Jack - Reading the Annotated Immunity Brief | Part 3

Episode Date: October 9, 2024

Sit back and enjoy smooth legal writing of Jack Smith as read by Allison Gill.Part 3Thank you to Adam Klasfeld for filling in the redacted names.Who's Who in Jack Smith's Immunity Brief Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew 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 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

M-SW Media. I signed an order appointing Jack Smith. And nobody knows you. And those who say Jack is a finetic. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what law have I moved? The events leading up to and on January 6th. Classified documents and other presidential records.

You understand what prison is? Send me to jail. Hello and welcome to Jack, the podcast about all things special counsel. My name is Allison Gill. And we've had a lot of folks right in asking if there were was an audio version of the special counsel's immunity brief because it's a lot to read. Well, ask and ye shall receive. This is the audio version of the immunity brief and I'll be reading it with the known redacted names as provided by our friend Adam Classfeld at Just

Security. This audio version will be split up into multiple episodes that will be released daily. Thanks for listening and please subscribe to the Jack podcast for free wherever you get your podcasts. All right, today we start on the bottom of page 72 with the insurrection, which is the final chapter in the factual proffer section 1. The defendant caused unlawful conduct on January 6th and tried to take advantage of the riot that ensued. The defendant continued his intense pressure campaign against the vice president into the early morning hours of January 6th. Around 1 a.m., the defendant tweeted falsely, quote, if Vice President Mike Pence comes through for us, we will win the presidency. Many states want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect and even fraudulent numbers in a process not approved by their state legislatures, which it must be. Mike can send it back.

At 8.17 a.m. as the supporters he had summoned to the city gathered near the White House, the defendant again falsely tweeted about this certification. quote, states want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the states and we win. Do it, Mike. This is a time for extreme courage. Later that morning, Ken Chasbrough worked with another attorney for the defendant who contacted a U.S. senator to ask him to obtain the fraudulent Wisconsin and Michigan documents from the U.S. representatives office. and hand-deliver them to the vice president. When one of the U.S. Senators' staffers contacted a Pence staffer by text message to arrange for delivery of what the U.S. Senators' staffer had been told were, quote, alternate slates of electors for Michigan and Wisconsin because the archivist didn't receive them, Pence's staffer rejected

them. At 11.15 a.m., shortly before traveling to the ellipse to speak to his supporters, the defendant called Pence and made one last attempt to induce him to act unlawfully in the upcoming session. When Pence again refused and told the defendant that he intended to make a statement to Congress before the certification proceeding, confirming that he lacked the authority to do what the defendant wanted, the defendant was incensed. He decided to reinsert into his campaign speech at the ellipse, remarks targeting Pence for his refusal to misuse his role in the certification. And the defendant set into motion the last plan in furtherance of his conspiracies.

If Pence would not do as he asked, the defendant needed to find another way to prevent the certification of Biden as president. So on January 6th, the defendant sent to the Capitol a crowd of angry supporters whom the defendant had called to the city and inundated with false claims of outcome determinative election fraud to induce Pence not to certify the legitimate electoral votes

and to obstruct the certification. At the Ellipse campaign rally, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman spoke before the defendant. In his rally speech, Giuliani sought to cloak the conspiracies in an air of legitimacy, assuring the defendant's supporters that, quote, every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today is perfectly

legal, unquote, and introducing John Eastman as a preeminent constitutional scholar who would further explain this plan. He falsely claimed that legislatures in five states were, quote, begging to have their electoral ballots returned. Giuliani then asserted that Pence could, quote, decide on the validity of those crooked ballots and told the crowd, let's have trial by combat. John Eastman in his speech claimed that Pence must send electoral votes to state legislatures for, quote, the American people to know whether we have control of the direction of our government or not, and decried, we no longer live in a self-governing republic if we can't get the answer to this question. When the defendant took the stage at the ellipse rally to speak to the supporters who had gathered there at his urging, he knew that Pence had refused once and for all to use the defendant's fraudulent elector certificates. The defendant also knew that he had only one last hope to prevent Biden's certification as president, the large and angry crowd standing in front of him. So for more than an hour, the defendant delivered a speech designed to inflame his supporters and motivate them to march to the Capitol.

The defendant told his crowd many of the same lies he had been telling for months, publicly and privately, including to the officials of the targeted states, and that he knew were not true. In Arizona, he claimed more than 36,000 ballots had been cast by non-citizens. Regarding Georgia, the defendant repeated the falsehood that more than 10,300 dead people voted, and he raised the publicly disproven claims about fraud by election workers at State Farm Arena. He made baseless allegations of dead voters in Nevada and Michigan and false claims about illegally counted votes in Wisconsin. And in Pennsylvania, he claimed that there were hundreds of thousands more ballots counted then there had been voters.

The defendant also lied to his rally supporters when he claimed that certain states wanted to reconsider or recertify their duly appointed electors. For instance, he said, quote, by the way, Pennsylvania has now seen all of this, they didn't know because it was so quick, they had a vote, they voted,

but now they see all this stuff, it's all come to light, doesn't happen that fast, and when they wanted to recertify their votes, they want to recertify. But the only one, way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. Mike Pence has to agree to send it back. In response to this lie about Pennsylvania, the defendant's crowd began to chant,

send it back, send it back. The defendant gave his supporters false hope that Pence would take action to change the results of the election and claimed that Pence had the authority to do so. He falsely told the crowd that Pence could still do the right thing and halt the certification. And he extemporized lines about the vice president throughout the speech, including the indirect threat. Quote, Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now, I'm not hearing good stories. The defendant galvanized his supporters by painting the stakes as critical and assuring them that history was going to be made.

He made clear that he expected his supporters to take action. telling them regarding his loss of the election that we're not going to let that happen and calling them to fight and to take back their country through strength, while suggesting that legal means were antiquated or insufficient to remedy the purported fraud because, quote, when you catch somebody in fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules. Throughout the speech from as early as about 15 minutes into it, and twice in its final lines, the defendant directed his supporters to go to the Capitol and suggested that he would go with them.

