Dick Durbin "Report" < GOOGLE - https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/following-8-month-investigation-senate-judiciary-committee-releases-report-on-donald-trumps-scheme-to-pressure-doj-and-overturn-the-2020-election

CONTACT SENATOR DICK DURBIN > https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email :: Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Dick Durbin AUTHORIZES THIS COMMUNICATION INTERFACE : EMAIL
I hope you'll take a moment to share your thoughts so that I may continue to serve and represent your interests and concerns. An email form has been provided below for your convenience. ... Due to the high volume of correspondence, only Illinois residents will receive a direct reply. If you are not from Illinois, I appreciate your understanding and thank you for your comments.

Message Topic* "Subverting JUSTICE : How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election"

Your Contact Information: Street Address * Street Address (2) City * State * Zip Code * Home Phone * E-mail * Verify E-mail *

A. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Investigation [ TOP OF PAGE ]

On January 22, 2021, the New York Times reported that Jeffrey Bossert Clark, [IMAGE] the former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Division, sought to involve DOJ in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and plotted with then President Trump to oust Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, [ IMAGE ] who reportedly refused Trump’s demands.^{^[1]}

(1) Katie Benner, Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General, N.Y. Times (Jan. 22, 2021).
ABOUT > https://hansandcassady.org/FootN-1-Katie Benner.html

On January 23, 2021, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had urged DOJ to file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate President Biden’s victory.^{^[2]} These reports followed Trump’s months-long effort to undermine the results of the election, which culminated in the violent insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Majority [Democrats]	Minority [Republicans]
Dick Durbin, Illinois, Chair Patrick Leahy, Vermont Dianne Feinstein, California Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Chris Coons, Delaware Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Cory Booker, New Jersey Alex Padilla, California Jon Ossoff, Georgia	Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Ranking Member Lindsey Graham, South Carolina John Cornyn, Texas Mike Lee, Utah Ted Cruz, Texas Ben Sasse, Nebraska Josh Hawley, Missouri Tom Cotton, Arkansas John Kennedy, Louisiana Thom Tillis, North Carolina Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary immediately launched an investigation into Trump’s (reported efforts) to "enlist DOJ" in his "election subversion scheme".

"CONSPIRACY" LAW LEGAL DEFINITION [ https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy#:~:text=An%20agreement%20between%20two%20or,act%20toward%20furthering%20the%20agreement. ]

On January 23, 2021, the Committee asked United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce documents related to these efforts. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice ] The department is headed by the U.S. Attorney General, who is nominated by the president and confirmed by the US Senate and is a member of the Cabinet. (The current attorney general is Merrick Garland, who was sworn in March 11, 2021.)
AT THE TIME OF THE Committee REQUEST - On January 23, 2021 - Monty Wilkinson WAS THE "Acting" aTTORNEY GENERAL. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Wilkinson_(lawyer) )

( SOURCE: https://www.durbin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/January%2023,%202021%20Letter%20to%20Acting%20AG%20Wilkinson.pdf )

DOJ [ led by Monty Wilkinson ("acting AG) ] cooperated with the Committee’s request, producing several hundred pages of calendars, emails, and other documents in the ensuing months.

[ TOP OF PAGE ]

On May 20, 2021, following DOJ’s production of emails - from former "White House Chief of Staff" Mark Meadows [ IMAGE ]to Rosen - asking DOJ to investigate several debunked election fraud claims, the Committee [Judiciary Committee (JC) ] asked the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for additional "Trump White House records" related to Trump’s attempts to secure DOJ’s help in overturning the election results.

The Committee’s request [ CITE pdf url? ] sought "White House records between November 3, 2020 and the end of Trump’s presidency" related to meetings and communications between and among White House and DOJ officials. NARA has not responded to date [CIRCA 10-7-2021], and has represented to the Committee [that] the "delay" in transitioning electronic Trump records - from the White House to NARA - may prevent the Committee from obtaining a response for several more months.
[ SUSAN SAYS > SEE:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice. ]

https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/presidential-transition-2016-2017.pdf < A document about what NARA is supposed to be doing to improve "customer" response.

In addition to obtaining and reviewing documents, the Committee [JC] interviewed key former DOJ personnel, including Rosen (A1.), former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue (B1), [ IMAGE ]and former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Byung Jin (“BJay”) Pak (C1). [ IMAGE ]

DOJ and the ["BIDEN"?] White House authorized these "witnesses" to "testify about their internal communications" ... "without restriction", citing the Committee’s [JC] “compelling legislative interests" … in understanding these extraordinary events: namely, the question whether former President Trump sought to cause the Department to use its lawenforcement and litigation authorities to advance his personal political interests with respect to the results of the 2020 presidential election.”^{^[3]}

3 Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, [IMAGE] Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Jeffrey Clark (July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee);
  Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Richard Donoghue (July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee);
  Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Byung J. Pak (July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee);
  Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Jeffrey Rosen (July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee).

"... FEDERAL ROLE: PROSECUTION, NOT INTERVENTION The principal responsibility for overseeing the election process rests with the states. With the significant exception of violations of the Voting Rights Act involving denigration of the right to vote based on race, ethnicity, or language minority status, the federal government plays a role secondary to that of the states in election matters.1 It is the states that have primary authority to ensure that only qualified individuals register and vote, that the polling process is conducted fairly, and that the candidate who received the most valid votes is certified as the winner.2 The federal prosecutor’s role in matters involving corruption of the process by which elections are conducted, on the other hand, focuses on prosecuting individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election. Deterrence of future similar crimes is an important objective of such federal prosecutions. However, this deterrence is achieved by public 1 When election offenses are driven by animus based on race, ethnicity, or language-minority status, the broad protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and other civil rights statutes apply. 52 U.S.C. §§ 10101, 10301, 10303(f), & 10503. Such matters are supervised by the Civil Rights Division. 2 Of course, the U.S. electoral college presents an exception. 9 awareness of the Department’s prosecutive interest in, and prosecution of, election fraud – not through interference with the process itself. Because the federal prosecutor’s function in the area of election fraud is not primarily preventative, any criminal investigation by the Department must be conducted in a way that minimizes the likelihood that the investigation itself may become a factor in the election. The mere fact that a criminal investigation is being conducted may impact upon the adjudication of election litigation and contests in state courts. Moreover, the seizure by federal authorities of documentation generated by the election process may deprive state election and judicial authorities of critical materials needed to resolve election disputes, conduct recounts, and certify the ultimate winners. Accordingly, it is the general policy of the Department not to conduct overt investigations, including interviews with individual voters, until after the outcome of the election allegedly affected by the fraud is certified. In addition, the federal prosecutor has no authority to send FBI Special Agents or Deputy U.S. Marshals to polling places. In fact, a federal statute makes it a felony for any federal official to send “armed men” to the vicinity of open polling places. 18 U.S.C. § 592. In light of these considerations, Department and FBI policy requires that any investigative action that involves an intrusion by federal investigators into the area immediately surrounding an open polling place be approved by the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. ..."

The Committee (JC) also requested to "interview Clark", whom DOJ authorized to testify on the same terms as the other former DOJ officials. DOJ authorized Clark’s appearance on July 26, 2021. More than two months after DOJ authorized him to testify without restriction, Clark still has not agreed to the Committee’s request [that] he sit for a "voluntary interview".

B. Key Findings [ TOP OF PAGE ]

The Committee continues to investigate Trump’s efforts to involve DOJ in his "election subversion scheme", (including) by pursuing Trump White House records that NARA has thus far been unable to produce [ WHY ] and additional witness interviews as appropriate.

Given the gravity of the misconduct the Committee has uncovered to date, however—and in the interest of making a public record of Trump’s efforts to compromise DOJ’s independence—the Committee is releasing this interim staff report. The report makes six primary findings: [ TOP OF PAGE ]

FINDING 1: President Trump repeatedly asked DOJ leadership to endorse his false claims that the election was stolen and to assist his efforts to overturn the election results.

Beginning on the day former Attorney General William Barr [ IMAGE ] announced his resignation [DATE] and continuing almost until the January 6 insurrection, [ DONALD J.]Trump [ IMAGE ] directly and repeatedly asked DOJ’s acting leadership to initiate investigations, file lawsuits on his behalf, and publicly declare the 2020 election “corrupt.”

Documents and testimony confirm that Rosen, and in some cases other senior DOJ leaders, participated in several calls and meetings where Trump directly raised discredited claims of election fraud and asked why DOJ was not doing more to address them. These calls and meetings included:

In attempting to enlist DOJ for personal, political purposes in an effort to maintain his hold on the White House, Trump grossly abused the power of the presidency. He also arguably violated the criminal provisions of the Hatch Act, which prevent any person^{^[4]}—including the President—from commanding federal government employees to engage in political activity.⁴ [ TOP OF PAGE ]

[PDF] "4 18 U.S.C. § 610." SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/610 "... It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (Added Pub. L. 103–94, § 4(c)(1), Oct. 6, 1993, 107 Stat. 1005; amended Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(a)(1), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3497.) ..."

SOURCE: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-85000-protection-government-integrity#9-85.210
"... 9-85.210 - Violations of Campaign Financing Laws, Federal Patronage Laws, and Corruption of the Electional Process—Consultation Requirement

Consultation with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division is required in all federal criminal matters that focus on violations of federal or state campaign financing laws, federal patronage crimes, and corruption of the election process. These offenses include, but are not limited to, offenses described in: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 to 242, 592 to 611; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), and 1973gg-10; 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 to 455; and prosecutive theories that focus on election fraud or campaign fund raising violations using 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346; 18 U.S.C. § 1952; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957.

With regard to federal campaign financing matters arising under 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101-30145, United States Attorneys shall consult with the Public Integrity Section before any inquiry or preliminary investigation is requested or conducted. United States Attorneys shall also consult with the Public Integrity Section before instituting grand jury proceedings, filing an information, or seeking an indictment charging a campaign financing crime.

With regard to all other election crime matters (other than those described in JM 9-85.200 (Federally Protected Activities)), namely, alleged election fraud or patronage offenses, United States Attorneys shall consult with the Public Integrity Section before an investigation beyond a preliminary inquiry is requested or conducted. In this connection, the Department views any voter interviews in the preelection and balloting periods—other than interviews of a complainant and any witnesses he or she may identify—as beyond a preliminary investigation. Thus, the Public Integrity Section should be consulted before such interviews.

Finally, as with campaign financing matters, United States Attorneys also shall consult with the Public Integrity Section before instituting grand jury proceedings, filing an information, or seeking an indictment charging an election fraud or patronage offense.

FINDING 2: White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asked Acting Attorney General Rosen to initiate election fraud investigations on multiple occasions, violating longstanding restrictions on White House-DOJ communications about specific lawenforcement matters.

Meadows asked Rosen to have DOJ investigate at least four categories of false election fraud claims that Trump and his allies were pushing.
Between December 29 and January 1, Meadows asked Rosen to have DOJ:

These requests violated longstanding policies limiting communications between White House and DOJ officials on specific law enforcement matters.^{^[6]} The White House and DOJ established these policies following Watergate to protect DOJ’s investigations and prosecutions from partisan political interference and to prevent White House officials from corrupting DOJ for their own personal gain. [ https://hansandcassady.org/SUBVERTING-JUSTICE-01.html#PDF%20PAGE%20FOOTNOTES ]

FINDING 3: After personally meeting with Trump, Jeffrey Bossert Clark pushed Rosen and Donoghue to assist Trump’s election subversion scheme—and told Rosen he would decline Trump’s potential offer to install him as Acting Attorney General if Rosen agreed to aid that scheme.

Clark pushed Rosen and Donoghue to publicly announce that DOJ was investigating election fraud and tell key swing state legislatures they should appoint alternate slates of electors following certification of the popular vote. He did so following personal communications with Trump, including at least one meeting that Clark attended in the Oval Office without the knowledge of DOJ leadership.

On December 28, 2020, Clark emailed Rosen and Donoghue a draft letter addressed to the Georgia Governor, General Assembly Speaker, and Senate President Pro Tempore. The letter was titled “Georgia Proof of Concept” and Clark suggested replicating it in “each relevant state.” The letter would have informed state officials that DOJ had “taken notice” of election irregularities in their state and recommended calling a special legislative session to evaluate these irregularities, determine who “won the most legal votes,” and consider appointing a new slate of Electors. Clark’s proposal to wield DOJ’s power to override the already-certified popular vote reflected a stunning distortion of DOJ’s authority: DOJ protects ballot access and ballot integrity, but has no role in determining which candidate won a particular election. ... Documents and testimony confirm that Donoghue and Rosen rejected Clark’s recommendation but that Clark—potentially with the assistance of lower-level allies within DOJ—continued to press his “Proof of Concept” for the next several days. Clark eventually informed Rosen and Donoghue that Trump had offered to install him in Rosen’s place, and told Rosen he would turn down Trump’s offer - if Rosen would agree to sign the “Proof of Concept” letter.
... Clark’s efforts culminated in an Oval Office meeting where Rosen, Donoghue, and Steven Engel, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, informed Trump that DOJ’s senior leaders would resign if Trump carried out his plans.

FINDING 4: Trump allies with links to the “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6 insurrection participated in the pressure campaign against DOJ.

In addition to Trump White House officials, including the President himself, outside Trump allies with ties to the “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6 insurrection also pressured DOJ to help overturn the election results. They included:

FINDING 5: Trump forced the resignation of U.S. Attorney Byung Jin (“BJay”) Pak, whom he believed was not doing enough to address false claims of election fraud in Georgia. Trump then went outside the line of succession when naming an Acting U.S. Attorney, bypassing First Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt Erskine and instead appointing Bobby Christine because he believed Christine would “do something” about his election fraud claims.

U.S. Attorney Pak investigated and did not substantiate various claims of election fraud advanced by Trump and his allies, including false claims that a videotape showed suitcases of illegal ballots being tabulated at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena. Trump accused Pak publicly and privately of being a “Never Trumper” and told Rosen and Donoghue on January 3 that he wanted to fire him. Trump relented when Donoghue argued that Pak already planned to resign, agreeing not to fire Pak so long as he resigned the following day. Although First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA) Erskine was next in the line of succession and Christine was already serving as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, Trump told Donoghue he liked Christine and thought he would “do something” about his election fraud claims.

FINDING 6: By pursuing false claims of election fraud before votes were certified, DOJ deviated from longstanding practice meant to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in the election.

Prior to the 2020 general election, DOJ’s longstanding policy and practice was to avoid taking overt steps in election fraud investigations until after votes were certified, in order to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in the election. Then-Attorney General Barr weakened this decades-long policy shortly before and after the 2020 election, including in a November 9, 2020 memo that directed prosecutors not to wait until after certification to investigate allegations of voting irregularities that “could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.” Consistent with this directive and following additional personal involvement by Barr, DOJ took overt steps to investigate false claims of election fraud before certification in one instance detailed to the Committee—and likely others.

The Committee’s investigation to date underscores how Trump’s efforts to use DOJ as a means to overturn the election results was part of his interrelated efforts to retain the presidency by any means necessary. As has been well-documented by other sources, Trump’s efforts to lay the foundation of the “Big Lie” preceded the general election by several months; Attorney General Barr inserted DOJ into that initial effort through various public remarks and actions prior to November 3, 2020 that cast doubt on voting by mail procedures implemented to facilitate exercise of the franchise during the worst public health crisis in a century. Concurrent with Trump’s post-election attempts to weaponize DOJ, Trump also reportedly engaged in a separate and equally aggressive pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to set aside the electoral votes of contested states. This “back-up plan,” as it were, culminated on January 4— one day after Clark’s final attempt to wrest control of DOJ from Rosen, and again in the Oval Office—when Trump and outside attorney John Eastman attempted to convince Pence that he could circumvent the certification through a procedural loophole in the Electoral Count Act.^{^[7]} All of these efforts, in turn, created the disinformation ecosystem necessary for Trump to incite almost 1,000 Americans to breach the Capitol in a violent attempt to subvert democracy by stopping the certification of a free and fair election.

I. Applicable Legal Requirements

A. DOJ’s Limited Role in Election Fraud Investigations

Although states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections, DOJ plays an essential, longstanding role in protecting the right to vote and the integrity of the vote.

DOJ itself was founded in 1870 in the aftermath of the Civil War and its immediate imperative was to protect and preserve civil rights, particularly the right to vote for recently emancipated African Americans.⁸

Today, the DOJ Civil Rights Division enforces a range of voting rights laws, including the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Help America Vote Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

In doing so, the Civil Rights Division, and DOJ more broadly, help ensure the right of every American citizen to vote and to have their vote count.

In addition to protecting ballot access, DOJ also plays an important role in protecting ballot integrity.

The Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section (PIN) investigates and prosecutes election fraud, campaign finance violations, and public corruption that impacts elections.

PIN’s Election Crimes Branch (ECB) provides "guidance" to prosecutors on investigating election fraud, and has explained that DOJ’s role in such cases is limited:

The Justice Department’s goals in the area of election crime are to prosecute those who violate federal criminal law and, through such prosecutions, to deter corruption of future elections.

The Department does not have a role in determining which candidate won a particular election, or whether another election should be held because of the impact of the alleged fraud on the election.

In most instances, these issues are for the candidates to litigate in the courts or to advocate before their legislative bodies or election boards.

Although civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be brought by private citizens to redress election
irregularities, the federal prosecutor has no role in such suits.^{^[1]}

[ TOP OF PAGE ]

Consistent with its limited role in investigating and prosecuting election fraud, DOJ’s longstanding policy is to avoid investigative steps that would impact the election at issue.

Central to this policy is DOJ’s recognition that publicizing a criminal election fraud investigation - before the election has concluded could "chill voting" and “interject[] the investigation itself as an issue” in the adjudication of any election contest.^{^[2]}

To that end, it is DOJ’s general policy “not to conduct overt investigations, including interviews with individual voters, until after the outcome of the election allegedly affected by the fraud is certified.”^{^[3]}

DOJ also requires prosecutors to consult with PIN before taking any investigative steps beyond a “preliminary inquiry” in election fraud matters, including conducting voter interviews before an election is certified.^{^[4]}

As discussed below, Attorney General Barr twice relaxed elements of DOJ’s longstanding policy, once shortly before the election and the second time immediately afterward.

Barr’s "second change", reflected in a November 9, 2020 memorandum, authorized DOJ to take overt investigative steps such as "witness interviews" after polls closed and before the vote was certified.

This change prompted the longtime head of PIN’s Election Crimes Branch to resign his position in protest and led to disputes between PIN and DOJ leadership over DOJ’s role in postelection investigations.

B. Limits on White House-DOJ Communications

[ TOP OF PAGE ]

(PDF PAGE 10)

1. The History Informing Limitations on Communications Between the White House and the Justice Department

DOJ’s legitimacy and effectiveness depends on the public’s confidence that its administration and enforcement of federal laws is done impartially, free from actual or perceived partisan or political influence. To prevent such improper influence, longstanding DOJ and White House guidelines limit communications between the White House and DOJ regarding specific law enforcement matters. The guidelines restrict 'who' within DOJ and the White House can communicate with one another about pending and contemplated investigations and litigation; they also limit when such communications can occur in the first place.

These "limitations" were first implemented [in 1978] by Attorney General Griffin Bell in an effort to make DOJ “a neutral zone in the Government, because the law has to be neutral, and in our form of government there are things that are non-partisan, and one is the law.”^{^[5]}

The "White House-DOJ communications guidelines" were implemented in direct response to Watergate.

President Richard Nixon’s abuses of his presidential powers severely undermined public confidence in several agencies, but none more so than the Justice Department, as President Gerald Ford’s Attorney General Edward Levi described at his swearing-in:

"... We have lived in a time of change and corrosive skepticism and cynicism concerning the administration of justice. Nothing can more weaken the quality of life or more imperil the realization of those goals we all hold dear than our failure to make clear by word and deed that our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose, and it is not an instrument to be used in ways which are careless of the higher values which are within all of us.^{^[6]} ..."

[ TOP OF PAGE ]

However, while Watergate was the impetus for these guidelines, the need to maintain DOJ’s legitimacy by protecting it from political influence is a longstanding norm. In an address to the Second Annual Conference of U.S. Attorneys in 1940, Attorney General Robert Jackson highlighted “the most important reason why the prosecutor should have, as nearly as possible, a detached and impartial view,” stating:

"...Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted…It is in this realm…that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here - that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or "in the way of" the prosecutor himself.^{^[7]}

The norm that law enforcement must be free from political interference is so critical and so uniformly acknowledged in our system of government that the U.S. State Department regularly cites the politicization of a government’s prosecutorial power as grounds for determining that a foreign power is an “authoritarian state.”^{^[8]}^{^[9]}

2. Guidelines Restricting Communications Between the White House and the Justice Department

[ TOP OF PAGE ]

The restrictions on White House-DOJ communications are effectuated through internal policies issued by both entities, typically at the start of new presidential administrations.

On January 27, 2017, White House Counsel Don McGahn issued guidelines that governed White House communications with the Justice Department for the entire duration of the Trump Administration. These guidelines, which McGahn emphasized in the memorandum “must be strictly followed,” established four limitations on communications regarding “ongoing or contemplated cases or investigations”:

Only the President, Vice President, Counsel to the President, and designees of the Counsel to the President may be involved in communications about contemplated or pending investigations or enforcement actions. These individuals may designate subordinates, but ongoing contacts pursuant to such a designation should be handled in conjunction with the White House Counsel’s Office.

Communications regarding litigation where the government is or may be a defendant must first be cleared by the White House Counsel’s Office.

Responses to DOJ requests for White House views on any litigation must be made in consultation with the White House Counsel’s Office.

The President, Vice President, Counsel to the President, and Deputy Counsel to the President - are the only White House individuals who may initiate a conversation with DOJ about a specific case or investigation. All communications about individual cases or investigations should be routed through the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, or Solicitor General, unless the White House Counsel’s Office approves different procedures for the specific case at issue.^{^[10]}

Additionally, the "White House guidelines" restricted requests for the Justice Department’sOffice of Legal Counsel to issue formal legal opinions to only “specific legal questions impacting particular matters before the Executive Branch.”^{^[11]}

During the Trump administration, the Justice Department never issued guidelines on communications with the White House and left the 2009 guidelines issued by Attorney General Eric Holder in place. As an overarching principle, these guidelines make clear that “[Assistant Attorneys General, the United States Attorneys, and the heads of the investigative agencies in the Department] must be insulated from influences that should not affect decisions in particular criminal or civil cases.”^{^[12]}

The Justice Department guidelines established two main limitations on communications with the White House regarding “pending or contemplated criminal or civil investigations and cases”:

The Justice Department will advise the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal or civil investigations or cases only if it is important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.

Initial communications concerning pending or contemplated criminal investigations or cases will involve only the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General and the President, Vice President, Counsel to the President, and Principal Deputy Counsel to the President. If the communications concern a pending or contemplated civil investigation or case, the Associate Attorney General may also be involved. Where ongoing communications are required, these officials may designate subordinates, but must monitor subordinate contacts and the subordinates must keep their superiors regularly informed of any such contacts.^{^[13]}

Additionally, the Justice Department guidelines restrict White House requests for legal advice to those from the President, the Counsel to the President, or one of the Deputy Counsels to the President, directed to the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.²¹ The Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel also has an independent duty to “report to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General any communications that, in his or her view, constitute improper attempts to influence the Office of Legal Counsel’s legal judgment.”²²

C. Applicable Federal Laws Governing Political Interference with Investigations

[ TOP OF PAGE ]

Beyond White House and DOJ guidelines, improper White House interference in specific law enforcement actions may implicate several federal laws, depending on the circumstances of that interference. Most notably, federal obstruction of justice statutes create criminal liability for “corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed.”^{^[14]}

As the First and Seventh Circuits have held, obstruction of justice includes even otherwise lawful conduct or conduct within one’s lawful authority when it constitutes an obstructive act done with an improper motive.^{^[15]} An improper request by a White House official that DOJ initiate or drop a specific law enforcement matter could implicate the obstruction statutes depending on the circumstances of the request.

Separately, ^{^[16]}^{^[17]} the Hatch Act of 1939 may also be implicated by White House interference in DOJ investigations, to the extent such interference is designed to affect the results of a federal election. Among other provisions, the Hatch Act prohibits all employees, even political appointees,²⁵ from using their “official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”²⁶

The Act’s criminal provisions proscribe using “official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for [federal office],” as well as “command[ing] … any employee of the Federal Government … to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to … working or refusing to work on behalf of a candidate.”²⁷

II. December 1 – December 15: Attorney General Barr Announces His Resignation After Declaring that DOJ Has Found No Evidence of Widespread Election Fraud

(PDF PAGE 14 ) [ TOP OF PAGE ]

Although federal prosecutors routinely and appropriately investigate election fraud allegations, DOJ has long recognized that it “does not have a role in determining which candidate won a particular election.”^{^[18]} DOJ also recognizes that publicizing a criminal investigation of election fraud allegations before the election has concluded “runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting” and of “interjecting the investigation itself as an issue” in the adjudication of any election contest.^{^[19]} For this reason, prior to the 2020 election cycle, DOJ policy prohibited federal investigators and prosecutors from taking overt investigative steps in election fraud cases “until the election in question [had] been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded.”³⁰

Following months of false claims by President Trump and Attorney General Barr that mail voting would lead to rampant fraud in the 2020 election, DOJ weakened this longstanding policy in two respects.^{^[20]} First, in early October 2020, DOJ announced “an exception to the general non-interference with elections policy,” instructing U.S. Attorneys’ Offices that they could publicly announce election fraud investigations prior to Election Day if “the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses.”^{^[21]} The newly announced exception encompassed the U.S. Postal Service and thus claims of mail voting fraud, which DOJ could now announce while voting was underway.

Second, two days after then-candidate Joe Biden was declared the Electoral College winner, Barr issued a memorandum authorizing and encouraging overt, pre-certification “election irregularity inquiries.”^{^[22]} Barr’s November 9, 2020 memorandum directly contradicted DOJ’s longstanding policy against overtly investigating election fraud allegations before the election results are certified. Barr called DOJ’s traditional policy a “passive and delayed enforcement approach” and asserted that “any concerns that overt actions taken by the Department could inadvertently impact the election are greatly minimized, if they exist at all, once voting has concluded, even if certification has not yet been completed.” Accordingly, Barr authorized pre-certification investigations “if there are clear and apparently credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State”—and called on prosecutors to “timely and appropriately address allegations of voting irregularities so that all of the American people … can have full confidence in the results of our elections.”

Perry told Donoghue that Trump had asked him to call and that DOJ hadn’t done its job with respect to the elections.^{^[66]} Perry added something to the effect of, “I think Jeff Clark is great. I like that guy a lot. He’s the kind of guy who could really get in there and do something about this.”^{^[67]} Perry did not explain how he knew Clark and Donoghue did not ask.^{^[68]}^{^[69]} At the end of the call, Perry indicated that he had information about “things going on in Pennsylvania,” including the claim that there were 205,000 more votes than voters.⁸⁵ Donoghue responded that Perry could send him information about Pennsylvania but that DOJ had not seen fraud on a scale that would have changed the outcome there.^{^[70]}

telling him who else participated in the meeting or how Clark had met Perry, who later acknowledged that he discussed election fraud claims with Clark and that “when President Trump asked if I would make an introduction [to Clark], I obliged.”^{^[85]} Rosen also did not recall Clark’s description, if any, of what transpired during the Oval Office meeting.^{^[86]}

Rosen recalled Clark indicating that the Oval Office meeting took place a day or two before Christmas, meaning either December 23 or 24.^{^[87]} If accurate, this means the meeting took place two or three days after Trump, Perry, Congressman Jordan, and other House Republicans met at the White House on December 21 to strategize about the January 6 Joint Session.

