entire packet to Scott. We had three U.S. attorneys in Pennsylvania: Middle, Eastern, and Western. I knew Scott the best. We had served on the AGAC together. They're all very good and very competent U.S. attorneys, but I knew Scott best of the three, and so I just sent it to him to be followed up on, if he even deemed it was worthy of following up.
Q Right. So, in tab 9, your email to Mr. Brady says: JFYI—which I assume is "just for your information"—regarding allegations about Pennsylvania voting irregularities, for whatever it may be worth. When you put that parenthetical at the end, "for whatever it may be worth," what was in your mind?
A I had no idea if there was anything to these allegations. Again, we just heard it for the first time that afternoon from the President. The President was very adamant, and Congressman Perry was very adamant that this was clear fraud; You didn't even really have to investigate; you could just look at the reporting on the government websites for the State of Pennsylvania, and it would be clear. But I didn't want Scott to believe that, because I was forwarding this to him, that I had formed any opinion about the reliability of these allegations.
Q I see. Did you talk to Scott about it once you sent him the email? Do you recall any phone conversation with him?
A I did. I think I talked to him that night. I'm not a hundred percent sure. But I had several conversations with him over the next couple of days. He said he would look into it. And he got to the bottom of it very quickly.
Q Tell us what he concluded.
A So the secretary of state certified roughly 5.25 million votes from Pennsylvania. And the website that they were referencing reported only about 5 million votes. However, Scott looked into it, and he got back to me within a day or two and
