3. P58 one-on-one interactions with CC2 were unofficial

Pence staffer GREGJACOB also participated in a January 5 meeting with JOHNEASTMAN and MARCSHORT (Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 226 78a; supra pp. 69-70) and on January 6 engaged in a lengthy email exchange with JOHNEASTMAN (Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 226 99; supra p. 85). These interactions were outside of the defendant’s presence, and the latter was a series of emails. These conversations were not official, within the meaning of Trump, since the defendant was not involved and did not otherwise direct GREGJACOB actions, and because of the other information above describing JOHNEASTMAN inherently private role.

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY DETERMINATIONS

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

I. Factual Proffer

A. Formation of the Conspiracies

B. The Defendant Knew that His Claims of Outcome-Determinative Fraud Were False

C. The Defendant Aimed Deceit at the Targeted States to Alter Their Ascertainment and Appointment of Electors

1. ARIZONA

2. GEORGIA

3. MICHIGAN

4. NEVADA

5. PENNSYLVANIA

6. WISCONSIN

7. VOTING MACHINES IN MULTIPLE STATES

D. The Defendant Organized and Caused His Electors to Submit Fraudulent Certificates Creating the False Appearance That States Submitted Competing Electoral Slates

E. The Defendant Attempted to Persuade Pence to Reject Votes Cast by Duly- Appointed Electors and Choose the Defendant's Fraudulent Ones

F. The Defendant Caused Unlawful Conduct on January 6 and Tried to Take Advantage of the Riot that Ensued

II Legal Framework

III. None of the Allegations or Evidence Is Protected by Presidential Immunity

A. The Defendant's Interactions with Pence

1. The defendant's interactions with Pence as the President of the Senate were official, but the rebuttable presumption of immunity is overcome

2. The defendant's interactions with Pence as a running mate were unofficial

3. GREG JACOB one-on-one interactions with JOHN EASTMAN were unofficial

B. The Defendant's Interactions, in his Capacity as a Candidate, with Officials in the Targeted States

C. The defendant's efforts, as a candidate, to organize fraudulent electors

D. The Defendant's Public Speeches, Tweets, and Other Public Statements as a Candidate

E. The Defendant's Interactions, in his Capacity as a Candidate, with White House Staff

F. Other Evidence of the Defendant's Knowledge and Intent

IV. Conclusion

III. None of the Allegations or Evidence Is Protected by Presidential Immunity

A. The Defendant's Interactions with Pence

3. GREGJACOB one-on-one interactions with JOHNEASTMAN were unofficial