B. Clark’s “Two Urgent Action Items”

“Two Urgent Action Items.” The first action item requested a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):

I would like to have your authorization to get a classified briefing tomorrow from ODNI led by DNI Radcliffe on foreign election interference issues. I can then assess how that relates to activating the IEEPA and 2018 EO powers on such matters (now twice renewed by the President).^{^[88]}^{^[89]}

IEEPA refers to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which authorizes the president to declare a national emergency due to “unusual and extraordinary threats” to the United States and to block any transactions and freeze any assets within the jurisdiction of the

United States to deal with the threat.”¹⁰⁶ The 2018 EO Clark mentions is Executive Order 13848, which operationalizes IEEPA sanctions in the event of foreign interference in a U.S. election.^{^[90]}

As the basis for his “urgent” request, Clark cited evidence, supposedly in the public domain, from “white hat hackers” indicating that a “Dominion machine accessed the Internet through a smart thermostat with a net connecting trail leading back to China.”^{^[91]} Clark did not produce or quote any of this purported evidence, but he wrote that he believed the ODNI “may” have additional classified intelligence on this matter.¹⁰⁹

The second “urgent action item” was a proposal that DOJ send letters to the elected leadership of Georgia and other contested states, urging them to convene special legislative sessions in order to appoint a different slate of electors than those popularly chosen in the 2020 election. Clark explained his proposal in the email:

The concept is to send it to the Governor, Speaker, and President Pro Tempore 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, the legislatures thereof should each assemble and make a decision about elector appointment in light of their deliberations.^{^[92]}

Clark attached a draft letter to this email titled “Georgia Proof of Concept” and addressed to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Speaker of the Georgia House David Ralston, and President Pro Tempore of the Georgia Senate Butch Miller.¹¹¹ Although Clark’s draft was addressed to elected officials in Georgia, his transmittal email proposed sending a version of the letter to “each contested state”—according to Rosen, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada.^{^[93]} Clark’s proposed letter opened by stating that DOJ had “taken notice” of irregularities” and that “[i]n light of these developments, the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in a special session so that its legislators are in a position to take additional testimony, receive new evidence, and deliberate on the matter consistent with duties under the U.S. Constitution.”¹¹³

The letter emphasized that “[t]ime is of the essence” to take action due to the impending Joint Session of Congress “to count Electoral College certificates [internal citation removed], consider objections to any of those certificates, and decide between any competing slate of elector certificates…with the Vice President presiding over the session as President of the Senate.”^{^[94]} The letter attempted to further underscore this “urgency” by highlighting that the Trump campaign’s legal challenge to alleged voting irregularities filed on December 4, 2020, had not yet been given a hearing date, stating:

Given the urgency of this serious matter, including the Fulton County litigation’s sluggish pace, the Department believes that a special session of the Georgia General Assembly is warranted and is in the national interest.¹¹⁵

The letter then outlined a path for the Georgia General Assembly to take advantage of the

Joint Session of Congress’s certification procedure and replace the Georgia Presidential Electors

lawfully chosen by the popular vote with a slate of Electors appointed after-the-fact by the legislature. The letter explained that the “purpose of the special session the Department recommends” is (1) to evaluate alleged voter irregularities; (2) to determine whether any such irregularities affected who “won the most legal votes”; and (3) to “take whatever action is necessary” if the “election failed to make a proper and valid choice.”^{^[95]}

Despite the unprecedented, sweeping nature of this proposal and the lack of adherence to standard DOJ procedures, such as Office of Legal Counsel review, in the preparation of the letter, Clark expressed no hesitation that this letter was both appropriate and ready to send as is, stating:

Personally, I see no valid downsides to sending out the letter. I put it together quickly and would want to do a formal cite check before sending but I don’t think we should let unnecessary moss grow on this.¹¹⁷

C. Rosen and Donoghue Reject Clark’s Proposal

( PAGE 25 OF PDF )

Just over an hour later, at 5:50 p.m., Donoghue pushed back on Clark’s unsubstantiated claims, declaring in an email, “there is no chance that I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this.”118 Donoghue made clear that no widespread election fraud affected the 2020 election, stating: While it may be true that the Department ‘is investigating various irregularities in the 2020 election for President (something we typically would not state publicly), the investigations that I am aware of relate to suspicions of misconduct that are of such a small scale that they simply would not impact the outcome of the Presidential Election.119 After reiterating that “AG Barr made that clear to the public only last week,” Donoghue highlighted specific statements in Clark’s “Georgia Proof of Concept” letter that had no support, stating: I know of nothing that would support the statement “we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of election in multiple states.” Despite dramatic claims to the contrary, we have not seen the type of fraud that calls into question the reported (and certified) results of the election.120 Donoghue emphasized that it would be “utterly without precedent” for the Justice Department to take such action, stating:

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. Despite references to the 1960 Hawaii situation (and other historical anomalies, such as the 1876 Election), I believe this would be utterly without precedent. Even if I am incorrect about that, this would be a grave step for the Department to take and it could have tremendous Constitutional, political and social ramifications for the country.121 Donoghue ended his response by describing what proper consideration and procedure would look like before the Justice Department could take such action. He stated that research and discussion “that such a momentous step warrants” would be required and “[o]bviously, OLC would have to be involved in such discussions.”122 At 6:00 p.m., Rosen and Donoghue met with Clark in Rosen’s conference room. 123 According to Rosen, Clark reiterated the points from his email and said he wanted Rosen to hold a press conference where he announced that “there was corruption.” 124 Clark gave no indication whether he was working with others on the letter, either within DOJ or at the White House.125 According to Donoghue, however, he did make some reference to his Oval Office meeting with Trump, and to the fact that Trump was considering a leadership change at DOJ.126 Donoghue recalled the meeting being “difficult” and “heated,” with Donoghue telling Clark he had “no business” involving himself in election fraud matters, asking why the President and Congressman Perry had mentioned his name, accusing him of violating the DOJ-White House contacts policy, and telling him his proof of concept proposal was “wildly inappropriate.” 127 Rosen similarly called the meeting “contentious.”128 Rosen and Donoghue recalled making clear that DOJ would not send the letter, and stressing to Clark that it was not DOJ’s role to serve as election officials and tell states what to do. 129 Rosen’s impression at the time was that Clark accepted his and Donoghue’s position.130 Following the meeting with Clark, Donoghue emailed Assistant Attorney General for OLC Steven Engel to set up a time to discuss “some antics that could potentially end up on your radar.”131 Donoghue recalled that he and Rosen wanted to read Engel into the situation because Engel would have been next in line to become Acting Attorney General if Trump fired Rosen. They decided not to share the information beyond Engel at the time, however, for fear it would create panic within DOJ’s leadership.132

V. December 29 – December 30: Meanwhile, Trump Urges DOJ to File a Supreme Court Action Contesting the Election

While Clark was encouraging Rosen and Donoghue to pursue his “proof of concept” in Georgia and elsewhere, Trump and his allies were simultaneously urging DOJ to take Trump’s false claims of a stolen election directly to the Supreme Court. On December 29, 2020, White House Special Assistant and Oval Office Coordinator Molly Michael emailed a draft Supreme Court brief to Rosen, Donoghue, and Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, telling them: “The President asked me to send the attached draft document for your review. I have also shared with Mark Meadows and Pat Cipollone.”133 The brief that Trump had directed Michael to share with DOJ was styled as a bill of complaint filed under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and against the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.134 The proposed action asked the Court to declare that the six states administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause and Fourteenth Amendment; declare that the Electoral College votes cast by the electors in the six states were in violation of the Electors Clause and Fourteenth Amendment; enjoin the states from using the 2020 election results to appoint electors; and authorize the states to conduct a special election to appoint new electors. In short, Trump asked DOJ to petition the Supreme Court to overturn the election results. In support of the relief it sought, the proposed Supreme Court brief made a variety of false factual claims about the election (many of which had already been rejected by courts), as well as claims taking issue with the use of mail ballots in general. Among others, these included claims that:  In the six states Trump proposed suing, “Democrat voters voted by mail at two to three times the rate of Republicans”;  Georgia used Dominion voting machines, which had “known vulnerabilities to hacking and other irregularities”;  A “forensic audit” conducted by Allied Security Group found that “the Dominion voting system in Antrim County [Michigan] was designed to generate an error rate as high as 81.96%”; 131 Email from Richard Donoghue to Steven Engel (Dec. 28, 2020, 11:41 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000272). 132 Donoghue Tr. at 105-106. 133 Email from Molly Michael to Jeffrey Rosen, Richard Donoghue, and Jeffrey Wall (Dec. 29, 2020, 11:17 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000479). 134 See generally SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000480-535. 25  According to a USPS truck driver, the Wisconsin and Illinois chapter of the USPS dispatched employees to find 100,000 mail ballots, which were delivered to a sorting center in Madison and backdated;  Nevada processed mail ballots through a sorting system, which “[a]nectdotal evidence suggests … was prone to false [signature-match] positives”;  A Republican state official in Arizona had claimed that there was unspecified evidence of “tampering” and “fraud” in Maricopa County; and  Local officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, excluded Republican poll watchers from the opening, counting, and recording of mail ballots. 135 At the same time as Molly Michael was emailing the draft brief to Rosen, Donoghue, and Wall, one of its authors attempted to reach Rosen on behalf of President Trump. Kurt B. Olsen, a private lawyer who had served as special counsel to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his failed Supreme Court action against Pennsylvania, emailed Wall: “I represented Texas in the action filed in the SCT against Pennsylvania et al. Last night, the President directed me to meet with AG Rosen today to discuss a similar action to be brought by the United States. I have not been able to reach him despite multiple calls/texts. This is an urgent matter. Please call me … or ask AG Rosen to contact me asap.”136 Over the next two days, Olsen contacted DOJ numerous times in an effort to discuss Trump’s proposed Supreme Court action with Rosen, sending multiple emails and making multiple phone calls to Rosen’s Chief of Staff, John Moran. For example, at 12:45 p.m. on December 29, Olsen emailed Moran to follow up on an apparent call, writing: Thank you for calling me on behalf of AG Rosen. Attached is a draft complaint to be brought by the United States modeled after the Texas action. As I said on our call, the President of the United States has seen this complaint, and he directed me last night to brief AG Rosen in person today to discuss bringing this action. I have been instructed to report back to the President this afternoon after this meeting. I can be at Main Justice (or anywhere else in the DC Metropolitan area) within an hour’s notice.137 Olsen also emailed Moran a letter that Republican Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano had previously sent Donoghue, asking him to pass the materials along to Rosen and telling him that they “raise[] a litany of serious outcome changing issues re: fraudulent and illegal votes in Pennsylvania, and provides an additional justification for the United States to 135 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000480-535. 136 Email from Kurt Olsen to Jeffrey Wall (Dec. 29, 2020, 10:57 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000064). 137 Email from Kurt Olsen to John Moran (Dec. 29, 2020, 12:45 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000071). 26 bring an action in the Supreme Court.”138 Moran forwarded the email to Rosen without comment.139 Mastriano’s letter raised a litany of false and debunked claims of widespread election fraud in Pennsylvania, which Mastriano had previously aired at a November 25, 2020 “hearing” at a hotel in Gettysburg featuring Trump campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis and a phone call from Trump himself. 140 Mastriano would later assume a lead role in the “Stop the Steal” movement, spending thousands of dollars from his campaign account to charter buses to Washington for Trump’s January 6, 2021 “Save America Rally.” 141 He and his wife took part in the January 6 insurrection, with video footage confirming that they passed through breached barricades and police lines at the U.S. Capitol. To date, no footage has emerged showing Mastriano in the Capitol itself, but his presence on the Capitol grounds and his involvement in funding travel to Washington have prompted calls for his resignation.142 Rosen recalled Olsen reaching him on the phone twice during this two-day period. Rosen described having a “general practice” of not meeting with anyone in the Trump campaign, and he recalled his first discussion with Olsen being almost accidental: his DOJ cell phone rang with a number he didn’t recognize, and when he picked up, Olsen was on the other line.143 Rosen recalled being annoyed at himself for answering once he realized it was Olsen, who asked whether Rosen had seen the Pennsylvania brief and stressed the importance of filing it. Rosen asked Olsen what his relationship to Trump was and expressed skepticism that there would be standing to bring the proposed lawsuit, and recalled the phone call ending with a polite brushoff.144 Following the call, and recognizing that he would probably need to discuss the Supreme Court proposal with Trump, Rosen asked the Office of Solicitor General (OSG) to prepare a list of points on the proposal.145 OSG responded on December 30 with a one-page summary of the “numerous significant procedural hurdles” DOJ would face if it filed the proposed action.146 Among other hurdles, OSG explained that DOJ could not file an original Supreme Court action for the benefit of a political candidate; OSG also explained that there is no general cause of action for DOJ to contest the outcome of an election. At Rosen’s request, OLC Assistant Attorney General Engel then prepared a plain-English version of the OSG analysis that would be 138 Email from Kurt Olsen to John Moran (Dec. 30, 2020, 10:17 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000174-179). 139 Email from John Moran to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 30, 2020, 10:49 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000186-193). 140 Quint Forgey, Trump Takes His Fraud Claims to a Hotel Ballroom – by Phone, Politico (Nov. 25, 2020). 141 Katie Meyer, Miles Bryan & Ryan Briggs, Mastriano Campaign Spent Thousands on Buses Ahead of D.C. Insurrection, WHYY (Jan. 12, 2021). 142 Jeremy Roebuck & Andrew Seidman, Pa. GOP Lawmaker Doug Mastriano Says He Left the Capitol Area Before the Riot. New Videos Say Otherwise, Phila. Inquirer (May 25, 2021). 143 Rosen Tr. at 114-115. 144 Rosen Tr. at 115. 145 Id. 146 Email from [Redacted] to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 30, 2020, 7:06 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000710-711). 27 more easily understood by non-lawyers; Engel’s version confirmed that “[t]here is no legal basis to bring this lawsuit.”147 Olsen reached Rosen again on December 30. Donoghue was present for the entire call and took notes.148 Rosen recalled Olsen being “aggressive,” telling him that Trump wanted DOJ to “file this brief by noon today,” and threatening to report Rosen’s position back to Trump.149 Rosen responded that he would discuss the matter with Trump but not Olsen, and recalled this being the last and only time he spoke to an outside Trump ally about challenges to the election results. 150 Sometime during the afternoon of December 30, following his second call with Olsen, Rosen spoke directly with Trump about the Supreme Court proposal. Rosen did not recall who placed the call—whether Trump called him, or whether he initiated the call after getting a message that Trump wanted to talk.151 Relying on Engel’s points, Rosen told Trump that DOJ couldn’t file the Supreme Court action. Although Rosen did not recall with certainty whether the proposal came up at an Oval Office meeting the following day, he recalled it essentially being put to rest during this December 30 call, with Trump accepting that DOJ would not pursue the idea.152 By contrast, Donoghue recalled Trump revisiting the Supreme Court action the following day, as discussed below.

VI. December 29 – January 1: White House Pressure on DOJ Escalates

White House pressure on DOJ escalated in the waning days of 2020 as Trump continued to complain about DOJ’s inaction on his election fraud claims, including during a December 31 Oval Office meeting with Rosen and Donoghue. During the same period of time, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows—who had recently shown up unannounced at Georgia’s Cobb County Civic Center to question election officials about their mail ballot signature match audit— sent a series of emails to Rosen, directly asking him to have DOJ investigate specific, discredited allegations of election fraud pushed by Trump and his campaign.

A. DOJ Leadership is Summoned to a December 31 Oval Office Meeting

On Thursday, December 31, 2020, Rosen and Donoghue were summoned to the White House for a meeting in the Oval Office with Trump. Meadows, Cipollone, and Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin also attended.153 Rosen recalled that Trump “seemed unhappy” 147 Rosen Tr. at 115; Email from Steven Engel to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 31, 2020, 9:02 a.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000708-709). 148 Donoghue Tr. at 113; Notes of Dec. 30, 2020 Olsen-Rosen-Donoghue Call (“12/30/20 Donoghue Notes”) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000706). 149 Rosen Tr. at 116. 150 Id. 151 Rosen Tr. at 117. 152 Rosen Tr. at 117-118. 153 There are conflicting accounts about whether Acting DHS General Counsel Chad Mizelle attended this meeting or the earlier, December 15 Oval Office meeting. Rosen recalled that Acting DHS General Counsel Chad Mizelle attended on December 31; Donoghue recalled that Mizelle had attended the December 15 Oval Office meeting, but 28 that DOJ still had not “found the fraud,” and described their discussion as “more of the same”— but otherwise did not recall granular details from the meeting, which he viewed as less significant than the Oval Office meeting that took place three days later.154 Donoghue recalled the meeting in greater detail. He described it as “contentious” and told us that “[Trump’s] frustration was increasing,” with the President reiterating that Rosen and Donoghue weren’t doing their jobs and that people were telling him he should fire both of them and install Clark instead.155 Donoghue did not recall whether Clark’s proposed letter was a specific topic of discussion, but did recall responding that although Trump should have whatever leadership he wanted, DOJ operated based on facts and evidence and that replacing its leadership would not change the outcome.156 Donoghue also recalled Trump raising the proposed Supreme Court action that Rosen believed had been put to rest the previous day. According to Donoghue, Trump was “very frustrated” when Rosen and Donoghue repeatedly told him that DOJ lacked standing to file the action, insisting that Olsen and others had told him the case was a slam dunk.157 Finally, Donoghue told us that Trump raised the prospect of appointing a special counsel to investigate election fraud and told the group “something to the effect of, ‘I think Ken Cuccinelli would be a great special counsel.’”158

B. Clark Reveals Ongoing Contacts With Trump

Following the December 31 Oval Office meeting, either later that night or sometime on January 1, Rosen spoke to Clark again.159 Although Clark had previously assured Rosen that he would not speak to Trump again and would notify Rosen or Donoghue of any requests to do so, Clark revealed that he had in fact spoken to Trump again. According to Rosen, Clark disclosed that Trump had asked whether he would be willing to take over as Acting Attorney General if Trump decided to replace Rosen, and requested an answer from Clark by Monday, January 4.160 Rosen recalled Clark indicating that he hadn’t yet decided whether he would accept Trump’s offer, wanted to conduct some “due diligence” on certain election fraud claims, and might turn down the offer if he determined that Rosen and Donoghue were correct that there was no corruption.161 As part of this “due diligence,” Clark renewed the request he initially made in his December 28 email for a classified briefing by the DNI. Rosen told us that because he assumed that Clark would follow up with Trump whether he liked it or not, he decided to that Trump, Meadows, Cipollone, Philbin, Rosen, and Donoghue were the only participants on December 27. Rosen Tr. at 138; Donoghue Tr. at 26-7, 117. 154 Rosen Tr. at 139-142. 155 Donoghue Tr. at 118. 156 Donoghue Tr. at 118-119. 157 Donoghue Tr. at 119-120. 158 Donoghue Tr. at 30. 159 Rosen Tr. at 128 & 137. 160 Rosen Tr. at 129. 161 Id. 29 facilitate Clark’s request for a DNI briefing in the hopes that the briefing would help Clark understand why his theories were unsound. The briefing took place the following day.162 Rosen similarly suggested that Clark call U.S. Attorney Pak, whom he knew would explain that allegations of ballot destruction in Atlanta had been debunked.163 At 8:24 p.m. on January 1, 2021, Rosen emailed Clark the cell phone number for Byung Jin “BJay” Pak, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia.164 Rosen then checked in with Clark at 8:52 a.m. the next morning, asking: “Were you able to follow up?”165 Clark responded at 9:50 a.m. the following morning, reporting: “I spoke to the source and am on with the guy who took the video right now. Working on it. More due diligence to do.” 166 Clark did not directly answer Rosen’s question about whether he reached out to Pak; as discussed below, Rosen learned the following day that Clark had not.

C. White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows Asks DOJ to Initiate Baseless Election Fraud Investigations, Contrary to Longstanding Rules Against White House-DOJ Interference

As Trump encouraged DOJ to intervene in his behalf in the Supreme Court and asked Clark to consider replacing Rosen, his Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, asked DOJ to intervene in the electoral certification by launching baseless election fraud investigations. He did so in a series of direct communications with Rosen between December 29 and January 1. These communications, which are detailed below, violated longstanding restrictions on communications between White House and DOJ officials concerning specific law enforcement matters. December 29, 2020: At 11:27 a.m., Meadows sent Rosen a copy of a letter dated December 27 and authored by Carlo Goria, an apparent representative of USAerospace Partners, a U.S.-based aviation service group.167 Meadows emailed Rosen the letter without additional comment. Goria’s letter was addressed to Trump and written in Italian, although Meadows later sent an English version to Rosen as well. The letter made several claims related to a conspiracy theory known as “Italygate,” which holds that an information technology employee of Italian aerospace company Leonardo S.p.A. coordinated with the CIA to use military satellites to remotely switch Trump votes to Biden votes. December 30, 2020 (9:31 a.m.): At 9:31 a.m., Meadows forwarded Rosen an email and attachments from Cleta Mitchell, an attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP law firm who had been 162 Rosen Tr. at 129-30. 163 Rosen Tr. at 130. 164 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Jeffrey Clark (Jan. 1, 2021, 8:24 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000287). 165 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Jeffrey Clark (Jan. 2, 2021, 8:52 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000289). 166 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 2, 2021, 9:50 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000290). 167 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 29, 2020, 11:27 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000536). 30 advising the Trump campaign on post-election litigation.168 Mitchell had written Meadows earlier that morning, attaching a December 4 lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign in Georgia state court and an accompanying press release, which announced that the lawsuit was challenging “literally tens of thousands of illegal votes” in Georgia. She explained to Meadows: This is the petition filed in GA state court and the press release issued about it. I presume the DOJ would want all the exhibits – that’s 1800 pages total. I need to get someone to forward that to a drop box. Plus I don’t know what is happening re investigating the video issues in Fulton County. And the equipment. We didn’t include the equipment in our lawsuit but there are certainly many issues and questions that some resources need to be devoted to reviewing. Meadows forwarded Mitchell’s email to Rosen, asking: “Can you have your team look into these allegations of wrongdoing. Only the alleged fraudulent activity. Thanks Mark.” The lawsuit whose allegations Meadows asked DOJ to investigate asserted a variety of false claims of election fraud, and the Georgia Supreme Court had rejected Trump’s request to hear it on an expedited basis.169 Among the false claims it asserted, and that Meadows asked DOJ to investigate, were:  A claim that 66,247 underage voters had unlawfully cast ballots in Georgia. In reality, Republican elections official Gabriel Sterling made clear that it would be impossible for unregistered and underage voters to cast ballots: “There cannot be a ballot issued to you, there’s no way to tie it back to you, there’s nowhere for them to have a name to correspond back to unless they’re registered voters.” Only four Georgians requested absentee ballots before turning 18—and all four turned 18 before Election Day.170  A claim that thousands of votes were unlawfully cast by individuals registered at Post Office boxes; who voted after registering in another state; who voted in Georgia and another state; who moved without re-registering in their new county; and who registered after the voter registration deadline. In reality, these claims originated from Matt Braynard, a Trump campaign data expert whose analysis had been widely discredited and who himself acknowledged that he never verified that any of the thousands of voters was actually illegitimate. 171 Georgia’s two recounts and its 168 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 30, 2020, 9:31 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000598- 665); see also Michael S. Schmidt & Kenneth P. Vogel, Trump Lawyer on Call Is a Conservative Firebrand Aiding His Push to Overturn Election, N.Y. Times (Jan. 15, 2021). 169 Order, Trump et al. v. Raffensperger et al., No. S21M0561 (Ga. Sup. Ct. Dec. 12, 2020). 170 Bill McCarthy, Here’s Why Georgia’s Republican Officials Are Confident in Their Presidential Election Results, Politifact (Jan. 5, 2021). 171 See Mark Niesse, 5 Georgia Election Fraud Claims Explained, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Dec. 14, 2020). 31 signature audit confirmed Biden’s victory and found no evidence of fraud or vote tampering.172 December 30, 2020 (9:43 a.m.): Shortly after asking Rosen to have DOJ investigate allegations of wrongdoing in Georgia, Meadows forwarded him an English version of the Italygate letter from Carlo Goria that he had originally sent the previous day. As before, Meadows sent the letter without additional comment.173 January 1, 2021 (2:51-3:39 p.m.): At 2:51 p.m., Rosen emailed Meadows, “Did not receive the video link. Can you re-send?”174 Rosen told us that Meadows had previously sent a link that didn’t work, so he asked him to resend it.175 Meadows responded at 3:08 p.m., sending Rosen a link to a YouTube video titled “Brad Johnson: Rome, Satellites, Servers: an Update.”176 The thirteen-minute video featured Bradley Johnson, a retired CIA station chief-turned conservative freelance opinion contributor who had been promoting the Italygate conspiracy theory in videos and online posts. As proof of his claim that Leonardo S.p.A and the CIA used military satellites to remotely change Trump votes to Biden votes, Johnson pointed to a sudden increase in Biden votes in several states whose early returns showed Trump leading—in reality, the expected result of Democratic counties reporting their totals, and states reporting Democratic-leaning mail ballot totals, after Republican counties had.177 Rosen emailed Meadows to confirm receipt, and then forwarded the exchange and YouTube link to Donoghue. Donoghue responded at 3:39 p.m., “Pure insanity.”178 January 1, 2021 (4:13 p.m.): Just hours after emailing Rosen a link to Brad Johnson’s Italygate video, Meadows asked him to have DOJ investigate disproven allegations of election fraud in Georgia. He wrote: “There have been allegations of signature match anomalies in Fulton County, Ga. Can you get Jeff Clark to engage on this issue immediately to determine if there is any truth to this allegation.”179 Rosen forwarded Meadows’s request to Donoghue, asking, “Can you believe this? I am not going to respond to message below.” Donoghue agreed, and—alluding to Meadows’s earlier 172 3rd Strike Against Voter Fraud Claims Means They’re out After Signature Audit Finds No Fraud, Georgia Secretary of State, available at https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/3rd_strike_against_voter_fraud_claims_means_theyre_out_after_signature_au dit_finds_no_fraud. 173 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 30, 2020, 9:43 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000666). 174 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Mark Meadows (Jan. 1, 2021, 2:51 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000668). 175 Rosen Tr. at 147. 176 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1, 2021, 3:08 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000669). 177 See Matt Gertz, Mark Meadows: Searching for ‘Italygate,’ Media Matters for America, June 7, 2021, available at https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/mark-meadows-searching-italygate. 178 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Mark Meadows (Jan. 1, 2021, 3:22 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000671); Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1. 2021, 3:39 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000678). 179 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1, 2021, 4:13 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000672). 32 emails on Italygate—observed, “At least it’s better than the last one, but that doesn’t say much.”180 In a response to Donoghue later the same evening, Rosen elaborated on Meadows’s efforts to have DOJ investigate Italygate, which included a request that Rosen arrange for Johnson to meet with the FBI. Rosen wrote: After this message, I was asked to have FBI meet with Brad Johnson, and I responded that Johnson could call or walk into FBI’s Washington Field Office with any evidence he purports to have. On a follow up call, I learned that Johnson is working with Rudy Giuliani, who regarded my comments as “an insult.” Asked if I would reconsider, I flatly refused, said I would not be giving any special treatment to Giuliani or any of his “witnesses,” and reaffirmed yet again that I will not talk to Giuliani about any of this.”181 During his interview, Rosen told us that it was Meadows who had called and asked him to follow up on the Italygate allegations. Rosen recalled telling Meadows that the theory was “another one that’s debunked,” being told “there’s more to it,” and Meadows asking him to meet with Giuliani. This was not the only time he was asked to talk to Giuliani. Rosen told us that he “had refused to meet with Rudy Giuliani, multiple times over, during the month of December.”182 He could not recall how many times he had been asked to meet with Giuliani, and whether the requests had always come from Meadows as opposed to Trump. Rosen told us he never met with Giuliani, however.183 January 1, 2021 (6:56 p.m.): Meadows emailed Rosen again at 6:56 p.m., this time asking DOJ to investigate allegations of election fraud in New Mexico being pushed by Steve Pearce, the state’s Republican Party chair. Meadows attached a document titled “New Mexico List of Complaints” and asked Rosen, “Can you forward this list to your team to review the allegations contained herein. Steve Pearce is the chairman of the Republican Party for NM.”184 The “complaints” Meadows asked DOJ to investigate consisted of several claims that had been refuted and/or already rejected by courts, including:  A claim that poll challengers were removed from the mail ballot certification process. In reality, Republican poll challengers and observers were allowed to participate in the mail and provisional ballot certification process, and the New Mexico Supreme Court had unanimously rejected a lawsuit by the Republican Party of New Mexico challenging the process by which poll watchers monitored mail ballot certification.185 180 Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1, 2021, 4:28 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000673). 181 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Richard Donoghue (Jan. 1, 2021, 7:13 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000678). 182 Rosen Tr. at 148-149. 183 Rosen Tr. at 149-150. 184 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1, 2021, 6:56 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000675-77). 185 Michael Gerstein, New Mexico GOP Claims Election Violations; County Clerks Dispute, Santa Fe New Mexican (Nov. 6, 2020); Dan Boyd, NM Supreme Court Denies GOP Election Petition, Albuquerque Journal (Oct. 27, 2020). 33  A claim that Dominion voting machines were the only ones used in New Mexico, and caused late-night “vote dumps” for Democratic candidates. In reality, so-called “vote dumps” were the expected result of Democratic precincts reporting their totals at different times than Republican ones. For example, Pearce previously claimed that 400 votes “just show[ed] up out of thin air” in Soccoro County, but local elections officials confirmed that those ballots simply arrived at the county clerk’s office later than others after being driven there from a Navajo reservation an hour away.186  A claim that mail ballots had been fraudulently requested and returned. In reality, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in New Mexico, much less any that would overcome Biden’s nearly 11-point victory in the state.187

VII. January 2 – 4: DOJ Leadership Thwarts the Trump-Clark Plot, but U.S. Attorney BJay Pak is Ousted

A. January 2: Clark’s Plans Crystallize and Trump Calls the Georgia Secretary of State

On January 2, President Trump, joined by Cleta Mitchell, spoke with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for approximately an hour by phone to pressure him to change the state’s vote totals from the 2020 election. Trump specifically told Raffensperger to find exactly enough votes to win, stating: All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than [the 11,779 vote deficit] we have, because we won the state.188 During the call, President Trump also mentioned Pak, referring to him as “your neverTrumper U.S. attorney there,” and alleged that the Trump campaign had a “new tape that we’re going to release” purporting to show “devastating” voter fraud at the State Farm Arena.189 Clark met with Rosen and Donoghue the same afternoon. Rosen told us that the purpose of the meeting was twofold: first, to reinforce that Clark should stop meeting with Trump, and second, to determine where he stood after conducting the “due diligence” Rosen and Clark had discussed two days earlier.190 Rosen asked Donoghue to join him because he didn’t want to meet with Clark alone; Donoghue joined and took contemporaneous notes.191 Clark acknowledged that 186 Michael Gerstein, New Mexico GOP Claims Election Violations; County Clerks Dispute, Santa Fe New Mexican (Nov. 6, 2020). 187 Charles Davis, New Mexico Republicans Peddle ‘Dangerous’ Myth of Voter Fraud in a State Trump Lost by Double Digits, Business Insider (Jan. 7, 2021). 188 Amy Gardner & Paulina Firozi, Here’s the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger, Wash. Post (Jan. 5, 2021). 189 Id. 190 Rosen Tr. at 131. 191 Donoghue Tr. at 137; Notes of Jan. 2, 2021 Meeting (“1/2/21 Donoghue Notes”) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000714). 34 he had been briefed by the DNI, who confirmed that there was no evidence of ballot or data tampering. He continued to press debunked allegations of election fraud in Georgia, however, insisting that DOJ should send his proposed letter.192 Clark admitted that he had not called U.S. Attorney Pak, despite being asked to do so by Rosen. Instead, he revealed that he had spoken to a witness who testified at a Georgia Senate hearing and claimed that he had seen trucks moving ballots to a location where they would be shredded.193 Donoghue recalled that the meeting “became very heated” as he made clear that Clark’s conduct was unacceptable. He told us: I reminded [Clark] that I was his boss, that he was apparently continuing to violate the White House contact policy, that that letter was never going out while we were in charge of the Department. And I sort of orally reprimanded him on a number of points, including reaching out to witnesses, and [said] “Who told you to conduct investigations and interview witnesses,” and things like that. I was getting very heated. And then he turned to Acting AG Rosen, and he said, “Well, the President has offered me the position of Acting Attorney General. I told him I would let him know my decision on Monday. I need to think about that a little bit more.”194 Rosen told us that at some point during this discussion, Clark indicated that if Rosen would reconsider his refusal to sign Clark’s proposed letter—and send it to the Georgia legislature under Rosen’s name—Clark might turn down the President’s offer to install him in Rosen’s place. Rosen again refused to send the letter.195 According to Rosen: Q. So Jeff Clark framed it as a choice he was giving you, to essentially either go along with the letter that you had previously rejected and sign it under your own name, or he will presumably take the President up on his offer to be installed in your place. Is that how you understood it? A. Close to that. That he was saying that having done some due diligence as he requested, that he wasn’t satisfied that Rich Donoghue and I were on this, but that he still wasn’t sure what his answer would be on it. And he raised another thing that he might point to, that he might be able to say no [to the President], is if – that letter, if I reversed my position on the letter, which I was unwilling to do.196 Later the same day, at 7:13 p.m., Rosen responded to Donoghue’s December 28, 2020, email refutation of Clark’s initial proposal, stating: 192 Donoghue Tr. at 138-139; 1/2/21 Donoghue Notes. 193 Donoghue Tr. at 140-141; 1/2/21 Donoghue Notes; Rosen Tr. at 130-132. 194 Donoghue Tr. at 141-142. 195 Rosen Tr. at 145-146. 196 Rosen Tr. at 145-146. 35 Rich, thanks for responding to this earlier. I confirmed again today that I am not prepared to sign such a letter.197 Donoghue then emailed Engel at 8:08 p.m. to ask him to call when he was free so that Donoghue could “update you on today’s events.” 198 As discussed previously, Rosen and Donoghue had until this point limited the universe of DOJ officials they read into Clark’s activities. They kept Engel and, eventually, Rosen’s longtime deputy Patrick Hovakimian apprised199; they discussed whether to immediately expand the circle following this January 2 meeting, but decided to defer updating other DOJ officials until they saw how Clark’s plans developed.200