The overall impact of the defendant's speech, particularly in light of the months of statements and tweets, falsely claiming election fraud, and following on the heels of Giuliani and Eastman's speeches, was to fuel the crowd's anger. For instance, when the defendant told his supporters that, quote, we will not let them silence your voices, we're not going to let it happen.

The crowd chanted fight for Trump in response. When the defendant soon after told supporters were going to walk down to the Capitol, that they would never take back our country with weakness and that they had to, quote, show strength and had to be strong, members of the crowd shouted, invade the Capitol building and take the Capitol. Thousands of the defendant's supporters obeyed his directive

in March to the Capitol, where the certification proceeding began around 1 p.m. Minutes earlier, Pence had issued a public statement explaining that his role as president of the Senate did not include unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not. On the floor of the House of Representatives, Pence opened the certificates of vote and certificate of ascertainment from Arizona, consistent with the Electoral Count Act. After an objection from a senator and a representative, the House and the Senate retired to their separate chambers to debate it. Outside of the Capitol building, a mass of people, including those who had traveled to Washington

and the Capitol at the defendant's direction, broke through barriers, cordoning off the Capitol grounds, and advanced on the building. Among them was Ken Chesbrough, who had attended the defendant's speech from the Washington Monument, marched with the crowd to the Capitol,

and breached the restricted area surrounding the building. A large portion of the crowd at the Capitol, including rioters who violently attacked law enforcement officers trying to secure the building, wore clothing and carried items bearing the defendant's name and campaign slogans, leaving no doubt that they were there on his behalf and his direction.

Beginning at about 1.30 p.m., the defendant settled into the dining room off the Oval Office. He spent the afternoon there reviewing Twitter on his phone, while the dining room television played Fox News's contemporaneous coverage of the events at the Capitol. At 2.13 p.m., the crowd at the Capitol broke into the building and forced the Senate to recess. Within minutes, staffers fled the Senate chamber carrying the legitimate electors physical certificates of vote and certificates of ascertainment. Next to the Senate chamber, a group of rioters chased a U.S. Capitol Police officer up a flight of stairs to within 40 feet of where Pence was sheltering with his family. As they did so, the rioters shouted at the officer in search of public officials, where the fuck they at? where the fuck they count in the votes at?

Why are you protecting them? You're a fucking traitor. On the other side of the Capitol, the House was also forced to recess. Fox News's coverage of the events at the Capitol included, at about 2.12 p.m., reports of the Capitol being on lockdown and showed video footage of large crowds

within the restricted area surrounding the Capitol. Much of the crowd was wearing clothing and carrying flags, evidencing their allegiance to the defendant. At about 2.20 p.m., video of crowds on the Capitol lawn and West Terrace were shown alongside a Chiron stating, quote, certification vote paused as protests erupt on Capitol Hill. At 2.21 p.m., an on-the-street reporter interviewed an individual marching from the ellipse to the Capitol, who claimed to have come to Washington, quote, because President Trump told us we had something big to look forward to, and I believed that Vice President Pence was going to certify the election. electoral votes, that's a spelling error, or not certify them, but I guess that's just changed, correct? And it's a very big disappointment. I think there's several hundred thousand people here who are

very disappointed, but I still believe President Trump has something else left. And at approximately 2.24 p.m., Fox News reported that a police officer may have been injured and that the protesters, quote, have made their way inside the Capitol. At 2.24 p.m., Trump was alone in his dining room when he issued a tweet attacking Pence and fueling the ongoing riot. Quote, Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth. That afternoon at the Capitol, a rioter used a bullhorn to read the defendant's tweet about the

vice president allowed to the crowd trying to gain entry to the building. The defendant issued the incendiary tweet about Pence, despite knowing, as he would later admit in an interview in 2023, that his supporters listened to him like no one else. One minute later at 225, the Secret Service was forced to evacuate Pence to a secure location. At the Capitol, throughout the afternoon, members of the crowd chanted, hang Mike Pence. Where is Pence? Bring him out. and traitor Pence. Several rioters in those chanting crowds wore hats and carried flags

evidencing their allegiance to the defendant. In the years since January 6th, the defendant has refused to take responsibility for putting Pence in danger, instead blaming Pence. On March 13th, 20203, he said, had Mike Pence sent the vote back to the legislatures, they wouldn't have had a problem with January 6th,

so in many ways you can blame him for January 6th. Had he sent them back to Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, the states, I believe, number one, you would have a different outcome. But I also believe you wouldn't have had January 6th, as we call it. Rioters, again, many bearing pro-Trump paraphernalia indicating their allegiance, breached the Senate chamber, rifled through the papers on the senator's desks, and stood on the dais where Pence had been presiding just minutes earlier. On the House side, rioters watched as police evacuated lawmakers from the House chamber,

smashing glass windows surrounding a locked door that stood between them and the fleeing members and staffers. At least one rioter recorded a video showing members being evacuated, while the crowd, the growing crowd, screamed at the Capitol police officers guarding the locked door to the House Speaker's lobby. Some of the worst violence of that day took place outside the Capitol on the Lower West Terrace, the side of the building facing the ellipse where the defendant had given his speech. There, scaffolding placed in anticipation of the January 20th inauguration created a tunnel leading to a set of double glass doors in the center of the Capitol building. After rioters had forced their way onto restricted capital grounds and passed the temporary barriers, including layers of snow fencing and bike racks, they attacked law enforcement officers trying to protect the building with flagpoles, bear spray, stolen police riot shields, and other improvised weapons.

of his time defending the Capitol, one Metropolitan Police officer said, I feared for my life from the moment I got into that. We were walking into the crowd when the Capitol Police officer was leading us there to the front line. And especially when I got sprayed in the middle of the crowd, I at that point honestly thought, this is it.

