Order Re Privilege of 599 Documents Dated November 3, 2020-January 20, 2021
by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter
John C. Eastman, Plaintiff, vs. Bennie G. Thompson, Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol, and Chapman University
Case No. 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM
June 7, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN C. EASTMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE US CAPITOL, AND CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY,
Defendants.
Case No. 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM
ORDER RE PRIVILEGE OF 599 DOCUMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2020 - JANUARY 20, 2021
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND
II. LEGAL STANDARD
III. DISCUSSION
A. Work Product
1. Anticipation of litigation
2. Preparation by or for a client’s representative
3. Waiver of protection
4. Substantial or compelling need exception
B. Attorney-Client Privilege
1. Clients seeking legal advice from attorneys
2. Confidentiality
C. Crime-fraud exception
1. Timeframe
2. Emails related to and in furtherance of the crimes
D. First Amendment
IV. DISPOSITION
Plaintiff Dr. John Eastman (“Dr. Eastman”), a former law school dean at Chapman University (“Chapman”), is a “political conservative who supported former President [Donald] Trump” and a self-described “activist law professor.”1 While he was a professor at Chapman, Dr. Eastman worked with President Trump and his campaign on legal and political strategy regarding the November 3, 2020 election.
This case concerns the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol’s (“Select Committee”) attempt to obtain Dr. Eastman’s emails from his Chapman email account between November 3, 2020 and January 20, 2021. The parties disagree on whether those documents are privileged, and thus protected from disclosure.
BACKGROUND
In its prior Order, the Court extensively detailed the events of January 6, 2021, and Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s actions leading up to and on that day.2 Accordingly, the Court discusses only the case’s procedural history here.
Dr. Eastman filed his Complaint in this Court on January 20, 2022. On January 31, the Court ordered Dr. Eastman to begin his production with documents dated January 4-7, 2021.3 On March 28, 2022, after briefing and a hearing, the Court ordered Dr. Eastman to disclose 101 of those 111 documents to the Select Committee.4 Dr. Eastman produced the 101 documents in the first week of April 2022.5
Dr. Eastman completed his privilege review of the remaining documents on April 19, and the parties then cooperated to reduce their privilege claims and objections. On May 2, Dr. Eastman produced to the Select Committee 933 documents and a consolidated privilege log identifying 2,018 documents over which he claims privilege.6 The Select Committee withdrew its objections to 721 documents and reserved the right to raise objections to 576 documents at a later date. After receiving the final list of disputed documents, the Court immediately began reviewing the documents while the parties submitted briefing on their claims.
On May 19, 2022, Dr. Eastman filed his Brief supporting his privilege assertions over the remaining 599 documents.7 The Select Committee filed its Opposition (“Opp’n”) on March 2, 2022.8 Dr. Eastman filed his Reply on May 31, 2022.9
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal common law governs the attorney-client privilege when courts adjudicate issues of federal law.10 “As with all evidentiary privileges, the burden of proving that the attorney-client privilege applies rests not with the party contesting the privilege, but with the party asserting it.”11 The “party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing the relationship and the privileged nature of the communication.”12 The party must assert the privilege “as to each record sought to allow the court to rule with specificity.”13 “Because it impedes full and free discovery of the truth, the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed.”14 The same burden applies to the party asserting work product protection.15
DISCUSSION
The Court will first consider work product protection, then attorney-client privilege, and finally the First Amendment. For documents where Dr. Eastman claims both work product and attorney client privilege, the Court will only address attorney-client privilege if it finds that work product protection does not apply. The Court draws substantially on its reasoning in its prior Order, which addressed many of the same legal and factual issues.
A. Work Product
Dr. Eastman claims 555 documents are protected work product, and he also claims attorney-client privilege over 152 of those 555 documents. For documents where Dr. Eastman asserts both privileges, the Court will first decide whether work product protection applies. If a document is not protected work product, the Court will then determine whether attorney-client privilege prevents disclosure.
Documents are protected work product if they are (1) “‘prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial,’” and (2) “prepared ‘by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative.’”16 The Court considers each requirement in turn.
1. Anticipation of litigation
Documents qualify for work product protection if they were “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.”17 However, some litigation documents are also prepared for a second, non-litigation purpose. Those documents are protected when they were “created because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been created in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation.”18
The Court groups its analysis of the 555 documents into six categories: ongoing suits, the Electoral Count Act plan, state elections, documents for Congress, connecting third parties, and news articles.
Draft filings related to ongoing suits
360 of the 555 documents relate to ongoing litigation in state or federal court. Eleven of those documents seek or send legal research for case filings,19 and another fifty-seven documents make recommendations or edits to court filings or forward draft filings.20 292 documents discuss litigation strategy for ongoing cases.21 All of these 360 documents were clearly prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Electoral Count Act plan
Eleven of the 555 documents relate to Dr. Eastman’s proposal for Vice President Pence to reject or delay counting electoral votes on January 6, 2021.22 As discussed in the Court’s prior Order, the plan was intended “to proceed without judicial involvement” and thus emails pertaining to the plan were not made in anticipation of litigation.23
Five of those eleven emails discuss actions to support the plan to disrupt the Joint Session.24 One forwards a now-public November memo about the plan,25 and one discusses actions that Vice President Pence could take on January 6.26 Three documents discuss actions for alternate state electors to take in the days leading up to January 6.27 Because these documents only relate to the political plan for January 6, they were not made in anticipation of litigation and thus are not protected.
Three of the eleven documents discuss suits brought by third parties about the legality of the Electoral Count Act.28 These emails do not discuss how this litigation might affect the participants’ existing lawsuits; they only consider how these suits could disrupt their plan for January 6. As the Court previously described, “[t]he true animating force behind these emails was advancing a political strategy: to persuade Vice President Pence to take unilateral action on January 6.”29 Because these documents were not created in anticipation of litigation, they are not protected.
In contrast, three of the eleven documents place the January 6 plan in the context of litigation strategy.30 Two of those documents are separate email chains discussing strategy for a filing in an election-related case and its potential effects on the January 6 plan.31 Similarly, one document is an email chain discussing the viability of election-related lawsuits after January 6.32 While these emails relate to the January 6 plan, the team’s ongoing and future litigation “animate[d] every document,”33 such that they were created in anticipation of litigation.
Accordingly, the Court finds that eight of these eleven documents were not made in anticipation of litigation and thus ORDERS them to be disclosed to the Select Committee.
State election-related documents
Dr. Eastman claims work product protection over 170 documents relating to alleged fraud in state elections.
Fifty-four of those emails are Dr. Eastman advising state legislators or circulating his theories on their authority.34 Thirty-seven of those coordinate meetings with state legislators or other third parties to discuss alleged election fraud and certifying electors.35 Another fifteen documents send or discuss information for state legislators about their legislative authority.36 Two documents include Dr. Eastman’s request for updates on state legislative subpoenas.37 All fifty-four documents do not relate to or mention anticipated litigation and are thus not protected.
Four of the 170 documents relate to President Trump’s views on state elections.38 One is a communication from President Trump about a state campaign rally.39 Three documents discuss President Trump’s potential press releases on state electors.40 These documents do not reference litigation and Dr. Eastman fails to provide context as to how they could pertain to litigation. Accordingly, these four documents are not protected.
Forty-two of the 170 documents are reports or analyses of alleged state election irregularities.41 Review of the emails shows that these documents served several purposes: they were distributed to state and federal legislators, discussed in public hearings, and also used to support election-related litigation. The reports are largely statistical analyses; they make no reference to litigation and have no indication of being tailored for potential suits. Because these forty-two documents would “have been created in substantially similar form” without the prospect of litigation, they are not protected work product.42
Seventy of the 170 documents are emails discussing the election data reports discussed above.43 Forty-six of these are emails between various attorneys discussing statistical data in the context of state election litigation.44 These emails would not have been made in the same form if not for litigation and are thus protected. Eighteen other emails are predominantly Dr. Eastman and statisticians discussing election analyses that they used for both litigation and political purposes.45 Like the contents of the reports themselves, these discussions would have had the same form without the prospect of litigation and thus are not protected. Dr. Eastman admits that an additional six emails discussing election reports46 were created for “adjudicatory proceedings in Congress and/or the state legislatures,” not litigation.47 Although he argues that adjudication of electors is analogous to litigation, his only support for this novel claim is a district court case that did not address the issue.48 Accordingly, these twenty-four documents are not protected.
Of these 170 state election-related documents, 124 were not made in anticipation of litigation and thus are not protected work product. Because Dr. Eastman also claims attorney-client privilege over thirty-seven of those 124 documents,49 the Court discusses those attorney-client claims below. The remaining eighty-seven documents50 were not created in anticipation of litigation and have no attorney-client privilege claim, so the Court ORDERS them to be disclosed.
Documents for Congress
Three documents are email chains gathering information for members of Congress.51 Two of those documents do not mention litigation and solely collect materials for Congress.52 The third email chain discusses litigation plans, but also includes a paragraph recommending talking points for members of Congress on their alleged authority to delay the electoral count.53 This paragraph is not in anticipation of litigation and must be disclosed, with the remainder of the document redacted.
Dr. Eastman also claims attorney-client privilege over one of the three documents discussed in this section,54 so the Court discusses that document below. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the other two documents55 must be disclosed.
Connecting third parties
Four documents connect third parties to Dr. Eastman.56 Two of those connect Dr. Eastman to state legislators and their attorneys.57 The other two emails are people reaching out to Dr. Eastman to offer suggestions or praise.58 As was the case for similar documents discussed in the prior Order, none of these documents relate to or implicate litigation. Accordingly, these four documents are not protected and the Court ORDERS them to be disclosed.
News articles
Seven documents share news articles or Twitter posts.59 These public articles and posts were not created for litigation, and the minimal commentary contained in the emails is unrelated to litigation. As such, these seven documents are not protected work product.
Dr. Eastman also claims attorney-client privilege over two of the seven documents,60 so the Court discusses those below. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the other five documents61 to be disclosed.
2. Preparation by or for a client’s representative
The Court now examines whether the 409 documents that were created in anticipation of litigation were created by or for a party or “party’s representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, . . . or agent),” which is the second requirement for work product protection.62 Accordingly, documents are protected if they were prepared by or for President Trump or another client, or by or for Dr. Eastman or another representative of those clients.63
404 of these 409 documents relate to representing President Trump or his campaign. All 404 documents were prepared and/or sent by or for members of the White House and campaign staff, attorneys of record in court cases (including Dr. Eastman), and those attorneys’ staff. Because these documents were created by or for agents of President Trump or his campaign, they are protected work product.
The other five documents relate to Dr. Eastman advising Georgia legislators on potential lawsuits.64 All of those emails were prepared by the clients’ agents, Dr. Eastman or the legislators’ other counsel, so they are protected work product.
3. Waiver of protection
The Court now considers whether Dr. Eastman waived his privilege over any of the 409 documents that the Court concluded above were protected work product. Unlike attorney-client privilege, which is waived if not kept completely confidential, work product protection is only waived when attorneys disclose their work to “an adversary or a conduit to an adversary in litigation.”65
As the Court previously ruled, Dr. Eastman’s use of his Chapman University email address did not destroy Dr. Eastman’s privilege over his communications.66
Dr. Eastman did not disclose any of the 409 documents to a conduit to an adversary in litigation. The documents were all exchanged between members of President Trump and his campaign’s litigation teams; President Trump’s staff; and likeminded experts, consultants, and volunteers. Moreover, many of the documents were labeled confidential or “attorney work product,” reinforcing Dr. Eastman’s assertion that his team did not intend for these documents to be disclosed to adversaries.
4. Substantial or compelling need exception
As was the case in the Court’s prior decision, all of the 409 protected documents are ‘opinion’ work product because they include attorneys’ thoughts and legal theories. Opinion work product “is virtually undiscoverable.”67 A court may compel disclosure of opinion work product only in the rare situation “when mental impressions are the pivotal issue in the current litigation and the need for the material is compelling.”68
As the Court previously found, review of the 409 protected documents shows that none are “pivotal” to the Select Committee’s investigation. The majority of the documents include opinions and discussions about trial strategy in ongoing or anticipated lawsuits. As discussed above, this litigation was a “legitimate form of recourse, and is not tied to the investigation’s core purpose, which is to ‘investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol.’”69 Accordingly, none of these 409 non-“pivotal” litigation-related documents shall be disclosed based on compelling need.
* * *
Having evaluated each element of work product protection, the Court finds that 409 documents are protected work product and 146 documents are not protected work product. Dr. Eastman also claims attorney client privilege over 40 of the 146 documents that are not protected work product,70 so the Court will determine disclosure for these 40 documents under attorney-client privilege below. Thus, the Court ORDERS the other 106 documents to be disclosed.71
B. Attorney-Client Privilege
The Court now moves from work product protection to Dr. Eastman’s claims of attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients for the purpose of legal advice.72 However, “advice on political, strategic, or policy issues” is not protected.73 The privilege extends to communications with agents of the clients and third parties assisting the attorney.74
Dr. Eastman claims attorney-client privilege over 166 documents. Because the Court found above that 112 of those documents were protected work product, the Court here considers the remaining fifty-four documents.75
1. Clients seeking legal advice from attorneys
Below, the Court considers whether an attorney-client relationship existed and whether the client was seeking legal advice when communicating with their attorney.
President Trump as client
The Court previously found that Dr. Eastman had an attorney-client relationship with President Trump between January 4-7, 2021.76 Dr. Eastman was counsel of record on several cases representing President Trump and his campaign in post-election litigation beginning in November 2020.77 In that capacity he communicated with members of the campaign and White House staff, and their emails confirm that they viewed him as President Trump’s attorney. An attorney-client relationship between Dr. Eastman and President Trump thus existed throughout the subpoena’s time period.
For five of the fifty-four documents, Dr. Eastman claims attorney-client privilege involving his representation of President Trump.78 Three of the five documents are news articles or photos from President Trump sent by his Executive Assistant to Dr. Eastman.79 Dr. Eastman does not explain how these seek legal advice. Although Dr. Eastman’s privilege log claims that the photo is President Trump’s “handwritten note re issues for anticipated litigation,” the note simply celebrates the size of President Trump’s campaign rallies.80 The other two documents discuss how to frame President Trump’s potential press statement on certifying alternate electors in swing states.81 These documents do not discuss any legal questions about the statement, but rather focus on framing. Because these five documents were not created for legal advice, they are not protected and the Court ORDERS them to be disclosed.
Legislators as potential clients
Forty of the fifty-four documents involve state legislators as potential clients.82 The attorney-client privilege extends to potential clients who seek legal advice from an attorney.83 Dr. Eastman submits his sworn declaration attesting that these legislators were potential clients,84 and the contents of the emails support his assertion.
Fifteen of the forty documents are email communications between Dr. Eastman, two Pennsylvania state legislators, and an agent of those legislators.85 The first email is the legislators’ agent asking Dr. Eastman for legal advice, which Dr. Eastman describes as “regarding the constitutional authority of state legislatures to deal with election illegality and fraud.”86 Two documents are an email chain containing this inquiry and Dr. Eastman’s initial response, which are protected; the remainder of the chain is not for legal advice, so Dr. Eastman must disclose redacted versions of the two documents.87 Two more documents are Dr. Eastman’s attachments to his response, which are protected attorney-client communications.88 The eleven documents constituting the remainder of the chain schedule Zoom meetings or discuss state politics.89 Those emails were not for the purpose of legal advice and so must be disclosed.
Nine of the forty documents involve Georgia legislators.90 Six documents include Georgia state legislators making explicit legal inquiries to Dr. Eastman and are therefore for the purpose of legal advice.91 One additional document merely seeks a Zoom link and is thus not protected.92 Two documents share a draft petition by Georgia state legislators but do not seek legal advice and are therefore not protected.93
Nine of the forty documents involve Arizona state legislators.94 Four of those include a state legislator asking for Dr. Eastman’s advice on a draft resolution and are therefore for the purpose of legal advice.95 One document includes an email asking about the intersection of state and federal election law and thus seeks legal advice; the rest of the document is not for legal advice, so Dr. Eastman must disclose the unprotected portions.96 Four documents coordinate scheduling calls and are therefore not for the purpose of legal advice,97 so they must be disclosed.
Five of the forty documents circulate a Zoom invitation and discuss strategy pertaining to election investigations and strategy in several states.98 One of the documents is protected because it contains two emails seeking legal advice from Dr. Eastman about legislative authority.99 Four of the documents do not seek legal advice,100 so they are not protected.
Two of the forty documents seek and provide information to encourage Members of Congress to object to certain electoral slates.101 While these emails refer to alleged violations of state law, the purpose of the exchange is to encourage Members to object, not to seek legal advice. Accordingly, these two documents are not protected.
The Court finds that twenty-seven of these forty state legislator-related documents are not protected and ORDERS them to be disclosed.
Dr. Eastman as client
For three of the fifty-four documents, Dr. Eastman is the potential client.102 In these emails, Dr. Eastman discusses with another attorney whether to bring a suit for “breach of contract and violation of constitutional rights.”103 Dr. Eastman’s sworn declaration confirms the same.104 These documents explicitly seek legal advice and representation.
No client relationship
Six of the fifty-four documents include no client or involve third parties without supported client relationships.105
One of the six documents is a report on alleged state election irregularities,106 which does not contain or seek legal advice. Thus, this document is not protected.
Another two of the six documents are between Dr. Eastman and a third party asking for information on Michigan election law violations.107 Dr. Eastman provides no information about this third party to link him to any existing or potential client. Accordingly, Dr. Eastman has not met his burden to demonstrate that these two documents are protected.
Three of the six documents include an email planning a call for state legislators about decertifying electors and attaching two related memos.108 While these documents contain some brief legal references, no client appears to have sought this legal information. The majority of the documents do not offer legal advice but aim to persuade legislators to take political action. Accordingly, these three documents are not protected.
Since these six documents are not protected, the Court ORDERS them to be disclosed.
2. Confidentiality
The Court found above that nineteen full or partial documents were communications between an attorney and client for the purpose of seeking legal advice.109 In order for these communications to be privileged, they must also have been kept confidential.110 The presence of a third party does not necessarily destroy confidentiality if that third party is an agent of the client or attorney.111 But the third party’s “shared desire to see the same outcome in a legal matter is insufficient” to maintain confidentiality.112
Nine of the nineteen documents are solely between the client, the client’s agent, and confirmed counsel.113 Accordingly, these nine documents are protected.
Four of the nineteen documents are between Dr. Eastman and a third party who is in communication with an Arizona state senator.114 Dr. Eastman submits a sworn declaration that this third party is an agent of the state senator, and the contents of the emails confirm the agent relationship. Accordingly, these four documents are confidential and thus protected.
Two of the nineteen documents involve a potential representation of two Georgia state senators.115 Those emails are between the two potential clients, their counsel, Dr. Eastman, and a third party. The attorney for the legislators submitted a sworn declaration that the third party was an attorney working as his agent in this matter.116 Accordingly, those emails are confidential and therefore privileged.
Three of the nineteen emails involve a potential representation of a different Georgia state senator.117 While Dr. Eastman provided a sworn declaration that he offered pro bono legal advice to this senator, there are four other people on the emails whom Dr. Eastman identifies as “attorneys working with the Trump legal team.”118 However, the client in this case was not President Trump or his campaign. Without further evidence specifying the relationship between these Trump attorneys and this state legislator, the Court cannot find these communications to be confidential. Accordingly, these three emails are not privileged and must be disclosed.
Similarly, the final of the nineteen documents is an email between a third party and Dr. Eastman relating to a potential representation of a state legislator.119 Dr. Eastman’s declaration, briefing, and privilege log all fail to provide any support for this third party’s relationship to the potential client. Because the email is not confidential, it is not privileged and must be disclosed.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the four of the nineteen documents that are not confidential.120
* * *
Having evaluated each element of attorney-client privilege, the Court finds that 12 documents are privileged and 42 documents are not privileged. Thus, the Court ORDERS the 42 documents to be disclosed.121
C. Crime-fraud exception
Based on the Court’s previous analysis, the Court has required disclosure of 148 unprotected communications. 421 documents are protected either by work product or attorney-client privilege, so the Court now considers whether those documents should be disclosed under the crime-fraud exception.
The crime-fraud exception applies when (1) a “client consults an attorney for advice that will serve [them] in the commission of a fraud or crime,”122 and (2) the communications are “sufficiently related to” and were made “in furtherance of” the crime.123 It is irrelevant whether the scheme was ultimately successful.124 An attorney’s wrongdoing alone may pierce the privilege, regardless of the client’s awareness or innocence.125 The exception extinguishes both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.126
The majority of the remaining protected documents are clearly legitimate legal or litigation communications. However, five documents reference the plan to delay or stop the electoral count on January 6, 2021, and therefore present a close call as to whether they fall within the crime-fraud exception.127
1. Timeframe
The Court previously held that from January 4-7, 2021, President Trump and Dr. Eastman likely committed obstruction of an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, when they attempted to disrupt the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.128 Because the remaining protected documents pre-date that time period, the Court now determines whether those attempted crimes began earlier.
The previously disclosed documents indicate that Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan to disrupt the Joint Session was fully formed and actionable as early as December 7, 2020. On that day, Dr. Eastman forwarded a memo explaining why January 6 was the “Hard Deadline” that was “critical to the result of this election” for the Trump Campaign.129 A week later, on December 13, President Trump’s personal attorney received a more robust analysis of January 6’s significance, which was potentially “the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action.”130
The current set of documents also confirm that the plan was established well before January 6, 2021. In an email on December 22, 2020, an attorney with the Trump legal team referred to the “the January 6 strategy” as a known plan to eight other people.131 Two days later, Dr. Eastman explained that the worst case for the plan was receiving a court decision that constrained Vice President Pence’s authority to reject electors.132 Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan to stop the count was not only established by early December, it was the ultimate goal that the legal team was working to protect from that point forward.
2. Emails related to and in furtherance of the crimes
Four of these five documents consider how filing certain election lawsuits might affect the January 6 plan.133 In these emails, Dr. Eastman and his colleagues discuss how to frame their legal filings in light of what they considered a near-zero chance of success in the D.C. courts.134 Attorneys reference January 6 not as the day to enact the plan, but as a deadline to bring timely and effective lawsuits. As the Court noted in its prior Order, “pursuing legal recourse itself did not advance any crimes.”135 Accordingly, these four emails did not further the January 6 plan and therefore are not subject to the crime-fraud exception.
In the fifth email, dated December 22, 2020, an attorney goes beyond strategizing litigation outcomes. This email considers whether to bring a case that would decide the interpretation of the Electoral Count Act and potentially risk a court finding that the Act binds Vice President Pence.136 Because the attorney concluded that a negative court ruling would “tank the January 6 strategy,” he encouraged the legal team to avoid the courts.137 This email cemented the direction of the January 6 plan. The Trump legal team chose not to seek recourse in court—instead, they forged ahead with a political campaign to disrupt the electoral count. Lawyers are free not to bring cases; they are not free to evade judicial review to overturn a democratic election. Accordingly, this portion of the email138 is subject to the crime-fraud exception and must be disclosed.
D. First Amendment
Dr. Eastman claims that the First Amendment protects thirty documents involving a group of “civic minded citizens of a conservative viewpoint who meet semi-regularly to socialize and discuss issues of public concern.”139 Dr. Eastman contends that disclosure would deter people from participating in potentially controversial groups.
Disclosing information related to political associations can “have a profound chilling effect on the exercise of political rights.”140 The Supreme Court has therefore held that disclosure is only appropriate when there is “a sufficiently important governmental interest.”141 Courts must then balance the government’s interest and the group members’ privacy interests.142 Ultimately, disclosure requirements must be “narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”143
The thirty documents at issue here are emails that include invitations for Dr. Eastman to speak about election litigation, meeting agendas, or Zoom information.144 Dr. Eastman argues that the Select Committee does not have a strong interest in these documents because they “consist[] mostly of scheduling, agenda setting, and communicating login information.”145 The Court’s in camera review shows that twenty of the thirty documents match Dr. Eastman’s description: they are entirely logistical or plan updates on state post-election litigation, which the Court has already found to be a legitimate form of recourse.146 The potential chilling effect on the participants outweighs the Select Committee’s interest because the documents are at most minimally relevant to its investigation. Accordingly, those twenty documents are protected from disclosure.
However, the Court’s review reveals that the other ten of the thirty documents are more closely tied to the Select Committee’s investigation and present a closer question.147 All of these documents relate to three meetings in the first two weeks of December 2020, which all included presentations on topics related to the election and the group’s broader interests.
Four documents pertain to a meeting on December 8, 2020: two emails are the group’s high-profile leader inviting Dr. Eastman to speak at the meeting, and two contain the meeting’s agenda.148 Based on the agenda, Dr. Eastman discussed “State legislative actions that can reverse the media-called election for Joe Biden.”149 Another speaker gave an “update on [state] legislature actions regarding electoral votes.”150
Five documents include the agenda for a meeting on December 9, 2020.151 The agenda included a section entitled “GROUND GAME following Nov 4 Election Results,” during which a sitting Member of Congress discussed a “[p]lan to challenge the electors in the House of Representatives.”152
One document contains the agenda for a meeting on December 16, 2020.153 This meeting similarly had a section on the “GROUND GAME following Nov 4 Election Results.” In this segment, an elector for President Trump analyzed “The Constitutional implications of the Electoral College Meeting and What Comes Next.”154
The Select Committee has a substantial interest in these three meetings because the presentations furthered a critical objective of the January 6 plan: to have contested states certify alternate slates of electors for President Trump.155 The week before these meetings, Dr. Eastman sent memos to high-level White House staff explaining that the January 6 plan required legislators “to determine the manner of choosing electors, even to the point of adopting a slate of electors themselves.”156 In the same two week period, Dr. Eastman reached out to sympathetic state legislators in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, urging them to decertify Biden electors and certify alternate Trump electors. Just three days after the third meeting, Dr. Eastman admitted that his January 6 plan hinged on “electors get[ting] a certification from their State Legislators”—without it, the dueling slates would be “dead on arrival in Congress.”157 Dr. Eastman’s actions in these few weeks indicate that his and President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence— it targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. Convincing state legislatures to certify competing electors was essential to stop the count and ensure President Trump’s reelection.
Dr. Eastman argues that the Select Committee’s interests are weak, but his claims are unconvincing with respect to these ten documents. He contends that the documents do not further the Committee’s investigation as they “predate January 6 and do not discuss demonstrations at the Capitol on that or any other day.”158 But Dr. Eastman incorrectly limits the Select Committee’s mandate, which extends to the “facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack . . . [and] the interference with the peaceful transfer of power.”159
The Court now considers whether the Select Committee’s interests outweigh the associational interests of the participants. Several courts have suggested that the First Amendment bars disclosure when it results in “extensive interference with political groups’ internal operations and with their effectiveness.”160 For example, the Supreme Court found that NAACP members facing “economic reprisal, loss of employment, [and] threat of physical coercion” outweighed the government’s need for disclosure of membership lists.161 On the other hand, another district court recently found that the Select Committee’s interest outweighed “the subpoena’s interference with the [Republican National Committee’s] ability to pursue political goals such as winning elections and advocating for its policies.”162
Here, Dr. Eastman argues that the risks of disclosure outweigh the Select Committee’s interest. Dr. Eastman warns that group members risk being “subject to congressional subpoena,” “forced to suffer unwanted public exposure,” and “chill[ed]” from engaging in further discussion with other members.163 Dr. Eastman contends that his concerns are compounded when “a politically misaligned congressional committee” 164 has engaged in leaks and publication of private documents.
While Dr. Eastman has legitimate concerns, they are not as weighty as either the RNC’s fears or those of NAACP members. First, the risk of third parties receiving future subpoenas cannot be sufficient to justify noncompliance with an existing subpoena. Second, disclosing the documents would not reveal a full membership list of the group; the emails blind copied all recipients, so their information is not accessible. Eight of the ten documents are meeting agendas, so group members’ names only appear if they were scheduled to speak. To mitigate any chilling effect, the Court can order redaction of the names of presenters on topics unrelated to the January 6 plan. Third, although the Court “must presume that the committees of Congress will exercise their powers responsibly and with due regard for the rights of affected parties,”165 there have been leaks and public disclosures from the Select Committee in this case already.166 But as the RNC court found, the balancing still tips in the Select Committee’s favor, even when the Court considers the likelihood of disclosure to the public.167
Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that disclosure of these ten key documents is “narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”168 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose those ten documents.169 Dr. Eastman should redact the names of all participants listed as speakers besides those mentioned by the Court.170
DISPOSITION
For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that 440 documents are privileged. The Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the other 159 documents to the House Select Committee by 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, June 8, 2022.171
DATED: June 7, 2022
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
_______________
Notes:
1 Complaint (Dkt. 1) ¶¶ 5–6.
2 Order Re: Privilege of Documents Dated January 4-7, 2021 (“Order”) (Dkt. 260) at 3-12.
3 Dkt. 63.
4 Order at 44.
5 Dkt. 286.
6 Dkt. 336.
7 Dkt. 345. Dr. Eastman withdrew his claims of privilege over two documents in his Brief. Brief at 21.
8 Dkt. 350.
9 Dkt. 353.
10 United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 608 (9th Cir. 2009).
11 Weil v. Inv./Indicators, Rsch. & Mgmt., Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 25 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted).
12 Ruehle, 583 F.3d at 607 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
13 Clarke v. Am. Com. Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992).
14 United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 See Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir. 2010).
16 In re Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 892 F.2d 778, 780–81 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)).
17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
18 In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/Torf Envtl. Mgmt.) (“Torf”), 357 F.3d 900, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added).
19 7101; 18110; 23285; 23674; 23839; 31640; 55569; 60106; 60155; 60163; 60210.
20 21814; 22912; 23160; 23289; 23325; 23326; 23333; 23343; 23344; 23549; 23450; 24234; 24332; 24618; 24653; 25028; 25553; 26452; 28426; 28487; 28783; 29734; 30048; 46154; 47436; 48373; 49527; 49528; 51017; 52452; 53065; 57872; 59418; 59613; 60478; 60487; 60498; 60526; 60528; 60648; 60758; 60798; 60803; 60832; 60862; 60891; 60897; 61078; 61186; 61231; 61356; 61357; 61371; 61531; 62749; 62761; 62778.