B. January 3: Clark Reveals That Trump Will Install Him That Day

Clark and Trump’s plans came to a head the following day. Rosen recalled receiving a phone call from Clark around noon on Sunday, January 3; Clark told Rosen he wanted to talk further and that it was important.201 Rosen responded that he was unavailable until the afternoon, and they eventually met in Rosen’s conference room around 3:00 p.m. At Clark’s request, Rosen agreed to take the meeting alone, without Donoghue—who recalled it being “clear to me at this point [that] Jeff Clark did not want me involved in any of these discussions.”202 According to Rosen, Clark reported that he had spoken earlier with the President, that Trump had in fact offered to install Clark in Rosen’s place, and that Clark had accepted. Clark also revealed that the schedule had been accelerated: Rosen would be replaced that day, not on Monday January 4 or sometime thereafter.203 Clark told Rosen that he wanted him to stay on as his Deputy Attorney General and that Donoghue would be replaced; Rosen responded that “there was no universe I could imagine in which that would ever happen.”204 Toward the end of their meeting, Rosen told Clark that he would not accept being fired by his subordinate—and would contact the President to discuss the matter directly.205 Once the meeting concluded, around 4:00 p.m., Rosen called Meadows and said he needed to meet with Trump that day; Meadows said he would arrange it, and called back shortly thereafter to confirm a 6:15 p.m. meeting. Rosen also called Cipollone, who agreed to join the Oval Office meeting 197 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Richard Donoghue (Jan. 2, 2021, 7:13 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000200). 198 Email from Richard Donoghue to Steven Engel (Jan. 2, 2021, 8:08 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000291). 199 Hovakimian was Rosen’s Chief of Staff until his nomination to be General Counsel of ODNI required him to formally step down from the role, although he remained on Rosen’s staff while his nomination was pending in the Senate. See PN1918 (116th Cong.); Donoghue Tr. at 56-57. 200 Donoghue Tr. at 142-143. 201 Rosen Tr. at 157. 202 Rosen Tr. at 158. Donoghue Tr. at 145. 203 Rosen Tr. at 158. 204 Id. 205 Rosen Tr. at 159. 36 and suggested that it would be helpful to know that Rosen and Donoghue were not outliers, and that they had the backing of others in DOJ.206 Rosen also updated Donoghue on his conversation with Clark. Donoghue recalled responding, “Well, I guess that’s it. Are we going to find out [that we’re fired] in a tweet?” Donoghue added, “At that point, I went back to my office and I began taking things off the wall and put them in boxes, because I told the Acting AG I would immediately resign. There was no way I was going to serve under Jeff Clark.”207 At Rosen’s request, Donoghue and Hovakimian arranged a call with DOJ’s senior leadership to determine whether others would also resign.208 As Rosen and Donoghue planned to read a broader group of senior DOJ leaders into Clark and Trump’s plans, Clark apparently took steps of his own to rally potential allies within DOJ. At some point either shortly before or after his initial conversation with Rosen, Clark sent a series of emails to Doug Smith, his Chief of Staff and the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division’s Torts Branch. At 12:31 p.m. on January 3, 2021, Clark emailed Smith and told him to “please get back to DC immediately.”209 Smith responded at 2:38 p.m. that he had “a flight back tonight but will try to get back earlier.”210 Minutes later, at 2:42 p.m., Clark told Smith to “[t]ry to get back as soon as you can.”211 Sixteen minutes later, at 2:58 p.m., Smith told Clark that he was on his way to the airport and would probably get to Washington, D.C. around 6:00 p.m. 212After the meeting with Rosen, Clark emailed Smith again at 4:37 p.m. to direct him to come to the Justice Department with “[l]egal pad in hand.”213 Smith appears to be one of two DOJ officials whose help Clark enlisted, or attempted to enlist, while pursuing his scheme. The other was Civil Division Senior Counsel Kenneth Klukowski. Klukowski emailed Smith at 6:15 p.m. to inform him that he “[j]ust heard from Jeff[rey Clark] that our new meeting time tonight is 8pm…See you soon, sir!”214 Emails suggest that Klukowski had played a role in Clark’s “Proof of Concept” letter, a copy of which Klukowski emailed Clark at 4:20 p.m. on December 28—just twenty minutes before Clark sent the proposal to Rosen and Donoghue.215 The extent of Klukowski’s and Smith’s role in Clark’s scheme is unclear from the limited documents produced by DOJ; nor were the witnesses we interviewed able to shed light on their involvement. 206 Rosen Tr. at 160. 207 Donoghue Tr. at 145-146. 208 Donoghue Tr. At 147; Rosen Tr. At 160. 209 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Douglas Smith (Jan. 3, 2021, 12:31 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000294). 210 Email from Douglas Smith to Jeffrey Clark (Jan. 3, 2021, 2:38 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000295). 211 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Douglas Smith (Jan. 3, 2021, 2:42 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000296). 212 Email from Douglas Smith to Jeffrey Clark (Jan. 3, 2021, 2:58 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000297). 213 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Douglas Smith (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:37 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000304). 214 Email from Kenneth Klukowski to Douglas Smith (Jan. 3, 2021, 6:15 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000323). 215 Email from Kenneth Klukowski to Jeffrey Clark (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:20 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents000044-49). 37

C. The Justice Department Leadership Assembles

From there, at 4:21 p.m., Hovakimian requested a conference line “for a call tonight,”216 which Donoghue provided at 4:23 p.m. 217 At 4:28 p.m., Hovakimian emailed DOJ leadership asking them to “join Rich[ard Donoghue] and me for a call at 4:45 p.m.” 218 The invitees included:  Claire Murray, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General;  Jeffrey Wall, Acting Solicitor General;  Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division;  Steve Engel, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel;  John Demers, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division;  Eric Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division; and  David Burns, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division and acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. Donoghue and Hovakimian took the call from Hovakimian’s office. Donoghue explained what had taken place over the past week and asked the invitees to inform him and Hovakimian if they would resign. According to Donoghue, “essentially, everyone responded either during the call or immediately thereafter that they would resign.”219 Hovakimian also drafted a resignation email at some point on January 3. The email, which Hovakimian never sent, was addressed to DOJ Component Heads, the Offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. It read: This evening, after Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen over the course of the last week repeatedly refused the President’s direct instructions to utilize the Department of Justice’s law enforcement powers for improper ends, the President removed Jeff from the Department. PADAG Rich Donoghue and I resign from the Department, effective immediately.220

D. The January 3, 2021 Oval Office Meeting

Rosen, Donoghue, and Engel arrived at the White House around 6:00 p.m. Donoghue initially waited in the hallway but joined the meeting at Trump’s request about 25 minutes after it 216 Email from Patrick Hovakimian to Nathan Gamble and Maya Suero (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:21 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000299). 217 Email from Richard Donoghue to Patrick Hovakimian (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:23 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000300). 218 Emails from Patrick Hovakimian to Claire Murray, Jeffrey Wall, Makan Delrahim, Steven Engel, John Demers, David Burns, and Eric Dreiband (collectively, “DOJ leadership”) (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:28 and 4:30 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000302-03). 219 Donoghue Tr. at 148. 220 Draft Resignation Letter (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000729). 38 started; in all, the meeting lasted somewhere between two to three hours. The participants were Trump, Rosen, Donoghue, Engel, Cipollone, Philbin, and Clark.221 Rosen also recalled Eric Herschmann, Senior Adviser to the President, participating in the meeting.222 According to Rosen, Trump opened the meeting by saying, “One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election.”223 Over the course of the next three hours, the group had what Donoghue called “a wide-ranging conversation” focused on whether Trump should replace DOJ’s leadership, install Clark in Rosen’s place, and send Clark’s proposed letter—and whether Clark was even qualified to assume the Acting Attorney General position. 224 Rosen and Donoghue told us that by this point, Clark’s proposed letter and his potential role as Acting Attorney General were intertwined: At that point, it was difficult to separate the issue of the letter and Jeff Clark being in the leadership position, because it was very clear, and he stated it repeatedly, that if the President made him the Acting Attorney General, he would send that letter. So it wasn’t as if there was a third option where Jeff Clark would become the Acting Attorney General and the letter would not go. They were sort of one and the same at that point.225 At some point during the meeting, Donoghue and Engel made clear that all of the Assistant Attorneys General would resign if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark. Donoghue added that the mass resignations likely would not end there, and that U.S. Attorneys and other DOJ officials might also resign en masse. Donoghue told us that he raised the prospect of mass resignations “earlier rather than later” in the meeting because he thought it was important context for the President’s decision.226 Donoghue and Rosen also recalled Cipollone and Philbin pushing back against the proposal to replace Rosen with Clark, with Cipollone calling Clark’s letter as a “murder-suicide pact” and the two White House lawyers indicating that they would also resign.227 Beyond the letter, Rosen described Herschmann as being “highly critical” of Clark’s “qualifications and capabilities.”228 Despite being informed early on that the Clark course of action would prompt mass resignations—and even though every participant in the meeting except Clark advocated strongly against that course of action—Trump continued for some time to entertain the idea of installing Clark in Rosen’s place. Donoghue told us that Trump did not reject the Clark course of action 221 Donoghue Tr. at 149-151; Rosen Tr. at 47. 222 Rosen Tr. at 47. 223 Rosen Tr. at 112. 224 Donoghue Tr. at 152. 225 Donoghue Tr. at 152; Rosen Tr. at 49. 226 Donoghue Tr. at 155. 227 Donoghue Tr. at 157, 159; Rosen Tr. at 50. 228 Rosen Tr. at 164. 39 until “very deep into the conversation,” within the final 15 minutes of the two- to three-hour meeting.229 After almost three hours of radio silence, at 9:00 p.m., Hovakimian emailed the Justice Department leadership, stating: I only have limited visibility into this, but it sounds like Rosen and the cause of justice won. We will convene a call when Jeff is back in the building (hopefully shortly). Thanks.230 Demers responded, “Amazing.”231 At 9:28 p.m., Engel confirmed Hovakimian’s announcement to the group, stating “that is correct.”232 While Clark’s specific gambit was rebuffed, Trump himself continued to push DOJ to investigate further Georgia election fraud allegations that very night. Donoghue told us that, shortly after the Oval Office meeting concluded, Trump contacted him to claim a DHS Special Agent was in custody of a truck full of shredded ballots outside of Atlanta.233 Donoghue recalled telling Trump that he had not heard that, but also reminding Trump: If it’s a DHS agent, remember they don’t belong to DOJ. But if they have an issue that they need our assistance with, they certainly know how to contact us. I’m sure that will happen, if appropriate.234 Trump still asked Donoghue to make sure that Ken Cuccinelli at DHS knew about this claim, prompting Donoghue that same night to call Cuccinelli, who also was not aware of this claim.235 This ballot shredding claim was ultimately determined by DHS, FBI, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta to be false. While there were ballots shredded, they were from past elections, and were being cleared out to make room for the storage of the 2020 ballots according to the County’s record retention procedures.236

E. U.S. Attorney Pak Resigns

At some point during the Oval Office meeting, Trump began to complain about U.S. Attorney Pak. By then Pak’s office had investigated and debunked various allegations of election fraud in Georgia, including the false claim about a videotape from Atlanta’s State Farm Arena. That claim came to the fore following a December 3, 2020 Georgia Senate hearing, where Rudy Giuliani showed a video that he said showed poll workers bringing suitcases of ballots out from 229 Donoghue Tr. at 157. 230 Email from Patrick Hovakimian to DOJ leadership (Jan. 3, 2021, 9:07 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000324). 231 Email from John Demers to Patrick Hovakimian (Jan. 3, 2021, 9:12 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000325). 232 Email from Steven Engel to DOJ leadership (Jan. 3, 2021, 9:28 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000326). 233 Donoghue Tr. at 52. 234 Id. at 53. 235 Id. 236 Id. at 54. 40 under a table to secretly count after Republican poll watchers went home.237 Pak told us that on December 4, Attorney General Barr asked if he had seen the news about the suitcase allegation; Pak said he had, and Barr asked him to make finding out more about Giuliani’s allegations a “top priority” because they might come up at an upcoming meeting Barr would attend at the White House.238 By December 4, the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office had already investigated and announced that the State Farm Arena allegations were false.239 In reality, the “suitcase” was a secure ballot container, and the ballots were counted in the presence of poll watchers from both parties.240 Although the Secretary of State’s Office had already refuted the allegations, Pak took steps in response to Barr’s request. Pak told us he alerted Donoghue, contacted his office’s District Election Officer, and spoke to the FBI following Barr’s request that he prioritize looking into Giuliani’s allegations.241 He told us he was “very sensitive” to the need to avoid overt investigative steps that voters in the upcoming January 5 Senate runoff might inadvertently view as lending legitimacy to the claims.242 On the other hand, Pak did not know what the Secretary of State’s investigation consisted of, and because Barr had prioritized the matter, Pak asked the FBI to investigate.243 Within two or three days of his call with Barr, Pak personally reviewed the tape along with an audio recording of interviews the Secretary of State’s Office had conducted, and determined that they were consistent with the Secretary of State’s public refutation of Giuliani’s allegations.244 Around the same time, the FBI received authorization to interview a handful of poll workers and other individuals depicted in the State Farm videotape. 245 They received this authorization notwithstanding PIN’s objection that witness interviews would be inconsistent with ECB’s election non-interference policy and Barr’s November 9 memo, discussed more fully above. Following the interviews, the FBI reported to Pak that nothing irregular had happened; Pak then reported to Donoghue and Barr that “there was no substance to the allegations.”246 Donoghue and Rosen later told Trump that there was no merit to the State Farm Arena allegations, including on their December 27 call. Trump nonetheless continued to insist that there was fraud in Georgia. According to Donoghue, Trump raised Georgia during the January 3 Oval Office meeting; after being told that DOJ had looked into election fraud claims in Atlanta and determined there was no evidence to support them, Trump mentioned Pak. Donoghue told us that Trump looked at a piece of paper on his desk and responded, “Atlanta, Atlanta, no surprise there. They didn’t find anything. No surprise because we have a never-Trumper there as U.S. 237 Stephen Fowler, Fact Checking Rudy Giuliani’s Grandiose Georgia Election Fraud Claim, Georgia Public Broadcasting (Dec. 4, 2020). 238 Pak Tr. at 13. 239 Gabriel Sterling (@GabrielSterling), Twitter (Dec. 4, 2020, 6:41 a.m.), https://twitter.com/GabrielSterling/status/1334825233610633217?s=20org%2Fnews%2F2020%2F12%2F04%2Ffac t-checking-rudy-giulianis-grandiose-georgia-election-fraud-claim. 240 See Pak Tr. at 16-17. 241 Pak Tr. at 14-15. 242 Pak Tr. at 15. 243 Pak Tr. at 38-39. 244 Pak Tr. at 18, 21-22. 245 Pak Tr. at 22-23. 246 Pak Tr. at 20. 41 Attorney.” Trump then read a quote, purportedly from Pak, criticizing the impact of Trump’s rhetoric on the Republican Party’s ability to appeal to minorities. 247 Donoghue told us that he pushed back against Trump’s characterization of Pak as a “never-Trumper” and that Trump disagreed and “was fixated on that for a short period of time.” Trump then told Donoghue, “I want you to fire him.”248 Donoghue recalled the ensuring conversation as follows: I said, “Mr. President, I’m not going to fire him. There’s no reason to fire him.” And he said, “Then I’m firing him.” And I said, “Well, before you do that, understand that I talked to BJay a couple of days ago, and he is submitting his resignation tomorrow morning,” which would have been Monday morning. Pat Cipollone stepped in and said, “We’re not firing someone who is resigning in a few hours.” And the President said, “That’s fine. I’m not going to fire him, then. But when his resignation comes in, it’s accepted. Tomorrow is his last day as U.S. Attorney.”249 In fact, Pak had not previously decided to resign on January 4. He told us that sometime prior to January 3, he had informed his office, the courts, and local law enforcement partners that he intended to remain in his position until Inauguration Day. He also informed Donoghue that he would probably submit his resignation sometime shortly after the January 5 runoff election but that the resignation would be effective as of January 20.250 Pak told us he considered resigning on January 3 after he learned about Trump’s call with Raffensperger, during which the President called Pak a “never Trumper” and continued to press election fraud claims that Pak had told DOJ leadership weren’t true. Although Pak was “personally very concerned” that Trump was apparently seeking to overturn the election and represent that there had been irregularities in Georgia, he decided not to submit his resignation on January 3 because he did not want to disrupt the upcoming special election. Instead, Pak decided to “stay with my original plan” to “submit my letter of resignation and give two weeks’ notice and leave office on Inauguration Day.”251 After Trump told Donoghue that January 4 would be Pak’s last day as U.S. Attorney, the conversation turned to the question of who would replace him. According to Donoghue, Trump asked, “What do you know about Bobby Christine?”252 Christine was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, and Trump added, “I hear great things about him.” Trump then told Donoghue he wanted Christine to run the Northern District of Georgia. Donoghue responded that Christine was already running a U.S. Attorney’s office, and that Pak had a First Assistant U.S. Attorney who would step in when Pak left. Donoghue was referring to FAUSA Kurt Erskine, who would take over as Acting U.S. Attorney under DOJ’s well-established line of succession. 247 Donoghue Tr. at 160. 248 Donoghue Tr. at 161. 249 Donoghue Tr. at 161. 250 Pak Tr. at 93-94. 251 Pak Tr. at 90-91. 252 Donoghue Tr. at 161. 42 Trump insisted on appointing Christine instead, telling Donoghue something to the effect of, “if he’s good, he’ll find out if there’s something there.”253 Q. You said the President said something to the effect of “I’ve heard great things about Bobby Christine, and if I put him in, he’ll do something about it.” Is that what you said? A. Something to that effect. Of course it’s not a quote, but he said something like, “Well, if this guy is good, maybe something will actually get done.” Q. And by “something getting done,” what did you interpret him to mean? A. That there would be some sort of investigation that hadn’t been done. But as I had told him repeatedly, the Department’s looked at it. They did their job in the Northern District of Georgia.254 Later that night, Donoghue emailed Pak to “[p]lease call ASAP.”255 Pak called him. According to Pak, Donoghue relayed that Trump was “very unhappy” with him, believed he was a never-Trumper, and wanted to fire him. Donoghue also relayed that upon learning that Pak intended to submit his resignation that week, Trump agreed to accept the resignation rather than fire Pak, but that Pak had to resign quickly: Mr. Donoghue then asked me … how long were you planning to stay after you submit your resignation. I told him that, you know, through inauguration. And Mr. Donoghue said no, unfortunately, it can’t be that long.256 Donoghue indicated that Pak could remain at DOJ in another senior role through the end of the administration, but Pak declined.257 According to Pak, Donoghue acknowledged that Pak could announce his resignation however he wanted, including by having a press conference or by “mak[ing] a big fuss,” but suggested that it would be best for everyone if Pak left quietly. Pak responded that he would think about it.258 Early the next morning, Pak called Donoghue back and informed him that he would submit a “very bland” resignation, in order to avoid impacting the upcoming special election. Pak also asked Donoghue to clarify why he had been asked to resign early. According to Pak, Donoghue responded that the President believed Pak was “not doing enough” and that the reason he was “not doing enough” was that he was a neverTrumper.259 253 Donoghue Tr. at 162. 254 Donoghue Tr. at 168-169. 255 Email from Richard Donoghue to BJay Pak (Jan. 3, 2021, 10:09 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000328). 256 Pak Tr. at 95-96. 257 Pak Tr. at 96. 258 Pak Tr. at 96. 259 Pak Tr. at 96. 43 At 7:41 a.m., Pak submitted resignation letters to President Trump and Rosen through the Executive Office of United States Attorneys.260 At 7:46 a.m., Pak emailed all the U.S. Attorneys (copying Donoghue) a personal announcement of his resignation. After his sentiments, Pak included his “wish and hope that at least some of you will consider continuing to serve our country -- our nation needs patriots like you to uphold the rule of law.”261 Donoghue forwarded this email to Rosen,262 and replied to Pak: “You are a class act, my friend. Thank you.”263 Engel also separately reached out to Pak to offer “[m]any thanks for all of your service to the Department, and I hope that our paths do cross again.”264

VIII. Recommendations

To date, the Committee’s investigation has uncovered several facets of President Trump’s attempts to enlist DOJ and its leadership in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. These efforts highlight several ways in which bad-faith actors can exploit DOJ policy and norms to provide a platform for election fraud claims even when the claims are not backed by any credible evidence and insert DOJ unnecessarily in political controversies. Because the Committee’s investigation is not yet complete and more documents and interviews are still being pursued, we have not made findings or recommendations concerning possible criminal liability. However, the investigation has uncovered sufficient information to justify providing a set of recommendations on potential legislative and oversight steps to strengthen DOJ’s protections against politicization of its investigative and prosecutorial powers and additional measures that should be taken in response to this episode. Additionally, as this interim report makes clear, this entire episode is not merely a policy failure, but also the result of conscious actions by a mix of bad-faith actors seeking to overturn the 2020 general election in favor of their preferred candidate as well as other actors attempting to placate Trump while running out the clock on his administration. As appropriate, federal and state bar associations should consider whether additional accountability measures are warranted to discipline these bad actors and deter future attempts to politicize DOJ. Finally, some aspects of this episode implicate issues that extend beyond the immediate purview of this investigation, and should be pursued as appropriate by the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Recommendation #1: Strengthen DOJ-White House Contacts Policy Through Increased Transparency and Enforcement As this report makes clear, Jeffrey Clark blatantly violated the DOJ-White House contacts policy on multiple occasions by making unauthorized contact with President Trump. As the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources 260 Email from BJay Pak to Karen Winzenburg (Jan. 4, 2021, 7:41 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000382-384). 261 Email from BJay Pak to U.S. Attorneys (Jan. 4, 2021. 7:46 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000385). 262 Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 4, 2021, 8:46 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000387). 263 Email from Richard Donoghue to BJay Pak (Jan. 4, 2021, 11:12 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000391). 264 Email from Steven Engel to BJay Pak (Jan. 4, 2021, 10:53 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000389). 44 Division and the acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Clark had a responsibility to know that the policy prohibited him from meeting with Trump without authorization. Regardless, prior to his unauthorized meetings with Trump, Clark had constructive knowledge that such contact violated the contacts policy after Donoghue sent that very policy to Clark and other senior DOJ leaders after the 2020 general election on November 11, 2020.265 Yet even being admonished by Donoghue that his unauthorized meeting in the Oval Office violated the contacts policy, and even though Clark assured Rosen that he would not meet with the President again, Clark brazenly violated the policy at least once more.266 Mark Meadows also repeatedly violated the DOJ-White House contacts policy. The White House version of that policy in force at the time made clear that communications with DOJ about pending or contemplated investigations or cases were to involve only the President, Vice President, White House Counsel, and the White House Counsel’s designees.267 The policy, which was enshrined in a memo from former White House Counsel McGahn, stressed, “In order to ensure that DOJ exercises its investigatory and prosecutorial functions free from the fact or appearance of improper political influence, these rules must be strictly followed.” Meadows violated the policy each time he contacted Rosen to request that DOJ look into election fraud allegations, whether in Fulton County, New Mexico, or elsewhere. On July 21, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland and White House Counsel Dana Remus updated and reissued DOJ and White House versions of the contacts policies. The updated policies clarify and strengthen the limitations on communications between White House and DOJ officials on specific law enforcement matters. However, the misconduct documented in this report demonstrates why a stricter oversight regime around White House contacts with DOJ is appropriate, particularly given that even the Attorney General does not have the authority to fire a fellow presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed official—a fact Rosen himself faced when confronted by Clark’s repeated violations.268 Congress can provide additional teeth to the DOJ-White House contacts policy by requiring greater transparency and enhanced enforcement around covered communications. Current proposals that warrant particular consideration are the Title VI provisions within the Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA) that would require the Attorney General to maintain a log of designated contacts between the White House and DOJ that is shared with the DOJ OIG, who would then notify the Senate and House Judiciary Committees of any inappropriate or improper contacts.269 However, PODA only contemplates a semi-annual sharing of the contacts log with DOJ OIG, which would not have alerted OIG or Congress of Clark’s violations until well after they occurred.270 Consequently, it would be advisable for any such legislation to 265 Email from Richard Donoghue to DOJ leadership (Nov. 11, 2020, 6:27 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000680). 266 Rosen Tr. at 84-85, 128-129; Donoghue Tr. at 104, 141. 267 Memorandum from Donald F. McGahn II to All White House Staff (Jan. 27, 2017) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000685-686). 268 Rosen Tr. at 131-132. 269 Protecting Our Democracy Act, H.R. 5314, 117th Cong. §§ 601-604 (2021). 270 Id. at §603(c)(1). 45 require regular IG access to the contacts log, and setting up an immediate “urgent concern” transmission system to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees similar to the one in place for whistleblower complaints in the Intelligence Community and the Intelligence Committees. Relatedly, the bipartisan Inspector General Access Act (IGAA) has a role to play in making any DOJ-White House contacts policy enforceable by expanding the jurisdiction of the DOJ Inspector General to cover matters of attorney misconduct. 271 The Committee has previously reported this legislation out on a bipartisan basis and Congress should enact it this year. Additionally, while the information in this report demonstrates that various existing criminal provisions regarding the obstruction of justice—such as 18 U.S.C. § 1505’s prohibition on obstructing proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, and 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)’s prohibition on corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding—may apply to aspects of this episode, Congress should consider legislative amendments to related obstruction of justice provisions to ensure they clearly cover similarly corrupt actions. These include, but are not limited to:  Consider amending 18 U.S.C. § 1505 to clarify that this provision applies to corrupt influence of state proceedings relating to federal elections;  Consider amending 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) to clarify that this provision also applies to state proceedings relating to federal elections; and  Consider amending 18 U.S.C. § 372 to clarify that “corruptly persuading” constitutes a type of “force, intimidation, or threat” prohibited by the statute. Recommendation #2: Strengthen DOJ’s Longstanding Policy of Election NonInterference Attorney General Barr twice relaxed elements of DOJ’s longstanding policy of election non-interference, shortly before the election and immediately afterwards on November 9, 2020. The result of both actions was to cast public doubt on the integrity of the election where none was warranted and to encourage unwarranted investigative steps into non-credible allegations prior to the certification of the election. Attorney General Garland rescinded Barr’s November 9 memo on February 3, 2021 and clarified that until DOJ was able to update the Justice Manual to reflect the newly changed policy, “the Department’s forty-year old ‘non-interference with elections policy’” contained in the ECB’s Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual would govern.272 271 Inspector General Access Act, S. 426 & H.R. 3064, 117th Cong. (2021). 272 Memorandum from Attorney General Garland for Heads of Department Components, All United States Attorneys at 1 (Feb. 3, 2021). The February 3 memo also rescinded separate guidance issued by former Attorney General Barr on December 22, 2020, which directed the Civil Rights Division to assume that a state or local government that readopts preexisting voting procedures following the pandemic has done so lawfully, unless the preexisting procedures were previously found to be unlawful. See Memorandum from Attorney General Barr to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division (Dec. 22, 2020). 46 As they work to update the Justice Manual to reflect the longstanding policy contained in the ECB manual, DOJ leadership should consider expanding the consultation requirements for election-related cases. There are various forms that such an expansion could take, such as explicitly requiring the approval of career attorneys in PIN before any investigative steps can be taken in election fraud cases (as opposed to merely consulting with PIN), but generally such an expansion should require a written request and approval process that includes a requirement for a written explanation when the initial decision by PIN is overruled by a political appointee, including the Attorney General. Additionally, DOJ leadership should consider formalizing other existing norms regarding election non-interference, and centralizing all such policies and guidance to better ensure career staff and political appointees all share the same understanding. Specifically, DOJ should reduce the so-called “unwritten 60-day rule” to writing. Under this longstanding principle, in the 60-day period preceding a primary or general election, DOJ should avoid returning indictments against a candidate or taking overt investigative steps related to electoral matters.273 In 2018, the DOJ Inspector General recommended that DOJ consider providing written guidance to agents and prosecutors concerning their obligations to avoid taking actions that could impact elections. DOJ has not yet implemented that recommendation.274 Although this report focuses on conduct during the post-election period, that conduct occurred against the backdrop of Attorney General Barr’s pre-election efforts to cast doubt on the election’s integrity. These efforts included a September 24, 2020 announcement that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania was investigating claims that mail ballots in Luzerne County had been discarded.275 They also included Barr’s numerous public statements baselessly suggesting that voting by mail would lead to fraud and DOJ’s October 2020 directive that prosecutors could take overt, pre-election steps in election fraud investigations involving claims of misconduct by federal officials—including U.S. Postal Service employees.276 To help ensure that agents and prosecutors adhere to DOJ’s longstanding norms against election interference, DOJ should issue written guidance enshrining the 60-day rule. Recommendation #3: Further Investigation of Clark’s Conduct by the District of Columbia Bar Clark’s attempts to enlist DOJ in Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the presidential election without evidence or legal authority to do so clearly undermined the rule of law. Clark is 273 See Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election at 17-18 (June 2018). 274 Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Recommendations Issued by the Office of the Inspector General that were Not Closed as of July 31, 2021 at 114. 275 Department of Justice, Press Release: Revised Statement of U.S. Attorney Freed on Inquiry into Reports of Potential Issues with Mail-In Ballots (Sept. 24, 2020), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/revisedstatement-us-attorney-freed-inquiry-reports-potential-issues-mail-ballots. 276 See, e.g., Jane C. Timm, Fact Check: Echoing Trump, Barr Misleads on Voter Fraud to Attack Expanded Voteby-Mail, NBC News (Sept. 19, 2020); Robert Faturechi & Justin Elliott, DOJ Frees Federal Prosecutors to Take Steps That Could Interfere With Elections, Weakening Longstanding Policy, ProPublica (Oct. 7, 2020). 47 currently barred in the District of Columbia, where DOJ is headquartered and where his offending conduct took place, and as such the District of Columbia Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel should evaluate Clark’s conduct to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. To that end, the Committee is concurrently submitting a formal complaint to the District of Columbia Bar based on the findings of our report. Based on the facts this investigation has uncovered to date, Clark’s conduct may implicate multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. This includes Rule 8.4’s prohibitions against “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,” “conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice” and “stat[ing] or imply[ing] an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.”277 Clark’s conduct may also implicate Rule 1.2(e), which states that a “lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent,” although a lawyer “may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.”278 Clark’s continued pursuit of his “Proof of Concept” letter despite being told repeatedly by DOJ leadership that his election fraud claims were baseless may implicate each of these rules. A determination of whether Clark violated applicable rules of professional conduct would require an assessment of his state of mind, particularly to the extent those rules—like Rule 1.2(e)—include a knowledge element. Testimony by Clark himself would shed additional light on his state of mind, but to date he has not agreed to the Committee’s request for a voluntary interview despite repeated follow-up and after more than two months have passed since DOJ authorized him to testify without restriction. Regardless, Clark should not be able to avoid discipline by asserting he subjectively assessed his claims to be factual or reasonable. Knowledge is ascertained by an objective standard,279 and the disciplinary authority may prove that Clark “knowingly” pushed DOJ to act on baseless grounds through circumstantial evidence,280 which, as demonstrated by this report, overwhelmingly shows Clark knew and should have known his claims were baseless. On this note, it should be noted that Rudy Giuliani has been suspended from practicing law in New York and faces disbarment for communicating “demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large” regarding similar claims.281 Additionally, nine other attorneys, including Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood, have already been sanctioned by the Eastern District of Michigan and referred to the relevant disciplinary authorities for their admitting jurisdictions for their “bad faith” effort “to use the judicial process to frame a ‘public narrative’” based on “conjecture and speculation” lacking evidentiary support, precisely like Clark.282 Although Clark did not press the false claims in his “Proof of Concept” letter before a court in the same way that Giuliani, Powell, and Wood 277 D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4. 278 D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(e). 279 Rebecca Roiphe, The Ethics of Willful Ignorance, 24 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 187, 196 (2011). 280 George Cohen, The State Of Lawyer Knowledge Under The Model Rules Of Professional Conduct, 3 Am. U. Bus. L. R. 115, 116 (2018). 281 Matter of Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S. 3d 266 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2021). 282 King v. Whitmer, No. 20-13134, 2021 WL 3771875 *26, *34, *39 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021). 48 did, the fact that those claims and others like them have been rejected in other disciplinary proceedings is at the very least circumstantial evidence that Clark knew they were baseless. Recommendation #4: Cooperation with the House Select Committee to Investigate Ties Between This Episode and the January 6 Attack As discussed throughout this report, President Trump’s efforts to enlist DOJ and its leadership in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election were aided by numerous allies with clear ties to the “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6 insurrection. As Trump himself noted to Rosen and Donoghue on December 27, he and his congressional allies could effectively position themselves to overturn the presidential election results with cover from DOJ, asking DOJ to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the [Republican] Congressmen.”283 Three of these allies and their connections to January 6 are particularly notable: U.S. Representative Scott Perry, Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, and Trump campaign attorney Cleta Mitchell. These ties warrant further investigation to better place Trump’s efforts to enlist DOJ in his efforts to overturn the presidential election in context with the January 6 insurrection. Because the events of January 6 are outside the immediate purview of the Committee’s investigation, this report is being made available to the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, as well as the public, to assist their investigation. 283 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000738); Donoghue Tr. at 86-87.