Yeah, multiple times, you know, you're getting pushed, kicked, you know, people are throwing metal bats at you and all that stuff. I was like, yeah, this is fucking it. The officer described that the rioters he encountered at the Capitol were wearing both tactical gear and Trump paraphernalia and appearing to be acting out of pure sheer anger. In the years after January 6th, the defendant

has reiterated his support for and allegiance to the rioters who broke into the Capitol, calling them patriots and hostages, providing them financial assistance and reminiscing about January 6th is a beautiful day. At a rally in Waco, Texas on March 25, 2023, the defendant started a tradition he has repeated several times, opening the event with a song called Justice for All, recorded by a group of charged and in many cases convicted January 6th offenders, known as the January 6th choir,

and who, because of their dangerousness, are held at the District of Columbia jail. At the Waco rally of the January 6th choir, the defendant said, Our people love these people, they love these people. The defendant also stated that if re-elected, he will pardon individuals convicted of crimes

on January 6th. On the evening of January 6th, the defendant and Rudy Giuliani attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol by having Giuliani call senators and attempt to get them to further delay the certification. At around 7 p.m., Giuliani placed calls

to five U.S. senators and one U.S. representative. Boris Epstein attempted to confirm phone numbers for members of Congress whom the defendant had directed Rudy to call. In a voicemail that Rudy intended for one senator, he said, I'm calling you because I want to discuss with you

how they're trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you. And I know they're reconvening at eight tonight, but the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states

and raise issues so we can get ourselves into tomorrow, ideally the end of tomorrow. He then asked the senator to object to every state and give us the opportunity to get the legislators who were very, very close to pulling their votes. This concession that the legislatures had not yet asked to review the slates stood in contrast to Rudy and the defendant's lies at the ellipse that they had already done that.

Next, in a voicemail intended for another senator, Giuliani told more lies. He falsely claimed that Pence's decision not to use the defendant's fraudulent elector's certificates had been surprising and that in light of the surprise, quote, we could use a little more time so the state legislators can prepare even more to come to you and say, give this back to us for a while so we can fix it. Rudy then repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud, including that non-citizens had voted in Arizona and an outcome determinative number of underage voters had cast ballots in Georgia. Although the attack on the Capitol successfully delayed

the certification for approximately six hours, the House and Senate resumed a joint session at 1135 p.m. But the conspirators were not done. Within 10 minutes at 1144, John Eastman, who earlier that day wrote to Jacob that the siege is because of you and your boss did not do what was necessary. He emailed Mark Jacob again and urged him to convince Pence to violate the law, writing, quote, I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation of the Electoral Count Act and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to follow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here. At 3.41 a.m. on January 7th, as president of the Senate, Pence announced the certified results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Biden.

All right. That is the end of Section 1, the factual proffer. We will start Section 2, the legal framework, right after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. We are now up to Section 2, the legal framework, beginning on page 85. Legal framework. In Trump, the Supreme Court held that former presidents are immune from prosecution for core official acts, enjoy at least a rebuttable presumption of immunity for other official acts, and have no immunity for unofficial acts, and remanded to this court for further proceedings consistent with its holding. This section sets forth the applicable legal principles, and then Section 3 applies them to the categories of conduct that the superseding indictment alleges, and that the government intends to prove at trial in order to demonstrate that none of the defendant's conduct is immunized. In Trump, the Supreme Court announced the principles that govern a former

president's claim of constitutional immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court divided presidential acts into three categories. One, core presidential conduct that Congress has no power to regulate and for which a former president has absolute immunity. Two, other official presidential acts for which the president has at least presumptive immunity, and three, unofficial conduct for which the president has no immunity. With respect to the first category of core official conduct, when the president's authority to act is, quote, conclusive and preclusive, Congress may not regulate his actions, and the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Quoting Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer,

1952. Applying those principles to the original indictment, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant is, quote, absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials and his threatened removal of the acting attorney general, unquote. The superseding indictment omits those allegations, and the Supreme Court did not find that any other conduct alleged in the original indictment implicated conclusive and preclusive presidential authority. The threshold question here, then, is whether the defendant can carry his burden to establish that his acts were official and thus subject to presumptive immunity. See Dennis v. Sparks, 1980, noting that for immunity doctrines, quote, the burden is on the official

claiming immunity to demonstrate his entitlement, unquote. official conduct includes acts taken within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are, quote, not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority. Quoting Blasengame. But consistent with the D.C. Circuit's opinion in Blasengame, the Supreme Court suggested that a president who speaks as a candidate for office or party leader, as the defendant did here, does not act in his official presidential capacity. As the D.C. Circuit explained, a president acting as a candidate for re-election is, to that extent, not carrying out an official responsibility. See Blasengame.

Quote, when a sitting president running for re-election speaks in a campaign ad or is accepting his political party's nomination at the party convention, he typically speaks on matters of public concern. Yet he does so in an unofficial private capacity as office seeker, not an official capacity, as office holder, and actions taken in an unofficial capacity cannot qualify for official act immunity. To assess whether a president's actions constitutes an official act, courts must apply an objective analysis that focuses on content, form, and context of the conduct in question. That's quoting Snyder v. Phelps in Trump. A president's motives for undertaking the conduct and the fact, and the fact that the conduct is alleged to have violated a generally applicable law are not relevant

considerations. If a president's actions constitute non-core official presidential conduct, he is at least presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for that conduct. Quote, reserving whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute because we need not decide that question today, citing Trump. The government can overcome that presumptive immunity by demonstrating that, quote, applying a criminal prohibition to the act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch. That's Trump, quoting Fitzgerald. Just as the inquiry into whether conduct is official or unofficial is necessarily fact-bound, with the necessary analysis being fact-specific, so too should be the inquiry into whether

any presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. The analysis should first identify the specific alleged act at issue and then determine whether criminal liability for the act intrudes on a relevant executive branch authority or function, taking care not to, quote, conceive of the inquiry at too high a level of generality. That's from Bannaker Ventures v. Graham from 2015. Such an approach recognizes that the executive authority has limits, boundaries imposed by constitutional text, the separation of powers, and precedent,

and that application of criminal law to the president's official conduct does not per se intrude impermissibly on executive branch authority and functions. Citing Trump, if the president claims authority to act, but in fact exercises mere individual will and authority without the law, the courts may say so. And that's quoting Youngstown in Trump. These principles for assessing whether the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is immune apply equally to evidence. The government may not introduce evidence of immunized official conduct against a former president at trial,

even to prove that the former president committed a crime predicated on a crime. unofficial conduct. That brings us to section three. So section two was the legal framework, and now we're at section three. None of the allegations or evidence is protected by presidential immunity. At its core, the defendant's scheme was a private one. He extensively used private actors and his campaign infrastructure to attempt to overturn the election results and operated in a private capacity as a candidate for office.

