Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Thu Jul 27, 2023 3:30 am

Lev Parnas REVEALS MORE Trump Crimes HE WITNESSED and his BOMBSHELL Letter to Congress
by Lev Parnas
MeidasTouch
Jul 26, 2023

On today’s episode, Former Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani Associate Lev Parnas reads from his exclusive letter to Rep. James Comer of the House Oversight Committee. His letter outlines Trump and Giuliani’s efforts to dig up dirt on the Biden family as well as their continued efforts to interfere with the highest levels of Ukrainian politics.



Transcript`

Hi everyone. Welcome to Lev Parnas's Diaries from home confinement. For those of you that don't know me, I used to be part of Donald Trump's inner circle, in Trump's cult. Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani sent me to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden. Now that I'm out of the cult, and finishing up my sentence on home confinement, I want to share some of my diary stories with you.

Image

Last week the oversight committee, led by representative James Comer, held a hearing to spread more conspiracy theories into Joe and Hunter Biden. Representative Jamie Raskin read portions of my letter, and entered it into evidence.

Image

Comer, Republicans' Investigative Chief, Embraces Role of Biden Antagonist: The fourth-term Kentuckian and chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee has become an aggressive promoter of sinister-sounding claims about the president and his family.


Image

Democrats accuse GOP of spreading 'racist conspiracy theories' in Biden docs probe
by Rebecca Beitsch and Brett Samuels
05/03/23 12:21 PM ET


Image

The memo also condemns committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), accusing him of misrepresenting Chung's testimony while spreading "false, xenophobic, and racist conspiracy theories."

The memo points to media appearances by Comer, including those in which he suggests Chung, who was born in South Korea, had ties to Hunter Biden and the Chinese Community Party, telling Fox's Maria Bartiromo, "We're looking into that."


Image

Donald Trump becomes the first U.S. president to be impeached twice


Image

All eyes on a Washington grand jury amid signs of possible third Trump indictment
by Stephen Collinson, CNN
Updated 9:22 AM EDT, Thu July 20, 2023


Like most of you, I've been watching the GOP, led by Senator Chuck Grassley, representative James Comer, and their cohorts like Marjorie Greene, continue to spread misinformation, and spread conspiracy theories, related to Joe and Hunter Biden, to confuse the American public.

Image

And most importantly to distract from the real criminal, their leader, twice-impeached, twice-indicted, and with more indictments coming, Donald J Trump.

I'm currently in the process of writing my tell-all book. It's called, "Shadow Diplomacy," detailing everything that transpired in the Trump's Administration pertaining to the Bidens, and much, much more. Since the book is not scheduled to be released for a few more months, as a concerned citizen, and someone that loves our country, I had to do more. I had to act now.

Image

So I decided to take pen to paper and write James Comer a letter, describing what actually transpired in our year and a half long investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden. Now I'm going to read the letter to you, and then we'll go discuss some things afterwards.

"Dear Chairman Comer,

As I have been closely following the developments in Congress's investigations into both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, I believe I can place the facts in context for you. I write to you as a concerned American, who wishes only to share the information that I know to be true, so that we can lay to rest the conspiracy theories about Biden's supposed corruption in Ukraine once and for all.

I feel I have a responsibility to remind you, our representatives, and the American people of what actually happened during Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump's efforts to uncover information about the Bidens in Ukraine. From November 2018 to October 2019, I was a key participant in and witness to these efforts; and every event described below, I was either physically present in the room with the people involved, on phone calls with Giuliani and the individuals in question, often interpreting between the Ukrainian and English languages, or communicating directly with Giuliani about the situation. Please consider that the facts I state here have never changed from when I first submitted to Congress everything I knew in November 2019. It has always been my intention to tell the truth, because I love this country with my whole heart, and I want our government to unite for the greater good instead of chasing false stories that divide us.

By reading the information below, you will understand the full extent of the campaign orchestrated by Giuliani and Trump to dig up dirt on the Bidens, and to spread misinformation about them through various networks including government officials, journalists, and FOX News personnel. You will also see clearly that there is no evidence of Joe or Hunter Biden interfering with Ukrainian politics, and there never has been. Statements suggesting otherwise have been debunked again and again. I hope that the breadth of my experiences, which are all backed up by the materials I previously shared with Congress, will provide that no stone has been unturned in this investigation.

Here are the facts as I know them to be true:

Image

Image

In November of 2018, I was approached by Rudy Giuliani, who asked me about my contacts in Ukraine and if I could verify some information he received about Joe Biden.

Image

A video had been recently shared online in which Biden, being interviewed by Council on Foreign Relations, said that in 2016 he had pressured Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko to fire his Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Image

Giuliani told me he had discussed with then-President Trump not only Biden's statements in the video, but also his discovery that Biden's son Hunter was on the board of the Ukrainian Energy company called Burisma and that Shokin was supposedly looking into possible corruption in the company. When Giuliani spoke to me, he got very excited and said, "This is the smoking gun [he'd] been looking for" -- meaning he saw it as a way to discredit the Bidens.

Later that month, I attended the Hanukkah celebration at the White House where Giuliani and Trump were both present. Trump approached me briefly to say, "Rudy told me good things. Keep up the good work." Then he gave me a thumbs-up in approval.

Image

I met with Shokin for the first time in Ukraine in December of 2018. Giuliani had instructed me to relay a message to him, which was essentially that if he wanted to be reinstated as Prosecutor General -- a goal he expressed very openly -- that the Trump Administration could help him get his position back, but only if he provided hard evidence of Joe Biden's corruption. Initially Shokin said he had decided not to investigate Burisma further, but when I gave him Giuliani's message, he became shifty in his answers, admitting that his team was "looking into it" without giving further details.

I returned from Ukraine, Giuliani told me to ask Shokin to fly to the States to meet up with Senator Lindsey Graham, and when he was speaking to the visa authorities, he should tell them he was only going to California to see his daughter, not that he would then travel to Washington, D.C. to meet Graham.

Image

However, when Shokin applied for his visa, then-Ambassador Marie Yavanovich denied him.

Communications ensued where Giuliani continued to pressure Shokin into helping him get information on the Bidens, although Shokin was being skeptical because Giuliani could not get him a visa approved, and he didn't understand how the president of the United States and his personal representative could not achieve something like that. Eventually they had a 45-minute Skype call in January 2019, where I served as an interpreter between the two of them, and of which there was a recording that I later submitted to Congress. The recording shows Giuliani aggressively asking Shokin for details on the Bidens. Even though Shokin was trying to push the narrative that he had lost his job because of the pressure Joe Biden had put on President Poroshenko to fire him, when asked directly by Giuliani, he conceded that there was no evidence of either Hunter or Joe Biden doing anything that interfered with Ukrainian law.

Giuliani continued to receive conspiracy theories from different sources, and remained insistent that there must be some data on the Bidens' corruption.

Image

In late January 2019, my business partner Igor Fruman got word that Yuri Lutsenko, Shokin's replacement as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, was in New York and wanted to meet with Giuliani to discuss some legal matters. We set up the meeting in Giuliani's office on Park Avenue. There, Lutsenko explained he'd requested the meeting because he wanted to sit down with Bill Barr and, Attorney General to Attorney General, discuss the overall problem of Ukrainian and American corruption, including the funneling of Ukrainian money into American institutions. Giuliani stopped Lutsenko and said he wasn't interested in that, only in information concerning Joe and Hunter Biden. He then added statements to the effect that if Lutsenko wanted a conversation with Barr, he would need to offer a give and take, and Giuliani was interested in details about the Bidens.

Even though Lutsenko protested that he hadn't come to discuss the Bidens, he agreed to see what he could find for Giuliani. The next day, we all met again in Giuliani's office and Lutsenko brought a folder containing purported wire transfers from Burisma to Hunter Biden, and documents from the Prosecutor General's office outlining the company's hierarchy and organization from its CEO, Mykola Zlochevsky, on down. These documents did show what the Prosecutor General's office was doing in its investigation into Burisma, but again, there was no evidence in any of these materials that pointed to any criminal activity from Hunter Biden.

During the meeting, Giuliani stopped to call President Trump for about 3-5 minutes to update him on how the meeting was going with Lutsenko, and told Lutsenko that Trump was very happy with the help he was giving. He gave Lutsenko the thumbs-up.

Lutsenko then promised that if we went to Ukraine, he would help us meet with President Poroshenko and other officials who were dealing directly with the Burisma investigation. After the first meeting, Lutsenko kept pressuring Giuliani that he needed to meet Bill Barr. However, Giuliani eventually told Lutsenko he hadn't provided enough information, and that the only way he could meet Bill Barr was if he retained Giuliani for $200,000. He then gave Lutsenko a "contract." (It should be noted that Lutsenko refused to pay and to this day has never met Bill Barr.)

Image

A few days later, Giuliani told me that he had decided that it might not be a good look for him to represent Ukrainian officials while representing Donald Trump, and introduced me to attorneys Victoria Toensing and DiGenova, who he said would represent Lutsenko instead. Later on, Giuliani told me that Toensing and DiGenova had agreed to split the $200,000 retainer fee in some part with him. In subsequent calls with Giuliani, Lutsenko was still upset and complaining about the whole situation, arguing that he shouldn't have to pay anything to meet one Attorney General to another, particularly because they had to discuss criminal matters between their respective countries.

In February 2019, Giuliani and I met Lutsenko in Poland, where the Prosecutor General was now more favorable to the idea of helping the Trump team investigate the Bidens.

Image

He said President Poroshenko would meet with us, so Giuliani decided I should go straight from Poland to Ukraine on his behalf. I then had a three-hour meeting with Poroshenko. Giuliani's message to the president, who was running for re-election, was that Trump would support him and help him win if he made an official announcement of an investigation against Joe Biden.

Poroshenko was taken aback and relayed to me that he didn't trust Trump based on the bad deal they had made in 2018. At the time, he and Trump had met in the White House, and after the meeting one of Trump's aides suggested that Poroshenko should buy coal from a Pennsylvania Coal Company. The reason, they explained, was that Trump was about to have a rally in that part of the state and the purchase would be a good look for the relationship between the two countries. Poroshenko bought the coal, which was more expensive than Ukraine had paid for the same product from other sources, and he ended up having issues with the Ukrainian Parliament over the cost. After Trump had the rally, there were no further interactions between the two of them. So according to Poroshenko, he now had no reason to trust Trump, but he did tell me that he would wait to see what happened since the lines of communication had been opened.

Arriving back in the States, I began a series of regular meetings at the Trump International Hotel with Giuliani and what I later called the "BLT Team," because we always met at the BLT Steak restaurant in the hotel.

Image

The BLT Team included Toensing, DiGenova, and John Solomon, an investigative reporter who was then working for The Hill and had many contacts at FOX News and the State Department, as well as having Trump on his speed dial. Solomon gave us information at the meetings that he said various sources had shared with him about the Bidens' dealings in Ukraine. Giuliani tasked me with traveling to Ukraine throughout March, April, and May 2019 to interview different people who had promised to give us information and evidence including records of bribes, bank records, and incriminating tapes.

Yet every time I went on these trips and conducted these interviews, I came up with nothing. Lutsenko kept assuring me that they would announce an investigation into the Bidens, but that never happened either.

Around the same time as the BLT Team began meeting, I was introduced by phone to Congressman Devin Nunes, who was leading his own separate investigation into the Bidens.

Image

His team decided to work with the BLT Team, and I was told to keep in contact with Nunes's staff member Derek Harvey. While I was in Ukraine on these assignments, Nunes and Harvey asked me to help set up interviews that would facilitate their investigation. With my assistance, Harvey conducted numerous interviews with Ukrainian prosecutors and officials via Skype.

During this process, the prosecutors initially expressed an interest in meeting Nunes directly and having him conduct in-person interviews in Ukraine. But Nunes declined, explaining to me again by phone that because Republicans did not have control of the House, they would have to report any travel they were doing. Therefore, he believed it was better to have Derek Harvey conduct the interviews on Skype so the Democrats wouldn't know what was going on. On one occasion I even tried to set up an interview with Viktor Shokin for Harvey, but Shokin told me that there was no need because the two had already spoken.

Image

At one point Victoria Toensing said that Senator Ron Johnson would also work as the BLT Team's "guy in the Senate" to push all the information that we were getting -- which still amounted to the same unverified conspiracy theories.

In March 2019, John Solomon had the idea to set up FOX News interviews with Poroshenko, Lutsenko and Nazar Kholodnytsky, the head prosecutor for the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). Shortly before his interview, Kholodnytsky had gotten caught up in some criminal activities and Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be ousted from his position. During the taping of his interview, instead of talking about the Bidens as planned, Kholodnytsky complained about Yovanovitch's interfering in Ukrainian politics. However, during his taping, he never validated nor confirmed that any illegal activities had been committed by either Hunter or Joe Biden. This statement upset Solomon and Giuliani, so the interview never aired on FOX.

Ten minutes before Poroshenko's interview was to take place, he decided not to participate. There was an intense phone conversation that I translated between Lutsenko and Giuliani, which ended with Giuliani telling Lutsenko that if he couldn't get Poroshenko to do the interview, not to call anymore.

During the argument with Giuliani, Lutsenko sent me an expletive-ridden text. I read the original in Russian, but the translation into English is essentially as follows, accommodating for language and context: "Sorry, but I didn't get a visit. But first, my president didn't get a damn thing. I'm ready to destroy your competitor, but you want more and more. You expect us to do everything, and everything we ask of you is "Later." It's not right. It's not fair."

Finally, Lutsenko then said he would do the interview and give us a big bombshell about the situation in Ukraine, which Giuliani expected to be about the Bidens. But during the interview, instead of talking about the Bidens, Lutsenko spoke about Yovanovitch's newly uncovered "Do Not Prosecute" list of names. It became a big scandal, but not long after that announcement, he retracted his statements. Giuliani was incredibly angry.

Every time Giuliani and Lutsenko had spoken about the Bidens, he would answer that nothing had been found to incriminate them. Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden had done anything against the Ukrainian constitution or local laws; there was no evidence of bribery or extortion that anyone could find. At the same time, Lutsenko was worried he wouldn't be able to stay in office if Poroshenko lost his bid for re-election, so he did what he could to stay on Trump and Giuliani's good side. To appease them, he would sometimes make vague statements to the media about Hunter and Joe Biden, but he never said they had committed any acts of corruption or that an investigation was being opened. There was simply nothing he had to substantiate those claims.

By that point, the BLT Team were watching the Ukrainian presidential elections and realized Volodymyr Zelenskyy was probably going to win.

Image

The conversations shifted from Poroshenko and Lutsenko to getting a promise from Zelenskyy that he would announce an investigation into the Bidens following his win. Giuliani assumed that because Zelenskyy was an actor and comedian, not a politician, he would naturally want to do anything he could to establish a good relationship with the U.S.

I was tasked in April 2019 to go to Ukraine and get in contact with Zelenskyy. Yet my attempts to contact him were consistently blocked by Ihor Kolomoyskyi, a Ukrainian oligarch who was backing Zelenskyy financially.

Image

Eventually I flew to Israel, where Kolomoyskyi was living in exile, and explained Giuliani and Trump's stance on the matter and why we needed Zelenskyy to commence an investigation into the Bidens. Giuliani had also instructed me to tell Kolomoyskyi that he would help with his legal problems in the U.S. if he would help us with Zelenskyy.

As you see, these are flagrant examples of Giuliani interfering in Ukrainian politics. Ironically, the very thing he was desperate to prove that the Bidens were doing in Ukraine -- and for which he could find no evidence at all -- was what he was guilty of.

By the end of April 2019, it was clear Zelenskyy would win in a landslide. We were preparing to set up a meeting between Zelenskyy and Giuliani, who was supposed to come to Ukraine on May 10th with Victoria Toensing. Giuliani had given me a letter which I handed over on May 9th to Arsen Avakov, the Minister of the Interior; the letter was to communicate to Zelenskyy that Giuliani wanted to discuss private matters pertaining to Trump, as he represented Trump in his personal capacity.

However, this meeting never occurred.

Image

On May 11th, Giuliani called me frantically in the middle of the night, saying he'd been approached by Kash Patel, a member of Devin Nunes's team and staffer for Trump's National Security Council. Patel informed him that people in Zelenskyy's inner circle were Trump's enemies and that Giuliani could not meet in Ukraine now because it would be "a set-up."

Instead I was once again assigned to be the man on the ground, to meet with Zelenskyy myself on Giuliani and Trump's behalf and deliver a precise message in very strict words. Unless Zelenskyy announced an investigation into the Bidens the U.S. would not deliver certain promises: 1) Trump would tell Mike Pence not to attend Zelenskyy's inauguration, and 2), the U.S. would not send any aid to Ukraine, military or otherwise.

Image

It would be Zelenskyy's Chief of Staff Sergei Shafer, and not the president himself, who met with me on that trip. After sharing a copy of the letter with Shafer via WhatsApp, I reiterated Giuliani's message for Zelenskyy to Shafer. Though he initially told me that Zelenskyy wanted a good relationship with the U.S. and would cooperate, we never heard from them after that. A few days later, I was told by Avakov, Minister of the Interior, that Zelenskyy was told not to speak to Giuliani or his team and that he should only go through proper channels with people at the U.S. Embassy. When I reiterated that message to Giuliani, he became enraged.

On May 13th, Ukrainian officials got confirmation from the U.S. that Mike Pence would not attend Zelenskyy's inauguration, which caused turmoil inside the Ukrainian government. They didn't want their people to realize that the U.S. were essentially pulling out of its promise to provide aid. When Kolomoyskyi found out, he returned to Ukraine, and was furious about the situation. He went to the media, calling Fruman and me grifters, stating they we were trying to force Zelenskyy to do unethical things, and threatening our lives. On his end, Giuliani then began sending bullying and threatening messages to Zelenskyy on Twitter and disparaging him on FOX News. He would question Zelenskyy's power as president, he would insist that Zelenskyy arrest Kolomoyskyi immediately, and repeat that Zelenskyy's inner circle was comprised of Trump's enemies, among other such statements.

It was then decided that Giuliani and I would fly to Paris to discuss next steps for Ukraine.

Image

While in Paris, Giuliani received a call from Rick Perry, then Secretary of Energy. Perry was calling from Air Force Two, explaining that Trump had assigned him to represent the U.S. at Zelenskyy's inauguration and that he was "supposed to call Rudy" for his exact instructions. The call was on speaker, so I heard every word. Giuliani outlined to Perry that he needed to relay the same message to Zelenskyy after the inauguration ceremony: Announce an investigation into the Bidens, or the U.S. will pull its aid. Right after the inauguration, Perry called Giuliani to say he had delivered the message and Zelenskyy was willing to play ball.

But when Zelenskyy did make an announcement the following day, it was a statement about addressing general corruption in Ukraine, and never mentioned the Bidens. Giuliani was angry, communicating with Trump that the Ukrainians were playing games. We knew that at the same time, Trump was also making several attempts to deliver messages to Zelenskyy through other members of his team outside of Giuliani, and all with the same theme: investigate Joe Biden or else.

Near the end of our trip to Paris, we were introduced to one of Igor Fruman's associates, a friend who happened to be an employee of a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmitry Firtash, who had many political and business connections, including with the head of Burisma, Zlochevsky. When we returned to the U.S., we met with the BLT Team and John Solomon said Firtash's help would be key because of his relationship with Zlochevsky.

The problem was that Firtash would prove nearly impossible to contact.

Image

He was also facing a serious extradition case to the U.S. for a number of bribery, racketeering and other charges since 2014. Solomon and Giuliani put together a package of documents regarding regarding confidential information in Firtash's case, and had me travel to Vienna in June 2019 to meet with Firtash, letting him know that Giuliani and our whole team were serious and that we could help him if he helped us. From June until the time of my arrest in October 2019, we had ongoing communications with Firtash.

In a meeting with the BLT Team, Solomon relayed to Giuliani that he had information that Robert Mueller's lead prosecutor Andrew Weissman offered Firtash a deal to cancel his extradition if he would testify against Trump and Putin. Firtash didn't want to get involved with the Biden versus Trump situation, but was open to helping us with Mueller's investigations into Trump. Thereafter, as I became an interpreter between Firtash's new legal team and Firtash, most of the conversations in which I participated were potentially privileged; however, I believe this information may be made available to the House Oversight Committee through a congressional subpoena.

But the true purpose of dangling this carrot in front of Firtash was to get him to use his contacts to pressure Zlochevsky to cooperate with the BLT Team. Eventually, Giuliani proposed a $1 million contract to represent Firtash. Later, similar to the Lutsenko situation, he took it back and had Firtash sign a contract with Victoria Toensing. Giuliani, however, would continue to oversee everything and remain in charge of matters related to Firtash. Then later Giuliani and Toensing had several phone calls that I was privy to with Bill Barr, leading to an unofficial meeting in the lobby at the Trump International Hotel, and then an official meeting at the Department of Justice.

Giuliani worked aggressively to hire Ms. Dunphy, offering her what seemed like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to work as his Director of Business Development with a salary of $1 million per year plus expenses. As an added inducement, Giuliani also offered to provide pro bono legal representation to Ms. Dunphy in connection with an ongoing dispute arising from an abusive ex-partner....

-- Noelle Dunphy, Plaintiff, against Rudolph W. Giuliani, et al, Defendants.


At the same time, the BLT Team was exploring many different angles to get information on the Bidens.

Image

In June, Giuliani asked me to accompany him to a lunch in New York with Vitaly Pruss, a Russian businessman who claimed to have deep connections to Burisma, including with Hunter Biden's business partner Devon Archer, and had recommended powerful people to Zlochevsky that he should put on the company's board. During this meeting, Pruss shared a story with us: He said earlier that year, while doing business related to Burisma, he had taken Hunter Biden to meet Kazakhstan's minister of foreign affairs, and that Biden had gotten substantially intoxicated with drugs and alcohol on this trip. While he was incapacitated, his laptop was compromised and copied by a representative of FSB (Russia's secret police) and members of Zlochevsky's team.

It's important to note that certain aspects of Pruss's story are verifiably true. This trip with Hunter Biden did happen, and his computer hard drives were taken and duplicated. But Pruss specified that while the contents of the laptop were personally embarrassing to Hunter Biden -- pictures of him doing drugs and surrounded by girls -- there was no evidence of financial crimes or any data on his laptop that suggested the illegal activities of any other kind, which is the sort of proof that Giuliani desperately needed. Pruss never mentioned anything about the hard drives containing criminal information, only the embarrassing images. It was not until Giuliani began disseminating the story of Hunter Biden's laptop that the idea of proof of financial and political crimes was introduced.


Giuliani continued this simultaneous efforts to reach Zlochevsky through Firtash and Pruss.

Image

I specifically recall that Giuliani told me to tell Pruss to pressure Zlochevsky by saying that he could be "an enemy or a friend of Trump." At a meeting of the BLT Team, Giuliani and Solomon came up with a series of 12-14 questions about the Bidens that we would propose to Zlochevsky. Eventually, we managed to get Zlochevsky's answers back. But his answers gave us nothing -- because there was nothing. On reading Zlochevsky's reply, Giuliani turned red and yelled, "What is this shit? This is bullshit. Make sure nobody sees this. Bury this."

I will remind you that Zlochevsky's answers are in the report that the House Oversight Committee published. In this document, he stated that Hunter Biden was never asked or assigned to speak with anybody in the U.S. on behalf of Burisma, that there were no political lobbying efforts on behalf of Burisma, that nobody from the company had ever spoken to Joe Biden, and that Hunter Biden was essentially innocent of what people had been implying. His letter debunked all the conspiracy theories.

Image

In August 2019, Kurt Volker, Trump's Special Envoy to Ukraine, approached Giuliani. He said that Trump had written Zelenskyy off and wasn't talking to him, but wanted Giuliani to emphasize to Trump that the relationship with Zelenskyy was crucial. He stressed that Zelenskyy needed to get support from the U.S. in Ukraine's ongoing war with Russia. While at a meeting that I was present at with Giuliani and Volker at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, it was agreed that if Giuliani opened the communication channels with Zelenskyy and Trump, as well as invited Zelenskyy to the White House, then Zelenskyy would announce an investigation into the Bidens. A later meeting with Volker, Giuliani, and then U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and Rick Perry took place to discuss the details of the investigation announcement in a phone call with Zelenskyy's chief of staff Andriy Yermark.

Image

I was then tasked with traveling to Spain to attend a meeting with Yermark and Giuliani. In that meeting, Giuliani pressured Yermark to tell Zelenskyy to make the announcement about the Bidens. Giuliani also brought up Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kiev, who he had met with several times in New York. He informed Yermark that he knew Zelenskyy wanted to fire Klitschko and emphasized that this would be a bad idea, because Klitschko was well liked by Trump and the American people.

Again, this is a blatant example of Giuliani interfering in foreign politics. Zelenskyy's aim was to clear out corruption in the Ukrainian government. Unfortunately, the war has limited Zelenskyy's opportunities to address this. However, there was no possible reason why Giuliani should have been suggesting who should play any role in the Ukrainian government.

In the early part of October 2019, I got a call telling me to go to Vienna with Giuliani, where the former Chief Financial Officer of Burisma, Alexander Gorbunenko, would meet Giuliani and give us Hunter Biden's hard drive and answer any questions we had. My Ukrainian contacts also told me they would have Viktor Shokin in Vienna to give an interview to Sean Hannity of FOX News, because Shokin was supposed to appear in a Viennese court on behalf of Dimitry Firtash, giving sworn testimony in court that would basically be saying what Giuliani wanted him to say -- that he was fired because of Joe Biden. (As mentioned earlier, Biden did make statements that he had helped to get Shokin fired, but Ukrainian investigations into the matter some years later concluded that Shokin had been terminated because of multiple cases of corruption while in office.)

I have text messages confirming all these plans, and all are among the materials I submitted to Congress during the first impeachment inquiry. These include messages from Hannity setting up the interview, and messages coordinating that Giuliani, Toensing, and I would go to Vienna to meet Burisma's ex-CFO Gorbunenko. Just before we were to fly to Austria, there was a meeting at FOX News in Washington, because Solomon was appearing that night on Hannity's show and Giuliani was appearing in Laura Ingraham's. The BLT Team got together in a FOX conference room and discussed how we would blow up the story once we got Hunter Biden's hard drive in Vienna.

The next morning Giuliani met me for breakfast and said that Trump needed him at the White House, he would be unable to go to Vienna. He insisted Fruman and I should go and set up everything and he would join us later. Toensing then contacted me to say that she would not go to Vienna either because her husband had a cold. Shortly afterward, on October 9, 2019, Fruman and I were arrested at Dulles International Airport while trying to make the first leg of our flight to Vienna.

Throughout all these months of work, the extensive campaigns and networking done by Trump allies and Giuliani associates, including the enormously thorough interviews and assignments that I undertook, there has never been any evidence that Hunter or Joe Biden committed any crimes related to Ukrainian politics. Never, during any of my communications with Ukrainian officials or connections to Burisma, did any of them confirm or provide concrete facts linking the Bidens to illegal activities. In fact, they asked me multiple times why our team was so concerned with this idea. The truth is that everyone, from Giuliani and the BLT Team to Devin Nunes and his colleagues, to the people at FOX News, knew that these allegations against the Bidens were false. There has never been any factual evidence, only conspiracy theories spread by people who knew exactly what they were doing.


With all due respect, Chairman Comer, the narrative you are seeking for this investigation has been proven false many times over, by a wide array of respected sources. There is simply no merit to investigating this matter any further. I hope my letter has provided you with additional clarity on this point.

Please know that in my sharing this information with you, I am not looking for any sympathy for myself. I take full responsibility for my own actions in this matter, and I am extremely remorseful for my participation. In explaining the full context to you here, I can only hope that my truth can be used for the greater good. Please abandon this effort to investigate the Bidens, which is nothing more than a wild goose chase, and let our elected officials return to the issue at hand of uniting our great country to be stronger and better than ever before.

I am willing to testify under oath in Congress regarding any of these matters, and answer any questions that you might have, or provide you with any texts or correspondence in these situations I have described in this letter. You may contact me through my attorney Joseph A. Bondy, who can be reached by phone at [DELETE].

Thank you for your consideration.  

Sincerely,

Lev Parnas


Image

So there you have it folks. That was my 10-page letter that I wrote to James Comer. And what did he do? He basically looked the other way, just like they do all time. Because they don't want the truth. They don't want to get to the bottom of it. All they want to do is give you bits and pieces, they want to give you conspiracy theories, they want to confuse the people all for the simple fact: to deflect from the real criminal, like I said, Donald J Trump.

Thank you for watching. You can follow me on Twitter or Threads or Instagram at LevParnas. And please make sure to subscribe to the Meidas touch Network.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Mon Jul 31, 2023 2:53 am

Part 1 of 2

Superseding Indictment
USDC, Southern District of Florida
USA v. Donald Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira
Case No. 23-CR-80101-CANNON(s)
by Jack Smith, Special Counsel
07/27/2023



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-CR-80101-CANNON(s)

18 U.S.C. § 793(e)
18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)
18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A)
18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(B)
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1)
18 U.S.C. § 1519
18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1)
18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)
18 U.S.C. § 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, WALTINE NAUTA, and CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,
Defendants.

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges that:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

At times material to this Superseding Indictment, on or about the dates and approximate times stated below:

Introduction

1. Defendant DONALD J. TRUMP was the forty-fifth President of the United States of America. He held office from January 20, 2017, until January 20, 2021. As president, TRUMP had lawful access to the most sensitive classified documents and national defense information gathered and owned by the United States government. including information from the agencies that comprise the United States Intelligence Community and the United States Department of Defense.

2. Over the course of his presidency, TRUMP gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents, and other materials in cardboard boxes that he kept in the White House. Among the materials TRUMP stored in his boxes were hundreds of classified documents.

3. The classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack. The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.

4. At 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2021, TRUMP ceased to be president. As he departed the White House, TRUMP caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents, to be transported to The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, where he maintained his residence. TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain those classified documents.

5. The Mar-a-Lago Club was an active social club, which, between January 2021 and August 2022, hosted events for tens of thousands of members and guests. After TRUMP's presidency, The Mar-a-Lago Club was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents. Nevertheless, TRUMP stored his boxes containing classified documents in various locations at The Mar-a-Lago Club -- including in a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room.

6. On two occasions in 2021, TRUMP showed classified documents to others, as follows:

a. In July 2021, at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey ("The Bedminster Club''), during an audio-recorded meeting with a writer, a publisher, and two members of his staff, none of whom possessed a security clearance, TRUMP showed and described a "plan of attack" that TRUMP said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense and a senior military official. TRUMP told the individuals that the plan was "highly confidential .. and "secret." TRUMP also said, ''as president I could have declassified it,'" and, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

b. In August or September 2021, at The Bedminster Club, TRUMP showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance a classified map related to a military operation and told the representative that he should not be showing it to the representative and that the representative should not get too close.

7. On March 30, 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened a criminal investigation into the unlawful retention of classified documents at The Mar-a-Lago Club. A federal grand jury investigation began the next month. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring TRUMP to turn over all documents with classification markings. TRUMP endeavored to obstruct the FBI and grand jury investigations and conceal his continued retention of classified documents by, among other things:

a. suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that TRUMP did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;

b. directing defendant WALTINE NAUTA to move boxes of documents to conceal them from TRUMP's attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury;

c. suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury subpoena;

d. providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully;

e. causing a certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury falsely representing that all documents called for by the grand jury subpoena had been produced -- while knowing that, in fact, not all such documents had been produced; and

f. attempting to delete security camera footage at The Mar-a-Lago Club to conceal information from the FBI and grand jury.

8. As a result of TRUMP's retention of classified documents after his presidency and refusal to return them, hundreds of classified documents were not recovered by the United States government until 2022, as follows:

a. On January 17, nearly one year after TRUMP left office, and after months of demands by the National Archives and Records Administration for TRUMP to provide all missing presidential records, TRUMP provided only 15 boxes, which contained 197 documents with classification markings.

b. On June 3, in response to a grand jury subpoena demanding the production of all documents with classification markings, TRUMP's attorney provided to the FBI 38 more documents with classification markings.

c. On August 8, pursuant to a court-authorized search warrant, the FBI recovered from TRUMP's office and a storage room at The Mar-a-Lago Club 102 more documents with classification markings. TRUMP's Co-Conspirators

9. Defendant NAUTA was a member of the United States Navy stationed as a valet in the White House during TRUMP's presidency. Beginning in August 2021, NAUTA became an executive assistant in The Office of Donald J. Trump and served as TRUMP's personal aide or "body man." NAUTA reported to TRUMP, worked closely with TRUMP, and traveled with TRUMP.

10. Beginning in January 2022, Defendant CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA was employed as the property manager at The Mar-a-Lago Club. Prior to holding the position of property manager, DE OLIVEIRA was employed as a valet at The Mar-a-Lago Club.

The Mar-a-Lago Club

11. The Mar-a-Lago Club was located on South Ocean Boulevard in Palm Beach, Florida, and included TRUMP's residence, more than 25 guest rooms, two ballrooms, a spa, a gift store, exercise facilities, office space, and an outdoor pool and patio. As of January 2021, The Mar-a-Lago Club had hundreds of members and was staffed by more than 150 full-time, part-time, and temporary employees.

12. Between January 2021 and August 2022, The Mar-a-Lago Club hosted more than 150 social events, including weddings, movie premieres, and fundraisers that together drew tens of thousands of guests.

13. The United States Secret Service (the 'Secret Service") provided protection services to TRUMP and his family after he left office, including at The Mar-a-Lago Club, but it was not responsible for the protection of TRUMP's boxes or their contents. TRUMP did not inform the Secret Service that he was storing boxes containing classified documents at The Mara-Lago Club. Classified Information

14. National security information was information owned by, produced by, produced for, and under the control of the United States government. Pursuant to Executive Order 12958, signed on April 17, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13292 on March 25, 2003, and Executive Order 13526 on December 29, 2009, national security information was classified as ''TOP SECRET," "SECRET,'' or "CONFIDENTIAL," as follows:

a. Information was classified as TOP SECRET if the unauthorized disclosure of that information reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority was able to identify or describe.

b. Information was classified as SECRET if the unauthorized disclosure of that information reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority was able to identify or describe.

c. Information was classified as CONFIDENTIAL if the unauthorized disclosure of that information reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority was able to identify or describe.

15. The classification marking "NOFORN'' stood for "Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals" and denoted that dissemination of that information was limited to United States persons.

16. Classified information related to intelligence sources, methods, and analytical processes was designated as Sensitive Compartmented Information ("SCI"). SCI was to be processed, stored, used, or discussed in an accredited Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility ("SCIF''), and only individuals with the appropriate security clearance and additional SCI permissions were authorized to have access to such national security information.

17. When the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific classified information was exceptional, and the normal criteria for determining eligibility for access to classified information were insufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure, the United States could establish Special Access Programs ("SAPs'') to further protect the classified information. The number of these programs was to be kept to an absolute minimum and limited to programs in which the number of persons who ordinarily would have access would be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved. Only individuals with the appropriate security clearance and additional SAP permissions were authorized to have access to such national security information, which was subject to enhanced handling and storage requirements.

18. Pursuant to Executive Order 13526, information classified at any level could be lawfully accessed only by persons determined by an appropriate United States government official to be eligible for access to classified information and who had signed an approved non-disclosure agreement, who received a security clearance, and who had a "need-to-know'' the classified information. After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents.

19. Executive Order 13526 provided that a former president could obtain a waiver of the "need-to-know'' requirement, if the agency head or senior agency official of the agency that originated the classified information: (1) determined in writing that access was consistent with the interest of national security and (2) took appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise and ensured that the information was safeguarded in a manner consistent with the order. TRUMP did not obtain any such waiver after his presidency.

The Executive Branch Departments and Agencies Whose Classified Documents TRUMP Retained After His Presidency

20. As part of his official duties as president, TRUMP received intelligence briefings from high-level United States government officials, including briefings from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior White House officials, and a designated briefer. He regularly received a collection of classified intelligence from the United States Intelligence Community (''USIC") known as the ''President's Daily Brief."