APPENDIX A: CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS Date Event

September 2, 2020 In an interview on CNN’s The Situation Room, Attorney General William Barr baselessly claims that “elections that have been held with mail have found substantial fraud and coercion.” This follows months of similarly unfounded claims by Barr, including his July 28, 2020 House Judiciary Committee testimony that mail voting creates a “high risk” of extensive voter fraud. September 24, 2020 Contrary to its decades-old policy of avoiding overt investigative steps in election fraud matters before the election is certified, DOJ issues a press release announcing an investigation into nine “discarded” mail ballots in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania and stating that seven of the ballots were cast for President Trump. October 2, 2020 DOJ issues an internal announcement of “an exception to the general noninterference with elections policy,” which—contrary to longstanding DOJ policy and practice—authorizes overt, pre-election investigative steps into election fraud allegations involving federal agencies such as the U.S. Postal Service. November 3, 2020 The 2020 General Election is held. November 7, 2020 Media outlets confirm that Joseph R. Biden won the Electoral College. November 9, 2020 President Trump spends the afternoon and evening tweeting about dozens of false voter fraud claims about contested states and Dominion Voting Systems. Attorney General Barr issues a memorandum weakening DOJ’s longstanding election non-interference policy and authorizing overt, pre-certification investigative steps “if there are clear and apparently credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.” Richard Pilger resigns his position as Director of the Public Integrity Section’s (PIN’s) Election Crimes Branch in response to Barr’s 11/9 memorandum. November 14, 2020 The Trump campaign itself prepares and distributes an internal memorandum rebutting various allegations regarding Dominion Voting Systems, reflecting its early knowledge that such allegations are baseless. November 19, 2020 Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell hold a press conference at the Republican National Committee office where they continue to make false claims, with Giuliani telling the crowd: “I know crimes. I can smell them. You don’t have to smell this one. I can prove it to you 18 different ways.” A-2 Date Event December 1, 2020 Barr announces that DOJ has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” Chief Operating Officer for the Georgia Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling holds a news conference asking Trump and his allies to “stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone’s going to get hurt. Someone’s going to get shot. Someone’s going to get killed.” December 3, 2020 Giuliani shows a video at a Georgia Senate hearing that he claims shows poll workers at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena bringing suitcases of ballots out from under a table to secretly count after Republican poll watcher went home. December 4, 2020 The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office announces that it investigated Giuliani’s claims and determined they were false – the suitcases were secure ballot containers and all ballots were counted in the presence of poll watchers from both parties. Barr calls U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Byung Jin (“BJay”) Pak to request that he make finding out more about Giuliani’s allegations a “top priority.” The Trump campaign and David Shafer, the Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, files a suit in Fulton County Superior Court seeking to invalidate Georgia’s presidential election results. December 5, 2020 The Fulton County Superior Court rejects the Trump campaign’s suit to overturn the presidential election results. December 7, 2020 PIN Chief Corey Amundson notifies the FBI that PIN does not concur in any overt investigative activity concerning the State Farm Arena allegations, including witness interviews authorized by Barr, because those allegations “do not fall within the scope of [Barr’s November 9 memo], which created an exception to the DOJ Election Non-Interference Policy for substantial, clear, apparently credible, and non-speculative allegations” of election fraud. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue makes clear to U.S. Attorney Pak and FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich that PIN’s concurrence is not required and that the interviews should proceed, as directed by Barr. Within days, the FBI confirms the Georgia Secretary of State’s conclusion that the State Farm Arena allegations are meritless. December 8, 2020 The U.S. Supreme Court rejects Pennsylvania Representative Mike Kelly’s suit to block Pennsylvania’s certification of the election results. December 9, 2020 West Virginia becomes the final state to certify its presidential election results. December 11, 2020 The U.S. Supreme Court rejects Texas’s suit to overturn the presidential election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. A-3 Date Event December 12, 2020 The Georgia Supreme Court rejects the Trump Campaign’s suit to overturn the presidential election results in Georgia, holding that “petitioners have not shown that this is one of those extremely rare cases that would invoke our original jurisdiction.” December 14, 2020 The Electoral College meets in all 50 state capitals and the District of Columbia and casts 306 electoral votes for Joseph R. Biden and 232 electoral votes for Donald J. Trump. Barr announces his resignation, effective December 23. Special Assistant to the President Molly Michael emails Deputy Attorney General Jeffery Rosen two documents “From POTUS”: (1) a set of talking points alleging voter fraud in Antrim County, Michigan; and (2) a purported “forensic report” by Allied Operations Group on Dominion Voting Systems’ performance in Antrim County. December 15, 2020 Senate Majority Leader McConnell speaks on the Senate floor to remark on the Electoral College vote: “The Electoral College has spoken, so today I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden.” Trump tweets an article titled “Trump’s allies slam Mitch McConnell for congratulating Biden” and says “Too soon to give up. Republican Party must finally learn to fight. People are angry!’ Trump summons Jeffery Rosen and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to the Oval Office to ask why DOJ was not “doing more to look at” the Antrim County allegations and the “bad things” he claimed happened in Pennsylvania and Georgia. Attorney General Barr was not invited. December 19, 2020 Trump tweets about the upcoming January 6, Joint Session of Congress: “Big protests in D.C. on January 6. Be there. Will be wild!” December 21, 2020 Barr reaffirms his December 1 announcement that there was no widespread election fraud and adds that there is no basis for appointing special counsels to look into election fraud allegations. Trump meets with Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, Pennsylvania Representative Scott Perry, and other House Freedom Caucus members to strategize about January 6. December 23, 2020 Barr’s last day as Attorney General. Trump calls Rosen and indicates he will want to talk again soon. On or about this date, Jeffrey Clark violates the DOJ-White House contacts policy and meets with President Trump in the Oval Office, along with Representative Perry. A-4 Date Event Trump tweets: “After seeing massive Voter Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election, I disagree with anyone that thinks a strong, fast, and fair Special Counsel is not needed, IMMEDIATELY. This was the most corrupt election in the history of our Country and it must be closely examined!” December 24, 2020 President Trump calls Rosen, who is now acting Attorney General, and repeats election fraud claims similar to those in the December 15 meeting. He tells Rosen to “make sure the Department is really looking into these things that you may have missed,” and asks if Rosen knew “a guy named Jeff Clark.” December 26, 2020 Rosen calls Clark to learn why President Trump mentioned him by name on the December 24 call. Clark admits that he met with Trump in the Oval Office. December 27, 2020 Trump twice calls Rosen. During the second call, Rosen conferences in Donoghue, who takes extensive notes on Trump’s claims that the “election has been stolen out from under the American people” and that DOJ is failing to respond. Trump mentions efforts made by Pennsylvania Representative Scott Perry, Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, and Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, and asks Rosen and Donoghue to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” Trump also references Jeffrey Clark and potentially replacing DOJ’s leadership. Trump asks Donoghue for his cell phone number so he can direct people with information about election fraud claims to call him. Pennsylvania Representative Perry then calls Donoghue at Trump’s behest to discuss a false claim that Pennsylvania had 205,000 more votes than voters. Perry also tells Donoghue that Jeffrey Clark is “the kind of guy who could really get in there and do something about this.” Pennsylvania Representative Perry emails Donoghue five documents summarizing numerous false Pennsylvania election fraud claims. Donoghue forwards Representative Perry’s email to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania Scott Brady “for whatever it may be worth.” Brady subsequently responds that the claims “were not well founded.” December 28, 2020 Trump calls Donoghue to confirm that he had raised a particular election fraud claim the prior afternoon; Donoghue tells him he did. Clark emails Rosen and Donoghue about “Two Urgent Action Items.” He requests a classified briefing regarding a conspiracy theory that foreign agents in China accessed a voting machine through a smart thermostat and also proposes that DOJ send a “Proof of Concept” letter he drafted to the elected leadership of Georgia and other states to urge them to convene special legislative sessions in order to appoint a different slate of electors. A-5 Date Event Donoghue replies to Clark’s email to say “there is no chance I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this” and highlights specific statements in Clark’s “Proof of Concept” letter that had no support. Rosen and Donoghue meet with Clark to discuss the “Proof of Concept Letter.” Clark tells them he wants Rosen to hold a press conference announcing that there was corruption and mentions that President Trump was considering a leadership change at DOJ. Donoghue contacts Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steve Engel to read him into “some antics that could potentially end up on [his] radar” given his position as the next in line to become Acting Attorney General if Trump fired Rosen. December 29, 2020 At Trump’s behest, Molly Michael emails Rosen, Donoghue, and Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall a draft bill of complaint purporting to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction against the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada to overturn their presidential election results. Rosen, Donoghue, and Engel meet with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, and Deputy White House Counsel Pat Philbin. Among other things, they discuss the draft bill of complaint, but also discuss Trump’s trust in John Eastman as well as a conspiracy theory known as “Italygate.” Meadows sends Rosen a copy of a letter pushing the “Italygate” theory, which claims an employee of an Italian aerospace company coordinated with the CIA to use military satellites to remotely switch Trump votes to Biden votes. Kurt Olsen, a private attorney who served as a special counsel to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton during Texas’s failed Supreme Court action against Pennsylvania, makes multiple efforts via email and phone to brief Rosen, at President Trump’s behest, about the draft bill of complaint. Rosen requests that the Office of Solicitor General prepare a one-pager on the draft bill of complaint. December 30, 2020 Meadows forwards Rosen an email and attachment from Trump campaign attorney Cleta Mitchell addressing election fraud claims the campaign is pushing in Georgia. Meadows asks Rosen to have DOJ look into the campaign’s allegations. The Office of Solicitor General provides Rosen with a summary of the “numerous significant procedural hurdles” DOJ would face if it filed the draft bill of complaint, including that DOJ cannot file an original Supreme Court A-6 Date Event action for the benefit of a political candidate and that there is no general cause of action allowing DOJ to contest the outcome of an election. Rosen and Donoghue speak with Olsen, who attempts to press DOJ to file the draft bill of complaint “by noon today” and threatened to report Rosen’s position on the matter back to Trump. Engel provides Rosen with an Office of Legal Counsel summary of the draft bill of complaint that concludes “[t]here is no legal basis to bring this lawsuit.” Rosen speaks with Trump to explain that DOJ could not file the draft bill of complaint. December 31, 2020 Trump summons Rosen and Donoghue to the Oval Office for a “contentious” meeting about why DOJ still had not “found the fraud,” where Trump tells them that people say he should fire both of them and install Clark. Trump further raises that the draft bill of complaint should be pursued. Rosen speaks with Clark again. Clark reveals that he has spoken to Trump again and tells Rosen that Trump asked him whether he would be willing to take over as Acting Attorney General if Trump replaced Rosen, but that Clark wanted to do some “due diligence” on certain election fraud claims before deciding. January 1, 2021 Clark receives the classified briefing he first requested on December 28. Meadows sends Rosen a YouTube video regarding the Italygate conspiracy theory titled “Brad Johnson: Rome, Satellites, Servers: an Update.” Meadows emails Rosen about disproven allegations of signature match anomalies in Fulton County, Georgia and asks “[c]an you get Jeff Clark to engage on this issue immediately…” Meadows calls Rosen about the Italygate conspiracy, and even after Rosen tells Meadows that it was “another one that’s debunked,” Meadows tells Rosen “there’s more to it” and asks Rosen to meet with Giuliani. Rosen refused this request, as he had refused multiple other requests to meet with Giuliani in December 2020. Meadows emails Rosen to ask DOJ to investigate false election fraud claims in New Mexico pushed by Steve Pearce, the Chair of the New Mexico Republican Party. Trump tweets: “January 6th. See you in D.C.” Rosen suggests that Clark reach out to U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Pak for an explanation of how the allegations of ballot destruction in Atlanta had been discredited. A-7 Date Event January 2, 2021 Trump, joined by Meadows and Mitchell, calls Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and attempts to pressure him to change the state’s vote totals from the presidential election, specifically asking to find exactly enough votes for Trump to win. During the call, Trump refers to U.S. Attorney Pak as the “Never Trumper U.S. Attorney there.” Clarks meets with Rosen and Donoghue, confirms that his classified briefing produced no evidence of ballot or data tampering, but continues to press that DOJ should send his “Proof of Concept” letter. Clark attempts to get Rosen to reconsider sending the letter by offering to turn down Trump’s offer to install him in Rosen’s place. Clark also confirms that he has not reached out to Pak to discuss why the Georgia election fraud claims he continues to press are false, and reveals that he has instead spoken to witnesses about those claims. January 3, 2021 Clark asks Doug Smith, his Chief of Staff and the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division’s Torts Branch, to “please get back to DC immediately.” Clark meets with Rosen to tell him that he accepted Trump’s offer to become acting Attorney General, and that Rosen would be replaced that day. After telling Clark he will not be fired by his subordinate, Rosen calls Meadows to say that he needed to speak with Trump that day, which Meadows arranges for that evening. At Rosen’s request, Donoghue and Rosen’s longtime deputy Patrick Hovakimian arranged a call with DOJ’s senior leadership to determine whether the others would also resign if Clark were installed. Rosen, Donoghue, and Engel meet with Trump, Cipollone, Philbin, and Clark in the Oval Office. Early in the meeting, it is established that there will be mass resignations if Trump installs Clark as acting Attorney General, but the meeting continues for hours before Trump decides to keep Rosen in place. At the end of the meeting, Trump claims Pak is a never-Trumper and that if U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia Bobby Christine replaced Pak “he’ll do something about [election fraud].” Donoghue convinces Trump not to fire Pak because he says Pak is already planning to resign. Trump agrees, but makes clear that Pak must leave the very next day. Donoghue asks Pak to “[p]lease call ASAP,” and during their call tells Pak that Trump would fire him if he did not resign quickly the next day. Late at night and following their Oval Office meeting, Trump calls Donoghue to alert him of claims that a DHS agent was in custody of a truck full of shredded ballots in Atlanta. A-8 Date Event January 4, 2021 U.S. Attorney Pak submits his resignation, effective immediately. Trump tweets: “How can you certify an election when the numbers being certified are verifiably WRONG. You will see the real numbers tonight during my speech, but especially on JANUARY 6th. @SenTomCotton Republicans have pluses & minuses, but one thing is sure, THEY NEVER FORGET!” President Trump and outside attorney John Eastman attempt to convince Vice President Pence to set aside the Electoral College votes of seven states when he presides over the January 6 Joint Session of Congress. President Trump speaks at a Dalton, Georgia Senate Runoff campaign event where he continues to claim that the general election “was a rigged election” and that he would “fight like hell.” January 5, 2021 Christine is appointed acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, sidestepping the next in the line of succession First Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt Erskine. January 6, 2021 President Trump incites his supporters to breach the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 Electoral College votes. January 7, 2021 Vice President Pence officially affirms the Electoral College votes and declares Joseph R. Biden the president-elect. January 20, 2021 Joseph R. Biden is inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States of America

Document Description A Email from Richard Donoghue to BJay Pak regarding State Farm Arena videotape (Dec. 7, 2020, 12:48 p.m.) B Email from Molly Michael to Jeffrey Rosen regarding Antrim County, Michigan allegations (Dec. 14, 2020, 4:57 p.m.) C Email from Theresa Watson to Michigan USAs Matthew Schneider & Andrew Birge regarding Antrim County, Michigan allegations (Dec. 14, 2020, 4:59 p.m.) D Email from Ken Cuccinelli to Richard Donoghue regarding summary of refutations to Antrim, County, Michigan allegations (Dec. 18, 2020, 2:54 p.m.) E Notes of Dec. 27, 2020 Trump-Rosen-Donoghue Call F Notes of Dec. 27, 2020 Donoghue-Perry Call G Email from Richard Donoghue to USA Scott Brady regarding Pennsylvania allegations (Dec. 27, 2020, 10:05 p.m.) H Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen & Richard Donoghue regarding “Proof of Concept” proposal (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:40 p.m.) I Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Clark responding to the “Proof of Concept” proposal (Dec. 28, 2020, 5:50 p.m.) J Email from Richard Donoghue to Steven Engel regarding “antics” (Dec. 28, 2020, 11:41 p.m.) K Email from Kurt Olsen to Jeffrey Wall regarding draft Supreme Court Complaint (Dec. 29, 2020, 10:57 a.m.) L Email from Molly Michael to Jeffrey Rosen, Richard Donoghue, & Jeffrey Wall regarding draft Supreme Court Complaint (Dec. 29, 2020, 11:17 a.m.) M Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen regarding Italygate allegations (Dec. 29, 2020, 11:27 a.m.) N Email from Doug Mastriano to Richard Donoghue regarding Pennsylvania allegations (Dec. 29, 2020, 11:28 a.m.) O Email from Kurt Olsen to John Moran regarding draft Supreme Court Complaint (Dec. 29, 2020, 12:45 p.m.) P Notes of Dec. 29, 2020 Rosen-Donoghue-Engel Meeting with MeadowsCipollone-Philbin Q Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen regarding Trump campaign Georgia allegations (Dec. 30, 2020, 9:31 a.m.) R Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen regarding translated Italygate allegations (Dec. 30, 2020, 9:43 a.m.) S Notes of Dec. 30, 2020 Olsen-Rosen-Donoghue Call T Email from Steven Engel to Jeffrey Rosen transmitting “one pager” on draft Supreme Court Complaint (Dec. 31, 2020, 9:02 a.m.) U Email from Steve Engel to Richard Donoghue requesting an update (Dec. 31, 2020, 4:20 p.m.) V Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Patrick Hovakimian requesting assistance (Dec. 31, 2020, 6:14 p.m.) A-10 Document Description W Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Rosen discussing Mark Meadows’s request to have Jeffrey Clark investigate signature match allegations in Georgia (Jan. 1, 2021, 4:28 p.m.) X Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen regarding New Mexico allegations (Jan. 1, 2021, 6:56 p.m.) Y Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Richard Donoghue discussing Rosen’s refusal to meet with Rudy Giuliani or ask FBI to meet with Brad Johnson about Italygate (Jan. 1, 2021, 7:13 p.m.) Z Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen discussing whether Clark was able to speak with BJay Pak (Jan. 2, 2021, 9:50 a.m.) AA Notes of Jan. 2, 2021 Rosen-Donoghue-Clark Meeting BB Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Richard Donoghue replying to Donoghue’s earlier response to Jeffrey Clark’s “Proof of Concept” proposal (Jan. 2, 2021, 7:13 p.m.) CC Email from Steve Engel to Richard Donoghue planning an update call (Jan. 2, 2021, 8:09 p.m.) DD Draft Donoghue-Hovakimian Resignation Letter EE Email from Jeffrey Clark to Douglas Smith requesting Smith to “get back to DC immediately” (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:37 p.m.) FF Email from Patrick Hovakimian to DOJ leadership announcing that “it sounds like Rosen and the cause of justice won” (Jan. 3, 2021, 9:07 p.m.) GG Email from Steven Engel to DOJ leadership confirming Patrick Hovakimian’s announcement (Jan. 3, 2021, 9:28 p.m.) HH Email from Richard Donoghue to BJay Pak asking Pak to call “ASAP” (Jan. 3, 2021, 10:09 p.m.) II Email from BJay Pak to Karen Winzenburg submitting his resignation letters (Jan. 4, 2021, 7:41 a.m.) JJ Email from BJay Pak to U.S. Attorneys announcing his resignation to all U.S. Attorneys (Jan. 4, 2021, 7:46 a.m.) KK Email from Francis Brook to John Moran transmitting official White House Photographer shots of the Dec. 31, 2020 Oval Office meeting (Jan. 5, 2021, 5:20 p.m.)

Key Document B Michael, Molly A. EOP/WHO From: Michael, Molly A. EOP/WHO Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:57 PM To: 'Jeff.Rosen38@usdoj.gov' Subject: From POTUS Attachments: Summary Doc.docx; antrim-county-forensics-report.pdf Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000425 ANTRIM COUNTY TALKING POINTS KEY FACTS - There was a 68% error rate in the votes cast – the Federal Election Committee allowable rate is 0.0008% - There was an 81.96% rejection rate in the votes cast – these were sent to Adjudication - The Adjudication files for 2020 were missing, which violates state law - The Security records for the election software were missing - which violates state law – these also contain the internet connection records - The election software was changed inside the 90-day Safe Harbor window, which is forbidden by state law – this automatically decertifies the results - Standard security protocols were not followed – software systems were out of date by years, creating a provable security risk - All Counties in Michigan are required to operate with the same software to guarantee consistent treatment of voters – so errors in the Antrim County software system are determinative of identical errors across the state due to the requirement to use the same software everywhere - The Secretary of State directed the County Clerks on December 1, 2020, throughout Michigan to delete all of their electronic election records for 2020 by December 8, 2020, in violation of Michigan state law MCL 168.811 requiring retention of voting records for 22 months TALKING POINTS - EVIDENCE OF INTENTIONAL FRAUD AND CORRUPTION OF THE VOTING MACHINES - this is the evidence that Dominion Voting machines can and are being manipulated - This is not human error as we have proven - Secretary Benson lied - Federal Law was violated – the election records were destroyed - This is a Cover-up of voting crimes o Records were missing in violation of the legal requirements for retention These records exist in this county for previous elections, but not 2020 o Security records are missing – including the record of internet access to the machines Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000001 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000426 o Adjudication records do not exist – there is no ability to tell who or how or to where the “Adjudicated” votes were moved An Administrator reviews votes sent to Adjudication and then can vote them as the wish – no oversight, no transparency, no record, no accountability - 68% of votes were switched in this county in error – FEC rules only allow a .0008% error rate - 81% of the votes were voted by an Administrator – not by the VOTER o The Voter’s choice was not voted by the voter – intervention happened and votes were moved - The same Ballots were run it three times and produced three different results - Laws have been Broken - A Cover-up is Happening regarding the voting machines in Michigan - We fought this for the Voters of Michigan whose votes were not accurately counted – we are here for the integrity of the voting process and the will of the People - Republicans and Democrats alike had their votes manipulated – all voters were impacted and we must defend their voting rights CONCLUSIONS - Based on the violation of law, these election results cannot be certified in Antrim County - The vast amount of fraud in the votes here demands a review of the votes throughout Michigan - Security on the Dominion machines was practically non-existent – this is not a secure result - These same Dominion machines were used throughout Michigan, and the results must be discounted until all Dominion machines can be reviewed for fraudulent vote manipulation o The other 48 counties have been required to use the same certified software – the error rate is a given - Michigan cannot certify for Biden - This is a seditious conspiracy to undermine the election process and the will of the American people ARGUMENTS AGAINST US: - Errors happen all the time o Counter: Not at this massive rate Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000001 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000427 o the software is designed to generate 68% errors, which sends the ballots to a file for bulk adjudication, and then an unknown person (or the computer itself) will mass adjudicate the ballots with no oversight - It wasn’t significant o Counter: There was an almost 100% change of votes in one precinct alone o this is an intentional design flaw to systematically create fraud - It was just in this one township o Counter: It’s indicative of what the machines can and did do to move votes - It didn’t happen everywhere o Counter: We believe it has happened everywhere – we must review this statewide. o IN fact, the constitution requires we investigate every county o the election cannot be certified - It didn’t impact the election o Counter: It impacted offices and propositions from the President down to the School Board – every office on the ballot was impacted - It doesn’t matter o Counter: The Election Process is a vital part of the US National Critical Infrastructure – we must know that One Person One Vote is counted - Only 3 votes for President were impacted o Counter: The vote swing between Trump and Biden moved by the 1000s - The Forensics team was not professional o Counter: Our forensics team was led by a highly decorated military officer, who specializes in cyber security operations and data analytics, working with ta team of the highest-skilled technical cyber forensics experts Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000001 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000428 1 Allied Security Operations Group Antrim Michigan Forensics Report REVISED PRELIMINARY SUMMARY, v2 Report Date 1 2/1 3/2020 Client: Bill Bailey Attorney: Matthew DePerno A. WHO WE ARE 1 . My name is Russell James Ramsland, Jr., and I am a resident of Dallas County, Texas. I hold an MBA from Harvard University, and a political science degree from Duke University. I have worked with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), among other organizations, and have run businesses all over the world, many of which are highly technical in nature. I have served on technical government panels. 2. I am part of the management team of Allied Security Operations Group, LLC, (ASOG). ASOG is a group of globally engaged professionals who come from various disciplines to include Department of Defense, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, and the Central Intelligence Agency. It provides a range of security services, but has a particular emphasis on cybersecurity, open source investigation and penetration testing of networks. We employ a wide variety of cyber and cyber forensic analysts. We have patents pending in a variety of applications from novel network security applications to SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) protection and safe browsing solutions for the dark and deep web. For this report, I have relied on these experts and resources. B. PURPOSE AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 1 . The purpose of this forensic audit is to test the integrity of Dominion Voting System in how it performed in Antrim County, Michigan for the 2020 election. 2. We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000429 2 3. The following is a breakdown of the votes tabulated for the 2020 election in Antrim County, showing different dates for the tabulation of the same votes. Date Registered Voters Total Votes Cast Biden Trump Third Party Write-In TOTAL VOTES for President Nov 3 22,082 1 6,047 7,769 4,509 1 45 1 4 1 2,423 Nov 5 22,082 1 8,059 7,289 9,783 255 20 1 7,327 Nov 21 22,082 1 6,044 5,960 9,748 241 23 1 5,949 4. The Antrim County Clerk and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson have stated that the election night error (detailed above by the vote "flip" from Trump to Biden, was the result of human error caused by the failure to update the Mancelona Township tabulator prior to election night for a down ballot race. We disagree and conclude that the vote flip occurred because of machine error built into the voting software designed to create error. 5. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's statement on November 6, 2020 that "[t]the correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape . . . ." was false. 6. The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. 7. The results of the Antrim County 2020 election are not certifiable. This is a result of machine and/or software error, not human error. 8. The tabulation log for the forensic examination of the server for Antrim County from December 6, 2020consists of 1 5,676 individual events, of which 1 0,667 or 68.05% of the events were recorded errors. These errors resulted in overall tabulation errors or ballots being sent to adjudication. This high error rates proves the Dominion Voting System is flawed and does not meet state or federal election laws. 9. These errors occurred after The Antrim County Clerk provided a re-provisioned CF card with uploaded software for the Central Lake Precinct on November 6, 2020. This means the statement by Secretary Benson was false. The Dominion Voting System produced systemic errors and high error rates both prior to the update and after the update; meaning the update (or lack of update) is not the cause of errors. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000430 3 1 0. In Central Lake Township there were 1 ,222 ballots reversed out of 1 ,491 total ballots cast, resulting in an 81 .96% rejection rate. All reversed ballots are sent to adjudication for a decision by election personnel. 1 1 . It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots into two categories, 1 ) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots. Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity because it provides no meaningful observation of the adjudication process or audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicated the ballots. 1 2. A staggering number of votes required adjudication. This was a 2020 issue not seen in previous election cycles still stored on the server. This is caused by intentional errors in the system. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency or audit trail. Our examination of the server logs indicates that this high error rate was incongruent with patterns from previous years. The statement attributing these issues to human error is not consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors. The systemic errors are intentionally designed to create errors in order to push a high volume of ballots to bulk adjudication. 1 3. The linked video demonstrates how to cheat at adjudication: https://mobile.twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1 33688845453842841 8 1 4. Antrim County failed to properly update its system. A purposeful lack of providing basic computer security updates in the system software and hardware demonstrates incompetence, gross negligence, bad faith, and/or willful noncompliance in providing the fundamental system security required by federal and state law. There is no way this election management system could have passed tests or have been legally certified to conduct the 2020 elections in Michigan under the current laws. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures Michigan requires full compliance with federal standards as determined by a federally accredited voting system laboratory. 1 5. Significantly, the computer system shows vote adjudication logs for prior years; but all adjudication log entries for the 2020 election cycle are missing. The adjudication process is the simplest way to manually manipulate votes. The lack of records prevents any form of audit accountability, and their conspicuous absence is extremely suspicious since the files exist for previous years using the same software. Removal of these files violates state law and prevents a meaningful audit, even if the Secretary wanted to conduct an audit. We must conclude that the 2020 election cycle records have been manually removed. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000431 4 1 6. Likewise, all server security logs prior to 1 1 :03 pm on November 4, 2020 are missing. This means that all security logs for the day after the election, on election day, and prior to election day are gone. Security logs are very important to an audit trail, forensics, and for detecting advanced persistent threats and outside attacks, especially on systems with outdated system files. These logs would contain domain controls, authentication failures, error codes, times users logged on and off, network connections to file servers between file accesses, internet connections, times, and data transfers. Other server logs before November 4, 2020 are present; therefore, there is no reasonable explanation for the security logs to be missing. 1 7. On November 21 , 2020, an unauthorized user unsuccessfully attempted to zero out election results. This demonstrates additional tampering with data. 1 8. The Election Event Designer Log shows that Dominion ImageCast Precinct Cards were programmed with new ballot programming on 1 0/23/2020 and then again after the election on 1 1 /05/2020. These system changes affect how ballots are read and tabulated, and our examination demonstrated a significant change in voter results using the two different programs. In accordance with the Help America Vote Act, this violates the 90-day Safe Harbor Period which prohibits changes to election systems, registries, hardware/software updates without undergoing re-certification. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures Michigan requires full compliance with federal standards as determined by a federally accredited voting system laboratory. 1 9. The only reason to change software after the election would be to obfuscate evidence of fraud and/or to correct program errors that would de-certify the election. Our findings show that the Central Lake Township tabulator tape totals were significantly altered by utilizing two different program versions (1 0/23/2020 and 1 1 /05/2020), both of which were software changes during an election which violates election law, and not just human error associated with the Dominion Election Management System. This is clear evidence of software generated movement of votes. The claims made on the Office of the Secretary of State website are false. 20. The Dominion ImageCast Precinct (ICP) machines have the ability to be connected to the internet (see Image 1 1 ). By connecting a network scanner to the ethernet port on the ICP machine and creating Packet Capture logs from the machines we examined show the ability to connect to the network, Application Programming Interface (API) (a data exchange between two different systems) calls and web (http) connections to the Election Management System server. Best practice is to disable the network interface card to avoid connection to the internet. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. Because certain files have been deleted, we have not yet found origin or destination; but our research continues. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000432 5 21 . Because the intentional high error rate generates large numbers of ballots to be adjudicated by election personnel, we must deduce that bulk adjudication occurred. However, because files and adjudication logs are missing, we have not yet determined where the bulk adjudication occurred or who was responsible for it. Our research continues. 22. Research is ongoing. However, based on the preliminary results, we conclude that the errors are so significant that they call into question the integrity and legitimacy of the results in the Antrim County 2020 election to the point that the results are not certifiable. Because the same machines and software are used in 48 other counties in Michigan, this casts doubt on the integrity of the entire election in the state of Michigan. 23. DNI Responsibilities: President Obama signed Executive Order on National Critical Infrastructure on 6 January 201 7, stating in Section 1 . Cybersecurity of Federal Networks, "The Executive Branch operates its information technology (IT) on behalf of the American people. The President will hold heads of executive departments and agencies (agency heads) accountable for managing cybersecurity risk to their enterprises. In addition, because risk management decisions made by agency heads can affect the risk to the executive branch as a whole, and to national security, it is also the policy of the United States to manage cybersecurity risk as an executive branch enterprise." President Obama's EO further stated, effective immediately, each agency head shall use The Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the Framework) developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology." Support to Critical Infrastructure at Greatest Risk. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the heads of appropriate sector-specific agencies, as defined in Presidential Policy Directive 21 of February 1 2, 201 3 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience) (sector-specific agencies), and all other appropriate agency heads, as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall: (i) identify authorities and capabilities that agencies could employ to support the cybersecurity efforts of critical infrastructure entities identified pursuant to section 9 of Executive Order 1 3636 of February 1 2, 201 3 (Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity), to be at greatest risk of attacks that could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security (section 9 entities); This is a national security imperative. In July 201 8, President Trump strengthened President Obama’s Executive Order to include requirements to ensure US election systems, processes, and its people were not manipulated by foreign meddling, either through electronic or systemic manipulation, social media, or physical changes made in hardware, software, or supporting systems. The 201 8 Executive Order. Accordingly, I hereby order: Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000433 6 Section 1 . (a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election. The assessment shall identify, to the maximum extent ascertainable, the nature of any foreign interference and any methods employed to execute it, the persons involved, and the foreign government or governments that authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported it. The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. We recommend that an independent group should be empaneled to determine the extent of the adjudication errors throughout the State of Michigan. This is a national security issue. 24. Michigan resident Gustavo Delfino, a former professor of mathematics in Venezuela and alumni of University of Michigan, offered a compelling affidavit [Exhibit 2] recognizing the inherent vulnerabilities in the SmartMatic electronic voting machines (software which was since incorporated into Dominion Voting Systems) during the 2004 national referendum in Venezuela (see attached declaration). After 4 years of research and 3 years of undergoing intensive peer review, Professor Delfino’s paper was published in the highly respected "Statistical Science" journal, November 201 1 issue (Volume 26, Number 4) with title "Analysis of the 2004 Venezuela Referendum: The Official Results Versus the Petition Signatures." The intensive study used multiple mathematical approaches to ascertain the voting results found in the 2004 Venezuelan referendum. Delfino and his research partners discovered not only the algorithm used to manipulate the results, but also the precise location in the election processing sequence where vulnerability in machine processing would provide such an opportunity. According to Prof Delfino, the magnitude of the difference between the official and the true result in Venezuela estimated at 1 ,370,000 votes. Our investigation into the error rates and results of the Antrim County voting tally reflect the same tactics, which have also been reported in other Michigan counties as well. This demonstrates a national security issue. C. PROCESS We visited Antrim County twice: November 27, 2020 and December 6, 2020. On November 27, 2020, we visited Central Lake Township, Star Township, and Mancelona Township. We examined the Dominion Voting Systems tabulators and tabulator roles. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000434 7 On December 6, 2020, we visited the Antrim County Clerk's office. We inspected and performed forensic duplication of the following: 1. Antrim County Election Management Server running Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5.3-002; 2. Compact Flash cards used by the local precincts in their Dominion ImageCast Precinct; 3. USB memory sticks used by the Dominion VAT (Voter Assist Terminals); and 4. USB memory sticks used for the Poll Book. Dominion voting system is a Canadian owned company with global subsidiaries. It is owned by Staple Street Capital which is in turn owned by UBS Securities LLC, of which 3 out of their 7 board members are Chinese nationals. The Dominion software is licensed from Smartmatic which is a Venezuelan owned and controlled company. Dominion Server locations have been determined to be in Serbia, Canada, the US, Spain and Germany. D. CENTRAL LAKE TOWNSHIP 1 . On November 27, 2020, part of our forensics team visited the Central Lake Township in Michigan to inspect the Dominion ImageCast Precint for possible hardware issues on behalf of a local lawsuit filed by Michigan attorney Matthew DePerno on behalf of William Bailey. In our conversations with the clerk of Central Lake Township Ms. Judith L. Kosloski, she presented to us "two separate paper totals tape" from Tabulator ID 2. One dated "Poll Opened Nov. 03/2020 06:38:48" (Roll 1 ); Another dated "Poll Opened Nov. 06/2020 09:21 :58" (Roll 2). 2. We were then told by Ms. Kosloski that on November 5, 2020, Ms. Kosloski was notified by Connie Wing of the County Clerk's Office and asked to bring the tabulator and ballots to the County Clerk's office for re-tabulation. They ran the ballots and printed "Roll 2". She noticed a difference in the votes and brought it up to the clerk, but canvasing still occurred, and her objections were not addressed. 3. Our team analyzed both rolls and compared the results. Roll 1 had 1,494 total votes an d Roll 2 had 1,491 votes (Roll 2 had 3 less ballots because 3 ballots were damaged in the process.) 4. "Statement of Votes Cast from Antrim" shows that only 1,491 votes were counted, and the 3 ballots that were damaged were not entered into final results. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000435 8 5. Ms. Kosloski stated that she and her assistant manually refilled out the three ballots, curing them, and ran them through the ballot counting system - but the final numbers do not reflect the inclusion of those 3 damaged ballots.