to the limited extent that the superseding indictment and proffered evidence reflect official conduct, however, the government can rebut the presumption of immunity because relying on that conduct in this prosecution will not pose a danger of intrusion on the authority or functions of the executive branch. Below, the government categorizes the conduct outlined in Section 1 and provides, quote, content, form, and context, unquote, for this court to determine that the defendant's conduct was private or that in the alternative, any presumptive immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. This analysis is necessarily fact-intensive, and all of the government's analysis below is based on the unique facts and circumstances of this case. This section first addresses the defendant's interactions with Pence, because in Trump, the immunity decision, the Supreme Court held that when the defendant conversed with Pence about their official responsibilities, the conduct was official. accordingly, the government explains below why any presumptive immunity as to the defendant's official conduct regarding Pence is rebutted. Other than the specific official conduct related to Pence that the Supreme Court held to be official, none of the defendant's other actions were official. This section categorizes that conduct and provides the content form and context that establishes its unofficial nature. These categories are, A, the defendant's interactions as a candidate with state officials,

B, the defendant's efforts as a candidate to organize fraudulent electors, C, defendants' public speeches, tweets, and other public statements as a candidate, D, the defendant's interactions as a candidate with White House staff, and E, other evidence of the defendant's knowledge and intent. Lastly, even if these categories of conduct and evidence were deemed official, the government can rebut the attendant presumption of immunity as described below. We'll start with the defendant's interactions with Pence. The only conduct alleged in the original indictment that the Supreme Court held was official and subject to at least a rebuttable presumption of immunity was the defendant's attempts to lie, and to pressure Vice President Pence to misuse his role as President of the Senate at the

Congressional Certification. The Supreme Court stated, quote, whenever the President and Vice President discussed their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. And further explain that because Pence's role at the certification was, quote, a constitutional and statutory duty of the vice president, the defendant was, quote, at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct. accordingly, unlike all of the other threshold determinations that the court will have to make about whether the defendant's conduct alleged in the superseding indictment was official, with respect to the defendant's conversations with Pence about Pence's official role at the certification proceeding,

the court can skip to the second step, whether the government can rebut the presumption of immunity that the Supreme Court held applies to such conversations. because the executive branch has no role in the certification proceeding, and indeed the president was purposefully excluded from it by design. Prosecuting the defendant for his corrupt efforts regarding Pence poses no danger to the executive branch's authority or functioning. As described below, the government also intends to introduce at trial evidence regarding conversations between the defendant and Pence,

in which they did not discuss Pence's official responsibilities as president of the Senate, and instead acted in their private capacities as running mates. And the government intends to elicit at trial evidence about a Pence staffer's conversations with co-conspirator John Eastman. Those conversations were unofficial and therefore not immune. The defendant's interactions with Pence's interactions with Pence, as president of the Senate were official,

but the rebuttable presumption of immunity is overcome. The superseding indictment and the government's trial evidence include the defendant's attempts to influence Pence's, quote, oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as president of the Senate. These conversations included one-on-one conversations between the defendant and Pence describing conversations on December 5th, December 25th, January 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th. as well as conversations in which the defendant included private actors, such as co-conspirator John Eastman, in his attempts to convince Pence to participate in the conspiracies.

The Supreme Court held that discussions between the defendant and Pence concerning Pence's role that the certification proceeding qualify as official conduct and therefore are a subject to a rebuttable presumption of immunity because they involved, quote, the president and the vice president discussing their official responsibilities. Those discussions qualify as official because, quote, presiding over the January 6th certification proceeding at which members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the vice president. The discussions at issue did not pertain to Pence's role as president of the Senate writ large, however, but instead focused only on his discrete duties in presiding over the certification proceeding, a process in which the executive branch, by design, plays no. no direct role. A prosecution involving the defendant's efforts to influence Pence in the discharge of this particular duty housed in the legislative branch would not pose any danger of intrusion on the

authority and functions of the executive branch. The executive branch has no authority or function to choose the next president, quoting Blasengame. To the contrary, the Constitution provides that the states will appoint electors to vote for the president and vice president. that's from U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2. And all states have chosen to make such appointments based on the ballots cast by the people in their respective states. Quoting, Sheafalo v. Washington, quote,

the Congress may determine the time and choosing of electors and the day on which they shall give their votes. But the executive branch has no direct role in that process. The next step in the process established by the Constitution similarly provides no role for the executive branch. The House and Senate meet in a joint session with the President of the Senate present to open all the certificates of the state-appointed electors

in the presence of the House and Senate for them to be counted. 12th Amendment. Quote, the person having the greatest number of votes for president shall be the president, if such a number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed. Only if the state-appointed electors have failed to make a choice, i.e. no candidate has such a majority. Does the choice fall to the House of Representatives who, voting by state delegation, choose immediately by ballot from the three presidential candidates receiving the most electoral votes?

There, too, the executive branch plays no role in the process. The exclusion of the executive branch reflects fundamental constitutional principles. the executive power is vested in a president only for the term of four years. That's from the U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1. And it transfers to his successor by operation of law at noon on the 20th day of January. That's the 20th Amendment. Permitting the incumbent president to choose his own successor, or, worse still, to perpetuate himself in power,

would contradict the entire constitutional system that the framers created. Quote, in free governments, Benjamin Franklin explained, the rulers are the servants and the people, their superiors and sovereigns. A government could not be considered a genuine republic, Madison argued, unless the person administering it, including the president, be appointed either directly or indirectly by the people and that they hold their appointments for a definite period. Federalist 39.