21. The USIC's mission was to collect, analyze, and deliver foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to America's leaders, including the president, policymakers, law enforcement, and the military, so they could make sound decisions to protect the United States. The USIC consisted of United States executive branch departments and agencies responsible for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of national security.

22. After his presidency, TRUMP retained classified documents originated by, or implicating the equities of, multiple USIC members and other executive branch departments and agencies, including the following:

a. The Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"). CIA was responsible for providing intelligence on foreign countries and global issues to the president and other policymakers to help them make national security decisions.

b. The Department of Defense ("DoD"). DoD was responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and ensure national security. Some of the executive branch agencies comprising the USIC were within DoD.

c. The National Security Agency. The National Security Agency was a combat support agency within DoD and a member of the USIC responsible for foreign signals intelligence and cybersecurity. This included collecting, processing, and disseminating to United States policymakers and military leaders foreign intelligence derived from communications and information systems; protecting national security systems; and enabling computer network operations.

d. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency was a combat support agency within DoD responsible for the exploitation and analysis of imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information in support of the national security objectives of the United States and the geospatial intelligence requirements of DoD, the Department of State, and other federal agencies.

e. The National Reconnaissance Office. The National Reconnaissance Office was an agency within DoD responsible for developing, acquiring, launching, and operating space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems that collected and delivered intelligence to enhance national security.

f. The Department of Energy. The Department of Energy was responsible for maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent to protect national security, including ensuring the effectiveness of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear explosive testing.

g. The Department of State and Bureau of Intelligence and Research. The Department of State was responsible for protecting and promoting United States security, prosperity, and democratic values. Within the Department of State, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research was a member of the USIC and responsible for providing intelligence to inform diplomacy and support United States diplomats.

TRUMP's Public Statements on Classified Information

23. As a candidate for President of the United States, TRUMP made the following public statements, among others, about classified information:

a. On August 18, 2016, TRUMP stated, "In my administration I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

b. On September 6, 2016, TRUMP stated, ·'We also need to fight this battle by collecting intelligence and then protecting, protecting our classified secrets. . . . We can't have someone in the Oval Office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified."

c. On September 7, 2016, TRUMP stated, "[O]ne of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information."

d. On September 19, 2016, TRUMP stated, "We also need the best protection of classified information."

e. On November 3, 2016, TRUMP stated, "Service members here in North Carolina have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country.''

24. As President of the United States, on July 26, 2018, TRUMP issued the following statement about classified information:

As the head of the executive branch and Commander in Chief, I have a unique, Constitutional responsibility to protect the Nation's classified information, including by controlling access to it. . .. More broadly, the issue of [a former executive branch official's) security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our Nation's most sensitive secrets long after their time in Government has ended. Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks. Any access granted to our Nation's secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.


TRUMP's Retention of Classified Documents After His Presidency

25. In January 2021, as he was preparing to leave the White House, TRUMP and his White House staff, including NAUTA, packed items, including some of TRUMP's boxes. TRUMP was personally involved in this process. TRUMP caused his boxes, containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transported from the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club.

26. From January through March 15, 2021, some of TRUMP's boxes were stored in The Mar-a-Lago Club's White and Gold Ballroom, in which events and gatherings took place. TRUMP's boxes were for a time stacked on the ballroom's stage, as depicted in the photograph below (redacted to obscure an individual's identity).

Image

27. In March 2021, NAUTA and others moved some of TRUMP's boxes from the White and Gold Ballroom to the business center at The Mar-a-Lago Club.

28. On April 5, 2021, an employee of The Office of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Employee 1 ") texted another employee of that office ("Trump Employee 2") to ask whether TRUMP's boxes could be moved out of the business center to make room for staff to use it as an office. Trump Employee 2 replied, ''Woah!! Ok so potus specifically asked Walt for those boxes to be in the business center because they are his 'papers."' Later that day, Trump Employee 1 and Trump Employee 2 exchanged the following text messages:

Trump Employee 2:

We can definitely make it work if we move his papers into the lake room?

Trump Employee 1 : There is still a little room in the shower where his other stuff is. Is it only his papers he cares about? Theres some other stuff in there that are not papers. Could that go to storage? Or does he want everything in there on property

Trump Employee 2:

Yes -anything that's not the beautiful mind paper boxes can definitely go to storage. Want to take a look at the space and start moving tomorrow AM?

29. After the text exchange between Trump Employee 1 and Trump Employee 2, in April 2021, some of TRUMP's boxes were moved from the business center to a bathroom and shower in The Mar-a-Lago Club's Lake Room, as depicted in the photograph below.

Image

30. In May 2021, TRUMP directed that a storage room on the ground floor of The Mar-a-Lago Club (the "Storage Room") be cleaned out so that it could be used to store his boxes. The hallway leading to the Storage Room could be reached from multiple outside entrances, including one accessible from The Mar-a-Lago Club pool patio through a doorway that was often kept open. The Storage Room was near the liquor supply closet, linen room, lock shop, and various other rooms.

31. On June 24, 2021, TRUMP's boxes that were in the Lake Room were moved to the Storage Room. After the move, there were more than 80 boxes in the Storage Room, as depicted in the photographs below.

Image

Image

32. On December 7, 2021, NAUTA found several of TRUMP's boxes fallen and their contents spilled onto the floor of the Storage Room, including a document marked "SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY," which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. NAUTA texted Trump Employee 2, "I opened the door and found this ... " NAUTA also attached two photographs he took of the spill. Trump Employee 2 replied, "Oh no oh no," and "I'm sorry potus had my phone." One of the photographs NAUTA texted to Trump Employee 2 is depicted below with the visible classified information redacted. TRUMP's unlawful retention of this document is charged in Count 8 of this Superseding Indictment.

Image

TRUMP's Disclosures of Classified Information in Private Meetings

33. In May 2021, TRUMP caused some of his boxes to be brought to his summer residence at The Bedminster Club. Like The Mar-a-Lago Club, after TRUMP's presidency, The Bedminster Club was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents.

34. On July 21, 202 l, when he was no longer president, TRUMP gave an interview in his office at The Bedminster Club to a writer and a publisher in connection with a then-forthcoming book. Two members of TRUMP's staff also attended the interview, which was recorded with TRUMP's knowledge and consent. Before the interview, the media had published reports that, at the end of TRUMP's term as president, a senior military official (the "Senior Military Official") purportedly feared that TRUMP might order an attack on Country A and that the Senior Military Official advised TRUMP against doing so.

35. Upon greeting the writer, publisher, and his two staff members, TRUMP stated, "Look what I found, this was [the Senior Military Official's) plan of attack, read it and just show ... it's interesting.' Later in the interview, TRUMP engaged in the following exchange:

TRUMP: Well, with [the Senior Military Official]-uh, let me see that, I'll show you an example. He said that r wanted to attack [Country A]. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this -- this is off the record, but -- they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.

WRITER: Wow.

TRUMP: We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me, this was him. All sorts of stuff-pages long, look.

STAFFER: Mm.

TRUMP: Wait a minute, let's see here.

STAFFER: [laughter] Yeah.

TRUMP: I just found, isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.

STAFFER: Mm-hm.

TRUMP: Except it is like, highly confidential.

STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]

TRUMP: Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. You attack, and-

* * *

TRUMP: By the way. Isn't that incredible?

STAFFER: Yeah.

TRUMP: I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, "he wanted to attack [Country A], and what ... "

STAFFER: You did.

TRUMP: This was done by the military and given to me. Uh, I think we can probably, right?

STAFFER: I don't know, we'll, we'll have to see. Yeah, we'll have to try to-

TRUMP: Declassify it.

STAFFER: -figure out a-yeah.

TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it.

STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]

TRUMP: Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.

STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter] Now we have a problem.

TRUMP: Isn't that interesting?

At the time of this exchange, the writer, the publisher, and TRUMP's two staff members did not have security clearances or any need-to-know any classified information about a plan of attack on Country A. The document that TRUMP possessed and showed on July 21, 2021, is charged as Count 32 in this Superseding Indictment.

36. In August or September 2021, when he was no longer president, TRUMP met in his office at The Bedminster Club with a representative of his political action committee (the "PAC Representative"). During the meeting, TRUMP commented that an ongoing military operation in Country B was not going well. TRUMP showed the PAC Representative a classified map of Country Band told the PAC Representative that he should not be showing the map to the PAC Representative and to not get too close. The PAC Representative did not have a security clearance or any need-to-know classified information about the military operation.

37. On February 16, 2017, four years before TRUMP's disclosures of classified information set forth above, TRUMP said at a press conference:

The first thing I thought of when I heard about it is, how does the press get this information that's classified? How do they do it? You know why? Because it's an illegal process, and the press should be ashamed of themselves. But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves. Really ashamed.


TRUMP's Production of 15 Cardboard Boxes to the National Archives and Records Administration

38. Beginning in May 2021, the National Archives and Records Administration (''NARA"), which was responsible for archiving presidential records, repeatedly demanded that TRUMP turn over presidential records that he had kept after his presidency. On multiple occasions, beginning in June, NARA warned TRUMP through his representatives that if he did not comply, it would refer the matter of the missing records to the Department of Justice.

39. Between November 2021 and January 2022, NAUTA and Trump Employee 2 -- at TRUMP'S direction -- brought boxes from the Storage Room to TRUMP's residence for TRUMP to review.

40. On November 12, 2021, Trump Employee 2 provided TRUMP a photograph of his boxes in the Storage Room by taping it to one of the boxes that Trump Employee 2 had placed in TRUMP's residence. Trump Employee 2 provided TRUMP the photograph so that TRUMP could see how many of his boxes were stored in the Storage Room. The photograph, shown below, depicted a wall of the Storage Room against which dozens of TRUMP's boxes were stacked.

Image

41. On November 17, 2021, NAUTA texted Trump Employee 2 about the photograph Trump Employee 2 had provided to TRUMP, stating, "He mentioned about a picture of the 'boxes' he wants me to see it?" Trump Employee 2 replied, "Calling you shortly."

42. On November 25, 2021, Trump Employee 2 texted NAUTA about TRUMP's review of the contents of his boxes, asking, "Has he mentioned boxes to you? I delivered some,
but I think he may need more. Could you ask if he'd like more in pine hall?" Pine Hall was an entry room in TRUMP's residence. NAUTA replied in three successive text messages:

Nothing about boxes yet

He has one he's working on in pine hall

Knocked out 2 boxes yesterday

43. On November 29, 2021, Trump Employee 2 texted NAUTA, asking, "Next you are on property (no rush) could you help me bring 4 more boxes up?" NAUTA replied, "Yes!! Of course."

44. On December 29, 2021, Trump Employee 2 texted a TRUMP representative who was in contact with NARA ("Trump Representative 1'"), "box answer will be wrenched out of him today, promise!" The next day, Trump Representative I replied in two successive text messages:

Hey -Just checking on Boxes ...

would love to have a number to them today

Trump Employee 2 spoke to TRUMP and then responded a few hours later in two successive text messages:

12

Is his number

45. On January 13, 2022, NAUTA texted Trump Employee 2 about TRUMP's "tracking" of boxes, stating, 'He's tracking the boxes, more to follow today on whether he wants to go through more today or tomorrow.'· Trump Employee 2 replied, "Thank you!"

46. On January 15, 2022, NAUTA sent Trump Employee 2 four successive text messages:

One thing he asked

Was for new covers for the boxes, for Monday m.

Morning

*can we get new box covers before giving these to them on Monday? They have too much writing on them . .I marked too much

Trump Employee 2 replied, "Yes, I will get that!"

47. On January 17, 2022, Trump Employee 2 and NAUTA gathered 15 boxes from TRUMP's residence, loaded the boxes in NAUTA's car, and took them to a commercial truck for delivery to NARA.

48. When interviewed by the FBI in May 2022 regarding the location and movement of boxes before the production to NARA, NAUTA made false and misleading statements as set forth in Count 38 of this Superseding Indictment, including:

a. falsely stating that he was not aware of TRUMP's boxes being brought to TRUMP's residence for his review before TRUMP provided 15 boxes to NARA in January 2022;

b. falsely stating that he did not know how the boxes that he and Trump Employee 2 brought from TRUMP's residence to the commercial truck for delivery to NARA on January 17, 2022, had gotten to the residence; and

c. when asked whether he knew where TRUMP's boxes had been stored before they were in TRUMP's residence and whether they had been in a secure or locked location, NAUTA falsely responded, "I wish, I wish I could tell you. I don't know. I don't-I honestly just don't know."

49. When the 15 boxes that TRUMP had provided reached NARA in January 2022, NARA reviewed the contents and determined that 14 of the boxes contained documents with classification markings. Specifically, as the FBI later determined, the boxes contained 197 documents with classification markings, of which 98 were marked "SECRET," 30 were marked "TOP SECRET," and the remainder were marked "CONFIDENTIAL." Some of those documents also contained SCI and SAP markings.

50. On February 9, 2022, NARA referred the discovery of classified documents in TRUMP's boxes to the Department of Justice for investigation.

The FBI and Grand Jury Investigations

51. On March 30, 2022, the FBI opened a criminal investigation.

52. On April 26, 2022, a federal grand jury opened an investigation.

The Defendants' Concealment of Boxes

53. On May 11, 2022, the grand jury issued a subpoena (the "May 11 Subpoena") to The Office of Donald J. Trump requiring the production of all documents with classification markings in the possession, custody, or control of TRUMP or The Office of Donald J. Trump. Two attorneys representing TRUMP (''Trump Attorney 1" and "Trump Attorney 2") informed TRUMP of the May 11 Subpoena, and he authorized Trump Attorney 1 to accept service.

54. On May 22, 2022, NAUTA entered the Storage Room at 3:47 p.m. and left approximately 34 minutes later, carrying one of TRUMP's boxes.

55. On May 23, 2022, TRUMP met with Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 2 at The Mar-a-Lago Club to discuss the response to the May 11 Subpoena. Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 2 told TRUMP that they needed to search for documents that would be responsive to the subpoena and provide a certification that there had been compliance with the subpoena. TRUMP, in sum and substance, made the following statements, among others, as memorialized by Trump Attorney 1:

a. I don't want anybody looking, I don't want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don't, I don't want you looking through my boxes.

b. Well what if we, what happens if we just don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?

c. Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?

d. Well look isn't it better if there are no documents?

56. While meeting with Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 2 on May 23, TRUMP, in sum and substance, told the following story, as memorialized by Trump Attorney 1:

[Attorney], he was great, he did a great job. You know what? He said, he said that it -that it was him. That he was the one who deleted all of her emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having beauty appointments. And he was great. And he, so she didn't get in any trouble because he said that he was the one who deleted them.


TRUMP related the story more than once that day.

57. On May 23, TRUMP also confirmed his understanding with Trump Attorney 1 that Trump Attorney 1 would return to The Mar-a-Lago Club on June 2 to search for any documents with classification markings to produce in response to the May 11 Subpoena. Trump Attorney 1 made it clear to TRUMP that Trump Attorney 1 would conduct the search for responsive documents by looking through TRUMP's boxes that had been transported from the White House and remained in storage at The Mar-a-Lago Club. TRUMP indicated that he wanted to be at The Mar-a-Lago Club when Trump Attorney 1 returned to review his boxes on June 2, and that TRUMP would change his summer travel plans to do so. TRUMP told Trump Attorney 2 that Trump Attorney 2 did not need to be present for the review of boxes.

58. After meeting with Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 2 on May 23, TRUMP delayed his departure from The Mar-a-Lago Club to The Bedminster Club for the summer so that he would be present at The Mar-a-Lago Club on June 2, when Trump Attorney l returned to review the boxes.

59. Between TRUMP's May 23 meeting with Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 2 to discuss the May 1 I Subpoena, and June 2, when Trump Attorney 1 returned to The Mar-a-Lago Club to review the boxes in the Storage Room, NAUT A removed-at TRUMP's direction-a total of approximately 64 boxes from the Storage Room and brought them to TRUMP's residence, as set forth below:

a. On May 24, 2022, between 5:30 p.m. and 5:38 p.m., NAUTA removed three boxes from the Storage Room.

b. On May 30, 2022, at 9:08 a.m., TRUMP and NAUTA spoke by phone for approximately 30 seconds. Between 10:02 a.m. and 11:51 a.m., NAUTA removed a total of approximately 50 boxes from the Storage Room.

c. On May 30, 2022, at 12:33 p.m., a Trump family member texted NAUTA:

Good afternoon Walt,
Happy Memorial Day!

I saw you put boxes to Potus room. Just FYI and I will tell him as well:
Not sure how many he wants to take on Friday on the plane. We will NOT have a room for them. Plane will be full with luggage.
Thank you!

NAUTA replied:

Good Afternoon Ma'am [Smiley Face Emoji] Thank you so much.

I think he wanted to pick from them. I don't imagine him wanting to take the boxes.

He told me to put them in the room and that he was going to talk to you about them.

d. On June 1, 2022, beginning at 12:52 p.m., NAUTA removed approximately 11 boxes from the Storage Room.

60. On June 1, 2022, TRUMP spoke with Trump Attorney 1 by phone and asked whether Trump Attorney 1 was coming to The Mar-a-Lago Club the next day and for exactly what purpose. Trump Attorney 1 reminded TRUMP that Trump Attorney 1 was going to review the boxes that had been transported from the White House and remained in storage at The Mar-a-Lago Club so that Trump Attorney 1 could have a custodian of records certify that the May 11 subpoena had been complied with fully.

61. On June 2, 2022, the day that Trump Attorney 1 was scheduled to review TRUMP's boxes in the Storage Room, TRUMP spoke with NAUTA on the phone at 9:29 a.m. for approximately 24 seconds.

62. Later that day, between 12:33 p.m. and 12:52 p.m., NAUTA and DE OLIVEIRA moved approximately 30 boxes from TRUMP's residence to the Storage Room.

63. In sum, between May 23, 2022, and June 2, 2022, before Trump Attorney 1's review of TRUMP's boxes in the Storage Room, NAUTA -- at TRUMP's direction -- moved approximately 64 boxes from the Storage Room to TRUMP's residence, and NAUTA and DE OLIVEIRA brought to the Storage Room only approximately 30 boxes. Neither TRUMP nor NAUTA informed Trump Attorney l of this information.

The False Certification to the FBI and the Grand Jury

64. On the afternoon of June 2, 2022, as TRUMP had been informed, Trump Attorney l arrived at The Mar-a-Lago Club to review TRUMP's boxes to look for documents with classification markings in response to the May 11 Subpoena. TRUMP met with Trump Attorney 1 before Trump Attorney 1 conducted the review. NAUT A escorted Trump Attorney 1 to the Storage Room.

65. Between 3:53 p.m. and 6:23 p.m., Trump Attorney 1 reviewed the contents of TRUMP's boxes in the Storage Room. Trump Attorney 1 located 38 documents with classification markings inside the boxes, which Trump Attorney 1 removed and placed in a Redweld folder. Trump Attorney 1 contacted NAUTA and asked him to bring clear duct tape to the Storage Room, which NAUTA did. Trump Attorney 1 used the clear duct tape to seal the Redweld folder with the documents with classification markings inside.

66. After Trump Attorney 1 finished sealing the Redweld folder containing the documents with classification markings that he had found inside TRUMP' s boxes, NAUTA took Trump Attorney 1 to a dining room in The Mar-a-Lago Club to meet with TRUMP. After Trump Attorney 1 confirmed that he was finished with his search of the Storage Room, TRUMP asked, "Did you find anything? ... Is it bad? Good?"

67. TRUMP and Trump Attorney 1 then discussed what to do with the Redweld folder containing documents with classification markings and whether Trump Attorney 1 should bring them to his hotel room and put them in a safe there. During that conversation, TRUMP made a plucking motion, as memorialized by Trump Attorney 1:

He made a funny motion as though -well okay why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out. And that was the motion that he made. He didn't say that.


68. That evening, Trump Attorney 1 contacted the Department of Justice and requested that an FBI agent meet him at The Mar-a-Lago Club the next day, June 3, so that he could turn over the documents responsive to the May 11 Subpoena.

69. Also that evening, Trump Attorney l contacted another TRUMP attorney ("Trump Attorney 3") and asked her if she would come to The Mar-a-Lago Club the next morning to act as a custodian of records and sign a certification regarding the search for documents with classification markings in response to the May 11 Subpoena. Trump Attorney 3, who had no role in the review of TRUMP's boxes in the Storage Room, agreed.

70. The next day, on June 3, 2022, at Trump Attorney 1 's request, Trump Attorney 3 signed a certification as the custodian of records for The Office of Donald J. Trump and took it to The Mar-a-Lago Club to provide it to the Department of Justice and FBI. In the certification, Trump Attorney 3 -- who performed no search of TRUMP's boxes, had not reviewed the May 11
Subpoena, and had not reviewed the contents of the Redweld folder -- stated, among other things, that "[b]ased upon the information that [had] been provided to" her:

a. "A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida";

b. "This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena"; and

c. "Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Mon Jul 31, 2023 2:55 am

Part 2 of 2

71. These statements were false because, among other reasons, TRUMP had directed NAUTA to move boxes before Trump Attorney 1's June 2 review, so that many boxes were not searched and many documents responsive to the May 11 Subpoena could not be found -- and in fact were not found -- by Trump Attorney 1.

72. Shortly after Trump Attorney 3 executed the false certification, on June 3, 2022, Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 3 met at The Mar-a-Lago Club with personnel from the Department of Justice and FBI. Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 3 turned over the Redweld folder containing documents with classification markings, as well as the false certification signed by Trump Attorney 3 as custodian of records. TRUMP, who had delayed his departure from The Mar-a-Lago Club, joined Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 3 for some of the meeting. TRUMP claimed to the Department of Justice and FBI that he was "an open book."

73. Earlier that same day, NAUTA, DE OLIVEIRA, and others loaded several of TRUMP's boxes along with other items on aircraft that flew TRUMP and his family north for the summer.

The Attempt to Delete Security Camera Footage

74. On June 3, 2022, when FBI agents were at The Mar-a-Lago Club to collect the documents with classification markings from Trump Attorney 1 and Trump Attorney 3, the agents observed that there were surveillance cameras located near the Storage Room.

75. On June 22, 2022, the Department of Justice emailed an attorney for TRUMP's business organization a draft grand jury subpoena requiring the production of certain security camera footage from The Mar-a-Lago Club, including footage from cameras "on ground floor (basement)," where the Storage Room was located.

76. On June 23, 2022, at 8:46 p.m., TRUMP called DE OLIVEIRA and they spoke for approximately 24 minutes.

77. On Friday, June 24, 2022, the Department of Justice emailed the attorney for TRUMP's business organization the final grand jury subpoena, which required the production of "[a]ny and all surveillance records, videos, images, photographs and/or CCTV from internal cameras" at certain locations at The Mar-a-Lago Club, including "on ground floor (basement)," from January 10, 2022, to June 24, 2022.

78. That same day, June 24, 2022, at 1:25 p.m., Trump Attorney 1 spoke with TRUMP by phone regarding the subpoena for security camera footage. At 3:44 p.m., NAUTA received a text message from a co-worker, Trump Employee 3, indicating that TRUMP wanted to see NAUTA. Less than two hours later, NAUTA -- who was scheduled to travel with TRUMP to Illinois the next day -- changed his travel schedule and began to make arrangements to go to Palm Beach, Florida, instead.

79. NAUTA provided inconsistent explanations to colleagues for his sudden travel to Florida. At 7:14 p.m. on June 24, he texted one person that he would not be traveling with TRUMP the next day because he had a family emergency and used ''shushing" emojis; at 9:48 p.m. that night, he texted a Secret Service agent that he had to check on a family member in Florida; and after he arrived in Florida on June 25, he texted the same Secret Service agent that he was in Florida working.

80. Around the same time on June 24 that NAUTA was making his travel plans to go to Florida, NAUTA and DE OLIVEIRA contacted Trump Employee 4, who was the Director of Information Technology ("IT') at The Mar-a-Lago Club, as follows:

a. At 5:02 p.m., NAUTA sent text messages to Trump Employee 4 asking, ''Hey bro You around this weekend."

b. At 5:05 p.m., NAUTA texted DE OLIVEIRA, asking, "Hey brother You working today?" DE OLIVEIRA responded, "Yes I just left." NAUTA then called DE OLIVEIRA and they spoke for approximately two minutes.

c. At 5:09 p.m., Trump Employee 4 texted a response to NAUTA, "I am local. Entertaining some family that came to visit. What's up?" NAUTA responded to Trump Employee 4, "Ok, cool. No biggie just wanted to see if you where around. Enjoy bro!''

d. At 6:56 p.m., DE OLIVEIRA texted Trump Employee 4, "Hey buddy how are you ... Walter call me early said it was trying to get in touch with you I guess he's coming down tomorrow I guess needs you for something." Trump Employee 4 responded, "He reached out but he didn't say what he wanted. I told him I was local but entertaining some family that came from NYC this weekend. He told me to no worries.''

e. At 6:58 p.m., Trump Employee 4 texted NAUTA, "Bro, if you need me I can get away for a few. Just let me know." NAUTA responded, "Sounds good!! Thank you.''

81. On Saturday, June 25, 2022, NAUTA traveled from Bedminster, New Jersey, to Palm Beach, Florida. Prior to NAUTA's trip, DE OLIVEIRA told a valet at The Mar-a-Lago Club ("Trump Employee 5") that NAUTA was coming down. DE OLIVEIRA asked Trump Employee 5 not to tell anyone that NAUTA was coming down because NAUTA wanted the trip to remain secret. DE OLIVEIRA also told Trump Employee 5 that NAUTA wanted DE OLIVEIRA to talk to Trump Employee 4 to see how long camera footage was stored.

82. Shortly after arriving in Palm Beach on the evening of June 25, NAUTA went to The Mar-a-Lago Club and met with DE OLIVEIRA at 5:46 p.m. At The Mar-a-Lago Club, NAUTA and DE OLIVEIRA went to the security guard booth where surveillance video is displayed on monitors, walked with a flashlight through the tunnel where the Storage Room was located, and observed and pointed out surveillance cameras.

83. On Monday, June 27, 2022, at 9:48 a.m., DE OLIVEIRA walked to the IT office where Trump Employee 4 was working with another employee in the IT department. DE OLIVEIRA requested that Trump Employee 4 step away from the office so that DE OLIVEIRA and Trump Employee 4 could talk.

84. At 9:49 a.m., Trump Employee 4 and DE OLIVEIRA left the area of the IT office together and walked through a basement tunnel. DE OLIVEIRA took Trump Employee 4 to a small room known as an "audio closet" near the White and Gold Ballroom. Once inside the audio closet, DE OLIVEIRA and Trump Employee 4 had the following exchange:

a. DE OLIVEIRA told Trump Employee 4 that their conversation should remain between the two of them.

b. DE OLIVEIRA asked Trump Employee 4 how many days the server retained footage. Trump Employee 4 responded that he believed it was approximately 45 days.

c. DE OLIVEIRA told Trump Employee 4 that "the boss" wanted the server deleted. Trump Employee 4 responded that he would not know how to do that, and that he did not believe that he would have the rights to do that. Trump Employee 4 told DE OLIVEIRA that DE OLIVEIRA would have to reach out to another employee who was a supervisor of security for TRUMP's business organization. DE OLIVEIRA then insisted to TRUMP Employee 4 that "the boss" wanted the server deleted and asked, "what are we going to do?"

85. At 10:14 a.m., DE OLIVEIRA texted NAUTA, who was still in Florida, "Hey buddy are you working today?" DE OLIVEIRA then called NAUTA at 10:15 a.m., and they spoke for approximately one minute.

86. Later that day, at I :06 p.m., NAUTA texted DE OLIVEIRA, who was at The Mar-a-Lago Club, "On my way to you." Between 1:31 p.m. and 1:50 p.m., DE OLIVEIRA walked through the bushes on the northern edge of The Mar-a-Lago Club property to meet with NAUTA on the adjacent property; then walked back to the IT office that he had visited that morning; and then walked again through the bushes on the northern edge of The Mar-a-Lago Club property to meet with NAUTA on the adjacent property.

87. At 3:55 p.m., TRUMP called DE OLIVEIRA and they spoke for approximately three and a half minutes.

The Court-Authorized Search of The Mar-a-Lago Club

88. In July 2022, the FBI and grand jury obtained and reviewed surveillance video from The Mar-a-Lago Club showing the movement of boxes set forth above.

89. August 8, 2022, the FBI executed a court-authorized search warrant at The Mar-a-Lago Club. The search warrant authorized the FBI to search for and seize, among other things, all documents with classification markings.

90. During the execution of the warrant at The Mar-a-Lago Club, the FBI seized 102 documents with classification markings in TRUMP's office and the Storage Room, as follows:

Location / Number of Documents / Classification Markings

TRUMP's Office / 27 / Top Secret (6); Secret (18); Confidential (3)
Storage Room / 75 / Top Secret (11); Secret (36); Confidential (28)


91. Just over two weeks after the FBI discovered classified documents in the Storage Room and TRUMP's office, on August 26, 2022, NAUTA called Trump Employee 5 and said words to the effect of, "someone just wants to make sure Carlos is good." In response, Trump Employee 5 told NAUTA that DE OLIVEIRA was loyal and that DE OLIVEIRA would not do anything to affect his relationship with TRUMP. That same day, at NAUTA's request, Trump Employee 5 confirmed in a Signal chat group with NAUTA and the PAC Representative that DE OLIVEIRA was loyal. That same day, TRUMP called DE OLIVEIRA and told DE OLIVEIRA that TRUMP would get DE OLIVEIRA an attorney.

COUNTS 1-32
Willful Retention of National Defense Information
(18 U.S.C. § 793(e))


92. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

93. On or about the dates set forth in the table below, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,

DONALD J. TRUMP,

having unauthorized possession of, access to, and control over documents relating to the national defense, did willfully retain the documents and fail to deliver them to the officer and employee of the United States entitled to receive them; that is- -- RUMP, without authorization, retained at The Mar-a-Lago Club documents relating to the national defense, including the following:

Count / Date of Offense / Classification Marking / Document Description

1 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//NOFORN//SPECIAL HANDLING / Document dated May 3, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries

2 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN//SPECIAL HANDLING / Document dated May 9, 2018, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries

3 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN//FISA / Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States, with handwritten annotation in black marker

4 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SPECIAL HANDLING / Document dated May 6, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to foreign countries, including military activities and planning of foreign countries

5 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//[redacted]/[redacted]//ORCON/NOFORN / Document dated June 2020 concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign country

6 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SPECIAL HANDLING / Document dated June 4, 2020, concerning White House

7 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//NOFORN / Document dated October 21, 2018, concerning communications with a leader of a foreign country

8 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY / Document dated October 4, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country

9 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//[redacted]/[redacted]//ORCON/NOFORN/FISA / Undated document concerning military attacks by a foreign country

10 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//TK//NOFORN / Document dated November 2017 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country

11 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / No marking / Undated document concerning military contingency planning of the United States

12 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//REL TO USA, FVEY / Pages of undated document concerning projected regional military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States

13 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SI/TK//NOFORN / Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States

14 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//ORCON/NOFORN / Document dated January 2020 concerning military options of a foreign country and potential effects on United States interests

15 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//ORCON/NOFORN / Document dated February 2020 concerning policies in a foreign country

16 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//ORCON/NOFORN / Document dated December 2019 concerning foreign country support of terrorist acts against United States interests

17 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//[redacted]/TK//ORCON/IMCON/NOFORN / Document dated January 2020 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country

18 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//NOFORN / Document dated March 2020 concerning military operations against United States forces and others

19 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA / Undated document concerning nuclear weaponry of the United States

20 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / TOP SECRET//[redacted]//ORCON/NOFORN / Undated document concerning timeline and details of attack in a foreign country

21 / January 20, 2021 - August 8, 2022 / SECRET//NOFORN / Undated document concerning military capabilities of foreign countries

22 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//[redacted]//RSEN/ORCON/NOFORN / Document dated August 2019 concerning regional military activity of a foreign country

23 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SPECIAL HANDLING / Document dated August 30, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries, with handwritten annotation in black marker

24 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//HCWS-P/SI//ORCON-USGOV/NOFORN / Undated document concerning military activity of a foreign country

25 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//HCS-P/SI//ORCON-USGOV/NOFORN / Document dated October 24, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States

26 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//[redacted]//ORCON/NOFORN/FISA / Document dated November 7, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States

27 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SI/TK//NOFORN / Document dated November 2019 concerning military activity of foreign countries

28 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SPECIAL HANDLING / Document dated October 18, 2019, concerning White House intelligence briefing related to various foreign countries

29 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//[redacted]/SI/TK//ORCON/NOFORN / Document dated October 18, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country

30 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//[redacted]//ORCON/NOFORN/FISA / Document dated October 15, 2019, concerning military activity in a foreign country

31 / January 20, 2021 - June 3, 2022 / TOP SECRET//SI/TK//NOFORN / Document dated February 2017 concerning military activity of a foreign country

32 / January 20, 2021 - January 17, 2022 / TOP SECRET//NOFORN / Presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793(e).


COUNT33
Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice
18 U.S.C. § 1512(k))


94. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

The Conspiracy and its Objects

95. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA,
and CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA


did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and with others known and unknown to the grand jury, to engage in misleading conduct toward another person and corruptly persuade another person to withhold a record, document, and other object from an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A); to corruptly persuade another person, with intent to cause and induce any person to alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(8); and to corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal a record, document, and other object from an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1).

The Purpose of the Conspiracy

96. The purpose of the conspiracy was for TRUMP to keep classified documents he had taken with him from the White House and to hide and conceal them from a federal grand jury.

The Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

97. The manner and means by which the defendants sought to accomplish the objects and purpose of the conspiracy included, among other things, the following:

a. Suggesting that Trump Attorney 1 falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that TRUMP did not have documents called for by the May 11 Subpoena;

b. moving boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump Attorney 1, the FBI, and the grand jury;

c. suggesting that Trump Attorney 1 hide or destroy documents called for by the May 11 Subpoena;

d. providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the May 11 Subpoena, while TRUMP claimed he was cooperating fully;

e. causing a false certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury representing that all documents with classification markings had been produced, when in fact they had not;

f. making false and misleading statements to the FBI; and

g. attempting to delete security camera footage from The Mar-a-Lago Club to conceal the footage from the FBI and grand jury.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(k).

COUNT 34
Withholding a Document or Record
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2)


98. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

99. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

DONALD J. TRUMP
and WALTINE NAUTA,


did knowingly engage in misleading conduct toward another person, and knowingly corruptly persuade and attempt to persuade another person, with intent to cause and induce any person to withhold a record, document, and other object from an official proceeding; that is--(1) TRUMP attempted to persuade Trump Attorney 1 to hide and conceal documents from a federal grand jury; and (2) TRUMP and NAUTA misled Trump Attorney 1 by moving boxes that contained documents with classification markings so that Trump Attorney 1 would not find the documents and produce them to a federal grand jury.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 15 l2(b)(2)(A) and 2.

COUNT 35
Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2)


100. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

101. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

DONALD J. TRUMP
and WALTINE NAUTA,


did corruptly conceal a record, document, and other object, and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding; that is-TRUMP and NAUTA hid and concealed boxes that contained documents with classification markings from Trump Attorney 1 so that Trump Attorney 1 would not find the documents and produce them to a federal grand jury.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c )(1) and 2.

COUNT 36
Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2)


102. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

103. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

DONALD J. TRUMP
and WALTINE NAUTA,


did knowingly conceal, cover up, falsify, and make a false entry in any record, document, and tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of a department and agency of the United States, and in relation to and contemplation of any such matter; that is--during a federal criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI, (1) TRUMP and NAUTA hid, concealed, and covered up from the FBI TRUMP's continued possession of documents with classification markings at The Mar-a-Lago Club; and (2) TRUMP caused a false certification to be submitted to the FBI.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1519 and 2.

COUNT 37
Scheme to Conceal
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(1), 2)


104. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

105. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

DONALD J. TRUMP
and WALTINE NAUTA,


in a matter within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch and executive branch of the United States government, did knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, and cover up by any trick, scheme, and device a material fact; that is -- during a federal grand jury investigation and a federal criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI, TRUMP and NAUTA hid and concealed from the grand jury and the FBI TRUMP's continued possession of documents with classification markings.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a)(1) and 2.