6. This is the most preliminary report of serious election fraud indicators. In comparing the numbers on both rolls, we estimate 1,474 votes changed across the two rolls, between the first and the second time the exact same ballots were run through the County Clerk’s vote counting machine - which is almost the same number of voters that voted in total.

7 votes were added to the total for State Proposal 20-1 (1 ) and out of those there were 61 1 votes moved between the Yes and No Categories.

7. There were incremental changes throughout the rolls with some significant adjustments between the 2 rolls that were reviewed. This demonstrates conclusively that votes can be and were changed during the second machine count after the software update. That should be impossible especially at such a high percentage to total votes cast. 8. For the School Board Member for Central Lake Schools (3)

School Board Member

[Image 1 ] there were 742 votes added to this vote total. Since multiple people were elected, this did not change the result of both candidates being elected, but one does see a change in who had most votes. If it were a single-person election this would have changed the outcome and demonstrates conclusively that votes can be and were changed during the second machine counting. That should be impossible. [Image 1 ]: Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000436 9 9. For the School Board Member for Ellsworth Schools (2) [Image 2] Shows 657 votes being removed from this election. In this case, only 3 people who were eligible to vote actually voted. Since there were 2 votes allowed for each voter to cast. The recount correctly shows 6 votes. But on election night, there was a major calculation issue:

[Image 3] there is a major change in votes in this category. There were 774 votes for YES during the election, to 1,083 votes for YES on the recount a change of 309 votes. 7 votes were added to the total for State Proposal 20-1 (1 ) out of those there were 611 votes moved between the Yes and No Categories. [Image 3]: Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000437 1 0 11.

State Proposal 20-1 (1 ) is a fairly technical and complicated proposed amendment to the Michigan Constitution to change the disposition and allowable uses of future revenue generated from oil and gas bonuses, rentals and royalties from state-owned land. Information about the proposal: https://crcmich.org/publications/statewide-ballot- proposal-20-1 -michigan-naturalresources-trust-fund 1 2. A Proposed Initiated Ordinance to Authorize One (1 ) Marihuana (sic) Retailer Establishment Within the Village of Central Lake (1 ). [Image 4] On election night, it was a tie vote. Then, on the rerun of ballots 3 ballots were destroyed, but only one vote changed on the totals to allow the proposal to pass. When 3 ballots were not counted and programming change on the tabulator was installed the proposal passed with 1 vote being removed from the No vote. [Image 4]: Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000438 1 1 1 3. On Sunday December 6, 2020, our forensics team visited the Antrim County Clerk. There were two USB memory sticks used, one contained the software package used to tabulate election results on November 3, 2020, and the other was programmed on November 6, 2020 with a different software package which yielded significantly different voting outcomes. The election data package is used by the Dominion Democracy Suite software & election management system software to upload programming information onto the Compact Flash Cards for the Dominion ImageCast Precinct to enable it to calculate ballot totals. 1 4. This software programming should be standard across all voting machines systems for the duration of the entire election if accurate tabulation is the expected outcome as required by US Election Law. This intentional difference in software programming is a design feature to alter election outcomes. 1 5. The election day outcomes were calculated using the original software programming on November 3, 2020.

On November 5, 2020 the township clerk was asked to re-run the Central Lake Township ballots and was given no explanation for this unusual request. On November 6, 2020 the Antrim County Clerk, Sheryl Guy issued the second version of software to re-run the same Central Lake Township ballots and oversaw the process. This resulted in greater than a 60% change in voting results, inexplicably impacting every single election contest in a township with less than 1 500 voters. These errors far exceed the ballot error rate standard of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%) as required by federal election law. The original election programming files are last dated 09/25/2020 1 :24pm The updated election data package files are last dated 1 0/22/2020 1 0:27 am. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000439 1 2 1 6. As the tabulator tape totals prove, there were large numbers of votes switched from the November 3, 2020 tape to the November 6, 2020 tape. This was solely based on using different software versions of the operating program to calculate votes, not tabulate votes. This is evidenced by using same the Dominion System with two different software program versions contained on the two different USB Memory Devices. 1 7. The Help America Vote Act, Safe Harbor provides a 90-day period prior to elections where no changes can be made to election systems. To make changes would require recertification of the entire system for use in the election. The Dominion User Guide prescribes the proper procedure to test machines with test ballots to compare the results to validate machine functionality to determine if the Dominion ImageCast Precinct was programmed correctly. If this occurred a ballot misconfiguration would have been identified. Once the software was updated to the 1 0/22/2020 software the test ballots should have been re-run to validate the vote totals to confirm the machine was configured correctly. 1 8. The November 6, 2020 note from The Office of the Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson states: "The correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape and on the ballots themselves. Even if the error in the reported unofficial results had not been quickly noticed, it would have been identified during the county canvass. Boards of County Canvassers, which are composed of 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, review the printed totals tape from each tabulator during the canvass to verify the reported vote totals are correct." Source: https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-1 27-1 640 91 50-544676-- ,00.html 1 9. The Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's statement is false. Our findings show that the tabulator tape totals were significantly altered by utilization of two different program versions, and not just the Dominion Election Management System. This is the opposite of the claim that the Office of the Secretary of State made on its website. The fact that these significant errors were not caught in ballot testing and not caught by the local county clerk shows that there are major inherent built-in vulnerabilities and process flaws in the Dominion Election Management System, and that other townships/precincts and the entire election have been affected. 20.

On Sunday December 6, 2020, our forensics team visited the Antrim County Clerk office to perform forensic duplication of the Antrim County Election Management Server running Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5.3-002. 21 . Forensic copies of the Compact Flash cards used by the local precincts in their Dominion ImageCast Precinct were inspected, USB memory sticks used by the Dominion VAT (Voter Assist Terminals) and the USB memory sticks used for the Poll Book were forensically duplicated. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000440 1 3 22. We have been told that the ballot design and configuration for the Dominion ImageCast Precinct and VAT were provided by ElectionSource.com which is which is owned by MC&E, Inc of Grand Rapids, MI. E. MANCELONA TOWNSHIP 1 . In Mancelona township, problems with software versions were also known to have been present. Mancelona elections officials understood that ballot processing issued were not accurate and used the second version of software to process votes on 4 November, again an election de-certifying event, as no changes to the election system are authorized by law in the 90 days preceding elections without re-certification. 2. Once the 1 0/22/2020 software update was performed on the Dominion ImageCast Precinct the test ballot process should have been performed to validate the programming. There is no indication that this procedure was performed. F. ANTRIM COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 . Pursuant to a court ordered inspection, we participated in an onsite collection effort at the Antrim County Clerk's office on December 6, 2020. [Image 5]: Among other items forensically collected, the Antrim County Election Management Server (EMS) with Democracy Suite was forensically collected. [Images 6 and 7]. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000441 1 4

The EMS (Election Management Server) was a: Dell Precision Tower 3420. Service Tag: 6NB0KH2 The EMS contained 2 hard drives in a RAID-1 configuration. That is the 2 drives redundantly stored the same information and the server could continue to operate if either of the 2 hard drives failed. The EMS was booted via the Linux Boot USB memory sticks and both hard drives were forensically imaged. At the onset of the collection process we observed that the initial program thumb drive was not secured in the vault with the CF cards and other thumbdrives. We watched as the County employees, including Clerk Sheryl Guy searched throughout the office for the missing thumb drive. Eventually they found the missing thumb drive in an unsecured and unlocked desk drawer along with multiple other random thumb drives. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. G. FORENSIC COLLECTION We used a built for purpose Linux Boot USB memory stick to boot the EMS in a forensically sound mode. We then used Ewfacquire to make a forensic image of the 2 independent internal hard drives. Ewfacquire created an E01 file format forensic image with built-in integrity verification via MD5 hash. We used Ewfverify to verify the forensic image acquired was a true and accurate copy of the original disk. That was done for both forensic images. H. ANALYSIS TOOLS Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000442 1 5 X-Ways Forensics: We used X-Ways Forensics, a commercial Computer Forensic tool, to verify the image was useable and full disk encryption was not in use. In particular we confirmed that Bit locker was not in use on the EMS. Other tools used: PassMark OSForensics, Truxton - Forensics, Cellebrite Physical Analyzer, Blackbag-Blacklight Forensic Software, Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio, Virtual Box, and miscellaneous other tools and scripts. I. SERVER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY 1 . Our initial audit on the computer running the Democracy Suite Software showed that standard computer security best practices were not applied. These minimum-security standards are outlined the 2002 HAVA, and FEC Voting System Standards it did not even meet the minimum standards required of a government desktop computer. 2. The election data software package USB drives (November 2020 election, and November 2020 election updated) are secured with bitlocker encryption software, but they were not stored securely on-site. At the time of our forensic examination, the election data package files were already moved to an unsecure desktop computer and were residing on an unencrypted hard drive. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. Key Findings on Desktop and Server Configuration: - There were multiple Microsoft security updates as well as Microsoft SQL Server updates which should have been deployed, however there is no evidence that these security patches were ever installed. As described below, many of the software packages were out of date and vulnerable to various methods of attack. a) Computer initial configuration on 1 0/03/201 8 1 3:08:1 1 :91 1 b) Computer final configuration of server software on 4/1 0/201 9 c) Hard Drive not Encrypted at Rest d) Microsoft SQL Server Database not protected with password. e) Democracy Suite Admin Passwords are reused and share passwords. f) Antivirus is 4.5 years outdated g) Windows updates are 3.86 years out of date. h) When computer was last configured on 04/1 0/201 9 the windows updates were 2.1 1 years out of date. i) User of computer uses a Super User Account. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000443 1 6 3. The hard drive was not encrypted at rest which means that if hard drives are removed or initially booted off an external USB drive the files are susceptible to manipulation directly. An attacker is able to mount the hard drive because it is unencrypted, allowing for the manipulation and replacement of any file on the system. 4. The Microsoft SQL Server database files were not properly secured to allow modifications of the database files. 5. The Democracy Suite Software user account logins and passwords are stored in the unsecured database tables and the multiple Election System Administrator accounts share the same password, which means that there are no audit trails for vote changes, deletions, blank ballot voting, or batch vote alterations or adjudication. 6. Antivirus definition is 1 666 days old on 1 2/1 1 /2020. Antrim County updates its system with USB drives. USB drives are the most common vectors for injecting malware into computer systems. The failure to properly update the antivirus definition drastically increases the harm cause by malware from other machines being transmitted to the voting system. 7. Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) Offline Update is used to enable updates the computer which is a package of files normally downloaded from the internet but compiled into a program to put on a USB drive to manually update server systems. 8. Failure to properly update the voting system demonstrates a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. 9. There are 1 5 additional updates that should have been installed on the server to adhere to Microsoft Standards to fix known vulnerabilities. For the 4/1 0/201 9 install, the most updated version of the update files would have been 03/1 3/201 9 which is 1 1 .6.1 which is 1 5 updates newer than 1 0.9.1 This means the updates installed were 2 years, 1 month, 1 3 days behind the most current update at the time. This includes security updates and fixes. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. Wed 04/1 0/201 9 1 0:34:33.1 4 - Info: Starting WSUS Offline Update (v. 1 0.9.1 ) Wed 04/1 0/201 9 1 0:34:33.1 4 - Info: Used path "D:\WSUSOFFLINE1 091 201 2R2 W1 0\cmd\" on EMSSERVER (user: EMSADMIN) Wed 04/1 0/201 9 1 0:34:35.55 - Info: Medium build date: 03/1 0/201 9 Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000444 1 7 Found on c:\Windows\wsusofflineupdate.txt *WSUS Offline Update (v.1 0.9.1 ) was created on 01 /29/201 7 *WSUS information found here https://download.wsusoffline.net/ 1 0. Super User Administrator account is the primary account used to operate the Dominion Election Management System which is a major security risk. The user logged in has the ability to make major changes to the system and install software which means that there is no oversight to ensure appropriate management controls i.e. anyone who has access to the shared administrator user names and passwords can make significant changes to the entire voting system. The shared usernames and passwords mean that these changes can be made in an anonymous fashion with no tracking or attribution. J. ERROR RATES 1 . We reviewed the Tabulation logs in their entirety for 1 1 /6/2020. The election logs for Antrim County consist of 1 5,676 total lines or events. Of the 1 5,676 there were a total of 1 0,667 critical errors/warnings or a 68.05% error rate. Most of the errors were related to configuration errors that could result in overall tabulation errors or adjudication. These 1 1 /6/2020 tabulation totals were used as the official results. 2. For examples, there were 1 ,222 ballots reversed out of 1 ,491 total ballots cast, thus resulting in an 81 .96% rejection rate. Some of which were reversed due to "Ballot's size exceeds maximum expected ballot size". According to the NCSL, Michigan requires testing by a federally accredited laboratory for voting systems. In section 4.1 .1 of the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG) Accuracy Requirements a. All systems shall achieve a report total error rate of no more than one in 125,000. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac assets/1 /28/VVSG.1.1.V OL.1 .FINAL1 .pdf In section 4.1 .3.2 Memory Stability of the VVSG it states that Memory devices used to retain election management data shall have demonstrated error free data retention for a period of 22 months. In section 4.1 .6.1 Paper-based System Processing Requirements subsection a. of the VVSG it states "The ability of the system to produce and receive electronic signals from the scanning of the ballot, perform logical and numerical operations upon these data, and reproduce the contents of memory when required shall be sufficiently free of error to enable Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000445 1 8 satisfaction of the system-level accuracy requirement indicated in Subsection 4.1 .1 ." These are not human errors; this is definitively related to the software and software configurations resulting in error rates far beyond the thresholds listed in the guidelines. 3. A high "error rate" in the election software (in this case 68.05%) reflects an algorithm used that will weight one candidate greater than another (for instance, weight a specific candidate at a 2/3 to approximately 1 /3 ratio). In the logs we identified that the RCV or Ranked Choice Voting Algorithm was enabled (see image below from the Dominion manual). This allows the user to apply a weighted numerical value to candidates and change the overall result. The declaration of winners can be done on a basis of points, not votes. [Image 8]: 4. The Dominion software configuration logs in the Divert Options, shows that all write-in ballots were flagged to be diverted automatically for adjudication. This means that all write-in ballots were sent for "adjudication" by a poll worker or election official to process the ballot based on voter "intent". Adjudication files allow a computer operator to decide to whom to award those votes (or to trash them). 5. In the logs all but two of the Override Options were enabled on these machines, thus allowing any operator to change those votes. [Image 9]: Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000446 1 9 6. In the logs all but two of the Override Options were enabled on these machines, thus allowing any operator to change those votes. This gives the system operators carte blanche to adjudicate ballots, in this case 81 .96% of the total cast ballots with no audit trail or oversight. [Image 1 0]: 7. On 1 2/8/2020 Microsoft issued 58 security patches across 1 0+ products, some of which were used for the election software machine, server and programs. Of the 58 security fixes 22, were patches to remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities. [Image 1 1 ]: Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000447 20 8.

We reviewed the Election Management System logs (EmsLogger) in their entirety from 9/1 9/2020 through 1 1 /21 /2020 for the Project: Antrim November 2020. There were configuration errors throughout the set-up, election and tabulation of results. The last error for Central Lake Township, Precinct 1 occurred on 1 1 /21 /2020 at 1 4:35:1 1 System.Xml.XmlException System.Xml.XmlException: The ' ' character, hexadecimal value 0x20, cannot be included in a name. Bottom line is that this is a calibration that rejects the vote (see picture below). [Image 1 2]: Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000448 21 Notably 42 minutes earlier on Nov 21 2020 at 1 3:53:09 a user attempted to zero out election results. Id:3168 EmsLogger - There is no permission to {0} - Project: User: Thread: 1 89. This is direct proof of an attempt to tamper with evidence. 9. The Election Event Designer Log shows that Dominion ImageCast Precinct Cards were programmed with updated new programming on 1 0/23/2020 and again after the election on 1 1 /05/2020. As previously mentioned, this violates the HAVA safe harbor period. Source: C:\Program Files\Dominion Voting Systems\Election Event Designer\Log\Info.txt Dominion Imagecast Precinct Cards Programmed with 9/25/2020 programming on 09/29/2020, 09/30/2020, and 1 0/1 2/2020. Dominion Imagecast Precinct Cards Programmed with New Ballot Programming dated 1 0/22/2020 on 1 0/23/2020 and after the election on 1 1 /05/2020 Excerpt from 2020-1 1 -05 showing “ProgramMemoryCard” commands. Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000449 22 1 0. Analysis is ongoing and updated findings will be submitted as soon as possible. A summary of the information collected is provided below. 1 0|1 2/07/20 1 8:52:30| Indexing completed at Mon Dec 7 1 8:52:30 2020 1 2|1 2/07/20 1 8:52:30| INDEX SUMMARY 1 2|1 2/07/20 1 8:52:30| Files indexed: 1 5931 2 Document ID: 0.7.2774.169429-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000450

BILL OF COMPLAINT Our Country is deeply divided in a manner not seen in well over a century. More than 77% of Republican voters believe that “widespread fraud” occurred in the 2020 general election while 97% of Democrats say there was not.1 On December 7, 2020, the State of Texas filed an action with this Court, Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al., alleging the same constitutional violations in connection with the 2020 general election pled herein. Within three days eighteen other states sought to intervene in that action or filed supporting briefs. On December 11, 2020, the Court summarily dismissed that action stating that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution. The United States therefore brings this action to ensure that the U.S. Constitution does not become simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. Two issues regarding this election are not in dispute. First, about eight months ago, a few nonlegislative officials in the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”) began using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to unconstitutionally revise or violate their states’ election laws. Their actions all had one effect: they uniformly weakened security measures put in place by legislators to protect the integrity of the vote. These 1https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-q-poll-republicansbelieve-fraud-20201210-pcie3uqqvrhyvnt7geohhsyepestory.htm

From: Meadows, Mark R. EOP/WHO Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 9:31 AM To: Jeff Rosen Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: December 4, 2020 - Petition and Press Statement - R Smith.docx Attachments: December 4, 2020 - Press Statement - R Smith.docx; VERIFIED PETITION TO CONTEST GEORGIA ELECTION.pdf Can you have your team look into these allegations of wrongdoing. Only the alleged fraudulent activity. Thanks Mark Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Mark Meadows < > Date: December 30, 2020 at 9:28:38 AM EST To: "Meadows, Mark R. EOP/WHO" < > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: December 4, 2020 - Petition and Press Statement - R Smith.docx Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Mitchell, Cleta" Date: December 30, 2020 at 9:07:45 AM EST To: Mark Meadows < > Subject: December 4, 2020 - Petition and Press Statement - R Smith.docx This is the petition filed in GA state court and the press release issued about it. I presume the DOJ would want all the exhibits - that’s 1800 pages total. I need to get someone to forward that to a drop box. Plus I don’t know what is happening re investigating the video issues in Fulton County. And the equipment. We didn’t include the equipment in our lawsuit but there are certainly many issues and questions that some resources need to be devoted to reviewing. We had no way to conduct proper due diligence to include the equipment / software. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091 (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000598 Cleta Mitchell, Esq. Foley & Lardner, LLP cmitchell@foley.com (cell) 202.295.4081 (office) Sent from my iPhone The information contained in this message, including but not limited to any attachments, may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client or workproduct privileges. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and any attachments or copies. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party. Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this message should be construed as a digital or electronic signature, nor is it intended to reflect an intention to make an agreement by electronic means. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091 (b) (6) SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000599 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 4, 2020 TRUMP CAMPAIGN FILES ELECTION CONTEST IN GEORGIA Election Contest Lawsuit Documents Tens Thousands of Illegal Votes Included in the GA Presidential Vote Totals Rendering November 3, 2020 Election Results Null and Void; Suit Asks Court to Vacate and Enjoin the Certification of the Election ATLANTA, GA - The Trump Campaign filed an election contest today in Georgia state court seeking to invalidate the state’s November 3, 2020 presidential election results. Joining President Trump and the Trump campaign in the lawsuit is David Shafer, Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, who is also a Trump presidential elector. “What was filed today clearly documents that there are literally tens of thousands of illegal votes that were cast, counted, and included in the tabulations the Secretary of State is preparing to certify,” said Ray S. Smith III, lead counsel for the Trump Campaign. “The massive irregularities, mistakes, and potential fraud violate the Georgia Election Code, making it impossible to know with certainty the actual outcome of the presidential race in Georgia.” Attached to the complaint are sworn affidavits from dozens of Georgia residents swearing under penalty of perjury to what they witnessed during the election: failure to process and secure the ballots, failure to verify the signatures on absentee ballots, the appearance of mysterious “pristine” absentee ballots not received in official absentee ballot envelopes that were voted almost solely for Joe Biden, failure to allow poll watchers meaningful access to observe the election, among other violations of law. Data experts also provided sworn testimony in the lawsuit identifying thousands of illegal votes: 2,560 felons; 66,247 underage voters, 2,423 votes from people not registered; 1,043 individuals registered at post office boxes; 4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state; 395 individuals who voted in two states; 15,700 votes from people who moved out of state before the election; 40,279 votes of people who moved without reregistering in their new county; and another 30,000 to 40,000 absentee ballots lacking proper signature matching and verification. MORE Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000001 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000600 2 2-2-2 “The Secretary of State has orchestrated the worst excuse for an election in Georgia history,” added Smith. “We are asking the Court to vacate the certification of the presidential election and to order a new statewide election for president. Alternatively, we are asking the Court to enjoin the certification and allow the Georgia legislature to reclaim its duty under the U.S. Constitution to appoint the presidential electors for the state,” Smith concluded, ### For additional information contact: Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000001 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000601 Page 1 of 64 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA DONALD J. TRUMP, in his capacity as a Candidate for President, DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., and DAVID J. SHAFER, in his capacity as a Registered Voter and Presidential Elector pledged to Donald Trump for President, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioners, ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. v. ) ) ___________________________________ BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Georgia, REBECCA N. SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as Vice Chair of the Georgia State Election Board, DAVID J. WORLEY, in his official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board, MATTHEW MASHBURN, in his official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board, ANH LE, in her official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board, RICHARD L. BARRON, in his official capacity as Director of Registration and Elections for Fulton County, JANINE EVELER, in her official capacity as Director of Registration and Elections for Cobb County, ERICA HAMILTON, in her official capacity as Director of Voter Registration and Elections for DeKalb County, KRISTI ROYSTON, in her official capacity as Elections Supervisor for Gwinnett County, RUSSELL BRIDGES, in his official capacity as Elections Supervisor for Chatham County, ANNE DOVER, in her official capacity as Acting Director of Elections and Voter Registration for Cherokee County, SHAUNA DOZIER, in her official capacity as Elections Director for Clayton County, MANDI SMITH, in her official capacity as Director of Voter Registration and Elections for Forsyth ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000602 Page 2 of 64 County, AMEIKA PITTS, in her official capacity as Director of the Board of Elections & Registration for Henry County, LYNN BAILEY, in her official capacity as Executive Director of Elections for Richmond County, DEBRA PRESSWOOD, in her official capacity as Registration and Election Supervisor for Houston County, VANESSA WADDELL, in her capacity as Chief Clerk of Elections for Floyd County, JULIANNE ROBERTS, in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections and Voter Registration for Pickens County, JOSEPH KIRK, in his official capacity as Elections Supervisor for Bartow County, and GERALD MCCOWN, in his official capacity as Elections Supervisor for Hancock County, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondents. ) VERIFIED PETITION TO CONTEST GEORGIA’S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF COME NOW Donald J. Trump, in his capacity as a Candidate for President, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and David J. Shafer, in his capacity as a Georgia Registered Voter and Presidential Elector pledged to Donald Trump for President (collectively “Petitioners”), Petitioners in the above-styled civil action, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and file this, their Verified Petition to Contest Georgia’s Presidential Election Results for Violations of the Constitution and Laws of the State of Georgia, and Request for Emergency Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the “Petition”), respectfully showing this honorable Court as follows: Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000603 Page 3 of 64 INTRODUCTION 1. The United States Constitution sets forth the authority to regulate federal elections: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 4. 2. With respect to the appointment of presidential electors, the Constitution further provides, “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. 3. In Georgia, the General Assembly is the “legislature.” See Ga. Const. art. III, § 1, para. I. 4. Pursuant to the legislative power vested in the Georgia General Assembly (the “Legislature”), the Legislature enacted the Georgia Election Code governing the conduct of elections in the State of Georgia. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-1 et seq. (the “Election Code”). 5. Thus, through the Election Code, the Legislature promulgated a statutory framework for choosing the presidential electors, as directed by the Constitution. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000604 Page 4 of 64 6. In this case, Petitioners present to this Court substantial evidence that the November 3, 2020, Presidential Election in Georgia (the “Contested Election”) was not conducted in accordance with the Election Code and that the named Respondents deviated significantly and substantially from the Election Code. 7. Due to significant systemic misconduct, fraud, and other irregularities occurring during the election process, many thousands of illegal votes were cast, counted, and included in the tabulations from the Contested Election for the Office of the President of the United States, thereby creating substantial doubt regarding the results of that election. 8. Petitioners demonstrate that the Respondents’ repeated violations of the Election Code constituted an abandonment of the Legislature’s duly enacted framework for conducting the election and for choosing presidential electors, contrary to Georgia law and the United States Constitution. 9. Petitioners bring this contest pursuant to O.C.G.A. §21-2-522. 10. “Honest and fair elections must be held in the selection of the officers for the government of this republic, at all levels, or it will surely fall. If [this Court] place[s] its stamp of approval upon an election held in the manner this one [was] held, it is only a matter of a short time until Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000605 Page 5 of 64 unscrupulous men, taking advantage of the situation, will steal the offices from the people and set up an intolerable, vicious, corrupt dictatorship.” Bush v. Johnson, 111 Ga. App. 702, 705, 143 S.E.2d 21, 23 (1965). 11. The Georgia Supreme Court has made clear that it is not incumbent upon Petitioners to show how voters casting irregular ballots would have voted had their ballots been regular. Petitioners “only [have] to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.” Mead v. Sheffield, 278 Ga. 268, 271, 601 S.E.2d 99, 101 (2004) (citing Howell v. Fears, 275 Ga. 627, 628, 571 S.E.2d 392, 393 (2002)). 12. To allow Georgia’s presidential election results to stand uncontested, and its presidential electors chosen based upon election results that are erroneous, unknowable, not in accordance with the Election Code and unable to be replicated with certainty, constitutes a fraud upon Petitioners and the Citizens of Georgia, an outcome that is unlawful and must not be permitted. THE PARTIES 13. President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) is President of the United States of America and a natural person. He is the Republican candidate for reelection to the Presidency of the United States of America in the November 3, 2020, General Election conducted in the State of Georgia. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000606 Page 6 of 64 14. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. is a federal candidate committee registered with, reporting to, and governed by the regulations of the Federal Election Commission, established pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101 et seq. as the principal authorized committee of President Trump, candidate for President, which also serves as the authorized committee for the election of the Vice Presidential candidate on the same ticket as President Trump (the “Committee”). The agent designated by the Committee in the State of Georgia is Robert Sinners, Director of Election Day Operations for the State of Georgia for President Trump (collectively the “Trump Campaign”). The Trump Campaign serves as the primary organization supporting the election of presidential electors pledged to President Trump and Vice President Pence. 15. David J. Shafer (“Elector Shafer”) is a resident of the State of Georgia and an aggrieved elector who was entitled to vote, and did vote, for President Trump in the November 3, 2020, General Election. Elector Shafer is an elector pledged to vote for President Trump at the Meeting of Electors pursuant to United States Constitution and the laws of the State of Georgia. 16. Petitioners are “Contestants” as defined by O.C.G.A. § 21-2-520(1) who are entitled to bring an election contest under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521 (the “Election Contest”). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000607 Page 7 of 64 17. Respondent Brad Raffensperger is named in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Georgia.1 Secretary Raffensperger serves as the Chairperson of Georgia’s State Election Board, which promulgates and enforces rules and regulations to (i) obtain uniformity in the practices and proceedings of election officials as well as legality and purity in all primaries and general elections, and (ii) be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and general elections. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-30(d), 21-2-31, 21-2-33.1. Secretary Raffensperger, as Georgia’s chief elections officer, is also responsible for the administration of the Election Code. Id. 18. Respondents Rebecca N. Sullivan, David J. Worley, Matthew Mashburn, and Anh Le in their official capacities as members of the Georgia State Election Board (the “State Election Board”), are members of the State Election Board in Georgia, responsible for “formulat[ing], adopt[ing], and promulgat[ing] such rules and regulations, consistent with law, as will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2- 31(2). Further, the State Election Board “promulgate[s] rules and regulations to define uniform and nondiscriminatory standards concerning what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for each category of voting system” in Georgia. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31(7). 1 Secretary Raffensperger is a state official subject to suit in his official capacity because his office “imbues him with the responsibility to enforce the [election laws].” Grizzle v. Kemp, 634 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000608 Page 8 of 64 19. Respondent Richard L. Barron is named in his official capacity as Director of Registration and Elections for Fulton County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 20. Respondent Janine Eveler is named in her official capacity as Director of Registration and Elections for Cobb County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 21. Respondent Erica Hamilton is named in her official capacity as Director of Voter Registration and Elections for DeKalb County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 22. Respondent Kristi Royston is named in her official capacity as Elections Supervisor for Gwinnett County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 23. Respondent Russell Bridges is named in his official capacity as Elections Supervisor for Chatham County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000609 Page 9 of 64 24. Respondent Anne Dover is named in her official capacity as Acting Director of Elections and Voter Registration for Cherokee County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 25. Respondent Shauna Dozier is named in her official capacity as Elections Director for Clayton County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 26. Respondent Mandi Smith is named in her official capacity as Director of Voter Registration and Elections for Forsyth County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 27. Respondent Ameika Pitts is named in her official capacity as Director of the Board of Elections & Registration for Henry County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 28. Respondent Lynn Bailey is named in her official capacity as Executive Director of Elections for Richmond County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000610 Page 10 of 64 29. Respondent Debra Presswood is named in her official capacity as Registration and Election Supervisor for Houston County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 30. Respondent Vanessa Waddell is named in her official capacity as Chief Clerk of Elections for Floyd County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 31. Respondent Julianne Roberts is named in her official capacity as Supervisor of Elections and Voter Registration for Pickens County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 32. Respondent Joseph Kirk is named in his official capacity as Elections Supervisor for Bartow County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 33. Respondent Gerald McCown is named in his official capacity as Elections Supervisor for Hancock County, Georgia, and conducted the Contested Election within that county. 34. All references to Respondents made herein include named Respondent and those election workers deputized by Respondents to act on their behalf during the Contested Election. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000611 Page 11 of 64 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 35. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-523(a) as the Superior Court of the county where Secretary Raffensperger, the State Board of Elections, and Respondent Richard L. Barron are located. See also Ga. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Dougherty Cty., 330 Ga. App. 581, 582, 768 S.E.2d 771, 772 (2015). 36. Venue is proper before this Court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Georgia Election Code and Election Contest Provisions 37. The Election Code sets forth the manner in which the Citizens of Georgia are allowed to participate in the Legislature’s duty of choosing presidential electors by specifying, inter alia, which persons are eligible to register to vote in Georgia, the circumstances and actions by which a voter cancels his or her voter registration, the procedures for voting in person and by absentee ballot, the manner in which elections are to be conducted, and the specific protocols and procedures for recounts, audits, and recanvasses. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-1 et seq. 38. The Election Code in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522 provides the means for a candidate in a federal election to contest the results of said election based on: Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000612 Page 12 of 64 1. Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result; 2. When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute; 3. When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result; 4. For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or election, if such error would change the results; or 5. For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.2 39. The results of an election may be set aside when a candidate has “clearly established a violation of election procedures and has demonstrated that the violation has placed the result of the election in doubt.” Martin v. Fulton Cty. Bd. of Registration & Elections, 307 Ga. 193-94, 835 S.E.2d 245, 248 (2019) (quoting Hunt v. Crawford, 270 GA 7, 10, 507 S.E.2d 723 (1998) (emphasis added). 40. The Election Code “allows elections to be contested through litigation, both as a check on the integrity of the election process and as a means of ensuring the fundamental right of citizens to vote and to have their votes counted securely.” Martin, 307 Ga. at 194. 41. The Georgia Supreme Court has made clear that “it [is] not incumbent upon [Petitioners] to show how . . . voters would have voted if their . . . ballots had been regular. [Petitioners] only ha[ve] to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.” Mead at 268 (emphasis added). 2 Petitioners do not contest pursuant O.C.G.A. § 21 2 522 Ground (2). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000613 Page 13 of 64 The Contested Election 42. On November 3, 2020, the Contested Election for electors for President of the United States took place in the State of Georgia. 43. President Trump, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden (Mr. Biden), and Jo Jorgensen were the only candidates on the ballot for President in the Contested Election. 44. The original results reported by Secretary Raffensperger for the Contested Election (the “Original Result”) consisted of a purported total of 4,995,323 votes cast, with Mr. Biden “ahead” by a margin of 12,780 votes. 45. The results of the subsequent Risk Limiting Audit conducted by the Secretary of State (the “Risk Limiting Audit”) included a total of 5,000,585 votes cast, with Mr. Biden “ahead” by a margin of 12,284 votes. 46. On November 20, 2020, the Contested Election was declared and certified for Mr. Biden by a margin of only 12,670 votes (the “Certified Result”).3 3 The first certified number of votes. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000614 Page 14 of 64 47. On November 21, 2020, President Trump and the Trump Campaign notified Secretary Raffensperger of President Trump’s request to invoke the statutory recount authorized by O.C.G.A. § 21-2-495(c) for elections in which the margin is less than one-half of one percent (the “Statutory Recount”). A true and correct copy of President Trump’s request for the Statutory Recount is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 1. 48. The Statutory Recount is ongoing as of the time of the filing of this Petition. 49. On multiple occasions Secretary Raffensperger announced he does not anticipate the Statutory Recount to yield a substantial change in the results of the Contested Election. 50. On December 1, 2020, Robert Gabriel Sterling, Statewide Voting System Implementation Manager for the Secretary of State, gave a press conference to discuss the status of the ongoing Statutory Recount. 51. During his press conference, Mr. Sterling stated that at least two counties needed to recertify their vote counts as the totals reached during the Statutory Recount differed from the Certified Results. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000615 Page 15 of 64 52. As of the date of this Petition, not all of Georgia’s 159 counties have certified their results from the Statutory Recount. 53. Consequently, as of the date of this Petition, Secretary Raffensperger has yet to certify the results from the Statutory Recount. 54. The presidential electors of the States are scheduled to meet on December 14, 2020. Therefore, this matter is ripe, and time is of the essence. 55. An actual controversy exists. 56. Because the outcome of the Contested Election is in doubt, Petitioners jointly and severally hereby contest Georgia’s November 3, 2020, election results for President of the United States pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-521 and 21-2-522 et seq. 57. Petitioners assert that the laws of the State of Georgia governing the conduct of the Contested Election were disregarded, abandoned, ignored, altered, and otherwise violated by Respondents, jointly and severally, allowing a sufficient number of illegal votes to be included in Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000616 Page 16 of 64 the vote tabulations, such that the results of the Contested Election are invalid, and the declaration of the presidential election in favor of Mr. Biden must be enjoined, vacated, and nullified. THERE WERE SYSTEMIC IRREGULARITIES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA ELECTION CODE IN THE CONTESTED ELECTION Requirements to Legally Vote in Georgia 58. The Election Code sets forth the requirements for voting in Georgia, including the requirements that a voter must be: (1) “Registered as an elector in the manner prescribed by law; (2) A citizen of this state and of the United States; (3) At least 18 years of age on or before the date of the…election in which such person seeks to vote; (4) A resident of this state and of the county or municipality in which he or she seeks to vote; and (5) “Possessed of all other qualifications prescribed by law.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-216(a). “No person shall remain an elector longer than such person shall retain the qualifications under which such person registered.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2- 216(f). 59. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-216, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed thousands of unqualified persons to register to vote and to cast their vote in the Contested Election. These illegal votes were counted in violation of Georgia law. Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 10 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000617 Page 17 of 64 60. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-216(b) provides that “[n]o person who has been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude may register, remain registered, or vote except upon completion of the sentence.” 61. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-216(b), Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed as many as 2,560 felons with an uncompleted sentence to register to vote and to cast their vote in the Contested Election. Exhibit 3 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 62. In violation of Georgia law, Respondents, jointly and severally, counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 63. “Any person who possesses the qualifications of an elector except that concerning age shall be permitted to register to vote if such person will acquire such qualification within six months after the day of registration.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-216(c). 64. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-216(c), Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 66,247 underage and therefore ineligible people to illegally register to vote, and subsequently illegally vote. See Exhibit 3. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000618 Page 18 of 64 65. In violation of Georgia law, Respondents, jointly and severally, counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 66. In order to vote in Georgia, a person must register to vote. 67. Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 2,423 individuals to vote who were not listed in the State’s records as having been registered to vote. See Exhibit 3. 68. Respondents then, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 69. Because determining a voter’s residency is necessary to confirm he or she is a qualified voter in this state and in the county in which he or she seeks to vote, the Election Code provides rules for determining a voter’s residency and when a voter’s residency is deemed abandoned. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217. 70. “The residence of any person shall be held to be in that place in which such person’s habitation is fixed.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217(a)(1). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000619 Page 19 of 64 71. Additionally, “[t]he specific address in the county…in which a person has declared a homestead exemption…shall be deemed the person’s residence address.” O.C.G.A. § 21 -2- 217(a)(14). 72. A voter loses his or her Georgia and/or specific county residence if he or she: (1) “register[s] to vote or perform[s] other acts indicating a desire to change such person’s citizenship and residence;” (2) “removes to another state with the intention of making it such person’s residence;” (3) “removes to another county or municipality in this state with the intention of making it such person’s residence;” or (4) “goes into another state and while there exercises the right of a citizen by voting.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217(a); see also O.C.G.A. § 21-2-218(f) (“No person shall vote in any county or municipality other than the county or municipality of such person’s residence except [“an elector who moves from one county…to another after the fifth Monday prior to a[n]…election”] O.C.G.A.§ 21-2-218(e).) 73. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 4,926 individuals to vote in Georgia who had registered to vote in another state after their Georgia voter registration date. See Exhibit 2. 74. It is illegal to vote in the November 3, 2020, general election for president in two different states. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000620 Page 20 of 64 75. It is long established that “one man” or “one person” has only one vote. 76. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 395 individuals to vote in Georgia who also cast ballots in another state (the “Double Voters”). See Exhibit 2. 77. The number of Double Voters is likely higher than 395, yet Respondents have the exclusive capability and access to data to determine the true number of Double Voters. 78. Respondents, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 79. Despite having the exclusive ability to determine the true number of Double Voters in Contested Election, to date Respondents, jointly and severally, have failed to properly analyze and remove the Double Voters from the election totals. 80. To date, and despite multiple requests, Respondents, jointly and severally, have failed to provide identifying information or coordinate with the other 49 states and U.S. Territories to adequately determine the number of Double Voters. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000621 Page 21 of 64 81. Respondents, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 82. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 15,700 individuals to vote in Georgia who had filed a national change of address with the United States Postal Service prior to November 3, 2020. See Exhibit 2. 83. Respondents, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 84. If a Georgia voter “who is registered to vote in another county…in this state…moves such person’s residence from that county…to another county…in this state,” that voter “shall, at the time of making application to register to vote in that county…provide such information as specified by the Secretary of State in order to notify such person’s former voting jurisdiction of the person’s application to register to vote in the new place of residence and to cancel such person’s registration in the former place of residence.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-218(b); see also The Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. v. Crittenden, Civil Action File No. 1:18-CV-05181-SCJ, Doc. 33, Supplemental Declaration of Chris Harvey, Elections Director of the Office of the Secretary of State, ¶ 11 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 13, 2018) (“If the state allowed out of county voting, there would be no practical way of knowing if a voter voted in more than one county.”). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000622 Page 22 of 64 85. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-218(b), Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 40,279 individuals to vote who had moved across county lines at least 30 days prior to Election Day and who had failed to properly re-register to vote in their new county after moving. Exhibit 4 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 86. Respondents, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 87. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 1,043 individuals to cast ballots who had illegally registered to vote using a postal office box as their habitation. See Exhibit 2. 88. Respondents then, jointly and severally improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 89. A postal office box is not a residential address. 90. One cannot reside within a postal office box. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000623 Page 23 of 64 91. It is a violation of Georgia law to list a postal office box as one’s voter place of habitation. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217(a)(1). 92. A person desiring “to vote at any…general election” must apply to register to vote “by the close of business on the fifth Monday…prior to the date of such…general election.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-224(a). 93. The application for registration is “deemed to have been made as of the date of the postmark affixed to such application,” or if received by the Secretary of State through the United States Postal Service, by “the close of business on the fourth Friday prior to a . . . general election.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-224(c). 94. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-224, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 98 individuals to vote who the state records as having registered after the last day permitted under law. See Exhibit 3. 95. Respondents, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000624 Page 24 of 64 96. “Each elector who makes timely application for registration, is found eligible by the board of registrars and placed on the official list of electors, and is not subsequently found to be disqualified to vote shall be entitled to vote in any…election.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-224(d). 97. Secretary Raffensperger is required to maintain and update a list of registered voters within this state. 98. On the 10th day of each month, each county is to provide to the Secretary of State a list of convicted felons, deceased persons, persons found to be non-citizens during a jury selection process, and those declared mentally incompetent. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-231(a)-(b), (d). 99. In turn, any person on the Secretary of State’s list of registered voters is to be removed from the registration list if the voter dies, is convicted of a felony, is declared mentally incompetent, confirms in writing a change of address outside of the county, requests his or her name be removed from the registration list, or does not vote or update his or her voter’s registration through two general elections. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-231, 21-2-232, 21-2-235. 100. Respondents, jointly and severally, did not update the voter registration list(s). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000625 Page 25 of 64 101. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-231(a)-(b) and (d), Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed as many as 10,315 or more individuals to vote who were deceased by the time of Election Day. See Exhibit 3. 102. Respondents, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 103. Of these individuals, 8,718 are recorded as having perished prior to the date the State records as having accepted their vote. See Exhibit 3. 104. Respondents, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. 105. For example, Affiant Lisa Holst received three absentee mail-in ballots for her late fatherin-law, Walter T. Holst, who died on May 13, 2010. Exhibit 5 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 106. Voter history shows that an absentee ballot was returned for Mr. Holst on October 28, 2020. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000626 Page 26 of 64 107. Someone deceased for 10 years should not have received three absentee ballots. 108. Someone deceased for 10 years should not have received any absentee ballot. 109. Someone deceased for 10 years should not have had any absentee ballot counted. 110. Another Affiant, Sandy Rumph, has stated that her father-in-law, who died on September 9, 2019, had his voter registration change from “deceased” to “active” 8 days after he passed away. Exhibit 6 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 111. With his registration status change, his address was also changed online from his real address in Douglasville to an unfamiliar address in DeKalb County. Id. 112. Respondents jointly and severally failed to maintain and update voter registration lists which allowed voter registration information to be changed after the death of an elector. 113. Respondents jointly and severally failed to maintain and update voter registration lists which allowed absentee ballots to be used fraudulently. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000627 Page 27 of 64 RESPONDENTS COMMITTED SUBSTANTIAL VIOLATIONS OF GEORGIA LAW WITH RESPECT TO ABSENTEE BALLOTS 114. The Legislature has established procedures for absentee voting in the state. 115. Pursuant to O.G.C.A. 21-2-381, absentee ballots must be requested by the voter, or the voter’s designee, before they can be sent out. 116. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381, Respondent Raffensperger sent unsolicited absentee ballot applications before the 2020 primary election to all persons on the list of qualified electors, whether or not an application had been requested by the voter. 117. The unlawfully sent applications allowed the recipient to check a box to request an absentee ballot for the Contested Election in advance of the period for which an absentee ballot could be requested. 118. Individuals wishing to vote absentee may apply for a mail-in ballot “not more than 180 days prior to the date of the primary or election.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000628 Page 28 of 64 119. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(a)(1)(A), Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 305,701 individuals to vote who, according to State records, applied for an absentee ballot more than 180 days prior to the Contested Election. See Exhibit 3. 120. Respondents then, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. Id. 121. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(b) an absentee voter must have requested an absentee ballot before such ballot is capable of being received by the voter. 122. If such applicant is eligible under the provisions of the Election Code, an absentee ballot is to be mailed to the voter. 123. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-385, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 92 individuals to vote whose absentee ballots, according to State records, were returned and accepted prior to that individual requesting an absentee ballot. See Exhibit 3. 124. Respondents then, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. Id. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000629 Page 29 of 64 125. Absentee ballots may only be mailed after determining the applicant is registered and eligible to vote in the election. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(b)(1). 126. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(b)(1), Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed state election officials to mail at least 13 absentee ballots to individuals who were not yet registered to vote according to the state’s records. See Exhibit 3. 127. Respondents then, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. Id. 128. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(a)(2) absentee ballots may not be mailed more than 49 days prior to an election. 129. Respondents, jointly and severally, mailed at least 2,664 absentee ballots to individuals prior to the earliest date permitted by law. See Exhibit 3. 130. Respondents then, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. Id. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000630 Page 30 of 64 131. According to State records, Respondents jointly and severally allowed at least 50 individuals to vote whose absentee ballots were returned and accepted prior to the earliest date that absentee ballots were permitted by law to be sent out. See Exhibit 3. 132. Respondents then, jointly and severally improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. Id. 133. An absentee voter’s application for an absentee ballot must have been accepted by the election registrar or absentee ballot clerk in order for that individual’s absentee ballot vote to be counted. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-385. 134. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-385, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 2 individuals to vote whose absentee ballot applications had been rejected, according to state records. See Exhibit 3. 135. Respondents, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. Id. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000631 Page 31 of 64 136. It is not possible for an absentee voter to have applied by mail, been issued by mail, and returned by mail an absentee ballot, and for that ballot to have accepted by election officials, all on the same day. 137. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384, Respondents, jointly and severally, allowed at least 217 individuals to vote whose absentee ballots, according to state records, were applied for, issued, and received all on the same day. See Exhibit 3. 138. Respondents then, jointly and severally, improperly counted these illegal votes in the Contested Election. Id. RESPONDENTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH GEORGIA LAW PROVISIONS FOR MATCHING SIGNATURES AND CONFIRMING VOTER IDENTITY FOR ELECTORS SEEKING TO VOTE ABSENTEE 139. O.C.G.A. §21-2-381(b) mandates the procedures to be followed by election officials upon receipt of an absentee ballot application: “Upon receipt of a timely application for an absentee ballot, a registrar or absentee ballot clerk…shall determine…if the applicant is eligible to vote in the…election involved. In order to be found eligible to vote an absentee ballot by mail, the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall compare the identifying information on the application with the information on file in the registrar’s office and, if the application is signed by the elector, compare the signature or mark of the elector on the application with the signature or mark of the elector on the elector’s voter registration card. In order to be found eligible to vote an absentee ballot in person…shall show one of the forms of identification listed in Code Section 21-2-417 and the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall compare the Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000632 Page 32 of 64 identifying information on the application with the information on file in the registrar’s office.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(b) (emphasis added). 140. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B) mandates the procedures to be followed by election officials upon receipt of an absentee ballot: Upon receipt of each [absentee] ballot, a registrar or clerk shall write the day and hour of the receipt of the ballot on its envelope. The registrar or clerk shall then compare the identifying information on the oath with the information on file in his or her office, shall compare the signature or make on the oath with the signature or mark on the absentee elector’s voter card or the most recent update to such absentee elector’s voter registration card and application for absentee ballot or a facsimile of said signature or maker taken from said card or application, and shall, if the information and signature appear to be valid and other identifying information appears to be correct, so certify by signing or initialing his or her name below the voter’s oath. Each elector’s name so certified shall be listed by the registrar or clerk on the numbered list of absentee voters prepared for his or her precinct. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). 141. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) mandates the procedures to be followed by election officials with respect to defective absentee ballots: If the elector has failed to sign the oath, or if the signature does not appear to be valid, or if the elector has failed to furnish required information or information so furnished does not conform with that on file in the registrar’s or clerk’s office, or if the elector is otherwise found disqualified to vote, the registrar or clerk shall write across the face of the envelope “Rejected,” giving the reason therefor. The board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk shall promptly notify the elector of such rejection, a copy of which notification shall be retained in the files of the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk for at least one year. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) (emphasis added). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000633 Page 33 of 64 RESPONDENT RAFFENSPERGER DISREGARDED THE ELECTION CODE BY FIAT AND INSTRUCTED THE RESPONDENT COUNTIES TO DO LIKEWISE 142. On March 6, 2020, Respondents Raffensperger and the State Election Board entered into a “Compromise and Settlement Agreement and Release” (the “Consent Decree”) in litigation filed by the Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc., the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (collectively the “Democrat Party Agencies”). 4 A true and correct copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 7. 143. The litigation was one of more than one hundred lawsuits nationwide filed by Democrats and partisan affiliates of the Democratic Party to seeking to rewrite the duly enacted election laws of the states. Exhibit 8 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 144. Without legislative authority, Respondents unlawfully adopted standards to be followed by the clerks and registrars in processing absentee ballots inconsistent with the election code. 145. The Consent Decree exceeded Respondents’ authority under the Georgia Constitution. See Ga. Const. art. III, §1; Exhibit 15 attached hereto and incorporated by reference; see also O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31 (providing that the State Election Board shall “formulate, adopt, and promulgate such 4 See Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc., et al. v. Raffensperger, et al., Civil Action File No. 1:19 cv 05028 WMR, Doc. 56 1, Joint Notice of Settlement as to State Defendants, Att. A, Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (N.D. Ga. Mar. 6, 2020). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000634 Page 34 of 64 rules and regulations, consistent with the law, as will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections” (emphasis added)). 146. The Consent Decree changed the plain language of the statute for receiving and processing absentee ballot applications and ballots. 147. The Consent Decree increased the burden on election officials to conduct the mandatory signature verification process by adding additional, cumbersome steps. 148. For example, the Consent Decree tripled the number of personnel required for an absentee ballot application or ballot to be rejected for signature mismatch. 149. The unlawful Consent Decree further violated the Election Code by purporting to allow election officials to match signatures on absentee ballot envelopes against the application, rather than the voter file as required by O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-381, 21-2-385. RESPONDENTS DID NOT CONDUCT MEANINGFUL VERIFICATION OF ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICANT AND VOTER IDENTITIES 150. Notwithstanding the unlawful changes made by the Consent Decree, the mandatory signature verification and voter identification requirements were not altogether eliminated. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000635 Page 35 of 64 151. Despite the legal requirement for signature matching and voter identity verification, Respondents failed to ensure that such obligations were followed by election officials. Exhibit 9 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 152. According to state records, an unprecedented 1,768,972 absentee ballots were mailed out in the Contested Election. Exhibit 10 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 153. Of the total number of absentee ballots mailed out in the Contested Election, 1,317,000 were returned (i.e., either accepted, spoiled, or rejected). Id. 154. The number of absentee ballots returned in the Contested Election represents a greater than 500% increase over the 2016 General Election and a greater than 400% increase over the 2018 General Election. Id. 155. The state received over a million more ballots in the Contested Election than the 2016 and 2018 General Elections. Id. 156. The number of returned absentee ballots that were rejected in the Contested Election was 4,471, yielding a 0.34% rejection rate. Id. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000636 Page 36 of 64 157. The number of returned absentee ballots that were rejected in the 2016 General Election was 6,059, yielding a 2.90% rejection rate. Id. 158. The number of returned absentee ballots that were rejected in the 2018 General Election was 7,889, yielding a 3.46% rejection rate. Id. 159. Stated differently, the percentage of rejected ballots fell to 0.34% in 2020 from 2.9% in 2016 and 3.46% in 2018, despite a nearly sixfold increase in the number of ballots returned to the state for processing. 160. The explosion in the number of absentee ballots received, counted, and included in the tabulations for the Contested Election, with the simultaneous precipitous drop in the percentage of absentee ballots rejected, demonstrates there was little or no proper review and confirmation of the eligibility and identity of absentee voters during the Contested Election. 161. Had the statutory procedure for signature matching, voter identity and eligibility verification been followed in the Contested Election, Georgia’s historical absentee ballot rejection rate of 2.90-3.46% applied to the 2020 absentee ballot returned and processed, between 38,250 and 45,626 ballots should have been rejected in the Contested Election. See Exhibit 10. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000637 Page 37 of 64 RESPONDENTS VIOLATED GEORGIANS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A TRANSPARENT AND OPEN ELECTION 162. A fair, honest, and transparent vote count is a cornerstone of democratic elections. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY AND ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE, INTERNATIONAL ELECTORAL STANDARDS, GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF ELECTIONS (2002). 163. All citizens, including Georgians, have rights under the United States Constitution to the full, free, and accurate elections built upon transparency and verifiability. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4, 127 S. Ct. 5, 7 (2006) (per curiam). 164. Citizens are entitled and deserve to vote in a transparent system that is designed to protect against vote dilution. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05, 121 S. Ct. 525, 529-30 (2000); Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974); see also Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208, 82 S. Ct. 691, 705 (1962). 165. This requires that votes be counted, tabulated and consolidated in the presence of the representatives of parties and candidates and election observers, and that the entire process by which a winner is determined is fully and completely open to public scrutiny. INTERNATIONAL ELECTORAL STANDARDS at 77. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000638 Page 38 of 64 166. The importance of watchers and representatives serving as an important check in elections is recognized internationally. Id. 167. Georgia law recognizes “the fundamental right of citizens to vote and to have their votes counted accurately.” Martin at 194 (emphasis added). 168. The right to have one’s vote counted accurately infers a right to a free, accurate, public, and transparent election, which is reflected throughout Georgia election law. Cf. Ellis v. Johnson, 263 Ga. 514, 516, 435 S.E.2d 923, 925 (1993) (“Of particular importance is that the General Assembly has provided the public with the right to examine . . . the actual counting of the ballots, . . . and the computation and canvassing of returns . . . .”). 169. Georgia law requires “[s]uperintendents, poll officers, and other officials engaged in the conducting of primaries and elections . . . shall perform their duties in public.” O.C.G.A. §21-2- 406. 170. Each political party who has nominated a candidate “shall be entitled to designate … statewide poll watchers.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-408 (b)(2). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000639 Page 39 of 64 171. Poll watchers “may be permitted behind the enclosed space for the purpose of observing the conduct of the election and the counting and recording of votes.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-408 (d). 172. “All proceedings at the tabulating center and precincts shall be open to the view of the public.” O.C.G.A, § 21-2-483(b). 173. Under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-493, “[t]he superintendent shall, at or before 12:00 noon on the day following the primary or election, at his or her office or at some other convenient public place at the county seat or in the municipality, of which due notice of shall have been given as provided by Code Section 21-2-492, publicly commence the computation and canvassing of returns and continue the same from the day until completed.” (Emphasis added.) 174. During the tabulation of votes cast during an election, vote review panels are to convene to attempt to determine a voter’s intent when that intent is unclear from the ballot, consisting of equal Republican and Democratic representation. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-483(g)(2). 175. The activities of the vote review panel are required to be open to the view of the public. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-483(a). Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000640 Page 40 of 64 176. Moreover, Respondent Raffensperger declared that for the Risk Limiting Audit: Per the instructions given to counties as they conduct their audit triggered full hand recounts, designated monitors will be given complete access to observe the process from the beginning. While the audit triggered recount must be open to the public and media, designated monitors will be able to observe more closely. The general public and the press will be restricted to a public viewing area. Designated monitors will be able to watch the recount while standing close to the elections’ workers conducting the recount. Political parties are allowed to designate a minimum of two monitors per county at a ratio of one monitor per party for every ten audit boards in a county . . . . Beyond being able to watch to ensure the recount is conducted fairly and securely, the two-person audit boards conducting the hand recount call out the votes as they are recounted, providing monitors and the public an additional way to keep tabs on the process. 5 177. Respondents, jointly and severally, violated Petitioners’ fundamental right to a free, accurate, public, and transparent election under the Constitution of the State of Georgia in the Contested Election and the Risk Limiting Audit. See composite Affidavit Appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 17. 178. Respondents, jointly and severally, violated provisions of the Georgia Election Code mandating meaningful public oversight of the conduct of the election and the counting and recording of votes in the Contested Election and the Risk Limiting Audit. Id. 5 Office of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Monitors Closely Observing Audit Triggered Full Hand Recount: Transparency is Built Into Process (Nov. 17, 2020), https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/monitors closely observing audit triggered full hand recount transparency is built into process. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000641 Page 41 of 64 179. Respondents, jointly and severally, failed to adhere to Respondent Raffensperger’s own guidelines promising a free, accurate, public, and transparent process in the Risk Limiting Audit. Id. RESPONDENTS HAVE ADMITTED MISCONDUCT, FRAUD, AND WIDESPREAD IRREGULARITIES COMMITTED BY MULTIPLE COUNTIES 180. The Secretary of State has admitted that multiple county election boards, supervisors, employees, election officials and their agents failed to follow the Election Code and State Election Board Rules and Regulations.6 181. The Secretary of State has called The Fulton County Registration and Elections Board and its agents’ (“Fulton County Elections Officials”) job performance prior to and through the Election Contest “dysfunctional.” 182. The Secretary of State and members of his staff have repeatedly criticized the actions, poor judgment, and misconduct of Fulton County Elections Officials. 6 Note: These are samples and not an exhaustive list of the Secretary of State’s admissions of Respondents’ failures and violations of Georgia law. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000642 Page 42 of 64 183. Fulton County Elections Officials’ performance in the 2020 primary elections was so dysfunctional that it was fined $50,000 and subject to remedial measures. 184. Describing Respondent Barron’s Fulton County Elections in the Election Contest, Secretary Raffensperger stated, "Us and our office, and I think the rest of the state, is getting a little tired of always having to wait on Fulton County and always having to put up with [Fulton County Elections Officials’] dysfunction." 185. The Secretary of State’s agent, Mr. Sterling, said initial findings from an independent monitor allegedly show “generally bad management” with Fulton’s absentee ballots.7 Fulton County Elections’ Deception and Fraud 186. The Secretary of State’s Office claims it is currently investigating an incident where Fulton County election officials fraudulently stated there was a “flood” and “a pipe burst,” which was later revealed to be a “leaky” toilet. 7 Ben Brasch, Georgia Opens 2 Investigations Into Fulton’s Elections Operations, The Atlanta Journal Constitution (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta news/georgia opens 2 investigations into fultons elections operations/EVCBN4ZJTZELPDHMH63POL3RKQ/. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000643 Page 43 of 64 187. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020, Fulton County Election Officials, who were handling and scanning thousands of ballots at the State Farm Arena, instructed Republican poll watchers and the press that they were finished working for the day and that the Republican poll watchers and the press were to leave. The Fulton County Elections Officials further stated that they would restart their work at approximately 8:00 a.m. on November 4, 2020. 188. The Fulton County Election Officials lied. 189. Deliberate misinformation was used to instruct Republican poll watchers and members of the press to leave the premises for the night at approximately 10:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. Exhibits 12, 13, and 14 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 190. After Fulton County Elections Officials lied and defrauded the Republican poll watchers and members of the press, whereby in reasonable reliance the Republican poll watchers and members of the press left the State Farm Arena (where they had been observing the ballots being processed), without public transparency Fulton County Elections Officials continued to process, handle, and transfer many thousands of ballots. See Exhibit 14. 191. Fulton County Elections Officials’ fraudulent statements not only defrauded the Republican poll watchers and the press, but also deprived every single Fulton County voter, Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000644 Page 44 of 64 Georgian, American, and Petitioners of the opportunity for a transparent election process and have thereby placed the Election Contest in doubt. Spalding County Elections & Voter Registration Supervisor and Her Agents’ Failures 192. Respondent Raffensperger has called for the resignation of the Spalding County Elections and Voter Registration Supervisor, who has, as of this filing, resigned.8 193. Respondent Raffensperger cited “serious management issues and poor decision-making” by Election Supervisor Marcia Ridley during the Contested Election. Floyd County Elections & Voter Registration Supervisor and Her Agents’ Failures 194. Respondent Raffensperger has called for the resignation of the Executive Director of the Floyd County Board of Registrations and Elections for his failure to follow proper election protocols.9 8 David Wickert, Georgia Officials Call for Spalding Election Director to Resign, The Atlanta Journal Constitution (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/georgia officials call for spalding election director to resign/YYUISCBSV5FTHDZPM3N5RJVV6A/. 9 Jeffrey Martin, Georgia Secretary of State Calls for Resignation of County Election Director After 2,600 Ballots Discovered (Nov. 16, 2020), https://www.newsweek.com/georgia secretary state calls resignation county election director after 2600 ballots discovered 1547874. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000645 Page 45 of 64 RESPONDENTS CONSPIRED TO DISREGARD THE ELECTION CODE AND TO SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN UNLAWFUL EDICTS 195. In violation of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386 et seq. the State Board of Election promulgated a rule that authorized county election board to begin processing absentee ballots on the third Monday preceding the election, provided they give the Secretary of State and the public notice of such intention to begin processing absentee ballots. 196. Failure to follow the process directed by the statute is a derogation of the Election Code and denies voters the ability to cancel their absentee ballot up until Election Day. 197. Respondents, jointly and severally, were complicit in conspiring to violate and violating the Election Code. 198. As a direct and proximate result of Respondents multiple, continued, and flagrant disregard of the Election Code, the outcome of the Contested Election is not capable of being known with certainty. 199. Petitioners incorporate by reference and reallege all prior paragraphs of this Petition and the paragraphs in the Counts below as though set forth fully herein. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000646 Page 46 of 64 200. Despite Respondents receiving substantial funding from the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL), Respondents failed to use such funds to train the election workers regarding signature verification, the proper procedures for matching signatures, and how to comply fully with the Election Code. Exhibit 11 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 201. Due to the lack of uniform guidance and training, the signature verification and voter identity confirmation was performed poorly or not at all in some counties and served as virtually no check against improper voting. See Exhibit 9. RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF STATE MUST ALLOW AND CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF THE SIGNATURES ON ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICATIONS AND ABSENTEE BALLOTS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SIGNATURES WERE PROPERLY MATCHED PRIOR TO BEING COUNTED AND INCLUDED IN THE TABULATIONS 202. The data regarding the statistically tiny rejection rate of absentee ballots cast and counted in the Contested Election gives rise to sufficient concerns that there were irregularities that should be reviewed and investigated. 203. Petitioners have brought these concerns about the signature matching and voter verification process to the attention of Respondent Raffensperger on five separate occasions since the Contested Election, requesting that the Secretary conduct an audit of the signatures on the absentee ballot applications and absentee ballots, via Letter on November 10, 2020; Letter on November Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000647 Page 47 of 64 12, 2020; Letter on November 23, 2020; Email on November 23, 2020, and again via Letter on November 30, 2020. Exhibit 18 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 204. The Secretary of State is obligated by law to “to permit the public inspection or copying, in accordance with this chapter, of any return, petition, certificate, paper, account, contract, report, or any other document or record in his or her custody.” O.G.C.A. § 21-2-586(a). 205. Failure to comply with any such request by the Secretary of State or an employee of his or her office shall [constitute] a misdemeanor.” O.G.C.A. § 21-2-586(a). 206. The Secretary of State’s refusal on five separate occasions to comply with requests to produce the signatures used to request absentee ballots and to confirm the identities of those individuals requesting such ballots in the contested election is a violation of O.G.C.A. § 21 2 586(a). 207. In order for the Secretary of State to comply with O.G.C.A. § 21-2-586(a), professional handwriting experts recommend a minimum of Ten Thousand (10,000) absentee ballot signatures be professionally evaluated. Exhibit 16 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000648 Page 48 of 64 208. Petitioners respectfully request that the Court order the production of the records of the absentee ballot applications and absentee ballots, for purposes of conducting an audit of the signatures on absentee ballot applications and absentee ballots cast in the Contested Election. THERE ARE MYRIAD REPORTS OF IRREGULARITIES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTION CODE DURING THE CONTESTED ELECTION 209. Petitioners have received hundreds of incident reports regarding problems, irregularities, and violations of the Election Code during the Contested Election. 210. From those reports, Petitioners have attached affidavits from dozens of Citizens of Georgia, sworn under penalty of perjury, attesting to myriad violations of law committed by Respondents during the Contested Election. See Exhibit 17. 211. The affidavits are attached to this Petition as an Appendix, with details of the multiple violations of law. Id. 212. Also included in the Appendix are sworn declarations from data experts who have conducted detailed analysis of irregularities in the State’s voter records. See Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 10. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000649 Page 49 of 64 COUNTS COUNT I: ELECTION CONTEST O.C.G.A §21-2-521 et seq. 213. Petitioners incorporate by reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 212 this Petition as set forth herein verbatim. 214. Respondents, jointly and severally, have violated the Constitution of the State of Georgia. 215. Respondents, jointly and severally, have violated the laws of the State of Georgia. 216. Respondents, jointly and severally, have violated the Election Code. 217. Respondents, jointly and severally, have violated State Election Board Rules and Regulations. 218. Respondents, jointly and severally, have violated the basic tenants of an open, free, and fair election. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000650 Page 50 of 64 219. Respondents, jointly and severally, have failed in their duties to their constituents, the people of the State of Georgia, and the entire American democratic process. 220. The Contested Election has been timely and appropriately contested per O.C.G.A. § 21-2- 522 et seq. 221. As a direct and proximate result of Respondents’ actions, the Contested Election is fraught with misconduct, fraud, and irregularities. 222. Due to the actions and failures of Respondents, many thousands of illegal votes were accepted, cast, and counted in the Contested Election, and legal votes were rejected. 223. The fraud, misconduct, and irregularities that occurred under the “supervision” of Respondents are sufficient to change the purported results of the Contested Election. 224. The fraud, misconduct, and irregularities that occurred under the “supervision” of Respondents are sufficient to place the Contested Election in doubt. 225. Respondents’ misconduct is sufficient to change the purported results in the Contested Election in President Trump’s favor. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000651 Page 51 of 64 226. Respondents’ misconduct is sufficient to place the purported Contested Election results in doubt. 227. Respondents, jointly and severally, erred in counting the votes in the Contested Election. 228. Respondents’ error in counting the votes in the Contested Election would change the result in President Trump’s favor. 229. Respondents, jointly and severally, erred in declaring the Contested Election results in favor of Mr. Biden. 230. Respondents’ systemic negligent, intentional, willful, and reckless violations of the Georgia Constitution, Georgia law, as well as the fundamental premise of a free and fair election created such error and irregularities at every stage of the Contested Election from registration through certification and every component in between that the outcome of the Contested Election is in doubt. 231. As a result, there is substantial doubt as to the outcome of the Contested Election, and the Contested Election and any certification associated therewith shall be enjoined, vacated, and nullified and either a new presidential election be immediately ordered that complies with Georgia Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000652 Page 52 of 64 law or, in the alternative, that such other just and equitable relief is obtained so as to comport with the Constitution of the State of Georgia.10 See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522. COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION’S EQUAL PROTECTION PROVISION 232. Petitioners incorporate by reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 212 f this Petition as set forth herein verbatim. 233. The Constitution of the State of Georgia provides, “Protection and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” Ga. Const. art. I, § I, para. II. 234. Under Georgia’s Equal Protection Clause, “the government is required to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.” State v. Jackson, 271 GA 5 (1999), Favorito v. Handel, 285 Ga. 795, 798 (2009) (citation and quotations omitted). See Exhibit 15. 235. This requires establishing a uniform procedure for all counties to conduct absentee voting, advance voting, and Election Day in-person voting. 10 In the event this Court enjoins, vacates, and nullifies the Contested Election, the Legislature shall direct the manner of choosing presidential electors. U.S. art II, § 1; see also Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000653 Page 53 of 64 236. Respondents, jointly and severally, failed to establish such uniform procedure for the verification of signatures of absentee ballots. 237. Respondents, jointly and severally, failed to establish a uniform level of scrutiny for signature matching. 238. Respondents, jointly and severally, failed to train those who would be conducting signature verification on how to do so. 239. The burdens of applying for and voting an absentee ballot were different in various counties throughout the State of Georgia. 240. Electors voting via by absentee mail-in ballot were not required to provide identification, other than a matching signature. 241. Electors voting in person were required to show photo identification and verify the voter’s identity. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000654 Page 54 of 64 242. The burdens of applying for and voting via absentee mail-in ballot were different from those for absentee in person. 243. Georgia voters were treated differently depending on how they voted (i.e., whether by mail or in person), where they voted, when they voted, and for whom they voted. 244. An elector in one county casting a ballot would not have his or her ballot treated in a similar manner as a voter in a different county. 245. Electors in the same county would not have their ballots treated in a similar manner as electors at different precincts. 246. Electors in the same precinct would not have their ballots treated in a similar manner whose votes were tabulated using different tabulators. 247. Respondents, jointly and severally, failed to establish uniform procedures for treating similarly situated electors similarly. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000655 Page 55 of 64 248. Respondents’ systemic failure to even attempt uniformity across the state is a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. 249. Such a violation of the rights of the Citizens of Georgia constitutes misconduct and irregularity by election officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the Contested Election. 250. As a result, there is substantial doubt as to the outcome of the Contested Election, and the Contested Election and any certification associated therewith should be enjoined, vacated, and nullified and either a new presidential election be immediately ordered that complies with Georgia law or such other just and equitable relief is obtained so as to comport with the Constitution of the State of Georgia. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522. COUNT III: VIOLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION’S DUE PROCESS PROVISIONS 251. Petitioners incorporate by reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 212 of this Petition and Count II as set forth herein verbatim. 252. Pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Georgia, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.” Ga. Const. art. I, § I, para. I. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000656 Page 56 of 64 253. Moreover, “All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship.” Ga. Const. art. I, § 1, para. VII. 254. The right to vote is a fundamental right. 255. When a fundamental right is allegedly infringed by government action, substantive due process requires that the infringement be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Old S. Duck Tours v. Mayor & Aldermen of City of Savannah, 272 Ga. 869, 872, 535 S.E.2d 751, 754 (2000). 256. By allowing illegal ballots to be cast and counted, Respondents diluted the votes of qualified Georgia electors. 257. By allowing illegal ballots to be cast and counted, Respondents, by and through their misconduct, allowed the disenfranchisement of qualified Georgia electors. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000657 Page 57 of 64 258. Respondents, jointly and severally, violated the Due Process protections of qualified Georgia Electors guaranteed by the Georgia State Constitution. 259. As a result, there is substantial doubt as to the outcome of the Contested Election and any certification associated therewith should be enjoined, vacated, and nullified and either a new presidential election be immediately ordered that complies with Georgia law or such other just and equitable relief is obtained so as to comport with the Constitution of the State of Georgia. COUNT IV: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND RELIEF 260. Petitioners incorporate by reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 259 of this Petition as set forth herein verbatim. 261. This claim is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 9-4-1 et seq. 262. An actual controversy is ripe and exists between Petitioners and Respondents with regard to the misconduct, fraud, and irregularities occurring in the Contested Election, specifically including but not limited to: a. The illegal and improper inclusion of unqualified voters on Georgia’s voter list; b. allowing ineligible voters to vote illegally in the Contested Election; c. whether the Contested Election results are invalid; Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000658 Page 58 of 64 d. whether the Consent Decree is unauthorized under Georgia law such that it is null and void, and unlawfully interfered with the proper administration of the Election Code; e. whether the results of the Contested Election are null and void. 263. It is necessary and proper that the rights and status amongst the parties hereto be declared. 264. This Honorable Court is a Court of Equity and therefore endowed with the authority to hear and the power to grant declaratory relief. 265. As a result of the systemic misconduct, fraud, irregularities, violations of Georgia law, and errors occurring in the Contested Election and consequently in order to cure and avoid said uncertainty, Petitioners seek the entry of a declaratory judgment providing that: a. ineligible and unqualified individuals are unlawfully included on Georgia’s voter role; b. unregistered, unqualified, and otherwise ineligible voters cast their votes during the Contested Election; c. the Consent Decree is unauthorized under Georgia law and is therefore null and void; and d. the results of the Contested Election are null and void. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000659 Page 59 of 64 COUNT V: REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 266. Petitioners incorporate by reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 265 of this Petition as set forth herein verbatim. 267. Petitioners seek an emergency temporary restraining order, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief per O.C.G.A. § 9-11-65, to: a. Order expedited discovery and strict compliance with all open records requests; b. Order Respondents to respond to this Petition within 3 days; c. Require Respondents to immediately fulfill their obligations under the Election Code to properly maintain and update Georgia’s list of registered voters to remove ineligible voters; d. Prevent Respondents from allowing unqualified, unregistered, and otherwise ineligible individuals from voting in Georgia elections, including but not limited to the upcoming January 5, 2021 run-off11; e. Require an immediate audit of the signatures on absentee ballot applications and ballots as described in Exhibit 16; f. Enjoin and restrain Respondents from taking any further actions or to further enforce the Consent Decree; g. Prevent the certification of the results of the Contested Election; 11 To the extent ineligible voters have already voted absentee for the January 5, 2021, runoff, those votes should be put into a provisional status. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000660 Page 60 of 64 h. Enjoin the Secretary of State from appointing the Electors to the Electoral College; i. Order a new Presidential Election to occur at the earliest opportune time; and j. For such other relief that this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. 268. In the absence of an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions, Petitioners (and the Citizens of Georgia and the United States) will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, while injunctive relief will cause no harm to Respondents. 269. Immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the Petitioners (as well as the Citizens of Georgia and the United States) if the requested emergency injunctive relief is not granted. 270. There will be immediate and irreparable damage to the Citizens of Georgia by allowing an illegal, improper, fraudulent, error-ridden presidential election to be certified, thereby improperly appointing Georgia’s electors for Mr. Biden even though the Contested Election is in doubt. 271. There will be irreparable damage to the Citizens of Georgia through their loss of confidence in the integrity of the election process by virtue of the illegal votes included in the tabulations of the Contested Election, which outweighs any potential harm to Respondents. 272. Granting the requested relief will not disserve the public interest. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000661 Page 61 of 64 273. Petitioners will be irreparably injured in the event the prayed for injunctive relief is not granted. 274. It is further in the public interest to grant Petitioner’s request for emergency injunctive relief so that Georgia voters can have confidence that the January 5, 2021, Senate election is conducted in accordance with the Election Code. 275. As early as possible, notice to Respondents of Petitioners’ motion for emergency injunctive relief will be made via email and / or telephone. 276. Petitioners are further entitled to the injunctive relief sought herein because there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. 277. The damage to Petitioners is not readily compensable by money. 278. The balance of equities favors entry of a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief against Respondents and would not be adverse to any legitimate public interest. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000662 Page 62 of 64 WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray as follows for emergency and permanent relief as follows: 1. That this Court, pursuant to O. C. G. A. § 21-2-523, expeditiously assign a Superior Court or Senior Judge to preside over this matter; 2. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that systemic, material violations of the Election Code during the Contested Election for President of the United States occurred that has rendered the Contested Election null and void as a matter of law; 3. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that systemic, material violations of the Election Code during the Contested Election violated the voters’ due process rights under the Georgia Constitution have rendered the Contested Election null and void as a matter of law; 4. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that systemic, material violations of the Election Code violated the voters’ equal protection rights under the Constitution of the State of Georgia that have rendered the Contested Election null and void as a matter of law; 5. That the Court issue an injunction requiring all Respondents to decertify the results of the Contested Election; 6. That the Court order a new election to be conducted in the presidential race, in the entirety of the State of Georgia at the earliest date, to be conducted in accordance with the Election Code; 7. Alternatively, that the Court issue an injunction prohibiting the Secretary of State from appointing the slate of presidential electors due to the systemic irregularities in the Contested Election sufficient to cast doubt on its outcome; Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000663 Page 63 of 64 8. That the Court order expedited discovery and hearing, since time is of the essence, given the legal requirements that the presidential electors from the State of Georgia are to meet on December 14, 2020, and that the electoral votes from the State of Georgia are to be delivered to and counted by the United States Congress on January 6, 2021; 9. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that the Consent Decree violates the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the laws of the State of Georgia; 10. Alternatively, that the Consent Decree be stayed during the pendency of this matter; 11. That the Court order Respondents to make available 10,000 absentee ballot applications and ballot envelopes from Respondents, as per Exhibit 16, and access to the voter registration database sufficient to complete a full audit, including but not limited to a comparison of the signatures affixed to absentee ballot applications and envelopes to those on file with the Respondents; 12. That the Court order the Secretary of State and other Respondents to release to Petitioners for inspection all records regarding the Contested Election pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2- 586; 13. That the Court order all Respondents to immediately identify and remove felons with uncompleted sentences, cross-county voters, out-of-state voters, deceased voters, and other ineligible persons from Respondents’ voter rolls within the next 30 days; 14. That the Court declare that all rules adopted by the Respondents Secretary of State or the State Election Board in contravention of the Georgia Election Code be invalidated, specifically regarding the authentication and processing of absentee ballots, to wit State Election Board Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15; 15. That the Court order such other relief as it finds just and proper. Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000664 Page 64 of 64 Respectfully submitted this 4th day of December, 2020. SMITH & LISS, LLC /s/ Ray S. Smith III RAY S. SMITH, III Georgia Bar No. 662555 Attorney for Petitioners Donald J. Trump, in his capacity as a Candidate for President, and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Five Concourse Parkway Suite 2600 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Telephone: (404) 760-6000 Facsimile: (404) 760-0225 MARK POST LAW, LLC /s/ Mark C. Post MARK C. POST Georgia Bar No. 585575 Attorney for Petitioner David J. Shafer, in his capacity as a Registered Voter and Presidential Elector Candidate pledged to Donald Trump for President 3 Bradley Park Court Suite F Columbus, Georgia 31904 Telephone: (706) 221-9371 Facsimile: (706) 221-9379 Document ID: 0.7.2774.176091-000002 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-05072021-000665

PDF PAGE FOOTNOTES

1 Katie Benner, Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General, N.Y. Times (Jan. 22, 2021).

[ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-department-election.html ]

2 Jess Bravin & Sadie Gurman, Trump Pressed Justice Department to Go Directly to Supreme Court to Overturn
Election Results, Wall St. J. (Jan. 23, 2021).
[ https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pressed-to-change-justice-department-leadership-to-boost-his-voter-fraud-claims-11611434369 ]

3 Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Jeffrey Clark (July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee);
  Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Richard Donoghue (July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee);
  Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Byung J. Pak (July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee);
  Letter from Bradley Weinsheimer, Assoc. Dep. Att’y Gen., to Jeffrey Rosen (July 26, 2021) (on file with the Committee).

4 18 U.S.C. § 610. [ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/610 ]

5 GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (@GaSecofState), Twitter (Dec. 8, 2020, 7:55 a.m.),
https://twitter.com/GaSecofState/status/1336293440338989060.

6 Memorandum from White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II to All White House Staff, at 1 (Jan. 27, 2017);
[ https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/don-mcgahn-white-house-contacts-memo-janury-27-2017.pdf ]

see also Memorandum from Attorney General Eric Holder for Heads of Department Components, All United States Attorneys, at 1 (May 11, 2009
[ https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-library/communications_with_the_white_house_and_congress_2009.pdf/download ]

7 Jamie Gangel & Jeremy Herb, Memo shows Trump lawyer’s six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election, CNN (Sep. 20, 2021).
[ https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/politics/trump-pence-election-memo/index.html ::

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Memorandum ]
"... Memorandum points ... The memo laid out a six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election for Trump:

VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.

..."

8 The importance of DOJ’s mission to protect the right to vote and the integrity of the vote was so great that
President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Amos T. Akerman to be the first Attorney General to lead this new
Department in large part due to his experience prosecuting voter intimidation cases as a U.S. Attorney in Georgia.

[ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/created-150-years-ago-justice-departments-first-mission-was-protect-black-rights-180975232/ ]

9 Dep’t of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses at 84 (8th ed., Dec. 2017), available at
SOURCE: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download

10 Id.

11 Id. at 9. [ SEE PREVIOUS REFERENCE 'CITE' PAGE 9 ]

"... FEDERAL ROLE: PROSECUTION, NOT INTERVENTION

The principal responsibility for overseeing the election process rests with the states. With the significant exception of violations of the Voting Rights Act involving denigration of the right to vote based on race, ethnicity, or language minority status, the federal government plays a role secondary to that of the states in election matters.1 It is the states that have primary authority to ensure that only qualified individuals register and vote, that the polling process is conducted fairly, and that the candidate who received the most valid votes is certified as the winner.2 The federal prosecutor’s role in matters involving corruption of the process by which elections are conducted, on the other hand, focuses on prosecuting individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election. Deterrence of future similar crimes is an important objective of such federal prosecutions. However, this deterrence is achieved by public 1 When election offenses are driven by animus based on race, ethnicity, or language-minority status, the broad protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and other civil rights statutes apply. 52 U.S.C. §§ 10101, 10301, 10303(f), & 10503. Such matters are supervised by the Civil Rights Division. 2 Of course, the U.S. electoral college presents an exception. ... 9 ..."

" Voting Rights Act " [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 ]

12 Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-85.210.

13 Attorney General Griffin B. Bell, An Address Before Department of Justice Lawyers, 3 (Sept. 6, 1978),
available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/08/23/09-06-1978b.pdf

14 Attorney General Edward Levi, Remarks at His Swearing-in Ceremony (Feb. 7, 1975), available at
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0248/whpr19750207-008.pdf.
15 Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, An Address at the Second Annual Conference of
U.S. Attorneys, 4-5 (Apr. 1, 1940), available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-
01-1940.pdf.
16 See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices: Belarus (2020), available at https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-on-human-rightspractices/belarus/; U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., 2020 Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices: Tajikistan (2020), available at https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-on-humanrights-practices/tajikistan/; U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., 2020 Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices: Venezuela (2020), available at https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-onhuman-rights-practices/venezuela/; U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices for 2011: Vietnam (2015), available at https://2009-
2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2015&dlid=252813; U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of
Democracy, H.R. and Lab., Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011: Belarus (2011), available at
https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?dlid=186331 (archived).

17 Memorandum from White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II to All White House Staff, at 1 (Jan. 27, 2017).
18 Id. at 2.
19 Memorandum from Attorney General Eric Holder for Heads of Department Components, All United States
Attorneys, at 1 (May 11, 2009)

20 Id. at 1-2.
21 Id. at 3
22 Id.
23 United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1503).
24 See United States v. Cueto, 151 F.3d 620, 631 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 992 (1st
Cir. 1987).

25 5 U.S.C. § 7322(1)(A)
26 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1).
27 18 U.S.C. §§ 595, 610.
28 Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, supra n.9 at 84.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Jane C. Timm, Fact Check: Echoing Trump, Barr Misleads on Voter Fraud to Attack Expanded Vote-by-Mail,
NBC News (Sept. 19, 2020).
32 Robert Faturechi & Justin Elliott, DOJ Frees Federal Prosecutors to Take Steps That Could Interfere With
Elections, Weakening Long-Standing Policy, ProPublica (Oct. 7, 2020).

33 Memo from Attorney General Barr to United States Attorneys, Assistant Attorneys General, and the FBI Director
on Post-Voting Election Irregularity Inquiries, Nov. 9, 2020.
34 Id.; Dartunno Clark & Ken Dilanian, Justice Department’s Election Crimes Chief Resigns After Barr Allows
Prosecutors to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims, NBC News (Nov. 9, 2020).
35 Transcript of Richard Donoghue Interview at 73 (Aug. 6, 2021) (“Donoghue Tr.”).
36 Donoghue Tr. at 73-74.
37 Id.; Email from Richard Donoghue to David Bowdich (Dec. 7, 2020, 12:09 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000751-753).
38 Stephen Fowler, Fact Checking Rudy Giuliani’s Grandiose Georgia Election Fraud Claim, Georgia Public
Broadcasting (Dec. 4, 2020).
39 Email from Corey Amundson to Redacted (Dec. 7, 2020, 12:34 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000753).
40 See Transcript of BJay Pak Interview at 22 (Aug. 11, 2021) (“Pak Tr.”)

41 Michael Balsamo, Disputing Trump, Barr Says No Widespread Election Fraud, Associated Press (Dec. 1, 2020).
42 Katie Benner and Michael S. Schmidt, Barr Acknowledges Justice Dept. Has Found No Widespread Voter Fraud,
N.Y. Times (Dec. 1, 2020).
43 Email from Molly Michael to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 14, 2020, 4:57 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000425).
44 Id.; Emma Brown, Aaron C. Davis, Jon Swaine, & Josh Dawsey, The Making of a Myth, Wash. Post (May 9,
2021).
45 Todd Spangler, Former Election Security Chief for Trump Knocks Down Antrim County Report, Detroit Free
Press (Dec. 16, 2020).

46 Donoghue Tr. at 26-27; Transcript of Jeffrey Rosen Interview at 28 (Aug. 7, 2021) (“Rosen Tr.”).
47 Rosen Tr. at 28-29.
48 Rosen Tr. at 16-18, 29. Donoghue additionally recalled that Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin
attended, along with the Department of Homeland Security’s Chad Mizelle; Rosen did not recall Mizelle attending
this meeting.
49 Donoghue Tr. at 27; Rosen Tr. at 30.
50 Rosen Tr. at 34.
51 Rosen Tr. at 33-38.
52 Rosen Tr. at 41-42.
53 Rosen Tr. at 81-84.
54 Rosen Tr. at 82.

55 Rosen Tr. at 57.
56 Rosen Tr. at 57-58.
57 Rosen Tr. at 58.
58 Donoghue Tr. at 37.
59 Donoghue Tr. at 38.
60 Donoghue Tr. at 39.
61 Donoghue Tr. at 42; Notes of Dec. 27, 2020 Call (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000735) (“12/27/20 Donoghue
Notes”).
62 Donoghue Tr. at 44-45; 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes.
63 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes.
64 Rosen Tr. at 93; Donoghue Tr. at 86.
65 Donoghue Tr. at 41; 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes.
66 Andrew Solender, Majority of House Republicans Vote to Reject Pennsylvania, Arizona Electors, Forbes (Jan. 7,
2021).
67 Melissa Quinn, Trump meets with GOP allies with eye on challenging count of electoral votes, CBS News (Dec.
22, 2020).

68 Pennsylvania Dep’t of State, Campaign Finance Report: Doug Mastriano Year 2020 Cycle 7 (Sep. 20, 2021) at
33-34; Katie Meyer, Miles Bryan, & Ryan Briggs, Mastriano campaign spent thousands on buses ahead of D.C.
insurrection, WHYY (Jan. 12, 2021).
69 Donoghue Tr. at 43-44.
70 Rosen Tr. at 93; Donoghue Tr. at 39; 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000738-39).
71 Donoghue Tr. at 87; 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes.
72 Rosen Tr. at 95-96.
73 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes; Donoghue Tr. at 88-89.
74 Donoghue Tr. at 88-89.
75 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes; Rosen Tr. at 90-91.
76 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes; Donoghue Tr. at 90.
77 Donoghue’s contemporaneous notes are labeled “12/28/20,” but Donoghue clarified that this was a mistake and
that the call from Rep. Perry actually took place on the evening of December 27.

78 Representative Scott Perry (@RepScottPerry), Twitter (Nov. 7, 2020, 1:18 p.m.),
https://twitter.com/RepScottPerry/status/1325140625218441225?s=20.
79 Brief of Amicus Curiae of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 125 Other Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, Texas v. Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1230 (2020) (No. 155).
80 Billy House & Laura Litvan, Thune Sees Challenge to Biden Win Going Down Like ‘Shot Dog’, Bloomberg (Dec.
21, 2020).
81 Editorial: Scott Perry Must Resign, York Dispatch (Jan. 7, 2021).
82 Notes of Dec. 27, 2020 Donoghue-Perry Call (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000705) (“12/27/20 Donoghue-Perry
Notes”).
83 Donoghue Tr. at 91.
84 Donoghue Tr. at 92.
85 12/27/20 Donoghue-Perry Notes; Donoghue Tr. at 93.
86 Id.
87 Email from Scott Perry to Richard Donoghue (Dec. 27, 2020, 8:37 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000001-
0000043).
88 Id.
89 Representative Scott Perry (@RepScottPerry), Twitter (Dec. 28, 2020, 6:01 p.m.),
https://twitter.com/RepScottPerry/status/1343693703664308225?s=20.

90 Statement, Pennsylvania Dep’t of State, Response to December 28, 2020, release of misinformation by group of
GOP state House members (Dec. 29, 2020), available at https://www.dos.pa.gov/aboutus/Documents/statements/2020-12-29-Response-PA-GOP-Legislators-Misinformation.pdf.
91 Email from Scott Perry to Richard Donoghue (Dec. 27, 2020, 8:37 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000001-
0000043).
92 Rosalind S. Helderman, Jon Swaine, & Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Despite Trump’s intense hunt for voter fraud,
officials in key states have so far identified just a small number of possible cases, Wash. Post (Dec. 23, 2020).
93 Miles Bryan, PA Reaching Out To More than 4,000 Voters After Glitch Sends Them Two Mail Ballots, 90.5
WESA (Oct. 22, 2020).
94 Id.
95 Email from Scott Perry to Richard Donoghue (Dec. 27, 2020, 8:37p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000001-
0000043).
96 Email from Richard Donoghue to Scott Brady (Dec. 27, 2020, 10:05 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000336-
381).
97 Donoghue Tr. at 94

98 Donoghue Tr. at 95-96.
99 Donoghue Tr. at 51-52.
100 Donoghue Tr. at 52.
101 Ellen Gilmer, Divisive Top Trump Environment Lawyer Reviews ‘Challenging Job’, Bloomberg Law (Jan. 19,
2021).

102 Rosen Tr. at 84-88; Katie Benner & Catie Edmondson, Pennsylvania Lawmaker Played Key Role in Trump’s
Plot to Oust Acting Attorney General, N.Y. Times (Jan. 23, 2021); Jonathan Tamari & Chris Brennan, Pa.
Congressman Scott Perry Acknowledges Introducing Trump to Lawyer at the Center of Election Plot, Phila.
Inquirer, Jan. 25, 2021.
103 Rosen Tr. at 87-88.
104 Rosen Tr. at 86.
105 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:40 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000697-702).
106 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a) & 1702(a)(1)(B).
107 Exec. Order No. 13848, 83 Fed. Reg. 46843 (Sept. 14, 2018).
108 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:40 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000697-702).
109 Id

110 Id.
111 Id.
112 Rosen Tr. at 105; see also Donoghue Tr. at 99 (proposal entailed sending the letter to each swing state).
113 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:40 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000697-702).
114 Id.
115 Id

116 Id.
117 Id.
118 Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Clark (Dec. 28, 2020, 5:50 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000703).
119 Id.
120 Id

121 Id.
122 Id.
123 Jeffrey Rosen Calendar (Dec. 28, 2020); Richard Donoghue Calendar (Dec. 28, 2020); Jeffrey Clark Calendar
(Dec. 28, 2020); Rosen Tr. at 102; Donoghue Tr. at 102.
124 Rosen Tr. at 102. Rosen also recalled Clark asking at the meeting to have his title changed from Acting Assistant
Attorney General for the Civil Division to Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. Rosen recalled Clark’s
request—to which Steven Engel, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, was “very
opposed”—coming up multiple times.
125 Rosen Tr. at 103-106.
126 Donoghue Tr. at 104.
127 Donoghue Tr. at 103-104.
128 Rosen Tr. at 103.
129 Donoghue Tr. at 103; Rosen Tr. at 103.
130 Rosen Tr. at 104.

131 Email from Richard Donoghue to Steven Engel (Dec. 28, 2020, 11:41 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000272).
132 Donoghue Tr. at 105-106.
133 Email from Molly Michael to Jeffrey Rosen, Richard Donoghue, and Jeffrey Wall (Dec. 29, 2020, 11:17 a.m.)
(SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000479).
134 See generally SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000480-535. [PDF PAGE 24]

135 SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000480-535.
136 Email from Kurt Olsen to Jeffrey Wall (Dec. 29, 2020, 10:57 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000064).
137 Email from Kurt Olsen to John Moran (Dec. 29, 2020, 12:45 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000071).

138 Email from Kurt Olsen to John Moran (Dec. 30, 2020, 10:17 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000174-179).
139 Email from John Moran to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 30, 2020, 10:49 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000186-193).
140 Quint Forgey, Trump Takes His Fraud Claims to a Hotel Ballroom – by Phone, Politico (Nov. 25, 2020).
141 Katie Meyer, Miles Bryan & Ryan Briggs, Mastriano Campaign Spent Thousands on Buses Ahead of D.C.
Insurrection, WHYY (Jan. 12, 2021).
142 Jeremy Roebuck & Andrew Seidman, Pa. GOP Lawmaker Doug Mastriano Says He Left the Capitol Area
Before the Riot. New Videos Say Otherwise, Phila. Inquirer (May 25, 2021).
143 Rosen Tr. at 114-115.
144 Rosen Tr. at 115.
145 Id.
146 Email from [Redacted] to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 30, 2020, 7:06 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000710-711).

147 Rosen Tr. at 115; Email from Steven Engel to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 31, 2020, 9:02 a.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000708-709).
148 Donoghue Tr. at 113; Notes of Dec. 30, 2020 Olsen-Rosen-Donoghue Call (“12/30/20 Donoghue Notes”) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000706).
149 Rosen Tr. at 116.
150 Id.
151 Rosen Tr. at 117.
152 Rosen Tr. at 117-118.
153 There are conflicting accounts about whether Acting DHS General Counsel Chad Mizelle attended this meeting
or the earlier, December 15 Oval Office meeting. Rosen recalled that Acting DHS General Counsel Chad Mizelle
attended on December 31; Donoghue recalled that Mizelle had attended the December 15 Oval Office meeting, but

that Trump, Meadows, Cipollone, Philbin, Rosen, and Donoghue were the only participants on December 27. Rosen
Tr. at 138; Donoghue Tr. at 26-7, 117.
154 Rosen Tr. at 139-142.
155 Donoghue Tr. at 118.
156 Donoghue Tr. at 118-119.
157 Donoghue Tr. at 119-120.
158 Donoghue Tr. at 30.
159 Rosen Tr. at 128 & 137.
160 Rosen Tr. at 129.
161 Id

162 Rosen Tr. at 129-30.
163 Rosen Tr. at 130.
164 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Jeffrey Clark (Jan. 1, 2021, 8:24 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000287).
165 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Jeffrey Clark (Jan. 2, 2021, 8:52 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000289).
166 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 2, 2021, 9:50 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000290).
167 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 29, 2020, 11:27 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000536).

168 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 30, 2020, 9:31 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000598-
665); see also Michael S. Schmidt & Kenneth P. Vogel, Trump Lawyer on Call Is a Conservative Firebrand Aiding
His Push to Overturn Election, N.Y. Times (Jan. 15, 2021).
169 Order, Trump et al. v. Raffensperger et al., No. S21M0561 (Ga. Sup. Ct. Dec. 12, 2020).
170 Bill McCarthy, Here’s Why Georgia’s Republican Officials Are Confident in Their Presidential Election Results,
Politifact (Jan. 5, 2021).
171 See Mark Niesse, 5 Georgia Election Fraud Claims Explained, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Dec. 14, 2020).

172 3rd Strike Against Voter Fraud Claims Means They’re out After Signature Audit Finds No Fraud, Georgia
Secretary of State, available at
https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/3rd_strike_against_voter_fraud_claims_means_theyre_out_after_signature_au
dit_finds_no_fraud.
173 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 30, 2020, 9:43 a.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000666).
174 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Mark Meadows (Jan. 1, 2021, 2:51 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000668).
175 Rosen Tr. at 147.
176 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1, 2021, 3:08 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000669).
177 See Matt Gertz, Mark Meadows: Searching for ‘Italygate,’ Media Matters for America, June 7, 2021, available at
https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/mark-meadows-searching-italygate.
178 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Mark Meadows (Jan. 1, 2021, 3:22 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000671);
Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1. 2021, 3:39 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000678).
179 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1, 2021, 4:13 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000672)

180 Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1, 2021, 4:28 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000673).
181 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Richard Donoghue (Jan. 1, 2021, 7:13 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000678).
182 Rosen Tr. at 148-149.
183 Rosen Tr. at 149-150.
184 Email from Mark Meadows to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 1, 2021, 6:56 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000675-77).
185 Michael Gerstein, New Mexico GOP Claims Election Violations; County Clerks Dispute, Santa Fe New Mexican
(Nov. 6, 2020); Dan Boyd, NM Supreme Court Denies GOP Election Petition, Albuquerque Journal (Oct. 27, 2020).

186 Michael Gerstein, New Mexico GOP Claims Election Violations; County Clerks Dispute, Santa Fe New Mexican
(Nov. 6, 2020).
187 Charles Davis, New Mexico Republicans Peddle ‘Dangerous’ Myth of Voter Fraud in a State Trump Lost by
Double Digits, Business Insider (Jan. 7, 2021).
188 Amy Gardner & Paulina Firozi, Here’s the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and
Raffensperger, Wash. Post (Jan. 5, 2021).
189 Id.
190 Rosen Tr. at 131.
191 Donoghue Tr. at 137; Notes of Jan. 2, 2021 Meeting (“1/2/21 Donoghue Notes”) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000714).

192 Donoghue Tr. at 138-139; 1/2/21 Donoghue Notes.
193 Donoghue Tr. at 140-141; 1/2/21 Donoghue Notes; Rosen Tr. at 130-132.
194 Donoghue Tr. at 141-142.
195 Rosen Tr. at 145-146.
196 Rosen Tr. at 145-146.

197 Email from Jeffrey Rosen to Richard Donoghue (Jan. 2, 2021, 7:13 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000200).
198 Email from Richard Donoghue to Steven Engel (Jan. 2, 2021, 8:08 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000291).
199 Hovakimian was Rosen’s Chief of Staff until his nomination to be General Counsel of ODNI required him to
formally step down from the role, although he remained on Rosen’s staff while his nomination was pending in the
Senate. See PN1918 (116th Cong.); Donoghue Tr. at 56-57.
200 Donoghue Tr. at 142-143.
201 Rosen Tr. at 157.
202 Rosen Tr. at 158. Donoghue Tr. at 145.
203 Rosen Tr. at 158.
204 Id.
205 Rosen Tr. at 159

206 Rosen Tr. at 160.
207 Donoghue Tr. at 145-146.
208 Donoghue Tr. At 147; Rosen Tr. At 160.
209 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Douglas Smith (Jan. 3, 2021, 12:31 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000294).
210 Email from Douglas Smith to Jeffrey Clark (Jan. 3, 2021, 2:38 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000295).
211 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Douglas Smith (Jan. 3, 2021, 2:42 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000296).
212 Email from Douglas Smith to Jeffrey Clark (Jan. 3, 2021, 2:58 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000297).
213 Email from Jeffrey Clark to Douglas Smith (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:37 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000304).
214 Email from Kenneth Klukowski to Douglas Smith (Jan. 3, 2021, 6:15 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000323).
215 Email from Kenneth Klukowski to Jeffrey Clark (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:20 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents000044-49)

216 Email from Patrick Hovakimian to Nathan Gamble and Maya Suero (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:21 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000299).
217 Email from Richard Donoghue to Patrick Hovakimian (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:23 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000300).
218 Emails from Patrick Hovakimian to Claire Murray, Jeffrey Wall, Makan Delrahim, Steven Engel, John Demers,
David Burns, and Eric Dreiband (collectively, “DOJ leadership”) (Jan. 3, 2021, 4:28 and 4:30 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000302-03).
219 Donoghue Tr. at 148.
220 Draft Resignation Letter (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000729)

221 Donoghue Tr. at 149-151; Rosen Tr. at 47.
222 Rosen Tr. at 47.
223 Rosen Tr. at 112.
224 Donoghue Tr. at 152.
225 Donoghue Tr. at 152; Rosen Tr. at 49.
226 Donoghue Tr. at 155.
227 Donoghue Tr. at 157, 159; Rosen Tr. at 50.
228 Rosen Tr. at 164.

229 Donoghue Tr. at 157.
230 Email from Patrick Hovakimian to DOJ leadership (Jan. 3, 2021, 9:07 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000324).
231 Email from John Demers to Patrick Hovakimian (Jan. 3, 2021, 9:12 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000325).
232 Email from Steven Engel to DOJ leadership (Jan. 3, 2021, 9:28 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000326).
233 Donoghue Tr. at 52.
234 Id. at 53.
235 Id.
236 Id. at 54

237 Stephen Fowler, Fact Checking Rudy Giuliani’s Grandiose Georgia Election Fraud Claim, Georgia Public
Broadcasting (Dec. 4, 2020).
238 Pak Tr. at 13.
239 Gabriel Sterling (@GabrielSterling), Twitter (Dec. 4, 2020, 6:41 a.m.),
https://twitter.com/GabrielSterling/status/1334825233610633217?s=20org%2Fnews%2F2020%2F12%2F04%2Ffac
t-checking-rudy-giulianis-grandiose-georgia-election-fraud-claim.
240 See Pak Tr. at 16-17.
241 Pak Tr. at 14-15.
242 Pak Tr. at 15.
243 Pak Tr. at 38-39.
244 Pak Tr. at 18, 21-22.
245 Pak Tr. at 22-23.
246 Pak Tr. at 20

247 Donoghue Tr. at 160.
248 Donoghue Tr. at 161.
249 Donoghue Tr. at 161.
250 Pak Tr. at 93-94.
251 Pak Tr. at 90-91.
252 Donoghue Tr. at 161

253 Donoghue Tr. at 162.
254 Donoghue Tr. at 168-169.
255 Email from Richard Donoghue to BJay Pak (Jan. 3, 2021, 10:09 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000328).
256 Pak Tr. at 95-96.
257 Pak Tr. at 96.
258 Pak Tr. at 96.
259 Pak Tr. at 96

260 Email from BJay Pak to Karen Winzenburg (Jan. 4, 2021, 7:41 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000382-384).
261 Email from BJay Pak to U.S. Attorneys (Jan. 4, 2021. 7:46 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000385).
262 Email from Richard Donoghue to Jeffrey Rosen (Jan. 4, 2021, 8:46 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000387).
263 Email from Richard Donoghue to BJay Pak (Jan. 4, 2021, 11:12 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000391).
264 Email from Steven Engel to BJay Pak (Jan. 4, 2021, 10:53 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000389).

265 Email from Richard Donoghue to DOJ leadership (Nov. 11, 2020, 6:27 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000680).
266 Rosen Tr. at 84-85, 128-129; Donoghue Tr. at 104, 141.
267 Memorandum from Donald F. McGahn II to All White House Staff (Jan. 27, 2017) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000685-686).
268 Rosen Tr. at 131-132.
269 Protecting Our Democracy Act, H.R. 5314, 117th Cong. §§ 601-604 (2021).
270 Id. at §603(c)(1)

271 Inspector General Access Act, S. 426 & H.R. 3064, 117th Cong. (2021).
272 Memorandum from Attorney General Garland for Heads of Department Components, All United States
Attorneys at 1 (Feb. 3, 2021). The February 3 memo also rescinded separate guidance issued by former Attorney
General Barr on December 22, 2020, which directed the Civil Rights Division to assume that a state or local
government that readopts preexisting voting procedures following the pandemic has done so lawfully, unless the
preexisting procedures were previously found to be unlawful. See Memorandum from Attorney General Barr to the
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division (Dec. 22, 2020).

273 See Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election at 17-18 (June 2018).
274 Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Recommendations Issued by the Office of the Inspector
General that were Not Closed as of July 31, 2021 at 114.
275 Department of Justice, Press Release: Revised Statement of U.S. Attorney Freed on Inquiry into Reports of
Potential Issues with Mail-In Ballots (Sept. 24, 2020), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/revisedstatement-us-attorney-freed-inquiry-reports-potential-issues-mail-ballots.
276 See, e.g., Jane C. Timm, Fact Check: Echoing Trump, Barr Misleads on Voter Fraud to Attack Expanded Voteby-Mail, NBC News (Sept. 19, 2020); Robert Faturechi & Justin Elliott, DOJ Frees Federal Prosecutors to Take
Steps That Could Interfere With Elections, Weakening Longstanding Policy, ProPublica (Oct. 7, 2020).

277 D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4. [PDF PAGE 47]

278 D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(e).
279 Rebecca Roiphe, The Ethics of Willful Ignorance, 24 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 187, 196 (2011).
280 George Cohen, The State Of Lawyer Knowledge Under The Model Rules Of Professional Conduct, 3 Am. U.
Bus. L. R. 115, 116 (2018).
281 Matter of Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S. 3d 266 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2021).
282 King v. Whitmer, No. 20-13134, 2021 WL 3771875 *26, *34, *39 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021).

283 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000738); Donoghue Tr. at 86-87.

NOTES/REFERENCES

1 TO 95

[1] Dep’t of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses at 84 (8th ed., Dec. 2017), available at https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/ download.

( https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066 : https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download , 296 PAGES )

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 9. [ SEE THE PREVIOUS CITE PDF DOCUMENT - PAGE 9 ]

SOURCE: https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/bluebook-legal-citation/short-form
"... Bluebook Rule (21st): 4.1

Law Review Typeface: Italics (including the period)

"Id." is an all-purpose short form citation that may be used for any cited authority except internal cross-references.

"Id." always refers to the immediately proceeding cited authority, either in the same footnote or the previous footnote so long as it is the only authority cited in the proceeding footnote.

Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 632 (1950).

Id. NOTE: Sources cited in explanatory parentheticals or phrases or as part of a case prior or subsequent history are not counted as intervening authorities preventing the use of "Id."

Any change in what is being cited, such as page numbers, needs to be indicated after "Id."

Id. at 45. ..."

[4] Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-85.210.
( https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-85000-protection-government-integrity#9-85.210 )

[5] Attorney General Griffin B. Bell, An Address Before Department of Justice Lawyers, 3 (Sept. 6, 1978), available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/08/23/09-06-1978b.pdf.

[6] Attorney General Edward Levi, Remarks at His Swearing-in Ceremony (Feb. 7, 1975), available at https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0248/whpr19750207-008.pdf.

[7] Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, An Address at the Second Annual Conference of U.S. Attorneys, 4-5 (Apr. 1, 1940), available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/0401-1940.pdf.

[8] See, e.g.,
U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Belarus (2020), available at https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-on-human-rightspractices/belarus/;
U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Tajikistan (2020), available at https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-on-humanrights-practices/tajikistan/;
U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Venezuela (2020), available at https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-onhuman-rights-practices/venezuela/;
U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011: Vietnam (2015), available at https://2009-

[9] .state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2015&dlid=252813; U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011: Belarus (2011), available at

https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?dlid=186331 (archived).

[10] Memorandum from White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II to All White House Staff, at 1 (Jan. 27, 2017). [ https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/don-mcgahn-white-house-contacts-memo-janury-27-2017.pdf ]

[11] Id. at 2.

[12] Memorandum from Attorney General Eric Holder for Heads of Department Components, All United States Attorneys, at 1 (May 11, 2009). [ https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-library/communications_with_the_white_house_and_congress_2009.pdf/download ]

[13] Id. at 1-2. ²¹ Id. at 3 ²² Id.

[14] United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1503).

[15] See United States v. Cueto, 151 F.3d 620, 631 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 992 (1st Cir. 1987).

[16] U.S.C. § 7322(1)(A) ²⁶ 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1).

[17] U.S.C. §§ 595, 610.

[18] Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, supra n.9 at 84.

( https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download )

[19] Id. ³⁰ Id.

[20] Jane C. Timm, Fact Check: Echoing Trump, Barr Misleads on Voter Fraud to Attack Expanded Vote-by-Mail, NBC News (Sept. 19, 2020).

[21] Robert Faturechi & Justin Elliott, DOJ Frees Federal Prosecutors to Take Steps That Could Interfere With Elections, Weakening Long-Standing Policy, ProPublica (Oct. 7, 2020).

[22] Memo from Attorney General Barr to United States Attorneys, Assistant Attorneys General, and the FBI Director on Post-Voting Election Irregularity Inquiries, Nov. 9, 2020.

[ https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/barr-memo-elections-fraud/9bf5cac375012c4c/full.pdf ]

[23] Id.; Dartunno Clark & Ken Dilanian, Justice Department’s Election Crimes Chief Resigns After Barr Allows Prosecutors to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims, NBC News (Nov. 9, 2020).

[24] Transcript of Richard Donoghue Interview at 73 (Aug. 6, 2021) (“Donoghue Tr.”). ³⁶ Donoghue Tr. at 73-74.

[25] Id.; Email from Richard Donoghue to David Bowdich (Dec. 7, 2020, 12:09 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents000751-753).

[26] Stephen Fowler, Fact Checking Rudy Giuliani’s Grandiose Georgia Election Fraud Claim, Georgia Public Broadcasting (Dec. 4, 2020).

[27] Email from Corey Amundson to Redacted (Dec. 7, 2020, 12:34 a.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000753).

[28] See Transcript of BJay Pak Interview at 22 (Aug. 11, 2021) (“Pak Tr.”).

[29] Michael Balsamo, Disputing Trump, Barr Says No Widespread Election Fraud, Associated Press (Dec. 1, 2020). ⁴² Katie Benner and Michael S. Schmidt, Barr Acknowledges Justice Dept. Has Found No Widespread Voter Fraud, N.Y. Times (Dec. 1, 2020).

[30] Email from Molly Michael to Jeffrey Rosen (Dec. 14, 2020, 4:57 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-000425). ⁴⁴ Id.; Emma Brown, Aaron C. Davis, Jon Swaine, & Josh Dawsey, The Making of a Myth, Wash. Post (May 9, 2021).

[31] Todd Spangler, Former Election Security Chief for Trump Knocks Down Antrim County Report, Detroit Free Press (Dec. 16, 2020).

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/16/antrim-county-report-debunked-by-former-trump-election-official/3923499001/

[32] Donoghue Tr. at 26-27; Transcript of Jeffrey Rosen Interview at 28 (Aug. 7, 2021) (“Rosen Tr.”). ⁴⁷ Rosen Tr. at 28-29.

[33] Rosen Tr. at 16-18, 29. Donoghue additionally recalled that Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin attended, along with the Department of Homeland Security’s Chad Mizelle; Rosen did not recall Mizelle attending this meeting.

[34] Donoghue Tr. at 27; Rosen Tr. at 30.

[35] Rosen Tr. at 34.

[36] Rosen Tr. at 33-38.

[37] Rosen Tr. at 41-42.

[38] Rosen Tr. at 81-84.

[39] Rosen Tr. at 82.

[40] Rosen Tr. at 57.

[41] Rosen Tr. at 57-58.

[42] Rosen Tr. at 58.

[43] Donoghue Tr. at 37.

[44] Donoghue Tr. at 38.

[45] Donoghue Tr. at 39.

[46] Donoghue Tr. at 42; Notes of Dec. 27, 2020 Call (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000735) (“12/27/20 Donoghue Notes”).

[47] Donoghue Tr. at 44-45; 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes.

[48] /27/20 Donoghue Notes.

[49] Rosen Tr. at 93; Donoghue Tr. at 86.

[50] Donoghue Tr. at 41; 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes.

[51] Andrew Solender, Majority of House Republicans Vote to Reject Pennsylvania, Arizona Electors, Forbes (Jan. 7, 2021).

[52] Melissa Quinn, Trump meets with GOP allies with eye on challenging count of electoral votes, CBS News (Dec. 22, 2020).

[53] Pennsylvania Dep’t of State, Campaign Finance Report: Doug Mastriano Year 2020 Cycle 7 (Sep. 20, 2021) at 33-34; Katie Meyer, Miles Bryan, & Ryan Briggs, Mastriano campaign spent thousands on buses ahead of D.C. insurrection, WHYY (Jan. 12, 2021).

[ https://whyy.org/articles/mastriano-campaign-spent-thousands-on-buses-ahead-of-d-c-insurrection/ ]

[54] Donoghue Tr. at 43-44.

[55] Rosen Tr. at 93; Donoghue Tr. at 39; 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000738-39). ⁷¹ Donoghue Tr. at 87; 12/27/20 Donoghue Notes.

[56] Rosen Tr. at 95-96.

[57] /27/20 Donoghue Notes; Donoghue Tr. at 88-89.

[58] Donoghue Tr. at 88-89.

[59] /27/20 Donoghue Notes; Rosen Tr. at 90-91.

[60] /27/20 Donoghue Notes; Donoghue Tr. at 90.

[61] Donoghue’s contemporaneous notes are labeled “12/28/20,” but Donoghue clarified that this was a mistake and that the call from Rep. Perry actually took place on the evening of December 27.

[62] Representative Scott Perry (@RepScottPerry), Twitter (Nov. 7, 2020, 1:18 p.m.),

https://twitter.com/RepScottPerry/status/1325140625218441225?s=20.

[63] Brief of Amicus Curiae of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 125 Other Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Texas v. Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1230 (2020) (No. 155).

[64] Billy House & Laura Litvan, Thune Sees Challenge to Biden Win Going Down Like ‘Shot Dog’, Bloomberg (Dec. 21, 2020).

[65] Editorial: Scott Perry Must Resign, York Dispatch (Jan. 7, 2021).

[66] Notes of Dec. 27, 2020 Donoghue-Perry Call (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000705) (“12/27/20 Donoghue-Perry Notes”).

[67] Donoghue Tr. at 91.

[68] Donoghue Tr. at 92.

[69] /27/20 Donoghue-Perry Notes; Donoghue Tr. at 93.

[70] Id.

[71] Email from Scott Perry to Richard Donoghue (Dec. 27, 2020, 8:37 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-0000010000043).

[72] Id.

[73] Representative Scott Perry (@RepScottPerry), Twitter (Dec. 28, 2020, 6:01 p.m.), https://twitter.com/RepScottPerry/status/1343693703664308225?s=20.

[74] Statement, Pennsylvania Dep’t of State, Response to December 28, 2020, release of misinformation by group of GOP state House members (Dec. 29, 2020), available at

https://www.dos.pa.gov/aboutus/Documents/statements/2020-12-29-Response-PA-GOP-Legislators-Misinformation.pdf.

[75] Email from Scott Perry to Richard Donoghue (Dec. 27, 2020, 8:37 p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-0000010000043).

[76] Rosalind S. Helderman, Jon Swaine, & Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Despite Trump’s intense hunt for voter fraud, officials in key states have so far identified just a small number of possible cases, Wash. Post (Dec. 23, 2020). ⁹³ Miles Bryan, PA Reaching Out To More than 4,000 Voters After Glitch Sends Them Two Mail Ballots, 90.5 WESA (Oct. 22, 2020).

[77] Id.

[78] Email from Scott Perry to Richard Donoghue (Dec. 27, 2020, 8:37p.m.) (SJC-Pre-CertificationEvents-0000010000043).

[79] Email from Richard Donoghue to Scott Brady (Dec. 27, 2020, 10:05 p.m.) (SJC-PreCertificationEvents-000336381).

[80] Donoghue Tr. at 94.

[81] Donoghue Tr. at 95-96.

[82] Donoghue Tr. at 51-52.

[83] Donoghue Tr. at 52.

[84] Ellen Gilmer, Divisive Top Trump Environment Lawyer Reviews ‘Challenging Job’, Bloomberg Law (Jan. 19, 2021).

[85] Rosen Tr. at 84-88; Katie Benner & Catie Edmondson, Pennsylvania Lawmaker Played Key Role in Trump’s Plot to Oust Acting Attorney General, N.Y. Times (Jan. 23, 2021); Jonathan Tamari & Chris Brennan, Pa.

Congressman Scott Perry Acknowledges Introducing Trump to Lawyer at the Center of Election Plot, Phila. Inquirer, Jan. 25, 2021.

[86] Rosen Tr. at 87-88.

[87] Rosen Tr. at 86.

[88] Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:40 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000697-702).

[89] U.S.C. §§ 1701(a) & 1702(a)(1)(B).

[90] Exec. Order No. 13848, 83 Fed. Reg. 46843 (Sept. 14, 2018).

[91] Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:40 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000697-702).

[92] Id. ¹¹¹ Id.

[93] Rosen Tr. at 105; see also Donoghue Tr. at 99 (proposal entailed sending the letter to each swing state). ¹¹³ Email from Jeffrey Clark to Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue (Dec. 28, 2020, 4:40 p.m.) (SJCPreCertificationEvents-000697-702).

[94] Id.

[95] Id. ¹¹⁷ Id.

A. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Investigation [ TOP OF PAGE ]

B. Key Findings [ TOP OF PAGE ]

I. Applicable Legal Requirements

A. DOJ’s Limited Role in Election Fraud Investigations

B. Limits on White House-DOJ Communications

[ TOP OF PAGE ]

C. Applicable Federal Laws Governing Political Interference with Investigations

II. December 1 – December 15: Attorney General Barr Announces His Resignation After Declaring that DOJ Has Found No Evidence of Widespread Election Fraud

III. December 15 – December 27: Following Barr’s Announcement, Trump Repeatedly Contacts DOJ’s Incoming Leadership About His Election Fraud Claims

( PDF PAGE 16 )

A. December 15, 2020 Oval Office Meeting

[ TOP OF PAGE ]

B. December 23 and 24 Trump-Rosen Calls

C. December 27 Trump-Rosen Call

D. December 27 Outreach from Congressman Perry to Donoghue

E. December 28 Trump-Donoghue Call

IV. December 28: Jeffrey Clark Urges DOJ Leadership to Intervene in Georgia’s Appointment of Electors and to Replicate this “Proof of Concept” in Other States

A. Clark’s Late December Oval Office Meeting With Trump

B. Clark’s “Two Urgent Action Items”

H

C. Rosen and Donoghue Reject Clark’s Proposal

( PAGE 25 OF PDF )

V. December 29 – December 30: Meanwhile, Trump Urges DOJ to File a Supreme Court Action Contesting the Election

--././001#22344^.$3 03&03465658796:9Z)87 :9Z);;^NH"!197N9*78%N6 ^V)^_ ^‘a.b CD^.87N9$QR8NW6S7%TUIV

	Jeffrey Bossert Clark, [IMAGE]	Jeffrey Rosen, [ IMAGE ]	Mark Meadows [ IMAGE ]
	Richard Donoghue, [ IMAGE ]	Byung Jin (“BJay”) Pak, [ IMAGE ]

II. December 1 – December 15: Attorney General Barr Announces His Resignation After Declaring that DOJ Has Found No Evidence of Widespread Election Fraud

III. December 15 – December 27: Following Barr’s Announcement, Trump Repeatedly Contacts DOJ’s Incoming Leadership About His Election Fraud Claims

( PDF PAGE 16 )

IV. December 28: Jeffrey Clark Urges DOJ Leadership to Intervene in Georgia’s Appointment of Electors and to Replicate this “Proof of Concept” in Other States

( PAGE 25 OF PDF )

V. December 29 – December 30: Meanwhile, Trump Urges DOJ to File a Supreme Court Action Contesting the Election

--././001#22344.$3 03&03465658796:9Z)87 :9Z);;N H"!197N9*78%N6 V)^_ ^‘a.b CD^.87N9$QR8NW6S7%TUIV

--././001#22344^.$3 03&03465658796:9Z)87 :9Z);;^NH"!197N9*78%N6 ^V)^_ ^‘a.b CD^.87N9$QR8NW6S7%TUIV