Thus, while the framers recognized the necessity of an energetic executive, they justified and checked his power by ensuring he always retained a due dependence on the people, Federalist 70, Alexander Hamilton. The framers further recognize that while regular elections would serve as the primary control on the government, quote, experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. That's Federalist 51, James Madison. Some of those precautions are, reflected in the design of the electoral college itself.

Quote, wary of cabal intrigue and corruption, the framers specifically excluded from service as electors, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great a devotion to the president in office. Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton. They were keenly aware, as Justice Story later explained, that an ambitious candidate could hold out the rewards of office or other sources.

of patronage in an effort to influence a majority of votes, and thus, by his own bold and unprincipled conduct, to secure a choice to the exclusion of the highest and purest and most enlightened men in the country. That's commentary is on the Constitution of the United States, 1833. To guard against that possibility, Article 2 provides no senator or representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector. That's the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2. As a leading early American commentator observed, these limitations serve, quote,

to prevent the person in office at the time of election from having any improper influence about his re-election by his ordinary agency in the government. That's James Kent, commentaries on American law, 1854. All right, everybody, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back with further information on the Constitution's structure and how it excludes the president

from choosing the president. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. We're in Section 3, and we're discussing how the Constitution has excluded the president from selecting the next president, and they did that by design.

The Constitution's structure further reflects the framers considered choice to exclude the incumbent president from playing a role in choosing the next president. The Constitution reflects an abiding concern that governmental power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it, not least to protect against, quote, the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, unquote. That's Federalist 48, James Madison.

Quote, the abuses by the monarch recounted in the Declaration of Independence, provide dramatic evidence of the threat to liberty posed by a too powerful executive. The framers therefore designed a system of separated powers, in part to ensure that, quote, no man is allowed to be a judge in his own case because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. That's Federalist 10, James Madison. The defendant's charged conduct directly contravenes these foundational principles. He sought to encroach on powers specifically assigned by the Constitution, to other branches to advance his own self-interest and perpetuate himself in power contrary to the

will of the people. As such, applying a criminal prohibition to the defendant's conduct would not pose any danger of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch. Rather, it would advance the Constitution's structural design to prevent one branch from usurping or impairing the performance of the constitutional responsibilities of another. See Clinton v. Jones, 1997. His The history confirms that presidents have never understood their wide-ranging duties to encompass any direct role in the function of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of a presidential election. As President Lincoln explained in 1864, quote, by the Constitution and laws, the president

is charged with no duty in the conduct of a presidential election in any state. And if any election shall be held and any vote shall be cast in the state of Tennessee for president and vice president of the United States, it will belong not to the military agents, nor yet to the executive department, but exclusively to another department of the government, to determine whether they are entitled to be counted in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States. When Congress later sent to Lincoln for his signature a, quote, joint resolution declaring certain states not entitled to representation in the electoral college, Lincoln signed the resolution, quote, in defiance to the view of Congress implied in its passage

and presentation to him, but disclaimed all right of the executive to interfere in any way in the matter of canvassing or counting electoral votes. The government is aware of no contrary evidence, including of any president other than the defendant, seeking to influence his vice president in the discharge of his duties as president of the Senate in presiding over the joint session. The absence of any such historical tradition is reinforced by the fact that 22 of the 59 certification proceedings the vice president has not presided at all. When it comes to the certification proceeding specifically, not only has the president been deliberately excluded from the process, but the vice president's role as president of the Senate is highly circumscribed as ministerial in nature. The 12th Amendment gives the president of the Senate no substantive role in determining how to, count the votes of the electors appointed by the states. Rather, it provides only that he shall,

in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and then shifts to the passive voice, quote, and the votes shall then be counted. Nothing in the Constitution remotely suggests that the single individual serving as president of the Senate would have the momentous responsibility to decide which votes to count and how they should be counted. Indeed, dispense himself explained on January 6, 2021, giving the president of the Senate such a role, quote, would be entirely antithetical to the Constitution's design. And removing any possible doubt, quote, Congress has legislated extensively to define the vice president's role in the counting of the electoral votes. And it has never provided any substantive role for the vice president,

instead assigning the resolution of disputes to the two houses of Congress. Moreover, Congress has now made explicit echoing and reaffirming constitutional tradition and practice that, with limited exceptions of no relevance to this case, the role of the President of the Senate while presiding over the joint session shall be limited to performing solely ministerial duties. He, quote, shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of elections, or the votes of elections, or the votes of electors. Because the vice president's role is and has always been ministerial rather than

substantive or discretionary, it is difficult to imagine an occasion in which a president would have any valid reason to try to influence it. As such, criminalizing a president's efforts to affect the vice president's role as the president of the Senate overseeing the certification of electoral college results would not jeopardize an executive branch function or authority. critically, applying a criminal prohibition to the discreet and distinctive category of official interactions between the president and vice president alleged in this case would have no effect, chilling or otherwise, on the president's other interactions with the vice president that implicate executive branch interests.