COUNT 38
False Statements and Representations
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2)


106. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

107. On or about June 3, 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,

DONALD J. TRUMP,

in a matter within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch and executive branch of the United States government, did knowingly and willfully make and cause to be made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation; that is -- during a federal grand jury investigation and a federal criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI, TRUMP caused the following false statements and representations to be made to the grand jury and the FBI in a sworn certification executed by Trump Attorney 3:

a. "A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida";

b. "This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena"; and

c. "Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification."

108. The statements and representations set forth above were false, as TRUMP knew, because TRUMP had directed that boxes be removed from the Storage Room before Trump Attorney 1 conducted the June 2, 2022 search for documents with classification markings, so that Trump Attorney 1 's search would not and did not include all of TRUMP's boxes that were removed from the White House; Trump Attorney 1's search would not and did not locate all
documents responsive to the May 11 Subpoena; and all responsive documents were not provided to the FBI and the grand jury with the certification. In fact, after June 3, 2022, more than 100 documents with classification markings remained at The Mar-a-Lago Club until the FBI search on August 8, 2022.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections l00l(a)(2) and 2.

COUNT 39
False Statements and Representations
(18 U.S.C. § 100l(a)(2))


109. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

110. On May 26, 2022, NAUTA participated in a voluntary interview with the FBI. During the interview, the FBI explained to NAUTA that the FBI was investigating how classified documents had been kept at The Mar-a-Lago Club, and the FBI asked NAUTA questions about the location and movement of TRUMP's boxes before TRUMP provided 15 boxes to NARA on January 17, 2022. NAUTA was represented by counsel, and the FBI advised NAUTA that the interview was voluntary and that he could leave at any time. The FBI also advised NAUTA that it was a criminal offense to lie to the FBI. The interview was recorded.

111. On or about May 26, 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,

WALTINE NAUTA,

in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States government, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation; that is -- in a voluntary interview during a federal criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI, NAUTA was asked the following questions and gave the following false answers:

Question: Does any -are you aware of any boxes being brought to his home -his suite?

Answer: No.

Question: All right. So, so to the best of your knowledge, you're saying that those boxes that you brought onto the truck, first time you ever laid eyes on them was just the day of when [Trump Employee 2) needed you --

Answer: Correct.

Question: -to take them. Okay.

* * *

Question: In knowing that we're trying to track the life of these boxes and where they could have been kept and stored and all that kind of stuff-

Answer: Mm-hm.

Question: --do you have any information that could-that would-that could help us understand, like, where they were kept, how they were kept, were they secured, were they locked? Something that makes the intelligence community feel better about these things, you know?

Answer: I wish, I wish I could tell you. I don't know. I don't-I honestly just don't know.

* * *

Question: And what-so, so you only saw the 15 boxes, 15, 17 boxes-

Answer: Mm-hm.

Question: -the day of the move? Even-they just showed up that day?

Answer: They were in Pine Hall. [Trump Employee 2) just asked me, hey, can we move some boxes?

Question: Okay. Answer: And I was like, okay.


Question: So, you didn't know-had no idea how they got there before?

Answer: No.

112. The underscored statements and representations above were false, as NAUTA knew, because (1) NAUTA did in fact know that the boxes in Pine Hall had come from the Storage Room, as NA UTA himself, with the assistance of Trump Employee 2, had moved the boxes from the Storage Room to Pine Hall; and (2) NAUTA had observed the boxes in and moved them to various locations at The Mar-a-Lago Club.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 (a)(2).

COUNT 40
Altering, Destroying, Mutilating, or Concealing an Object
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(B), 2)


113. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

114. From on or about June 22, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA,
and CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA


did knowingly corruptly persuade and attempt to persuade another person, with intent to cause and induce any person to alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding; that is -- TRUMP, NAUTA, and DE OLIVEIRA requested that Trump Employee 4 delete security camera footage at The Mara-Lago Club to prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(b )(2)(8) and 2.

COUNT 41
Corruptly Altering, Destroying, Mutilating or Concealing a Document, Record, or Other Object
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2)


115. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

116. From on or about June 22, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA,
and CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA


did corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate. and conceal a record, document and other object and attempted to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding; that is -- TRUMP, NAUTA, and DE OLIVEIRA requested that Trump Employee 4 delete security camera footage at The Mar-a-Lago Club to prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 15 12(c)(1) and 2.

COUNT 42
False Statements and Representations
(18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2))


117. The General Allegations of this Superseding Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

118. On January 13, 2023, DE OLIVEIRA participated in a voluntary interview with the FBI at DE OLIVEIRA's residence. During the interview, the FBI explained to DE OLIVEIRA that the FBI was investigating how classified documents had been kept at The Mara-Lago Club, and the FBI asked DE OLIVEIRA questions about the location and movement of TRUMP's boxes and other items. DE OLIVEIRA was advised by the FBI that the interview was voluntary and that he could tell the agents to leave at any time. The FBI also advised DE OLIVEIRA that it was a criminal offense to lie to the FBI. The interview was recorded.

119. On or about January 13, 2023, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,

CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,

in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States government, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation; that is -- in a voluntary interview during a federal criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI, DE OLIVEIRA was asked the following questions and gave the following false answers:

Question: When --after the end of the presidency, boxes arrived to Mar-a-Lago. Were you part of any group to help --

Answer: No.

Question: --unload them and move them?

Answer: No.

* * *

Question: Do you --were you --do you even know, like, or were you even there or aware that boxes were --

Answer: No.

Question: --like, all this stuff was being moved in?

Answer: Never saw anything.

Question: Okay.

Answer: Yeah. And then --

Question: Even his personal stuff, like, his clothes -

Answer: Never.

Question: --and furniture, nothing?

Answer: Never saw nothing.

Question: Okay. So you don't know where items would have been stored, as soon as he moved back to Mar-a-Lago?

Answer: No.

120. The underscored statements and representations above were false, as DE OLIVEIRA knew, because DE OLIVEIRA had personally observed and helped move TRUMP's boxes when they arrived at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 2021.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

A TRUE BILL
[DELETE]
FOREPERSON

JACK SMITH
SPECIAL COUNSEL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENALTY SHEET

Defendant's Name: Donald J. Trump

Case No.: 23-CR-80101-AMC(s)

Counts #:1-32
Willful Retention of National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. § 793(e)
*Max.Term of Imprisonment: 10 years *
*Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
*Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 33
Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)
*Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
*Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 34
Withholding a Document or Record, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 35
Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 36
Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
*Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250 000

Count#: 37
Scheme to Conceal, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(1), 2
*Max. Term of Imprisonment: 5 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 39
False Statements and Representations, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(2)
*Max. Term of Imprisonment: 5 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
*Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 40
Altering, Destroying, Mutilating, or Concealing an Object. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(B). 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 41
Corruptly Altering, Destroying. Mutilating, or Concealing a Document, Record, or Other Object. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
*Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
*Max. Fine: $250,000

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.

***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENALTY SHEET

Defendant's Name: Waltine Nauta

Case No.: 23-CR-80101-AMC(s)

Count#: 33
Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 34
Withholding a Document or Record, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 35
Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 36
Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 37
Scheme to Conceal, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(1), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 5 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 39
False Statements and Representations, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 5 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 40
Altering, Destroying, Mutilating, or Concealing an Object, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(B), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 41
Corruptly Altering, Destroying, Mutilating, or Concealing a Document, Record, or Other Object, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.

***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENALTY SHEET

Defendant's Name: Carlos De Oliveira

Case No.: 23-CR-80101-AMC(s)

Count #: 33
Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(k)
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 40
Altering. Destroying, Mutilating. or Concealing an Object, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(B). 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 41 Corruptly Altering, Destroying. Mutilating, or Concealing a Document, Record. or Other Object, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

Count#: 42
False Statements and Representations, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(2)
*Max. Term of Imprisonment: 5 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Tue Aug 01, 2023 3:33 am

Order on Motion to Quash, Preclude, and Recuse [Trump and Latham's motions to preclude any State prosecuting agency from using evidence derived from the Special Purpose Grand Jury DISMISSED for lack of standing; motions to quash (or expunge) the Final Report of the Special Purpose Grand Jury DENIED as moot; motions to disqualify the District Attorney and her office are DENIED.]
In Re 2 May 2022 Special Purpose Grand Jury
Superior Court of Fulton County, Case No. 2022-EX-000024
by Judge Robert C.I. McBurney, Superior Court of Fulton County 
July 31, 2023

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

IN RE 2 MAY 2022 SPECIAL PURPOSE GRAND JURY

2022-EX-000024

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH, PRECLUDE, AND RECUSE

On 20 March 2023, former President Trump filed a motion to quash the Special Purpose Grand Jury's Final Report, to preclude any State prosecuting agency from using any evidence derived from the Special Purpose Grand Jury's work, and to disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney's Office from further investigation into/prosecution of alleged interference with the 2020 general election in Georgia! On 28 April 2023, Cathleen Latham, one of the "alternate" presidential electors advanced by Georgia's Republican Party in the aftermath of the 2020 general election, filed a motion joining Trump's motion. On 15 May 2023, the District Attorney responded to the two motions and certain media intervenors did the same -- although the intervenors' response was limited to opposing Trump and Latham's efforts to suppress the Final Report. Finally, on 19 May 2023, a "bipartisan" collection of former federal and state prosecutors submitted an amicus brief opposing all relief sought by Trump and Latham? At that point, the record was complete, as the Court declined Trump's request to file a reply brief, finding the 500+ pages of pleadings ample and sufficient to resolve the issues presented.

1. Precluding Further Prosecution

Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court now finds that neither Trump nor Latham enjoys standing to mount a challenge -- at this pre-indictment phase of the proceedings -- to the continued investigation into and potential prosecution of possible criminal interference in the 2020 general election in Georgia. The movants' asserted "injuries" that would open the doors of the courthouse to their claims are either insufficient or else speculative and unrealized. They are insufficient because, while being the subject (or even target) of a highly publicized criminal investigation is likely an unwelcome and unpleasant experience, no court ever has held that that status alone provides a basis for the courts to interfere with or halt the investigation.3 Trump knew this, and now Latham does too: "No doubt the threat of prosecution can weigh heavily on the mind of anyone under investigation. But without diminishing the seriousness of the burden, that ordinary experience cannot support extraordinary jurisdiction." Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 689, 700 (11th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted); see also Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 1993) ("if the mere threat of prosecution were allowed to constitute irreparable harm, every potential defendant could point to the same harm and invoke the equitable powers of the court").4

The professed injuries are also speculative and unrealized because there is, as of yet, no indictment that creates the genuine controversy required to confer standing.5 Trump and Latham presently theorize that evidence derived from the Special Purpose Grand Jury will be used to secure whatever indictment(s) may be imminent. They further suppose that they will be named in one or more charging documents. Perhaps and perhaps. Alone, that possibility is not enough to create a controversy, cause an injury, or confer standing. So Trump and Latham necessarily further allege that the information from the Special Purpose Grand Jury is fatally tainted due to procedural missteps made by the grand jury and the supervising judge.6 Assuming without finding that there were procedural infirmities, relief continues to elude the pair at this pre-indictment juncture:


Even if some of the evidence presented to the regular grand jury emanated from the unlawful investigation by the special purpose grand jury, this in itself is of no moment, for grand juries, unlike petit juries, are authorized to consider evidence without regard to its eventual admissibility at trial.


State v. Lampl, 296 Ga. 892, 89798 (2015); see also Mitchell v. State, 239 Ga. 456, 459 (1977) (evidence which the grand jury receives in finding a true bill is "not subject to inquiry").7

Finally, there are sound policy reasons, buttressed by controlling precedent, to defer resolution of these complaints until indictment.8 Prosecution is an executive branch function; the judicial branch should involve itself sparingly and delicately in the work that precedes formal charges. See State v. Wooten, 273 Ga. 529, 531 (2001) ("In the district attorney's role as an administrator of justice, she has broad discretion in making decisions prior to trial about who to prosecute [and] what charges to bring"); Evans v. State, 356 Ga. App. 438, 44o (2020) ("not even a trial court may interfere with a prosecutor's discretion to pursue criminal prosecution"). After formal charges are brought, the locus of power, authority, and jurisdiction shifts to the courts. Arguments like those being made prematurely in the pending motions can be more effectively (and reasonably) presented and ruled upon when the full picture of who is being charged with what has been painted. Guessing at what that picture might look like before the investigative dots are connected may be a popular game for the media and blogosphere, but it is not a proper role for the courts and formal legal argumentation.9

There will be a time and a forum in which Trump and Latham can raise their concerns about the constitutionality of the special purpose grand jury statutes, about the performance of this particular Special Purpose Grand Jury (and the judge supervising it), and about the propriety of allowing the Fulton County District Attorney to remain involved with whatever criminal prosecution -- if any -- results from the work of this Special Purpose Grand Jury. That time is not now and that forum is not here. Should either (or both) movant be indicted, they can raise all these issues (as they undoubtedly will) before the judge who is actually confronted with a case and controversy, whether that judge be here in the Superior Court of Fulton County or instead in the Northern District of Georgia.10


2. Quashing the Final Report

Trump and Latham both seek to have the Special Purpose Grand Jury's final report locked away from public view forever. Such permanent silencing of that investigative body is not what either statutory or case law generally allows. See O.C.G.A. § 151280 (when a grand jury recommends to the court that its presentments be published, "the judge shall order the publication") (emphasis added); In re Gwinnett Cnty. Grand Jury, 284 Ga. 510, 513 (2008) (holding that USCR 21, which restricts the courts' ability to limit access to court files, encompasses "presentments made by the grand jury in open court at the conclusion of the grand jury's investigation"). However, a more complete analysis of Trump and Latham's claimed due process rights concerning publication of the Final Report -- assuming, arguendo, that they are named in it -- is unnecessary at this time because those portions of the report that have not been released will, per this Court's earlier Order entered on 13 February 2023, remain out of the public's eye until the District Attorneys final charging decision, which she has widely advertised will occur sometime in the first two weeks of August. After that, the Court will, as promised, revisit the question of releasing the remainder of the Final Report. Until then, motions to quash or expunge are MOOT.11

3. Disqualifying the District Attorney

Finally, Trump and Latham seek to have the District Attorney and her office "disqualified from any further involvement in this matter." Trump Mot. at 1. This is a bold request; a significant showing must be made to grant such uncommon relief." There are two primary grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney: (1) conflict of interest and (2) "forensic misconduct." Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314 (1988). Neither ground has been shown here. The conflicts of interest that typically suffice to support a motion to disqualify arise when the prosecutor previously represented the defendant with respect to the crimes charged, when she consulted with the defendant in a professional capacity with regard to such crimes, or when she "has acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction." Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 310 11 (2018) (citation omitted). Forensic misconduct occurs when, for example, the prosecutor improperly expresses her "personal belief in the defendant's guilt." Williams, 258 Ga. at 314.

None of that has happened -- yet. There is no evidence (or even a contention) that the District Attorney (or any of her many assistants) ever represented Trump or Latham or consulted with them in a professional legal capacity. Nor is there evidence of any direct financial interest that any member of the District Attorney's Office has in the outcome of the case, unlike the sole case upon which movants rely: the fractured, inapposite, and unpersuasive opinion in Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987113 And as for "forensic misconduct" -- while both sides have done enough talking, posting, tweeting ("X'ing"?), and press conferencing to have hit (and perhaps stretched) the bounds of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6(a) and 3.8(g) -- neither movant has pointed to any averments from the District Attorney or her team of lawyers expressing a belief that Trump or Latham is guilty or has committed this or that offense. Rather, the consistent -- and persistent -- theme has been the standard fare of "pursuing the evidence where it leads us," "holding everyone accountable," and "no one being above the law." The drumbeat from the District Attorney has been neither partisan (in the political sense) nor personal, in marked and refreshing contrast to the stream of personal invective flowing from one of the movants.

Put differently, the District Attorney's Office has been doing a fairly routine -- and legally unobjectionable -- job of public relations in a case that is anything but routine. None of what movants cite rises to the level of justifying disqualification and all of it, collectively, falls far short of what prompted the District Attorney's disqualification from the investigation into Lieutenant Governor Jones. The prosecutor is not a neutral party and does not need to pretend to be: she has a cause she has sworn to pursue, and in that pursuit of justice, she "is necessarily a partisan in the case. If [s]he were compelled to proceed with the same circumspection as the judge and jury, there would be an end to the conviction of criminals." State v. Sutherland, 190 Ga. App. 606, 607 (1989) (citation omitted). 'For these reasons, Trump and Latham's motions to disqualify the District Attorney are DENIED.14


***

Former President Trump and alternate Elector Latham's motions to preclude any State prosecuting agency from using evidence derived from the Special Purpose Grand Jury's work are DISMISSED for lack of standing. Their motions to quash (or expunge) the Final Report of the Special Purpose Grand Jury are DENIED as moot. And their motions to disqualify the District Attorney and her office are DENIED.15

SO ORDERED this 31st day of July 2023.

Judge Robert C.I. McBurney
Superior Court of Fulton County 

_______________

Notes:

1 Trump also sought to have either the Chief Judge of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit or "a duly assigned Fulton County Superior Court judge" other than the undersigned consider his motion. Trump mot. at 1. Counsel for Trump -- seasoned Georgia practitioners -- are all no doubt familiar with Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, which prescribes the method for seeking the recusal of the judge assigned to a matter. That required approach was not followed here in any respect and so the motion necessarily remains with the judge originally randomly assigned to supervise the Special Purpose Grand Jury.

2 The 19 May 2023 filing was more specifically a motion to allow the amici to file a brief for the Court's consideration. That motion is hereby GRANTED; the amicus brief is part of the universe of pleadings the Court considered in reaching its conclusions in this Order.

3 And for some, being the subject of a criminal investigation can, a la Rumpelstiltskin, be turned into golden political capital, making it seem more providential than problematic. Regardless, simply being the subject (or target) of an investigation does not yield standing to bring a claim to halt that investigation in court.

4 Both Trump and Ramsden involve our federal district courts' limited equitable jurisdiction in the context of pre-indictment challenges to search warrants brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. It is true that federal standing requirements - which are "grounded in Article III's limitation of the federal judicial power to only certain kinds of 'cases' and 'controversies"' -- do not control standing analysis in Georgia's courts. Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Henry Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 315 Ga. 39, 45 (2022). Nonetheless, "from the earliest days" Georgia's courts "have understood the power of courts the judicial power to be limited to cases involving actual controversies, which requires a showing of some injury." Id. at 62. Thus, Trump and Ramsden's analysis of what constitutes actual injury, in the context of preindictment criminal investigations, is instructive -- if not memorable to Trump and his legal team.

5 The Court appreciates that "a wrongful indictment is no laughing matter; often it works a grievous, irreparable injury to the person indicted. The stigma cannot be easily erased. In the public mind, the blot on a man's [or woman's] escutcheon is seldom wiped out by a subsequent judgment of not guilty." United States v. Search of Law Office, Residence, & Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 2003) (punctuation and citation omitted). However, in this situation, movants' rather overwrought allegations of prosecutorial overreach and judicial error do not suffice to show that there is a significant risk of a "wrongful" indictment (or even a blot on an escutcheon).

5 The pair also argue that the statutes authorizing special purposes grand juries are unconstitutionally vague. While this Court finds such an argument unpersuasive -- as a plain language reading of the statutes (and the case law interpreting them) demonstrates -- it is not reaching the merits of that position, given the ruling on standing.

7 It is further important to note, in considering injury and standing (and lack thereof), that neither Trump nor Latham appeared before the Special Purpose Grand Jury. Thus, the litany of procedural and constitutional shortcomings that they allege infected the Special Purpose Grand Jury's work are all applicable to... someone not named Trump or Latham. Moreover, several of their challenges to the constitutionality of the statutory scheme that authorizes special purpose grand juries -- to include in particular their assertion that, in Georgia, special purpose grand juries can only conduct civil investigations and thus cannot compel the attendance of out-of-state witnesses -- were repeatedly rejected by the many foreign jurisdictions that were confronted with such arguments.

8 "A robust standing doctrine is necessary to ensure that courts remain the least dangerous branch of government. When we decide only cases brought by parties seeking redress for actual harm, we limit ourselves to exercising only that power granted us by the Georgia Constitution." Parker v. Leeuwenburg, 300 Ga. 789, 793 (2017) (Peterson, J., dissenting).

9 A further bar to the form of relief being sought by Trump and Latham is O.C.G.A. § 9-5-2, which mandates that equity "will take no part in the administration of the criminal law." See also GeorgiaCarry.org v. Atlanta Botanical Garden, Inc., 299 Ga. 26, 31 (2016) (requesting injunctive relief that would enjoin the State from prosecuting the movant "squarely implicates the administration of criminal law and, thus, is improper"). Latham is more explicit in her motion, demanding "permanent injunctive relief' from (1) the use of any evidence derived from the Special Purpose Grand Jury's work and (2) the Fulton County District Attorney's Office continued participation in the "investigation or prosecution of this matter." Latham Mot. at 5-6. Trump's requests are no different, even if not so transparent in their nomenclature.

10 See 28 U.S.C. 1442.

11 There is one potential intervening event that could require reconsideration of this mootness finding: the media intervenors have appealed this Court's 13 February 2023 Order restricting publication of certain portions of the Final Report. See In re: 2 May Special Purpose Grand Jury, Case No. A23A1453, filed 4 May 2023. Should the Court of Appeals reverse this Court's ruling and direct the Court to enter a revised Order mandating the release of the remainder of the report before the District Attorney completes her charging process, the Court will revisit Trump and Latham's arguments about quashal (and expungement), as well as the media intervenor's and amici's arguments opposing such relief.

12 As both the movants and the District Attorney note, such a showing was made earlier as to a lone subject of the investigation, Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones (who, at the time, was candidate Burt Jones). In that situation -- in stark contrast to this one -- the District Attorney had lent her name and her public office to the fundraising purposes of a political opponent of Jones, creating an unavoidable and profound appearance of partiality. That decision injected direct partisanship into a criminal investigation that should remain as politically neutral as possible. For that reason, the District Attorney and her office were disqualified from pursuing charges against Jones for any possible criminal interference in the general election of 2020. See Order of 25 July 2022 in this docket. Neither movant has demonstrated anything of the sort in their cases -- indeed, it is unclear how Latham could, given that she was not a candidate for any office. Public comments about the need for and importance of the investigation fall far short of the type of bias, explicit or implicit, that must be found.

13 The speaking engagements, book deals, etc., that will inevitably flow from this investigation are equal opportunity prospects for prosecutors and defense attorneys alike -- and not linked to any particular outcome, as the O.J. Simpson case illustrated. And the claim Trump raises in his amended petition for mandamus (discussed in n. 14 below) that the District Attorney has an improper financial stake in the investigation because of unsolicited political support she is receiving is similarly a non-starter: that private citizens who take a dim view of the former President have responded to third-party urgings to support the District Attorney's re-election campaign is neither remarkable nor disqualifying. If it were, no elected prosecutor could ever take on a politically polarizing case.

14 There is an additional basis for denial, not reached here but certainly one preserved for pursuit should this Order be appealed: waiver. As the District Attorney noted in her response, a motion to disqualify the prosecutor in a criminal case "must be raised promptly after the defendant learns of a potentially disqualifying matter." Reed v. State; 314 Ga. 534, 546 (2022). Much, if not all, of what serves as the movants' grounds for disqualification is quite dated, having occurred months before their motions were filed -- and movants offer no explanation for their delay in seeking disqualification.

15 Perplexingly, prematurely, and with the standard pugnacity, Trump has filed not one but two mandamus actions against the District Attorney and this Court -- one in the Supreme Court of Georgia (case 82301134, which the Supreme Court has already dismissed) and one in the Superior Court of Fulton County (Civil Action 20230V382670). Peculiarly, neither petition requests the sole relief available under mandamus: an order "compel[ling] a public officer to perform a required duty. " Love v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 311 Ga. 682, 692 (2021) (citation omitted). That "required duty," though it is only obliquely referenced in the twin mandamus petitions, could only be for this Court to rule on the pending motion. Perhaps the conspicuous omission of a demand for such relief is due to petitioner's counsel's familiarity with O.C.G.A. § 15-6-21(b). Pursuant to that statute, a superior court judge in a county with more than 100,000 inhabitants (such as Fulton County) must decide all motions within 90 days after briefing is complete. Basic calendar math shows why mandamus relief is not (yet) available: the State's response was filed on 15 May 2023, per the Court's amended (and unobjected to) Scheduling Order of 1 May 2023. Ninety days from 15 May 2023 is 13 August 2023 -- which is a Sunday -- making the statutory deadline for the Court's Order 14 August 2023. Before that date, there is nothing to compel. We are several weeks from that date and here is the Order. This filing, while it will indubitably generate an appeal, should render moot Civil Action 2023CV382670 as to the supervising judge. In the future, counsel is encouraged to follow the professional standard of inquiring with Chamber's staff about timing and deadlines before burdening other courts with unnecessary and unfounded legal filings.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Wed Aug 02, 2023 1:57 am

Part 1 of 2

Indictment
USDC, District of Columbia
USA v. Donald Trump
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC
by Jack Smith, Special Counsel
8/1/23

Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 1
Filed 08/01/23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.

CRIMINAL NO.

GRAND JURY ORIGINAL

VIOLATIONS:

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371
(Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)

Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)
(Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)

Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2
(Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)

Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241
(Conspiracy Against Rights)

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges that, at all times material to this Indictment, on or about the dates and at the approximate times stated below:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020. The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.

2. Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway -- to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.

3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k); and

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Each of these conspiracies -- which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud-targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election ("the federal government function").

COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Defraud the United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371)


5. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Indictment are realleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

The Conspiracy

6. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant,

DONALD J. TRUMP,

did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government.

Purpose of the Conspiracy

7. The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.

The Defendant's Co-Conspirators

8. The Defendant enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power. Among these were:

a. Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani], an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not.

b. Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman]], an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.

c. Co-Conspirator 3 [Sidney Powell], an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded "crazy." Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3 [Sidney Powell]'s disinformation.

d. Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark], a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with the Defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.

e. Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro], an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

f. Co-Conspirator 6 [Boris Epshteyn], a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

The Federal Government Function

9. The federal government function by which the results of the election for President of the United States are collected, counted, and certified was established through the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act CECA), a federal law enacted in 1887. The Constitution provided that individuals called electors select the president, and that each state determine for itself how to appoint the electors apportioned to it. Through state laws, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia chose to select their electors based on the popular vote in the state. After election day, the ECA required each state to formally determine -- or "ascertain" -- the electors who would represent the state's voters by casting electoral votes on behalf of the candidate who had won the popular vote, and required the executive of each state to certify to the federal government the identities of those electors. Then, on a date set by the ECA, each state's ascertained electors were required to meet and collect the results of the presidential election -- that is, to cast electoral votes based on their state's popular vote, and to send their electoral votes, along with the state executive's certification that they were the state's legitimate electors, to the United States Congress to be counted and certified in an official proceeding. Finally, the Constitution and ECA required that on the sixth of January following election day, the Congress meet in a Joint Session for a certification proceeding, presided over by the Vice President as President of the Senate, to count the electoral votes, resolve any objections, and announce the result -- thus certifying the winner of the presidential election as president-elect. This federal government function -- from the point of ascertainment to the certification -- is foundational to the United States' democratic process, and until 2021, had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years.

Manner and Means

10. The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:

a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.

b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.

c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states' legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.

d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.

e. After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd -- including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results -- violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.

The Defendant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims

11. The Defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents made knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 presidential election. These prolific lies about election fraud included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, non-resident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the Defendant to votes for Biden. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue -- often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts -- and he deliberately disregarded the truth. For instance:

a. The Defendant's Vice President -- who personally stood to gain by remaining in office as part of the Defendant's ticket and whom the Defendant asked to study fraud allegations -- told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.

b. The senior leaders of the Justice Department -- appointed by the Defendant and responsible for investigating credible allegations of election crimes -- told the Defendant on multiple occasions that various allegations of fraud were unsupported.

c. The Director of National Intelligence -- the Defendant's principal advisor on intelligence matters related to national security -- disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community's findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.

d. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA") -- whose existence the Defendant signed into law to protect the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure from attack -- joined an official multi-agency statement that there was no evidence any voting system had been compromised and that declared the 2020 election "the most secure in American history." Days later, after the CISA Director -- whom the Defendant had appointed -- announced publicly that election security experts were in agreement that claims of computer-based election fraud were unsubstantiated, the Defendant fired him.

e. Senior White House attorneys -- selected by the Defendant to provide him candid advice -- informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud, and told him that his presidency would end on Inauguration Day in 2021.

f. Senior staffers on the Defendant's 2020 re-election campaign ("Defendant's Campaign" or "Campaign") -- whose sole mission was the Defendant's reelection -- told the Defendant on November 7, 2020, that he had only a five to ten percent chance of prevailing in the election, and that success was contingent on the Defendant winning ongoing vote counts or litigation in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Within a week of that assessment, the Defendant lost in Arizona -- meaning he had lost the election.

g. State legislators and officials -- many of whom were the Defendant's political allies, had voted for him, and wanted him to be re-elected -- repeatedly informed the Defendant that his claims of fraud in their states were unsubstantiated or false and resisted his pressure to act based upon them.

h. State and federal courts -- the neutral arbiters responsible for ensuring the fair and even-handed administration of election laws -- rejected every outcome-determinative post-election lawsuit filed by the Defendant, his coconspirators, and allies, providing the Defendant real-time notice that his allegations were meritless.

12. The Defendant widely disseminated his false claims of election fraud for months, despite the fact that he knew, and in many cases had been informed directly, that they were not true. The Defendant's knowingly false statements were integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government function, obstruct the certification, and interfere with others' right to vote and have their votes counted. He made these knowingly false claims throughout the post-election time period, including those below that he made immediately before the attack on the Capitol on January 6:

a. The Defendant insinuated that more than ten thousand dead voters had voted in Georgia. Just four days earlier, Georgia's Secretary of State had explained to the Defendant that this was false.

b. The Defendant asserted that there had been 205, 000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania. The Defendant's Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General had explained to him that this was false.

c. The Defendant said that there had been a suspicious vote dump in Detroit, Michigan. The Defendant's Attorney General had explained to the Defendant that this was false, and the Defendant's allies in the Michigan state legislature -- the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Majority Leader of the Senate -- had publicly announced that there was no evidence of substantial fraud in the state.

d. The Defendant claimed that there had been tens of thousands of double votes and other fraud in Nevada. The Nevada Secretary of State had previously rebutted the Defendant's fraud claims by publicly posting a "Facts vs. Myths" document explaining that Nevada judges had reviewed and rejected them, and the Nevada Supreme Court had rendered a decision denying such claims.

e. The Defendant said that more than 30,000 non-citizens had voted in Arizona. The Defendant's own Campaign Manager had explained to him that such claims were false, and the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, who had supported the Defendant in the election, had issued a public statement that there was no evidence of substantial fraud in Arizona.

f. The Defendant asserted that voting machines in various contested states had switched votes from the Defendant to Biden. The Defendant's Attorney General, Acting Attorney General, and Acting Deputy Attorney General all had explained to him that this was false, and numerous recounts and audits had confirmed the accuracy of voting machines.

The Criminal Agreement and Acts to Effect the Object of the Conspiracy

The Defendant's Use of Deceit to Get State Officials to Subvert the Legitimate Election Results and Change Electoral Votes


13. Shortly after election day -- which fell on November 3, 2020 -- the Defendant launched his criminal scheme. On November 13, the Defendant's Campaign attorneys conceded in court that he had lost the vote count in the state of Arizona -- meaning, based on the assessment the Defendant's Campaign advisors had given him just a week earlier, the Defendant had lost the election. So the next day, the Defendant turned to Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani], whom he announced would spearhead his efforts going forward to challenge the election results. From that point on, the Defendant and his co-conspirators executed a strategy to use knowing deceit in the targeted states to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function, including as described below.

Arizona

14. On November 13, 2020, the Defendant had a conversation with his Campaign Manager, who informed him that a claim that had been circulating, that a substantial number of non-citizens had voted in Arizona, was false.

15. On November 22, eight days before Arizona's Governor certified the ascertainment of the state's legitimate electors based on the popular vote, the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] called the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and made knowingly false claims of election fraud aimed at interfering with the ascertainment of and voting by Arizona's electors, as follows:

a. The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] falsely asserted, among other things, that a substantial number of non-citizens, non-residents, and dead people had voted fraudulently in Arizona. The Arizona House Speaker asked Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] for evidence of the claims, which Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] did not have, but claimed he would provide. Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] never did so.

b. The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud. The Arizona House Speaker refused, stating that doing so would require a two-thirds vote of its members, and he would not allow it without actual evidence of fraud.

c. The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] asked the Arizona House Speaker to use the legislature to circumvent the process by which legitimate electors would be ascertained for Biden based on the popular vote, and replace those electors with a new slate for the Defendant. The Arizona House Speaker refused, responding that the suggestion was beyond anything he had ever heard or thought of as something within his authority.

16. On December 1, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] met with the Arizona House Speaker. When the Arizona House Speaker again asked Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] for evidence of the outcome-determinative election fraud he and the Defendant had been claiming, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] responded with words to the effect of, "We don't have the evidence, but we have lots of theories."

17. On December 4, the Arizona House Speaker issued a public statement that said, in part:

No election is perfect, and if there were evidence of illegal votes or an improper count, then Arizona law provides a process to contest the election: a lawsuit under state law. But the law does not authorize the Legislature to reverse the results of an election.

As a conservative Republican, I don't like the results of the presidential election. I voted for President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election.

I and my fellow legislators swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and laws of the state of Arizona. It would violate that oath, the basic principles of republican government, and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people's vote based on unsupported theories of fraud. Under the laws that we wrote and voted upon, Arizona voters choose who wins, and our system requires that their choice be respected.


18. On the morning of January 4, 2021, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman]] called the Arizona House Speaker to urge him to use a majority of the legislature to decertify the state's legitimate electors. Arizona's validly ascertained electors had voted three weeks earlier and sent their votes to Congress, which was scheduled to count those votes in Biden's favor in just two days' time at the January 6 certification proceeding. When the Arizona House Speaker explained that state investigations had uncovered no evidence of substantial fraud in the state, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman]] conceded that he "[didn't] know enough about facts on the ground" in Arizona, but nonetheless told the Arizona House Speaker to decertify and "let the courts sort it out." The Arizona House Speaker refused, stating that he would not "play with the oath" he had taken to uphold the United States Constitution and Arizona law.

19. On January 6, the Defendant publicly repeated the knowingly false claim that 36, 000 non-citizens had voted in Arizona.

Georgia

20. On November 16, 2020, on the Defendant's behalf, his executive assistant sent Co-Conspirator 3 [Sidney Powell] and others a document containing bullet points critical of a certain voting machine company, writing, "See attached -- Please include as is, or almost as is, in lawsuit." Co-Conspirator 3 [Sidney Powell] responded nine minutes later, writing, "IT MUST GO IN ALL SUITS IN GA AND PA IMMEDIATELY WITH A FRAUD CLAIM THAT REQUIRES THE ENTIRE ELECTION TO BE SET ASIDE in those states and machines impounded for non-partisan professional inspection." On November 25, Co-Conspirator 3 [Sidney Powell] filed a lawsuit against the Governor of Georgia falsely alleging "massive election fraud" accomplished through the voting machine company's election software and hardware. Before the lawsuit was even filed, the Defendant retweeted a post promoting it. The Defendant did this despite the fact that when he had discussed Co-Conspirator 3 [Sidney Powell]'s far-fetched public claims regarding the voting machine company in private with advisors, the Defendant had conceded that they were unsupported and that Co-Conspirator 3 [Sidney Powell] sounded "crazy." Co-Conspirator 3 [Sidney Powell]'s Georgia lawsuit was dismissed on December 7.

