could affect the election outcome using his role in the certification. He could reject the legitimate electors outright, denying Mr. Biden an electoral majority and likely sending the selection of the president to the House

of Representatives, where fellow Republicans controlled the majority of the state delegations. Or he could send the electoral slates to targeted states' legislatures for them to choose which electoral votes should be counted, affording Republican-controlled legislators the opportunity to reject Mr. Biden's electors and replace them with Mr. Trump's. In response to Mr. Pence's questioning, co-conspirator 2 admitted that both proposals violated the Electoral Count Act and were untested. When Mr. Pence turned to Mr. Trump and pointed out that quote, even Mr. Trump's lawyer, co-conspirator 2,

did not think Mr. Pence had the authority to return electoral votes to the states, Mr. Trump responded that he quote, liked the other thing better, which Mr. Pence understood to mean Mr. Pence simply rejecting the electoral votes outright. In the end, Mr. Pence again stated that he did not believe he could do what he was being asked. That night, Mr. Trump used a speech in Dalton, Georgia to focus the crowd on the idea that Mr. Pence could change the results of the election, saying, quote, I hope Mike Pence comes through for us. I have to tell you I hope that our great vice president our great vice president

Comes through for us. Of course, if he doesn't come through I won't like him quite as much The next day on January 5th when mr. Trump again failed to make headway with mr. Pence in a private conversation Mr. Trump warned that he would have to publicly criticize Mr. Pence. Mr. Trump then, in response to a New York Times report on the conversation between Trump and Pence, issued a false statement claiming, quote, the vice president and I are in total agreement that the vice president has the power to act. All right, everybody, that's the first 22 pages. Thank you for listening. In the next bonus episode of the Jack podcast, for the audio version of volume one of Jack Smith's

final report, we will begin on page 23 with section 1E, Mr. Trump's supporters attack the United States Capitol. Thank you for listening. Thank you for subscribing to Jack. It is a free podcast and we appreciate you. And we'll see you next time again, starting on page 23 with section 1E, Mr. Trump's Supporters Attack the United States Capitol. Thank you for listening to Jack, the podcast about all things special counsel.