Jump to content

Page:United States v. Trump - Government's Motion for Immunity Determinations.pdf/152

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC
Document 252
Filed 10/02/24
Page 152 of 165

Consistent with this,  P9  asked  P3  and  P72  if certain fraud allegations were accurate, so that he could challenge information provided to the defendant by people like  CC1   CC3  and P12[1]  P9  also began interacting on a near-daily basis with  P22  a Campaign staffer who  P73  told  P9  he could trust.[2] The Campaign, in turn, hired two outside firms—C1 and  C2  to investigate fraud allegations.[3]  P9  told the defendant that people external to the Campaign were hired to look into fraud allegations.[4]

Overall,  P9  served as a conduit of day-to-day information between  P22  and the defendant during the post-election period.  P22  testified that around the time that  CC1  was named to lead legal efforts, "I was introduced to  P9  . . . and I started predominately reporting to  P9 [5] He elaborated that  P9  "started to call me more and more. It would be, you know, once every couple of days that then it was kind of every day for a period of time that I was talking to  P9 [6] With this information, on a daily basis,  P9  attempted to debunk the false fraud allegations in the White House. For example, after watching  P74  testify in a December 10, 2020, hearing in Georgia,  P9  reached out to  P22 [7] Through this channel,  P9  learned about  C1  and  C2  uniform findings—that no substantial fraud allegations were supported—essentially in real time.[8]  P9  also participated in calls with C1 and had the number


  1. GA 673 ( ); GA 710 ( ).
  2. GA 704 ( ); GA 715 ( ).
  3. GA 715 ( ).
  4. GA 716 ( ).
  5. GA 58 ( ).
  6. GA 59
  7. GA 719 ( ).
  8. GA 715, 719 ( ).

- 152 -