21 3268; 3269; 3270; 3271; 7100; 7106; 7177; 7254; 7320; 7402; 7403; 7414; 7416; 7419; 15960; 15965; 15966; 15968; 15980; 15982; 16022; 16194; 16285; 16334; 16350; 17197; 17257; 18270; 19889; 20826; 21094; 21760; 21854; 23042; 23047; 23048; 23049; 23052; 23056; 23060; 23061; 23101; 23107; 23110; 23113; 23156; 23233; 23240; 23242; 23244; 23248; 23324; 23349; 23383; 23408; 23421; 23426; 23431; 23434; 23554; 23555; 23556; 23673; 23740; 23774; 23777; 23819; 23826; 23833; 23845; 23852; 23858; 23862; 23866; 23870; 23875; 23880; 23885; 23894; 23898; 23899; 23906; 23910; 23918; 24133; 24212; 24218; 24310; 24697; 24698; 24703; 24714; 24725; 24727; 24732; 24739; 24746; 24752; 24776; 24777; 24797; 24800; 24803; 24866; 24895; 24899; 24931; 24947; 25031; 25033; 25108; 25111; 25220; 25900; 25908; 26385; 26757; 26789; 26836; 26869; 26874; 26884; 26885; 28064; 28074; 28075; 28078; 28148; 28154; 28168; 28399; 28530; 28853; 28952; 29007; 29233; 29273; 29322; 29352; 29397; 29417; 29420; 29444; 29457; 29560; 29783; 29791; 30012; 30013; 30015; 30039; 30040; 30052; 30111; 30175; 30176; 30666; 31213; 32015; 32021; 32079; 32106; 33360; 38210; 43503; 45886; 46183; 46474; 47297; 47433; 48793; 49452; 49668; 50327; 51290; 51291; 51303; 51311; 51316; 51759; 53537; 53565; 53826; 55012; 55029; 55039; 55050; 55127; 55141; 55152; 55271; 55453; 55457; 55486; 55518; 55522; 56070; 56115; 57889; 57908; 57961; 58684; 59210; 59222; 59253; 59448; 59452; 59485; 59498; 59500; 59504; 59506; 59510; 59651; 59685; 59691; 59729; 59799; 59802; 59813; 59825; 59834; 59844; 59855; 59867; 59874; 59895; 59902; 59924; 59931; 59946; 59962; 59970; 59978; 59987; 60033; 60070; 60097; 60113; 60114; 60117; 60118; 60120; 60123; 60126; 60131; 60142; 60145; 60149; 60153; 60183; 60185; 60188; 60193; 60201; 60230; 60353; 60362; 60453; 60456; 60465; 60475; 60578; 60587; 60748; 60812; 60889; 61035; 61068; 61134; 61176; 61259; 61296; 61309; 61359; 61373; 61397; 61424; 61437; 61449; 61452; 61517; 61543; 61555; 61560; 61561; 61562; 61563; 61565; 61580; 61763; 64995.
22 23998; 24716; 24905; 24906; 51059; 55112; 56980; 57425; 57790; 59916; 60565.
23 Order at 23.
24 23998; 24716; 24905; 24906; 51059.
25 23998.
26 51059.
27 24716; 24905; 24906.
28 56980; 57425; 57790.
29 Order at 24.
30 55112; 59916; 60565.
31 59916; 60565.
32 55112.
33 Torf, 357 F.3d at 908.
34 16181; 16301; 16349; 16379; 16381; 16458; 20142; 21105; 21106; 21111; 21112; 21113; 21116; 21117; 21122; 21124; 21126; 23582; 23584; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24802; 24893; 24897; 25035; 26075; 31598; 32071; 32072; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 61697; 61724; 61764; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
35 16181; 16301; 16349; 16379; 16381; 16458; 20142; 21105; 21106; 21111; 21112; 21113; 21116; 21117; 21122; 21124; 21126; 23582; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24802; 24893; 24897; 25035; 31598; 32071; 32072; 62706; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
36 23584; 23631; 26075; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 61697; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674; 62675; 62698.
37 61724; 61764.
38 25905; 30038; 30118; 30119.
39 25905.
40 30038; 30118; 30119.
41 18814; 18822; 18956; 23291; 23591; 23905; 28479; 62958; 63054; 63058; 63081; 63084; 63091; 63095; 63103; 63114; 63119; 63125; 63131; 63139; 63146; 63154; 63194; 63407; 63416; 63425; 63438; 63448; 63449; 63450; 63451; 63479; 63503; 63512; 63515; 63518; 63519; 63520; 63717; 63920; 63974; 63977.
42 Torf, 357 F.3d at 908.
43 7650; 7652; 7799; 8739; 8742; 11779; 15393; 15584; 15636; 15944; 16182; 16184; 16354; 16561; 16892; 16893; 16894; 16895; 16901; 17124; 17247; 17416; 18406; 18550; 18552; 18554; 18684; 18793; 18796; 18797; 18813; 18821; 18858; 18863; 18865; 18875; 18887; 18901; 18902; 18919; 18920; 19169; 19686; 19888; 20163; 22679; 23290; 23292; 23306; 23308; 23310; 28104; 30669; 31602; 31628; 31634; 31635; 61695; 61701; 62940; 62944; 62948; 62951; 62955; 62984; 62987; 62996; 63000; 63919; 63973.
44 7650; 7652; 7799; 8739; 8742; 11779; 15393; 15584; 15636; 15944; 16182; 16184; 16354; 16561; 16892; 16893; 16894; 16895; 16901; 17124; 17247; 17416; 18406; 18550; 18552; 18554; 18684; 18793; 18796; 18797; 18858; 18863; 18865; 18875; 18887; 18901; 18902; 18919; 19169; 23290; 23292; 23306; 23308; 23310; 28104; 30669.
45 18813; 18821; 18920; 19686; 19888; 20163; 22679; 62940; 62944; 62948; 62951; 62955; 62984; 62987; 62996; 63000; 63919; 63973.
46 31602; 31628; 31634; 31635; 61695; 61701.
47 Brief at 26-27.
48 Id. at 25.
49 23291; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24893; 24897; 25035; 25905; 30038; 30118; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 61695; 61697; 61701; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
50 16181; 16301; 16349; 16379; 16381; 16458; 18813; 18814; 18821; 18822; 18920; 18956; 19686; 19888; 20142; 20163; 21105; 21106; 21111; 21112; 21113; 21116; 21117; 21122; 21124; 21126; 22679; 23905; 24802; 26075; 28479; 30119; 31598; 31602; 31628; 31634; 31635; 32071; 32072; 61724; 61764; 62940; 62944; 62948; 62951; 62955; 62958; 62984; 62987; 62996; 63000; 63054; 63058; 63081; 63084; 63091; 63095; 63103; 63114; 63119; 63125; 63131; 63139; 63146; 63154; 63194; 63407; 63416; 63425; 63438; 63448; 63449; 63450; 63451; 63479; 63503; 63512; 63515; 63518; 63519; 63520; 63717; 63919; 63920; 63973; 63974; 63977.
51 52958; 61666; 62657.
52 52958; 62657.
53 List item 4 in 61666.
54 52958.
55 61666; 62657.
56 23893; 31209; 61862; 61868.
57 61862; 61868.
58 23893; 31209.
59 6854; 6855; 18592; 18593; 18897; 25167; 25170.
60 25167; 25170.
61 6854; 6855; 18592; 18593; 18897.
62 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); see United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975).
63 Below, the Court expands upon its reasoning in the prior Order and finds that Dr. Eastman and President Trump and his campaign had an established attorney-client relationship during entire the period of the subpoena. Thus, Dr. Eastman is a representative of President Trump and his campaign for purposes of the work product doctrine.
64 24727; 24797; 59448; 60185; 60188.
65 Sanmina, 968 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2020)ren; Nobles, 422 U.S. at 239.
66 Order at 17-20, 29-30.
67 Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 F.3d 860, 869 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2010)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B).
68 Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added); see also Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401–02 (1981) (noting that opinion work product is discoverable only upon “a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means”).
69 Order at 43 (quoting H.R. Res. 503 § 3).
70 23291; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24893; 24897; 25035; 25167; 25170; 25905; 30038; 30118; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 52958; 61695; 61697; 61701; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
71 6854; 6855; 16181; 16301; 16349; 16379; 16381; 16458; 18592; 18593; 18813; 18814; 18821; 18822; 18897; 18920; 18956; 19686; 19888; 20142; 20163; 21105; 21106; 21111; 21112; 21113; 21116; 21117; 21122; 21124; 21126; 22679; 23893; 23905; 23998; 24716; 24802; 24905; 24906; 26075; 28479; 30119; 31209; 31598; 31602; 31628; 31634; 31635; 32071; 32072; 51059; 56980; 57425; 57790; 61666; 61724; 61764; 61862; 61868; 62657; 62940; 62944; 62948; 62951; 62955; 62958; 62984; 62987; 62996; 63000; 63054; 63058; 63081; 63084; 63091; 63095; 63103; 63114; 63119; 63125; 63131; 63139; 63146; 63154; 63194; 63407; 63416; 63425; 63438; 63448; 63449; 63450; 63451; 63479; 63503; 63512; 63515; 63518; 63519; 63520; 63717; 63919; 63920; 63973; 63974; 63977.
72 Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 389; see also United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010).
73 In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
74 See Sanmina, 968 F.3d at 1116 (internal citations omitted). In some instances, the Ninth Circuit has found communications between an attorney and their associates privileged. See United States v. Rowe, 96 F.3d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996).
75 23291; 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24893; 24897; 25035; 25167; 25170; 25905; 30038; 30118; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 52958; 53452; 61695; 61697; 61701; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62776; 62841; 62842; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863; 62865; 62868; 64305; 64331; 64715.
76 Order at 14-15.
77 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., v. Boockvar, No. 4:20-cv-02078 (M.D. Pa., filed Nov. 9, 2020); see also Declaration of John Eastman (“Eastman Decl.”) (Dkt. 346-2) ¶ 5.
78 25167; 25170; 25905; 30038; 30118.
79 25167; 25170; 25905.
80 Privilege log, 25905; 25905.
81 30038; 30118.
82 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24730; 24760; 24762; 24778; 24795; 24893; 24897; 25035; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 52958; 53452; 61767; 61768; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62776; 62841; 62842; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863; 62865; 62868.
83 United States v. Layton, 855 F.2d 1388, 1406 (9th Cir. 1988).
84 Eastman Decl. ¶¶ 15-20.
85 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23582; 23584; 23591; 23631; 23638; 24760; 24762; 24893; 24897; 25035.
86 Brief at 16.
87 23582 (the Court refers here to the email on page 23582, sent on December 5, 2020, at 5:50 pm MST); 25035 (the Court refers here to the email on page 25036, sent on December 5, 2020, at 9:17 am). Dr. Eastman should redact these four fully or partially protected documents wherever they appear in other documents.
88 23584; 23631.
89 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23591; 23638; 24760; 24762; 24893; 24897.
90 24730; 24778; 24795; 61767; 61768; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706.
91 24730; 24778; 24795; 62674; 62675; 62698.
92 62706. Dr. Eastman should redact the other protected emails in this thread.
93 61767; 61768.
94 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 62776; 62841; 62842; 62865; 62868.
95 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408.
96 62776. The Court refers here to the email sent on January 31, 2021 at 8:45 am MST. The other email in this document is not protected and must be disclosed.
97 62841; 62842; 62865; 62868.
98 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863.
99 62863. The Court refers here to the emails sent on January 3, 2021 at 4:03 pm MST and January 3, 2021 at 3:06 pm MST.
100 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861.
101 52958; 53452.
102 64305; 64331; 64715.
103 Brief at 17.
104 Eastman Decl. ¶ 21.
105 23291; 61904; 61905; 61695; 61697; 61701.
106 23291.
107 61904; 61905.
108 61695; 61697; 61701.
109 23582; 23584; 23631; 24730; 24778; 24795; 25035; 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62776; 62863; 64305; 64331; 64715.
110 In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Reiserer v. United States, 479 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (“there is no confidentiality where a third party . . . either receives or generates the documents”).
111 United States v. Landof, 591 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir. 1978); Richey, 632 F.3d at 566.
112 In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d at 1129.
113 23582; 23584; 23631; 24730; 25035; 62776; 64305; 64331; 64715.
114 51402; 51403; 51407; 51408.
115 24778; 24795.
116 Declaration of Robert D. Cheeley (Dkt. 346-1) ¶ 5.
117 62674; 62675; 62698.
118 Privilege log, 62674.
119 62863.
120 62674; 62675; 62698; 62863.
121 23291; 23532; 23539; 23542; 23551; 23552; 23582; 23591; 23638; 24760; 24762; 24893; 24897; 25035; 25167; 25170; 25905; 30038; 30118; 52958; 53452; 61695; 61697; 61701; 61767; 61768; 61904; 61905; 62674; 62675; 62698; 62706; 62776; 62841; 62842; 62844; 62858; 62859; 62861; 62863; 62865; 62868. As described above, Dr. Eastman should redact the privileged parts of documents 23582, 25035, and 62776.
122 In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
123 In re Grand Jury Proc. (Corp.), 87 F.3d 377, 381–83 (9th Cir. 1996).
124 Id. at 382.
125 See In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46, 49 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[T]here may be rare cases . . . in which the attorney’s fraudulent or criminal intent defeats a claim of privilege even if the client is innocent.”); In re Impounded Case (Law Firm), 879 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1989) (“We cannot agree” that “the crime-fraud exception does not apply to defeat the client’s privilege where the pertinent alleged criminality is solely that of the law firm”).
126 In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982) (“Every court of appeals that has addressed the crime-fraud exception’s application to work product has concluded that it does apply.”); In re John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 492 (2d Cir. 1982) (“where so-called work-product is in aid of a criminal scheme, fear of disclosure may serve a useful deterrent purpose and be the kind of rare occasion on which an attorney's mental processes are not immune.”). Indeed, “conduct by an attorney that is merely unethical, as opposed to illegal, may be enough to vitiate the work product doctrine.” United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 805 (9th Cir. 2015).
127 51291; 51759; 55112; 59916; 60565.
128 Order at 36, 45.
129 Opp’n Ex. B (Dkt. 350-3).
130 Opp’n Ex. A (Dkt. 350-2); Order at 41.
131 51291; see also 51759.
132 55112, 55114.
133 51759; 55112; 59916; 60565.
134 51759.
135 Order at 41.
136 51291.
137 The Court here refers to the first paragraph of the email. Dr. Eastman should redact the remainder of the email before disclosing it to the Select Committee.
138 The Court refers to the first paragraph of the email on 51291. Dr. Eastman should redact the remainder of this document.
139 Brief at 31.
140 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Gibson v. Fla. Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 557 (1963)).
141 Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373, 2383 (2021) (plurality opinion) (quoting Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 196 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
142 Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 126 (1959).
143 Bonta, 141 S. Ct. at 2383 (majority opinion). While the Select Committee proposes using only Barenblatt’s balancing test, Opp’n at 24, the Court finds that Barenblatt and Bonta articulate effectively the same test. See Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Pelosi, No. 22-cv-00659-TJK, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 1294509, at *20 (D.D.C. May 1, 2022) (finding minimal or no differences between the tests).
144 21115; 21119; 21120; 21242; 21243; 21245; 21253; 21429; 21430; 22779; 22780; 23038; 23956; 24948; 24950; 25165; 25438; 25558; 25877; 26072; 26091; 26790; 26791; 26793; 26903; 26910; 28376; 30032; 31471; 31537.
145 Brief at 32. 146 21115; 21119; 21120; 21242; 21243; 21245; 21253; 21429; 21430; 23956; 25165; 25438; 25877; 26790; 26793; 26903; 26910; 28376; 31471; 31537.
147 22779; 22780; 23038; 24948; 24950; 25558; 26072; 26091; 26791; 30032.
148 22779; 22780; 25558; 26091.
149 25558.
150 Id.
151 23038; 24948; 24950; 26072; 26791.
152 26791.
153 30032.
154 Id.
155 See Order at 4-5, 41.
156 Opp’n Ex. J (Dkt. 350-11) at 6.
157 Opp’n Ex. D (Dkt. 350-5).
158 Brief at 32.
159 H.R. Res. 503 § 3(2), 117th Cong. (2021).
160 AFL-CIO v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 333 F.3d 168, 177 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing several Supreme Court cases); see also Pelosi, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 1294509, at *19.
161 NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958).
162 RNC, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 1294509, at *23 (internal quotation marks omitted).
163 Brief at 32-33.
164 Id.
165 Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 589 F.2d 582, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
166 Brief at 33.
167 RNC, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 1294509, at *20.
168 Bonta, 141 S. Ct. at 2383.
169 22779; 22780; 23038; 24948; 24950; 25558; 26072; 26091; 26791; 30032.
170 The Court here refers to unmentioned participants listed on the agendas in 23038, 24948, 24950, 25558, 26072, 26091, 26791, and 30032.
171 It is Dr. Eastman’s responsibility to redact protected emails when they appear in otherwise-disclosed documents.
Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:46 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:45 am
06/09/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 - 8:00pm
Location: 390 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
The committee will present previously unseen material documenting January 6th, receive witness testimony, and provide the American people an initial summary of its findings about the coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transfer of power. The committee will also preview additional hearings.
https://january6th.house.gov/legislatio ... ee-hearing
**********************
06/09/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
**********************
**********************
WATCH LIVE: Jan. 6 Committee hearings - Day 1
Streamed live 5 hours ago
PBS NewsHour
Warning: This hearing includes footage of violence.
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold its first hearing June 9, offering a glimpse into what it has learned about what led to the insurrection that day and the role of the White House, law enforcement and other officials and agencies before, during and after the attack.
The PBS NewsHour's special coverage of the hearing will begin at 8 p.m. ET. Before the hearing begins, the PBS NewsHour's Nicole Ellis will take a look at what we've learned about the attack since that day, including conversations with Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University professor of history, on the fallout for democracy, and the NewsHour's Lisa Desjardins, who reported from inside the Capitol as it was attacked and will cover the committee's hearing.
Thursday's hearing is the first of several the committee, led by Reps. Bennie Thomas, D-Miss., and Liz Cheney R-Wyo., plans to hold this month to lay out key findings. The nine-member panel has interviewed dozens of witnesses, including those within the Secret Service and the White House along with members of law enforcement, Congress and former President Donald Trump's family. They've subpoenaed more than 100 people to testify in the months leading up to the hearings. A select few have also been indicted by the Department of Justice for being in contempt of Congress after refusing to participate.
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 - 8:00pm
Location: 390 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
The committee will present previously unseen material documenting January 6th, receive witness testimony, and provide the American people an initial summary of its findings about the coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transfer of power. The committee will also preview additional hearings.
https://january6th.house.gov/legislatio ... ee-hearing
**********************
06/09/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
**********************
**********************
WATCH LIVE: Jan. 6 Committee hearings - Day 1
Streamed live 5 hours ago
PBS NewsHour
Warning: This hearing includes footage of violence.
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold its first hearing June 9, offering a glimpse into what it has learned about what led to the insurrection that day and the role of the White House, law enforcement and other officials and agencies before, during and after the attack.
The PBS NewsHour's special coverage of the hearing will begin at 8 p.m. ET. Before the hearing begins, the PBS NewsHour's Nicole Ellis will take a look at what we've learned about the attack since that day, including conversations with Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University professor of history, on the fallout for democracy, and the NewsHour's Lisa Desjardins, who reported from inside the Capitol as it was attacked and will cover the committee's hearing.
Thursday's hearing is the first of several the committee, led by Reps. Bennie Thomas, D-Miss., and Liz Cheney R-Wyo., plans to hold this month to lay out key findings. The nine-member panel has interviewed dozens of witnesses, including those within the Secret Service and the White House along with members of law enforcement, Congress and former President Donald Trump's family. They've subpoenaed more than 100 people to testify in the months leading up to the hearings. A select few have also been indicted by the Department of Justice for being in contempt of Congress after refusing to participate.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jun 10, 2022 3:25 am
January 6 Select Committee Hearing
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 - 8:00pm
Location: 390 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Opening statement as prepared for delivery
by Chair Bennie Thompson
June 9, 2022
The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will be in order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the Committee in recess at any point.
Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the Chair announces the Committee’s approval to release the deposition materials presented during tonight’s hearing.
Thanks to everyone watching tonight for sharing part of your evening, to learn about the facts and causes of the events leading up to and including the violent attack on January 6th, 2021 … on our democracy, electoral system, and country.
I am Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the January 6th, 2021 Committee. I was born, raised and still live in Bolton, Mississippi, a town with a population of 521, which is midway between Jackson and Vicksburg, MS, and the Mississippi River.
I am from a part of the country where people justified the actions of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. I’m reminded of that dark history as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of the insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021.
Over the next few weeks, hopefully you will get to know the other Members, my colleagues up here, and me. We represent a diversity of communities from all over the United States… rural areas and cities… east coast, west coast, and the heartland.
All of us have one thing in common: we swore the same oath. The same oath that all Members of Congress take upon taking office and afterward every two years if they are reelected.
We swore an oath to defend the Constitution, against all enemies: foreign … and domestic.
The words of the current oath taken by all of us—that nearly every United States Government employee takes—have their roots in the Civil War.
Throughout our history, the United States has fought against foreign enemies to preserve our democracy, electoral system, and country. When the United States Capitol was stormed and burned in 1814, foreign enemies were responsible.
Afterward, in 1862, when American citizens had taken up arms against this country, Congress adopted a new oath to help make sure no person who had supported the rebellion could hold a position of public trust. Therefore, congresspersons and U.S. Federal Government employees were required for the first time to swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies— foreign… and domestic.
That oath was put to the test on January 6th, 2021.
The police officers who held the line that day honored their oaths. Many came out of that day bloodied and broken. They still bear those wounds, visible and invisible. They did their duty. They repelled the mob and ended the occupation of the Capitol. They defended the Constitution against domestic enemies—so that Congress could return, uphold our own oaths, and count your votes to ensure the transfer of power—just as we’ve done for hundreds of years.
But unlike in 1814, it was domestic enemies of the Constitution who stormed and occupied the Capitol… who sought to thwart the will of the people…to stop the transfer of power.
And they did so at the encouragement of the President of the United States.
The President of the United States. Trying to stop the transfer of power.
A precedent that had stood for 220 years, even as our democracy has faced its most difficult tests.
Thinking back again to the Civil War, in the summer of 1864, the President of the United States was staring down what he believed would be a doomed bid for reelection. He believed his opponent, General George McClellan, would wave the white flag when it came to preserving the Union. But even with that grim fate hanging in the balance, President Lincoln was ready to accept the will of the voters, come what may.
He made a quiet pledge.
He wrote down the words, “This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect….”
It will be my duty.
Lincoln sealed that memo and asked his cabinet secretaries to sign it, sight unseen. He asked them to make the same commitment he did. To accept defeat if indeed defeat was the will of the people. To uphold the rule of law. To do what every other President who came before him did… and what every President who followed him would do.
Until Donald Trump.
Donald Trump lost the Presidential election in 2020. the American people voted him out of office. It was not because of a rigged system. It was not because of voter fraud.
Don’t believe me? Hear what his former Attorney General had to say about it, and I’ll warn those watching that this contains strong language.
Bill Barr. On Election Day 2020, he was Attorney General of the United States. The top law enforcement official in the country, telling the President exactly what he thought about claims of a stolen election.
Donald Trump had his days in court to challenge the results. He was within his rights to seek those judgments. In the United States, law-abiding citizens have those tools for pursuing justice. He lost in the courts just as he did at the ballot box. And in this country, that’s the end of the line.
But for Donald Trump, that was only the beginning of what became a sprawling, multi-step conspiracy aimed at overturning the Presidential election… aimed at throwing out the votes of millions of Americans—your votes—your voice in our democracy—and replacing the will of the American people with his will to remain in power after his term ended.
Donald Trump was at the center of that conspiracy.
And ultimately, Donald Trump—the President of the United States—spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the Constitution to march down the Capitol and subvert American democracy.
Any legal jargon you hear about “seditious conspiracy” … “obstruction of an official proceeding” … “conspiracy to defraud the United States” boils down to this: January 6th was the culmination of an attempted coup. A brazen attempt, as one rioter put it shortly after January 6th, “to overthrow the Government.” The violence was no accident. It represented Trump’s last, most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power.
Now, you may hear those words and think, “This is just another political attack on Donald Trump by people who don’t like him.” That’s not the case. My colleagues and I all wanted an outside, independent commission to investigate January 6th, similar to what we had after 9/11. But after first agreeing to the idea, Donald Trump’s allies in Congress put a stop to it. Apparently, they don’t want January 6th investigated at all.
And, in the last 17 months, many of those same people have tried to whitewash what happened on January 6th. To rewrite history… call it a tourist visit… label it “legitimate political discourse.” Donald Trump and his followers have adopted the words of the song writer: “Do you believe me or your lying eyes?”
We can’t sweep what happened under the rug. The American people deserve answers. So I come before you this evening not as a Democrat, but as an American who swore an oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t protect just Democrats or just Republicans. It protects all of us… “We the People.” And this scheme was an attempt to undermine the will of the people.
So tonight, and over the next few weeks, we’re going to remind you of the reality of what happened that day. But our work must do much more than just look backwards. Because our democracy remains in danger. The conspiracy to thwart the will of the people is not over. There are those in this country who thirst for power but have no love or respect for what makes America great: devotion to the Constitution… allegiance to the rule of law… our shared journey to build a more perfect Union.
January 6th and the lies that led to insurrection have put two and a half centuries of constitutional democracy at risk. The world is watching what we do here. America has long been expected to be a shining city on a hill. A beacon of hope and freedom.
A model for others—when we’re at our best. How can we play that role when our own house is in such disorder?
We must confront the truth with candor, resolve, and determination. We need to show that we are worthy of the gifts that are the birthright of every American.
That begins here. And it begins now. With a true accounting of what happened, and what led to the attack on our Constitution and our democracy.
In this moment—when the dangers to our Constitution and our democracy loom large—nothing could be more important.
Working alongside the public servants on this dais has been one of the greatest honors of my time in Congress. It’s been a particular privilege to count as a partner in this effort—and to count as a friend—the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney. She is a patriot… a public servant of profound courage… of devotion to her oath and the Constitution. It’s my pleasure to recognize Ms. Cheney for her opening statement.
*********************************
Liz Cheney’s opening remarks below as prepared for the Jan. 6 select committee’s initial public hearing.
6/9/2022
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me echo those words about the importance of bipartisanship, and what a tremendous honor it is to work on this committee.
Mr. Chairman, at 6:01pm on January 6th, after he spent hours watching a violent mob besiege, attack and invade our Capitol, Donald Trump tweeted. But he did not condemn the attack. Instead he justified it:
“These are the things and events that happen,” he said, “when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”
As you will see in the hearings to come, President Trump believed his supporters at the Capitol, and I quote, “were doing what they should be doing.” This is what he told his staff as they pleaded with him to call off the mob, to instruct his supporters to leave. Over a series of hearings in the coming weeks, you will hear testimony, live and on video, from more than a half dozen former White House staff in the Trump administration, all of whom were in the West Wing of the White House on January 6th. You will hear testimony that “The President didn’t really want to put anything out” calling off the riot or asking his supporters to leave. You will hear that President Trump was yelling, and “really angry at advisors who told him he needed to be doing something more.” And, aware of the rioters’ chants to “hang Mike Pence,” the President responded with this sentiment: “maybe our supporters have the right idea.” Mike Pence “deserves” it.
You will hear evidence that President Trump refused for hours to do what his staff, his family, and many of his other advisors begged him to do: immediately instruct his supporters to stand down and evacuate the Capitol.
Tonight, you will see never-before-seen footage of the brutal attack on our Capitol, an attack that unfolded while, a few blocks away, President Trump sat watching television in his dining room off the Oval Office. You will hear audio from the brave police officers battling for their lives and ours, fighting to defend our democracy, against a violent mob Donald Trump refused to call off.
Tonight and in the weeks to come, you will see evidence of what motivated this violence, including directly from those who participated in this attack. You will see video of them explaining what caused them to do it. You will see their posts on social media. We will show you what they have said in federal court. On this point, there is no room for debate. Those who invaded our Capitol and battled law enforcement for hours were motivated by what President Trump had told them: that the election was stolen, and that he was the rightful President. President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.
You will also hear about plots to commit seditious conspiracy on January 6th, a crime defined in our laws as “conspir[ing] to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority thereof.” Multiple members of two groups, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, have been charged with this crime for their involvement in the events leading up to and on January 6th. Some have pled guilty. The attack on our Capitol was not a spontaneous riot. Intelligence available before January 6th identified plans to “invade” the Capitol, “occupy” the Capitol, and take other steps to halt Congress’ count of Electoral Votes that day. In our hearings to come, we will identify elements of those plans, and we will show specifically how a group of Proud Boys led a mob into the Capitol building on January 6th.
Tonight I am going to describe for you some of what our committee has learned and highlight initial findings you will see this month in our hearings. As you hear this, all Americans should keep in mind this fact: On the morning of January 6th, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain President of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his Constitutional obligation to relinquish power. Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power. In our hearings, you will see evidence of each element of this plan.
In our second hearing, you will see that Donald Trump and his advisors knew that he had, in fact, lost the election. But, despite this, President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information – to convince huge portions of the U.S. population that fraud had stolen the election from him. This was not true.
Jason Miller was a senior Trump Campaign spokesman. In this clip, Miller describes a call between the Trump campaign’s internal data expert and President Trump a few days after the 2020 election:
A: I was in the Oval Office. At some point in the conversation, Matt Oczkowski who was the lead data person was brought on and I remember he delivered to the President in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.
Q: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team’s assessment of this sort of county by county state by state results as reported?
A: Correct.
Alex Cannon was one of President Trump’s campaign lawyers. He previously worked for the Trump Organization. One of his responsibilities was to assess allegations of election fraud in November 2020. Here is one sample of his testimony -- discussing what he told White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:
A: I remember a call with Mr. Meadows where Mr. Meadows was asking me what I was finding and if I was finding anything and I remember sharing with him that we weren’t finding anything that would be sufficient to um change the results in any of the key states.
Q: When was that conversation?
A: Probably in November, mid to late November, I think it was before my child was born.
Q: And what was Mr. Meadows’ reaction to that information?
A: I believe the words he used were “so there’s no there there.”
There’s no there there. The Trump Campaign’s General Counsel Matt Morgan gave similar testimony. He explained that all of the fraud allegations and the campaign’s other election arguments taken together and viewed in the best possible light for President Trump, could still not change the outcome of the election.
President Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr also told Donald Trump his election claims were wrong:
A: And I repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud, you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And frankly, a year and a half later, I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that.
Attorney General Barr also told President Trump that his allegations about Dominion voting machines were groundless:
“I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count, and that these machines, controlled by somebody else, were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense. And it was being laid out there. And I told him that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that and that it was doing great, great disservice to the country.”
But President Trump persisted, repeating the false Dominion allegations in public at least a dozen more times even after his Attorney General told him they were “complete nonsense.”
And after Barr’s resignation on December 23rd, the Acting Attorney General who replaced him, Jeff Rosen and the acting Deputy, Richard Donoghue told President Trump over and over again that the evidence did not support allegations he was making in public.
