While the magalomanic cult that has captured the Republican party feigns reverence for the Way, the Truth, and the Life, it embraces the opposite. A boisterous few have reached a level of discord that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards nailed with the lyric: Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints; As heads is tails just call me Lucifer ’cause I’m in need of some restraint.

Trumpi-Inanity effectively leverages the FIBS tactic. The Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear that have been used by Joseph Goebbels, Joe McCarthy, and Stephen Miller only work with the constituency built by Donald Trump. Even though this tiny whiney minority is emotionally charged, intellectually stunted, obnoxiously boisterous, and morally defective, such a gaggle of societal misfits carries a message that appeals to individuals inclined to betray every ideal the nation once held if they can indulge their bigotry.

Though it masquerades as “Christian Nationalism,” none of the group’s biblical heroes were white with the exception of Pontius Pilate who asked “What is truth?” Clearly MAGA cultists have a tenuous relationship with the truth and they continue to redefine it in ways that suit their unholy quest.

There appears to be no consistency within their distorted value proposition although we have seen how such cultists can be persuaded to consistently vote against their own interests. And, we must also understand that the people who have a sense of superiority, based upon nothing more than their skin pigmentation, will never accept any form of democracy that is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial. They are quick to say that the United States is not a democracy but rather a republic. In actual fact it is an unrepresentative republic and an inauthentic democracy.

The unintelligent, unconditioned, and uncontrolled liberty touted by such malign actors is antithetical to everything Jesus taught and exemplified. And yet, the Luciferian doctrines are spewed weekly from church pulpits throughout the nation.

Since its inception in 1974, CPAC has grown into the largest and most influential gathering of pseudo-conservatives in the world. It is the conservator of nothing. During its conference held in Hungary they learned at the feet of Viktor Orbán who regards China, Russia, India, Singapore, and Turkey as models of governance. He simultaneously promotes anti-Americanism, Euroscepticism, and a persistent opposition to Western democracy.

As a featured speaker at CPAC Dallas, Orbán received a standing ovation. A headline in The New Republic read: “CPAC’s Four-Day Sermon of Unrelenting Fear Has Set Trumpism on a New Path.” Between 2010 and 2020, Hungary dropped 69 places in the Press Freedom Index and 11 places in the Democracy Index. Orbán’s government operates as a kleptocracy and that fact alone would make him a hero of the inheritors, skimmers, and hoarders of wealth.

In a July 2022 speech, Orbán criticized the “mixing” of European and non-European races, saying “We are not a mixed race and we do not want to become a mixed race.” Two days later he said that he was talking about cultures and not genetics. During his tenure Hungary has seen a curtailing of press freedom, an erosion of judicial independence, and the undermining of multiparty democracy.

Trump won the CPAC presidential straw poll with 69 percent of the vote. Texas Monthly displayed a banner headline which read: In Dallas, Donald Trump Provided a Violent Blueprint for Seizing Power. The ballroom featured five enormous screens that showed flames engulfing the American flag while the crackling sounds of fire were all pervasive.

Capturing the Supreme Court by installing graspable wingnuts may suggest the contempt for, and the demise of, constitutional imperatives will continue to play out in legal proceedings. But, if the inflammatory rhetoric emanating from CPAC is any indication, pseudo-conservatives are planning something far more violent.

If future historians are forced to write the post-mortem on American Democracy, they will likely focus on the extent to which the criminally insane were coddled and enabled by all three branches of government within the United States. Spiritual discernment is not a sought after feature within a counterfeit Christianity. The various off-brands would rather engage in the selective amplification, filtration, and contextualization of facts with the intent to deceive.

The Supreme Court has, in recent years, legalized political bribery. It has converted what Marshall McLuhan once described as a whirlpool of information into a cesspool of disinformation. And now it claims it has returned decision making authority to the people at the state level as it gives a wink and a nod to those engaged in political and racial gerrymandering, state legislatures that are now illegitimate.

Those who do enjoy some level of spiritual discernment can clearly understand that all the culture wars have just one purpose. And that is to distract us from the class warfare that has been thrust upon us. The Party of Unmitigated Selfishness that once called itself the Grand Old Party, has a record of filibusters and votes that reveal an unspoken value proposition for which they have no plausible deniability. Their platform is simply this: The rich get richer and the poor die.

BENNIE THOMPSON: The Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point. Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the chair announces the committee’s approval to release the deposition material presented during this hearing.

Good afternoon. In our hearings over the previous weeks, the Select Committee has laid out the details of a multi-part pressure campaign driven by the former president aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election and blocking the transfer of power. We’ve shown that this effort was based on a lie, a lie that the election was stolen, tainted by widespread fraud, Donald Trump’s big lie.

In the weeks ahead, the committee will hold additional hearings about how Donald Trump summoned a mob of his supporters to Washington, spurred them to march on the Capitol, and failed to take meaningful action to quell the violence as it was unfolding on January 6th. However, in recent days the Select Committee has obtained new information dealing with what was going on in the White House on January 6th and in the days prior, specific detailed information about what the former president and his top aides were doing and saying in those critical hours, firsthand details of what transpired in the office of the White House chief of staff just steps from the Oval Office as the threats of violence became clear, and indeed violence ultimately descended on the Capitol in the attack on American democracy.

It’s an important — it’s important that the American people hear that information immediately. That’s why, in consultation with the vice chair, I’ve recalled the committee for today’s hearing. As you’ve seen and heard in our earlier hearings, the Select Committee has developed a massive body of evidence thanks to the many hundreds of witnesses who have voluntarily provided information relevant to our investigation.

It hasn’t always been easy to get that information because the same people who drove the former president’s pressure campaign to overturn the election are now trying to cover up the truth about January 6th. But thanks to the courage of certain individuals, the truth won’t be buried. The American people won’t be left in the dark.

Our witness today, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, has embodied that courage. I won’t get into a lot of detail about Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony we’ll show. I’ll allow her words to speak for themselves, and I hope everyone at home will listen very closely. First, I recognize our distinguished vice chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In our first five hearings, the committee has heard from a significant number of Republicans, including former Trump administration Justice Department officials, Trump campaign officials, several members of President Trump’s White House staff, a prominent conservative judge, and several others.

Today’s witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, is another Republican and another former member of President Trump’s White House staff. Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, but she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House Legislative Affairs Office and later was the principal aide to President Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

Ms. Hutchinson has spent considerable time up here on Capitol Hill representing the Trump administration, and we welcome her back. Up until now, our hearings have each been organized to address specific elements of President Trump’s plan to overturn the 2020 election. Today we are departing somewhat from that model because Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony touches on several important and cross-cutting topics, topics that are relevant to each of our future hearings.

In her role working for the White House chief of staff, Ms. Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office. Ms. Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high ranking officials in the administration,

with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House counsel lawyers and with Mr. Tony Ornato, who served as the White House deputy chief of staff.

She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House. In short, Ms. Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House. Ms. Hutchinson has already sat for four videotaped interviews with committee investigators, and we thank her very much for her cooperation and for her courage.

We will cover certain, but not all, relevant topics within Ms. Hutchinson’s knowledge today. Again, our future hearings will supply greater detail, putting the testimony today in a broader and more complete context. Today you will hear Ms. Hutchinson relate certain firsthand observations of President Trump’s conduct on January 6th. You will also hear new information regarding the actions and statements of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers that day, including his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and his White House counsel, and we will begin to examine evidence bearing on what President Trump and members of the White House staff knew about the prospect for violence on January 6th, even before that violence began.

To best communicate the information the committee has gathered, we will follow the practice of our recent hearings, playing videotaped testimony from Ms. Hutchinson and others and also posing questions to Ms. Hutchinson live. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you very much. Our witness today is Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, who served in the Trump administration in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs from 2019 to 2020 and as a special assistant to the president in the White House chief of staff’s office from March 2020 through January 2021. I will now swear in our witness.

The witness will please stand and raise her right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: [Off mic]

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. I now recognize myself for questions. Ms. Hutchinson, I’d like to start with a few questions about your background. The — these are some photographs we’ve obtained highlighting your career. These show you with members of Congress, including Steve Scalise, as well as the White House with leader Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan.

Others show you with the –president and members of Congress aboard Air Force One. Before you worked in the White House, you worked on Capitol Hill for Representative Steve Scalise, the Republican whip, and Senator Ted Cruz. And then in 2019, you moved to the White House and served there until the end of the Trump administration in 2020. When you started at the White House, you served at — in the Office of Legislative Affairs.

We understand that you were initially hired as a staff assistant, but were soon promoted to a position of greater responsibility. Can you explain your role for the committee?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I moved over to the White House chief of staff’s office with Mr. Meadows when he became the fourth chief of staff, it’s difficult to describe a typical day. I was a special assistant to the president and an adviser to — advisor to the chief of staff. The days depended on what the president was doing that day, and that’s kind of how my portfolio was reflected.

I had a lot of outreach with members of Congress, senior cabinet — cabinet officials. You would work on — I would work on policy issues with relevant internal components and members on the Hill, as well as security protocol at the White House complex for Mr. Meadows and the president.

BENNIE THOMPSON: And then you received another promotion in March 2020. At that time, you became the principal aide to the new White House Chief of staff Mark Meadows. Is that right?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct sir.

BENNIE THOMPSON: What did a typical day look like for you in your work with Mr. Meadows?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: It varied with what was going on. We spent a lot of time on the Hill. I spent time on the Hill independently, too, as I was his liaison for Capitol Hill. We did a lot of Presidential travel engagements, but mostly I was there to serve what the Chief of Staff needed. And a lot of times what the Chief of staff needed was a reflection of what the President’s schedule was detailed to do that day.

BENNIE THOMPSON: So is it fair to say that you spoke regularly in your position, both with members of Congress and with senior members of the Trump administration?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct. That’s a fair assessment sir.

BENNIE THOMPSON: And would you say that in your work with Mr. Meadows, you were typically in contact with him and others in the White House throughout the day?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct sir. Mr. Meadows and I were in contact almost — pretty much throughout every day consistently.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Although, so much of grave importance happens in the West Wing of the White House, it’s a quite a small building. Above me on the screen, you can see a map of the first floor of the West Wing of the White House. On the right, you can see the President’s Oval Office. On the left, the Chief of Staff’s office suite.

Within the Chief of Staff’s office suite as the heart of the West Wing was your desk, which was between the Vice President’s office, Mr. Kushner’s office and the Oval Office. Ms. Hutchinson, Is this an accurate depiction of where you were located?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: It’s accurate. It’s a lot smaller than it looks.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Absolutely. Ms. Hutchinson, this is a photo that shows the short distance between your office and the President’s Oval Office. And it only takes 5 to 10 seconds or so to walk down the hall from your office to the Oval Office. Is that right?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. Pursuant to the Section 5c(8) of House Resolution 503, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for questions.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we will begin today with an exchange that first provided Ms. Hutchinson a tangible sense of the ongoing planning for the events of January 6th. On January 2nd, four days before the attack on our Capitol, President Trump’s lead lawyer Mr. Giuliani was meeting with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and others.

Ms. Hutchinson, do you remember Mr. Giuliani meeting with Mr. Meadows on January 2, 2021?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I do. He met with Mr. Meadows in the evening of January 2, 2021.

LIZ CHENEY: And we understand that you walked Mr. Giuliani out of the White House that night, and he talked to you about January 6th. What do you remember him saying?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: As Mr. Giuliani and I were walking to his vehicles that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of, Cass, are you excited for the 6th? It’s going to be a great day. I remember looking at him saying, Rudy, could you explain what’s happening on the 6th? He had responded something to the effect of, we’re going to the Capitol.

It’s going to be great. The President’s going to be there. He’s going to look powerful. He’s — he’s going to be with the members. He’s going to be with the Senators. Talk to the chief about it, talk to the chief about it. He knows about it.

LIZ CHENEY: And did you go back then up to the West Wing and tell Mr. Meadows about your conversation with Mr. Giuliani?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I did. After Mr. Giuliani had left the campus that evening, I went back up to our office and I found Mr. Meadows in his office on the couch. He was scrolling through his phone. I remember leaning against the doorway and saying, I just had an interesting conversation with Rudy, Mark. It sounds like we’re going to go to the Capitol.

He didn’t look up from his phone and said something to the effect of, there’s a lot going on, Cass, but I don’t know. Things might get real, real bad on January 6th.

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson. Mr. Meadows is engaged in litigation with the committee to try to avoid testifying here. What — what was your reaction when he said to you things might get real, real bad?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: In the days before January 2nd, I was apprehensive about the 6th. I had heard general plans for a rally. I had heard tentative movements to potentially go to the Capitol. But when hearing Rudy’s take on

January 6th and then Marc’s response, that was the first — that evening was the first moment that I remember feeling scared and nervous for what could happen on January 6th. And I had a deeper concern for what was happening with the planning aspects of it.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you, Ms. Hutchinson. Today, we’re going to be focusing primarily on the events of January 5th and 6th at the White House. But to begin and to frame the discussion, I want to talk about a conversation that you had with Mr. John Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence. And you had this conversation in December of 2020. Mr. Ratcliffe was nominated by President Trump to oversee US intelligence — our US intelligence community.

And before his appointment, Mr. Ratcliffe was a Republican member of Congress. As you will see on this clip, Director Ratcliffe’s comments in December of 2020 were prescient. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: My understanding was Mr. — Director Ratcliffe didn’t want much to do with the post-election period. Director Ratcliffe felt that It wasn’t something that the White House should be pursuing. It felt it was dangerous for the President’s legacy. He had expressed to me that he was concerned that it could spiral out of control and potentially be dangerous, either for our democracy or the way that things were going for the 6th.

UNKNOWN: When you say it wasn’t something the White House should be pursuing, what’s the it?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Trying to fight the results of the election, finding missing ballots, pressuring — filing lawsuits in certain states where there didn’t seem to be significant evidence, and reaching out to state legislatures about that. So pretty much the way that the White House was handling the postelection period, he felt that there could be dangerous repercussions, in terms of precedent set for elections, for our democracy, for the 6th. You know, he was hoping that we would concede. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: So, Ms. Hutchinson, now we’re going to turn to certain information that was available before January 4th and what the Trump administration and the President knew about the potential for violence before January 6th. On the screen, you will see an email received by Acting Deputy Attorney General Donoghue on January 4th from the National Security Division of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Donoghue testified in our hearings last week. The email identifies apparent planning by those coming to Washington on January 6th to, quote, occupy federal buildings and discussions of, quote, invading the Capitol building. Here’s what Mr. Donoghue said to us. [Begin videotape]

RICHARD DONOGHUE: And we knew that if you have tens of thousands of very obsessive people showing up in Washington DC that there was potential for violence. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: The US Secret Service was looking at similar information and watching the planned demonstrations. In fact, their intelligence division sent several emails to White House personnel like Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato and the head of the President’s protective detail Robert Engel, including certain materials listing events like those on the screen.

The White House continued to receive updates about planned demonstrations, including information regarding the Proud Boys organizing and planning to attend events on January 6th. Although Ms. Hutchinson has no detailed knowledge of any planning involving the Proud Boys for January 6th, she did note this. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I recall hearing the word Oath Keeper and hearing the word Proud Boys closer to the planning of the January 6th rally when Mr. Giuliani would be around. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: On January 3rd, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington, DC on January 6th and indicated that, quote, unlike previous post-election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter-protesters as they were previously, but rather Congress itself is the target on the 6th. Of course, we all know now that the Proud Boys showed up on January 6th, marched from the Washington Monument to the Capitol that day, and led the riotous mob to invade and occupy our Capitol.

Ms. Hutchinson, I want to play you a clip of one of our meetings when you described a call on January 4th that you received from National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien on the same topic, potential violence on January 6th. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I received a call from Robert O’Brien, the National Security Advisor. He had asked if he could speak with Mr. Meadows about potential violent — words of violence that he was hearing that were potentially going to happen on the Hill on January 6th. I had asked if he had connected with Tony Ornato, because Tony Ornato had a conversation with him, with Mark, about that topic.

Robert had said, I’ll talk to Tony, and then I don’t know if Robert ever connected with Mark about the issue. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson, can you describe for us Mr. Ornato’s responsibilities as Deputy Chief of Staff?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: The Deputy Chief of Staff position at the White House for operations is arguably one of the most important positions that somebody can hold. They’re in charge of all security protocol for the campus and all Presidential protectees, primarily the President and the first family. But anything that requires security for any individual that has presidential protection, so the Chief of Staff or the National Security Advisor, as well as the Vice President’s team, too, Tony would oversee all of that.

And he was the conduit for security protocol between White House staff and the United States Secret Service.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you. And you also described a brief meeting between Mr. Ornato and Mr. Meadows on the potential for violence. The meeting was on January 4th. They were talking about the potential for

violence on January 6th. Let’s listen to a clip of that testimony. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I remember Mr. Ornato had talked to him about intelligence reports. I just remember Mr. Ornato coming in and saying that we had intel reports saying that there could potentially be violence on the 6th. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: You also told us about reports of violence and weapons that the Secret Service were receiving on the night of January 5th and throughout the day on January 6th. Is that correct?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct.

LIZ CHENEY: There are reports that police in Washington, DC had arrested several people with firearms or ammunition following a separate pro-Trump rally in Freedom Plaza on the evening of January 5th. Are those some of the reports that you recall hearing about?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: They are.

LIZ CHENEY: Of course, the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. The Select Committee has learned that people who willingly entered the enclosed area for President Trump’s speech were screened so they could attend the rally at the Ellipse.

They had weapons and other items that were confiscated: pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, tasers, body armor, gas masks, batons, blunt weapons. And those were just from the people who chose to go through the security for the President’s event on the Ellipse, not the several thousand

members of the crowd who refused to go through the mags and watched from the lawn near the Washington Monument.

The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers, and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6th. Let’s listen. [Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN: There’s an individual who is in a tree. It’s gonna be a white male, about six feet tall, thin build, brown cowboy boots. He’s got jeans and a blue jean jacket, and underneath the hoodie jacket the complainants both saw stock of an AR-15. He’s going to be with a group of individuals, about 5 to 8 — 5 to 8 other individuals.

Two of the individuals in that group at the base of the tree near the porta-pottys were wearing green fatigues, green olive dress house fatigues. About 5’8″, 5’9″, skinny — skinny white males, brown cowboy boots.

UNKNOWN: They had Glock style pistols in their waistband. 8736– That subject’s weapon on his right hip. That’s a negative, he’s in the tree. Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree south side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the Don’t Tread on Me flag, American flag facemask, cowboy boots, weapon on the right — right side hip. I got three men walking down the street in fatigues.

One’s carrying a AR-15. Copy at 14th and Independence. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: AR-15s at 14th and Independence. As you saw in those emails, the first report that we showed we now know was sent in the 8:00 hour on January 6th. This talked about people in the crowd wearing ballistic helmets and body armor, carrying radio equipment and military grade backpacks. The second report we showed you on the screen was sent by the Secret Service in the 11 a.m. hour and it addressed reports of a man with a rifle near the ellipse.

Ms. Hutchinson, in prior testimony you described for us a meeting in the White House around 10 a.m. in the morning of January 6th involving Chief of Staff Meadows and Tony Ornato. Were you in that meeting?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was.

LIZ CHENEY: Let’s listen to your testimony about that meeting and then we’ll have some questions. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN: I think the last time we talked you mentioned that some of the weapons that people had at the rally included flagpoles, oversized sticks or flagpoles, bear spray. Is there anything else that you recall hearing about that the — the people who had gathered on the ellipse had?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I recall Tony and I having a conversation with Mark probably around 10 a.m., 10:15 a.m. where I remember Tony mentioning knives, guns in the form of pistols and rifles, bear spray, body armor, spears, and flagpoles. Spears were one item, flagpoles were one item. But then Tony had related to me something to the effect of and these effing people are fastening spears onto the ends of flagpoles. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson, here’s a clip of your testimony regarding Mr. Meadows’ response to learning that the rally attendees were armed that day. [Begin Videotape]

What was Mark’s reaction — Mr. Meadows’ reaction to this list of weapons that people had in the crowd?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When Tony and I went in to talk to Mark that morning, Mark was sitting on his couch and on his phone which was something typical. And I remember Tony just got right into it. He was like, sorry, I just want to let you know and informed him, like, this is how many people we have outside the mags right now.

These are the weapons that we’re going to have. It’s possible he listed more weapons off that I just don’t recall. And gave him a brief but — and concise explanation, but also fairly — fairly thorough. And I remember distinctly Mark not looking up from his phone, right? I remember Tony finishing his explanation and it taking a few seconds for Mark to say his name.

Because I almost said, Mark, did you hear him? And then Mark chimed in. It was like, Alright, anything else? Still looking down at his phone. And Tony looked at me and I looked at Tony and he — Tony said no, Sir. Do you have any questions? He’s like, what are you hearing? And I looked at Tony and I was like, Sir he just told you about what was happening down at the rallies.

And he was like yeah, yeah. I know. And then he looked up and said have you talked to the President? And Tony said yes, Sir. He’s aware. And he said Alright. Good.

LIZ CHENEY: He asked Tony if Tony had informed the President —

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: — Yes —

LIZ CHENEY: — And Tony said yes, he had. [End Videotape] So Miss Hutchinson, is it your understanding that Mr. Ornato told the President about weapons at the rally on the morning of January 6th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s what Mr. Ornato relayed to me.

LIZ CHENEY: And here’s how you characterized Mr. Meadows’ general response when people raised concerns about what could happen on January 6th. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN: So at the time in the days leading up to the 6th, there were lots of public reports about how things might go bad on the 6th, even the potential for violence. If I’m hearing you correctly, what stands out to you is that Mr. Meadows did not share those concerns or at least did not act on those concerns.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Did not act on those concerns would be accurate.

UNKNOWN: But other people raised them to — to him like in this exchange you mentioned that Mr. Ornato pulled him aside.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson, we’re going to show now an exchange of texts between you and Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato. And these text messages were exchanged while you were at the ellipse. In one text you write: But the crowd looks good from this vantage point. As long as we get the shot. He was effing furious.

And the text messages also stress that President Trump kept mentioning the OTR, an off the record movement. We’re going to come back and ask you about that in a minute. But could you tell us, first of all, who it is in the text who was furious?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: The he in that text that I was referring to was the President.

LIZ CHENEY: And why was he furious, Miss Hutchinson?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was furious because he wanted the arena that we had on the ellipse to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. The advanced team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing. Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in. But he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in.

LIZ CHENEY: And did you go to the rally in the Presidential motorcade?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I — I was there, yes, in the motorcade.

LIZ CHENEY: And were you backstage with the President and other members of his staff and family?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was.

LIZ CHENEY: And you told us, Ms. Hutchinson, about particular comments that you heard while you were in the tent area. [Begin Videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When we were in the offstage announce area tent behind the stage he was very concerned about the shot, meaning the photograph that we would get, because the rally space wasn’t full. One of the reasons which I’ve previously stated was because he wanted it to be full and for people to not feel excluded because they had come far to watch him at the rally.

And he felt the mags were at fault for not letting everybody in. But another leading reason and likely the primary reason is because he wanted it full and he was angry that we weren’t letting people through the mags with weapons, what the Secret Service deemed as weapons and are — are weapons.

But when we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the President say something to the effect of, you know, I – – I don’t effing care that they have weapons.

They’re not here to hurt me. Take that effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Just to be clear, Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that the President wanted to take the mags away and said that the armed individuals were not there to hurt him?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s a fair assessment.

LIZ CHENEY: The issue wasn’t with the amount of space available in the official rally area only, but instead that people did not want to have to go through the mags. Let’s listen to a portion of what you told us about that. [Begin Videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: In this particular instance, it wasn’t the capacity of our space. It was the mags and the people that didn’t want to come through. And that’s what Tony had been trying to relay to him that morning. You know, it’s not the issues that we encounter on the campaign. We have enough space, Sir. They don’t want to come in right now.

They — they have weapons that they don’t want confiscated by the Secret Service. And they’re fine on the mall. They can see you on the mall and they’re — they want to march straight to the Capitol from the mall. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: The President apparently wanted all attendees inside the official rally space and repeatedly said, quote, “They’re not here to hurt me.” [Begin Videotape] And — and just to — to be clear. So he was told again in — in that conversation — or was he told again in that conversation that people couldn’t come through the mags because they had weapons?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Correct.

LIZ CHENEY: And that people — and he — his response was to say they can march to the Capitol from — is it from the ellipse?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Something to the effect of take the effing mags away. They’re not here to hurt me. Let them in. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol after the rallies are over. They can march from — they can march from the ellipse. Take the effing mags away. Then they can march to the Capitol. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson, what we saw when those clips were playing were photos provided by the National Archives showing the President in the offstage tent before his speech on the ellipse. You were in some of those photos as well. And I just want to confirm that that is when you heard the President say the people with weapons weren’t there to hurt him and that he wanted the Secret Service to remove the magnetometers.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct. In the photos that you displayed we were standing towards the front of the tent with the TVs really close to where he would walk out to go on to the stage. The — these conversations happened two to three minutes before he took the stage that morning.

LIZ CHENEY: Let’s reflect on that for a moment. President Trump was aware that a number of the individuals in the crowd had weapons and were wearing body armor.

And here’s what President Trump instructed the crowd to do. [Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down — [Applause] — We’re going to walk down any one you want. But I think right here. We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. [Applause] [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: And the crowd as we know did proceed to the Capitol. It soon became apparent to the Secret Service including the Secret Service teams in the crowd along with White House staff that security at the Capitol would not be sufficient. [Begin Videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I had two or three phone conversations with Mr. Ornato when we were at the ellipse. And then I had four men on Mr. Meadows’ detail with me in between those individuals and a few other bodies on the ground just secret service doing advance. They’re getting notifications through their radios and Mr. Ornato on one phone conversation had called me and said make sure the Chief knows that they’re — they’re getting close to the Capitol.

It’s — they’re having trouble stacking bodies. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, when you — you said they were having trouble stacking bodies, did you mean that law enforcement at the Capitol needed more people to defend the Capitol from the rioters?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: It was becoming clear to us and to the Secret Service that Capitol Police officers were getting overrun at the security barricades outside of the Capitol building. And they were having short — they were short people to defend the building against the rioters.

LIZ CHENEY: And you mentioned that Mr. Ornato was conveying this to you because he wanted you to tell Mr. Meadows.

So did you — did you tell Mr. Meadows that people were getting closer to the Capitol and that Capitol Police was having challen — difficulty?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: After I had the conversation with Mr. Meadows, Mr. — after I had the conversation with Mr. Ornato I went to have the discussion with Mr. Meadows. He was in a secure vehicle at the time making a call. So when I had gone over to the car, I went to open the door to let him know and he had immediately shut it. I don’t know who he was speaking with.

It wasn’t something that he regularly did, especially when I would go over to give him information. So I was a bit taken aback, but I didn’t think much of it and thinking that I was — would be able to have the conversation with him a few moments later.

LIZ CHENEY: And were you able to have that conversation a few moments later?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Probably about 20 to 25 minutes later. There was another period of between where he shut the door again and then when he finally got out of the vehicle we had the conversation. But at that point there was a backlog of information that he should have been made aware of.

LIZ CHENEY: And so you opened the door to the control car and Mr. Meadows pulled it shut?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct.

LIZ CHENEY: And he did that two times?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct.

LIZ CHENEY: And when you finally were able to give Mr. Meadows the information about the violence at the Capitol, what was his reaction?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He almost had a lack of reaction. I remember him saying Alright, something to the effect of how much longer does the President have left in this speech?

LIZ CHENEY: Again, much of this information about the potential for violence was known or learned before the onset of the violence, early enough for President Trump to take steps to prevent it. He could, for example, have urged the crowd at the ellipse not to march to the Capitol. He could have condemned the violence immediately once it began.

Or he could have taken multiple other steps. But as we will see today and in later hearings, President Trump had something else in mind. One other question at this point Miss Hutchinson. Were you aware of concerns that White House counsel Pat Cipollone or Eric Herschmann had about the language President Trump used in his ellipse speech?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: There were many discussions the morning of the six about the rhetoric of the speech that day. In my conversations with Mr. Herschmann, he had relayed that we would be foolish to include language that had been included at the President’s request, which had lines along — to the effect of fight for Trump. We’re going to march the Capitol.

I’ll be there with you. Fight for me. Fight for what we’re doing. Fight for the movement. Things about the Vice President at the time too. Both Mr. Herschmann and White House counsel’s office were urging the speechwriters to not include that language for legal concerns, and also for the optics of what it could portray the president wanting to do that day.

LIZ CHENEY: And we just heard the president say that he would be with his supporters as they marched to the Capitol. Even though he did not end up going, he certainly wanted to. Some have questioned whether President Trump genuinely planned to come here to the Capitol on January 6th. In his book, Mark Meadows falsely wrote that after President Trump gave his speech on January 6th, he told Mr. Meadows that he was, quote, speeding — speaking metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol.

As you will see, Donald Trump was not speaking metaphorically. As we heard earlier, Rudy Giuliani told Ms. Hutchinson that Mr. Trump planed to travel to the Capitol on January 6th. I want to pause for just a moment to ask you, Ms. Hutchinson, to explain some of the terminology you will hear today. We’ve heard you use two different terms to describe plans for the president’s movement to the Capitol or anywhere else.

One of those is a scheduled movement and another one is OTR. Could you describe for us what each of those means?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: A scheduled presidential movement is on his official schedule. It’s notified to the press and to a wide range of staff that will be traveling with him. It’s known to the public, known as the Secret Service, and they’re able to coordinate the movement days in advance. An off the record movement is confined to the knowledge of a very, very small group of advisers and staff.

Typically a very small group of staff would travel with him, mostly that are just included in the national security package. You can pull an off to — off the record movement together in less than an hour. It’s a way to kind of circumvent having to release it to the press, if that’s the goal of it, or to not have to have as many security parameters put in place ahead of time to make a movement happen.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you. And let’s turn back now to the president’s plans to travel to the Capitol on January 6th. We know that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone was concerned about the legal implications of such a trip, and he agreed with the Secret Service that it shouldn’t happen. Ms. Hutchinson, did you have any conversations with Pat Cipollone about his concerns about the president going to the Capitol on January 6th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: On January 3rd, Mr. Cipollone had approached me knowing that Mark had raised the prospect of going up to the Capitol on January 6th. Mr. Cipollone and I had a brief private conversation where he said to me we need to make sure that this doesn’t happen. This would be a legally a terrible idea for us. We’re — we have serious legal concerns if we go up to the Capitol that day.

And he then urged me to continue relaying that to Mr. Meadows, because it’s my understanding that Mr. Cipollone thought that Mr. Meadows was indeed pushing this, along with the president.

LIZ CHENEY: And we understand, Ms. Hutchinson, that you also spoke to Mr. Cipollone on the morning of the 6th as you were about to go to the rally on the Ellipse, and Mr. Cipollone said something to you like make sure the movement to the Capitol does not happen. Is that correct?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct. I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning, and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.

LIZ CHENEY: And do you remember which crimes Mr. Cipollone was concerned with?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: In the days leading up to the 6th, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count.

LIZ CHENEY: Let’s hear about some of those concerns that you mentioned earlier in one of your interviews with us. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Having a private conversation with Pat late in the afternoon of the 3rd or 4th that Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice or obstructing the Electoral College count. And I apologize for probably not being so very clear with my legal terms here, but that it would look like we were obstructing what was happening on Capitol Hill.

And he was also worried that it would look like we were inciting a riot or encouraging a riot to erupt on the Capitol — at the Capitol. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: In fact, in the days before January 6th and on January 6th itself, President Trump expressed to multiple White House aides that he wanted to go to the Capitol after his speech. Here’s what various White House aides have told the committee about the president’s desire to go to the Capitol. [Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN: Did the president tell you this, that he wanted to speak at the Capitol.

MAX MILLER: Correct. Yes.

UNKNOWN: During the meeting in the dining room, did the — the idea of the president proceeding or walking to the Capitol on the 6th after his speech come up?

MAX MILLER: Walking to the Capitol? No.

UNKNOWN: Driving to the Capitol?

MAX MILLER: It came up.

UNKNOWN: Ok. How did it come up and what was discussed?

MAX MILLER: He brought it up. He said I want to go down to the Capitol.

UNKNOWN: What about him marching to the Capitol on the 6th?

NICK LUNA: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Tell us about that.

NICK LUNA: So, it’s kind of a general thing. I mean, to get into the specifics of it, I — I was aware of the desire of the president to potentially march to the — or — or accompany the rally attendees to the Capitol.

UNKNOWN: When did you first hear about this idea of the president accompanying rally attendees to the Capitol on the 6th?

NICK LUNA: Well, this was at the 6th. This was during the — and after he finished his remarks. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: When the president said that he would be going to the Capitol during his speech on the Ellipse, the Secret Service scrambled to find a way for him to go. We know this from witnesses and the Secret Service, also from messages among staff on the president’s National Security Council. The NSC staff were monitoring the situation in real time, and you can see how the situation evolved in the following chat log that the committee has obtained.

As you can see, NSC staff believed that MOGUL, the president, was “going to the Capitol,” and “they are finding the best route now.” From these chats, we also know the staff learned of the attack on the Capitol in real time. When President Trump left the Ellipse stage at 1:10, the staff knew that rioters had invaded the inaugural stage and Capitol Police were calling for all available officers to respond.

When Republican leader Kevin McCarthy heard the president say he was going to the Capitol, he called you, Ms. Hutchinson, isn’t that right?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct.

LIZ CHENEY: And in this text message, you told Tony Ornato, “McCarthy just called me too. And do you guys think you’re coming to my office?” Tell us about the call that day with Leader McCarthy during the president’s speech on the Ellipse.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was still in the tent behind the stage. And when you’re behind the stage, you can’t really hear what’s going on in front of you. So, when Mr. McCarthy called me with this information, I answered the call. And he sounded rushed, but also frustrated and angry at me. I — I was confused because I — I didn’t know what the president had just said.

He then explained the president just said he’s marching to the Capitol. You told me this whole week you aren’t coming up here. Why would you lie to me? I said I’m — I’m not lying. I wasn’t lying to you, sir. I — we’re not going to the Capitol. And he said, well, he just said it on stage, Cassidy. Figure it out.

Don’t come up here. I said I’ll — I’ll — I’ll run the traps on this and I’ll shoot you a text. I can assure you we’re not coming up to the Capitol. We’ve already made that decision. He pressed a little bit more, believing me but I think frustrated that the president had said that. And we ended the phone conversation after that.

I called Mr. Ornato to reconfirm that we weren’t going to the Capitol, and which was also in our text messages. I sent Mr. McCarthy another text telling him the affirmative, that we were not going up to the Capitol, and he didn’t respond after that.

LIZ CHENEY: And we understand, Ms. Hutchinson, that the plans for the president to come up to the Capitol had included discussions at some point about what the president would do when he came up to the Capitol on January 6th. Let’s look at a clip of one of your interviews discussing that issue with the committee. [Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN: When you were talking about a scheduled movement, did anyone say what the president wanted to do when he got here?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: No, not that I can specifically remember. I remember — I remember hearing a few different ideas discussed with — between Mark and Scott Perry, Mark and Rudy Giuliani. I don’t know which conversations were elevated to the president. I don’t know what he personally wanted to do when he went up to the Capitol that day.

You know, I — I know that there were discussions about him having another speech outside of the Capitol before going in. I know that there was a conversation about him going into the House chamber at one point. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: As we’ve all just heard, in the days leading up to January 6th, on the day of the speech, both before and during and after the rally speech, President Trump was pushing his staff to arrange for him to come up here to the Capitol during the electoral vote count. Let’s turn now to what happened in the president’s vehicle when the Secret Service told him he would not be going to the Capitol after his speech. First, here is the president’s motorcade leaving the Ellipse after his speech on January 6th. Ms. Hutchinson, when you returned to the White House in the motorcade after the president’s speech, where did you go?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff’s office, and I noticed Mr. Ornato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engel, who was the head of Mr. Trump’s security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.

I looked at Tony and he had said, did you f’ing hear what happened in the beast? I said, no, Tony, I — I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.

So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we’re not, we don’t have the assets to do it, it’s not secure, we’re going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.

Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I’m the f’ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.

We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. — when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.

LIZ CHENEY: And was Mr. Engel in the room as Mr. Ornato told you this story?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He was.

LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel correct or disagree with any part of this story from Mr. Ornato?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story.

LIZ CHENEY: Did Mr. Engel or Mr. Ornato ever after that tell you that what Mr. Ornato had just said was untrue?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Neither Mr. Ornato nor Mr. Engel told me ever that it was untrue.

LIZ CHENEY: And despite this altercation, this physical altercation during the ride back to the White House, President Trump still demanded to go to the Capitol. Here’s what Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary at the time, wrote in her personal notes and told the committee about President Trump’s desire to go to the Capitol after returning to the White House. [Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN: When you wrote POUTS wanted to walk to the Capitol, was that based solely on what the president said during his speech or anything that he or anybody else said afterwards?

KAYLEIGH MCENANY: So, to the best of my recollection, I believe when we got back to the White House he said he wanted to physically walk with the marchers. And according to my notes, he then said, you’d be fine with just writing the piece, but — so that’s my recollection. He wanted to be a part of the March in some fashion.

UNKNOWN: Alright. And just for the record, the piece refers to the Presidential limousine?

KAYLEIGH MCENANY: Yes. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: President Trump did not go to the Capitol that day. We understand that he blamed Mark Meadows for that. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: So prior to leaving the rally site when he got off the stage and everybody was making the movement back to the motorcade, I had overheard Mr. Meadows say to him then, as I had prior to Mr. Trump taking the stage that morning, that he was still working on getting an off-the-record movement to the Capitol.

So when Mr. Trump took the stage, he was under the impression by Mr. Meadows that it was still possible. So when he got off the stage, I had relayed to Mr. Meadows that I had another conversation with Tony. The movement was still not possible. Mr. Meadows said, Ok. And then as they proceeded to go to the motorcade and Mr. Meadows had reiterated, we’re going to work on it, sir.

Talk to Bobby. Bobby has more information. Mark got into his vehicle, to my understanding. Trump got into the [Inaudible]. And after we had all arrived back at the White House later in the day, it had been relayed to me via Mark that the President wasn’t happy that Bobby didn’t pull it off for him, and that Mark didn’t work hard enough to get the movement on the books. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: The physical altercation that Ms. Hutchinson described in the Presidential vehicle was not the first time that the President had become very angry about issues relating to the election. On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had not found evidence of widespread election fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election.

Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Around the time that I understand the AP article went live, I remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway. So I poked my head out of the office. I saw the valet walking towards our office. He had said, get the Chief down to the dining room. The President wants him. So Mark went down to the dining room, came back to the office a few minutes later.

After Mark had returned, I left the office and went down to the dining room and I noticed that the door was propped open and the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. He motioned for me to come in and then pointed towards the front of the room near the fireplace mantel and the TV, where I first noticed there was catsup dripping down the wall and there was a shattered porcelain plate on the floor.

The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General’s AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall, which was causing him to have to clean up. So I grabbed a towel and started wiping the catsup off of the wall to help the valet out. And he said something to the effect of, he’s really ticked off about this.

I would stay clear of him for right now. He’s really, really ticked off about this right now.

LIZ CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, was this the only instance that you are aware of where the President threw dishes?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: It’s not.

LIZ CHENEY: And are there other instances in the dining room that you recall where he expressed his anger?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: There were — there were several times throughout my tenure with the Chief of Staff that I was aware of him either throwing dishes or flipping the tablecloth to let all the contents of the table go onto the floor and likely break or go everywhere.

LIZ CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, Attorney General Barr described to the Committee the President’s angry reaction when he finally met with President Trump. Let’s listen. [Begin videotape]

WILLIAM BARR: And I said, look, I — I know that you’re dissatisfied with me and I’m glad to offer my resignation. And he pounded the table very hard and everyone sort of jumped in, and he said, accepted. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Mr. Chairman, I reserve.

BENNIE THOMPSON: The gentlewoman reserves. The Chair requests those in the hearing room to remain seated until the Capitol Police have escorted our witness from the room. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the Chair declares the Committee in recess for a period of approximately 10 minutes. [Recess]

The Committee will be in order. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Vice Chair Cheney.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we turn to what Ms. Hutchinson saw and heard in the White House during the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6th, let’s discuss certain communications White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows had on January 5th. President Trump’s associate, Roger Stone, attended rallies during the afternoon and the evening of January 5th in Washington, DC On January 5th and 6th, Mr. Stone was photographed with multiple members of the Oath Keepers who were allegedly serving as his security detail.

As we now know, multiple members of that organization have been charged with or pled guilty to crimes associated with January 6th. Mr. Stone has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination before this committee. General Michael Flynn has also taken the Fifth before this committee. Mr. Stone previously had been convicted of other federal crimes unrelated to January 6th.

General Flynn had pleaded guilty to a felony charge, also predating and unrelated to January 6th. President Trump pardoned General Flynn just weeks after the Presidential election, and in July of 2020, he commuted the sentence Roger Stone was to serve.

The night before January 6th, President Trump instructed his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to contact both Roger Stone and Michael Flynn regarding what would play out the next day. Ms. Hutchinson, Is it your understanding that President Trump asked Mark Meadows to speak with Roger Stone and General Flynn on January 5th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct. That is my understanding.

LIZ CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that Mr. Meadows called Mr. Stone on the 5th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I’m under the impression that Mr. Meadows did complete both a call to Mr. Stone and General Flynn the evening of the 5th.

LIZ CHENEY: And do you know what they talked about that evening, Ms. Hutchinson?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I’m not sure.

LIZ CHENEY: Is it your understanding that Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Eastman, and others had set up what has been called, quote, a war room at the Willard Hotel on the night of the 5th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was aware of that the night of the 5th.

LIZ CHENEY: And do you know if Mr. Meadows ever intended to go to the Willard Hotel on the night of the 5th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Meadows had a conversation with me where he wanted me to work with Secret Service on a movement from the White House to the Willard Hotel so he could attend the meeting or meetings with Mr. Giuliani and his associates in the war room.

LIZ CHENEY: And what was your view as to whether or not Mr. Meadows should go to the Willard that night?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I had made it clear to Mr. Meadows that I didn’t believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the Willard Hotel that night. I wasn’t sure everything that was going on at the Willard Hotel, although I knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period. I didn’t think that it was something appropriate for the White House Chief of Staff to attend or to consider involvement in, and made that clear to Mr. Meadows.

Throughout the afternoon, he mentioned a few more times going up to the Willard Hotel that evening, and then eventually dropped the subject the night of the 5th and said that he would dial in instead.

LIZ CHENEY: So General Flynn has appeared before this committee. And when he appeared before our committee, he took the Fifth. Let’s briefly view a clip of General Mike Flynn taking the Fifth Amendment. [Begin videotape] General Flynn, do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified?

UNKNOWN: Can we have a minute?

LIZ CHENEY: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Alright, we’re back. Congressman Cheney, could you repeat the question please?

LIZ CHENEY: Yes. General Flynn, do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified?

UNKNOWN: Is that — can I get a clarification? Is that a moral question or are you asking a legal question?

LIZ CHENEY: I’m asking both.

MICHAEL FLYNN: I said — I said the Fifth.

LIZ CHENEY: Do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified morally?

MICHAEL FLYNN: Take the Fifth.

LIZ CHENEY: Do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified legally?

MICHAEL FLYNN: Fifth.

LIZ CHENEY: General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?

MICHAEL FLYNN: The Fifth. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: That’s the — Let’s move on now to January 6th and the conduct of Donald Trump and Mark Meadows during the attack on the Capitol. Ms. Hutchinson, I’d like now for us to listen to a description — your description of what transpired in the West Wing during the attack. For context in this clip, you describe the time frame starting at about 2:00 p.m. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: So I remember Mark being alone in his office for quite some time. And, you know, I know we’ve spoken about Ben Williamson going in at one point, and I don’t personally remember Ben going in. I don’t doubt that he had gone in. But I remember him being alone in his office for most of the afternoon. Around 2:00 to 2:05 — around 2:00 to 2:05, you know, we were watching the TV and I could see that the rioters were getting closer and closer to the Capitol.

Mark still hadn’t popped out of his office or said anything about it. So that’s when I went into his office. I saw that he was sitting on his couch on his cell phone, same as the morning where he was just kind of scrolling and typing. I said, hey, are you watching the TV, Chief? Because his TV was small and I — you can see it, but I didn’t know if he was really paying attention.

I said, you watching the TV, Chief? He was like, yeah. I said, the rioters are getting really close. Have you talked to the President? And he said, no, he wants to be alone right now; still looking at his phone. So I start to get frustrated because, you know, I sort of felt like I was watching a — this is not a great comparison, but a bad car accident that was about to happen where you can’t stop it, but you want to be able to do something.

I just remember — I remember thinking in that moment, Mark needs to snap out of this and I don’t know how to snap him out of this, but he needs to care. And I just remember I blurted out and I said, Mark, do you know where Jim’s at right now? And he looked up at me at that point and said, Jim? And I said, Mark, Is — he was on the floor a little while ago giving a floor speech.

Did you listen? He said, yeah, it was real good. Did you like it? And I said, yeah. Do you know where he’s at right now? He said, no, I haven’t heard from him. And I said, you might want to check in with him, Mark. And I remember pointing at the TV and I said, the rioters are getting close. They might get in. And he looked at me and said something to the effect of, Alright, I’ll give him a call. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Not long after the rioters broke into the Capitol, you described what happened with White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: No more than a minute, minute and a half later, I see Pat Cipollone barreling down the hallway towards our office; and rush right in, looked at me, said, is Mark in his office? And I said, yes. He just looked at me and started shaking his head and went over — opened Mark’s office door, stood there with the door propped open and said something to — Mark is still sitting on his phone.

I remember like glancing and he’s still sitting on his phone. And I remember Pat saying to him something to the effect of, the rioters have gotten to the Capitol, Mark. We need to go down and see the President now. And Mark looked up at him and said, he doesn’t want to do anything, Pat. And Pat said something to the effect of — and very clearly had said this to Mark — something to the effect of, Mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your f’ing hands.

This is getting out of control. I’m going down there. And at that point, Mark set up from his couch, both of his phones in his hand. He had his glasses on still. He walked out with Pat. He put both of this phones on my desk and said, let me know if Jim calls. And they walked out and went down to the dining room. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: A few minutes later, Representative Jordan called back. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: A couple minutes later, so likely around between 2:15. 2:25 — I know the tweet went out at 2:24. I don’t remember if I was there when the tweet went out or if it happened right afterwards, but Jim had called. I answered the phone, said, one second. He knew it was — I guess he knew it was — and I introduced myself, but I — I don’t remember if he called my cell phone or if he had called one of Mark’s. But I answered the phone and said, one sec, Mark’s on the hall.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I’m going to go hand the phone to him and he said, Ok. So I went down. I asked the valet if Mark was in the dining room. The valet said, yes. I opened the door — The dining room, briefly stepped in to get Mark’s attention. I showed him the phone, like flipped the phone his way so he could see it said Jim Jordan. He had stepped to where I was standing there holding the door open, took the phone, talking to Jim with the door still propped open, so I took a few steps back.

So, I probably was two feet from Mark. He was standing in the doorway going into the Oval Office dining room. They had a brief conversation. And in the crossfires — you know, I heard briefly, like, what they were talking about, but in the background I had heard conversations in the Oval Dining Room with the — at that point talking about the hang Mike Pence chants. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: That clip ended, Ms. Hutchinson, with you recalling that you heard the president, Mr. Meadows, and the White House counsel discussing the hang Mike Pence chants, and then you described for us what happened next. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: It wasn’t until Mark hung up the phone, handed it back to me. I went back to my desk a couple of minutes later. Him and Pat came back, possibly Eric Herschmann too. I’m pretty sure Eric Herschmann was there, but I’m — I’m confident it was Pat that was there. I remember Pat saying something to the effect of, Mark, we need to do something more.

They’re literally calling for the vice president to be f’ing hung. And Mark had responded something to the effect of, you heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong, to which Pat said something, this is f’ing crazy, we need to be doing something more. Briefly stepped into Mark’s office, and when Mark had said something — when Mark had said something to the effect of he doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong. Knowing what I had heard briefly in the dining room coupled with Pat discussing the hanging Mike Pence chants in the lobby of our office and then Mark’s response, I understood “they’re” to be the rioters in the Capitol that were chanting for the vice president to be hung. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Let me pause here on this point. As rioters chanted hang Mike Pence, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, said that “Mike deserves it,” and that those rioters were not doing anything wrong. This is a sentiment that he has expressed at other times as well. In an interview with ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, President Trump was asked about the supporters chanting hang Mike Pence last year.

Instead of condemning them, the former president defended them. [Begin videotape]

JONATHAN KARL: Saying hang Mike Pence.

DONALD TRUMP: Because it’s — it’s common sense, Jon. It’s common sense that you’re supposed to protect — how can you — if you know a vote is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress? [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: President Trump’s view that the rioters were not doing anything wrong and that “Mike deserved it” helps us to understand why the president did not ask the rioters to leave the Capitol for multiple hours. In fact, he put this tweet out at 2:24 PM. Ms. Hutchinson, do you recall seeing this tweet, in which the president said the vice president did not have the courage to do what needed to be done?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I do.

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson, what was your reaction when you saw this tweet?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: As a staffer that worked to always represent the administration to the best of my ability and to showcase the good things that he had done for the country, I remember feeling frustrated and disappointed, and really it felt personal. I — I was really sad. As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic.

It was un-American. We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie, and it was something that was really hard in that moment to digest, knowing what I’ve been hearing down the hall and the conversations that were happening. Seeing that tweet come up and knowing what was happening on the Hill, and it’s something that I — it’s still — I still struggle to work through the emotions of that.

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson, we have also spoken to multiple other White House staff about their reaction to Donald Trump’s 2:24 tweet condemning Mike Pence for not having the courage to refuse to count electoral votes, an act that would have been illegal. Matthew Pottinger, a former Marine intelligence officer who served in the White House for four years, including — including as deputy national security adviser, was in the vicinity of the Oval Office at various points throughout the day.

When he saw that tweet, he immediately decided to resign his position. Let’s watch him describe his reaction to the president’s tweet. [Begin videotape]

MATTHEW POTTINGER: One of my staff brought me a printout of a tweet by the president, and the tweet said something to the effect that Mike Pence, the vice president, didn’t have the courage to do what he — what should have been done. I — I read that tweet and made a decision at that moment to resign. That’s where I knew that I was leaving that day once I read that tweet. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Ultimately, members of the White House staff, Sarah Matthews, Cabinet members Secretary Chao and Secretary DeVos resigned as well. Here is Secretary DeVos’s resignation letter. As you can see, in resigning on January 6th, Secretary DeVos said to the president, “There’s no mistaking the impact your rhetoric had on the situation, and it is the inflection point for me.” Let’s also look at Secretary Chao’s resignation statement.

When Secretary Chao resigned, she spoke of the January 6th attack and she said, “As I am sure is the case with many of you, this is deeply troubled me in a way I simply cannot set aside.” Ms. Hutchinson, in our prior interviews, we’ve asked you about what the president’s advisers were urging him to do during the attack.

You’ve described roughly three different camps of thought inside the White House that day. Can you tell us about those?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: There was a group of individuals that were strongly urging him to take immediate and swift action. I would classify the White House Counsel’s Office, Mr. Herschmann, Ms. Ivanka Trump in that category of really working to get him to take action and pleading with him to take action. There was a more neutral group where advisors were trying to toe the line, knowing that Mr. Trump didn’t necessarily want to take immediate action and condemn the riots, but knowing something needed to be done.

And then there was the last group, which was deflect and blame. Let’s blame Antifa. These aren’t our people. It’s my understanding that Mr. Meadows was in the deflect and blame category, but he did end up taking a more neutral route, knowing that there were several advisors in the president’s circle urging him to take more action, which I think was reflected in the rhetoric released later that day in the videos.

LIZ CHENEY: You told us that the White House Counsel’s Office was in the camp encouraging the president to tell the rioters to stop the attack and to leave the Capitol. Let’s listen. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: White House counsel’s office wanted there to be a strong statement out to condemn the rioters. I’m confident in that. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Now let’s look at just one example of what some senior advisers to the president were urging. Ms. Hutchinson, could you look at the exhibit that we’re showing on the screen now? Have you seen this note before?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff on January 6th, likely around 3:00.

LIZ CHENEY: And it’s written on a chief of staff note card, but that’s your handwriting, Ms. Hutchinson?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s my handwriting.

LIZ CHENEY: And why did you write this note?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: The chief of staff was in a meeting with Eric Hirschman and potentially Mr. Philbin, and they had rushed out of the office fairly quickly. Mark had handed me the note card with one of his pens, and sort of dictating a statement for the president to potentially put out.

LIZ CHENEY: And — no, I’m sorry. Go ahead.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s Ok. There are two phrases on there, one illegal and then one without proper authority. The illegal phrase was the one that Mr. Meadows had dictated to me. Mr. Herschmann had chimed in and said also put without legal authority. There should have been a slash between the two phrases. It was an — an or if the president had opted to put one of those statements out. Evidently he didn’t. Later that afternoon, Mark came back from the Oval Dining Room and put the palm card on my desk with illegally crossed out, but said we didn’t need to take further action on that statement.

LIZ CHENEY: So, to your knowledge, this statement was never issued.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: It was — to my knowledge, it was never issued.

LIZ CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, did you understand that Ivanka Trump wanted her father to send people home?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s my understanding, yes.

LIZ CHENEY: Let’s play a clip of you addressing that issue. [Begin videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I remember her saying at various points, you know, she wants him — she wanted her dad to send them home. She wanted her dad to tell them to go home peacefully, and she wanted to include language that he necessarily wasn’t on board with at the time. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: You will hear more about this at our later hearings, but we have evidence of many others imploring Donald Trump and Mark Meadows to take action. Here is some of that evidence, text messages sent to Mark Meadows during the attack. This is a text message at 2:32 from Laura Ingraham, hey, Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home.

In the next message, this is hurting all of us. And then, he’s destroying his legacy and playing into every stereotype. We lose all credibility against the BLM/Antifa crowd if things go south. The president’s son, Don Jr., also urgently contacted Mark Meadows at 2:53. He wrote, he’s got to condemn this shit ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.

As you will see, these are just two of the numerous examples of Trump supporters and allies urging the president to tell his supporters to leave, the Capitol. It would not have been hard for the president to simply walk down to the briefing room a few feet down the hall from the Oval Office, as Norah O’Donnell noted during an interview with House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, where Leader McCarthy said he believed the attack was un-American. [Begin videotape]

NORAH O’DONNELL: I want to quickly bring in Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader. Leader McCarthy, do you condemn this violence?

KEVIN MCCARTHY: I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we’re currently watching unfold is un- American. I am — I’m disappointed. I’m sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the First Amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now.

NORAH O’DONNELL: Leader McCarthy, the president of the United States has a briefing room steps from the Oval Office. It is — the cameras are hot 24/7, as you know. Why hasn’t he walked down and said that now?

KEVIN MCCARTHY: I — I conveyed to the president what I think is best to do, and I’m hopeful the president will do it. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Republican House member Mike Gallagher also implored the president to call off the attack. [Begin videotape]

MIKE GALLAGHER: Mr. President, you have got to stop this. You are the only person who can call this off. Call it off. The election is over. Call it off. This is bigger than you. It’s bigger than any member of Congress. It is about the United States of America, which is more important than any politician. Call it off. It’s over. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Despite the fact that many people close to Donald Trump were urging him to send people home, he did not do so until later, much later. At 4:17 PM, Donald Trump finally told the rioters to go home and that he loved them. Here’s a portion of the video President Trump recorded from the White House. [Begin videotape]

DONALD TRUMP: We have to have peace, so go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: But as we will show in even greater detail in future hearings, Donald Trump was reluctant to put this message out and he still could not bring himself to condemn the attack. Ms. Hutchinson has told us that, too. [Begin Videotape]

The one that he put out at 4:17?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I’m sure you’ve discussed it. And just to elaborate if I hadn’t already, at that point I recall him being reluctant to film the video on the 6th. I was not involved in any of the logistics or the planning for that video. I just remember seeing the video go out and feeling a little shocked after it went out. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: On the evening of January 6th and the day after the President’s family and his senior staff and others tried to encourage the President to condemn the violence and commit to the peaceful transition of power. At 3:31 p.m. on January 6th, Sean Hannity of Fox News texted Mark Meadows.

Mr. Hannity said quote, “Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to leave the [Capitol].” Later that evening Mr. Hannity sent another text message to Mark Meadows. This time he shared a link to a tweet. That tweet reported that President Trump’s cabinet secretaries were considering invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

As you can see on the screen, the 25th Amendment to the Constitution creates a process for the transition of power if a President is unfit or unable to serve. The 25th Amendment has never been used to remove a President. But the committee has learned that after the attack on the US Capitol this was being discussed by members of President Trump’s cabinet as a way of stripping the full power of the presidency from Donald Trump.

President Trump’s supporters were worried. In addition to the tweet that he sent Mark Meadows after the attack, Sean Hannity apparently spoke with President Trump and warned him about what could happen. We understand that this text message that Sean Hannity sent to Kayleigh McEnany on January 7th shows what Mr. Hannity said to the President.

First, no more stolen election talk. Second, impeachment and 25th amendment are real. Many people will quit. Ms. Hutchinson, you told us that you were hearing about discussions related to the 25th amendment. Here’s part of what you said. [Begin Videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Trump had every chance to have the conversation with Mr. Meadows in case he hadn’t heard the discussions amongst cabinet secretaries. And from what I understand, it was more of a — this is what I’m hearing. I want you to be aware of it, but I also think it’s worth putting on your radar because you are the Chief of Staff.

You’re technically the boss of all the cabinet secretaries. And, you know, if the conversations progressed you should be ready to take action on this. I — I’m concerned for you and your positioning with this. Reach out to me if you have any questions or, like, if I can be helpful with you at all. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Inside the White House the President’s advisors, including members of his family, wanted him to deliver a speech to the country. Deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin prepared the first draft of what would be the President’s remarks on national healing, delivered via pre-taped video on January 7th. When he arrived at the White House on the 7th, Mr. Philbin believed that more needed to be said.

So he sat down and started writing. He shared the draft with Pat Cipollone, who also believed the President needed to say more. Mr. Cipollone agreed with the content as did Eric Herschmann, who reviewed the draft. The committee has learned that the President did not agree with the substance as drafted and resisted giving a speech at all.

Ms. Hutchinson, do you recall discussions about the President’s speech on January 7th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I do.

LIZ CHENEY: Let’s listen, Ms. Hutchison, to what you told us about that and about the process of crafting those remarks. [Begin Videotape]

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I learned from a conversation with Mark and overhearing between him and White House Counsel and Eric Herschmann as well that Trump didn’t necessarily think he needed to do anything more on the 7th than what he had already done on the 6th. When he was convinced to put out a video on the 7th he — I understand that he had a lot of opinions about what the context of that announcement were to entail.

I had original drafts of the speech where, you know, there were — several lines didn’t make it in there about prosecuting the rioters or calling them violent. He didn’t want that in there. He wanted to put in there that he wanted to par — potentially pardon them. And this is just with the increased emphasis of his mindset at the time which was he didn’t think that they did anything wrong.

He — the people who did something wrong that day or the person who did something wrong that day was Mike Pence by not standing with him. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: But the President’s advisors urged him to give the speech. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN: Who convinced him to do the video on the 7th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I’m not sure who convinced him or if it was a group of people that convinced him.

UNKNOWN: Who was in the group that you’re aware of?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That I’m aware of, Mark, Ivanka, Jared Kushner, Eric Herschmann, Pat Cipollone, Pat Philbin. Those are the people that I’m aware of.

UNKNOWN: Do you know why that group of people thought it was necessary for him to release a statement?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I believe Kayleigh McEnany as well. From what I understood at the time and from what the reports were coming in there was a large concern of the 25th amendment potentially being invoked and there were concerns about what would happen in the Senate if it was — if the 25th was invoked. So the primary reason that I had heard other than, you know, we did not do enough on the 6th, we need to get a stronger message out there and condemn this is — otherwise this will be your legacy.

The secondary reasons to that was, you know, think about what might happen in the final 15 days of your presidency if we don’t do this. There’s already talks about invoking the 25th amendment. You need this as cover. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: The President ultimately delivered the remarks. Unlike many of his other speeches, he did not adlib much.

He recited them without significant alteration except one. Even then on January 7th, 2021, the day after the attack on the US Capitol, the President still could not bring himself to say, quote, “But this election is now over.” One other point about the speech, Ms. Hutchinson. Did you hear that Mr. Trump at one point wanted to add language about pardoning those who took part in the January 6th riot?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I did hear that, and I understand that Mr. Mead — that Mr. Meadows was encouraging that language as well.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you. And here’s what you told us previously about that. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN: You said he was instructed not to include it. Who was instructing him not to include language about the pardon in that January 7th speech?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I understood from White House Counsel’s Office coming to our office that morning that they didn’t think that it was a good idea to include that in the speech.

UNKNOWN: That being Pat Cipollone?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That’s correct. And Eric Herschmann. [End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson, did Rudy Giuliani ever suggest that he was interested in receiving a Presidential pardon related to January 6th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He did.

LIZ CHENEY: Ms. Hutchinson did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a Presidential pardon related to January 6th?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma’am.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you, Ms. Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: I want to thank our witness for joining us today. The members of the select committee may have additional questions for today’s witness and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. Without objections, members will be permitted 10 business days to submit statements for the record, including opening remarks and additional questions for the witness.

Without objection the Chair recognizes the Vice Chair for a closing statement.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking Ms. Hutchinson for her testimony today. We are all in her debt. Our nation is preserved by those who abide by their oaths to our Constitution. Our nation is preserved by those who know the fundamental difference between right and wrong. And I want all Americans to know that what Ms. Hutchinson has done today is not easy.

The easy course is to hide from the spotlight, to refuse to come forward, to attempt to downplay or deny what happened. That brings me to a different topic. While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly this has not been true of every witness. And we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern.

Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump’s Administration or campaign whether they’ve been contacted by any of their former colleagues or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony. Without identifying any of the individuals involved, let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question.

First, here is how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness’ testimony. Quote, “What they said to me is as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I’m on the right team. I’m doing the right thing. I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World.” “And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts.

And just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee.” Here’s another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses. Quote, “A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow.” “He wants me to let you know he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.” I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns.

We will be discussing these issues as a committee, carefully considering our next steps. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Gentlewoman yields back. Ms. Hutchinson, thank you. Thank you for doing your patriotic duty and helping the American people get a complete understanding of January 6th and its causes. Thank you for your courage in testifying here today. You have the gratitude of this committee and your country. I know it wasn’t easy to sit here today and answer these questions.

But after hearing your testimony in all its candor and detail, I want to speak directly to the handful of witnesses who have been outliers in our investigation. The small number who have defied us outright, those whose memories have failed them again and again on the most important details, and to those who fear Donald Trump and his enablers.

Because of this courageous woman and others like her, your attempt to hide the truth from the American people will fail. And to that group of witnesses, if you’ve heard this testimony today and suddenly you remember things you couldn’t previously recall, or there are some details you’d like to clarify, or you discovered some courage you had hidden away somewhere, our doors remain open.

The select committee will reconvene in the weeks ahead as we continue to lay out our findings to the American people. The Chair requests those in the hearing room to remain seated until the Capitol Police have escorted the witness and members from the room. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.

List of Panel Members

PANEL MEMBERS: REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MISS.), CHAIRMAN REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CALIF.)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CALIF.)

REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CALIF.)

REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FLA.) REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD.)

REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA.)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WYO.)

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-ILL.)

FORMER TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE AIDE CASSIDY HUTCHINSON

PANEL MEMBERS: REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MISS.), CHAIRMAN REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CALIF.), REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CALIF.), REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CALIF.), REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FLA.), REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD.), REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA.), REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WYO.)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-ILL.)

BENNIE THOMPSON: The Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point. Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the chair announces the committee’s approval to release the deposition material presented during today’s hearing.

Good afternoon. In our previous hearings, the Select Committee showed that then President Trump applied pressure at every level of government, from local election workers up to his own vice president, hoping public servants would give in to that pressure and help him steal an election he actually lost. Today we’ll tell the story of how the pressure campaign also targeted the federal agency charged with enforcement of our laws, the Department of Justice.

We already covered part of Mr. Trump’s effort. We heard from Attorney General Bill Barr tell the story in the committee about the baseless claims Mr. Trump wanted the Justice Department to investigate, and that Mr. Barr viewed those claims as nonsense. Today we’ll hear from Jeffrey Rosen, the person Mr. Trump appointed to run the Justice Department after Attorney General Barr resigned.

We’ll hear from other senior Justice Department officials also. Together, these public servants resisted Mr. Trump’s effort to misuse the Justice Department as part of his plan to hold on to power, and we will show that Trump’s demands that the department investigate baseless claims of election fraud continued into January 2021. But Donald Trump didn’t just want the Justice Department to investigate.

He wanted the Justice Department to help legitimize his lies, to basically call the election corrupt, to appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged election fraud, to send a letter to six state legislatures urging them to consider altering the election results. And when these and other efforts failed, Donald Trump sought to replace Mr. Rosen, the acting attorney general, with a lawyer who he believed would inappropriately put the full weight of the Justice Department behind the effort to overturn the election.

Let’s think about what that means. Wherever you live in the United States, there’s probably a local government executive, a mayor, or a county commissioner. There’s also an official responsible for enforcing the laws, a district attorney, or local prosecutor. Imagine if your mayor lost a reelection bid, but instead of conceding the race, they picked up the phone, called the district attorney, and said I want you to say this election was stolen.

I want you to tell the Board of Elections not to certify the results. That’s essentially what Donald Trump was trying to do with the election for president of the United States. It was a brazen attempt to use the Justice Department to advance the president’s personal political agenda. Today my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, and other witnesses will walk through the Select Committees findings on these matters.

But first, I recognize our distinguished vice chair, Ms. Cheney, of Wyoming for any opening statement she’d care to offer.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At this point, our committee has just begun to show America the evidence that we have gathered. There is much more to come, both in our hearings and in our report, but I’d like to take just a moment to put everything we’ve seen in context. We have already seen how President Trump falsely declared victory on November 3rd, 2020, how he and his team launched a fraudulent media campaign that persuaded tens of millions of Americans that the election was stolen from him.

Donald Trump intentionally ran false ads on television and social media featuring allegations that his advisers and his Justice Department repeatedly told him were untrue. We have also seen how Donald Trump launched a fraudulent fundraising campaign that raised hundreds of millions of dollars, again based on those same false election fraud allegations.

We have seen how President Trump and his allies corruptly attempted to pressure Vice President Pence to refuse to count lawful electoral votes and obstruct Congress’s proceedings on January 6th, and how he provoked a violent mob to pursue the vice president and others in our Capitol. We’ve seen how the president oversaw and personally participated in an effort in multiple states to vilify, threaten, and pressure election officials, and to use false allegations to pressure state legislators to change the outcome of the election.

We’ve seen how President Trump worked with and directed the Republican National Committee and others to organize an effort to create fake electoral slates and later to transmit those materially false documents to federal officials, again as part of his planning for January 6th. We have seen how President Trump persuaded tens of thousands of his supporters to travel to Washington DC for January 6th. And we will see in far more detail how the president’s rally and march to the Capitol were organized and choreographed.

As you can tell, these efforts were not some minor or ad hoc enterprise concocted overnight. Each required planning and coordination. Some required significant funding. All of them were overseen by President Trump, and much more information will be presented soon regarding the president’s statements and actions on January 6th. Today, as Chairman Thompson indicated, we turn to yet another element of the president’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, this one involving the Department of Justice.

A key focus of our hearing today will be a draft letter that our witnesses here today refused to sign. This letter was written by Mr. Jeff Clark with another Department of Justice lawyer, Ken Klukowski, and the letter was to be sent to the leadership of the Georgia state legislature. Other versions of the letter were intended for other states.

Neither Mr. Clark nor Mr. Klukowski had any evidence of widespread election fraud, but they were quite aware of what Mr. Trump wanted the department to do. Jeff Clark met privately with President Trump and others in the White House and agreed to assist the president without telling the senior leadership of the department who oversaw him.

As you will see, this letter claims that the US Department of Justice’s investigations have “Identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia.” In fact, Donald Trump knew this was a lie. The Department of Justice had already informed the president of the United States repeatedly that its investigations had found no fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The letter also said this. “In light of these developments, the department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session,” and consider approving a new slate of electors. And it indicates that a separate “fake” slate of electors supporting Donald Trump has already been transmitted to Washington DC. For those of you who have been watching these hearings, the language of this draft Justice Department letter will sound very familiar.

The text is similar to what we have seen from John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom were coordinating with President Trump to overturn the 2020 election. When one of our witnesses today, Mr. Donoghue, first saw this draft letter, he wrote this. “This would be a grave step for the department to take, and it could have tremendous constitutional, political, and social ramifications for the country.” This committee agrees.

Had this letter been released on official Department of Justice letterhead, it would have falsely informed all Americans, including those who might be inclined to come to Washington on January 6th, that President Trump’s election fraud allegations were likely very real. Here is another observation about this letter.

Look at the signature line. It was written by Jeff Clarke and Mr. Klukowski, not just for Clark’s signature but also for our witnesses today, Jeff Rosen and Richard Donoghue. When it became clear that neither Mr. Rosen nor Mr. Donohue would sign this letter, President Trump’s plan necessarily changed. As you will hear today, Donald Trump offered Mr. Clark the job of acting attorney general, replacing Mr. Rosen, with the understanding that Clark would send this letter to Georgia and other states and take other actions the president requested.

One other point, millions of Americans have seen the testimony of Attorney General Barr before this committee. At one point in his deposition, the former attorney general was asked why he authorized the Department of Justice to investigate fraud in the 2020 election at all. Why not just follow the regular course of action and let the investigations occur much later in time, after January 6th? Here’s what he said. [Begin videotape]

WILLIAM BARR: I felt the responsible thing to do was to be — to be in a position to have a view as to whether or not there was fraud. And frankly, I think the fact that I put myself in the position that I could say that we had looked at this and didn’t think there was fraud was really important to moving things forward.

And I — I sort of shudder to think what the situation would have been if the — if the position of the department was we’re not even looking at this until after Biden’s in office. I’m not sure we would have had a transition at all. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: I want to thank each of our witnesses before us today for your role in addressing and rebutting the false allegations of fraud at the root of January 6th, and thank you for standing up for the Constitution and for the rule of law. Of course, not all public officials behaved in the honorable way our witnesses did.

At the close of today’s hearing, we will see video testimony by three members of Donald Trump’s White House staff. They will identify certain of the members of Congress who contacted the White House after January 6th to seek presidential pardons for their conduct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for an opening statement.

ADAM KINZINGER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. I’d like to start with a personal story. So, in May of 2009, I returned from service in Iraq and I announced my intention to run for Congress. A big reason I decided to run for Congress was my motivation to ensure freedom and democracy were defended overseas.

I remember making a commitment, out loud a few times and in my heart repeatedly even to today, that if we are going to ask Americans to be willing to die in service to our country, we as leaders must at least be willing to sacrifice our political careers when integrity and our oath requires it. After all, losing a job is nothing compared to losing your life.

Within the halls of power, in the face of a president, that commitment can easily be forgotten. Presidential pressure can be really hard to resist. Today we’ll focus on a few officials who stood firm against President Trump’s political pressure campaign. When the president tried to misuse the department and install a loyalist at its helm, these brave officials refused and threatened to resign.

They were willing to sacrifice their careers for the good of our country. The Department of Justice is unique in the executive branch. The president oversees the Department of Justice, yet the president’s personal or partisan interests must not shape or dictate the department’s actions. The president cannot and must not use the department to serve his own personal interest, and he must not use its people to do his political bidding, especially when what he wants them to do is to subvert democracy.

The president cannot pervert justice nor the law to maintain his power. Justice must, both in fact and law, be blind. That is critical to our whole system of self-governance. During this hearing, you’ll hear time and time again about the president’s request to investigate claims of widespread fraud. Our witnesses, Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue, and Mr. Engle, stood firm in the face of overbearing political pressure because they understood that their oath was to the Constitution and not to the personal or political interest of the president.

The president and his allies became keenly aware that, with legal challenges exhausted and electoral votes certified, their only hope would be a last ditch scheme to prevent Congress from certifying the win, thus throwing the entire system into constitutional chaos. The president wanted the department to sow doubt in the legitimacy of the election, to empower his followers and members of Congress to take action.

If the Department could just lend its credibility to the conspiracies, people would have the justification they needed to spread the big lie. So, President Trump ultimately wanted the Department of Justice to say the election was “corrupt” and “leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” As you will hear today, the department’s top leadership refused.

Not surprisingly, President Trump didn’t take no for an answer. He didn’t accept it from Attorney General Barr and he wouldn’t accept it from Mr. Rosen either, so he looked for another attorney general, his third in two weeks. He needed to find someone who was willing to ignore the facts. That is not the norm.

Let’s look at what attorneys general, Democrats and Republicans alike, have said about upholding their oath to the Constitution. [Begin videotape]

JEFF SESSIONS: Attorney general ultimately owes his loyalty to the integrity of the American people and to the fidelity to the Constitution and the legitimate laws of the country. That’s what he’s ultimately required to do.

ERIC HOLDER: I will be an independent attorney general. I will be the people’s lawyer. If, however, there were an issue that I thought were that significant that would compromise my ability to serve as attorney general in the way that I have described it, as the people’s lawyer, I would not hesitate to resign.

MICHAEL MUKASEY: As you and I discussed, if the president proposed to undertake a course of conduct that was in violation of the Constitution, that would present me with a — a difficult but not a complex problem. I would have two choices. I could either try to talk him out of it or leave. Those other choices.

LORETTA LYNCH: The attorney general’s position as a cabinet member is perhaps unique from all of the cabinet members. Yes, a member of the president’s cabinet, but the attorney general has a unique responsibility to provide independent and objective advice to the president or any agency when it is sought, and sometimes perhaps even when it is not sought. [End videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Everyone in that video, from Eric Holder to Jeff Sessions, spoke as one about the independence of the department. It’s a point of pride at Justice to apply the law without the president’s political self-interest tainting its actions or dictating how it uses its authorities. But President Trump did find one candidate at Justice who seemed willing to do anything to help him stay in power.

Let’s hear what President Trump’s own lawyer, Eric Herschmann, had to say about Jeff Clark’s plan to overturn the election. I’d like to advise viewers this video contains some strong language. [Begin videotape]

ERIC HERSCHMANN: And when he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said good fucking — excuse me, sorry — effing A-hole, congratulations. You just admitted your first step or act you take as attorney general would be committing a felony and violating Rule 6E. You’re clearly the right candidate for this job. [End videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: So, who’s Jeff Clarke? An environmental lawyer with no experience relevant to leading the entire Department of Justice? What was his only qualification? That he would do whatever the president wanted him to do, including overthrowing a free and a fair democratic election. President Trump’s campaign to bend the Justice Department to his political will culminated in a showdown on January 3rd. Today we will take you inside that early evening Oval Office meeting, where top Justice Department officials met with the president.

At stake, the leadership and integrity of the Department of Justice. [Begin videotape]

RICHARD DONOGHUE: The meeting took about another two and a half hours from the time I entered. It was entirely focused on whether there should be a DOJ leadership change. I was sitting directly in front of the president. Jeff Rosen was to my right. Jeff Clark was to my left.

JEFFERY ROSEN: He looked at me, and I underscored, well, the one thing we know is you’re not going to do anything. You don’t even agree that the concerns that are being presented are — are valid. And you’re someone who has — has a different view. So, why shouldn’t I do that? You know, that’s how the discussion then proceeded.

ERIC HERSCHMANN: Jeff Clark was proposing that Jeff Rosen be replaced by Jeff Clark. And I thought the proposal was asinine.

UNKNOWN: What were Clark’s purported bases for why it was in the President’s interest for him to step in? And what would he do? What would — would things change according to Mr. Clark in the meeting?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He repeatedly said to the President that if he was put in the seat, he would conduct real investigations that would in his view uncover widespread fraud. He would send out the letter that he had drafted and that this was a last opportunity to sort of set things straight with this defective election and that he could do it. And he had the intelligence and the will and the desire to pursue these matters in the way that the President thought most appropriate.

ERIC HERSCHMANN: And he was making a pitch. And every time he’d get clobbered over the head, he would like say like, you know, he would call to order, you know the President, your decision, you get a chance to make this decision. And you know, you’ve heard everybody and you can make your determination. And then we jump back in. And no, no, they clobber him.

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I made the point that Jeff Clark is not even competent to serve as the Attorney General. He’s never been a criminal attorney. He’s never conducted a criminal investigation in his life. He’s never been in front of a jury, much less a trial jury. And he kind of retorted by saying, well, I’ve done a lot of very complicated appeals in civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that.

And I said, that’s right. You’re an environmental lawyer, how about you go back to your office and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill. And Pat Cipollone weighed in at one point. I remember saying, you know, that letter that this guy wants to send, that letter is a murder suicide pact. It’s going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter.

I don’t ever want to see that letter again. And so we went along those lines.

ERIC HERSCHMANN: I thought Jeff’s proposal — Clark’s proposal was nuts. I mean this guy, at a certain point, listen, the best I can tell is the only thing you know about environmental and elections challenges is they both start with E. And based on your answers tonight, I’m not even certain you know that.

RICHARD DONOGHUE: The President said, suppose I do this. Suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen with him, Jeff Clark. What do you do? [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Well, we know these men before us did the right thing, but think about what happens if these justice officials make a different decision. What happens if they bow to the pressure? What would that do to us as a democracy as a nation? Imagine a future where the President could screen applicants to the Justice Department with one question, are you loyal to me or to the Constitution?

And it wouldn’t take long to find people willing to pledge their loyalty to the man. We know many of President Trump’s vocal supporters on January 6th, also wanted the Justice Department to do whatever he asked as long as it meant he could stay in power. They made sure Justice Department officials heard his message as they protested loudly in front of the department on their way to the Capitol on January 6th. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN: Do your job! Do your job! Do your job! Do your job! Do your job! Live in DC, we’re marching to the Capitol. We are at the Department of Justice right now telling these powers to do their job! We’re going to check the Capitol. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: I want to take a moment now to speak directly to my fellow Republicans. Imagine the country’s top prosecutor with the power to open investigations, subpoena, charge crimes, and seek imprisonment. Imagine that official pursuing the agenda of the other party instead of that of the American people as a whole.

And if you’re a Democrat, imagine it the other way around. Today, President Trump’s total disregard for the Constitution and his oath will be fully exposed. Now, let’s get this hearing underway so we can do our part to protect the freedoms that we often take for granted, so that we can see how close we came to losing it all.

I now yield back to the Chairman.

BENNIE THOMPSON: We’re joined today by three distinguished witnesses who each served in the Trump administration in the months preceding January 6th. Mr. Jeffrey Rosen served at the Department of Justice from May 2019 until January 2021. With President Trump’s nomination and the confirmation of the United States Senate, he became the United States deputy attorney general.

In December 2020, he took the mantle of acting attorney general. Mr. Richard Donoghue has served in the Department of Justice for over 14 years. Mr. Donoghue was a United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, then became Mr. Rosen’s principal associate deputy attorney general and finally acting deputy attorney general.

Mr. Donoghue also served more than 20 years in the United States military, including the 82nd Airborne and the Judge Advocate General Corps. We are also joined by Mr. Steven Engel, the former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. He was nominated by the former President and confirmed by the Senate during the Trump administration.

He served from November 2017 to January 2021 and has now returned to private practice. I will now swear in our witnesses. The witnesses will please stand and raise their right hands. Do you swear on form [ph] on the penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you God.

UNKNOWN: [off-mic]

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. I now recognize myself questions. First of all, gentlemen, thank you for being here today. All of you served at former Presidents Trump’s pleasure at the Department of Justice and top leadership positions with tremendous responsibilities.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr told the select committee that before he left the department in December 2020, he told President Trump on at least three occasions there was no evidence of widespread election fraud that would have changed the results of the Presidential election and refuted numerous specific claims of election fraud the President was making.

Mr. Rosen, after Mr. Barr announced his resignation, did Donald Trump continued to demand that the Department of Justice investigate his claims of election fraud?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Yes, he — he asserted that he thought the Justice Department had not done enough.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. From the time you took over from Attorney General Barr until January 3rd, how often did President Trump contact you or the department to push allegations of election fraud?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: So between December 23rd and January 3rd, the President either called me or met with me virtually every day with one or two exceptions like Christmas Day. And before that because I had been announced that I would become the acting attorney general before the date I actually did, the President had asked that Rich Donoghue and I go over and meet with him I believe on December 15th as well.

BENNIE THOMPSON: So after you had some of these meetings and conversations with the President, what things did the President raise with you?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: So — so the common element of all of this was the President expressing his dissatisfaction that the Justice Department in his view had not done enough to investigate election fraud, but at different junctures other topics came up at different intervals. So at one point he had raised the question of having a special counsel for election fraud.

At a number of points, he raised requests that I meet with his campaign counsel, Mr. Giuliani. At one point, he raised the — whether the Justice Department would file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court. At a couple of junctures, there were questions about making public statements or about holding a press conference.

At one of the later junctures was this issue of sending a letter to state legislatures in Georgia or other states. And so there were different things raised at different parts or different intervals with the common theme being his dissatisfaction about what the Justice Department had done to investigate election fraud.

I will say that the Justice Department declined all of those requests that I was just referencing because we did not think that they were appropriate based on the facts and the law as we understood them.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. So, Mr. Donoghue, on December 15th, the day after Attorney General Barr announced his resignation, the President summoned you and Mr. Rosen to the White House. At this meeting with the President, what did he want to discuss?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: There were a number of topics of discussion that day, Mr. Chairman. Much of the conversation focused on a report that had been recently released relating to Antrim County in Michigan. I believe on December 13th, an organization called the Allied Security Group issued a report that alleged that the Dominion voting machines in that county had a 68 percent error rate.

The report was widely covered in the media. We were aware of it. We obtained a copy of it on the 14th of December, the day prior. We circulated to the US attorneys in Michigan for their awareness. And we had a number of discussions internally. But the conversation with the President on that day, the 15th, was largely focused on that.

And he was essentially saying, have you seen this report? He was adamant that the report must be accurate, that it proved that the election was defective, that he in fact won the election, and the department should be using that report to basically tell the American people that the results were not trustworthy.

And he went on to other theories as well, but the bulk of that conversation on December 15th focused on Antrim County, Michigan. And you saw the report.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Engel, we know that Attorney General Barr announced on December 1st, 2020 that the Department of Justice had found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election. So from December 1st, 2020 until today as you sit here, have you ever doubted that top line conclusion?

STEVEN ENGEL: No, I’ve never had any reason to doubt Attorney General Barr’s conclusion.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. Pursuant to Section 5c8 of House Resolution 503, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for questions.

ADAM KINZINGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the weeks leading to January 6th, the Department of Justice was fielding almost daily requests from the President to investigate claims of election fraud. Each claim was refuted time and time again, an effort Attorney General Barr described as whack a mole. When each of the President’s efforts failed, he resorted to installing a new attorney general to say the election was illegal and corrupt simply so he could stay in power.

President Trump started leaning on the Justice Department the first chance he got. On November 29th, his first television interview after the election. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN: Where is the DOJ and the FBI in all of this, Mr. President? You have laid out some serious charges here. Shouldn’t this be something that the FBI is investigating?

DONALD TRUMP: Missing in action.

UNKNOWN: Are they? Is the DOJ investigating?

DONALD TRUMP: Missing in action. Can’t tell you where they are. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Republican Congressman echoed the President just two days later. They wrote a letter to Attorney General Barr laying into the Justice Department for a, quote, “shocking lack of action” in investigating the claims of election fraud. That same day Attorney General Barr stated publicly that President Trump’s claims had no merit.

Ignoring the top law enforcement officer in the country, Republican Congressman amplified the stolen election message to the American public. Let’s listen. [Begin Videotape]

LOUIE GOHMERT: And so there’s widespread evidence of fraud cause people haven’t done their jobs. Durham and Barr will deserve a big notation in history when it’s written of the rise and fall of the United States. If they don’t clean up this mess, clean up the fraud, do your jobs, and save this little experiment in self- government.

ANDY BIGGS: Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Bill Barr to immediately let us know what he’s doing.

PAUL GOSAR: We’re already working on and challenging the certified electors. And then what about the courts? How pathetic are the courts?

MATT GAETZ: January 6th, I’m joining with the fighters in the Congress. And we are going to object to electors from states that did run clean elections. [Applause] Democracy is left undefended if we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster.

JIM JORDAN: The ultimate date of significance is January six. This is how the process works. The ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check and balance is the United States Congress. And when something is done in an unconstitutional fashion, which happened in several of these states, we have a duty to step forward and have this debate and have this vote on the 6th of January.

MO BROOKS: Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Donoghue, on December 27th you had a 90 minute conversation with the President where he raised false claim after false claim with you and Mr. Rosen. How did you respond to what you called a quote, “Stream of allegations?”

RICHARD DONOGHUE: The December 27th conversation was in my mind an escalation of the earlier conversations. As the former acting AG indicated, there were a lot of communications that preceded that. As we got later in the month of December, the President’s entreaties became more urgent. He became more adamant that we weren’t doing our job.

We need to step up and do our job. And he had this arsenal of allegations that he wanted to — to rely on. And so I felt in that conversation that it was incumbent on — on me to make it very clear to the President what our investigations had revealed, and that we had concluded based on actual investigations, actual witness interviews, actual reviews of documents that these allegations simply had no merit.

And I wanted to try to cut through the noise. Because it was clear to us that there were a lot of people whispering in his ear, feeding him these conspiracy theories and allegations. And I felt that being very blunt in that conversation might help make it clear to the President these allegations were simply not true.

And so as he went through them and what for me was a 90 minute conversation or so, what for the former A — Acting AG was a two hour conversation. As the President went through them I went piece by piece to say no, that’s false. That is not true. And to correct him really in — in a serial fashion as he moved from one theory to another.

ADAM KINZINGER: Can you give me an example of one or two of those theories?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: So, one that was very clear at that point was the Antrim County — the ASOG report that I mentioned earlier. Allied Security Operations Group released this report that said 60 percent error rate. There was in fact in Antrim County a hand recount. Had nothing to do with the Department. The Department did not request that.

That was pursuant to litigation brought by other parties, but there was a hand recount. So they were able to compare the hand recount to what the machines had reported. And for the ballots that were actually counted by machine, more than 15,000, there was one error, one ballot. And I did a quick calculation and came up with .0063 percent error rate, which is well within tolerance.

And so I made it very clear to the President because he was so fixated on the ASOG report in the December 15th conversation that in fact our investigation revealed that the error rate was .0063 percent. So that, Mr. President, an example of what people are telling you that is not true, and that you cannot and should not be relying on. So that was one very explicit one.

And I think you see that reflected in my notes. We went through a series of others. The truck driver who claimed to have moved an entire tractor trailer of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. That was also incorrect. We did an investigation where the FBI interviewed witnesses at the front end and the back end of that — that trailer’s transit from New York to Pennsylvania.

We looked at loading manifests. We interviewed witnesses including of course the driver, and we knew it wasn’t true. Whether the driver believed it or not was never clear to me, but it was just not true. So that was another one that I tried to educate the President on. There were a series of others mostly in swing states of course.

He wanted to talk a great deal about Georgia, the State Farm Arena video which he believed for various reasons was as he said it — fraud staring you right in the face.

ADAM KINZINGER: Were any of the allegations he brought up found credible? Did you find any of them credible?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: No.

ADAM KINZINGER: So during this conversation, did — did you take handwritten notes directly quoting the President?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I did. And to make it clear, Attorney General Rosen called me on my government cell phone, said he’d been on the phone with the President for some time. The President had a lot of these allegations. I was better versed in what the Department had done just cause I had closer contact with the investigations.

And the AG asked me to go on the call. Of course I agreed. And I began taking notes only because at the outset the President made an allegation I had not heard. I had heard many of these things. I knew many of them were investigated. But when the President — at least when I came to the conversation when he began speaking, he brought up an allegation I was completely unaware of. And of course that concerned us. So I simply reached out and grabbed a notepad off my wife’s nightstand and a pen and I started jotting it down.

That had to do with an allegation that more than 200,000 votes were certified in the state of Pennsylvania that were not actually cast. Sometimes the President would say it was 205, sometimes he would say it was 250. But I had not heard this before and I wanted to get the allegation down clearly so that we can look into it if appropriate.

And that’s why I started taking those notes. And then as the conversation continued, I just continued to take the notes.

ADAM KINZINGER: Let’s take a look at the notes if we could right now. As we can see on the screen, you actually quote President Trump asking where is DOJ just like we heard him say in his first television interview. How did you respond to that?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: So both the Acting AG and I tried to explain to the President on this occasion and on several other occasions that the Justice Department has a very important, very specific, but very limited role in these elections. States run their elections. We are not quality control for the states. We are obviously interested in and have a mission that relates to criminal conduct in relation to federal elections.

We also have related civil rights responsibilities. So we do have an important role. But the bottom line was if a state ran their election in such a way that it was defective, that is to the state or Congress to correct. It is not for the Justice Department to step in. And I certainly understood the President as a layman not understanding why the Justice Department didn’t have at least a civil role to step in and bring suit on behalf of the American people.

We tried to explain that to him. The American people do not constitute the client for the United States Justice Department. The one and only client of the United States Justice Department is the United States government. And the United States government does not have standing as we were repeatedly told by our internal teams, OLC led by Steve Engle, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General researched it and gave us thorough clear opinions that we simply did not have standing.

And we tried to explain that to the President on numerous occasions.

ADAM KINZINGER: Let’s take a look at another one of your notes. You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump quote, “DOJ can’t and won’t snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election.” How — how did the President respond to that, Sir?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He responded very quickly and said essentially that’s not what I’m asking you to do. What I’m just asking you to do is to say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.

ADAM KINZINGER: So let’s now put up the notes where you — where you quote the President as you’re speaking to that. He said the President — the President said just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. So Mr. Donoghue, that’s a direct quote from President Trump, correct?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: That’s an exact quote from the President, yes.

ADAM KINZINGER: The next note shows that even the — even the — that the President kept pressing. Even though he had been told that there was no evidence of fraud, did the President keep saying that the department was quote, “Obligated to tell people that this was an illegal corrupt election.”

RICHARD DONOGHUE: That’s also an exact quote from the President. Yes.

ADAM KINZINGER: Let me just be clear. Did the Department find any evidence to conclude that there was anything illegal or corrupt about the 2020 election?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: There were isolated instances of fraud. None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual state.

ADAM KINZINGER: And how would you describe the President’s demeanor during that call?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He was more agitated than he was on December 15th. The — the President throughout all of these meetings and telephone conversations was adamant that he had won and that we were not doing our job. But it did escalate over time until ultimately the — the meeting on January 3rd, which was sort of the most extreme of the meetings and conversations.

ADAM KINZINGER: So I want to make sure we don’t gloss this over. Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to us. The President wanted the top Justice Department officials to declare that the election was corrupt even though as he knew there was absolutely no evidence to support that statement. The President didn’t care about actually investigating the facts.

He just wanted the Department of Justice to put its stamp of approval on the lies. Who was going to help him? Well, Jeff Clark. Mr. Rosen on Christmas Eve, your first official day as the Acting Attorney General, President Trump called you. What did he want to talk about?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: The same things he was talking about publicly. He — he wanted to talk about that he thought the — the election had been stolen or — or was corrupt and that there was widespread fraud. And I had told him that our reviews had not shown that to be the case. So we had an extended discussion, probably 15, maybe 20 minutes, something like that with — with him urging that the Department of Justice should be doing more with regard to election fraud.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did he mention Jeff Clark’s name?

JEFFREY ROSEN: Yes. It was just in passing. He made what I regarded as a peculiar reference. I don’t remember the exact quote, but it was something about did I know Jeff Clark or did I know who he was or something like that. And I told him I did. And then re — the conversation just moved on. But when I — I hung up, I was — I was quizzical as to how does the President even know Mr. Clark?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: I was not aware that they had ever met or that the President had been involved with any of the issues in the civil division.

ADAM KINZINGER: So it was a bit of a surprise when he brought his name up?

JEFFREY ROSEN: Yes.

ADAM KINZINGER: So Mr. Clark was the Acting Head of the Civil Division and Head of Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Do either of those divisions have any role whatsoever in investigating election fraud, Sir?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: No. And — and to my awareness, Jeff Clark had had no prior involvement of any kind with regard to the work that the Department was doing that Attorney General Barr has talked about to this committee.

ADAM KINZINGER: So let’s take a minute and explain why the President mentioned Jeff Clark’s name to Mr. Rosen here on Christmas Eve. On December 21st, some Republican members of Congress met with President Trump in the White House to talk about overturning the 2020 election. Let’s hear Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene talk about how this meeting got set up. [Begin Videotape]

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I was the only new member at the meeting. I called President Trump on Saturday and — and said we’ve got to have a meeting. There’s many of us that feel like this election has been stolen. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: So on the screen you’ll see that President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows tweeted about that meeting right after it happened. He said quote, “Several members of Congress just finished a meeting in the Oval Office with President Donald Trump preparing to fight back against mounting evidence of voter fraud. Stay tuned.”

On the same day he met with these Republican members of Congress, President Trump called in to a conservative political convention and he used the opportunity to pressure the Department of Justice to investigate his bogus claims. [Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP: The problem is we need a party that’s going to fight. And we have some great Congressmen and women that are doing it. And we have others, some great fighters. But we won this in a landslide. They know it. And we need backing from, like, the Justice Department and other people have to finally step up. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: The Select Committee obtained records from the National Archives that show that Scott Perry was one of the Congressmen who joined that meeting. We learned from White House records that you’ll now see on the screen that the very next day Representative Perry returned to the White House. This time, he brought a Justice Department official named Jeffrey Clark.

Representative Perry provided the following statement to his local TV affiliate. He said quote, “Throughout the past four years I’ve worked with Assistant Attorney General Clark on various legislative matters. When President Trump asked if I would make an introduction, I obliged.” But why Jeff Clark? Let’s hear Mr. Giuliani explain the kind of person that he and the President wanted at the top of Justice. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN: Remember ever recommending to anybody that Mr. Clark, meaning Jeffrey Clark at DOJ, be given election related responsibilities?

RUDY GIULIANI: You mean beyond the President?

UNKNOWN: Correct.

RUDY GIULIANI: Well, beyond the president, I do recall saying to people that somebody should be put in charge of the Justice Department who isn’t frightened of what’s going to be done to their reputation, because Justice Department was filled with people like that. [End videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Should put somebody that’s not frightened of what’s going to be done to their reputation. Mr. Donoghue, when you told the president that you wouldn’t pursue baseless claims of fraud, was it because you were worried about your reputation?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: No, not at all.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Clark’s name was also mentioned in the White House in late December and early January, as described by a top aide to Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson. [Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN: Was it your understanding that Representative Perry was pushing for a specific person to take over the department?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: He wanted Mr. Clark, Mr. Jeff Clark, to take over the Department of Justice. [End videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Rosen, after your call with President Trump on December 24th, you spoke with Mr. Clark on December 26th about his contact with the president. Can you tell us about that conversation?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Yes. Because I had been quizzical about why his name had come up, I called him and I tried to explore if he would share if there was something I ought to know. And after some back and forth, he acknowledged that shortly before Christmas he had gone to a meeting in the Oval Office with the president. That, of course, surprised me, and I asked him how did that happen.

And he was defensive. He said it — it had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as General Perry, but I believe is Congressman Perry. And that, unbeknownst to him, he was asked to go to a meeting and he didn’t know it, but it turned out it was at the Oval — he found himself at the Oval Office.

And — and he was apologetic for that. And I said, well, you didn’t tell me about it. It wasn’t authorized, and you didn’t even tell me after the fact. You know, this is not — not appropriate. But he was contrite and said it had been inadvertent and it would not happen again, and that if anyone asked him to go to such a meeting, he would notify Rich Donoghue and me.

ADAM KINZINGER: Is there a policy that governs who — who can have contact directly with the White House?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Yes. So, across many administrations for — for a long period of time, there’s a policy that, particularly with regard to criminal investigations, restricts, at both the White House and in the Justice Department and those more sensitive issues, to the highest ranks. So, for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been that only the attorney general and the deputy attorney general from the DOJ side can have conversations about criminal matters with the White House, or the attorney general and the deputy attorney general can authorize someone for a specific item with their permission.

But the idea is to make sure that the top rung of the Justice Department knows about it and is in the thing to control it and make sure only appropriate things are done.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Engel, from your perspective, why is it important to have a — a policy like Mr. Rosen just discussed?

STEVEN ENGEL: Well, it’s critical that the Department of Justice conducts its criminal investigations free from either the reality or any appearance of political interference. And so, people can get in trouble if people at the White House are speaking with people at the department. And that’s why the purpose of these policies is to keep these communications as infrequent and at the highest levels as possible, just to make sure that people who are less careful about it, who don’t really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clark, don’t run afoul of the — of those contact policies.

ADAM KINZINGER: Thank you. So, the Select Committee conducted an informal interview with the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, and his deputy Pat Philbin about their contact with Mr. Clark, though neither has yet agreed to sit for transcribed and videotaped interviews. But Pat Cipollone told the Select Committee that he intervened when he heard Mr. Clark was meeting with the president about legal matters without his knowledge, which was strictly against White House policy.

Mr. Cipollone and Mr. Philbin, like Mr. Rosen, told Mr. Clark to stand down, and he didn’t. On the same day Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clark to stop talking to the White House, Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clark within the Department of Justice. You can now see on the screen behind me a series of texts between Representative Perry and Mr. Meadows.

They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clark be elevated within the department. Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26th that “Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days to January 6th and 25 days to inauguration. We’ve got to get going.” Representative Perry followed up and says, “Mark, you should call Jeff.

I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won’t work, especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done.” Mr. Meadows responds with, “I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position.” Representative Perry then texts, “Roger.

Just sent you something on Signal, just sent you an updated file. Did you call Jeff Clark?” Mr. Donoghue, Representative Perry called you the next day, on December 27th. Who — who told him to call you?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: My understanding is the president did. At the outset of the call, Congressman Perry told me that he was calling at the behest of the president.

ADAM KINZINGER: What did — what did he want to talk about?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He wanted to talk about Pennsylvania in particular. He gave me some background about, you know, why he in particular doesn’t trust the FBI and why the American people don’t necessarily trust the FBI. And then he went into some allegations specific to Pennsylvania, which included, amongst others, this allegation that the secretary of state had certified more votes than were actually cast.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did you direct that local — the local US attorney’s office to investigate that claim?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: So, Mr. Perry said that he had a great deal of information, that investigations had been done, that there was some sort of forensic type report that would be helpful to me. And I didn’t know Congressman Perry, had never heard of him before this conversation. But I said, sir, if you’ve got something that you think is relevant to what the Justice Department’s mission is, you should feel free to send it to me. And he did, and I was in route from New York to Washington.

I got it. I looked at it on my iPhone. Obviously, I couldn’t read the whole thing in that — in transit like that. But I looked at it to get a feel for what it was, and then I forwarded to the United States attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did they get back to you? What did they conclude?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Scott Brady looked at it. He was the Western District Pennsylvania US attorney. Took him a couple days, but he got back in relatively short order with a pretty clear explanation for why there was no foundation for concern. The Secretary of State had not certified more votes than were actually cast. The difference between the 5.25 that was actually certified by the Secretary of State and the 5 million that was on a public facing website was that the information on the website was incomplete because four counties had not uploaded their data.

ADAM KINZINGER: So, no credibility to that claim. There was zero to that, right. During that call, did Scott Perry mention Mr. Clark? And what did he say about him, if so?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He did. He mentioned Mr. Clark. He said something to the effect of I think Jeff Clark is great, and I think he’s the kind of guy who could get in there and do something about this stuff. And this was coming on the heels of the president having mentioned Mr. Clark in the afternoon call earlier that day.

ADAM KINZINGER: I’d like to yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Vice Chair Cheney.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Kinzinger. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As we discussed earlier, at the center of Mr. Clark’s plan to undo President Trump’s election loss was a letter. Mr. Donoghue, on December 28th, Mr. Clark emailed you and Mr. Rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to Georgia state officials.

You testified that this could have “grave constitutional consequences.” Mr. Donoghue, can you tell us what you meant by that?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Well, I had to read both the email and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing, because it was so extreme to me I had a hard time getting my head around it initially. But I read it and I did understand it for what he intended. And I had to sit down and sort of compose what I thought was an appropriate response.

I actually initially went next door to the acting AG’s office, but he was not there. We were both on that email. I knew we would both have probably a very similar reaction to it. He was not in his office. So, I returned to my office and I sat down to draft a response, because I thought it was very important to give a prompt response rejecting this out of hand.

There were — in my response, I explained a number of reasons. This is not the department’s role to suggest or dictate to state legislatures how they should select their electors. But more importantly, this was not based on fact. This was actually contrary to the facts as developed by department investigations over the last several weeks and months.

So, I respond to that. And for the department to insert itself into the political process this way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis. And I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation, because he didn’t seem to really appreciate it.

LIZ CHENEY: And what was Mr. Clark’s reaction when you sent this email to him?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He didn’t respond directly to the email, but we met shortly after that, after I sent the email. The acting AG returned. I went to his office. He had just read it. He had a very similar reaction to me. He was exasperated, and he told me that he had told one of his administrative assistant to get Jeff Clark up here.

We wanted to talk to him face to face about this. And so, the three of us then had a meeting, probably around 1800 that night, in the deputy attorney general’s conference room.

LIZ CHENEY: And one of the things that you said to Mr. Clark is “What you are doing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election.” And I assume you conveyed that to him as well in your meeting that evening.

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Yes, in those very words. It was a very contentious meeting. But yes, that was said, amongst other things.

LIZ CHENEY: And despite this contentious meeting and your strong reaction to the letter, did Mr. Clark continue to push his concept in the coming days?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He did, yes. We had subsequent meetings and conversations. The acting AG probably had more contact with him than I did. But between the 28th and the 2nd, when we had another in-person meeting, he clearly continued to — to move down this path. He began calling witnesses and apparently conducting investigations of his own, and he got a briefing from DNI about purported foreign intelligence interference.

And we thought perhaps, once it was explained to him that there was no basis for that part of his concern, that he would retreat. But instead, he doubled down and said, well, Ok. So, there’s no foreign interference. I still think there are enough allegations out there that we should go ahead and send this letter, which shocked me even more than the initial one, because you would think after a couple of days of looking at this he, like we, would have come to the same conclusion, that it was completely unfounded.

LIZ CHENEY: And when you learned that he had been calling witnesses and conducting investigations on his own, did you confront him?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Yes.

LIZ CHENEY: And what was his reaction?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He got very defensive. You know, as I said, there were a series of conversations through that week. I — I certainly remember very specifically the conversation in the meeting on January 2nd. That got even more confrontational. But he was defensive. And, you know, similar to his earlier reaction when I said this is nothing less than Justice Department meddling in an election, his reaction was I think a lot of people have meddled in this election.

And so, he kind of clung to that, and then spewed out some of these theories, some of which we’d heard from the president, but others which were floating around the Internet and media, and just kept insisting that the department needed to act and needed to send those letters.

LIZ CHENEY: The committee has also learned that Mr. Clark was working with another attorney at the department named Ken Klukowski, who drafted this letter to Georgia with Mr. Clark. Mr. Klukowski had arrived at the department on December 15th with just 36 days left until the inauguration. He was specifically assigned to work under Jeff Clark.

And Mr. Klukowski also worked with John Eastman, who we showed you at our hearing last week, was one of the primary architects of President Trump’s scheme to overturn the election. The Georgia letter that we’ve been discussing specifically talks about some of Dr. Eastman’s theories, including “The purpose of the special session the department recommends would be for the General Assembly to determine whether the election failed to make a proper and valid choice between the candidates, such that the General Assembly could take whatever action is necessary to ensure that one of the slates of electors cast on December 14th will be accepted by Congress on January 6th.” The committee has also learned that the relationship between Dr. Eastman and Mr. Klukowski persisted after Mr. Klukowski joined the Justice Department.

Let’s take a look at an email recommending that Mr. Klukowski and Dr. Eastman brief Vice President Pence and his staff. Other recipients of this email included the chief of staff to Congressman Louie Gohmert. And the email says, as stated last week, I believe the vice president and his staff would benefit greatly from a briefing by John and Ken. As I also mentioned, we want to make sure we don’t overexpose Ken, given his new position.

This email suggests that Mr. Klukowski was simultaneously working with Jeffrey Clark to draft the proposed letter to Georgia officials to overturn their certified election and working with Dr. Eastman to help pressure the vice president to overturn the election. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and — and for answering our questions about this letter and other issues.

We asked Mr. Clark some of the same questions that we’ve asked you and here’s how he answered. [Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN: Did you discuss this draft letter to Georgia officials with the president of the United States?

JEFFREY CLARK: Fifth and executive privilege. Again, just restated for the abundance of caution.

UNKNOWN: Ok. If you look again at this draft letter, in the first paragraph, second sentence, it says the department will update you as we are able on investigatory progress. But at this time, we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia.

Isn’t that in fact contrary to what Attorney General Barr had said on December 1st, 2020?

JEFFREY CLARK: Fifth. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Chairman, I reserve.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Pursuant to the order of the committee of today, the chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately 10 minutes. The committee will be in order. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

ADAM KINZINGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, around the time Mr. Clark was pushing for the department to send the Georgia letter, the president and his supporters were pressuring the Justice Department to take other actions to change the outcome of the 2020 election. Mr. Engel, were — you were the head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

Can you first off explain your role? What is that?

STEVEN ENGEL: Sure. One of the attorney general’s most important responsibilities is to provide the legal advice to the president and to the executive branch.

STEVEN ENGEL: As a practical matter, given the responsibilities of the attorney general, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel exercises that — that job on a day to day basis. And so in — in addition the head of OLC often functions as a — a general counsel essentially to the Attorney General. And so he’s often, you know, the chief legal advisor to the AG as well as, you know, the — the White House and the executive branch more broadly.

ADAM KINZINGER: So given that role, can you describe your relationship with the President?

STEVEN ENGEL: Well, I, you know, in connection with my role at OLC, over the course of my tenure there there were a number of instances in which folks at the White House would — would seek to bring me in to provide legal advice to the President sometimes discussing the legal options that could be pursued among various policy to — to reach various policy objectives.

Sometimes to advise the President that I — a course of action that they had been discussing was not legally available.

ADAM KINZINGER: So I want to ask about two things the President asked you and the Department to do. The first is reflected in this email that we’re going to put on the screen. The President sent a draft lawsuit to be filed by the Department in the Supreme Court. He wanted you, Mr. Rosen, and Mr. Cipollone specifically to review it. You and the Department opposed filing it. We see on the screen here that the tal — the talking points that you actually drafted on that.

So you stated that there is no legal basis to bring this lawsuit. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn’t know the law much less the Supreme Court. Why was this the Department’s position?

STEVEN ENGEL: Well, I mean, I think the — it was — the memo sort of speaks to this, but essentially this was a draft lawsuit that apparently was prepared by people outside the Department. It would be styled as brought by the United States and by the — the Acting Solicitor General as an original jurisdiction matter in the Supreme Court.

It — it was a meritless lawsuit that was not something that the Department could or — or would bring. You know, somebody obviously prepared it to the — handed it to the President and he — he forwarded it on for our review. But that memo explains why the Department of Justice, as Mr. Donoghue said earlier, doesn’t have any standing to bring such a lawsuit.

The lawsuit would have been untimely. The states had chosen their electors. The electors had been certified. They’d cast their votes. They’d been sent to Washington, DC. Neither Georgia nor any of the other states on December 28th or whenever this was was in a position to change those votes. The — essentially the election had happened.

The only thing that hadn’t happened was the formal counting of the votes. And so obviously, you know, the person who drafted this lawsuit didn’t really understand in my view, you know, the law and or how the Supreme Court works or the Department of Justice. So it was just not something we were going to do. And the Acting Attorney General asked me to prepare a memo with talking points so that he could explain our reasons when he spoke with the President about this.

ADAM KINZINGER: So would you say it was a unusual request?

STEVEN ENGEL: It was certainly an un — you said the — the request that — that the Department file a lawsuit from — drafted by outside lawyers was certainly an unusual request.

ADAM KINZINGER: There was another issue you were asked to look into. In mid-December did the White House ask Attorney General Barr to consider whether a Special Counsel could be appointed to look into election fraud issues?

STEVEN ENGEL: I — yes. I mean, the — the — I mean, I think the President was probably vocal at the time that he believed that Special Counsel was something that should be considered to look into election fraud. And there is a specific, you know, request where the Attorney General sought my legal advice in — in the middle of December.

ADAM KINZINGER: And what was your conclusion? What conclusion did you reach?

STEVEN ENGEL: So — so this — this request was whether the — whether the Attorney General could appoint as a Special Counsel a — a state Attorney General to conduct an investigation. I mean, as — as a legal matter, under federal law the Attorney General actually has fairly wide discretion to delegate prosecutorial authority including to state prosecutors which happens to assist the Department.

You know, and not uncommonly, obviously a state Attorney General exercising prosecutorial authority on behalf of the Department of Justice would be fairly uncommon. When we looked at the issue what we saw is actually that the state law — the state was Louisiana — that the state law precluded the Louisiana Attorney General from accepting any position — any official position on behalf of the United States government.

So that — that answered the question that it was not legally available.

ADAM KINZINGER: So during your time at the Department, was there ever any basis to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate President Trump’s election fraud claims?

STEVEN ENGEL: Well — well neither Attorney General Barr nor Acting Attorney General Rosen did appoint a Special Counsel. We — you would appoint the Special Counsel when the Department — when there’s a basis for an investigation and the Department essentially has a conflict of interest. It’s important to get someone who’s independent outside the Department to handle such an investigation.

Neither Attorney General Barr nor Acting Attorney General Rosen ever believed that that was appropriate or necessary in this case.

ADAM KINZINGER: In fact, Attorney General Barr had already told the President that there was no need for this Special Counsel. He actually stated that publicly. And we’ll see that here in a video from December 21st. [Begin Videotape]

WILLIAM BARR: To the extent that there’s an inve — investigation, I think that it’s being handled responsibly and professionally. Currently within the — the Department and to this point I have not seen a reason to appoint a Special Counsel and I have no plan to do so before I leave. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: So remember that December 21st was the same day President Trump met with Republican members at the White House to strategize about how to overturn the election while his Attorney General is out telling the public again that there was no widespread evidence of election fraud.

And yet two days later we have President Trump tweeting again publicly pressuring the Department to appoint a Special Counsel. He said, quote, “After seeing the massive voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election, I disagree with anyone that thinks a strong, fast, and fair Special Counsel is not needed immediately.” “This was the most corrupt election in the history of our country and it must be closely examined.” The Select Committee’s investigation revealed that President Trump went as far as to promise the job of Special Counsel to now-discredited former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell at a late night meeting on December 18th. [Begin Videotape]

SIDNEY POWELL: I know on — on Friday he had asked me to be Special Counsel to address the election issues and to collect evidence. And he was extremely frustrated with the lack of, I would call it law enforcement, by any of the government agencies that are supposed to act to protect the rule of law in our republic. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: So let’s think here. What would a Special Counsel do? With only days to go until election certification it wasn’t to investigate anything. An investigation led by a Special Counsel would just create an illusion of legitimacy and provide fake cover for those who would want to object including those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. All of President Trump’s plans for the Justice Department were being rebuffed by Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue, Mr. Engel, and others.

The President became desperate entering into the new year with January 6th fast approaching. President Trump rushed back early from Mar a Lago on December 31st and called an emergency meeting with the Department’s leadership. Here’s Mr. Donoghue describing the last minute meeting held at the White House on New Year’s Eve. [Begin Videotape]

RICHARD DONOGHUE: The President was a little more agitated than he had been on the meeting — in the meeting on the 15th. He discussed a variety of election matters. He did say this sounds like the kind of thing that would warrant appointment of a Special Counsel. There was a point at which the President said something about why don’t you guys seize machines?

[End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Rosen, the President asked you to seize voting machines from state governments. What was your response to that request?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: That we had — we had seen nothing improper with regard to the voting machines. And I told him that the — the real experts that had been at DHS and they had briefed us, that they had looked at it and that there was nothing wrong with the — the voting machines. And so that was not something that was appropriate to do.

ADAM KINZINGER: There would be no factual basis to seize machines. Mr. Donoghue —

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: — I — I don’t think there was legal authority either.

ADAM KINZINGER: Yeah. Mr. Donohue can you explain what the President did after he was told that the Justice Department would not seize voting machines?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: The President was very agitated by the Acting Attorney General’s response. And to the extent that machines and — and the technology was being discussed, the Acting Attorney General said that the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, has expertise in machines and certifying them and making sure that the states are operating them properly.

And since DHS had been mentioned, the President yelled out to his Secretary get Ken Cuccinelli on the phone. And she did in very short order. Mr. Cuccinelli was on the phone. He was the number two at DHS at the time. It was on the speakerphone, and the President essentially said, Ken, I’m sitting here with the Acting Attorney General.

He just told me it’s your job to seize machines and you’re not doing your job. And Mr. Cuccinelli responded.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Rosen, did you ever tell the President that the Department of Homeland Security could seize voting machines?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: No, certainly not.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Donoghue during this meeting did the President tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren’t declaring there was election fraud?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Toward the end of the meeting the President again was getting very agitated and he said people tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership. Put Jeff Clark in, maybe something will finally get done. And I responded as I think I had earlier in the December 27th call, Mr. President you should have the leadership that you want.

But understand, the United States Justice Department functions on facts, evidence, and law, and those are not going to change. So you can have whatever leadership you want, but the Department’s position is not going to change.

ADAM KINZINGER: The President’s White House Counsel Pat Cipollone was also present. Do you remember what his position was?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Pat was very supportive. Pat Cipollone throughout these conversations was extremely supportive of the Justice Department. He was consistent. I think he had an impossible job at that point, but he did it well and he always sided with the Justice Department in these discussions.

ADAM KINZINGER: So let’s pause for a second. It’s New Year’s Eve. President Trump is talking about seizing voting machines and making the same demands that had already been shot down by former Attorney General Barr on at least three occasions and by Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue on multiple other occasions. Claim after claim knocked down.

But the President didn’t care. The next day, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sent a flurry of emails to you, Mr. Rosen, asking that the Department look into a new set of allegations. We’re going to put those emails here on the screen. Here we see three requests made on January 1st. One e-mail is a request from Mr. Meadows to you, Mr. Rosen, to send Jeff Clark to Fulton County.

What did you — what did you do with this request?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Well, really — really nothing. Certainly didn’t send Mr. Clark to Fulton County. But that email was the first corroboration I had seen of — Mr. Clark had told me at that point that the President was considering making the change by Monday, January 4th. So Mr. Meadows’ email was something of a corroboration that there were discussions going on that I had been — not been informed about by Mr. Clark or anybody else.

ADAM KINZINGER: Interesting. The second request that you have is to have the Department of Justice lawyers investigate allegations of fraud related to New Mexico. Mr. Rosen, did you have concern about these emails?

JEFFREY ROSEN: Yes. Really two concerns about that one. One was that it was coming from a campaign or political party.

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: And it was really not our role to function as — as, you know, an arm of any campaign for any party or any campaign. That wasn’t our role. And that’s part of why I had been unwilling to meet with Mr.

Giuliani or any of the — the campaign people before. And the other part was it was another one of these ones where lots of work had already been done.

And I thought it was a rehash of things that had been debunked previously.

ADAM KINZINGER: So the final email here included a completely baseless conspiracy theory that an Italian defense contractor uploaded software to a satellite that switched votes from Trump to Biden. The Select Committee investigation found that this wild, baseless conspiracy theory made it from the recesses of the internet to the highest echelons of our government.

On December 31st, Mr. Meadows received this internet conspiracy theory from Representative Perry. On the screen now is the text that Representative Perry sent to Mr. Meadows copying a YouTube link with the message quote, “Why can’t we just work with the Italian government?” The next day the President’s Chief of Staff sent the YouTube link to Mr. Rosen who forwarded it to Mr. Donoghue.

Mr. Donoghue, did you watch this video?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I did, Congressman.

ADAM KINZINGER: How long was the video?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Approximately 20 minutes.

ADAM KINZINGER: Let’s just take a look at a excerpt of that video, if we may. [Begin Videotape]

BRADLEY JOHNSON: What’s being said out of Rome, out of Italy is that this was done in the US embassy. That there was a certain State Department guy whose name I don’t know yet. I guess this is probably going to come out

in Italy at some point. And he was the mastermind — not the mastermind, but the — but the — anyway, the guy running the operation of changing the votes.

And that he was done — doing this in conjunction with some support from MI6, the CIA, and this Leonardo group. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Donoghue, what was your reaction when you watched that entire 20 minute video?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I emailed the acting attorney general and I said pure insanity, which was my impression of the video which was patently absurd.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Rosen, you were asked by Mr. Meadows to meet with Mr. Johnson, who is the person in that video, what was your reaction to that request?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: So ordinarily I’d get an email like this and there was no phone call. It would just come over the transom. But this one he — he called me, Mr. Meadows, and asked me to meet with Mr. Johnson. And I told him this whole thing about Italy had been debunked and that should be the end of that. And I certainly wasn’t going to meet with — with this person.

And he initially seemed to accept that. He said, you know, why won’t you meet with them? I said because if — if he has real evidence which this video doesn’t show, he can walk into an FBI field office anywhere in the United States, there’s 55 of them. And he said, Ok. But then he called me — me back a few minutes later and complained, and said, I didn’t tell you, but this — this fellow Johnson is working with Rudy Giuliani.

And Mr. Giuliani is really offended that you think they have to go to a FBI field office. That’s insulting. So couldn’t — couldn’t you just have the FBI or you meet with these guys? And by then I was somewhat agitated and told them that there was no way on Earth that I was going to do that. I wasn’t going to meet with Mr. Johnson.

I certainly wasn’t going to meet with Mr. Giuliani. I’d made that clear repeatedly. And so that’s — that’s the end of that. You know, don’t — don’t raise this with me again. And so, because Mr. Donoghue and I had been exchanging our views about this, I think it was, you know, 7:13 on a Friday night of New Year’s Day, I had run out of patience.

And I sent the email that you’re — you’re talking about where I — I made pretty clear that I had no interest in doing anything further with this.

ADAM KINZINGER: Just to button this up, Mr. Donoghue, did you receive a follow up call from a Department of Defense official about this conspiracy?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I did. I believe it was that same day.

ADAM KINZINGER: Can you give details on that at all?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I received a telephone call from Kash Patel, who I know was a DOD official at that time, worked for, I believe, Acting Secretary of Defense Miller. And he didn’t know much about it. He basically said, do you know anything about this Italy thing and what this is all about? And I informed him that the chief of staff had raised the issue with us in his office on December 29th, that we had looked into it a little bit, we had run the name that was provided to us by the chief of staff.

I learned that that individual is in custody in Italy. He had been arrested for a cyber offense of some sort in Italy. The allegation was that he had been exfiltrating data from his company. He was either an employee or a contractor of that company and he was in custody, that the whole thing was very, very murky at best, and the video was absurd.

But that we — we — the department were not going to have anything to do with it. And DOD should make up its own mind as to what they’re going to do. But I made it clear to him that I didn’t think it was anything worth pursuing.

ADAM KINZINGER: So you called the video absurd and despite the absurdity of that conspiracy theory, we learned that Mr. Meadows discussed it frequently in the White House and Mr. Meadows didn’t let the matter go. The request went from the Department of Justice to the Secretary of Defense, Christopher Miller. As you’ll hear, Secretary Miller actually reached out to a high ranking official based in Italy to follow up on this claim. [Begin Videotape]

CHRISTOPHER MILLER: The ask for him was can you call out the defense attache Rome and find out what the heck’s going on? Because I’m getting all these weird crazy reports and probably the guy on the ground knows more than anything. [End Videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: The Select — Select Committee confirmed that a call was actually placed by Secretary Miller to the attache in Italy to investigate the claim that Italian satellites were switching votes from Trump to Biden. This is one of the best examples of the lengths to which the President — President Trump would go to stay in power, scouring the Internet to support his conspiracy theories shown here, as he told Mr. Donoghue in that December 27th call, quote, “you guys may not be following the Internet the way I do”. President Trump’s efforts to this point had failed.

Stonewalled by Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue, President Trump had only one option, he needed to make Clarke acting attorney general Mr. Rosen, during a January 2nd meeting with Mr. Clark, did you confront him again about his contact with the President? And if so, can you describe that?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: So at this point, Mr. Clark had told us that the President had asked him to consider whether he would be willing to replace me supposedly on a timetable by Monday the fourth. And so I had told Mr. Clark, I thought he was making a colossal error in judgment, but I also hoped to persuade him to be more rational and to understood what we had understood that there’s not a factual basis for the fraud assertions that are being made.

So at this meeting, Mr. Donoghue and I met with Mr. Clark. And I guess my — my hopes were disappointed and that Mr. Clark continue to express the view that he thought there was fraud even though he had not been a participant in the department’s review of that. And that he was dissatisfied that we knew what we were doing.

So — but he had acknowledged that he had had further, I don’t know if it was meeting or phone calls or what, but further discussion with the President despite having, you know, a week earlier said that if he, A, wouldn’t do that and if he did, he — if he got an invitation to do that. He would let Richard Donoghue or me know.

So we had a — it was a contentious meeting where we were chastising him that he was insubordinate. He was out of line. He had not honored his own representations of what he would do. And he raised again that he thought that that letter should go out. And we were not receptive to that.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did he tell you in that the President had offered him the job of acting attorney general?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: That was a day later on — on the second. He said that the President had asked him to let him know if he’d be willing to take it. Subsequently, he told me that on the Sunday, the third, he told me that the timeline had moved up and that the President had offered him the job and that he was accepting it.

ADAM KINZINGER: Well, that’s what that — what was your reaction to that?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Well, you know, on the one hand I wasn’t going to accept being fired by my subordinate. So I wanted to talk to the President directly. With regard to the reason for that is I wanted to try to convince the President not to go down the wrong path that Mr. Clark seemed to be advocating. And it wasn’t about me. There’s only 17 days left in the administration at that point.

I would have been perfectly content to have either of the gentlemen on my left or right replace me if — if anybody wanted to do that. But I did not want for the Department of Justice to be put in a posture

where it would be doing things that were not consistent with the truth, were not consistent with its own appropriate role, or were not consistent with the Constitution.

So I did four things as soon as Mr. Clark left my office on that Sunday, the third. Number one, I called Mark Meadows and said I need to see the President right away And he was agreeable and set up a meeting for 6:15 that Sunday, so about 2 hours away. Two, I called Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel.

I told him what was going on and he said he would go into the White House to make sure he was at the meeting and he would be supporting the Justice Department’s position as he had been doing consistently. Three, I called Steve Engel, who was — I was at the department. It was a Sunday, but there had been some reasons I needed to be there.

Mr. Engel, I called at home and asked him if he would come in and go to the meeting which he did and proved to be quite helpful. And then number four, I asked Rich Donoghue and Pat Hovickmeon [ph], who had previously been my chief of staff to get the department’s senior leadership on a call and let them know what was going on and — which they did.

And then Eric Herschmann called me to tell me that he was going to go to the meeting and that he would be supporting the Department of Justice position as well. So I knew that the meeting was on course and that I would have a number of people supportive of the Department of Justice’s approach and not supportive of Mr. Clark’s approach.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did Mr. Clark ask you to continue to stay at the department?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: At that Sunday meeting, when he told me that he would be replacing me, he said that he had asked to see me alone because usually he had met with me and Mr. Donoghue because he thought it would be appropriate in light of what was happening to at least offer me that I could stay on as his deputy. I thought that was preposterous.

I told him that was nonsensical and that there was no universe where I was going to do that to stay on and support someone else doing things that were not consistent with what I thought should be done. So I — I didn’t accept that offer, if I can put it that way.

ADAM KINZINGER: And during that meeting did Mr. Clark ask you to sign the Georgia letter?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: That was on the — the Saturday meeting, January 2nd that Mr. Donoghue and I had with him. He again raised with both of us that he wanted us to both to sign that letter actually.

ADAM KINZINGER: So in that meeting did Mr. Clark say he would turn down the President’s offer if you reversed your position and signed the letter?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Yes.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did Mr. Clark — so you still refuse to sign and send that letter, I take it?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: That’s right. I think Mr. Donoghue and I were both very consistent that there was no way we were going to sign that letter. And it didn’t matter what Mr. Clark’s, you know, proposition was in terms of – – of his own activities. We were not going to sign that letter as long as we were in charge of the Justice Department.

ADAM KINZINGER: Thank you for that. By the way, Mr. Donoghue, were you expecting to have to attend a meeting at the White House on Sunday, January 3rd?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: No. As the acting AG indicated, we had a meeting that afternoon that related to preparations for January 6th. So I was at the department, but I had no expectation of leaving the department. It was a

Sunday afternoon and I was there in civilian clothes, as we both were, and expected to have that meeting, do some other work, but I had no expectation of going to the White House that day.

ADAM KINZINGER: So let’s ask, so prior to that Oval Office meeting, did you set up a conference call with senior leadership at the department. And if so, tell us about that call?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Yes. So obviously it was a bit of a scramble that afternoon to prepare for the Oval Office meeting. We had discussed on several occasions, the acting attorney general and I, whether we should expand the circle of people who knew what was going on. It was very important that Steve Engel know and that’s why I reached out to Steve on December 28th because if Mr. Rosen were removed from the seat and the President did not immediately appoint someone else to serve as Attorney General, just by function of the department’s chain of succession, Mr. Engel would be in the seat.

We wanted to make sure he knew what was going on should that occur. So the three of us knew. We also brought — brought Pat Hovickmeon [ph], so the four of us now, but no one else aside from Jeff Clark of course knew what was going on until late that Sunday afternoon. We chose to keep a close hold because we didn’t want to create concern or panic in the Justice Department leadership.

But at this point, I asked the acting AG, what else can I do to help prepare for this meeting at the Oval Office? And he said, you and Pat should get the AAGs on the phone and it’s time to let them know what’s going on. Let’s find out what they may do if there’s a change in leadership because that will help inform the conversation at the Oval Office.

Pat Hovickmeon [ph] subsequently set up that meeting. We got most — not all, but most of the ages on the phone. We very quickly explain to them what the situation was. I told them I don’t need an answer from you right now. I don’t need an answer in this phone call. But if you have an answer, I need it in the next few minutes.

So call me, email me, text me, whatever it is. If you know what you would do if Jeff Clark is put in charge of the department and immediately Eric Dreibend, who was the AAG of the Civil Rights Division said I don’t need to think about it, there’s no way I’m staying. And then the other AAGs began

to chime in and in turn it all essentially said they would leave, they would resign in mass if the President made that change in the department leadership.

ADAM KINZINGER: Incredible. I’d like to look at the assistant attorney generals on the screen if we can pull that, have their pictures. Did every assistant attorney general you spoke to, as you said, agree to resign?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Makan Delrahim was not on the call only because we had some difficulty reaching him. But yes, the other people on the screen were on the call and all without hesitation said that they would resign.

ADAM KINZINGER: So as part of the Select Committee’s investigation, we found that while Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue, and Mr. Engel were preparing for their meeting at the White House, Jeff Clark and the president were in constant communication beginning at 7:00 AM. White House call logs obtained by the committee show that by 4:19 PM on January 3rd, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clark as the acting attorney general. As far as the White House was concerned, Mr. Clark was already at the top of the Justice Department.

Two hours later, DOJ leadership arrived at the White House. The select committee interviewed every person who was inside the room that — was inside the room during this Sunday evening Oval Office meeting. Mr. Cipollone told the committee that he was “unmistakably angry” during the meeting and that he, along with Eric Herschmann and Mr. Donoghue, “forcefully challenged Mr. Clark to produce evidence of his election fraud theories.” Mr. Rosen, can you describe how that meeting started?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Yes. So, after some preliminaries, so we — we — Mr. Meadows had ushered us all in and then he left. So, Mr. Cipollone did some introductions and things. So, after some preliminaries, the president turned to me and he said, well, one thing we know is you, Rosen, you aren’t going to do anything. You don’t even agree with the — the claims of election fraud, and this other guy at least might do something.

And then I said, well, Mr. President, you’re right that I’m not going to allow the Justice Department to do anything to try to overturn the election. That’s true. But the reason for that is because that’s what’s consistent with the facts and the law, and that’s what’s required under the Constitution. So, that’s the right answer and a good thing for the country, and therefore I submit it’s the right thing for you, Mr. President.

And that kicked off another two hours of discussion, in which everyone in the room was in one way or another making different points but supportive of my approach for the Justice Department and critical of Mr. Clark.

ADAM KINZINGER: So, at some point, Mr. Donoghue comes in the room. Can you explain what led to him coming in the room?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Oh, I forgot about that. So, initially, in part I think because he was underdressed, we — and we had not arranged — we had not yet told the president that he was going to come in — the White House had had a list of who would be there. That did include Mr. Engel and the White House counsel and the deputy White House counsel, Mr. Herschmann.

We went in, and then we told the president, you know, maybe 10 minutes into the meeting or something, I forget how far in, that Mr. Donoghue was outside. And he said, well, bring him in. And then — then Mr. Donoghue came in and joined the meeting.

ADAM KINZINGER: So, Mr. Donoghue, you — you enter that room. Can you set the scene for us and describe the tone you walked into?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Yes. But if I could just back up one moment, Congressman, because you put the pictures up on the screen of the AAGs. I just want to make clear, one of the AAGs who was not on the screen was John Demers. John was the National Security Division AAG. John was on the call, but I prefaced a call by saying, John, we need you to stay in place.

National security is too important. We need to minimize the disruption. Whether you resign is entirely up to you, obviously, and we’ll respect your decision either way. But I’m asking you, please stay in place, and he did. So, I don’t want to leave the impression that he was not willing to resign, because I think he was.

ADAM KINZINGER: Great. Thank you. Thank you for that.

RICHARD DONOGHUE: So, with regard to entering the Oval Office, I was sitting in the hallway. An administrative assistant passed by. She asked me are you supposed to be in this meeting with the president? I said no, I’m simply here in case questions come up that other people don’t have the answer to. And she walked away, and then came back probably 30 seconds later and said the president wants you in the meeting.

I proceed into the Oval Office. I took probably two or three steps in and I stopped because I was, as the AG said, not exactly properly attired. I was wearing jeans and muddy boots and an Army t-shirt, and I never would arrive in the Oval Office this way. I said Mr. President, I apologize. I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was going to be here.

And he said no, no, no, just come in, come in, come in. And so, I went in. I attempted to take a seat on one of the couches that are behind the chairs arrayed in front of the president’s desk. And he said, oh, no, no, no, you’re going to be up here. And everyone kind of laughed and they moved the chairs a little bit.

Someone from the White House counsel’s office picked up a spare chair and put it directly in front of the president, and I took that seat.

ADAM KINZINGER: Was it — was there discussion about Mr. Clark? Can you — can you kind of enlighten some of what that discussion was?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Yes. So, the conversation at this point had moved beyond the specific allegations, whether it was State Farm Arena or Antrim County or Pennsylvania or whatever. We had discussed those repeatedly and the converse — that was backdrop to the conversation. But the conversation at this point was really about whether the president should remove Jeff Rosen and replace him with Jeff Clark.

And everyone in the room I think understood that that meant that letter would go out. So, that was the focus. It was about a two and a half hour meeting after I entered. And so, there were discussions about the pros and cons of doing that. Early on, the president said what do I have to lose? And it was actually a good opening because I said, Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose.

And I began to explain to him what he had to lose and what the country had to lose and what the department had to lose, and this was not in anyone’s best interest. That conversation went on for some time. Everyone essentially chimed in with their own thoughts, all of which were consistent about how damaging this would be to the country, to the department, to the administration, to him personally.

And at some point, the conversation turned to whether Jeff Clark was even qualified, competent to run the Justice Department, which in my mind he clearly was not. And it was a heated conversation. I thought it was useful to point out to the president that Jeff Clark simply didn’t have the skills, the ability, and the experience to run the department.

And so, I said, Mr. President, you’re talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who has never conducted a criminal investigation. He’s telling you that he’s going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days.

It’s impossible. It’s absurd. It’s not going to happen and it’s going to fail. He has never been in front of a trial jury, a grand jury. He’s never even been to Chris Wray’s office. I said at one point, if you walked into Chris Wray’s office, one, would you know how to get there? And two, if you got there, would he even know who you are?

And do you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following your orders? It’s not going to happen. He’s not competent. And that’s the — the point at which Mr. Clark tried to defend himself by saying, well, I’ve been involved in very significant civil and environmental litigation. I’ve argued many appeals in appellate courts and things of that nature.

And then I pointed out that, yes, he was an environmental lawyer, and I didn’t think that was appropriate background to be running in the United States Justice Department.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did anybody in there support Mr. Clark?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: No one.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Rosen, it was you he was going to replace. So, what was your view about the president’s plan to appoint Mr. Clark?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Well — well, as I alluded to earlier, the issue really wasn’t about me. It was — it would have been fine, as I said, to have had Rich Donoghue replace me. I would have said great, I — I get 17 days vacation or something. But the issue was the use of the Justice Department, and it’s just so important that the Justice Department adhere to the facts and the law.

That’s what it’s there to do, and that’s what our constitutional role was. And so, if the Justice Department gets out of the role that it’s supposed to play, that’s really bad for our country. And I don’t know of a simpler way to say that. And when you damage our fundamental institutions, it’s not easy to repair them.

So, I thought this was a really important issue, to try to make sure that the Justice Department was able to stay on the right course.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Donoghue, did — did you eventually tell the president that mass resignations would occur if he installed Mr. Clark and what the consequences would be?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Yes. So, this was in line with the president’s saying what do I have to lose? And along those lines, he said, so suppose I do this. Suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark? What would you do? And I said, Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I’m not working one minute for this guy, who I had just declared was completely incompetent.

And so, the president immediately turned to — to Mr. Engel. And he said, Steve, you wouldn’t resign, would you? And he said absolutely I would, Mr. President. You leave me no choice. And — and then I said, and we’re not the only ones. No one cares if we resign. If Steve and I go, that’s fine. It doesn’t matter.

But I’m telling you what’s going to happen. You’re going to lose your entire department leadership. Every single AAG will walk out on you. Your entire department leadership will walk out within hours. And I don’t know what happens after that. I don’t know what the United States attorneys are going to do. We have US attorneys in districts across the country, and my guess would be that many of them would have resigned.

And that would then have led to resignations across the department in Washington. And I said, Mr. President, within 24, 48, 72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What’s that going to say about you?

ADAM KINZINGER: Wow. Mr. Engel, what was — can you describe what your reaction was to that?

STEVEN ENGEL: Yeah. No, I — I think when the president — my recollection is that when the president turned to me and said, Steve, you wouldn’t leave, would you, I said, Mr. President, I’ve been with you through four attorneys general, including two acting as attorney general, but I couldn’t be part of this. And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, all anyone is going to sort of think about when they see this — no one is going to read this letter.

All anyone is going to think is that you went through two attorneys general in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. And so, the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed the result of the election. It’s going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark.

And I think at that point Pat Cipollone said, yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this letter.

RICHARD DONOGHUE: And I would — I would note too, Congressman, that it was in this part of the conversation where Steve pointed out that Jeff Clark would be left leading a graveyard, and that — that comment clearly had an impact on the president. The leadership will be gone. Jeff Clark will be left leading a graveyard.

STEVEN ENGEL: Again, the — the premise that — which, as Mr. Donohue has said, was that Mr. Clark could come in and take over the Department of Justice and do something different was just an absurd premise. And all he was doing, Mr. Clark, by putting himself forward was blowing himself up. And, you know, if the president were to have gone that course, you know, it would have been a grievous error for the president as well.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Cipollone, the White House counsel, told the committee that Mr. Engel’s response had a noticeable impact on the president, that this was a turning point in the conversation. Mr. Donohue, towards the end of this meeting, did the president ask you what was going to happen to Mr. Clark?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: He did. When we finally got to the — I would say the last 15 minutes of the meeting, the president’s decision was apparent. He announced it. Jeff Clark tried to scrape his way back and — and asked the president to reconsider. The president doubled down, said no, I’ve made my decision. That’s it. We’re not going to do it. And then he turned to me and said, so what happens to him now, meaning Mr. Clark.

And he understood that Mr. Clark reported to me. And I — I didn’t initially understand the question. I – – I said Mr. President? He said, are you going to fire him? And I said I don’t have the authority to fire him. He’s a Senate confirmed assistant attorney general. And he said, well, who has the authority to fire him?

And I said only you do, sir. And he said, well, I’m not going to fire him. I said Alright. Well, then we should all go back to work.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did you get a call from the president later that night?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I did, I don’t know, probably 90 minutes later or something like that.

ADAM KINZINGER: What was that about?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: The president — at this — at this point, we left the White House, reconvened at the department. I left the department. I was back in my apartment. My cell phone rang. It was the president, and he had information about a truck supposedly full of shredded ballots in Georgia that was in the custody of an ICE agent whose name he had.

I told him that ICE was part of Department Homeland Security. I hadn’t heard about this. If Department of Homeland Security needed our assistance, we of course would provide it. But it was really up to DHS to make a call if their agent was involved. And he said fine, I understand. Can you just make sure that Ken, meaning Ken Cuccinelli, knows about this?

I said fine, I would pass that along to him. I eventually contacted Ken Cuccinelli later that evening. And I said this is what the president told me. If you guys have anything you think should be brought to our attention, let me know. And he said thank you, and that was it.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Cipollone left the meeting convinced the president would not appoint Mr. Clark, but he didn’t think the president had actually accepted the truth about the election. Sure enough, all the same debunked theories appeared in his speech at the Ellipse three days later. [Begin videotape]

DONALD TRUMP: In the state of Arizona, over 36,000 ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens. 11,600 more ballots than votes were counted, more than there were actual voters. You see that? In Wisconsin, corrupt Democrat run cities deployed more than 500 illegal, unmanned, unsecured drop boxes, which collected a minimum of 91,000 unlawful votes. [End videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Donohue, Mr. Rosen, Mr. Engel, and others stopped President Trump’s efforts at least temporarily. Yet the message President Trump and his Republican allies pushed throughout December made its way to his supporters anyway, and they keep up the pressure campaign on the way to storming the Capitol on January 6th? Mr. Rosen, were you at the Department of Justice on January 6th?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Yes, I was there all day.

ADAM KINZINGER: Once the Capitol was under attack, I understand that you communicated with fellow Cabinet members and Capitol Hill leadership. Can you tell us who you spoke to?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Yeah, I was basically on the phone virtually nonstop all day, some calls with our own DOJ folks, some with cabinet counterparts at DHS and — and Defense and Interior, some with senior White House officials and with a number of Congressional leaders. I received calls from Speaker Pelosi, from Leader McCarthy, from Leader Schumer.

I believe Leader McConnell’s chief of staff called, a number of other members of Congress as well. And the — you know, the basic thrust of the calls with the members of Congress was there’s a, you know, dire situation here and — and can you help? And I reported to them that we were, on a very urgent basis, sending help from the department.

We — we wound up sending over 500 agents and officers from FBI, ATF, and the U.S. Marshals to assist with restoring order at the Capitol. So, had a number of calls. As I say, it was more or less nonstop all afternoon.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did you speak to the vice president that day?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Yes, twice. The —

ADAM KINZINGER: No. Please, go ahead.

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: Well, I was gonna say, the — the first call was a one on one discussion, somewhat akin to the Congressional leadership calls, updating him on what we were doing to assist. And the — the second call was a conference call around 7:00 with the vice president, Congressional leaders, senior White House staff, some other cabinet officials to address that order appeared to be close to being restored, or restored but security still being determined, and the question being what time could the Congress reassemble.

And the answer was 8:00. And thankfully, Congress did reassemble and complete its constitutional duty. There was one highlight of that second call with the vice president, which is Mr. Donoghue had gone to the rotunda of the Capitol to be able to give firsthand account, and was able to tell the — the folks on the call, including the vice president, that we thought 8:00 would work.

ADAM KINZINGER: Did you speak to the president on January 6th?

JEFFREY A. ROSEN: No. I spoke to a number of senior White House officials, but not the president.

ADAM KINZINGER: Mr. Donoghue, on January 6th, we know from Mr. Rosen that you helped in the effort to reconvene joint session — the joint session. Is that correct?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: Yes, sir.

ADAM KINZINGER: We see here in a video that we’re going to play now you arriving with your security detail to help secure the Capitol. Mr. Donohue, 30 minutes after you arrived at the Capitol, did you lead a briefing for the vice president?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I’m not sure exactly what the timeframe was, but I did participate in the call and participate in briefing the vice president, as well as the Congressional leadership that night, yes.

ADAM KINZINGER: Where’d you conduct that call at?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I was in an office. I’m not entirely sure where it was. My detail found it because the acoustics in the rotunda were such that it wasn’t really conductive to having a call, so they found an office. We went to that office, and I believe I participated in two phone calls, one at 1801 and one at 1900 that night from that office.

ADAM KINZINGER: What time did you actually end up leaving the Capitol?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I waited until the Senate was back in session, which I believe they were gaveled in a few minutes after 8:00 PM. And once they were back in session and we were confident that the entire facility was secured and cleared, that there were no individuals hiding in closets or under desks, that there were no IEDs or other suspicious devices left behind, I left minutes later.

I was probably gone by 8:30.

ADAM KINZINGER: And Mr. Donoghue, did you ever hear from President Trump that day?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: No. Like the AAG — the acting AG, I spoke to Pat Cipollone and Mark Meadows and the vice president and the Congressional leadership, but I never spoke to the president that day.

ADAM KINZINGER: So, in today’s hearing, we’ve showcased the efforts of the Americans before us to stand up for democracy. Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donohue stayed steadfastly committed to the oath they take as officials in the Department of Justice. On January 6th itself, they assisted during the attack while our commander in chief stayed silent.

Their bravery is a high moment in the sorted story of what led to January 6th. My colleagues and I up here also take an oath. Some of them failed to uphold theirs, and instead chose to spread the big lie. Days after the tragic events of January 6th, some of these same Republican members requested pardons in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Five days after the attack on the Capitol, Representative Mo Brooks sent the email on the screen now. As you see, he emailed the White House “Pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz, requesting a pardon for Representative Gaetz himself and unnamed others.” Witnesses told the Select Committee that the president considered offering pardons to a wide range of individuals connected to the president.

Let’s listen to some of that testimony. [Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN: And was Representative Gaetz requesting a pardon?

ERIC HERSCHMANN: I believe so. The — the general tone was we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the president’s positions on these things. The pardon that he was discussing requesting was as broad as you can describe, from beginning — I remember he’s — from the beginning of time up until today for any and all things.

Then he mentioned Nixon. And I said Nixon’s pardon was never nearly that broad.

UNKNOWN: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, have both advocated for there’d be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting, and a — a handful of other members that weren’t at the December 21st meeting as the presumptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon, and he was doing so since early December.

I’m not sure why Mr. Gaetz would reach out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a presidential pardon.

UNKNOWN: Did they all contact you?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Not all of them, but several of them did.

UNKNOWN: So, you mentioned Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Brooks.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talked about Congressional pardons, but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House was going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon, too. I’m sorry.

UNKNOWN: Mr. Perry? Did he talk to you directly?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Yes, he did.

UNKNOWN: Did Marjorie Taylor Greene contact you?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: No, she didn’t contact me about it. I heard that she had asked White House Counsel’s Office for a pardon from Mr. Philbin, but I didn’t frequently communicate with Ms. Greene.

UNKNOWN: Are you aware of any conversations or communications regarding the possibility of giving Congressman Matt Gaetz a pardon?

JOHN MCENTEE: I know he had asked for it, but I don’t know if he ever received one or what happened with it.

UNKNOWN: How do you know that Congressman Gaetz asked for a pardon?

JOHN MCENTEE: He told me.

UNKNOWN: Tell us about that.

JOHN MCENTEE: He told me he’d asked Meadows for a pardon.

UNKNOWN: Were you involved in or did you witness any conversations about the possibility of a blanket pardon for everyone involved in January 6th?

JOHN MCENTEE: I had heard that mentioned, yeah.

UNKNOWN: Do you know whether the president had any conversations about potentially pardoning any family members?

JOHN MCENTEE: I know he had hinted at a blanket pardon for the January 6th thing for anybody. But I think he had for all the staff and everyone involved not with January 6th, but just before he left office. I know he had talked about that. [End videotape]

ADAM KINZINGER: The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you’ve committed a crime. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. The members of the Select Committee may have additional questions for today’s witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to these questions. Without objection, members will be permitted ten business days to submit statements for the record, including opening remarks and additional questions for the witnesses.

Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois for a closing statement.

ADAM KINZINGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Justice Department lawyers are not the president’s personal lawyers. We count on them to be on the side of the law and to defend the best interest of the United States, not the best interest of any political campaign. That’s how it’s been since the department was founded soon after the Civil War. Justice Department lawyers are supposed to play it 100 percent straight.

President Trump tried to erase his loss at the ballot box by parachuting an unqualified man into the top job at Justice. It was a power play to win at all costs with no regard for the will of the American people. It was about ignoring millions of votes, ignore them, throw them out, label them fraudulent, corrupt, illegal, whatever.

Facts were clearly just an inconvenience. From the Oval Office, President Trump urged others to bring his big lie to life. He begged just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. He didn’t care what the department’s investigations proved. What good were facts when they would only confirm his loss?

And it’s no surprise that all the far out, fully fabricated whack job conspiracy theories collapsed under even the slightest scrutiny. That insanity went from the Internet to the highest levels of government in no time. The bottom line, the most senior leadership of the Justice Department, from Attorney General Bill Barr to Jeff Rosen, his successor, and his deputy, Rich Donoghue, everyone except Jeff Clark was telling President Trump the very same thing.

The conspiracy theories were false. The allegation of a stolen election was a lie. The data left no room for doubt, nothing to question, and the Constitution left no room for President Trump to change the outcome of the election. But we’re here today because the facts were irrelevant to President Trump. It was about protecting his very real power and very fragile ego, even if it required recklessly undermining our in — our entire electoral system by wildly casting baseless doubt upon it. In short, he was willing to sacrifice our republic to prolong his presidency.

I can imagine no more dishonorable act by a president. We owe a great debt of gratitude to these men you’ve heard from here today, real leaders who stood for justice when it was in grave peril, who put their country first. When the leader of the free world demanded otherwise, they threatened to resign rather than corrupt our democracy.

And thanks largely to each of them, President Trump’s coup failed. Contrast that to Jeff Clark, who would do exactly what the president wanted, say there was massive fraud, forget the facts and leave the rest to President Trump’s Congressional friends. Mr. Clark refused to cooperate with this committee. He pled the fifth over 125 times.

Why risk self in criminal — in — incrimination? And President Trump’s Congressional friends, some of them are angling for pardons? They knew that every bit of what they did was a lie and it was wrong. That’s all the more reason to respect those who came here to testify today. We thank them for their unflinching service in the face of incredible pressure.

As it’s said, the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is good men to do nothing. Thankfully, there were good people in the Department of Justice. You heard from other good people too on Tuesday. They too defended us. But I’m still worried that not enough has changed to prevent this from happening again.

The oath that we take has to mean something. It has to cut to the core of who we are and be the driving force of our service to this nation. We on this committee, we may be able to shine light on the darkness, but that is not enough.

ADAM KINZINGER: It’s now up to every American, now and in the future, to stand for truth, to reject the lies wherever we conront them. And our towns, and our capitals, and our friendships, and our families, and at the ballot box, and within our own minds and hearts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for a closing statement.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And — and I again want to thank the witnesses for being here today. After today, I suspect that there will be some who label you agents of the Deep State or something else conspiratorial or nonsensical meant to justify ignoring what you said today. ignoring the facts. That maybe the short term cost of acting honorably and telling the truth.

But your actions should have an important long term impact. They will help keep us on the course set by the framers of our Constitution. Let me paraphrase the words of John Adams and others: whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is ultimately for the American people to decide.

And let me also today make a broader statement to millions of Americans who put their trust in Donald Trump. In these hearings so far, you’ve heard from more than a dozen Republicans who’ve told you what actually happened in the weeks before January 6th. You will hear from more in the hearings to come. Several of them served Donald Trump in his Administration, others in his campaign.

Others have been conservative Republicans for their entire careers. It can be difficult to accept that President Trump abused your trust, that he deceived you. Many will invent excuses to ignore that fact. But that is a fact. I wish it weren’t true, but it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Again, I thank our witnesses and thank my colleagues for this hearing. As we conclude our fifth hearing in this series, I want to remind the American people of a few things the committee has shown. Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Top Republican officials who supported Trump knew that he lost and told him he lost.

Trump knew he lost. Those who say the election was affected by widespread voter fraud are lying. They were lying in 2020, they were lying in 2021, and indeed they are lying today. Donald Trump went to court. That’s the right any candidate seeking to challenge the outcome of an election must do. Donald Trump lost in court dozens and dozens of [times]. He lost in part because there was no evidence that voter fraud had any impact on the results of the election.

To borrow a phrase from our witness earlier this week, Mr. Bowers, all he had was theories and no evidence. As I’ve said, if you’re running for office in the United States that’s the end of the line. You accept the court’s judgment, you concede the race, you respect the rule of law and the will of the voters.

But for Donald Trump that wasn’t the end of the line. Not even close. The voters refused to keep him in office. The courts refused to keep him in office. But he continued to lie. And he went in search of anyone who would go along with his scheme. And we have shown today he pressured the Justice Department to act as an arm of his reelection campaign.

He hoped law enforcement officials would give the appearance of legitimacy to his lies so he and his allies had some veneer of credibility when they told the country that the election was stolen. Earlier this week we showed how Donald Trump brought the weight of the presidency down on local and state officials who were trying to do their jobs and ultimately did.

They investigated his claims and found them to be false. In the end, they endured Trump’s pressure campaign at great risk to themselves and their loved ones. And of course there was a scheme to get the former Vice President, Mike Pence, to violate the law and the Constitution by rejecting the Electoral College votes on January 6th and blocking the peaceful transfer of power.

I mentioned the former Vice President last because as we showed, when he refused to bow to the pressure in those critical moments on January 6th, there was a backup plan for stopping the transfer of power: the mob and their vile threats. Up to this point, we’ve shown the inner workings of what was essentially a political coup, an attempt to use the powers of the government from the local level all the way up to overturn the results of the election.

Find me the votes. Send fake electors. Just say the election was corrupt. Along the way we saw threats of violence. We saw what some people were willing to do. In the service of the nation? The Constitution? No. In service of Donald Trump. When the Select Committee continues this series of hearings, we’re going to show how Donald Trump tapped into the threat of violence, how he summoned the mob to Washington, and how after corruption and political pressure failed to keep Donald Trump in office, violence became the last option.

Our investigation is ongoing. Those hearings have spurred an influx of new information that the committee and our investigators are working to assess. We are committed to presenting the American people with the most complete information possible. That will be our aim when we reconvene in the coming weeks.

The Chair, however, requests those in the hearing room remain seated until the Capitol Police have escorted members from the room. Without objection, the committee stands to adjourned.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

The Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point. Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the chair announces the committee’s approval to release the deposition material presented during today’s hearing.

Good afternoon. In our last hearing, we told a story of a scheme driven by Donald Trump to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to illegally overturn the election results. We showed that when the pressure campaign failed and Mike Pence fulfilled his constitutional obligation, Donald Trump turned a violent mob loose on him. We showed that the mob came within roughly 40 feet of the vice president. Today we’ll show that what happened to Mike Pence wasn’t an isolated part of Donald Trump’s scheme to overturn the election. In fact, pressuring public servants into betraying their oath was a fundamental part of the playbook, and a handful of election officials in several key states stood between Donald Trump and the upending of American democracy.

As we meet again today, it’s important to remember, when we count the votes for president, we count the votes state by state. For the most part, the candidates who win the popular vote in a state wins all the state’s Electoral College votes, and whoever wins a majority of the Electoral College votes wins the presidency. So, when Donald Trump tried to overturn the election results, he focused on just a few states. He wanted officials at the local and state level to say the vote was tainted by widespread fraud and throw out the results even though, as we showed last week, there wasn’t any voter fraud that could have overturn the election results. And like Mike Pence, these public servants wouldn’t go along with Donald Trump’s scheme.

And when they wouldn’t embrace the big lie and substitute the will of the voters with Donald Trump’s will to remain in power, Donald Trump worked to ensure they’d face the consequences; threats to people’s livelihood and lives, threats of violence that Donald Trump knew about and amplified.

And in our other hearings, we can’t just look backward at what happened in late 2020 and in early 2021 because the danger hadn’t gone away. Our democracy endured a mighty test on January 6th and in the days before. We see our institutions held, but what does that really mean? Democratic institutions aren’t abstractions or ideas. playbook, and a handful of election officials in several key states stood between Donald Trump and the upending of American democracy.

As we meet again today, it’s important to remember, when we count the votes for president, we count the votes state by state. For the most part, the candidates who win the popular vote in a state wins all the state’s Electoral College votes, and whoever wins a majority of the Electoral College votes wins the presidency.

So, when Donald Trump tried to overturn the election results, he focused on just a few states. He wanted officials at the local and state level to say the vote was tainted by widespread fraud and throw out the results even though, as we showed last week, there wasn’t any voter fraud that could have overturn the election results.

And like Mike Pence, these public servants wouldn’t go along with Donald Trump’s scheme. And

when they wouldn’t embrace the big lie and substitute the will of the voters with Donald Trump’s will to remain in power, Donald Trump worked to ensure they’d face the consequences; threats to people’s livelihood and lives, threats of violence that Donald Trump knew about and amplified. And in our other hearings, we can’t just look backward at what happened in late 2020 and in early 2021 because the danger hadn’t gone away. Our democracy endured a mighty test on January 6th and in the days before. We see our institutions held, but what does that really mean? Democratic institutions aren’t abstractions or ideas. They are local officials who oversee elections, secretaries of state, people in whom we placed our trust that they’ll carry out their duties. But what if they don’t?

Two weeks ago, New Mexico held its primary elections. One county commission refused to certify the results, citing vague, unsupported claims dealing with Dominion voting machines. The court stepped in, saying New Mexico law required the commission to certify the results. Two of the three members of the commission finally relented. One still refused, saying his vote “Isn’t based on any evidence. It’s not based on any facts. It’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition, and that’s all I need.” By the way, a few months ago this county commissioner was found guilty of illegally entering the Capitol grounds on January 6th. This story reminds us of a few things.

First, as we’ve shown in our previous hearings, claims that widespread voter fraud tainted the 2020 presidential election have always been a lie. Donald Trump knew they were a lie and he kept amplifying them anyway. Everything we describe today, the relentless, destructive pressure campaign on state and local officials, was all based on a lie. Donald Trump knew it. He did it anyway. Second, the lie hasn’t gone away. It’s corrupting our democratic institutions. People who believe that lie are now seeking positions of public trust. And as seen in New Mexico, their oath to be — to the people they serve will take a back seat to their commitment to the big lie. If that happens, who will make sure our institutions don’t break under the pressure? We won’t have close calls. We’ll have a catastrophe.

My distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Schiff, will present much of the Select Committee’s findings on this matter. First, I’m pleased to recognize our vice chair, Ms. Cheney, of Wyoming for any opening statement she’d care to offer.

LIZ CHENEY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today we will begin examining President Trump’s effort to overturn the election by exerting pressure on state officials and state legislatures. Donald Trump had a direct and personal role in this effort, as did Rudy Giuliani, as did John Eastman. In other words, the same people who were attempting to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes illegally were also simultaneously working to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election at the state level. Each of these efforts to overturn the election is independently serious. Each deserves attention, both by Congress and by our Department of Justice. But as a federal court has already indicated, these efforts were also part of a broader plan, and all of this was done in preparation for January 6th. I would note two points for particular focus today.

First, today you will hear about calls made by President Trump to officials of Georgia and other states. As you listen to these tapes, keep in mind what Donald Trump already knew at the time he was making those calls. He had been told over and over again that his stolen election allegations were nonsense. For example, this is what former Attorney General Bill Barr said to President Trump about allegations in Georgia.

[Begin videotape]

WILLIAM BARR:

We took a look — a hard look at this ourselves. And based on our review of it, including the interviews of the key witnesses, the Fulton County allegations were — had no merit. They’re — the — the ballots under the table were legitimate ball — ballots. They weren’t in a suitcase. They had been pre-opened for eventually feeding into the machine, all the stuff about the water leak and that there was some subterfuge involved. We felt there was some confusion, but — but there was no evidence of a subterfuge to create an opportunity to feed things into the count. And so, we didn’t see any evidence of — of fraud in the — in the Fulton County episode.

[End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: And Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue told Donald Trump this.

[Begin videotape]

RICHARD DONOGHUE:

And I said something to the effect of, sir, we’ve done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY:

Mr. Trump was told by his own advisers that he had no basis for his stolen election claims, yet he continued to pressure state officials to change the election results. Second, you will hear about a number of threats and efforts to pressure state officials to reverse the election outcome. One of our witnesses today, Gabriel Sterling, explicitly warned President Trump about potential violence on December 1st, 2020, more than a month before January 6th. You will see excerpts from that video repeatedly today.

[Begin Videotape]

GABRIEL STERLING:

It has all gone to bar. All of it. Joe diGenova [ph] today asked for Chris Krebs, a patriot who ran CISA, to be shot. A 20 something tech in Gwinnett County today has death threats and a noose put out saying he should be hung for treason because he was transferring a report on batches from an EMS to a county computer, so he could read it. It has to stop. Mr. President, you have not condemned these actions or this language. Senators, you have not condemned this language or these actions. This has to stop. We need you to step up. And if you’re gonna take a position of leadership, show some. My boss, Secretary Raffensperger, his address is out there. They have people doing caravans in front of their house. They’ve had people come on to their property. It has to stop. This is elections. This is the backbone of democracy. And all of you who have not said a damn word are complicit in this.

[End Videotape]

LIZ CHENEY:

The point is this, Donald Trump did not care about the threats of violence. He did not condemn them. He made no effort to stop them. He went forward with his fake allegations anyway. One more point, I would urge all of those watching today to focus on the evidence the committee will present. Don’t be distracted by politics. This is serious. We cannot let America become a nation of conspiracy theories and thug violence. Finally, I want to thank our witnesses today for all of your service to our country. Today, all of America will hear about the selfless actions of these men and women who acted honorably to uphold the law, protect our freedom, and preserve our Constitution. Today, Mr. Chairman, we will all see an example of what truly makes America great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, for an opening statement.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice Chair. On November 3rd, 2020, Donald Trump ran for eelection to the office of the presidency and he lost. His opponent, Joe Biden, finished ahead in the key battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and elsewhere. Nevertheless, and for the first time in history, the losing Presidential candidate fought to hold on to power. As we have seen in previous hearings, he did so through a variety of means. On Election Day, he sought to stop the counting of the vote knowing that the millions of absentee ballots elections officials would be counting on Election Day and thereafter would run strongly against him and deliver a victory to Joe Biden.

Next, and when he could not stop the counting, he tried to stop state legislatures and governors from certifying the results of the election. He went to court and filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits making unsubstantiated claims of fraud. When that too failed, he mounted a pressure campaign directed at individual state legislators to try to get them to go back into session and either declare him the winner, decertify Joe Biden as the winner, or send two slates of electors to Congress, one for Biden and one for him and pressure Vice President Pence to choose him as the winner. But the state legislatures wouldn’t go along with this scheme and neither would the Vice President.

None of the legislatures agreed to go back in the special session and declare him the winner. No legitimate state authority in the states Donald Trump lost would agree to appoint fake Trump electors and send them to Congress. But this didn’t stop the Trump campaign either. They assembled groups of individuals in key battleground states and got them to call themselves electors, created phony certificates associated with these fake electors, and then transmitted these certificates to Washington and to the Congress to be counted during the joint session of Congress on January 6th. None of this worked, but according to federal District Judge David Carter, former President Trump and others likely violated multiple federal laws by engaging in this scheme, including conspiracy to defraud the United States.

You will hear evidence of the former President and his top adviser’s direct involvement in key elements of this plot, or what Judge Carter called a coup, in search of a legal theory. Or as the judge explained, “President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence. It targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. Convincing state legislatures”, he said, “to certify competing electors was essential to stop the count and ensure President Trump’s reelection.”

As we have seen in our prior hearings. Running through this scheme was a big lie that the election was plagued with massive fraud and somehow stolen. You’ll remember what President — the President’s own attorney general, Bill Barr said, he told the President about these claims of massive fraud affecting the outcome of the election.

[Begin Videotape]

WILLIAM BARR:

And I told him that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public or bull — was bullshit. I mean that the claims of fraud were bullshit.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

The President’s lie was and is a dangerous cancer on the body politic. If you can convince Americans that they cannot trust their own elections, that any time they lose it is somehow illegitimate, then what is left but violence to determine who should govern. This brings us to the focus of today’s hearing. When state elections officials refused to stop the count, Donald Trump and his campaign tried to put pressure on them. When state executive officials refused to certify him the winner of states he lost, he applied more pressure. When state legislators refused to go back into session and appoint Trump electors, he amped up the pressure yet again. Anyone who got in the way of Donald Trump’s continued hold on power after he lost the election was the subject of a dangerous and escalating campaign of pressure.

This pressure campaign brought angry phone calls and texts, armed protests, intimidation, and all too often threats of violence and death. State legislators were singled out. So too were statewide elections officials. Even local elections workers diligently doing their jobs were accused of being criminals and had their lives turned upside down. As we will show, the President’s supporters heard the former President’s claims of fraud and the false allegations he made against state and local officials as a call to action.

[Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN:

Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal. [inaudible] You’re a threat to democracy. [inaudible] You’re a threat to free and honest election. We love America. We love our rights and our freedom. [inaudible] You are a tyrant, you are a felon and you must turn yourself into authorities immediately. [inaudible]

JOCELYN BENSON:

And then about 45 minutes later, we started to hear the noises outside my home. And that’s why my stomach sank. And I thought, it’s me. And there — and then it’s just we don’t know what’s gonna — the uncertainty of that was what was the fear. Are they coming with guns? Are they going to attack my House? I’m in here with my kid. You know, I’m trying to put him to bed. And so it was — yeah, that was the scariest moment just not knowing what was going to happen.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

This pressure campaign against state and local officials spanned numerous contested states as you will see in this video produced by the Select Committee.

[Begin Videotape]

JOSH ROSELMAN:

My name is Josh Roselman. I’m an investigative counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. Beginning in late November 2020, the President and his lawyers started appearing before state legislators urging them to give their electoral votes to Trump even though he lost the popular vote.

RUDY GIULIANI:

I represent President Trump along with Jenna Ellis. And this is our fourth or fifth hearing.

DONALD TRUMP:

This election has to be turned around because we won Pennsylvania by a lot and we won all of these swing states by a lot.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

This was a strategy with both practical and legal elements. The Select Committee has obtained an email from just two days after the election in which a Trump campaign lawyer named Cleta Mitchell asked another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, to write a memo justifying the idea.

UNKNOWN:

When do you remember this coming up as an option in the post-election period for the first time?

CLETA MITCHELL:

Right after the election. It might have been before the election.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

Eastman prepared a memo attempting to justify this strategy, which was circulated to the Trump White House, Rudy Giuliani’s legal team, and state legislators around the country. And he appeared before the Georgia state legislature to advocate for it publicly.

JOHN EASTMAN:

She could also do what the Florida legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourselves. And when you add in the mix of the significant statistical anomalies in sworn [affidavits] and video evidence of outright election fraud, I don’t think it’s just your authority to do that. But quite frankly, I think you have a duty to do that, to protect the integrity of — of the election here in Georgia.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

But Republican officials in several states released public statements recognizing that President Trump’s proposal was unlawful. For instance, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called the proposal unconstitutional. While Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers wrote that the idea would undermine the rule of law. The pressure campaign to get state legislators to go along with the scheme intensified when President Trump invited delegations from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House.

UNKNOWN:

Either you or Speaker Chatfield, did you make the point to the President that you were not going to do anything that violated Michigan law?

MIKE SHIRKEY:

I believe we did. Whether or not was those exact words or not, we’re — I think the words that I would have more likely used is we are going to follow the law.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

Nevertheless, the pressure continued. The next day President Trump tweeted quote, “Hopefully the courts and or legislatures will have the courage to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our elections and the United States of America itself. The world is watching.” He posted multiple messages on Facebook, listing the contact information for state officials and urging his supporters to contact them to quote, “Demand a vote on decertification.” In one of those posts, President Trump disclosed Mike Shirkey’s personal phone number to his millions of followers.

MIKE SHIRKEY:

All I remember is receiving over just shy of 4,000 text messages over a short period of time calling to take action. It was a loud noise, loud consistent cadence of, you know, we hear that — that the Trump folks are calling and asking for changes in the electors and you guys can do this. Well, you know they were — they were believing things that were untrue.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

These efforts also involved targeted outreach to state legislators.

ANGELA MCCALLUM:

Hi, Representative. My name is Angela McCallum. I’m calling from Trump campaign headquarters in Washington DC. You do have the power to reclaim your authority and send a — a slate of electors that will support President Trump and Vice President Pence.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

From President Trump’s lawyers and from Trump himself.

DONALD TRUMP:

And I’ve become friendly with legislators that I didn’t know four weeks ago.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

Another legislator, Pennsylvania House Speaker Bryan Cutler, received daily voicemails from Trump’s lawyers in the last week of November.

RUDY GUILIANI:

Mr. Speaker, this is Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. We’re calling you together because we’d like to discuss obviously the election.

JENNA ELLIS:

Hello, Mr. Speaker. This is Jenna Ellis and I’m here with Mayor Giuliani.

RUDY GIULIANI:

Hey, Bryan. It’s Rudy. I really have something important to call to your attention that I think really changes things.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

Cutler felt that the outreach was inappropriate and asked his lawyers to tell Rudy Giuliani to stop calling. But Giuliani continued to reach out.

RUDY GIULIANI:

I understand that you don’t want to talk to me now. I just want to bring some facts to your attention and talk to you as a fellow Republican.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

On December 30th Trump ally Steve Bannon announced a protest at Cutler’s home.

STEVE BANNON:

We’re getting on the road and we’re going down to Cutler. We’re going to start going to offices. And if we have to we’re going to go to homes and we’re going to let them know what we think about them.

BRYAN CUTLER:

There were multiple protests. I actually don’t remember the exact number. There was at least three, I think, outside of either my district office or my home. And you’re correct, my son — my then 15 year old son was home by himself for the first one. All of my personal information was doxxed online. It was my personal email, my personal cell phone, my home phone number. In fact, we had to disconnect our home phone for about three days because it would ring all hours of the night and would fill up with messages.

UNKNOWN:

Bryan Cutler, we are outside. Clerks facing felony charges in Michigan. Poll watchers denied access in Pennsylvania —

JOSH ROSELMAN:

— These ads were another element in the effort. The Trump campaign spent millions of dollars running ads online and on television.

UNKNOWN:

The evidence is overwhelming. Call your governor and legislators. Demand they inspect the machines and hear the evidence.

JOSH ROSELMAN:

Public pressure on state officials often grew dangerous in the lead up to January 6th.

UNKNOWN:

Let us in. Let us in. Let us in. Special session. Special session. Special session. We’ll light the whole shit on fire.

NICK FUENTES:

What are we going to do? What can you and I do to a state legislator besides kill him? Although, we should not do that. I’m not advising that, but I mean what else can you do? Right?

UNKNOWN:

The punishment for treason is death.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

The state pressure campaign and the danger it posed to state officials and to State Capitols around the nation was a dangerous precursor to the violence we saw on January 6th at the US Capitol. Today you will hear from Rusty Bowers, the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. He will tell us about his conversations with the President, with Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman, and what the President’s team asked of him and how his oath of office would not permit it. You will then hear from Brad Raffensperger, the Republican Secretary of state of Georgia who Trump directed to quote, “Find 11,780 votes” that did not exist, but just the exact number of votes needed to overtake Joe Biden.

You will also hear from Gabriel Sterling, the Chief Operating Officer — his Chief Operating Officer, about the spurious claims of fraud in the elections in Georgia and who, responding to a cascading set of threats to his elections team, warned the President to stop, that someone was going to get killed. And you will hear from Wandrea — Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, a former local elections worker in Fulton County, Georgia, about how all of the lies about the election impacted the lives of real people who administer our elections and still do. You will hear what they experienced when the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States, sought to cling to power after being voted out of office by the American people. The system held, but barely. And the system held because people of courage, Republicans and Democrats, like the witnesses you will hear today put their oath to the country and constitution above any other consideration. They did their jobs as we must do ours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

I now welcome our first panel of witnesses. We’re joined today by a distinguished legislator from Arizona, Rusty Bowers, who’s a Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. Mr. Bower was first elected to the state legislature in 1993 and has served as Speaker since 2019. Welcome, Speaker Bowers. Brad Raffensperger is the 29th Secretary of State of Georgia, serving in this role since 2019. As an elected official and a Republican, Secretary Raffensperger is responsible for supervising elections in Georgia and maintaining the state’s public records. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Gabriel Sterling is the Chief Operating Officer in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

Mr. Sterling was the statewide voting systems implementation manager for the 2020 election in Georgia, responsible for leading the Secretary of State’s response to the COVID pandemic and rolling out modernized voting equipment. I will swear in our witnesses. The witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand. Do you swear or inform — form under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? Thank you. Please be seated.

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. You’re the Speaker of the Arizona House and a self-described conservative Republican. You campaigned for President Trump and with him during the 2020 election. Is it fair to say that you wanted Donald Trump to win a second term in office? Please.

RUSTY BOWERS:

Yes, Sir. Thank you.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

And is it your understanding that President Biden was the winner of the popular vote in Arizona in 2020?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Yes, sir.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you. Pursuant to Section five C8 of House Resolution 503, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff for questions.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. Before we begin with the questions that I have prepared for you, I wanted to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued which I received just prior to the hearing. Have you had a chance to review that statement?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I — my counsel called from Arizona and read it to me. Yes, Sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

In that statement — I won’t read it in its entirety — former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, Republican in name only. He then references a conversation in November 2020 in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged and that he had won Arizona. To quote the former President, “During the conversation he told me the election was rigged and that I won Arizona unquote.” Did you have such a conversation with the President?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I did have a conversation with the President. That’s certainly isn’t it. But there are parts of it that are true, but there are parts that are not, Sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And the part that I read to you, is that false?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Anywhere, anyone, any time has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And when the Pre — the former President in his statement today claimed that you told him that he won Arizona, is that also false?

RUSTY BOWERS:

That is also false.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election — and I don’t know whether this is the conversation the former President is referring to — but after the election you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani in which they discussed the result of the Presidential election in Arizona. If you would, tell us about that call and whether the former President or Mr. Giuliani raised allegations of election fraud.

RUSTY BOWERS:

Thank you. I — my wife and I had returned from attending our church meetings. It was on a Sunday. And we were still in the driveway. And I had received a call from a colleague telling me that the White House was trying to get in touch with her and I. And that she said please if you get a call, let’s try to take this together.

Immediately I saw that the White House on my Bluetooth was calling and I took the call and was asked by the — I would presume the operator at the White House if I would hold for the President, which I did. And he — Mr. Giuliani came on first, and niceties. Then Mr. Trump — President Trump – then President Trump came on and we initiated a conversation.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And during that conversation did you ask Mr. Giu — Giuliani for proof of these allegations of fraud that he was making?

RUSTY BOWERS:

On multiple occasions, yes.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And when you asked him for evidence of this fraud what did he say?

RUSTY BOWERS:

He said that they did have proof. And I asked him, do you have names? For example, we have 200,000 illegal immigrants, some large number. Five or 6,000 dead people, et cetera. And I said, do you have their names? Yes? Will you give them to me? Yes. The President interrupted and said give the man what he needs, Rudy. And he said I — I will. And that happened on at least two occasions, that interchange in the conversation.

ADAM SCHIFF:

So Mr. Giuliani was claiming in the call that there were hundreds of thousands of undocumented people and thousands of dead people who had purportedly voted in the election?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Yes.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And you asked him for evidence of that.

RUSTY BOWERS:

I did.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And did he ever receive — did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call after the call or to this day?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Never.

ADAM SCHIFF:

What was the ask during this call? He was making these allegations of fraud, but he had something or a couple of things that they wanted you to do. What were those?

RUSTY BOWERS:

The ones I remember were first the — that we would hold — that I would allow an official committee at — at the Capitol so that they could hear this evidence and that we could take action thereafter. And I refused. I said up to that time the — the circus — I called it a circus — had been brewing with lots of demonstrations both at the counting center, at the Capitol, and other places.

And I didn’t want to have that in the House. I — I did not feel that the evidence granted in its absence merited a hearing. And I didn’t want to be used as a pawn. If there was some other need that the – that the committee hearing would fulfill. So, that was the first ask, that we hold an official committee hearing.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And what was his second ask?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I — I said to what end? To what end the hearing? He said, well, we have heard by an official high up in the Republican legislature that there is a legal theory or a legal ability in Arizona that you can remove the — the electors of President Biden and replace them. And we would — we would like to have the legitimate opportunity through the committee to come to that end and — and remove that. And I said that’s — that’s something I’ve — that’s totally new to me. I’ve never heard of any such thing. And he pressed that point. And I said, look, you are asking me to do something that is counter to my oath when I swore to the Constitution to uphold it, and I also swore to the Constitution and the laws of the state of Arizona.

And this is totally foreign as a — an idea or a theory to me, and I would never do anything of such magnitude without deep consultation with qualified attorneys. And I said I’ve got some good attorneys and I’m going to give you their names, but you are asking me to do something against my oath, and I will not break my oath. And I think that was up to that point.

ADAM SCHIFF:

During the conversation — and you heard, I think, when we played a snippet of Mr. Giuliani calling other state legislators and saying that he was calling as essentially a fellow Republican. Did he make a similar appeal to you, or bring up the fact that you shared a — a similar party?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Whether it was in that call or in a later meeting, he did bring that up more than once.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And how — how would he bring that up?

RUSTY BOWERS:

He would say, aren’t we all Republicans here? I — I would think we would get a better reception. I mean, I would think you would listen a little more open to my suggestions, that we’re all Republicans.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And this — this evidence that you asked him for that would justify this extraordinary step I think you said they never produced. Why did you feel, either in the absence of that evidence or with it, what they were asking you to do would violate your oath to the Constitution?

RUSTY BOWERS:

First of all, when the people — and in Arizona, I believe it — some 40-plus years earlier the legislature had established the manner of electing our officials or the electors for the presidential race. Once it was given to the people as in Bush v Gore, illustrated by the Supreme Court, it becomes a fundamental right of the people. So, as far as I was concerned, for someone to ask me in the — I would call it a paucity. There was no – no evidence being presented of any strength.

Evidence can be hearsay evidence. It’s still evidence, but it’s still hearsay. But strong judicial quality evidence, anything that would say to me you have a doubt, deny your oath, I will not do that. And on more than — on more than one occasion throughout all this, that has been brought up. And it is a tenet of my faith that the Constitution is divinely inspired, of my most basic foundational beliefs. And so, for me to do that because somebody just asked me to is foreign to my very being. I — I will not do it.

ADAM SCHIFF:

During that conversation, Speaker Bowers, did you ask him if what he was proposing had ever been done before?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I did.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And what did he say?

RUSTY BOWERS:

He said, well, I’m not familiar with Arizona law or any other laws, but I — I don’t — I don’t think so.

And that also was brought up in other conversations, both with him and with John Eastman and others.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Speaker Bowers, I understand that a week after that call, Mr. Giuliani appeared with others associated with President Trump’s effort to overturn the result of the election at a purported legislative hearing in a hotel ballroom in Phoenix. Was this an official hearing of the state legislature?

RUSTY BOWERS:

It was not.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And — and why was it not a real or official hearing of the legislature?

RUSTY BOWERS:

A legislator can hold a group meeting. You can call it a hearing. But when they asked me to have an official hearing, we establish it by protocols, public notice, etc. It’s typically held at the Capitol, but doesn’t need to be. We can authorize a hearing off campus. And in this case, I had been asked on several occasions to allow a hearing. I had denied it, but said you’re free to hold a meeting, any meeting you want, to the person who asked, and which he ultimately did. I think he was a little frustrated, but he ultimately did.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Now, this — this meeting was the same day, I believe, that the governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey,

certified Biden as the winner of the presidential election in Arizona. Did you meet with Mr. Giuliani and his associates while they were in Phoenix sometime after that purported legislative hearing at the hotel?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Yes, I did, sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And at that meeting, did Mr. Giuliani raise any specific allegations of election fraud again?

RUSTY BOWERS:

His initial comments were, again, the litany of groups of illegal individuals or people deceased, etc. And he had brought that up, and I wasn’t alone in that meeting. There were others, and other members of the Senate aggressively questioned him, and then I proceeded to question him on the proof that he was going to bring me, etc. But he did bring those up, yes.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And these other legislatures — legislators were also Republican members of the Senate?

RUSTY BOWERS:

They were, yes, sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And did they also press him for proof of these allegations?

RUSTY BOWERS:

And they pressed him very strongly, two of them especially, very strongly.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And at some point, did Mr. Giuliani ask one of the other attorneys on his team to help him out with the evidence?

RUSTY BOWERS:

He did. He asked Jenna Ellis, who was sitting to his right. One thing was that it was more to the point of was there sufficient evidence or action that we could justify the recalling of the electors. But at that part of the conversation, I know he — he referred to someone else. But he did ask, do we have the proof to Jenna, Ms. Ellis, and she said yes.

And I said I want the names. Do you have the names? Yes. Do you have how they voted? We have all the information. I said, can you get to me that information? Did you bring it with you? Just — she said no. Both Mr. Giuliani asked her and I asked generally if they had brought it with them. She said no, it’s not with me, but we can get it to you. And I said then you didn’t bring me the evidence, which was repeated in different iterations for some period of time.

ADAM SCHIFF:

At some point, did one of them make a comment that they didn’t have evidence, but they had a lot of theories?

RUSTY BOWERS:

That was Mr. Giuliani. And what exactly did he say and how’d that come up? My recollection, he said we’ve got lots of theories. We just don’t have the evidence. And I don’t know if that was a gaffe or maybe he — he didn’t think through what he said. But both myself and others in my group, the three in my group and my — my counsel, both remembered that specifically, and afterwards we kind of laughed about it.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And, you know, getting back to the ask in that phone call that preceded this meeting, he wanted you to have the legislature dismiss the Biden electors and replace them with Trump electors on the basis of these theories of fraud.

RUSTY BOWERS:

I — he did not say in those exact words, but he did say that he — that Arizona law, according to what he understood, that that would be allowed and that we needed to come into session to take care of that, which initiated a discussion about, again, what I can legally and not legally do. And I can’t go into session in Arizona unilaterally or on my sole prerogative.

ADAM SCHIFF:

In this meeting or at any other later time, did anyone provide you with evidence of election fraud sufficient to affect the outcome of the presidential election in Arizona?

RUSTY BOWERS:

No one provided me, ever, such evidence.

ADAM SCHIFF:

The Select Committee has uncovered evidence in the course of our investigation that at stop the steal protests at state capitols across the country, there were individuals with ties to the groups or parties involved in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol. One of those incursions took place in the Arizona House of Representatives building, as you can see in this footage.

This is previously undisclosed video of protesters illegally entering and refusing to leave the building. One of the individuals prominently shown in this video is Jacob Chansley, perhaps better known as the QAnon Shaman. This rioter entered the Capitol on January 6th, was photographed leaving a threatening note on the dais in the US Senate chamber, and was ultimately sentenced to 41 months in prison after pleading guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding. Other protesters who occupied the Arizona House of Representatives building included — included Proud Boys, while men armed with rifles stood just outside the entrance. I understand these protesters were calling for you by name, Speaker Bowers. Is that correct?

RUSTY BOWERS:

That is correct.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Speaker Bowers, did the president call you again in late — later in December?

RUSTY BOWERS:

He did, sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but that you were not going to do anything illegal for him?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I did, sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Nevertheless, his lawyer, John Eastman, called you some days later on June 4th, 2000 — 2021. And he did have a very specific ask that would have required you to do just what you had already told the president, you wouldn’t do, something that would violate your oath. Is that correct?

RUSTY BOWERS:

That’s correct. It wasn’t just me. I had my counsel and others on the — on the — on the call.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And what did Dr. Eastman want you to do?

RUSTY BOWERS:

That we would in fact vote — to take a vote to overthrow or — I shouldn’t say overthrow, that we would decertify the electors, and that that — because we had plenary authority to do so. And you cited Article Two, Section One, I think it’s Clause Two, and said that in his opinion that gave us the authority if there was — I don’t recall him saying sufficient evidence, but there was some call or some strong reason to do so, that we — or justification to do so, that we could do that.

And that he was asking that we — he’s — his suggestion was that we would do it. And I said, again, I took an oath. For me to take that, to do what you do, would — would be counter to my oath. I don’t recall if it was in that conversation clearly that we talked more about the oath. But I said, what would you have me do? And he said just do it and let the court sort it out. And I said you’re asking me to do something that’s never been done in history, the history of the

United States. And I’m going to put my state through that without sufficient proof, and that’s going to be good enough with me? That I would — I would put us through that, my state, that I swore to uphold both in Constitution and in law?

No, sir. He said, well, that’s — my suggestion would be just — just do it and let the courts figure it all out. And I — he didn’t use that exact phrase, but that was what he — his meaning was. And I said — I declined, and I believe that was close to the end of our phone call.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And again, this took place after you had recently spoken with President Trump and told him that you wouldn’t do anything illegal for him. Is that right?

RUSTY BOWERS:

It wasn’t days after. Obviously, it was days after, but a few days had gone by.

ADAM SCHIFF:

But you had told President Trump you would not do anything illegal for him?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I did both times.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And you told Dr. Eastman that you did not believe there was legal support to justify what he was asking, but he still wanted you to do it and effectively let the courts work it out.

RUSTY BOWERS:

I’ve been warned don’t say things you think maybe he said. But I do remember him saying that the authority of the legislature was plenary, and that you can do it. I said then you should know that I can’t even call the legislature into session without a two-thirds majority vote. We’re only 30 plus one. I –there’s no way that could happen.

ADAM SCHIFF:

But in your view, what he was asking you to do would have violated your oath to the Constitution, both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the state of Arizona?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Yes, sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Did you also receive a call from US Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona on the morning of January 6th?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I did.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And what did Mr. Biggs ask you to do?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I believe that was the day that the vote was occurring to each state certification or to declare that the certification of the electors. And he asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my state and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors. And I said I would not.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Speaker, on December 4th, 2020, shortly after your meeting with Rudy Giuliani and other allies of President Trump, you released a statement publicly addressing quote, “calls for the legislature to overturn the 2020 certified election results”. The statement is very straightforward in explaining the quote, “breathtaking request”, unquote made by representatives of President Trump quote, “that the Arizona legislature overturn the certified results of last month’s election and deliver the state’s Electoral College votes to President Trump”, unquote. Why did you believe as you wrote in this statement that the rule of law forbid you from doing what President Trump and his allies wanted you to do?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Representative — I’m sorry, I should be saying Mr. Chairman — Representative Schiff. The — there’s two sides to the answer. One is, what am I allowed to do? And, what am I forbidden to do? We have no legal pathway, both in state law nor to my knowledge in federal law, for us to execute such a request. And I am not allowed to walk or act beyond my authority if I’m not specifically authorized as a legislator — as a legislature, then I cannot act to the point of calling us into session. Some say that just a few legislators have plenary author — authority and that is come — is part of all of this discussion, I’ll call it. But — so to — to not have authority and be forbidden to act beyond my authority, on both counts, I’m not authorized to take such action, and that would deny my oath.

ADAM SCHIFF:

In your statement, you included excerpts from President Ronald Reagan’s inaugural address in 1981. The newly inaugurated President told the country quote, “the orderly transfer of authority is called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as is — as it has for almost two centuries. And few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every four year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.” Tell us, if you would, Mr. Speaker, why did you include President Reagan’s words in your public statement?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Mr. Chairman, Representative Schiff, because I have a lot of admiration for Ronald Reagan. I had the opportunity of going to his home with one other person and walking through. And I have a lot of admiration for him. When he pointed out, which is I — I have lived in other country for a period of time and have visited a few countries and during election times. The fact that we allow an election, support an election, and stand behind the election, even in the past when there have been serious questions about the election and then move on without disturbance and with acceptance that we choose — we choose to follow the outcome of the will of the people. That will, it means a lot to me and I know it meant a lot to him, and so I — we included that.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Thank you, Speaker Bowers. And I want to look even more deeply at the fake elector scheme. Every four years, citizens from all over the United States go to the polls to elect their President. Under our Constitution, when we cast our votes for President, we are actually voting to send electors pledged to our preferred candidate to the Electoral College. In December, the electors in each state meet, cast their votes, and send those votes to Washington. There is only one legitimate slate of electors from each state. On the sixth day of January, Congress meets in a joint session to count those votes and the winner of the Electoral College vote becomes the President.

In this next segment, you’ll hear how President Trump and his campaign were directly involved in advancing and coordinating the plot to replace legitimate Biden electors with fake electors not chosen by the voters. You’ll hear how this campaign convinced these fake electors to cast and submit their votes through fake certificates telling them that their votes would only be used in the event that President Trump won his legal challenges.

Yet, when the President lost those legal challenges, when courts rejected them as frivolous and

without merit, the fake elector scheme continued. At this point, President Trump’s own lawyers, so- called team normal, walked away rather than participate in the plan. And his own White House counsel’s office said that the plan was not legally sound. Let’s play the following video produced by the Select Committee.

[Begin Videotape]

CASEY LUCIER:

My name is Casey Lucier. I’m an investigative counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. On November 18th, a lawyer working with the Trump campaign, named Kenneth Chesebro, wrote a memo arguing that the Trump campaign should organize its own electors in the swing states that President Trump had lost. The Select Committee received testimony that those close to President Trump began planning to organize fake electors for Trump in states that Biden won in the weeks after the election.

UNKNOWN:

Who do you remember being involved in those early discussions around the Thanksgiving time regarding having alternate electors meet?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

Mr. Giuliani, several of Mr. Giuliani’s associates, Mr. Meadows, Members of Congress. Although it’s difficult to distinguish if the members I’m thinking of were involved during Thanksgiving or if they’re involved as we progressed through December.

CASEY LUCIER:

At the President’s direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort.

UNKNOWN:

What did the President say when he called you?

RONNA ROMNEY MCDANIEL:

Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of any of states [ph]. I think more just helping them reach out and assemble them. But that — my understanding is the campaign did take the lead and we just were helping them in that – – in that role.

CASEY LUCIER:

As President Trump and his supporters continued to lose lawsuits, some campaign lawyers became convinced that convening electors in states that Trump lost was no longer appropriate.

JUSTIN CLARK:

I just remember I either replied or called somebody saying, unless we have litigation pending this, like, in these states, like, I don’t think this is appropriate or, you know, this isn’t the right thing to do. I don’t remember how I phrased it, but I got into a little bit of a back and forth and I think it was with Ken Chesebro, where I said, Alright, you know, you just get after it, like, I’m out.

MATT MORGAN:

At that point, I had Josh Finley email Mr. Chesebro politely to say this is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward. And this was my way of taking that responsibility to zero.

CASEY LUCIER:

The committee learned the White House counsel’s office also felt the plan was potentially illegal.

UNKNOWN:

And so to be clear, did you hear the White House counsel’s office say that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in states that he had lost was not legally sound?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

Yes, sir.

UNKNOWN:

And who was present for that meeting that you remember?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON:

It was in our offices. Mr. Meadows, Mr. Giuliani, and a few of Mr. Giuliani’s associates.

CASEY LUCIER:

The Select Committee interviewed several of the individual fake electors as well as Trump campaign staff who helped organize the effort.

ROBERT SINNERS:

We were just, you know, kind of — kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point. You know, a strong part of me really feels that it’s just kind of as the road continued and as that was failure, failure, failure that that got formulated as what we have on the table. Let’s just do it.

UNKNOWN:

And now after what we’ve told you today about the committee’s investigation, about the conclusion of the professional lawyers on the campaign staff, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan, and Josh Finley, about their unwillingness to participate in the convening of these electors, how does that contribute to your understanding of these issues?

ROBERT SINNERS:

I’m angry. I’m angry because I think — I think in a sense, you know, no one really cared if — if people were potentially putting themselves in jeopardy.

UNKNOWN:

Would you have not wanted to participate in this any further as well?

ROBERT SINNERS:

I absolutely would not have had I known that the three main lawyers for the campaign that I’d spoken to in the past and were leading up were not on board. Yeah.

ANDREW HITT:

I was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor. So that would have been using our electors — well, it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren’t told about and we wouldn’t have supported.

CASEY LUCIER:

Documents obtained by the Select Committee indicate that instructions were given to the electors in several states that they needed to cast their ballots in complete secrecy. Because this scheme involved fake electors, those participating in certain states had no way to comply with state election laws like where the electors were supposed to meet. One group of fake electors even considered hiding overnight to ensure that they could access the state capital as required in Michigan.

UNKNOWN:

Did Mr. Norton say who he was working with at all on this effort to have electors meet?

LAURA COX:

He said he was working with the President’s campaign. He told me that the Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the Capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote in — per law in the Michigan chambers. And I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate.

CASEY LUCIER:

In one state, the fake electors even asked for a promise that the campaign would pay their legal fees if they got sued or charged with a crime. Ultimately, fake electors did meet on December 14th, 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin. At the request of the Trump campaign, the electors from these battleground states signed documents falsely asserting that they were the quote, “duly elected electors,” from their state and submitted them to the National Archives and to Vice President Pence in his capacity as President of the Senate. Here is what some of the fake electors’ certificates look like as compared to the real ones. But these ballots had no legal effect. In an email produced to the Select Committee, Dr. Eastman told a Trump campaign representative that it did not matter that the electors had not been approved by a state authority.

Quote, “the fact that we have multiple slate of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough”. He urged that Pence act boldly and be challenged. Documents produced to the Select Committee show that the Trump campaign took steps to ensure that the physical copies of the fake electors’ electoral votes from two states were delivered to Washington for January 6th. Text messages exchanged between Republican Party officials in Wisconsin showed that on January 4th, the Trump campaign asked for someone to fly their fake electors’ documents to Washington. A staffer for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson texted a staffer for Vice President Pence just minutes before the beginning of the joint session. This staffer stated that Senator Johnson wished to hand- deliver to the Vice President the fake electors’ votes from Michigan and Wisconsin. The Vice President’s aide unambiguously instructed them not to deliver the fake votes to the Vice President.

Even though the fake electors’ slates were transmitted to Congress and the executive branch, the Vice President held firm in his position that his role was to count lawfully submitted electoral votes.

MIKE PENCE:

Joseph Biden, Jr of the state of Delaware has received 306 votes. Donald J Trump of the state of Florida has received 232 votes.

CASEY LUCIER:

Which is what he did when the joint session resumed on January 6th after the attack on the Capitol.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Well, we just heard in that video was an aide to the White House chief of staff telling this committee that the White House counsel’s office felt that this fake electors plan was not legally sound. Nevertheless, the Trump campaign went forward with the scheme anyway. Speaker Bowers, were you aware that fake electors had met in Phoenix on December 14th and purported to cast electoral votes for President Trump?

RUSTY BOWERS:

I was not.

ADAM SCHIFF:

When you learned that these electors had met and sent their electoral votes to Washington, what did you think?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Well, I thought of the book, The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. And I just thought, this is a — this is a tragic parody.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Bowers, I understand that as you flew from Phoenix to Washington yesterday, you reflected upon some passages from a personal journal that you were keeping in December 2020 while all of this was taking place. With your permission, I’m wondering if you would be willing to share one passage in particular with us.

RUSTY BOWERS:

Thank you very much. It is painful to have friends who have been such a help to me turn on me with such rancor. I may in the eyes of men not hold correct opinions or act according to their vision or convictions, but I do not take this current situation in a light manner, a fearful manner, or a vengeful manner. I do not want to be a winner by cheating. I will not play with laws I swore allegiance to. With any contrived desire towards deflection of my deep foundational desire to follow God’s will as I believe He led my conscience to embrace. How else will I ever approach Him in the wilderness of life? Knowing that I ask this guidance only to show myself a coward in defending the course He let me take — He led me to take.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those are powerful words. I understand that taking the courageous positions that you did following the 2020 election in defense of the rule of law and protecting the voters of Arizona resulted in you and your family being subjected to protests and terrible threats. Can you tell us how this impacted you and your family?

RUSTY BOWERS:

Well, as others in the videos have mentioned, we received, my secretaries would say, in excess of 20,000 emails and tens of thousands of voicemails and texts which saturated our offices. And we were unable to work, at least communicate, that at home, up till even recently, it is the new pattern or a pattern in our lives to worry what will happen on Saturdays because we have various groups come by and they have had video panel trucks with videos of me proclaiming me to be a pedophile and a pervert and a corrupt politician and blaring loudspeakers in my neighborhood and leaving literature both on my property, and — but arguing and threatening with neighbors and with myself.

And I don’t know if I should name groups, but there was a — one gentleman that had the three bars on his chest. And he had a pistol and was threatening my neighbor. Not with the pistol, but just vocally. When I saw the gun, I knew I had to get close. And at the same time, on some of these we had a daughter who is gravely ill, who is upset by what was happening outside. And my wife that is a valiant person, very, very strong, quiet, very strong woman. So it was disturbing. It was disturbing.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your service to the state of Arizona and to the country. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think it’d be appropriate to take a short recess. Accordingly. I reserve the balance of my time.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

The Chair requests that those in the hearing room remain seated until the Capitol Police have escorted members and witnesses from the room. We’ll have five minutes — five minute recess.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

The committee will be in order. President Trump’s pressure campaign against state officials existed in all the key battleground states that he lost, but the former president had a particular obsession with Georgia. Here is the president on the afternoon of January 6th after his own attorney general warned him that the claims you are about to hear are patently false.

[Begin videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

They should find those votes. They should absolutely find that. Just over 11,000 votes, that’s all we need. They defrauded us out of a win in Georgia, and we’re not going to forget it.

[End videotape]

BENNIE THOMPSON:

So, the state of Georgia is where we will turn our attention to next. I want to emphasize that our investigation into these issues is still ongoing. As I stated in our last hearing, if you have relevant information or documentary evidence to share with the select committee, we welcome your cooperation, but we will share some of our findings with you today.

Secretary Raffensperger, thank you for being here today. You’ve been a public servant in Georgia since 2015, serving first as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives and then, since January 2019, as Georgia’s Secretary of state. As a self-described conservative Republican, it is — is it fair to say that you wanted President Trump to win the 2020 election?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

Yes, it is.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Mr. Secretary, many witnesses have told the Select Committee that Election Day, November 3rd, 2020, was a largely uneventful day in their home states. In spite of the challenges of conducting an election during a pandemic, you wrote in The Washington Post that the election was “successful.” Tell us, what was your impression of how Election Day had proceeded in Georgia?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

On Election Day in November, our election went remarkably smooth. In fact, we meet at the GEMA headquarters. That’s the Georgia Energy — Emergency Management Association meeting location, but we were following wait times in line in the afternoon. Our average wait time was three minutes statewide that we were recording for various precincts, and it actually got down to two minutes.

And at the end of the day, we felt that we had a successful election from the standpoint of the administration and the operation of the election.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Raffensperger, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, and by what margin?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

President Biden carried the state of Georgia by approximately 12,000 votes.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And Mr. Secretary, as I understand it, your office took several steps to ensure the accuracy of the vote count in Georgia, reviewing the vote count in at least three different ways. These steps included a machine recount, a forensic audit, and a full hand recount of every one of the five million ballots cast.

Did these efforts, including a recount of literally every ballot cast in the state of Georgia, confirm the result?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

Yes, they did. We counted the ballots with — the first tabulation would be scanned. Then when we did our 100 percent hand audit of the entire — all five million ballots in the state of Georgia, all cast in place, all absentee ballots, they were all hand recounted, and they came remarkably close to the first count.

And then, upon the election being certified, President Trump, because he was in — within a half percent — excuse me — could ask for a recount, and then we recounted them again through the scanner, so we got remarkably the same count. Three counts, all remarkably close, which showed that President Trump did come up short.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Nevertheless, as you will see, the president and his allies began in making — began making numerous false allegations of voter fraud, false allegations that you and Mr. Sterling, among others, had to address. Mr. Sterling, thank you also for being here today. Following the 2020 election, in addition to your normal duties, I understand that you became a spokesperson to try to combat disinformation about the election and the danger it was creating for elections officials, among others.

In a December 1 press conference, you addressed some of your remarks directly to President Trump.

Let’s take a look at what you said that day.

[Begin videotape]

GABRIEL STERLING:

Mr. President, it looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We’re investigating. There’s always a possibility — I get it, and you have the rights to go to the courts. What you don’t have the ability to do, and you need to step up and say this, is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence.

Someone’s going to get hurt, someone’s going to get shot, someone’s going to get killed, and it’s not right. I — I — it’s not right.

[End videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Sterling, what prompted you to make these remarks.

GABRIEL STERLING:

Mr. Schiff, we had had a previously scheduled press conference that day, as we were in the habit of doing, trying to be as transparent as we could about the election and the counts going on. A little after lunch that day, lunchtime, I received a call from the project manager from Dominion Voting Systems, who was oddly audibly shaken.

She’s not the kind of person I would assume would be that way. She has a master’s from MIT, a graduate of Naval Academy, and is very much on the ball and pretty unflappable. And she informed me about a — a young contractor they had who had been receiving threats from a — a video had been posted by some QAnon supporters.

And at that point, we had been sort of — been steeping in this kind of stuff, so we were — it was around us all the time, so I — I didn’t take note of it more than adding to the pile of other stuff we were having to deal with. And I did pull up Twitter and I scrolled through it, and I saw the young man’s name.

It was a particular tweet that, for lack of a better word, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Had the young man’s name. It’s a very unique name. I believed it was first generation American, and said – had his name, you committed treason, may God have mercy on your soul, with a slowly twisting gif of a noose.

And for lack of a better word, I lost it. I just got irate. My boss was with me at the time, Deputy Secretary Jordan Fuchs, and she could tell that I was angry. I was turning — I tend to turn red from here up when that happens, and that happened at that time. And she called Secretary Raffensperger to say we’re seeing these kind of threats, and Gabe thinks we need to say something about it. And Secretary said yes, and that’s what prompted me to do what I did.

I lost my temper, but it seemed necessary at the time because it was just getting worse. And I don’t — I could not tell you why that particular one was the one that put me over the edge, but it did.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Now, after you made this plea to the president, did Donald Trump urge his supporters to avoid the use of violence?

GABRIEL STERLING:

Not to my knowledge.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Now, as we know, the president was aware of your speech because he tweeted about it later that day.

Let’s take a look at what the president said. In the tweet, Donald Trump claims that there was “massive voter fraud in Georgia.” Mr. Sterling, that was just plain false, wasn’t it?

GABRIEL STERLING:

Yes, sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Nevertheless, the very next day, on December 2nd, President Trump released a lengthy video again making false claims of election fraud in Georgia. Let’s take a look at what he said this time.

[Begin videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

They found thousands and thousands of votes that were out of whack, all against me. [End videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

In fact, the day after Donald Trump released that video, so now we’re talking just two days after the emotional warning that you gave that someone’s going to get killed, representatives of President Trump appeared in Georgia, including Rudy Giuliani, and launched a new conspiracy theory that would take on a life of its own and threaten the lives of several innocent election workers.

This story falsely alleges that sometime during election night, election workers at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia kicked out poll observers. After the observers left, the story goes, these workers pulled so-called suitcases of ballots from under a table and ran those ballots through counting machines multiple times.

Completely without evidence, President Trump and his allies claimed that these suitcases contained as many as 18,000 ballots, all for Joe Biden. None of this was true, but Rudy Giuliani appeared before the Georgia State Senate and played a surveillance video from State Farm Arena falsely claiming that it showed this conspiracy taking place.

Here’s a sample of what Mr. Giuliani had to say during that hearing.

[Begin videotape]

RUDY GIULIANI:

And when you look at what you saw on the video, which to me was a smoking gun, powerful smoking gun, well, I don’t — don’t have to be a genius to figure out what happened. And I — I don’t have to be a genius to figure out that those votes are not legitimate votes. You don’t put legitimate votes under a table —

UNKNOWN:

No.

RUDY GIULIANI:

Wait until you throw the opposition out and, in the middle of the night, count them. We would have to be fools to think that.

[End videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

President Trump’s campaign amplified Giuliani’s false testimony in a tweet, pushing out the video footage. Giuliani likewise pushed out his testimony on social media. As you can see in this tweet, Mr. Giuliani wrote that it was “now beyond doubt” that Fulton County Democrats had stolen the election.

Later in this hearing, we’ll hear directly from one of the election workers in this video about the effect these lies had on her and on her family.

Mr. Sterling, did the investigators in your office review the entire surveillance tape from the State Farm Arena on election night?

GABRIEL STERLING:

They actually reviewed approximately 48 hours going over the time period where — where action was taking place at the counting center at State Farm Arena.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And what did the tape actually show?

GABRIEL STERLING:

Depending on which time you want to start, because as was mentioned this conspiracy theory took on a life of its own where they conflated a water main break that wasn’t a water main break and throwing observers out and a series of other things. What it actually showed was Fulton County election workers engaging in normal ballot processing.

One of the specific things — one of the things that was very frustrating was the so-called suitcases of ballots from under the table. If you watch the entirety of the video, you saw that these were election workers who were under the impression they were going to get to go home around 10, 10:30. People are putting on their coats.

They’re putting ballots that are prepared to be scanned into ballot carriers that are then sealed with tamper proof seals so that you — they can — you know they’re not messed with. And the — it’s an interesting thing cause you watch all — there’s four screens of the video. And as you’re watching it, you can see the election monitors in the corner with the press as they’re taking these ballot carriers and putting them under the — under the table.

You see it there. One of the other hidden ones, if you looked at the actual tape, was on the outside of the table. Just from the camera angle you couldn’t see it originally. And this goes under the no good deed goes unpunished. We were told — we were at GMA, as the Secretary pointed out. And we were under the — we were told that it looked like they were shutting down the Fulton County counting.

The se — Secretary expressed some displeasure with that because we wanted to have everybody keep counting so we could get to the results and know what was happening. So our elections director called their elections director who was at another location, because this was Election Day. There was two different places where ballot things were being done by the Fulton County office.

So he called — the elections director for Fulton then called Ralph Jones, who was at the State Farm Arena and said what the heck are you doing? Go ahead and stay. And as you watch the video itself, you see him take the phone call as people are putting things away and getting ready to leave. And you can tell for about 15, 20 seconds, he does not want to tell these people they have to stay.

He walks over, he thinks about it for a second. You see him come back to the corner of a desk and kind of slumps his shoulders and says Ok, y’all, we got to keep on counting. And then you see them take their coats off, get the ballots out. And then a secondary thing that you’ll see on there is you’ll have people who are counting ballots who a batch will go through, they will take them off and run that through again.

What happens there is a standard operating procedure. That if there is a missed scan, if there’s a misalignment, if it doesn’t read right — these are high speed, high capacity scanners. So three or four will go through after a mis-scan. You have to delete that batch and put it back through again. And by going through the hand tally, as the Secretary pointed out, we showed that if there had been multiple ballots scanned without a, you know, corresponding physical ballot, your counts would have been a lot higher than the ballots themselves.

And by doing the hand tally, we saw two specific numbers that were me — met. The hand tally got us to a .1053 percent off of the total votes cast and .0099 percent on the margin, which is essentially dead on accurate. Most academic studies say on a hand tally you will have between one and two percent. But because we use ballot marking devices where it’s very clear what the voter intended, it made it a lot easier to us — for us to conduct that hand count and show that none of that was true.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Now I understand that when you reviewed these tapes and did the analysis, it disproved this con – conspiracy theory. But you still had to take a lot of steps to try to make sure the public knew the truth about these allegations. And you did frequent briefings for the press. Let’s take a look at one of those press briefings, Mr. Sterling, that you held on December 7th to make the point that you just did today.

[Begin Videotape]

GABRIEL STERLING:

Move on to what I’m going to call disinformation Monday. Out of the gate, many of you all saw the videotape from State Farm Arena. I spent hours with our post certified investigators. Justin Gray from WSB spent hours with us going over this video to explain to people that what you saw, the secret suitcases of magic ballots, were actually ballots that had been packed into those absentee ballot carriers by the workers in plain view of the monitors and the press.

And what’s really frustrating is the President’s attorneys had this same videotape. They saw the exact same things the rest of us could see. And they chose to mislead state Senators and the public about what was on that video. I’m quite sure that they will not characterize the video if they try to enter into evidence because that is the kind of thing that can lead to sanctions because it’s obviously untrue.

They knew it was untrue and they continue to do things like this.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Sterling, despite the efforts by your office to combat this misinformation — misinformation by speaking out publicly and through local media, you were unable to match the reach of President Trump’s platform and social media megaphone spreading these false conspiracy theories. What was it like to compete with the President, who had the biggest bully pulpit in the world to push out these false claims?

GABRIEL STERLING:

For lack of a better word, it was frustrating. But oftentimes I felt our information was getting out, but that there was a reticence of people who needed to believe it to believe it because the President of the United States, who many looked up to and respected, was telling them it wasn’t true despite the facts.

And I have characterized at one point it was kind of like a shovel trying to empty the ocean. And yes, it was frustrating. I even have, you know, family members who I had to argue with about some of these things. And I would show them things. And the problem you have is you’re getting to people’s hearts.

I remember there’s one specific — an attorney that we know that we showed him, walked him through.

This wasn’t true. Ok, I get that. This wasn’t true. Ok, I get that. This wasn’t — five or six things. But at the end he goes, I just know in my heart they cheated. That’s the stan — and so once you get past the heart, the facts don’t matter as much.

And our job from our point of view was to get the facts out, do our job, tell the truth, follow the Constitution, follow the law, and defend the institutions. And the institutions held.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Let’s take a look at what you were competing with. This is former — the former President speaking in Georgia on December 5th.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

But it’s a fraud. It’s overwhelming. And again, I’m going to ask you to look up at that very, very powerful and very expensive screen.

[Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN:

Hidden cases of possible ballots are rolled out from under a table. Four people under a cloud of suspicion.

[End Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

So if you just take the crime of what those Democrats — workers were doing — and by the way there was no water main break. You know, they said there — there was no water main break. That’s 10 times more than I need to win this state. 10 times more. That’s 10 times, maybe more than that, but it’s 10 times more because we lost by a very close number.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

In this committee’s hearing last Monday, we heard from senior federal law enforcement officials – from the senior most federal law enforcement official in Atlanta at the time, US Attorney for the Northern District BJay Pak, as well as former Attorney General Bill Barr. They both testified that the allegations were thoroughly investigated and found to have no merit.

Here is US Attorney Pak.

[Begin Videotape]

BJAY PAK:

In particular to Attorney General Barr, I told him that we looked into it. We’ve done several things including interviewing the witnesses. I listened to the — the tapes and reviewed the videotape myself and that there was nothing there. Giuliani was wrong in representing that this was a suitcase full of ballots.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

And here’s what Attorney General Bill Barr had to say about the same allegations.

[Begin Videotape]

WILLIAM BARR:

Took a look — hard look at this ourselves. And based on our review of and including the interviews of the key witnesses, the Fulton County allegations were — had no merit.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

We also have testimony from senior Department of Justice officials establishing that they specifically told President Trump that these allegations had been thoroughly investigated and were completely without merit.

Here is Acting Attorney — Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue describing a phone conversation in which he specifically told President Trump that these allegations were false.

[Begin Videotape]

RICHARD DONOGHUE:

They kept fixating on this suitcase that supposedly had fraudulent ballots in it. The suitcase was rolled out from under the table. And I said no, Sir. There is no suitcase. You can watch that video over and over. There is no suitcase. There is a wheeled bin where they ca –

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Where they carry the ballots. No matter how many times Senior Department of Justice officials, including his own Attorney General, told the President that these allegations were not true, President Trump kept promoting these lies and putting pressure on state officials to accept them. On January 2nd, the President had a lengthy telephone conversation with Secretary Raffensperger.

Prior to the President’s call, though, I want to share a bit of important context. First, the White House, including the former President’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows repeatedly called or texted the Secretary’s office some 18 times in order to set up this call.

They were quite persistent. Second, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows took the extraordinary step of showing up at a signature audit site in Georgia where he met with Secretary Raffensperger’s chief investigator Frances Watson who was supervising that audit process. Behind me is a photograph from that visit. Third, the day after Meadows’ Georgia visit, he set up a call between President Trump and Frances Watson.

On the call between President Trump and Georgia investigator Frances Watson, the former President continued to push the false claim that he’d won the state of Georgia. Let’s listen to that part of the conversation.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

You know, it’s just you have the most important job in the country right now. Because if we win Georgia — first of all if we win you’re gonna have two wins. Well you’re not — they’re not going to win right now. You know, they’re down because the people of Georgia are so angry at what happened to me. They know I won.

Won by hundreds of thousands of votes. It wasn’t close.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

And in this next clip, he told this state law enforcement official that she’d be praised if she found the right answer.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

Hopefully, you know, I will — when — when the right answer comes out you’ll be praised. I mean, I don’t know why, you know, they made it so hard. And you — they will be praised. People will say great.

Because that’s what it’s about, that ability to check and to — and to make it right. Because everyone knows it’s wrong.

There’s just no way.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Raffensperger, I know you weren’t on this call, but — but that you have listened to it. President Trump didn’t win by hundreds of thousands of votes in Georgia, did he?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

No, he did not. I’ve been traveling through the state of Georgia for a year now and simply put in a nutshell, what happened in fall of 2020 is that 28,000 Georgians skipped the Presidential race and yet they voted down ballot in other races. And the Republican Congressman ended up getting 33,000 more votes than President Trump.

And that’s why President Trump came up short.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The President on this call doesn’t stop here. Let’s listen to another part of the conversation between President Trump and Ms. Watson.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

Anyway, but whatever you can do, Frances, it would be — it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country. So important. You have no idea, it’s so important –

FRANCES WATSON:

— Well, Mr. —

DONALD TRUMP:

— And I very much appreciate it. [End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Whatever you can do, Frances. This is the President of the United States calling an investigator looking into the election in which he is a candidate and asking her to do whatever you can do. Mr. Secretary, he placed this call to your chief investigator on September 23rd, 2020. The subcommittee has received text messages indicating that Mark Meadows wanted to send some of the investigators in her office in the words of one White House aide a shitload of POTUS stuff, including coins, actual autographed MAGA hats, etc.

White House staff intervened to make sure that didn’t happen. It was clear at the time of this call that the former President had his sights set on January 6th. Listen to this portion when he told Frances Watson about a very important date.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

Do you think you’ll be Working after Christmas to keep it going fast? Because, you know, we have that date of the 6th, which is a very important date.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

That important date, of course, was the joint session of Congress where Georgia’s electoral votes would be counted for Joe Biden. A little — a little over a week after this call to Frances Watson, the President was finally able to speak with you, Secretary Raffensperger. Bear in mind as we discussed this call today that by this point in time, early January, the election in Georgia had already been certified.

But perhaps more important, the President of the United States had already been told repeatedly by his own top Justice Department officials that the claims he was about to make to you about massive fraud in Georgia were completely false.

Mr. Secretary, the call between you and the President lasted 67 minutes, over an hour. We obviously can’t listen to the entire recording here today, although it is available on the Select Committee’s website. But we’ll listen to selected excerpts of it now so that we can get your insights. Let’s begin with the President raising the thoroughly debunked allegations of suitcases of ballots.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

Weren’t in an official voter box. They were in what looked to be suitcases or trunks. Suitcases, but they weren’t in — in voter boxes.

DONALD TRUMP:

The minimum number it could be — because we watched it and they — they watched it and certified in slow motion, instant replay, if you can believe it, but it had slow motion and it was magnified many times over. And the minimum it was was 18,000 ballots, all for Biden.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

These are the allegations that the Department of Justice, the attorney general, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and your office had all said were false. Is that right?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

Correct. And even more importantly, when BJ Pak resigned as US attorney of the Northern District, President Trump appointed as acting US attorney of the Northern District Bobby Christine. And Bobby Christine looked at that and he was quoted the AJC [ph] that he found nothing, and he dismissed that case early also.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The President references suitcases or trunks. Mr. Sterling, were the objects seen in these videos suitcases or trunks or were they just the ordinary containers that are used by election workers?

GABRIEL STERLING:

They’re stand — standard ballot carriers that allow for seals to be put on them so that they are tamper proof.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And finally, the President claims that there was a minimum of 18,000 ballots somehow smuggled in all for Biden. I take it, gentlemen, that was also categorically false?

GABRIEL STERLING:

There’s no — A, there’s no physical way he can know who those ballots were for. But secondarily, we had — Fulton County for years, has been an issue in our state when it comes to elections. So we had a — they had a very difficult time during the primary — in large part because of COVID. So we had put them under a consent decree the secretary got negotiated where we had a monitor on site and his name was Carter Jones.

And he took a notation. He had gone from State Farm to the English Street warehouse to look at Election Day activities. But before he left the State Farm arena, he noted how many ballots have been counted on each one of the machines. And when he came back after we found out they were working again, he took note again when they closed.

And I believe the final number was something around 8,900 total ballots were scanned from the time he left to the time about 12:30 or 1:00 in the morning. So way below 18,000.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Let’s play the next clip.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

I heard it was close, so I said there’s no way. But they dropped a lot of votes in their late at night. You know that, Brad.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Secretary, did somebody drop — drop a lot of votes there late at night?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

No, I believe that the President was referring to some of the counties when they would upload, but the ballots had all been accepted and had to be accepted by state law by 7 pm. So there were no additional ballots accepted after 7 pm.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Let’s play the next clip in which the President makes claims about so-called dead voters.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted. And I think the — the number is in the close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number. And a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

So Secretary, did your office investigated whether those allegations were accurate? Did 5,000 dead people in Georgia vote?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

No, it’s not accurate. And actually in their lawsuits they allege 10,315 dead people. We found two dead people when I wrote my letter to Congress that’s dated January six, and subsequent to that we found two more. That’s one, two, three, four people. Not 4,000, but just a total four. Not 10,000. Not 5,000.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Let’s play the next clip.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you’ve recalculated because it’s 2,236 in absentee ballots. I mean, they’re all exact numbers that were — were done by accounting firms, law firms, etc. And even if you cut them in half, cut them in half, and cut them in half. Again, it’s more votes than we need.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Secretary, is there any way that you could have lawfully changed the result in the state of Georgia and somehow explained it away as a recalculation?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

No, the numbers are the numbers. The numbers don’t lie. We had many allegations and we investigated every single one of them. In fact, I challenged my team, did we miss anything?

They said that there was over 66,000 underage voters. We found that there was actually zero. You can register to vote in Georgia when you’re 17 and a half.

You have to be 18 by Election Day. We checked that out. Every single voter. They said that there was 2,423 nonregistered voters. There were zero. They said that there was 2,056 felons. We identified less than 74 or less that were actually still on a felony sentence. Every single allegation we checked, we ran down the rabbit trail to make sure that our numbers were accurate.

ADAM SCHIFF:

So there’s no way you could have recalculated it, except by fudging the numbers?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

The numbers were the numbers and we could not recalculate because we had made sure that we had checked every single allegation. And we had many investigations; we had nearly thrown from the 2020 election.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Secretary, you tried to push back when the President made these unsupported claims, whether they were about suitcases of ballots or that Biden votes were counted three times. Let’s play the next clip.

[Begin Videotape]

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

Mr. President, they did not put that plea. We — we — we did an audit of that and we proved conclusively that they were not scanned three times. Yes, Mr. President, we’ll send you the link from WSB –

DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t care about a link. I don’t need it. I have a much better — we’re gonna have a much better link.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

You told the President you would send him a link from WSB, which I understand is a local television station that had a unedited video from the State Farm Arena. But the President wasn’t interested in that. He said he had a much better link. Mr. Secretary, at the time that you were on the call with the President as we have shown both the FBI and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation had proven these claims to be nonsense.

And you told him about these investigations on the phone. Let’s listen to what President Trump had to say about the state and federal law enforcement officers who conducted, who investigated these false claims.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

There’s no way they could — then they’re incompetent. They’re either dishonest —

CLETA MITCHELL:

Well, what did they find?

DONALD TRUMP:

Then there’s only two answers. Dishonesty or incompetence. There’s just no way. Look, there’s no way.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

But the President didn’t stop at insinuating that law enforcement officers were either dishonest or incompetent. He went on to suggest that you could be subject to criminal liability for your role in the matter. Before I play that portion of the conversation, I’d like to show you something that the President retweeted a couple of weeks before your call with him.

Here’s the President retweeting a post from one of his allies, a lawyer, who was later sanctioned by a judge in Michigan for making false claims of election fraud. Let’s take a look at that tweet. The tweet read quote, “President Trump @realDonaldTrump is a genuinely good man. He does not really like to fire people.

I bet he dislikes putting people in jail, especially ‘Republicans’. He gave @BrianKempGA & @GASecofState every chance to get it right. They refused. They will soon be going to jail.” So on your call, this was not the first time the President was suggesting you might be criminally liable. With that, let’s listen to this portion of the call.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned, the ballots are — are corrupt and they’re brand new and they don’t have seals and there’s a whole thing with the ballots, but the ballots are corrupt and you’re going to find that they are — which is totally illegal.

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 — you know, that’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s — that’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Secretary Raffensperger, after making a false claim about shredding of ballots, the President suggested that you may be committing a crime by not going along with his claims of election fraud.

And after suggesting that you might have criminal exposure, President Trump makes his most explicit ask of the call.

Let’s play a part of that conversation.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Secretary, was the President here asking you for exactly what he wanted? One more vote than his opponent.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

What I knew is that we didn’t have any votes to find. We had continued to look. We investigated. I could have shared the numbers with you. There were no votes to find. That was an accurate count that had been certified. And as our general counsel said, there was no shredding of ballots.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Secretary, after making this request the President then goes back to the danger of having you deny these allegations of fraud. Let’s listen to that part of the clip.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

And I watched you this morning and you said well, there was no criminality, but I mean, all of this stuff is — is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Secretary Raffensperger, you wrote about this in your book and you said, quote, “I felt then and still believe today that this was a threat”. Others obviously thought so too because some of Trump’s more radical followers have responded as if it was their duty to carry out this threat. Please tell us what you or your wife, even your daughter in law experienced regarding threats from Trump’s more radical followers.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

Well, after the — after the election, my email, my cell phone was docked. And so I was getting texts all over the country. And then eventually my wife started getting the text and hers typically came in a sexualized attacks which were disgusting. You have to understand that Trish and I, we met in high school.

We’ve married over 40 years now. And so they started going after her I think just to probably put pressure on me. Why don’t you just quit walk away. And so that happened. And then some people broke into my daughter in law’s home and my son has passed and she’s widow and has two kids. And so we’re very concerned about her safety also.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And Mr. Secretary, why didn’t you just quit and walk away?

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER:

Because I knew that we had followed the law, we had followed the Constitution And I think sometimes moments require you to stand up and just take the shots. You’re doing your job. And that’s all we did. You know, we just followed the law and we followed the Constitution. And at the end of the day, President Trump came up short.

But I had to be faithful to the Constitution. And that’s what I swore an oath to do.

ADAM SCHIFF:

During the remainder of the call, the former President continued to press you to find the remaining votes that would ensure his victory in Georgia. Let’s listen to a little more.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

Why wouldn’t you want to find the right answer, Brad, instead of keep saying that the numbers are right? So look, can you get together tomorrow? And Brad, we just want the truth. It’s simple. And – and everyone’s going to look very good if the truth comes out. It’s Ok. It takes a little while, but let the truth come out.

And the truth — the real truth is I won by 400,000 votes, at least. So — so what are we going to do here? Because I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Four days after the President’s call to Secretary Raffensperger was January 6th. The President whipped up the crowd in front of the Ellipse, once again promoting the allegation that Secretary Raffensperger, the President’s own attorney general, had told him was false. Here he is on the Ellipse.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

In Fulton County, Republican poll watchers were rejected in some cases physically from the room under the false pretense of a pipe burst — water main burst. Everybody leave. Which we now know was a total lie. Then election officials pulled boxes, Democrats, and suitcases of ballots out from under a table, you all it saw on television, totally fraudulent, and illegally scanned them for nearly two hours, totally unsupervised.

Tens of thousands of votes. This act coincided with a mysterious vote dump of up to 100,000 votes for Joe Biden, almost none for Trump. Oh, that sounds fair. That was at 1:34 am.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Mr. Secretary, Mr. Sterling, I want to thank you for your service to the state of Georgia and to the country. Speaker Bowers, likewise, I want to thank you for your service to the State of Arizona and to the country. You have served not only your home states, but our nation and our democracy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you, Mr. Schiff. I thank the witnesses for joining us today. You are now dismissed.

[Panel Change]

I now welcome to our final witness this afternoon, Wandrea “Shaye” Moss. Ms. Moss worked in the Department of Registration and Elections in Fulton County, Georgia from 2017 until 2022. In that job, Ms. Moss handled voter applications and absentee ballot requests, and also helped to process the vote count for several elections.

In December 2020, Ms. Moss and her mother, Ms. Ruby Freeman, became the target of nasty lies spread by President Trump and his allies as they sought to overturn the election results in Georgia.

Ms. Moss and her mother, Ms. Freeman, are two of the unsung heroes in this country doing the hard work of keeping our democracy functioning for every American.

Ms. Moss, welcome. Thank you for your service, and I thank you for being here today. I will now swear you in. Please stand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

SHAYE MOSS:

[Off mic]

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. Ms. – Ms. Moss, thank you very much for being here today. I understand that you are here along with your mother today. Would you like to introduce your mom?

SHAYE MOSS:

[Off mic]

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Hi, Mom. Ms. Moss, today we’ll be asking you about some of the threats that you received following the 2020 election. Since you’ve been an election worker for over ten years, I want to ask you, in your decade of service, had you ever experienced threats like these before?

SHAYE MOSS:

[Off mic]

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Don’t be nervous, just — I understand. So — and I want to make sure that the record reflects that you’ve done it for quite a while and you’ve never received a threat, and your answer was no.

Thank you. Pursuant to Section 5C8 of the House Resolution 503, the chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, for questions.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Good afternoon, Ms. Moss. Thank you for being here. I understand that you were employed by the Fulton County Registration and Elections Department for more than ten years, and I understand that you loved that job. Please tell us what made you so fond of the work that you did.

SHAYE MOSS:

Well, I’ve always been told by my grandmother how important it is to vote and how people before me, a lot of people, older people in my family, did not have that right. So, what I loved most about my job were the older voters. Younger people could usually do everything from their phone or go online. But the older voters liked to call.

They liked to talk to you. They like to get in my card. They liked to know that every election I’m here. And like even college students, a lot of parents trust in me to make sure their child does not have to drive home. They’ll get an absentee ballot. They can vote. And I really found pleasure in that. I liked being the one that, you know, if someone can’t navigate my voter page or, you know, they want a new precinct card, they don’t have a copy machine or computer or all of that, I can put it in the mail for them.

I was excited always about sending out all the absentee ballots for the elderly, disabled people. I even remember driving to an hospital to give someone her absentee application. That’s — that’s what I loved the most.

ADAM SCHIFF:

So, you really enjoyed helping people vote and participate, and — and that was something, the right to vote, that your grandmother taught you was precious.

SHAYE MOSS:

Yes.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Well, I know the events that we’re here to talk about today are incredibly difficult to relive. Your proud service as an election worker took a dramatic turn on the day that Rudy Giuliani publicized the video of you and your mother counting ballots on election night. President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others claimed on the basis of this video that you and your mother were somehow involved in a plot to kick out observers, bring suitcases of false ballots for Biden into the arena, and then run them through the machines multiple times. None of that was true, was it?

SHAYE MOSS:

None of it.

ADAM SCHIFF:

I’d like to show you some of the statements that Rudy Giuliani made in a second hearing before the Georgia state legislator a week after that video clip from State Farm Arena was first circulated by Mr. Giuliani and President Trump. I want to advise viewers that these statements are completely false and also deeply disturbing.

[Begin videotape]

RUDY GIULIANI:

Tape earlier in the day of Ruby Freeman and SHAYE Freeman Moss and one other gentleman quite obviously surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they are vials of heroin or cocaine. I mean, it’s our — it’s obvious to anyone who’s a criminal investigator or prosecutor they are engaged in surreptitious illegal activity again that day, and that’s a week ago, and they’re still walking around Georgia lying.

They should have been — they should have been — should have been questioned already. Their places of work, their homes, should have been searched for evidence of ballots, for Ellis — evidence of USB ports, for evidence of voter fraud.

[End videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

That video was from Rudy Giuliani’s appearance at a Georgia State Senate hearing on December 10.

How did you become aware — how did you first become aware that Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was accusing you and your mother of a crime?

SHAYE MOSS:

I was at work like always, and the former chief, Mr. Jones, asked me to come to his office. And when I went to his office, the former director, Ms. Varon [Ph], was in there, and they showed me a video on their computer. It was just like a very short clip of us working at State Farm, and it had someone on the video, like, talking over the video, just saying that we were doing things that we weren’t supposed to do, just lying throughout the video.

And that’s when I first found out about it.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And were there social media posts that they showed you responding to those false claims?

SHAYE MOSS:

Well, when — when I saw the video, of course the first thing that I saw it was, like, why? What — why is — why are they doing this? What’s going on? And they, you know, just told me that Trump and his allies were not satisfied with the outcome of the election, and they — they were getting a lot of threats and being harassed online and asked me, you know, have I been receiving anything, and I need to check on my mom.

And I told them I — you know, I was, like, where? Where have they — you know, where have you been getting these threats? I — I don’t believe I have any. And Mr. Jones told me, like, they’re attacking his Facebook. And I don’t really use Facebook. I have one so I went to the Facebook app. And I’m just kind of panicky at this point because this has never happened to me, and my mom is involved.

I’m, like, her only child. So, I’m just — asked him, like, where are the messages? All I see is the feeds.

Like, how do you get to the messages? And he said it’s another icon on your phone that says Messenger. And I went to that icon, and it was just a lot of horrible things there.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And those horrible things, did they include threats?

SHAYE MOSS:

Yes, a lot of threats wishing death upon me, telling me that, you know, I’m — I’ll be in jail with my mother, and saying things like be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920, yes.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Were — were a lot of these threats and — and vile comments racist in nature?

SHAYE MOSS:

A lot of them were racist, a lot of them were just hateful, yes, sir.

ADAM SCHIFF:

In one of the videos we just watched, Mr. Giuliani accused you and your mother of passing some sort of USB drive to each other. What was your mom actually handing you on that video?

SHAYE MOSS:

A ginger mint.

ADAM SCHIFF:

It wasn’t just Rudy Giuliani. We heard President Trump make these false allegations repeatedly during his call with Secretary Raffensperger. Let’s listen to a portion of what he had to say about you and your mother.

[Begin videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

We had at least 18,000. That’s on tape. We had them counted very painstakingly, 18,000 voters having to do with the Ruby Freeman. That’s — she’s a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler.

[End videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Donald Trump attacked you and your mother, using her name 18 times on that call, 18 times. Ms. Moss, can you describe what you experienced listening to former President Trump attack you and your mother in a call with the Georgia Secretary of State?

SHAYE MOSS:

I felt horrible. I felt like it was all my fault, like if I would have never decided to be an elections worker, like, I could have — like, anything else, but that’s what I decided to do. And now people are lying and spreading rumors and lies and attacking my mom, I’m her only child, going to my grandmother’s house.

I’m her only grandchild. And — and my kid is just — I felt so bad. I — I just felt bad for my mom, and I felt horrible for picking this job and being the one that always wants to help and always there, never missing not one election. I just felt like it was — it was my fault for putting my family in this situation.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Well, it — it wasn’t your fault. Your mother was kind enough to come speak with us earlier. Let’s listen to her story in her words.

[Begin videotape]

RUBY FREEMAN:

My name is Ruby Freeman. I’ve always believed it when God says that he’ll make your name great, but this is not the way it was supposed to be. I could have never imagined the events that followed the presidential election 2020. For my entire professional life, I was Lady Ruby. My community in Georgia where I was born and lived my whole life knew me as Lady Ruby.

I built my own business around that name, LaRuby’s Unique Treasures, a pop up shop catering to ladies with unique fashions. I wore a shirt that proudly proclaimed that I was and I am Lady Ruby.

Actually, I had that shirt on — I had that shirt in every color. I wore that shirt on Election Day 2020. I haven’t worn it since, and I’ll never wear it again.

Now I won’t even introduce myself by my name anymore. I get nervous when I bump into someone I know in the grocery store who says my name. I’m worried about who’s listening. I get nervous when I have to give my name for food orders. I’m always concerned of who’s around me. I’ve lost my name, and I’ve lost my reputation.

RUBY FREEMAN:

I’ve lost my sense of security, all because a group of people, starting with number 45 and his ally RudyGiuliani, decided to scapegoat me and my daughter Shea to push their own lies about how thepresidential election was stolen.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Ms. Moss, how has this experience of being targeted by the former president and his allies affected your life?

SHAYE MOSS:

This turned my life upside down. I no longer give out my business card. I don’t transfer calls. I — I don’t want anyone knowing my name. I don’t want to go anywhere with my mom because she might yell my name out over the grocery aisle or something. I don’t go to the grocery store at all. I haven’t been anywhere at all.

I’ve gained about 60 pounds. I just don’t do nothing anymore. I don’t want to go anywhere. I second guess everything that I do. It’s affected my life in a — in a major way. In every way. All because of lies. For me doing my job, same thing I’ve been doing forever.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Your mother also told this committee about how she had to leave her own home for her safety and go into hiding after the FBI told her that it would not be safe for her there before January 6th and until the inauguration. Let’s listen to a clip of her story in her own words.

[Begin Videotape]

RUBY FREEMAN:

Around the week of January 6th, the FBI informed me that I needed to leave my home for safety. And I left my home for safety around that time.

UNKNOWN:

Understood. How — how long did you stay out, did you, you know, remain outside of your home for your own safety?

RUBY FREEMAN:

I — I stayed away from my home for approximately two months. It was horrible. I felt homeless. I felt,you know, I can’t believe — I can’t believe this person has caused this much damage to me and my family. To have to leave my home that I’ve lived there for 21 years. And, you know, I’m having to have my neighbors watch out for me. You know, and I have to go and stay with somebody.

It was hard. It was horrible.

UNKNOWN:

And the — your conversation with the FBI about needing to leave your home for your — your own safety or perhaps recommending it. Do you remember was there a specific threat that prompted that or was it the accumulation of — of threats that you had received?

RUBY FREEMAN:

What prompted it was — was getting ready to — January 6th was about to come. And they did not want me to be at home because of all the threats and everything that I had gotten. They didn’t want me to be there in fear of, you know, that people were coming to my home. And I had a lot of that, so they didn’t want me to be there just in case something happened.

I asked how long am I gonna have to be gone? They said at least until the inauguration.

[EndVideotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Ms. Moss, I understand that people once showed up at your grandmother’s house. Tell us about that experience.

SHAYE MOSS:

I received a call from my grandmother. This woman is my everything. I’ve never even heard her or seen her cry ever in my life. And she called me screaming at the top of her lungs, like, “Shaye, Shaye, oh my gosh, Shaye.” Just freaking me out saying that there are people at her home and they, you know,they knocked on the door and of course she opened it seeing who was there, who it was.

And they just started pushing their way through, claiming that they were coming in to make a citizen’s arrest. They needed to find me and my mom. They knew we were there. And she was just, like,screaming and didn’t know what to do. And I wasn’t there. So, you know, I just felt so helpless and so horrible for her.

And she was just screaming. I told her to close the door. Don’t open the door for — for anyone. And,you know, she’s a 70 something I won’t say year old woman. And she — she doesn’t like having restrictions. She wants to answer the door. She likes to get her steps in walking around the neighborhood. And I had to tell her, like, you can’t do that.

You — you have to be safe. You know, she would tell me that at night people would just continuously send pizzas over and over to her home. You know, and they was expecting her to pay for these large amounts of pizzas. And she went through a lot that she didn’t have to. And once again it made me just feel so horrible.

ADAM SCHIFF:

In addition to the personal impact this experience has had on you and your family, one of the things that I find most disturbing is how these lies discourage longtime election workers from continuing to do this important work. Tell us if you would, of the other election workers shown in that State Farm Arena video and their supervisors, how many are still election workers in Fulton County?

SHAYE MOSS:

There is no permanent election worker or supervisor in that video that’s still there.

ADAM SCHIFF:

And did you end up leading your — leaving your position as well?

SHAYE MOSS:

Yes, I — I left.

ADAM SCHIFF:

Ms. Moss, I want to thank you for coming in to speak with us and I thank you for your service to our democracy. What we have just played is a truly horrible and appalling sample, but just a sample of the things that were said about you and your mother following the election. I want to say how very sorry Ithink we all are for what you’ve gone through.

And tragically you’re not alone. Other election workers around the country have also been the subject of lies and threats. No election workers should be subject to such heinous treatment just for doing their job. With your permission, I would like to give your mother the last word.

SHAYE MOSS:

Yes.

ADAM SCHIFF:

We’re just going to play the tape.

[Begin Videotape]

RUBY FREEMAN:

There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the President of the UnitedStates to target you? The President of the United States is supposed to represent every American, notto target one. But he targeted me, Lady Rudy, a small business owner, a mother, a proud Americancitizen who stand up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic.

[End Videotape]

ADAM SCHIFF:

Thank you, Ms. Moss. Thank you, Ms. Freeman, or as America now knows her, Lady Ruby, for your service to Fulton County, Georgia, our country, and our democracy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Ms. Moss?

SHAYE MOSS:

Yes, Sir.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

I want to thank you for sharing with us the very troubling story of what you and your mother experienced. The harassment of election workers like you simply for doing your duty as public servants poses a threat to our democratic process. Your testimony is an important contribution to the work of our committee and serves as a reminder to all of us that the safety of local election officials is vital to ensuring that our elections are always free and fair.

I want to thank our witness for joining us today. The members of the select committee may have additional questions for today’s witness and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. Without objection, members will be permitted 10 business days to submit statements for the record, including opening remarks and additional questions for the witness.

Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff , for a closing statement.

ADAM SCHIFF:

For more than 200 years, our democracy has been distinguished by the peaceful transfer of power.When an American raises their right hand and takes the Presidential oath of office, they are transformed from an ordinary citizen into the most powerful person in the world, the President. This Is an awesome pire — power to acquire.

It is even more awesome when is handed on peacefully. When George Washington relinquished the Office of the Presidency, it set a precedent that served as a beacon for other nations struggling against tyranny. When Ronald Reagan described it as a kind of miracle in the eyes of the world he was exactly right.

Other countries use violence to seize and hold power, but not in the United States, not in America.When Donald Trump used the power of the Presidency to try to stay in office after losing the election to Joe Biden, he broke that sacred and centuries old covenant. Whether his actions were criminal will ultimately be for others to decide.

But what he did was without a doubt unconstitutional. It was unpatriotic. And it was fundamentally un-American. And when he used the power of his Presidency to put the enormous pressure on state,local — and local elections officials and his own Vice President, it became downright dangerous.

On January 6th that pressure became deadly.

Ruby Freeman said the President is supposed to protect every American, not target them. And she is right. If the most powerful person in the world can bring the full weight of the Presidency down on an ordinary citizen who is merely doing her job with a lie as big and heavy as a mountain, who among usis safe?

None of us is. None of us. In city councils and town councils, on school boards and election boards, from the Congress to the courts, dedicated public servants are leaving their posts because of death threats to them and to their families. This is not who we are. It must not become who we are.

Our democracy held because courageous people like those you heard from today put their oath to the Constitution above their loyalty to one man or to one party.

The system held, but barely. And the question remains, will it hold again? If we are able to communicate anything during these hearings, I hope it is this: we have been blessed beyond measure to live in the world’s greatest democracy.

That is a legacy to be proud of and to cherish. But it is not one to be taken for granted.

That we have lived in a democracy for more than 200 years does not mean we shall do so tomorrow. We must reject violence. We must embrace our Constitution with the reverence it deserves, take our oath of office and duties as citizens seriously, informed by the knowledge of right and wrong, andarmed with no more than the power of our ideas and the truth carry on this venerable experiment in self-governance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for a closing statement.

LIZ CHENEY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Lady Ruby and Shaye, thank you for your courage. Thank you for your strength. Thank you for — for being here today. It — it means so much for everyone to hear your story. So thank you for that. We have had tremendous testimony today. We’ve been reminded that we’re a nation of laws.

And we’ve been reminded by you and by Speaker Bowers and Secretary of State Raffensperger and Mr. Sterling that our institutions don’t defend themselves. Individuals do that. And we’ve reminded that it takes public servants. It takes people who’ve made a commitment to our system to defend our system. We also have been reminded what it means to take an oath under God to the Constitution, what it means to defend the Constitution.

And we were reminded by Speaker Bowers that our Constitution is indeed a divinely inspired document. And so it’s been an honor to spend time with you and with our previous witnesses here today. To date, more than 30 witnesses called before this committee have not done what you’ve done,but have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Roger Stone took the fifth. General Michael Flynn took the fifth. John Eastman took the fifth. Others like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro simply refused to comply with lawful subpoenas. And they have been indicted. Mark Meadows has hidden behind President Trump’s claims of executive privilege and immunity from subpoenas.

We’re engaged now in litigation with Mr. Meadows. The American people in our hearings have heard from Bill Barr, Jeff Rosen, Richard Donoghue, and many others who stood up and did what is right. And they will hear more of that testimony soon. But the American people have not yet heard from Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Pat Cipollone.

Our committee is certain that Donald Trump does not want Mr. Cipollone to testify here. Indeed our evidence shows that Mr. Cipollone and his office tried to do what was right. They tried to stop a number of President Trump’s plans for January 6th. Today and in our coming hearings you will hear testimony from other Trump White House staff explaining what Mr. Cipollone said and did including on January 6th. But we think the American people deserve to hear from Mr. Cipollone personally.

He should appear before this committee, and we are working to secure his testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

People answer the call to public service in such different ways. Some run for office. Some volunteer to make sure that neighbors can get to their voting locations. Some work at polling sites to help Election Day go smoothly. Some look into problems to guarantee our elections are secure and accurate, just to name a few.

As I mentioned at the start of this hearing, when we talk about our democratic institutions we are talking about these individuals and many others who do these jobs across the country. They represent the backbone of our democracy at its most important moments: when the citizens cast their votes and when those votes are counted.

We’ve heard the stories of their courage. They’ve earned the thanks of a grateful nation. But for Donald Trump, these witnesses and others like them were another roadblock to his attempt to cling to power. On Thursday, we’ll hear about another part of that scheme, his attempt to corrupt the — the country’s top law enforcement body, the Justice Department, to support his attempt to overturn the election.

Just as we heard today that Donald Trump was deeply involved in a scheme to pressure state officials to overturn the election results, we’ll hear — we will hear on Thursday that Donald Trump was also the driving force behind the effort to corrupt the Justice Department. Listen to this clip from the former Acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue.

[Begin Videotape]

RICHARD DONOGHUE:

The President said suppose I do this. Suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark. What do you do? And I said Sir, I would resign immediately. There is no way I’m serving one minute under this guy, Jeff Clark.

[End Videotape]

BENNIE THOMPSON:

You’ll hear from Mr. Donoghue in person on Thursday as my colleague Mr. Kinzinger presents details about this plan. The Chair requests those in the hearing room remain seated until the Capitol Policehave escorted members from the room. Without objection the committee stands adjourned.

Click Here to Read Along with the Full Video and/or Podcast Audio

LIST OF PANEL MEMBERS, REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MISS.), CHAIRMAN, REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CALIF.), REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CALIF.), REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CALIF.), REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FLA.), REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD.), REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA.), REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WYO.), REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-ILL.)

BENNIE THOMPSON:

The Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol ill be in order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point. Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the chair announces the committee’s approval to release the deposition material represented during today’s hearing.

Good afternoon. This is — almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president, no idea more un-American. I agree with that, which is unusual because former Vice President Mike Pence and I don’t agree on much.

These are his words spoken a few months ago about Donald Trump’s attempt to pressure the former vice president, pressure him into going along with an unlawful and unconstitutional scheme to overturn the 2020 election and give Donald Trump a second term in office that he did not win.

Today, the Select Committee is going to reveal the details of that pressure campaign. But what does the vice president of the United States even have to do with a presidential election? The Constitution says that the vice president of the United States oversees the process of counting the Electoral College votes, the process that took place on January 6th, 2021. Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other vice president has ever done.

The former president wanted Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again. Mike Pence said no. He resisted the pressure. He knew it was illegal. He knew it was wrong. We are fortunate for Mr. Pence’s courage. On January 6th, our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe.

That courage put him in tremendous danger. When Mike Pence made it clear that he wouldn’t give in to Donald Trump’s scheme, Donald Trump turned the mob on him, a mob that was chanting “hang Mike Pence,” a mob that had built a hangman’s gallows just outside the Capitol. Thanks in part to Mike Pence, our democracy withstood Donald Trump’s scheme and the violence of January 6th, but the danger hasn’t receded.

Led by my colleague, Mr. Aguilar, today we’ll lay out the facts for the American people. But first, I recognize my colleague from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.

LIZ CHENEY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me take just a few minutes today to put the topic of our hearing in broader context. In our last hearing, we heard unequivocal testimony that President Trump was told his election fraud allegations were complete nonsense. We heard this from members of the Trump campaign.

We heard this from President Trump’s campaign lawyers. We heard this from President Trump’s former attorney general, Bill Barr. We heard this from President Trump’s former acting attorney general, Jeff Rosen. And we heard this from President Trump’s former acting deputy attorney general, Richard Donoghue.

We heard from members of President Trump’s White House staff as well. Today we’re focusing on President Trump’s relentless effort to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th. Here again is how the former vice president phrased it in a speech before the Federalist Society, a group of conservative lawyers.

[Begin videotape]

MIKE PENCE:

This week that President Trump said I had the right to overturn the election. But President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.

[End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY:

What the president wanted the vice president to do was not just wrong, it was illegal and unconstitutional. We will hear many details in today’s hearing, but please consider these two points. First, President Trump was told repeatedly that Mike Pence lacked the constitutional and legal authority to do what President Trump was demanding he do. This is testimony from Marc Short, the vice president’s chief of staff, who served in the Trump administration in multiple positions over four years.

[Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN:

But just to pick up on that, Mr. Short, is it — was it your impression that the vice president had directly conveyed his position on these issues to the president, not just to the world through a dear colleague letter, but directly to President Trump.

MARC SHORT:

Many times.

UNKNOWN:

And he’d been consistent in conveying his position to the president?

MARC SHORT:

Very consistent.

UNKNOWN:

Ok. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY:

But President Trump plotted with a lawyer named John Eastman to pressure Pence to do so anyway. As the federal court has explained, “Based on the evidence, the court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2021.” What exactly did President Trump know?

When exactly did President Trump know that it would be illegal for Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes? Here is one sample of testimony given by one of the witnesses before us today, the vice president’s general counsel.

[Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN:

Did John Eastman ever admit, as far as you know, in front of the president that his proposal would violate the Electoral Count Act?

GREG JACOB:

I believe he did on the 4th. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY:

That was January 4th, two days before the attack on Congress. A second point, please listen to testimony today about all of the ways that President Trump attempted to pressure Vice President Pence, including Donald Trump’s tweet at 2:24 PM condemning Vice President Mike Pence, when President Trump already knew a violent riot was underway at the Capitol.

In future hearings, you will hear from witnesses who were present inside the White House, who were present inside the West Wing, on that day. But today we focus on the earnest efforts of Mike Pence, who was determined to abide by his oath of office. As Vice President Pence prepared a statement on January 5th and 6th, explaining that he could not illegally refuse to count electoral votes, he said this to his staff.

[Begin videotape]

GREG JACOB:

And the vice president said this may be the most important thing I ever sign, and so —

UNKNOWN:

This meaning the statement?

GREG JACOB:

The statement, and he really wanted to make sure that it was just so. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY:

You will hear today that President Trump’s White House counsel believed that the vice president did exactly the right thing on January 6th, as did others in the White House, as did Fox News host Sean Hannity. Vice President Pence understood that his oath of office was more important than his loyalty to Donald Trump.

He did his duty. President Trump unequivocally did not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Without objection, I recognized the gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, for an opening statement.

PETE AGUILAR:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we intend to show the American people that January 6th was not an isolated incident. In the weeks culminating before, it was illegal scheme and deception. We’ve already learned that President Trump knew he lost the 2020 election.

Shortly after, he began to look for a way to circumvent our country’s most fundamental civic tradition, the peaceful transfer of power.

The president latched on to a dangerous theory and would not let go, because he was convinced it would keep him in office. We witnessed firsthand what happened when the president of the United States weaponized this theory. The Capitol was overrun, police officers lost their lives, and the vice president was taken to a secure location because his safety was in jeopardy.

Let’s take a look at the effect of Donald Trump’s words and actions. I want to warn our audience that the video contains explicit content. [Begin videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn’t, that will be a — a sad day for our country. And Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. [Applause] And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you, I will tell you right now.

UNKNOWN:

I’m telling you what, I’m hearing that Pence — hearing the Pence just caved. No. Is that true? I didn’t hear it. I’m hear — I’m hearing reports that Pence caved. No way. I’m telling you, if Pence caved, we’re going to drag motherfuckers through the streets. You fucking politicians are going to get fucking drug through the streets.

Yes. I guess the hope is that there’s such a show of force here that Pence will decide to —

Just do his job. Do the right thing, according to Trump. Bring him out. Bring out Pence.

Bring him out. Bring out Pence. Bring him out. Bring out Pence. Bring him out. Bring out

Pence. Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence.

Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence. [End videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

How did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where President Trump’s most radical supporters led a violent attack on the Capitol and threatened to hang President Trump’s own Vice President? You’ll hear from witnesses that Donald Trump pressured Mike Pence to adopt a legally and morally bankrupt idea that the Vice President could choose who the next President can be. You’ll hear about how the Vice President, the White House counsel, and others told Donald Trump that the Vice President had no such authority.

But President Trump would not — listen. You’ll hear how Vice President Pence withstood an onslaught of pressure from President Trump both publicly and privately, a pressure campaign that built to a fever pitch with a heated phone call on January 6th. You’ll also hear that the President knew there was a violent mob at the Capitol when he tweeted at 2:24 pm that the Vice President did not have the quote, “courage to do what needed to be done”. Let me be clear, Vice President Pence did the right thing that day.

He stayed true to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you, Mr. Aguilar. We are honored to have two distinguished witnesses who advised Vice President regarding his role on January 6th. Judge Michael Luttig is one of the leading conservative legal thinkers in the country. He served in the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush. He was appointed by the latter to serve on a US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit where he served from 1991 to 2006. He provided critical advice for Vice President Pence regarding the role of the Vice President in a joint session of Congress shortly before that fateful moment.

He’s written that the Vice President does not have the power to select the next President of the United States. He’s also written that — that contrary theory espoused by one of his own former law clerks was quote, “incorrect at every turn”. We are also joined today by one of the people who was with Vice President Pence on January 6th. Greg Jacob was counsel to Vice President Pence.

He conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the Vice President in a joint session of Congress under the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and 230 years of historical practice. But he also has firsthand information about the attack on the Capitol because he lived through it. He was with vice — the Vice President and his own life was in danger.

I’ll now swear in our witnesses. The witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand.

Do you swear or affirm on the penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

UNKNOWN:

[off-mic]

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. I now recognize myself for questions. In the United States, the people choose our Representatives, including the highest official in the land, the President of the United States. The American people did this on November 3rd, 2020, but President Trump did not like the outcome.

He did everything he could to change the result of the election. He tried litigation, 62 cases in fact, and that failed. He tried to pressure state legislatures to reverse the results of the election in their states, but they refused. He tried to enlist the Department of Justice in his efforts to overturn election results, but officials leading the department refused to comply.

So eventually, he latched on to a completely nonsensical and anti-democratic theory that one man, his own Vice President, could determine the outcome of the election. He wanted the Vice President to unilaterally select the President. This theory that the Vice President could unilaterally select the President runs completely contrary to our Constitution, our laws, and the entirety of our American experience.

But that didn’t stop — didn’t matter to President Trump. I would now like to explore how President Trump came to latch on to this ridiculous legal theory that the Vice President can select the President of the United States. Mr. Jacob, how did this theory first come to your attention?

GREG JACOB:

The first time that I had a conversation with the Vice President about the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act was in early December, around December 7th. The Vice President called me over to his West Wing office and told me that he had been seeing and reading things that suggested that he had a significant role to play on January 6th in announcing the outcome of the election.

He told me that he had been first elected to Congress in 2000 and that one of his earliest memories as a Congressman was sitting in on the 2001 certification and he recalled that Al Gore had gaveled down a number of objections that had been raised to Florida. And he asked me, mechanically how does this work at the joint session?

What are the rules? And I told the Vice President that in fact I had a fairly good idea of how things work that actually there aren’t rules that govern the joint session. But what there is, is a provision in the Constitution that’s just one sentence long and then an electoral count act that had been passed in 1887. And I told the Vice President that I could put a memo together for him overnight that would explain the applicable rules.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

So Mr. Jacob, when you looked at this theory, what did you conclude?

GREG JACOB:

So we concluded that what you have is a sentence in the Constitution that is inartfully [ph] drafted. But the Vice President’s — first instinct when he heard this theory was that there was no way that our framers, who [abhorred] concentrated power, who had broken away from the tyranny of George III, would ever have put one person, particularly not a person who had a direct interest in the outcome because they were on the ticket for the election, in a role to have decisive impact on the outcome of the election.

And our review of text, history, and frankly just common sense all confirmed the Vice President’s first instinct on that point. There is no justifiable basis to conclude that the Vice President has that kind of authority.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. We will hear more today about how, despite this conclusion by you and other top legal advisers, the former President used this discredited theory in his campaign to pressure the Vice President to decide the outcome of the Presidential election.

I now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Liz Cheney, for questions.

LIZ CHENEY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Judge Luttig, thank you as well for being here with us today. You issued a very important statement earlier today, which I urge all Americans to read. And I’d like to ask you, Judge, about one of the sentences in your statement and ask if you could explain to us the significance of it. You say, had the Vice President of the United States obeyed the President of the United States America would immediately have been plunged into what would have been tantamount to a revolution within a paralyzing constitutional crisis.

Could you elaborate on that for us, Judge?

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

Thank you, Madam Vice Chairman. That — that passage in my statement this morning referenced the — the most foundational concept in America, which is the rule of law. Thus, as I interpret your question, you are asking about that foundational truth of these United

States, which we call America. The foundational truth is the rule of law.

That foundational truth is, for the United States of America, the profound truth, but it’s not merely the profound truth for the United States, it’s also the simple truth, the simple foundational truth of the American republic. Thus, in my view, the hearings being conducted by this select committee are examining that profound truth, namely the rule of law, in the United States of America.

The specific question of course before you and before the nation, not before me, is whether that foundational rule of law was supremely violated on January 6, 2021. Now, to the question specifically that you asked, Madam Vice Chair, I believe that had Vice President Pence obeyed the orders from his President and the President of the United States of America during the joint session of the Congress of the United States on January 6, 2021 and declared Donald Trump the next President of the United States, notwithstanding that then President Trump had lost the Electoral College vote as well as the popular vote in the 2020 Presidential election, that declaration of Donald Trump as the next President would have plunged America into what I believe would have been tantamount to a revolution within a constitutional crisis in America, which in my view, and I’m only one man, would have been the first constitutional crisis since the founding of the republic.

LIZ CHENEY:

Thank you very much, Judge, for your solemn attention to these issues and — and for your appearance here today. We’re going to describe and discuss in detail what happened.

LIZ CHENEY:

And as we do, I’m going to describe a few of the details now of some of the actions taken by a gentleman named Kenneth Chesebro after the electoral college met and cast their votes on December 14th. Actually the day before they met, Kenneth Chesebro sent a memo to Rudy Giuliani, the President’s lead outside counsel. Mr. Chesebro wrote to Mayor Giuliani that the Vice President is charged with quote, “Making judgments about what to do if there are conflicting votes,” close quote.

Mr. Chesebro wrote that when the joint session of Congress got to Arizona in the alphabetical list of states, the Vice President should not count the Biden votes, quote, “Because there are two slates of votes.” His justification which we will learn more about in our next hearing was that a group of Trump supporters in Arizona and other swing states decided to proclaim themselves the true electors for the state, creating two sets of electors: the official electors selected by the state and a group of fake electors.

This document was ordered to be produced to the select committee by a federal district court judge. As you will see on the screen shortly, Judge David Carter wrote, quote, “The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act.” The judge concluded that quote, “The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2021.” A few days later, Professor John Eastman took up this cause.

Eastman was at the time a law professor at Chapman University Law School. He prepared a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election at the joint session of Congress on January 6th. You will see portions of this memo on the screen. In the first line he wrote, quote, “Seven states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate.” But Dr. Eastman goes on to rely on those so-called dual slates of electors to say that Vice President Pence could simply declare President Trump the winner of the 2020 election.

Mr. Jacob, were there in fact dual slates of electors from seven states?

GREG JACOB:

No, there were not.

LIZ CHENEY:

And just a few days after that, Dr. Eastman wrote another memo.

This one quote, “Wargaming out several scenarios.” He knew the outcome he wanted and he saw a way to go forward if he simply pretended that fake electors were real. You will see that memo up on the screen now. Here Dr. Eastman says the Vice President can reject the Biden electors from the states that he calls quote, “Disputed.” Under several of the scenarios, the Vice President could ultimately just declare Donald Trump the winner regardless of the vote totals that had already been certified by the states.

However, this was false and Dr. Eastman knew it was false. In other words, it was a lie. In fact, on December 19th, 2020, just four days before Dr. Eastman sent this memo, Dr. Eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight, referring to the fake electors as quote, “Dead on arrival in Congress,” end quote, because they did not have a certification from their states.

Judge Luttig, did the Trump electors in those seven states who were not certified by any state authority have any legal significance?

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

Congresswoman, there — there was no support whatsoever and either the Constitution of the United States nor the laws of the United States for the Vice President frankly ever to count alternative electoral slates from the states that had not been officially certified by the designated state official in the Electoral Count Act of 1887. I did notice in the passage from Mr. Eastman’s memorandum and I took a note on it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but he said in that passage that there was both legal authority as well as historical precedent.

I do know what Mr. Eastman was referring to when he said that there was historical precedent for doing so. He was incorrect. There was no historical precedent from the beginning of the founding in 1789 that even as mere historical precedent as distinguished from legal precedent would support the possibility of the Vice President of the United States quote, “Counting alternative electoral slates that had not been officially certified to the Congress pursuant to the Electoral Count Act of 1887.” I would be glad to explain that historical precedent if the committee wanted, but it — it would be a digression.

LIZ CHENEY:

Thank you very much, Judge. I know my colleagues will be pursuing that issue in more depth. And now I’d like to yield back, Mr. Chairman.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you very much. Pursuant to Section 5(c)(8) of House Resolution 503, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, and staff counsel, Mr. John Wood for questioning.

PETE AGUILAR:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re fortunate to have a bipartisan staff. Senior investigative counsel John Wood previously served as United States Attorney in Missouri under President George W. Bush. He and I will share today’s lines of questioning. Mr. Wood.

JOHN WOOD:

Thank you. Mr. Aguilar. Judge Luttig, I had the incredible honor of serving as one of your law clerks. Another person who did was John Eastman. And you’ve written that Dr. Eastman’s theory that the Vice President could determine who the next President of the United States is is in your words incorrect at every turn.

Could you please explain briefly your analysis?

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

It was my honor, Mr. Wood, to have you serve as my law clerk. I — I could answer that question perfectly if I had at my disposal either Mr. Eastman’s tweet or my own analytical tweet of September 21st. But I don’t. But that said, let me try to remember the analysis of — of Mr. Eastman’s analysis.

JOHN WOOD:

And — and Judge, I can read to you and to the audience I think what was a really key passage from your very insightful analysis when you wrote, “I believed that Professor Eastman was incorrect at every turn of the analysis in his January 2nd memorandum beginning with his claim that there were legitimate competing slate of electors presented from seven states.”

You’ve already addressed that issue. But your next sentence said, “Continuing to his conclusion that the Vice President could unilaterally decide not to count the votes from the seven states from which competing slates were allegedly presented.” So what was your basis for concluding that Dr. Eastman was incorrect in his conclusion that the Vice President could unilaterally decide not to count the votes from these disputed states?

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

I understand. As I previously stated in response to Congresswoman Cheney, the — there was no basis in the Constitution or laws of the United States at all for the theory espoused by Mr. Eastman at all. None. With all respect to my co-panelist, he said I believe in partial response to one of the select committee questions that the single sentence in the 12th Amendment was he thought [unartfully] written.

That single sentence is not [unartfully] written. It was pristine clear that the President of the Senate on January 6th, the incumbent Vice President of the United States, had little substantive constitutional authority if any at all. The 12th Amendment, the single sentence that Mr. Jacob refers to, says in substance that following the transmission of the certificates to the Congress of the United States and under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the archivist of the United States that the presiding officer shall open the certificates in the presence of the Congress of the United States in joint session.

It then says unmistakably not even that the Vice President himself shall count the electoral votes. It clearly says merely that the electoral count votes shall then be counted. It was the Electoral Count Act of — of 1887 that — that filled in, if you will, the simple words of — of the 12th Amendment in order to construct for the country a process for the counting of the — the — the sacred process for the counting of the electoral votes from the states that neither our original Constitution nor even the 12th Amendment had done.

The irony, if you will, is that, from its founding until 1887 in — when Congress passed the Electoral Count Act, the nation had been in considerable turmoil during at least five of its presidential elections, beginning as soon thereafter from the founding as 1800. So, it wasn’t for — almost 100 years later until the Electoral Count Act was passed.

So, that’s why, in my view, that piece of legislation is not only a work in progress for the country, but at this moment in history an important work in progress that needs to take place. That was long winded. I understand.

JOHN WOOD:

Well, Judge Luttig, at the risk of oversimplifying for the non-lawyers who are watching, is it fair to say that the 12th Amendment basically says two things happen, the vice president opens the — the certificates and the electoral votes are counted. Is it that straightforward?

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

I would not want that to be my testimony before the Congress of the United States. The language of the 12th Amendment is that simple.

JOHN WOOD:

Thank you, Judge. Mr. Jacob, I have a question for you. I believe during your deposition before this committee, you said something to the effect of you’d read every word written about the 12th Amendment, the Electoral Count Act, and historical practice. I know in response to the chairman’s earlier question you gave your bottom line conclusion.

But can you tell us a little bit about the process that you and your colleagues went through of researching this issue and what conclusion you came to after your thorough research?

GREG JACOB:

So, you — you — as a lawyer who’s analyzing a constitutional provision, you start with the constitutional text. You go to structure. You go to history. So, we started with the text. We do not think that the text was quite as unambiguous as Judge Luttig indicated. In part, we had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates.

And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of which ones had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had had to resolve that question, and the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities.

Now, I am in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the vice president does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th Amendment. And so, the notion that the vice president could do that certainly is not in the text.

But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was we had all seen that, in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states, and those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting, and yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So, we started with that text.

And I recall, in my discussion with the vice president, he said I can’t wait to go to heaven and meet the framers and tell them the work that you did in putting together our Constitution is a work of genius. Thank you. It was divinely inspired. There is one sentence that I would like to talk to you a little bit about.

So, then we went to structure. And again, the vice president’s first instinct here is so decisive on this question. There is just no way that the framers of the Constitution, who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person the authority to determine who was going to be president of the United States.

And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. We examined the Electoral Count Act. We examined practice under the Electoral Count Act. And critically, no vice president in 230 years of history had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn’t claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the states.

In the entire history of the United States, not once had a joint session ever returned electoral votes back to the states to be counted. And in the crisis of 1876, Justice Bradley of the United States Supreme Court, who supplied the decisive final vote on that commission, had specifically looked at that question and said, first, the vice president clearly doesn’t have authority to decide anything and, by the way, also does not have authority to conduct an investigation by sending things back out for a public look at things.

So, the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don’t you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000 that he had authority to just declare himself president of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn’t think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that?

And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. But — so, text, structure, history, I think what we had was some ambiguous text, that common sense and structure would tell you the answer cannot possibly be that the vice president has that authority.

As the committee already played the vice president’s remarks, there is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person would choose the American president.

And then, unbroken historical practice for 230 years that the vice president did not have such an authority.

JOHN WOOD:

Thank you. I reserve the remainder of my time.

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Jacob, you weren’t the only one who knew that the legal theory was wrong, though.

Here is what various advisers to the president thought about that theory.

[Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN:

You’d been clear repeatedly with Mr. Meadows about you and the vice president having a different view about his authority on January 6th.

Marc Short

I believe I had.

Did Mr. Meadows ever explicitly or tacitly agree with you, or say, yeah, that makes sense, Ok?

MARC SHORT:

I believe that that Mark did agree.

UNKNOWN:

What makes you say that?

MARC SHORT:

I believe that’s what he told me. But as I mentioned, I think Mark had told so many people

so many different things that it was not something that — that I would necessarily accept as Ok, well, that means that’s resolved.

UNKNOWN:

I see. Tell me more what — what he told you on this topic.

MARC SHORT:

Well, I think it was that you know the vice president doesn’t have any broader role. And I think he was understanding that.

UNKNOWN:

So, despite the fact that he may have said other things to the president or others, to you he said he understands the vice president has no role.

MARC SHORT:

Yes.

UNKNOWN:

Ok. Did he say that to you several times?

MARC SHORT:

A couple of times, um-hmm.

UNKNOWN:

Before January 6th?

MARC SHORT:

Yes.

JASON MILLER:

The way it was communicated to me was that Pat Cipollone thought the idea was — was nutty, and had at one point confronted Eastman basically with the same sentiment.

MARC SHORT:

Pat expressed his admiration for the vice president’s actions on the day of the 6th, and said that he concurred with the legal analysis that — that our team had — had put together to reach that point.

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

It made no sense to me that, in all the protections that were built into the Constitution for a president to get elected and steps that had to be taken, that the — or to choose the next president would be sitting at — with the vice president.

UNKNOWN:

Do you know if Mr. Clark or Mr. Morgan — is it Morgan — viewed about that — thought about that, Mr. Eastman’s advice?

JASON MILLER:

Yeah, they thought he was crazy.

UNKNOWN:

Do you know if they ever expressed an opinion on whether they thought the vice president had the power that John Eastman said he did?

JASON MILLER:

I know for a fact I heard both say that his theory was crazy, that there was no validity to it in any way, shape, or form.

UNKNOWN:

And did they express that before January 6th?

JASON MILLER:

Yes.

UNKNOWN:

To whom?

JASON MILLER:

I think anyone who would listen.

UNKNOWN:

Ok. What were your prior interactions with Eastman?

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

He described for me what he thought the ambiguity was in the statute, and he was walking through it at that time. And I said hold on a second. I want to understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that you believe the vice president, acting as president of the Senate,

can be the sole decision maker as to, under your theory, who becomes the next president of the United States.

And he said yes. And I said are you out of your effing mind, right? And I — you know, that was pretty blunt. I said you’re completely crazy. I said you’re going to turn around and tell 78-plus million people in this country that your theory is this is how you’re going to invalidate their votes, because you think the election was stolen?

And I said they’re not going to tolerate, that, said you’re going to cause riots in the streets.

And he said words to the effect of there has been violence in the history of our country,

Eric, to protect the democracy or protect the republic. [End videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

In fact, there was a risk that the lawyers in the White House counsel’s office would resign.

For example, Fox News host Sean Hannity expressed concern that the entire White House counsel’s office could quit. As you can see from these texts, Mr. Hannity wrote to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that, “We can’t lose the entire White House counsel’s office.

I do not see January 6th happening the way he is being told.” A few days later on January 5th, Mr. Hannity wrote to Mr. Meadows that, “I’m very worried the next 48 hours, Pence pressure, White House counsel will leave.” While Sean Hannity was apparently very concerned about the possibility that the White House counsel would resign in protest of the president’s effort to force the vice president to violate the Constitution, some others close to the president were more dismissive of the White House counsel’s position.

Here’s what Trump’s son in law and senior adviser Jared Kushner said during his deposition regarding the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone’s, threats to resign.

[Begin videotape]

LIZ CHENEY:

Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign?

JARED KUSHNER:

I — I kind of — like I said, my interest at that time was on trying to get as many pardons done. And I know that, you know, he was always — him in the team or always saying, oh, we’re going to resign. We’re not going to be here if this happens, if that happens. So, I kind

of took it up to just be whining, to be honest with you.

[End videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

The president’s own lead outside counsel, Rudy Giuliani, also seemed to concede that the vice president did not have the authority to decide the outcome of the election or send it back to the states. Here’s what White House attorney Eric Hirschman said about his call with Mayor Giuliani on the morning of the 6th.

[Begin videotape]

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

The morning of January 6th, I think he called me out of the blue, right? And I was like getting dressed. And we had an intellectual discussion that — about Eastman’s — East — I don’t know if it’s Eastman’s theory per se, but the VP’s role. And, you know, he was asking me my view and analysis and then the practical implications of it. And when we finished, he said, like, I believe that, you know, you’re probably right.

I think he thought, when we were done, that it would be something he’d have to consider if he was sitting on the bench, but he’d probably come down in that, you know, you couldn’t interpret it or sustain the argument long term.

PETE AGUILAR:

Of course, the fact that Mayor Giuliani seemed to admit that the theory was wrong did not stop him from going before the crowd just a few hours later on January 6th and saying the exact opposite. Here’s Mayor Giuliani’s speech at the Ellipse rally on January 6th.

[Begin videotape]

RUDY GIULIANI:

We’re here just very briefly to make a — very important two points. Number one, every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today is perfectly legal. I have Professor Eastman here with me to say a few words about that. He’s one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States.

RUDY GIULIANI:

It is perfectly appropriate, given the questionable constitutionality of the Election Counting Act of 1887, that the vice president can cast sit aside, and he can do what a President called Jefferson did when he was Vice President. [applause] He can decide — he can decide on the validity of these crooked ballots or he can send it back to the legislatures, give them five to 10 days to finally finish the work. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

And here’s what Dr. Eastman said in his speech at the Ellipse on January 6th.

[BeginVideotape]

JOHN EASTMAN:

And all we are demanding of Vice President Pence is this afternoon at 1:00 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. [applause] [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Even Dr. Eastman knew his theory didn’t hold water. Mr. Jacob, you discussed and even debated this theory at length with Dr. Eastman. Did Dr. Eastman ever tell you what he thought the US Supreme Court would do if it had to decide this issue?

GREG JACOB:

Yes. We had an extended discussion, an hour and a half to two hours on January 5th. And when I pressed him on the point I said, John, if the Vice President did what you were asking him to do, we would lose nine to nothing in the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? And he initially started it, well, I think maybe he would lose only seven to two.

And after some further discussion acknowledged, well, yeah, you’re right, we would lose nine nothing.

PETE AGUILAR:

I appreciate that. In our investigation, the select committee has obtained evidence suggesting that Dr. Eastman never really believed his own theory. Let me explain. On the screen, you can see a draft letter to the President from October 2020. In this letter, an idea was proposed that the Vice President could determine which electors to count at the joint session of Congress.

But the person writing in blue eviscerates that argument. The person who wrote the comments in blue wrote, quote, “The 12th Amendment only says that the President of the Senate opens the ballots in the joint session. And then in the passive voice that the votes shall then be counted”. The comments in blue further state, “nowhere does it suggest that the President of the Senate gets to make the determination on his own”. Judge Luttig, does it surprise you that the author of those comments in blue was in fact John Eastman?

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

Yes, it does Congressman. But let me — watching this unfold, let me try to unpack what was at the root of what I have called the blueprint to overturn the 2020 election. And it is this.

And I had foreshadowed this answer in my earlier testimony to Congresswoman Cheney.

Mr. Eastman, from the beginning, said to the President that there was both legal as well as historical precedent for the Vice President to overturn the election.

And what we’ve heard today, I believe is — is what happened within the White House and elsewhere as all of the players, led by Mr. Eastman, got wrapped around the axle by the historical evidence claim by Mr. Eastman. Let me explain very simply, this is what I said would require a digression, that I would be glad to undertake if you wished, in short, if I had been advising the Vice President of the United States on January 6th, and even if then Vice President Jefferson, and even then Vice President John Adams, and even then Vice President Richard Nixon had done exactly what the President of the United States wanted his Vice President to do, I would have laid my body across the road before I would have let the Vice President overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that historical precedent.

But what this body needs to know, and now America needs to know, is that that was the centerpiece of the plan to overturn the 2020 election. It was the historical precedent in the years — and with the Vice Presidents that I named, as Congressman Raskin understands well, and the — the effort by Mr. Eastman and others was to — to drive that historical precedent up to and under that single sentence — single pristine sentence in the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Taking advantage of, if you will, what many have said is the inartful wording of that sentence in the 12th Amendment. Scholars before 2020 would have used that historical precedent to argue, not that Vice President Pence could overturn the 2020 election by accepting non-certified state electoral votes, but they would have made arguments as to some substantive, not merely procedural, authority possessed by the Vice President of the United States on — on the statutorily prescribed day for counting the Electoral College votes.

This is — this is constitutional mischief.

PETE AGUILAR:

Judge, I think that’s — I think that’s a good point. And I think it kind of begs the question that if the Vice President had this power to determine the outcome of a Presidential election, why hasn’t it ever been used before? Why hasn’t that ever happened? Why hasn’t a Vice President simply rejected the outcome of an election and declared someone else the winner?

And instead, as the Chairman mentioned in his opening, for over two centuries Vice Presidents have presided over the joint session of Congress in a purely ceremonial role.

This even includes, as Mr. Jacob mentioned, Vice President Al Gore. For those of us who are old enough to remember the 2000 election came down to one state, Florida.

There were weeks of recounts and litigation after the election and Al Gore conceded. Of course, Al Gore was Vice President at the time, but he never suggested that he could simply declare himself the winner of the 2000 election when he presided over the counting of the electoral votes. Let’s hear what Vice President Gore said when he described the situation he faced in 2000.

[Begin Videotape]

AL GORE:

Importance of the United States of America in all of human history, in Lincoln’s phrase, we still are the last best hope of humankind. And the choice between one’s own disappointment in your personal career and upholding the — the noble traditions of America’s democracy, it’s a pretty easy choice when it comes down to it. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Jacob, did Dr. Eastman say whether he would want other Vice Presidents such as Al Gore after the 2000 election or Kamala Harris after the 2024 election to have the power to decide the outcome of the election?

GREG JACOB:

So this was one of the many points that we discussed on January 5th. He had come into that meeting trying to persuade us that there was some validity to his theory. I viewed it as my objective to persuade him to acknowledge he was just wrong. And I thought this had to be one of the most powerful arguments.

I mean, John, back in 2000, you weren’t jumping up and saying Al Gore had this authority to do that. You would not want Kamala Harris to be able to exercise that kind of authority in 2024 when I hope Republicans will win the election. And I know you hope that too, John.

And he said, absolutely. Al Gore did not have a basis to do it in 2000, Kamala Harris shouldn’t be able to do it in 2024, but I think you should do it today.

PETE AGUILAR:

Marc Short told the select committee that Vice President Pence consulted with one of his predecessors, Vice President Dan Quayle, regarding the role of the Vice President. Vice President Quayle confirmed Pence’s view that the role was purely ceremonial. Mr. Short also told the committee that he, Mr. Short, received a call from former House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Here is Mr. Short’s description of his conversation with Speaker Ryan.

[Begin Videotape]

MARC SHORT:

Speaker Ryan wanted to call and say, you know, you don’t have any greater authority. And I — I said to him, Mr. Speaker you — you know, Mike, you know he doesn’t — you know, he recognizes that. And we sort of laughed about it, and he said I get it. And he later spoke to the Vice President too to I think have the same conversation.

[End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Fortunately for the fate of our republic, Vice President Pence refused to go along with President Trump’s demands that he determine the outcome of the Presidential election.

Mr. Jacob, what was the Vice President’s reaction when you discussed with him the theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election?

GREG JACOB:

Congressman, as I testified, the Vice President’s first instinct was that there was no way that any one person, particularly the Vice President who is on the ticket and has a vested outcome in the election, could possibly have the authority to decide it by rejecting electors or to decisively alter the outcome by suspending the joint session for the first time in history in order to try to get a different outcome from state legislatures.

PETE AGUILAR:

Despite the fact that the Vice President had a strongly held and correct view that he could not decide the outcome of the election, President Trump launched a multi-week campaign, of both public and private pressure, to get the Vice President Mike Pence to violate the Constitution. Here are some examples of the intense pressure the Vice President faced from all sides and what his chief of staff thought of it. [Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

And I hope Mike Pence comes through for us. I have to tell you. [applause] I hope that our great Vice President — our great Vice President comes through for us. He’s a great guy. Of course, if he doesn’t come through, I won’t like him quite as much. [laughter]

UNKNOWN:

Was it your impression that the Vice President had directly conveyed his position on these issues to the President, not just to the world, through a dear colleague letter, but directly to President Trump?

MARC SHORT:

Many times.

UNKNOWN:

And had been consistent in conveying his position to the President?

MARC SHORT:

Very consistent.

RUDY GIULIANI:

I am — I am aware of the fact that the President was upset with the way Pence acted.

UNKNOWN:

Are we to assume that this is going to be a climactic battle?

JOHN EASTMAN:

Well, I think a lot of that depends on the courage and the spine of the individuals involved.

UNKNOWN:

That would be a nice way to say a guy named Mike — Vice President Mike Pence?

JOHN EASTMAN:

Yes.

MARC SHORT:

I think we’d been clear as to what the Vice President’s role was. I think the Vice President made clear with the President. And I think I’d been clear with Mark Meadows.

JASON MILLER:

I think the Vice President is going to throw down tomorrow and do the right thing because, Lou, like I said before, this is a time for choosing. People are going to look back at this moment tomorrow and remember where every single one of their elected officials were.

Did they vote for the rule of law in getting these elections right?

Or did they give it away to the Democrats and the people who cheated and stole their way through this election? Definitely the — you know, I got back into town as talk [ph] say [ph], they like the fifth and the sixth. The President was, you know, all the attention was on what

Mike would do or what Mike wouldn’t do.

MARC SHORT:

The Vice President really was not wavering in his commitment to what he — what his responsibility was. And so, yeah, was it — was it painful? Sure. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

The President’s pressure campaign started in December. For example, although the Vice President made his views clearly and unmistakably known to the President and others in the White House, on December 23rd President Trump retweeted a memo from an individual named Ivan Raiklin entitled Operation Pence card that called on the Vice President to refuse the Electoral College votes from certain states that had certified Joe Biden is the winner.

President Trump started his pressure campaign in December, but he dialed up the pressure as January 6th approached.

The testimony we have received in our investigation indicates that by the time January 4th arrived, President Trump had already engaged in a quote, “Multi-week campaign to pressure the Vice President to decide the outcome of the election.” This had included private conversations between the two leaders, Trump’s tweets, and at least one meeting with members of Congress.

We understand that the Vice President started his day on January 4th with a rally in Georgia for the Republican candidates in the US Senate runoff. When the Vice President returned to Washington, he was summoned to meet with the President regarding the upcoming joint session of Congress. Mr. Jacob, who attended that meeting?

GREG JACOB:

The attendees were the Vice President, the President, Marc Short, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President, myself, and John Eastman. There was about a five minute period where Mark Meadows came in on a different issue.

PETE AGUILAR:

Let’s show a photo of that meeting. Mr. Jacob, during that meeting between the President and the Vice President, what theories did Dr. Eastman present regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral votes?

GREG JACOB:

During the meeting on January 4th, Mr. Eastman was opining that there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the Vice President could exercise two days later on January 6th. One of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. The other was that he could use his capacity as presiding officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10 day recess during which states that he deemed to be disputed — there was a list of five to seven states that — the exact number changed from conversation to conversation.

But that the Vice President could sort of issue a demand to the state legislatures in those states to reexamine the election and declare who had won each of those states. So he said that both of those were legally viable options. He said that he did not recommend — upon questioning he did not recommend what he called the more aggressive option, which was reject outright, because he thought that that would be less politically palatable.

The imprimatur of state legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have public acceptance of an outcome in favor of President Trump. And so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the joint session and sending the election back to the States.

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Jacob, I know you won’t discuss the direct conversations between the President and the Vice President. So rather than asking you what the Vice President said in that meeting, I’ll ask you a more general question.

Did the Vice President ever waver in his position that he could not unilaterally decide which electors to accept?

GREG JACOB:

The Vice President never budged from the position that I have described as his first instinct, which was that it just made no sense from everything that he knew and had studied about our Constitution that one person would have that kind of authority.

PETE AGUILAR:

Did the Vice President ever waver in his position that he could not delay certification and send it back to the states?

GREG JACOB:

No, he did not.

PETE AGUILAR:

Did Dr. Eastman admit in front of the President that his proposal would violate the Electoral Count Act?

GREG JACOB:

So during that meeting on the fourth, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman’s proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions.

But he thought that we could do so because in his view the Electoral Act was unconstitutional. And when I raised concerns that that position would likely lose in court his view was that the court simply wouldn’t get involved. They would invoke the political question doctrine and therefore we could have some comfort proceeding with that path.

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Wood.

JOHN WOOD:

But just to reiterate, he told you — maybe this was in a later conversation, but he told you at some point that if in fact the issue ever got to the Supreme Court, his theory would lose nine zero. Correct?

GREG JACOB:

The next morning starting around 11 or 11:30 — we met for an hour and a half to two hours. And in that meeting — I’ve already described the text, structure, history conversation. But we started walking through all of that. And I said, you know, I said John,

basically what you have is some text that may be a little bit ambiguous, but then nothing else that would support it including the fact that nobody would ever want that to be the rule.

Wouldn’t we lose nine to nothing in the Supreme Court? And again he initially started well, maybe you’d only lose seven to two, but ultimately acknowledged that, no, we would lose nine zero. No judge would support his argument.

PETE AGUILAR:

After his meeting with the Vice President, Donald Trump flew to Georgia for a rally in support of the Republican candidates in the United States Senate runoff.

Even though the Vice President was — had been steadfast in resisting the President’s pressure, President Trump continued to publicly pressure Vice President Pence in his Georgia speech. Rather than focusing exclusively on the Georgia Senate runoff Trump turned his attention to Mike Pence. Here’s what the President said during that rally in Georgia.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

Pence comes through for us, I have to tell you. I hope that our great Vice President — our great Vice President comes through for us. He’s a great guy. Plus if he doesn’t come through, I won’t like him quite as much. [Laughter] [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

So the President had been told multiple times that the Vice President could not affect the outcome of the election, but he nonetheless publicly pressured Mike Pence to do exactly that by saying quote, “If he doesn’t come through, I won’t like him as much.”

Let’s turn now to January 5th. Mr. Wood.

JOHN WOOD:

Thank you. That morning, meaning January 5th, the President issued a tweet expressly stating that the Vice President had the power to reject electors. Let’s look at what the President wrote. Quote, “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.” Mr. Jacob, you’ve already told us about your meeting with Dr. Eastman and the President on January 4th and you briefly made reference to the meeting you had with Dr. Eastman the next day, January 5th. Can you tell us a little bit more about that meeting with Dr. Eastman on January 5th? For example, where was the meeting?

Who was there?

GREG JACOB:

So at the conclusion of the meeting on the fourth, the President had asked that that our office meet with Mr. Eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he had expressed at that meeting. And the Vice President indicated that — offered me up as his counsel to fulfill that duty. So we met in Marc Short’s office in the executive office building across the way from the White House.

Dr. Eastman had a court hearing by Zoom that morning, so it didn’t start first thing but rather started around 11. And that meeting went for about an hour and a half, two hours.

Chief of Staff Marc Short was at that meeting most of the time. There were a few times that he left. And essentially it was an extended discussion.

What most surprised me about that meeting was that when Mr. Eastman came in he said I’m here to request that you reject the electors. So on the fourth that had been the path that he had said I’m not recommending that you do that. But on the fifth, he came in and expressly requested that. And I grabbed a notebook as I was heading into the meeting.

I didn’t hear much new from him to record, but that was the first thing I recorded in my notes was request that the VP reject.

JOHN WOOD:

Just to be clear, you’re saying that Dr. Eastman urged the Vice President to adopt the very same approach that Dr. Eastman appeared to abandon in the Oval Office meeting with the President the day before? Is that correct?

GREG JACOB:

He had recommended against it the evening before. And then on the fifth came in and I think it was probably his first words after introductions and as we sat down were I’m here to request that you reject the electors in the disputed states.

JOHN WOOD:

And you referenced a moment ago some handwritten notes which you’ve provided to the select committee. I’d now like to show you those notes. As you can see you wrote there at the top — the writing’s a little bit faint in the copy. But you wrote requesting VP reject. Does that accurately reflect what Dr. Eastman asked of you in your meeting on January 5th?

GREG JACOB:

Yes.

JOHN WOOD:

And what was your reaction when Dr. Eastman said on January 5th that he was there to ask the Vice President of the United States to reject electors at the joint session of Congress?

GREG JACOB:

I was surprised because I had viewed it as sort of one of the key concessions that we had

secured the night before from Mr. Eastman that — that he was not recommending that we do that.

JOHN WOOD:

So what did you say to him?

GREG JACOB:

Well, as I indicated, to some extent it simplified my task because the — there are more procedural complexities to the send it back to the states point of view. And I actually had spent most of my evening the night before writing a memorandum to the Vice President explaining all of the specific provisions of the Electoral Count Act that that plan would violate.

So instead, since he was pushing the sort of robust unilateral power theory — I’ve already walked the committee through the discussions that we had. We — again, we — I started out with our points of commonality or what I thought were our points of commonality. We’re conservatives, we’re small government people.

We believe in originalism as the means that — by which we’re going to interpret this. And so we walked through the text, we walked through the history, and at — the committee had shown footage of Mr. Eastman on the stage on the sixth claiming that Jefferson supported his position in a historical example of Jefferson.

In fact, he conceded in that meeting Jefferson did not at all support his position that in the election of 1800 there had been some small technical defect with the certificate in Georgia.

It was absolutely undisputed that Jefferson had won Georgia. Jefferson did not assert that he had any authority to reject electors.

He did not assert that he had any authority to resolve any issue during the course of that.

And so he acknowledged by the end that there was no historical practice whatsoever that supported his position. He had initially tried to — to push examples of Jefferson and Adams. He ultimately acknowledged they did not work.

As we’ve covered, he acknowledged it would lose nine oh in the Supreme Court. He again tried to say but I don’t think the courts will get involved in this. They’ll invoke the political

question doctrine. And so if the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we’ll have the 10 days for the states to weigh in and resolve it. And then the — you know, they’ll — they’ll send back the Trump slates of electors and the people will be able to accept that.

And I expressed my vociferous disagreement with that point. I did not think that this was a political question. Among other things, if the courts did not step in to resolve this there was nobody else to resolve it. You would be in a situation where you have a standoff between the President of the United States and counter factually the Vice President of the United

States saying that we’ve exercised authorities that constitutionally we think we have by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election.

You would have an opposed House and Senate disagreeing with that. You would have state legislatures that to that point, I mean, Republican leaders across those legislatures had put together — had put out statements, and we collected these for the Vice President as well, that the people had spoken in their states and that they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election.

GREG JACOB:

We did received some signed letters that Mr. Eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those states, but no state had any legislative house that indicated that it had any interest in it. So, you would have had just a — an unprecedented constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. And as I expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets, because if we can’t work it out politically, we’ve already seen how charged up people are about this election.

And so, it would be a — a disastrous situation to be in. So, I said I think the courts will intervene. I do not see a commitment in the Constitution of the question whether the vice president has that authority to some other actor to resolve. There’s arguments about whether Congress and the vice president jointly have a constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues.

I — I don’t think that they have any authority to object or reject them. I don’t see it in the 12th Amendment, but nonetheless — and I concluded by saying, John, in light of everything that we’ve discussed, can’t you — we just both agree that this is a terrible idea? And he couldn’t quite bring himself to say yes to that, but he very clearly said, well, yeah, I see we’re not going to be able to persuade you to do this.

And that was how the meeting concluded.

JOHN WOOD:

But you just described a terrifying scenario. Sounds like there could have been chaos under the Eastman approach, and you have described it a — potentially could be decided in the streets. And you’ve described several concessions that Dr. Eastman made throughout that discussion or even debate that you had with him.

At some point during that meeting on January 5th, did Dr. Eastman seemed to admit that both of the theories that he had presented to the United States a day before — so, the theory that the vice president could reject electors outright and declare Donald Trump the winner

and his less aggressive theory that the vice president could simply send it back to the states, at some point in that conversation, on the 5th, did Dr. Eastman seem to admit that both of these theories suffered from similar legal flaws?

GREG JACOB:

So, I had at least one, possibly two, other conversations with Dr. Eastman later that day. In the earlier meeting, we really were focused, because his request that he made had been reject the electors outright, on why that theory was wrong and why we certainly would not be doing. Later that day, he pivoted back to, well, we hear you loud and clear.

You’re not going to reject. But remember, last night I said that there was this more prudent course where you could just send it back to the states. Would you be willing to do that? And during the course of our discussion about his renewed request that we consider that option, he acknowledged to me — he put it both Mr. Eastman and myself are graduates of the University of Chicago Law School, and he said, look, as graduates of that august institution, you and I will mutually understand that the underlying legal theory of plenary vice presidential authority is what you have to have to get there, because this new theory, as I was pointing out to him, or the procedural theory, still violates several provisions of the

Electoral Count Act, as he acknowledged.

And the only way that you could ever be able to ignore several provisions of statutory law is if it was pretty clear that they were unconstitutional. And the only way they could be unconstitutional is if the vice president had the plenary authorities that were — formed the basis for the reject votes as well.

So, he acknowledged in those conversations that the underlying legal theory was the same, he just thought that the send it back to the states option would be more politically palatable and he hoped more palatable to the vice president for that reason.

JOHN WOOD:

And in fact, when Dr. Eastman made this concession during that meeting, according to your earlier deposition, Dr. Eastman said, just between us University of Chicago chickens, is that right?

GREG JACOB:

I don’t think that the University of Chicago is going to start a Chicago Chickens fundraiser club. But yes, that is the terminology that he used. He said, you know, just between us Chicago chickens, we will understand, as — as lawyers who have studied the Constitution, that the underlying basis really is the same.

JOHN WOOD:

I reserve for the remainder of my time.

PETE AGUILAR:

Thank you, Mr. Wood. Mr. Jacob, the president and the vice president meet again on that ame topic the next day, January 5th, correct?

GREG JACOB:

Their — so, after my extended meeting with Mr. Eastman that morning, during that time the vice president had been back at his residence working on his statement to the nation that we released the next day. He got down to the White House at some point between 1:00 and 2:00 as my meeting with Mr. Eastman was wrapping up. And when we — Marc Short and I went over to meet with the vice president and — actually, we thought maybe we had good news.

We felt like we had sort of defeated Mr. Eastman. He was sort of acknowledging that there was no there there. But the vice president was then asked down to the Oval Office. And he went down to the Oval Office while Marc and I stayed back in the vice president’s office.

PETE AGUILAR:

You weren’t in that meeting?

GREG JACOB:

I was not.

PETE AGUILAR:

In the book Peril, journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa write that the president said, “If these people say you have the power, wouldn’t you want to?” The vice president says, “I wouldn’t want any one person to have that authority.” The president responds, but wouldn’t it almost be cool to have that power?

The vice president is reported to have said, no, look, I’ve read this and I don’t see a way to do it. We’ve exhausted every option. I’ve done everything I could and then some to find a way around this. It’s simply not possible. My interpretation is no, to which the president says, no, no, no, you don’t understand, Mike.

You can do this. I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this. We asked Marc Short about this during his deposition. [Begin videotape]

MARC SHORT:

An understanding that I would have. In other conversations with the vice president, he articulated to me that, no, he wouldn’t want that power bestowed upon any one person.

[End videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Jacob, did you, Mr. Short, and the vice president have a call later that day again with the

president and Dr. Eastman?

GREG JACOB:

So, yes, we did.

PETE AGUILAR:

And what did Dr. Eastman request on that call?

GREG JACOB:

On that phone call, which I believe was around 5:00 that afternoon, Mr. Eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning. We were not going to be rejecting electors. But would we be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the 4th, which would be to suspend the joint session and request that state legislatures reexamine certification of the electoral votes?

PETE AGUILAR:

That same day, January 5th, the New York Times ran a story about the disagreement between the president and the vice president about whether the vice president could determine the outcome of the election. Even though the New York Times story was indisputably correct, Donald Trump denied it. Trump issued a statement claiming that the vice president had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election, despite the fact that the vice president had consistently rejected that position.

Let’s look at what the president said in his statement. “The New York Times report regarding comments Vice President Pence supposedly made to me today is fake news. He never said that. The vice president and I are in total agreement that the vice president has the power to act.” Mr. Jacob, how did the vice president’s team react to this statement from the president that the vice president could take an active role in determining the winner of the presidential election?

GREG JACOB:

So, we are shocked and disappointed because whoever had written and put that statement

out, it was categorically untrue.

PETE AGUILAR:

The vice president’s chief of staff, Marc Short, had an angry phone call with Trump campaign senior adviser Jason Miller about this statement. Here’s what Mr. Short and Mr.

Miller told the committee about that call.

[Begin videotape]

UNKNOWN:

Ok. Tell me about the conversation you had with Jason.

MARC SHORT:

It was brief. I was irritated and expressed displeasure that a statement could have gone out that misrepresented the vice president’s viewpoint without consultation.

UNKNOWN:

The statement says the vice president and I are in total agreement, that the vice president has the power to act. Is that incorrect?

MARC SHORT:

I think the record shows that that’s incorrect.

UNKNOWN:

Yeah.

MARC SHORT:

I mean, we’ve — we’ve been through many documents that clarify that this is not where the vice president was.

UNKNOWN:

Right. So, essentially, the president is sending out a baldly false statement about being in

alignment, purported alignment, with the vice president despite all of the predicate that you indicated had gone before about their respective positions. Is that effectively what happened?

MARC SHORT:

I interpret the statement is false. I’ll let you figure out who sent it out.

UNKNOWN:

When Marc Short contacted you, he — he was upset. Is that what you said?

JASON MILLER:

He clearly was not pleased.

UNKNOWN:

Tell us what he said?

JASON MILLER:

What’s the process for putting out a statement for a meeting where only two people were in the room?

UNKNOWN:

Did he ask you to retract the statement?

JASON MILLER:

No, he just — I think it went right to what’s the process for putting out a statement for a meeting when only two people were in the room.

UNKNOWN:

And he clearly disagreed with the substance though, right, because he said that — he said the vice president doesn’t agree with this.

JASON MILLER:

I’m trying to think what exactly he said. I mean, the — the tone was very clearly that he’d — that he’d used some language to strongly infer that the vice president disagree with — with that take, but I don’t remember what that language was.

UNKNOWN:

Did he dictate this statement?

JASON MILLER:

We — he dictated — he dictated most of it. I mean, typically on these — typically on these, I might have a couple of wording suggestions, or maybe I’d, you know, have a — a sense or a rough framework or something of that. But I — I know with — specifically on this one that it was me and him on the phone talking through it, and ultimately the way this came out was

the way that he wanted to. [End videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

The dispute between the president and the vice president had grown to the point where the vice president’s chief of staff, Marc Short, was concerned that the president could, in Mr. Short’s words, “lash out at the vice president on January 6th.” In fact, Mr. Short was so concerned about it that he talked with the head of the vice president’s Secret Service detail on January 5th. Here is Mr. Short.

[Begin videotape]

MARC SHORT:

Concern was for the vice president’s security, and so I wanted to make sure the head of the vice president’s Secret Service was aware that — that likely, as these disagreements became ore public, that the president would lash out in some way. [End videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

After the recess, we will hear that Marc Short’s concerns were justified. The vice president was in danger. Mr. Chairman, I reserve.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Pursuant to the order of the committee of today, the chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately 10 minutes. [Recess] Committee will be in order. Gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, is recognized.

PETE AGUILAR:

I’d now like to turn to the events of January 6, 2021, which turned out to be a fateful day in our nation’s history. Despite the fact that the Vice President consistently told the President that he did not have and would not want the power to decide the outcome of the Presidential election, Donald Trump continued to pressure the Vice President both publicly and privately.

As you will hear, things reached a boiling point on January 6th and the consequences were disastrous. In the middle of the night on January 5th, into the morning of the sixth, around 1:00 am, President Trump tweeted at the Vice President. Meaning that the comments in response to the President’s tweet would also show up on the Vice President’s Twitter feed.

The tweet stated that the Vice President could quote, “come through for us”, and send it back to the states. Then around 8:00 am on January 6th, President Trump again tweeted.

This time to say that the Vice President could send it back to the states and quote, “we win”. And that, this is the time for extreme courage.

Mr. Short told us during his deposition that the Vice President started a meeting on January 6th in prayer. Here is what Mr. Short said. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN:

You arrived at the Vice President’s residence?

MARC SHORT:

As would often be the case. I recall that knowing it would be an important day, we gathered in prayer and often that would be something the staff member would — would lead. So it would have just been at that time, I believe, the Vice President, myself, Greg, and Chris.

And we would have just asked for guidance and wisdom knowing that the day was going to be a challenging one.

[End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Jacob, did you go to the Vice President’s residences on the morning of January 6th?

GREG JACOB:

Yes.

PETE AGUILAR:

Who else was with you?

GREG JACOB:

Marc Short, Devin O’Malley, our communications director, and Chris Hodgson, our legislative affairs director.

PETE AGUILAR:

And did the Vice President have a call with the President that morning?

GREG JACOB:

He did.

PETE AGUILAR:

Were you with the Vice President during the call?

GREG JACOB:

So we had been putting the — the Vice President had finalized his statement overnight. We were in the process of proofing it so that we could get that out. And we were told that a call had come in from the President. The Vice President stepped out of the room to take that call and no staff went with him.

PETE AGUILAR:

The President had several family members with him in the Oval that morning for that call.

I’d like to show you what they and others told the Select Committee about that call along with never before seen photographs of the President on that call from the National Archives.

[Begin Videotape]

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

When I got in, somebody called me and said that the family and others were in the oval.

And do I want to come up. So I — I went upstairs.

UNKNOWN:

And who do you recall being in the Oval Office?

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

Don Jr, Eric, Laura, Kimberly, I believe Meadows was there. At some point Ivanka came in.

IVANKA TRUMP:

It wasn’t a specific formal discussion. It was very sort of loose and casual.

UNKNOWN:

So then you said at some point there’s a telephone conversation between the President and the Vice President. Is that correct?

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

Yes.

IVANKA TRUMP:

When I entered the office the second time he was on the telephone with who I later found out to be was the — the Vice President.

UNKNOWN:

Could you hear the Vice President or only hear the President’s end?

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

Only hear the President’s end. And at some point it started off as a calmer tone, everything, and then it became heated.

IVANKA TRUMP:

The conversation was — was pretty heated.

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

I think till it became somewhat, you know, louder tone, I don’t think anyway was paying attention to it initially.

UNKNOWN:

Did you hear any part of the phone call, even if just this — the end that the President was speaking from?

NICHOLAS LUNA:

I did. Yes.

UNKNOWN:

Alright. And what did you hear?

NICHOLAS LUNA:

So as I was dropping off the note, I — my memory — I remember hearing the word wimp.

Either he called him a wimp — I don’t remember if he said you are a wimp, you’ll be a

wimp. Wimp is the word I remember.

UNKNOWN:

It’s also been reported that the President said to the Vice President that — something to the

effect of you don’t have the courage to make a hard decision.

KEITH KELLOGG:

Worse. I remember exactly it was something like that. Yeah.

UNKNOWN:

Do you —

KEITH KELLOGG:

— Being — you’re — you’re not tough enough to make the call.

IVANKA TRUMP:

It was a different tone than I’d heard him take with the Vice President before.

UNKNOWN:

Did Ms. Trump share with you any more details about what had happened or any details about what had happened in the Oval Office that morning?

JULIE RADFORD:

That her dad had just had an upsetting conversation with the Vice President.

UNKNOWN:

Do you recall anything about her demeanor either during the meeting or when you encountered her in Dan Scavino’s office?

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

I don’t remember specifically. I mean, I think she was uncomfortable over the fact that there was obviously that type of interaction between the two of them.

UNKNOWN:

Something to the effect this is — the wording is wrong. I made the wrong decision four or five years ago. And the — the word that she related to you that the President called the Vice President, I apologize for being impolite, but do you remember what she said her father called him?

JULIE RADFORD:

The P word. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Jacob, how would you describe the demeanor of the Vice President following the call — following that call with the President?

GREG JACOB:

When he came back into the room, I’d say that he was steely, determined, grim.

PETE AGUILAR:

Of course, the most dangerous part of what Donald Trump did on January 6th was what he did himself. As will be discussed in detail in a future hearing, our investigation found that early drafts of the January 6th Ellipse speech prepared for the President included no mention of the Vice President. But the President revised it to include criticism of the Vice

President and then further ad-libbed.

Here is what the President said on January 6th after his call with Vice President Pence.

[Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP:

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 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. And I actually — I just spoke to Mike.

I said Mike that doesn’t take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage. And then we’re stuck with a President who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years. We’re just not going to let that happen. And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn’t, that will be a — a sad day for our country.

And they want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Of course, we all know what happened next. The President’s words had an effect. President Trump’s supporters became angry. When the Vice President issued his public letter, the crowd at the Capitol erupted in anger. The rioters who had erected makeshift gallows began chanting hang Mike Pence. Testimony in our investigation has made clear what the target of the rioters’ ire was: Vice President Mike Pence.

The rioters breached the Capitol at 2:13 p.m.. [Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN:

Go. Go. Go. Go. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Now let’s take a look at what was going on at the White House at this time. We received testimony that the President’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was notified of the violence at the Capitol by two p.m. and likely earlier. The testimony further establishes that Mr. Meadows quickly informed the President and that he did so before the President issued his 2:24 p.m. tweet criticizing Vice President Pence for not having quote, “Courage to do what needed to be done.” Here is what the President wrote in his 2:24 p.m. tweet while the violence at the Capitol was going on. And here is what the rioters thought.

[Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN:

— Nothing but a traitor, and he deserves to burn with the rest of em. So this — so this all escalated after Pence — what — what happened? Did Pence — — Pence, yeah. Pence didn’t do what we wanted. Pence voted against Trump. Ok. And that’s when all this started? Yup.

That’s when we marched on the Capitol.

We’ve been shot at with rubber bullets, tear gas. We just heard that Mike Pence is not going to reject any fraudulent electoral votes. Boo. You’re a traitor. That’s right. You’ve heard it here first. Mike Pence has betrayed the United States of America. Fuck you, Mike Pence.

Mike Pence has betrayed this President and he has betrayed the people of the United States and we will never, ever forget.

[Cheers] It’s real simple. Pence betrayed us, which apparently everybody knew he was going to and the President mentioned it like five times when he talked. You can go back and watch the President’s video. This is our Capitol. Let’s be respectful to it. There’s four million people coming in. So there’s a lot of control [Inaudible]. It’s only a matter of time.

Justice is coming. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Although the President’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has refused to testify before this committee, Mr. Meadows’ aide Ben Williamson and White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews testified that Mr. Meadows went to the dining room near the Oval Office to tell the President about the violence at the Capitol before the President’s 2:24 p.m. tweet.

In future hearings you’ll hear more about exactly what was happening in the White House at that time. But here is what some White House staff told the select committee.

[Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN:

Do you know where he went?

BEN WILLIAMSON:

Yes, I followed him down the hallway and I followed him into the outer oval corridor, which is the hallway between the Oval Office hallway and the outer oval section of the Oval Office.

I followed him into that little corridor hallway. I saw him walk into outer oval. I maybe took a step into outer oval and then left.

And I don’t know where he went outside of that, but it looked like he was headed in the direction of the Oval Office.

SARAH MATTHEWS:

You know, we had all talked about — at that point about how it was bad and the, you know, situation was getting out of hand. And I — I know Ben Williamson and I were conferring and we thought that the President needed to tweet something and tweet something immediately. And I think when Kayleigh gave us that order of don’t say anything to the media I told her that I thought the President needed to tweet something.

And then I remember — then I remember getting a notification on my phone. And I was sitting in a room with Roma and Ben and we all got a notification. So we knew it was a tweet from the President, and we looked down and it was a — a — a tweet about Mike Pence.

BEN WILLIAMSON:

I believe I had sent him a text saying that we may want to put out some sort of statement because the situation was — was getting a little hairy over at the Capitol. And then it was common for after I would text him I would just go down and — and see him in person.

UNKNOWN:

You went down to speak with Mark Meadows after this. What was that conversation?

BEN WILLIAMSON:

Very brief. I went down and told him the same thing I have in the text that I can recall. And I — I don’t remember anything that was said between us other than I told him that and to my recollection he immediately got up and — and left his office. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Our investigation found that immediately after the President’s 2:24 p.m. tweet, the crowds both outside the Capitol and inside the Capitol surged. The crowds inside the Capitol were able to overwhelm the law enforcement presence, and the Vice President was quickly evacuated from his ceremonial Senate office to a secure location within the Capitol complex.

[Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN:

By 2:24 p.m., the Secret Service had moved Vice President Pence from the Senate chamber to his office across the hall.

CHRIS HODGSON:

The noise from the rioters became audible, at which point we recognized that maybe they had gotten into the building.

UNKNOWN:

Then President Trump tweeted 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.

Bring out Pence. Bring out Pence.

SARAH MATTHEWS:

It was clear that it was escalating and escalating quickly.

UNKNOWN:

Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence.

SARAH MATTHEWS:

So then when that tweet — the Mike Pence tweet was sent out I remember us saying that that was the last thing that needed to be tweeted at that moment. The situation was already bad, and so it felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that.

UNKNOWN:

30 seconds later, rioters already inside the Capitol opened the East Rotunda door just down the hall. And just 30 seconds after that rioters breached the crypt one floor below the Vice President. The Secret Service couldn’t control the situation and do their job of keeping him safe. At 2:26 p.m., Secret Service rushed Vice President Pence down the stairs.

GREG JACOB:

I think they had been trying to figure out whether they had a clear route to get us to where there — it was that they wanted to move us to.

UNKNOWN:

We moved pretty quickly down the stairs and through various hallways and tunnels to the secure location. Upon arriving there, there was further discussion as to whether or not we were going to leave the Capitol complex or stay where we were. Vice President Pence and his team ultimately were led to a secure location where they stayed for the next four and a half hours, barely missing rioters a few feet away. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Approximately 40 feet. That’s all there was. 40 feet between the Vice President and the mob. Mr. Jacob, you were there. Seeing that for the first time.

Does it surprise you to see how close the mob was to the evacuation route that you took?

The — 40 feet is the distance from me to you roughly.

GREG JACOBS:

I could hear the din of the rioters in the building while we moved, but I don’t think I was aware that they were as close as that.

PETE AGUILAR:

Make no mistake about the fact that the Vice President’s life was in danger. A recent court filing by the Department of Justice explains that a confidential informant from the Proud Boys told the FBI that the Proud Boys would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance. This witness, whom the FBI affidavit refers to as W1, stated that other members of the group talked about things they did that day and they said that anyone they got their hands on they would have killed including Nancy Pelosi.

W-1 further stated that members of the Proud Boys said that they would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance. We understand that Congressional leaders and others were evacuated from the Capitol complex during the attack. We’d like to show you what happened after the Vice President was evacuated from the Senate.

[Begin Videotape]

UNKNOWN:

Select Committee has obtained never before seen photos from the National Archives that show Vice President Pence sheltering in a secure underground location as rioters overwhelmed the Capitol. At 4:19 pm, Vice President Pence is seen looking at a tweet the President had just sent, a tweet asking the rioters to leave the Capitol.

After four and a half hours spent on working to restore order, the Vice President returned to the Senate floor to continue the certification of electors. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

So Vice President Pence was the focus of the violent attack. Mr. Jacob, did the Vice President leave the capital complex during the attack?

GREG JACOB:

He did not.

PETE AGUILAR:

Can you please explain why the Vice President refused to leave the Capitol complex?

GREG JACOB:

When we got down to the secure location, Secret Service directed us to get into the cars, which I did. And then I noticed that the Vice President had not. So I got out of the car that I had gotten in — gotten into and I understood that the Vice President had refused to get into the car. The head of his Secret Service detail, Tim, had said, I assure you we’re not going to drive out of the building without your permission.

And the Vice President had said something to the effect of, Tim, I know you, I trust you, but you’re not the one behind the wheel. And the Vice President did not want to take any chance that the world would see the Vice President of the United States Fleeing the United States Capitol. He was determined that we would complete the work that we had set out to do that day, that it was his constitutional duty to see through.

And the rioters who had breached the Capitol would not have the satisfaction of disrupting the proceedings beyond the day on which they were supposed to be completed.

PETE AGUILAR:

Let me see if I understand this right. You were told to get in the cars. And how many of the

Vice President’s staff got into cars while he did not?

GREG JACOB:

Most of us.

PETE AGUILAR:

During our investigation, we received testimony that while the Vice President was in a secure location within the Capitol complex, he continued the business of government. We understand that the Vice President reached out to Congressional leaders, like the acting Secretary of Defense and others, to check on their safety and to address the growing crisis.

In addition, the Vice President’s chief of staff, Marc Short, made several calls to senior government officials. Here’s Mr. Short’s testimony regarding his call with Representative

Kevin McCarthy. [Begin Videotape]

MARC SHORT:

He indicated that he had had some conversation. I don’t recall whether it was with the

President or somebody at the White House, but I think he expressed frustration that I’m not taking the circumstances seriously as they should that moment.

UNKNOWN:

So Mr. McCarthy indicated he’d been in touch with someone at the White House and he conveyed to you that they weren’t taking this as seriously as they should? You have to answer. Yes or no.

MARC SHORT:

Yes, yes.

UNKNOWN:

Ok. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

While the Vice President made several calls to check on the safety of others, it was his own life that was in great danger. Mr. Jacob, did Donald Trump ever call the Vice President to check on his safety?

GREG JACOB:

He did not.

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Jacob, how did Vice President Pence and Mrs. Pence react to that?

GREG JACOB:

With frustration.

JOHN WOOD:

Mr. Jacob, immediately before you and the Vice President were evacuated to a secure location within the Capitol, you hit send on an email to John Eastman explaining why his legal theory about the Vice President’s role was wrong. You entered [ph] your email by stating that, quote, “thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege”. We’ll take a look at that email.

And Dr. Eastman replied, and this is hard to believe, but his reply back to you was, the siege is because you and your boss, presumably referring to the Vice President of the United States, did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the

American people can see for themselves what happened.

Mr. Jacob, later that day you wrote again to Dr. Eastman. Let’s show that email on the screen. In that email you wrote, and I quote, “did you advise the President that in your professional judgment, the Vice President does not have the power to decide things unilaterally?” And you ended that email saying, it does not appear that the President ever got the memo.

Dr. Eastman then replied, he’s been so advised. And he ends his email with quote, “but you know him. Once he gets something in his head, it’s hard to get him to change course”.

Close quote. Mr. Jacob, when Dr. Eastman wrote, once he gets something in his head, it’s hard to get him to change course. Did you understand the he, in that email, to refer to the

President of the United States?

GREG JACOB:

I did.

JOHN WOOD:

And Mr. Jacob, did you hear from Dr. Eastman further after the riot had been quelled? And if so, what did he ask?

GREG JACOB:

Late that evening, after the joint session had been reconvened, the Vice President had given a statement to the nation saying that violence was not going to win, freedom wins and that the people were going to get back to doing their work. Later that evening, Mr. Eastman emailed me to point out, that in his view, the Vice President’s speech to the nation violated the Electoral Count Act — that the Electoral Count Act had been violated because the debate on Arizona had not been completed in two hours.

Of course, it couldn’t be since there was an intervening riot of several hours. And that the speeches that the majority and minority leaders had been allowed to make also violated the Electoral Count Act because they hadn’t been counted against the debate time. And then he implored me, now that we have established that the Electoral Count Act isn’t so sacrosanct as you have made it out to be, I implore you one last time, can the Vice President please do what we have been asking him to do these last two days?

Suspend the joint session, send it back to the states.

JOHN WOOD:

And we’ll show you the text of that email, which Dr. Eastman wrote at 11:44 pm on January 6th. So after the attack on the Capitol and after law enforcement had secured the Capitol, he still wrote, as you described, quote, “So now that the precedent has been set that the Electoral Count Act is not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed, I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation and adjourn for ten days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations”. So even after the attack on the Capitol been quelled, Dr. Eastman requested, in writing no less, that the Vice President violate the law by delaying the certification and sending the question back to the states.

Is that correct, Mr. Jacob?

GREG JACOB:

It is.

JOHN WOOD:

Did you eventually share Dr. Eastman’s proposal with Vice President Pence?

GREG JACOB:

Not right at that time because the Vice President was completing the work that it was his duty to do, but a day or two later back at the White House, I did show him that that final email from Mr. Eastman.

JOHN WOOD:

And what was Vice President Pence’s reaction when you showed him the email where Dr. Eastman, after the attack on the Capitol, still asked that the Vice President delay certification and send it back to the states.

GREG JACOB:

He said that’s rubber room stuff.

PETE AGUILAR:

I’m — I’m sorry, Mr. Jacob, he said it’s rubber room stuff?

GREG JACOB:

Yes, Congressman.

PETE AGUILAR:

What did you interpret that to mean?

GREG JACOB:

I understood it to mean that after having seen play out what happens when you convince people that there is a decision to be made in the Capitol legitimately about who is to be the President and the consequences of that he was still pushing us to do what he had been asking us to do for the previous two days, that that was certifiably crazy.

PETE AGUILAR:

We know that the Vice President did not do what Dr. Eastman requested because he presided over the completion of the counting of electoral votes late in that evening.

[Begin Videotape]

MIKE PENCE:

The number of electors appointed to vote for President of the United States is 538. Within that whole number, a majority is 270. The votes for President of the United States are as follows. Joseph Biden, Jr of the State of Delaware has received 306 votes. Donald J Trump of the state of Florida has received 232 votes.

The whole number of electors appointed to vote for Vice President of the United States is 538. Within that whole number a majority is 270. The votes for Vice President of the United States are as follows. Kamala D Harris of the state of California has received 306 votes. Michael R Pence of the state of Indiana has received 232 votes.

The announcement of the state of the vote by the President of the Senate shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States, each for the term beginning on the 20th day of January 2021 and shall be entered together with the list of the votes on the journals of the Senate and the House of

Representatives.

[End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Mr. Jacob, we heard earlier that you and the Vice President and the team started January 6th with a prayer. You faced a lot of danger that day. And this is a personal question, but how did your faith guide you on January 6th?

GREG JACOB:

My faith really sustained me through it. I, down in the secure location, pulled out my Bible, read through it, and just took great comfort. Daniel 6 was where I went, and in Daniel 6, Daniel has become the second in command of Babylon, a pagan nation that he completely faithfully serves. He refuses an order from the king that he cannot follow and he does his duty in — consistent with his oath to God. And I felt that that’s what had played out that

day.

PETE AGUILAR:

It spoke to you?

GREG JACOB:

Yes.

PETE AGUILAR:

At the end of the day, Marc Short sent the Vice President a text message with a Bible verse.

Here’s what he told the select committee. [Begin Videotape]

MARC SHORT:

At 3:50 in the morning, when we finally adjourned and headed our ways, I remember texting the Vice President a passage from Second Timothy chapter four verse seven about, I fought the good fight. I finished the race. I have kept the faith. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

He started his day with a prayer and ended his day with a Bible verse. I’ve fought the good fight. I finished the race. I’ve kept the faith. White House attorney, Eric Herschmann, testified that the next day January 7th he received a call from Dr. Eastman. Here is Mr.

Herschmann’s account of that call. [Begin Videotape]

ERIC HERSCHMANN:

The day after, Eastman I remember why — he called me — or he texted me or called me, wanted to talk with me, and he said he couldn’t reach others. And he started to ask me about something dealing with Georgia and preserving something potentially for appeal.

And I said to him, are you out of your f-ing mind?

I said — I said I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth for now on, orderly transition. [inaudible] don’t want to hear any other f-ing words coming out of your mouth no matter what other than orderly transition. Repeat those words to me. [inaudible]

Eventually he said, orderly transition.

I said, good, John. Now I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life. Get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer. You’re going to need it. And then I hung up on him. [End Videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

In fact, just a few days later, Dr. Eastman emailed Rudy Giuliani and requested that he be included on a list of potential recipients of a Presidential pardon. Dr. Eastman’s email stated quote, “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list if that is still in the works”.

Dr. Eastman did not receive his Presidential pardon.

PETE AGUILAR:

So, let’s see what Dr. Eastman did as a result when he was deposed by this committee.

[Begin videotape]

JOHN EASTMAN:

I assert my Fifth Amendment right against being compelled to be a witness against myself.

UNKNOWN:

Did the Trump legal team ask you to prepare a memorandum regarding the vice president’s role in the counting of electoral votes at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6th, 2021?

JOHN EASTMAN:

Fifth.

UNKNOWN:

Dr. Eastman, did you advise the president of the United States that the vice president could

reject electors from seven states and declare that the president had been reelected?

JOHN EASTMAN:

Fifth.

UNKNOWN:

Dr. Eastman, the first sentence of the memo starts off by saying seven states have transmitted dual slates electors to the president of the Senate. Is that statement in this

memo true?

JOHN EASTMAN:

Fifth.

UNKNOWN:

Has President Trump authorized you to discuss publicly your January 4th, 2021

conversation with him?

JOHN EASTMAN:

Fifth.

UNKNOWN:

Are — so, is it your position that you can discuss in the media direct conversations you had with the president of the United States, but you will not discuss those same conversations with this committee?

JOHN EASTMAN:

Fifth. [End videotape]

PETE AGUILAR:

Dr. Eastman plead the fifth a hundred times. Finally, let’s hear from a federal court judge, the only one to date who has opined on whether the president was involved in criminal activity. Page 36 of Judge Carter’s ruling says, “Based on the evidence the court finds it more likely than not that the president — that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2021.” Page 40 of the ruling says,

“Based on the evidence, the court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2021.” And Page 44, Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign

to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history.

Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. It was a coup in search of a legal theory. Mr. Jacob, what would have happened to our democracy if Vice President Pence had gone along with this plan and certified Donald Trump is the winner of the 2020 election?

GREG JACOB:

So, there would have been short term and long term effects. The short term I previously described a constitutional jump ball situation, political chaos in Washington, lawsuits, and who knows what happening in the streets, and you would have had the vice president of the United States having declared that the outcomes of these state elections were incorrect.

So, for all of those reasons, there would have been significant short term consequences.

But in the long term, we would have established a situation where a vice president would have asserted that one person could have the authority to determine the outcome of an election, which is antithetical to everything in our democracy.

It’s antithetical to the rule of law. And so, it would have been significant impacts both in the short and the long term.

PETE AGUILAR:

Judge Luttig, in the statement you released earlier today, you wrote that the efforts by President Trump to overturn the 2020 election were, “The most reckless, insidious, and calamitous failures in both legal and political judgment in American history.” What did you mean by that?

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

Exactly what I said, Congressman.

PETE AGUILAR:

Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Mr. Jacob. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Gentleman —

PETE AGUILAR:

I’m sorry. I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I want that back. Mr. Chairman, this was an informative hearing, a powerful hearing. I’m grateful for your leadership and the leadership of the distinguished vice chair. Donald Trump knew he lost the 2020 election, but he could not bring himself to participate in the peaceful transfer of power so he latched on to a scheme that, once again, he knew was illegal.

And when the vice president refused to go along with it, he unleashed a violent mob against him. When we began, I asked how we got to this place, and I think the answer to that question starts with the fact that people in positions of power put their political party before their country. That cannot be allowed to continue.

I’ll yield back now, Mr. Chairman.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you very much. Without objection, the chair recognizes that gentlewoman from

Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for a closing statement.

LIZ CHENEY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to my colleague, Representative Aguilar,

and thank you very much to our witnesses today, Mr. Jacob and Judge Luttig. Thank you for — for being here with us. We have seen so far in — in our hearings that President Trump knew that his claims of a stolen election were false.

You have seen that he knew that Mike Pence could not legally refuse to count electoral votes. And you have seen what Mike — what President Trump did to pressure Mike Pence into taking illegal action. Over the course of our next hearings, you will see information about President Trump’s efforts, John Eastman efforts, the Trump legal team’s efforts to apply pressure to Republican state legislatures, state officials, and others.

Judge Carter has recently written, “Dr. Eastman’s actions in these few weeks indicate that his and President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence. It targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials.” We will examine all of those threats, and we will examine the Trump team’s determination to transmit materially false electoral slates from multiple states to officials of the executive and legislative branches of our government.

We will examine the pressures put on state legislatures to convene to reverse lawful election results. An honorable man, receiving the information and advice that Mr. Trump received from his campaign experts and his staff, a man who loved his country more than himself would have conceded this election. Indeed, we know that a number of President

Trump’s closest aides urged him to do so. This committee will address all of these issues in greater detail in the coming weeks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

The gentlelady yields back. Judge Luttig and Mr. Jacob, our nation owes you a great debt for your knowledge, integrity, and your loyalty to our Constitution. You and Vice President Pence are exactly the people our nation needed at a critical time. You had the courage to do what was right. In the weeks leading up to January 6th, many people failed this test when they had to choose between their oath to the country or the demands of Donald Trump.

But there were others who, like you, stood tall in the face of intimidation and put our democracy first. They include the judges who rejected the bogus claims of election fraud, the senior Justice Department officials who stood up to Donald Trump, and the state officials whom we will hear from at our next hearing.

We’re deeply grateful to your courage and devotion to our country. There are some who think the danger has passed, that even though there was violence and a corrupt attempt to overturn the presidential election, the system worked. I look at it another way. Our system nearly failed and our democratic foundation destroyed but for people like you.

Judge Luttig, I want to give you an opportunity to share your thoughts on the ongoing threat. You’ve written the clear and present danger to our democracy now is that former President Donald Trump and other political allies appear prepared to seize the presidency in 2024 if Mr. Trump or one of his anointed candidates is not elected by the American people.

What do you mean by this?

J. MICHAEL LUTTIG:

Mr. Chairman, I’m honored beyond words by your words. I was honored on January 6th, 2021, and also honored beyond words to have been able to come to the aid of Vice

President Mike Pence. I prayed that day just like the vice president prayed that day. I believe we may have prayed the — the same prayer to the same God. I prayed that same prayer with my wife this morning before I came into these hearings.

I have written, as you said, Chairman Thompson, that today, almost two years after that fateful day in January 2021, that still Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy. That’s not because of what happened on January 6th. It’s because, to this very day, the former president, his allies, and supporters pledge that, in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that election, that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020. I don’t speak those words lightly.

I would have never spoken those words ever in my life, except that that’s what the former president and his allies are telling us. As I said in that New York Times op-ed, wherein I was speaking about the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the former president and his allies are executing that blueprint for 2024 in open, in plain view of the American public.

I repeat, I would have never uttered one single one of those words unless the former president and his allies were candidly and proudly speaking those exact words to America. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today for these proceedings.

BENNIE THOMPSON:

Thank you again, Judge Luttig. As a part of the Select Committee’s charge to make recommendations that are informed by other investigative findings, we will be reviewing the views shared by Judge Luttig and other experts on potential improvements to the Electoral Count Act, among a range of other initiatives.

I know the information we presented over the last week is shocking, the idea that a president of the United States would orchestrate a key — a scheme to stay in power after

the people have voted him out of office. We are able to present this information because so many witnesses have cooperated with our probe.

But the fact is there are more people with direct knowledge, with evidence germane to our investigation. I ask those who might be on the fence about cooperating to reach out to us.

The committee’s website address is being displayed behind me, January6th.house.gov.

There you can view the evidence we presented in our hearings and find a tip line to submit any information you might think would be helpful for our investigation.

And despite how you might not think it’s important, send us what you think. And I thank those who’ve sent us evidence for their bravery and patriotism. Without objections, members will be permitted ten business days to submit statements for the record, including opening remarks and additional questions for the witnesses.

The chair requests those in the hearing room remain seated until the Capitol Police have escorted members from the room. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.

Click Here to Read Along with the Full Video and/or Podcast Audio

List of panel members:

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MISS.), CHAIRMAN REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CALIF.) REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CALIF.) REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CALIF.) REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FLA.) REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD.) REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA.) REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WYO.) REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-ILL.)

BENNIE THOMPSON: The Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point. Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the chair announces the committee’s approval to release the deposition material presented during today’s hearing.

Good morning. Last week, the Select Committee laid out a preview of our initial findings about the conspiracy overseen and directed by Donald Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power, a scheme unprecedented in American history. My colleagues and I don’t want to spend time talking about ourselves during these hearings, but as someone who’s run for office a few times, I can tell you at the end of a campaign it all comes down to the numbers.

Sponsor Message

The numbers tell you the winner and the loser. For the most part, the numbers don’t lie. But if something doesn’t add up with the numbers, you go to court to get resolution, and that’s the end of the line. We accept those results. That’s what it means to respect the rule of law. That’s what it means to seek elective office in our democracy.

Because those numbers aren’t just numbers, they are votes. They’re your votes. They are the will and the voice of the people. And the very least we should expect from any person seeking a position of public trust is the acceptance of the will of the people, win or lose. Donald Trump didn’t. He didn’t have the numbers.

He went to court. He still didn’t have the numbers. He lost, but he betrayed the trust of the American people. He ignored the will of the voters. He lied to his supporters and the country, and he tried to remain in office after the people had voted him out and the courts upheld the will of the people. This morning, we’ll tell the story of how Donald Trump lost an election and knew he lost an election and, as a result of his loss, decided to wage an attack on our democracy, an attack on the American people by trying to rob you of your voice in our democracy, and in doing so, lit the fuse that led to the horrific violence of January 6th, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol, sent by Donald Trump to stop the transfer of power.

Today, my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, and our witnesses will detail the select committee’s findings on these matters, but first I will recognize our distinguished vice chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Last week, as the chairman noted, our committee began outlining a seven part plan overseen by President Trump to overturn the 2020 election. Today we will begin looking at the initial part of that plan, President Trump’s effort to convince millions of Americans that the election was stolen from him by overwhelming fraud.

A federal court has already reviewed elements of the committee’s evidence on this point and said this, “In the months following the election, numerous credible sources, from the president’s inner circle to agency leadership and statisticians, informed of President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud” sufficient to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The court’s opinion methodically documents each of the principal reasons for that conclusion, and I would urge all those watching to read it. Today we will begin to show the American people some of our evidence. Today you will hear much more from former attorney general Bill Barr’s recorded testimony, and you will hear in greater detail what others in the department told President Trump, that his claims of election fraud were nonsense.

You will also hear much more from President Trump’s own campaign experts, who had also concluded that his fraud claims could not be supported. Let me focus briefly on just three points now. First, you will hear firsthand testimony that the president’s campaign advisers urged him to await the counting of votes and not to declare victory on election night.

The president understood, even before the election, that many more Biden voters had voted by mail because President Trump ignored the advice of his campaign experts and told his supporters only to vote in person. Donald Trump knew before the election that the counting of those mail in ballots in several states would not begin until late in the day and would not be complete for multiple days.

This was expected, reported, and widely known. You will also hear testimony that President Trump rejected the advice of his campaign experts on election night and instead followed the course recommended by an apparently inebriated Rudy Giuliani to just claim he won and insist that the vote counting stop, to falsely claim everything was fraudulent.

He falsely told the American people that the election was not legitimate, in his words, “a major fraud.” Millions of Americans believed him. Second, pay attention to what Donald Trump and his legal team said repeatedly about Dominion voting machines, far flung conspiracies with a deceased Venezuelan communist allegedly pulling the strings.

This was, “complete nonsense,” as Bill Barr said. President Trump’s own campaign advisers, his Department of Justice, and his cybersecurity experts all told him the same thing. Here, for example, is White House lawyer Eric Herschmann. His view was shared by many of the Trump team whom we interviewed.

[Begin videotape] ERIC HERSCHMANN: I thought the Dominion stuff was — I never saw any evidence whatsoever to sustain those allegations. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: And third, as Mike Pence’s staff started to get a sense for what Donald Trump had planned for January 6th, they called the campaign experts to give them a briefing on election fraud and all the other election claims. On January 2nd, the general counsel of the Trump campaign, Matthew Morgan, this is the campaign’s chief lawyer, summarized what the campaign had concluded weeks earlier, that none of the arguments about fraud or anything else could actually change the outcome of the election.

[Begin videotape] MATTHEW MORGAN: Generally discussed on that topic was whether the fraud maladministration, abuse, or irregularities, if aggregated and read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome determinative. And I think everyone’s assessment in the room, at least among the staff, Marc Short, myself, and Greg Jacob, was that it was not sufficient to be outcome determinative. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: As is obvious, this was before the attack on the Capitol. The Trump campaign legal team knew there was no legitimate argument, fraud, irregularities, or anything, to overturn the election, and yet President Trump went ahead with his plans for January 6th anyway. Mr. Chairman, hundreds of our countrymen have faced criminal charges.

Many are serving criminal sentences because they believed what Donald Trump said about the election and they acted on it. They came to Washington, DC at his request. They marched on the Capitol at his request, and hundreds of them besieged and invaded the building at the heart of our constitutional republic.

As one conservative editorial board put it recently, “Mr. Trump betrayed his supporters by conning them on January 6th, and he is still doing it.” Another conservative editorial board that has long supported President Trump said last week Donald Trump “won’t stop insisting that the 2020 — that 2020 was stolen, even though he has offered no proof that that is true.” And this: Donald Trump now “clings to more fantastical theories, such as Dinesh D’Souza’s debunked 2000 Mules, even as recounts in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin confirm Trump lost.” Those are the correct conclusions to draw from the evidence gathered by this committee.

We have much more evidence to show the American people on this point than we can reasonably show in one hearing, but today we will begin. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Without objection — without objection, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for an opening statement.

ZOE LOFGREN: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our opening hearing, we gave an overview of our investigation into the January 6th attack. The plot to overthrow the election was complex and had many parts, which we’ll explore in remaining hearings, but today we examine the false narrative that the 2020 election was “stolen.” Former President Trump’s plan to overturn the election relied on a sustained effort to deceive millions of Americans with knowingly false claims of election fraud.

All elements of the plot relied on convincing his supporters about these false claims. Today we’ll demonstrate the 2020 election was not stolen. The American people elected President Joe Biden. We’ll present evidence that Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud were false, that he and his closest advisers knew those claims were false, but they continued to peddle them anyway right up until the moments before a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol.

We’ll also show that the Trump campaign used these false claims of election fraud to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from supporters, who were told their donations were for the legal fight in the courts, but the Trump campaign didn’t use the money for that. The Big Lie was also a big rip off. The former president laid the groundwork for these false claims well in advance of the election.

As early as April 2020, Mr. Trump claimed that the only way he could lose an election would be as a result of fraud.

[Begin videotape] DONALD TRUMP: You know the things with bundling and all of the things that are happening with votes by mail where thousands of votes are gathered. And I’m not going to say which party does it, but thousands of votes are gathered and they come in and they’re dumped in a location. And then all of a sudden, you lose elections that you think you’re going to win.

The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. To remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election. This is going to be a fraud like you’ve never seen. Did you see what’s going on? Take a look at West Virginia. Mailmen selling the ballots. They’re being sold.

They’re being dumped in rivers. This is a horrible thing for our country.

JOE BIDEN: There is no —

DONALD TRUMP: This is not —

JOE BIDEN: There is no evidence of that.

DONALD TRUMP: This is not going to end well. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Mr. Trump decided even before the election that regardless of the facts and the truth, if he lost the election, he would claim it was rigged. Mr. Trump was right about one thing. It did not end well. On election night, Mr. Trump claimed even before the votes were counted that his loss was a result of fraud.

Now Thursday, we had testimony from Attorney General Barr about the Department of Justice investigation of Mr. Trump’s fraud claims. Barr told Trump directly that his claims were BS. Yet, after hearing the truth and that warning from the AG, Mr. Trump continued to peddle the false claims of fraud. You’ll hear detailed testimony from Attorney General Barr describing the various election fraud claims the Department of Justice investigated.

He’ll tell you how he told Mr. Trump repeatedly that there was no merit to those claims. Mr. Barr will tell us that Mr. Trump’s election night claims of fraud were made without regard to the truth and before it was even possible to look for evidence of fraud. Attorney General Barr wasn’t alone. You will see and hear today other Department of Justice officials and senior advisers to Mr. Trump that they told him the claims he was making were not supported by evidence.

The election fraud claims were false. Mr. Trump’s closest advisers knew it. Mr. Trump knew it. That didn’t stop him from pushing the false claims and urging his supporters to quote, “fight like hell” to quote, “take back their country”. After he lost the election, various legal challenges were made. You’ll hear testimony today from a renowned Republican election litigation lawyer who explained the normal process by which candidates challenge an election.

Rather than accept the results of the election and the decisions of the courts, Mr. Trump pursued a different strategy. He tried to convince the American people the election had been stolen. Many of his supporters believed him and many still believe him today. The attack on January 6th was a direct and predictable result of Mr. Trump’s decision to use false claims of election fraud to overturn the election and to cling to power.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you very much. I now welcome our first witness. We’re joined today by former Fox News politics editor, Chris Stirewalt; Bill Stepien, President Trump’s former campaign manager was subpoenaed to be here and was in Washington this morning prepared to testify, Kevin Marino, Mr. Stepien’s attorney is here with us today.

Thank you, Mr. Marino for coming. And he was advised — he has advised us that Mr. Stepien’s wife went into labor this morning. Mr. Stepien unexpectedly had to travel to be with his wife and we wish him the best. Due to the depth and rigor of our investigation with several hours of Mrs. Stepien’s testimony from when we interviewed him in February and we will be presenting that testimony today.

I’ll now swear in our witness. The witness will please stand and raise his right hand. Do you swear or affirm on the penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

UNKNOWN: [off-mic]

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. I now recognize myself for questions. I want to start by showing a video that tells the story of what was going on in the Trump White House on election night in November of 2020.

[Begin videotape] UNKNOWN: Do you remember where you were on the night of the election November the third?

IVANKA TRUMP: I was at the White House.

UNKNOWN: Do you know where specifically over the course of that night you spent your time within the White House?

IVANKA TRUMP: There was an event that was organized in the residence. So I moved between the residence, a room sort of off the residence where some family members were.

UNKNOWN: I take it, the President was upstairs in the residence?

JARED KUSHNER: He was upstairs. I was — we were kind of on the first floor, so not upstairs we were with — mostly with Ivanka and her brothers and a couple other people who’d be coming in and out.

UNKNOWN: Can you just describe the atmosphere? What were people expecting that night when you got to the White House?

JASON MILLER: I think that there was typically, for people who show up there on election night to be a self-select more positive environment. I think people were a little bit nervous not knowing what was going to happen with the red wave or the red mirage as the debate was being carried out.

UNKNOWN: The Fox News decision desk is calling Arizona for Joe Biden. That is a big get for the Biden campaign. Arizona is called. Do you remember that?

BILL STEPIEN: I do.

UNKNOWN: What do you remember happening — where you were when Arizona was called?

BILL STEPIEN: I — there was surprise at the call.

UNKNOWN: Who is surprised?

BILL STEPIEN: Most — most everyone in the room.

UNKNOWN: Were you being one of them?

BILL STEPIEN: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Did that shift the atmosphere or the attitude in the White House?

JASON MILLER: Completely.

UNKNOWN: How so? Can you describe that?

JASON MILLER: Because Fox News was the first one to go out and say that.

UNKNOWN: And so was it anger kind of directed towards Fox News for making a call more so than a disappointment that maybe the campaign lost Arizona?

JASON MILLER: All of the above.

UNKNOWN: So both? Anger and disappointment?

JASON MILLER: Both disappointed with Fox and concerned that maybe our data or our numbers weren’t accurate.

UNKNOWN: Were you in the White House residence during the sort of past midnight into the early morning hours of November 4th?

RUDY GIULIANI: Yes, I’m sure it — it went over beyond midnight. Yes.

UNKNOWN: Do you remember Rudy Giuliani being at the White House on election night and into the early hours the next morning?

BILL STEPIEN: I do.

UNKNOWN: What do you remember about when he came?

BILL STEPIEN: He — he was — there were — I had heard that he was upstairs, you know, in that aforementioned reception area. And he was looking to talk to the President. And it was suggested instead that he’d come talk to several of us down off the map room.

UNKNOWN: You said that Mr. — you had heard that Mr. Giuliani wanted to talk to the President and then he was directed your way. Did you end up talking to Mr. Giuliani when he was directed [inaudible] ?

BILL STEPIEN: I did. I did.

UNKNOWN: What was that conversation?

BILL STEPIEN: A lot of conversations were directed my way. A few of us, myself, Jason Miller, Justin Clarke, Mark Meadows, gathered in a room off the map room to — to listen to whatever Rudy presumably wanted to say to the President.

UNKNOWN: Was there anyone in that conversation who in your observation had had too much to drink?

JASON MILLER: Like — Mayor Giuliani.

UNKNOWN: Tell me more about that? What was your observation about his potential intoxication during that — that discussion about what the President should say when he addressed the nation on election night?

JASON MILLER: And the mayor was definitely intoxicated, but I do not know his level of tox — intoxication when he spoke with the President, for example.

UNKNOWN: Were you part of any discussions with the people I mentioned, Mr. Stepien, Mr. Meadows, or anyone else about whether the President should make any sort of speech on election night?

RUDY GIULIANI: I mean, I spoke to the President. They may have been present, but the President — spoke to the President several times that night.

JASON MILLER: There are suggestions by, I believe it was Mayor Giuliani, to go and declare victory and say that we won it outright.

BILL STEPIEN: It was far too early to be making any calls like that. Ballots — ballots were still being counted. Ballots were still going to be counted for days. And it was far too early to be making any proclamation like that.

JASON MILLER: I remember saying that I — to the best of my memory, and I was saying that we should not go and declare victory until we had a better sense of the numbers.

UNKNOWN: Okay. Can you be more specific about that conversation? In particular, what Mayor Giuliani said your response and then anybody else in the room’s response?

JASON MILLER: I think effectively, Mayor Giuliani was saying we want it. They’re stealing it from us. Where’d all the votes come from? We need to go say that we won. And essentially to anyone who didn’t agree with that position was being weak.

UNKNOWN: What was your view at the time as to what he should or shouldn’t say?

IVANKA TRUMP: I don’t know that I had a firm view as to what he should say in that circumstance. The results were still being counted. It was becoming clear that the race would not be called on election night.

BILL STEPIEN: My belief, my recommendation was to say that votes are still being counted. It’s too early to — to tell. Too early to call the race. But, you know, we are proud of the race we — we run — we ran and, you know, we think — we think we’re in a — in good position. And we’ll have more to say about this, you know, the next day or the next day whenever we had something to say.

UNKNOWN: And did anybody who is a part of that conversation disagree with your message?

BILL STEPIEN: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Who is that?

BILL STEPIEN: The President agreed with that. I don’t recall the particular words. He thought I was wrong. He told me so. And, you know, that they were going to, you know, go in it — he was going — to go in a different direction.

DONALD TRUMP: This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. [applause] [End videotape]

BENNIE THOMPSON: Mr. Stirewalt, did President Trump have any basis to declare victory on November 4th, 2020?

CHRIS STIREWALT: [off-mic]

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Stepien also testified that President Trump had no basis for declaring victory at that point in time.

[Begin videotape] BILL STEPIEN: By my belief, my recommendation was to say that votes are still being counted. It’s too early to tell. Too early to call the race. But, you know, we are proud of the race we — we run — we ran and we think — we think we’re in a in good position. And we’ll have more to say about this, you know, the next day or the next day whenever we had something to say. [End videotape]

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Stirewalt, after the votes were counted who won the presidential election of 2020?

CHRIS STIREWALT: Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. of the great state of Delaware.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. That’s the bottom line. We had an election. Mr. Trump lost, but he refused to accept the results of the democratic process. Pursuant to Section 5c8 of House Resolution 503, I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren for questions.

ZOE LOFGREN: Well, thank — thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stirewalt. I’d like you to explain a term that was thrown around a lot during the election and that’s the so-called red mirage. What does that mean?

CHRIS STIREWALT: So in the 40 or 50 years, let’s say, that Americans have increasingly chosen to vote by mail or early or absentee Democrats prefer that method of voting more than Republicans do.

So basically in every election, Republicans win Election Day and Democrats win the early vote, and then you wait and start counting. And it depends on which ones you count first, but usually it’s Election Day votes that get counted first. And you see the Republicans shoot ahead. And then the process of — of bailing and binding and unbinding all those mail in votes in some states like Pennsylvania refused to count the votes first.

So you have to wait for all of that to come in. So in every election and certainly a national election, you expect to see the Republican with a lead, but it’s not really a lead. When you put together a jigsaw puzzle, it doesn’t matter which piece you put in first, it ends up with the same image. So for us, who cares?

But that’s because no candidate had ever tried to avail themselves of this quirk in the election counting system. We had gone to pains — and I’m proud of the pains we went to — to make sure that we were informing viewers that this was going to happen, because the Trump campaign and the President had made it clear that they were going to try to exploit this anomaly.

And we knew it was going to be bigger because the percentage of early votes was higher, right? We went from about 45 percent of the votes being early and absentee to — because of the pandemic that increased by about 50 percent. So we knew it would be longer, we knew it would be more. So we wanted to keep telling viewers, hey, look, the number that you see here is sort of irrelevant because it’s only a small percentage of these votes.

ZOE LOFGREN: So this red mirage, that’s really what you expected to happen on election night.

CHRIS STIREWALT: Happens every time.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Stirewalt. I’d like to play a clip — a clip of Attorney General Bill Barr, who also explains what was expected to happen on election night.

[Begin videotape] WILLIAM BARR: Right out of the box on election night, the President claimed that there was major fraud underway. I mean, this happened as far as I could tell before there was actually any potential of looking at evidence. And it seemed to be based on the dynamic that — that at the end of the evening a lot of Democratic votes came in which changed the vote counts in certain states.

And that seemed to be the basis for this broad claim that there was major fraud. And I didn’t think much of that because people had been talking for weeks and everyone understood for weeks that that was going to be what happened on election night. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Mr. Stepien obviously could not be with us today and it’s proper for him to be with his wife as they welcome their child.

But he also had discussions with the President about the red mirage. That is that it would be a long night and that early votes would favor him, but that lots more votes would be counted over the course of the night and the days after. So let’s play clip one from our interview with Mr. Stepien.

[Begin videotape] BILL STEPIEN: I — I recounted back to that conversation with him in which I said — just like I said in 2016 it was going to be a long night. I — I told him in 2020 that, you know, there were — it was going to be a — a process again. As, you know, the early returns are going to be, you know, positive. Then we’re gonna, you know, be watching the returns of — of ballots as, you know, they rolled in thereafter.

UNKNOWN: Isn’t it fair to say you’re trying to present a — a — what you thought would be a realistic picture of what might happen over the course of that night, being election night?

BILL STEPIEN: That night in the days that followed. Yeah. I — I — I always — I always, you know, I always told the President the truth. And, you know I — I, you know, I think he expected that from me. And I told him it was going to be a process. It was going to be, you know — you know, we’re gonna have to wait and see how this turned out. So I — I — just like I did in 2016, I did the same thing in 2020. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: So let’s watch a short clip of President Trump speaking after he received that information from his campaign advisers.

[Begin videotape] DONALD TRUMP: We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4:00 in the morning and add them to the list. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: So when former President Trump said that it contradicted what his advisers had warned would happen. We all know that mail in ballots played an important role in the 2020 election. However, President Trump continuously discouraged mail in voting. Mr. Stepien was so concerned about the President’s position on mail in voting that in the summer of 2020 he met with President Trump along with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Let’s play clip four.

[Begin videotape] BILL STEPIEN: Meeting that was had in particular, I invited Kevin McCarthy to join the meeting. He being of like mind on the issue with me in which we made our case for — for why we believed mail in balloting — mail in voting not to be a bad thing for his campaign. But, you know, the — the President’s mind was made up and you understand, you know, how many times to, you know, go to the well on a particular topic.

UNKNOWN: Yeah, I understand. Tell me a little bit more about the argument that you and Mr. McCarthy made to the President in that meeting as to why it wasn’t a bad thing that mail in voting was available.

BILL STEPIEN: Lar — largely two pillars to that argument, both of which I’ve previously mentioned. One, you know, leaving a good deal to chance. Pushing or urging your voters to vote only on Election Day leaves a lot to chance. That’s that’s A. And B, also previously mentioned, the fact that the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party had an advantage of — of grassroots workers and volunteers on the ground that would allow, you know, an — an advantage to enhance return rates of — of ballots that were mailed.

Those were the two pillars of the argument.

UNKNOWN: I see. And what if anything do you recall Representative McCarthy saying during that meeting?

BILL STEPIEN: We were — we were echoing the same argument. I mean, his — his words echoed — echoed mine and vice versa on those — on those two topics. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Mr. Stirewalt, you were at the decision desk at Fox News on election night and you called Arizona early for President Biden, which was controversial. How did you make that call and where did you think the race stood in the early hours of the next day?

CHRIS STIREWALT: Well, it was really controversial to our competitors who we beat so badly by making the correct call first. Our decision desk was the best in the business and I was very proud to be a part of it. Because we had a — we had partnered with The Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago thanks to my colleague and friend, Arnon Mishkin, had built a wonderful device for forecasting the outcomes of elections.

So we had a different set of data than our competitors did. We had more research and we had a better system and we had a great team. So what you’re waiting to see is do the actual votes match up with the expectations in the poll. The real votes are testing the quality of your poll in targeted precincts and in targeted places.

And let me tell you, our poll in Arizona was beautiful, and it was doing just what we wanted it to do. And it was cooking up just right. And at some point — and I forget exactly who — but at some point it became clear that Arizona was getting ready to make a call. So we — around, you know, my boss Bill Sammon said we’re not making any call until everybody says yes, cause that was always our policy: [unanimity]. And you have to understand in this room you have, you know, the — the best.

People from academia, Democrats, Republicans, a broad cross-section of people who had worked together for a decade who are really serious about this stuff. So we knew it would be a consequential call because it was one of five states that really mattered, right? Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona were the ones that we were watching.

We knew it would be significant to call any one of those five, but we already knew Trump’s chances were very small and getting smaller based on what we had seen. So we were able to make the call early. We were able to beat the competition. We looked around the room, everybody says yea, and on we go. And by the time we found out how much everybody was freaking out and losing their minds over this call we were already trying to call the next state.

We had already moved on. We were into Georgia. We were into North Carolina. We were looking at these other states. So we thought it was — we were pleased but not surprised.

ZOE LOFGREN: I see. You know, after the election as of November 7th, in your judgment, what were the chances of President Trump winning the election?

CHRIS STIREWALT: After that point?

ZOE LOFGREN: Yes.

CHRIS STIREWALT: None. I mean, I guess there — you could — you — it’s always possible that you could have, you know, a — a truckload of ballots be found somewhere I suppose. But once you get into this space, you know, ahead of today I thought about what are the largest margins that could ever be overturned by a recount and the normal kind of — the kind of stuff that we heard Mike Pence talking about sounding like a normal Republican that night when he said, you know, we’ll keep every challenge.

Nothing like that. In a recount you’re talking about hundreds of votes. When we think about calling a race, one of the things that we would think about is, is it outside the margin of a recount? And when we think about that margin, we think about in modern history you’re talking about a thousand votes, 1,500 votes at the way, way outside.

Normally you’re talking about hundreds of votes, maybe 300 votes that are going to change. So the idea that through any normal process in any of these states — remember, he had to do it thrice, right? He needed three of these states to change. And in order to do that, I mean, you’re at — you’re at an infin — you’re better off to play the Powerball than to have that come in.

ZOE LOFGREN: On November 7th, the other major news outlets called the race for President Biden. Now, Mr. Stepien told the committee that he thought the odds were, and this is a quote, “Very, very, very bleak,” and held a meeting with the President that same day. Let’s show clip eight, video clip eight.

[Begin videotape] BILL STEPIEN: With each day that wore on, I mean the — the trajectory of the race, you know, on election night Trump ahead in — in many states. And as as that week wore on as the third became the fourth became the fifth and so on and so forth and the vote by mail ballots were tabulated, you know, Trump’s — Trump’s lead, you know, grew more narrow.

And — and in — and in some places Biden surpassed, you know, Trump in — in the vote totals. So as — as the week wore on, as we paid attention to those numbers every single — multiple times a day, you know, internally, you know, I — I was feeling less confident for sure.

UNKNOWN: What was your view on the state of the election at that point?

BILL STEPIEN: You know very, very, very bleak. You know, I — I — I — we — we told him, you know, the group that went over there outlined, you know, my belief in — in — in chances for success at this point. And then we pegged that at, you know, five maybe — maybe 10 percent based on recounts that were — that — that, you know, either were automatically initiated or — or — or could be — could be initiated based on, you know, realistic legal challenges, not all the legal challenges that eventually were pursued. But, you know, it was, you know, my belief is that it was a very, very — I mean, 5 to 10 percent is not a very good optimistic outlook. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Now as President Trump and others continued to claim that the election was stolen, there were lawyers who were a part of the campaign, campaign lawyers, who were responsible for investigating the fraud claims. That includes Alex Cannon, who could not validate the claims that were being made including those being made by the President.

Let’s roll video 15. 13.

[Begin videotape] UNKNOWN: This is an email. It’s two emails actually. The first is from Alex Cannon to you and Faith McPherson and then you forward that email on to Mark Meadows, Justin Clarke, and Jason Miller, the subject being AZ Federal ID voters. If you look at the original email there it says, “Bill, we completed the AZ analysis you requested.” I assume that’s about Arizona.

And because of the un — the substantial uncertainty surrounding the databases, this is a highly unreliable way to identify ineligible voters. Can you explain the task that you gave to Ms. Cannon for this Arizona analysis?

BILL STEPIEN: Sure. Previously, I described some of my frustration with some of the — the claims that people would throw at President Trump regarding, you know, you know, you need to look at this. You know, this happened in this state or that happened in that state. And it would be, you know — those would flow to us to — to — to look into.

I — I talked about that before I think.

UNKNOWN: Yep.

BILL STEPIEN: You know, this is an example of that. I recall — I recall in Arizona someone had thrown out, I believe this to be the claim, that there were thousands of illegal citizens, people not eligible to vote, kind of cast their ballots in Arizona. Someone had thrown out that claim to President Trump. And with, you know, the margins being as close as they were as previously described, you know, that could potentially matter.

So, this — this wild claim is thrown out, which, you know, on its face didn’t seem, you know, realistic or possible to me. I asked Alex to look at the — you know, the — the claim. And I — I haven’t read his full email, but I recall that the response to that, the reality of that was not illegal citizens voting in the election, I think it was like overseas voters voting in the election. I — I — so, obviously, you know, people who were eligible to vote. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: When these findings were passed up the chain to President Trump, he became frustrated and he replaced the campaign’s legal team. Let’s play clip 14.

[Begin videotape] BILL STEPIEN: You know, I think the president, it was during second week where things like you displayed were occurring, where he was, you know, growing increasingly unhappy with, you know, his team, you know, me less so because I was less involved at this point, but still me; growing increasingly unhappy with Justin Clark. And that — that kind of, you know — you know, paved the way for, you know, Justin to be moved out and Mayor Giuliani be moved in as the person in charge of, you know, the legal side of the campaign and, for all intents and purposes, the campaign at that point. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Now, when Mr. Stepien became campaign manager, he was the second Trump campaign manager for the 2020 race, and there were only about 115 days until Election Day. So, let’s play the video.

[Begin videotape] BILL STEPIEN: I inherited a campaign that was — the day I was hired was, I believe, President Trump’s low point in the 2020 daily average polling against President Biden. It was — it was a campaign at a low point in the polls. It was structurally and fiscally deficient. You know, I — you know, there was a great deal wrong with the campaign in — in — in both of those — in — in both of those areas. So, most of my day was spent fixing what — and I think I took over with 115 days left in the campaign. Most of my time was spent fixing the things that could be fixed with 115 days left in the campaign. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Now, Mr. Stepien has been in the campaign field for a long time, and he worked for lots of different candidates in campaigns. He testified to this committee about his concerns, given the claims that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell and their team were making publicly. Let’s play a clip 15.

[Begin videotape] UNKNOWN: Ok. And it was important for you, Mr. Stepien, to sort of pull back just for your own professional reputation. You didn’t want to be associated with some of what you were hearing from the Giuliani team and others that — that sort of stepped in in the wake of your departure.

BILL STEPIEN: I didn’t mind being categorized. There were two groups of them. We called them kind of my team and Rudy’s team. I — I didn’t mind being characterized as being part of Team Normal, as — as reporters, you know, kind of started to do around that point in time. You know, I said, you know, hours ago, early on, that, you know, I’ve — I’ve been doing this for a long time, 25 years, and I’ve spanned, you know, political ideologies from Trump to McCain to Bush to Christie, you know.

And, you know, I can work under a lot of circumstances for a lot of varied, you know, candidates and politicians. But a situation where — and I think along the way I’ve built up a pretty good — I hope a good reputation for being honest and — and professional, and I — I didn’t think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time. So, again, that led to me stepping away. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: So, the president did get rid of Team Normal. And I’d like to play a clip showing that the president found the people he needed to perpetuate his claims of fraud.

[Begin videotape] RUDY GIULIANI: They saw a big truck bringing in 100,000 ballots in garbage cans, in wastepaper baskets, in cardboard boxes, and in shopping baskets. And every single one of them was for Biden, because they were being notified by Smartmatic in Frankfurt that Biden was way behind and they better come up with a lot more ballots.

And we can prove every single thing I just said. If you gave me the paper ballots, I could probably turn around each one of these state. I’m absolutely convinced if you — if you let me examine each one of those ballots, I’d pull out enough that were fraudulent that it would shake the hell out of the country.

SIDNEY POWELL: It can set and run an algorithm, that probably ran all over the country, to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden, which we might never have uncovered had the votes for President Trump not been so overwhelming in so many of these states that it broke the algorithm.

I remember that one of the things Mark said at some point was you can’t show an actual vote was flipped, which I found at the time to be a remarkable assertion, because — because you don’t have to have the gun to see the body lying on the floor bleeding out with five bullet holes in it was killed by a gun.

ERIC HERSCHMANN: What they were proposing I thought was nuts. You know, the theory was also completely nuts, right? I mean, it was a combination of Italians and Germans. I mean, different things have been floating around as to who was involved. I remember Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelans. She has an affidavit from somebody who says they wrote a software in and something with the Philippines, just all over the radar.

UNKNOWN: Did you ever share, Mr. Kushner, your view of Mr. Giuliani? Did you ever share your perspective about him with the president?

JARED KUSHNER: I guess yes.

UNKNOWN: Tell me what you said.

JARED KUSHNER: Well, basically not the approach I would take if I was you.

UNKNOWN: Ok. And — and how did he react? How did President Trump react when you shared that view with him?

JARED KUSHNER: Oh, he said, you know, I — I have confidence in Rudy.

MATT MORGAN: I think I had conversations with probably all of our counsel who were signed up to assist on Election Day as they disengaged with the campaign. The general consensus was that the law firms were not comfortable making the arguments that Rudy Giuliani was making publicly. I seem to recall that I had a similar conversation with most all of them.

WILLIAM BARR: I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president was b*. And, you know, I didn’t want to be a part of it. And that’s one of the reasons that went into me deciding to leave when I did. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Even Sidney Powell, defending herself in a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, argued that “no reasonable person would conclude that her statements were truly statements of fact.” Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: I thank the witness for joining us today. The first panel is now dismissed. Without objection, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last week, we presented the testimony of former Attorney General Bill Barr, who testified before this committee. Today, we present additional evidence, including his testimony that former President Trump started making claims of election fraud immediately after the election and that Barr concluded the claims were untrue.

Now, due to the length of Attorney General Barr’s testimony, we’re only going to include relevant portions at the hearing today. So, let us play the video.

[Begin videotape] WILLIAM BARR: The department, in fact, when we received specific and credible allegations of fraud, made an effort to look into these to satisfy ourselves that they were without merit. And — and I was in the posture of trying to figure out — there was an avalanche of all these allegations of fraud that built up over a number of days.

And it was like playing Whac-A-Mole, because something would come out one day and then the next day it would be another issue. Also, I was influenced by the fact that all the early claims that I understood on — were — were completely bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation. And so, I — I didn’t consider the quality of claims right out of the box to give me any, you know, feeling that there was really substance here. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: For the — for the first time since the election, the attorney general spoke personally with the president on November 23rd, and this was at the White House. Let’s play the video please.

[Begin videotape]WILLIAM BARR: So, on November 23rd, I — I hadn’t spoken to the president since the election, and, in fact, as I said, since the middle of October roughly. And it was a little — getting awkward because obviously he had lost the election and I hadn’t said anything to him. And so, Cipollone said, you know, I think it’s time you come over here.

And so, I came over to meet with the president in the Oval Office. And — and Meadows were — and Cipollone were there. And the president — and — and this is leading up to this conversation with Kushner. The president said there had been major fraud and that, as soon as the facts were out, the results of the election would be reversed.

And he went on on this for quite a while, as he is prone to do. And then he got to something that I was expecting, which is to say that apparently the Department of Justice doesn’t think that it has a role of looking into these fraud claims. And I said, you know, that has to be the campaign that raises that with the state.

The department doesn’t take sides in elections, and the department is not an extension of — of your legal team. And our role is to investigate fraud. And if — and we’ll look at something if it’s — if it’s specific, credible, and could have affected the outcome of the election. And — and we’re doing that, and it’s just not — they’re not — they’re just not meritorious.

They’re not pan — panning out. And as I walked out of the Oval Office, Jared was there with Dan Scavino, who ran his — ran the president’s social media and who I thought was a reasonable guy, and believe is a reasonable guy. And I said, how long is — how long is he going to carry on with this stolen election stuff?

Where is this going to go? And by that time, Meadows had caught up with me and — leaving the office, and caught up to me and — and said that — he said, look, I — I think that he’s becoming more realistic and knows that there’s a limit to how far he can take this. And then Jared said, you know, yeah, we’re working on this. We’re working on it. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Even after his attorney general told him his claims of election fraud were false, President Trump continued to promote these claims.

[Begin videotape] WILLIAM BARR: I felt that things continued to deteriorate between the 23rd and the weekend of the 29th. And then on November 29th, he appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s show, Sunday Futures, I believe it was. And he said that the department was missing in action.

DONALD TRUMP: Well, no, we had glitches where they moved thousands of votes from my account to Biden’s account, and these are glitches. So, they’re not glitches. They’re theft. They’re fraud, absolute fraud. This election was over, and then they did dumps. They call them dumps, big massive dumps in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, and all over.

How the FBI and Department of Justice — I don’t know, maybe they’re involved, but how people are allowed to get away from this stuff — with this stuff is unbelievable. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Now, spurred by what he saw or told The Associated Press on December 1st, that there was no evidence of election fraud, and immediately after Attorney General Barr’s statement went public, Mr. Trump berated and he nearly fired Barr.

ZOE LOFGREN: But Barr persisted telling the President that there was no evidence to support the fraud claims.

[Begin videotape] WILLIAM BARR: This got under my skin, but I also felt it was time for me to say something. So on — I had — so I set up a lunch with the AP reporter, Mike Balsamo, and I told him at lunch — I made the statement that to date we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.

I had a later meeting scheduled at the White House at 3:00 with Meadows. This was previously scheduled. So I knew this was gonna to come up. And I went over there and I told my secretary that I thought I would probably be fired and told not to — to go home. [laughter] — I mean, not to go back to my office, so I said you might have to pack up for me. And so when I got over there, I met with the chief of staff.

He said the President was angry. He didn’t really go — get into the issue of the fraud. And then I went up to Pat Cipollone’s office and we were talking with each other. And word came down that he wanted us both to go to the Oval and the President was as mad as I’ve ever seen him and he was trying to control himself.

And the President said, well, this is, you know, killing me. You didn’t have to say this. You must have said this because you hate Trump. You hate Trump. Then he raised the — the big vote dump as he called it in Detroit. And that, you know, he said people saw boxes coming in to the counting station at all hours of the morning and so forth.

And I explained to him that I — at that point, I knew the exact number of precincts for Detroit. I think it was 630 something. I said, Mr. President, there are 630 precincts in Detroit. And unlike elsewhere in the state, they centralize the counting process. So they’re not counted in each precinct, they’re moved to counting stations.

And so a normal process would involve boxes coming in at all different hours, so there’s nothing — and I said, did anyone point out to you — did all the people complaining about it point out to you, you actually did better in Detroit than you did — you did last time? I mean, there’s no indication of fraud in Detroit.

And I told him that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public were bull — was b. I mean that the claims of fraud were b And, you know, he was indignant about that. And I reiterated that they’ve wasted a whole month on these claims — on the Dominion voting machines and they were idiotic claims.

And I specifically raised the Dominion voting machines, which I found to be among the most disturbing allegations. Disturbing in the sense that I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations. But they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people — members of the public that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense?

And it was being laid out there. And I told them that it was — it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that. And it was doing a great, grave disservice to the country. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Ok. So the very next day, the President released a video rehashing some of the very same claims that his chief law enforcement officer had told him were quote, “nonsense”.

[Begin videotape] DONALD TRUMP: Here’s an example. This is Michigan. At 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 en hara [ph]. We have a company that’s very suspect. Its name is Dominion. With the turn of a dial or the change of a chip, you can press a button for Trump and the vote goes to Biden. What kind of a system is this? [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Barr again told the President that there was nothing to these claims on December 14th.

[Begin videotape] WILLIAM BARR: When I walked in, sat down, he went off on a monologue saying that there was now definitive evidence involving fraud through the Dominion machines and a report had been prepared by a very reputable cybersecurity firm, which he identified as Allied Security Operations Group. And he held up the report and he had — and then he asked that a copy of it be made for me. And while a copy was being made, he said, you know this is absolute proof that the Dominion machines were rigged.

The report means that I am going to have a second term. And then he gave me a copy of the report. And as he talked more and more about it, I sat there flipping through the poor report and looking through it. And to be frank, it looked very amateurish to me, didn’t have the credentials of the people involved, but I didn’t see any real qualifications.

And the statements were made very conclusory like this — these machines were designed to, you know, engage in fraud or something to that effect, but I didn’t see any supporting information for it. And I was somewhat demoralized because I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff he has, you know, lost contact with — with it — he’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff.

On the other hand, you know, when I went into this and would, you know, tell him how crazy some of these allegations were. There was never — there was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were. And my opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud and I haven’t seen anything since the election that changes my mind on that, including the 2,000 Mules movie.

[laughter]

UNKNOWN: [off-mic]

ZOE LOFGREN: So maybe you can assess that 2000 Mules and people are talking about that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I mean, just in a nutshell, you know, I just think that the GBI was unimpressed with it and I was similarly unimpressed with it because I think if you — because I was holding my fire on that to see what the photographic evidence was because I thought, well, hell, if they have a lot of photographs of the same person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes, you know, that’s hard to explain.

So I wanted to see what the photographic evidence was, but the cell phone data is singularly unimpressive. I mean it basically, if you take 2 million cell phones and — and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition you’re going to find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes.

And the premise that, you know, if you go by about, you know, five boxes or whatever it was, you know that that’s a mule is just indefensible. If — by definition you’re going to have a lot — hundreds of this. I mean when I saw one contractor said, we figured out that our truck alone would account for six cell phone signals.

This was a, you know, a some kind of contractor. And you know our route would take us by these things on a regular basis. So I — but then when the movie came out, you know, I think the photographic evidence and it was completely black — I mean it was — there was a little bit of it, but it was lacking.

You know it didn’t — it didn’t establish widespread illegal harvesting. The other thing is people don’t understand is that it’s not clear that even if you can show harvesting that that changes the — or the results of the election. The courts are not going to throw out votes and then figure out what votes were harvested and throw them out.

You’d still — the burden on the challenging party to show that illegal votes were cast, votes were the result of undue influence or bribes or there was really, you know, the person was non compos mentis. But absent that evidence, I just didn’t see courts throwing out votes anyway. I felt that before the election it was possible to talk sense to the President.

And while you sometimes had to engage in a big wrestling match with them, then it was possible to keep things on track. But I was — felt that after the election, we didn’t seem to be listening and I didn’t think it was, you know, that I was inclined not to stay around if he wasn’t listening to advice from me or his other cabinet secretaries. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: So on December 14th, Barr quit. Now the Attorney General wasn’t the only person who told the President that his claims were false. Other officials and close advisers told him the same thing.

[Begin videotape] JEFFREY ROSEN: Rather than try to address a counterfactual or a hypothetical, let me just say, there were instances where the President would say “People are telling me this” or “I heard this” or “I saw on television”, you know, this — this impropriety in Atlanta or Pennsylvania or something. And we were in a position to say our people already looked at that.

And we know that you’re getting bad information. That’s — that’s not correct. It’s been demonstrated to be incorrect from our point of view it had been debunked.

DEREK LYONS: Month and a half or so after the Election Day and at that meeting, you know, various allegations of fraud were discussed and you know Eric and Pat didn’t, you know — told the group, the President included, that none of those allegations had been substantiated to the point where they could be the basis for any litigation challenge to the election. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: President Trump’s own Vice President and his top advisers also knew that there wasn’t evidence to support the claims that the President was making.

[Begin videotape] UNKNOWN: Anyone else other than Mr. Meadows who asked you about the status, outside of your legal group, you know, Mr. Morgan and the others you mentioned. Anyone else who asked you the status of what you were finding in your assessment of it?

ALEX CANNON: Yes, sir.

UNKNOWN: Who’s that?

ALEX CANNON: Peter Navarro.

UNKNOWN: When did you talk to Mr. Navarro?

ALEX CANNON: Mid-November.

UNKNOWN: Around the same time as Mr. Meadows?

ALEX CANNON: Yes, sir.

UNKNOWN: And tell me about that conversation.

ALEX CANNON: I recall him asking me questions about Dominion. And maybe some other categories of allegations of voter fraud. And I remember telling him that I didn’t believe the Dominion allegations because I thought the hand recount in Georgia would resolve any issues with a technology problem and with Dominion or Dominion flipping votes.

And I mentioned at that time that the CISA, Chris Krebs [ph], had recently released a report saying that the election was secure. And I believe Mr. Navarro accused me of being an agent of the Deep State working with Chris Krebs [Ph] against the President. And I never took another phone call from Mr. Navarro.

UNKNOWN: Anyone else besides Mr. Meadows, Mr. Navarro, Mr. Hershman that you had discussions with inquiring about what you were finding in your review of the allegations that were pouring in?

ALEX CANNON: I believe I had about a 15 second conversation with the Vice President about it as well.

UNKNOWN: When was that?

ALEX CANNON: During one of the visits to the White House? I don’t know which one. I think it was the first one in November. I was — I had met him briefly at the campaign and he remembered me and saw me. And he asked what I was doing on the campaign and I told him that we were looking into some of the issues related to voter fraud.

And he asked me, I don’t remember his exact words, but he asked me if we were finding anything. And I said that I didn’t believe we were finding it or I was not personally finding anything sufficient to alter the results of the election. And he — he thanked me. That was our interaction. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: At a later hearing, you’ll hear live testimony from the former acting deputy attorney general of the Department of Justice, Rich Donoghue. But now I’d like to play a portion of his testimony.

[Begin videotape] RICHARD DONOGHUE: I tried to again put this in perspective and to try to put it in very clear terms to the President. And I said something to the effect of sir, we’ve done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed. We’ve looked at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada.

We’re doing our job. Much of the info you’re getting is false. And then I went into for instance this thing from Michigan this report about 68 percent error rate. Reality is it was only 0.0063 percent error rate, less than one in 15,000. So the President accepted that. He said, Ok, fine, but what about the others?

And again, this gets back to the point that there were so many of these allegations that when you gave him a very direct answer on one of them, he wouldn’t fight us on it, but he would move to another allegation. So then I talked about — a little bit about the Pennsylvania truck driver. This is another allegation that had come up. And this claim was by a truck driver who believed, perhaps honestly, that he had transported an entire tractor trailer truck full of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania.

And this was again out there in the public and discussed and I essentially said, look, we looked at that allegation. We looked at both end, both the people who load the truck and the people unload the truck. And that allegation was not supported by the evidence. Again, he said, Ok. Then he said, no, I didn’t mention that one.

What about the others? And I said, Ok, well, with regard to Georgia, we looked at the tape, we interview the witnesses, there is no suitcase. The President kept fixating on this suitcase that supposedly had fraudulent ballots and that the suitcase was rolled out from under the table. And I said, no, sir, there is no suitcase.

You can watch the video over and over. There is no suitcase. There is a wheeled bin where they carry the ballots and that’s just how they move ballots around that facility. There’s nothing suspicious about that at all. I told him that there was no multiple scanning of the ballots — one the one part of that allegation was that they were taking one ballot and scanning it through three or four or five times to rack up votes presumably for Vice President Biden.

I told him that the video did not support that. Then he went off on double voting the top of the next page. He said dead people are voting. Indians are getting paid to vote. He meant people on Native American reservations. He said there’s lots of fraud going on here. Told him flat out that much of the information he’s getting is false and or just not supported by the evidence. We looked at the allegations, but they don’t pan out. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Mr. Barr and his advisers were not the only ones who determined that the presence allegations regarding Dominion voting machines were false. So Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this hearing reports issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, otherwise known as CISA, that addressed and rejected the claims of manipulation of voting machines in the 2020 election.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Without objection, so ordered.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also ask unanimous consent to include in the record a report prepared by the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee that disprove claims of election fraud in Michigan as well as a statement by 59 of the country’s leading election security scientists noting the absence of any credible evidence that the 2020 election had been altered through a technical compromise and five other reports from organizations and individuals confirming there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election or describing the spread of the former President’s lies.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Without objection, so ordered.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Pursuant to the order of the Committee for the day, the Chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately 10 minutes.

BENNIE THOMPSON: The committee will be in order. I now welcome our second panel of witnesses. We’re joined today by BJay Pak, Al Schmidt, and Ben Ginsberg. Mr. Pak is the former United States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. Mr. Schmidt is a former city commissioner for the city of Philadelphia, where he served for more than ten years.

Mr. Ginsberg is one of the leading election law attorneys in the country, and has represented Republican presidential candidates in election litigation dating back to 20 — 2000, where he represented George W. Bush in the Bush v Gore litigation. I will now swear in our witnesses. Please stand and raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Pursuant to Section 5C8 of House Resolution 503, I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for questions.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before the break, I think you all heard Mr. Barr and Mr. Donoghue talk about the false claims that Mr. Trump and his supporters made about suitcases of fake ballots in Georgia. We have a witness here today who thoroughly investigated that issue. Mr. Pak, I want to thank you for appearing before us today.

You were appointed by President Trump to serve as the US attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and you served from 2017 until January of 2021. You were the lead federal prosecutor there and worked for the Department of Justice under then-Attorney General Bill Barr. Now, were you ever asked by Attorney General Barr to investigate claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election?

And if so, what were those claims?

BJAY PAK: Thank you, Congressman Lofgren. Thank you for the question. Approximately December 4th, I believe, of 2020, Attorney General Barr and I had a conversation about an unrelated case to the case at issue. At the end of the conversation, Mr. Barr had asked me if I had seen a certain videotape that was being reported in the news, where Mr. Giuliani in a Senate subcommittee hearing that was held the day before, May 3rd, showed a videotape of a — purportedly a security tape at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which is also in Fulton County, in the city of Atlanta.

I’m sorry, city of — yes. At the time, Mr. Barr asked me that — he had made a public statement that he had not seen any widespread election fraud that would question the outcome of the election. And because of the videotape and the serious allegation that Mr. Giuliani was making with respect to the suitcase full of ballots purported in the — the video, he asked me to find out what I could about it because he had envisioned that, in some days after our call, that he was going to go to the White House for a meeting and then that issue might come up. He asked me to make it priority to get to the bottom of — to try to substantiate the allegation made by Mr. Giuliani.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you. I understand the Georgia Secretary of State’s office investigated those State Farm Arena allegations and didn’t find any evidence of fraud. What did you find when your office convected — conducted its own investigation?

BJAY PAK: We found that the suitcase full of ballots, the alleged black suitcase that was being seen pulled from under the table, was actually an — an official lockbox where ballots were kept safe. We found out that there was a mistake in terms of his misunderstanding that they were done counting ballots or tallying ballots for the night, and the — the partisan watchers that was assigned by each of the respective parties were announced and sent home.

But once they realize the mistake, someone from the Secretary of State’s office had indicated that no, no, no, we’re not done for the night, you need to go ahead and — and continue counting. So, once they packed up the lockbox full of ballots, they brought back the official ballot box again and continue to tally the ballots from that — from that — the lock box.

Unfortunately, during the Senate hearing, Mr. Giuliani only played a clip that showed them pulling out the official ballot box from under the table and referring to that as a smoking gun of fraud in — in Fulton County, when in actuality in review of the entire video, it showed that that was actually an official ballot box that was kept underneath the — the tables.

And then they — we saw them pack up because of the announcement that — they thought they were done for the night. And then once the announcement was made that you should continue counting, they brought the ballot box back out and they continued to count. We interviewed — the FBI interviewed the individuals that are depicted in the — the videos that purportedly were double, triple counting of the ballots, and determined that nothing irregular happened in the counting and the allegations made by Mr. Giuliani were false.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you very much. I’d like to play again a testimony from Mr. Donoghue, who appeared before the committee before today.

[Begin videotape] LIZ CHENEY: Mr. Donoghue you — we talked at some length about whether or not the White House and the president was informed that the interim report on the results of the investigations, the interviews that have gone on on Fulton County. How would those results have been communicated to the White House, to the president?

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I don’t know how they were initially communicated. I do know that they came up in subsequent conversations with the president, and Dan Rose and I essentially told them we looked into that and it’s just not true.

LIZ CHENEY: Ok. So, he was — he was informed.

RICHARD DONOGHUE: I told the president myself that several times in several conversations, that these allegations about ballots being smuggled in in a suitcase and run through the machine several times, it was not true, that we looked at it. We looked at the video, we interviewed the witnesses, that it was not true. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Mr. Pak, after you left the US Attorney’s Office on January 4th, 2021, did the next US attorney there — I think Mr. Trump’s personal pick, Bobby Christine, did he investigate any remaining claims of fraud? And if so, did he find any evidence that supported the president’s claims of voter fraud?

BJAY PAK: It is my understanding that Mr. Christine continued any investigations that were pending at the time of my departure, but he was unable to find any evidence of fraud that affected the outcome of the election.

ZOE LOFGREN: So, after investigating the president’s and Mr. Giuliani’s claims about voter fraud in Georgia, is it your view today that there was no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the election in Georgia?

BJAY PAK: That is correct.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Pak. And I want to thank you also for the service that you’ve given to our country. We appreciate that. Next, I’d like to turn to President Trump’s false allegations about election integrity in Philadelphia. The attorney general discussed these allegations at some length. [Begin videotape]

WILLIAM BARR: You know, the idea the president has repeatedly suggested that there was some kind of outpouring of unexpected votes in inner city areas like Philadelphia as recently as January 13th when he walked off the NPR set. He was asked by the interviewer, you know, what’s — you know, what’s your evidence of fraud?

And he said more people voted in Philadelphia than there were voters. And that was absolute rubbish. The turnout in Philadelphia was in line with the state’s turnout and in fact it was not is as — as impressive as many suburban counties. And there was nothing strange about the Philadelphia turnout. It wasn’t like there was all these unexpected votes that came out in Philadelphia.

So, you know, I think once you actually look at the votes and then if there’s an obvious explanation, he — you know, for example, in Pennsylvania, Trump ran weaker than the Republican ticket generally. He ran weaker than two of the state candidates. He ran weaker than the Congressional delegate — delegation running for federal Congress, and he ran weaker than the — the Republican — I think, I haven’t looked at this recently, but he generally was a weak element on the Republican ticket. So, that does not suggest that the election was stolen by fraud.

UNKNOWN: How about Pennsylvania and Bill McSwain? You were talking with the US attorney in Philadelphia about an alleged discrepancy between the number of absentee ballots issued and the number of ballots cast.

WILLIAM BARR: Right. So, I — I — you know, that was a — a — one of the big ones for a period of time. I think — I think that was raised in Gettysburg by Giuliani or something like that, but it kept on being repeated. And I found it annoying because it didn’t seem that it was right. So, I called — I called McSwain and he got back to me. He said no, the problem is that Mastriano, threw out a — threw out this number.

And what he did was he mixed apples and oranges. He took the number of applications for the Republican primary and he compared it to the number of absentee votes cast in the general election. But once you actually go and look and compare apples to apples, there’s no discrepancy at all. And, you know, that’s one of the — I — I think at some point I covered that with the president.[End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: We have another witness here today who has detailed knowledge about the election process in Philadelphia. Mr. Schmidt, at the time of the 2020 presidential election, you were serving as the only Republican member of Philadelphia’s three member city commission, which is responsible for overseeing elections throughout the city.

Is — is that correct?

AL SCHMIDT: That’s correct, Congressperson.

ZOE LOFGREN: So, President Trump made numerous claims regarding fraudulent voting practices in Philadelphia, including the claim that dead people were voting. In fact, Mr. Giuliani told Pennsylvania state legislators that 8,000 dead people voted in Pennsylvania. You investigated those claims of voter fraud. Can you tell us what you found?

AL SCHMIDT: Not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead voters voting in Pennsylvania, there wasn’t evidence of eight. We took seriously every case that was referred to us no matter how fantastical, no matter how absurd, and took every one of those seriously including these.

ZOE LOFGREN: As it turns out, even Mr. Trump’s campaign lawyers knew that the dead voter claims weren’t valid.

[Begin videotape] RUDY GIULIANI: I guess the crooks in Philadelphia are disappointed in this. They only submitted 8,021 ballots from dead people — mail in ballots for dead people. Probably easier for dead people to submit mail in ballots than it is to vote in person.

ERIC HERSCHMANN: Rudy was at this stage of his life and the same ability to manage things at this level or not. And obviously, I think Bernie Kerik publicly said it. They never proved the allegations that they were making and they were trying to develop. [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Mr. Schmidt, on November 11th, 2020 President Trump tweeted about you, saying — and here’s a quote, “A guy named Al Schmidt, a Philadelphia commissioner and so-called Republican or RINO, is being used big time by the fake news media to explain how honest things were with respect to the election in Philadelphia.”

“He refuses to look at a mountain of corruption dishonesty. We win.” As a result of that tweet and the CNN interview you gave where you stated the dead voter claims in Pennsylvania were false, you and your staff were subjected to disturbing threats. Can you tell us about that?

AL SCHMIDT: The threats prior to that tweet — and on some level it feels almost silly to talk about a tweet — but we can really see the impact that they have. Because prior to that the threats were pretty general in nature. Corrupt election officials in Philadelphia are going to get what’s coming to them. You’re what the second amendment is for.

You’re walking into the lion’s den. All sorts of things like that. After the President tweeted at me by name, calling me out the way that he did, the threats became much more specific, much more graphic, and included not just me by name but included members of my family by name, their ages, our address, pictures of our home.

Just every bit of detail that you could imagine. That was what changed with that tweet.

ZOE LOFGREN: Behind me are redacted threats that you received that you provided to the committee. Now we redacted portions of the text to protect your family. Mr. Schmidt, I — I think I speak for all of my colleagues when I say we are deeply sorry for what you and your loved ones have been through. And I also want to thank you for your service to your country and for standing up for the rule of law.

I want to thank both Mr. Pak and Mr. Schmidt for their service, their testimony, and for standing up for the rule of law. Now I’d like to turn to another subject. The courts in our country provide a legitimate venue for campaigns to challenge what they view as irregular election practices. Now courts have the final say on how the law applies to those challenges.

We have a renowned legal expert here to address the Trump campaign’s activities in court. Mr. Ginsburg, you’ve spent your entire career representing Republicans in election related litigation. You served as the National Council on Republican Presidential Campaigns in 2000, in 2004, and in 2012. You played a key role in the 2000 Florida recount that led to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v Gore.

You served as the co-chair of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. I think it’s fair to say you’re the most prominent Republican lawyer who’s litigated in the election field. Now you’ve analyzed the Trump campaign’s litigation pretty carefully. What’s the, like, normal process for post-election litigation?

How is the Trump campaign’s different from the kinds of post-election litigation you’ve been involved in and know about?

BENJAMIN GINSBERG: In the normal course of things, any campaign on the night of the election and in the days after will do a couple of different things. One is that they’ll analyze precinct results to look for abnormalities in the results, and they’ll send people to those precincts to ask more questions. Secondly, all campaigns will have poll watchers and poll work — workers and observers in the polling place.

And so campaigns will talk to those people if they saw any irregularities that could cause problems in the election. Now the Trump campaign talked pre-election about having 50,000 poll workers. So presumably they did have eyes on the ground in all these places. And so in the normal course of things, a campaign will analyze the reports that come in. Trump campaign had a couple of basic problems however.

Number one, the 2020 election was not close. In 2000, that was 537 and close. In this election the most narrow margin was 10,000 and something in — in Arizona. And you just don’t make up that — those sorts of numbers in recounts. And when the claims of fraud and irregularities were made — you’ve heard very compelling testimony from Mr. Stepien, from Matt Morgan, from Alex Cannon about those claims and how they didn’t believe them. And so that put the Trump campaign on sort of a process of bringing cases without the actual evidence that you have to have and which the process is designed to bring out.

ZOE LOFGREN: So are you aware of any instance in which a court found the Trump campaign’s fraud claims to be credible?

BENJAMIN GINSBERG: No. There was — there was never that instance. In all the cases that were brought, and I’ve looked at the more than 60 that include more than 180 counts. And no, the simple fact is that the Trump campaign did not make its case.

ZOE LOFGREN: The Select Committee has identified 62 post-election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and his allies between November 4th, 2020 and January 6th, 2021. Those cases resulted in 61 losses and only a single victory which actually didn’t affect the outcome for either candidate. Despite those 61 losses, President Trump and his allies claim that the courts refused to hear them out and as a result they never had their day in court.

Mr. Ginsburg, what do you say about the claims that Mr. Trump wasn’t given an opportunity to provide the evidence they had of voter fraud? Did they in fact — did they have their day in court?

BENJAMIN GINSBERG: They did have their day in court, About half of those cases that you mentioned were dismissed at the procedural stage for a lack of standing. The proper people didn’t bring the case or there wasn’t sufficient evidence and it got dismissed on a motion to dismiss. But in the other, there was discussion of the merits that was — that was contained in the complaints.

And in no instance did a court find that the charges of fraud were real. And it’s also worth noting that even if the Trump campaign complained that it did not have its day in court, there have been post-election reviews in each of the six battleground states that could have made a difference. And those range from the somewhat farcical cyber ninjas case in Arizona to the Michigan Senate report that was mentioned earlier, the hand recount in Georgia that Mr. Pak addressed.

And in each one of those instances there was no credible evidence of fraud produced by the Trump campaign or his supporters.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you. You know, as Mr. Ginsburg has explained, there are no cases where the Trump campaign was able to convince a court that there was widespread fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election. Over and over judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike directly refuted this false narr — narrative.

They called out the Trump campaign’s lack of evidence for its claims. And the judges did that even in cases where they could have simply thrown out the lawsuit without writing a word. You can see behind me a few excerpts from the decisions in these 62 cases. The Trump campaign’s lack of evidence was criticized by judges across the political spectrum.

In Pennsylvania, a Trump appointed judge concluded quote, “Charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here.” Another Trump appointed judge warned that if cases like these succeeded, quote, “Any disappointed loser in a Presidential election able to hire a team of clever lawyers could flag claimed deviations from election results and cast doubt on election results.” The list goes on and on. Allegations are called, quote, “An amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation.” In another strained legal arguments without merit, unsupported by evidence, derived from wholly unreliable sources, a fundamental and obvious misreading of the constitution.

The rejection of President Trump’s litigation efforts was overwhelming. 22 federal judges appointed by Republican Presidents, including 10 appointed by President Trump himself and at least 24 elected or appointed Republican state judges dismissed the President’s claims. At least 11 lawyers have been referred for disciplinary proceedings due to bad faith and baseless efforts to undermine the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election.

Rudy Giuliani had his license to practice law suspended in New York. And just this week, a newly filed complaint will potentially make his suspension from practicing law in DC permanent. And as we’ve just heard from perhaps the most preeminent Republican election lawyer in recent history, the Trump campaign’s unprecedented effort to overturn its election laws in court was a deeply damaging abuse of the judicial process as stated by US District Court Judge David Carter.

This was quote, “A coup in search of a legal theory.” Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. The members of the select committee may have additional questions for today’s witnesses and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. Without objection, members will be permitted 10 business days to submit statements for the record, including opening remarks and additional questions for the witnesses.

The second panel of witnesses is now dismissed. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren for a closing statement. Thank you.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that we understand the litigation efforts by President Trump and his allies, I’d like to present additional actions taken by the Trump campaign during this time. President Trump continued to push the stolen election narrative even though he and his allies knew that their litigation efforts making the same claim had failed.

It’s worth pointing out that litigation generally does not continue past the safe harbor date of December 14th. But the fact that this litigation went on, well that decision makes more sense when you consider the Trump campaign’s fundraising tactics. Because if the litigation had stopped on December 14th, there would have been no fight to defend the election and no clear path to continue to raise millions of dollars.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I’d ask for unanimous consent to include in the record a video presentation describing how President Trump used the lies he told to raise millions of dollars from the American people. These fundraising schemes were also part of the effort to disseminate the false claims of election fraud.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Without objection so ordered. [Begin videotape]

AMANDA WICK: My name is Amanda Wick and I’m Senior Investigative Counsel at the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. Between Election Day and January 6th, the Trump campaign sent millions of fundraising emails to Trump supporters, sometimes as many as 25 a day. The emails claimed the quote, “Leftwing mob was undermining the election,” implored supporters to quote, “Step up to protect the integrity of the election,” and encourage them to quote, “Fight back.” But as the select committee has demonstrated, the Trump campaign knew these claims of voter fraud were false.

AMANDA WICK: Yet they continued to promote small dollar donors have e-mails encouraging them to donate to something called the Official Election Defense Fund. The select committee discovered no such fund existed.

HANNA ALLRED: I don’t believe there was actually a fund Called the Election Defense Fund.

UNKNOWN: Is it fair to say that the Election Defense Fund was another — I think we can call that a marketing tactic?

GARY COBY: Yes.

UNKNOWN: And tell us about these fund’s marketing tactics.

GARY COBY: Just the topic matter where money could potentially go to be — how money could potentially be used.

AMANDA WICK: The claims that the election was stolen were so successful President Trump and his allies raised $250 million, nearly $100 million in the first week after the election. On November 9th, 2020, President Trump created a separate entity called the Save America PAC. Most of the money raised went to this newly created PAC, not to election related litigation.

The Select Committee discovered that the Save America PAC made millions of dollars of contributions to pro-Trump organizations, including $1 million to Trump Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows’ charitable foundation, $1 million to the America First Policy Institute, a conservative organization which employs several former Trump administration officials, $204,857 to the Trump Hotel Collection, and over $5 million to Event Strategies Inc, the company that ran President Trump’s January 6th rally on the Ellipse.

DONALD TRUMP: All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing.

AMANDA WICK: The evidence developed by the Select Committee highlights how the Trump campaign aggressively pushed false election claims to fundraise, telling supporters it would be used to fight voter fraud that did not exist. The emails continued through January 6th, even as President Trump spoke on the Ellipse.

UNKNOWN: [inaudible]

AMANDA WICK: 30 minutes after the last fundraising email was sent, the Capitol was breached.

UNKNOWN: [inaudible] [End videotape]

ZOE LOFGREN: Every American is entitled and encouraged to participate in our electoral process. Political fundraising is part of that. Small dollar donors use scarce disposable income to support candidates and causes of their choosing to make their voices heard. And those donors deserve the truth about what those funds will be used for.

Throughout the committee’s investigation, we found evidence that the Trump campaign and its surrogates misled donors as to where their funds would go and what they would be used for. So not only was there the big lie, there was the big rip off. Donors deserve to know where their funds are really going. They deserve better than what President Trump and his team did.

Mr. Chairman I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for her closing statement.

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of our witnesses today and I’d also like to in particular wish Mr. Stepien and his family all the best on the arrival of a new baby. Today’s hearing, Mr. Chairman, was very narrowly focused. And in the coming days you will see the committee move on to President Trump’s broader planning for January 6th, including his plan to corrupt the Department of Justice and his detailed planning with lawyer John Eastman to pressure the Vice President, state legislatures, state officials, and others to overturn the election.

Let me leave you today with one clip to preview what you will see in one of our hearings to come. This is the testimony of White House lawyer, Eric Herschmann. John Eastman called Mr. Herschmann the day after January 6th. And here is how that conversation went.

[Begin videotape] ERIC HERSCHMANN: I said to him, are you out of your f-ing mind. I said I could — I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth for now on, orderly transition. [End videotape]

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

BENNIE THOMPSON: At the conclusion of last week’s hearing, we showed you a video of rioters explaining why they had come to Washington on January 6th. It was because Donald Trump told them to be here. Today, we heard about some of the lies Donald Trump embraced and amplified when it became clear he didn’t have the numbers of votes to win the election.

We heard about how officials at different levels of government exploit claims of fraud and found no evidence. Yet, the former President continued to repeat those false claims over and over again. Today, we’ll end things where we did on Thursday, back on January 6th, hearing words of individuals who wanted to stop the transfer of power.

We know they were there because of Donald Trump. Now we hear some of the things they believed. Without objection, into the record a video presentation.

[Begin videotape] UNKNOWN: I know exactly what’s going on right now. Fake election. They think they’re going to fucking cheat us out of our vote and put communist fucking Biden in office. It ain’t fucking happening today, Biden. You voted? Yes, sir. How’d it go? Voted early, it went well except for the can’t — can’t really trust software — Dominion software all over it. We voted.

And right in the top right hand corner of the Dominion voting machine that we used there was a Wi-Fi symbol with five bars. So that most definitely connected to the internet, without a doubt. So they stole that from us twice. We’re not doing it anymore. We’re not taking it anymore. So we’re standing up. We’re here.

Whatever happens, we’re not laying down again. I’m from Pennsylvania. It didn’t work. It absolutely — It worked — It didn’t work — You voted. No! Trust the system. 200,000 people that weren’t even registered voted. 430,000 votes disappeared from President Trump’s tally. And you can’t stand there and tell me it worked. I don’t want to tell you that what we’re doing is right, but if the election’s being stolen what is it going to take? [End videotape]

BENNIE THOMPSON: The chair requests those in the hearing room remain seated until the Capitol Police have escorted members from the room. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.

Click Here to Read Along with the Full Video and/or Podcast Audio

List of Panel Members:

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MISS.), CHAIRMAN REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CALIF.) REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CALIF.) REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CALIF.) REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FLA.) REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD.) REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA.) REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WYO.) REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-ILL.)

BENNIE THOMPSON: The Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on a United States Capitol will be in order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point. Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the chair announces the committee’s approval to release the deposition material presented during tonight’s hearing. Thanks to everyone watching tonight for sharing part of your evening to learn the facts and causes of the events leading up to and including the violent attack on January 6th, 2021, our democracy, electoral system, and country. I’m Bennie Thompson, chairman of the January 6th, 2021 committee. I was born, raised, and still live in Bolton, Mississippi, a town with a population of 521, which is midway between Jackson and Vicksburg, Mississippi and the Mississippi River. I’m from a part of the country where people justify the actions of slavery, the Klu Klux Klan, and lynching. I’m reminded of that dark history as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of the insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021. 

Over the next few weeks, hopefully you will get to know the other members, my colleagues up here, and me. We represent a diversity of communities from all over the United States, rural areas and cities, East Coast, West Coast and the heartland. All of us have one thing in common. We swore the same oath, that same old that all members of Congress take up on taking office and, afterwards, every two years if they are reelected. We swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The words of the current oath taken by all of us, that nearly every United States government employee takes, have their roots in the Civil War.

Throughout our history, the United States has fought against foreign enemies to preserve our democracy, electoral system, and country. When the United States Capitol was stormed and burned in 1814, foreign enemies were responsible. Afterward, in 1862, when American citizens had taken up arms against this country, Congress adopted a new oath to help make sure no person who had supported the rebellion could hold a position of public trust. Therefore, Congresspersons and United States federal government employees were required for the first time to swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath was put to test on January 6th, 2021. The police officers who held the line that day honored their oath. Many came out of that day bloodied and broken. They still bear those wounds, visible and invisible. They did their duty. They repelled the mob and ended the occupation of the Capitol. They defended the Constitution against domestic enemies so that Congress could return, uphold our own oath, and count your votes to ensure the transfer of power, just as we’ve done for hundreds of years. 

But unlike in 1814, it was domestic enemies of the Constitution who stormed the Capitol and occupied the Capitol, who sought to thwart the will of the people, to stop the transfer of power. And so, they did so at the encouragement of the president of the United States, the president of the United States trying to stop the transfer of power, a precedent that had stood for 220 years, even as our democracy had faced its most difficult test. 

Thinking back again to the Civil War, in the summer of 1864 the president of the United States believed he — he would be doomed to bid — his bid for reelection. He believed his opponent, General George McClellan, would wave the white flag when it came to preserving the union. But even with that grim fate hanging in the balance, President Lincoln was ready to accept the will of the voters, come what may. He made a quiet pledge. He wrote down the words, “This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this administration will not be reelected. Then it will be my duty to so cooperate with the president elect. It will be my duty.” 

Lincoln sealed that memo and asked his cabinet secretaries to sign it sight unseen. He asked them to make the same commitment he did, to accept defeat if indeed defeat was the will of the people, to uphold the rule of law, to do what every president who came before him did, and what every president who followed him would do, until Donald Trump. Donald Trump lost the presidential election in 2020. The American people voted him out of office. It was not because of a rigged system. It was not because of voter fraud. Don’t believe me? Hear what his former attorney general had to say about it. I warn those who — watching that this content contains strong language. 

[Begin videotape] WILLIAM BARR: No, just what I — I’ve been — I’ve had — I had three discussions with the president that I can recall. One was on November 23rd, one was on December 1st, and one was on December 14th. And I’ve been through sort of the give and take of those discussions. And in that context, I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president was bullshit. And, you know, I didn’t want to be a part of it, and that’s one of the reasons that went into me deciding to leave when I did. I observed, I think it was on December 1st, that, you know, how can we — you can’t live in a world where — where the incumbent administration stays in power based on its view, unsupported by specific evidence, that the election — that there was fraud in the election. [End videotape] 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Bill Barr, on Election Day 2020, he was the attorney general of the United States, the top law enforcement official in the country, telling the president exactly what he thought about claims of a stolen election. Donald Trump had his days in court to challenge the results. He was within his rights to seek those judgment in the United States. Law abiding citizens have those tools for pursuing justice. He lost in the courts, just as he did at the ballot box. And in this country, that’s the end of the line. But for Donald Trump, that was only the beginning of what became a sprawling multistep conspiracy aimed at overturning the presidential election, aimed at throwing out the votes of millions of Americans, your votes, your voice in our democracy, and replacing the will of the American people with his will to remain in power after his term ended. Donald Trump was at the center of this conspiracy, and ultimately Donald Trump, the president of the United States, spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the Constitution to march down the Capitol and subvert American democracy. 

Any legal jargon you hear about seditious conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States boils down to this. January 6th was the culmination of an attempted coup, a brazen attempt, as one rioter to put it shortly after January 6th, to overthrow the government. The violence was no accident. It represents seeing Trump’s last stand, most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power. 

Now, you may hear those words and think this is just another political attack on Donald Trump by people who don’t like him. That’s not the case. My colleagues and I all wanted an outside independent commission to investigate January 6th, similar to what we had after 9/11. But after first agreeing to the idea, Donald Trump’s allies in Congress put a stop to it. Apparently, they don’t want January 6th investigated at all. And in the last 17 months, many of those same people have tried to whitewash what happened on January 6th, to rewrite history, call it a tourist visit, label it legitimate political discourse. 

Donald Trump and his followers have adopted the words of the songwriter, do you believe me or your lying eyes? We can’t sweep what happened under the rug. The American people deserve answers, so I come before you this evening not as a Democrat, but as an American who swore an oath to defend the Constitution. 

The Constitution doesn’t protect just Democrats or just Republicans. It protects all of us, we, the people. And this scheme was an attempt to undermine the will of the people. 

So, tonight and over the next few weeks, we’re going to remind you of the reality of what happened that day, but our work must do much more than just look backwards. The cause of our democracy remains in danger. The conspiracy to thwart the will of the people is not over. There are those in this audience who thirst for power, but have no love or respect for what makes America great, devotion to the Constitution, allegiance to the rule of law, our shared journey to build a more perfect union. January 6th and the lies that led to insurrection have put two and a half centuries of constitutional democracy at risk. 

The world is watching what we do here. America has long been expected to be a shining city on the hill, a beacon of hope and freedom, a model for others when we are at our best. How can we play that role when our house is in such disorder? We must confront the truth with candor, resolve, and determination. 

We need to show that we are worthy of the gifts that are the birthright of every American. That begins here and it begins now, with a true accounting of what happened and what led to the attack on our Constitution and our democracy. In this moment, when the dangers of our Constitution and our democracy loom large, nothing could be more important. Working alongside the public servants on this dais has been one of the greatest honors of my time in Congress. It’s been a particular privilege to count as a partner in this effort and to count as a friend the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney. She’s a patriot, a public servant of profound courage, of devotion to her oath and the Constitution. It’s my pleasure to recognize Ms. Cheney for her opening statement. 

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me echo those words about the importance of — of bipartisanship and what a tremendous honor it is to work on this committee. Mr. Chairman, at 6:01 p.m. on January 6th, after he spent hours watching a violent mob besiege, attack, and invade our Capitol, Donald Trump tweeted, but he did not condemn the attack. Instead, he justified it. These are the things and events that happen, he said, when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long.

As you will see in the hearings to come, President Trump believed his supporters at the Capitol, and I quote, “were doing what they should be doing.” This is what he told his staff as they pleaded with him to call off the mob, to instruct his supporters to leave. Over a series of hearings in the coming weeks, you will hear testimony, live and on video, from more than half a dozen former White House staff in the Trump administration, all of whom were in the West Wing of the White House on January 6th. You will hear testimony that, “The president did not really want to put anything out calling off the riot or asking his supporters to leave.” You will hear that President Trump was yelling and “really angry” at advisers who told him he needed to be doing something more. And aware of the rioters’ chants to hang Mike Pence, the president responded with this sentiment, “Maybe our supporters have the right idea.” Mike Pence “deserves it.” 

LIZ CHENEY: You will hear evidence that President Trump refused for hours to do what his staff and his family and many of his other advisers begged him to do, immediately instruct his supporters to stand down and evacuate the Capitol. Tonight, you will see never before seen footage of the brutal attack on our Capitol. An attack that unfolded while a few blocks away President Trump sat watching television in the dining room next to the Oval Office. 

You will hear audio from the brave police officers battling for their lives and ours, fighting to defend our democracy against a violent mob Donald Trump refused to call off. Tonight and in the weeks to come, you will see evidence of what motivated this violence including directly from those who participated in this attack. You will see video of them explaining what caused them to do it. You will see their posts on social media. We will show you what they have said in federal court. On this point, there is no room for debate. Those who invaded our capital and battled law enforcement for hours were motivated by what President Trump had told them, that the election was stolen and that he was the rightful President. President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. You will also hear about plots to commit seditious conspiracy on January 6th, a crime defined in our laws as conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States or to oppose by force the authority thereof. 

Multiple members of two groups, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys have been charged with this crime for their involvement in the events leading up to and on January 6th. Some have pled guilty. The attack on our Capitol was not a spontaneous riot. Intelligence available before January 6th identified plans to quote, “invade the Capitol, occupy the Capitol, and take other steps to halt Congress’s count of electoral votes that day”. In our hearings to come, we will identify elements of those plans and we will show specifically how a group of Proud Boys led a mob into the Capitol building on January 6th. Tonight, I am going to describe for you some of what our committee has learned and highlight initial findings you will see this month in our hearings. As you hear this, all Americans should keep in fact — in mind this fact. On the morning of January 6th, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain President of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his constitutional obligation to relinquish power. Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven part plan to overturn the Presidential election and prevent the transfer of Presidential power. 

In our hearings, you will see evidence of each element of this plan. In our second hearing, you will see that Donald Trump and his advisers knew that he had in fact lost the election. But despite this, President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information to convince huge portions of the US population that fraud had stolen the election from him. This was not true. Jason Miller was a senior Trump campaign spokesman. In this clip, Miller describes a call between the Trump campaign’s internal data expert and President Trump a few days after the 2020 election. 

[Begin Videotape] JASON MILLER: I was in the Oval Office and at some point in the conversation Matt Oczkowski, who was the lead data person was brought on and I remember he delivered to the President pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose. UNKNOWN: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team’s assessment of the sort of county by county, state by state results as reported? JASON MILLER: Correct. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: Alex Cannon was one of President Trump’s campaign lawyers. He previously worked for the Trump Organization. One of his responsibilities was to assess allegations of election fraud in November 2020. Here is one sample of his testimony discussing what he told White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. 

[Begin Videotape] ALEX CANNON: I remember a call with Mr. Meadows where Mr. Meadows was asking me what I was finding. And if I was finding anything. And I remember sharing with him that we weren’t finding anything that would be sufficient to change the results in any of the key states. UNKNOWN: When was that conversation? ALEX CANNON: Probably in November, mid to late November. I think it was before my child was born. UNKNOWN: And what was Mr. Meadows reaction to that information? ALEX CANNON: I believe the words he used were, so there’s no there there. [End videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: There’s no there there. The Trump campaign’s general counsel, Matt Morgan, gave similar testimony. He explained that all of the fraud allegations and the campaign’s other election arguments taken together and viewed in the best possible light for President Trump could still not change the outcome of the election. President Trump’s Attorney General, Bill Barr, also told Donald Trump his election claims were wrong. 

[Begin Videotape] WILLIAM BARR: Repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud. And — you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And frankly a year and a half later, I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: Attorney General Barr also told President Trump that his allegations about Dominion voting machines were groundless. 

[Begin Videotape] WILLIAM BARR: I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense. And it was being laid out there. And I told them that it was — that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that. And it was doing a great, grave disservice to the country. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: But President Trump persisted, repeating the false Dominion allegations in public at least a dozen more times even after his Attorney General told him, they were quote, “complete nonsense”. And after Barr’s resignation on December 23rd, the acting Attorney General who replaced him, Jeff Rosen, and the acting deputy, Richard Donoghue, told President Trump over and over again that the evidence did not support allegations he was making in public. Many of President Trump’s White House staff also recognized that the evidence did not support the claims President Trump was making. This is the President’s daughter commenting on Bill Barr’s statement that the department found no fraud sufficient to overturn the election. 

[Begin Videotape] UNKNOWN: How did that affect your perspective about the election when Attorney General Barr made that statement? IVANKA TRUMP: It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr. So I accepted what he was saying. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: As you will hear on Monday, the President had every right to litigate his campaign claims, but he ultimately lost more than 60 cases in state and federal courts. The President’s claims in the election cases were so frivolous and unsupported that the President’s lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, not only lost the lawsuits, his license to practice law was suspended. Here is what the court said of Mr. Giuliani. Giuliani communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020.

As you will see in great detail in our hearings, President Trump ignored the rulings of our nation’s courts. He ignored his own campaign leadership, his White House staff, many Republican state officials. He ignored the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump invested millions of dollars of campaign funds purposely spreading false information, running ads he knew were false, and convincing millions of Americans that the election was corrupt and that he was the true President. As you will see, this misinformation campaign provoked the violence on January 6th. 

In our third hearing, you will see that President Trump corruptly planned to replace the Attorney General of the United States so the US Justice Department would spread his false stolen election claims. In the days before January 6th, President Trump told his top Justice Department officials quote, “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen”. Senior Justice Department officials, men he had appointed, told him they could not do that because it was not true. So President Trump decided to replace them. He offered Jeff Clark, an environmental lawyer at the Justice Department, the job of acting Attorney General. President Trump wanted Mr. Clark to take a number of steps including sending this letter to Georgia and five other states saying the US Department of Justice had quote, “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election”. This letter is a lie. The Department of Justice had in fact repeatedly told President Trump exactly the opposite, that they had investigated his stolen election allegations and found no credible fraud that could impact the outcome of the election. This letter and others like it would have urged multiple states to withdraw their official and lawful electoral votes for Biden. Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue described Jeff Clark’s letter this way, quote, “this would be a grave step for the department to take and could have tremendous constitutional, political, and social ramifications for this country”. The committee agrees with Mr. Donoghue’s assessment. Had Clarke assumed the role of Attorney General in the days before January 6th and issued these letters, the ramifications could indeed have been grave. Mr. Donoghue also said this about Clark’s plan. 

[Begin Videotape] RICHARD DONOGHUE: And I recall toward the end saying what you’re proposing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a Presidential election. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: In our hearings, you will hear firsthand how the senior leadership of the Department of Justice threatened to resign, how the White House counsel threatened to resign, and how they confronted Donald Trump and Jeff Clark in the Oval Office. The men involved, including Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue were appointed by President Trump. These men honored their oaths of office. They did their duty. And you will hear from them in our hearings. By contrast, Jeff Clark has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. Representative Scott Perry, who is also involved in trying to get Clark appointed as Attorney General, has refused to testify here. As you will see, Representative Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after January 6th to seek a Presidential pardon. Multiple other Republican Congressmen also sought Presidential pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. In our fourth hearing, we will focus on President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th. Vice President Pence has spoken publicly about this. 

[Begin Videotape] MIKE PENCE: President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American President. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: What President Trump demanded that Mike Pence do wasn’t just wrong, it was illegal and it was unconstitutional. You will hear this in great detail from the Vice President’s former general counsel. Witnesses in these hearings will explain how the former Vice President and his staff informed President Trump over and over again that what he was pressuring Mike Pence to do was illegal. As you will hear, President Trump engaged in a relentless effort to pressure Pence, both in private and in public. You will see the evidence of that pressure from multiple witnesses live and on video. Vice President Pence demonstrated his loyalty to Donald Trump consistently over four years, but he knew that he had a higher duty to the United States Constitution. This is testimony from the Vice President’s chief of staff. 

[Begin Videotape] MARC SHORT: That’s why I think the Vice President was proud of his four years of service and he felt like much had been accomplished in those four years. And I think he was proud to have stood beside the President for all that has been done. But I think he ultimately knew that his fidelity to the Constitution was his first and foremost oath. And — and that’s — that’s what he articulated publicly. And I think that that’s what he felt. UNKNOWN: His fidelity to the Constitution was more important than his fidelity to President Trump and his desires — MARC SHORT: — The oath he took. UNKNOWN: Yes. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: You’ll also hear about a lawyer named John Eastman. Mr. Eastman was deeply involved in President Trump’s plans. You’ll hear from former fourth circuit federal judge Michael Luttig, a highly respected leading conservative judge. John Eastman clerked for Judge Luttig. Judge Luttig provided counsel to the Vice President’s team in the days before January 6th. The judge will explain how Eastman quote, “Was wrong at every turn.” And you will see the email exchanges between Eastman and the Vice President’s counsel as the violent attack on Congress was underway. Mr. Jacob said this to miss — Mr. Eastman, “Thanks to your bullshit, we are under siege.” 

You will also see evidence that John Eastman did not actually believe the legal position he was taking. In fact, a month before the 2020 election, Eastman took exactly the opposite view on the same legal issues. In the course of the Select Committee’s work to obtain information from Mr. Eastman, we have had occasion to present evidence to a federal judge. The judge evaluated the facts and he reached the conclusion that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Pence to act illegally by refusing to count electoral votes likely violated two federal criminal statutes. And the judge also said this. If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the court fears January 6th will repeat itself. 

Every American should read what this federal judge has written. The same judge, Judge Carter, issued another decision on Tuesday night just this week indicating that John Eastman and other Trump lawyers knew that their legal arguments had no real chance of success in court. But they relied on those arguments anyway to try to quote, “Overturn a democratic election.” And you will hear that while Congress was under attack on January 6th and the hours following the violence, the Trump legal team in the Willard Hotel war room continued to work to halt the count of electoral votes. 

In our fifth hearing, you will see evidence that President Trump corruptly pressured state legislators and election officials to change election results. You will hear additional details about President Trump’s call to Georgia officials urging them to quote, “Find 11,780 votes,” votes that did not exist. And his efforts to get states to rescind certified electoral slates without factual basis and contrary to law. You will hear new details about the Trump campaign and other Trump associates’ efforts to instruct Republican officials in multiple states to create intentionally false electoral slates and transmit those slates to Congress, to the Vice President, and the National Archives, falsely certifying that Trump won states he actually lost. 

In our final two June hearings, you will hear how President Trump summoned a violent mob and directed them illegally to march on the United States Capitol. While the violence was underway President Trump failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol. As we present these initial findings, keep two points in mind. First, our investigation is still ongoing. So what we make public here will not be the complete set of information we will ultimately disclose. And second, the Department of Justice is currently working with cooperating witnesses and has disclosed to date only some of the information it has identified from encrypted communications and other sources. 

On December 18th, 2020, a group including General Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and others visited the White House. They stayed late into the evening. We know that the group discussed a number of dramatic steps, including having the military seize voting machines and potentially rerun elections. You will also hear that President Trump met with that group alone for a period of time before White House lawyers and other staff discovered the group was there and rushed to intervene. A little more than an hour after Ms. Powell, Mr. Giuliani, General Flynn, and the others finally left the White House, President Trump sent the tweet on the screen now telling people to come to Washington on January 6th. Be there, he instructed them. Will be wild. As you will see, this was a pivotal moment. 

This tweet initiated a chain of events. The tweet led to the planning for what occurred on January 6th, including by the Proud Boys who ultimately led the invasion of the Capitol and the violence on that day. The indictment of a group of Proud Boys alleges that they planned quote, “To oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.” And according to the Department of Justice, on January 6th, 2021, the defendants directed, mobilized, and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol leading to the dismantling of metal barricades, the destruction of property, the breaching of the Capitol building, and the assaults on law enforcement. Although certain former Trump officials have argued that they did not anticipate violence on January 6th, the evidence suggests otherwise. As you will see in our hearings, the White House was receiving specific reports in the days leading up to January 6th, including during President Trump’s ellipse rally indicating that elements in the crowd were preparing for violence at the Capitol. And on the evening of January 5th, the President’s close adviser Steve Bannon said this on his podcast. 

[Begin Videotape] STEVE BANNON: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: As part of our investigation we will present information about what the White House and other intelligence agencies knew and why the Capitol was not better prepared. But we will not lose sight of the fact that the Capitol Police did not cause the crowd to attack. And we will not blame the violence that day — violence provoked by Donald Trump — on the officers who bravely defended all of us. 

In our final hearing, you will hear a moment by moment account of the hours long attack from more than half a dozen White House staff both live in the hearing room and via videotape testimony. There’s no doubt that President Trump was well aware of the violence as it developed. White House staff urged President Trump to intervene and call off the mob. Here is a document written while the attack was underway by a member of the White House staff advising what the President needed to say. Quote, “Anyone who entered the Capitol without proper authority should leave immediately.” This is exactly what his supporters on Capitol Hill and nationwide were urging the President to do. He would not. You will hear that leaders on Capitol Hill begged the President for help including Republican Leader McCarthy, who was quote, “Scared”, and called multiple members of President Trump’s family after he could not persuade the President himself. 

Not only did President Trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the United States government to instruct that the Capitol be defended. He did not call his Secretary of Defense on January 6th. He did not talk to his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day. And he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and disp — and deploy law enforcement assets. But Vice President Pence did each of those things. For example, here is what General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to this committee. 

[Begin Videotape] MARK MILLEY: There were two — two or three calls with Vice President Pence. He was very animated and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And — and he was — and — and I can give you the exact quotes I guess from some of our records somewhere. But he was very animated, very direct, very firm. And to Secretary Miller, get the military down here. Get the Guard down here, put down this situation, etc.” [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: By contrast here is General Milley’s description of his conversation with President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on January 6th. 

[Begin Videotape] MARK MILLEY: He said we have — we have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative that, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable or words to that effect. I immediately interpret that as politics, politics, politics. Red flag for me personally, no action. But I remember it distinctly. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: And you will hear from witnesses how the day played out inside the White House. How multiple White House staff resigned in disgust and how President Trump would not ask his supporters to leave the Capitol. It was only after multiple hours of violence that President Trump finally released a video instructing the riotous mob to leave. And as he did so, he said to them quote, “We love you and you’re very special.” You will also hear that in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, members of the President’s family, White House staff, and others tried to step in to stabilize the situation, quote, “To land the plane before the Presidential transition on January 20th.” You will hear about members of the Trump cabinet discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment and replacing the President of the United States. Multiple members of President Trump’s own cabinet resigned immediately after January 6th. One member of the Cabinet suggested that the remaining Cabinet officers needed to take a more active role in running the White House and the Administration. 

But most emblematic of those days is this exchange of texts between Sean Hannity and former President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. Sean Hannity wrote in part: Key now. No more crazy people. No more stolen election talk. Yes, impeachment and 25th Amendment are real, many people will quit. Ms. McEnany responded in part: Love that. That’s the playbook. The White House staff knew that President Trump was willing to entertain and use conspiracy theories to achieve his ends. They knew the President needed to be cut off from all of those who had encouraged him. They knew that President Donald Trump was too dangerous to be left alone, at least until he left office on January 20th. These are important facts for Congress and the American people to understand fully. 

When a President fails to take the steps necessary to preserve our union or worse causes a constitutional crisis, we’re at a moment of maximum danger for our republic. Some in the White House took responsible steps to try to prevent January 6th. Others egged the President on. Others who could have acted refused to do so. In this case, the White House counsel was so concerned about potentially lawless activity that he threatened to resign multiple times. That is exceedingly rare and exceedingly serious. It requires immediate attention, especially when the entire team threatens to resign. However, in the Trump White House, it was not exceedingly rare and it was not treated seriously. This is a clip of Jared Kushner addressing multiple threats by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his team of lawyers to resign in the weeks before January 6th. 

[Begin Videotape] LIZ CHENEY: Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign? JARED KUSHNER: I — I kind of — like I said, my interest at that time was on trying to get as many pardons done. And I know that, you know, he was always to — him and the team were always saying, oh, we’re going to resign. We’re not going to be here if this happens, if that happens. So I kind of took it up to just be whining to be honest with you. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: Whining. There’s a reason why people serving in our government take an oath to the Constitution. As our founding fathers recognized, democracy is fragile. People in positions of public trust are duty bound to defend it to step forward when action is required. In our country, we don’t swear an oath to an individual or a political party. 

LIZ CHENEY: We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain. Finally, I ask all of our fellow Americans, as you watch our hearings over the coming weeks, please remember what’s at stake. Remember the men and women who have fought and died so that we can live under the rule of law, not the rule of men. I ask you to think of the scene in our Capitol rotunda on the night of January 6th. 

There, in a sacred space in our constitutional republic, the place where our presidents lie in state, watched over by statues of Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant, Eisenhower, Ford, and Reagan, against every wall that night encircling the room, there were SWAT teams, men and women in tactical gear with long guns deployed inside our Capitol building. There in the rotunda, these brave men and women rested beneath paintings depicting the earliest scenes of our republic, including one painted in 1824 depicting George Washington resigning his commission, voluntarily relinquishing power, handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress. With this noble act, Washington set the indispensable example of the peaceful transfer of power, what President Reagan called, nothing less than a miracle. The sacred obligation to defend this peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American president except one. As Americans, we all have a duty to ensure that what happened on January 6th never happens again, to set aside partisan battles, to stand together to perpetuate and preserve our great republic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: As we provide answers to American people about January 6th, it’s important that we remember exactly what took place, that this was no tourist visit to the Capitol. Most of the footage we are about to play has never been seen. The Select Committee obtained it as a part of our investigation. This isn’t easy to watch. I want to warn everyone that this video includes violence and strong language. Without objection, I include in the record a video presentation of the violence of January 6th. 

[Begin videotape] UNKNOWN: Grab your bullet. Grab your bullet. Grab your bullet. Yeah. Just be aware, be advised there’s probably about 300 Proud Boys. They’re marching eastbound in this 400 block of kind of Independence, actually on the Mall towards the United States Capitol. USA. USA. USA. I am not allowed to say what’s going to happen today, because everyone’s just going to have to watch for themselves. But it’s going to happen. Something’s going to happen, Whose streets? Our streets. Whose streets? Our streets. Whose streets? Our streets. Don’t need to hurt you. We are on your side. Don’t make us go and against you. Must be a brown shirt. Let me stand aside. Pick a side. These are our streets. 20 bucks a pitcher. 

DONALD TRUMP: 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 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. Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn’t, that will be a — a sad day for our country, because you’ll never, ever take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. 

UNKNOWN: USA. USA. USA. USA. Cruiser 50, it does look like we’re going to have an ad hoc march stepping off here. There’s a crowd surge heading east. We love Trump. We love Trump. We love Trump. We love Trump. 

DONALD TRUMP: Mike Pence, I hope you are going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you, I will tell you right now. 

UNKNOWN: USA. USA. USA. USA. USA. Get back, lady. Get back, lady. EA 101 priority, we’ve been passed first on Peace Circle, breached the line. We need backup. What are you doing? Guys, what are you doing? Madam Speaker, the vice president and the United States Senate. [Applause] 

Cruiser 50, we’re going to give riot warning [Unintelligible]. We’re going to give riot warning. We’re gonna try and get compliance, but this is now effectively a riot. 1549 hours, declaring it a riot. Cruiser 5 to 50, be advised Capitol Police One advised they’re trying to breach and get to the Capitol. 50, I copy. Hold the line. Hold the line. Hold the line. Hold the line. Hold the line. 42, we’re about five minutes out. We’re trying to make our way through all this. [Unintelligible] 

Go, go, go, go, go. Cruiser 50, we have a breach of the Capitol, breach of the Capitol from the upper level. Be advised, they are requesting additional resources on the east side, as they have broken into that window and they’re trying to kick it in. 

JIM MCGOVERN: Without objection, the chair declares the House in recess pursuant to clause 12B of Rule One. 

UNKNOWN: 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 certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones, which they were asked to previously certify. The US demands the truth. Bring out Pence. Bring him out. Bring out Pence. Bring him out. Bring out Pence. Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence. You pepper sprayed another American. We’ll fight for you. [Unintelligible]

Take it all away. Get him back in. Our house. Our house. Our house. Move, move. Our house. Whose house? Our house. Our house. Get the fuckers. [Unintelligible] We can’t hold this. We’re going to get too many fucking people here. Look at this fucking vantage point. Man, we’re fucked. We are area for the housing members. They’re all walking over now through the tunnel. We need area 4B. House members, they’re all walking over now through the tunnels. Now, now, now. 

We’re trying to hold the upper deck. We are trying to hold the upper deck now. We need to close the doors of the Capitol. I need more support. [Unintelligible] We’ve lost the line. We’ve lost the line. All MPD get back. All MPD pull back up to the upper deck. All MPD pull back to the upper deck ASAP. Nancy, Nancy, Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. Conductors or [Unintelligible], be advised that capitol police are going to start moving their resources inside. They’re going to start at the N4 officers first. [Unintelligible] No violence. No violence. [Unintelligible] Reach 208 with the four members, the door’s barricaded. There’s people flooding the hallways outside and we have no way out. If I ask officers still remaining on the House floor in the — on the third floor to use the subways themselves. 

It’s time to evacuate. Then we can secure the members on the other side. Copy? It’s up to us people now, the American people. But what are you ready to do? One more time? What are you ready to do? Whatever it takes. I’ll lay my life down if it takes. Absolutely. That’s why we showed up today. Bring her out here. We’re coming in if you don’t bring her out. Fuck you, you son of a bitch. Bring her out. You back up. Go ahead and try. Get him up. Get him up. Get a medic. Officer down, get him up. Get him up. Get him up. Get him up. USA. USA. USA. USA. [Unintelligible] [Unintelligible] for backup. I need backup. I need backup. Back up. Back up. [Unintelligible] 

DONALD TRUMP: They were peaceful people. These were great people. The crowd was unbelievable. And I mentioned the word love. The love — the love in the air, I’ve never seen anything like it. [End videotape] 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Pursuant to the order of the committee of tonight, the chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately 10 minutes. [Recess] The committee will be in order. I want to thank our witnesses for being with us this evening to share their firsthand accounts of that terrible day. I know that some of the witnesses from our first hearing are in the room with us along with some of the family members, friends, and widows of the officers who lost their lives as a result of the attack. Thank you all for being here for us and the American people. 

Officer Carolyn Edwards has been with the United States Capitol Police since 2017. On January 6th, Officer Edwards was assigned to the first responder unit which serves as the first line of defense at the Capitol complex. She also served as a member of the Civil Disturbance Unit, a special subset of the uniformed division trained to respond to mass demonstration events. Officer Edwards is a graduate of the University of Georgia and currently is working on a Master’s degree in intelligence analysis from Johns Hopkins University. 

Nick Quested is an acclaimed filmmaker who credits include documenting stories from war zones in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. On January 6th Mr. Quested was working on a documentary about quote, “Why Americans are so divided when Americans have so much in common,” end quote. During that day, Mr. Quested interviewed and documented movements of the people around the Capitol, including the first moments of the violence against the Capitol Police and the chaos that en — ensued. I will now swear in our witnesses. The witnesses will please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm on the penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Without objection, the witnesses’ statement will be included in the record. 

Pursuant to Section 5c8 of House Resolution 503 I recognize myself for questioning. As you saw just a few minutes ago, the Proud Boys instigated the first breach of the Capitol just before 1:00 PM where rioters pushed over barricades near the peace circle at the foot of the Capitol. Our two witnesses tonight were both there at the time of that first breach. Officer Edwards was standing with other officers behind a line of bike racks that marked the perimeter of the Capitol grounds. She bravely tried to prevent an angry crowd from advancing on the Capitol. 

Unfortunately, she was overrun and knocked unconscious as the crowd advanced on the Capitol. Mr. Quested was a few yards away from Officer Edwards taking footage of the Proud Boys as part of his work on a documentary film. Most of his footage has never been shown publicly before we shared it this evening. Off — Officer Edwards, I’d like to start by asking if you could tell us why you believe it’s important for you to share your story this evening with the committee and the American public. Please, your microphone. 

CAROLINE EDWARDS: Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I — I really appreciate it. And thank you to the committee for having me here to testify. I was called a lot of things on January 6th, 2021 and the days thereafter. I was called Nancy Pelosi’s dog, called incompetent, called a hero and a villain. I was called a traitor to my country, my oath, and my constitution. In actuality, I was none of those things. I was an American standing face to face with other Americans asking myself how many times — many, many times how we had gotten here. I had been called names before, but never had my patriotism or duty been called into question. I, who got up every day no matter how early the hour or how late I got in the night before, to put on my uniform and to protect America’s symbol of democracy. 

CAROLINE EDWARDS: I who spent countless hours in the baking sun and freezing snow to make sure that America’s elected officials were able to do their job. I whose literal, blood, sweat, and tears were shed that day defending the building that I spent countless holidays and weekends working in. I am the proud granddaughter of a marine that fought in the Battle of the Chosen Reservoir in the Korean War. I think of my papa often in these days, how he was so young and thrown into a battle he never saw coming, and answered the call at a great personal cost. 

How he lived the rest of his days with bullets and shrapnel in his legs, but never once complained about his sacrifice. I would like to think that he would be proud of me. Proud of his granddaughter that stood her ground that day and continued fighting even though she was wounded like he did many years ago. I am my grandfather’s granddaughter. Proud to put on a uniform and serve my country. They dared to question my honor. They dared to question my loyalty. And they dared to question my duty. I’m a proud American and I will gladly sacrifice everything to make sure that the America, my grandfather defended is here for many years to come. Thank you. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Officer Edwards, your story and your service is important. And I thank you for being here tonight. Mr. Quested, I’ll also like to ask you to introduce yourself. Can you tell us how you found yourself in Washington DC on January 6th, 2021? 

NICK QUESTED: Good evening Chair and Madam Vice Chair. Thank you for the introduction. As stated, in the winter of 2020, I was working on a documentary. As part of that documentary I filmed several rallies in Washington DC on December the 11th and December the 12th and I learned there would be a rally on the Mall and — on January 6th. So my three colleagues and I came down to document the rally. According to the permit, the event there was going to be a rally at the Ellipse. 

We arrived at the Mall and observed a large contingent of Proud Boys marching towards the Capitol. We filmed them and almost immediately I was separated from my colleagues. I documented the crowd turn from protesters to rioters to insurrectionists. I was surprised at the size of the group, the anger, and the profanity. And for anyone who didn’t understand how violent that event was, I saw it, I documented it, and I experienced it. I heard incredibly aggressive chanting and I shared — subsequently shared that footage with the authorities. I’m here today pursuant to a House subpoena. Thank you so much. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Quested. The Select Committee has conducted extensive investigative work to understand what led the proud boys and other rioters to the Capitol on January 6th. We’ve obtained substantial evidence showing that the President’s December 19th tweet, calling his followers to Washington DC on January 6th, energized individuals from the Proud Boys and others extremist groups. I’d like to play a brief video highlighting some of this evidence. 

[Begin Videotape] MARCUS CHILDRESS: My name is Marcus Childress and I’m an investigative counsel for the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. DONALD TRUMP: What do you want to call him? Give me a name. [crosstalk] Stand back and stand by — 

MARCUS CHILDRESS: After he made this comment, Enrique Tarrio, then chairman of the Proud Boys, said on Parler, “Standing by sir”. During our investigation, we learned that this comment during the Presidential debate actually led to an increase in membership in the Proud Boys. 

UNKNOWN: Would you say that Proud Boys numbers increased after the stand back, stand by comment? 

JEREMY BERTINO: Exponentially. I’d say tripled probably. 

UNKNOWN: With the potential for a lot more eventually. 

CANDYCE PHOENIX: And did you ever sell any stand back and stand by merchandise? 

ENRIQUE TARRIO: Uh, one of the vendors on my page actually beat me to it, but I wish I would have — I wish I would have made a stand back, stand by shirt. 

MARCUS CHILDRESS: On December 19th, President Trump tweeted about the January 6th rally and told attendees, be there, will be wild. Many of the witnesses that we interviewed were inspired by the President’s call and came to DC for January 6th, but the extremists, they took it a step further. They viewed this tweet as a call to arms. A day later the Department of Justice describes how the Proud Boys created a chat called the Ministry of Self-defense Leadership Chat. In this chat, the Proud Boys established a command structure in anticipation of coming back to DC on January 6th. The Department of Justice describes Mr. Tarrio coming into possession of a document called the 1776 Returns, which describes individuals occupying key buildings around the United States Capitol. The Oath Keepers are another group that the committee investigated. 

UNKNOWN: You better get your ass to DC folks this Saturday. 

STEWART RHODES: If you don’t, there’s gonna be no more republic. But we’re not gonna let that happen. It’s not even if. It’s either President Trump has encouraged and bolstered strength and to do what he must do or we wind up in a bloody fight. We all know that the fight’s coming. 

MARCUS CHILDRESS: The Oath Keepers began planning to block the peaceful transfer of power shortly after the November 3rd election. And according to the Department of Justice, Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keeper’s leader said to his followers that, “we were not going to get through this without a civil war”. In response to the December 19th, 2020 tweet by President Trump, the Oath Keepers focused on January 6th in Washington DC. In response to the tweet, one member of the President of the Florida chapter put on social media, the President called us to the Capitol, he wants us to make it wild. The goal was for the Oath Keepers to be called to duty so that they could keep the President in power although President Trump had just lost the election. The committee learned that the Oath Keepers set up quick reaction forces outside of the city and Virginia where they stored arms. The goal of these quick reaction forces was to be on standby just in case President Trump invoked the Insurrection Act. 

UNKNOWN: Did the Oath Keepers ever provide weapons to members? 

STEWART RHODES: I’m going to decline to answer that question and grounds — for a due process grounds. 

MARCUS CHILDRESS: In footage obtained by the committee, we learned that on the night of January 5th, Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes met in a parking garage in Washington DC. 

ENRIQUE TARRIO: There’s mutual respect there. I think we’re — we’re fighting the same fight and I think that’s what’s important. 

MARCUS CHILDRESS: The committee learned that the Oath Keepers went into the Capitol through the east doors and to stark formations. The DOJ alleges that one of the stacks went into the Capitol looking for Speaker Pelosi, although they never found her. As the attack was unfolding, Mr. Tarrio took credit. In documents obtained by the Department of Justice. Mr. Tarrio said, in an encrypted chat, “make no mistake” and “we did this”. Later on that evening, Mr. Tarrio even posted a video which seemed to resemble him in front of the Capitol with a black cape. And the title of the video was premonition. The evidence developed by the Select Committee and the Department of Justice highlights how each group participated on the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. 

UNKNOWN: In fact, the investigation revealed that it was individuals associated with the Proud Boys who instigated the initial breach at the peace circle at 12:53 p.m. [inaudible] Within 10 minutes, rioters had already filled the Lower West Plaza. [inaudible] By 2:00, rioters had reached the doors on the west and the east plazas. And by 2:13 rioters had actually broken through the Senate wing door and got into the Capitol building. [inaudible] A series of breaches followed. At 2:25 pm, rioters breached the East Side doors to the rotunda. [inaudible] And then right after 2:40 pm, rioters breached the east side doors near the Ways and Means Room. [inaudible] Once the rioters infiltrated the Capitol, they moved to the crypt, the rotunda, the hallways leading to the House chambers, and even inside the Senate chambers. [inaudible] [End Videotape] 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Individuals associated with two violent extremist groups have been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6th attack. One is the Oath Keepers. They are a group of armed, antigovernment extremists. The other group is the Proud Boys. They promote white supremacist beliefs and have engaged in violence with people they view as their political enemies. Members of both groups have already pleaded guilty to crimes associated with the January 6th attack Mr. Quested, as part of the documentary you’ve been filming, you gain access to the Proud Boys and their leader, Enrique Tarrio. Your crew filmed them in Washington DC on the evening of January 5th and then on January 6th. On January 5th, the night before the attack, you were with the head of the Proud Boys, Mr. Tarrio, in Washington DC. What happened? 

NICK QUESTED: We picked up Mr. Tarrio from jail. He’d been arrested for carrying some magazines — some long — some extra capacity magazines and for the — he took responsibility for the burning of the Black Lives Matter flag that was stolen from the church on December the 12th. We — we were attempting to get an interview with Mr. Tarrio. We had no idea of any of the events that were going to subsequently happen. We drove him to pick up his bags from the property department of the police, which is just south of the Mall. We picked up his bags and went to get some other bags from the Phoenix Hotel. We encountered Mr. Stuart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers. By the time I had gone to park the car, my colleague was saying, who’d got into the car with Mr. Tarrio, that they had moved to a location around the corner, the parking garage of the Hall of Legends, I believe. And so we quickly drove over there. 

We drove down into the parking garage and filmed the scene of Mr. Tarrio and Mr. Rhodes and certain other individuals in that garage. We then continue to follow Mr. Tarrio. There was some discussion about where he was going to go. He ended up going towards a hotel in Baltimore and we conducted an interview with him in the hotel room. And then we returned to DC for that night. And a — and what was interesting that night actually was that was the first indication that DC was much more busy than it had been any other time we’ve been here because we couldn’t get into the hotels we wanted to and we ended up at a hotel that, you know, was not as satisfactory as we would have hoped. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you. So what you’re saying is you filmed the meeting between Mr. Tarrio and Oath Keepers leader, Stewart Rhodes, right? 

NICK QUESTED: Indeed. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: You couldn’t hear what was said, but according to the Justice Department indictment of Mr. Tarrio a participant referenced the Capitol. Now on the morning of January 6th, you learned the Proud Boys would gather near the rally scheduled to take place near the White House. What time did you meet up with the Proud Boys and what was happening when they met? 

NICK QUESTED: We met up with the Proud Boys somewhere around 10:30 am and they were starting to walk down the Mall, a easterly direction towards the Capitol. There was a large contingent, more than I had expected. And I was confused to a certain extent why we were walking away from the President’s speech because that’s what I felt we were there to cover. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: So at 10:30 am, that’s early in the day. That’s even before President Trump had started speaking. Am I correct? 

NICK QUESTED: Yes, sir. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: So how many Proud Boys would you estimate were marching together to the Capitol? 

NICK QUESTED: A couple of hundred. Potentially — yeah, I say a couple of hundred Proud Boys were marching towards the Capitol at that point. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: At the time was the area heavily guarded? 

NICK QUESTED: No, that was — we — I remember we walked past the — we walked down the Mall, we walked to the right of the reflecting pool and then north along the road that leads to the Peace Circle. And as we were walking past the Peace Circle, I framed the Proud Boys to the right of my shot with the Capitol behind. And we see one sole police officer at the barriers which subsequently breached. We then walk up and past a tactical unit preparing. And there’s — you see that in the film where the man questions their duty and their honor. And you see maybe a dozen Capitol police putting on their riot gear. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: So how would you describe the atmosphere at that — that time? 

NICK QUESTED: The atmosphere was — it seemed to be much darker. I — I make efforts to create a familiarity between myself and my subjects to, you know, make them feel comfortable. And the — the atmosphere was much darker on this day than had been in these other — in these other — in these other days. And there was also a contingent of Proud Boys that I hadn’t met before from Arizona who appeared to wear these orange hats. And had orange armbands. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: So when the Proud Boys went back down the Hill to the peace circle, did a larger crowd start to gather? 

NICK QUESTED: Well, no. First of all, we went round to the back and down the steps and we took some photographs on the east side of the Capitol. And then we went for lunch. We went for tacos. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: So Mr. Quested you’re a journalist, so you are careful to stick to things that you have observed. But what you’ve told us is highly relevant. Let me highlight a few key facts that you and others have provided the committee. First, there was a large group of Proud Boys present at the Capitol. We know that from multiple sources. You now estimate that there were around 250 to 300 individuals that — you’ve testified. They weren’t there for President Trump’s speech. We know this because they left that area to march toward the Capitol before the speech began. They walked around the Capitol that morning. 

I’m concerned this allowed them to see what defenses were in place and where weaknesses might be. And they decided to launch their attack at the peace — peace circle, which is a front door of the Capitol complex. It’s the first security perimeter that those marching from the ellipse would have to come to as they move toward the Capitol. The peace circle walk away was — walkway was always where the thousands of angry Trump supporters would arrive after President Trump sent them from the ellipse. The Proud Boys timed their attack to the moments before the start of the joint session in the Capitol, which is also where President Trump directed the angry mob. Quote, “We fight like hell,” end quote. He told them before sending them down Pennsylvania Avenue right to where the Proud Boys gathered and where you were filming. 

Now a central question is whether the attack on the Capitol was coordinated and planned. What you witnessed is what a coordinated and planned effort would look like. It was the culmination of a months’ long effort spearheaded by President Trump. Mr. Quested, thank you for your eyewitness account of the lead up to the breach of the peace circle. This brings us to a point in time where you and Officer Edwards were in close proximity. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time pursuant to 5c Section eight of House Resolution 503. The Chair recognizes that gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for questioning. 

LIZ CHENEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Officer Edwards I want to start by thanking you for your service and thank you for your courage. Thank you for being here this evening. I know that it’s not easy to relive what happened for you and — and for the officers behind you and for the family members of officers in — in the audience this evening. But it’s — it’s really important for the country to have a full accounting and understand what happened. I want to start Officer Edwards with a short clip that shows the horrible moment when you were injured as the peace circle was breached. 

[Begin Videotape] UNKNOWN: USA, USA, USA. Move. Move. [End Videotape] 

LIZ CHENEY: Officer Edwards, can you describe the crowd that had assembled at the peace circle as — as you and your fellow officers stood behind and guarded the bike racks at the peace circle? 

CAROLINE EDWARDS: Yes. So there were about — I want to say about five of us on that line. And there were — so there was our bike rack and then at the bottom of the Pennsylvania Avenue walkway right by peace circle there was another bike rack. And so the crowd had kind of gathered there. It was the crowd led by Joseph Biggs. And they were mostly in civilian clothes. There were some who had military fatigues on. We could see people with bulletproof vests on, you know, things like that. They didn’t seem, you know, extremely cohesive, but they had gathered there in their outfits. But they had gathered there together. 

And Joseph Biggs started. He had a mic, or a megaphone. And he started talking about, you know, first it was things kind of relating to Congress. And then the tables started turning once the — what is now that the — the Arizona group is what you said — the crowd with orange hats. They came up chanting F-U-C-K Antifa. And they joined that group. And once they joined that group, Joseph Biggs’ rhetoric turned to the Capitol Police. He started asking us questions like you’ve — you didn’t miss a paycheck during the pandemic. Mentioning stuff about our pay scale was mentioned. And, you know, started turning the tables on us. 

And I’ve worked I can, you know, conservatively say probably hundreds of civil disturbance events. I know when I’m being turned into a villain. And that’s when I turned to my Sergeant and I stated the — the understatement of the century. I said, “Sarge, I think we’re going to need a few more people down here.” And so after that, you know, I think they started conferring. They went a little silent. They started conferring among ano — each other. I saw the person now identified as Ryan Samsel. He put his arm around Joseph Biggs and they were talking. And then they started approaching the first barricade. They ripped the first barricade down and they approached our bike racks. You know, at that time We started holding on, grabbing the bike racks. You know, there weren’t many of us, so I grabbed the middle between two different bike racks. And, you know, I — I wasn’t under any pretense that I could hold it for very long. But I just wanted to, you know, make sure that we could get more people down and get our CDU units time to — to answer the call. So we started grappling over the bike racks. I felt the bike rack come on top of my head and I was pushed backwards and my foot caught the stair behind me and I — my chin hit the handrail. And then I — at that point I had blacked out. But my — the back of my head clipped the concrete stairs behind me. 

LIZ CHENEY: And you were knocked unconscious. Is that right, Officer Edwards? 

CAROLINE EDWARDS: Yes, ma’am. 

LIZ CHENEY: But then when you regained consciousness even with the injuries you returned to duty. Is that right? 

CAROLINE EDWARDS: Yes, ma’am. You know, at that time adrenaline kicked in. I ran towards the west front and I tried to hold the line at the Senate steps at the Lower West Terrace. More people kept coming at us. It just seemed like, you know, more and more people started, you know, coming on to the west front. They started overpowering us. And that was right about when MPD’s officers showed up. Their bike officers pushed the crowd back and allowed our CDU units as well as theirs to form that line that you see — that very thin line between us and the protesters or the rioters. You know, at that time. I fell behind that line and for a while I started decontaminating people who had gotten sprayed and treating people medically who — who needed it. 

LIZ CHENEY: And then you were injured again there on the west terrace. Is that right Officer Edwards? 

CAROLINE EDWARDS: Yes, ma’am. So after a while I got back on the line. I got — it was on the House side of the lower west terrace. And I was holding that line for a while. There weren’t many of us over there. And Officer Sicknick was behind me for most of the time for about 30 to 45 minutes that I was down there. We were just as the best we could we were just, you know, grappling over bike racks and trying to hold them as quick as possible. All of the sudden I see movement to the left of me. And I turned and it was Officer Sicknick with his head in his hands. And he was ghostly pale, which I — I figured at that point that he had been sprayed. And I was concerned my, you know, cop — cop alarm bells went off. Because if you get sprayed with pepper spray you’re going to turn red. He turned just about as pale as this sheet of paper. And so I looked back to see what had hit him, what had happened, and that’s when I got sprayed in the eyes as well. I was taken to be decontaminated by another officer, but we didn’t get the chance because we were then tear gassed. 

LIZ CHENEY: And we are going to play just a — a brief clip of that moment that you’ve just described, Officer Edwards. 

[Begin Videotape] [Inaudible] [End Videotape] 

Officer Edwards, I just want to thank you for being here. And — and I know again how difficult it is. I know the family of Officer Sicknick as well, who’s here tonight. And one of the things one of the Capitol police officers said to me recently was to ask me whether or not as members of Congress all of us understood that on that day, on January 6th, when we were evacuated from the chamber we’re led to a safe undisclosed location, whether we knew that — that so many of you had rushed out of the building and into the fight. And I can assure you that we do know that. And that we understand how important your service is. Thank you for your continued work with our committee and the interviews and thank you very much for both of you for being here this evening. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Thank you very much. Ms. Edwards, can you give us one memory of that awful day that stands out most vividly in your mind? 

CAROLINE EDWARDS: I can. That time when I talked about falling behind MPD’s line, I remember because I had been kind of shielded away cause I was holding those stairs, so I wasn’t able to really see what was going on over here. 

CAROLINE EDWARDS: When I fell behind that line and I saw, I can just remember my — my breath catching in my throat, because what I saw was just a — a war scene. It was something like I’d seen out of the movies. I — I couldn’t believe my eyes. There were officers on the ground. You know, they were bleeding. They were throwing up. 

They were — you know, they had — I mean, I saw friends with blood all over their faces. I was slipping in people’s blood. You know, I — I was catching people as they fell. I — you know, I was — it was carnage. It was chaos. I — I can’t — I can’t even describe what I saw. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that, as a police officer, as a law enforcement officer, I would find myself in the middle of a battle. You know, I — I’m trained to detain, you know, a couple of subjects and — and handle — you know, handle a crowd, but I — I’m not combat trained. And that day, it was just hours of hand-to-hand combat, hours of dealing with things that were way beyond any — any law enforcement officer has ever trained for. And I just remember — I just remember that moment of stepping behind the line and just seeing the absolute war zone that the west front had become. 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Let me thank you for your service, and obviously your bravery that you have told the world about tonight. It’s unfortunate that you had to defend the Capitol from fellow Americans. None of us would ever think that that would have to happen, but it did. So, let me thank our witnesses for joining us tonight and sharing their experiences with America. Throughout my chairmanship of this committee, I’ve continuously vowed that this committee will ensure a comprehensive account of the heroic acts on January 6th and that we will follow the facts wherever they lead. 

Your testimony is an essential part of that record and helps us do our job. Mr. Quested, thank you for sharing your footage and your account of the day’s events with us. The images you recorded and have shared with the committee do a better job than any of our words in reinforcing the violence of January 6th. We hope that the power of your footage help encourage all Americans to consider how citizens with such — so much in common could viciously brawl at the seat of their democratic government. Officer Edwards, thank you for your brave service, as I indicated, on January 6th, and all you did to protect us and, most importantly, our democracy.

If you and your fellow officers hadn’t held the line against those violent insurrectionists, we can only imagine the disaster that would have ensued. Your heroism in the face of danger is admirable, and your will to continue to protect and serve despite your serious injuries should be an inspiration to all of us. We wish you a continued recovery, and look forward to seeing you back in uniform sometime soon. 

The members of the Select Committee may have additional questions for tonight’s witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. Without objection, members will be permitted ten business days to submit statements for the record, including opening remarks and additional questions for the witnesses. The witness have just told us what they heard the rioters saying while they stormed the Capitol on that day. Now we’re going to hear it from the rioters themselves. Without objection, I include in the record a video presentation. 

[Begin videotape] UNKNOWN: We were invited by the president of the United States. What really made me want to come was the fact that, you know, I had supported Trump all that time. I did believe, you know, that the election was being stolen. And Trump asked us to come. He personally asked for us to come to DC that day. And I thought, for everything he’s done for us, if this is the only thing he’s going to ask of me, I’ll do it. 

DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. 

UNKNOWN: Do you recall President Trump mentioning going to the Capitol during his speech? Oh, yeah. So, that’s one of my disappointments. He said he was going to go, go with us, that he was going to be there. I know why I was there, and that’s because he called me there and he laid out what is happening in our government. He laid it out. But I remember Donald Trump telling people to be there, I — I mean, to support. So, you mentioned that the president — that the president asked you. Do you remember a specific message? Basically, yeah — yes, for us to come to DC, that big things are going to happen. What got me interested, he said I have something very important to say on January 6th, or something like that is what got — what got me interested to be there. You know, Trump has only asked me for two things. He asked me for my vote and he asked me to come on January 6th. [End videotape] 

BENNIE THOMPSON: Testimony & Transcripts When the committee reconvenes next week, we’re going to examine the lies that convinced those men and others to storm the Capitol to try to stop the transfer of power. We’re going to take a close look at the first part of Trump’s attack on the rule of law when he hit the fuse that ultimately resulted in the violence of January 6th. Without objection, and with — with that, the committee stands adjourned.

Vladimir Putin is a criminally insane kleptocrat. He has been enabled in his nefarious deeds by a variety of self-serving sycophants. Many of these amassed fortunes in ways that have consistently worked to the detriment of the Russian people. And now that Putin has engaged in war crimes against an emergent democracy, his enablers are losing access to their bank accounts, they are having their yachts seized, and they are being targeted for criminal prosecution.

Unfortunately, the free world has failed at times to differentiate between the rank and file Russian people and the egomaniacal tyrants that have, by arbitrary assumption, occupied leadership positions in former Soviet states. On December the 25^th in 1991, the Soviet hammer and sickle flag was lowered over the Kremlin for the last time. And yet, due to the ineptitude of the United Nation’s Office of Legal Counsel, Russia illegitimately occupied the former Soviet’s permanent member seat on the UN Security Council.

As Russia used its misbegotten veto power to cripple emergent democracies around the globe, it retarded societal evolution. Even though the Soviet Union ceased to exist, though the once captive socialist “republics” became independent nations functioning as emergent democracies, the anti-democracy government of Putin wielded power that was unjustified by any coherent analysis. In light of this, it’s hard to believe the United Nations is poised to remain relevant as it puts forth a variety of meaningless and toothless resolutions.

The interests of world peace are not well served by vacillating politicians. We’ve all seen them, proactively straddling the fence or deliberately staking out firm positions somewhere between wishy and washy. On the question of democracy versus autocracy, we’ve heard them say “democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be.” And yet, they are unable to articulate any vision for the future that they’re willing to share with the general population. That is because they’ve sold out to oligarchs whose values are so abhorrent, they must operate under the cover of darkness. 

Obvious solutions are ignored by incumbent politicians as well as the press. They lament the news blackout in Russia while failing to deploy an array of Radio Liberty transmitters along that country’s borders. They complain about Russia’s veto on the UN Security Council while failing to challenge it’s illegitimate permanent member status. They have their followers backbiting someone they’ve labeled as the enemy while encouraging constituents to run from something seen as the centermost bone of contention at the heart of their petty grievances.

Still, we must ask why anyone would favor autocracy unless they are somehow intent on fleecing the public. We willfully tolerate such ineptitude at the commanding heights. Although, the Russian people have no apparent alternative due to the misinformation through state media together with the inaction of those who once made effective use of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe.

We are left with the slim hope there are officials, within the Russian military, that maintain some affinity with, and loyalty to, the Russian people. Such officials undoubtedly see through the feigned concern Vladimir Putin has for ordinary Russians. They must realize that, in the final analysis, the only thing Putin has ever done for Russia is to retard its progress while siphoning off any equities it once held. Because of Putin and his unmitigated selfishness, the country is now saddled with crushing sanctions and an insurmountable debt to Ukraine and the rest of the world. 

Any future lifting of sanctions should not occur without an equitable formula for war reparations to Ukraine. And any consideration for such relief should be contingent upon the Russian people arresting Putin and delivering him to the International Criminal Court to stand trial for war crimes. Putin should become the enduring example, for all kleptocrats and kleptocrat wannabes, that the people of the world will no longer tolerate deceptive practices by those seeking to deprive others of their livelihoods, their possessions, and their other fundamental rights. 

Beyond the commonly articulated and delineated rights, every person on earth has a divinely bestowed right to be the arbiter of their own destiny, and to associate for an altruistic purpose. Humanity has a duty to protect such benefactors and we should make a concerted effort to insure their work continues unimpeded. The Putin-like caballers fear exposure above all else. Their main enemies, in addition to physical light, are intellectual insight and spirit luminosity. Therefore they moved quickly to block social media and general access to the Internet.

Radios however are widely available. The failure to array frequency agile Radio Liberty broadcast transmitters along Russia’s borders suggests an embarrassing ineptitude. So does the UN intransigence with respect to denying Russia veto power. High officials have shown they cannot be trusted to even read the UN Charter and discover that non-Soviet Russia never was a permanent member of the Security Council. Unless the Charter is hopelessly defective, they could at least devise a method to remove those countries operating in ways that are antithetical to the organization’s cardinal precepts or, in the case of Putin’s Russia, are actively engaged in war crimes.

On February the 23^rd in 2022, Sergiy Kyslytsya, the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United Nations, issued a challenge to the governing body. He said: “Mr. Secretary-General, please instruct the secretariat to distribute among the members of the Security Council and the members of the General Assembly a decision by the Security Council dated December 1991 that recommends that the Russian Federation can be a member of this organization, as well as a decision by the General Assembly dated December 1991 where the General Assembly welcomes the Russian Federation to this organization.”

The Ambassador also said it would be a miracle if the Secretariat could produce such documentation. He knew that the Office of Legal Affairs had been playing fast and loose with the Charter after the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics finally collapsed in December of 1991. An entirely new government was formed, and the Russian Federation, in clear violation of the United Nations Charter, had arbitrarily assumed the former government’s permanent member position on the Security Council. This was clearly enabled through the inattention of the UN’s Legal Counsel. While Secretary General António Guterres sat stupefied, Kyslytsya referred to Article 4, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter which reads:

“The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Although the Russian Federation was formed in the hope that the people of Russia would finally become the true arbiters of their own destiny, it is now a kleptocracy. It is a very different country from the onetime ally that was among the 51 countries “committed to maintaining international peace and security” when the United Nations was founded on October the 4^th in 1945. According to Oppenheim’s International Law, as it refers to the United Nations, “Permanent membership in the Security Council was granted to five states based on their importance in the aftermath of World War II.”

That was long ago. The caustic mix of autocracy, inauthentic democracy, and kleptocracy on the Security Council has rendered the UN largely impotent. It is no longer an effective champion of those governments that derive their just authority by any informed consent of the governed. And the one thing that might make a difference, that might move the UN beyond the status of a debating society, the Secretariat steadfastly refuses to do. But, the General Secretary is not the only one.

In 2022, on the February 27^th episode of CNN’s State of the Union, Linda Thomas Greenfield – the US Ambassador to the United Nations said: Russia is a member of the Security Council, that’s in the UN Charter.” With this statement, Ambassador Greenfield has exhibited a reckless indifference to the truth. In actuality the Charter, in Article 23 states:

“The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council.”

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic’s seat on the UN Security Council was never legally transferred, by any due process, to the Russian Federation. There was no Union of Soviet Socialist Republics after what the Guardian newspaper described, as “the most cataclysmic peacetime economic collapse of an industrial country in history.” The dissolution of the Soviet Union between 1988 and 1991 was characterized by a process of internal political, economic and ethnic disintegration which resulted in the end of its existence as a sovereign state.

In late 1991, the leaders of three of the former Union’s founding and largest republics; the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, and the Byelorussian SSR declared that the Soviet Union no longer existed. They were later joined by eight more former Soviet republics.

The United Nations is willfully compromised. The member states, with the exception of Ukraine, have not taken any action to correct the problem/s with the Security Council. There was no recommendation by the Security Council and there was no decision by the General Assembly to “grandfather in” the Russian Federation or, for that matter, any other country that has undergone significant change since an original determination was made that it qualified for membership in an organization founded to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

Other commitments delineated in the Charter Preamble, such as the ones to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to preserve the dignity and worth of the human person, to insure equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom are worthy objectives. The problem is that certain members of the UN Security Council have exhibited nothing but contempt for these principles. The UN is defining itself every day through its sincerity or a lack thereof.

While Russia’s leader may surround himself with tacticians, he is by no means a strategist. There is no such thing as a coherent strategy in the absence of a coherent value proposition. And likewise, tactics seldom lead to meaningful victory when divorced from strategic thought. Like so many other kleptocrats, Vladimir Putin is willing to sink his own country for personal gain. His only motivation is one of self-gratification. He has no real vision for the future of Russia other than to siphon off any remaining equities from its people and to try and recapture past glories.

His terminal ego is looking to re-acquire former Soviet states that have intentionally moved on. He was late to the game in developing a focus on rare earth minerals, instead doubling down on fuels the rest of the world is actively working to phase out. And, he conducts himself in ways that have made him a pariah within the evolving world order. He’s not fooling anyone beyond those whose political discourse is fed exclusively by his state owned media.

Vladimir Putin surrounds himself with yes-men. And those who would keep him honest are Novichok’d, imprisoned, or otherwise marginalized in punitive ways. He has enriched himself at the the expense of the Russian people and plans to siphon the life plasm out of Ukraine in similar ways. The invasion of troops is just a precursor to an invasion by his wholly owned and operated oligarchs. And the outrage expressed by other world leaders only serves to underscore the impotence of the United Nations.

If the UN is unable to purify the body, through the removal of a war-mongering tyrant from the Security Council, than it is unable to hold the mantle as a champion of peace. Unlike the UN, NATO has the option to re-charter in ways that would get it out from under the limitations imposed by the Security Council. Within the UN, Putin can veto any resolution that would put his ego in check. The Security Council is an outmoded relic that may have been justified in the immediate aftermath of World War II. Today, it makes no sense at all. It gives an elevated platform and excessive prominence to those illegitimate leaders that hold power in their home countries, by arbitrary assumption, rather than by popular vote.

John Wycliffe, in the preface to his Fourteenth Century translation wrote: “The Bible is for Government of, by, and for the people.” As inauthentic republics and democracies come down somewhere between wishy and washy with respect to this principle, the world is largely without leadership and politics has eclipsed statesmanship.

This is the question that Putin has thrust upon the entire world. Will we continue to recognize tyrants, from inauthentic democracies, as heads of state? Or will we only recognize governments that are authentic democratic republics? The time for proactively straddling the fence is over. Sanctions that hurt Russian citizens rather than Vladimir Putin and his sycophants, are of limited value.

If Putin wants to recapture the “glory days,” when the Soviet Government was the focus of evil, than we should get focused on the individual that has defined himself as the real enemy. As one might expect, Putin’s value’s are so abhorrent that he must operate under the cover of darkness, suppressing anything that might give the people of Russia a government that derives its authority from informed consent.

On May the 14^th in 2021, the government of Russia designated Radio Liberty’s website as a “foreign agent”. The broadcast service’s bank accounts were frozen. The Russian mass media regulator initiated 520 cases against the broadcaster with total fines for the its refusal to mark its content with the “foreign agent” label estimated at $2.4 million. On May the 19^th in 2021, Radio Liberty filed a legal case at the European Court of Human Rights, accusing the Russian government of violating freedom of expression and freedom of the media.

It is clear that Putin will not benefit from any close examination of the truth. He fears Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty almost as much as he fears NATO. He knows the broadcasters played a significant role in the collapse of communism and the rise of democracies in post-communist Europe. In light of this history and Putin’s ongoing acts of war, continuous saturation broadcasts into Russia should occur in every conceivable way. Every Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty asset should be brought to bear to insure the Russian people understand just what was taken from them and how.

Putin fully intends to pillage and plunder Ukraine in similar ways. The people of that country want an of, by, and for the people Ukraine. Whereas Putin wants an all for Putin and Putin for Putin Ukraine. Putin has no value proposition that will resonate with the people of Russia or Ukraine. Accordingly, he has no vision for anything beyond his orgy of darkness and death. If the people in those countries want a future of light and life, they must be intentional and work for it.