The president would still be free to direct the vice president in the discharge of his executive branch functions, such as presiding over cabinet meetings, engaging in diplomacy and negotiation, or performing any other presidential duties that the president chose to delegate. The president would likewise still be free to advise the vice president on how to, quote, advance the president's agenda in Congress by casting tie-breaking votes or legislation on nominations. None of these legitimate executive branch functions would be chilled or affected at all. Lastly, the fact that the defendant regularly included other private actors,

such as his private attorney and co-conspirator John Eastman, in some of the conversations to pressure Pence, that strengthens the conclusion that prosecuting the defendant for his actions using Eastman to help recruit Pence into the conspiracies does not infringe on any executive branch authority or function. As set forth in Section 1, private co-conspirators worked to schedule the January 4th meeting

at which Eastman attempted to pressure Pence. Although White House counsel Pat Cipollone was invited to the meeting, when he arrived to attend, the defendant explicitly excluded him from it, meaning that the only attorney attending the meeting for the defendant was John Eastman, his privately retained counsel. In Pat Cipollone's telling,

when Cipollone arrived at the Oval Office for the meeting, the defendant, quote, said words indicating he didn't want me at the meeting. It's hard to imagine stronger evidence that conduct is private than when a president excludes his White House counsel and only wishes to have his private counsel present. Next, the phone call on January 5th that the defendant and John Eastman made to Pence, Jacob, and Short, was the result of the private co-conspirators failure to convince Jacob and Short to do as Eastman urged in the meeting on the morning of January 5th that Jacob and Short took at the defendant's request. The defendant's decision to include private actors in the conversations with Pence about his role at the certification makes even more clear there is no danger to the executive branch's functions and authority,

because the Eastman conversations have no bearing on any executive branch prerogative. Instead, all of this conduct objectively benefited the defendant in his private capacity as a candidate. The court should therefore find the presumption of immunity to be rebutted, and because the presumption is rebutted, any participant in the meeting or the phone call, including Pence, Jacob, and Short, can testify about it at trial. All right, everybody, that's the potential official. stuff between Trump and Pence. We'll be right back after this quick break with the clearly unofficial stuff between Trump and Pence. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right. Welcome

back. So we talked about the official, potentially official conversations that Donald Trump had with Mike Pence. Those are any conversations, you know, when they talked about Pence's official duties. Now everything else is going to be completely private conversations, not official Act and he goes over them like this. We start here at top of page 98. The defendant's interactions with Pence as a running mate were unofficial. At trial, as indicated, the government intends to introduce evidence of private phone calls or in-person meetings, which occasionally included campaign staff that the defendant had with Pence in their unofficial capacities as running mates in the post-election period. These conversations were not described in the original indictment,

nor analyzed by the Supreme Court in its opinion, nor are they described in the superseding indictment. In these conversations, the defendant and Pence discussed their electoral prospects, election-related litigation, and the possibility of the defendant running again in 2024 if his legal challenges failed. For example, Pence tried to encourage the defendant, quote, as a friend, unquote, when news networks projected Biden as the winner of the election, on other occasions softly suggested the defendant, quote, recognized the process is over, unquote, even if he was unwilling to concede and encouraged the defendant to consider running for election again in 2024. Although the defendant and Pence naturally may have touched

upon arguably official responsibilities that were tangential to their election prospects, For instance, whether the federal government should begin its logistical transition to prepare for a different administration, the overall context and content of the conversations demonstrate that they were primarily frank exchanges between two candidates on a shared ticket and the government does not intend to elicit testimony about any peripheral discussion of arguably official responsibilities. See Blasengam. From Blasengame, quote, a president acts in a private unofficial capacity when engaged in re-election campaign activity. They also quote, United States v. Helstosky, which says,

in the speech or debate context, when an act contains both protected legislative components and non-protective components, the correct course is to excise references to legislative acts so that the remainder of the evidence would be admissible. Together, these discussions show the defendant and Pence considering advice from their shared campaign advisors, weighing electoral strategies, and grappling with their loss. Both men had something to gain by winning re-election, making more notable the persistence of Pence's suggestions on how to accept the results of the election without losing face. Even if the court determines that these conversations were official, however, the government can rebut the presumption of immunity, because the use of this evidence poses no risk to the executive branch prerogatives. The content of the conversations at issue, the defendant and Pence's joint electoral fate and how to accept the election results, have no bearing on any function of the executive branch.

See Blasengame, quote, the office of the presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next, unquote. Jacob one-on-one interactions with John Eastman were unofficial. Pence Stafford Jacob also participated in a January 5th meeting with John Eastman and Mark Short. You can see that in the superseding indictment. And on January 6th, engaged in a lengthy email exchange with John Eastman. These interactions were outside of the defendant's presence, and the latter was a series of emails. These conversations were not official within the members. meaning of Trump, which is the decision, the immunity decision from the Supreme Court, since the

defendant was not involved and did not otherwise direct Jacob's actions and because of other information above describing John Eastman's inherently private role. Next, the defendant's interactions in his capacity as a candidate with officials in the targeted states. The interactions at issue were unofficial. At trial, the government will introduce evidence that the defendant, in his capacity as a candidate, contacted state elected officials to use false claims of election fraud to induce their assistance with the charged conspiracies at the point in the electoral process in which states ascertain electors. These communications included calls to Doug Deucy, the governor of Arizona, a meeting with Michigan legislators at the White House, a call to Rusty Bowers, the Speaker of the Arizona State House,

a call to Attorney General Carr, Attorney General of Georgia, and a call to Brad Raffensberger, the Georgia Secretary of State. The contacts, sometimes in person and sometimes by phone, were part of a single course of conduct aimed at lying to and influencing these state officials to alter the results of the election in the defendant's favor. In each conversation, the defendant raised fall. claims of election fraud when pressing the state officials, often asking them to take steps to

prevent or overturn the ascertainment of Biden's legitimate electors. And in each case, the state officials informed the defendant that they had not seen the fraud he was claiming had occurred in their state. Notably, all of these elected officials were the defendant's fellow Republicans. He made no efforts to contact the equivalent individuals holding the same offices in Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, all of whom were Democrats. Most importantly, as with the defendant's plan regarding the fraudulent elector slates, as president, he had no official role in the process by which states appointed and ascertained their presidential electors.

The content, form, and context of the defendant's interactions with these state officials firmly established that his conduct was unofficial. calls to Governor Ducey. The defendant called Doug Ducey, then governor of Arizona on her about November 9th. The defendant's call to Ducey was unofficial and undertaken as a candidate. Throughout the call, the defendant was engaged in partisan electioneering. His comments focused on the vote count in Arizona in his particular race and on the margins and allegations of fraud that could potentially benefit him personally as a candidate.