Many of President Trump’s White House staff also recognized that the evidence did not support the claims President Trump was making. This is the President’s daughter, commenting on Bill Barr’s statement that the Department found no fraud sufficient to overturn the election:
Q: How did that affect your perspective about the election when Attorney General Barr made that statement?
A: It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr so I accepted what he was saying.
As you will hear on Monday, the President had every right to litigate his campaign claims, but he ultimately lost more than 60 cases in state and federal courts. The President’s claims in the election cases were so frivolous and unsupported that the President’s lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, not only lost the lawsuits, his license to practice law was suspended. Here is what the court said of Mr. Giuliani:
Giuliani “communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020.”
As you will see in great detail in these hearings, President Trump ignored the rulings of our nation’s courts, he ignored his own campaign leadership, his White House staff, many Republican state officials, he ignored the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump invested millions of dollars of campaign funds purposely spreading false information, running ads he knew were false, and convincing millions of Americans that the election was corrupt and he was the true President. As you will see, this misinformation campaign provoked the violence on January 6th.
In our third hearing, you will see that President Trump corruptly planned to replace the Attorney General of the United States so the U.S. Justice Department would spread his false stolen election claims. In the days before January 6th, President Trump told his top Justice Department officials “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” Senior Justice Department officials, men he had appointed, told him they could not do that, because it was not true. So President Trump decided to replace them.
He offered Jeff Clark, an environmental lawyer at the Justice Department, the job of Acting Attorney General. President Trump wanted Mr. Clark to take a number of steps, including sending this letter to Georgia and five other states, saying the U.S. Department of Justice had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election.” This letter is a lie. The Department of Justice had, in fact, repeatedly told President Trump exactly the opposite – that they had investigated his stolen election allegations and found no credible fraud that could impact the outcome of the election. This letter, and others like it, would have urged multiple states to withdraw their official and lawful electoral votes for Biden.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue described Jeff Clark’s letter this way: “This would be a grave step for the Department to take and could have tremendous constitutional, political and social ramifications for the country.” The Committee agrees with Mr. Donoghue’s assessment. Had Clark assumed the role of Attorney General in the days before January 6th and issued these letters, the ramifications could indeed have been grave. Mr. Donoghue also said this about Clark’s plan:
“And I recall towards the end saying, what you’re proposing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a Presidential Election.”
In our hearings, you will hear first-hand how the senior leadership of the Department of Justice threatened to resign, how the White House Counsel threatened to resign, and how they confronted Donald Trump and Jeff Clark in the Oval Office. The men involved, including Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, were appointed by President Trump. These men honored their oaths of office. They did their duty, and you will hear from them in our hearings.
By contrast, Jeff Clark has invoked his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. Representative Scott Perry, who was involved in trying to get Clark appointed as Attorney General, has refused to testify here. As you will see, Representative Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after January 6th to seek a Presidential Pardon. Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought Presidential Pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
In our fourth hearing, we will focus on President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th. Vice President Pence has spoken publicly about this:
“President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.”
What President Trump demanded that Mike Pence do wasn’t just wrong, it was illegal and it was unconstitutional. You will hear this in great detail from the Vice President’s former General Counsel. Witnesses in these hearings will explain how the former Vice President and his staff informed President Trump over and over again that what he was pressuring Mike Pence to do was illegal.
As you will hear, President Trump engaged in a relentless effort to pressure Pence both in private and in public. You will see the evidence of that pressure from multiple witnesses live and on video. Vice President Pence demonstrated his loyalty to Donald Trump consistently over four years, but he knew that he had a higher duty – to the United States Constitution. This is testimony from the Vice President’s Chief of Staff:
A: I think the Vice President was proud of his four years of service and he felt like much had been accomplished in those four years. And I think he was proud to have stood beside the President for all that had been done. But I think he ultimately knew that his fidelity to the Constitution was his first and foremost oath, and that’s – that’s what he articulated publicly and I think that’s what he felt.
Q: His fidelity to the Constitution was more important than his fidelity to President Trump and his desire …
A: The oath he took, yes.
You will also hear about a lawyer named John Eastman. Mr. Eastman was deeply involved in President Trump’s plans. You will hear from former Fourth Circuit Federal Judge Michael Luttig, a highly respected leading conservative judge. John Eastman clerked for Judge Luttig. Judge Luttig provided counsel to the Vice President’s team in the days before January 6th. The Judge will explain how Eastman “was wrong at every turn.” And you will see the email exchanges between Eastman and the Vice President’s Counsel as the violent attack on Congress was underway. Mr. Jacob said this to Mr. Eastman: “And thanks to your bullshit, we are under siege.” You will also see evidence that John Eastman did not actually believe the legal position he was taking. In fact, a month before the 2020 election, Eastman took exactly the opposite view on the same legal issues.
In the course of the Select Committee’s work to obtain information from Mr. Eastman, we have had occasion to present evidence to a federal judge. The judge evaluated these facts and he reached the conclusion that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Pence to act illegally by refusing to count electoral votes likely violated two federal criminal statutes. And the judge also said this: “If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6th will repeat itself.” Every American should read what this federal judge has written. The same Judge, Judge Carter, issued another decision on Tuesday night, indicating that John Eastman and other Trump lawyers knew that their legal arguments had no real chance of success in court. But they relied on those arguments anyway to try to “overturn a democratic election.”
And you will hear that while Congress was under attack on January 6th and the hours following the violence, the Trump legal team in the Willard Hotel war room continued to work to halt the count of electoral votes.
In our fifth hearing, you will see evidence that President Trump corruptly pressured state legislators and election officials to change election results. You will hear additional details about President Trump’s call to Georgia officials urging them to “find” 11,780 voted – votes that did not exist, and his efforts to get states to rescind certified electoral slates without factual basis and contrary to law. You will hear new details about the Trump campaign and other Trump associates’ efforts to instruct Republican officials in multiple states to create intentionally false electoral slates, and transmit those slates to Congress, to the Vice President, and the National Archives, falsely certifying that Trump won states he actually lost.
In our final two June hearings, you will hear how President Trump summoned a violent mob and directed them, illegally, to march on the U.S. Capitol. While the violence was underway, President Trump failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol.
As we present these initial findings, keep two points in mind. First, our investigation is still ongoing, so what we make public here will not be the complete set of information we will ultimately disclose. And second, the Department of Justice is currently working with cooperating witnesses, and has disclosed to date only some of the information it has identified from encrypted communications and other sources.
On December 18, 2020, a group including General Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and others visited the White House. They stayed late into the evening. We know that the group discussed a number of dramatic steps, including having the military seize voting machines and potentially rerun elections. You will also hear that President Trump met with that group alone for a period of time before White House lawyers and other staff discovered the group was there, and rushed to intervene.
A little more than an hour after Ms. Powell, Mr. Giuliani, General Flynn and the others finally left the White House, President Trump sent the tweet on the screen now, telling people to come to Washington on January 6th: “Be there,” he instructed them. “Will be Wild!”
As you will see, this was a pivotal moment. This tweet initiated a chain of events. The tweet led to the planning for what occurred on January 6th, including by the Proud Boys who ultimately led the invasion of the Capitol and the violence that day. The indictment of a group of Proud Boys alleges that they planned to “oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.” And according to the Department of Justice:
“On Jan. 6, 2021, the defendants directed, mobilized and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol, leading to dismantling of metal barricades, destruction of property, breaching of the Capitol building, and assaults on law enforcement.”
Although certain former Trump officials have argued that they did not anticipate violence on January 6th, the evidence suggests otherwise. As you will see in our hearings, the White House was receiving specific reports in the days leading up to January 6th, including during President Trump’s Ellipse rally, indicating that elements in the crowd were preparing for violence at the Capitol. And, on the evening of January 5th, the President’s close advisor Steve Bannon said this on his podcast: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this, all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.
As part of our investigation, we will present information about what the White House and other intelligence agencies knew, and why the Capitol was not better prepared. But we will not lose sight of the fact that the Capitol Police did not cause the crowd to attack. And we will not blame the violence that day, violence provoked by Donald Trump, on the officers who bravely defended all of us.
In our final hearing, you will hear a moment-by-moment account of the hours-long attack from more than a half dozen White House staff, both live in the hearing room and via videotaped testimony. There is no doubt that President Trump was well aware of the violence as it developed. White House staff urged President Trump to intervene and call off the mob. Here is a document written while the attack was underway by a member of the White House staff advising what the President needed to say: “Anyone who entered the capitol without proper authority should leave immediately.”
This is exactly what his supporters on Capitol Hill and nationwide were urging the President to do. He would not. You will hear that leaders on Capitol Hill begged the President for help, including Republican Leader McCarthy, who was “scared” and called multiple members of President Trump’s family after he could not persuade the President himself.
Not only did President Trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended. He did not call his Secretary of Defense on January 6th. He did not talk to his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Vice President Pence did each of those things. For example, here is what General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to this committee:
A: There were two or three calls with Vice President Pence. He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes from some of our records somewhere. But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Secretary Miller. Get the military down here, get the guard down here. Put down this situation, et cetera.
By contrast, here is General Milley’s description of his conversation with President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on January 6th:
A: “He said: We have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable, or words to that effect. I immediately interpreted that as politics. Politics. Politics. Red flag for me, personally. No action. But I remember it distinctly.”
And you will hear from witnesses how the day played out inside the White House, how multiple White House staff resigned in disgust, and how President Trump would not ask his supporters to leave the Capitol. It was only after multiple hours of violence that President Trump finally released a video instructing the riotous mob to leave, and as he did so, he said to them: “We love you. You’re very special.”
You will also hear that in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, members of the President’s family, White House staff and others tried to step in to stabilize the situation “to land the plane” before the Presidential Transition on January 20th. You will hear about members of the Trump cabinet discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, and replacing the President of the United States. Multiple Members of President Trump’s own Cabinet resigned immediately after January 6th. One member of the Cabinet suggested that remaining Cabinet Officers needed to take a more active role in running the White House and the Administration. But most emblematic of those days is this exchange of texts between Sean Hannity and former President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. Sean Hannity wrote in part: “Key now, no more crazy people.” “No more stolen election talk.” “Yes, impeachment and 25th amendment are real, and many people will quit.” Ms. McEnany responded in part: “Love that. That’s the playbook.”
The White House staff knew that President Trump was willing to entertain and use conspiracy theories to achieve his ends. They knew the President needed to be cut off from all of those who had encouraged him. They knew that President Donald Trump was too dangerous to be left alone. At least until he left office on January 20th. These are important facts for Congress and the American people to understand fully.
When a President fails to take the steps necessary to preserve our union, or worse, causes a constitutional crisis, we are at a moment of maximum danger for our Republic. Some in the White House took responsible steps to try to prevent January 6th. Others egged the President on. Others, who could have acted, refused to do so. In this case, the White House Counsel was so concerned about potentially lawless activity, that he threatened to resign, multiple times. That is exceedingly rare and exceedingly serious. It requires immediate attention, especially when the entire team threatens to resign. However, in the Trump White House, it was not exceedingly rare and it was not treated seriously. This is a clip of Jared Kushner, addressing multiple threats by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his team of White House lawyers to resign in the weeks before January 6th.
Q: Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign?
A: I kind of, like I said, my interest at that time was on trying to get as many pardons done, and I know that he was always, him and the team, were always saying oh we are going to resign. We are not going to be here if this happens, if that happens … So, I kind of took it up to just be whining, to be honest with you.
Whining. There is a reason why people serving in our Government take an oath to the Constitution. As our founding fathers recognized, democracy is fragile. People in positions of public trust are duty-bound to defend it – to step forward when action is required.
In our country, we don’t swear an oath to an individual, or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.
Finally, I ask all of our fellow Americans as you watch our hearings over the coming weeks, please remember what’s at stake. Remember the men and women who have fought and died so that we can live under the Rule of Law, not the rule of men. I ask you to think of the scene in our Capitol rotunda on the night of January 6th. There, in, a sacred space in our constitutional republic, the place where our presidents lie in state, watched over by statues of Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant, Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan, against every wall that night encircling the room, there were SWAT teams, men and women in tactical gear with long guns deployed inside our Capitol building.
There in the rotunda, these brave men and women rested beneath paintings depicting the earliest scenes of our Republic, including one painted in 1824 depicting George Washington resigning his commission, voluntarily relinquishing power, handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress. With this noble act, Washington set the indispensable example of the peaceful transfer of power. What President Reagan called, “nothing less than a miracle.” The sacred obligation to defend this peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American president...Except one.
As Americans, we all have a duty to ensure what happened on January 6th never happens again, to set aside partisan battles to stand together to perpetuate and preserve our great Republic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 - 8:00pm
Location: 390 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Opening statement as prepared for delivery
by Chair Bennie Thompson
June 9, 2022
The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will be in order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the Committee in recess at any point.
Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the Chair announces the Committee’s approval to release the deposition materials presented during tonight’s hearing.
Thanks to everyone watching tonight for sharing part of your evening, to learn about the facts and causes of the events leading up to and including the violent attack on January 6th, 2021 … on our democracy, electoral system, and country.
I am Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the January 6th, 2021 Committee. I was born, raised and still live in Bolton, Mississippi, a town with a population of 521, which is midway between Jackson and Vicksburg, MS, and the Mississippi River.
I am from a part of the country where people justified the actions of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. I’m reminded of that dark history as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of the insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021.
Over the next few weeks, hopefully you will get to know the other Members, my colleagues up here, and me. We represent a diversity of communities from all over the United States… rural areas and cities… east coast, west coast, and the heartland.
All of us have one thing in common: we swore the same oath. The same oath that all Members of Congress take upon taking office and afterward every two years if they are reelected.
We swore an oath to defend the Constitution, against all enemies: foreign … and domestic.
The words of the current oath taken by all of us—that nearly every United States Government employee takes—have their roots in the Civil War.
Throughout our history, the United States has fought against foreign enemies to preserve our democracy, electoral system, and country. When the United States Capitol was stormed and burned in 1814, foreign enemies were responsible.
Afterward, in 1862, when American citizens had taken up arms against this country, Congress adopted a new oath to help make sure no person who had supported the rebellion could hold a position of public trust. Therefore, congresspersons and U.S. Federal Government employees were required for the first time to swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies— foreign… and domestic.
That oath was put to the test on January 6th, 2021.
The police officers who held the line that day honored their oaths. Many came out of that day bloodied and broken. They still bear those wounds, visible and invisible. They did their duty. They repelled the mob and ended the occupation of the Capitol. They defended the Constitution against domestic enemies—so that Congress could return, uphold our own oaths, and count your votes to ensure the transfer of power—just as we’ve done for hundreds of years.
But unlike in 1814, it was domestic enemies of the Constitution who stormed and occupied the Capitol… who sought to thwart the will of the people…to stop the transfer of power.
And they did so at the encouragement of the President of the United States.
The President of the United States. Trying to stop the transfer of power.
A precedent that had stood for 220 years, even as our democracy has faced its most difficult tests.
Thinking back again to the Civil War, in the summer of 1864, the President of the United States was staring down what he believed would be a doomed bid for reelection. He believed his opponent, General George McClellan, would wave the white flag when it came to preserving the Union. But even with that grim fate hanging in the balance, President Lincoln was ready to accept the will of the voters, come what may.
He made a quiet pledge.
He wrote down the words, “This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect….”
It will be my duty.
Lincoln sealed that memo and asked his cabinet secretaries to sign it, sight unseen. He asked them to make the same commitment he did. To accept defeat if indeed defeat was the will of the people. To uphold the rule of law. To do what every other President who came before him did… and what every President who followed him would do.
Until Donald Trump.
Donald Trump lost the Presidential election in 2020. the American people voted him out of office. It was not because of a rigged system. It was not because of voter fraud.
Don’t believe me? Hear what his former Attorney General had to say about it, and I’ll warn those watching that this contains strong language.
Bill Barr. On Election Day 2020, he was Attorney General of the United States. The top law enforcement official in the country, telling the President exactly what he thought about claims of a stolen election.
Donald Trump had his days in court to challenge the results. He was within his rights to seek those judgments. In the United States, law-abiding citizens have those tools for pursuing justice. He lost in the courts just as he did at the ballot box. And in this country, that’s the end of the line.
But for Donald Trump, that was only the beginning of what became a sprawling, multi-step conspiracy aimed at overturning the Presidential election… aimed at throwing out the votes of millions of Americans—your votes—your voice in our democracy—and replacing the will of the American people with his will to remain in power after his term ended.
Donald Trump was at the center of that conspiracy.
And ultimately, Donald Trump—the President of the United States—spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the Constitution to march down the Capitol and subvert American democracy.
Any legal jargon you hear about “seditious conspiracy” … “obstruction of an official proceeding” … “conspiracy to defraud the United States” boils down to this: January 6th was the culmination of an attempted coup. A brazen attempt, as one rioter put it shortly after January 6th, “to overthrow the Government.” The violence was no accident. It represented Trump’s last, most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power.
Now, you may hear those words and think, “This is just another political attack on Donald Trump by people who don’t like him.” That’s not the case. My colleagues and I all wanted an outside, independent commission to investigate January 6th, similar to what we had after 9/11. But after first agreeing to the idea, Donald Trump’s allies in Congress put a stop to it. Apparently, they don’t want January 6th investigated at all.
And, in the last 17 months, many of those same people have tried to whitewash what happened on January 6th. To rewrite history… call it a tourist visit… label it “legitimate political discourse.” Donald Trump and his followers have adopted the words of the song writer: “Do you believe me or your lying eyes?”
We can’t sweep what happened under the rug. The American people deserve answers. So I come before you this evening not as a Democrat, but as an American who swore an oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t protect just Democrats or just Republicans. It protects all of us… “We the People.” And this scheme was an attempt to undermine the will of the people.
So tonight, and over the next few weeks, we’re going to remind you of the reality of what happened that day. But our work must do much more than just look backwards. Because our democracy remains in danger. The conspiracy to thwart the will of the people is not over. There are those in this country who thirst for power but have no love or respect for what makes America great: devotion to the Constitution… allegiance to the rule of law… our shared journey to build a more perfect Union.
January 6th and the lies that led to insurrection have put two and a half centuries of constitutional democracy at risk. The world is watching what we do here. America has long been expected to be a shining city on a hill. A beacon of hope and freedom.
A model for others—when we’re at our best. How can we play that role when our own house is in such disorder?
We must confront the truth with candor, resolve, and determination. We need to show that we are worthy of the gifts that are the birthright of every American.
That begins here. And it begins now. With a true accounting of what happened, and what led to the attack on our Constitution and our democracy.
In this moment—when the dangers to our Constitution and our democracy loom large—nothing could be more important.
Working alongside the public servants on this dais has been one of the greatest honors of my time in Congress. It’s been a particular privilege to count as a partner in this effort—and to count as a friend—the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney. She is a patriot… a public servant of profound courage… of devotion to her oath and the Constitution. It’s my pleasure to recognize Ms. Cheney for her opening statement.
*********************************
Liz Cheney’s opening remarks below as prepared for the Jan. 6 select committee’s initial public hearing.
6/9/2022
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me echo those words about the importance of bipartisanship, and what a tremendous honor it is to work on this committee.
Mr. Chairman, at 6:01pm on January 6th, after he spent hours watching a violent mob besiege, attack and invade our Capitol, Donald Trump tweeted. But he did not condemn the attack. Instead he justified it:
“These are the things and events that happen,” he said, “when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”
As you will see in the hearings to come, President Trump believed his supporters at the Capitol, and I quote, “were doing what they should be doing.” This is what he told his staff as they pleaded with him to call off the mob, to instruct his supporters to leave. Over a series of hearings in the coming weeks, you will hear testimony, live and on video, from more than a half dozen former White House staff in the Trump administration, all of whom were in the West Wing of the White House on January 6th. You will hear testimony that “The President didn’t really want to put anything out” calling off the riot or asking his supporters to leave. You will hear that President Trump was yelling, and “really angry at advisors who told him he needed to be doing something more.” And, aware of the rioters’ chants to “hang Mike Pence,” the President responded with this sentiment: “maybe our supporters have the right idea.” Mike Pence “deserves” it.
You will hear evidence that President Trump refused for hours to do what his staff, his family, and many of his other advisors begged him to do: immediately instruct his supporters to stand down and evacuate the Capitol.
Tonight, you will see never-before-seen footage of the brutal attack on our Capitol, an attack that unfolded while, a few blocks away, President Trump sat watching television in his dining room off the Oval Office. You will hear audio from the brave police officers battling for their lives and ours, fighting to defend our democracy, against a violent mob Donald Trump refused to call off.
Tonight and in the weeks to come, you will see evidence of what motivated this violence, including directly from those who participated in this attack. You will see video of them explaining what caused them to do it. You will see their posts on social media. We will show you what they have said in federal court. On this point, there is no room for debate. Those who invaded our Capitol and battled law enforcement for hours were motivated by what President Trump had told them: that the election was stolen, and that he was the rightful President. President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.
You will also hear about plots to commit seditious conspiracy on January 6th, a crime defined in our laws as “conspir[ing] to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority thereof.” Multiple members of two groups, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, have been charged with this crime for their involvement in the events leading up to and on January 6th. Some have pled guilty. The attack on our Capitol was not a spontaneous riot. Intelligence available before January 6th identified plans to “invade” the Capitol, “occupy” the Capitol, and take other steps to halt Congress’ count of Electoral Votes that day. In our hearings to come, we will identify elements of those plans, and we will show specifically how a group of Proud Boys led a mob into the Capitol building on January 6th.
Tonight I am going to describe for you some of what our committee has learned and highlight initial findings you will see this month in our hearings. As you hear this, all Americans should keep in mind this fact: On the morning of January 6th, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain President of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his Constitutional obligation to relinquish power. Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power. In our hearings, you will see evidence of each element of this plan.
In our second hearing, you will see that Donald Trump and his advisors knew that he had, in fact, lost the election. But, despite this, President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information – to convince huge portions of the U.S. population that fraud had stolen the election from him. This was not true.
Jason Miller was a senior Trump Campaign spokesman. In this clip, Miller describes a call between the Trump campaign’s internal data expert and President Trump a few days after the 2020 election:
A: I was in the Oval Office. At some point in the conversation, Matt Oczkowski who was the lead data person was brought on and I remember he delivered to the President in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.
Q: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team’s assessment of this sort of county by county state by state results as reported?
A: Correct.
Alex Cannon was one of President Trump’s campaign lawyers. He previously worked for the Trump Organization. One of his responsibilities was to assess allegations of election fraud in November 2020. Here is one sample of his testimony -- discussing what he told White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:
A: I remember a call with Mr. Meadows where Mr. Meadows was asking me what I was finding and if I was finding anything and I remember sharing with him that we weren’t finding anything that would be sufficient to um change the results in any of the key states.
Q: When was that conversation?
A: Probably in November, mid to late November, I think it was before my child was born.
Q: And what was Mr. Meadows’ reaction to that information?
A: I believe the words he used were “so there’s no there there.”
There’s no there there. The Trump Campaign’s General Counsel Matt Morgan gave similar testimony. He explained that all of the fraud allegations and the campaign’s other election arguments taken together and viewed in the best possible light for President Trump, could still not change the outcome of the election.
President Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr also told Donald Trump his election claims were wrong:
A: And I repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud, you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And frankly, a year and a half later, I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that.
Attorney General Barr also told President Trump that his allegations about Dominion voting machines were groundless:
“I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count, and that these machines, controlled by somebody else, were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense. And it was being laid out there. And I told him that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that and that it was doing great, great disservice to the country.”
But President Trump persisted, repeating the false Dominion allegations in public at least a dozen more times even after his Attorney General told him they were “complete nonsense.”
And after Barr’s resignation on December 23rd, the Acting Attorney General who replaced him, Jeff Rosen and the acting Deputy, Richard Donoghue told President Trump over and over again that the evidence did not support allegations he was making in public.
Many of President Trump’s White House staff also recognized that the evidence did not support the claims President Trump was making. This is the President’s daughter, commenting on Bill Barr’s statement that the Department found no fraud sufficient to overturn the election:
Q: How did that affect your perspective about the election when Attorney General Barr made that statement?
A: It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr so I accepted what he was saying.
As you will hear on Monday, the President had every right to litigate his campaign claims, but he ultimately lost more than 60 cases in state and federal courts. The President’s claims in the election cases were so frivolous and unsupported that the President’s lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, not only lost the lawsuits, his license to practice law was suspended. Here is what the court said of Mr. Giuliani:
Giuliani “communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020.”
As you will see in great detail in these hearings, President Trump ignored the rulings of our nation’s courts, he ignored his own campaign leadership, his White House staff, many Republican state officials, he ignored the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump invested millions of dollars of campaign funds purposely spreading false information, running ads he knew were false, and convincing millions of Americans that the election was corrupt and he was the true President. As you will see, this misinformation campaign provoked the violence on January 6th.
In our third hearing, you will see that President Trump corruptly planned to replace the Attorney General of the United States so the U.S. Justice Department would spread his false stolen election claims. In the days before January 6th, President Trump told his top Justice Department officials “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” Senior Justice Department officials, men he had appointed, told him they could not do that, because it was not true. So President Trump decided to replace them.
He offered Jeff Clark, an environmental lawyer at the Justice Department, the job of Acting Attorney General. President Trump wanted Mr. Clark to take a number of steps, including sending this letter to Georgia and five other states, saying the U.S. Department of Justice had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election.” This letter is a lie. The Department of Justice had, in fact, repeatedly told President Trump exactly the opposite – that they had investigated his stolen election allegations and found no credible fraud that could impact the outcome of the election. This letter, and others like it, would have urged multiple states to withdraw their official and lawful electoral votes for Biden.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue described Jeff Clark’s letter this way: “This would be a grave step for the Department to take and could have tremendous constitutional, political and social ramifications for the country.” The Committee agrees with Mr. Donoghue’s assessment. Had Clark assumed the role of Attorney General in the days before January 6th and issued these letters, the ramifications could indeed have been grave. Mr. Donoghue also said this about Clark’s plan:
“And I recall towards the end saying, what you’re proposing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a Presidential Election.”
In our hearings, you will hear first-hand how the senior leadership of the Department of Justice threatened to resign, how the White House Counsel threatened to resign, and how they confronted Donald Trump and Jeff Clark in the Oval Office. The men involved, including Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, were appointed by President Trump. These men honored their oaths of office. They did their duty, and you will hear from them in our hearings.
By contrast, Jeff Clark has invoked his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. Representative Scott Perry, who was involved in trying to get Clark appointed as Attorney General, has refused to testify here. As you will see, Representative Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after January 6th to seek a Presidential Pardon. Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought Presidential Pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
In our fourth hearing, we will focus on President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th. Vice President Pence has spoken publicly about this:
“President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.”
What President Trump demanded that Mike Pence do wasn’t just wrong, it was illegal and it was unconstitutional. You will hear this in great detail from the Vice President’s former General Counsel. Witnesses in these hearings will explain how the former Vice President and his staff informed President Trump over and over again that what he was pressuring Mike Pence to do was illegal.
As you will hear, President Trump engaged in a relentless effort to pressure Pence both in private and in public. You will see the evidence of that pressure from multiple witnesses live and on video. Vice President Pence demonstrated his loyalty to Donald Trump consistently over four years, but he knew that he had a higher duty – to the United States Constitution. This is testimony from the Vice President’s Chief of Staff:
A: I think the Vice President was proud of his four years of service and he felt like much had been accomplished in those four years. And I think he was proud to have stood beside the President for all that had been done. But I think he ultimately knew that his fidelity to the Constitution was his first and foremost oath, and that’s – that’s what he articulated publicly and I think that’s what he felt.
Q: His fidelity to the Constitution was more important than his fidelity to President Trump and his desire …
A: The oath he took, yes.
You will also hear about a lawyer named John Eastman. Mr. Eastman was deeply involved in President Trump’s plans. You will hear from former Fourth Circuit Federal Judge Michael Luttig, a highly respected leading conservative judge. John Eastman clerked for Judge Luttig. Judge Luttig provided counsel to the Vice President’s team in the days before January 6th. The Judge will explain how Eastman “was wrong at every turn.” And you will see the email exchanges between Eastman and the Vice President’s Counsel as the violent attack on Congress was underway. Mr. Jacob said this to Mr. Eastman: “And thanks to your bullshit, we are under siege.” You will also see evidence that John Eastman did not actually believe the legal position he was taking. In fact, a month before the 2020 election, Eastman took exactly the opposite view on the same legal issues.
In the course of the Select Committee’s work to obtain information from Mr. Eastman, we have had occasion to present evidence to a federal judge. The judge evaluated these facts and he reached the conclusion that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Pence to act illegally by refusing to count electoral votes likely violated two federal criminal statutes. And the judge also said this: “If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6th will repeat itself.” Every American should read what this federal judge has written. The same Judge, Judge Carter, issued another decision on Tuesday night, indicating that John Eastman and other Trump lawyers knew that their legal arguments had no real chance of success in court. But they relied on those arguments anyway to try to “overturn a democratic election.”
And you will hear that while Congress was under attack on January 6th and the hours following the violence, the Trump legal team in the Willard Hotel war room continued to work to halt the count of electoral votes.
In our fifth hearing, you will see evidence that President Trump corruptly pressured state legislators and election officials to change election results. You will hear additional details about President Trump’s call to Georgia officials urging them to “find” 11,780 voted – votes that did not exist, and his efforts to get states to rescind certified electoral slates without factual basis and contrary to law. You will hear new details about the Trump campaign and other Trump associates’ efforts to instruct Republican officials in multiple states to create intentionally false electoral slates, and transmit those slates to Congress, to the Vice President, and the National Archives, falsely certifying that Trump won states he actually lost.
In our final two June hearings, you will hear how President Trump summoned a violent mob and directed them, illegally, to march on the U.S. Capitol. While the violence was underway, President Trump failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol.
As we present these initial findings, keep two points in mind. First, our investigation is still ongoing, so what we make public here will not be the complete set of information we will ultimately disclose. And second, the Department of Justice is currently working with cooperating witnesses, and has disclosed to date only some of the information it has identified from encrypted communications and other sources.
On December 18, 2020, a group including General Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and others visited the White House. They stayed late into the evening. We know that the group discussed a number of dramatic steps, including having the military seize voting machines and potentially rerun elections. You will also hear that President Trump met with that group alone for a period of time before White House lawyers and other staff discovered the group was there, and rushed to intervene.
A little more than an hour after Ms. Powell, Mr. Giuliani, General Flynn and the others finally left the White House, President Trump sent the tweet on the screen now, telling people to come to Washington on January 6th: “Be there,” he instructed them. “Will be Wild!”
