Jack Smith’s Delicate Treatment of BadgerPundit Kenneth Chesebro
As I’ve said a few times, when I was hunting for Lee Chatfield, I found Kenneth Chesebro.
There is a transcript in the mostly sealed Appendix I to Jack Smith’s immunity brief that must be Chesebro’s. Several passages describing events in which Chesebro was involved cite a transcript, spanning from roughly GA 97 to GA 103, that appears between Lee Chatfield and probable Pat Cipollone transcripts (GA 55-56 is someone whose name appears alphabetically between Bowers and Cannon; this may be Trump campaign staffer Michael Brown).
On December 16, [Chesebro] traveled to Washington with a group of private attorneys who had done work for the defendant’s Campaign in Wisconsin for a photo opportunity with the defendant in the Oval Office.315
[snip]
Later that morning, [Chesebro] worked with another attorney for the defendant, who contacted a U.S. Senator to ask him to obtain the fraudulent Wisconsin and Michigan documents from the U.S. Representative’s office and hand-deliver them to the Vice President.408
315 Documentary evidence, Presidential Daily Diary, GA 100-101
408 Documentary evidence, GA 55-56, GA 102-103, Chris Hodgson [Compare to full transcript]
That would mean that this section, which suggests the co-conspirators deliberately lied to fake electors, is sourced partly to Chesebro too (GA 517-518 is part of an at least 6-page section describing the fake elector involvement of someone whose name appears alphabetically between Raffensperger and Scavino, which hypothetically could be Mike Roman, but nothing marks it as necessarily him).
In practice, the fraudulent elector plan played out somewhat differently in each targeted state. In general, the co-conspirators deceived the defendant’s elector nominees in the same way that the defendant and [Eastman] deceived [Ronna McDaniel] by falsely claiming that their electoral votes would be used only if ongoing litigation were resolved in the defendant’s favor.282
282 Documentary evidence, GA 97-98, GA 517-518.
It’s not terribly surprising that Jack Smith got an interview with Chesebro. After all, Chesebro made a great show of cooperating in various state investigations — at a minimum, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as CNN laid out last December. But as CNN also reported, the veracity of his testimony came into question by February, when CNN caught Chesebro covering up a Twitter account he had.
So Jack Smith appears to have gotten an interview with Chesebro, but Chesebro may not be terribly reliable.
Perhaps for that reason, there are a great many things involving Chesebro that are not sourced to that transcript. Chesebro’s plotting about the fake electors plot, for example, is always sourced to the documents themselves.
More interestingly, this passage — describing that Chesebro followed Trump’s public instructions to go to DC, but also describing that he collected copies of the fake Michigan and Wisconsin elector certificates and handed them off to Congressman Mike Kelly — is sourced entirely to documentary evidence.
Meanwhile, [Chesebro] who had traveled to Washington as directed by the defendant’s public messages, obtained duplicate originals of the fraudulent certificates signed by the defendant’s fraudulent electors in Michigan and Wisconsin, which they believed had not been delivered by mail to the President of the Senate or Archivist.389 [Chesebro] received these duplicates from Campaign staff and surrogates, who flew them to Washington at private expense.390 He then hand-delivered them to staffers for a U.S. Representative at the Capitol as part of a plan to deliver them to Pence for use in the certification proceeding.391
Similarly, the description of Chesebro’s participation in the mob is sourced exclusively to documentary evidence.
Among these was [Chesebro] who had attended the defendant’s speech from the Washington Monument, marched with the crowd to the Capitol, and breached the restricted area surrounding the building.449
There’s a problem with Chesebro’s testimony on this point, of course: If he ferried fake elector certificates, then he wasn’t responding to Trump’s public tweeting about January 6. He was responding to the instructions of other plotters.
Which makes the way Smith sourced this passage, describing a December 16 meeting with Trump that Reince Priebus also attended, more interesting.
On December 16, [Chesebro] traveled to Washington with a group of private attorneys who had done work for the defendant’s Campaign in Wisconsin for a photo opportunity with the defendant in the Oval Office.315 During the encounter, the defendant complained about Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice [Brian Hagedorn] who two days earlier had cast the deciding vote in rejecting the defendant’s election challenge in the state.316 As the group was leaving, the defendant spoke directly—and privately—to [Chesebro]. 317 As late as early January, the conspirators attempted to keep the full nature of the fraudulent elector plan secret. On January 3, for instance, in a private text message exchange, [Boris Epshteyn] wrote to [Chesebro] “Careful with your texts on text groups. No reason to text things about electors to anyone but [Eastman] and me.” [Chesebro] responded, “K,” and followed up, “I’m probably a bit paranoid haha.” [Epshteyn] wrote, “A valuable trait!”318
315 Documentary evidence plus Chesebro
316 Probably Reince Priebus
317 Probably Reince Priebus
318 Documentary evidence
That is, Smith relies on Chesebro for the claim that this meeting was a photo op. But he doesn’t include Chesebro’s claims about what he said privately to Trump; he relies solely on what is likely Reince Priebus witnessing, but not participating in, that conversation.
Rather than describing what Chesebro claimed he and Trump said to each other, Smith relies on what Chesebro told another lawyer (likely Jim Troupis), afterwards. As soon as Chesebro saw Trump’s tweet announcing the January 6 rally, he texted someone else and boasted that “we” had a “unique understanding” of Trump’s December 19 Tweet calling people to DC.
The defendant first publicly turned his sights toward January 6 in the early morning hours of December 19. At 1:42 a.m., the defendant posted on Twitter a copy of a report falsely alleging fraud and wrote, ““. . . Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”319 When [Chesebro] learned about the Tweet, he sent a link about it to another of the Wisconsin attorneys who had met with the defendant in the Oval Office on December 16 and wrote, “Wow. Based on 3 days ago, I think we have unique understanding of this.”320
319 Trump tweet
320 Documentary evidence
Chesebro has testified about the December 16 meeting. TPM got his testimony to Michigan prosecutors. He described to them that he told Trump that the real deadline for certification was January 6.
Chesebro traveled to Washington to meet with Trump on Dec. 16 alongside a coterie of other Trump campaign attorneys.
Three years later, in the interview with Michigan prosecutors, Chesebro recalled the meeting with Trump: “The marching orders were, don’t say anything that would make [Trump] feel more positive than he did at the beginning of the meeting.”
He did not follow that advice. Chesebro told prosecutors that he began to speak with Trump after listening to the President talk on speakerphone with Newt Gingrich about something to do with Georgia voting machines. Then, the conversation turned to Trump’s chances in Arizona.
Chesebro did exactly what he had been told not to do: give Trump a sense of hope. He recalled telling Trump that the “real deadline” was Jan. 6. He was later admonished by former White House chief of staff Reince Preibus because, as Chesebro put it later to prosecutors, “the vibe that I had given him was some ground for optimism.”
Chesebro himself compared the meeting to a widely reported and infamous late-night encounter, two days later on Dec. 18, between Trump, Sidney Powell, former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, and the White House counsel’s office, saying that it was “sort of unauthorized.”
If Chesebro reliably told Jack Smith the same thing, it might strengthen the obstruction case. As it is, Jack Smith argues that the riot happened, Trump did nothing to stop it, and then he opportunistically targeted Mike Pence as his mob was hunting him down. He stops well short of saying he summoned the mob to overrun Congress.
Chesebro’s apparent unreliability may be preventing Jack Smith from taking the next step, showing that Trump heard from Chesebro on December 16 that there was still one more step to certification on January 6, which led him — less than three days later — to summon his mob. But if Chesebro’s testimony were more reliable, then he would not simultaneously be explaining that he ferried a second set of fake Michigan and Wisconsin certificates to DC but also simply showed up on January 6 in response to Trump’s Tweets. And it might change the import of the way he shadowed Alex Jones.
Still, as it is, Chesebro is central to the continued viability of 18 USC 1512(c)(2) and (k) charges. Under Fischer, there must be an evidentiary component to the obstruction charge. And in Chesebro, you have the sole member of the conspiracy who joined the mob on January 6 having earlier ferried fake elector certificates to members of Congress in hopes that Mike Pence would use the certificates to throw out Joe Biden’s votes.
If this ever goes to trial, Chesebro’s role — and possible testimony — may be key. But thus far, at least, it doesn’t appear that his testimony is reliable enough to build the case on.
Have you found any insight into how and why Senator Grassley was led to believe he’d be in charge of the certification process instead of Pence? Or would that be an unrelated thread?
I seem to recall that there was speculation that Pence might decide not to appear on Jan 6 (he didn’t want to block certification of the election, but didn’t want to piss Trump et al. off, so maybe staying home was the way to go). If Pence was not there, that would make the president pro tem of the Senate the presiding officer on Jan 6. That was Grassley.
(Note that this is standard procedure, and multiple elections were certified with the president pro tem of the Senate in the chair. For example, when LBJ became president, there was no VP when Congress met in Jan 1965 to certify the Nov 1964 election.)
I thought it was in Pence’s book that he prevaricated over whether to attend the count
GA 1025 para 4 the relevant Xmas period
Although I have seen/heard an interview read a report, of Pence which gave a version of this discussion over Xmas with his son, in which his son persuaded him tho do his duty.
A much stronger impression of Pence having agonised with others about not attending. Which of course implies that Grassley would step into his shoes.
This had left me with the impression others outside his family had also been considering this option.
There was such a report
https://abcnews.go.com/US/pence-told-jan-6-special-counsel-harrowing-details/story?id=105183391
The report is ABC of testimony Pence gave to Special Counsel
“Sources said that in at least one interview with Pence, Smith’s investigators pressed the former vice president on personal notes he took after meetings with Trump and others, which investigators obtained from the National Archives”
…
Re Xmas
“But, the sources said, with the pressure on Pence mounting, he concluded on Christmas Eve — just for a moment — ••that he would follow Trump’s suggestion and let someone else preside over the proceedings on Jan. 6,••
writing in his notes that doing otherwise would be “too hurtful to my friend.” (Emphasis added)
“Not feeling like I should attend electoral count,” Pence wrote in his notes in late December. “Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I’m not going to participate in certification of election.”
Then, sitting across the table from his son, a Marine, while on vacation in Colorado, his son said to him, “Dad, you took the same oath I took” — it was “an oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Pence recalled to Smith’s investigators, sources said.
That’s when Pence decided he would be at the Capitol on Jan. 6 after all, according to the sources.”
Interesting.
Do you think the DOJ doesn’t trust Cheese to articulate his role properly if he is cooperating with them ?
Or is it part of his deal ?
He comes off as being the incite a riot and insurrection pep rally captain.
Thank you for this terrific sleuthing and close reading.
These passages read like the SC getting ready for a trial. Careful about evidence quality, avoiding dependencies on the possibly unreliable witness where possible.
It also holds open the option of calling Mr. Chesebro as a witness. To point out the obvious, this matter is going to trial only in the contingency that Mr. Trump is not president and has much-reduced ability to retaliate against Mr. C. should he testify Wise to keep the option open, Mr. Smith. .
If Chesebro’s testimony is unreliable because he is evading complete disclosure of his role in the failed coup, what import/impact would that have on his plea deals in various states? Is he trying to hide key information in the hope that the circle of conspirators with access to that information is both small and fanatical enough not to flip?
If it wasn’t elsewhere here, Steve Bannon is Getting Out of Prison. His Release is Perfectly Timed for Trump.
https://www.notus.org/trump-2024/steve-bannon-prison-release-trump-plan
I think Smith is stepping around any conversations between Trump and any federal governmental officials to avoid the immunity argument. Chesebro conversations could be inter-executive branch communications presumed official acts and allowed immunity by that court.
You may have Chesebro confused with Jeffrey Clark.
Chesebro had no tie to the Fed govt.
There is a difference a slim line between “credibility” and “reliability”
Maybe I watched too many Law-and-Order reruns, but if Lennie Briscoe thinks Chesebro is credible by
his conduct during questioning, maybe we would have a shot.
On the other hand, if he is evasive, all bets are off.
From the CNN piece EW linked to https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics/kenneth-chesebro-secret-twitter-account-kfile/index.html
“Kenneth Chesebro, the right-wing attorney who helped devise the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot in 2020, concealed a secret Twitter account from Michigan prosecutors, hiding dozens of damning posts that undercut his statements to investigators about his role in the election subversion scheme, a CNN KFile investigation has found.
….
The Twitter posts reveal that even before the 2020 election, and then just two days after polls closed, Chesebro promoted a far more aggressive election subversion strategy than he later let on in his Michigan interview.“
So lied about the existence of any social media accounts
Gave false account of his involvement and in particular intent, knowledge and purposes.
So veracity seriously compromised on the account he gave.
His credibility as a witness of truth on these matters, and on all related matters is suspect: especially with regard to his own involvement and the involvement of others eg on the one hand he might down play his own responsibility and knowledge by choosing to downplay what others knew or did, alternatively he might seek to downplay his involvement by attributing to others actions that he took, or persuaded those others to take.
So his evidence is less than 100% reliable
What we now know about BadgerPundit shows that Cheseboro was gung-ho from before the election, which perhaps puts a different perspective upon his motive on Dec 16.
In particular whether his thoughts on J6 as “the true deadline” (and giving Trump hope ) were blurted out accidentally or accidentally on purpose.
Similarly the enthusiasm of his response to hearing of the J6 rally takes on a different hue.
But of course if the decision by SC is to rely on evidence other than Cheseboro testimony wherever possible then such nuance may be lost to the Trump trial
(GA 55-56 is someone whose name appears alphabetically between Bowers and Cannon;
Possible option: Tyler Bowyer?
“In other emails, Ward asked about the process used to determine drafts of elector certificates that showed that GOP activist Nancy Cottle would serve as secretary of the effort and that Tyler Bowyer, a Republican national committeeman from the state and executive of a conservative group that targets young voters, would serve as chair. Chesebro replied that he had drafted the elector certificates and said that the certificates should “be edited to reflect who is actually elected to those positions.” Cottle became the chair, and another GOP activist became secretary.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/wisconsin-trump-fake-electors-chesebro-troupis-settlement/
(GA 517-518 is part of an at least 6-page section describing the fake elector involvement of someone whose name appears alphabetically between Raffensperger and Scavino, which hypothetically could be Mike Roman, but nothing marks it as necessarily him).
Possible option: Michael Rosin?
“[Michael] Rosin said he was “a little bit surprised and not surprised” to see his work show up in the Chesebro memo but was left wondering why the campaign lawyers didn’t contact him for more context.”
https://www.wpr.org/politics/documents-suggest-wisconsin-was-genesis-of-trump-false-elector-plot
Or Possible option: Greg Safsten?
“Emails show that Chesebro sent Ward, Safsten, Wilenchik and another Arizona attorney detailed instructions on how to carry out the plan and a draft of a news release, which was “borrowed from what the lead lawyer in WI (Jim Troupis) wrote & expects to release.” He instructed them to ensure that envelopes were sealed and labeled and to retain copies of ballots “as proof that the Electors did actually cast ballots for President & Vice President.”
“The communications also include photos taken by Chesebro of Trump electors meeting to sign documents in Wisconsin, a video taken of the meeting, and of Republican lawyers and officials gathered inside an aircraft during a trip to Washington in mid-December.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/wisconsin-trump-fake-electors-chesebro-troupis-settlement/
“When [Chesebro] learned about the Tweet, he sent a link about it to another of the Wisconsin attorneys who had met with the defendant in the Oval Office on December 16 and wrote, “Wow. Based on 3 days ago, I think we have unique understanding of this.”320”
If the article below is correct, it confirms Marcy’s hypothesis that Chesebro said this to Jim Troupis:
Chesebro texted Troupis: “Wow. Based on 3 days ago, I think we have unique understanding of this.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/wisconsin-trump-fake-electors-chesebro-troupis-settlement/
It seems to me that significant parts of the superseding indictment were based on Kenneth Chesebro’s documents. Under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) these documents are not hearsay if offered against Donald Trump. Chesebro would have a difficult time crawfishing away from what he had written during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
As Johnny Cash sang, “I was there when it happened and so I guess I ought to know.” (Never mind that he also sang, “I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.)
Blog,
OT… Has Liz Chaney, new anti-Trump champion, repudiated what she said on Feb 26, 2019?
datnotdat
Don’t drop crap like that without a citation.
Sorta OT but sorta related: heartbreaking USA TODAY story about how Tasha Rhodes and her children fear for their lives if Oath Keeper Elmer “Stewart” Rhodes is pardoned — https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/10/28/stewart-rhodes-prison-jan-6-family-fears-trump-pardon/75841506007/
It really removes any abstraction about the election, if there was any left. Next week’s results will have very serious, very different, potentially very negative consequences for many millions of people.