Doug Deucy in turn responded by giving the defendant his assessment of the defendant's electoral prospects in Arizona, prospects that were dim. The defendant did not ask about the vote counts for or claim fraud existed in any race other than his own. And he raised fraud claims in this context about whether he could still win Arizona, not in the larger context of election integrity. The defendant claimed that he would deliver evidence of election fraud to Doug Deucy, then he did not. The call was a surprise to Governor Ducey and unusually short and to the point for the defendant who usually likes to chat.

In contrast, according to Ducey, this call contained little conversation or pleasantries and was solely focused on the vote count in the presidential race and the defendant's fraud claims. The call must also be considered in the context of the conspirator's additional pressure campaign on Ducey. On other occasions, Rudy Giuliani tried to reach Doug Ducey, but Doug Ducey declined to accept the calls.

And on November 30th, the day Governor Ducey signed the certificate of ascertainment declaring Biden's electors the legitimate ones for Arizona, the defendant joined by Mike Pence again called Doug Ducey and again raised fraud claims and again failed to substantiate them. When Governor Ducey failed to do as the defendant demanded, after the call, the defendant attacked Governor Ducey public. publicly on Twitter. Each of these communications with Governor Ducey was unofficial.

The defendant engaged in them all in his capacity as a candidate in an attempt to elicit Governor Ducey's support in reinstalling him as president. Meeting with Michigan legislators. The defendant's November 20th Oval Office meeting with Michigan state legislators was private in nature. During the meeting, the defendant raised claims of. of election fraud in the state related specifically and only to his own election, and the legislators explained that the defendant had not lost because of fraud, but because he had underperformed with

educated female voters. Although the meeting took place in the Oval Office, as did many unofficial campaign meetings in which the defendant participated in the post-election period, the close examination of all the other circumstances surrounding the meeting makes it clear that it was a campaign meeting. The defendant originally initiated the meeting through RNC Cherwoman Rhonna McDaniel, a private and partisan actor, and then followed up himself

with Shirky and Chatfield, both fellow Republicans and strong political supporters of the defendant. Although the defendant did not specify the topic of the meeting in advance, both Shirky and Chatfield assumed correctly that the defendant wanted to see them to discuss claims of election fraud

related to his own race. Notably, the defendant did not include in the meeting invitation other Michigan officials who held positions more relevant to the election and certification, the governor and secretary of state, but who were not Republicans. At the time, public interest and alarm were peaked by news that the defendant was meeting with legislators from a state where there were pending election disputes and where the governor had not yet signed a certificate of ascertainment and the White House declined. to state the topic of the meeting. During a press conference on the morning of November 20th, White House Press Secretary Kaylee McAnney was asked about the meeting and claimed, quote, this is not an advocacy meeting. There will be no one from the campaign there. He routinely meets with lawmakers from all across the country. McAnnees' claim was false. Over the course of the meeting, the defendant dialed in both Ronna McDaniel, despite her request not to participate,

and Rudy Giuliani. The defendant's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, was present for at least part of the meeting. But besides Meadows, who separate from his chief of staff duties, assisted the defendant with campaign-related logistics, no other executive branch staff joined the meeting. In fact, according to Hirschman,

he and the White House counsel Pat Cipollone wanted no part of it. As Shurkey and Chatfield had expected, the defendant was focused on his own vote count in Michigan and on claims of fraud. that related to only him. Rudy Giuliani, private campaign attorney, then dominated the rest of the meeting

with a monologue of false fraud claims. The only reason that there were topics of conversation other than the defendant's claims of election fraud in his race was because the legislators, in their own initiative, brought them up, including presenting the defendant with a letter on COVID, that they had prepared specifically to have something to talk about other than the defendant's unsupported claim of election fraud.

an official portion of the meeting about which the government does not intend to elicit testimony, by the way. The legislators then took photos with the defendant, and the meeting ended. Afterward, Mark Meadows took the group on a tour of the White House. As planned, after the meeting, Shirky and Chathfield released their statement that publicly disclaimed evidence of outcome determinative voter fraud in the election in Michigan. The statement also specified that Shirky and Chathfield had raised with the defendant issues related to Michigan's need for federal funds to fight COVID. When the defendant responded to the legislator's public statement in a tweet,

the private nature of that message sent as a candidate seeking to overturn the results of his own election, quote, we will show massive and unprecedented fraud, unquote, further demonstrates the private nature of the meeting it concerned. In addition, it was one of six retweets and replies the defendant sent over an approximately 13-minute period, all of which were focused on allegations of election fraud in his own race. Notably, the defendant did not conduct similar meetings in this period with legislators in states where he had won, or even, where he had lost by large margins. Nor did he seek a meeting with Michigan officials, the governor and secretary of state,

who could have provided him with information about the integrity of the election. As further context establishing the private nature of this meeting, it was the the opening volley of a larger pressure campaign on the same Michigan legislators by the defendant, his co-conspirators, and his campaign. For example, days after this meeting, Giuliani sent text messages intended to urge Shirky and Chatfield to help overturn the results in Michigan. In the same time period, the campaign publicized contact information for Shirky and Chatfield, although the number published for Chatfield was wrong, and encourage the defendant's supporters to flood their phone lines with complaint.

All right, everybody, we'll be right back with a call to Rusty Bowers in Arizona. Stick around. We'll be right back. Next up, call with Rusty Bowers. The defendant's call to Bowers on November 22, 2020 also was unofficial. Along with his private attorney, the defendant made the call in his capacity as a candidate and pressured Bowers on electoral matters over which neither of a defendant nor even Bowers had an official role. The context of the call makes its unofficial nature clear. The defendant placed the call to Bowers, along with Rudy Giuliani, his lead campaign attorney, and no White

House officials participated in the call. In fact, Rudy Giuliani did most of the talking. The defendant and Giuliani were singularly focused on fraud claims that affected only the defendant and did not raise any other races in Arizona. And the content of the call confirmed it was unofficial. The defendants and his private attorney asked Bowers, the defendant's political allies, to take steps to replace Arizona's legitimate electors with illegitimate ones for the defendant, a step that necessarily only affected the defendant's race out of all the races on the same ballot. The call must also be viewed in a larger context of the pressure campaign the defendant and his co-conspirators put on Rusty Bowers and other Arizona officials. Immediately after speaking to Bowers, the defendant and Rudy Giuliani spoke to Arizona State Senate President Karen Fan.

A week later, during the quote, hotel hearing, Rudy and Jenna Ellis failed. to bring the promised evidence and instead admitted, quote, we don't have the evidence, but we have lots of theories. When Bowers publicly announced that he would not take extra legal action on the defendant's behalf, Christina Bob and the defendant attack Rusty Bowers on Twitter. And then days before January 6th, John Eastman made another attempt to convince Bowers to act in contravention of the law and his principles. And just as was done with Michigan legislators, the defendant's campaign and Steve Bannon,

publicized contact information for Bowers and Fan in an attempt to pressure them to undertake the same actions the defendant and co-conspirators had asked them privately to perform. Bowers, like others, who publicly opposed the defendant's efforts, was harassed and threatened. Next, the call to Chris Carr. The defendant's call on December 8th to the Attorney General in Georgia, Chris Carr, also was private. He undertook it to speak with Carr about Texas v. Pennsylvania, a lawsuit filed by the Texas Attorney General against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, seeking to prevent those states from certifying their election results in favor of Biden based on a claim that the manner in which those states had administered their elections had violated the

Constitution. The defendant's interest in Texas v. Pennsylvania was personal and private. The lawsuit dealt only with the election for the offices of president and vice president, not the myriad other races on the same ballots. Indeed, the day after his call with Carr, the defendant in his personal capacity and with the assistance of co-conspirator John Eastman, his private attorney, intervened in the suit, and in doing so, quote, affirmatively communicated to the Supreme Court and the public that he was acting and speaking in that manner in his personal capacity as a candidate for re-election. The defendant initiated the call with Carr after a person. The defendant initiated the call with Carr after a political intermediary laid the groundwork for it and immediately raised the lawsuit, which was the

principal topic of conversation on the call. Based on Carr's estimate and the presidential daily diary, the call lasted about 10 minutes and the defendant placed it at night from his private residence at the White House. In fact, shortly before speaking with Carr, the defendant had spoken to Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General who'd filed the lawsuit. And immediately after speaking with Carr, the defendant called Eric Schmidt, the Missouri attorney, General who authored an amicus brief supporting the lawsuit that 16 other state attorneys general joined. The speed of the filing of the defendant's intervention brief the following day echoed what he told Carr. He was running out of time, presumably because landmark dates in the

electoral process like December 14th and January 6th were fast approaching. Lastly, the defendant and Carr also spoke about the importance of their fellow Republican Party members, Senators Purdue and Loeffler, winning their pending election, further making it clear that this call was unofficial. Call to Brad Raffensberger. The defendant's January 2nd call to Raffensberger was unofficial and is not subject to immunity. Its content form and context make it clear that the defendant undertook it as a candidate and plaintiff in a private lawsuit in which Raffensberger was a defendant. Mark Meadows has said that the purpose of the call was to discuss the lawsuit. And he acted or accordingly during it. At the outset of the call, Mark Meadows made introductions of all the participants on the defendant's behalf, Hilbert Kaufman and Mitchell, all of whom were affiliated

with the campaign's litigation efforts, which the defendant brought in his capacity as a candidate for president of the United States. Throughout the call, the defendant and his advisors approached the conversation through his role as a candidate and with focus on a private lawsuit. For instance, in an apparent reference to individuals retained for his private lawsuit, the defendant claimed, quote, we're going to have an accurate number over the next two days with certified accountants. But an accurate number will be given. But it's in the 50s of thousands and that people went to vote and they were told they can't vote because they've already been voted for. Some of his false claims of fraud, parallel claims made in campaign lawsuits,

such as that of a substantial number of dead non-resident voters, for example, in Trump v. Raffensberger, a state court case whose complaint was appended to the federal suit, Trump v. Kemp, the defendant's complaint asserted that 4,926 out-of-state voters had cast ballots. While on the call, the defendant cited the number, 4,925, and he deferred to his private attorneys at multiple points throughout the conversation. For instance, after Raffensberger told the defendant, quote, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong, unquote. the defendant turned to Mitchell and asked,

well, Clita, how do you respond to that? At one point, Meadows interjected and invoked the campaign's litigation, asking whether, quote, we can find some kind of an agreement to find a path forward that's less litigious. And near the end of the call, Hilbert, the defendant's lead counsel in the lawsuit against Raffensberger, requested, quote, to sit down with your office and we can do it through purposes of compromise, just like this phone call to review data.

Raffensberger's counsel, Germany, responded that Hilbert's cited numbers were inaccurate, but agreed to meet with him. The defendants called a Raffensberger was purely a private one, which he undertook as a candidate and the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Indeed, a federal district court has concluded that the Raffinsberger call was a campaign call rather than official business. When Meadows sought removal to federal court of his criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia, a court in the Northern District of Georgia issued an order declining to assume jurisdiction

because Meadows had failed to meet his burden of showing that his role in the call was official rather than unofficial. And that's a quote from Georgia v. Meadows. Quote, Meadows's participation in the call reflected a clear attempt to further Trump's private litigation interests. And Arizona v. Meadows, similarly denying Meadows notice of removal to federal court of a criminal case in Arizona related to the defendant's fraudulent elector plan on the basis that Meadows's conduct and furtherance of the plan charged by the state is, quote, unrelated to Mr. Meadows's official duties. All right, everybody, that is part three. And we will be back tomorrow with part four, starting on page 111. I appreciate you listening to this immunity brief filed by special counsel in this case in D.C. against Donald Trump. please share it widely if you know anybody who might not have the time to read the entire 165 page brief but might have time to listen to it, you know, going for a walk every day for an hour or something.

We want to get this in as many ears as possible. And again, thanks to Adam Klausfeld at Just Security for the annotations. We will see you tomorrow.