As you will see, this was a pivotal moment. This tweet initiated a chain of events. The tweet led to the planning for what occurred on January 6th, including by the Proud Boys who ultimately led the invasion of the Capitol and the violence that day. The indictment of a group of Proud Boys alleges that they planned to “oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.” And according to the Department of Justice:
“On Jan. 6, 2021, the defendants directed, mobilized and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol, leading to dismantling of metal barricades, destruction of property, breaching of the Capitol building, and assaults on law enforcement.”
Although certain former Trump officials have argued that they did not anticipate violence on January 6th, the evidence suggests otherwise. As you will see in our hearings, the White House was receiving specific reports in the days leading up to January 6th, including during President Trump’s Ellipse rally, indicating that elements in the crowd were preparing for violence at the Capitol. And, on the evening of January 5th, the President’s close advisor Steve Bannon said this on his podcast: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this, all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.
As part of our investigation, we will present information about what the White House and other intelligence agencies knew, and why the Capitol was not better prepared. But we will not lose sight of the fact that the Capitol Police did not cause the crowd to attack. And we will not blame the violence that day, violence provoked by Donald Trump, on the officers who bravely defended all of us.
In our final hearing, you will hear a moment-by-moment account of the hours-long attack from more than a half dozen White House staff, both live in the hearing room and via videotaped testimony. There is no doubt that President Trump was well aware of the violence as it developed. White House staff urged President Trump to intervene and call off the mob. Here is a document written while the attack was underway by a member of the White House staff advising what the President needed to say: “Anyone who entered the capitol without proper authority should leave immediately.”
This is exactly what his supporters on Capitol Hill and nationwide were urging the President to do. He would not. You will hear that leaders on Capitol Hill begged the President for help, including Republican Leader McCarthy, who was “scared” and called multiple members of President Trump’s family after he could not persuade the President himself.
Not only did President Trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended. He did not call his Secretary of Defense on January 6th. He did not talk to his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Vice President Pence did each of those things. For example, here is what General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to this committee:
A: There were two or three calls with Vice President Pence. He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes from some of our records somewhere. But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Secretary Miller. Get the military down here, get the guard down here. Put down this situation, et cetera.
By contrast, here is General Milley’s description of his conversation with President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on January 6th:
A: “He said: We have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable, or words to that effect. I immediately interpreted that as politics. Politics. Politics. Red flag for me, personally. No action. But I remember it distinctly.”
And you will hear from witnesses how the day played out inside the White House, how multiple White House staff resigned in disgust, and how President Trump would not ask his supporters to leave the Capitol. It was only after multiple hours of violence that President Trump finally released a video instructing the riotous mob to leave, and as he did so, he said to them: “We love you. You’re very special.”
You will also hear that in the immediate aftermath of January 6th, members of the President’s family, White House staff and others tried to step in to stabilize the situation “to land the plane” before the Presidential Transition on January 20th. You will hear about members of the Trump cabinet discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, and replacing the President of the United States. Multiple Members of President Trump’s own Cabinet resigned immediately after January 6th. One member of the Cabinet suggested that remaining Cabinet Officers needed to take a more active role in running the White House and the Administration. But most emblematic of those days is this exchange of texts between Sean Hannity and former President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. Sean Hannity wrote in part: “Key now, no more crazy people.” “No more stolen election talk.” “Yes, impeachment and 25th amendment are real, and many people will quit.” Ms. McEnany responded in part: “Love that. That’s the playbook.”
The White House staff knew that President Trump was willing to entertain and use conspiracy theories to achieve his ends. They knew the President needed to be cut off from all of those who had encouraged him. They knew that President Donald Trump was too dangerous to be left alone. At least until he left office on January 20th. These are important facts for Congress and the American people to understand fully.
When a President fails to take the steps necessary to preserve our union, or worse, causes a constitutional crisis, we are at a moment of maximum danger for our Republic. Some in the White House took responsible steps to try to prevent January 6th. Others egged the President on. Others, who could have acted, refused to do so. In this case, the White House Counsel was so concerned about potentially lawless activity, that he threatened to resign, multiple times. That is exceedingly rare and exceedingly serious. It requires immediate attention, especially when the entire team threatens to resign. However, in the Trump White House, it was not exceedingly rare and it was not treated seriously. This is a clip of Jared Kushner, addressing multiple threats by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his team of White House lawyers to resign in the weeks before January 6th.
Q: Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign?
A: I kind of, like I said, my interest at that time was on trying to get as many pardons done, and I know that he was always, him and the team, were always saying oh we are going to resign. We are not going to be here if this happens, if that happens … So, I kind of took it up to just be whining, to be honest with you.
Whining. There is a reason why people serving in our Government take an oath to the Constitution. As our founding fathers recognized, democracy is fragile. People in positions of public trust are duty-bound to defend it – to step forward when action is required.
In our country, we don’t swear an oath to an individual, or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.
Finally, I ask all of our fellow Americans as you watch our hearings over the coming weeks, please remember what’s at stake. Remember the men and women who have fought and died so that we can live under the Rule of Law, not the rule of men. I ask you to think of the scene in our Capitol rotunda on the night of January 6th. There, in, a sacred space in our constitutional republic, the place where our presidents lie in state, watched over by statues of Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant, Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan, against every wall that night encircling the room, there were SWAT teams, men and women in tactical gear with long guns deployed inside our Capitol building.
There in the rotunda, these brave men and women rested beneath paintings depicting the earliest scenes of our Republic, including one painted in 1824 depicting George Washington resigning his commission, voluntarily relinquishing power, handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress. With this noble act, Washington set the indispensable example of the peaceful transfer of power. What President Reagan called, “nothing less than a miracle.” The sacred obligation to defend this peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American president...Except one.
As Americans, we all have a duty to ensure what happened on January 6th never happens again, to set aside partisan battles to stand together to perpetuate and preserve our great Republic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:09 am
Thompson, Cheney, & Schiff Opening Statements at Select Committee Hearing, Jun 21, 2022
- As Delivered –
Chairman Thompson: “Good afternoon.
“At our last hearing, we told the story of a scheme driven by Donald Trump to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to illegally overturn the election results. We showed that when that pressure campaign failed and Mike Pence fulfilled his constitutional obligations, Donald Trump turned a violent mob loose on him. We showed that the mob came within roughly forty feet of the Vice President.
“Today we’ll show that what happened to Mike Pence wasn’t an isolated part of Donald Trump’s scheme to overturn the election. In fact, pressuring public servants into betraying their oaths was a fundamental part of the playbook.
“And a handful of election officials in several key states stood between Donald Trump and the upending of American democracy.
“As we begin today, it’s important to remember: when we count the votes for President, we count the votes state by state. For the most part, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all of that state’s Electoral College votes, and whoever wins a majority of the Electoral College votes wins the presidency.
“So when Donald Trump tried to overturn the election results, he focused on just a few states.
“He wanted officials at the local and state level to say the vote was tainted by widespread fraud and throw out the results, even though, as we showed last week, there wasn’t any voter fraud that could
have overturned the election results.
“And like Mike Pence, these public servants wouldn’t go along with Donald Trump’s scheme. And when they wouldn’t embrace the big lie and substitute the will of the voters with Donald Trump’s will to remain in power. Donald Trump worked to ensure they’d face the consequences. Threats to people’s livelihoods and lives. Threats of violence that Donald Trump knew about and amplified.
“As in our other hearings, we can’t just look backward at what happened in late 2020 and early 2021. Because the danger hasn’t gone away.
“Our democracy endured a mighty test on January 6th and in the days before. We say our institutions held.
“But what does that really mean?
“Democratic institutions aren’t abstractions or ideas. They’re local officials who oversee elections. Secretaries of state. People in whom we’ve placed our trust that they’ll carry out their duties. But what if they don’t?
“Two weeks ago, New Mexico held its primary elections. One county commission refused to certify the results, citing vague, unsupported claims dealing with Dominion voting machines. Courts stepped in, saying New Mexico law required the commission to certify the results.
“Two of the three members of the commission finally relented. One still refused, saying his vote, quote, ‘isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition, and that’s all I need.’ By the way, a few months ago, this county commissioner was found guilty of illegally entering the Capitol grounds on January 6th.
“This story reminds us of a few things: First, as we’ve shown in our previous hearings, claims that widespread voter fraud tainted the 2020 presidential election have always been a lie. Donald Trump knew they were a lie and he kept amplifying them anyway. Everything we describe today—the relentless, destructive pressure campaign on state and local officials—was all based on a lie. Donald Trump knew it. He did it anyway.
“Second, the lie hasn’t gone away. It’s corrupting our democratic institutions. People who believe that lie are now seeking positions of public trust. And as seen in New Mexico, their oath to the people they serve will take a back seat to their commitment to the Big Lie.
“If that happens, who will make sure our institutions don’t break under the pressure? We won’t have close calls. We’ll have catastrophe.
“My distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Schiff, will present much of the Select Committee’s findings on this matter.
“First, I’m pleased to recognize our Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.
* * *
Vice Chair Cheney: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
“Today, we will be examining President Trump’s effort to overturn the election by exerting pressure on state officials and state legislatures. Donald Trump had a direct and personal role in this effort, as did Rudy Giuliani, as did John Eastman. In other words, the same people who were attempting to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes illegally, were also simultaneously working to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election at the state level. Each of these efforts to overturn the election is independently serious; each deserves attention both by Congress and our Department of Justice. But, as a federal court has already indicated, these efforts were also part of a broader plan. And all of this was done in preparation for January 6th.
“I would note two points for particular focus today:
“First, today you will hear about calls made by President Trump to officials of Georgia and other states. As you listen to these tapes, keep in mind what Donald Trump already knew at the time he made those calls – he had been told over and over again that his stolen election allegations were nonsense. For example, this is what former Attorney General Bill Barr said to President Trump about allegations in Georgia.
[multimedia]
“And Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue told Donald Trump this:
[multimedia]
“Mr. Trump was told by his own advisors that he had no basis for his stolen election claims, yet he continued to pressure state officials to change the election results.
“Second, you will hear about a number of threats and efforts to pressure state officials to reverse the election outcome.
“One of our witnesses today, Gabriel Sterling, explicitly warned President Trump about potential violence on December 1st 2020, more than a month before January 6th. You will see excerpts from that video repeatedly today:
[multimedia]
“The point is this: Donald Trump didn’t care about the threats of violence. He did not condemn them, he made no effort to stop them; he went forward with his fake allegations anyway.
“One more point: I would urge all of those watching today to focus on the evidence the Committee will present. Do not be distracted by politics. This is serious. We cannot let America become a nation of conspiracy theories and thug violence.
“Finally, I want to thank our witnesses today for all your service to the country. Today all America will hear about the selfless actions of these men and women, who acted honorably to uphold the rule of law, protect our freedom and preserve our Constitution. Today, Mr. Chairman, we will all see an example of what makes America great.
“Thank you. I yield back.”
* * *
Chairman Thompson: “Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, for an opening statement.”
* * *
Representative Schiff: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice Chair.
“November 3rd, 2020, Donald Trump ran for re-election to the office of the Presidency, and he lost. His opponent, Joe Biden, finished ahead in the key battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and elsewhere. Nevertheless, and for the first time in history, the losing presidential candidate fought to hold onto power. As we have seen in previous hearings, he did so through a variety of means.
“On Election Day, he sought to stop the counting of the vote, knowing that the millions of absentee ballots elections officials would be counting on Election Day and thereafter would run strongly against him and deliver a victory to Joe Biden. Next, and when he could not stop the counting, he tried to stop state legislatures and governors from certifying the results of the election. He went to court and filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits, making unsubstantiated claims of fraud.
“When that too failed, he mounted a pressure campaign directed at individual state legislators to try to get them to go back into session and either declare him the winner, de-certify Joe Biden as the winner, or send two slates of electors to Congress — one for Biden and one for him — and pressure Vice President Pence to choose him as the winner.
“But the state legislatures wouldn’t go along with this scheme, and neither would the Vice President. None of the legislatures agreed to go back into special session and declare him the winner. No legitimate state authority in the states Donald Trump lost would agree to appoint fake Trump electors and send them to Congress. But this didn’t stop the Trump campaign either. They assembled groups of individuals in key battleground states and got them to call themselves electors, created phony certificates associated with these fake electors and then transmitted these certificates to Washington, and to the Congress, to be counted during the joint session of Congress on January 6th.
“None of this worked. But according to federal district judge David Carter, former President Trump and others likely violated multiple federal laws by engaging in this scheme — including conspiracy to defraud the United States. You will hear evidence of the former president and his top advisor’s direct involvement in key elements of this plot, or what Judge Carter called a ‘coup in search of a legal theory.’
“For as the judge explained, ‘President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence – it targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. Convincing state legislatures,’ he said, ‘to certify competing electors was essential to stop the count and ensure President Trump’s reelection.’
“As we have seen in our prior hearings, running through this scheme was a Big Lie that the election was plagued with massive fraud and somehow stolen.
“You will remember what the President’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, said he told the president about these claims of massive fraud affecting the outcome of the election.
[multimedia]
“The President’s lie was — and is — a dangerous cancer on the body politic. If you can convince Americans that they cannot trust their own elections, that anytime they lose, it is somehow illegitimate, then what is left but violence to determine who should govern?
“This brings us to the focus of today’s hearing. When state elections officials refused to stop the count, Donald Trump and his campaign tried to put pressure on them. When state executive officials refused to certify him the winner of states he lost, he applied more pressure. When state legislators refused to go back into session and appoint Trump electors, he amped up the pressure yet again. Anyone who got in the way of Donald Trump’s continued hold on power after he lost the election was the subject of a dangerous and escalating campaign of pressure.
“This pressure campaign brought angry phone calls and texts, armed protests, intimidation, and, all too often, threats of violence and death. State legislators were singled out. So too were statewide elections officials. Even local elections workers, diligently doing their jobs, were accused of being criminals, and had their lives turned upside down.
“As we will show, the president’s supporters heard the former president’s claims of fraud, and the false allegations he made against state and local officials, as a call to action.
[multimedia]
“This pressure campaign against state and local officials spanned numerous contested states, as you will see in this video produced by the Select Committee.
[multimedia]
“The state pressure campaign and the danger it posed to state officials and at state capitols around the nation, was a dangerous precursor to the violence we saw on January 6th at the U.S. Capitol.
“Today, you will hear from Rusty Bowers, the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. He will tell us about his conversations with the President, with Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, and what the President’s team asked of him, and how his oath of office would not permit it.
“You will then hear from Brad Raffensperger, the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia, who Trump directed to ‘find’ 11,780 votes that did not exist, but just the exact number of votes needed to overtake Joe Biden.
“You will also hear from Gabriel Sterling, his Chief Operating Officer, about the spurious claims of fraud in the elections in Georgia, and who, responding to a cascading set of threats to his elections team, warned the president to stop — that someone was going to get killed.
“And you will hear from Wandrea’ “Shaye” Moss, a former local elections worker in Fulton County, Georgia, about how all of the lies about the election impacted the lives of real people who administer our elections. And still do.
“You will hear what they experienced when the most powerful man in the world — the President of the United States — sought to cling to power after being voted out of office by the American people.
“The system held, but barely. And the system held because people of courage, Republicans and Democrats, like the witnesses you will hear today, put their oath to the country and the constitution above any other consideration. They did their jobs. As we must do ours.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.”
# # #
- As Delivered –
Chairman Thompson: “Good afternoon.
“At our last hearing, we told the story of a scheme driven by Donald Trump to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence to illegally overturn the election results. We showed that when that pressure campaign failed and Mike Pence fulfilled his constitutional obligations, Donald Trump turned a violent mob loose on him. We showed that the mob came within roughly forty feet of the Vice President.
“Today we’ll show that what happened to Mike Pence wasn’t an isolated part of Donald Trump’s scheme to overturn the election. In fact, pressuring public servants into betraying their oaths was a fundamental part of the playbook.
“And a handful of election officials in several key states stood between Donald Trump and the upending of American democracy.
“As we begin today, it’s important to remember: when we count the votes for President, we count the votes state by state. For the most part, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all of that state’s Electoral College votes, and whoever wins a majority of the Electoral College votes wins the presidency.
“So when Donald Trump tried to overturn the election results, he focused on just a few states.
“He wanted officials at the local and state level to say the vote was tainted by widespread fraud and throw out the results, even though, as we showed last week, there wasn’t any voter fraud that could
have overturned the election results.
“And like Mike Pence, these public servants wouldn’t go along with Donald Trump’s scheme. And when they wouldn’t embrace the big lie and substitute the will of the voters with Donald Trump’s will to remain in power. Donald Trump worked to ensure they’d face the consequences. Threats to people’s livelihoods and lives. Threats of violence that Donald Trump knew about and amplified.
“As in our other hearings, we can’t just look backward at what happened in late 2020 and early 2021. Because the danger hasn’t gone away.
“Our democracy endured a mighty test on January 6th and in the days before. We say our institutions held.
“But what does that really mean?
“Democratic institutions aren’t abstractions or ideas. They’re local officials who oversee elections. Secretaries of state. People in whom we’ve placed our trust that they’ll carry out their duties. But what if they don’t?
“Two weeks ago, New Mexico held its primary elections. One county commission refused to certify the results, citing vague, unsupported claims dealing with Dominion voting machines. Courts stepped in, saying New Mexico law required the commission to certify the results.
“Two of the three members of the commission finally relented. One still refused, saying his vote, quote, ‘isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition, and that’s all I need.’ By the way, a few months ago, this county commissioner was found guilty of illegally entering the Capitol grounds on January 6th.
“This story reminds us of a few things: First, as we’ve shown in our previous hearings, claims that widespread voter fraud tainted the 2020 presidential election have always been a lie. Donald Trump knew they were a lie and he kept amplifying them anyway. Everything we describe today—the relentless, destructive pressure campaign on state and local officials—was all based on a lie. Donald Trump knew it. He did it anyway.
“Second, the lie hasn’t gone away. It’s corrupting our democratic institutions. People who believe that lie are now seeking positions of public trust. And as seen in New Mexico, their oath to the people they serve will take a back seat to their commitment to the Big Lie.
“If that happens, who will make sure our institutions don’t break under the pressure? We won’t have close calls. We’ll have catastrophe.
“My distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Schiff, will present much of the Select Committee’s findings on this matter.
“First, I’m pleased to recognize our Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.
* * *
Vice Chair Cheney: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
“Today, we will be examining President Trump’s effort to overturn the election by exerting pressure on state officials and state legislatures. Donald Trump had a direct and personal role in this effort, as did Rudy Giuliani, as did John Eastman. In other words, the same people who were attempting to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes illegally, were also simultaneously working to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election at the state level. Each of these efforts to overturn the election is independently serious; each deserves attention both by Congress and our Department of Justice. But, as a federal court has already indicated, these efforts were also part of a broader plan. And all of this was done in preparation for January 6th.
“I would note two points for particular focus today:
“First, today you will hear about calls made by President Trump to officials of Georgia and other states. As you listen to these tapes, keep in mind what Donald Trump already knew at the time he made those calls – he had been told over and over again that his stolen election allegations were nonsense. For example, this is what former Attorney General Bill Barr said to President Trump about allegations in Georgia.
[multimedia]
“And Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue told Donald Trump this:
[multimedia]
“Mr. Trump was told by his own advisors that he had no basis for his stolen election claims, yet he continued to pressure state officials to change the election results.
“Second, you will hear about a number of threats and efforts to pressure state officials to reverse the election outcome.
“One of our witnesses today, Gabriel Sterling, explicitly warned President Trump about potential violence on December 1st 2020, more than a month before January 6th. You will see excerpts from that video repeatedly today:
[multimedia]
“The point is this: Donald Trump didn’t care about the threats of violence. He did not condemn them, he made no effort to stop them; he went forward with his fake allegations anyway.
“One more point: I would urge all of those watching today to focus on the evidence the Committee will present. Do not be distracted by politics. This is serious. We cannot let America become a nation of conspiracy theories and thug violence.
“Finally, I want to thank our witnesses today for all your service to the country. Today all America will hear about the selfless actions of these men and women, who acted honorably to uphold the rule of law, protect our freedom and preserve our Constitution. Today, Mr. Chairman, we will all see an example of what makes America great.
“Thank you. I yield back.”
* * *
Chairman Thompson: “Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, for an opening statement.”
* * *
Representative Schiff: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice Chair.
“November 3rd, 2020, Donald Trump ran for re-election to the office of the Presidency, and he lost. His opponent, Joe Biden, finished ahead in the key battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and elsewhere. Nevertheless, and for the first time in history, the losing presidential candidate fought to hold onto power. As we have seen in previous hearings, he did so through a variety of means.
“On Election Day, he sought to stop the counting of the vote, knowing that the millions of absentee ballots elections officials would be counting on Election Day and thereafter would run strongly against him and deliver a victory to Joe Biden. Next, and when he could not stop the counting, he tried to stop state legislatures and governors from certifying the results of the election. He went to court and filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits, making unsubstantiated claims of fraud.
“When that too failed, he mounted a pressure campaign directed at individual state legislators to try to get them to go back into session and either declare him the winner, de-certify Joe Biden as the winner, or send two slates of electors to Congress — one for Biden and one for him — and pressure Vice President Pence to choose him as the winner.
“But the state legislatures wouldn’t go along with this scheme, and neither would the Vice President. None of the legislatures agreed to go back into special session and declare him the winner. No legitimate state authority in the states Donald Trump lost would agree to appoint fake Trump electors and send them to Congress. But this didn’t stop the Trump campaign either. They assembled groups of individuals in key battleground states and got them to call themselves electors, created phony certificates associated with these fake electors and then transmitted these certificates to Washington, and to the Congress, to be counted during the joint session of Congress on January 6th.
“None of this worked. But according to federal district judge David Carter, former President Trump and others likely violated multiple federal laws by engaging in this scheme — including conspiracy to defraud the United States. You will hear evidence of the former president and his top advisor’s direct involvement in key elements of this plot, or what Judge Carter called a ‘coup in search of a legal theory.’
“For as the judge explained, ‘President Trump’s pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not end with Vice President Pence – it targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. Convincing state legislatures,’ he said, ‘to certify competing electors was essential to stop the count and ensure President Trump’s reelection.’
“As we have seen in our prior hearings, running through this scheme was a Big Lie that the election was plagued with massive fraud and somehow stolen.
“You will remember what the President’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, said he told the president about these claims of massive fraud affecting the outcome of the election.
[multimedia]
“The President’s lie was — and is — a dangerous cancer on the body politic. If you can convince Americans that they cannot trust their own elections, that anytime they lose, it is somehow illegitimate, then what is left but violence to determine who should govern?
“This brings us to the focus of today’s hearing. When state elections officials refused to stop the count, Donald Trump and his campaign tried to put pressure on them. When state executive officials refused to certify him the winner of states he lost, he applied more pressure. When state legislators refused to go back into session and appoint Trump electors, he amped up the pressure yet again. Anyone who got in the way of Donald Trump’s continued hold on power after he lost the election was the subject of a dangerous and escalating campaign of pressure.
“This pressure campaign brought angry phone calls and texts, armed protests, intimidation, and, all too often, threats of violence and death. State legislators were singled out. So too were statewide elections officials. Even local elections workers, diligently doing their jobs, were accused of being criminals, and had their lives turned upside down.
“As we will show, the president’s supporters heard the former president’s claims of fraud, and the false allegations he made against state and local officials, as a call to action.
[multimedia]
“This pressure campaign against state and local officials spanned numerous contested states, as you will see in this video produced by the Select Committee.
[multimedia]
“The state pressure campaign and the danger it posed to state officials and at state capitols around the nation, was a dangerous precursor to the violence we saw on January 6th at the U.S. Capitol.
“Today, you will hear from Rusty Bowers, the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. He will tell us about his conversations with the President, with Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, and what the President’s team asked of him, and how his oath of office would not permit it.
“You will then hear from Brad Raffensperger, the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia, who Trump directed to ‘find’ 11,780 votes that did not exist, but just the exact number of votes needed to overtake Joe Biden.
“You will also hear from Gabriel Sterling, his Chief Operating Officer, about the spurious claims of fraud in the elections in Georgia, and who, responding to a cascading set of threats to his elections team, warned the president to stop — that someone was going to get killed.
“And you will hear from Wandrea’ “Shaye” Moss, a former local elections worker in Fulton County, Georgia, about how all of the lies about the election impacted the lives of real people who administer our elections. And still do.
“You will hear what they experienced when the most powerful man in the world — the President of the United States — sought to cling to power after being voted out of office by the American people.
“The system held, but barely. And the system held because people of courage, Republicans and Democrats, like the witnesses you will hear today, put their oath to the country and the constitution above any other consideration. They did their jobs. As we must do ours.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.”
# # #
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:14 am
Thompson, Cheney, & Aguilar Opening Statements at Select Committee Hearing, Jun 16, 2022
- As Delivered –
Chairman Thompson: “Good afternoon.
“‘There is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.’
“No idea more un-American.
“I agree with that -- which is unusual -- because former Vice President Mike Pence and I don’t agree on much.
“These are his words, spoken a few months ago about Donald Trump’s attempt to pressure the former Vice President—pressure him into going along with an unlawful and unconstitutional scheme to overturn the 2020 election and give Donald Trump a second term in office that he did not win.
“Today, the Select Committee is going to reveal the details of that pressure campaign.
“But what does the Vice President of the United States even have to do with a presidential election?
“The Constitution says that the Vice President of the United States oversees the process of counting the Electoral College votes—a process that took place on January 6th, 2021. Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other Vice President has ever done.
“The former President wanted Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again. Mike Pence said no.
“He resisted the pressure. He knew it was illegal. He knew it was wrong.
“We’re fortunate for Mr. Pence’s courage on January 6th. Our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe.
“That courage put him in tremendous danger. When Mike Pence made it clear that he wouldn’t give in to Donald Trump’s scheme, Donald Trump turned the mob on him. A mob that was chanting ‘Hang Mike Pence.’ A mob that had built a hangman’s gallows just outside the Capitol.
“Thanks in part to Mike Pence, our democracy withstood Donald Trump’s scheme and the violence of January 6th. But the danger hasn’t receded.
“Led by my colleague Mr. Aguilar, today we’ll lay out the facts for the American people. But first, I’ll recognize my colleague from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.
* * *
Vice Chair Cheney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
“Let me take a few minutes today to put the topic of hearing in a broader context. In our last hearing, we heard unequivocal testimony that President Trump was told his election fraud allegations were complete nonsense.
“We heard this from members of the Trump campaign. We heard this from President Trump’s campaign lawyers. We heard this from President Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr. We heard this from President Trump’s former Acting Attorney General, Jeff Rosen.
“And we heard this from President Trump’s former Acting Deputy Attorney General, Richard Donoghue. We heard from members of President Trump’s White House staff as well.
“Today, we are focusing on President Trump’s relentless effort to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th.
“Here, again, is how the former Vice President phrased it in a speech before the Federalist Society, a group of conservative lawyers.
[multimedia]
“What the President wanted the Vice President to do was not just wrong. It was illegal and unconstitutional.
“We will hear many details in today’s hearing, but please consider these two points.
“First, President Trump was told repeatedly that Mike Pence lacked the Constitutional and legal authority to do what President Trump was demanding he do. This is testimony from Marc Short, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, who served in the Trump administration in multiple positions over four years.
[multimedia]
“But President Trump plotted with a lawyer named John Eastman to pressure Pence to do so anyway. As a federal court has explained, ‘based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.’
“When exactly did President Trump know that it would be illegal for Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes? Here is one sample of testimony given by one of the witnesses before us today, the Vice President’s General Counsel.
[multimedia]
“That was January 4th, two days before the attack on Congress.
“A second point. Please listen to testimony today about all of the ways that President Trump attempted to pressure Vice President, including Donald Trump’s tweet at 2:24 p.m. condemning Mike Pence – when Trump already knew a violent riot was underway at the Capitol.
“In future hearings, you will hear from witnesses who were present inside the White House, who were present inside the West Wing, on that day. But today, we focus on the earnest efforts of Mike Pence, who was determined to abide by his oath of office.
“As Mike Pence prepared a statement on January 5th and 6th explaining that he would not illegally refuse to count electoral votes, he said this to his staff.
[multimedia]
“You will hear today that President Trump’s White House Counsel believed that Mike Pence did exactly the right thing on January 6th. As did others in the White House. As did Fox News Host, Sean Hannity.
“Vice President Pence understood that his oath of office was more important than his loyalty to Donald Trump. He did his duty. President Trump unequivocally did not.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.”
* * *
Chairman Thompson: “Without objection, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, for an opening statement.”
* * *
Representative Aguilar: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
“Today, we intend to show the American people that January 6th was not an isolated incident. In the culminating weeks culminating before, there was a legal scheme and deception.
“We’ve already learned that President Trump knew he lost the 2020 election.
“Shortly after, he began to look for a way to circumvent our country’s most fundamental civic tradition: the peaceful transfer of power.
“The President latched on to a dangerous theory and would not let go because he was convinced it would keep him in office.
“We witnessed firsthand what happened when the President of the United States weaponized this theory.
“The Capitol was overrun. Police officers lost their lives. And the Vice President was taken to a secure location because his safety was in jeopardy.
“Let’s take a look at the effect of Donald Trump’s words and actions. I want to warn our audience that the video contains explicit content:
[multimedia]
“How did we get to this point?
“How did we get to the point where President Trump’s most radical supporters led a violent attack on the Capitol and threatened to hang President Trump’s own Vice President?
“You’ll hear from witnesses that Donald Trump pressured Mike Pence to adopt a legally and morally bankrupt idea that the Vice President could choose who the next President can be.
“You’ll hear about how the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and others told Donald Trump that the Vice President had no such authority.
“But President Trump would not listen.
“You’ll hear how Vice President Pence withstood an onslaught of pressure from President Trump both publicly and privately—a pressure campaign that built to a fever pitch with a heated phone call on January 6th.
“You’ll also hear that the President knew there was a violent mob at the Capitol when he tweeted at 2:24pm that the Vice President did not have the ‘courage’ to do what needed to be done.
“Let me be clear: Vice President Pence did the right thing that day; he stayed true to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
“I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon.
“Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”
###
- As Delivered –
Chairman Thompson: “Good afternoon.
“‘There is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.’
“No idea more un-American.
“I agree with that -- which is unusual -- because former Vice President Mike Pence and I don’t agree on much.
“These are his words, spoken a few months ago about Donald Trump’s attempt to pressure the former Vice President—pressure him into going along with an unlawful and unconstitutional scheme to overturn the 2020 election and give Donald Trump a second term in office that he did not win.
“Today, the Select Committee is going to reveal the details of that pressure campaign.
“But what does the Vice President of the United States even have to do with a presidential election?
“The Constitution says that the Vice President of the United States oversees the process of counting the Electoral College votes—a process that took place on January 6th, 2021. Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other Vice President has ever done.
“The former President wanted Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again. Mike Pence said no.
“He resisted the pressure. He knew it was illegal. He knew it was wrong.
“We’re fortunate for Mr. Pence’s courage on January 6th. Our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe.
“That courage put him in tremendous danger. When Mike Pence made it clear that he wouldn’t give in to Donald Trump’s scheme, Donald Trump turned the mob on him. A mob that was chanting ‘Hang Mike Pence.’ A mob that had built a hangman’s gallows just outside the Capitol.
“Thanks in part to Mike Pence, our democracy withstood Donald Trump’s scheme and the violence of January 6th. But the danger hasn’t receded.
“Led by my colleague Mr. Aguilar, today we’ll lay out the facts for the American people. But first, I’ll recognize my colleague from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.
* * *
Vice Chair Cheney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
“Let me take a few minutes today to put the topic of hearing in a broader context. In our last hearing, we heard unequivocal testimony that President Trump was told his election fraud allegations were complete nonsense.
“We heard this from members of the Trump campaign. We heard this from President Trump’s campaign lawyers. We heard this from President Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr. We heard this from President Trump’s former Acting Attorney General, Jeff Rosen.
“And we heard this from President Trump’s former Acting Deputy Attorney General, Richard Donoghue. We heard from members of President Trump’s White House staff as well.
“Today, we are focusing on President Trump’s relentless effort to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th.
“Here, again, is how the former Vice President phrased it in a speech before the Federalist Society, a group of conservative lawyers.
[multimedia]
“What the President wanted the Vice President to do was not just wrong. It was illegal and unconstitutional.
“We will hear many details in today’s hearing, but please consider these two points.
“First, President Trump was told repeatedly that Mike Pence lacked the Constitutional and legal authority to do what President Trump was demanding he do. This is testimony from Marc Short, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, who served in the Trump administration in multiple positions over four years.
[multimedia]
“But President Trump plotted with a lawyer named John Eastman to pressure Pence to do so anyway. As a federal court has explained, ‘based on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.’
“When exactly did President Trump know that it would be illegal for Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes? Here is one sample of testimony given by one of the witnesses before us today, the Vice President’s General Counsel.
[multimedia]
“That was January 4th, two days before the attack on Congress.
“A second point. Please listen to testimony today about all of the ways that President Trump attempted to pressure Vice President, including Donald Trump’s tweet at 2:24 p.m. condemning Mike Pence – when Trump already knew a violent riot was underway at the Capitol.
“In future hearings, you will hear from witnesses who were present inside the White House, who were present inside the West Wing, on that day. But today, we focus on the earnest efforts of Mike Pence, who was determined to abide by his oath of office.
“As Mike Pence prepared a statement on January 5th and 6th explaining that he would not illegally refuse to count electoral votes, he said this to his staff.
[multimedia]
“You will hear today that President Trump’s White House Counsel believed that Mike Pence did exactly the right thing on January 6th. As did others in the White House. As did Fox News Host, Sean Hannity.
“Vice President Pence understood that his oath of office was more important than his loyalty to Donald Trump. He did his duty. President Trump unequivocally did not.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.”
* * *
Chairman Thompson: “Without objection, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Aguilar, for an opening statement.”
* * *
Representative Aguilar: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
“Today, we intend to show the American people that January 6th was not an isolated incident. In the culminating weeks culminating before, there was a legal scheme and deception.
“We’ve already learned that President Trump knew he lost the 2020 election.
“Shortly after, he began to look for a way to circumvent our country’s most fundamental civic tradition: the peaceful transfer of power.
“The President latched on to a dangerous theory and would not let go because he was convinced it would keep him in office.
“We witnessed firsthand what happened when the President of the United States weaponized this theory.
“The Capitol was overrun. Police officers lost their lives. And the Vice President was taken to a secure location because his safety was in jeopardy.
“Let’s take a look at the effect of Donald Trump’s words and actions. I want to warn our audience that the video contains explicit content:
[multimedia]
“How did we get to this point?
“How did we get to the point where President Trump’s most radical supporters led a violent attack on the Capitol and threatened to hang President Trump’s own Vice President?
“You’ll hear from witnesses that Donald Trump pressured Mike Pence to adopt a legally and morally bankrupt idea that the Vice President could choose who the next President can be.
“You’ll hear about how the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and others told Donald Trump that the Vice President had no such authority.
“But President Trump would not listen.
“You’ll hear how Vice President Pence withstood an onslaught of pressure from President Trump both publicly and privately—a pressure campaign that built to a fever pitch with a heated phone call on January 6th.
“You’ll also hear that the President knew there was a violent mob at the Capitol when he tweeted at 2:24pm that the Vice President did not have the ‘courage’ to do what needed to be done.
“Let me be clear: Vice President Pence did the right thing that day; he stayed true to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
“I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon.
“Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”
###
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:15 am
Thompson, Cheney, & Lofgren Opening Statements at Select Committee Hearing, Jun 13, 2022
- As Delivered –
Chairman Thompson: “Good morning. Last week, the Select Committee laid out a preview of our initial findings about a conspiracy, overseen and directed by Donald Trump, to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election and block the transfer of power—a scheme unprecedented in American history.
“My colleagues and I don’t want to spend time talking about ourselves during these hearings, but as someone who’s run for office a few times, I can tell you: at the end of a campaign, it all comes down to the numbers. The numbers tell you the winner and the loser.
“For the most part, the numbers don’t lie.
“But if something doesn’t add up with the numbers, you go to court to get resolution. And that’s the end of the line. We accept those results. That’s what it means to respect the rule of law. That’s what it means to seek elected office in our democracy.
“Because those numbers aren’t just numbers.
“They are votes. They are your votes. They are the will and the voice of the people. And the very least we should expect from any person seeking a position of public trust is the acceptance of the will of the people—win or lose.
“Donald Trump didn’t.
“He didn’t have the numbers. He went to court, and he still didn’t have the numbers. He lost.
“But he betrayed the trust of the American people. He ignored the will of the voters. He lied to his supporters and the country. And he tried to remain in office after the people had voted him out—and the courts upheld the will of the people.
“This morning we’ll tell the story of how Donald Trump lost an election—and knew he lost an election—and as a result of his loss, decided to wage an attack on our democracy. An attack on the American people, by trying to rob you of your voice in our democracy. And in doing so, lit the fuse that led to the horrific violence of January 6th, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol, sent by Donald Trump, to stop the transfer of power.
“Today, my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, and our witnesses, will detail the Select Committee’s findings on these matters.
“But first, I’ll recognize our distinguished Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.”
* * *
Vice Chair Cheney: “Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
“Last week, this Committee began by outlining a seven part plan overseen by President Trump to overturn the 2020 election. Today, we are looking at the initial part of that plan: President Trump’s effort to convince millions of Americans that the election was stolen from him by overwhelming fraud.
“A federal court has already reviewed elements of the Committee’s evidence on this point, and said this: ‘In the months following the election, numerous credible sources – from the President’s inner circle to agency leadership and statisticians – informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud’ sufficient to overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
“The Court’s opinion methodically documents each of the principal reasons for that conclusion, and I would urge all of those watching to read it. Today we will begin to show the American people some of our evidence.
“Today, you will hear much more from former Attorney General Bill Barr’s recorded testimony, and you will hear in greater detail what others in the Department told President Trump – that his claims of election fraud were nonsense.
“You will also hear much more from President Trump’s own campaign experts, who had also concluded that his fraud claims could not be supported.
“Let me briefly focus on just three points now.
“First, you will hear firsthand testimony that the President’s campaign advisors urged him to await the counting of votes and not to declare victory on election night. The President understood even before the election that many more Biden voters had voted by mail – because President Trump ignored the advice of his campaign experts and told his supporters only to vote in person.
“Donald Trump knew before the election that the counting of those mail-in ballots in several states would not begin until late in the day and would not be complete for multiple days.
“This was expected, reported, and widely known.
“You will hear testimony that President Trump rejected the advice of his campaign experts on election night, and instead followed the course recommended by an apparently inebriated Rudy Giuliani, to just claim he won, and insist that the vote counting stop – to falsely claim everything was fraudulent.
“He falsely told the American people that the election was not legitimate, in his words ‘a major fraud.’ Millions of Americans believed him.
“Second, pay attention to what Donald Trump and his legal team said repeatedly about Dominion voting machines – far flung conspiracies with a deceased Venezuelan Communist allegedly pulling the strings.
“This was ‘complete nonsense,’ as Bill Barr said.
“Trump’s own campaign advisors, his Department of Justice, and his cybersecurity experts all told him the same thing. Here, for example, is White House lawyer Eric Herschmann; his view was shared by many of the Trump team who we interviewed:
[multimedia]
“And third, as Mike Pence’s staff started to get a sense for what Donald Trump had planned for January 6th, they called the campaign experts to give them a briefing on election fraud and all the other election claims.
“On January 2nd, the General Counsel of the Trump Campaign, Matthew Morgan – this is the campaign’s chief lawyer -- summarized what the Campaign had concluded weeks earlier – that none of the arguments about fraud or anything else could actually change the outcome of the election.
[multimedia]
“As is obvious, this is before the attack on the Capitol. The Trump campaign legal team knew there was no legitimate argument – fraud, irregularities, or anything – to overturn the election. And yet, President Trump went ahead with his plans for January 6th anyway.
“Mr. Chairman, hundreds of our countrymen have faced criminal charges, many are serving criminal sentences because they believed what Donald Trump said about the election and they acted on it. They came to Washington D.C. at his request, they marched on the Capitol at his request, and hundreds of them besieged and invaded the building at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.
“As one conservative editorial board put recently: ‘Mr. Trump betrayed his supporters by conning them on Jan. 6, and he is still doing it.’
“Another conservative editorial board, one that has long supported President Trump, said last week: Donald Trump ‘won’t stop insisting that 2020 was ‘stolen’ even though he has offered no proof that it’s true.’
“And this: [Donald Trump] now ‘clings to more fantastical theories, such as Dinesh D’Souza’s debunked ‘2000 Mules,’ even as recounts in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin confirm Trump lost.’
“Those are the correct conclusions to draw from the evidence gathered by this Committee. We have much more evidence to show the American people on this point than we can reasonably show in one hearing.
“But today we will begin.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”
* * *
Chairman Thompson: “Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for an opening statement.”
* * *
Representative Lofgren: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
“In our opening hearing we gave an overview of our investigation into the January 6th attack. The plot to overthrow the election was complex and had many parts, which we’ll explore in remaining hearings. But today we examine the false narrative that the 2020 election was ’stolen’.
“Former President Trump’s plan to overturn the election relied on a sustained effort to deceive millions of Americans with knowingly false claims of election fraud. All elements of the plot relied on convincing his supporters about these false claims.
“Today, we’ll demonstrate the 2020 election was not stolen. The American people elected President Joe Biden. We’ll present evidence that Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud were false, that he and his closest advisors knew those claims were false but they continued to peddle them anyway, right up until moments before a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol.
“We’ll also show that the Trump campaign used these false claims of election fraud to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from supporters who were told their donations were for the legal fight in the courts.
“But the Trump Campaign didn’t use the money for that. The Big Lie was also a big rip off.
“The former President laid the groundwork for these false claims well in advance of the election. As early as April 2020, Mr. Trump claimed that the only way he could lose an election would be as a result of fraud:
[multimedia]
“Mr. Trump decided even before the election that, regardless of the facts and the truth, if he lost the election he would claim it was rigged. Mr. Trump was right about one thing: it did not end well.
“On election night, Mr. Trump claimed even before the votes were counted, that his loss was a result of fraud.
“Thursday, we had testimony from Attorney General Barr about the Department of Justice’s investigation of Mr. Trump’s fraud claims. Barr told Trump directly that his claims were ‘BS.’
“Yet after hearing the truth and that warning from his Attorney General, Mr. Trump continued to peddle the false claims of fraud.
“You’ll hear detailed testimony from Attorney General Barr describing the various election fraud claims the Department of Justice investigated. He’ll tell you how he told Mr. Trump, repeatedly, that there was no merit to those claims.
“Mr. Barr will tell us that Mr. Trump’s election-night claims of fraud were made without regard to the truth, and before it was even possible to look for evidence of fraud.
“Attorney General Barr wasn’t alone. You’ll see and hear today, other Department of Justice officials and senior advisors to Mr. Trump that they told him that claims he was making were not supported by evidence.
“The election fraud claims were false. Mr. Trump’s closest advisors knew it. Mr. Trump knew it.
“That didn’t stop him from pushing the false claims and urging his supporters to, ‘fight like hell’ to ‘take back their country.’
“After he lost the election, various legal challenges were made. You’ll hear testimony today from a renowned Republican election litigation lawyer who will explain the normal process by which candidates challenge an election.
“Rather than accept the results of the election and the decisions of the courts, Mr. Trump pursued a different strategy. He tried to convince the American people the election had been stolen. Many of his supporters believed him. Many still believe him today.
“The attack on January 6th was a direct and predictable result of Mr. Trump’s decision to use false claims of election fraud to overturn the election and cling to power.”
# # #
- As Delivered –
Chairman Thompson: “Good morning. Last week, the Select Committee laid out a preview of our initial findings about a conspiracy, overseen and directed by Donald Trump, to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election and block the transfer of power—a scheme unprecedented in American history.
“My colleagues and I don’t want to spend time talking about ourselves during these hearings, but as someone who’s run for office a few times, I can tell you: at the end of a campaign, it all comes down to the numbers. The numbers tell you the winner and the loser.
“For the most part, the numbers don’t lie.
“But if something doesn’t add up with the numbers, you go to court to get resolution. And that’s the end of the line. We accept those results. That’s what it means to respect the rule of law. That’s what it means to seek elected office in our democracy.
“Because those numbers aren’t just numbers.
“They are votes. They are your votes. They are the will and the voice of the people. And the very least we should expect from any person seeking a position of public trust is the acceptance of the will of the people—win or lose.
“Donald Trump didn’t.
“He didn’t have the numbers. He went to court, and he still didn’t have the numbers. He lost.
“But he betrayed the trust of the American people. He ignored the will of the voters. He lied to his supporters and the country. And he tried to remain in office after the people had voted him out—and the courts upheld the will of the people.
“This morning we’ll tell the story of how Donald Trump lost an election—and knew he lost an election—and as a result of his loss, decided to wage an attack on our democracy. An attack on the American people, by trying to rob you of your voice in our democracy. And in doing so, lit the fuse that led to the horrific violence of January 6th, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol, sent by Donald Trump, to stop the transfer of power.
“Today, my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, and our witnesses, will detail the Select Committee’s findings on these matters.
“But first, I’ll recognize our distinguished Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.”
* * *
Vice Chair Cheney: “Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
“Last week, this Committee began by outlining a seven part plan overseen by President Trump to overturn the 2020 election. Today, we are looking at the initial part of that plan: President Trump’s effort to convince millions of Americans that the election was stolen from him by overwhelming fraud.
“A federal court has already reviewed elements of the Committee’s evidence on this point, and said this: ‘In the months following the election, numerous credible sources – from the President’s inner circle to agency leadership and statisticians – informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud’ sufficient to overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
“The Court’s opinion methodically documents each of the principal reasons for that conclusion, and I would urge all of those watching to read it. Today we will begin to show the American people some of our evidence.
“Today, you will hear much more from former Attorney General Bill Barr’s recorded testimony, and you will hear in greater detail what others in the Department told President Trump – that his claims of election fraud were nonsense.
“You will also hear much more from President Trump’s own campaign experts, who had also concluded that his fraud claims could not be supported.
“Let me briefly focus on just three points now.
“First, you will hear firsthand testimony that the President’s campaign advisors urged him to await the counting of votes and not to declare victory on election night. The President understood even before the election that many more Biden voters had voted by mail – because President Trump ignored the advice of his campaign experts and told his supporters only to vote in person.
“Donald Trump knew before the election that the counting of those mail-in ballots in several states would not begin until late in the day and would not be complete for multiple days.
“This was expected, reported, and widely known.
“You will hear testimony that President Trump rejected the advice of his campaign experts on election night, and instead followed the course recommended by an apparently inebriated Rudy Giuliani, to just claim he won, and insist that the vote counting stop – to falsely claim everything was fraudulent.
“He falsely told the American people that the election was not legitimate, in his words ‘a major fraud.’ Millions of Americans believed him.
“Second, pay attention to what Donald Trump and his legal team said repeatedly about Dominion voting machines – far flung conspiracies with a deceased Venezuelan Communist allegedly pulling the strings.
“This was ‘complete nonsense,’ as Bill Barr said.
“Trump’s own campaign advisors, his Department of Justice, and his cybersecurity experts all told him the same thing. Here, for example, is White House lawyer Eric Herschmann; his view was shared by many of the Trump team who we interviewed:
[multimedia]
“And third, as Mike Pence’s staff started to get a sense for what Donald Trump had planned for January 6th, they called the campaign experts to give them a briefing on election fraud and all the other election claims.
“On January 2nd, the General Counsel of the Trump Campaign, Matthew Morgan – this is the campaign’s chief lawyer -- summarized what the Campaign had concluded weeks earlier – that none of the arguments about fraud or anything else could actually change the outcome of the election.
[multimedia]
“As is obvious, this is before the attack on the Capitol. The Trump campaign legal team knew there was no legitimate argument – fraud, irregularities, or anything – to overturn the election. And yet, President Trump went ahead with his plans for January 6th anyway.
“Mr. Chairman, hundreds of our countrymen have faced criminal charges, many are serving criminal sentences because they believed what Donald Trump said about the election and they acted on it. They came to Washington D.C. at his request, they marched on the Capitol at his request, and hundreds of them besieged and invaded the building at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.
“As one conservative editorial board put recently: ‘Mr. Trump betrayed his supporters by conning them on Jan. 6, and he is still doing it.’
“Another conservative editorial board, one that has long supported President Trump, said last week: Donald Trump ‘won’t stop insisting that 2020 was ‘stolen’ even though he has offered no proof that it’s true.’
“And this: [Donald Trump] now ‘clings to more fantastical theories, such as Dinesh D’Souza’s debunked ‘2000 Mules,’ even as recounts in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin confirm Trump lost.’
“Those are the correct conclusions to draw from the evidence gathered by this Committee. We have much more evidence to show the American people on this point than we can reasonably show in one hearing.
“But today we will begin.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”
* * *
Chairman Thompson: “Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for an opening statement.”
* * *
Representative Lofgren: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
“In our opening hearing we gave an overview of our investigation into the January 6th attack. The plot to overthrow the election was complex and had many parts, which we’ll explore in remaining hearings. But today we examine the false narrative that the 2020 election was ’stolen’.
“Former President Trump’s plan to overturn the election relied on a sustained effort to deceive millions of Americans with knowingly false claims of election fraud. All elements of the plot relied on convincing his supporters about these false claims.
“Today, we’ll demonstrate the 2020 election was not stolen. The American people elected President Joe Biden. We’ll present evidence that Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud were false, that he and his closest advisors knew those claims were false but they continued to peddle them anyway, right up until moments before a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol.
“We’ll also show that the Trump campaign used these false claims of election fraud to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from supporters who were told their donations were for the legal fight in the courts.
“But the Trump Campaign didn’t use the money for that. The Big Lie was also a big rip off.
“The former President laid the groundwork for these false claims well in advance of the election. As early as April 2020, Mr. Trump claimed that the only way he could lose an election would be as a result of fraud:
[multimedia]
“Mr. Trump decided even before the election that, regardless of the facts and the truth, if he lost the election he would claim it was rigged. Mr. Trump was right about one thing: it did not end well.
“On election night, Mr. Trump claimed even before the votes were counted, that his loss was a result of fraud.
“Thursday, we had testimony from Attorney General Barr about the Department of Justice’s investigation of Mr. Trump’s fraud claims. Barr told Trump directly that his claims were ‘BS.’
“Yet after hearing the truth and that warning from his Attorney General, Mr. Trump continued to peddle the false claims of fraud.
“You’ll hear detailed testimony from Attorney General Barr describing the various election fraud claims the Department of Justice investigated. He’ll tell you how he told Mr. Trump, repeatedly, that there was no merit to those claims.
“Mr. Barr will tell us that Mr. Trump’s election-night claims of fraud were made without regard to the truth, and before it was even possible to look for evidence of fraud.
“Attorney General Barr wasn’t alone. You’ll see and hear today, other Department of Justice officials and senior advisors to Mr. Trump that they told him that claims he was making were not supported by evidence.
“The election fraud claims were false. Mr. Trump’s closest advisors knew it. Mr. Trump knew it.
“That didn’t stop him from pushing the false claims and urging his supporters to, ‘fight like hell’ to ‘take back their country.’
“After he lost the election, various legal challenges were made. You’ll hear testimony today from a renowned Republican election litigation lawyer who will explain the normal process by which candidates challenge an election.
“Rather than accept the results of the election and the decisions of the courts, Mr. Trump pursued a different strategy. He tried to convince the American people the election had been stolen. Many of his supporters believed him. Many still believe him today.
“The attack on January 6th was a direct and predictable result of Mr. Trump’s decision to use false claims of election fraud to overturn the election and cling to power.”
# # #
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:11 pm
Thompson and Cheney Opening Remarks at Select Committee Hearing, Jun 28, 2022
- As Delivered –
Chairman Thompson: “Good afternoon.
“In our hearings over the previous weeks, the Select Committee has laid out the details of a multi-part pressure campaign driven by the former President aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election and blocking the transfer of power.
“We’ve shown that this effort was based on a lie—a lie that the election was stolen tainted by widespread fraud.
“Donald Trump’s Big Lie.
“In the weeks ahead, the committee will hold additional hearings about how Donald Trump summoned a mob of his supporters to Washington spurred them to march on the Capitol and failed to take meaningful action to quell the violence as it was unfolding on January 6th.
“However, in recent days, the Select Committee has obtained new information dealing with what was going on in the White House on January 6th and in the days prior.
“Specific, detailed information about what the former President and his top aides were doing and saying in those critical hours.
“Firsthand details of what transpired in the office of the White House Chief of Staff—just steps from the Oval Office—as the threats of violence became clear and, indeed, violence ultimately descended on the Capitol in the attack on American democracy.
“It’s important that the American people hear that information immediately. That’s why, in consultation with the Vice Chair, I’ve recalled the committee for today’s hearing.
“As you’ve seen and heard in our earlier hearings, the Select Committee has developed a massive body of evidence thanks to the many hundreds of witnesses who have voluntarily provided information relevant to our investigation.
“It hasn’t always been easy to get that information because the same people who drove the former President’s pressure campaign to overturn the election are now trying to cover up the truth about January 6th.
“But thanks to the courage of certain individuals, the truth won’t be buried. The American people won’t be left in the dark. Our witness today, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, has embodied that courage.
“I won’t get into a lot of detail about Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony will show. I’ll allow her words to speak for themselves. And I hope everyone at home will listen very closely.
“First, I’ll recognize our distinguished Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.
***
Vice Chair Cheney: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
“In our first five hearings, the Committee has heard from a significant number of Republicans, including former Trump Administration Justice Department Officials, Trump Campaign officials, several members of President Trump’s White House staff, a prominent conservative judge and several others.
“Today’s witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson is another Republican, and another former member of President Trump’s White House staff.
“Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican Whip, Steve Scalise.
“But she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House legislative affairs office, and later was the principal aide to President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows.
“Ms. Hutchinson has spent considerable time up here on Capitol Hill representing the Trump Administration. And we welcome her back.
“Up until now, our hearings have each been organized to address specific elements of President Trump’s plan to overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
“Today, we are departing somewhat from that model because Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony touches on several important and crosscutting topics – topics that are relevant to each of our future hearings.
“In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Ms. Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office.
“Ms. Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high-ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornado who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff.
“She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House.
“In short, Ms. Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House.
“Ms. Hutchinson has already sat for four videotaped interviews with Committee investigators. And we thank her very much for her cooperation and for her courage.
“We will cover certain but not all relevant topics within Ms. Hutchinson’s knowledge today.
“Again, our future hearings will supply greater detail, putting the testimony today in a broader and more complete context.
“Today, you will hear Ms. Hutchinson relate certain first-hand observations of President Trump’s conduct on January 6th.
“You will also hear new information regarding the actions and statements of Mr. Trump’s senior advisors that day, including his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and his White House Counsel.
“And we will begin to examine evidence bearing on what President Trump and members of the White House staff knew about the prospect for violence on January 6th even before that violence began.
“To best communicate the information the Committee has gathered, we will follow the practice of our recent hearings, playing videotaped testimony from Ms. Hutchinson and others, and also posing questions to Ms. Hutchinson live.
“Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”
- As Delivered –
Chairman Thompson: “Good afternoon.
“In our hearings over the previous weeks, the Select Committee has laid out the details of a multi-part pressure campaign driven by the former President aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election and blocking the transfer of power.
“We’ve shown that this effort was based on a lie—a lie that the election was stolen tainted by widespread fraud.
“Donald Trump’s Big Lie.
“In the weeks ahead, the committee will hold additional hearings about how Donald Trump summoned a mob of his supporters to Washington spurred them to march on the Capitol and failed to take meaningful action to quell the violence as it was unfolding on January 6th.
“However, in recent days, the Select Committee has obtained new information dealing with what was going on in the White House on January 6th and in the days prior.
“Specific, detailed information about what the former President and his top aides were doing and saying in those critical hours.
“Firsthand details of what transpired in the office of the White House Chief of Staff—just steps from the Oval Office—as the threats of violence became clear and, indeed, violence ultimately descended on the Capitol in the attack on American democracy.
“It’s important that the American people hear that information immediately. That’s why, in consultation with the Vice Chair, I’ve recalled the committee for today’s hearing.
“As you’ve seen and heard in our earlier hearings, the Select Committee has developed a massive body of evidence thanks to the many hundreds of witnesses who have voluntarily provided information relevant to our investigation.
“It hasn’t always been easy to get that information because the same people who drove the former President’s pressure campaign to overturn the election are now trying to cover up the truth about January 6th.
“But thanks to the courage of certain individuals, the truth won’t be buried. The American people won’t be left in the dark. Our witness today, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, has embodied that courage.
“I won’t get into a lot of detail about Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony will show. I’ll allow her words to speak for themselves. And I hope everyone at home will listen very closely.
“First, I’ll recognize our distinguished Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she’d care to offer.
***
Vice Chair Cheney: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
“In our first five hearings, the Committee has heard from a significant number of Republicans, including former Trump Administration Justice Department Officials, Trump Campaign officials, several members of President Trump’s White House staff, a prominent conservative judge and several others.
“Today’s witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson is another Republican, and another former member of President Trump’s White House staff.
“Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican Whip, Steve Scalise.
“But she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House legislative affairs office, and later was the principal aide to President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows.
“Ms. Hutchinson has spent considerable time up here on Capitol Hill representing the Trump Administration. And we welcome her back.
“Up until now, our hearings have each been organized to address specific elements of President Trump’s plan to overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
“Today, we are departing somewhat from that model because Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony touches on several important and crosscutting topics – topics that are relevant to each of our future hearings.
“In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Ms. Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office.
“Ms. Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high-ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornado who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff.
“She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House.
“In short, Ms. Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House.
“Ms. Hutchinson has already sat for four videotaped interviews with Committee investigators. And we thank her very much for her cooperation and for her courage.
“We will cover certain but not all relevant topics within Ms. Hutchinson’s knowledge today.
“Again, our future hearings will supply greater detail, putting the testimony today in a broader and more complete context.
“Today, you will hear Ms. Hutchinson relate certain first-hand observations of President Trump’s conduct on January 6th.
“You will also hear new information regarding the actions and statements of Mr. Trump’s senior advisors that day, including his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and his White House Counsel.
“And we will begin to examine evidence bearing on what President Trump and members of the White House staff knew about the prospect for violence on January 6th even before that violence began.
“To best communicate the information the Committee has gathered, we will follow the practice of our recent hearings, playing videotaped testimony from Ms. Hutchinson and others, and also posing questions to Ms. Hutchinson live.
“Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:42 pm
Hearings of Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
by January 6th.house.gov
Select Committee Hearings
06/09/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/13/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/16/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/21/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/23/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/28/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
-- 07/12/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
-- 07/21/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
-- 10/13/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
************************
About Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
by January 6th.house.gov
Accessed: 6/29/22
ABOUT
Whereas January 6, 2021, was one of the darkest days of our democracy, during which insurrectionists attempted to impede Congress’s Constitutional mandate to validate the presidential election and launched an assault on the United States Capitol Complex that resulted in multiple deaths, physical harm to over 140 members of law enforcement, and terror and trauma among staff, institutional employees, press, and Members;
Whereas, on January 27, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued a National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin that due to the “heightened threat environment across the United States,” in which “[S]ome ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.” The Bulletin also stated that—
(1) “DHS is concerned these same drivers to violence will remain through early 2021 and some DVEs [domestic violent extremists] may be emboldened by the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. to target elected officials and government facilities.”; and
(2) “Threats of violence against critical infrastructure, including the electric, telecommunications and healthcare sectors, increased in 2020 with violent extremists citing misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID–19 for their actions”;
Whereas, on September 24, 2020, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Christopher Wray testified before the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that—
(1) “[T]he underlying drivers for domestic violent extremism – such as perceptions of government or law enforcement overreach, sociopolitical conditions, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and reactions to legislative actions – remain constant.”;
(2) “[W]ithin the domestic terrorism bucket category as a whole, racially-motivated violent extremism is, I think, the biggest bucket within the larger group. And within the racially-motivated violent extremists bucket, people subscribing to some kind of white supremacist-type ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that.”; and
(3) “More deaths were caused by DVEs than international terrorists in recent years. In fact, 2019 was the deadliest year for domestic extremist violence since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995”;
Whereas, on April 15, 2021, Michael Bolton, the Inspector General for the United States Capitol Police, testified to the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives that—
(1) “The Department lacked adequate guidance for operational planning. USCP did not have policy and procedures in place that communicated which personnel were responsible for operational planning, what type of operational planning documents its personnel should prepare, nor when its personnel should prepare operational planning documents.”; and
(2) “USCP failed to disseminate relevant information obtained from outside sources, lacked consensus on interpretation of threat analyses, and disseminated conflicting intelligence information regarding planned events for January 6, 2021.”; and
Whereas the security leadership of the Congress under-prepared for the events of January 6th, with United States Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton testifying again on June 15, 2021, that—
(1) “USCP did not have adequate policies and procedures for FRU (First Responder Unit) defining its overall operations. Additionally, FRU lacked resources and training for properly completing its mission.”;
(2) “The Department did not have adequate policies and procedures for securing ballistic helmets and vests strategically stored around the Capitol Complex.”; and
(3) “FRU did not have the proper resources to complete its mission.”: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is hereby established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (hereinafter referred to as the “Select Committee”).
SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.
(a) Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.
(b) Designation Of Chair.—The Speaker shall designate one Member to serve as chair of the Select Committee.
(c) Vacancies.—Any vacancy in the Select Committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
Consistent with the functions described in section 4, the purposes of the Select Committee are the following:
(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.
(2) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack.
(3) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executive branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.
SEC. 4. FUNCTIONS.
(a) Functions.—The functions of the Select Committee are to—
(1) investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including facts and circumstances relating to—
(A) activities of intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the Armed Forces, including with respect to intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination and information sharing among the branches and other instrumentalities of government;
(B) influencing factors that contributed to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and how technology, including online platforms, financing, and malign foreign influence operations and campaigns may have factored into the motivation, organization, and execution of the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol; and
(C) other entities of the public and private sector as determined relevant by the Select Committee for such investigation;
(2) identify, review, and evaluate the causes of and the lessons learned from the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol regarding—
(A) the command, control, and communications of the United States Capitol Police, the Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021;
(B) the structure, coordination, operational plans, policies, and procedures of the Federal Government, including as such relate to State and local governments and nongovernmental entities, and particularly with respect to detecting, preventing, preparing for, and responding to targeted violence and domestic terrorism;
(C) the structure, authorities, training, manpower utilization, equipment, operational planning, and use of force policies of the United States Capitol Police;
(D) the policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for the sharing of intelligence and other information by Federal, State, and local agencies with the United States Capitol Police, the Sergeants at Arms of the House of Representatives and Senate, the Government of the District of Columbia, including the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, the National Guard, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021, and the related policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for monitoring, assessing, disseminating, and acting on intelligence and other information, including elevating the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex, derived from instrumentalities of government, open sources, and online platforms; and
(E) the policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for interoperability between the United States Capitol Police and the National Guard, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021; and
(3) issue a final report to the House containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures described in subsection (c) as it may deem necessary.
(b) Reports.—
(1) INTERIM REPORTS.—In addition to the final report addressing the matters in subsection (a) and section 3, the Select Committee may report to the House or any committee of the House from time to time the results of its investigations, together with such detailed findings and legislative recommendations as it may deem advisable.
(2) TREATMENT OF CLASSIFIED OR LAW ENFORCEMENT-SENSITIVE MATTER.—Any report issued by the Select Committee shall be issued in unclassified form but may include a classified annex, a law enforcement-sensitive annex, or both.
(c) Corrective Measures Described.—The corrective measures described in this subsection may include changes in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations that could be taken—
(1) to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, including acts targeted at American democratic institutions;
(2) to improve the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex while preserving accessibility of the Capitol Complex for all Americans; and
(3) to strengthen the security and resilience of the United States and American democratic institutions against violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism.
(d) No Markup Of Legislation Permitted.—The Select Committee may not hold a markup of legislation.
SEC. 5. PROCEDURE.
(a) Access To Information From Intelligence Community.—Notwithstanding clause 3(m) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Select Committee is authorized to study the sources and methods of entities described in clause 11(b)(1)(A) of rule X insofar as such study is related to the matters described in sections 3 and 4.
(b) Treatment Of Classified Information.—Clause 11(b)(4), clause 11(e), and the first sentence of clause 11(f) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the Select Committee.
(c) Applicability Of Rules Governing Procedures Of Committees.—Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the Select Committee except as follows:
(1) Clause 2(a) of rule XI shall not apply to the Select Committee.
(2) Clause 2(g)(2)(D) of rule XI shall apply to the Select Committee in the same manner as it applies to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(3) Pursuant to clause 2(h) of rule XI, two Members of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence and one-third of the Members of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action other than one for which the presence of a majority of the Select Committee is required.
(4) The chair of the Select Committee may authorize and issue subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the investigation and study conducted pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of this resolution, including for the purpose of taking depositions.
(5) The chair of the Select Committee is authorized to compel by subpoena the furnishing of information by interrogatory.
(6) (A) The chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.
(B) Depositions taken under the authority prescribed in this paragraph shall be governed by the procedures submitted by the chair of the Committee on Rules for printing in the Congressional Record on January 4, 2021.
(7) Subpoenas authorized pursuant to this resolution may be signed by the chair of the Select Committee or a designee.
(8) The chair of the Select Committee may, after consultation with the ranking minority member, recognize—
(A) Members of the Select Committee to question a witness for periods longer than five minutes as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(B) of rule XI; and
(B) staff of the Select Committee to question a witness as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(C) of rule XI.
(9) The chair of the Select Committee may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on questions referenced in clause 2(h)(4) of rule XI, and may resume proceedings on such postponed questions at any time after reasonable notice. Notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed.
(10) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) of clause 4 of rule XI shall apply to the Select Committee.
SEC. 6. RECORDS; STAFF; TRAVEL; FUNDING.
(a) Sharing Records Of Committees.—Any committee of the House of Representatives having custody of records in any form relating to the matters described in sections 3 and 4 shall provide copies of such records to the Select Committee not later than 14 days of the adoption of this resolution or receipt of such records. Such records shall become the records of the Select Committee.
(b) Staff.—The appointment and the compensation of staff for the Select Committee shall be subject to regulations issued by the Committee on House Administration.
(c) Detail Of Staff Of Other Offices.—Staff of employing entities of the House or a joint committee may be detailed to the Select Committee to carry out this resolution and shall be deemed to be staff of the Select Committee.
(d) Use Of Consultants Permitted.—Section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4301(i)) shall apply with respect to the Select Committee in the same manner as such section applies with respect to a standing committee of the House of Representatives.
(e) Travel.—Clauses 8(a), (b), and (c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the Select Committee.
(f) Funding; Payments.—There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary for the expenses of the Select Committee. Such payments shall be made on vouchers signed by the chair of the Select Committee and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration. Amounts made available under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House Administration.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.
(a) Termination.—The Select Committee shall terminate 30 days after filing the final report under section 4.
(b) Disposition Of Records.—Upon termination of the Select Committee—
(1) the records of the Select Committee shall become the records of such committee or committees designated by the Speaker; and
(2) the copies of records provided to the Select Committee by a committee of the House under section 6(a) shall be returned to the committee.
Attest:
by January 6th.house.gov
Select Committee Hearings
06/09/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/13/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/16/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/21/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/23/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
06/28/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
-- 07/12/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
-- 07/21/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
-- 10/13/2022 SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING
************************
About Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
by January 6th.house.gov
Accessed: 6/29/22
ABOUT
Whereas January 6, 2021, was one of the darkest days of our democracy, during which insurrectionists attempted to impede Congress’s Constitutional mandate to validate the presidential election and launched an assault on the United States Capitol Complex that resulted in multiple deaths, physical harm to over 140 members of law enforcement, and terror and trauma among staff, institutional employees, press, and Members;
Whereas, on January 27, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued a National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin that due to the “heightened threat environment across the United States,” in which “[S]ome ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.” The Bulletin also stated that—
(1) “DHS is concerned these same drivers to violence will remain through early 2021 and some DVEs [domestic violent extremists] may be emboldened by the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. to target elected officials and government facilities.”; and
(2) “Threats of violence against critical infrastructure, including the electric, telecommunications and healthcare sectors, increased in 2020 with violent extremists citing misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID–19 for their actions”;
Whereas, on September 24, 2020, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Christopher Wray testified before the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that—
(1) “[T]he underlying drivers for domestic violent extremism – such as perceptions of government or law enforcement overreach, sociopolitical conditions, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and reactions to legislative actions – remain constant.”;
(2) “[W]ithin the domestic terrorism bucket category as a whole, racially-motivated violent extremism is, I think, the biggest bucket within the larger group. And within the racially-motivated violent extremists bucket, people subscribing to some kind of white supremacist-type ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that.”; and
(3) “More deaths were caused by DVEs than international terrorists in recent years. In fact, 2019 was the deadliest year for domestic extremist violence since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995”;
Whereas, on April 15, 2021, Michael Bolton, the Inspector General for the United States Capitol Police, testified to the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives that—
(1) “The Department lacked adequate guidance for operational planning. USCP did not have policy and procedures in place that communicated which personnel were responsible for operational planning, what type of operational planning documents its personnel should prepare, nor when its personnel should prepare operational planning documents.”; and
(2) “USCP failed to disseminate relevant information obtained from outside sources, lacked consensus on interpretation of threat analyses, and disseminated conflicting intelligence information regarding planned events for January 6, 2021.”; and
Whereas the security leadership of the Congress under-prepared for the events of January 6th, with United States Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton testifying again on June 15, 2021, that—
(1) “USCP did not have adequate policies and procedures for FRU (First Responder Unit) defining its overall operations. Additionally, FRU lacked resources and training for properly completing its mission.”;
(2) “The Department did not have adequate policies and procedures for securing ballistic helmets and vests strategically stored around the Capitol Complex.”; and
(3) “FRU did not have the proper resources to complete its mission.”: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is hereby established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (hereinafter referred to as the “Select Committee”).
SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.
(a) Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.
(b) Designation Of Chair.—The Speaker shall designate one Member to serve as chair of the Select Committee.
(c) Vacancies.—Any vacancy in the Select Committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
Consistent with the functions described in section 4, the purposes of the Select Committee are the following:
(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.
(2) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack.
(3) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executive branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.
SEC. 4. FUNCTIONS.
(a) Functions.—The functions of the Select Committee are to—
(1) investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including facts and circumstances relating to—
(A) activities of intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the Armed Forces, including with respect to intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination and information sharing among the branches and other instrumentalities of government;
(B) influencing factors that contributed to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and how technology, including online platforms, financing, and malign foreign influence operations and campaigns may have factored into the motivation, organization, and execution of the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol; and
(C) other entities of the public and private sector as determined relevant by the Select Committee for such investigation;
(2) identify, review, and evaluate the causes of and the lessons learned from the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol regarding—
(A) the command, control, and communications of the United States Capitol Police, the Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021;
(B) the structure, coordination, operational plans, policies, and procedures of the Federal Government, including as such relate to State and local governments and nongovernmental entities, and particularly with respect to detecting, preventing, preparing for, and responding to targeted violence and domestic terrorism;
(C) the structure, authorities, training, manpower utilization, equipment, operational planning, and use of force policies of the United States Capitol Police;
(D) the policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for the sharing of intelligence and other information by Federal, State, and local agencies with the United States Capitol Police, the Sergeants at Arms of the House of Representatives and Senate, the Government of the District of Columbia, including the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, the National Guard, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021, and the related policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for monitoring, assessing, disseminating, and acting on intelligence and other information, including elevating the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex, derived from instrumentalities of government, open sources, and online platforms; and
(E) the policies, protocols, processes, procedures, and systems for interoperability between the United States Capitol Police and the National Guard, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region on or before January 6, 2021; and
(3) issue a final report to the House containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures described in subsection (c) as it may deem necessary.
(b) Reports.—
(1) INTERIM REPORTS.—In addition to the final report addressing the matters in subsection (a) and section 3, the Select Committee may report to the House or any committee of the House from time to time the results of its investigations, together with such detailed findings and legislative recommendations as it may deem advisable.
(2) TREATMENT OF CLASSIFIED OR LAW ENFORCEMENT-SENSITIVE MATTER.—Any report issued by the Select Committee shall be issued in unclassified form but may include a classified annex, a law enforcement-sensitive annex, or both.
(c) Corrective Measures Described.—The corrective measures described in this subsection may include changes in law, policy, procedures, rules, or regulations that could be taken—
(1) to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, including acts targeted at American democratic institutions;
(2) to improve the security posture of the United States Capitol Complex while preserving accessibility of the Capitol Complex for all Americans; and
(3) to strengthen the security and resilience of the United States and American democratic institutions against violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism.
(d) No Markup Of Legislation Permitted.—The Select Committee may not hold a markup of legislation.
SEC. 5. PROCEDURE.
(a) Access To Information From Intelligence Community.—Notwithstanding clause 3(m) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Select Committee is authorized to study the sources and methods of entities described in clause 11(b)(1)(A) of rule X insofar as such study is related to the matters described in sections 3 and 4.
(b) Treatment Of Classified Information.—Clause 11(b)(4), clause 11(e), and the first sentence of clause 11(f) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the Select Committee.
(c) Applicability Of Rules Governing Procedures Of Committees.—Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the Select Committee except as follows:
(1) Clause 2(a) of rule XI shall not apply to the Select Committee.
(2) Clause 2(g)(2)(D) of rule XI shall apply to the Select Committee in the same manner as it applies to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(3) Pursuant to clause 2(h) of rule XI, two Members of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence and one-third of the Members of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action other than one for which the presence of a majority of the Select Committee is required.
(4) The chair of the Select Committee may authorize and issue subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the investigation and study conducted pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of this resolution, including for the purpose of taking depositions.
(5) The chair of the Select Committee is authorized to compel by subpoena the furnishing of information by interrogatory.
(6) (A) The chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.
(B) Depositions taken under the authority prescribed in this paragraph shall be governed by the procedures submitted by the chair of the Committee on Rules for printing in the Congressional Record on January 4, 2021.
(7) Subpoenas authorized pursuant to this resolution may be signed by the chair of the Select Committee or a designee.
(8) The chair of the Select Committee may, after consultation with the ranking minority member, recognize—
(A) Members of the Select Committee to question a witness for periods longer than five minutes as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(B) of rule XI; and
(B) staff of the Select Committee to question a witness as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(C) of rule XI.
(9) The chair of the Select Committee may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on questions referenced in clause 2(h)(4) of rule XI, and may resume proceedings on such postponed questions at any time after reasonable notice. Notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed.
(10) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) of clause 4 of rule XI shall apply to the Select Committee.
SEC. 6. RECORDS; STAFF; TRAVEL; FUNDING.
(a) Sharing Records Of Committees.—Any committee of the House of Representatives having custody of records in any form relating to the matters described in sections 3 and 4 shall provide copies of such records to the Select Committee not later than 14 days of the adoption of this resolution or receipt of such records. Such records shall become the records of the Select Committee.
(b) Staff.—The appointment and the compensation of staff for the Select Committee shall be subject to regulations issued by the Committee on House Administration.
(c) Detail Of Staff Of Other Offices.—Staff of employing entities of the House or a joint committee may be detailed to the Select Committee to carry out this resolution and shall be deemed to be staff of the Select Committee.
(d) Use Of Consultants Permitted.—Section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4301(i)) shall apply with respect to the Select Committee in the same manner as such section applies with respect to a standing committee of the House of Representatives.
(e) Travel.—Clauses 8(a), (b), and (c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the Select Committee.
(f) Funding; Payments.—There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary for the expenses of the Select Committee. Such payments shall be made on vouchers signed by the chair of the Select Committee and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration. Amounts made available under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House Administration.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.
(a) Termination.—The Select Committee shall terminate 30 days after filing the final report under section 4.
(b) Disposition Of Records.—Upon termination of the Select Committee—
(1) the records of the Select Committee shall become the records of such committee or committees designated by the Speaker; and
(2) the copies of records provided to the Select Committee by a committee of the House under section 6(a) shall be returned to the committee.
Attest:
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:44 am
‘Crook’: Anxious Trumpworld Preps For ‘Worst-Case’ As Star GOP Lawyer Says Trump Will Be Indicted
by Ari Melber
Jun 30, 2022
Hutchinson’s bombshell testimony before the Jan. 6 committee, Donald Trump’s top lawyer during the insurrection, Pat Cipollone, has been subpoenaed by the House panel. Pat Cipollone had warned Trump aides of possible crimes regarding the Jan. 6 insurrection. Meanwhile, Trump is on defense, denying Hutchinson’s grave claims as some MAGA vets turn on him. MSNBC’s Ari Melber reports on the escalating investigation.
WE ARE TRACKING NEWS IN THE
0:09
INSURRECTION PROBE IF FURTHER
0:11
FALLOUT AND CRACKS AFTER
0:11
BLOCKBUSTER TESTIMONY AGAINST
0:12
TRUMP HAS REALLY RICOCHETED
0:13
AROUND THE NATION.
0:15
THE TESTIMONY LINKED TRUMP TO
0:16
THE VIOLENCE OF THAT COUP
0:19
ATTEMPTS, TURBO CHARGING
0:24
TRUMP-WORLD ANXIETIES AS THEY
0:25
PREP FOR EVEN WORST-CASE
0:25
SCENARIOS AND THERE ARE MORE AND
0:26
MORE DOMINOS FALLING ON THE
0:29
RIGHT PAUSE BECAUSE OF THE POWER
0:35
OF THIS FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
0:36
TAKE THE REPUBLICAN PROSECUTOR
0:36
WE HAVE CITED BEFORE, ANDREW
0:37
McCARTHY.
0:38
A FOX-NEWS FAVORITE, WHO WROTE A
0:39
WHOLE BOOK DEFENDING TRUMP IN
0:40
THE MUELLER PROBE, AND ACCUSING
0:42
OTHERS OF PUSHING THE REAL
0:47
COLLUSION, WHICH IS ONE REASON
0:50
HE IS ON FOX QUITE A BIT AND HAS
0:52
A HUGE CONSERVATIVE LEGAL
0:54
FOLLOWING.
0:54
HE WAS ALSO APPOINTEE IN THE
0:56
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF YORK UNDER
0:57
RUDY GIULIANI HIMSELF, SO HE IS
0:58
A REAGAN' APPOINTEE AND THAT
1:01
DOJ.
1:01
BUT HE IS ALSO SOMEONE WHO --
1:03
AND YOU SEE HIS FACE ON THE
1:05
SCREEN YOU MAY RECOGNIZE HIM
1:06
BECAUSE HE IS ON FOX -- HE IS
1:08
SOMEONE WHO SAYS HE ALSO TRIES
1:11
TO DEAL WITH LEGAL ANALYSIS.
1:12
PERHAPS, IT IS A MORE CONFIDENT
1:14
VARIETY.
1:16
HE CLEARLY WAS IN THE REAGAN
1:18
REVOLUTION BUT HE IS RESPOND TO
1:19
THE EVIDENCE.
1:20
HE SAYS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
1:21
EVIDENCE, AS A CRIMINAL-LEGAL
1:23
MATTER, IT IS DEVASTATING
1:26
AGAINST TRUMP, AND THAT THE NEW
1:27
EVIDENCE IN THAT HEARING MAKES A
1:28
BIG DIFFERENCE.
1:28
HE IS SAYING THIS IN PUBLIC AND
1:31
THIS WEEK, HE IS NOW EMPHASIZING
1:33
THAT REALLY AS FAR AS HE IS
1:34
CONCERNED FOR THE FIRST TIME,
1:35
THERE IS NOW DIRECT EVIDENCE
1:37
SHOWING TRUMP COMMITTED CRIMES,
1:39
AND BACKED VIOLENCE.
1:43
WE WILLLET YOU HEAR IT FOR
1:46
YOURSELF.
1:46
>> TRUMP WAS CLEARLY AWARE JUST
1:48
MOMENTS BEFORE HE TOOK THE
1:50
PODIUM THAT YOU HAD A MOB OF
1:52
HEAVILY-ARMED PEOPLE.
1:53
THE CRITICAL THINGS HE SAYS
1:57
THERE ARE THE THEY ARE NOT HERE
1:58
TO HURT ME, WHICH MEAN --
1:59
IMPLIES THAT, IN HIS MIND, HE
2:01
KNOWS THEY ARE HERE TO HURT
2:04
SOMEONE.
2:04
AND THE SECOND THING HE SAYS IF
2:05
THEY CAN COME IN, THEY CAN HEAR
2:07
ME AND THEN THEY CAN MARCH TO
2:08
THE CAPITOL.
2:09
SO, HE IS VERY AWARE THAT YOU
2:11
HAVE A MOB THAT'S ARMED TO THE
2:14
TEETH, THAT HE IS PLANNING TO --
2:17
TO ENCOURAGE TO -- TO MARCH ON
2:18
THE CAPITOL.
2:21
THAT KNOWLEDGE -- UM -- OPENS UP
2:25
THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU COULD
2:27
PROSECUTE FOR AIDING AND
2:29
ABETTING THE INTIMIDATION OF
2:30
FEDERAL OFFICIALS, WHICH IS A
2:33
PRETTY SERIOUS.
2:36
CRIME.
2:36
>> DO YOU EXPECT WE ARE GOING TO
2:38
SEE TRUMP PROSECUTED BY THE
2:39
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ON -- ON ANY
2:40
OF THESE CHARGES?
2:41
>> I DO NOW, YEAH.
2:44
>> I DO NOW.
2:48
THAT'S JUST THREE WORDS.
2:51
I GAVE YOU HIS CREDENTIALS.
2:52
HE IS SAYING WHAT HE THINKS WILL
2:53
HAPPEN.
2:54
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.
2:56
HE DOES THINK THERE IS A CASE TO
2:58
INDICT DONALD TRUMP, AND HE DOES
2:59
THINK IT IS NOW PASSED THE LINE
3:04
FROM DEBATABLE EVIDENCE TO
3:08
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF A
3:08
VIOLENT FELONY WHICH IS SERIOUS,
3:09
THAT'S TRUE.
3:10
AND THAT LAST WORD, "NOW," IT
3:12
SPEAKS TO WHAT EVERYONE IS
3:15
WONDERING ABOUT THESE
3:15
INSURRECTION HEARINGS.
3:16
ABOUT THIS DIFFICULT INTERBRANCH
3:18
PROCESS.
3:18
THE NOW IS THAT THE EVIDENCE HAS
3:20
PASSED A CERTAIN POINT.
3:22
AND I WILL JUST SAY ON A
3:24
PERSONAL NOTE, MR. McCARTHY, A
3:25
LAWYER WHO TALKS ACT THESE
3:27
ISSUE, REPORTS ON THEM, AND
3:28
ANALYZES THEM ON TV, AS DO I,
3:31
THAT NIGHT OF THE HEARING WHEN I
3:33
WAS SITTING THERE, HERE ON MSNBC
3:36
IN OUR COVERAGE FOR YOU WITH
3:38
RACHEL AND OUR WHOLE TEAM, I
3:40
SAID THAT WAS A SAD DAY.
3:42
WE MARKED THAT AS A SAD DAY
3:44
BECAUSE THE OVERWHELMING
3:46
EVIDENCE SHOWED THIS CRIMINAL
3:48
INTENT AND ACTION AND ILLEGAL
3:50
ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT.
3:51
AND I WILL REMIND YOU WHEN I
3:52
SAID THEN.
3:53
IT'S SAD BECAUSE, HAD YOU GET TO
3:55
THAT POINT, THAT IS A SAD THING
3:57
FOR THE COUNTRY.
4:00
AND IF A FORMER PRESIDENT HAS TO
4:01
BE CHARGED BECAUSE THAT IS HAS
4:03
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, THAT'S GRAVE
4:04
AND SERIOUS.
4:05
AND I SAID THAT IF A FORMER
4:08
PRESIDENT ACTS THAT WAY, THAT
4:08
THE EVIDENCE IS THAT CLEAR AND
4:10
IS NOT CHARGED, THAT IS ALSO
4:12
SAD.
4:12
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THIS IS
4:13
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT THE
4:15
UNITED STATES OR THIS JUSTICE
4:17
DEPARTMENT WILL DECIDE TO DO
4:17
ABOUT IT, WHEN THERE ARE NO GOOD
4:23
OPTIONS BECAUSE WHEN INCUMBENT
4:24
PRESIDENTS DO WHAT THAT REAGAN'
4:27
APPOINTEE JUST DESCRIBED, WHEN
4:30
THEY MENACE FEDERAL OFFICIALS,
4:31
WHEN THEY OPENLY ENCOURAGE
4:34
VIOLENCE, ISSUE ILLEGAL ORDERS
4:35
TO VIOLENCE, WHEN THEY ATTEMPT A
4:38
COUP, WHETHER PHYSICALLY OR
4:39
VERBALLY, DEMAND TO GO DOWN TO
4:40
THE CAPITOL.
4:41
THAT IS NOT IN DOUBT.
4:42
TO GO HELP AND JOIN ARMED
4:44
SUPPORTERS.
4:44
KRAE, THAT IS A SAD DAY AND
4:48
THAT'S NOW WHAT HE IS BEEN
4:53
EXPOSED AND THAT WAS NOT TO BE
4:55
CLEAR/PROVEN -- THE VIOLENT
4:55
PART, THE ARMED PART, WITH
4:56
REGARD TO DONALD TRUMP'S MIND
4:57
STATE, HIS MENS REA WAS NOT
4:58
PROVEN BEFORE THESE HEARINGS
5:04
BEGAN.
5:04
NOW, THAT IS McCARTHY, AN
5:05
INDEPENDENT-CONSERVATIVE LAWYER.
5:06
THEN YOU HAVE DONALD TRUMP'S OWN
5:07
LAWYERS ASK YOU CAN OFTEN TRACK
5:09
YOU HOWE BAD IT IS GOING BY HOW
5:10
THEY ARE DOING.
5:13
GIULIANI HAVING HIS LICENSE
5:15
SUSPENDED TO JOHN EASTMAN HAVING
5:16
HIS PHONE SEIZED AND PAT-DOWN BY
5:18
FEDERAL AGENTS.
5:19
YOU SEE HIM THERE, THE PLOTTER
5:22
HIS HANDS IN THE AIR.
5:28
HE IS URN THE CONTROL OF FEDERAL
5:29
AGENTS HOR DOING A FORCIBLE,
5:29
LAWFUL PAT DOWN AND THEY TOOK
5:30
HIS PHONE.
5:31
WE HAVE MORE ON THAT STORY
5:34
TONIGHT.
5:34
SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN OVER
5:37
SHADOWED BY THE HEARINGS.
5:37
AND NOW, WE HAVE THIS
5:40
DEVELOPMENT THAT CONGRESS HAS
5:42
HAD IT WITH DONALD TRUMP'S
5:42
GOVERNMENT LAWYER SERVING DURING
5:45
THE INSURRECTION, WHITE HOUSE
5:46
COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE.
5:47
LIZ SHANE KRI HAD BEEN PUBLICLY
5:49
PLEADING AND WARNING HIM TO
5:52
COOPERATE.
5:52
HE IS A LAWYER.
5:52
HE KNOWS HE HAS A LAWFUL
5:54
OBLIGATION HERE BUT HE DID NOT.
5:56
NOW, HE IS FACING THIS NEW
5:58
SUBPOENA.
5:59
AND THERE IS AN OLD SAYING --
6:01
HOW MANY LAWYERS YOU GOT?
6:02
A LOT?
6:02
IT'S NOT A GOOD SIGN WHEN YOU
6:04
HAVE TOO MANY LAWYERS.
6:05
LET ALONE, WHEN YOUR LAWYERS
6:08
NEED LAWYERS.
6:09
OR WHEN YOUR LAWYERS NEED,
6:11
SPECIFICALLY, CRIMINAL-DEFENSE
6:14
LAWYERS.
6:14
WELL, WE KNOW GIULIANI NEEDS HIS
6:16
OWN LAWYER.
6:20
EASTMAN SPECIFICALLY NEED
6:21
CRIMINAL LAWYERS.
6:23
I SHOWED YOU ONE JUST NOW.
6:24
AND TONIGHT, I CAN TELL YOU
6:26
CIPOLLONE WILL NEED A LAWYER TO
6:27
AT LEAST HANDLE THIS NEW
6:28
SUBPOENA CLASH, FOR STARTERS.
6:30
AND IF YOU WANT TO SAY, OKAY,
6:32
HOW DOES THIS TIE TO WHAT DEPD
6:34
THIS WEEK?
6:36
WELL, THE STAR WITNESS WAS NOT
6:37
ONLY IMPLICATING WHAT ANDREW
6:40
McCARTHY SAYS ARE INDICTABLE
6:43
OFFENSES COMMITTED BY DONALD
6:44
TRUMP.
6:44
THE STAR WITNESS ALSO RECOUNTED
6:46
MR. CIPOLLONES, AT TIMES,
6:48
PIVOTAL ROLE.
6:51
>> ON JANUARY 3rd, MR. CIPOLLONE
6:53
HAD APPROACHED ME.
6:55
MR. CIPOLLONE AND I HAD A BRIEF,
6:57
PRIVATE CONVERSATION WHERE HE
7:02
SAID TO ME WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
7:03
THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
7:05
THIS WOULD BE A LEGALLY TERRIBLE
7:06
IDEA FOR US.
7:08
MR. CIPOLLONE SAID SOMETHING TO
7:09
THE EFFECT OF PLEASE MAKE SURE
7:12
WE DON'T GO UP TO THE CAPITOL,
7:19
CASSIDY.
7:20
>> BARRELING DOWN THE HALLWAY
7:20
TOWARD OUR OFFICE.
7:21
PAT WAS CONCERNED IT WOULD LOOK
7:22
LIKE WE ARE OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
7:22
FOR OBSTRUCTING THE ELECTORAL
7:24
COLLEGE COUNT.
7:27
>> THAT LAST QUOTE IS WHAT SHE
7:28
SAYS CIPOLLONE TOLD HER ABOUT
7:32
TWO CRIMES HE WAS WORRIED THAT
7:34
WERE IN PROGRESS BY TRUMP
7:35
OFFICIALS.
7:36
AND THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD HER.
7:38
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THIS THING
7:40
CROPPING UP ON THE RIGHT WHERE
7:42
SOME FOLKS WHO ARE SIFRM THETIC
7:43
TO TRUMP WILL SAY SOME OF THIS
7:46
IS HEARSAY.
7:47
TWO POINTS ON THAT.
7:49
ONE, AS AUDIO LEGAL MATTER, SOME
7:50
OF THIS IS HEARSAY.
7:50
BUT THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL YET.
7:52
IF FOLKS ARE INDICTED FOR THOSE
7:55
TYPE OF OFFENSES, THEN YOU DEAL
7:55
OF THE HEARSAY RULES.
7:57
TWO, THE REASON THE CIPOLLONE'
7:59
TESTIMONY IS CURRENTLY HEARSAY
8:03
IS BECAUSE OF ONE PERSON -- NOT
8:05
HER, NOT THE STAR WITNESS JUST
8:06
HEARD, NOT THE OTHER WITNESSES,
8:08
NOT THE COMMITTEE, THE ONLY
8:10
REASON IT IS ALLEGEDLY HEARSAY
8:11
IS BECAUSE MR. CIPOLLONE HAS NOT
8:14
COME IN TO TESTIFY FULLY ON THE
8:16
RECORD ACCORDING TO THE
8:18
COMMITTEE.
8:19
AGAIN GIVEN DAY HE OR MIKE PENCE
8:25
OR ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO
8:26
ADDRESS SO-CALLED HEARSAY CAN
8:26
STAND UP, SHOW A LITTLE BIT OF
8:27
COURAGE AS MUCH AS ALL THEIR
8:30
OTHER MORE JUNIOR AIDES HAVE AND
8:32
ELIMINATE THE HEARSAY AND TALK
8:32
AND COOPERATE.
8:33
NOW, IN FAIRNESS, I WANT TO BE
8:34
CLEAR WITH YOU.
8:36
CIPOLLONE IS NOT IN THAT
8:37
CATEGORY OF THE BANNONS OR
8:40
NAVARROS WHO HAVE JUST OPINION
8:43
COMPLETELY DEFIANT.
8:43
HE DID TAKE MEASURES.
8:45
PREVIOUSLY HAD A MEETING WITH
8:46
THE COMMITTEE BUT NOT UNDER
8:48
OATH.
8:48
HE THEN REFUSED TO TESTIFY
8:50
PUBLICLY H REQUESTED.
8:51
AND NOW, WITH THE SUBPOENA, THAT
8:52
IS MORE HEAT ON HIM ASK THERE IS
8:54
A SOURCE SAYING HE MIGHT
8:58
CONSIDER SITTING FOR TRANSCRIBED
8:59
TESTIMONY.
9:00
SO HE IS NOT IN THE
9:00
TOTAL-DEFIANCE CAMP, NOR IS HE
9:01
IN THE COOPERATION CAMP.
9:02
WILL THE SUBPOENA PRESS HIM?
9:03
WELL, IT IS BRAND NEW AND WE'LL
9:05
FIND OUT.
9:07
>>> MEANWHILE, DONALD TRUMP
9:08
SEEING SOME CRACKS AMONG HIS OWN
9:11
FORMER AIDES, LAWYER, AND
9:13
SUPPORTERS ASK HE IS NOT TURNING
9:14
TO FOX NEWS WHICH SHAZ FEATURED
9:16
SOME OF THE COVERAGE OF THESE
9:17
DAMNING FACTS.
9:18
INSTEAD, HE ACTUALLY ENT WITH
9:20
OUT TO NEWS MAX, NEW THIS WEEK,
9:21
TO DENY THE ALLEGATION, THE KEY
9:24
ONE THAT HE KNEW PEOPLER WITH
9:24
ARMED AND THEN TO ATTACK, AGAIN,
9:27
YET ANOTHER TRUMP AIDE WHO HAS
9:28
BEEN TESTIFYING UNDER OATH WITH
9:32
AD HOMINEM PERSONAL ATTACKS
9:33
AGAINST HER.
9:34
SO TAKE IT ALL TOGETHER AND WHAT
9:35
DO YOU SEE COMING IN VIEW
9:38
?
9:38
THIS IS NOT THE SIGN OF SOME
9:40
RANDOM KIND OF WASHINGTON
9:43
PROCESS THAT IS JUST WINDING
9:45
DOWN.
9:45
COMMITTEE IS NOT ACTING LIKE
9:47
THAT.
9:47
WITNESS AREN'T ACTING LIKE THAT.
9:48
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT
9:50
ACTING LIKE THAT AS IT SEIZES
9:52
PHONES AND RAIDS HOME.
9:52
AND INTERESTINGLY, NOT EVEN
9:57
DONALD TRUMP, HE IS NOT ACTING
9:59
LIKE THAT.
10:00
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE BINDING
10:03
AND SERIOUS EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN
10:04
SUBMITTED HERE ON THE RECORD,
10:06
THAT IS
by Ari Melber
Jun 30, 2022
Hutchinson’s bombshell testimony before the Jan. 6 committee, Donald Trump’s top lawyer during the insurrection, Pat Cipollone, has been subpoenaed by the House panel. Pat Cipollone had warned Trump aides of possible crimes regarding the Jan. 6 insurrection. Meanwhile, Trump is on defense, denying Hutchinson’s grave claims as some MAGA vets turn on him. MSNBC’s Ari Melber reports on the escalating investigation.
WE ARE TRACKING NEWS IN THE
0:09
INSURRECTION PROBE IF FURTHER
0:11
FALLOUT AND CRACKS AFTER
0:11
BLOCKBUSTER TESTIMONY AGAINST
0:12
TRUMP HAS REALLY RICOCHETED
0:13
AROUND THE NATION.
0:15
THE TESTIMONY LINKED TRUMP TO
0:16
THE VIOLENCE OF THAT COUP
0:19
ATTEMPTS, TURBO CHARGING
0:24
TRUMP-WORLD ANXIETIES AS THEY
0:25
PREP FOR EVEN WORST-CASE
0:25
SCENARIOS AND THERE ARE MORE AND
0:26
MORE DOMINOS FALLING ON THE
0:29
RIGHT PAUSE BECAUSE OF THE POWER
0:35
OF THIS FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
0:36
TAKE THE REPUBLICAN PROSECUTOR
0:36
WE HAVE CITED BEFORE, ANDREW
0:37
McCARTHY.
0:38
A FOX-NEWS FAVORITE, WHO WROTE A
0:39
WHOLE BOOK DEFENDING TRUMP IN
0:40
THE MUELLER PROBE, AND ACCUSING
0:42
OTHERS OF PUSHING THE REAL
0:47
COLLUSION, WHICH IS ONE REASON
0:50
HE IS ON FOX QUITE A BIT AND HAS
0:52
A HUGE CONSERVATIVE LEGAL
0:54
FOLLOWING.
0:54
HE WAS ALSO APPOINTEE IN THE
0:56
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF YORK UNDER
0:57
RUDY GIULIANI HIMSELF, SO HE IS
0:58
A REAGAN' APPOINTEE AND THAT
1:01
DOJ.
1:01
BUT HE IS ALSO SOMEONE WHO --
1:03
AND YOU SEE HIS FACE ON THE
1:05
SCREEN YOU MAY RECOGNIZE HIM
1:06
BECAUSE HE IS ON FOX -- HE IS
1:08
SOMEONE WHO SAYS HE ALSO TRIES
1:11
TO DEAL WITH LEGAL ANALYSIS.
1:12
PERHAPS, IT IS A MORE CONFIDENT
1:14
VARIETY.
1:16
HE CLEARLY WAS IN THE REAGAN
1:18
REVOLUTION BUT HE IS RESPOND TO
1:19
THE EVIDENCE.
1:20
HE SAYS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
1:21
EVIDENCE, AS A CRIMINAL-LEGAL
1:23
MATTER, IT IS DEVASTATING
1:26
AGAINST TRUMP, AND THAT THE NEW
1:27
EVIDENCE IN THAT HEARING MAKES A
1:28
BIG DIFFERENCE.
1:28
HE IS SAYING THIS IN PUBLIC AND
1:31
THIS WEEK, HE IS NOW EMPHASIZING
1:33
THAT REALLY AS FAR AS HE IS
1:34
CONCERNED FOR THE FIRST TIME,
1:35
THERE IS NOW DIRECT EVIDENCE
1:37
SHOWING TRUMP COMMITTED CRIMES,
1:39
AND BACKED VIOLENCE.
1:43
WE WILLLET YOU HEAR IT FOR
1:46
YOURSELF.
1:46
>> TRUMP WAS CLEARLY AWARE JUST
1:48
MOMENTS BEFORE HE TOOK THE
1:50
PODIUM THAT YOU HAD A MOB OF
1:52
HEAVILY-ARMED PEOPLE.
1:53
THE CRITICAL THINGS HE SAYS
1:57
THERE ARE THE THEY ARE NOT HERE
1:58
TO HURT ME, WHICH MEAN --
1:59
IMPLIES THAT, IN HIS MIND, HE
2:01
KNOWS THEY ARE HERE TO HURT
2:04
SOMEONE.
2:04
AND THE SECOND THING HE SAYS IF
2:05
THEY CAN COME IN, THEY CAN HEAR
2:07
ME AND THEN THEY CAN MARCH TO
2:08
THE CAPITOL.
2:09
SO, HE IS VERY AWARE THAT YOU
2:11
HAVE A MOB THAT'S ARMED TO THE
2:14
TEETH, THAT HE IS PLANNING TO --
2:17
TO ENCOURAGE TO -- TO MARCH ON
2:18
THE CAPITOL.
2:21
THAT KNOWLEDGE -- UM -- OPENS UP
2:25
THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU COULD
2:27
PROSECUTE FOR AIDING AND
2:29
ABETTING THE INTIMIDATION OF
2:30
FEDERAL OFFICIALS, WHICH IS A
2:33
PRETTY SERIOUS.
2:36
CRIME.
2:36
>> DO YOU EXPECT WE ARE GOING TO
2:38
SEE TRUMP PROSECUTED BY THE
2:39
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ON -- ON ANY
2:40
OF THESE CHARGES?
2:41
>> I DO NOW, YEAH.
2:44
>> I DO NOW.
2:48
THAT'S JUST THREE WORDS.
2:51
I GAVE YOU HIS CREDENTIALS.
2:52
HE IS SAYING WHAT HE THINKS WILL
2:53
HAPPEN.
2:54
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.
2:56
HE DOES THINK THERE IS A CASE TO
2:58
INDICT DONALD TRUMP, AND HE DOES
2:59
THINK IT IS NOW PASSED THE LINE
3:04
FROM DEBATABLE EVIDENCE TO
3:08
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF A
3:08
VIOLENT FELONY WHICH IS SERIOUS,
3:09
THAT'S TRUE.
3:10
AND THAT LAST WORD, "NOW," IT
3:12
SPEAKS TO WHAT EVERYONE IS
3:15
WONDERING ABOUT THESE
3:15
INSURRECTION HEARINGS.
3:16
ABOUT THIS DIFFICULT INTERBRANCH
3:18
PROCESS.
3:18
THE NOW IS THAT THE EVIDENCE HAS
3:20
PASSED A CERTAIN POINT.
3:22
AND I WILL JUST SAY ON A
3:24
PERSONAL NOTE, MR. McCARTHY, A
3:25
LAWYER WHO TALKS ACT THESE
3:27
ISSUE, REPORTS ON THEM, AND
3:28
ANALYZES THEM ON TV, AS DO I,
3:31
THAT NIGHT OF THE HEARING WHEN I
3:33
WAS SITTING THERE, HERE ON MSNBC
3:36
IN OUR COVERAGE FOR YOU WITH
3:38
RACHEL AND OUR WHOLE TEAM, I
3:40
SAID THAT WAS A SAD DAY.
3:42
WE MARKED THAT AS A SAD DAY
3:44
BECAUSE THE OVERWHELMING
3:46
EVIDENCE SHOWED THIS CRIMINAL
3:48
INTENT AND ACTION AND ILLEGAL
3:50
ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT.
3:51
AND I WILL REMIND YOU WHEN I
3:52
SAID THEN.
3:53
IT'S SAD BECAUSE, HAD YOU GET TO
3:55
THAT POINT, THAT IS A SAD THING
3:57
FOR THE COUNTRY.
4:00
AND IF A FORMER PRESIDENT HAS TO
4:01
BE CHARGED BECAUSE THAT IS HAS
4:03
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, THAT'S GRAVE
4:04
AND SERIOUS.
4:05
AND I SAID THAT IF A FORMER
4:08
PRESIDENT ACTS THAT WAY, THAT
4:08
THE EVIDENCE IS THAT CLEAR AND
4:10
IS NOT CHARGED, THAT IS ALSO
4:12
SAD.
4:12
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THIS IS
4:13
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT THE
4:15
UNITED STATES OR THIS JUSTICE
4:17
DEPARTMENT WILL DECIDE TO DO
4:17
ABOUT IT, WHEN THERE ARE NO GOOD
4:23
OPTIONS BECAUSE WHEN INCUMBENT
4:24
PRESIDENTS DO WHAT THAT REAGAN'
4:27
APPOINTEE JUST DESCRIBED, WHEN
4:30
THEY MENACE FEDERAL OFFICIALS,
4:31
WHEN THEY OPENLY ENCOURAGE
4:34
VIOLENCE, ISSUE ILLEGAL ORDERS
4:35
TO VIOLENCE, WHEN THEY ATTEMPT A
4:38
COUP, WHETHER PHYSICALLY OR
4:39
VERBALLY, DEMAND TO GO DOWN TO
4:40
THE CAPITOL.
4:41
THAT IS NOT IN DOUBT.
4:42
TO GO HELP AND JOIN ARMED
4:44
SUPPORTERS.
4:44
KRAE, THAT IS A SAD DAY AND
4:48
THAT'S NOW WHAT HE IS BEEN
4:53
EXPOSED AND THAT WAS NOT TO BE
4:55
CLEAR/PROVEN -- THE VIOLENT
4:55
PART, THE ARMED PART, WITH
4:56
REGARD TO DONALD TRUMP'S MIND
4:57
STATE, HIS MENS REA WAS NOT
4:58
PROVEN BEFORE THESE HEARINGS
5:04
BEGAN.
5:04
NOW, THAT IS McCARTHY, AN
5:05
INDEPENDENT-CONSERVATIVE LAWYER.
5:06
THEN YOU HAVE DONALD TRUMP'S OWN
5:07
LAWYERS ASK YOU CAN OFTEN TRACK
5:09
YOU HOWE BAD IT IS GOING BY HOW
5:10
THEY ARE DOING.
5:13
GIULIANI HAVING HIS LICENSE
5:15
SUSPENDED TO JOHN EASTMAN HAVING
5:16
HIS PHONE SEIZED AND PAT-DOWN BY
5:18
FEDERAL AGENTS.
5:19
YOU SEE HIM THERE, THE PLOTTER
5:22
HIS HANDS IN THE AIR.
5:28
HE IS URN THE CONTROL OF FEDERAL
5:29
AGENTS HOR DOING A FORCIBLE,
5:29
LAWFUL PAT DOWN AND THEY TOOK
5:30
HIS PHONE.
5:31
WE HAVE MORE ON THAT STORY
5:34
TONIGHT.
5:34
SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN OVER
5:37
SHADOWED BY THE HEARINGS.
5:37
AND NOW, WE HAVE THIS
5:40
DEVELOPMENT THAT CONGRESS HAS
5:42
HAD IT WITH DONALD TRUMP'S
5:42
GOVERNMENT LAWYER SERVING DURING
5:45
THE INSURRECTION, WHITE HOUSE
5:46
COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE.
5:47
LIZ SHANE KRI HAD BEEN PUBLICLY
5:49
PLEADING AND WARNING HIM TO
5:52
COOPERATE.
5:52
HE IS A LAWYER.
5:52
HE KNOWS HE HAS A LAWFUL
5:54
OBLIGATION HERE BUT HE DID NOT.
5:56
NOW, HE IS FACING THIS NEW
5:58
SUBPOENA.
5:59
AND THERE IS AN OLD SAYING --
6:01
HOW MANY LAWYERS YOU GOT?
6:02
A LOT?
6:02
IT'S NOT A GOOD SIGN WHEN YOU
6:04
HAVE TOO MANY LAWYERS.
6:05
LET ALONE, WHEN YOUR LAWYERS
6:08
NEED LAWYERS.
6:09
OR WHEN YOUR LAWYERS NEED,
6:11
SPECIFICALLY, CRIMINAL-DEFENSE
6:14
LAWYERS.
6:14
WELL, WE KNOW GIULIANI NEEDS HIS
6:16
OWN LAWYER.
6:20
EASTMAN SPECIFICALLY NEED
6:21
CRIMINAL LAWYERS.
6:23
I SHOWED YOU ONE JUST NOW.
6:24
AND TONIGHT, I CAN TELL YOU
6:26
CIPOLLONE WILL NEED A LAWYER TO
6:27
AT LEAST HANDLE THIS NEW
6:28
SUBPOENA CLASH, FOR STARTERS.
6:30
AND IF YOU WANT TO SAY, OKAY,
6:32
HOW DOES THIS TIE TO WHAT DEPD
6:34
THIS WEEK?
6:36
WELL, THE STAR WITNESS WAS NOT
6:37
ONLY IMPLICATING WHAT ANDREW
6:40
McCARTHY SAYS ARE INDICTABLE
6:43
OFFENSES COMMITTED BY DONALD
6:44
TRUMP.
6:44
THE STAR WITNESS ALSO RECOUNTED
6:46
MR. CIPOLLONES, AT TIMES,
6:48
PIVOTAL ROLE.
6:51
>> ON JANUARY 3rd, MR. CIPOLLONE
6:53
HAD APPROACHED ME.
6:55
MR. CIPOLLONE AND I HAD A BRIEF,
6:57
PRIVATE CONVERSATION WHERE HE
7:02
SAID TO ME WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
7:03
THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
7:05
THIS WOULD BE A LEGALLY TERRIBLE
7:06
IDEA FOR US.
7:08
MR. CIPOLLONE SAID SOMETHING TO
7:09
THE EFFECT OF PLEASE MAKE SURE
7:12
WE DON'T GO UP TO THE CAPITOL,
7:19
CASSIDY.
7:20
>> BARRELING DOWN THE HALLWAY
7:20
TOWARD OUR OFFICE.
7:21
PAT WAS CONCERNED IT WOULD LOOK
7:22
LIKE WE ARE OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
7:22
FOR OBSTRUCTING THE ELECTORAL
7:24
COLLEGE COUNT.
7:27
>> THAT LAST QUOTE IS WHAT SHE
7:28
SAYS CIPOLLONE TOLD HER ABOUT
7:32
TWO CRIMES HE WAS WORRIED THAT
7:34
WERE IN PROGRESS BY TRUMP
7:35
OFFICIALS.
7:36
AND THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD HER.
7:38
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THIS THING
7:40
CROPPING UP ON THE RIGHT WHERE
7:42
SOME FOLKS WHO ARE SIFRM THETIC
7:43
TO TRUMP WILL SAY SOME OF THIS
7:46
IS HEARSAY.
7:47
TWO POINTS ON THAT.
7:49
ONE, AS AUDIO LEGAL MATTER, SOME
7:50
OF THIS IS HEARSAY.
7:50
BUT THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL YET.
7:52
IF FOLKS ARE INDICTED FOR THOSE
7:55
TYPE OF OFFENSES, THEN YOU DEAL
7:55
OF THE HEARSAY RULES.
7:57
TWO, THE REASON THE CIPOLLONE'
7:59
TESTIMONY IS CURRENTLY HEARSAY
8:03
IS BECAUSE OF ONE PERSON -- NOT
8:05
HER, NOT THE STAR WITNESS JUST
8:06
HEARD, NOT THE OTHER WITNESSES,
8:08
NOT THE COMMITTEE, THE ONLY
8:10
REASON IT IS ALLEGEDLY HEARSAY
8:11
IS BECAUSE MR. CIPOLLONE HAS NOT
8:14
COME IN TO TESTIFY FULLY ON THE
8:16
RECORD ACCORDING TO THE
8:18
COMMITTEE.
8:19
AGAIN GIVEN DAY HE OR MIKE PENCE
8:25
OR ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO
8:26
ADDRESS SO-CALLED HEARSAY CAN
8:26
STAND UP, SHOW A LITTLE BIT OF
8:27
COURAGE AS MUCH AS ALL THEIR
8:30
OTHER MORE JUNIOR AIDES HAVE AND
8:32
ELIMINATE THE HEARSAY AND TALK
8:32
AND COOPERATE.
8:33
NOW, IN FAIRNESS, I WANT TO BE
8:34
CLEAR WITH YOU.
8:36
CIPOLLONE IS NOT IN THAT
8:37
CATEGORY OF THE BANNONS OR
8:40
NAVARROS WHO HAVE JUST OPINION
8:43
COMPLETELY DEFIANT.
8:43
HE DID TAKE MEASURES.
8:45
PREVIOUSLY HAD A MEETING WITH
8:46
THE COMMITTEE BUT NOT UNDER
8:48
OATH.
8:48
HE THEN REFUSED TO TESTIFY
8:50
PUBLICLY H REQUESTED.
8:51
AND NOW, WITH THE SUBPOENA, THAT
8:52
IS MORE HEAT ON HIM ASK THERE IS
8:54
A SOURCE SAYING HE MIGHT
8:58
CONSIDER SITTING FOR TRANSCRIBED
8:59
TESTIMONY.
9:00
SO HE IS NOT IN THE
9:00
TOTAL-DEFIANCE CAMP, NOR IS HE
9:01
IN THE COOPERATION CAMP.
9:02
WILL THE SUBPOENA PRESS HIM?
9:03
WELL, IT IS BRAND NEW AND WE'LL
9:05
FIND OUT.
9:07
>>> MEANWHILE, DONALD TRUMP
9:08
SEEING SOME CRACKS AMONG HIS OWN
9:11
FORMER AIDES, LAWYER, AND
9:13
SUPPORTERS ASK HE IS NOT TURNING
9:14
TO FOX NEWS WHICH SHAZ FEATURED
9:16
SOME OF THE COVERAGE OF THESE
9:17
DAMNING FACTS.
9:18
INSTEAD, HE ACTUALLY ENT WITH
9:20
OUT TO NEWS MAX, NEW THIS WEEK,
9:21
TO DENY THE ALLEGATION, THE KEY
9:24
ONE THAT HE KNEW PEOPLER WITH
9:24
ARMED AND THEN TO ATTACK, AGAIN,
9:27
YET ANOTHER TRUMP AIDE WHO HAS
9:28
BEEN TESTIFYING UNDER OATH WITH
9:32
AD HOMINEM PERSONAL ATTACKS
9:33
AGAINST HER.
9:34
SO TAKE IT ALL TOGETHER AND WHAT
9:35
DO YOU SEE COMING IN VIEW
9:38
?
9:38
THIS IS NOT THE SIGN OF SOME
9:40
RANDOM KIND OF WASHINGTON
9:43
PROCESS THAT IS JUST WINDING
9:45
DOWN.
9:45
COMMITTEE IS NOT ACTING LIKE
9:47
THAT.
9:47
WITNESS AREN'T ACTING LIKE THAT.
9:48
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT
9:50
ACTING LIKE THAT AS IT SEIZES
9:52
PHONES AND RAIDS HOME.
9:52
AND INTERESTINGLY, NOT EVEN
9:57
DONALD TRUMP, HE IS NOT ACTING
9:59
LIKE THAT.
10:00
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE BINDING
10:03
AND SERIOUS EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN
10:04
SUBMITTED HERE ON THE RECORD,
10:06
THAT IS
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat
by admin » Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:02 am
Watergate Prosecutor: Trump ‘Up To His Eyeballs In Criminality’
by Katie Phang
Jun 30, 2022
The January 6th Committee held a special last minute hearing this past week containing bombshell testimony from former aide to Mark Meadows Cassidy Hutchinson. Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman joins Katie Phang to discuss. »
0:07
>>> WE ARE STILL PROCESSING
0:09
TODAY'S EXPLOSIVE -- EXCUSE ME,
0:11
TUESDAY'S EXPLOSIVE JANUARY 6th
0:13
HEARING WITH CASSIDY HUTCHINSON,
0:15
A FORMER TOP AIDE TO TRUMP CHIEF
0:16
OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS.
0:17
AND AMID ALL THE NEW
0:19
REVELATIONS, THERE IS ONE KEY
0:21
THREAD THAT THE COMMITTEE LAID
0:22
OUT THAT MADE THIS THE MOST
0:24
IMPORTANT HEARING YET.
0:25
IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS, THE
0:27
COMMITTEE HAS DETAILED THAT
0:29
TRUMP'S ONLY PEOPLE EXPLAINED TO
0:30
HIM AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT THE
0:32
2020 ELECTION WAS NOT STOLEN.
0:34
AND YET STILL HE PUSHED HIS
0:36
CONSPIRACIES IN ORDER TO
0:37
PRESSURE STATE OFFICIALS TO
0:39
OVERTURN THEIR RESULTS.
0:41
ON TUESDAY, WHAT CASSIDY
0:43
HUTCHINSON POINTED TO IN HER
0:44
TESTIMONY IS THAT WHEN TRUMP'S
0:45
SCHEMES BEGAN TO FALL APART,
0:47
TRUMP AND HIS INNER CIRCLE SET
0:49
THEIR SIGHTS ON JANUARY 6th.
0:53
>> AS MR. GIULIANI AND I WHERE
0:56
WALKING TO OUR VEHICLES THAT
0:57
EVENING HE LOOKED AT ME AND SAID
0:59
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF,
1:01
CASS, ARE YOU EXCITED, THE 6th
1:03
IS GOING TO BE A GREAT DAY,
1:05
WE'RE GOING TO THE CAPITOL, IT'S
1:07
GOING TO BE GREAT, THE PRESIDENT
1:08
IS GOING TO BE THERE, HE'S GOING
1:10
TO LOOK POWERFUL, HE'S GOING TO
1:12
BE WITH THE MEMBERS, GOING TO BE
1:14
WITH THE SENATORS.
1:15
TALK TO THE CHIEF ABOUT IT, HE
1:16
KNOWS ABOUT IT.
1:18
HE REMEMBER HIM LEANING AGAINST
1:20
THE DOORWAY AND SAYING, I HAD AN
1:22
INTERESTING CONVERSATION WITH
1:23
RUDY, MARK, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE
1:24
GOING TO GO TO THE CAPITOL.
1:25
HE DIDN'T LOOK UP FROM HIS PHONE
1:27
AND SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT
1:29
OF, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON,
1:31
CASS, BUT I DON'T KNOW, THINGS
1:33
MIGHT GET REAL, REAL BAD ON
1:34
JANUARY 6th.
1:39
>> VIDEO AND AUDIO RELEASED BY
1:42
THE COMMITTEE SHOW THAT ON THE
1:43
MORNING OF JANUARY 6th, THERE
1:45
WERE TRUMP RALLY ATTENDEES THAT
1:47
HAD WEAPONS INCLUDING PISTOLS,
1:50
MAKESHIFT SPEARS AND AR-15s.
1:52
ACCORDING TO MS. HUTCHINSON,
1:55
DONALD TRUMP KNEW THEY WERE
1:56
ARMED AND WANTED THEM TO MARCH
1:57
ON THE CAPITOL ANYWAY.
1:58
>> I OVERHEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY
2:01
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, I
2:03
DON'T EFFING CARE THAT THEY HAVE
2:05
WEANS, THEY'RE NOT HERE TO
2:07
HURT ME, TAKE THE EFFING MAGS
2:10
AWAY, LET THE PEOPLE IN, TAKE
2:13
THE EFFING MAGS AWAY.
2:15
>> IF MS. HUTCHINSON'S SWORN
2:25
TESTIMONY IS TRUE, HE KNEW WHAT
2:27
THEY HAD COME PREPARED FOR WHEN
2:29
HE TOLD THEM TO FIGHT LIKE HELL.
2:31
THE VIOLENCE ON JANUARY 6th WAS
2:33
NOT A MISTAKE.
2:34
IT WAS THE PLAN.
2:35
NOW WE KNOW THE COMMITTEE IS NOT
2:36
DONE YET.
2:37
FAR FROM IT.
2:38
ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT THEY
2:40
SUBPOENAED FORMER WHITE HOUSE
2:41
COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE, A NAME
2:43
THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP
2:44
REPEATEDLY IN THESE HEARINGS AND
2:46
FEATURED PROMINENTLY IN MS.
2:48
HUTCHINSON'S TESTIMONY.
2:49
>> MR. CIPOLLONE SAID SOMETHING
2:52
TO THE EFFECT OF, PLEASE MAKE
2:53
SURE WE DON'T GO UP TO THE
2:55
CAPITOL, CASSIDY, KEEP IN TOUCH
2:56
WITH ME, WE'RE GOING TO GET
2:58
CHARGED WITH EVERY CRIME
3:00
IMAGINABLE IF WE MAKE THAT
3:02
MOVEMENT HAPPEN.
3:03
>> CIPOLLONE'S TESTIMONY COULD
3:05
CORROBORATE AND FILL IN KEY
3:08
DETAILS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S
3:09
ACTIONS LEADING UP TO AND ON
3:11
JANUARY 6th.
3:13
AND IT WOULD ONLY BOLSTER THIS
3:15
THRUST OF THE COMMITTEE'S CASE,
3:17
THAT WHAT WE SAW THAT DAY WAS
3:18
DONALD TRUMP'S DESPERATE,
3:20
VIOLENT, AND POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL
3:23
LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO STAY IN
3:24
POWER.
3:26
JOINING ME NOW IS FORMER
3:29
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
3:30
AND FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL
3:31
WATERGATE PROSECUTOR NICK
3:33
ACKERMAN.
3:34
NICK, IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO
3:35
SPEND TIME WITH YOU.
3:36
WE'LL GET TO PAT CIPOLLONE IN A
3:39
MINUTE.
3:39
>> SURE.
3:40
>> BUT FIRST I HAVE TO ASK YOU,
3:42
AFTER CASSIDY HUTCHINSON'S
3:43
TESTIMONY, JUST HOW MUCH DEEPER
3:45
DID TRUMP'S LEGAL EXPOSURE GET?
3:47
>> OH, IT'S -- HE'S UP TO HIS
3:50
EYEBALLS IN CRIMINALITY AT THIS
3:51
POINT.
3:52
I MEAN, THIS TOOK HIM OVER THE
3:54
LINE.
3:54
IF EVER THERE WAS A QUESTION
3:56
BEFORE ABOUT HIS INTENT, WHAT HE
3:59
WANTED TO DO, THIS WAS IT.
4:00
I MEAN, WE KNEW THAT AT LEAST A
4:03
FEW DAYS BEFORE JANUARY 6th,
4:06
THAT TRUMP KNEW THAT HIS VICE
4:08
PRESIDENT WAS NOT GOING TO DO
4:09
HIS BIDDING.
4:10
HE KNEW THAT HIS SCHEME TO GET
4:13
PENCE TO BASICALLY IGNORE THE
4:17
ELECTORAL COLLEGE COUNT AND
4:19
DECLARE HIM THE WINNER BY VIRTUE
4:20
OF ALL OF THESE RIGGED ELECTORAL
4:24
COLLEGE VOTES THAT HE PUT OUT
4:27
THERE, THAT WASN'T GOING TO
4:29
HAPPEN.
4:29
PENCE WASN'T GOING TO SEND THE
4:31
ELECTION BACK TO THE STATES.
4:33
AND SO HIS ONLY ALTERNATIVE HERE
4:37
WAS TO CREATE VIOLENCE AND
4:38
MAYHEM AT THE CAPITOL IN ORDER
4:39
TO STOP THAT COUNT AND THEN HOPE
4:41
THE NEXT DAY, BECAUSE CONGRESS
4:43
HAD NOT CERTIFIED THE VOTE, THAT
4:45
HE SOMEHOW COULD SEND THE VOTE
4:47
BACK TO THE BATTLEGROUND STATES.
4:50
THAT WAS HIS PLAN, AND THAT IS
4:52
CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
4:55
CRIMINAL LAW.
4:56
IT'S A FRAUD ON THE GOVERNMENT.
4:58
AND IT'S ALSO AN EFFORT TO
5:01
BASICALLY OBSTRUCT CONGRESS
5:03
PERFORMING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
5:06
FUNCTION.
5:06
>> NICK, I WANT TO PLAY ANOTHER
5:09
PART OF CASSIDY HUTCHINSON'S
5:10
TESTIMONY.
5:10
THIS IS A CONVERSATION SHE
5:12
OVERHEARD BETWEEN MARK MEADOWS
5:14
AND PAT CIPOLLONE ON JANUARY
5:16
6th.
5:16
TAKE A LISTEN.
5:18
>> I REMEMBER PAT SAYING
5:19
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF,
5:22
MARK, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING
5:24
MORE, THEY'RE LITERALLY CALLING
5:25
FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT TO BE
5:27
EFFING HUNG.
5:28
AND MARK HAD RESPONDED SOMETHING
5:30
TO THE EFFECT OF, YOU HEARD HIM,
5:33
PAT, HE THINKS MIKE DESERVES IT,
5:35
HE DOESN'T THINK THEY'RE DOING
5:36
ANYTHING WRONG, TO WHICH PAT
5:39
SAID SOMETHING, THIS IS EFFING
5:42
CRAZY, WE NEED TO BE DOING
5:43
SOMETHING MORE.
5:44
>> YOU KNOW, NICK, HOW CRUCIAL
5:46
IS A DEPOSITION OR SOME VERSION
5:48
OR FORM OF SWORN TESTIMONY FROM
5:50
PAT CIPOLLONE GOING TO BE FOR
5:52
THIS COMMITTEE?
5:52
I MEAN, THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING
5:54
TO WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT THAT
5:55
EXCHANGE AND OTHERS THAT WE
5:57
HEARD ABOUT DURING HUTCHINSON'S
5:58
TESTIMONY, RIGHT?
5:59
>> OH, ABSOLUTELY.
6:00
AND YOU REALLY LAID IT OUT ON
6:02
THE MONEY RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING
6:04
OF THIS THING, WHEN YOU SAID
6:05
THAT WHAT PAT CIPOLLONE DOES IS,
6:08
HE CORROBORATES THE TESTIMONY OF
6:11
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON.
6:12
I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON FOR
6:16
ANYBODY TO DISBELIEVE PAT
6:18
CIPOLLONE.
6:18
HE'S THE LAWYER WHO ACTUALLY
6:20
DEFENDED DONALD TRUMP IN THE
6:21
FIRST IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.
6:23
HE BASICALLY SHOULD BE ABLE TO
6:26
CONFIRM EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF
6:29
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON'S TESTIMONY.
6:29
AND IF HE DOES, THEN THERE'S
6:32
REALLY NO QUESTION AT THAT
6:34
POINT.
6:34
IT'S ALMOST AS GOOD AS HAVING A
6:36
TAPE RECORDING.
6:37
THAT'S WHY PAT CIPOLLONE IS SO
6:40
IMPORTANT.
6:40
WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO CASSIDY
6:42
HUTCHINSON IS THE SAME THING
6:45
THAT THE REPUBLICANS DID TO JOHN
6:47
DEAN AFTER HE TESTIFIED IN THE
6:50
WATERGATE COMMITTEE.
6:50
THEY CAME OUT AT HIM,
6:52
QUESTIONING HIS CREDIBILITY, AND
6:55
THEN LO AND BEHOLD, WHAT
6:57
HAPPENS?
6:57
THEY FOUND OUT THERE ARE TAPES
6:58
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE TAPES
7:01
CORROBORATED JOHN DEAN TO THE
7:03
"T."
7:03
AND I THINK PAT CIPOLLONE IS
7:06
GOING TO DO THE SAME THING HERE,
7:07
ONCE HE COMES IN AND IS
7:08
QUESTIONED UNDER OATH.
7:10
>> NICK, THOUGH, CIPOLLONE SERVE
7:12
AS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
7:14
SO OBVIOUSLY HE COULD TRY TO
7:16
CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON TOP
7:17
OF OTHER TYPES OF PRIVILEGES,
7:19
RIGHT, FOR SOME TOPICS.
7:21
DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE
7:22
A SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE FOR
7:25
CIPOLLONE TO AVOID HAVING TO
7:25
APPEAR BEFORE THE 1/6 COMMITTEE?
7:27
>> IT'S AN ABSURD DEFENSE.
7:29
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NO
7:33
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
7:35
PAT CIPOLLONE WAS NOT THE LAWYER
7:37
FOR DONALD TRUMP.
7:38
HE WAS NOT HIS PERSONAL LAWYER.
7:39
HE WAS ONLY HIS LAWYER FOR THE
7:40
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
7:42
THERE IS NO ATTORNEY/CLIENT
7:45
PRIVILEGE HE COULD POSSIBLY
7:46
CLAIM.
7:47
SECONDLY, WITH RESPECT TO
7:48
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THE SUPREME
7:49
COURT MADE IT EXTREMELY CLEAR,
7:51
COULDN'T BE ANY CLEARER, 1974,
7:55
U.S. V. NIXON, WHEN YOU HAVE
7:57
CONVERSATIONS IN FURTHERANCE OF
7:58
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, IF DONALD
8:00
TRUMP IS TALKING ABOUT THINGS
8:01
HE'S GOING TO DO THAT ARE A
8:03
CRIME, THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE
8:06
PRIVILEGE.
8:06
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ONLY APPLIES
8:08
FOR MATTERS THAT ARE OF STATE,
8:11
THAT RELATE TO NATIONAL
8:13
SECURITY, NATIONAL DEFENSE.
8:15
THE SUPREME COURT COULDN'T HAVE
8:16
LAID IT OUT ANY CLEARER IN U.S.
8:19
V. NIXON.
8:20
THERE ARE NO PRIVILEGES.
8:20
HE HAS TO TESTIFY.
8:23
>> NICK, YOU AND I HAVE HAD THE
8:26
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE
8:28
ABOUT THE GEORGIA INVESTIGATION.
8:30
IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AND I
8:31
ARE VERY INTERESTED IN AS MOST
8:33
PEOPLE SHOULD BE.
8:34
I WANT TO BRIEFLY TURN TO THAT
8:36
INVESTIGATION.
8:36
THAT IS DONALD TRUMP'S EFFORTS
8:39
TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION IN
8:40
GEORGIA.
8:40
THINGS CONTINUE TO BE BUILDING
8:41
THERE.
8:41
THE DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER WHO
8:43
FILMED TRUMP AND HIS FAMILY IN
8:44
THE WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION,
8:45
ALEX HOLDER, HAS BEEN SUBPOENAED
8:47
IT TESTIFY IN THAT SPECIAL GRAND
8:49
JURY BY THE D.A., FANI WILLIS.
8:52
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS INVESTIGATION
8:53
IS LOOKING AT OTHER PEOPLE IN
8:55
TRUMP'S WORLD INCLUDING HIS
8:56
LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI.
8:58
NICK, WHAT DO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS
8:59
SIGNAL TO YOU ABOUT THE STATUS
9:00
OF THAT PARTICULAR
9:02
INVESTIGATION?
9:02
I SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS
9:05
GOING TO BE MAYBE THE ONE
9:06
INVESTIGATION THAT DOES DONALD
9:07
TRUMP IN.
9:08
>> OH, I TOTALLY AGREE, THIS IS
9:11
THE INVESTIGATION EVERYBODY
9:12
SHOULD KEEP THEIR EYES ON.
9:14
BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT DONALD TRUMP
9:17
ON TAPE TWICE, WITH BRAD
9:21
RAFFENSPERGER, TRYING TO
9:22
THREATEN AND PRESSURE HIM INTO
9:23
BASICALLY FINDING MORE VOTES SO
9:25
HE CAN TAKE THE ELECTORAL VOTES
9:27
IN GEORGIA.
9:28
YOU'VE GOT HIM ON TAPE WITH THE
9:30
CHIEF INVESTIGATOR.
9:31
AND YOU'VE GOT RUDY GIULIANI ON
9:33
TAPE ALSO, TALKING TO THE
9:36
GEORGIA SENATE, AND ON TOP OF
9:37
ALL THAT, YOU'VE GOT THE
9:39
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, BRIAN
9:42
KEMP, WHO WAS PRESSURED AND
9:44
THREATENED BY DONALD TRUMP TO
9:45
CHANGE THE VOTE AND TO CALL THE
9:48
LEGISLATURE INTO SESSION.
9:49
I MEAN, THIS IS THE KIND OF
9:51
EVIDENCE WHERE YOU'VE GOT TAPE
9:53
RECORDINGS, YOU'VE GOT LOTS OF
9:55
WITNESSES, THEY ALL CORROBORATE
9:57
EACH OTHER.
9:58
I THINK IF THERE IS ONE CASE
10:00
THAT IS GOING TO DO IN DONALD
10:02
TRUMP, THIS IS IT, BECAUSE AT
10:05
THE END OF THE DAY, MERRICK
10:06
GARLAND HAS TO MAKE A DECISION
10:08
HERE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
10:09
THERE'S GOING TO BE A FEDERAL
10:10
CASE.
10:10
AND HE'S GOT A MAJOR PROBLEM IN
10:12
DOING SO, BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT
10:14
IN THE SENSE THAT HE WOULD BE
10:17
PROSECUTING NOT JUST A FORMER
10:19
PRESIDENT BUT HE WOULD BE
10:21
PROSECUTING SOMEBODY WHO IS
10:23
LIKELY TO BE THE PRIME OPPONENT
10:26
OF JOE BIDEN IN THE 2024
10:28
ELECTION.
10:29
SO HE EITHER HAS TO DEFER TO
10:32
GEORGIA, WHICH HE CAN DO UNDER
10:34
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
10:36
GUIDELINES, HE CAN BASICALLY
10:38
DECLINE PROSECUTION IN FAVOR OF
10:40
THE GEORGIA PROSECUTION, WHICH
10:41
IS SOMETHING I THINK HE COULD
10:43
DO.
10:44
OR HE COULD APPOINT SOMEBODY
10:45
WHO'S REALLY A SPECIAL
10:48
PROSECUTOR, NOT UNDER THE
10:50
RIDICULOUS GUIDELINE THAT THEY
10:51
HAVE NOW IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
10:52
JUSTICE, THAT LETS THEM PUT THE
10:55
THUMB ON THE SCALE OF THE AND
10:57
PROSECUTOR, SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND
10:59
BE A REAL SPECIAL COUNSEL LIKE
11:01
THEY HAD IN WATERGATE WITH
11:11
ARCHIBALD COX, WHO HAD TOTAL
11:15
INDEPENDENCE.
11:16
IT DEPENDS WHAT THE POTENTIAL
11:17
DEFENSES ARE TRUMP CAN RAISE AND
11:18
HOW STRONG THE GEORGIA CASE IS.
11:21
AND RIGHT NOW, I PUT MY MONEY ON
11:24
THE GEORGIA CASE.
11:25
>> NICK ACKERMAN, THANK YOU FOR
11:26
YOUR TIME.
11:27
WE'LL KEEP ON WATCHING THAT
11:28
GEORGIA CASE.
11:29
WE'LL HAVE YOU BACK SO WE CAN
11:30
START BREAKING DOWN EXACTLY WHAT
11:32
HAPPENS IF AN INDICTM
by Katie Phang
Jun 30, 2022
The January 6th Committee held a special last minute hearing this past week containing bombshell testimony from former aide to Mark Meadows Cassidy Hutchinson. Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman joins Katie Phang to discuss. »
0:07
>>> WE ARE STILL PROCESSING
0:09
TODAY'S EXPLOSIVE -- EXCUSE ME,
0:11
TUESDAY'S EXPLOSIVE JANUARY 6th
0:13
HEARING WITH CASSIDY HUTCHINSON,
0:15
A FORMER TOP AIDE TO TRUMP CHIEF
0:16
OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS.
0:17
AND AMID ALL THE NEW
0:19
REVELATIONS, THERE IS ONE KEY
0:21
THREAD THAT THE COMMITTEE LAID
0:22
OUT THAT MADE THIS THE MOST
0:24
IMPORTANT HEARING YET.
0:25
IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS, THE
0:27
COMMITTEE HAS DETAILED THAT
0:29
TRUMP'S ONLY PEOPLE EXPLAINED TO
0:30
HIM AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT THE
0:32
2020 ELECTION WAS NOT STOLEN.
0:34
AND YET STILL HE PUSHED HIS
0:36
CONSPIRACIES IN ORDER TO
0:37
PRESSURE STATE OFFICIALS TO
0:39
OVERTURN THEIR RESULTS.
0:41
ON TUESDAY, WHAT CASSIDY
0:43
HUTCHINSON POINTED TO IN HER
0:44
TESTIMONY IS THAT WHEN TRUMP'S
0:45
SCHEMES BEGAN TO FALL APART,
0:47
TRUMP AND HIS INNER CIRCLE SET
0:49
THEIR SIGHTS ON JANUARY 6th.
0:53
>> AS MR. GIULIANI AND I WHERE
0:56
WALKING TO OUR VEHICLES THAT
0:57
EVENING HE LOOKED AT ME AND SAID
0:59
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF,
1:01
CASS, ARE YOU EXCITED, THE 6th
1:03
IS GOING TO BE A GREAT DAY,
1:05
WE'RE GOING TO THE CAPITOL, IT'S
1:07
GOING TO BE GREAT, THE PRESIDENT
1:08
IS GOING TO BE THERE, HE'S GOING
1:10
TO LOOK POWERFUL, HE'S GOING TO
1:12
BE WITH THE MEMBERS, GOING TO BE
1:14
WITH THE SENATORS.
1:15
TALK TO THE CHIEF ABOUT IT, HE
1:16
KNOWS ABOUT IT.
1:18
HE REMEMBER HIM LEANING AGAINST
1:20
THE DOORWAY AND SAYING, I HAD AN
1:22
INTERESTING CONVERSATION WITH
1:23
RUDY, MARK, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE
1:24
GOING TO GO TO THE CAPITOL.
1:25
HE DIDN'T LOOK UP FROM HIS PHONE
1:27
AND SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT
1:29
OF, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON,
1:31
CASS, BUT I DON'T KNOW, THINGS
1:33
MIGHT GET REAL, REAL BAD ON
1:34
JANUARY 6th.
1:39
>> VIDEO AND AUDIO RELEASED BY
1:42
THE COMMITTEE SHOW THAT ON THE
1:43
MORNING OF JANUARY 6th, THERE
1:45
WERE TRUMP RALLY ATTENDEES THAT
1:47
HAD WEAPONS INCLUDING PISTOLS,
1:50
MAKESHIFT SPEARS AND AR-15s.
1:52
ACCORDING TO MS. HUTCHINSON,
1:55
DONALD TRUMP KNEW THEY WERE
1:56
ARMED AND WANTED THEM TO MARCH
1:57
ON THE CAPITOL ANYWAY.
1:58
>> I OVERHEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY
2:01
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, I
2:03
DON'T EFFING CARE THAT THEY HAVE
2:05
WEANS, THEY'RE NOT HERE TO
2:07
HURT ME, TAKE THE EFFING MAGS
2:10
AWAY, LET THE PEOPLE IN, TAKE
2:13
THE EFFING MAGS AWAY.
2:15
>> IF MS. HUTCHINSON'S SWORN
2:25
TESTIMONY IS TRUE, HE KNEW WHAT
2:27
THEY HAD COME PREPARED FOR WHEN
2:29
HE TOLD THEM TO FIGHT LIKE HELL.
2:31
THE VIOLENCE ON JANUARY 6th WAS
2:33
NOT A MISTAKE.
2:34
IT WAS THE PLAN.
2:35
NOW WE KNOW THE COMMITTEE IS NOT
2:36
DONE YET.
2:37
FAR FROM IT.
2:38
ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT THEY
2:40
SUBPOENAED FORMER WHITE HOUSE
2:41
COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE, A NAME
2:43
THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP
2:44
REPEATEDLY IN THESE HEARINGS AND
2:46
FEATURED PROMINENTLY IN MS.
2:48
HUTCHINSON'S TESTIMONY.
2:49
>> MR. CIPOLLONE SAID SOMETHING
2:52
TO THE EFFECT OF, PLEASE MAKE
2:53
SURE WE DON'T GO UP TO THE
2:55
CAPITOL, CASSIDY, KEEP IN TOUCH
2:56
WITH ME, WE'RE GOING TO GET
2:58
CHARGED WITH EVERY CRIME
3:00
IMAGINABLE IF WE MAKE THAT
3:02
MOVEMENT HAPPEN.
3:03
>> CIPOLLONE'S TESTIMONY COULD
3:05
CORROBORATE AND FILL IN KEY
3:08
DETAILS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S
3:09
ACTIONS LEADING UP TO AND ON
3:11
JANUARY 6th.
3:13
AND IT WOULD ONLY BOLSTER THIS
3:15
THRUST OF THE COMMITTEE'S CASE,
3:17
THAT WHAT WE SAW THAT DAY WAS
3:18
DONALD TRUMP'S DESPERATE,
3:20
VIOLENT, AND POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL
3:23
LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO STAY IN
3:24
POWER.
3:26
JOINING ME NOW IS FORMER
3:29
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
3:30
AND FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL
3:31
WATERGATE PROSECUTOR NICK
3:33
ACKERMAN.
3:34
NICK, IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO
3:35
SPEND TIME WITH YOU.
3:36
WE'LL GET TO PAT CIPOLLONE IN A
3:39
MINUTE.
3:39
>> SURE.
3:40
>> BUT FIRST I HAVE TO ASK YOU,
3:42
AFTER CASSIDY HUTCHINSON'S
3:43
TESTIMONY, JUST HOW MUCH DEEPER
3:45
DID TRUMP'S LEGAL EXPOSURE GET?
3:47
>> OH, IT'S -- HE'S UP TO HIS
3:50
EYEBALLS IN CRIMINALITY AT THIS
3:51
POINT.
3:52
I MEAN, THIS TOOK HIM OVER THE
3:54
LINE.
3:54
IF EVER THERE WAS A QUESTION
3:56
BEFORE ABOUT HIS INTENT, WHAT HE
3:59
WANTED TO DO, THIS WAS IT.
4:00
I MEAN, WE KNEW THAT AT LEAST A
4:03
FEW DAYS BEFORE JANUARY 6th,
4:06
THAT TRUMP KNEW THAT HIS VICE
4:08
PRESIDENT WAS NOT GOING TO DO
4:09
HIS BIDDING.
4:10
HE KNEW THAT HIS SCHEME TO GET
4:13
PENCE TO BASICALLY IGNORE THE
4:17
ELECTORAL COLLEGE COUNT AND
4:19
DECLARE HIM THE WINNER BY VIRTUE
4:20
OF ALL OF THESE RIGGED ELECTORAL
4:24
COLLEGE VOTES THAT HE PUT OUT
4:27
THERE, THAT WASN'T GOING TO
4:29
HAPPEN.
4:29
PENCE WASN'T GOING TO SEND THE
4:31
ELECTION BACK TO THE STATES.
4:33
AND SO HIS ONLY ALTERNATIVE HERE
4:37
WAS TO CREATE VIOLENCE AND
4:38
MAYHEM AT THE CAPITOL IN ORDER
4:39
TO STOP THAT COUNT AND THEN HOPE
4:41
THE NEXT DAY, BECAUSE CONGRESS
4:43
HAD NOT CERTIFIED THE VOTE, THAT
4:45
HE SOMEHOW COULD SEND THE VOTE
4:47
BACK TO THE BATTLEGROUND STATES.
4:50
THAT WAS HIS PLAN, AND THAT IS
4:52
CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
4:55
CRIMINAL LAW.
4:56
IT'S A FRAUD ON THE GOVERNMENT.
4:58
AND IT'S ALSO AN EFFORT TO
5:01
BASICALLY OBSTRUCT CONGRESS
5:03
PERFORMING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
5:06
FUNCTION.
5:06
>> NICK, I WANT TO PLAY ANOTHER
5:09
PART OF CASSIDY HUTCHINSON'S
5:10
TESTIMONY.
5:10
THIS IS A CONVERSATION SHE
5:12
OVERHEARD BETWEEN MARK MEADOWS
5:14
AND PAT CIPOLLONE ON JANUARY
5:16
6th.
5:16
TAKE A LISTEN.
5:18
>> I REMEMBER PAT SAYING
5:19
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF,
5:22
MARK, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING
5:24
MORE, THEY'RE LITERALLY CALLING
5:25
FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT TO BE
5:27
EFFING HUNG.
5:28
AND MARK HAD RESPONDED SOMETHING
5:30
TO THE EFFECT OF, YOU HEARD HIM,
5:33
PAT, HE THINKS MIKE DESERVES IT,
5:35
HE DOESN'T THINK THEY'RE DOING
5:36
ANYTHING WRONG, TO WHICH PAT
5:39
SAID SOMETHING, THIS IS EFFING
5:42
CRAZY, WE NEED TO BE DOING
5:43
SOMETHING MORE.
5:44
>> YOU KNOW, NICK, HOW CRUCIAL
5:46
IS A DEPOSITION OR SOME VERSION
5:48
OR FORM OF SWORN TESTIMONY FROM
5:50
PAT CIPOLLONE GOING TO BE FOR
5:52
THIS COMMITTEE?
5:52
I MEAN, THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING
5:54
TO WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT THAT
5:55
EXCHANGE AND OTHERS THAT WE
5:57
HEARD ABOUT DURING HUTCHINSON'S
5:58
TESTIMONY, RIGHT?
5:59
>> OH, ABSOLUTELY.
6:00
AND YOU REALLY LAID IT OUT ON
6:02
THE MONEY RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING
6:04
OF THIS THING, WHEN YOU SAID
6:05
THAT WHAT PAT CIPOLLONE DOES IS,
6:08
HE CORROBORATES THE TESTIMONY OF
6:11
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON.
6:12
I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON FOR
6:16
ANYBODY TO DISBELIEVE PAT
6:18
CIPOLLONE.
6:18
HE'S THE LAWYER WHO ACTUALLY
6:20
DEFENDED DONALD TRUMP IN THE
6:21
FIRST IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.
6:23
HE BASICALLY SHOULD BE ABLE TO
6:26
CONFIRM EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF
6:29
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON'S TESTIMONY.
6:29
AND IF HE DOES, THEN THERE'S
6:32
REALLY NO QUESTION AT THAT
6:34
POINT.
6:34
IT'S ALMOST AS GOOD AS HAVING A
6:36
TAPE RECORDING.
6:37
THAT'S WHY PAT CIPOLLONE IS SO
6:40
IMPORTANT.
6:40
WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO CASSIDY
6:42
HUTCHINSON IS THE SAME THING
6:45
THAT THE REPUBLICANS DID TO JOHN
6:47
DEAN AFTER HE TESTIFIED IN THE
6:50
WATERGATE COMMITTEE.
6:50
THEY CAME OUT AT HIM,
6:52
QUESTIONING HIS CREDIBILITY, AND
6:55
THEN LO AND BEHOLD, WHAT
6:57
HAPPENS?
6:57
THEY FOUND OUT THERE ARE TAPES
6:58
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE TAPES
7:01
CORROBORATED JOHN DEAN TO THE
7:03
"T."
7:03
AND I THINK PAT CIPOLLONE IS
7:06
GOING TO DO THE SAME THING HERE,
7:07
ONCE HE COMES IN AND IS
7:08
QUESTIONED UNDER OATH.
7:10
>> NICK, THOUGH, CIPOLLONE SERVE
7:12
AS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
7:14
SO OBVIOUSLY HE COULD TRY TO
7:16
CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON TOP
7:17
OF OTHER TYPES OF PRIVILEGES,
7:19
RIGHT, FOR SOME TOPICS.
7:21
DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE
7:22
A SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE FOR
7:25
CIPOLLONE TO AVOID HAVING TO
7:25
APPEAR BEFORE THE 1/6 COMMITTEE?
7:27
>> IT'S AN ABSURD DEFENSE.
7:29
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NO
7:33
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
7:35
PAT CIPOLLONE WAS NOT THE LAWYER
7:37
FOR DONALD TRUMP.
7:38
HE WAS NOT HIS PERSONAL LAWYER.
7:39
HE WAS ONLY HIS LAWYER FOR THE
7:40
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
7:42
THERE IS NO ATTORNEY/CLIENT
7:45
PRIVILEGE HE COULD POSSIBLY
7:46
CLAIM.
7:47
SECONDLY, WITH RESPECT TO
7:48
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THE SUPREME
7:49
COURT MADE IT EXTREMELY CLEAR,
7:51
COULDN'T BE ANY CLEARER, 1974,
7:55
U.S. V. NIXON, WHEN YOU HAVE
7:57
CONVERSATIONS IN FURTHERANCE OF
7:58
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, IF DONALD
8:00
TRUMP IS TALKING ABOUT THINGS
8:01
HE'S GOING TO DO THAT ARE A
8:03
CRIME, THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE
8:06
PRIVILEGE.
8:06
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ONLY APPLIES
8:08
FOR MATTERS THAT ARE OF STATE,
8:11
THAT RELATE TO NATIONAL
8:13
SECURITY, NATIONAL DEFENSE.
8:15
THE SUPREME COURT COULDN'T HAVE
8:16
LAID IT OUT ANY CLEARER IN U.S.
8:19
V. NIXON.
8:20
THERE ARE NO PRIVILEGES.
8:20
HE HAS TO TESTIFY.
8:23
>> NICK, YOU AND I HAVE HAD THE
8:26
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE
8:28
ABOUT THE GEORGIA INVESTIGATION.
8:30
IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AND I
8:31
ARE VERY INTERESTED IN AS MOST
8:33
PEOPLE SHOULD BE.
8:34
I WANT TO BRIEFLY TURN TO THAT
8:36
INVESTIGATION.
8:36
THAT IS DONALD TRUMP'S EFFORTS
8:39
TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION IN
8:40
GEORGIA.
8:40
THINGS CONTINUE TO BE BUILDING
8:41
THERE.
8:41
THE DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER WHO
8:43
FILMED TRUMP AND HIS FAMILY IN
8:44
THE WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION,
8:45
ALEX HOLDER, HAS BEEN SUBPOENAED
8:47
IT TESTIFY IN THAT SPECIAL GRAND
8:49
JURY BY THE D.A., FANI WILLIS.
8:52
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS INVESTIGATION
8:53
IS LOOKING AT OTHER PEOPLE IN
8:55
TRUMP'S WORLD INCLUDING HIS
8:56
LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI.
8:58
NICK, WHAT DO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS
8:59
SIGNAL TO YOU ABOUT THE STATUS
9:00
OF THAT PARTICULAR
9:02
INVESTIGATION?
9:02
I SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS
9:05
GOING TO BE MAYBE THE ONE
9:06
INVESTIGATION THAT DOES DONALD
9:07
TRUMP IN.
9:08
>> OH, I TOTALLY AGREE, THIS IS
9:11
THE INVESTIGATION EVERYBODY
9:12
SHOULD KEEP THEIR EYES ON.
9:14
BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT DONALD TRUMP
9:17
ON TAPE TWICE, WITH BRAD
9:21
RAFFENSPERGER, TRYING TO
9:22
THREATEN AND PRESSURE HIM INTO
9:23
BASICALLY FINDING MORE VOTES SO
9:25
HE CAN TAKE THE ELECTORAL VOTES
9:27
IN GEORGIA.
9:28
YOU'VE GOT HIM ON TAPE WITH THE
9:30
CHIEF INVESTIGATOR.
9:31
AND YOU'VE GOT RUDY GIULIANI ON
9:33
TAPE ALSO, TALKING TO THE
9:36
GEORGIA SENATE, AND ON TOP OF
9:37
ALL THAT, YOU'VE GOT THE
9:39
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, BRIAN
9:42
KEMP, WHO WAS PRESSURED AND
9:44
THREATENED BY DONALD TRUMP TO
9:45
CHANGE THE VOTE AND TO CALL THE
9:48
LEGISLATURE INTO SESSION.
9:49
I MEAN, THIS IS THE KIND OF
9:51
EVIDENCE WHERE YOU'VE GOT TAPE
9:53
RECORDINGS, YOU'VE GOT LOTS OF
9:55
WITNESSES, THEY ALL CORROBORATE
9:57
EACH OTHER.
9:58
I THINK IF THERE IS ONE CASE
10:00
THAT IS GOING TO DO IN DONALD
10:02
TRUMP, THIS IS IT, BECAUSE AT
10:05
THE END OF THE DAY, MERRICK
10:06
GARLAND HAS TO MAKE A DECISION
10:08
HERE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
10:09
THERE'S GOING TO BE A FEDERAL
10:10
CASE.
10:10
AND HE'S GOT A MAJOR PROBLEM IN
10:12
DOING SO, BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT
10:14
IN THE SENSE THAT HE WOULD BE
10:17
PROSECUTING NOT JUST A FORMER
10:19
PRESIDENT BUT HE WOULD BE
10:21
PROSECUTING SOMEBODY WHO IS
10:23
LIKELY TO BE THE PRIME OPPONENT
10:26
OF JOE BIDEN IN THE 2024
10:28
ELECTION.
10:29
SO HE EITHER HAS TO DEFER TO
10:32
GEORGIA, WHICH HE CAN DO UNDER
10:34
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
10:36
GUIDELINES, HE CAN BASICALLY
10:38
DECLINE PROSECUTION IN FAVOR OF
10:40
THE GEORGIA PROSECUTION, WHICH
10:41
IS SOMETHING I THINK HE COULD
10:43
DO.
10:44
OR HE COULD APPOINT SOMEBODY
10:45
WHO'S REALLY A SPECIAL
10:48
PROSECUTOR, NOT UNDER THE
10:50
RIDICULOUS GUIDELINE THAT THEY
10:51
HAVE NOW IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
10:52
JUSTICE, THAT LETS THEM PUT THE
10:55
THUMB ON THE SCALE OF THE AND
10:57
PROSECUTOR, SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND
10:59
BE A REAL SPECIAL COUNSEL LIKE
11:01
THEY HAD IN WATERGATE WITH
11:11
ARCHIBALD COX, WHO HAD TOTAL
11:15
INDEPENDENCE.
11:16
IT DEPENDS WHAT THE POTENTIAL
11:17
DEFENSES ARE TRUMP CAN RAISE AND
11:18
HOW STRONG THE GEORGIA CASE IS.
11:21
AND RIGHT NOW, I PUT MY MONEY ON
11:24
THE GEORGIA CASE.
11:25
>> NICK ACKERMAN, THANK YOU FOR
11:26
YOUR TIME.
11:27
WE'LL KEEP ON WATCHING THAT
11:28
GEORGIA CASE.
11:29
WE'LL HAVE YOU BACK SO WE CAN
11:30
START BREAKING DOWN EXACTLY WHAT
11:32
HAPPENS IF AN INDICTM
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37523
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests