Podcasts about acting attorney general

In this week's Main Justice episode, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord explore a disturbing pattern of the Trump administration's attack on lawyers and what it means for the rule of law, as firings and demotions continue to reverberate around the federal government. They examine the firing of the three top nonpartisan military JAG lawyers without cause— and why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referred to these officers as ‘roadblocks'. They look at Trump's decision to revoke security clearances from a law firm with ties to former Special Counsel Jack Smith. And they update a few cases on their radar, to include the firing of Hampton Dellinger as well as the latest in the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. And before closing, Andrew and Mary zoom out to look at how the Trump administration is redefining the US's role in world, after voting against a UN resolution that condemned Russian aggression in Ukraine, ignoring violations of international law.Further reading: Here is the latest statement from the ABA that Andrew spoke about: The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession.And soonest, we'll add a link here to the letter Andrew and Mary talked about in this episode: A Statement of Conscience and Principle By Those Who Have Served as Assistant United States Attorneys For the District of Columbia Over the Past Fifty Years.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Today on Too Opinionated, we sit down with author Mark Harris to talk about his new book, House of the Holy. A true story that will shock you. This is an unprecedented story of one man's survival in his struggle against the power of the Federal Government, State Government, the extreme right, the religious right, the mob, and the cult of Freemasonry. It is extremely well documented and focuses on unholy alliances and the strangle hold religion and money have on politics and law enforcement. It exposes a legacy of hate and corruption in the religious right and Freemasonry. The colorful cast of often cartoonish characters is compelling and will shock and entertain the reader. It includes a federal convict engaged in a life of crime while local state and federal authorities run around in circles cleaning up after him, George W. Bush's former attorney, the son of a mobster who was a known associate of Santo Trafficante Jr., the son of the racist doctor who chose the first astronauts, former Governor Rick Scott, the US Acting Assistant Attorney General and future Acting Attorney General, and parade of religious leaders willing to commit crimes to protect a monster, and many others.  Buy House of the Holy here: https://trineday.com/products/houses-of-the-holy-a-nightmare-web-of-hate-crime-corruption-and-child-abuse   Want to watch: YouTube Meisterkhan Pod (Please Subscribe)  

In a news cycle that keeps on churning, Main Justice hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord wade through the nonstop dispatches to set some focal points for this episode. They begin with the hearing held by Judge Dale Ho last week over the Eric Adams dismissal and the Judge's appointment of Paul Clement as amicus, a.k.a. a friend of the court. Andrew details the important decisions Judge Ho has before him as Mary drives home why this case will reverberate beyond the embattled New York Mayor. Then, they touch on the latest resignation- this one, from Denise Cheung, the chief of the criminal division in the DC US Attorney's office, after being asked to do something by the administration she believed was unsupportable.  And last up, Andrew and Mary look at the Supreme Court denial of a stay in the case involving Trump's firing of Hampton Dellinger, and the disconnect between DOJ representations about Elon Musk's role in court versus what Musk is saying and doing in practice.Further reading: Here is Andrew's piece on Just Security: Why the Rule of Law Depends on an Evidentiary Hearing in Mayor Eric Adams' Case.And HERE is the letter of resignation from the head of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in D.C.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

The directive sent from acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove to drop the corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams has hit a fever pitch, so hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord use the bulk of this episode to break down this evolving story and what has come to light so far. They tick through how this standoff between federal prosecutors and the DOJ's directive has led to a slew of resignations, and what to watch for as Judge Dale Ho calls for a Wednesday hearing on the matter in Manhattan.  Andrew and Mary then take a beat to preview the first Supreme Court test of Trump's executive power, over his attempt to fire Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, without cause. (Note: this office is an independent watchdog agency- not part of DOJ). And they wind up this episode by highlighting allegations from whistleblowers that Kash Patel, Trump's nominee to head the FBI, has been directing the firing of senior officials at the FBI.Further reading: Here is Andrew's piece in Just Security: The People of New York v. Mayor Adams: Will Manhattan DA Bragg Come to the Rescue Yet Again?Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

The flood of memos issued by newly minted Attorney General Pam Bondi in her first days was dizzying, so hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord zero in on several that have significant implications for national security and criminal law enforcement. Next, they give a rundown of litigation happening across the country, as courtrooms become the first defense in challenging some of President Trump's questionable orders. And last up, Andrew and Mary talk through a few legal battles brewing over sanctuary cities and detail Mary and ICAP's latest case aiming to protect places of worship as safe havens from immigration enforcement. And btw, the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams just went poof-- they dissect that too.Further reading: Here is Just Security's Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions.HERE is the DOJ memo dropping the corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice.And here is the statement from the American Bar Association that Andrew and Mary spoke about: The ABA supports the rule of law.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Publisher Kris Millegan speaks with Mark Harris, author of an amazing book, Houses of the Holy: A Nightmare Web of Hate, Crime, and Child Abuse. Available at TrineDay.com and the usual sellersThis is an unprecedented story of one man's survival in his struggle against the power of the Federal Government, State Government, the extreme right, the religious right, the mob, and the cult of Freemasonry. It is extremely well documented and focuses on unholy alliances and the strangle hold religion and money have on politics and law enforcement. It exposes a legacy of hate and corruption in the religious right and Freemasonry. The colorful cast of often cartoonish characters is compelling and will shock and entertain the reader. It includes a federal convict engaged in a life of crime while local state and federal authorities run around in circles cleaning up after him, George W. Bush's former attorney, the son of a mobster who was a known associate of Santo Trafficante Jr., the son of the racist doctor who chose the first astronauts, former Governor Rick Scott, the US Acting Assistant Attorney General and future Acting Attorney General, and parade of religious leaders willing to commit crimes to protect a monster, and many others.Mark Harris is currently an instructor of corporate pilots around the world for a large corporation. He is also an FAA examiner granted the privilege to issue licenses and type ratings and teaches several safety related specialty courses. He has a bachelor's degree in physics from the University of North Georgia where he graduated Magna cum Laude as the top physics graduate and a master's degree in aeronautical engineering technology from Arizona State University where he calibrated the university's wind tunnel. He's a decorated former Air Force special operations pilot who served in a combat zone.

With the deluge of news about the Trump administration's actions and orders, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord zoom out to talk through what seems to be the overarching goal here- to clear out all opposition and have a presidency unbound by law. As former officials at the Justice Department and the FBI, they have a clear-eyed view on the broad swath of firings and how this wrecking ball approach will be litigated in court as challenges mount. Then, Andrew and Mary give some legal context to Trump's attempt to cut off congressional aid, both through the funding freeze that already has several temporary restraining orders, and the ongoing news involving attempts to dismantle USAID by Trump and Musk.Further reading: Here is Mary's piece in Just Security asking the Senate to get answers from Bondi and Patel: From Pardons to Purges: Pressing Questions that Bondi and Patel Must Answer NowAnd this is the article Andrew and Mary referenced in this episode from Adam Cox and Trevor Morrison, also on Just Security: Trump's Dictatorial Theory of Presidential Power – What the Executive Orders, in the Aggregate, Tell UsWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

A week into the second iteration of Donald Trump's White House, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord take stock of the abrupt and unrelenting changes to our federal government. Andrew points to security details yanked and security clearances revoked as blatant retaliation against Trump's perceived foes. Mary highlights several judges who are pushing back against blanket pardons for J6 convictions. Then, they turn to Trump's executive action on birthright citizenship, reviewing several challenges already in motion, including a case brought by Mary and her ICAP team. And before wrapping up, our two resident career litigators look at the withering independence of the Justice Department from the White House, and how all roads lead through the DOJ.Further reading: Here is the New York Times' piece on Kash Patel that Andrew mentioned in this episode: F.B.I. Pick Pushed False and Misleading Claims About Trump InvestigationsWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

January 28, 2025 ~ Guy and Jamie talk with Honigman Law partner Matthew Schneider about President Donald Trump's acting attorney general firing dozens of federal prosecutors, and why moves like these are uncommon.

Within hours of Donald Trump's inauguration, numerous executive actions were signed and over 1500 pardons were issued for nearly all of the January 6th defendants, despite his vice president and attorney general nominee suggesting a more refined approach. So, on this first full day of Trump's second term, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord review the blunt nature of these pardons, especially for those convicted of violent acts that day. Then they turn to pardons issued by President Biden in his final hours in office to shield those targeted by Trump for retribution- including members of Congress, those who testified in the J6 investigation, and members of his own family. And finally, Mary and Andrew dive into the myriad of executive actions signed by Trump as legal challenges begin to mount around things like getting rid of birthright citizenship, using the military domestically at our border, undoing the TikTok ban and the creation of DOGE.Further reading: Here is Mary's recent write up in the Atlantic: A Sweeping January 6 Pardon Is an Attack on the JudiciaryWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on another unusual Trump selection for a high-level job.

Simon interviews Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Tuesday afternoon during the second hour

Eben Brown updates us on Boeing CEO stepping down & what's next? Trump Civil Trial with Matt Whittaker, Former Acting Attorney General.

He calls Simon to talk about that and today's 9-0 Supreme Court decision.

7:35 AM - INTERVIEW - MATT WHITAKER - Former Acting United States Attorney General, Senior Fellow at American Cornerstone Institute, CPAC Board Member, host of the Liberty & Justice Show, Author of Above the Law Where to find more about WMAL's morning show:  Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock,  @patricepinkfile and @heatherhunterdc.  Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Friday, February 23, 2024 / 7 AM Hour  O'Connor and Company is proudly presented by Veritas AcademySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Vince speaks with Matt Whitaker, former Acting Attorney General under President Trump and Senior Fellow at America First Policy Institute about Donald Trump's resounding victory last night.    For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.     To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese.      Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1/16/24  Hour 2     Vince takes listeners calls on who they think may be VP. Vince speaks with Matt Whitaker, former Acting Attorney General under President Trump and Senior Fellow at America First Policy Institute about Donald Trump's resounding victory last night.    For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.     To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese.      Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AFPI Instagram was deleted?! Is Big Tech censorship ramping up? And the increasingly disastrous southern border triggers some very confusing border crossing math. It's Biden Bordernomics, folks. Join Chad Wolf and Hogan Gidley as they discuss all of these things and more, and then a fascinating interview on the weaponization of government with the former Acting Attorney General, Matt Whitaker.

Stigall confesses to never really listening to Howard Stern, but did see his seminole movie tribute to his fledgling radio career "Private Parts." His change, in Stigall's opinion has been stark. Vladimir Zalensky visits Washington D.C. Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before the House Judiciary and gets filleted. Former acting AG Matthew Whitaker reacts and shares his latest political observations from his home state and the first primary state to vote - Iowa. Plus Jason Rantz joins Stigall from Seattle to discuss the degradation of the nations largest cities in his new book "What's Killing America." - For more info visit the official website: https://chrisstigall.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisstigallshow/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisStigallFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/chris.stigall/Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/StigallPodListen on Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/StigallShowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

0:00 - Gates defends hypocrisy 13:29 - BLM Brandon's tent city 32:37 - Dan & Charles update the Highland Park Homeless Experience (it was canceled)  53:24 - Oren Cass, executive director of American Compass, asks and answers Where are the Secure Jobs? Oren is also the author of The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the Renewal of Work in America 01:11:01 - Matthew Whitaker, former Acting Attorney General of the United States & played tight end for the University of Iowa Hawkeyes, breaks down David Weiss' qualifications as special investigator and the case against Hunter Biden. Check out former AG Whitaker's book Above the Law: The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump 01:18:08 - Literally mugged by reality 01:24:10 - Chief Marketing Officer at FreedomSquare.com, Chuck Barham, invites all freedom-loving Americans to access News & Information, Podcasts, a Business Network, and a Resource Center rich in American history and key resources for sustaining our Liberty. Visit FreedomSquare.com today! 01:34:15 - Welcome to Socialism 2023 01:38:30 - Nancy Gianni,  founder and chief belief officer of GiGis Playhouses, is changing the way the world views Down syndrome and sends a global message of acceptance for all. For more info on GiGis Playhouses visit gigisplayhouse.org 01:56:59 - OPEN MIC FRIDAY!!!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Friday's First Hour: Gary Dolphin joins the show to preview the CyHawk game. Plus, former Acting Attorney General and Hawkeye legend Matt Whittaker.

Former US Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General for the Northern District of Georgia Sally Yates has been mostly quiet about the indictments facing former President Donald Trump—the man who fired her as Acting Attorney General just days after he took office. This week, Sally talked to David about the legal perils and “strong cases” against Trump, the idea of a two-tiered legal system, the importance of sticking to facts and truth, concerns over degradation of US institutions, and her recent investigation into allegations of abusive behavior and sexual misconduct in women's soccer.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

After the kerfuffle Stigall caused last week in calling attention to Fox News' legal threats to all other media in covering their coming RNC debate, "the suits" gave him a call Friday to have a talk. He gives the details. A viral artist named Oliver Anthony has exploded with the American people over his song "Rich Men of Richmond." Meanwhile, a viral crazy lady on a plane finally apologizes for her bizarre behavior caught on video that Stigall says has caused many to believe was something else entirely. This leads to a bigger discussion of everything from the Maui fires to the Canadian fires, and much of the rest of the news we see and don't see today. Plus former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker responds to the Friday news of the naming of a special council in the Hunter Biden case. - For more info visit the official website: https://chrisstigall.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisstigallshow/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisStigall Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/chris.stigall/ Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/StigallPod Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/StigallShowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A-Block (1:44) BULLETIN: Trump indicted and the lone true surprise is the six unindicted co-conspirators and for once Donald Trump is not alone on the stage of infamy. And it may yet prove that the Trump Six are as important to this case as anything else because they can only BE unindicted because the Special Prosecutor is holding out hope he can make them into witnesses by deferring indicting them, and implicitly threatening to do so. Plus we all think we can figure out with virtual certainty who at least five of them are. As for Trump, he is in the worst position he has been on any of his indictment days because flatly, the narrative presented by Jack Smith in the 45-page four-count indictment really offers him only one defense: Abject Stupidity. “Despite having lost,” it begins, “the defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims, and the Defendant knew that they were false. But the defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway – to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.” Smith has indicted Trump not merely for trying to overthrow the 2020 election and stop the peaceful transfer of power and savage American democracy, but of doing it while he knew, every moment of every day, that he was lying as he did so. Again and again prosecutors quote Trump advisers, lawyers, counselors as telling him he lost. And at least once Smith quotes Trump acknowledging it. Acknowledging he lost. Acknowledging on January 3rd that Joe Biden would be president on January 20th. And then immediately going back to trying to stop it from happening, and lying about it. Paragraph 83: “On the evening of January 3, the Defendant met for a briefing on an overseas national security issue with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior national security advisors. The Chairman briefed the Defendant on the issue-which had previously arisen in December- as well as possible ways the Defendant could handle it. When the Chairman and another advisor recommended that the Defendant take no action because Inauguration Day was only seventeen days away and any course of action could trigger something unhelpful, the Defendant calmly agreed, stating, "Yeah, you're right, it's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy." Yet he did NOT give it to the next guy. Paragraph 84: “The Defendant moved immediately from this national security briefing to the meeting that the Acting Attorney General had requested earlier that day…The Defendant expressed frustration with the Acting Attorney General for failing to do anything to overturn the election results, and the group discussed Co-Conspirator 4's plans to investigate purported election fraud and to send his proposed letter to state officials-a copy of which was provided to the Defendant during the meeting.” There are only two explanations anyone could offer for that kind of behavior: to acknowledge you have lost the election and are leaving office, and then conduct a meeting over how to stay in office. Either you are stupid to the point of mental incompetence, or you are engaged in a conspiracy to knowingly defraud the people of the United States of America by any and all means available. And in this country when you are arraigned you must plead Guilty or Not Guilty. You may not plead "STUPID." THE REMAINDER OF THIS PODCAST IS FROM TUESDAY'S ORIGINAL EDITION B-Block (16:02) SPECIAL COMMENT: Indictment foreshadowing. “This is really bad news for Biden,” Trump wrote last night, though – not really, no, “which means I will probably be indicted again, soon.” Do you like THAT foreshadowing? Or how about this one? Fani Willis sends an e-mail to county commissioners asking them to make sure they keep themselves and their staff safe. And orange security barriers have gone up around the Fulton County Courthouse. And yesterday was the first of ten days before August 18th when she ordered 70 percent of her staff to work remotely. Willis also gave a TV interview: “The work is accomplished. We've been working for two and a half years. We're ready to go,” unquote. Meanwhile back at the DC Ranch: there is still that January 6th Target Letter from Jack Smith hanging like the sword of Damacles over Trump's head and the fact that if Smith sticks to a timeline that matches the document case, he's indicting today or Thursday at the latest and the fact that his Trump January 6th Grand Jury was expected to convene today and while Trump's latest self-pitying post – that would be number Three Million, 447 thousand 237, collect the whole set – is not necessarily time-sensitive it sure is funny if he already knew from his attorneys that the indictments are coming this week and instead of just revealing it like he did last time, he's milking it this way, in order to feed the fascists' story line that the entire prosecution of Trump is being made up as they go along, and in a matter of hours, for one reason only. Namely – as Trump also posted last night – “in order to kill the news cycle!!!" Also: why does Trump treat his cultists like idiots? Because they're idiots. New polling: 91 percent of Republicans who trust Fox News don't believe he has committed any real crime and 85 percent of them say Republicans have to support him regardless. And there is a guess or a theory or a thesis beginning to form that Trump is cash-poor, has been drained by the failure of Trump Social, and his ability to pay for those lawyers AND this campaign may be severely constrained - and it's all because of Elon Musk! C-Block (33:30) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: Whatever actually happened with Congressman Ronny Jackson and the 15-year old girl and the cops at the rodeo, his office felt compelled to issue a press release insisting he WASN'T drinking. The X-sign is gone. Tommy Tuberville is all ears after he loses Space Command for Alabama. RFK Jr's PAC is literally half-funded by an 81-year old Republican. (36:30) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Musk. Again. Threatening to sue to prevent free speech and protect hate speech. DeSantis fanboy Pedro Gonzalez and MORE antisemitic texts including one against Nancy Pelosi whom he doesn't know isn't Jewish. And the U.S. Congressman who believes that a soldier is buried under the floor of the Capitol rotunda.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dubin v. United States, No. 22-10 (U.S. June 12, 2023)identity theft; use; in relation to; statutory titles; “aggravated”; statutory interpretation; over-criminalization  Odei v. Garland, No. 21-1315 (1st Cir. June 15, 2023)denial of freedom;  withholding of removal; nexus; taking land; Chieftain; Ghana Alexandre-Matias v. Garland, No. 21-60798 (5th Cir. June 13, 2023)in absentia motion to reopen; due process; I-213; failure to file NTA; claims processing rule Medina Carreon v. Garland, No. 21-60391 (5th Cir. June 15, 2023)temporary BIA member; ultra vires; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(4); improper appointment of Acting Attorney General; cock fighting; good moral character; Castillo Perez Medley v. Garland, No. 20-3079 (2d Cir. June 15, 2023)ICE arrest; egregious regulatory or constitutional violation; termination with prejudice where removability established King v. Garland, No. 22-2166 (8th Cir. June 14, 2023)INA § 212(h) waiver; jurisdiction; reweighing evidence; Patel Zongo v. Garland, No. 21-3847 (8th Cir. June 16, 2023)credibility; affidavit inconsistencies; Burkina Faso; exhaustion  Rincon Barbosa v. Garland, No. 22-1655 (8th Cir. June 14, 2023)divisibility; modified categorical approach; jury instructions; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5706(a); same punishment; Kansas definition of methamphetamine Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Joorney Business Plans"Business-critical documents for every stage of your journey"For 30% off use code: REVJOORNEY30  Capital Good Fund"A social change organization that uses financial services to tackle poverty in America."Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

Vince Coglianese speaks with Matthew Whitaker, former Acting Attorney General under President Trump and host of Liberty and Justice with Matt Whitaker, about his reaction to the Durham report.    For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.   To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is it all for the mugshot?

The most senior DOJ officials stopped President Trump from co-opting America's leading law enforcement agency for his own corrupt purposes. This short section concludes with a quote from Jeffrey Rosen regarding his short time as the Acting Attorney General. These episodes are created based on the value-for-value model - if you find value in the effort to provide an open and available reading of this document, please support the podcast at governmentunfiltered.com or patreon.com/timberlanemedia. If you'd like to provide an anonymous donation, you can go to glow.fm/insider. Follow the show on Twitter @GovUnfiltered or on Facebook at facebook.com/governmentunfiltered.

Matt Whitaker, former Acting Attorney General and author of book: "Above the Law: The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump," joined WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" radio program on Friday for Day 2 of CPAC.  www.Whitaker.tv For more coverage on the issues that matter to you, visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 FM from 5-9 AM ET. To join the conversation, check us out on Twitter: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock,  @patricepinkfile and @heatherhunterdc.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The most senior DOJ officials stopped President Trump from co-opting America's leading law enforcement agency for his own corrupt purposes. This short section concludes with a quote from Jeffrey Rosen regarding his short time as the Acting Attorney General. These episodes are created based on the value-for-value model - if you find value in the effort to provide an open and available reading of this document, please support the podcast at governmentunfiltered.com or patreon.com/timberlanemedia. If you'd like to provide an anonymous donation, you can go to glow.fm/insider. Follow the show on Twitter @GovUnfiltered or on Facebook at facebook.com/governmentunfiltered.

On January 3rd, Clark informed Rosen that he had decided to accept the President's offer to serve as the Acting Attorney General. Rosen took four steps to try and prevent Clark's ascension to Attorney General. At Rosen's request, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows arranged a meeting with the President that evening. The threat of mass resignations ultimately prevented Clark from taking over as acting Acting Attorney General. These episodes are created based on the value-for-value model - if you find value in the effort to provide an open and available reading of this document, please support the podcast at governmentunfiltered.com or patreon.com/timberlanemedia. If you'd like to provide an anonymous donation, you can go to glow.fm/insider. Follow the show on Twitter @GovUnfiltered or on Facebook at facebook.com/governmentunfiltered.

On January 3rd, Clark informed Rosen that he had decided to accept the President's offer to serve as the Acting Attorney General. Rosen took four steps to try and prevent Clark's ascension to Attorney General. At Rosen's request, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows arranged a meeting with the President that evening. The threat of mass resignations ultimately prevented Clark from taking over as acting Acting Attorney General. These episodes are created based on the value-for-value model - if you find value in the effort to provide an open and available reading of this document, please support the podcast at governmentunfiltered.com or patreon.com/timberlanemedia. If you'd like to provide an anonymous donation, you can go to glow.fm/insider. Follow the show on Twitter @GovUnfiltered or on Facebook at facebook.com/governmentunfiltered.

On December 31st, 2020, President Trump returned to Washington, DC, after celebrating Christmas in Florida. The President once again raised the prospect of naming Clark the Acting Attorney General. Trump also floated the prospect of naming a special counsel to investigate the allegations surrounding the elections. During the December 31st meeting, the President also raised the prospect of seizing the voting machines. However, the DOJ pushed back, saying they had no basis to seize voting machines from the States. These episodes are created based on the value-for-value model - if you find value in the effort to provide an open and available reading of this document, please support the podcast at governmentunfiltered.com or patreon.com/timberlanemedia. If you'd like to provide an anonymous donation, you can go to glow.fm/insider. Follow the show on Twitter @GovUnfiltered or on Facebook at facebook.com/governmentunfiltered.

On December 31st, 2020, President Trump returned to Washington, DC, after celebrating Christmas in Florida. The President once again raised the prospect of naming Clark the Acting Attorney General. Trump also floated the prospect of naming a special counsel to investigate the allegations surrounding the elections. During the December 31st meeting, the President also raised the prospect of seizing the voting machines. However, the DOJ pushed back, saying they had no basis to seize voting machines from the States. These episodes are created based on the value-for-value model - if you find value in the effort to provide an open and available reading of this document, please support the podcast at governmentunfiltered.com or patreon.com/timberlanemedia. If you'd like to provide an anonymous donation, you can go to glow.fm/insider. Follow the show on Twitter @GovUnfiltered or on Facebook at facebook.com/governmentunfiltered.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue provided details to the Select Committee about his first meeting with President Trump on December 15th, the day following Barr's resignation. Donoghue said this meeting was primarily focused on the ASOG report auditing the voting machines in Michigan. Trump was adamant that it proved that the election was defective and the Department should be using that report to tell the American people that the election results were not trustworthy. These episodes are created based on the value-for-value model - if you find value in the effort to provide an open and available reading of this document, please support the podcast at governmentunfiltered.com or patreon.com/timberlanemedia. If you'd like to provide an anonymous donation, you can go to glow.fm/insider. Follow the show on Twitter @GovUnfiltered or on Facebook at facebook.com/governmentunfiltered.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue provided details to the Select Committee about his first meeting with President Trump on December 15th, the day following Barr's resignation. Donoghue said this meeting was primarily focused on the ASOG report auditing the voting machines in Michigan. Trump was adamant that it proved that the election was defective and the Department should be using that report to tell the American people that the election results were not trustworthy. These episodes are created based on the value-for-value model - if you find value in the effort to provide an open and available reading of this document, please support the podcast at governmentunfiltered.com or patreon.com/timberlanemedia. If you'd like to provide an anonymous donation, you can go to glow.fm/insider. Follow the show on Twitter @GovUnfiltered or on Facebook at facebook.com/governmentunfiltered.

The January 6th Committee investigation is over and four criminal charges against former President Donald Trump have been referred to the Justice Department by the Committee. In this episode, hear a summary of 23 hours of testimony and evidence presented by the Committee which prove that former President Trump went to extraordinary and illegal lengths to remain President, despite losing the 2020 Election. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd266-contriving-january-6th Executive Producer Recommended Sources “PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders Files Amendment on Microchip Legislation to Restrict Blank Check Corporate Welfare.” Jul 19, 2022. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD228: The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump The Final Committee Report “Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol,” [House Report 117-663] 117th Congress Second Session. Dec 22, 2022. U.S. Government Publishing Office. The January 6th Committee “Inside the Jan. 6 Committee.” Robert Draper and Luke Broadwater. Dec 23, 2022. The New York Times Magazine. 2020 Election Litigation “Litigation in the 2020 Election.” Oct 27, 2022. The American Bar Association. “‘Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered.'” Daniel Funke. Feb 9, 2021. PolitiFact. January 6th Security Failures “Capitol Attack: The Capitol Police Need Clearer Emergency Procedures and a Comprehensive Security Risk Assessment Process,” [GAO-22-105001] February 2022. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Electors and Vote Certification Process “Who Are Electors And How Do They Get Picked?” Domenico Montanaro. Dec 14, 2020. NPR. “About the Electors.” May 11, 2021. U.S. National Archives. John Eastman “Who is John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the Jan. 6 investigation?” Deepa Shivaram. Jun 17, 2022. NPR. “About Us.” The Federalist Society. “The Eastman Memo.” Trump and Georgia “The Georgia criminal investigation into Trump and his allies, explained.” Matthew Brown. Nov 22, 2022. The Washington Post. “Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger.” Amy Gardner and Paulina Firozi. Jan 5, 2021. The Washington Post. AG Bill Barr Interview “In exclusive AP interview, AG Barr says no evidence of widespread election fraud, undermining Trump.” Mike Balsamo. Dec 11, 2020. “Barr tells AP that Justice Dept. hasn't uncovered widespread voting fraud that could have changed 2020 election outcome.” Dec 1, 2020. The Associated Press. Past Electoral Vote Challenges “Post Misleadingly Equates 2016 Democratic Effort to Trump's 2020 ‘Alternate Electors.'” Joseph A. Gambardello. Jun 29, 2022. FactCheck.org. “Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes.” Ted Barrett. Jan 6, 2005. CNN. Fake Electors “What you need to know about the fake Trump electors.” Amy Sherman. Jan 28, 2022. PolitiFact. “Exclusive: Federal prosecutors looking at 2020 fake elector certifications, deputy attorney general tells CNN.” Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed. Jan 26, 2022. CNN. “American Oversight Obtains Seven Phony Certificates of Pro-Trump Electors.” Mar 2, 2021. American Oversight. Censure of Cheney & Kinzinger “Read the Republican Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger.” Feb 4 2022. The New York Times. Audio Sources 12/19/22 Business Meeting December 19, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 10/13/22 Business Meeting October 13, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Featured speakers: Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary Molly Michael, Former Executive Assistant to the President Pat Cipollone, Former White House Counsel Clips Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Why would Americans assume that our Constitution, and our institutions, and our Republic are invulnerable to another attack? Why would we assume that those institutions will not falter next time? A key lesson of this investigation is this: Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. Any future president inclined to attempt what Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. And also please consider this: The rulings of our courts are respected and obeyed, because we as citizens pledged to accept and honor them. Most importantly, our President, who has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws, swears to accept them. What happens when the President disregards the court's rulings is illegitimate. When he disregards the rule of law, that my fellow citizens, breaks our Republic. January 6 Committee Lawyer: To your knowledge, was the president in that private dining room the whole time that the attack on the Capitol was going on? Or did he ever go to, again only to your knowledge, to the Oval Office, to the White House Situation Room, anywhere else? Kayleigh McEnany: The the best of my recollection, he was always in the dining room. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the President, at all during that brief encounter that you were in the dining room? What do you recall? Gen. Keith Kellogg: I think they were really watching the TV. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining room when you talked to him on January sixth? Molly Michael: It's my understanding he was watching television. January 6 Committee Lawyer: When you were in the dining room in these discussions, was the violence of capital visible on the screen on the television? Pat Cipollone: Yes. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania wrote, quote, "charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." A federal judge in Wisconsin wrote, quote, "the court has allowed the former President the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Another judge in Michigan, called the claims quote, "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were either destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden." A federal judge in Michigan sanctioned nine attorneys, including Sidney Powell, for making frivolous allegations in an election fraud case, describing the case as a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. Recently, a group of distinguished Republican election lawyers, former judges and elected officials issued a report confirming the findings of the courts. In their report entitled "Lost, Not Stolen," these prominent Republicans analyzed each election challenge and concluded this: Donald Trump and his supporters failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. On December 11, Trump's allies lost a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance of success in the courts. Alyssa Farah: I remember maybe a week after the election was called, I popped into the Oval just to like, give the President the headlines and see how he was doing and he was looking at the TV and he said, "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?" Cassidy Hutchinson: Mark raised it with me on the 18th and so following that conversation we were in the motorcade ride driving back to the White House, and I said, like, "Does the President really think that he lost?" And he said, "A lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it and he thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but, you know, he pretty much has acknowledged that he, that he's lost. 07/12/22 Select Committee Hearing July 12, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesperson Stephen Ayres, January 6th Defendant Clips Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): According to White House visitor logs obtained by the Committee, members of Congress present at the White House on December 21 included Congressmen Brian Babin (TX), Andy Biggs (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (R-GA), Jim Jordan (OD), and Scott Perry (PA). Then Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) was also there. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): We've asked witnesses what happened during the December 21 meeting and we've learned that part of the discussion centered on the role of the Vice President during the counting of the electoral votes. These members of Congress were discussing what would later be known as the "Eastman Theory," which was being pushed by Attorney John Eastman. 06/28/2022 Select Committee Hearing June 28, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Special Assistant to the President and Aide to the Chief of Staff Clips 9:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): 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. 10:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Miss Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office. Miss Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornato, who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House. In short, Miss Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House. 24:20 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On January 3, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington DC on January 6, and indicated that quote, "unlike previous post election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter protesters, as they were previously, but rather, Congress itself is the target on the Sixth. 27:45 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6. Let's listen. Police Officer #1: Blue jeans and a blue jean jacket and underneath the blue jacket complaintants both saw the top of an AR 15. Police Officer #2: Any white males brown cowboy boots, they had Glock-style pistols in their waistbands. Police Officer #3: 8736 with the message that subject weapon on his right hip. Police Officer #4: Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree South side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the "Don't tread on me" flag, American flag facemask cowboy boots, weapon on the right side hip. Police Officer #5: I got three men walking down the street in fatigues and carrying AR-15s. Copy at Fourteenth and Independence. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): We're going to show now an exchange of texts between you and Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato, and these text messages were exchanged while you were at the Ellipse. In one text, you write, "but the crowd looks good from this vantage point, as long as we get the shot. He was f---ing furious." But could you tell us, first of all, who it is in the text who was furious? Cassidy Hutchinson: The he in that text that I was referring to was the President. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): And why was he furious, Miss Hutchinson? Cassidy Hutchinson: He was furious because he wanted the arena that we had on the Ellipse to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. The advanced team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing. Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in, but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in. Cassidy Hutchinson: And that's what Tony [Ornato] had been trying to relate to him [President Trump] that morning. You know, it's not the issue that we encountered on the campaign. We have enough space. They don't want to come in right now, they have weapons they don't want confiscated by the Secret Service. They're fine on the Mall, they can see you on the Mall and they want to march straight to the Capitol from the Mall. But when we were in the off stage announced tent, I was part of a conversation -- I was in the, I was in the vicinity of a conversation -- where I overheard the President say something to the effect of you know, "I don't think that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the effing mags away." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had now not found evidence of widespread election fraud, sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news? Cassidy Hutchinson: I left the office and went down to the dining room, and I noticed that the door was propped open in the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Miss Hutchinson, Attorney General Barr described to the Committee the President's angry reaction when he finally met with President Trump. Let's listen. Former Attorney General Bill Barr: And I said, "Look, I I know that you're dissatisfied with me and I'm glad to offer my resignation" and then he pounded the table very hard. Everyone sort of jumped and he said "Accepted." Reporter: Leader McCarthy, Do you condemn this violence? Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we're currently watching unfold is un-American. I'm disappointed, I'm sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the First Amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a Presidential Pardon related to January 6? Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma'am. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness. And we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern. Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they'd been contacted by any of their former colleagues, or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony, without identifying any of the individuals involved. Let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question. First, here's how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness's testimony. "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee." Here's another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses. "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal, and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. 06/23/22 Select Committee Hearing June 23, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue, Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Engel, Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Clips Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): From the time you took over from Attorney General Barr until January 3, how often did President Trump contact you or the Department to push allegations of election fraud? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: So between December 23 and January 3, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day, with one or two exceptions like Christmas Day Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Barr to immediately let us know what he's doing. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): We're already working on challenging the certified electors. And what about the court? How pathetic are the courts? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): January 6, I'm joining with the fighters in the Congress, and we are going to object to electors from states that didn't run clean elections. Democracy is left undefended if we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The ultimate date of significance is January 6. This is how the process works. The ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check and balance, is the United States Congress. And when something is done in an unconstitutional fashion, which happened in several of these states, we have a duty to step forward and have this debate and have this vote on the 6th of January. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So both the Acting Attorney General [Rosen] and I tried to explain to the President on this occasion, and on several other occasions that the Justice Department has a very important, very specific, but very limited role in these elections. States run their elections. We are not quality control for the states. We are obviously interested in and have a mission that relates to criminal conduct in relation to federal elections. We also have related civil rights responsibilities. So we do have an important role, but the bottom line was if a state ran their election in such a way that it was defective, that is to the state or Congress to correct. It is not for the Justice Department to step in. And I certainly understood the President, as a layman, not understanding why the Justice Department didn't have at least a civil role to step in and bring suit on behalf of the American people. We tried to explain that to him. The American people do not constitute the client for the United States Justice Department. The one and only client of the United States Justice Department is the United States government. And the United States government does not have standing, as we were repeatedly told by our internal teams. Office of Legal Counsel, led by Steve Engel, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General researched it and gave us thorough clear opinions that we simply did not have standing and we tried to explain that to the President on numerous occasions. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Let's take a look at another one of your notes. You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, "DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election." How did the President respond to that, sir? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking you to do. What I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: There were isolated instances of fraud. None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual State. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And was representative Gaetz requesting a pardon? Eric Herschmann: Believe so. The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things. A pardon that he was discussing, requesting, was as broad as you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things. He had mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons? Cassidy Hutchinson: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, both advocated for, there to be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting and a handful of other members that weren't at the December 21 meeting as the preemptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon and he was doing so since early December. I'm not sure why. Mr. Gaetz had reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a Presidential pardon. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did they all contact you? Cassidy Hutchinson: Not all of them, but several of them did. January 6 Committee Lawyer: So you'd be mentioned Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks. Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talks about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House is going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too, I'm sorry. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Mr. Perry, did he talk to you directly? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, he did. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Clark was the acting head of the Civil Division and head of Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Do either of those divisions have any role whatsoever in investigating election fraud, sir? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: No. And and to my awareness, Jeff Clark had had no prior involvement of any kind with regard to the work that the department was doing. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Is there a policy that governs who can have contact directly with the White House? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. So across many administrations for a long period of time, there's a policy that particularly with regard to criminal investigations restricts at both the White House and the Justice Department and those more sensitive issues to the highest ranks. So for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been that only the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General from the DOJ side can have conversations about criminal matters with the White House, or the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General can authorize someone for a specific item with their permission. But the idea is to make sure that the top rung of the Justice Department knows about it, and is in the thing to control it and make sure only appropriate things are done. Steven Engel: The purpose of these these policies is to keep these communications as infrequent, and at the highest levels as possible, just to make sure that people who are less careful about it who don't really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clark, don't run afoul of those contact policies. Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: He acknowledged that shortly before Christmas, he had gone to a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. That, of course, surprised me. And I asked him, How did that happen? And he was defensive, he said it had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as "General Perry," but I believe is Congressman Perry, and that, unbeknownst to him, he was asked to go to a meeting and he didn't know it, but it turned out it was at the Oval -- he found himself at the Oval Office. And he was apologetic for that. And I said, Well, you didn't tell me about it. It wasn't authorized. And you didn't even tell me after the fact. You know, this is not not appropriate. But he was contrite and said it had been inadvertent and it would not happen again and that if anyone asked him to go to such a meeting, he would notify [Former Acting Deputy Attorney General] Rich Donohue and me. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): On the same day Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clark to stop talking to the White House, Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clark within the Department of Justice. You can now see on the screen behind me a series of tasks between representative Perry and Mr. Meadows. They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clark be elevated within the department. Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26, that quote, "Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down, 11 days to January 6 and 25 days to inauguration. We've got to get going!" Representative Perry followed up and says quote, "Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done." Mr. Meadows responds with "I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Mr. Donohue on December 28, Mr. Clark emailed you and Mr. Rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to Georgia State officials. This letter claims that the US Department of Justice's investigations have quote, "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the state of Georgia." The letter also said this: quote, "in light of these developments, the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session," end quote, and consider approving a new slate of electors. Steven Engel: The States had chosen their electors, the electors had been certified, they'd cast their votes, they had been sent to Washington DC. Neither Georgia nor any of the other States on December 28, or whenever this was, was in a position to change those votes. Essentially, the election had happened. The only thing that hadn't happened was the formal counting of the votes. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: I had to read both the email and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing because it was so extreme to me, I had a hard time getting my head around it initially. But I read it and I did understand it for what he intended and I had to sit down and sort of compose what I thought was an appropriate response. In my response, I explained a number of reasons this is not the Department's role to suggest or dictate to State legislatures how they should select their electors. But more importantly, this was not based on fact, that this was actually contrary to the facts, as developed by Department investigations over the last several weeks and months. So I responded to that. And for the Department to insert itself into the political process's way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a Constitutional crisis. And I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he didn't seem to really appreciate it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): President Trump rushed back early from Mar-a-Lago on December 31, and called an emergency meeting with the Department's leadership. Mr. Donohue, during this meeting, did the President tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: Toward the end of the meeting, the President, again was getting very agitated. And he said, "People tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership, put Jeff Clark and maybe something will finally get done." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Rosen during a January 2 meeting with Mr. Clark, did you confront him again about his contact with the President? And if so, can you describe that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: We had -- it was a contentious meeting where we were chastising him that he was insubordinate, he was out of line, he had not honored his own representations of what he would do. And he raised again, that he thought that letter should go out. And we were not receptive to that. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): So in that meeting, did Mr. Clark say he would turn down the President's offer if you reversed your position and sign the letter? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. Subsequently, he told me that on the on Sunday the 3rd. He told me that the timeline had moved up, and that the President had offered him the job and that he was accepting it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): White House Call Logs obtained by the Committee show that by 4:19pm, on January 3, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clark as the Acting Attorney General. Let's ask about that, what was your reaction to that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Well, you know, on the one hand, I wasn't going to accept being fired by my subordinate. So I wanted to talk to the President directly. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So the four of us knew, but no one else, aside from Jeff Clark of course, knew what was going on until late that Sunday afternoon. We chose to keep a close hold, because we didn't want to create concern or panic in the Justice Department leadership. But at this point, I asked the Acting AG [Rosen], what else can I do to help prepare for this meeting in the Oval Office, and he said, You and Pat [Cipollone] should get the Assistant Attorney Generals on the phone, and it's time to let them know what's going on. Let's find out what they may do if there's a change in leadership, because that will help inform the conversation at the Oval Office. We got most, not all, but most of the AAGs on the phone. We very quickly explained to them what the situation was. [They] essentially said they would leave, they would resign en mass if the President made that change in the department leadership. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): DOJ leadership arrived at the White House. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: The conversation this point was really about whether the President should remove Jeff Rosen and replace him with Jeff Clark. And everyone in the room, I think, understood that that meant that letter would go out. And at some point, the conversation turned to whether Jeff Clark was even qualified, competent to run the Justice Department, which in my mind, he clearly was not. And it was a heated conversation. I thought it was useful to point out to the President that Jeff Clark simply didn't have the skills, the ability and the experience to run the Department. And so I said, "Mr. President, you're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who's never conducted a criminal investigation, he's telling you that he's going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible. It's absurd. It's not going to happen, and it's going to fail. He has never been in front of a trial jury, a grand jury. He's never even been to Chris Wray's office." I said at one point, "if you walked into Chris Wray's office, one, would you know how to get there and, two, if you got there, would he even know who you are? And you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following you orders? It's not going to happen. He's not competent." And that's the point at which Mr. Clark tried to defend himself by saying, "Well, I've been involved in very significant civil and environmental litigation. I've argued many appeals and appellate courts and things of that nature." And then I pointed out that, yes, he was an environmental lawyer, and I didn't think that was appropriate background to be running in the United States Justice Department. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Did anybody in there support Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: No one. Along those lines, he [former President Trump] said, "so suppose I do this, suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark, what would you do?" And I said, "Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy [Clark], who I just declared was completely incompetent." And so the President immediately turned to to Mr. Engel. Steven Engel: My recollection is that when the President turned to me and said, "Steve, you wouldn't leave, would you?" I said, "Mr. President, I've been with you through four Attorneys General, including two Acting Attorneys General, but I couldn't be part of this." Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And I said, and we're not the only ones. No one cares if we resign. If Steve and I go, that's fine, it doesn't matter. But I'm telling you what's going to happen. You're gonna lose your entire Department leadership, every single AAG will walk out on you. Your entire Department of leadership will walk out within hours." And I said, "Mr. President, within 24...48...72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, all anyone is going to sort of think about when they see this...no one is going to read this letter....all anyone is going to think is that you went through two Attorneys General in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. And so the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed results of the election. It's going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. I think at that point Pat Cipollone said, "Yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this letter." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Cipollone, the White House Counsel, told the Committee that Mr. Engels response had a noticeable impact on the President, that this was a turning point in the conversation. Mr. Donohue, towards the end of this meeting, did the President asked you what was going to happen to Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He did. When we finally got to, I'd say, the last 15 minutes of the meeting, the President's decision was apparent, he announced it. Jeff Clark tried to scrape his way back and asked the President to reconsider. The President double down said "No, I've made my decision. That's it. We're not going to do it." And then he turned to me and said, "so what happens to him now?" Meaning Mr. Clark. He understood that Mr. Clark reported to me. And I didn't initially understand the question. I said, "Mr. President?" and he said, "Are you going to fire him?" And I said, "I don't have the authority to fire him. He's the Senate confirmed Assistant Attorney General." And he said, "Well, who has the authority to fire him?" And I said, "Only you do, sir." And he said, "Well, I'm not going to fire him." I said, "Alright, well, then we should all go back to work." 06/21/22 Select Committee Hearing June 21, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Secretary of State Chief Operating Officer Wandrea ArShaye, “Shaye” Moss, former Georgia election worker Ronna Romney McDaniel, RNC Chair Justin Clark, former Trump Campaign lawyer Robert Sinners, former Trump campaign staffer Andrew Hitt, Former Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Laura Cox, Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Josh Roselman, Investigative Counsel for the J6 Committee John Eastman, Former Trump Lawyer Mike Shirkey, Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate Angela McCallum, Trump Campaign caller Rudy Giuliani Clips Josh Roselman: My name is Josh Roselman, I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Beginning in late November 2020. The President and his lawyers started appearing before state legislators, urging them to give their electoral votes to Trump, even though he lost the popular vote. This was a strategy with both practical and legal elements. The Select Committee has obtained an email from just two days after the election, in which a Trump campaign lawyer named Cleata Mitchell asked another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, to write a memo justifying the idea. Eastman prepared a memo attempting to justify this strategy, which was circulated to the Trump White House, Rudy Giuliani's legal team, and state legislators around the country and he appeared before the Georgia State Legislature to advocate for it publicly. John Eastman: You could also do what the Florida Legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. And when you add in the mix of the significant statistical anomalies in sworn affidavits and video evidence of outright election fraud, I don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, I think you have a duty to do that to protect the integrity of the election here in Georgia. Josh Roselman: But Republican officials in several states released public statements recognizing that President Trump's proposal was unlawful. For instance, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called the proposal unconstitutional, while Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers wrote that the idea would undermine the rule of law. The pressure campaign to get state legislators to go along with this scheme intensified when President Trump invited delegations from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Either you or speaker Chatfield, did you make the point to the President, that you were not going to do anything that violated Michigan law? Mike Shirkey: I believe we did. Whether or not it was those exact words or not, I think the words that I would have more likely used is, "we are going to follow the law." Josh Roselman: Nevertheless, the pressure continued. The next day President Trump tweeted quote, "hopefully the Courts and/or Legislatures will have the COURAGE to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our Elections, and the United States of America itself. THE WORLD IS WATCHING!!!!" He posted multiple messages on Facebook, listing the contact information for state officials and urging his supporters to contact them to quote "demand a vote on decertification." These efforts also involves targeted outreach to state legislators from President Trump's lawyers and from Trump himself. Angela McCallum: Hi, my name is Angela McCallum, I'm calling from Trump campaign headquarters in Washington DC. You do have the power to reclaim your authority and send us a slate of Electors that will support President Trump and Vice President Pence. Josh Roselman: Another legislator, Pennsylvania House Speaker Brian Cutler, received daily voicemails from Trump's lawyers in the last week of November. Cutler felt that the outreach was inappropriate and asked his lawyers to tell Rudy Giuliani to stop calling, but Giuliani continued to reach out. Rudy Giuliani: I understand that you don't want to talk to me now. I just want to bring some facts to your attention and talk to you as a fellow Republican. Josh Roselman: These ads were another element in the effort. The Trump campaign spent millions of dollars running ads online and on television. Commercial Announcer: The evidence is overwhelming. Call your governor and legislators demand they inspect the machines and hear the evidence. Fake electors scheme Casey Lucier: My name is Casey Lucier. I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. On November 18, a lawyer working with the Trump campaign named Kenneth Chesebro wrote a memo arguing that the Trump campaign should organize its own electors in the swing states that President Trump had lost. The Select Committee received testimony that those close to President Trump began planning to organize fake electors for Trump in states that Biden won in the weeks after the election. At the President's direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did the President say when he called you? Ronna Romney McDaniel: Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing change the result of any dates, I think more just helping them reach out and assemble them. But the My understanding is the campaign did take the lead, and we just were helping them in that in that role. Casey Lucier: As President Trump and his supporters continued to lose lawsuits, some campaign lawyers became convinced that convening electors in states that Trump lost was no longer appropriate. Justin Clark: I just remember I either replied or called somebody saying, unless we have litigation pending this, like in the states, like, I don't think this is appropriate, or no, this isn't the right thing to do. I'm out. Matt Morgan: At that point, I had Josh Findlay email Mr. Chesebro, politely, to say, "This is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward". And this was my way of taking that responsibility to zero. Casey Lucier: The Committee learned the White House Counsel's Office also felt the plan was potentially illegal. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And so to be clear, did you hear the White House Counsel's office saying that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in states that he had lost was not legally sound? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, sir. Casey Lucier: The Select Committee interviewed several of the individual fake electors, as well as Trump campaign staff who helped organize the effort. Robert Sinners: We were just, you know, kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point. You know, a strong part of me really feels that it's just kind of as the road continued, and as that was failure, failure, failure that that got formulated as what do we have on the table? Let's just do it. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And now after what we've told you today about the Select Committee's investigation about the conclusion of the professional lawyers on the campaign staff, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan and Josh Findlay, about their unwillingness to participate in the convening of these electors, how does that contribute to your understanding of these issues? Robert Sinners: I'm angry, I'm angry. Because I think in a sense, you know, no one really cared if people were potentially putting themselves in jeopardy. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Would you have not wanted to participate in this any further, as well? Robert Sinners: I absolutely would not have had I know that the three main lawyers for the campaign that I've spoken to in the past, and were leading up, we're not on board. Yeah. Andrew Hitt: I was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor. So that would have been using our electors. Well, it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren't told about and we wouldn't have supported. Casey Lucier: Documents obtained by the Select Committee indicate that instructions were given to the electors in several states that they needed to cast their ballots in complete secrecy. Because the scheme involved fake electors, those participating in certain states had no way to comply with state election laws, like where the electors were supposed to meet. One group of fake electors even considered hiding overnight to ensure that they could access the State Capitol, as required in Michigan. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did Mr. Norton say who he was working with at all on this effort to have electors meet? Laura Cox: He said he was working with the President's campaign. He told me that the Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the Capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote per law in the Michigan chambers and I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate. Casey Lucier: In one state, the fake electors even asked for a promise that the campaign would pay their legal fees if they got sued or charged with a crime. Ultimately, fake electors did meet on December 14, 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. At the request of the Trump campaign, the electors from these battleground states signed documents falsely asserting that they were the quote, "duly elected" electors from their state and submitted them to the National Archives and to Vice President Pence in his capacity as President of the Senate. In an email produced to the Select Committee, Dr. Eastman told the Trump campaign representative that it did not matter that the electors had not been approved by a state authority. Quote, "the fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough." He urged that Pence "act boldly and be challenged." Documents produced to the Select Committee show that the Trump campaign took steps to ensure that the physical copies of the fake electors' electoral votes from two states were delivered to Washington for January 6. Text messages exchanged between Republican Party officials in Wisconsin show that on January 4, the Trump campaign asked for someone to fly their fake electors' documents to Washington. A staffer for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson texted a staffer for Vice President Pence just minutes before the beginning of the Joint Session. This staffer stated that Senator Johnson wished to hand deliver to the Vice President the fake electors' votes from Michigan and Wisconsin. The Vice President's aide unambiguously instructed them not to deliver the fake votes to the Vice President. Even though the fake elector slates were transmitted to Congress and the Executive Branch, the Vice President held firm and his position that his role was to count lawfully submitted electoral votes. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Brad Raffensperger is the 29th Secretary of State of Georgia, serving in this role since 2019. As an elected official, and a Republican Secretary, Raffensperger is responsible for supervising elections in Georgia and maintaining the state's public records. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. You're the speaker of the Arizona House and a self-described conservative Republican. You campaigned for President Trump and with him during the 2020 election. Is it fair to say that you wanted Donald Trump to win a second term in office? Please? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Thank you. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): And is it your understanding that President Biden was the winner of the popular vote in Arizona in 2020? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Before we begin with the questions that I had prepared for you, I want to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued, which I received just prior to the hearing. Former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, Republican in Name Only. He then references a conversation in November 2020, in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged, and that he had won Arizona. To quote the former President, "during the conversation, he told me the election was rigged and that I won Arizona," unquote. Is that false? Rusty Bowers: Anywhere, anyone, anytime that has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when the former President, in his statement today, claimed that you told him that he won Arizona, is that also false? Rusty Bowers: That is also false. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election, you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, in which they discussed the result of the presidential election in Arizona. If you would, tell us about that call. Rusty Bowers: Mr. Giuliani came on first. And niceties...then Mr. Trump, President Trump, then-President Trump came on. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): During the conversation did you ask Mr. Giuliani for proof of these allegations of fraud that he was making? Rusty Bowers: On multiple occasions, yes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when you asked him for evidence of this fraud, what did he say? Rusty Bowers: He said that they did have proof. And I asked him, "Do you have names?" [He said] for example, we have 200,000 illegal immigrants, some large number, five or six thousand, dead people, etc. And I said, "Do you have their names?" Yes. "Will you give them to me?" Yes. The President interrupted and said, "Give the man what he needs Rudy." He said, "I will." And that happened on at least two occasions, that interchange in the conversation. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call, after the call, or to this day? Rusty Bowers: Never. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): What was the ask during this call? Rusty Bowers: The ones I remember, were first, that we would hold -- that I would allow an official committee at at the Capitol so that they could hear this evidence, and that we could take action thereafter. I said, "to what end? To what end the hearing." He said, well, we have heard by an official high up in the Republican legislature that there is a legal theory or a legal ability in Arizona, that you can remove the the electors of President Biden and replace them. And we would like to have the legitimate opportunity, through the committee, to come to that end and and remove that. And I said that's, that's something that's totally new to me. I've never heard of any such thing. And I would never do anything of such magnitude without deep consultation with qualified attorneys. And I said, I've got some good attorneys, and I'm going to give you their names. But you're asking me to do something against my oath and I will not break my oath. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you also receive a call from US Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona on the morning of January 6? Rusty Bowers: I did. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And what did Mr. Biggs asked you to do? Rusty Bowers: I believe that was the day that the vote was occurring in each state to have certification or to declare the certification of the electors. And he asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my State, and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors. And I said I would not. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Speaking Bowers, did the President call you again later in December? Rusty Bowers: He did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but that you are not going to do anything illegal for him? Rusty Bowers: I did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Nevertheless, his lawyer John Eastman called you some days later, and what did Dr. Eastman want you to do? Rusty Bowers: That we would, in fact, take a vote to overthrow -- or I shouldn't say overthrow -- that we would decertify the electors, and that we had plenary authority to do so. But I said, "What would you have me do?" And he said, "Just do it and let the court sorted out." And I said, "You're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the United States. And I'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof? And that's going to be good enough with me? That I would, I would put us through that, my state that I swore to uphold, both in Constitution and in law? No, sir." Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I want to look even more deeply at the fake electoral scheme. Every four years, citizens from all over the United States go to the polls to elect the President. Under our Constitution, when we cast our votes for president, we are actually voting to send electors pledged to our preferred candidate to the Electoral College. In December, the electors in each state meet, cast their votes, and send those votes to Washington. There was only one legitimate slate of electors from each state. On the Sixth day of January, Congress meets in a joint session to count those votes, and the winner of the Electoral College vote becomes the president. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Secretary Raffensburger, thank you for being here today. You've been a public servant in Georgia since 2015, serving first as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, and then since January 2019, as Georgia Secretary of State as a self described conservative Republican. Is it fair to say that you wanted President Trump to win the 2020 election? Brad Raffensperger: Yes, it is. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Secretary Raffensperger, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and by what margin? Brad Raffensperger: President Biden carried the state of Georgia by approximately 12,000 votes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Bear in mind as we discuss this call today that by this point in time, early January, the election in Georgia had already been certified. But perhaps more important, the President of the United States had already been told repeatedly by his own top Justice Department officials that the claims he was about to make to you about massive fraud in Georgia were completely false. 06/16/22 Select Committee Hearing June 16, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence J. Michael Luttig, Retired judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and informal advisor to Mike Pence Julie Radford, Former Chief of Staff for Ivanka Trump Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Nicholas Luna, Former Assistant to President Trump Gen. Keith Kellogg, Former National Security Advisor to VP Pence Clips 16:45 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Greg Jacob was Counsel to Vice President Pence. He conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the Vice President in the Joint Session of Congress under the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and 230 years of historical practice. But he also has firsthand information about the attack on the Capitol because he lived through it. He was with the Vice President and his own life was in danger. 31:05 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Eastman was, at the time, a law professor at Chapman University Law School. He prepared a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6. 32:50 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Dr. Eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight. Referring to the fake electors as, quote "dead on arrival in Congress" end quote, because they did not have a certification from their States. 46:40 Greg Jacob: We had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year, multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates [sic]. And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of "which ones?" had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had to resolve that question. And the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities. Now I'm in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the Vice President does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment. And so the notion that the Vice President could do that certainly is not in the text. But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was, we had all seen that in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states. And those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an Amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting. And yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So we started with that. 1:20:45 Greg Jacob: He again tried to say, but I don't think the courts will get involved in this. They'll invoke the political question doctrine and so if the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we'll have the 10 days for the States to weigh in and resolve it. And then, you know, they'll send back the Trump slates of electors, and the people will be able to accept that. I expressed my vociferous disagreement with that point, I did not think that this was a political question. Among other things, if the courts did not step in to resolve this, there was nobody else to resolve it. You would be in a situation where you have a standoff between the President of the United States and, counterfactually, the Vice President of the United States saying that we've exercised authorities that, Constitutionally, we think we have by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election. You would have an opposed House and Senate disagreeing with that. You would have State legislatures that, to that point, I mean, Republican leaders across those legislatures had put together, had put out statements, and we collected these for the Vice President as well, that the people had spoken in their States and that they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election. We did receive some signed letters that Mr. Eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those States, but no State had any legislative house that indicated that added any interest in it. So you would have had just a an unprecedented Constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. And as I expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets. Because if we can't work it out politically, we've already seen how charged up people are about this election. And so it would be a disastrous situation to be in. So I said, I think the courts will intervene. I do not see a commitment in the Constitution of the question, whether the Vice President has that authority to some other actor to resolve there. There's arguments about whether Congress and the Vice President jointly have a Constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues. I don't think that they have any authority to object or reject them. I don't see it in the 12th Amendment, but nonetheless. And I concluded by saying, "John, in light of everything that we've discussed, can't we just both agree that this is a terrible idea?" And he couldn't quite bring himself to say yes to that. But he very clearly said, "Well, yeah, I see we're not going to be able to persuade you to do this." And that was how the meeting concluded. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): We understand that the Vice President started his day on January 4 with a rally in Georgia for the Republican candidates in the US Senate runoff. When the Vice President returned to Washington, he was summoned to meet with the President regarding the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. Mr. Jacob, during that meeting between the President and the Vice President, what theories did Dr. Eastman present regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral votes? Greg Jacob: During the meeting on January 4, Mr. Eastman was opining there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the Vice President could exercise two days later on January 6. One of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. The other was that he could use his capacity as Presiding Officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10-day recess during which States that he deemed to be disputed, there was a list of five to seven states, the exact number changed from conversation to conversation, but that the Vice President could sort of issue and demand to the State Legislatures in those States to re-examine the election and declare who had won each of those States. So he said that both of those were legally viable options. He said that he did not recommend, upon questioning, he did not recommend what he called the "more aggressive option," which was reject outright, because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. The imprimatur of State Legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have public acceptance of an outcome in favor of President Trump. And so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the Joint Session and sending the election back to the States. And again, the Vice President's first instinct here is so decisive on this question, there's just no way that the framers of the Constitution who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III, and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person, the authority to determine who was going to be President of the United States. And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. And critically, no Vice President, in 230 years of history, had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the States. In the entire history of the United States, not once had a Joint Session, ever returned electoral votes back to the States to be counted. So the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000, that he had authority to just declare himself President of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn't think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that? And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. So at the conclusion of the meeting on the 4th, the President had asked that our office meet with Mr. Eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he had expressed at that meeting, and the Vice President indicated that....offered me up as his counsel, to fulfill that duty. We had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on January 5. What most surprised me about that meeting was that when Mr. Eastman came in, he said, "I'm here to request that you reject the electors." So on the 4th, that had been the path that he had said, "I'm not recommending that you do that." But on the 5th, he came in and expressly requested that. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Mr. Jacob did you, Mr. Short, and the Vice President have a call later that day, again, with the President and Dr. Eastman? Greg Jacob: So, yes, we did. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): And what did Dr. Eastman requested on that call? Greg Jacob: On that phone call, Mr. Eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning, we were not going to be rejecting electors. But would we be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the 4th, which would be to suspend the Joint Session and request that State Legislatures reexamine certification of the electoral votes? Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Trump issued a statement claiming the Vice President had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election, despite the fact that the Vice President had consistently rejected that position. Mr. Jacob, how did the Vice President's team reacts to the stat

Leo 2.0 fills in for the vacationing Hannity.  Matt Whitaker, former Acting Attorney General, joins Leo 2.0 to discuss the relationship between the FBI and Twitter.  This is just Twitter... what ELSE was the government doing?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Wait...What? #sportsbiz podcast we like to say we take a sometimes serious look at the sports business. The recent report from former Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, detailing the abuses in the NWSL is one of those times. We talk about the path forward for a league that has had great success on the pitch and in securing league partners. Of course, we have some fun with the "sport of the future," pickleball, as well as cheating in...chess? DP & McGhee are then joined by President of the Kansas City Chiefs, Mark Donovan, who talks about his storied career including roles at the NHL, NFL and the Eagles, before joining the Chiefs over a decade ago. He even talks about a wrestling match he got into with his former teammate, agency partner, and former guest of this show, George Pyne.

Over the past few years, we've heard shocking allegations from women athletes about experiencing sexual harassment and abuse. And earlier this week a report was released outlining a pervasive culture of abuse among coaches in the National Women's Soccer League. Elite women soccer players were subjected to a range of abuse - from belittling comments to sexual advances.Sally Yates, former Acting Attorney General, led the investigation – which was a response to allegations made last year against coaches by a number of women players. Many of the charges had been reported in the past but never acted upon. Host Michel Martin speaks with Steph Yang, staff writer for The Athletic who covers women's soccer and Julie DiCaro author of the book "Sidelined: Sports, Culture and Being a Woman in America".In participating regions, you'll also hear a local news segment to help you make sense of what's going on in your community.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.

In this second episode re-chronicling the Saturday Night Massacre a very disturbing picture will begin to emerge about the Watergate Special Prosecutor's office. You will begin to see a pattern of  behaviour where paranoia, arrogance, and an overall belief in the correctness of their cause emerges. That latter shows itself in decisions that get made where they themselves are willing to take matters into their own hands, without even consulting the very person who is supposed to be in charge of their office. Listen as they proudly discuss removing evidence from the office, weeks before the showdown that led to Archibald Cox's termination. The belief that they could defy the Federal Bureau of Investigation officers who had been sent to the office, even threatening violence at one point at the officers. They admit to sneaking more evidence out in the underwear of one of the staffers wives, they imply that they believe the FBI would ransack their files even though they later have to admit that at no time did that ever occur. They also openly discuss the contempt they held the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, even as he assumed the awesome responsibility of acting Attorney General and worked diligently to protect their jobs, even as he had to carry out the order from the President to fire the Special Prosecutor,  Archibald Cox. The picture that emerges is one of an out of control office, with no respect for any person of authority over them, whether it be a President they had targeted as a criminal, the former Attorney General that they accused of not acting in good faith, the new Acting Attorney General who protected their jobs, or even the man they were supposed to be working for who they lectured on how to conduct a criminal investigation and hid actions they took upon themselves , by removing evidence from the office weeks before a confrontation with the President had even occurred. And it will get worse from here. Support My WorkIf you love the show, the easiest way to show your support is by leaving us a positive rating with a review. You can also tell your family and friends about " Randal Wallace Presents : Nixon and Watergate " tooThe Lowcountry Gullah PodcastTheculture, history and traditions podcast where Gullah Geechee culture lives!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

Stuart Gerson, former Assistant Attorney General in the George H.W. Bush White House, and Acting Attorney General under Bill Clinton, has been watching the January 6th hearings. He has concluded that the DOJ must prosecute Trump. We ask him how he came to his conclusion. Plus, it's Steve Bannon's turn in the barrel, as he's convicted of slipping out on a subpoena. And in the Spiel, Donald Trump may not be able to say “yesterday,” but the spoken word is not his only means of expression. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today we're bringing you another episode of Lawfare No Bull, a podcast featuring primary source audio from the world of national security law and policy. Today's episode features audio of the fifth of a series of public hearings held by the House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The hearing included testimony from former Acting Attorney General, Jeffrey Rosen, former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel Steve Engel. Learn more and subscribe to Lawfare No Bull.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

June 23: The January 6 Committee reports on the alleged pressure campaign by the Trump administration officials on the Justice Department to help overturn the 2020 election results. Witnesses: Jeffrey Rosen, former Acting Attorney General, Richard Donahue, former Acting Deputy Attorney General and Steven Engel, former US Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Steak for Breakfast Podcast is back following the weekend with a huge episode of the show! This Tuesday edition features the latest from the Trump Save America Rally Tour and two first time guests who are going to help you get this week kicked off right.   We begin the show today sitting down with the former Trump Administration, Acting Attorney General, Matt Whitaker. We cover a range of topics, stemming from the upcoming midterm elections, the recent Supreme Court Rulings on Roe v. Wade, the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Pray. We'll touch on the corruption and erosion at the DOJ before ending the segment talking about making Back the Blue Great Again. It was superb sitting down for a conversation with the former AG for the first time.   Donald Trump was back on the Rally Trail this weekend, with a Save America event for Mary Miller and Darren Bailey in Mendon, Illinois. We bring you complete and total coverage as the 45th President rallied the base for these America First candidates.   Current California State Representative and the Republican nominee for the U.S. House Seat in CA-3, Kevin Kiley joins us on the show for the first time today. We discuss the success and first place victory Kevin had in the Jungle Primary earlier in the month, and the pillars of his campaign platform. We touch on a few national issues and the Democrat challenger in the general election this fall.   We wrap the show with a Second News Block that covers the fallout from the Supreme Court rulings that made the biggest headlines over the weekend and with some late-breaking news.   Subscribe to the show, rate it and leave a review before you download, listen, like follow and SHARE Steak for Breakfast content!   Steak for Breakfast:   website: https://steakforbreakfastpodcast.com   linktree: https://linktr.ee/steakforbreakfastpodcast   MyPillow: Promo Code: STEAK at checkout • Website: https://www.mypillow.com/steak • Via the Phone: 800-658-8045 •   Matt Whitaker (Former Acting U.S. AG) •   Truth: @mattwhitaker46   Website: https://whitaker.tv/index   Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/liberty-justice-with-matt-whitaker/id1608809500   Kevin Kiley (CA-3 Republican nominee)   Twitter: @KevinKileyCA   Website: https://electkevinkiley.com/

Discussion and analysis of the latest news related to January sixth, including the Dobbs decision, the death of former Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger, and the seizure of Jeff Rosen's phone. The main theme is the fifth public hearing of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack held on June 23rd, featuring testimony from Jeff Rosen, Eric Herschmann and Seth Engel on the subject of Jeff Clark's campaign in the waning days of the Trump administration to fire his own boss and have himself appointed Acting Attorney General of the United States, and his plan to send notices from the Justice Department to state legislatures in states where the Trump campaign sought to overturn the lawful slates of electors and replace them with unlawfully self-selected slates of fraudulent electors. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1106700800/jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

Sally Yates was born into a family of lawyers. She followed suit, entering private practice before becoming a federal prosecutor, which began a 27 year career at the Department of Justice. As Deputy Attorney General during the Obama administration and then as Acting Attorney General just after President Trump took office, she was involved in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Just ten days into her tenure as Acting Attorney General, Yates was fired by President Trump after refusing to enforce his travel ban on those from predominantly Muslim countries. She joined David to talk about the assault on truth and institutions, the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, voting rights, police reform, and her work advocating for mental health and suicide prevention. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Councilman Joe Borelli, Minority Whip of the New York City Council and a contributor to The Hill Matthew Whitaker, former Acting Attorney General of the United States. He is the author of the book “Above the Law: The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump” Assemblyman Dov Hikind, former New York State Assemblyman and the son of Holocaust survivorsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jesse and Brittany discuss the upcoming holidays and the stress of political conversations with family members who may disagree with us on politics, Pew Research Center's latest report on Americans' feelings about discussing politics with those who do not agree with them politically, a new report from NPR on abuse in Catholic Churches in Los... The post #464 – “Holiday Disagreement, ‘Geographic Solutions' in Catholic Church, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, and Lindsey Graham Owns Lindsey Graham.” appeared first on I Doubt It Podcast.