21. On December 3, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] orchestrated a presentation to a Judiciary Subcommittee of the Georgia State Senate, with the intention of misleading state senators into blocking the ascertainment of legitimate electors. During the presentation:

a. An agent of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] falsely claimed that more than 10, 000 dead people voted in Georgia. That afternoon, a Senior Advisor to the Defendant told the Defendant's Chief of Staff through text messages, "Just an FYI. [A Campaign lawyer] and his team verified that the 10k+ supposed dead people voting in GA is not accurate .... It was alleged in [Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] 's] hearing today." The Senior Advisor clarified that he believed that the actual number was 12.

b. Another agent of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] played a misleading excerpt of a video recording of ballot-counting at State Farm Arena in Atlanta and insinuated that it showed election workers counting "suitcases" of illegal ballots.

c. Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman]] encouraged the legislators to decertify the state's legitimate electors based on false allegations of election fraud.

22. Also on December 3, the Defendant issued a Tweet amplifying the knowingly false claims made in Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani]'s presentation in Georgia: "Wow! Blockbuster testimony taking place right now in Georgia. Ballot stuffing by Dems when Republicans were forced to leave the large counting room. Plenty more coming, but this alone leads to an easy win of the State!"

23. On December 4, the Georgia Secretary of State's Chief Operating Officer debunked the claims made at Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani]'s presentation the previous day, issuing a Tweet stating, "The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by @GaSecofState investigators. Shows normal ballot processing. Here is the fact check on it." On December 7, he reiterated during a press conference that the claim that there had been misconduct at State Farm Arena was false.

24. On December 8, the Defendant called the Georgia Attorney General to pressure him to support an election lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court by another state's attorney general. The Georgia Attorney General told the Defendant that officials had investigated various claims of election fraud in the state and were not seeing evidence to support them.

25. Also on December 8, a Senior Campaign Advisor -- who spoke with the Defendant on a daily basis and had informed him on multiple occasions that various fraud claims were untrue -- expressed frustration that many of Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] and his legal team's claims could not be substantiated. As early as mid-November, for instance, the Senior Campaign Advisor had informed the Defendant that his claims of a large number of dead voters in Georgia were untrue. With respect to the persistent false claim regarding State Farm Arena, on December 8, the Senior Campaign Advisor wrote in an email, "When our research and campaign legal team can't back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we're 0-32 on our cases. I'll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it's tough to own any of this when it's all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership."

26. On December 10, four days before Biden's validly ascertained electors were scheduled to cast votes and send them to Congress, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] appeared at a hearing before the Georgia House of Representatives' Government Affairs Committee. Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] played the State Farm Arena video again, and falsely claimed that it showed "voter fraud right in front of people's eyes" and was "the tip of the iceberg." Then, he cited two election workers by name, baselessly accused them of "quite obviously surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they are vials of heroin or cocaine, " and suggested that they were criminals whose "places of work, their homes, should have been searched for evidence of ballots, for evidence of USB ports, for evidence of voter fraud." Thereafter, the two election workers received numerous death threats.

27. On December 15, the Defendant summoned the incoming Acting Attorney General, the incoming Acting Deputy Attorney General, and others to the Oval Office to discuss allegations of election fraud. During the meeting, the Justice Department officials specifically refuted the Defendant's claims about State Farm Arena, explaining to him that the activity shown on the tape Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] had used was "benign."

28. On December 23, a day after the Defendant's Chief of Staff personally observed the signature verification process at the Cobb County Civic Center and notified the Defendant that state election officials were "conducting themselves in an exemplary fashion" and would find fraud if it existed, the Defendant tweeted that the Georgia officials administering the signature verification process were trying to hide evidence of election fraud and were "[t]errible people!"

29. In a phone call on December 27, the Defendant spoke with the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General. During the call, the Defendant again pressed the unfounded claims regarding State Farm Arena, and the two top Justice Department officials again rebutted the allegations, telling him that the Justice Department had reviewed videotape and interviewed witnesses, and had not identified any suspicious conduct.

30. On December 31, the Defendant signed a verification affirming false election fraud allegations made on his behalf in a lawsuit filed in his name against the Georgia Governor. In advance of the filing, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman]] -- who was advising the Defendant on the lawsuit -- acknowledged in an email that he and the Defendant had, since signing a previous verification, "been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate" and that signing a new affirmation "with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate." The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman]] caused the Defendant's signed verification to be filed nonetheless.

31. On January 2, four days before Congress's certification proceeding, the Defendant and others called Georgia's Secretary of State. During the call, the Defendant lied to the Georgia Secretary of State to induce him to alter Georgia's popular vote count and call into question the validity of the Biden electors' votes, which had been transmitted to Congress weeks before, including as follows:

a. The Defendant raised allegations regarding the State Farm Arena video and repeatedly disparaged one of the same election workers that Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] had maligned on December 10, using her name almost twenty times and falsely referring to her as "a professional vote scammer and hustler." In response, the Georgia Secretary of State refuted this: "You're talking about the State Farm video. And I think it's extremely unfortunate that [Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani]] or his people, they sliced and diced that video and took it out of context." When the Georgia Secretary of State then offered a link to a video that would disprove Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani]'s claims, the Defendant responded, "I don't care about a link, I don't need it. I have a much, [Georgia Secretary of State], I have a much better link."

b. The Defendant asked about rumors that paper ballots cast in the election were being destroyed, and the Georgia Secretary of State's Counsel explained to him that the claim had been investigated and was not true.

c. The Defendant claimed that 5, 000 dead people voted in Georgia, causing the Georgia Secretary of State to respond, "Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong .... The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. And so [your information]'s wrong, that was two."

d. The Defendant claimed that thousands of out-of-state voters had cast ballots in Georgia's election, which the Georgia Secretary of State's Counsel refuted, explaining, "We've been going through each of those as well, and those numbers that we got, that [Defendant's counsel] was just saying, they're not accurate. Every one we've been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately ... they moved back in years ago. This was not like something just before the election."

e. In response to multiple other of the Defendant's allegations, the Georgia Secretary of State's Counsel told the Defendant that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was examining all such claims and finding no merit to them.

f. The Defendant said that he needed to "find" 11,780 votes, and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded, stating, "And you are going to find that they are -- which is totally illegal -- it's, it's, it's more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, you know, that's a criminal offense. And you know, you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to [the Georgia Secretary of State's Counsel], your lawyer."

32. The next day, on January 3, the Defendant falsely claimed that the Georgia Secretary of State had not addressed the Defendant's allegations, publicly stating that the Georgia Secretary of State "was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the 'ballots under table' scam, ballot destruction, out of state 'voters', dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"

33. On January 6, the Defendant publicly repeated the knowingly false insinuation that more than 10, 300 dead people had voted in Georgia.

Michigan

34. On November 5, 2020, the Defendant claimed that there had been a suspicious dump of votes -- purportedly illegitimate ballots -- stating, "In Detroit, there were hours of unexplained delay in delivering many of the votes for counting. The final batch did not arrive until four in the morning and -- even though the polls closed at eight o'clock. So they brought it in, and the batches came in, and nobody knew where they came from."

35. On November 20, three days before Michigan's Governor signed a certificate of ascertainment notifying the federal government that, based on the popular vote, Biden's electors were to represent Michigan's voters, the Defendant held a meeting in the Oval Office with the Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate. In the meeting, the Defendant raised his false claim, among others, of an illegitimate vote dump in Detroit. In response, the Michigan Senate Majority Leader told the Defendant that he had lost Michigan not because of fraud, but because the Defendant had underperformed with certain voter populations in the state. Upon leaving their meeting, the Michigan House Speaker and Michigan Senate Majority Leader issued a statement reiterating this:

The Senate and House Oversight Committees are actively engaged in a thorough review of Michigan's elections process and we have faith in the committee process to provide greater transparency and accountability to our citizens. We have not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan and as legislative leaders, we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan's electors, just as we have said throughout this election.


36. On December 1, the Defendant raised his Michigan vote dump claim with the Attorney General, who responded that what had occurred in Michigan had been the normal vote-counting process and that there was no indication of fraud in Detroit.

37. Despite this, the next day, the Defendant made a knowingly false statement that in Michigan, "[a]t 6:31 in the morning, a vote dump of 149, 772 votes came in unexpectedly. We were winning by a lot. That batch was received in horror. Nobody knows anything about it. ... It's corrupt. Detroit is corrupt. I have a lot of friends in Detroit. They know it. But Detroit is totally corrupt."

38. On December 4, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] sent a text message to the Michigan House Speaker reiterating his unsupported claim of election fraud and attempting to get the Michigan House Speaker to assist in reversing the ascertainment of the legitimate Biden electors, stating, "Looks like Georgia may well hold some factual hearings and change the certification under ArtII sec 1 cl 2 of the Constitution. As [Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman]]] explained they don't just have the right to do it but the obligation .... Help me get this done in Michigan."

39. Similarly, on December 7, despite still having established no fraud in Michigan, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] sent a text intended for the Michigan Senate Majority Leader: "So I need you to pass a joint resolution from the Michigan legislature that states that, * the election is in dispute, * there's an ongoing investigation by the Legislature, and * the Electors sent by Governor Whitmer are not the official Electors of the State of Michigan and do not fall within the Safe Harbor deadline of Dec 8 under Michigan law."

40. On December 14 -- the day that electors in states across the country were required to vote and submit their votes to Congress -- the Michigan House Speaker and Michigan Senate Majority Leader announced that, contrary to the Defendant's requests, they would not decertify the legitimate election results or electors in Michigan. The Michigan Senate Majority Leader's public statement included, "[W]e have not received evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan." The Michigan House Speaker's public statement read, in part:

We've diligently examined these reports of fraud to the best of our ability ....

. . . I fought hard for President Trump. Nobody wanted him to win more than me. I think he's done an incredible job. But I love our republic, too. I can't fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for Trump, simply because some think there may have been enough widespread fraud to give him the win. That's unprecedented for good reason. And that's why there is not enough support in the House to cast a new slate of electors. I fear we'd lose our country forever. This truly would bring mutually assured destruction for every future election in regards to the Electoral College. And I can't stand for that. I won't.


41. On January 6, 2021, the Defendant publicly repeated his knowingly false claim regarding an illicit dump of more than a hundred thousand ballots in Detroit.

Pennsylvania

42. On November 11, 2020, the Defendant publicly maligned a Philadelphia City Commissioner for stating on the news that there was no evidence of widespread fraud in Philadelphia. As a result, the Philadelphia City Commissioner and his family received death threats.

43. On November 25, the day after Pennsylvania's Governor signed a certificate of ascertainment and thus certified to the federal government that Biden's electors were the legitimate electors for the state, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] orchestrated an event at a hotel in Gettysburg attended by state legislators. Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] falsely claimed that Pennsylvania had issued 1.8 million absentee ballots and received 2.5 million in return. In the days thereafter, a Campaign staffer wrote internally that Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani]'s allegation was "just wrong" and "[t]here's no way to defend it." The Deputy Campaign Manager responded, "We have been saying this for a while. It's very frustrating. "

44. On December 4, after four Republican leaders of the Pennsylvania legislature issued a public statement that the General Assembly lacked the authority to overturn the popular vote and appoint its own slate of electors, and that doing so would violate the state Election Code and Constitution, the Defendant re-tweeted a post labeling the legislators cowards.

45. On December 31 and January 3, the Defendant repeatedly raised with the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General the allegation that in Pennsylvania, there had been 205, 000 more votes than voters. Each time, the Justice Department officials informed the Defendant that his claim was false.

46. On January 6, 2021, the Defendant publicly repeated his knowingly false claim that there had been 205, 000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania.

Wisconsin

47. On November 29, 2020, a recount in Wisconsin that the Defendant's Campaign had petitioned and paid for did not change the election result, and in fact increased the Defendant's margin of defeat.

48. On December 14, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected an election challenge by the Campaign. One Justice wrote, "[N]othing in this case casts any legitimate doubt that the people of Wisconsin lawfully chose Vice President Biden and Senator Harris to be the next leaders of our great country."

49. On December 21, as a result of the state Supreme Court's decision, the Wisconsin Governor -- who had signed a certificate of ascertainment on November 30 identifying Biden's electors as the state's legitimate electors -- signed a certificate of final determination in which he recognized that the state Supreme Court had resolved a controversy regarding the appointment of Biden's electors, and confirmed that Biden had received the highest number of votes in the state and that his electors were the state's legitimate electors.

50. That same day, in response to the court decision that had prompted the Wisconsin Governor to sign a certificate of final determination, the Defendant issued a Tweet repeating his knowingly false claim of election fraud and demanding that the Wisconsin legislature overturn the election results that had led to the ascertainment of Biden's electors as the legitimate electors.

51. On December 27, the Defendant raised with the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General a specific fraud claim -- that there had been more votes than voters in Wisconsin. The Acting Deputy Attorney General informed the Defendant that the claim was false.

52. On January 6, 2021, the Defendant publicly repeated knowingly false claims that there had been tens of thousands of unlawful votes in Wisconsin.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Wed Aug 02, 2023 1:58 am

Part 2 of 2

The Defendant's Use of Dishonesty. Fraud, and Deceit to Organize Fraudulent Slates of Electors and Cause Them to Transmit False Certificates to Congress

53. As the Defendant's attempts to obstruct the electoral vote through deceit of state officials met with repeated failure, beginning in early December 2020, he and co-conspirators developed a new plan: to marshal individuals who would have served as the Defendant's electors, had he won the popular vote, in seven targeted states -- Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- and cause those individuals to make and send to the Vice President and Congress false certifications that they were legitimate electors. Under the plan, the submission of these fraudulent slates would create a fake controversy at the certification proceeding and position the Vice President -- presiding on January 6 as President of the Senate -- to supplant legitimate electors with the Defendant's fake electors and certify the Defendant as president.

54. The plan capitalized on ideas presented in memoranda drafted by Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro], an attorney who was assisting the Defendant's Campaign with legal efforts related to a recount in Wisconsin. The memoranda evolved over time from a legal strategy to preserve the Defendant's rights to a corrupt plan to subvert the federal government function by stopping Biden electors' votes from being counted and certified, as follows:

a. The November 18 Memorandum ("Wisconsin Memo") advocated that, because of the ongoing recount in Wisconsin, the Defendant's electors there should meet and cast votes on December 14 -- the date the ECA required appointed electors to vote -- to preserve the alternative of the Defendant's Wisconsin elector slate in the event the Defendant ultimately prevailed in the state.

b. The December 6 Memorandum ("Fraudulent Elector Memo") marked a sharp departure from Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro]'s Wisconsin Memo, advocating that the alternate electors originally conceived of to preserve rights in Wisconsin instead be used in a number of states as fraudulent electors to prevent Biden from receiving the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure the presidency on January 6. The Fraudulent Elector Memo suggested that the Defendant's electors in six purportedly "contested" states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) should meet and mimic as best as possible the actions of the legitimate Biden electors, and that on January 6, the Vice President should open and count the fraudulent votes, setting up a fake controversy that would derail the proper certification of Biden as president-elect.

c. The December 9 Memorandum ("Fraudulent Elector Instructions") consisted of Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro]'s instructions on how fraudulent electors could mimic legitimate electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro] noted that in some states, it would be virtually impossible for the fraudulent electors to successfully take the same steps as the legitimate electors because state law required formal participation in the process by state officials, or access to official resources.

55. The plan began in early December, and ultimately, the conspirators and the Defendant's Campaign took the Wisconsin Memo and expanded it to any state that the Defendant claimed was "contested" -- even New Mexico, which the Defendant had lost by more than ten percent of the popular vote. This expansion was forecast by emails the Defendant's Chief of Staff sent on December 6, forwarding the Wisconsin Memo to Campaign staff and writing, "We just need to have someone coordinating the electors for states."

56. On December 6, the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] called the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee to ensure that the plan was in motion. During the call, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] told the Chairwoman that it was important for the RNC to help the Defendant's Campaign gather electors in targeted states, and falsely represented to her that such electors' votes would be used only if ongoing litigation in one of the states changed the results in the Defendant's favor. After the RNC Chairwoman consulted the Campaign and heard that work on gathering electors was underway, she called and reported this information to the Defendant, who responded approvingly.

57. On December 7, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] received the Wisconsin Memo and the Fraudulent Elector Memo. Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] spoke with Co-Conspirator 6 [Boris Epshteyn] regarding attorneys who could assist in the fraudulent elector effort in the targeted states, and he received from Co-Conspirator 6 [Boris Epshteyn] an email identifying attorneys in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

58. The next day, on December 8, Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro] called the Arizona attorney on Co-Conspirator 6 [Boris Epshteyn]'s list. In an email after the call, the Arizona attorney recounted his conversation with Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro] as follows:

I just talked to the gentleman who did that memo, [Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro]]. His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren't legal under federal law -- because they're not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th. (They could potentially argue that they're not bound by federal law because they're Congress and make the law, etc.) Kind of wild/creative -- I'm happy to discuss. My comment to him was that I guess there's no harm in it, (legally at least) -- i.e. we would just be sending in "fake" electoral votes to Pence so that "someone" in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the "fake" votes should be counted.


59. At Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani]'s direction, on December 10, Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro] sent to points of contact in all targeted states except Wisconsin (which had already received his memos) and New Mexico a streamlined version of the Wisconsin Memo -- which did not reveal the intended fraudulent use of the Defendant's electors -- and the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, along with fraudulent elector certificates that he had drafted.

60. The next day, on December 11, through Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro], Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] suggested that the Arizona lawyer file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court as a pretext to claim that litigation was pending in the state, to provide cover for the convening and voting of the Defendant's fraudulent electors there. Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro] explained that Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] had heard from a state official and state provisional elector that "it could appear treasonous for the AZ electors to vote on Monday if there is no pending court proceeding .... "

61. To manage the plan in Pennsylvania, on December 12, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani], Co- Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro], and Co-Conspirator 6 [Boris Epshteyn] participated in a conference call organized by the Defendant's Campaign with the Defendant's electors in that state. When the Defendant's electors expressed concern about signing certificates representing themselves as legitimate electors, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] falsely assured them that their certificates would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in litigation. Subsequently, Co-Conspirator 6 [Boris Epshteyn] circulated proposed conditional language to that effect for potential inclusion in the fraudulent elector certificates. A Campaign official cautioned not to offer the conditional language to other states because "[t]he other States are signing what he prepared -- if it gets out we changed the language for PA it could snowball." In some cases, the Defendant's electors refused to participate in the plan.

62. On December 13, Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro] sent Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] an email memorandum that further confirmed that the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states -- instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding.

63. On December 13, the Defendant asked the Senior Campaign Advisor for an update on "what was going on" with the elector plan and directed him to "put out [a] statement on electors." As a result, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] directed the Senior Campaign Advisor to join a conference call with him, Co-Conspirator 6 [Boris Epshteyn], and others. When the Senior Campaign Advisor related these developments in text messages to the Deputy Campaign Manager, a Senior Advisor to the Defendant, and a Campaign staffer, the Deputy Campaign Manager responded, "Here's the thing the way this has morphed it's a crazy play so I don't know who wants to put their name on it." The Senior Advisor wrote, "Certifying illegal votes." In turn, the participants in the group text message refused to have a statement regarding electors attributed to their names because none of them could "stand by it."

64. Also on December 13, at a Campaign staffer's request, Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro] drafted and sent fraudulent elector certificates for the Defendant's electors in New Mexico, which had not previously been among the targeted states, and where there was no pending litigation on the Defendant's behalf. The next day, the Defendant's Campaign filed an election challenge suit in New Mexico at 11:54 a.m., six minutes before the noon deadline for the electors' votes, as a pretext so that there was pending litigation there at the time the fraudulent electors voted. 65. On December 14, the legitimate electors of all 50 states and the District of Columbia met in their respective jurisdictions to formally cast their votes for president, resulting in a total of 232 electoral votes for the Defendant and 306 for Biden. The legitimate electoral votes that Biden won in the states that the Defendant targeted, and the Defendant's margin of defeat, were as follows: Arizona (11 electoral votes; 10,457 votes), Georgia (16 electoral votes; 11,779 votes), Michigan (16 electoral votes; 154, 188 votes), Nevada (6 electoral votes; 33, 596 votes), New Mexico (5 electoral votes; 99,720 votes), Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes; 80, 555 votes), and Wisconsin (10 electoral votes; 20,682 votes).

66. On the same day, at the direction of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani], fraudulent electors convened sham proceedings in the seven targeted states to cast fraudulent electoral ballots in favor of the Defendant. In some states, in order to satisfy legal requirements set forth for legitimate electors under state law, state officials were enlisted to provide the fraudulent electors access to state capitol buildings so that they could gather and vote there. In many cases, however, as Co-Conspirator 5 [Kenneth Chesebro] had predicted in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, the fraudulent electors were unable to satisfy the legal requirements.

67. Nonetheless, as directed in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, shortly after the fraudulent electors met on December 14, the targeted states' fraudulent elector certificates were mailed to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and others. The Defendant and co-conspirators ultimately used the certificates of these fraudulent electors to deceitfully target the government function, and did so contrary to how fraudulent electors were told they would be used.

68. Unlike those of the fraudulent electors, consistent with the ECA, the legitimate electors' signed certificates were annexed to the state executives' certificates of ascertainment before being sent to the President of the Senate and others.

69. That evening, at 6:26 p.m., the RNC Chairwoman forwarded to the Defendant, through his executive assistant, an email titled, "Electors Recap - Final, " which represented that in "Six Contested States" -- Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- the Defendant's electors had voted in parallel to Biden's electors. The Defendant's executive assistant responded, "It's in front of him!"

The Defendant's Attempt to Leverage the Justice Department to Use Deceit to Get State Officials to Replace Legitimate Electors and Electoral Votes with the Defendant's

70. In late December 2020, the Defendant attempted to use the Justice Department to make knowingly false claims of election fraud to officials in the targeted states through a formal letter under the Acting Attorney General's signature, thus giving the Defendant's lies the backing of the federal government and attempting to improperly influence the targeted states to replace legitimate Biden electors with the Defendant's.

71. On December 22, the Defendant met with Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] at the White House. Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] had not informed his leadership at the Justice Department of the meeting, which was a violation of the Justice Department's written policy restricting contacts with the White House to guard against improper political influence.

72. On December 26, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] spoke on the phone with the Acting Attorney General and lied about the circumstances of his meeting with the Defendant at the White House, falsely claiming that the meeting had been unplanned. The Acting Attorney General directed Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] not to have unauthorized contacts with the White House again, and Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] said he would not.

73. The next morning, on December 27, contrary to the Acting Attorney General's direction, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] spoke with the Defendant on the Defendant's cell phone for nearly three minutes.

74. That afternoon, the Defendant called the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General and said, among other things, "People tell me [Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark]] is great. I should put him in." The Defendant also raised multiple false claims of election fraud, which the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General refuted. When the Acting Attorney General told the Defendant that the Justice Department could not and would not change the outcome of the election, the Defendant responded, "Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen."

75. On December 28, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] sent a draft letter to the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General, which he proposed they all sign. The draft was addressed to state officials in Georgia, and Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] proposed sending versions of the letter to elected officials in other targeted states. The proposed letter contained numerous knowingly false claims about the election and the Justice Department, including that:

a. The Justice Department had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States[.]"

b. The Justice Department believed that in Georgia and other states, two valid slates of electors had gathered at the proper location on December 14, and that both sets of ballots had been transmitted to Congress. That is, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark]'s letter sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the authority of the Justice Department to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors.

c. The Justice Department urged that the state legislature convene a special legislative session to create the opportunity to, among other things, choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.

76. The Acting Deputy Attorney General promptly responded to Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] by email and told him that his proposed letter was false, writing, "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." In a meeting shortly thereafter, the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General again directed Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] not to have unauthorized contact with the White House.

77. On December 31, the Defendant summoned to the Oval Office the Acting Attorney General, Acting Deputy Attorney General, and other advisors. In the meeting, the Defendant again raised claims about election fraud that Justice Department officials already had told him were not true -- and that the senior Justice Department officials reiterated were false -- and suggested he might change the leadership in the Justice Department.

78. On January 2, 2021, just four days before Congress's certification proceeding, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] tried to coerce the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General to sign and send Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark]'s draft letter, which contained false statements, to state officials. He told them that the Defendant was considering making Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] the new Acting Attorney General, but that Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] would decline the Defendant's offer if the Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General would agree to send the proposed letter to the targeted states. The Justice Department officials refused.

79. The next morning, on January 3, despite having uncovered no additional evidence of election fraud, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] sent to a Justice Department colleague an edited version of his draft letter to the states, which included a change from its previous claim that the Justice Department had "concerns" to a stronger false claim that "[a]s of today, there is evidence of significant irregularities that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States .... "

80. Also on the morning of January 3, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] met with the Defendant at the White House -- again without having informed senior Justice Department officials -- and accepted the Defendant's offer that he become Acting Attorney General.

81. On the afternoon of January 3, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] spoke with a Deputy White House Counsel. The previous month, the Deputy White House Counsel had informed the Defendant that "there is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House [o]n January 20th." Now, the same Deputy White House Counsel tried to dissuade Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] from assuming the role of Acting Attorney General. The Deputy White House Counsel reiterated to Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] that there had not been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that if the Defendant remained in office nonetheless, there would be "riots in every major city in the United States." Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] responded, "Well, [Deputy White House Counsel], that's why there's an Insurrection Act."

82. Also that afternoon, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] met with the Acting Attorney General and told him that the Defendant had decided to put Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] in charge of the Justice Department. The Acting Attorney General responded that he would not accept being fired by a subordinate and immediately scheduled a meeting with the Defendant for that evening.

83. On the evening of January 3, the Defendant met for a briefing on an overseas national security issue with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior national security advisors. The Chairman briefed the Defendant on the issue -- which had previously arisen in December -- as well as possible ways the Defendant could handle it. When the Chairman and another advisor recommended that the Defendant take no action because Inauguration Day was only seventeen days away and any course of action could trigger something unhelpful, the Defendant calmly agreed, stating, "Yeah, you're right, it's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy."

84. The Defendant moved immediately from this national security briefing to the meeting that the Acting Attorney General had requested earlier that day, which included Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark], the Acting Attorney General, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, the Justice Department's Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, the White House Counsel, a Deputy White House Counsel, and a Senior Advisor. At the meeting, the Defendant expressed frustration with the Acting Attorney General for failing to do anything to overturn the election results, and the group discussed Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark]'s plans to investigate purported election fraud and to send his proposed letter to state officials -- a copy of which was provided to the Defendant during the meeting. The Defendant relented in his plan to replace the Acting Attorney General with Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] only when he was told that it would result in mass resignations at the Justice Department and of his own White House Counsel.

85. At the meeting in the Oval Office on the night of January 3, Co-Conspirator 4 [Jeffrey Clark] suggested that the Justice Department should opine that the Vice President could exceed his lawful authority during the certification proceeding and change the election outcome. When the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel began to explain why the Justice Department should not do so, the Defendant said, "No one here should be talking to the Vice President. I'm talking to the Vice President, " and ended the discussion.

The Defendant's Attempts to Enlist the Vice President to Fraudulently Alter the Election Results at the January 6 Certification Proceeding

86. As the January 6 congressional certification proceeding approached and other efforts to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function failed, the Defendant sought to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the certification to fraudulently alter the election results. The Defendant did this first by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to convince the Vice President to accept the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than count them. When that failed, the Defendant attempted to use a crowd of supporters that he had gathered in Washington, D.C., to pressure the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election results.

87. On December 19, 2020, after cultivating widespread anger and resentment for weeks with his knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant urged his supporters to travel to Washington on the day of the certification proceeding, tweeting, "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Throughout late December, he repeatedly urged his supporters to come to Washington for January 6.

88. On December 23, the Defendant re-tweeted a memo titled "Operation 'PENCE' CARD, " which falsely asserted that the Vice President could, among other things, unilaterally disqualify legitimate electors from six targeted states.

89. On the same day, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] circulated a two-page memorandum outlining a plan for the Vice President to unlawfully declare the Defendant the certified winner of the presidential election. In the memorandum, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] claimed that seven states had transmitted two slates of electors and proposed that the Vice President announce that "because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States." Next, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] proposed steps that he acknowledged violated the ECA, advocating that, in the end, "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." Just two months earlier, on October 11, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] had taken the opposite position, writing that neither the Constitution nor the ECA provided the Vice President discretion in the counting of electoral votes, or permitted him to "make the determination on his own."

90. On several private phone calls in late December and early January, the Defendant repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud and directly pressured the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the certification proceeding on January 6 to fraudulently overturn the results of the election, and the Vice President resisted, including:

a. On December 25, when the Vice President called the Defendant to wish him a Merry Christmas, the Defendant quickly turned the conversation to January 6 and his request that the Vice President reject electoral votes that day. The Vice President pushed back, telling the Defendant, as the Vice President already had in previous conversations, "You know I don't think I have the authority to change the outcome."

b. On December 29, as reflected in the Vice President's contemporaneous notes, the Defendant falsely told the Vice President that the "Justice Dept [was] finding major infractions."

c. On January 1, the Defendant called the Vice President and berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the Constitution. The Vice President responded that he thought there was no constitutional basis for such authority and that it was improper. In response, the Defendant told the Vice President, "You're too honest." Within hours of the conversation, the Defendant reminded his supporters to meet in Washington before the certification proceeding, tweeting, "The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!"

d. On January 3, the Defendant again told the Vice President that at the certification proceeding, the Vice President had the absolute right to reject electoral votes and the ability to overturn the election. The Vice President responded that he had no such authority, and that a federal appeals court had rejected the lawsuit making that claim the previous day.

91. On January 3, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] circulated a second memorandum that included a new plan under which, contrary to the ECA, the Vice President would send the elector slates to the state legislatures to determine which slate to count.

92. On January 4, the Defendant held a meeting with Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman], the Vice President, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, and the Vice President's Counsel for the purpose of convincing the Vice President, based on the Defendant's knowingly false claims of election fraud, that the Vice President should reject or send to the states Biden's legitimate electoral votes, rather than count them. The Defendant deliberately excluded his White House Counsel from the meeting because the White House Counsel previously had pushed back on the Defendant's false claims of election fraud.

93. During the meeting, as reflected in the Vice President's contemporaneous notes, the Defendant made knowingly false claims of election fraud, including, "Bottom line -- won every state by 100,000s of votes" and "We won every state, " and asked -- regarding a claim his senior Justice Department officials previously had told him was false, including as recently as the night before -- "What about 205,000 votes more in PA than voters?" The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] then asked the Vice President to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from the seven targeted states, or send the question of which slate was legitimate to the targeted states' legislatures. When the Vice President challenged Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] on whether the proposal to return the question to the states was defensible, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] responded, "Well, nobody's tested it before." The Vice President then told the Defendant, "Did you hear that? Even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority." The Defendant responded, "That's okay, I prefer the other suggestion" of the Vice President rejecting the electors unilaterally.

94. Also on January 4, when Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] acknowledged to the Defendant's Senior Advisor that no court would support his proposal, the Senior Advisor told Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman], "[Y]ou're going to cause riots in the streets." Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] responded that there had previously been points in the nation's history where violence was necessary to protect the republic. After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] had conceded that his plan was "not going to work."

95. On the morning of January 5, at the Defendant's direction, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Counsel met again with Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman]. Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] now advocated that the Vice President do what the Defendant had said he preferred the day before: unilaterally reject electors from the targeted states. During this meeting, Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] privately acknowledged to the Vice President's Counsel that he hoped to prevent judicial review of his proposal because he understood that it would be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. The Vice President's Counsel expressed to Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] that following through with the proposal would result in a "disastrous situation" where the election might "have to be decided in the streets."

96. That same day, the Defendant encouraged supporters to travel to Washington on January 6, and he set the false expectation that the Vice President had the authority to and might use his ceremonial role at the certification proceeding to reverse the election outcome in the Defendant's favor, including issuing the following Tweets:

a. At 11:06 a.m., "The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors." This was within 40 minutes of the Defendant's earlier reminder, "See you in D.C."

b. At 5:05 p.m., "Washington is being inundated with people who don't want to see an election victory stolen .... Our Country has had enough, they won't take it anymore! We hear you (and love you) from the Oval Office."

c. At 5:43 p.m., "I will be speaking at the SAVE AMERICA RALLY tomorrow on the Ellipse at 11AM Eastern. Arrive early -- doors open at 7AM Eastern. BIG CROWDS!"

97. Also on January 5, the Defendant met alone with the Vice President. When the Vice President refused to agree to the Defendant's request that he obstruct the certification, the Defendant grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the Defendant would have to publicly criticize him. Upon learning of this, the Vice President's Chief of Staff was concerned for the Vice President's safety and alerted the head of the Vice President's Secret Service detail.

98. As crowds began to gather in Washington and were audible from the Oval Office, the Defendant remarked to advisors that the crowd the following day on January 6 was going to be "angry."

99. That night, the Defendant approved and caused the Defendant's Campaign to issue a public statement that the Defendant knew, from his meeting with the Vice President only hours earlier, was false: "The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act."

100. On January 6, starting in the early morning hours, the Defendant again turned to knowingly false statements aimed at pressuring the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election outcome, and raised publicly the false expectation that the Vice President might do so:

a. At 1:00 a.m., the Defendant issued a Tweet that falsely claimed, "If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which it must be). Mike can send it back!"

b. At 8:17 a.m., the Defendant issued a Tweet that falsely stated, "States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!"

101. On the morning of January 6, an agent of the Defendant contacted a United States Senator to ask him to hand-deliver documents to the Vice President. The agent then facilitated the receipt by the Senator's staff of the fraudulent certificates signed by the Defendant's fraudulent electors in Michigan and Wisconsin, which were believed not to have been delivered to the Vice President or Archivist by mail. When one of the Senator's staffers contacted a staffer for the Vice President by text message to arrange for delivery of what the Senator's staffer had been told were "[a]lternate slate[s] of electors for MI and WI because archivist didn't receive them, " the Vice President's staffer rejected them.

102. At 11:15 a.m., the Defendant called the Vice President and again pressured him to fraudulently reject or return Biden's legitimate electoral votes. The Vice President again refused. Immediately after the call, the Defendant decided to single out the Vice President in public remarks he would make within the hour, reinserting language that he had personally drafted earlier that morning -- falsely claiming that the Vice President had authority to send electoral votes to the states-but that advisors had previously successfully advocated be removed.

103. Earlier that morning, the Defendant had selected Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] to join Co- Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] in giving public remarks before his own. When they did so, based on knowingly false election fraud claims, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] and Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] intensified pressure on the Vice President to fraudulently obstruct the certification proceeding:

a. Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] told the crowd that the Vice President could "cast [the ECA] aside" and unilaterally "decide on the validity of these crooked ballots[.]" He also lied when he claimed to "have letters from five legislatures begging us" to send elector slates to the legislatures for review, and called for "trial by combat."

b. Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] told the crowd, "[A]ll we are demanding of Vice President Pence is this afternoon at one o'clock he let the legislatures of the state look into this so we get to the bottom of it and the American people know whether we have control of the direction of our government or not. We no longer live in a self-governing republic if we can't get the answer to this question."

104. Next, beginning at 11:56 a.m., the Defendant made multiple knowingly false statements integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government function, obstruct the certification, and interfere with others' right to vote and have their votes counted. The Defendant repeated false claims of election fraud, gave false hope that the Vice President might change the election outcome, and directed the crowd in front of him to go to the Capitol as a means to obstruct the certification and pressure the Vice President to fraudulently obstruct the certification. The Defendant's knowingly false statements for these purposes included:

a. The Defendant falsely claimed that, based on fraud, the Vice President could alter the outcome of the election results, stating:

I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so.

Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do -- all, this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country -- he has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our Constitution.

States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.


b. After the Defendant falsely stated that the Pennsylvania legislature wanted "to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back, " the crowd began to chant, "Send it back."

c. The Defendant also said that regular rules no longer applied, stating, "And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

d. Finally, after exhorting that "we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore, " the Defendant directed the people in front of him to head to the Capitol, suggested he was going with them, and told them to give Members of Congress "the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

105. During and after the Defendant's remarks, thousands of people marched toward the Capitol.

The Defendant's Exploitation of the Violence and Chaos at the Capitol

106. Shortly before 1:00 p.m., the Vice President issued a public statement explaining that his role as President of the Senate at the certification proceeding that was about to begin did not include "unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not."

