Post from Truth Social

public integrity section, David Harbaugh, right hand man to Jack Smith, he was really one of the guys that focused on you. You had to go through this, you're convicted on appeal, they uphold it, and then the Supreme Court says, wait a minute, you can't define bribery the way that Jack Smith and the boys have defined bribery. In fact, they said in their case, John Roberts wrote the opinion, the government has made a boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. It was so broad, it could catch almost anybody, but they indicted not just you, but your wife. Can you tell us about this? Well first, Mark, thanks for having me on, and that stretch was exceptionally painful, three and a half years from the investigation until we got the unanimous vindication by the U.S. Supreme Court. You know, I knew in my heart from the very beginning, I'm a lawyer, obviously, looking at the law and the facts, that these charges were completely wrong. You know, at the time David Harbaugh was the lead, one of the lead prosecutors in the case, actually did the closing argument, Jack Smith was at a public integrity during that five year stretch from 2010 to '15, and you know, we, our lawyers, I have two of the best firms in the world, Jones Day, Holland and Knight. They went to the Justice Department and met with the Deputy Attorney General of the United States and laid out an extensive brief about why they got the law wrong and why I didn't do anything wrong, and yet they persisted, Mark, and pulled the trigger, and the indictments started. And of course, they've got all the investigators, they've got all the money, they got the access to the Washington Post through multiple leaks, regular leaks, and of course it took unanimous Supreme Court to get it right, but it was a very difficult time, and you know, my walk away from that, especially as I looked at what he did in the Lois Lerner case with advising people that they was okay to go after conservatives and Bob Menendez and other cases, is that I think he's just overzealous. I think he doesn't do an honest look at the law to see if the facts apply to the law, and so he'd rather win than get it right. And I think that's maybe some of the influence we see now and some of the decisions he's making in the current cases, and that's why the Supreme Court of the United States said, "Look, you got it completely wrong. It's not only boundless, but you catch up the ordinary things that political figures do with constituents every day in the country, and you put everybody at risk with your view of the law." So that's a caution. Did they try to undermine your attorney-client privilege with your lawyers and you? You know, we had leaks of grand jury information that ended up in the Washington Postmark, which of course is completely wrong doing that, and there was evidence that came in during the trial, tendered by the government, that were things that I specifically talked about with my own counsel, the counsel to the governor, and those came in, obviously over our strenuous objection. It was nothing that was inculpatory, but it was something that really shouldn't have been in before a jury that just helps to taint a jury in ways. So yes, I felt that on multiple occasions they had evidence or testimony from my own counsel and my chief of staff who was a lawyer that shouldn't have come in. You know, there's a prior or another victim, a gentleman by the name of Renzi, and they said that they actually wiretapped the discussions between him and his lawyers and used it in the grand jury and so forth and so on. These discussions you had with your lawyers, were you surprised that the government had access to those discussions? Well, they got them through grand jury testimony where, you know, so many members of my staff, my cabinet, my family, my friends were all brought before the grand jury. This is during my last year in office mark in 2013, I'm trying to govern, and they marching people in before a grand jury. And I mean, for some of them, the word that I got was that they were strongly implying to them that if they cooperated in any way and saying favorable things about me, that they could be charged with, you know, obstruction of justice. I mean, that's the kind of pressure that were put on people in my administration. So I, listen, I've been a prosecutor, I've been attorney general, I am a pro law enforcement person. There's, we got the best justice system in the world, but it's not perfect, Mark. And as you point out, if you get to the point where you'd rather win than get the law right and undermine the rule of law and weaponize the criminal justice system, I don't care if it's Republican or Democrat, you undermine a central tenant of the American justice system and our American society. And that's dangerous regardless of which party is doing it. Governor, when we return, they also charged your wife and they were trying to bring pressure on one or both of you really to testify against each other. Tell us about that when we return and how that impacts.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.