pp. 42); P42 receiving from CC1 an email for the defendant providing a copy of the message CC1 had drafted to exert pressure on Michigan Senate Majority Leader P37 (see supra p. 34); P42 receiving from P39 the RNC's "Elector Recap" email to put in front of the defendant (see supra p. 57); and P42 receiving an email from CC2 on December 23 asking to update the defendant on "overall strategic thinking" on the defendant's status as a candidate (see supra p. 61).
None of these actions by P42 in which she was merely facilitating communications between the defendant and his private attorneys or private political allies, constitute the defendant’s official conduct. P42 regularly facilitated the defendant's purely private matters, including communications with his children about his Thanksgiving travel.[1] The defendant’s reliance on P42 to pass messages to and from personal advisors, friends, and family does not render the underlying private communications official. See Lindsey, 158 F.3d at 1281-82.
- 2. Even if this evidence were deemed official, the Government could rebut any presumption of immunity
Even if an "official" gloss were applied to the defendant's conversations with White House staff pertaining solely to the President’s chances as a candidate to successfully challenge the election results, the use of such evidence would not intrude on Executive Branch functions or authority. "The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next." Blassingame, 87 F.4th at 4. Whatever blurring of the lines might exist between candidate conduct and official conduct in conversations that the President may conduct with his immediate
- ↑ GA 1904 at row 1151 ( ) (11/17/2020, "Hi ! Your dad is going to stay in DC for thanksgiving - just wanted to let you know!" from P42 to 16) row 1765, 1153 (11/16/2020, "Has DJT solidified his Thanksgiving plans" from P73 to P42 she responded, "As of earlier today, FLOTUS wants to stay up here and POTUS is on board, as of now").
- 157 -