107. Before the Defendant had finished speaking, a crowd began to gather at the Capitol. Thereafter, a mass of people -- including individuals who had traveled to Washington and to the Capitol at the Defendant's direction -- broke through barriers cordoning off the Capitol grounds and advanced on the building, including by violently attacking law enforcement officers trying to secure it.

108. The Defendant, who had returned to the White House after concluding his remarks, watched events at the Capitol unfold on the television in the dining room next to the Oval Office.

109. At 2:13 p.m., after more than an hour of steady, violent advancement, the crowd at the Capitol broke into the building.

110. Upon receiving news that individuals had breached the Capitol, the Defendant's advisors told him that there was a riot there and that rioters had breached the building. When advisors urged the Defendant to issue a calming message aimed at the rioters, the Defendant refused, instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen.

111. At 2:24 p.m., after advisors had left the Defendant alone in his dining room, the Defendant issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"

112. One minute later, at 2:25 p.m., the United States Secret Service was forced to evacuate the Vice President to a secure location.

113. At the Capitol, throughout the afternoon, members of the crowd chanted, "Hang Mike Pence!"; "Where is Pence? Bring him out!"; and "Traitor Pence!"

114. The Defendant repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol, as urged by his most senior advisors -- including the White House Counsel, a Deputy White House Counsel, the Chief of Staff, a Deputy Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor. Instead, the Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including:

a. At 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"

b. At 3:13 p.m., "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order -- respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

115. At 3:00 p.m., the Defendant had a phone call with the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives. The Defendant told the Minority Leader that the crowd at the Capitol was more upset about the election than the Minority Leader was.

116. At 4:17 p.m., the Defendant released a video message on Twitter that he had just taped in the White House Rose Garden. In it, the Defendant repeated the knowingly false claim that "[ w]e had an election that was stolen from us, " and finally asked individuals to leave the Capitol, while telling them that they were "very special" and that "we love you."

117. After the 4:17 p.m. Tweet, as the Defendant joined others in the outer Oval Office to watch the attack on the Capitol on television, the Defendant said, "See, this is what happens when they try to steal an election. These people are angry. These people are really angry about it. This is what happens."

118. At 6:01 p.m., the Defendant tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

119. On the evening of January 6, the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol by calling lawmakers to convince them, based on knowingly false claims of election fraud, to delay the certification, including:

a. The Defendant, through White House aides, attempted to reach two United States Senators at 6:00 p.m.

b. From 6:59 p.m. until 7:18 p.m., Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] placed calls to five United States Senators and one United States Representative.

c. Co-Conspirator 6 [Boris Epshteyn] attempted to confirm phone numbers for six United States Senators whom the Defendant had directed Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] to call and attempt to enlist in further delaying the certification.

d. In one of the calls, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] left a voicemail intended for a United States Senator that said, "We need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you. And I know they're reconvening at eight tonight but the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow -- ideally until the end of tomorrow."

e. In another message intended for another United States Senator, Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] repeated knowingly false allegations of election fraud, including that the vote counts certified by the states to Congress were incorrect and that the governors who had certified knew they were incorrect; that "illegal immigrants" had voted in substantial numbers in Arizona; and that "Georgia gave you a number in which 65,000 people who were underage voted." Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] also claimed that the Vice President's actions had been surprising and asked the Senator to "object to every state and kind of spread this out a little bit like a filibuster[.]"

120. At 7:01 p.m., while Co-Conspirator 1 [Rudy Giuliani] was calling United States Senators on behalf of the Defendant, the White House Counsel called the Defendant to ask him to withdraw any objections and allow the certification. The Defendant refused.

121. The attack on the Capitol obstructed and delayed the certification for approximately six hours, until the Senate and House of Representatives came back into session separately at 8:06 p.m. and 9:02 p.m., respectively, and came together in a Joint Session at 11:35 p.m.

122. At 11:44 p.m., Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] emailed the Vice President's Counsel advocating that the Vice President violate the law and seek further delay of the certification. Co-Conspirator 2 [John Eastman] wrote, "I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the ECA] and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here."

123. At 3:41 a.m. on January 7, as President of the Senate, the Vice President announced the certified results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Biden.

124. The Defendant and his co-conspirators committed one or more of the acts to effect the object of the conspiracy alleged above in Paragraphs 13, 15-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 28, 30-33, 35, 37-39, 41, 43-44, 46, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57-64, 67, 71-75, 78-82, 84, 85, 87-97, 99-100, 102-104, 111, 114, 116, 118-119, and 122.

(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371)

COUNT TWO
(Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding -- 18 U.S.C. § 1512))


125. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 8 through 123 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

126. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant,

DONALD J. TRUMP,

did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2).

(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(k))

COUNT THREE

(Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding -- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2)


127. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 8 through 123 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

128. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 7, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant,

DONALD J. TRUMP,

attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote.

(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2), 2)

COUNT FOUR
(Conspiracy Against Rights -- 18 U.S.C. § 241)


129. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 and 8 through 123 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.

130. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant,

DONALD J. TRUMP,

did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States -- that is, the right to vote, and to have one's vote counted.

(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241)

A TRUE BILL

FOREPERSON

JACK SMITH
SPECIAL COUNSEL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:34 am

PRESS RELEASE: James Comer, Chairman, KY-01, Releases Devon Archer’s Transcribed Interview Transcript
by Committee on Oversight and Accountability
August 3, 2023

WASHINGTON—House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) today released the transcript from Devon Archer’s transcribed interview. During the transcribed interview, Devon Archer confirmed then-Vice President Joe Biden was “the brand” that his son sold around the world to enrich the Biden family. Then-Vice President Biden joined Hunter Biden and his business associates for dinners or by phone over 20 times to sell “the brand” and send a signal about their power, access, and influence. Below are key exchanges from the transcript. The full transcript can be found here, and documents discussed during the transcribed interview can be found here.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden was “the brand” used to send “signals” of power, access, and influence.

Majority Counsel: You keep saying “the brand,” but by “brand” you mean the Biden family, correct?

Mr. Archer: Correct.

Majority Counsel: And that brand is what, in your opinion, was the majority of what the value that was delivered from Hunter Biden to Burisma?

Mr. Archer: I didn’t say majority, but I wouldn’t speculate on percentages. But I do think that that was an element of it.

Rep. Andy Biggs: When you say “Biden family” ‑‑ sorry to cut in here. I just want to get a clarification. You aren’t talking about Dr. Jill or anybody else. You’re talking about Joe Biden. Is that fair to say?

Mr. Archer: Yeah, that’s fair to say. Listen, I think it’s ‑‑ I don’t think about it as, you know, Joe directly, but it’s fair. That’s fair to say. Obviously, that brought the most value to the brand.

***

Majority Counsel: That Hunter Biden was adding value. His value that he was adding was, in part, as you said, his family.

Mr. Archer: Uh‑huh.

Majority Counsel: And so what is your basis for knowing that?

Mr. Archer: My basis for knowing that? Well, I think there was ‑‑ there are particular, you know, objectives that Burisma was trying to accomplish. And a lot of it’s about opening doors, you know, globally in D.C. And I think that, you know, that was the, you know ‑‑ and then obviously having those doors opened, you know, sent the right signals, you know, for Burisma to, you know, carry on its business and be successful.

***

Mr. Archer: My only thought is that I think Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn’t have the brand attached to it. That’s my, like, only honest opinion. But I have no basis for any ‑‑ never heard any conversations –

Mr. Goldman: But that’s different than Joe Biden’s action.

Mr. Archer: Right.


Mr. Goldman: You’re just talking about that Hunter was on the board.

Mr. Archer: Right. And I think that’s why –

Mr. Goldman: And so –

Mr. Archer: ‑‑ it was able to survive for as long as it did.

Mr. Goldman: By ‑‑ because of additional capital or –

Mr. Archer: Just because of the brand.

Mr. Goldman: Well, I don’t understand. How does that have an impact?

Mr. Archer: Well, the capabilities to navigate D.C. that they were able to, you know, basically be in the news cycle. And I think that preserved them from a, you know, from a longevity standpoint. That’s like my honest ‑‑ that’s like really what I ‑‑ that’s like how I think holistically.

Mr. Goldman: But how would that work?

Mr. Archer: Because people would be intimidated to mess with them.

Mr. Goldman: In what way?

Mr. Archer: Legally.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden attended dinners with Hunter Biden’s foreign business associates who wired money to Biden associated LLCs.

Majority Counsel: And I want to talk about the value. Going back to this, it would be, spring of 2014 Cafe Milano dinner ‑‑

Mr. Archer: Uh‑huh. The spring of ’14, yeah, the first one.

Majority Counsel: And since we talked about it before the break, if you could just recap. Can you just say again who was there?

Mr. Archer: Sure. Kenes Rakishev, Karim Massimov, Yelena Baturina, possibly Yury, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, possibly Eric Schwerin.

Majority Counsel: The duration of time that Joe Biden stayed there you said you couldn’t recall. But do you recall whether he had dinner or whether ‑‑

Mr. Archer: He had dinner, yeah. I recall that he had dinner. It was a regular ‑‑ not a long dinner, but dinner.


Majority Counsel: And so this dinner takes place in spring of 2014, approximately. But then do you recall getting a wire on February 14th of 2014 from Yelena Baturina for $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton?

Mr. Archer: To Rosemont Seneca Thornton?

Majority Counsel: Yes.

Mr. Archer: Yes. And why I remember that is from the ‑‑ from other testimony. Yes.

***

Majority Counsel: There’s a wire, an incoming wire, to the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account for April 22nd of 2014 for $142,300. Soon thereafter, there’s an outgoing wire, which appears to be the next day, to a beneficiary of Schneider Nelson Motor for this exact same amount. What was ‑‑ first off, our understanding is that Novitas Holdings, PTE Ltd. is associated Kenes Rakishev.

Mr. Archer: That’s my understanding.

Majority Counsel: Why did Rosemont Seneca Bohai receive this $142,000 payment from Rakishev?

Mr. Archer: It was for a car.

Majority Counsel: For whose car?

Mr. Archer: For Hunter’s car.

Majority Counsel: Was this a Porsche?

Mr. Archer: It gets a little foggy here. I believe it was a Fisker first and then a Porsche. But it was ‑‑ yes, it ‑‑

Majority Counsel: For an expensive car.

Mr. Archer: For an expensive car, yes.

***

Majority Counsel: All right. Let’s move on to the second dinner ‑‑

Mr. Archer: The second dinner.

Majority Counsel: ‑‑ the spring 2015 Cafe Milano. Who was there?

Mr. Archer: That dinner was ‑‑ I think we went over it before, but it was Vadym, Hunter, Joe, myself, Karim Massimov, a Greek Orthodox priest, maybe someone from World Food Programme.

Majority Counsel: And what did Joe do at that dinner? Did he have dinner? How long was he there?

Mr. Archer: He had dinner. He had dinner. And there was ‑‑ on that one, I believe the first one was, like, a birthday dinner, and then the second was ‑‑ I think we were supposed to talk about the World Food Programme. So there was some talk about that.


***

Then-Vice President Joe Biden spoke with Hunter Biden’s business associates by speakerphone.

Majority Counsel: How many times would you say that Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone or referenced his father being on the phone in front of others who were either foreign investors or foreign nationals who he was soliciting business with or working with, approximately?

Mr. Archer: Approximately? The differentiation between investor and normal course of day ‑‑ you know, that’s a very hard thing to speculate on. But he ‑‑ they spoke every day. He acknowledged that they spoke every day. And he would ‑‑ you know, he would sometimes make it apparent that he spoke to his dad, and sometimes he put him on speaker. But as far as quantifying the number, you know, relative to investors, I don’t know.

Majority Counsel: Not necessarily investors but with people who Hunter Biden was trying to either get business with or make contacts with or add value to?

Mr. Archer: In my 10 ‑‑ in my whole partnership, maybe 20 times.

Majority Counsel: And during those 20 times, did Hunter Biden ever place his dad on speakerphone?

Mr. Archer: Yes.


***

Majority Counsel: But if I were to just call my dad right now and put him on speakerphone and we’re in a professional business meeting here, would that be odd to you?

Mr. Archer: Would that be odd to me?

Majority Counsel: Yes.

Mr. Archer: That would be odd, if you called your dad right now.

Majority Counsel: So there is a time and a place when it’s professional to do ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ where you’re in a personal meeting and you may call your dad or a family member if you’re with family. But if you’re in a professional meeting and you’re meeting foreign business leaders or whoever it may be and you just place your dad on speakerphone on the table, that’s a little odd, isn’t it?

Mr. Archer: That is a little odd. I mean, it’s not odd ‑‑ I mean, it’s quite obvious what we’re talking around.

Majority Counsel: So what are we talking about? You are talking around it, and so I’d like to get out, what are we talking about here?

Mr. Archer: That, I think, at the end of the day, part of what was delivered is the brand. I mean, it’s like anything, you know, if you’re Jamie Dimon’s son or any CEO. You know, I think that that’s what we’re talking about, is that there was brand being delivered along with other capabilities and reach … I think “brand” is the best way to describe it.

***

Majority Counsel: Going back to the calls that Hunter Biden would put on speakerphone with his father and others, can you describe what the other people would say, if you can recall, after Hunter Biden did that? Because I’ll tell you, just from an everyday American, if someone were to put the Vice President of the United States on the phone right in front of you, it’d be pretty impressive ‑‑

Mr. Archer: Absolutely.

Majority Counsel: —and I would think there would be some sort of reaction from those people.

Mr. Archer: Yeah, I think everybody ‑‑ I think everybody remains, you know, cool and calm like it was, you know ‑‑ and then probably called their friends and family and said that they spoke to him. But, you know, the reaction ‑‑ I don’t have any specifics of, like, people jumping up and giving high‑fives, but I think it was, you know, a signal that, you know, they respected and thought was of value.

Burisma executives requested Hunter Biden to get “help from D.C.” to address “government pressure.”

Majority Counsel: Did ‑‑ during that I’ll say after dinner at the Four Seasons, did Mykola Zlochevsky or Vadym ask Hunter Biden to make any phone calls?

Mr. Archer: Yes
, though I was not party to that phone call.

Majority Counsel: What was the request?

Mr. Archer: The request was I think they were getting pressure and they requested Hunter, you know, help them with some of that pressure.

Majority Counsel: What pressure?

Mr. Archer: Government. Government pressure on their ‑‑ you know, government pressure from Ukrainian Government investigations into Mykola, et cetera. But it was ‑‑ it was not ‑‑ it wasn’t like a specific ‑‑ not a specific request. It was just we were sitting there at the Four Seasons having, you know, coffee and there was ‑‑ there was Mykola, there was one of the managers for the Four Seasons who managed that property, Vadym. So it wasn’t like a closed ‑‑ it was not like a specific meeting.

Majority Counsel: When you say pressure from the government, at this time were you aware that Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma?

Mr. Archer: To the best, I vaguely ‑‑ whether it was Shokin, I vague ‑‑ there was a lot of pressure initially. There was ‑‑ there was several pressure issues. It was kind of a theme of Burisma.

There was capital tied up in London, 23 million pounds. There was, you know, a U.S. visa denied and then a Mexico visa denied. And then there was ‑‑ so Shokin wasn’t specifically on my radar as being an individual that was ‑‑ that was targeting him. But yes, there was constant pressure. And it was like ‑‑ it was like whack‑a‑mole in regards to the pressures that had to resolve.


Rep. Jim Jordan: The request from Mr. ‑‑ from Mykola Zlochevsky and Vadym to Mr. Biden and/or if you said it was to you, the request for help from whom to deal with what pressure?

Mr. Archer: The request ‑‑ you know, basically the request is like, can D.C. help? But there were not ‑‑ you know, I’m not going to ‑‑ there were not ‑‑ it wasn’t like ‑‑ there weren’t specific, you know, can the big guy help? It was ‑‑ it’s always this amorphous, can we get help in D.C.?

***

Rep. Biggs: So why do you think they were asking Hunter Biden for D.C. help?

Mr. Archer: I mean, why?

Rep. Biggs: I mean, what did you take away from that?

Mr. Archer: Well, I mean, he was a lobbyist and an expert and obviously he carried, you know, a very powerful name. So I think it was ‑‑ that’s what they were asking for.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Fri Aug 04, 2023 9:42 am

Part 1 of 4

Transcribed Interview of Devon Archer
by Representatives Jordan, Biggs, Goldman
Committee on Oversight and Accountability, U.S. House of Reps.
7/31/23

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTERVIEW OF: DEVON ARCHER

Monday, July 31, 2023

Washington, D.C.

The interview in the above matter was held in room 6480, O'Neill House Office Building, commencing at 10:27 a.m.

Present: Representatives Jordan, Biggs, Goldman.

Appearances:

For the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY:

CLARK ABOURISK, COUNSEL
JESSICA DONLON, DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
ASHLII DYER, LEGAL COUNSEL
JAKE GREENBERG, DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGATIONS
JAMES MANDOLFO, GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGATIONS
MARK MARIN, STAFF DIRECTOR
[DELETE] MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
[DELETE] MINORITY SENIOR COUNSEL
[DELETE] MINORITY COUNSEL
[DELETE] MINORITY COUNSEL
[DELETE] MINORITY DIRECTOR FOR OVERSIGHT AND POLICY

For DEVON ARCHER:

MATTHEW L. SCHWARTZ, MANAGING PARTNER
[DELETE] SUMMER ASSOCIATE
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 HUDSON YARDS, 20TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10001

1
2 Mr. Mandolfo. This is a transcribed interview of Devon Archer. Chairman
3 Comer has requested this interview as part of the committee's investigation into the
4 Biden family's influence peddling and extensive receipt of money from foreign nationals
5 and foreign companies.
6 Would the witness please state your name for the record?
7 Mr. Archer. Devon Archer.
8 Mr. Mandolfo. On behalf of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, I
9 want to thank you, Mr. Archer, for your appearing here today. The committee
10 appreciates your willingness to appear here voluntarily.
11 My name is James Mandolfo, and I am general counsel and chief of investigations
12 for the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
13 I will now ask everyone else on the majority and the minority, including the
14 Members, to please introduce yourselves around the table. We can start with the
15 Members.
16 Mr. Jordan. Jim Jordan, Ohio.
17 Mr. Biggs. Andy Biggs, Arizona.
18 Mr. Goldman. Dan Goldman, New York.
19 Mr. Mandolfo. Go with the majority.
20 Mr. Greenberg. Jacob Greenberg, majority counsel.
21 Mr. Abourisk. Clark Abourisk, majority counsel.
22 Ms. Donlon. Jessica Donlon, majority.
23 Ms. Dyer. Ashlii Dyer, majority.
24 Mr. Mandolfo. Now for the minority.
25 Democratic staff.
4
1 Democratic staff.
2 Democratic staff.
3 Democratic staff.
4 Democratic staff.
5 Mr. Mandolfo. Thank you, everyone.
6 I'd like to go over a few ground rules and guidelines that we will follow during the
7 interview that I previously discussed with your lawyer.
8 First, our questioning today will occur in one round. The majority will ask
9 questions for up to 2 hours, and then the minority staff will have an opportunity to ask
10 questions for an equal period of time, if they choose.
11 These are accommodations that we've made at your attorney's request, and they
12 are contingent upon your attorney's representations to the committee that you will be
13 accurate and complete in your testimony here today.
14 We have also made additional accommodations at your attorney's request, which
15 is scoping the topics, and we provided our documents in advance of this interview.
16 Again, we made these accommodations with the understanding that you would give
17 complete and accurate testimony.
18 Typically, we take a short break at the end of each hour, but if you would like to
19 take a break apart from that, please just let us know.
20 As you can see, there is an official reporter taking down everything we say to
21 make a written record. So we ask that you give verbal responses to all questions.
22 Do you understand everything so far?
23 Mr. Archer. I do.
24 Mr. Mandolfo. To ensure the court reporter can make a clear record, we will do
25 our best to limit the number of people directing questions at you during any given round
5
to just those 1 people on the staff whose turn it is.
2 It's also important that we don't talk over one another or interrupt each other if
3 we can help it. And that goes for everybody else who's present at today's interview.
4 We encourage witnesses who appear before the committee to freely consult with
5 counsel if they so choose. It's my understanding that you are accompanied by counsel
6 here today.
7 If counsel could please state your name and your law firm for the record.
8 Mr. Schwartz. Good morning. Matthew Schwartz from Boies Schiller Flexner
9 for the witness, and I'm accompanied by my colleague, .
10 Mr. Mandolfo. Thank you.
11 Mr. Archer, we want you to answer our questions in the most complete and
12 truthful manner possible. If you have any questions or if you do not understand one of
13 our questions, please just let us know and we're happy to repeat the question.
14 Mr. Archer. Okay.
15 Mr. Mandolfo. If you honestly don't know the answer to a question or do not
16 remember, it is best not to guess. This is not the place to speculate. We are seeking
17 facts.
18 Please just give us your best recollection, and it's okay to tell us if you learned
19 information from someone else. Just indicate how you came to know the information.
20 If there are things you don't know or can't remember, just say so and please
21 inform us who, to the best of your knowledge, might be able to provide a more complete
22 answer to the questions.
23 You should also understand that, although this interview is not under oath, that by
24 law you are required to answer questions from Congress truthfully.
25 Do you understand that?
6
1 Mr. Archer. I do.
2 Mr. Mandolfo. This also applies to questions posed by congressional staff during
3 interviews.
4 Do you understand that?
5 Mr. Archer. I do.
6 Mr. Mandolfo. Witnesses who knowingly provide false testimony could be
7 subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or making false statements.
8 Do you understand?
9 Mr. Archer. I do.
10 Mr. Mandolfo. Furthermore, you cannot tell half-truths or exclude information
11 that would be necessary to make the statements accurate. You are required to provide
12 all information that would make your response truthful. A deliberate failure to disclose
13 information can constitute a false statement.
14 Do you understand?
15 Mr. Archer. I do.
16 Mr. Mandolfo. Is there any reason you are unable to provide truthful answers to
17 the committee here today?
18 Mr. Archer. There is not.
19 Mr. Mandolfo. Additionally, we have agreed to 2-hour rounds, but if there are
20 any interruptions or interjections -- for instance, from your attorney or from the
21 minority -- the majority's time will be paused for that duration of those interruptions and
22 then we will recommence once the issue has been resolved.
23 Mr. Archer. Okay.
24 Mr. Mandolfo. I'd like to give you the opportunity, if you want to, to make an
25 opening statement. You're not required to make an opening statement, but we give
7
1 that opportunity oftentimes.
2 Mr. Archer. Yes. Thank you.
3 Mr. Mandolfo. So if you would like to, please go ahead.
4 Mr. Archer. Yeah. I would just -- I would like to say -- and, again,
5 nothing -- nothing formal -- but I would like to thank, obviously, the senior officials here.
6 Thanks for joining us. I am -- it's an honor for -- you know, to be part of this.
7 And I appreciate, you know, you letting me take the time to do -- the only thing
8 I'm going to do is just speak the truth, answer as honestly and as completely as I can, and
9 want to just move through this process.
10 It's been a long -- it's been a long decade. My forties have been kind of, you
11 know, mired in fighting the government. So I want to be cooperative now and maybe
12 we can all be friends. So let's take it from there.
13 But I'm, you know, I'm an open book. So please -- please let me know what you
14 need to know and I'll do my best.
15 Mr. Mandolfo. Thank you.
16 This is the end of my preamble.
17 Is there anything the minority would like to add before we begin?
18 Sure.
19 On June 12th, committee Democrats received notice of a subpoena to Mr. Archer
20 setting a deposition just 4 days later, on June 16th, just minutes after Chairman Comer
21 issued a press release about the subpoena.
22 Since then, committee Democrats have had to learn about Mr. Archer's
23 appearance mainly from press statements from Chairman Comer and leaks to press
24 outlets.
25 On Friday afternoon, just 3 days ago, committee Republicans provided committee
8
Democrats with a six-page letter from 1 Mr. Archer's counsel that set forth the extensive
2 negotiations and agreements between committee Republicans and the witness regarding
3 today's interview.
4 The letter sets out limitations on the subjects to be covered, which are set out in
5 the six-page letter in three different appendices.
6 It also limits the documents to be used in this transcribed interview to, quote, "24
7 pages of documents," end quote, that Republicans provided to Archer's counsel on June
8 28th, as well as, quote, "highlighted transactions on the 260 pages of RSB LLC bank
9 records," end quote, that Republicans sent Archer's counsel on July 11th.
10 Committee Republicans provided committee Democrats with the, quote, "24
11 pages of documents" last night, Sunday, at 6 in the evening. The vast majority of these
12 appear to be emails, which are not part of any committee records previously provided to
13 committee Democrats.
14 Committee Republicans have not provided committee Democrats with the, quote,
15 "highlighted transactions on the 260 pages of RSB LLC records" -- "bank records."
16 Committee Democrats have been excluded from all these discussions and
17 negotiations conducted by committee Republicans, and we have not agreed to any of
18 these limitations.
19 We now find ourselves in a transcribed interview with scopes and limits we had no
20 input in, and an attempt to limit the scope of exhibits to documents handpicked by
21 Republicans, which they have failed to provide in advance to Democrats.
22 This obviously raises strong concerns that committee Republicans are once again
23 attempting to cherry-pick facts, which has been an ongoing issue in this probe.
24 Mr. Mandolfo. Thank you.
25 We disagree with the substance of what you just provided. The RSB accounts
9
1 have been subpoenaed and provided to you much earlier.
2 In addition to that, these are scoping that Mr. Archer's attorney has requested and
3 for that reason he came in voluntarily.
4 Now we may begin. The time is showing --
5 Mr. Goldman. What about the 24 documents?
6 Mr. Mandolfo. Excuse me?
7 Mr. Goldman. What about the 24 documents?
8 Mr. Mandolfo. We picked out the 24 documents.
9 Mr. Goldman. Are they -- were they among documents that were in the
10 possession of committee Democrats?
11 Mr. Mandolfo. They are documents that are either publicly available or
12 documents that are available through the Hunter Biden laptop. So yes.
