This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
I am Judy Woodruff.
And welcome to this PBS NewsHour special live coverage of the January six hearings held by the Select Committee of the House of Representatives to investigate last year's attack on the United States Capitol.
This is the fifth in a series of public hearings the committee is holding this month.
And we learned just yesterday the committee now plans to hold more hearings in July.
Today's session is expected to focus on the ways that former President Trump lobbied the Justice Department to help him overturn the results of the 2020 election, including at one point when he weighed whether to replace the then attorney general with a lower level official who was more compliant with the former president's wishes.
The witnesses today include former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former acting deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and former Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel Stephen Engle.
The witnesses are in the room and now also entering the room are the members of the January 6th committee.
These are the House members who've been working for the past year collecting information, collecting data, collecting the facts in order to conduct these public hearings that have been held just in the last couple of weeks.
As we said, this is the fifth in the series and we expect the hearing to get underway right now.
The hearing the committee has been its habit has been to start pretty much on time.
Here is the chairman, Congressman Bennie Thompson of the state of Mississippi.
We are listening for him to gavel the committee to order.
We see the other members of the committee there next to him.
Let's listen.
The Select Committee to investigate the January six attack on a United States Capitol will be in order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee and recess at any point.
Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation ten, 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 are already covered part of Mr. Trump's effort.
We heard from Attorney General Bill Barr tell the story and 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 continue into January 2021.
But Donald Trump didn't just want the Justice Department to investigate.
He wanted the Justice Department to help legitimize his last.
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 fail.
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 a local prosecutor?
Imagine if your mayor lost a reelection bid, but instead of conceding the race, they picked up the phone, call 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, Liz Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she's here to offer.
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 have 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, D.C. for January 6th.
And we will see in far more detail how the president's rally and march to the capital 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 Clarke with another Department of Justice lawyer, Ken Kukowski.
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. Kukowski had any evidence of widespread election fraud, but they were quite aware of what Mr. Trump wanted the department to do.
Geoff 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 U.S. Department of Justice's investigations have, quote, 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, quote, In light of these developments, the department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session.
End quote, and consider approving a new slate of electors.
And it indicates that a separate, quote, fake slate of electors supporting Donald Trump has already been transmitted to Washington, D.C.. 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. Donahue, first saw this draft letter, he wrote this, quote, This would be a grave step for the department to take and it could have tremendous constitutional, political and social ramifications for the country, end quote.
This committee agrees.
And 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 Clark and Mr. Kukowski, 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. Clarke the job of acting attorney general, replacing Mr. Rosen with the understanding that Clarke 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.
Felt the responsible thing to do is 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.
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.
Without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for an opening statement.
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 this day, 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 partizan 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. Donohue 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 interests 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, quote, corrupt and, quote, 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.
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 and 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 that as the people's lawyer, I would not hesitate to resign.
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 are the choices.
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.
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-interests 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 Hirschman, had to say about Jeff Clark's plan to overturn the election.
I'd like to advise viewers, this video contains some strong language.
And when he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said, Good fucking sort of thing.
Sorry, A-hole.
Congratulations.
You just omitted a first step.
Iraq you take as attorney general would be committing a felony and violating Rule six eight.
You're clearly the right candidate for this job.
So who's Jeff Clark?
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 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.
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.
He looked at me and underscored, 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 valid.
There is someone who has a different view, so why should I do that?
You know, that's how the discussion that proceeded.
Jeff Clark was proposing that.
Jeff Rosen to be replaced by Jeff Clark.
And I thought the proposal was.
Masonite.
What were Clark's purported bases for?
Why it was in the president's interest for him to step in.
What would he do?
What would how would things change, according to Mr. Clark in the meeting.
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.
And he was making a pitch and every time he would get clobbered over the head.
He would like say, like, you know, they could call to order, you know, the president, your decision, you get the chance to make this decision and, you know, you've heard everybody and you can make your determination.
And then we jump back in.
Man.
No, no, they clobber him.
I made the point that Geoff Clark is not even competent to serve as the attorney general.
He's never been a criminal attorney, has never conducted a criminal investigation in his life.
He's never been for grand jury, much less a trial jury.
And he kind of retorted by saying, Well, I've done a lot of very complicated appeals and 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 has weighed in at one point our 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.
I thought Jeff's proposal proposal was nuts.
I mean, this guy said at a certain point, you know, 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 answer tonight, I'm not even certain you know that.
The president said, suppose I do this.
Suppose I replace him and Jeff Rosen with him.
Jeff Clark.
What do you do?
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 six 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.
Do your job.
Do your job.
Do your job.
Live in D.C..
Were marching to the capitol.
We are at the Department of Justice right now telling these powers to do their job.
We're going to the Capitol.
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.
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 United States deputy attorney general in December 2020.
He took the mantle of acting attorney general.
Mr. Richard Donohue 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 sway in our witnesses.
The witnesses will please stand and raise their right hands.
Do you swear I'm born 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.
Thank you.
You may be seated.
Let the record reflect the witnesses all answered in the affirmative.
And 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, Donald Trump continued to demand that the Department of Justice investigate his claims of election fraud.
Yes, he he asserted that he thought the Justice Department had not done enough.
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?
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 our Rich Donoghue and I go over and meet with him, I believe, on December 15th as well.
So after you had some of these meetings in conversations with the president, what things did the president raise with you?
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.
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.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Donohue, 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?
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% error rate.
The report was widely covered in the media who are aware of it.
We obtained a copy of it on the 14th of December.
The day prior, we circulated to the U.S. 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.
Thank you, Mr. King.
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?
No, I've never had any reason to doubt Attorney General Barr's conclusion.
Thank you.
Pursuant to Section 5c8 of House Resolution 503, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kingsland, for questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the weeks leading to January six, 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.
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 or the missing in action?
DOJ investigating missing in action can tell you where they are.
Republican congressman echoed the president just two days later.
They wrote a letter to Attorney General Barr Lane 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.
And so there's widespread evidence of fraud because 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.
Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Bill Barr to immediately let us know what he's doing.
We're already working on and challenging the certified electors.
And what about the court?
How pathetic are the courts?
January six.
I'm joining with the fighters in the Congress.
And we.
You object to electors from states that did run clean elections?
Democracy is left undefended.
If we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster, 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.
Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.
Mr. Donahue, On December 27th, you had a 90 minute conversation with the president where he raised false claim after false claim of you and Mr. Rosen.
How did you respond to what you called a, quote, stream of allegations?
The December 27th conversation was, in my mind, an escalation of the earlier conversations.
As the former acting A.G. 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 was incumbent 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 I went for the former acting A.G. 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 a surreal fashion as you move from one theory to another.
Can you give me an example of one or two of those theories?
So one that was very clear at that point was the Antrim County, the East Side report that I mentioned earlier.
The Allied Security Operations Group released this report that 60% error rate there was in fact an interim 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 .006 3% error rate, which is well within tolerance.
And so I made it very clear to the president because he was so fixated on the saw report in the December 15th conversation, that, in fact, our investigation revealed that the error rate was 0.0063%.
So that, Mr. President, an example, 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 interview witnesses at the front end and the back end of that that trailers transit from New York to Pennsylvania.
We looked at loading manifest.
We interviewed witnesses, including, of course, the driver, and we knew it wasn't true.
Whether the driver believed 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.
You want 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.
Or any of the allegations he brought up found credible.
Did you find any of them credible?
No.
So during this conversation, did you take handwritten notes directly quoting the president?
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 because 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'd heard many of these things and you made them or 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 in down.
That had to do with an allegation that more than 200,000 votes were certified in the state of Pennsylvania that would 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 want 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.
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?
So both the acting 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 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 LLC, led by Steve Engel 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 try to explain that to the President on numerous occasions.
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 did the president respond to that, sir?
He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking you to do.
Well, I'm just asking you to do is to say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressman.
So let's now put up the notes where you were.
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. Donohue, that's a direct quote from President Trump, correct?
That's an exact quote from the president, yes.
The next note shows that even the even that the president kept pressing, even though we had been told that there was no evidence of fraud.
The president keeps saying that the department was, quote, obligated to tell people that this was an illegal, corrupt election.
That's also an exact quote from the president.
Yes.
You just be clear.
Did the department find any evidence to conclude that there was anything illegal or corrupt about the 2020 election?
There were isolated instances of fraud.
None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual state.
And how would you describe the president's demeanor during that call?
He was more agitated than he was on December 15th.
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 meeting on January 3rd, which was sort of the most extreme of the meetings and conversations.
So I want to make sure we don't glosses over it.
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.
Saracen Rosen on Christmas Eve, your first official day as the acting attorney general, President Trump called you.
What did he want to talk about?
The same things he was talking about publicly.
He he wanted to talk about that he thought the the election had been stolen 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 him urging that the Department of Justice should be doing more with regard to election fraud.
Did he mention Jeff Clarke's name?
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 the conversation just moved on.
But when I hung up, I was I was quizzical as to how does the president even know Mr. Clark?
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.
It was a bit of a surprise when he brought his name up.
Yes.
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?
No.
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.
So let's take a minute and explain why the president mentioned Jeff Clarke's name to Mr. Rose in 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.
I was the only new member at the meeting.
I called President Trump on Saturday and said, We've got to have a meeting.
There's many of us that feel like this election has been stolen.
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 into a conservative political convention, and he used the opportunity to pressure the Department of Justice to investigate his bogus claims.
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 to finally step up.
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 Clarke.
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.
Remember you're recommending to anybody that.
Mr. Clarke, meaning Jeffrey Clarke at DOJ, be given election related responsibilities.
You really are correct.
Well beyond the president, I do recall.
Fang two 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 judgment was filled with people like that.
Somebody that's not frightened of what's going to be done to their reputation.
Mr. Donohue, when you told the president that you wouldn't pursue baseless claims of fraud, was it because you were worried about your reputation?
No.
No.
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.
Was it your understanding that Representative Kerry was pushing for a specific person to take over the department?
He wanted Mr. Clark, Mr. Geoff Clark, to take over the Department of Justice.
Mr. Rosen, after your call with President Trump on December 24th, you spoke with Mr. Clark on December 26 about his contact with the president.
Can you tell us about that conversation?
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 had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as General Perry, but I believe was 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.
Is there a policy that governs who can have contact directly with the White House?
Yes.
So across many administrations, for for a long period of time, there is 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.
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.
Mr. Engel, from your perspective, why is it important to have a policy like Mr. Rosen just discussed?
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 or don't really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clarke, don't run afoul of of those contact policies.
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. Clarke, 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. Clarke 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. Clarke to stand down and he didn't.
On the same day, Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clarke to stop talking to the White House.
Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clarke within the Department of Justice.
You can now see on the screen behind me a series of text between Representative Perry and Mr. Meadows.
They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clarke be elevated within the department.
Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26th that quote, Mark, just checking in as time continues to count, down 11 days to January six and 25 days to inauguration, we've got to get going.
Representative Perry followed up and says, quote, 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 Tex.
Roger just sent you something on signal.
Just sent you an updated file.
Did you call Geoff Clark?
Mr. Donahue.
Representative Perry called you the next day on December 27th.
Who told him to call you?
My understanding, as the president did at the outset of the call, Congressman Perry told me that he was calling at the behest of the president.
What did what did he want to talk about?
If you want 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, among others, this allegation that the secretary of state had certified more votes than were actually cast.
Did you direct a local the local U.S. attorney's office to investigate that claim?
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 did 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 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.
Did they get back to you?
What did they conclude?
Scott Brady looked at he was the Western District, Pennsylvania U.S. 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.
So no credibility to that.
There was zero to that, right.
During that call, did Scott Perry mentioned Mr. Clarke and what did he say about and if so.
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.
Like to yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Vice Chair 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. Clarke 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, quote, grave constitutional consequences.
Mr. Donoghue, can you tell us what you meant by that?
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 serve, 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 were both have probably a very similar reaction to it.
He was not in his office.
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 want to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he didn't seem to really appreciate it.
And what was Mr. Clarke's reaction when you sent this email to him?
He didn't respond directly to the email, but we met shortly after that, after I sent the email.
The acting A.G. 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 assistants to get Geoff Clark up here.
We want to talk to him face to face about this.
And so the three of us in a meeting, probably around 1800 that night in the deputy attorney general's conference room.
And one of the things that you said to Mr. Clarke is, quote, 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.
Yes, in those very words, it was a very contentious meeting.
But, yes, that was said, among other things.
And despite this contentious meeting and your strong reaction to the letter, did Mr. Clarke continue to push his concept in the coming days?
He did.
Yes.
We had subsequent meetings and conversations.
The acting A.G. probably had more contact with him than I did.
But between the 28th and the second, when we had another in-person meeting.
He clearly continued 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, okay, 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.
And when you learned that he had been calling witnesses and conducting investigations on his own, did you confront him?
Yes.
And what was his reaction?
Got very defensive.
You know, as I said, there were a series of conversations through that week.
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 heard from the president, which were floating around the Internet and media and just kept insisting that the department needed to act and needed to send those letters.
The committee has also learned that Mr. Clarke was working with another attorney at the department named Ken Kukowski, who drafted this letter to Georgia with Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Kukowski had arrived at the department on December 15th with just 36 days left until the inauguration.
He was specifically assigned to work under Geoff Clark and Mr. Kukowski 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 George letter that we've been discussing specifically talks about some of Dr. Eastman's theories, including, quote, 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 as the General Assembly could take whatever action is necessary to ensure that one of the slate of electors cast on December 14th will be accepted by Congress on January six.
Committees also learned that the relationship between Dr. Eastman and Mr. Kukowski persisted after Mr. Kukowski joined the Justice Department.
Let's take a look at an email recommending that Mr. Kukowski 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. Kukowski was simultaneously working with Jeffrey Clarke 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 for answering our questions about this letter and other issues.
We asked Mr. Clarke some of the same questions that we've asked you, and here's how he answered.
Did you discuss this draft letter to Georgia officials with the president of the United States?
Fifth, and executive privilege again just restated for the abundance of caution.
Okay.
If you look again at this draft letter and the first.
Paragraph.
Second sentence 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, that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve.
Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately 10 minutes.
That is the committee chair, Congressman Bennie Thompson, calling the committee to a recess.
This is what they've been doing typically on these hearing days, taking a short break in the middle of a tightly packed couple of hours, which is how this day seems to be unfolding.
We've heard testimony just now from three former officials at the Department of Justice under former President Trump.
Jeffrey Rosen, the former acting attorney general.
Richard Donoghue, former acting deputy ag attorney general.
And then Steve Ingle, former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.
It has been a picture painted of relentless pressure from former President Trump and from a former Justice Department official, a lawyer who had only been at the department for a short time, Jeffrey Clarke, to try to get the Justice Department involved in pushing pushing for an investigation, pushing for a deeper investigation than what they had already done.
Joining me now, our analysts with us, journalist Andrea Bernstein.
She's co-host of the Will Be While podcast.
She's also a frequent NPR contributor covering former President Trump's legal troubles.
And attorney Michael Zeldin, he's host of the eponymous that said with Michael Zeldin podcast and formerly with the Department of Justice under former President Reagan and the first President Bush.
Welcome to both of you.
Andrea Bernstein, I'm going to come to you first.
You've spent a great deal of time looking at what happened in those days leading up to January the sixth.
And you've looked very closely at the pressure on the Justice Department.
What are you hearing in this testimony today that that adds to what you you knew coming in?
So we have heard we've known of bits and pieces of what is coming out in the testimony today, because there have been various depositions that have been made public with the three witnesses.
But I think what really came into focus today was the extent that there were discussions going on between some of the people that we've learned about.
Mr. Eastman, Rudy Giuliani.
And, for example, a member of Congress, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, who recommended that a relatively lower level person in the Department of Justice be elevated.
And we were just hearing before the break how this Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey Clarke, was trying, was urging his superiors to sign on to this letter, which Representative Cheney called materially false, which was urging Georgia to overturn the will of the voters and say that they were not going to send these electors up to Washington.
So what is emerging today is that there were these background discussions going on between at least one member of Congress.
Mark Meadows.
Trump's chief of staff, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani.
And when you think how that connects to the previous hearings, you are beginning to see the outlines of what this committee has called a well orchestrated, coordinated plan to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
Michael Zeldin, as someone who worked at the Justice Department for a number of years, how would you describe the kind of pressure these officials were feeling?
You've got an acting attorney general.
You have an acting deputy AG, a lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel.
They are getting this these constant phone calls, having meetings with the president of the United States, urging them to do whatever they could to stop this election, count from it to stop the process as it was happening.
What would that be like?
In a word, unprecedented for my decade in the Justice Department, through various investigations of Meese and others, where there were special counsels, never was there such an effort to undermine the integrity of the Department of Justice.
And what struck me, Judy, was Donoghue said.
Very bluntly to the president.
This is the acting deputy attorney general.
Exactly.
He said I wanted to tell the president very bluntly so there'd be no uncertainty.
These allegations were unfounded, as a matter of fact, and a matter of law.
He wanted there to be no confusion, notwithstanding that the president moved forward with his plan, which included replacing Rosen, the acting AG and Donoghue, to in part into the Justice Department, imposing the Justice Department essentially a puppet who would do that, which the Constitution does not allow for.
Which is which is the role that Jeffrey Clarke presumably would have played much more.
He was already much more in agreement with former President Trump about about these dubious, dubious, false claims that the president was was putting forward.
Also with us, our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardins.
She's been in the hearing room, our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez.
Lisa, I think we can't emphasize enough that these officials testifying are Republicans.
They are lawyers who went to the Justice Department, appointed by and under former President Trump.
These are not Democrats.
These are people who were serving the Trump administration.
That's right.
And you heard Representative Kinzinger make a plea to his fellow Republicans say, what if the situation was reversed?
What if this was a Democrat pushing to try and push a Democratic agenda by using the Department of Justice?
You know, I think what stood out to me right now, of course, I covered Congress.
So I was listening very closely for the mention of the members of Congress, seven members.
We saw clips, all of them Republicans of duty.
I want to really focus on who these members are.
Exactly.
And you talk about these seven members that were brought up today.
All of them are members of the conservative Freedom Caucus.
That doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, but but this is a very specific group.
This is a group of the most conservative members, I think you would say, and probably the biggest and loudest Trump supporters, they would be proud to say.
But even if you dove further, let's talk about the members that we heard about.
Scott Perry, the man who we heard today was proposing, Jeffrey Clarke, trying to get someone else in there in the top rungs of DOJ to further their agenda.
He is the current leader of the Freedom Caucus.
Other members mentioned Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows, former chairs of the Freedom Caucus.
Andy Biggs, same thing.
These are leaders of this conservative group.
Obviously, they've been in contact with each other.
But there's a little more layers here to these contacts than even I think most people might recognize.
And I'm paying very careful attention.
This feels to me like we're going to hear a lot more about this in the second half.
I'm eager to hear where they go.
Yes.
And we're expecting them to go to a to a crucial meeting that took place on January 3rd.
We'll find out after the break ends.
But quickly now to Laura Baron Lopez Lopez, who has who's our White House correspondent.
Laura, I'm talking to you standing in front of the White House and again reflecting on what the former president of the United States was doing on a daily, even hourly basis, putting pressure on officials at the Justice Department.
Put that in context.
Yeah, it's pretty stunning testimony that we're hearing today, Judy.
And I'm standing, you know, not too far from the Oval Office right now.
And as you mentioned, we are going to be hearing probably in the second half about that critical January 3rd meeting that Donohue that rose in that also Engel was in with Jeffrey Clarke and with the president in which the president potentially proposed installing Clarke over Rosen and replacing him at the Justice Department.
It really makes you think all the way back to the Watergate scandal in 1973 when when then President Nixon went on his Saturday Night Massacre and decided to fire the then attorney general, the deputy attorney general and counsel in the Justice Department.
Again, same three positions and people that we're hearing testimony from today who appear to have come very close to resigning because of the ongoing pressure campaign that the president placed on them.
And what we've seen in the reporting is that the president was told by every single one of these of top Justice Department officials that if he placed Jeffrey Clarke in the role of acting attorney general, there would be mass resignations at the Justice Department back at at that time in early January of 2021.
I want to quickly now go back.
Thank you, Laura, and thank you, Lisa.
Quickly now back to Andrea Bernstein and Michael Zeldin.
If we have time before the committee comes back.
But Andrea, what we are what it what we are told the committee is going to be zeroing in on now is that meeting again, as we've been referencing in the White House, in the Oval Office with the president as he meets with these just.
US officials.
You you've done an entire podcast and remind us what you call that podcast.
Right?
So we call that meeting action in the Oval because it's this dramatic Sunday night meeting with all of these people that we're seeing and some others the the White House counsel and his assistant.
And they're all saying, Mr. President, do not replace Mr. Rosen, who, remember, had only been there since Christmas Eve.
So just a matter of nine days when President Trump said, okay, I want another attorney general who's going to do my bidding.
What was the bidding?
The bidding was to tell Georgia just not to essentially ignore the results of the voters and send up a different slate of electors.
Had they not stood up and they argued with the president for hours, according to their testimony, and they said with him to him, don't do this.
We are your people.
We are loyal supporters of you, but do not do this, or we will resign en masse.
And at the end of the day, according to their testimony, it seems that President Trump decided not to, only because he thought that all these resignations would mean he could not get it through.
And he seems to have concluded at the meeting that if he was going to hang on to power, if he was going to ignore the will of the people, he was going to have to do it another way.
If I remember correctly from the reporting, he went down the line of of these justice officials and asked each one, what would you do if Jeffrey Clark if I named him the acting attorney general, replacing Jeff Rosen?
The answer was, I'm going to resign.
All of them.
I quit.
I quit.
And we saw that image of them sitting there in a line in front of the president.
All I think it was seven of these officials saying we going to resign until he gets to Clark and Clark obviously is not going to resign.
So it's Clark and former President Trump and then everybody else.
And Trump does throw up his hands.
But you can see and you can hear and will no doubt hear it in this next block of testimony, how close it came to another outcome, which I think all of these officials felt would be at least a constitutional crisis and perhaps the end of democracy.
That's reporter Andrea Bernstein, who has done extensive work, extensive reporting on this entire episode leading up to January the sixth.
Let's take a quick look at the hearing room.
We were told by the committee chair, Congressman Bennie Thompson, that this would be about a ten minute break.
That time is is about now.
So we are keeping a close eye on the hearing room.
We're going to take you back there as soon as the hearing resumes.
Just quickly, we see Congressman Thompson walking back in.
Michael Zeldin, I think it's important to point out it's not as if they didn't investigate these claims.
They did investigate them.
They just didn't find anything.
Exactly.
In the setup piece where Barr says, the reason I changed the policy was.
Q Imagine if I couldn't tell the President that we investigated these things and there was no merit to them.
The other thing that I think it's going to be a very nice television moment is in the beginning they showed all these former attorney generals swearing the oath of office to the Constitution.
And now we have Jeffrey Clarke, the only one who is unwilling to swear that oath of independence and to the Constitution in order to do the former president's bidding.
Exactly.
He was the one who said anything, sir, to every question.
I plead the fifth.
Here is Chairman Thompson resuming the hearing?
The committee will be in order.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As chairman, around the time Mr. Clarke was pushing for the department to send the George a 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, you were the head of the Office of Legal Counsel.
Can you first explain your role?
What is that?
Sure.
And one of the attorney general's most important responsibilities is to provide the legal advice to the president and to the executive branch 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 addition, the head of ABC often functions as a general counsel, essentially to the attorney general.
And so I was often the chief legal advisor to the AG as well as, you know, the White House and the executive branch more broadly.
So given that role, can you kind of describe your relationship with the president?
Well, I, you know, in connection with my role at all.
See, 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 a course of action that they had been discussing was not legally available.
So I want to ask you 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 and 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 target in 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?
Well, I mean, I think 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 was a meritless lawsuit.
That was not something that the department could or would bring.
You know, somebody obviously prepared it to handed it to the president and he he forwarded on for our review.
But that memo explains why the Department of Justice, as Mr. Donahue 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, D.C..
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, 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's 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.
So would you say it was an unusual request?
Certainly.
You said the request that that the department file a lawsuit from drafted by outside lawyers was certainly an unusual request.
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?
Yes.
I mean, the 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 was a specific request where the attorney general sought my legal advice in the middle of December.
And what was your conclusion?
What conclusion to draw?
So this this.
Request was whether the whether the attorney general could appoint as a special counsel and a state attorney general to conduct an investigation.
I mean, 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, not uncommonly obviously, a state attorney general at 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 of 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.
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?
Well, neither Attorney General Barr nor acting Attorney General Rosen did appoint a special counsel where you would appoint the special counsel.
When I 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.
In fact, Attorney General Barr and I already told the president that there was no need for the special counsel.
He actually stated that publicly.
And we'll see that here in a video from December 21st.
To the extent that.
There's an investigation.
I think that it's being handled responsibly and professionally currently within 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.
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.
A little on Friday.
He had asked me to be a 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.
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 six.
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 six 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. Donohue describing the last minute meeting held at the White House on New Year's Eve.
I think 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 see these machines?
Mr. Rose and the President ask you to seize voting machines from state governments.
What was your response to that request.
That we had?
We had seen nothing improper with regard to the voting machines.
And I told them that the the real experts that that had been at DHS and they had briefed us that they had looked at it and that there was nothing wrong with the voting machines.
And so that was not something that was appropriate to do.
So, I mean, no factual basis to see these machines.
Mr. Donohue.
I don't think there was legal authority either.
Mr. Donohue, can you explain what the president did after he was told that the Justice Department would not seize voting machines?
President was very agitated by the acting attorney general's response.
And to the extent that machines and the technology was being discussed, the acting attorney general said that the DHS, Department of Homeland Security has expertize 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 the 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.
I 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.
Mr. Rossa, did you ever tell the president that the Department of Homeland Security could seize voting machines?
No, certainly not.
Mr. Donohue, 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?
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 leadership, put Geoff Clark and 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.
The president's White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, was also present.
Do you remember what his position was?
That was very supportive of Pat Cipollone, who 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.
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 email 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?
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.
Interesting.
The second request 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?
Yes.
Really?
Two concerns about that one.
One was that it was coming from a campaign or political party.
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 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.
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. Donohue.
Mr. Donohue, did you watch this video?
I did, Congressman.
How long was the video?
Approximately 20 minutes.
Let's just take a look at a excerpt of that video, if we may.
That's being said out of Rome, out of Italy, is that this was done in the U.S. 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 the guy running the operation of changing the votes and that he was doing this in conjunction with some support from MI6, the CIA and this Leonardo group.
Mr. Donohue, what was your reaction when you watched that entire 20 minute video?
I emailed the acting attorney general and I said pure insanity, which was my impression of.
The video which.
Was patently absurd.
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?
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, okay.
But then he called 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 an FBI field office.
That's insulting.
So 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. Donohue and I had been exchanging our views about this, I think it was, you know, 713 on a Friday night of New Year's Day 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.
Just to button this up.
Mr. Donoghue, did you receive a follow up call from a Department of Defense official about this conspiracy?
I did.
I believe it was that same day.
Can you give details on that at all?
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 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 was 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 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 in that I didn't think it was anything worth pursuing.
She 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.
Ask for help was can you call out the defense attache room 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.
The 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. Donahue 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. Donohue, 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?
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. Donohue 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 just satisfied 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 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 letter should go out and we were not receptive to that.
Any tell you that the president had offered him the job of acting attorney general?
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.
Well, despite that, what was your reaction to that?
Well, you know, on the one hand, I wasn't going to accept being fired by my subordinates, so I wanted to talk to the 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. Clarke 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 or not consistent with its own appropriate role or were not consistent with the Constitution.
So I did four things as soon as Mr. Clarke left my office.
And 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 615 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 Angle, 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 Donahue and Pat Hoover came in, 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 Hershman 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. Clarke's approach.
Did Mr. Klein ask you to continue to stay at the department?
At that Sun 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. Donohue 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.
And during that meeting, did Mr. Clarke ask you to sign the Georgia letter?
That was on the the Saturday meeting January 2nd that Mr. Donohue and I had with him.
He again raised with both of us that he wanted us to both to sign that letter, actually.
So when that meeting did Mr. Cork say he would turn down the president's offer if you reversed your position and signed the letter?
Yes.
Did Mr. Clarke say you still refuse to sign and send that letter?
I take.
It that.
That's right.
I think Mr. Donohue 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. Clarke'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.
Thank you for that, by the way.
Mr. Donohue, were you expecting to have to attend a meeting at the White House on Sunday, January 3rd?
No.
As the acting AG indicated, we had a meeting that afternoon that related to preparations for January six.
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 work and expected to have that meeting do some other work.
But I had no expectation of going to the White House that day.
So let's assume 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.
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 Ingle 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. Engle would be in the seat.
We want to make sure he knew what was going on should that occur.
So the three of us knew.
We also, Brett brought pad over to me and 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 A.G., What else can I do to help prepare for this meeting at the Oval Office?
And he said.
You and Pat should get the ages 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 that whoever came in subsequent set up that meeting.
We got most, not all, but most of the ages on the phone.
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 it.
Geoff Clark is put in charge of the department and immediately Eric Dryden, who was the A.G. 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 age begin to chime in and in turn, and all essentially said they would leave, they would resign in mass if the president made that change in the department leadership.
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, agreed to resign.
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.
So as part of the Select Committee's investigation, we found out.
Well, Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donohue and Mr. Engel were preparing for their meeting at the White House.
Jeff Clark and the president were in constant communication beginning at 7 a.m.. White House call logs obtained by the committee show that by 4:19 p.m. on January 3rd, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clarke as the acting attorney general.
As far as the White House was concerned, Mr. Clarke was already at the top of the Justice Department.
2 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. Bellone told the committee that he was, quote, unmistakably angry during the meeting and that he, along with Eric Hirschman and Mr. Donohue, quote, forcefully challenged Mr. Clarke to produce evidence of his election fraud theories.
Mr. Rosen, can you describe how that meeting started?
Yes.
So after some preliminaries, so we, Mr. Meadows, had ushered us all in and then he left.
So, Mr. Cipollone, he did some introductions.
And 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 2 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. Clarke.
So at some point, Mr. Donoghue comes in the room.
Can you explain what led to him?
Come in, in the room?
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. Rangel and the White House counsel and the deputy White House counsel, Mr. Hershman.
We went in and then we told the president, you know, maybe 10 minutes into the meeting or something, I forget how far in.
Mr. Donohue was outside.
And he said, Well, bring him in.
And then then Mr. Donahue came in and joined the meeting.
So, Mr. Donahue, you you enter that room.
Can you set the scene for us and describe the tone you walked into?
Yes.
But if I could just back up one moment, Congressman Mukherjee, put the pictures up on the screen of the ages.
I just want to make clear, one of the agents who was not on the screen was John Demers.
John was the National Security Division A.G.. 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, we will 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.
I think he was.
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 were 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.
Was it was there discussion about Mr. Clarke?
And can you kind of enlighten some of what that discussion was?
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 Clarke.
And everyone in the room, I think understood that that meant that letter would go out.
So that was the focus 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 Geoff 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 Geoff 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's 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 Ray's office.
I said at one point, if you walked into Chris Ray's office, one, would you know how to get there in two if you got there, we even know who you are.
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 point at which Mr. Clarke tried to defend himself by saying, well, I've been involved in very.
Significant civil and environmental litigation.
I've argued many appeals and appellate courts and things of that nature, and then I have 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.
Did anybody in there support Mr. Clarke?
No one.
Mr. Rosen, it was you he was going to replace.
So what was your view about the president's plan to appoint Mr. Clarke?
Well, well, well, as I alluded to earlier, the issue really wasn't about me.
It was it would have been fine, as they said, to have had Rich Donoghue replace me.
I would have said, great, 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.
Mr. Donnelly did did you eventually tell the president that mass resignations would occur if he installed Mr. Clarke and what the consequences would be?
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 just.
Declared was completely incompetent.
And so the president immediately turned to Mr. Rangel and he said, Steve, you wouldn't resign, would you?
And he said, Absolutely, I would, Mr. President, you leave me no choice.
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 A.G. 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 U.S. 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?
Strangled.
What was.
Can you describe what your reaction was to that?
Yeah, no, 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 to acting attorney general, but I couldn't be part of this.
And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, I.
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 results of the election.
It's going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark.
And I think at that point, Pat Cipollone said, yes, this is a murder suicide pact.
This letter.
And I would.
I would note to Congressman that it was in this part of the conversation where Steve pointed out that Geoff Clark would be left leading a graveyard and that.
That comet clearly had an impact on the president.
The leadership will be gone.
Jeff Clark of the left leaving a graveyard.
Again, the premise that which, as Mr. Donahue has said, but that Mr. Clark could come in and take over the Department of Justice and do something different was just an absurd premise in 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.
Was civil only.
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. Clarke?
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 ask 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 didn't initially understand the question.
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 the Senate confirmed assistant attorney general.
And you 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, All right, well, then we should all go back to work.
Did you get a call from the president later that night?
I did.
Probably 90 minutes later or something like that.
What was that about.
The president at this point?
We left the White House, reconvened at the department.
I left the department.
I was back at 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 of 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 can be meaning Ken Cuccinelli knows about this?
I said fine.
I would pass 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.
Mr. Cipollone left the meeting, convinced the president would not appoint Mr. Clarke.
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.
In the state of Arizona, over 36,000 ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens.
11,600 more ballots and 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.
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 six.
Mr. Rosen, were you at the Department of Justice on January 6th?
Yes, I was there all day.
Once the capital was under attack.
I understand that you communicated with fellow Cabinet members and Capitol Hill leadership.
Can you tell us who you spoke to?
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 I had a number of calls.
As I say, it was more or less nonstop all afternoon.
Did you speak to the vice president that day?
Yes, twice.
No.
No, please go ahead.
Well, as I said, 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, as 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.
Did you speak to the president on January six?
No.
I spoke to a number of senior White House officials, but not the president.
Mr. Donahue, on January six.
We know from Mr. Rosen that you helped in the effort to reconvene joint session.
The joint session.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
We see here in a video that we're going to play now, you arriving with your security detail to help secure the capital.
Mr. Donohue, 30 minutes after you arrived in the capital, did you lead a briefing for the vice president?
I'm not sure exactly what the timeframe was, but I did.
Participate the call and participate briefing the vice president as well as the congressional leadership that night.
Would you conduct that call at.
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 in 1801 at 1900 that night from that office.
What time did you actually end up leaving the Capitol?
I waited until the Senate was back in session, which I believe they were gaveled in a few minutes after 8 p.m. 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 830.
And Mr. Donnelly, did you ever hear from President Trump that day?
No.
Like the A.G., the acting A.G..
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.
So in today's hearing, showcase 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 six itself.
They assisted during the attack while our commander in chief stayed silent.
Their bravery is a high moment in the sordid story of what led to January six.
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, quote, pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz requesting a pardon for Representative Gates 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.
And.
Was representative case requesting a pardon.
Believe so.
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, at least from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things being mentioned.
Nixon and I said Nixon's.
Pardon was never nearly that broad.
And are you aware of.
Any members of Congress.
Seeking pardons?
I guess, Mr. Gates.
And Mr. Brooks, I know both advocated for there'd be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting and a handful of other members that were at the December 21st meeting.
As the preemptive pardons, Mr. Gates was personally pushing for a pardon, and he was doing so since early December.
I'm not sure why Mr. Gates would reach out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a presidential pardon Bill.
And you.
Know them, but several.
Of them did.
So you mentioned Gates and Mr. Begs to.
Mr. Dorn talks about congressional pardons, but he never asked me for one.
As more for an update on whether the White House is going to pardon members of Congress.
Mr. Goma asked for one as well, and Mr. Perry asks for part two.
I'm sorry.
I need to cut you off here.
He's got.
I forgot him directly.
Yes, he.
Did.
Did Marjorie.
Now.
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 don't frequently caregivers.
Are you aware of any conversations or communications regarding the possibility of giving Congressman Matt Gaetz a pardon?
I know he had asked for it, but I don't know if he ever received one or what happened with it.
How do you know?
The Congressman gets asked for a pardon?
He told me.
Tell us about that.
He told me you'd asked Meadows for a pardon.
Were you involved in or did you witness any conversations about the possibility of a blanket pardon for everyone involved in January 6th?
I had heard that mentioned.
Yeah.
Do you know whether the president had any conversations about potentially pardoning any family members?
I know he had hinted at a blanket pardon for the January six thing for anybody, but I think he had for all the staff and everyone involved, not with January six, but just before he left office.
I know he had talked about that.
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.
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.
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% 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 congressman.
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. Clarke refused to cooperate with this committee.
He pled the fifth over 125 times.
Why risk self-incrimination in an 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 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.
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.
It's now up to every American, now and in the future to stand for truth, to reject the lies wherever we confront them in 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.
Without objection, the chair recognizes gentlewoman from Wyoming, Mr. Cheney, for closing statement.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
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 have told you what actually happened in the weeks before January 6th.
You will hear from more in the hearings to come.
Several of them serve 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.
Again, I think 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.
Lying.
They were lying.
And 2020.
They were lying in 2021.
And indeed they are lying.
Today, Donald Trump went to court.
That's right.
Any candidate seeking to challenge the outcome of an election must do.
Donald Trump lost in court dozens and dozens of time.
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 land.
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 are 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 are trying to do their jobs and ultimately did.
They investigated his claims and found them to be false.
And then they endured Trump's pressure campaign.
At great risk to themselves and their loved ones.
And of course, that was the scheme to get the former Vice President, Mike Pence, to violate the law and the Constitution by rejecting the Electoral College votes on January six 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, that 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.
I mean, 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's summoned the mob to Washington, and how after corruption and political pressure fail to keep Donald Trump in office, violence became the last option.
I 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.
Committee stands a joined.
And with that, the January 6th.
Committee has adjourned.
This day, the latest in their public hearings looking into the January 6th attack.
You are watching a special PBS NewsHour coverage.
And the committee is now leading today's focus, of course, in the hearing Department of Justice.
And former President Trump's pressure campaign.
To try to get that department to look into baseless allegations of voter fraud and eventually even change the leadership of.
That department.
We are now concluding our coverage of that fifth day of public hearings.
We're waiting for more information, of course, from the committee about the.
Date and the time of its next.
Meetings.
We're told they're likely to be in July.
And we will, of course, have live coverage here on PBS's On Air and Online.
You can follow developments surrounding this news and other news on our website.
That's at pbs.org.
Slash news hour.
And of course, on tonight's PBS.
NewsHour, I'm.
Omnivores.
Thank you for joining us.
We're now going to return you to your regularly scheduled PBS programing.
This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.
Thank you.