13 We're going to now begin. It's 10:30 --
14 Mr. Goldman. That's a no, though. We don't have the hard drive that you
15 have, right?
16 Mr. Mandolfo. The documents are available online. The emails are available
17 online.
18 Mr. Goldman. So you are -- your evidence is derived from online sources
19 of -- from a hard drive?
20 Mr. Mandolfo. Our evidence is from several sources. One is from the Hunter
21 Biden laptop, and that is available to Democrats.
22 Mr. Goldman. You have the hard drive, right?
23 Mr. Mandolfo. It's from the hard drive from the laptop, yes.
24 We're going to now begin. 10 --
25 Mr. Schwartz. Can I just say one thing first?
10
1 Mr. Mandolfo. Yes.
2 Mr. Schwartz. So as both of you have made reference to, we are here today
3 voluntarily and pursuant to a variety of agreements that are reflected in my letter to you,
4 Mr. Mandolfo, of July 24th. I understand that will be made an exhibit to this interview.
5 And, as you say, subject to that scope, it is Mr. Archer's intention to testify completely
6 and accurately today.
7 I will tell you, however, I received over the weekend correspondence from Mr.
8 Biden's lawyer raising the possibility of Mazars-type issues in the questioning today.
9 You're familiar with those issues.
10 I obviously don't know what questions you all are going to ask. It is our intention
11 to answer all your questions. I have an obligation to protect Mr. Archer, though. And
12 so I may, if the questioning seems to stray, ask you to articulate the legislative purpose
13 behind questioning so that Mr. Archer has a predicate for answering those questions in
14 the face of the Mazars-type of claims that have been raised.
15 Mr. Mandolfo. And if you need a legislative purpose, I would refer you -- the
16 committee has put out extensively our legislative purpose in our bank records
17 memorandum. And so we are -- I will rely on that for our legislative purpose. It spells
18 it out in great detail.
19 Mr. Schwartz. I understand that. As to the general proceedings here, as I say, if
20 the questioning seems to stray, I may interject.
21 Mr. Mandolfo. Understood.
22 So right now it is 10:36, and we will begin.
23 EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
25 Q Mr. Archer, if you could please tell the committee your educational
11
1 background.
2 A I attended North Shore Day School in Long Island, Glen Cove. I went to
3 Glenwood Landing Elementary. I went to North Shore High School. I went to Yale
4 University. And then started at Citibank and got most of my kind of credit and finance
5 training through Citibank Management Associates Program.
6 Q And could you give a little bit more detail on what you did for Citibank?
7 A I was a management associate in Asia. I was headquartered in Vietnam. I
8 ended up -- I started out as basically a junior position. It was called a management
9 associate.
10 And then I moved into Citicorp Asia Capital Limited, which was at the time the
11 kind of Asian -- the theater was Asia. Obviously, it was ex-China at the time, Southeast
12 Asia primarily, Hong Kong, focused on private equity.
13 Q How did you come to know Hunter Biden and the Biden family?
14 A I came to know Hunter Biden -- I -- there's a rumor that we overlapped and
15 met when he was at law school and I was at undergrad, but I -- somehow I just keep
16 reading that, but I don't think that was the case.
17 I think we met at probably -- we met in L.A. I can't name the year but a
18 Democratic convention in L.A. probably -- what was that, 2000? Maybe you wouldn't
19 know, but some of these guys might. It was in -- I forgot. It was L.A., Boston, 2004.
20 So it was one of those. It was just a handshake.
21 And then I was introduced to him by his attorney, Marc LoPresti, at some point.
22 And then my partner at the time, Chris Heinz, and Hunter had known each other casually,
23 again. And that's where -- that was really where we, you know, kind of generated a
24 relationship. That was probably in 2008-ish.
25 Q I'm going to direct your attention now to Burisma.
12
I want to first get 1 a sense of how you became involved with Burisma --
2 A Sure.
3 Q -- and when you joined the board in approximately, I believe, 2014.
4 A Okay. With Burisma, the genesis of the relationship started when
5 Zlochevsky, Mykola Zlochevsky, and Vadym -- I'm going to abuse the name, but Vadym P.
6 was -- you guys are very --
7 Q Pozharskyi?
8 A Exactly. Very familiar with. Were -- they were on kind of a target list of
9 potential investors in Rosemont Real Estate Acquisition Fund One. Okay. It was called
10 RREAF. That's -- and, essentially, there was a cap-intro company that, you know,
11 had -- had basically created a list.
12 And they came through New York. I was in China. They came through New
13 York in the early -- I'm just trying to place the year. You know, if I get the years wrong, I
14 don't want to speculate.
15 Q Approximately.
16 A Approximately the early -- that had to be the early like -- like 2010 to '15 at
17 some point, in that time. Or not to 2015. 2010 to 2014. I don't know exactly, but I
18 could probably figure it out.
19 They came through. I was not in town. The cap-intro company was called Tri
20 Global. Tri Global did the kind of pitch kind of on behalf of Rosemont Realty to them.
21 And I don't think they were very interested.
22 But that was kind of the first that I heard of Burisma, Zlochevsky, the individual,
23 and that he would be a potential investor.
24 And then I then -- I was reintroduced -- I mean, you can't make this stuff up -- but I
25 was -- I was -- we were doing a large deal with an Eastern European bank to basically
13
invest in and be like an anchor i 1 nvestor on the debt side for Rosemont Realty for
2 Rosemont Real Estate Acquisition Fund Two. And that meeting happened to be on
3 March -- it was like -- it was March 4th, 2014, which was in Moscow, which was also the
4 day that Putin invaded Crimea. So that deal fell through, as you can imagine.
5 So that started this entire process. He was in -- he was in Moscow. We were
6 like, okay, well, now we got to get back on the fundraising trip. And I met with him.
7 And -- and that was -- that was -- that was basically -- met with him. That was
8 like a follow-up meeting to pitching him, and then that was the relationship. We asked
9 him -- or I was -- it was just me meeting.
10 Q Zlochevsky, is that who you --
11 A Zlochevsky and no Vadym, one of the Tri Global kind of translator guys,
12 cap-intro guys, and myself. Pitched him. He told me at the time that -- that he
13 had -- Kwasniewski had joined -- the President of Poland had joined the board, just kind of
14 in passing. And there was no like board discussion or anything like that.
15 And basically, the next day they called -- they -- they called me -- the Tri Global guy
16 called me back and said, would you be -- you know, I don't know if they're going to be
17 interested in Rosemont Realty, but President Kwasniewski wants to meet with you.
18 So I was like, okay, this is an, you know, an interesting honor, right? And I
19 basically -- so I literally within days, I flew to Warsaw for the day. And Kwasniewski
20 asked me, it's like, I just joined this board, this is energy independence, yada, yada, yada.
21 It was all the stuff around it.
22 He was like, would you be interested in joining the board? And so that's really
23 how -- that's how the Burisma relationship started.
24 Q And that was approximately March or April of 2014?
25 A March, March. Probably that -- it was the first week of March or, you
14
1 know, into the March 10th-ish.
2 I don't -- you know, I'm sure I could -- there's -- you could find when I went to
3 Warsaw or -- it was the first week of March.
4 Q And I know you've discussed their names, but Mykola Zlochevsky was the
5 owner of Burisma?
6 A Correct.
7 Q And Vadym Pozharskyi would have been the CFO?
8 A He was the corporate secretary. He was not the CFO. Another -- another
9 guy was the CFO.
10 Q And have you heard of Karina Zlochevsky?
11 A The daughter.
12 Q Of?
13 A Mykola.
14 Q And who is Aleksander Kwasniewski?
15 A He's the former President of Poland.
16 [Archer Exhibit No. 1
17 Was marked for identification.]
18 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
19 Q And now I want to show you exhibit 1. If you can please pull that big
20 binder.
21 What I'm showing you now, this is the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account.
22 A Yeah.
23 Q According to public records, Rosemont Seneca Bohai was started on
24 February 13th of 2014.
25 What was Rosemont Seneca Bohai?
15
A Rosemont Seneca Bohai was set up 1 to hold the equity of BHR, which is Bohai
2 Harvest Rosemont Partners or some -- Equity Partners, I believe, which was a -- which was
3 a private equity fund that was started between Harvest, which is like the -- I would say
4 like the Fidelity of China. Bohai Sea Industrial Fund, which is a -- which was like a
5 government-owned private equity fund that wanted to go private. So basically, the
6 three letters of the acronym, Bohai Harvest Rosemont.
7 And this was just set up to -- to essentially own that equity and operate the, you
8 know, what we thought was going to be a successful fund, which it ended up not being.
9 That was -- that was the reason for it.
10 Q And if you could go to tab 1, please. Thank you.
11 In addition to what you just described, was the RSB account also used to receive
12 money from Burisma?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And looking at the tab there, do you see a payment for approximately
15 $83,000?
16 A Correct.
17 Q And that's on April 15th of 2014?
18 A Uh-huh.
19 Q Would that be, to your knowledge, one of the first payments from Burisma
20 that you received?
21 A Yes. Yes, to my knowledge. Unless there was one before on the page.
22 Q No. No, there is not.
23 And there's another payment underneath for approximately $29,000, correct?
24 A Uh-huh.
25 Q In addition --
16
A That's probably 1 like travel or something like that, Warsaw maybe. I don't
2 know.
3 Q In addition to you receiving funds into this account from Burisma, I want to
4 turn your attention to exhibit 3.
5 Mr. Schwartz. Tab 3?
6 Mr. Mandolfo. Tab 3, thank you.
7 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
8 Q Exhibit 1, tab 3.
9 A Yes.
10 Q Is it correct that Hunter Biden also received his share of the board payment
11 into the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account?
12 A Yes, that's correct.
13 Q And if we look at the top of the page and kind of in the header here, it has
14 "Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC, C/O Devon Archer."
15 A Uh-huh.
16 Q Hunter Biden was not on this account, correct?
17 A He was not -- he was not on -- no, he was not on the account.
18 Q How is it that Hunter Biden became a board member of Burisma?
19 A The -- Hunter Biden became a board member because, when I came back
20 from -- when I -- I started my tenure there and I -- we hired him as a -- as counsel, quite
21 frankly. And then he was counsel and we -- that went on for, I don't know, maybe 2
22 months.
23 And he developed a relationship with Vadym and Mykola, and they -- I think they
24 had a different design. There was a meeting in Lake Como at an economic conference.
25 Q What do you know about that meeting?
17
A That meeting -- I was there. I was there 1 at the conference. I was not -- I
2 was not involved in the conversation that they had. But out of that -- that meeting, it
3 was decided that he was going to move into a board role.
4 Q Did Hunter Biden ever tell you about that conversation?
5 A No, he did not. He did not tell me. Well, I mean the outcome was that he
6 was going to join the board. So yes, in a sense, he told me that, but it wasn't like a
7 detailed -- I mean, I know exactly where I had the conversation and I remember it vividly
8 though I wasn't part of it. They were in a different part of the conference than me.
9 Q When you and Hunter Biden first joined the board of Burisma, were there
10 service agreements that you signed as far as your -- what your roles would be at Burisma?
11 A My role was -- my role at Burisma when I joined was to go out and find
12 external financing for expansion, for global expansion. First, it was find expansion into
13 the United States, and then things got a little dicey. But then it was -- it was to basically
14 find outside financing for global expansion, which we were very successful in.
15 We opened Burisma Geothermal, bought wells in Italy, because obviously drilling
16 was like a, you know, a core competency, which was kind of a renewables tilt which we
17 thought would be, you know, looked favorably upon.
18 And we -- we opened up Burisma Eurasia, which we, you know, had a successful
19 servicing contract in Kazakhstan with Kazmu -- what was it? KazMunayGas, yeah.
20 KazMunayGas. We had 50 employees, employed a lot of other folks. We
21 bought drills in Texas and, you know, brand-new equipment, and went kind of deeper and
22 more efficiently and cleaner than they'd ever done, you know, in that part of the world.
23 And so it was -- it was, you know, I hate to say a great success, that would be
24 too -- but it was a great success. And --
25 Q Just to stop you. Do you remember the name of that company in Texas
18
1 that you just referenced?
2 A The drilling company?
3 Q Yes.
4 A I don't know the name, but I could find out.
5 Q You could find out for us?
6 A Yeah, yeah. It was -- we transported all of that equipment via sea and then
7 over land through Ukraine into Kazakhstan, which I'd have to go through another area.
8 But it was pretty wild. We pulled off a lot.
9 But that was my main purpose of -- was international expansion, which I think,
10 you know, in a very short time I had exceptional execution.
11 Q The payments appear to be approximately $83,000 per month that were
12 deposited into the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account from Burisma Holdings.
13 Was that what you were to be paid? Was it a million dollars per year?
14 A It was -- so, from a board perspective, it was a million dollars per year on the
15 board contracts, but the -- which was -- again, it was more than -- you know, there's
16 associated work. It wasn't just sitting there and, you know, going to board meetings.
17 But there was a lot of work that was done.
18 It was actually split. During my tenure, Tri Global was the cap-intro group. It
19 was actually split three ways. I don't know, you know, where it went after my time.
20 But that's -- initially, it was the sum total, kind of a take-home for, you know, the
21 company, excluding expenses, just gross, was 666 per year.
22 And then that obviously changed. I was, you know, kicked off or asked to resign
23 from the board when I got into my next issue.
24 Q Was Hunter Biden's agreement also that he would receive $83,000 per
25 month --
19
1 A Yes.
2 Q -- from Burisma?
3 A Yes. That's what I'm saying. So two -- 83 in two different -- once a month
4 was 666 annualized, divided by three.
5 [Archer Exhibit No. 7
6 Was marked for identification.]
7 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
8 Q And I'd like to turn your attention now to exhibit 7 in that binder.
9 A Sure. This one? Oh, sorry.
10 Q This is an email from you to Hunter Biden. It's dated May 7th of 2014. So
11 this is about the beginning of when he's joining the board.
12 A Uh-huh.
13 Q The subject is "Re: Notes from the 13 hr" -- meaning "hour" -- "plane ride."
14 And I want to direct your attention to paragraph 6.
15 A Uh-huh.
16 Q My understanding of this email is that Hunter Biden has -- is the lower case
17 statement and your response is the caps, all caps statement.
18 Mr. Schwartz. Well, these emails don't come from Mr. Archer, so I don't think
19 we're going to be able to authenticate the emails or tell you who wrote what. But
20 you're certainly welcome to ask about the content of these.
21 Mr. Mandolfo. Well, do you recognize this email?
22 Sorry to interrupt. Can we know where this document comes
23 from?
24 Mr. Abourisk. It comes from the hard drive.
25 The hard drive that is in the possession of committee
20
1 Republicans?
2 Mr. Mandolfo. Yes.
3 So there's --
4 Mr. Goldman. Where did you get that hard drive?
5 Mr. Mandolfo. Go off the record for a second.
6 [Discussion off the record.]
7 Mr. Mandolfo. Showing you exhibit 7, paragraph 6. I'll read it out loud. It's
8 from you to Hunter Biden.
9 "Need to determine what we consider expenses to be deducted from potential
10 Burisma 'pay'" -- "pay" in quotations -- "before we determine true split number with
11 Alex."
12 Mr. Schwartz. I don't know to whom, but I object to your characterization as
13 that's "from you to Hunter Biden."
14 Mr. Archer. Yeah, I --
15 Mr. Goldman. Can we just clarify on the record, I want to clarify on the record.
16 Mr. Mandolfo. Off the record.
17 Mr. Goldman. No, no, no.
18 Ms. Donlon. You're using the majority time. You negotiated the time --
19 Mr. Goldman. Pause the time. I don't care.
20 Mr. Schwartz. I care. I care. We negotiated the time because we wanted to
21 leave, not because we wanted 2 hours of questioning.
22 Mr. Goldman. Well, we didn't agree to your negotiated time. So we'll sit here
23 for 5 more seconds.
24 Ms. Donlon. This is the chairman's transcribed interview, so he has the authority
25 to negotiate, and this is what's been negotiated.
21
Mr. Goldman. That is fine. You 1 take whatever time you need. I just want the
2 witness, maybe aided by counsel, on the record --
3 Ms. Donlon. Sir, you can do this during your time.
4 Mr. Goldman. No, you're introducing --
5 Ms. Donlon. No, you can do it during your time.
6 Mr. Biggs. This is not a court of law. First of all, this is not a court of law. Quit
7 talking over people. He can answer. He's got counsel there that can say, "It's outside
8 the scope, we think it's dubious," whatever he wants to say about it.
9 You have to let the witness answer this, because we're not sitting in a court of law.
10 This is a transcribed voluntary interview, for Pete's sakes. If you have an objection,
11 you've stated your objection. You get to make it.
12 Mr. Goldman. But not on the record.
13 Mr. Biggs. You can get to it when it's your 2 hours.
14 Mr. Goldman. You know how depositions work, but carry on.
15 Mr. Biggs. This is a deposition. This is not in court. Yeah, this is very different
16 than that when I practiced law. But this is Congress. A little bit different. Press on.
17 Press on.
18 Mr. Schwartz. Back on the record.
19 Mr. Mandolfo. Paragraph 6. If I misspoke before, it's our understanding that
20 the lower case is Hunter Biden. The caps, all caps, would be your response. But I'm
21 just going to read it again.
22 "Need to determine what we consider expenses to be deducted from potential
23 Burisma 'pay'" -- in quotes -- "before we determine true split number with Alex."
24 And then in parentheticals, "(i.e., 5-.75/3 = 1.42 million apiece.) Is 750K
25 reasonable expense number btw Washington, D.C. office?" All caps, "TAX LIABILITY AND
22
1 SOMETHING LIKE THAT SEEMS FAIR."
2 Do you recall having a conversation with Hunter Biden regarding that you and him
3 would receive approximately -- consistent with this email -- approximately 4.85 million
4 jointly from Burisma?
5 Mr. Schwartz. So now he's not asking about the email. He's asking if you had
6 such a conversation.
7 A Uh-huh. No. That -- that -- that one is -- I don't know what that 4.5. As I
8 explained just before, it was 83, 33, 33, and it only went to one account, which we have
9 all the stuff for.
10 And theoretically -- I don't know what we were talking about here. But it was
11 like -- so 666 -- it looks like that says 750. But that -- this one seems like there's some
12 math that we were -- that's him writing to me.
13 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
14 Q That's Hunter Biden writing to you?
15 A I think. Theoretically, it would be.
16 Q In the small caps is what you're saying?
17 A Yeah.
18 Q So that would bring us to roughly 4.85 million jointly from Burisma. That
19 would be from Hunter Biden.
20 Mr. Schwartz. No. We can't -- we can't --
21 Mr. Archer. Yeah.
22 Mr. Schwartz. We can't confirm this email is from anyone. He's reading the
23 text to the document, and in the format of an email that's the way it looks.
24 So he can confirm that you accurately read it, which you accurately read; and he
25 can confirm, as he did, the conversations that he had with Mr. Biden.
23
Mr. Archer. Yes. And 1 I would also add that any money that came from Burisma
2 is all here, all documented here. There was no -- or no money that I -- I can speak for
3 only myself -- there was no money that was ever received.
4 Basically, this was the -- because we had set it up for BHR, we took in this here.
5 Hunter was the corporate secretary of RSB. So there was a COO who managed it. So
6 that was -- that was -- I don't know where that number is from.
7 Mr. Biggs. Can I ask a question about that?
8 Mr. Archer. Sure.
9 Mr. Biggs. First of all, thanks for being here. I appreciate it.
10 Maybe this would help solve the question. Do you remember ever seeing this
11 document at all? I mean, I get it's 10 years ago --
12 Mr. Archer. The email?
13 Mr. Biggs. Yeah. I just wonder if you recall. Does it look familiar? Is it
14 something that you might recall?
15 Mr. Archer. The -- no, I don't -- I can't authenticate it. But I -- you know,
16 I -- those conversations are all around what we were speaking about.
17 Like, obviously, I voluntarily just talked about the -- there was this Tri Global split.
18 I don't know exact -- those numbers. And, I mean, I've seen a lot of speculation.
19 I don't -- again, I can only speak for myself. I don't know any other money that
20 went beyond RSB Morgan Stanley account.
21 Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
22 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
23 Q At some point, though, when you ran into Federal troubles, Hunter Biden
24 started to receive his money in a different account, correct?
25 A Correct. Yes, because this got shut down. So it must have been.
24
Q And I want to show you 1 exhibit 4, tab 1 -- excuse me, exhibit 1, tab 4.
2 A Got it.
3 Q And on this page, it's August of 2015, and you'll see on August 19th there are
4 two Burisma payments for $83,000 each, one to you and one to Hunter Biden, correct?
5 A Correct.
6 Q And above that, you'll see that there --
7 A Actually, let me just clarify. It was -- we were running it as a business, so it
8 was -- it was to Rosemont Seneca Bohai for -- there were other investments that were
9 made. There were, you know, investments on behalf of the business. So, you know, as
10 the business was capitalized, we did other things with it.
11 So though kind of contractually it was a -- it was a, you know, a fee-for-service at
12 the end of the day, it was like -- we took it as revenue of the company. I don't know if
13 that makes any difference but -- so -- but yes.
14 Q But during this time, Hunter Biden had his own bank accounts, correct?
15 You'll see on this page he has an OWASCO PC, which received a transfer of $5,000, and
16 you'll also see that there was a transfer to Robert Biden for $19,000.
17 Is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And so if we take into account that Hunter Biden is receiving approximately
20 $1 million a year, and I know that he started towards the third or fourth month in 2014,
21 but how long did he work for Burisma, to your knowledge?
22 A To my knowledge, I can go as far as, you know, May, May-July. Like
23 summer of 2016. And then I'm, you know, obviously aware that he worked for Burisma.
24 I don't know when the end of his tenure was. It was years later, I believe.
25 [Archer Exhibit No. 2
25
1 Was marked for identification.]
2 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
3 Q All right. Now, I want to direct your attention to April 2014 timeline, and
4 I'd like to show you exhibit 2.
5 A Sure.
6 Q And this is an email. It states from Robert Biden, who's Hunter Biden, to
7 you, Devon Archer, dated April 12th of 2014, with a subject line "Tmrw."
8 And I'd like to turn your attention to paragraph 18 on the second page. I'm going
9 to read it.
10 A Sure.
11 Q "The announcement of my guy's upcoming travels should be characterized
12 as part of our advice and thinking -- but what he will say and do is out of our hands. In
13 other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an
14 expectation. We need to temper expectations regarding that visit."
15 Do you recall Hunter Biden referring to his dad as "my guy"?
16 A I believe, yes.
17 Q Given that he's referring to his dad, the average person would refer to their
18 dad as "dad" or "father" or maybe there's another nickname, but not many people would
19 refer to their dad as "my guy."
20 And so, in reading this, can you tell me what you believe Hunter Biden was getting
21 at when he's referring to his dad, "My guy's upcoming travel should be characterized as
22 part of our advice and thinking"?
23 Mr. Schwartz. You're asking him to speculate what someone else meant if that
24 person wrote this?
25 Mr. Mandolfo. I'm asking him what his interpretation of that when Hunter Biden
26
was telling him this. He just 1 said that Hunter Biden told him, did use that phrase.
2 So when he would use that phrase, what did you interpret that to mean?
3 Mr. Schwartz. When he used the phrase "my guy" --
4 Mr. Mandolfo. When he used --
5 Mr. Schwartz. -- what did that mean?
6 Mr. Mandolfo. Yeah.
7 Mr. Archer. What I think, you know, it -- my speculation would be that he
8 was -- he's saying that, you know, we can't -- I can't guide my guy, you know, I can't guide
9 my father in what he's going to do on this trip, but let's get credit for it. I think that's
10 what it's saying here.
11 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
12 Q But if he --
13 A Yeah, reframe the question.
14 Q If he's counsel, why would he get credit for his dad going to the Ukraine?
15 A Well, yeah. Why would he get credit?
16 Q Yeah. What kind of credit was Hunter Biden trying to get?
17 A Speculating, I think he was getting --
18 Mr. Schwartz. He said at the beginning don't speculate. If you don't know, you
19 don't know.
20 Mr. Archer. He was getting paid a lot of money, and I think, you know, he
21 wanted to show value.
22 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
23 Q And was part of that value him bringing his dad to the Ukraine?
24 A I think in here it's clear that he's not bringing his dad, but he's saying, you
25 know, "I'm going to get credit for it."
27
1 Q But when you say "get credit" --
2 A He's not -- he was not determining -- he wasn't setting his dad's schedule to
3 bring him to Ukraine, I don't think.
4 Q Right. But when his dad's traveling to Ukraine, he's trying to have the
5 Burisma officials recognize that he should get credit, "he", being Hunter Biden, should get
6 credit for his dad traveling to Ukraine.
7 Would you agree with that?
8 A I would say that that's -- that's what that says. And if that's -- if that comes
9 accurately, that's what he's saying. I think it's pretty obvious.
10 Q And what do you think is obvious about it?
11 A He's saying -- again, I can't speculate, because I don't know if the email -- I'm
12 just reading that email.
13 Q But you've had other conversations with Hunter Biden. You were his
14 business partner for a long time.
15 A Uh-huh.
16 Q Did he talk about how bringing his dad either to Ukraine or using his dad as
17 Vice President would add value in the eyes of Burisma officials?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And how would that come up?
20 A I just think it's almost -- it's pretty obvious if you're, you know, you're the son
21 of a Vice President.
22 Mr. Schwartz. He's asking about specific conversations.
23 Mr. Archer. Yeah. Specific conversations, no. He would -- we would not talk
24 specifically about -- you know, he would not be so overt. And I think that's, you know, I
25 think that's another obvious point, that he would not say, okay, we're
28
going to -- we're -- 1 you know, I'm overtly -- we're going to use my dad for this.
2 But I think he would -- you know, given the brand, I think he would look to, you
3 know, to get the leverage from it.
4 Q What kind of leverage was he trying to get by using his dad?
5 A I think it's more defensive, you know, defensive leverage that that the value
6 is there in his work.
7 Q I want to now show you, back to exhibit 1, tab 1, which is going to be the
8 payment.
9 A Sure.
10 Q And we just talked about this, so I'm just going to rehash it. But this email
11 happens on April 12th, 2014, where Hunter Biden talks about adding value.
12 And then, on April 15th of 2014, there's the first payment that comes in to
13 Rosemont Seneca Bohai.
14 And then are you aware -- I'll go to exhibit 3.
15 [Archer Exhibit No. 3
16 Was marked for identification.]
17 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
18 Mr. Mandolfo. We'll start from the bottom.
19 On April -- this is from Hunter Biden to Devon Archer dated April 22nd of 2014.
20 The subject is "Re: JRB in UKR." And I'll let you review it.
21 But, essentially, Hunter Biden copies and pastes what appears to be a quote from
22 his father's speech while Vice President Biden was in the Ukraine.
23 You then respond, "Wow. We need to make sure this ragtag temporary
24 government in the Ukraine understands the value of Burisma to its very existence."
25 Hunter Biden then said, "You should send to Vadym" -- and who is Vadym again?
29
1 Mr. Archer. Vadym is the corporate secretary of Burisma.
2 Mr. Mandolfo. "It makes it look like we are adding value."
3 This is in the beginning stages of when you're joining the board. And would you
4 agree with me this isn't legal advice that's adding value here that Hunter Biden is giving,
5 the value add that Hunter Biden brings to Burisma is Vice President Biden?
6 Mr. Schwartz. Was the question --
7 Mr. Archer. Yes.
8 Mr. Schwartz. -- what was the value that Hunter Biden brought to Burisma?
9 Mr. Archer. The value was -- the value that Hunter Biden brought to it was
10 having -- you know, there was -- the theoretical was corporate governance, but obviously,
11 given the brand, that was a large part of the value. I don't think it was the sole value,
12 but I do think that was a key component of the value.
13 Mr. Mandolfo. You keep saying "the brand," but by "brand" you mean the Biden
14 family, correct?
15 Mr. Archer. Correct.
16 Mr. Mandolfo. And that brand is what, in your opinion, was the majority of what
17 the value that was delivered from Hunter Biden to Burisma?
18 Mr. Archer. I didn't say majority, but I wouldn't speculate on percentages. But
19 I do think that that was an element of it.
20 Mr. Biggs. When you say "Biden family" -- sorry to cut in here. I just want to
21 get a clarification.
22 You aren't talking about Dr. Jill or anybody else. You're talking about Joe Biden.
23 Is that fair to say?
24 Mr. Archer. Yeah, that's fair to say. Listen, I think it's -- I don't think about it as,
25 you know, Joe directly, but it's fair. That's fair to say. Obviously, that brought the
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Fri Aug 04, 2023 9:43 am

Part 2 of 4

30
1 most value to the brand.
2 Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
3 Mr. Mandolfo. I want to go back to another point you said earlier. You said
4 Hunter Biden didn't overtly talk about how he would use his -- and if I'm
5 mischaracterizing this or getting it incorrect, please correct me -- but that he wouldn't use
6 overtly that he's going to use his father or his father's name in order to add value or
7 maximize what he could get from others.
8 So how did you know that that's one of the ways that Hunter Biden was, like,
9 meeting with officials from Burisma or getting access to officials with Burisma or getting a
10 job that paid a million dollars? What is -- how did you know that?
11 Mr. Schwartz. Know what?
12 Mr. Archer. Yeah, say it again.
13 Mr. Mandolfo. That Hunter Biden was adding value. His value that he was
14 adding was, in part, as you said, his family.
15 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
16 Mr. Mandolfo. And so what is your basis for knowing that?
17 Mr. Archer. My basis for knowing that? Well, I think there was -- there are
18 particular, you know, objectives that Burisma was trying to accomplish.
19 And a lot of it's about opening doors, you know, globally in D.C. And I think that,
20 you know, that was the, you know -- and then obviously having those doors opened, you
21 know, sent the right signals, you know, for Burisma to, you know, carry on its business
22 and be successful.
23 Obviously, that all backfired, you know, terribly for them, and I think Mykola is in
24 hiding in Cypress right now.
25 But, yeah, I think -- how did I know? It's just -- I mean, it's a lot -- it's how this
31
1 town works as an outsider looking in.
2 [Archer Exhibit No. 4
3 Was marked for identification.]
4 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
5 Q And I now want to turn your attention to exhibit 4. And this is an email
6 from you to Vadym Pozharskyi.
7 A Saying, "This works for me"?
8 Q I'm just going to put everyone else who's on it too. Copying Hunter Biden,
9 Sebastian Momtazi, and Joan Peugh.
10 A Uh-huh.
11 Q Dated October 5th of 2015, with the subject "Re: Next BoD meeting."
12 And then starting at the bottom, it appears to be an email from Mr. Pozharskyi, and it
13 describes a board of directors meeting in the first week of December in Dubai, and that
14 people would fly in on December 3rd, and then there would be a board of directors
15 meeting midday of December 4th.
16 And then your response, as you just said, was, "This works for me," correct?
17 A Uh-huh. Correct.
18 Q Do you recall the board of directors meeting in Dubai?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Before going to Dubai, do you remember going to Kyiv in Ukraine?
21 A I don't remember. Like right on that same trip?
22 Q Yes.
23 A Did I?
24 Q If you don't remember, you don't remember.
25 A I don't remember.
32
1 Q It's not a trick question.
2 A I don't -- on that particular trip in December? You know, I've been to Kyiv,
3 but I don't remember it being connected with that trip. It was December what year?
4 Q Of 2015.
5 Mr. Schwartz. If you don't remember, it's okay.
6 Mr. Archer. I'm sorry. I don't remember. I'm not -- I don't remember if we
7 stopped there.
8 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
9 Q And do you remember going to the board of directors meetings in Dubai?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And do you remember who was at that meeting?
12 A Yes. Alan Apter, Aleksander Kwasniewski, Mykola Zlochevsky, Vadym P.,
13 Hunter Biden, and then some other -- some other executives. And then there were two
14 Cypress board members that I can't remember their names.
15 Q And who is Alan Apter?
16 A He was a board member. He was a -- he's a London banker.
17 Q Do you remember what was discussed at the board meeting?
18 A December 2015?
19 Q Yes.
20 A We were -- we were in the -- Burisma Eurasia was in high gear, and we set up
21 a big office there. That was kind of my content like piece. As well as Burisma
22 Geothermal had been set up. I just came from a Geothermal conference in Reno, I
23 think, right before that. I just remember that because my brother joined.
24 So those are like my content. And the rest of it would have been, you know,
25 reviewing the financials and production and et cetera, et cetera.
33
Q And do you recall if 1 Hunter Biden went on this trip?
2 A He did.
3 Q After the board of directors meeting, do you recall at any point going to
4 dinner with any other individuals afterwards?
5 A Yes. We had a board dinner.
6 Q And did you commonly have board dinners?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And who would attend the board dinners?
9 A Generally, everyone from the -- or some smaller subset. It wasn't limited,
10 but it would be -- I don't, like, remember the particular table or restaurant. I know we
11 stayed at the -- you know, the Burj Khalifa, the sail-looking structure in Dubai. So I think
12 we had dinner there.
13 Q And after dinner, did you and Hunter Biden go out for drinks?
14 A We did not. We did not go out for drinks. We were -- we -- I met him at
15 the Four Seasons or -- yeah, the Four Seasons. He stayed at the Four Seasons.
16 Q And what happened at the Four Seasons?
17 A We had -- we had coffee. I don't know if we had drinks. But we
18 were -- we met at the Four Seasons.
19 Q Did Hunter Biden during that time ever get a call from Mykola Zlochevsky or
20 Vadym Pozharskyi?
21 A Vadym and they both joined us at the Four Seasons.
22 Q Why did they join you?
23 A It was -- I mean, basically, after all -- that was normal course. Like after
24 all -- we kind of spent the 3 days together.
25 Q Did -- during that I'll say after dinner at the Four Seasons, did Mykola
34
Zlochevsky or Vadym ask 1 Hunter Biden to make any phone calls?
2 A Yes, though I was not party to that phone call.
3 Q What was the request?
4 A The request was I think they were getting pressure and they requested
5 Hunter, you know, help them with some of that pressure.
6 Q What pressure?
7 A Government. Government pressure on their -- you know, government
8 pressure from Ukrainian Government investigations into Mykola, et cetera.
9 But it was -- it was not -- it wasn't like a specific -- not a specific request. It was
10 just we were sitting there at the Four Seasons having, you know, coffee and there
11 was -- there was Mykola, there was one of the managers for the Four Seasons who
12 managed that property, Vadym. So it wasn't like a closed -- it was not like a specific
13 meeting.
14 Q When you say pressure from the government, at this time were you aware
15 that Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma?
16 A To the best, I vaguely -- whether it was Shokin, I vague -- there was a lot of
17 pressure initially. There was -- there was several pressure issues. It was kind of a
18 theme of Burisma.
19 There was capital tied up in London, 23 million pounds. There was, you know, a
20 U.S. visa denied and then a Mexico visa denied. And then there was -- so Shokin wasn't
21 specifically on my radar as being an individual that was -- that was targeting him. But
22 yes, there was constant pressure. And it was like -- it was like whack-a-mole in regards
23 to the pressures that had to resolve.
24 Mr. Jordan. The request from Mr. -- from Mykola Zlochevsky and Vadym to Mr.
25 Biden and/or if you said it was to you, the request for help from whom to deal with what
35
1 pressure?
2 Mr. Archer. The request -- you know, basically the request is like, can D.C. help?
3 But there were not -- you know, I'm not going to -- there were not -- it wasn't like -- there
4 weren't specific, you know, can the big guy help? It was -- it's always this amorphous,
5 can we get help in D.C.?
6 Mr. Jordan. The request was help from the United States Government to deal
7 with the pressure they were under from their prosecutor, and that entailed the freezing
8 of assets at the London bank and other things that were going on in Ukraine?
9 Mr. Archer. Correct.
10 Mr. Jordan. Okay.
11 Mr. Biggs. I just -- I think you might have just clarified. I just want to make
12 sure.
13 Mr. Archer. Sure.
14 Mr. Biggs. When you say D.C. help, like they said, we could use some D.C. help,
15 I'm not asking what you think they -- I'm asking what you interpreted that to mean?
16 Mr. Archer. Well, I'm still learning about it, but it seems like -- really a lot like at
17 the end of the day lobbying, you know, soft lobbying help, firm lobbying help.
18 I mean, there was constant, you know, constant pressure on them, and there
19 were various service providers hired and people working on, you know, help in D.C. A
20 lot of power is obviously flexed here. So that was a -- that was a constant, you know,
21 whether it was putting out fires or helping expand.
22 Mr. Biggs. So why do you think they were asking Mr. Biden for D.C. help if they
23 had -- I'm assuming what you're saying is they might have had some kind of lobbying
24 group on retainer, perhaps.
25 Mr. Archer. Yes.
36
Mr. Biggs. So why do you think they were asking 1 Hunter Biden for D.C. help?
2 Mr. Archer. I mean, why?
3 Mr. Biggs. I mean, what did you take away from that?
4 Mr. Archer. Well, I mean, he was a lobbyist and an expert and obviously he
5 carried, you know, a very powerful name. So I think it was -- that's what they were
6 asking for.
7 They had -- they also -- you know, there was a firm, Blue Star Strategies, that was
8 hired to be, you know, kind of the -- I don't know if they were a lobbying firm or just
9 strategic advisory. It's still unclear what the difference is. But, you know, that was
10 part of the mix.
11 But it was -- yeah, it was a high-pressure environment, and there was -- there was
12 constant requests for help.
13 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
14 Q What did Hunter Biden do after he was given that request?
15 A Listen, I did not hear this phone call, but he -- he called his dad.
16 Q How do you know that?
17 A Because he -- because I think Vadym told me. But, again, it's unclear. I
18 just know that there was a call that happened there and I was not privy to it.
19 Q What did Vadym tell you about the call?
20 A Just that -- just that they -- "We called D.C." But he didn't -- you know,
21 again, it's not like the -- there was not a -- there was not, "Oh, we've got all our problems
22 solved" kind of, you know, revelation. I was -- I was not on that side of the equation and
23 kind of working on the lobbying side of the business.
24 Q When Vadym told you this, where were you?
25 A I was -- you know, basically what -- then we drove back to the hotel I was
37
1 staying at.
2 Q Who's "we"?
3 A Me, Vadym, and Mykola.
4 Q Was it during that drive back that Vadym told you that Hunter Biden had
5 called VP Biden at that time?
6 A It would have been at some point there or after. You know, maybe the
7 next day. Again, we spent -- you know, on a board trip where you travel with people
8 from all over the world, we spent 3 days together.
9 So the exact time I can't say, but that was the -- that was the -- that was -- that's
10 what happened.
11 Mr. Schwartz. He told you expressly he called his father or that he called D.C.?
12 Mr. Archer. D.C., D.C.
13 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
14 Q When he told you this, did you confront Hunter Biden about it at any point?
15 A No. I wouldn't have done that. Like confront him for what reason?
16 Q Well, if they -- "they" being Burisma -- are facing government pressure.
17 A Uh-huh.
18 Q And Vadym comes or Mykola comes to Hunter Biden and says, "We're facing
19 pressure, we need you to do something," and then Hunter Biden calls the Vice President
20 of the United States to do something, that could cause off some serious alarm bells for
21 influence peddling, conflicts of interest.
22 A Right.
23 Q I mean, Hunter Biden at this time is supposedly acting as the corporate
24 governance.
25 A Right.
38
1 Q But he's calling his father about --
2 A I think that it's even more reason that I was left out of these, you know,
3 black box D.C. types of -- types of conversations. I was working on the ground to build
4 the business.
5 Q What do you mean by that?
6 A Like, it was not -- I wasn't -- the pressures were -- were -- the pressures that
7 were exerted, I was -- that was a kind of a Blue Star, you know, the resources of
8 Rosemont Seneca Advisors or whatever the subsidiary in D.C. partners, that was like
9 that -- that world.
10 Q Are you aware that Vadym had told Blue Star that one of the
11 issues/pressures that he was facing was related to Shokin and the investigation into
12 Burisma?
13 A So -- yes. I was -- the narrative that was spun to me, quite frankly, just to
14 be -- and I remember this because, obviously, it's -- the narrative that was spun to me was
15 that Shokin was under control and that whoever the next person that was brought in
16 was -- you know, the fact that he was -- this is the total, this is the narrative spun to me,
17 that Shokin being fired was a -- was not good, because he was like under control as
18 relates to Mykola.
19 I have no way to verify that. And that was spun to me from various folks in D.C.,
20 not Hunter specifically, but that was what I was led to believe. Whether it's true or not,
21 I cannot speculate.
22 Q With that said, though, are you aware that Vadym specifically told Blue Star
23 Strategies that one of the issues that he wanted resolved was resolving Viktor Shokin's
24 investigation into Burisma?
25 A I don't recall Vadym saying that specifically. I don't -- but, again, I was spun
39
a narrative that 1 was quite the opposite of that.
2 Q But not from Hunter Biden or Vadym, correct?
3 A Correct.
4 Q And not from Zlochevsky?
5 A No. Zlochevsky spoke very little English.
6 Q In addition to this phone call to -- that Hunter Biden made --
7 A Uh-huh.
8 Q -- have you ever been privy to Hunter Biden calling his father around other
9 either potential business investors or other foreign nationals who Hunter Biden or you
10 may have been trying to work with or were working with?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Can you please tell the committee about that?
13 A Again, it's -- as far as specifics, we can talk about it. But, you know, Hunter
14 spoke to his dad every day, right?
15 And so in certain circumstances, when you're in -- you know, if his dad calls him at
16 dinner and he picks up the phone, then there's a conversation. And the, you know, the
17 conversation is generally about the weather and, you know, what it's like in Norway or
18 Paris or wherever he may be. But that was -- yeah, that happened.
40
1
2 [11:30 a.m.]
3 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
4 Q Are you aware of Hunter Biden putting his -- or have been told that Hunter
5 Biden put his father on speakerphone during any of these interactions that you're just
6 describing now?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Can you please tell us about that?
9 A He put him on speakerphone, again, occasionally. Specifics, like, you know,
10 dinner -- you know, dinners occasionally.
11 Q Can you tell us about those dinners?
12 A Yeah. I remember a dinner in Paris with a French energy company that
13 was -- we were speaking to an advisor, and then -- we were speaking to. And it was
14 really a Rosemont Seneca Advisors type of -- a Rosemont Seneca Advisors kind of a pitch,
15 at the end of the day. And there was a talk, and he said that we're at this -- you know,
16 we're at this restaurant in Paris, and he put him on the speaker. So that did happen.
17 There were other people there.
18 Q Who else was there?
19 A There was me, myself; Hunter; Eric Schwerin; and then the executives from
20 the French energy company.
21 Q Do you remember the name of that company?
22 A I'm sure you could find it. It was probably, like, a 2011, you know, trip
23 planning. But it was a very large French energy company.
24 Q Are there other --
25 A And I believe they didn't -- they also didn't get the work, by the way, just an
41
1 FYI, so there's not much about it.
2 Q Do you recall other times where Hunter Biden placed his dad on
3 speakerphone?
4 A In you know, a dinner -- a dinner in -- with BHR, with Jonathan Li.
5 Q Where was that dinner?
6 A In Beijing, at, you know, some restaurant -- or Chengdu or something like
7 that. I don't remember the -- I don't remember specifics. This was just -- it was
8 not -- it was like a, you know -- especially with the time zone difference, there was -- you
9 know, there were meetings where his dad would call and he would be talking to him or
10 put him on speaker. I'm not going to -- you know, that's -- that happened.
11 Q And with the phone call with Jonathan Li, do you recall what was said while
12 VP Biden --
13 A Yeah.
14 Q -- was on the call?
15 A I mean, on any of the specifics, like, from a blanket perspective, it was
16 always, you know, what's the -- you know, not necessarily the weather, but, you know,
17 there's no -- there was no -- and I think you have to understand that there was no
18 business conversation about a cap table or a fee or anything like that. It was, you know,
19 just general niceties and, you know, conversation in general, you know, about the
20 geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.
21 But just on -- as far as, like, a blanket for all of them, let's just go with the -- there
22 was not a specific time that I witnessed a, you know, specific business deal or business
23 dealings or, you know, specifics about any kind of financial stuff.
24 Mr. Jordan. Would he just say, like, "Hey, guys, my dad's on the phone. Dad,
25 can you say hi to" --
42
1 Mr. Archer. Yeah.
2 Mr. Jordan. -- you know --
3 Mr. Archer. There you go. See? Politician.
4 Mr. Jordan. Well, I'm sure that that took place in addition to just talking about
5 the weather.
6 Mr. Archer. Yeah.
7 Mr. Jordan. So let me go back to -- so you're in Dubai in this December meeting.
8 And you and Zlochevsky and Vadym Pozharskyi are staying at the one hotel where the
9 board meeting's at. After the board meeting, you go to the --
10 Mr. Archer. Four Seasons.
11 Mr. Jordan. You go to the Four Seasons for dinner. And then you stay for
12 drinks later.
13 Mr. Archer. No. We -- just on that night of the -- I believe we had dinner at the
14 Burj -- the Burj -- not the tall -- the sail. Burj Khalifa or Burj Al Arab? Burj Al Arab.
15 Mr. Jordan. Did you ride with -- did you all three ride together from the one
16 hotel? Did you take a cab or --
17 Mr. Archer. No. Hunter -- Hunter went before us.
18 Mr. Jordan. No, the three of you who were staying there --
19 Mr. Archer. Yeah, we --
20 Mr. Jordan. -- Vadym, you, and --
21 Mr. Archer. We did. We took a --
22 Mr. Jordan. -- Zlochevsky.
23 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh. We took a --
24 Mr. Jordan. Okay. So you get there; you have dinner. Sometime during
25 dinner, Zlochevsky requests help with the U.S. Government to deal with Ukrainian
43
prosecution 1 situation. Is that right?
2 Mr. Archer. Not -- that's a -- that's a little bit -- that's a little bit of -- that's
3 speculation. "We're under pressure. We need to go -- we want to talk to Hunter."
4 So I think -- and let me back up there. I think how you just rehashed that -- we
5 all had dinner, like a board dinner, at the Burj Al Arab --
6 Mr. Jordan. Then you go for drinks afterward.
7 Mr. Archer. Then -- then Hunter went to the Four Seasons. That was -- and he
8 met his -- you know, one of his friends was a manager and used to be in Georgetown.
9 And then we -- you know, later in the evening, we went over there, you know, not,
10 like -- whatever. I don't know the time. And then Vadym, Zlochevsky, and myself
11 went --
12 Mr. Jordan. Right.
13 Mr. Archer. -- later.
14 Mr. Jordan. Okay.
15 Mr. Archer. So that's when we met up. And they were -- you know, they
16 were -- it was this, you know, specifically under -- you know, they were feeling the heat or
17 whatever. And they were like, okay, can we -- can we call D.C.
18 And, again, I can't -- on that particular -- you know, there were conference calls
19 where we talked around the table. On that call, I was not in the earshot of that -- of
20 that. But I know that there was -- you know, there was a call made.
21 Mr. Jordan. Okay.
22 Mr. Archer. But that was the sequence of events.
23 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
24 Q And that call that was made, that was on December 4th of 2015?
25 A On or around.
44
Q And then just 5 days later, Vice 1 President Biden has a trip to the Ukraine, and
2 he makes a statement: "It's not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and
3 establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption. The Office of the General Prosecutor
4 desperately needs reform."
5 I know you've talked about these different pressures, but when VP Biden comes
6 on December 9th of 2015, he talks about the specific pressure of the Office of the General
7 Prosecutor.
8 And so, based upon that, is it your testimony here that Hunter Biden, Viktor
9 Shokin never -- excuse me -- Hunter Biden and Vadym never discussed the investigation
10 by Shokin into Burisma?
11 Mr. Schwartz. You're asking --
12 Mr. Archer. I can't --
13 Mr. Schwartz. -- what conversation he was personally privy to?
14 Mr. Mandolfo. Yes.
15 Mr. Schwartz. I think he answered that already.
16 Mr. Archer. Yeah. I was --
17 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
18 Q Ever?
19 A Yeah. I was -- and I answered it before. I was spun a narrative that
20 Shokin was good for Burisma from --
21 Q But that was not from Hunter Biden or --
22 A No --
23 Q -- Vadym?
24 A -- it wasn't from Hunter. I can't say it was from Hunter. So --
25 Mr. Schwartz. The answer --
45
1 Mr. Archer. Yeah, no.
2 Mr. Schwartz. -- is, no, no such conversation happened.
3 Mr. Archer. Right. No, that didn't happen. But, again, I was left out of
4 everything.
5 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
6 Q I want to turn your attention now -- how much time do we have left for the
7 first hour?
8 Mr. Abourisk. About 6 minutes, 5-1/2 minutes.
9 Mr. Mandolfo. Okay.
10 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
11 Q -- turn your attention now to spring of 2015, dinner at Cafe Milano, where I
12 believe Vice President Biden attended as well.
13 Can you tell us about that dinner? Who was there?
14 A Okay. Could you repeat the date?
15 Q It's the spring or April of 2015, around --
16 A April 2015.
17 Mr. Schwartz. The second one.
18 Mr. Archer. Oh, the second -- there you go.
19 Yes, Vice President Biden did attend.
20 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
21 Q And who else was there?
22 A There was two dinners.
23 At that diner, it was Vadym, Karim Massimov -- so Vadym P. from Burisma; Karim
24 Massimov; a Greek priest, Orthodox priest; I think -- I believe someone from the World
25 Food Programme. I think that was the -- and then there -- do you have others?
46
1 Q What about Kenes Rakishev?
2 A No, he was not there at the second dinner.
3 Q Was he at the first dinner?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And for the second dinner, was Yelena Baturina there?
6 A I believe -- I believe she was at the first dinner. Yeah.
7 Q What about the --
8 A She was at the first dinner, yes.
9 Q We can start with the first dinner.
10 A Yeah, why don't we do that.
11 Q Why don't we start with the first dinner. Who was at the first dinner?
12 A So the first dinner was Karim Massimov, who's -- he's a friend of mine,
13 unfortunately for him.
14 Karim. Yelena Baturina. Kenes Rakishev. It's revisionist history. I believe
15 Yury, her husband, was there. I can't -- because I see in the emails, but I can't -- he
16 didn't make much of an impact, because I don't remember -- I don't have that, like, visual,
17 but he very well could've been there -- the late Yury. And Joe Biden. Hunter Biden.
18 Possibly Eric Schwerin, possibly not.
19 But that was -- that was -- that was generally it. There might be some others, if
20 you -- you guys have the information closer to -- I haven't thought about this in a while.
21 Q Who was Kenes Rakishev?
22 A He was a -- he's a businessman from -- he's a Kazakh
23 native -- Europe -- Europe and Kazakhstan.
24 Q And, then, who was Yelena Baturina?
25 A She was the -- she was the CEO, chairman, founder, owner of Inteco, which
47
is one of the largest 1 -- or was the largest real estate company in Russia, Eastern Europe.
2 And she was the wife of Yury -- last name escapes me right this second, but --
3 Q Luzhkov?
4 A Yeah, who was the mayor of Moscow.
5 Q When did Joe Biden arrive at the dinner, if you can recall?
6 A He arrived somewhere -- you know, sometime after we had started, but
7 not -- I don't think we had eaten yet, but at some point he arrived. It was dark.
8 Q And do you remember, when he arrived, what he did, who he talked to?
9 A Yeah. He entered the room and shook everybody's hand. And, you know,
10 the conversation -- you know, again, I don't want to be -- it's important that I'm accurate.
11 I don't really remember it. You know, I don't -- not really. I don't remember the
12 conversation. I just remember that he was -- he came to dinner, and we ate and kind of
13 talked about the world, I guess, and the weather, and then everybody -- everybody left.
14 As far as -- I know you're probably going to ask, you know, how much time. I
15 don't -- it wasn't 5 minutes; it wasn't 3 hours.
16 Mr. Mandolfo. How much time do we have?
17 Mr. Abourisk. We're about at the hour.
18 Mr. Mandolfo. Okay. We're at about the hour, so we'll take a 10-minute break
19 for the bathroom, and then we'll come back. Thank you.
20 Off the record.
21 Mr. Archer. Off the record.
22 [Recess.]
48
1
2 [11:56 a.m.]
3 Mr. Mandolfo. We'll go back on the record.
4 Mr. Schwartz. Before you resume, I just want to clarify something from before
5 the break.
6 Mr. Mandolfo. Okay.
7 Mr. Schwartz. And I'll ask the question so you get his testimony.
8 So, Mr. Archer, you talked before about a meeting and a subsequent phone call
9 that occurred in Dubai. Do you recall that?
10 Mr. Archer. Yes.
11 Mr. Schwartz. All right. So, just to clarify, before Hunter Biden made a phone
12 call, there was a reference to making a call to D.C.?
13 Mr. Archer. Correct.
14 Mr. Schwartz. And, afterwards, Vadym told you that they had called D.C.?
15 Mr. Archer. Correct.
16 Mr. Schwartz. You did not hear that phone call?
17 Mr. Archer. I did not hear that phone call.
18 Mr. Schwartz. Did anyone ever tell you that that call was to Vice President
19 Biden?
20 Mr. Archer. No, they did not tell me that.
21 Mr. Schwartz. Do you know to whom they made the phone call?
22 Mr. Archer. I don't know who they made the phone call to.
23 Mr. Schwartz. So you don't know one way or the other whether it was to Vice
24 President Biden?
25 Mr. Archer. I do not know one way or the other whether it was to him. "D.C."
49
1 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
2 Q When Hunter Biden would travel internationally, do you know what phones
3 he would use?
4 A He would use I think generally his iPhone. I don't think he had other
5 phones. The iPhone. No burners.
6 Q And are you aware that he used the same --
7 Mr. Schwartz. You've got to let him ask all the questions.
8 Mr. Archer. Sorry.
9 Mr. Schwartz. Now they have you saying that word first, when he was going to
10 ask you about it.
11 Mr. Archer. I know, but I just have seen it so many times.
12 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
13 Q Are you aware if he used the same phone number then that he has now?
14 In the sense that have been referenced in these emails, is it that same phone number?
15 A I'm -- yeah, I'm fair- -- I could speculate that he used the same phone
16 generally.
17 Q The same phone number? You didn't see him using different phone
18 numbers?
19 A I didn't, no, to be honest.
20 Q And I want to go back to Dubai during that meeting.
21 A Uh-huh.
22 Q There was a request, as I understand it, to release pressure and Hunter
23 Biden to call D.C., is how you understand it, correct?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Where were you when the phone call took place?
50
A I was on the -- I was on, like, an o 1 utside deck of the Four Seasons in Dubai,
2 which is kind of on the water, next to a pier.
3 Q Where was Vadym and Hunter Biden at that time?
4 A More inland, on another deck.
5 Q Why were you away from them if you were all there together?
6 A I was -- why was I away from -- I don't have a -- I think I was speaking -- I
7 believe I was in conversation with the manager of the hotel.
8 Q Did they ask you to leave at any point?
9 A No. They left me.
10 Q And when you say they left you, they were at the same spot where you were
11 with the manager --
12 A Uh-huh. Yes.
13 Q -- and then Vadym and Hunter Biden then left where you were?
14 A Correct.
15 Q And that's when you believe the phone call was made?
16 A Correct.
17 Mr. Greenberg. And Mykola Zlochevsky also accompanied them?
18 Mr. Archer. Yes.
19 Mr. Greenberg. Did they tell you why they were stepping away?
20 Mr. Archer. Did they tell -- I can't recall. It was more of an organic situation.
21 You know, it wasn't like, "We're getting up to call." It was just, as I -- as we -- just went
22 over.
23 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
24 Q How long did the phone call take place for?
25 A That I can't recall. It wasn't 2 hours, and it wasn't 5 minutes.
51
1 Q So you think the call was longer than 5 minutes?
2 A I don't --
3 Mr. Schwartz. Well, when you say "the call," you mean the time period --
4 Mr. Archer. The time period -- yeah.
5 Mr. Schwartz. -- that they stepped away from --
6 Mr. Archer. Yeah. Let me clarify.
7 The time period that they stepped away from me for was probably -- was longer
8 than 5 and shorter than an hour. But I just -- it's a long time ago.
9 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
10 Q How many times would you say that Hunter Biden put his father on
11 speakerphone or referenced his father being on the phone in front of others who were
12 either foreign investors or foreign nationals who he was soliciting business with or
13 working with, approximately?
14 A Approximately? The differentiation between investor and normal course
15 of day -- you know, that's a very hard thing to speculate on. But he -- they spoke every
16 day. He acknowledged that they spoke every day. And he would -- you know, he
17 would sometimes make it apparent that he spoke to his dad, and sometimes he put him
18 on speaker.
19 But as far as quantifying the number, you know, relative to investors, I don't know.
20 Q Not necessarily investors but with people who Hunter Biden was trying to
21 either get business with or make contacts with or add value to?
22 A In my 10 -- in my whole partnership, maybe 20 times.
23 Q And during those 20 times, did Hunter Biden ever place his dad on
24 speakerphone?
25 A Yes.
52
Q And, before, you had said that 1 they would talk about what, when he was on
2 speakerphone?
3 A Say, where are you, how's the weather, how's the fishing, how's
4 the -- whatever it may be, whatever -- but -- you know, it was very, you know, casual
5 conversations about -- you know, not about cap tables or financials or anything like that.
6 Q But the purpose wasn't for Vice President Biden to do cap tables or to break
7 down the different business deals. Would you agree with me that the purpose was that
8 that was Hunter Biden's value-add? That's what he would bring, in part at least, to the
9 table if the foreign nationals or businesses were to retain him?
10 Mr. Schwartz. So you're asking him to speculate about the purpose --
11 Mr. Mandolfo. I'm asking his opinion, not his speculation.
12 Mr. Schwartz. Well, first of all, you haven't asked him if these phone calls
13 occurred when they were not with business associates, when they were not talking to
14 investors.
15 Did he behave differently when he was with friends?
16 Mr. Archer. No, that's -- no, he did not behave differently. It was the same
17 course of action. Phone calls.
18 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
19 Q But if I were to just call my dad right now and put him on speakerphone and
20 we're in a professional business meeting here, would that be odd to you?
21 A Would that be odd to me?
22 Q Yes.
23 A That would be odd, if you called your dad right now.
24 Q So there is a time and a place when it's professional to do -- excuse
25 me -- where you're in a personal meeting and you may call your dad or a family member
53
if you're with family. But if you're i 1 n a professional meeting and you're meeting foreign
2 business leaders or whoever it may be and you just place your dad on speakerphone on
3 the table, that's a little odd, isn't it?
4 A That is a little odd. I mean, it's not odd -- I mean, it's quite obvious what
5 we're talking around.
6 Q So what are we talking about? You are talking around it, and so I'd like to
7 get out, what are we talking about here?
8 A That, I think, at the end of the day, part of what was delivered is the brand.
9 I mean, it's like anything, you know, if you're Jamie Dimon's son or any CEO. You know, I
10 think that that's what we're talking about, is that there was brand being delivered along
11 with other capabilities and reach.
12 Mr. Biggs. Could I ask --
13 Mr. Archer. I think "brand" is the best way to describe it.
14 Mr. Biggs. Yeah. So a couple questions with regard to that. I appreciate
15 saying "brand." You and I talked about that earlier, and we talked about how the main
16 brand is Joe Biden -- not the Biden family, but Joe Biden.
17 So I'm going to ask you just a couple questions along that, based on what you just
18 said --
19 Mr. Archer. Sure.
20 Mr. Biggs. -- what you just answered.
21 Did you or your partners ever design or discuss that you were going to use political
22 influence to try to raise capital or to further the business?
23 Mr. Archer. So --
24 Mr. Schwartz. Did you have discussions --
25 Mr. Archer. Yeah, did we have discussions --
54
Mr. Biggs. I didn' 1 t ask if you had discussions. I just said, did you and your
2 partners --
3 Mr. Schwartz. Discuss.
4 Mr. Biggs. -- ever talk about it?
5 Mr. Archer. No. How we would -- How I would characterize that is that we,
6 you know --
7 Mr. Schwartz. He asked you a "yes" or "no" question. Did you have discussions
8 with your business partners --
9 Mr. Biggs. Well, let me rephrase, because I think you're not quite getting the
10 essence.
11 So I'll ask the question again, and then you can answer "yes" or "no," and then we
12 can elaborate, if we want to, at that point, okay?
13 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
14 Mr. Biggs. Did you or your partners design or seek to use political influence to
15 help you raise capital or further your business?
16 Mr. Archer. I would -- can I answer it with a --
17 Mr. Biggs. Yes. Of course.
18 Mr. Archer. We would discuss having, you know, an understanding of D.C., and
19 that was a differentiating component of us being able to raise capital.
20 So we would -- it wasn't as, you know, specific as, okay, you know, just down to
21 individuals or, you know, the Vice President's son. But, obviously, the brand carried.
22 Because we'd say, you know, what gives you a unique advantage to start up Rosemont
23 Seneca Technology Partners or Rosemont Realty? And that was just, you know, you're
24 in a competitive environment out there trying to raise capital for various investment
25 initiatives, and you would say, "Okay, well, we have a D.C. office." I mean, I think a lot
55
of -- pre 1 tty much every, you know, bank and --
2 Mr. Biggs. Did you -- did you --
3 Mr. Archer. -- firm would do the same.
4 Mr. Biggs. I'm sorry. I didn't want to cut you short.
5 Mr. Archer. Yeah, no worries.
6 Mr. Biggs. Did you intimate ever that that would give you some kind of unique
7 access, as you were meeting with clients or businesses, unique access because of the
8 familial relationship that Hunter Biden had with his father, at that time the Vice
9 President?
10 Mr. Archer. Yeah, again, I think I answered that in the same -- in -- before. Yes,
11 we would say we had unique understanding of D.C. and how it operates and how that,
12 you know, could positively reflect on the terms of our business. So, yes.
13 Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
14 Did Hunter Biden ever indicate to you that soliciting Chinese
15 investments -- Chinese investments -- was important to his family, and particularly with
16 reference to his father?
17 Mr. Archer. Soliciting Chinese investments in what regards? Raising capital
18 for --
19 Mr. Biggs. Yeah.
20 Mr. Archer. So, with BHR, we weren't responsible -- we didn't have a fundraising
21 capacity. We were out -- we were deal-sourcing for the initial -- that's what we're
22 talking about generally, BHR? Or -- I don't have much -- I don't have anything --
23 Mr. Biggs. Yeah, I would say BHR.
24 Mr. Archer. Yeah. So BHR Partners, it was a cross-border fund -- you know,
25 Bohai Sea Industrial Fund, Harvest. They were setting up a private equity fund, and they
56
wanted to go out and buy -- yo 1 u know, basically buy assets outside of China.
2 Mr. Biggs. But did --
3 Mr. Archer. So we didn't raise capital from the Chinese.
4 Mr. Biggs. Okay, but the crux of the question is, did Hunter Biden ever talk to
5 you about how important that relationship with China was to his family, particularly to his
6 father?
7 Mr. Archer. No, not -- not -- not specifically. No.
8 Mr. Biggs. And did Hunter ever indicate to you that the Chinese anticipated that
9 after his father was out of office he might join their company with -- one of their
10 companies as a paid advisor?
11 Mr. Archer. Did he intimate that --
12 Mr. Biggs. Did he indicate that to you?
13 Mr. Archer. I don't recall, but potentially.
14 Mr. Biggs. You don't recall, but it's not new to you, is what you're saying.
15 Mr. Archer. It's not new to me.
16 Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
17 I yield back to you.
18 Thank you for -- thanks for answering my questions.
19 Mr. Archer. Yeah.
20 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
21 Q Going back to the calls that Hunter Biden would put on speakerphone with
22 his father and others, can you describe what the other people would say, if you can recall,
23 after Hunter Biden did that?
24 Because I'll tell you, just from an everyday American, if someone were to put the
25 Vice President of the United States on the phone right in front of you, it'd be pretty
57
1 impressive --
2 A Absolutely.
3 Q -- and I would think there would be some sort of reaction from those people.
4 A Yeah, I think everybody -- I think everybody remains, you know, cool and
5 calm like it was, you know -- and then probably called their friends and family and said
6 that they spoke to him. But, you know, the reaction -- I don't have any specifics of, like,
7 people jumping up and giving high-fives, but I think it was, you know, a signal that, you
8 know, they respected and thought was of value.
9 Q And I want to talk about the value. Going back to this, it would be, spring
10 of 2014 Cafe Milano dinner --
11 A Uh-huh. The spring of '14, yeah, the first one.
12 Q And since we talked about it before the break, if you could just recap. Can
13 you just say again who was there?
14 A Sure. Kenes Rakishev, Karim Massimov, Yelena Baturina, possibly Yury,
15 Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, possibly Eric Schwerin.
16 Q The duration of time that Joe Biden stayed there you said you couldn't recall.
17 But do you recall whether he had dinner or whether --
18 A He had dinner, yeah. I recall that he had dinner. It was a regular -- not a
19 long dinner, but dinner.
20 Q And so this dinner takes place in spring of 2014, approximately. But then
21 do you recall getting a wire on February 14th of 2014 from Yelena Baturina for
22 $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton?
23 A To Rosemont Seneca Thornton?
24 Q Yes.
25 A Yes. And why I remember that is from the -- from other testimony. Yes.
58
Mr. Schwartz. Yes. In other words, 1 his memory has been refreshed. He
2 doesn't remember that it happened.
3 Mr. Archer. Exactly. My memory has been refreshed.
4 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
5 Q And, also, there was a wire from a company related to Kenes Rakishev
6 for -- and it's in tab 1 -- for $142,300?
7 A Yes. Again, I've been refreshed. Very familiar.
8 Q So, leading up to this dinner at spring 2014 at Cafe Milano, the -- I'm going to
9 call it the RST account --
10 A Uh-huh.
11 Q -- and the RSB account had received wires from both Yelena Baturina as well
12 as --
13 A Yeah.
14 Q -- Kenes Rakishev?
15 A Yes. This is -- let me just explain that.
16 So, with Yelena Baturina, it was from Inteco. And Inteco invested -- we're really
17 not sure why that 3.5 went to RST. Inteco invested close to $120 million with us in
18 Rosemont Realty. So, you know, on that particular wire, there was some commission
19 element. There was a -- two warehouses in Brooklyn. I don't know what the specifics
20 of the wire were, but it was -- quite frankly, it was not supposed to go there, but that's
21 where it went.
22 And RST was set up to be the equity shareholder of BHR. So Rosemont Seneca
23 Bohai ends up being the shareholder of BHR, the "R" -- you know, so -- but we'd set up
24 RST with this group called Thornton, which was once the group that introduced us to
25 Bohai. And because their regulation to own 30 percent -- so I think RST was in existence
59
for about 30 days. Because to own -- so 1 there's three -- there was three partners: RSB,
2 which was Hunter and myself, and then Thornton, and 30 percent broke a threshold of
3 owning BHR.
4 So you had this, like -- I mean, it's -- you know, because, obviously, it's gone over
5 and over -- that was, like, really -- like, it was a mistake, because it didn't meet the
6 regulatory hurdles of BHR to be below 24.9 percent. Otherwise, you have to register
7 with their equivalent of the SEC as a shareholder. So that was a little bit of an anomaly.
8 But the 3.5 was a Rosemont Realty component of a $118 million, $120 million
9 investment.
10 Q The "T" in RST, Rosemont Seneca --
11 A Thornton.
12 Q -- Thornton, is Bulger, correct?
13 A Yes.
14 [Archer Exhibit No. 6
15 Was marked for identification.]
16 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
17 Q And I want to show you exhibit 6.
18 We've looked over and subpoenaed the Rosemont Seneca Thornton documents,
19 and one of the beneficiaries for Rosemont Seneca Thornton is Rosemont Seneca Partners.
20 And so I just want to see that -- who was the chairman of Rosemont Seneca Partners?
21 A Hunter.
22 Mr. Schwartz. Is that accurate, or you're just reading this?
23 Mr. Archer. I was just --
24 Mr. Schwartz. His question is, who was the chairman of Rosemont Seneca
25 Partners?
60
Mr. Archer. 1 Rosemont Seneca Partners, yes, that is -- that's accurate.
2 But RST was, like, kind of a mistake, at the end of the day. Not -- it wasn't a
3 mistake; it was just, like, a regulatory thing that we set up mistakenly, basically.
4 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
5 Q We've also traced the money, the $3.5 million, that came from Yelena
6 Baturina, and over $2 million of that travels into Rosemont Seneca Bohai.
7 A Right.
8 Q Do you know why over $2 million of that was going to Rosemont Seneca
9 Bohai, which was the same account also where Hunter Biden was receiving his money?
10 Mr. Schwartz. So I'm going to let him answer this question, but Yelena Baturina
11 is not within scope of this interview. It's not one of the names that you gave us, it's
12 not --
13 Mr. Mandolfo. Well, it's one of the wires that I highlighted.
14 Mr. Schwartz. But, again, the letter which I sent you makes clear that everything
15 is limited by the scope.
16 There's all sorts of stuff in those documents that is in scope and out of scope.
17 The documents are ones that you might use. I don't know for what purpose you were
18 going to use them. Only you knew your questions. But we had negotiated a scope
19 that included very specific people and entities, and --
20 Mr. Mandolfo. But Rosemont Seneca --
21 Mr. Schwartz. -- she was not one of them.
22 Mr. Mandolfo. -- Thornton was negotiated.
23 Mr. Schwartz. So that's why I said I'm not going to stop you from asking this
24 question. But we should move off of Yelena Baturina, in part because he's not prepared
25 to testify, so you're going to get less accurate answers.
61
Mr. Archer. Yeah, and I would -- the scope 1 -- Yelena Baturina, just to get -- is a
2 total Rosemont Realty -- she's a Rosemont Realty -- so whether it was, like, an accounting
3 that was owed or not --
4 Mr. Schwartz. All right. His question is, why did that money go from Thornton
5 to Bohai?
6 Mr. Archer. Thornton to Bohai. Probably because it was owed --
7 Mr. Schwartz. Because they're representing it did.
8 Mr. Archer. Yeah. I'm not -- I can't answer that.
9 But the Rosemont Realty relationship, though he met her once, was -- it is --
10 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
11 Q "He met her." Who is --
12 A Hunter met Yelena once, at that same Lake Como meeting. But there was
13 no -- he was not involved. I think we put him on the advisory board for a minute. And
14 he was really -- Rosemont Realty was completely out of his, kind of, portfolio.
15 Q When was that Lake Como meeting?
16 A That was the meeting I referred to earlier, was probably in May of 2014.
17 That was the transition from legal representation to board member.
18 Q And I want to turn to tab 1.
19 A Sure.
20 Q And, for the record, Kenes Rakishev is in Appendix B.
21 A Uh-huh.
22 Q There's a wire, an incoming wire, to the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account for
23 April 22nd of 2014 for $142,300.
24 Soon thereafter, there's an outgoing wire, which appears to be the next day, to a
25 beneficiary of Schneider Nelson Motor for this exact same amount.
62
What was -- first off, our understanding is 1 that Novitas Holdings, PTE Ltd. is
2 associated Kenes Rakishev.
3 A That's my understanding.
4 Q Why did Rosemont Seneca Bohai receive this $142,000 payment from
5 Rakishev?
6 A It was for a car.
7 Q Whose car?
8 A Also, let me clarify. I didn't do -- I didn't, like, do the actual banking, so --
9 Q Who did?
10 A Sebastian Momtazi.
11 Q And Sebastian --
12 A So, like, I wouldn't have sent these wires or received these wires or, like,
13 pressed "go" or -- he would have some rubber stamp, you know, and do it. Hunter
14 interfaced with him. But I know this was for a car.
15 Q Did Sebastian work for Rosemont? One of --
16 A Yeah.
17 Q -- the Rosemonts?
18 A He worked for one of them. I don't know -- I forget --
19 Q Do you remember which one?
20 A Rosemont Realty. First Rosemont Capital, then transitioned to Rosemont
21 Realty.
22 Q What was purpose of this wire?
23 A It was for a car.
24 Q For whose car?
25 A For Hunter's car.
63
1 Q Was this a Porsche?
2 A It gets a little foggy here. I believe it was a Fisker first and then a Porsche.
3 But it was -- yes, it --
4 Q For an expensive car.
5 A For an expensive car, yes. It gets a little -- yes.
6 Q And you talked earlier about Kenes Rakishev. Do you know his
7 relationship -- and I don't mean familial; I just mean business relationship -- with Prime
8 Minister Karim Massimov?
9 A Do I -- yeah, his relationship? They knew each other.
10 Q How?
11 A Kenes is a prominent -- you know, is a prominent businessman in
12 Kazakhstan, in Europe. He also has a prominent family. So that -- they -- Karim was
13 the Prime Minister, and therefore they knew each other.
14 Q And now I'm going to take you back --
15 A Sure.
16 Q -- to the spring 2014 dinner, where two of the attendees, would you agree
17 with me, one had sent a wire to RSB account for $142,000 and another one of the
18 attendees had sent a wire to RST for $3.5 million? Is that correct?
19 A It is not completely correct, because the RST transfer was part of a much
20 bigger investment program, but the first part is correct.
21 Q But these are people who you and Hunter Biden are in business with,
22 correct?
23 A Correct. Well, with Kenes, no -- I mean, I don't think he ever -- Kenes was
24 pitched -- was pitched to Rosemont Realty, but I don't think he ever -- he never -- the only
25 thing that I think ever transacted was a car.
64
1 Q Well, why did he send --
2 Mr. Schwartz. And what was Hunter's connection to Rosemont Realty?
3 Mr. Archer. Minimal.
4 Mr. Schwartz. Right. So was he in business with --
5 Mr. Archer. He was not --
6 Mr. Schwartz. -- investors in Rosemont Realty?
7 Mr. Archer. No. Hunter we put on the board of Rosemont Realty for a very
8 short period of time.
9 Mr. Greenberg. Did Hunter receive a distribution when Rosemont Realty was
10 sold?
11 Mr. Archer. I believe so, I believe a very low amount of distribution for his
12 tenure on the board of advisors. But I don't -- I can't confirm it.
13 Mr. Greenberg. Was it over a $100,000?
14 Mr. Archer. I don't know. And that would've been associated with capital
15 raised, not equity.
16 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
17 Q So then what was the purpose of the Porsche payment?
18 A It was -- that's a business matter between them.
19 Q "Them" being who?
20 A Hunter and Kenes.
21 Q So --
22 A That's why I clarified the point, like, I wasn't, like, doing this banking.
23 Hunter was a corporate secretary of RSB. We had a handshake 50-50 ownership. And
24 he conducted, you know, banking business with the COO.
25 Q So you're telling us here today that you don't know why this expensive car
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Fri Aug 04, 2023 9:45 am

Part 3 of 4

65
1 was purchased through Rakishev.
2 A No, I don't know why. I was jealous -- no, I'm just kidding.
3 Mr. Mandolfo. Go ahead.
4 Mr. Abourisk. Yeah. Just a point of clarification.
5 Mr. Archer. Sure.
6 Mr. Abourisk. When the $3.5 million comes into Rosemont Seneca Thornton, an
7 entity with a beneficiary of Rosemont Seneca Partners, I understand your testimony
8 today is that that wire was supposed to go to Rosemont Realty.
9 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
10 Mr. Abourisk. But it's correct that that money, that $3.5 million, roughly
11 $2.5 million of that was not wired to Rosemont Realty, it was wired to Rosemont Seneca
12 Bohai, right?
13 Mr. Schwartz. If you know.
14 Mr. Archer. Is that -- I don't know, but if it -- you're saying that's the case.
15 Mr. Abourisk. And Rosemont Seneca Bohai, like you just said, was a 50-50
16 handshake between you and Hunter Biden, right?
17 Mr. Archer. Correct.
18 Mr. Abourisk. Okay.
19 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
20 Q And to finish up this spring 2014 Cafe Milano dinner, is there anything else
21 you remember about VP Biden saying during that dinner?
22 A No, not -- this is the first dinner? No.
23 Q Yes.
24 All right. Let's move on to the second dinner --
25 A The second dinner.
66
Q -- 1 the spring 2015 Cafe Milano. Who was there?
2 A That dinner was -- I think we went over it before, but it was Vadym, Hunter,
3 Joe, myself, Karim Massimov, a Greek Orthodox priest, maybe someone from World Food
4 Programme.
5 Q And what did Joe do at that dinner? Did he have dinner? How long was
6 he there?
7 A He had dinner. He had dinner. And there was -- on that one, I believe the
8 first one was, like, a birthday dinner, and then the second was -- I think we were
9 supposed to talk about the World Food Programme. So there was some talk about that.
10 Mr. Goldman. Did you say when the first one was? I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
11 Mr. Archer. The first?
12 Mr. Schwartz. Dinner.
13 Mr. Archer. Oh, the first one was a birthday dinner.
14 Mr. Goldman. When?
15 Mr. Archer. That was the spring of --
16 Mr. Mandolfo. 2014.
17 Mr. Archer. -- 2014.
18 Mr. Goldman. All right.
19 [Discussion off the record.]
20 Mr. Schwartz. Yeah. Let's just clean that up.
21 Mr. Archer. Okay.
22 Mr. Schwartz. I think you said it a second ago, that Hunter Biden was the
23 corporate secretary of RSB. Do you know that to be true, or are you recalling a
24 document you have been shown after the fact?
25 Mr. Archer. I was shown a document after the fact.
67
Mr. Schwartz. And you hadn't se 1 en that document before?
2 Mr. Archer. I had not seen that document before.
3 Mr. Schwartz. To your independent knowledge, did Hunter Biden ever have any
4 official position with RSB?
5 Mr. Archer. Just -- no. Just equity.
6 Mr. Schwartz. Handshake equity.
7 Mr. Archer. Handshake equity.
8 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
9 Q So you're saying there's no -- he had no -- "he" being Hunter Biden -- had no
10 position with RSB, Rosemont Seneca Bohai?
11 A Right.
12 Q So Hunter Biden at this time, he has -- at least for part of the RSB account, he
13 has an Owasco account, he has other bank accounts.
14 A Uh-huh.
15 Q What is the purpose in Hunter Biden receiving all of this money into the RSB
16 account? Because if I am partners with you and we have a split, you have access to the
17 entire account.
18 A Right.
19 Q You would be -- I would be -- not have access to my money.
20 So why was Hunter Biden not receiving this money in his Owasco account, where
21 his name would be affiliated with?
22 A I don't have an answer to that. I actually don't know.
23 Mr. Schwartz. Well, you answered that in part before. Did you view these
24 payments as personal payments to you and Hunter, or was that revenue for --
25 Mr. Archer. Revenue for our business.
68
But, at the end of the day, that was how 1 we set it up. There were investments
2 made from it. You know, it's all -- I see all -- you know, in here. And it just kind of
3 happened from there. I don't -- that's all I -- that's all I know.
4 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
5 Q One of the phone calls that you discussed with Vice President Biden on was
6 with an individual by the name of Jonathan Li.
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who is Jonathan Li?
9 A He is the CEO of BHR.
10 Q When was that phone call?
11 A That I don't recall. Just --
12 Q Do you remember the year?
13 A I don't. It would be before, you know, spring of '16 and after spring of
14 2013.
15 Q What is Jonathan Li's role with that company?
16 A CEO.
17 Q And --
18 A He was also kind of the -- you know, the founder.
19 He left -- he was the CEO of Bohai Sea Industrial Fund, and he wanted to get out
20 of, you know, kind of a government private equity fund. And so he had the
21 entrepreneurial spirit to, you know, come to the States. I actually took him on a tour
22 of -- we met with Blackstone, with, you know -- I don't know -- Apollo, Franklin
23 Templeton, some other large sponsors.
24 And, in the meantime, we became -- Rosemont Realty got enough scale in, you
25 know, size of portfolio that we had a -- you know, we had a meeting, and he was like,
69
"Well, you guys are over 2 billion 1 in AUM now. Why don't you just be the partner?"
2 And that was -- that's how -- how it was -- I was literally taking him on a roadshow
3 with all these -- with a lot of other firms that they were going to do JV with, and then he
4 suggested it to me, actually here in New York -- we're not in New York, but -- in New York.
5 Q Why did Hunter Biden put VP Biden on the phone, on the speakerphone,
6 when Jonathan Li was at the meeting?
7 Mr. Schwartz. You're asking him to speculate?
8 Mr. Mandolfo. No. I'm asking if they discussed it.
9 Mr. Schwartz. Okay.
10 Mr. Archer. Oh, no, no, they didn't discuss -- same answer for -- you know, I
11 never had a specific business discussion --
12 Mr. Schwartz. He's asking if you and Hunter discussed why Hunter put his dad
13 on the phone.
14 Mr. Archer. No.
15 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
16 Q What were Jonathan Li, you, and Hunter talking about at the time that
17 Hunter Biden put his dad on the phone?
18 A Beijing, how great Beijing is -- or Chengdu, whichever city we were in. But,
19 you know, same answers -- non-specifics relative to business and just, you know, an
20 expression of hellos, I guess.
21 Mr. Mandolfo. Do you want to ask your --
22 Mr. Abourisk. Yeah.
23 BY MR. ABOURISK:
24 Q I just have a couple followups --
25 A Sure.
70
Q -- on BHR. So you previously 1 talked about -- you kind of went through the
2 30 percent --
3 A Threshold.
4 Q -- ownership that you needed for BHR.
5 A Uh-huh.
6 Q So I want to take you back to -- when did you -- that 30 percent. And it
7 was -- who were the partners of that 30 percent on the --
8 A Thornton?
9 Q -- American side? Which is who?
10 A James Bulger and Michael Lin.
11 Q Okay. And then who was the other --
12 A It was Hunter and myself.
13 Q Okay. So it was the four of you?
14 A Yes.
15 Q That owned the 30 percent?
16 A Yeah.
17 Q Okay. And when did you guys get ownership of BHR, that 30 percent that
18 we're talking about? Was that at the beginning, in 2014?
19 A That was in, yeah, the beginning.
20 Q Like, January or February of 2014?
21 A Yup.
22 Q Okay. And do you remember how much you all, the four of those partners,
23 initially invested in BHR at the beginning part of 2014?
24 A I'm sure it's in here, but maybe in the $400,000 range.
25 Q Ballpark, $420,000?
71
1 A There you go.
2 Q And later in 2014, did you invest again -- did the four of you invest again in
3 BHR?
4 A In '14?
5 Q Yeah, later, in December of 2014 there was another cap -- was there another
6 capital contribution requirement?
7 A Yeah. Registered capital contribution.
8 Q And how much did the four of you all put in December --
9 A A lesser --
10 Q -- of 2014?
11 A -- amount, I believe.
12 Q Was it $480,000 in December of 2014? Does that sound about right?
13 A Yeah, it sounds about right.
14 Q Okay. So, if you added up the total, we're at about $900,000 --
15 A Yeah.
16 Q -- that the four of you invested --
17 A Correct.
18 Q -- in BHR? Was that the total --
19 A And there was an additional capital call.
20 Q Okay, yeah. When was that?
21 A It was a couple years later. Like, a year later? I don't know.
22 Q Okay. Maybe 2015?
23 A Maybe. Yep.
24 Q Okay. And how much?
25 A I'm sure it's all right there.
72
Q How much was t 1 hat capital contribution requirement?
2 Mr. Schwartz. He knows the answers to all these questions.
3 Mr. Archer. Yeah, I realize that. Help me out.
4 What?
5 BY MR. ABOURISK:
6 Q How much was the capital contribution for --
7 A The final?
8 Q -- the third one? Yeah, the final one.
9 A Let me guess. 3-? 4-? 5-?
10 Mr. Schwartz. Don't guess.
11 BY MR. ABOURISK:
12 Q Yeah, I don't want you to guess.
13 A I don't know. I know it's in here, but I would say, you know, probably
14 in the -- it probably all, you know, totaled out to a million and a half from the RSB side.
15 Q Okay. And for that million and a half dollars that was invested in BHR --
16 A Uh-huh.
17 Q -- that got the four of you, it got you two board seats on BHR? Or how
18 many board seats did it get you?
19 A That was two board seats.
20 Q Okay. And so you sat on the board of BHR?
21 A I did.
22 Q From when to when?
23 A I sat on the board from the beginning -- I was the vice chairman -- until I had
24 my legal issues.
25 Q Okay. So that was early 2014 to mid-2016?
73
A I think -- well, it was under - 1 - yeah. May 31st, my birthday. May 31, 2016.
2 Mr. Schwartz. That is not the date that you stepped --
3 Mr. Archer. That was the indictment.
4 Mr. Schwartz. -- down from BHR.
5 Mr. Archer. No, no, that's the --
6 Mr. Schwartz. It wasn't that day.
7 Mr. Archer. Okay.
8 He knows better.
9 BY MR. ABOURISK:
10 Q Got it.
11 And when did Hunter sit on the board of BHR, to your knowledge?
12 A When did he sit on the board? I don't -- to my knowledge, I know he was
13 on the board at some point, but I don't know if it was before or after. That's a little
14 fuzzy.
15 Q Was it 2014 when you sat on the board?
16 A Perhaps. I don't know the answer to when he was on the board. I'm sure
17 that's easily discoverable.
18 Mr. Schwartz. It's okay to say you don't remember.
19 Mr. Archer. Yeah, I just don't remember.
20 Mr. Abourisk. Okay.
21 Mr. Archer. Because I know it was on and off, but he was definitely on the board
22 at some point.
23 BY MR. ABOURISK:
24 Q When was he on and off?
25 A I don't have the answer to that.
74
Q Okay. You were on the board 1 of BHR and didn't know why a fellow board
2 member was taken -- was on or off?
3 A I just -- if you can give me the times that he was on and off? Do we know
4 the times?
5 Q No, no, I'm asking you. When you were on the board in 2014 at BHR, was
6 Hunter on the board? I mean, he was invested in the company with you, right, in 2014?
7 A I think initially was on the board, yes.
8 Q Okay.
9 A And I think he stepped off at some point, probably after Schweizer's book.
10 It's true.
11 Q Okay.
12 A I think it was "Secret Empires"?
13 Q Got it.
14 A That might have been the catalyst.
15 Q Okay. Thanks.
16 BY MR. GREENBERG:
17 Q You mentioned earlier in the interview that there was pressure coming from
18 all, kind of, several different angles regarding Mykola Zlochevsky --
19 A Uh-huh.
20 Q -- that he was facing. And you mentioned that one of those angles was his
21 difficulty in receiving a visa.
22 A Correct.
23 Q Do you know why he was having difficulty receiving a visa?
24 Mr. Schwartz. Do you know?
25 Mr. Archer. I don't know. I know he was having difficulty receiving a visa.
75
1 BY MR. GREENBERG:
2 Q Did anybody speak to you about why?
3 A Did anybody speak to me about why he was -- no. I just know that he was
4 very upset about it.
5 Q And that's for an American visa?
6 A Correct.
7 Q And then he --
8 A And the Mexican visa.
9 Q And a Mexican visa.
10 A Which I think reciprocal, so -- yeah. He was unable to receive either.
11 [Archer Exhibit No. 10
12 Was marked for identification.]
13 BY MR. GREENBERG:
14 Q If we can look at exhibit 10, this is an email from, at the bottom, Vadym
15 Pozharski on October 20, 2014, to Devon Archer, subject: "visa update." It says,
16 "Hello, mate. Are there any news re the visa issue? Vadym."
17 And then you wrote to Hunter Biden, "Any progress with DHS?"
18 Is that correct?
19 Mr. Schwartz. That -- you read it correctly.
20 BY MR. GREENBERG:
21 Q Do you have any -- do you remember writing --
22 A I don't remember writing this specifically, but I acknowledge that there was
23 an issue with the visa, and I -- but --
24 Mr. Schwartz. Let him ask the questions.
25 Mr. Archer. Yeah.
76
1 BY MR. GREENBERG:
2 Q What was your understanding of Hunter Biden's knowledge of progress
3 within DHS?
4 A I don't know. I don't know. I know that he never got a visa.
5 Q Do you know -- do you remember why you thought Hunter Biden had any
6 kind of connection to the Department of Homeland Security?
7 A I believe he had a -- you know, lobbyist that they worked with.
8 Q And do you remember any discussions regarding Hunter Biden with any
9 board member or executive in Burisma regarding the visa issue?
10 A Yes, it was -- yes. Was Hunter -- did Hunter know about the visa issue?
11 Q Yes.
12 A Yes.
13 Q And what were those conversations?
14 A He got rejected when he had got his visa; can you guys help us with
15 someone? And they spoke to a former DHS lobbyist lawyer-type person, which -- the
16 name escapes me, but I'm sure it's somewhere in the laptop.
17 Q Was one of the people that you spoke to Amos Hochstein?
18 A I know that name. I feel like it's a different person for this particular issue,
19 but maybe.
20 Mr. Schwartz. You've been asked about a lot of names. Do you --
21 Mr. Archer. Yeah, a lot --
22 Mr. Schwartz. Do you remember that --
23 Mr. Archer. No.
24 Mr. Schwartz. -- name in connection with this issue?
25 Mr. Archer. I remember that name, but not in connection with this. I think it
77
was a more 1 -- there was basically -- like, essentially -- not "essentially." There's a
2 lobbyist that the D.C. team would call for, like, visa issues, and that was the guy that was
3 engaged.
4 BY MR. GREENBERG:
5 Q Amos Hochstein was the guy who was engaged?
6 A Oh, no. I don't know if it's Amos Hochstein. That doesn't sound familiar.
7 I think it was a more -- less exotic name.
8 Q All right.
9 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
10 Q Let's talk about some of the other times that you've interacted with Vice
11 President Biden.
12 A Uh-huh.
13 Q You went to the -- I believe it was the "visit Vice President Joe Biden" in April
14 of 2014. What was -- why did you go visit him then, if you can recall?
15 A Is this with my son?
16 Q I don't -- I don't know.
17 A April of 2014. Can you frame it a little bit more?
18 Q Well, it would've been around the same time that you had just joined the
19 board of Burisma. You got your payment from Burisma on April 15th of 2014.
20 Mr. Schwartz. You're taking about a meeting at the White House?
21 Mr. Mandolfo. Yes.
22 Mr. Archer. Yeah. Yes. That's what I was looking for. Yeah, the --
23 Mr. Schwartz. I know.
24 Mr. Archer. The, yes, meeting -- I met with Vice President -- then-Vice President
25 Biden in the office next to the White House, the Vice President's office, like that formal
78
1 office.
2 And it was -- I brought my son. We went into -- we did -- like, went into the
3 armored cars and did some things -- you know, showed him the thick glass. And
4 we -- this -- I mean, I think we have video that was, like, on Twitter, but basically we were
5 talking about his paper-mache White House project for second or third grade.
6 And then Hunter joined us for some portion, I think the formal White House
7 portion of that.
8 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
9 Q And then in the spring of 2015 you attended a breakfast at the Naval
10 Observatory where the U.N. Secretary-General was present?
11 A No --
12 Q Do you remember that?
13 A No, the U.N. Secretary-General was not present at that breakfast. But it
14 was, like, a U.N.-related conversation.
15 Q Who was present?
16 A A gentleman named Mark Holtzman, myself, Hunter, and the Vice
17 President -- Vice President.
18 Q And what was the discussion about?
19 A It was about who was going to be the next U.N. Secretary-General.
20 Q Why were you involved in that?
21 A Because Mark Holtzman was lobbying for Karim Massimov. But it
22 was -- obviously, that didn't happen.
23 Q Did there come a time when you ever met with the Prime Minister, Karim
24 Massimov, of Kazakhstan?
25 A Did I -- that I ever met --
79
1 Q Yes.
2 A Yeah. I'm friends with him. I'm a friend, a good friend.
3 Q And did you meet with him with Kenes Rakishev at any point?
4 A Yes.
5 Q What was the purpose of that meeting?
6 A The purpose of meeting -- well, I was -- I was trying to raise capital for
7 Rosemont Realty.
8 Q Did it have anything to do with the Chinese National Offshore Oil
9 Corporation, CNOOC?
10 A CNOOC. I mean, that could've come up, but I don't -- I don't remember
11 specifically. Certainly never -- nothing ever materialized from that.
12 The other reason for Massimov were Burisma Eurasia, because he was the Prime
13 Minister, and Burisma was trying to expand its businesses, so I leveraged the relationship
14 to introduce him to the company -- the country and new equipment and technology and
15 clean drilling.
16 So that was -- that was probably some of the effort. But, initially, it was the
17 Rosemont Realty pitch.
18 Q Are there any other dinners with Vice President Biden that we have not
19 discussed that you recall where he was present?
20 A With other -- with other people? I think I've -- or just me?
21 Q No, where you were present, with other people, either.
22 A Well, I think we had Vietnamese food in Georgetown once with just Hunter.
23 I don't know. Are there any that I --
24 Q No, I'm asking.
25 A I can't recall right now. But I think that those were, like, the extent of
80
the -- it's been pored 1 over pretty well.
2 Q What about golfing?
3 A Golf, yes. I think everybody's well aware that I've golfed with the Vice
4 President.
5 Q And who else has been on those golfing trips?
6 A Hunter. And in one of them, we played with, you know, three different
7 people and the owner of the club.
8 Q Anybody else that was present for those?
9 A A lot of Secret Service. Yeah, I don't think anyone else was present on the
10 golfing.
11 Q Leading up to today's interview, has anyone contacted you regarding -- and
12 I'm not asking about any communication between you and your attorney -- outside of
13 your attorney, about you testifying here today with the committee in order to try and get
14 you to not testify or to meet with us?
15 Mr. Schwartz. He's received a lot of anonymous --
16 Mr. Archer. Yeah.
17 Mr. Schwartz. -- threats or whatever.
18 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
19 Q People who you know. How about that? People who you know.
20 A People who I know? Like, from a legal -- I mean, it's a lot.
21 Q No --
22 A I have so many opinions, it's -- I wouldn't even be -- it's mind-numbing, the
23 amount of --
24 Mr. Schwartz. He's not asking for your advice. He's asking if anyone was
25 passing a message to you not to testify, on behalf of the family or the administration.
81
1 Mr. Archer. No, not directly.
2 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
3 Q What indirectly?
4 A No, just, you know, death threats and my parents' death threats and all that
5 kind of stuff.
6 Q When was the last time you spoke with Hunter Biden?
7 A I had a Signal message exchange when his book was published. I can't put
8 a date on that, but years ago.
82
1
2 [12:43 p.m.]
3 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
4 Q Did Hunter Biden ever use encrypted apps when he talked with you?
5 A Signal.
6 Q How frequently would you talk on Signal?
7 A I mean, quite frankly, in the scope of what we're talking about, that was, like,
8 all post my issues. So not often, not often. Here, you know, here and there.
9 Q I believe you've mentioned this person before. But who's Eric Schwerin?
10 A Eric is -- he was the, you know -- you know, for lack of a better term,
11 Hunter's kind of COO at Rosemont Seneca Advisors and Seneca before that, I think the
12 lobbying firm before that.
13 Q And who is Jeffrey Cooper?
14 A He was -- he was the founder of Eudora Global, which was a firm that Hunter
15 Biden had some equity.
16 Q When was the last time you talked with Jeff Cooper?
17 A Jeff Cooper is a dear friend of mine.
18 Q And so when was the last time you talked with him?
19 Mr. Schwartz. After April 2016.
20 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
21 Q I want to get into some documents to see if you have them in your
22 possession or if you know who may have the documents.
23 A Sure.
24 Q Were there any -- related to Burisma -- were there any documents created in
25 relation to the board, such as board minutes, related to board appointments, resolutions,
83
1 notes? Are you aware of any of those documents?
2 A Am I aware?
3 Q Were those documents --
4 A Do I know where they are? No.
5 Q Were they created, first? That's my first question.
6 A Yes.
7 Q And your answer to the second question is you don't know where they are at
8 the moment.
9 A Correct.
10 Q Do you have any text messages or emails with any Burisma associates or
11 Hunter Biden or any other Biden associates in your possession?
12 A No.
13 Q Where are they?
14 A They would be easily found in my discovery from my case.
15 Q What about related to Rosemont Seneca Partners? Are all of your -- are all
16 of the materials related to Rosemont --
17 A Yeah, I don't have -- like, as far as documents, I don't have any -- I don't
18 have -- I barely have email.
19 Q Is there any --
20 A I don't have a computer.
21 Q Excuse me?
22 A I don't have a computer.
23 Q Is there anyone holding any of your documents that you're aware of at the
24 moment?
25 A AlixPartners.
84
1 Q What documents are they holding?
2 Mr. Schwartz. Sorry. They are retained through counsel. So that's us.
3 Mr. Mandolfo. So you have the documents. Boies Schiller has --
4 Mr. Schwartz. We have some documents. I'm not saying responsive to your
5 specific question. We have some documents.
6 BY MR. MANDOLFO:
7 Q If you can go to exhibit 1, tab 7. If you go to the line item that's August
8 26th of 2015.
9 A Yes. Sorry.
10 Q There's a beneficiary?
11 A Uh-huh.
12 Q MFTCG Holdings, LLC, Biden.
13 A Uh-huh.
14 Q For $150,000. What is that?
15 A I'm assuming it's an account of Hunter's.
16 Mr. Schwartz. You're assuming?
17 Mr. Archer. Right. I'm assuming. MFTCG Holdings. Is that -- the account
18 name is -- I'm just reading it. It says
19 Biden. Is that a note, or is that the actual account?
20 Mr. Mandolfo. This is the bank records. This is the record that was created by
21 the bank, and I'm just asking if you know that company.
22 Mr. Archer. I don't offhand.
23 Mr. Greenberg. Who is Rob Walker?
24 Mr. Archer. Rob Walker was another Rosemont Seneca Advisor partner.
25 Mr. Greenberg. In 2015, Rob Walker used his company, Robison Walker, LLC, to
85
1 take in money from Gabriel Popoviciu.
2 Do you know who Gabriel Popoviciu is?
3 Mr. Schwartz. None of this is within scope. Don't answer that.
4 Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thanks.
5 I know you're going to think I sound like a one-note piano, but I've got to keep
6 coming back because I want to make sure that I fully understand.
7 As you call it, you talked about the brand. Okay?
8 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
9 Mr. Biggs. I've got to understand the brand if I can -- so I can understand all of
10 this.
11 You're in Dubai and you're told that there's pressure coming on and going to make
12 a phone call to D.C., and, if I understand it right, they excuse themselves to go make this
13 call, right?
14 In the meantime, one thing you've said is that you guys had -- you worked with
15 some -- I think Blue Star? Is that the name of it?
16 Mr. Archer. Correct. Blue Star Strategies.
17 Mr. Biggs. Blue Star Strategies. And they took care of some of the lobbying
18 and internal D.C. mechanisms.
19 Mr. Archer. Correct.
20 Mr. Biggs. Okay. And -- but you've also testified that President -- excuse
21 me -- then Vice President Biden would make phone calls and actually made some -- went
22 to dinner at Cafe Milano.
23 And he might just say, "Hey, how's it going, take care of my boy" -- I don't know if
24 he said, "Take care of my boy" or not. I don't know. But he was giving some
25 glad-handing types of comments when he would call in. I think you testified about 20
86
times that 1 he called in. Is that fair?
2 Mr. Schwartz. Is the question did Hunter Biden and his father speak 20 times in
3 front of Mr. Archer?
4 Mr. Biggs. No, no, in these conference calls, whether it was a dinner meeting or
5 meeting in front of clients or personal. Is that fair?
6 Mr. Archer. That is fair.
7 Mr. Biggs. Okay. And so what I'm trying to understand here is you had Blue
8 Star and other D.C. reps.
9 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
10 Mr. Biggs. You had Vice President Biden. Vice President Biden either attended
11 or made phone calls. But I assume that nobody from Blue Star Strategies was calling in
12 and getting put on a conference call with potential clients or business people. Is that a
13 fair assumption?
14 Mr. Archer. No, not necessarily. Blue Star was working very hard for their -- so
15 they were -- they were very well engaged with Burisma. They had a lot of problems.
16 There was a lot of work to do.
17 Mr. Biggs. They had a lot of problems, but they weren't being called in to recruit
18 or to --
19 Mr. Archer. To recruit?
20 Mr. Schwartz. Let him finish the question.
21 Mr. Archer. Yeah.
22 Mr. Biggs. To recruit or to basically be a PR face for your partnership like Joe
23 Biden was.
24 Mr. Archer. I disagree. They were brought in and -- and, you know, brought in
25 for other meetings. They were brought in to, you know, have meetings with State
87
1 Department people.
2 And, you know, they were -- Blue Star was very active with kind of dealing with
3 lower-level, you know, government folks to help advance whatever Burisma was trying to
4 solve for. There was --
5 Mr. Biggs. But they weren't the brand.
6 Mr. Archer. They were not the brand.
7 Mr. Biggs. The brand was really Joe Biden.
8 Mr. Archer. U.S. -- U.S. -- D.C. was the brand.
9 Mr. Biggs. D.C. But earlier in your response to me you said it was really the
10 Biden -- the Biden family. And then we got to it wasn't anybody else but Joe Biden.
11 Mr. Archer. In the context of the Biden family.
12 Mr. Biggs. Right. So that leads to the next question.
13 Did anybody else from the Biden family, as part of the Biden brand, ever show up
14 at these dinners or phone calls -- have phone calls -- or was it just the Vice President?
15 Mr. Archer. Not during my tenure.
16 Mr. Biggs. And did Vice President Biden ever call in to Burisma board of director
17 meetings while you were on the board or Hunter was on the board to your knowledge?
18 Mr. Archer. Not to my knowledge. I was on the board. I would say no, not to
19 the board, actual board meetings.
20 Mr. Biggs. Then that leads me to ask this follow-up question. What do you
21 mean when you say not to the actual board meetings? Was there some other way he
22 was contacting the Burisma board members?
23 Mr. Archer. No, not -- not that I know of.
24 Mr. Biggs. Okay. And so I just want to see if I can --
25 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
88
Mr. Biggs. -- put this square 1 peg in the round hole again.
2 Mr. Archer. Sure.
3 Mr. Biggs. Is what I understand you to be testifying to, you don't have to
4 comment about what my understanding -- what my understanding. You just say I've got
5 it all screwed up or I'm with you.
6 And that is you had this group of individuals, Blue Star management, whatever
7 they were, that were working actively as problem solvers for, say, Burisma, right?
8 Mr. Archer. Right.
9 Mr. Biggs. And on the other hand, you had what you call D.C., and it became the
10 name brand, which we all agree is Joe -- Vice President Joe Biden. He's over here. And
11 he's making calls to all kinds of folks, 20 of them that you had mentioned. Fair to say?
12 Mr. Goldman. Who's making calls?
13 Mr. Schwartz. What is fair to say?
14 Mr. Goldman. Who's making calls?
15 Mr. Biggs. The Vice President made 20 calls. That's what you said.
16 Mr. Archer. Let's clarify. He did not -- whether it was Joe calling --
17 Mr. Biggs. Or Hunter Biden calling.
18 Mr. Archer. -- there was a call. And that also is over, you know, 10-year
19 partnership. So --
20 Mr. Biggs. But he was the brand, face of the brand, not anybody else?
21 Mr. Archer. Yes.
22 Mr. Biggs. Not anybody else in the Biden family?
23 Mr. Archer. No one else in the Biden family. It was Hunter Biden and him.
24 Mr. Biggs. And not the D.C., what do you call them, the machine or, you know,
25 the machine manipulators, Blue Star agency, right? That was not --
89
Mr. Archer. That was complementary t 1 o the brand. That was the operational
2 elements.
3 Mr. Biggs. Sure.
4 Mr. Schwartz. You guys have 2 minutes left on the clock.
5 Mr. Biggs. Back to you guys.
6 Mr. Mandolfo. I just have one question about Jeff Cooper. It falls within, even
7 though it's April 2016, he's a Biden associate. Whether any Biden associates, including
8 Jeff Cooper or anyone from the Biden administration, has communicated in any manner
9 with you regarding the committee's investigation.
10 Mr. Archer. No. No. No.
11 Mr. Mandolfo. Clark, anything you want to add? You've got 1 minute.
12 Mr. Schwartz. You don't have to use every last second.
13 Mr. Biggs. This may never happen again.
14 Mr. Schwartz. This won't happen again but it still --
15 Mr. Biggs. It may never happen again. Never say never.
16 Mr. Mandolfo. That's not in the letter.
17 Thank you. We'll take a break.
18 Mr. Greenberg. We're off the record.
19 [Recess.]
20 Back on the record at 1:36.
21 EXAMINATION
22
23 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Archer.
24 A Thank you.
25 Q Before I start with my questions, I want to come back to documents you
90
were shown during the Republicans' r 1 ound of questioning. You were shown various
2 documents that appear to be emails.
3 A Uh-huh.
4 Q The majority staff has represented -- the Republican staff has represented
5 that they come either from the internet or from a hard drive in their possession that they
6 have refused to date to provide to committee Democrats.
7 Mr. Archer, I want to be clear. You are unable to authenticate these emails. Is
8 that correct?
9 A I am unable to authenticate. That is correct.
10 Q You don't have a personal memory or recollection that would allow you to
11 determine whether these emails are, in fact, authentic.
12 A I don't -- I don't know if they're authentic. They're kind of in the genre of
13 what we talked about.
14 Q I'd like to start off by coming back to Burisma, which we've talked about a
15 lot.
16 You mentioned during the Republicans' round of questioning that you were
17 invited to come join the board of Burisma by former Polish President Kwasniewski.
18 Is that right?
19 A Correct.
20 Q And Kwasniewski has a reputation internationally of being a reformer --
21 A Uh-huh.
22 Q -- in Poland.
23 A Uh-huh.
24 Q Did you have an understanding of why he joined the board of Burisma?
25 A Do I have an understanding? I think -- I think he enjoyed the
91
compensation. I think 1 that he also had some -- there was some messaging about energy
2 independence from Russia kind of thing.
3 Q And was that something that Mr. Kwasniewski felt important about?
4 A I think so.
5 Q And that's Burisma's role in being a bulwark on behalf of Ukraine against
6 Russia.
7 A Right.
8 Q And is that a pitch that he made to you when he was trying to recruit you to
9 the board of Burisma?
10 A Yes.
11 Q There's been public reporting that at the time in recruiting board members
12 Mr. Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, explained that he wanted his company to adapt to
13 Western standards of transparency.
14 Do you recollect whether that's something Mr. Zlochevsky would say?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And can you explain kind of what expertise you brought to the board of
17 Burisma?
18 A So what I brought -- the initial -- the initial engagement, it was really
19 about -- around me raising additional, you know, outside capital, possibly debt capital,
20 expansion capital, from, you know, European, Western, Singapore, U.S. markets, for them
21 to -- I think the initial idea was expansion into the U.S. by a small U.S. company.
22 But as things got, you know, hotter, it was -- it was by, you know, by
23 another -- expand it to other countries that were less sensitive to kind of the -- the public,
24 you know, press and what have you in regards to the company.
25 So I think the first was raise capital.
92
The second, when the capital 1 window kind of closed based on really, you know,
2 based on Hunter joining the board, When the capital window closed, it became, "Okay,
3 Devon, repurpose your efforts on expanding internationally."
4 Q And you explained that you had a background in finance and private equity --
5 A Uh-huh.
6 Q -- in Asia?
7 A I did, yeah. I started in Asia.
8 Q So is it fair to say that, you know, you had a lot of business connections --
9 A Yes.
10 Q -- throughout Asia?
11 A Uh-huh, globally.
12 Q But particularly in Asia.
13 A Particularly in Asia, yes.
14 Q And do you remember talking about Burisma to Hunter Biden?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And what --
17 A Just in general.
18 Q And what was -- what was your -- what were your conversations with Hunter
19 Biden about joining Burisma -- about doing work with Burisma?
20 A I don't recall directly. I do know it started under the guise of legal
21 representation and then evolved outside of my -- well, it was in my purview but outside
22 of my direction into a board membership.
23 Q And by that you mean at the time Hunter Biden was of counsel at the law
24 firm Boies Schiller. Is that right?
25 A That is correct.
93
Q And is it fair that 1 you talked to Hunter Biden about corporate governance
2 issues that Burisma was facing?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And is it fair that you thought that he and the firm of Boies Schiller might be
5 able to help Burisma with that?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Is that something that you --
8 A We went so far we commissioned a report where the initial reading was,
9 like, a Crowell Report. Then we commissioned a report from Nardello, which still sits in
10 my office -- it's about ten binders wide -- to, you know, to dig into the governance and,
11 you know, vision forward and set new ground rules and all that kind of stuff.
12 So, yeah, it was very -- we were very active. That took quite some time.
13 Mr. Goldman. And he, Hunter Biden, was involved in that process?
14 Mr. Archer. Yes.
15 And Boies Schiller, where he was of counsel, is an international
16 law firm with, you know --
17 Mr. Archer. They're all right. No, I'm just kidding.
18 It's an international law firm with a very good reputation. Is
19 that fair?
20 Mr. Schwartz. He'll stipulate it's the greatest law firm ever.
21 Mr. Archer. That's great.
22 And Mr. Biden, who was an attorney at that law firm, is it fair to
23 say that he had some expertise in issues of corporate governance from a legal
24 perspective?
25 Mr. Archer. Yep. Yes.
94
1 I want to turn to --
2 Mr. Goldman. Just on that subject.
3 You said you met Hunter Biden at one of the conventions and then were
4 reconnected to him through your mutual friend, Chris Heinz, in around 2008.
5 Mr. Archer. No. It was Marc LoPresti.
6 Mr. Goldman. Marc LoPresti. Okay.
7 Mr. Archer. Yeah, so I would have met him with Chris Heinz at the convention.
8 Mr. Goldman. I see.
9 Mr. Archer. And then this attorney, LoPresti, introduced us, Marc LoPresti.
10 Mr. Goldman. At that time what did you know Hunter Biden's profession to be?
11 Mr. Archer. Well, he introduced himself as a, you know, a -- he was in the D.C.
12 advisory business, that he had -- he was going to have to leave lobbying or he left
13 lobbying -- I forget at the time -- and shifted from lobbying to advisory, and that he was
14 the -- obviously, he was then interested in private equity. So he was, "Why don't we
15 combine forces?" and blah, blah, blah.
16 Mr. Goldman. You said initially that there were some rumblings that you
17 overlapped --
18 Mr. Archer. At Yale.
19 Mr. Goldman. -- at Yale.
20 Mr. Archer. Yes.
21 Mr. Goldman. Where was he at Yale?
22 Mr. Archer. He was at law school I guess --
23 Mr. Goldman. So he graduated from Yale Law School.
24 Mr. Archer. He graduated from Yale Law School. Two of the years he was -- I
25 think he transferred from somewhere. But two of the years he was there and lived very
95
1 close to me.
2 Mr. Goldman. Okay. So by the mid-two thousand teens he was of counsel at
3 Boies Schiller after having a career in lobbying, advising, consulting, and some business
4 ventures?
5 Mr. Archer. Yes, some business ventures. But, yeah, it was all in the legal.
6 And I think he worked for a credit card company, as well.
7
8 Q And we talked about how President Kwasniewski felt that Burisma had a role
9 to play in helping as a bulwark against Russia --
10 A Uh-huh.
11 Q -- which was being aggressive toward Ukraine at the time.
12 Is it fair to say that Hunter Biden kind of shared that thought? He was quoted,
13 for example, in the press as saying that: Helping out a domestic Ukrainian gas producer
14 as a bulwark against Russia -- Russian aggression -- seems like I was on the side of angels.
15 A Right. I think that was the belief.
16 Q So is it fair to say that there was kind of an idealistic fiber to Hunter Biden's
17 interest in Burisma, in part?
18 A In part.
19 Q I want to turn to exhibit 2, which is one of the exhibits your counsel and
20 Republican -- committee Republicans agreed to as one of the exhibits in this TI. I want
21 to turn to point 8 in here.
22 "Burisma has an opportunity here to play the hero if it ignores the artificial market
23 value of their product and plays to the national interest."
24 And so I just -- is that kind of a continuation of that theme of Burisma's role in
25 Ukraine's energy independence?
96
A I don't -- I don't really understand 1 that comment. "Opportunity here to
2 play hero if it ignores the artificial market value of their product"?
3 Q I think above it says, "There would be enormous pressure on Burisma to
4 lower prices for the national good."
5 A Oh, oh, I see. I see.
6 Mr. Schwartz. It's okay if you don't understand.
7 Mr. Archer. Yeah, I don't know what that means.
8
9 Q I'd like to point you to point 16 --
10 A Uh-huh.
11 Q -- where in this email it says, "We can actually be of real value here.
12 Developing relationships, bringing U.S. expertise to the company, supplying strategic
13 advice on politics and geopolitical risk assessment."
14 Do you see that sentence?
15 A Yep.
16 Q Does that coincide with your recollection of the value that Hunter Biden felt
17 he could add to the firm Burisma?
18 A That is -- I felt like that was -- yeah, I think collectively we probably felt that.
19 Mr. Goldman. Burisma, as well.
20 Mr. Archer. Yeah, I think that's the -- that was kind of the spirit of it.
21
22 Q I want to point you now to point 20 in this email --
23 A Uh-huh.
24 Q -- where it says, "To that end, they" -- and I believe "they" is a reference to
25 Burisma here -- "need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot
97
intervene directly with domestic 1 policymakers, and that we need to abide by FARA and
2 any other U.S. laws in the strictest sense across the board."
3 Do you see that sentence?
4 A I do.
5 Q And do you understand FARA to be a reference to the Foreign Agents
6 Registration Act?
7 A I do.
8 Mr. Schwartz. You're asking him his current understanding.
9 Mr. Archer. Yes, current understanding, yes. At the time I don't think I was
10 familiar with FARA.
11 But, yes, I am very aware of it.
12
13 Q Is it your understanding that Hunter Biden felt that it was important that his
14 role -- in his role in Burisma he comply with U.S. laws?
15 A Did he -- did I --
16 Q Yes.
17 A I could speculate that he would think that, yes.
18 Q Based on your interactions with him.
19 A Based on interactions, and I don't think he was looking to break any laws.
20 Mr. Goldman. Well, on this, does this refresh your recollection, this email, as to
21 whether or not you heard him say that to you either in writing or verbally as you look at
22 this document?
23 Mr. Archer. Yeah. He -- yes, he was -- he was very -- he was cognizant of his
24 name and his brand and would talk about it, yeah.
25 Mr. Goldman. This doesn't talk about the name and the brand. This just talks
98
about 1 his -- making sure that Burisma understands --
2 Mr. Archer. Yes.
3 Mr. Goldman. -- the scope of what he can and cannot do and that he cannot
4 intervene directly with domestic policymakers and need to abide by FARA and any other
5 U.S. laws in the strictest sense across the board.
6 Was that your understanding of both his approach and Burisma's understanding,
7 as well?
8 Mr. Archer. I would say -- I would say yes to the first part of the question. The
9 first part of the statement, yes, I think Burisma was constantly looking for more.
10 And it kind of speaks a little bit to that other email that we used as an exhibit
11 earlier where it's, like, we're going to use my dad's thing and take credit for it. There
12 was an element that he was always trying to avoid that but at the same time trying to
13 prove value. So it was this element of, like, signals.
14 Well, we'll return to that --
15 Mr. Schwartz. Your reference to the name and the brand, what you mean is he
16 had to be scrupulous about not violating the law because that would --
17 Mr. Archer. Right. That's why I refer to the brand.
18 Mr. Schwartz. -- reflect on the name and the brand.
19 Mr. Goldman. All right. So when you were talking about the name and the
20 brand, that because of that --
21 Mr. Archer. Because of that --
22 Mr. Goldman. -- it was your understanding that he was even more fastidious
23 about following the law --
24 Mr. Archer. Right.
25 Mr. Goldman. -- because of the name and the brand --
99
1 Mr. Archer. Yes.
2 Mr. Goldman. -- as you describe it.
3 Mr. Archer. It was a -- it was a constant push-pull in that regard, you know.
4 Mr. Goldman. Because Burisma wanted him --
5 Mr. Archer. People always wanted more.
6 Mr. Goldman. Burisma wanted him to do more --
7 Mr. Archer. Right.
8 Mr. Goldman. -- with his connections.
9 Mr. Archer. Correct.
10 Mr. Goldman. And Hunter Biden understood that he could not do that, but he
11 was trying to --
12 Mr. Archer. Balance it.
13 Mr. Goldman. -- balance it and prove value to a company that expected him to do
14 things that --
15 Mr. Archer. Right.
16 Mr. Goldman. -- he was uncomfortable doing.
17 Mr. Archer. Right.
18
19 Q And so as a Biden, it was important for him to follow the law. Is that fair?
20 A That's fair.
21 Q On point 17, on this same email, the previous page, it says, "BSF" -- which I
22 believe is a reference to Boies Schiller Flexner -- "can actually have direct discussions at
23 state, energy, and NSC. They can devise a media plan and arrange for legal protections
24 and mitigate U.S. domestic negative press regarding the current leadership if need be."
25 Is it your understanding that Hunter Biden's plan, in order to make sure he
100
followed the law, was to hire a 1 different partner at Boies Schiller to take care of these
2 discussions with U.S. Government entities?
3 A Yeah, that happened.
4 Q And so was the idea that hiring kind of that firm for that mission would help
5 ensure that actions on behalf of Burisma stayed in compliance with the law?
6 A That was the intent, yes.
7 Q And in addition to -- and just to be clear, when he talks about Boies Schiller
8 doing that, he's talking about a different partner at Boies Schiller, not him, right?
9 A Right.
10 Q And in addition to bringing in Boies Schiller to do that, is it also fair that at
11 some point a different -- I think you called it lobbying group -- the Blue Star Group was
12 brought in to handle interactions with U.S. Government officials?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And then when we talked about exhibit 10, which is the email about any
15 progress with DHS --
16 A Uh-huh.
17 Q -- I think you mentioned that there was another lobbyist who was brought in
18 to deal with this visa issue.
19 A Yes.
20 Q And I think you said that it actually was unsuccessful and Mr. --
21 A Yes, he never --
22 Q -- Zlochevsky never got his visa.
23 A Correct. It was a lot of work on that. Never happened.
24 Q So is it fair to say that Hunter Biden helped bring in a group of government
25 affairs and lobbying experts to handle the interactions with U.S. Government agencies?
101
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to United States Government Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests