[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON THE JANUARY 6TH INVESTIGATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE TO
INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH
ATTACK ON THE
UNITED STATES CAPITOL
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 12, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack on the United States Capitol
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-355 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED
STATES CAPITOL
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Liz Cheney, Wyoming, Vice Chair
Zoe Lofgren, California
Adam B. Schiff, California
Pete Aguilar, California
Stephanie N. Murphy, Florida
Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Elaine G. Luria, Virginia
Adam Kinzinger, Illinois
COMMITTEE STAFF
David B. Buckley, Staff Director
Kristin L. Amerling, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Hope Goins, Senior Counsel to the Chairman
Joseph B. Maher, Senior Counsel to the Vice Chair
Timothy J. Heaphy, Chief Investigative Counsel
Jamie Fleet, Senior Advisor
Timothy R. Mulvey, Communications Director
Candyce Phoenix, Senior Counsel and Senior Advisor
John F. Wood, Senior Investigative Counsel and Of Counsel to the Vice
Chair
Katherine B. Abrams, Staff Thomas E. Joscelyn, Senior
Associate Professional Staff Member
Temidayo Aganga-Williams, Senior Rebecca L. Knooihuizen, Financial
Investigative Counsel Investigator
Alejandra Apecechea, Investigative Casey E. Lucier, Investigative
Counsel Counsel
Lisa A. Bianco, Director of Member Damon M. Marx, Professional Staff
Services and Security Manager Member
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Investigator Evan B. Mauldin, Chief Clerk
Bryan Bonner, Investigative Counsel Yonatan L. Moskowitz, Senior
Richard R. Bruno, Senior Counsel
Administrative Assistant Hannah G. Muldavin, Deputy
Marcus Childress, Investigative Communications Director
Counsel Jonathan D. Murray, Professional
John Marcus Clark, Security Staff Member
Director Jacob A. Nelson, Professional
Jacqueline N. Colvett, Digital Staff Member
Director Elizabeth Obrand, Staff Associate
Heather I. Connelly, Professional Raymond O'Mara, Director of
Staff Member External Affairs
Meghan E. Conroy, Investigator Elyes Ouechtati, Technology
Heather L. Crowell, Printer Partner
Proofreader Robin M. Peguero, Investigative
William C. Danvers, Senior Counsel
Researcher Sandeep A. Prasanna, Investigative
Soumyalatha Dayananda, Senior Counsel
Investigative Counsel Barry Pump, Parliamentarian
Stephen W. DeVine, Senior Counsel Sean M. Quinn, Investigative
Lawrence J. Eagleburger, Counsel
Professional Staff Member Brittany M. J. Record, Senior
Kevin S. Elliker, Investigative Counsel
Counsel Denver Riggleman, Senior Technical
Margaret E. Emamzadeh, Staff Advisor
Associate Joshua D. Roselman, Investigative
Sadallah A. Farah, Professional Counsel
Staff Member James N. Sasso, Senior
Daniel A. George, Senior Investigative Counsel
Investigative Counsel Grant H. Saunders, Professional
Jacob H. Glick, Investigative Staff Member
Counsel Samantha O. Stiles, Chief
Aaron S. Greene, Clerk Administrative Officer
Marc S. Harris, Senior Sean P. Tonolli, Senior
Investigative Counsel Investigative Counsel
Alice K. Hayes, Clerk David A. Weinberg, Senior
Quincy T. Henderson, Staff Professional Staff Member
Assistant Amanda S. Wick, Senior
Jenna Hopkins, Professional Staff Investigative Counsel
Member Darrin L. Williams, Jr., Staff
Camisha L. Johnson, Professional
Staff Member Assistant
Zachary S. Wood, Clerk
CONTRACTORS & CONSULTANTS
Rawaa Alobaidi
Melinda Arons
Steve Baker
Elizabeth Bisbee
David Canady
John Coughlin
Aaron Dietzen
Gina Ferrise
Angel Goldsborough
James Goldston
Polly Grube
L. Christine Healey
Danny Holladay
Percy Howard
Dean Jackson
Stephanie J. Jones
Hyatt Mamoun
Mary Marsh
Todd Mason
Ryan Mayers
Jeff McBride
Fred Muram
Alex Newhouse
John Norton
Orlando Pinder
Owen Pratt
Dan Pryzgoda
Brian Sasser
William Scherer
Driss Sekkat
Chris Stuart
Preston Sullivan
Brian Young
Innovative Driven
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Select Committee
to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol........................................................ 1
The Honorable Liz Cheney, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Wyoming, and Vice Chair, Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 2
The Honorable Stephanie N. Murphy, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida...................................... 3
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Maryland.............................................. 4
Witnesses
Mr. Jason Van Tatenhove, Former National Media Director for the
Oath Keepers................................................... 31
Mr. Stephen Ayres, January 6th Defendant......................... 32
Appendix
Prepared Statement of Jason Van Tatenhove, Former National Media
Director for the Oath Keepers.................................. 43
HEARING ON THE JANUARY 6TH INVESTIGATION
----------
Tuesday, July 12, 2022
U.S. House of Representatives,
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:01 p.m., in
room 390, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Thompson, Cheney, Lofgren, Schiff,
Aguilar, Murphy, Raskin, Luria, and Kinzinger.
Chairman Thompson. The Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will be in
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the
Committee in recess at any point.
Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the
Chair announces the Committee's approval to release the
deposition material presented during today's hearing.
Good afternoon.
When I think about the most basic way to explain the
importance of elections in the United States, there is a phrase
that always comes to mind. It may sound straightforward, but it
is meaningful: We settle our differences at the ballot box.
Sometimes my choice prevails; sometimes yours does. But it
is that simple. We cast our votes. We count the votes. If
something seems off with the results, we can challenge them in
court. Then we accept the results.
When you are on the losing side, that doesn't mean you have
to be happy about it. In the United States, there is plenty you
can do to say so. You can protest. You can organize. You can
get ready for the next election to try to make sure your side
has a better chance the next time the people settle their
differences at the ballot box.
But you can't turn violent. You can't try to achieve your
desired outcome through force or harassment or intimidation.
Any real leader who sees their supporters going down that
path, approaching that line, has a responsibility to say,
``Stop. We gave it our best. We came up short. We'll try again
next time. Because we settle our differences at the ballot
box.''
On December 14, 2020, the Presidential election was
officially over. The electoral college had cast its vote. Joe
Biden was the President-elect of the United States.
By that point, many of Donald Trump's supporters were
already convinced that the election had been stolen, because
that is what Donald Trump had been telling them. So what Donald
Trump was required to do in that moment--what would have been
required of any American leader--was to say, ``We did our best,
and we came up short.''
He went the opposite way. He seized on the anger he had
already stoked among his most loyal supporters. As they
approached the line, he didn't wave them off; he urged them on.
Today, the Committee will explain how, as a part of his
last-ditch effort to overturn the election and block the
transfer of power, Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington,
DC, and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on
our democracy.
Our colleagues Mrs. Murphy of Florida and Mr. Raskin of
Maryland will lay out this story.
First, I am pleased to recognize our distinguished Vice
Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening comments she
would care to offer.
Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Our Committee did not conduct a hearing last week, but we
did conduct an on-the-record interview of President Trump's
former White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone.
If you have watched these hearings, you have heard us call
for Mr. Cipollone to come forward to testify. He did. Mr.
Cipollone's testimony met our expectations.
We will save for our next hearing President Trump's
behavior during the violence of January 6th. Today's hearing
will take us from December 14, 2020, when the electoral college
met and certified the results of the 2020 Presidential
election, up through the morning of January 6th.
You will see certain segments of Pat Cipollone's testimony
today. We will also see today how President Trump summoned a
mob to Washington and how the President's ``stolen election''
lies provoked that mob to attack the Capitol. We will hear from
a man who was induced by President Trump's lies to come to
Washington and join the mob and how that decision has changed
his life.
Today's hearing is our seventh. We have covered significant
ground over the past several weeks. We have also seen a change
in how witnesses and lawyers in the Trump orbit approach this
Committee.
Initially, their strategy in some cases appeared to be to
deny and delay. Today, there appears to be a general
recognition that the Committee has established key facts,
including that virtually everyone close to President Trump--his
Justice Department officials, his White House advisors, his
White House Counsel, his campaign--all told him the 2020
election was not stolen.
This appears to have changed the strategy for defending
Donald Trump. Now the argument seems to be that President Trump
was manipulated by others outside the administration, that he
was persuaded to ignore his closest advisors, and that he was
incapable of telling right from wrong.
This new strategy is to try to blame only John Eastman or
Sidney Powell or Congressman Scott Perry or others and not
President Trump. In this version, the President was ``poorly
served'' by these outside advisors. The strategy is to blame
people his advisors called ``the crazies'' for what Donald
Trump did.
This, of course, is nonsense.
President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an
impressionable child. Just like everyone else in our country,
he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices.
As our investigation has shown, Donald Trump had access to
more detailed and specific information showing that the
election was not actually stolen than almost any other
American, and he was told this over and over again.
No rational or sane man in his position could disregard
that information and reach the opposite conclusion. Donald
Trump cannot escape responsibility by being willfully blind.
Nor can any argument of any kind excuse President Trump's
behavior during the violent attack on January 6th.
As you watch our hearing today, I would urge you to keep
your eye on two specific points.
First, you will see evidence that Trump's legal team, led
by Rudy Giuliani, knew that they lacked actual evidence of
wide-spread fraud sufficient to prove that the election was
actually stolen. They knew it. But they went ahead with January
6th anyway.
Second, consider how millions of American were persuaded to
believe what Donald Trump's closest advisors in his
administration did not. These Americans did not have access to
the truth like Donald Trump did. They put their faith and their
trust in Donald Trump. They wanted to believe in him. They
wanted to fight for their country. He deceived them.
For millions of Americans, that may be painful to accept,
but it is true.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Without objection, the Chair recognizes
the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Murphy, and the gentleman
from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for opening statements.
Mrs. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that then-President
Donald Trump lost in a free and fair election. Yet President
Trump insisted that his loss was due to fraud in the election
process rather than to the democratic will of the voters.
The President continued to make this claim despite being
told again and again--by the courts, by the Justice Department,
by his campaign officials, and by some of his closest
advisors--that the evidence did not support this assertion.
This was the Big Lie, and millions of Americans were
deceived by it. Too many of our fellow citizens still believe
it to this day. It is corrosive to our country and damaging to
our democracy.
As our Committee has shown in prior hearings, following the
election, President Trump relentlessly pursued multiple,
interlocking lines of effort, all with a single goal: To remain
in power despite having lost.
The lines of effort were aimed at his loyal Vice President,
Mike Pence; at State election and elected officials; and at the
U.S. Department of Justice.
The President pressured the Vice President to obstruct the
process to certify the election result. He demanded that State
officials ``find'' him enough votes to overturn the election
outcome in that State. And he pressed the Department of Justice
to find wide-spread evidence of fraud. When Justice officials
told the President that such evidence did not exist, the
President urged them to simply declare that the election was
corrupt.
On December 14th, the electoral college met to officially
confirm that Joe Biden would be the next President.
The evidence shows that, once this occurred, President
Trump and those who were willing to aid and abet him turned
their attention to the joint session of Congress scheduled for
January 6th, at which the Vice President would preside.
In their warped view, this ceremonial event was the next,
and perhaps the last, inflection point that could be used to
reverse the outcome of the election before Mr. Biden's
inauguration. As President Trump put it, the Vice President and
enough Members of Congress simply needed to summon the
``courage'' to act.
To help them find that courage, the President called for
backup. Early in the morning of December 19th, the President
sent out a tweet urging his followers to travel to Washington,
DC, for January 6th. ``Be there, will be wild!'' the President
wrote. As my colleague Mr. Raskin will describe in detail, this
tweet served as a call to action and, in some cases, as a call
to arms for many of President Trump's most loyal supporters.
It is clear the President intended the assembled crowd on
January 6th to serve his goal. As you have already seen and as
you will see again today, some of those who were coming had
specific plans. The President's goal was to stay in power for a
second term despite losing the election. The assembled crowd
was one of the tools to achieve that goal.
In today's hearing, we will focus on events that took place
in the final weeks leading up to January 6th, starting in mid-
December. We will add color and context to evidence you have
already heard about, and we will also provide additional new
evidence.
For example, you will hear about meetings in which the
President entertained extreme measures designed to help him
stay in power, like the seizure of voting machines.
We will show some of the coordination that occurred between
the White House and Members of Congress as it relates to
January 6th. Some of these Members of Congress would later seek
pardons.
We will also examine some of the planning for the January
6th protest, placing special emphasis on one rally planner's
concerns about the potential violence.
We will describe some of the President's key actions on the
evening of January 5th and the morning of January 6th,
including how the President edited and ad-libbed his speech
that morning at the Ellipse, directed the crowd to march to the
Capitol, and spoke off-script in a way that further inflamed an
already angry crowd.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mrs. Murphy.
Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, four days after the
electors met across the country and made Joe Biden the
President-elect, Donald Trump was still trying to find a way to
hang on to the Presidency.
On Friday, December 18th, his team of outside advisors paid
him a surprise visit in the White House that would quickly
become the stuff of legend. The meeting has been called
``unhinged,'' ``not normal,'' and the ``craziest meeting of the
Trump Presidency.''
The outside lawyers who had been involved in dozens of
failed lawsuits had lots of theories supporting the Big Lie but
no evidence to support it. As we will see, however, they
brought to the White House a draft Executive Order that they
had prepared for President Trump to further his ends.
Specifically, they proposed the immediate mass seizure of
State election machines by the U.S. military. The meeting ended
after midnight with apparent rejection of that idea.
In the wee hours of December 19th, dissatisfied with his
options, Donald Trump decided to call for a large and ``wild''
crowd on Wednesday, January 6th, the day when Congress would
meet to certify the electoral votes.
Never before in American history had a President called for
a crowd to come contest the counting of electoral votes by
Congress or engaged in any effort designed to influence, delay,
or obstruct the joint session of Congress in doing its work
required by our Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.
As we will see, Donald Trump's 1:42 a.m. tweet electrified
and galvanized his supporters, especially the dangerous
extremists in the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and other
racist and White nationalist groups spoiling for a fight
against the Government.
Three rings of interwoven attack were now operating toward
January 6th. On the inside ring, Trump continued trying to work
to overturn the election by getting Mike Pence to abandon his
oath of office as Vice President and assert the unilateral
power to reject electoral votes. This would have been a
fundamental and unprecedented breach of the Constitution that
would promise Trump multiple ways of staying in office.
Meanwhile, in the middle ring, members of domestic violent
extremist groups created an alliance, both online and in
person, to coordinate a massive effort to storm, invade, and
occupy the Capitol. By placing a target on the joint session of
Congress, Trump had mobilized these groups around a common
goal, emboldening them, strengthening their working
relationships, and helping build their numbers.
Finally, in the outer ring, on January 6th there assembled
a large and angry crowd--the political force that Trump
considered both the touchstone and the measure of his political
power. Here were thousands of enraged Trump followers,
thoroughly convinced by the Big Lie, who traveled from across
the country to join Trump's ``wild'' rally to ``stop the
steal.''
With the proper incitement by political leaders and the
proper instigation from the extremists, many members of this
crowd could be led to storm the Capitol, confront the Vice
President and Congress, and try to overturn the 2020 election
results.
All of these efforts would converge and explode on January
the 6th.
Mr. Chairman, as you know better than any other Member of
this Committee from the wrenching struggle for voting rights in
your beloved Mississippi, the problem of politicians whipping
up mob violence to destroy fair elections is the oldest
domestic enemy of constitutional democracy in America.
Abraham Lincoln knew it too. In 1837, a racist mob in
Alton, Illinois, broke into the offices of an abolitionist
newspaper and killed its editor, Elijah Lovejoy.
Lincoln wrote a speech in which he said that no ``trans-
Atlantic military giant'' could ever crush us as a Nation, even
with all of the fortunes in the world. But if downfall ever
comes to America, he said, we ourselves would be its ``author
and finisher.''
If racist mobs are encouraged by politicians to rampage and
terrorize, Lincoln said, they will violate the rights of other
citizens and quickly destroy the bonds of social trust
necessary for democracy to work. Mobs and demagogues will put
us on a path to political tyranny, Lincoln said.
As we will see today, this very old problem has returned
with new ferocity today, as a President who lost an election
deployed a mob, which included dangerous extremists, to attack
the constitutional system of election and the peaceful transfer
of power.
As we will see, the creation of the internet and social
media has given today's tyrants tools of propaganda and
disinformation that yesterday's despots could only have dreamed
of.
I yield back to the gentlewoman of Florida, Mrs. Murphy.
Mrs. Murphy. Article II of the United States Constitution
establishes the electoral college. Each State's laws provide
that electors are to be chosen by a popular vote. On December
14, 2020, electors met in all 50 States and the District of
Columbia to cast their votes.
Joseph Biden won by a margin of 306 to 232. The election
was over. Mr. Biden was the President-elect.
Before the electoral college met, Donald Trump and his
allies filed dozens of legal challenges to the election, but
they lost over and over again, including in front of multiple
judges President Trump had nominated to the bench.
In many of these cases, the judges were highly critical of
the arguments put forward, explaining that no genuine evidence
of wide-spread fraud had been presented.
For example, a Federal judge in Pennsylvania said:
[T]his Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without
merit and speculative accusations . . . unsupported by evidence. In the
United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of
a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated
State.
On December 15th, after the electoral college certified the
outcome, the Republican Majority leader in the Senate
acknowledged Mr. Biden's victory.
Senator McConnell. Yesterday, electors met in all 50 States. So as
of this morning, our country has officially a President-elect and a
Vice President-elect. Many millions of us had hoped the Presidential
election would yield a different result. But our system of government
has processes to determine who will be sworn in on January the 20th.
The electoral college has spoken. So today, I want to congratulate
President-elect Joe Biden.
Mrs. Murphy. Even members of President Trump's Cabinet and
his White House staff understood the significance of his losses
in the courts and the absence of evidence of fraud. They also
respected the constitutional certification by the electoral
college.
Many of them told President Trump that it was time to
concede the election to Mr. Biden. For example, then-Secretary
of Labor Gene Scalia, an accomplished lawyer and the son of
late Justice Scalia, called President Trump in mid-December and
advised him to concede and accept the rulings of the courts.
Secretary Scalia. So, I had to put a call into the President. I
might have called on the 13th. We spoke, I believe, on the 14th, in
which I conveyed to him that I thought that it was time for him to
acknowledge that President Biden had prevailed in the election.
But I communicated to the President that when that legal process is
exhausted and when the electors have voted, that that's the point at
which that outcome needs to be expected.
I told him that I did believe yes, that once those legal processes
were run, if fraud had not been established that had affected the
outcome of the election, then unfortunately, I believed that what had
to be done was concede the outcome.
Mrs. Murphy. As you have seen in prior hearings, President
Trump's Justice Department, his White House staff, and his
campaign officials were repeatedly telling him that there was
no evidence of fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the
election.
Last week, we conducted an 8-hour interview with President
Trump's White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone. You will see a
number of excerpts of that interview today and even more in our
next hearing.
Mr. Cipollone told us that he agreed with the testimony
that there was no evidence of fraud sufficient to overturn the
election.
Mr. Heaphy. I want to start by asking if you agree, Mr. Cipollone,
with the conclusions of Matt Morgan and Bill Barr, of all of the
individuals who evaluated those claims, that there is no evidence of
election fraud sufficient to undermine the outcome in any particular
State?
Mr. Cipollone. Yes, I agree with that.
Mrs. Murphy. Mr. Cipollone also specifically testified that
he believed that Donald Trump should have conceded the
election.
Mr. Heaphy. Did you believe, Mr. Cipollone, that the President
should concede once you made the determination based on the
investigations that you credited--DOJ did. Did you in your mind form
the belief that the President should concede the election loss at a
certain point after the election?
Mr. Cipollone. Well, again, I was the White House Counsel. Some of
those decisions are political. So, to the extent that--but--but if your
question is, Did I believe he should concede the election at a point in
time? Yes, I did.
I believe Leader McConnell went on to the floor of the Senate, I
believe in late December, and basically said, you know, the process is
done. You know, that would be in line with my thinking on these things.
Mrs. Murphy. As Attorney General Bill Barr testified,
December 14th should have been the end of the matter.
Attorney General Barr. December 14th was the day that the States
certified their votes and sent them to Congress. And in my view, that
was the end of the matter. I didn't see--you know, I thought that this
would lead inexorably to a new administration.
Mrs. Murphy. Mr. Cipollone also testified that the
President's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said he shared this
view.
Mr. Heaphy. As early as that November 23rd meeting, we understand
that there was discussion about the President possibly conceding the
election. And specifically, we understand that Mark Meadows assured
both you and Attorney General Barr that the President would eventually
agree to a graceful exit. Do you remember Mr. Meadows making any such
representation?
Mr. Cipollone. Are you saying as part of that meeting or
separately? Again, without--without getting into that meeting, I would
say that that is a--that is a statement and a sentiment that I heard
from Mark Meadows.
Mr. Heaphy. I see. And again, do you know if it was on November
23rd or some point?
Mr. Cipollone. Again, I--it was probably, you know, around that
time and it was probably subsequent to that time. It wasn't a one-time
statement.
Mrs. Murphy. Mr. Meadows has refused to testify, and the
Committee is in litigation with him. But many other White House
officials shared the view that, once the litigation ended and
the electoral college met, the election was over.
Here is President Trump's former press secretary.
Vice Chair Cheney. I wanted to clarify, Ms. McEnany, so back to my
previous question. It was your view then--or was it your view that the
efforts to overturn the election should have stopped once the
litigation was complete?
Ms. McEnany. In my view, upon the conclusion of litigation was when
I began to plan for life after the administration.
Mrs. Murphy. This is what Ivanka Trump told us.
Mr. Heaphy. December 14th was the day on which the electoral
college met, when these electors around the country met and cast the
electoral votes consistent with the--the popular vote in each State.
And--and it was obviously a public proceeding or a series of
proceedings that President Biden had obtained the requisite number of
electors. Was that an important day for you? Did that affect sort-of
your planning or your realization as to whether or not there was going
to be an end of this administration?
Ms. Trump. I think so. I think it was my--my sentiment probably
prior as well.
Mrs. Murphy. Judd Deere was a White House deputy press
secretary. This was his testimony about what he told President
Trump.
Mr. Deere. I told him that my personal viewpoint was that the
electoral college had met, which is the system that our country is--is
set under to elect a President and Vice President. And I believed at
that point that the means for him to pursue litigation was probably
closed.
Mr. Wood. And do you recall what his response, if any, was?
Mr. Deere. He disagreed.
Mrs. Murphy. We have also seen this testimony from Attorney
General Barr reflecting a view of the White House staff in late
November 2020.
Attorney General Barr. And then at that point I left. And as I
walked out of the Oval Office, Jared was there with Dan Scavino, who
ran his--ran the President's social media and who I thought was a
reasonable guy and believe is a reasonable guy. And I said, how long
is--how long is he going to carry on with this stolen election stuff?
Where is this going to go?
And by that time, Meadows had caught up with me and--leaving the
office, and caught up to me and--and said that--he said, ``Look, I--I
think that he's becoming more realistic and knows that there's a limit
to how far he can take this.'' And then Jared said, ``You know, yeah,
we're working on this. We're working on it.''
Mrs. Murphy. Likewise, in this testimony, Cassidy
Hutchinson, an aide to Mark Meadows, described her
conversations with President Trump's Director of National
Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, a former Republican Congressman.
Ms. Hutchinson. He had expressed that he was concerned that it
could spiral out of control and potentially be dangerous, either for
our democracy or the way that things were going for the 6th.
Mrs. Murphy. Of course, underlying all of this is the
fundamental principle that the President of the United States
cannot simply disregard the rulings of State and Federal
courts, which are empowered to address specific election-
related claims. The President cannot simply pretend that the
courts had not ruled.
Vice Chair Cheney. By that time, the President or his associates
had brought--had lost 60 out of 61 cases that they had brought to
challenge different aspects of the election in a number of States. They
lost 60 out of 61 of those cases. So, by the time we get to January
3rd, that's--that's been clear. I assume, Pat, that you would agree the
President is--is obligated to abide by the rulings of the courts.
Mr. Cipollone. Of course.
Vice Chair Cheney. And I assume you also----
Mr. Cipollone. Everybody is obligated to abide by rulings of
courts.
Vice Chair Cheney. And I assume you also would agree the President
has a particular obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.
Mr. Cipollone. That is one of the President's obligations, correct.
Mrs. Murphy. Yet President Trump disregarded these court
rulings and the counsel from his closest advisors and continued
his efforts to cling to power.
In our prior hearings, you have heard considerable
testimony about President Trump's attempts to corruptly
pressure Vice President Pence to refuse to count electoral
votes, to corrupt the Department of Justice, to pressure State
officials and State legislatures, and to create and submit a
series of fake electoral slates.
Now we will show you what other actions President Trump was
taking between December 14, 2020, and January 6th.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mrs. Murphy.
Throughout our hearings, you have heard how President Trump
made baseless claims that voting machines were being
manipulated by foreign powers in the 2020 election.
You have also heard Trump's Attorney General, Bill Barr,
describe such claims as ``complete nonsense,'' which he told
the President. Let's review that testimony.
Attorney General Barr. I saw absolutely zero basis for the
allegations. But they were made in such a sensational way that they
obviously were influencing a lot of people--members of the public--that
there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes
didn't count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were
actually determining it, which was complete nonsense.
And it was being laid out there. And I told them that it was--it
was crazy stuff, and they were wasting their time on that. And it was
doing a great, grave disservice to the country.
Mr. Raskin. We have learned that President Trump's White
House Counsel agreed with the Department of Justice about this.
Mr. Heaphy. Attorney General Barr made a public announcement on
December 1st, less than a month after the election, that he had seen no
systemic fraud sufficient to undermine the outcome of the election. Is
it fair to say that by December 1st, you had reached the same
conclusion?
Mr. Cipollone. It's fair to say that I agreed with Attorney
General's--Attorney General Barr's conclusion on December 1st. Yes, I
did. And I supported that conclusion.
Mr. Raskin. However, the strong rejection of the Attorney
General and the White House Counsel of these claims did not
stop the President from trying to press them in public.
But that is not all they did. Indeed, as you will see in
this clip, the President asked Attorney General Bill Barr to
have the Department of Justice seize voting machines in the
States.
Attorney General Barr. My recollection is the President said
something like, ``Well, we could get to the bottom--you know, some
people say we could get to the bottom of this if--if the Department
seizes the machines.'' It was a typical way of raising a point. And I
said, absolutely not. There's no probable cause, and I'm not going to
seize any machines. And that was that.
Mr. Heaphy. Yeah.
Mr. Raskin. But this wasn't the end of the matter. On the
evening of December 18, 2020, Sidney Powell, General Michael
Flynn, and others entered the White House for an unplanned
meeting with the President--the meeting that would last
multiple hours and become hot-blooded and contentious.
The Executive Order behind me on the screen was drafted on
December the 16th, just 2 days after the electoral college
vote, by several of the President's outside advisors over a
luncheon at the Trump International Hotel.
As you can see here, this proposed order directs the
Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines ``effective
immediately.''
But it goes even further than that.
Under the order, President Trump would appoint a Special
Counsel with the power to seize machines and then charge people
with crimes, with ``all resources necessary to carry out her
duties.''
The specific plan was to name Sidney Powell as Special
Counsel, the Trump lawyer who had spent the post-election
period making outlandish claims about Venezuelan and Chinese
interference in the election, among others.
Here is what White House Counsel Pat Cipollone had to say
about Sidney Powell's qualifications to take on such expansive
authority.
Mr. Cipollone. I don't think Sidney--Sidney Powell would say that I
thought it was a good idea to appoint her Special Counsel. I was
vehemently opposed--I didn't think she should have been appointed to
anything.
Mr. Raskin. Sidney Powell told the President that these
steps were justified because of her evidence of foreign
interference in the 2020 election. However, as we have seen,
Trump's allies had no such evidence and, of course, no legal
authority for the Federal Government to seize State voting
machines.
Here is Mr. Cipollone again denouncing Sidney Powell's
``terrible idea.''
Mr. Cipollone. There was a real question in my mind and a real
concern, you know, particularly after the Attorney General had reached
a conclusion that there wasn't sufficient election fraud to change the
outcome of the election when other people kept suggesting that there
was. The answer is, what is it? And at some point, you have to put up
or shut up. That was my view.
Mr. Heaphy. Why was this, on a broader scale, a bad idea for the
country?
Mr. Cipollone. To have the Federal Government seize voting
machines? That's a terrible idea for the country. That's not how we do
things in the United States. There's no legal authority to do that. And
there is a way to contest elections. You know, that--that happens all
the time. But the idea that the Federal Government could come in and
seize election machines, no. That--that's--I don't--I don't understand
why we even have to tell you why that's a bad idea for the country.
It's a terrible idea.
Mr. Raskin. For all of its absurdity, the December 18th
meeting was critically important, because President Trump got
to watch up close for several hours as his White House Counsel
and other White House lawyers destroyed the baseless factual
claims and ridiculous legal arguments being offered by Sidney
Powell, Mike Flynn, and others.
President Trump now knew all these claims were nonsense,
not just from his able White House lawyers but also from his
own Department of Justice officials and, indeed, his own
campaign officials.
As White House Counsel Cipollone told us:
Mr. Cipollone. With respect to the whole election fraud issue, it
to me is sort of if you're going to make those kind of claims--and
people were open to them early on because people were making all sorts
of claims. And the real question is: show the evidence. Okay?
Mr. Raskin. It wasn't just the Justice Department, the
Trump Campaign, and the Trump White House lawyers who knew it.
Even Rudy Giuliani's own legal team admitted that they did not
have any real evidence of fraud sufficient to change the
election result.
Here is an email from Rudy Giuliani's lead investigator,
Bernie Kerik, on December 28, 2020, to Chief of Staff Mark
Meadows. Mr. Kerik did not mince any words. ``We can do all the
investigations we want later, but if the President plans on
winning, it's the legislators that have to be moved, and this
will do just that.''
Mr. Kerik wanted the President to win. What he didn't say
in this email was what he would later tell the Select Committee
in a letter that his lawyer wrote to us in November.
The letter said, ``It was impossible for Mr. Kerik and his
team to determine conclusively whether there was wide-spread
fraud or whether that wide-spread fraud would have altered the
outcome of the election.''
In other words, even Rudy Giuliani's own legal team knew
before January 6th that they hadn't collected enough actual
evidence to support any of their ``stolen election'' claims.
Here is what Trump Campaign Senior Advisor Jason Miller
told the Committee about some of the so-called evidence of
fraud that the campaign had seen from the Giuliani team.
Mr. George. So do you know what the examples of fraud--numbers,
names, and supporting evidence--was that you sent to Mo Brooks's
office. And when I say you, I mean you or the campaign.
Mr. Jason Miller. There are some very, very general documents as
far as--as far as, say, for example, here are the handful of dead
people in several different States. Here are explanations on a couple
of the legal challenges as far as the saying that the--the rules were
changed an unconstitutional manner. But it was--to say that it was spin
is--is probably an understatement.
Mr. Raskin. Here is how President Trump's deputy campaign
manager described the evidence of fraud that the campaign had
seen.
Ms. Lucier. You never came to learn or understand that Mayor
Giuliani had--had produced evidence of election fraud. Is that fair?
Mr. Justin Clark. That's fair.
Mr. Raskin. Here is testimony that we received from the
speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Rusty Bowers,
about an exchange that he had with Rudy Giuliani after the
election.
Mr. Schiff. At some point, did one of them make a comment that they
didn't have evidence but they had a lot of theories?
Mr. Bowers. That was Mr. Giuliani.
Mr. Raskin. Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told people that he
thought Trump should concede around the time the electoral
college certified the result. But, nonetheless, he later worked
to try to facilitate President Trump's wishes.
Here is what Cassidy Hutchinson told us.
Ms. Hutchinson. During this period, he--I perceived his goal with
all of this to keep Trump in office. You know, he had very seriously
and deeply considered the allegations of voter fraud. But when he began
acknowledging that maybe there wasn't enough voter fraud to overturn
the election, you know, I--I witnessed him start to explore potential
constitutional loopholes more extensively, which I then connected with
John Eastman's theories.
Mr. Raskin. The startling conclusion is this: Even an
agreed-upon complete lack of evidence could not stop President
Trump, Mark Meadows, and their allies from trying to overturn
the results of a free and fair election.
So, let's return to that meeting at the White House on the
evening of December 18th. That night, a group showed up at the
White House, including Sidney Powell, retired Lieutenant
General Michael Flynn, and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick
Byrne.
After gaining access to the building from a junior White
House staffer, the group made their way to the Oval Office.
They were able to speak with the President by himself for some
time until White House officials learned of the meeting.
What ensued was a heated and profane clash between this
group and President Trump's White House advisors, who traded
personal insults, accusations of disloyalty to the President,
and even challenges to physically fight.
The meeting would last over 6 hours, beginning here in the
Oval Office, moving around the West Wing, and many hours later
ending up in the President's private residence.
The Select Committee has spoken with six of the
participants, as well as staffers who could hear the screaming
from outside the Oval Office. What took place next is best told
in their own words, as you will see from this video.
Mr. Harris. Did you believe that it was going to work, that you
were going be able to get to see the President without an appointment?
Ms. Powell. I had no idea.
Mr. Harris. In fact, you did get to see the President without an
appointment.
Ms. Powell. We did.
Mr. Harris. How much time did you have alone with the President? I
say alone, you had other people with you----
Ms. Powell. Right.
Mr. Harris [continuing]. But, I think from his aides before the
crowd came running.
Ms. Powell. Probably no more than 10 or 15 minutes.
Mr. Harris. Was in that----
Ms. Powell [continuing]. I bet Pat Cipollone set a new land speed
record.
______
Mr. Cipollone. I got a call either from Molly or from Eric
Herschmann that I needed to get to the Oval Office.
______
Ms. Hutchinson. So that was the first point that I had recognized,
okay, there is nobody in there from the White House. Mark's gone.
What's going on right now.
______
Mr. Cipollone. I opened the door, and I walked in. I saw General
Flynn; I saw Sidney Powell sitting there. [ . . . ]
I was not happy to see the people who were in the Oval Office.
Mr. Heaphy. Explain why.
Mr. Cipollone. Well, again, I--I don't think they were providing--
well, first of all, the Overstock person I--I've never met--never. I
never knew who this guy was. Actually, the first thing I did, I walked
in, I looked at him, and I said, who are you? And he told me. I don't
think--I don't think any of these people were providing the President
with good advice. And so, I--I--I didn't understand how they had gotten
in.
______
Mr. Harris. In the short period of time that you had with the
President, did he seem receptive to the presentation that you were
making?
Ms. Powell. He was very interested in hearing particularly about
the CISA findings and the terms of 13848 that apparently nobody else
had bothered to inform him of.
______
Mr. Herschmann. And I was asking, like, are you're claiming the
Democrats were working with Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans, and whomever
else. And at one point, General Flynn took out a diagram that
supposedly showed IP addresses all over the world. And--or ISP--who
was--who was communicating with whom via the machines and some comment
about like Nest thermostats being hooked up to the internet.
______
Mr. George. So, it's been reported that during this meeting Ms.
Powell talked about Dominion voting machines and made various election
fraud claims that involve foreign countries such as Venezuela, Iran,
and China. Is that accurate?
General Flynn. The Fifth.
______
Mr. George. Was the meeting tense?
Mr. Lyons. Oh yeah. I--it was not a casual meeting.
Mr. George. Explain.
Mr. Lyons. I mean, at times, there were people shouting at each
other, hurling insults at each other. It wasn't just sort of people
sitting around on the couch like chit-chatting.
______
Ms. Lucier. Do you recall whether he raised to Ms. Powell the fact
that she and the campaign had lost all of the 60 cases that they had
brought in litigation?
Mr. Cipollone. Yes. He raised that.
Ms. Lucier. And what was the response?
Mr. Cipollone. I don't remember what she said. I don't think it was
a good response.
______
Ms. Powell. Cipollone and Herschmann and whoever the other guy was
showed nothing but contempt and disdain of the President.
______
Mr. Cipollone. I remember the three of them were really sort-of
forcefully attacking me verbally. Eric, Derek, and we were pushing
back, and we were asking one simple question as a--as a general matter:
Where is the evidence? So----
Mr. Heaphy. What response did you get when you asked Ms. Powell and
her colleagues where's the evidence?
Mr. Cipollone. A variety of responses based on my current
recollection including, you know, I can't believe you would say
something, like, you know, things like this. Like, ``What do you mean
where's the evidence? You should know.'' Yeah, I--things like that or,
you know, a disregard, I would say, a general disregard for the
importance of actually backing up what you say with facts.
______
Mr. Lyons. And, you know, then there was discussion of, well, you
know, we don't have it now, but we will have it or whatever.
______
Ms. Powell. I mean, if--if it had been me sitting in his chair, I
would have fired all of `em that night and had `em escorted out of the
building.
______
Mr. Herschmann. Which Derek and I both challenged what she was
saying. And she says, ``Well, the judges are corrupt.'' And I was like,
every one? Every single case that you've done in the country you guys
lost, every one of them is corrupt? Even the ones we appointed? And
[inaudible] I'm being nice. I was much more harsh to her.
______
Ms. Apecechea. So, one of the other things that's been reported
that was said during this meeting was that President Trump told White
House lawyers, Mr. Herschmann and Mr. Cipollone, that they weren't
offering him any solutions, but Ms. Powell and others were. So, why not
try what Ms. Powell and others were proposing? Do you remember anything
along those lines being said by President Trump?
Mr. Lyons. I do. That sounds right.
______
Mr. Herschmann. I think that it got to the point where the
screaming was completely, completely out there. [ . . . ]
I mean, you had people walk in, it was late at night, had been a
long day. And what they were proposing, I thought, was nuts.
______
Mr. Giuliani. I'm gonna--I'm gonna categorically describe it as:
You guys are not tough enough. Or maybe I put it another way: You're a
bunch of pussies. Excuse the expression, but that--that's I--I'm almost
certain the word was used.
______
Mr. Herschmann. Flynn screamed at me that I was a quitter and
everything, kept on standing up and turning around and screaming at me.
And at a certain point, I had it with him. So, I yelled back: Better
come over, better sit your F'ing ass back down.
______
Mr. Giuliani. The President and the White House team went upstairs
to the residence, but to the public part of the residence. You know,
the big--the big parlor where you can have meetings in the conference
room.
Mr. Harris. Yellow oval. They call that the yellow oval.
Mr. Giuliani. Yes, exactly. The yellow oval office. I always called
it the upper. And I'm not exactly sure where the Sidney group went. I
think maybe the Roosevelt Room. And I stayed in the Cabinet Room, which
is kind of cool. I really liked that, all my--all by myself.
______
Mr. Lyons. At the end of the day, we landed where we started the
meeting, at least from a structural standpoint, which was Sidney Powell
was fighting. Mike Flynn was fighting. They were looking for avenues
that would enable--that would result in President Trump remaining
President Trump for a second term.
Mr. Raskin. The meeting finally ended after midnight.
Here are text messages sent by Cassidy Hutchinson during
and after the meeting.
As you can see, Ms. Hutchinson reported that the meeting in
the West Wing was ``unhinged.''
The meeting finally broke up after midnight, during the
early morning of December 19th. Cassidy Hutchinson captured the
moment of Mark Meadows escorting Rudy Giuliani off the White
House grounds to ``make sure he didn't wander back to the
mansion.''
Certain accounts of this meeting indicate that President
Trump actually granted Ms. Powell a security clearance and
appointed her to a somewhat-ill-defined position of Special
Counsel.
Ms. Powell. He asked Pat Cipollone if he had the authority to name
a Special Counsel, and he said yes. And then he asked him if he had the
authority to give me whatever security clearance I needed, and Pat
Cipollone said yes. And then the President said, ``Okay, you know, I'm
naming her that, and I'm giving her security clearance.'' And then
shortly before we left and it totally blew up, that's when Cipollone
and/or Herschmann and whoever the other young man was said, ``You can
name her whatever you want to name her, and no one's going to pay any
attention to it.''
Mr. Harris. How did he respond? How did the President respond to
that?
Ms. Powell. Something like, ``You see what I deal with. I deal with
this all the time.''
Mr. Raskin. Over the ensuing days, no further steps were
taken to appoint Sidney Powell. But there is some ambiguity
about what the President actually said and did during the
meeting.
Here is how Pat Cipollone described it.
Mr. Cipollone. I don't know what her understanding of whether she
had been appointed, what she had been appointed to, okay? In my view,
she hadn't been appointed to anything and ultimately wasn't appointed
to anything, because there had to be other steps taken. And that was my
view when I left the meeting. But she may have a different view, and
others may have a different view, and--and the President may have a
different view.
Vice Chair Cheney. Were any steps taken, including the President
himself telling her she'd been appointed?
Mr. Cipollone. Again, I'm not going to get into what the President
said in the meeting. You know, my recollection is you're not appointed
even--you're not appointed until--until steps are taken to get the
paperwork done, get--and when I left the meeting, okay--I guess--I
guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not going to get into what the
President said or want--said he wanted.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Cipollone, when the matter continued to flare up
over the next several days, was it your understanding that Sidney
Powell was still seeking an appointment or that she was asserting that
she had been appointed by the President at the December 18th meeting?
Mr. Cipollone. You know, now that you mention it, probably both,
you know, in--in terms of like I think she was--I think she may have
been of the view that she had been appointed and was seeking to, you
know, get--get that done, and--and--and that she should be appointed.
Mr. Raskin. As you listen to these clips, remember that Ms.
Powell, the person who President Trump tried to make Special
Counsel, was ultimately sanctioned by a Federal court and sued
by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation. In her own defense
to that lawsuit, Sidney Powell argued that ``no reasonable
person would conclude that the statements were truly statements
of fact.''
Not long after Sidney Powell, General Flynn, and Rudy
Giuliani left the White House in the early hours of the
morning, President Trump turned away from both his outside
advisors' most outlandish and unworkable schemes and his White
House Counsel's advice to swallow hard and accept the reality
of his loss. Instead, Donald Trump issued a tweet that would
galvanize his followers, unleash a political firestorm, and
change the course of our history as a country.
Trump's purpose was to mobilize a crowd. How do you
mobilize a crowd in 2020? With millions of followers on
Twitter, President Trump knew exactly how to do it.
At 1:42 a.m. on December 19, 2020, shortly after the last
participants left the unhinged meeting, Trump sent out the
tweet with his explosive invitation.
Trump repeated his Big Lie and claimed it was
``statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election''
before calling for a ``Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be
there, will be wild!''
Trump supporters responded immediately.
Women for America First, a pro-Trump organizing group, had
previously applied for a rally permit for January 22nd and 23rd
in Washington, DC, several days after Joe Biden was to be
inaugurated. But in the hours after the tweet, they moved their
permit to January 6th, 2 weeks before. This rescheduling
created the rally where Trump would eventually speak.
The next day, Ali Alexander, leader of the Stop the Steal
organization and a key mobilizer of Trump supporters,
registered WildProtest.com, named after Trump's tweet.
WildProtest.com provided comprehensive information about
numerous newly-organized protest events in Washington. It
included event times, places, speakers, and details on
transportation to Washington, DC.
Meanwhile, other key Trump supporters, including far-right
media personalities, began promoting the wild protest on
January 6th.
Mr. Jones. It's Saturday, December 19th. The year is 2020, and one
of the most historic events in American history has just taken place.
President Trump, in the early morning hours today, tweeted that he
wants the American people to march on Washington, DC, on January 6,
2021.
______
Mr. Pool. And now Donald Trump is calling on his supporters to
descend on Washington, DC, January 6th.
______
Mr. Jones. He is now calling on we the people to take action and to
show our numbers.
______
Mr. Bracken. We're going to only be saved by millions of Americans
moving to Washington, occupying the entire area, if--if necessary,
storming right into the Capitol. You know, they're--we know the rules
of engagement. If you have enough people, you can push down any kind of
a fence or a wall.
______
Mr. Pool. This could be Trump's last stand. And it's a time when he
has specifically called on his supporters to arrive in DC. That's
something that may actually be the big push Trump supporters need to
say: This is it. It's now or never.
______
Salty Cracker. Ya better understand something, son. Ya better
understand something. Red wave, bitch. Red wed--there's gonna be a red
wedding going down January 6th.
______
Mr. Pool. On that day, Trump says: Show up for a protest. It's
gonna be wild. And based on what we've already seen from the previous
events, I think Trump is absolutely correct.
______
Salty Cracker. Motherfucker, you better look outside. You better
look out--January 6th. Kick that fucking door open, look down the
street. There're gonna be a million plus geeked up, armed Americans.
______
Mr. Jones. The time for games is over. The time for action is now.
Where were you when history called? Where were you when you and your
children's destiny and future was on the line?
Mr. Raskin. In that clip, you heard one of Trump's
supporters predict a ``red wedding,'' which is a pop culture
reference to mass slaughter.
But the point is that Trump's call to Washington
reverberated powerfully and pervasively online.
The Committee has interviewed a former Twitter employee who
explained the effect that Trump had on the Twitter platform.
This employee was on the team responsible for platform and
content moderation policies on Twitter throughout 2020 and
2021.
The employee testified that Twitter considered adopting a
stricter content moderation policy after President Trump told
the Proud Boys to ``stand back and stand by'' from the lectern
at the September 29th Presidential debate, but Twitter chose
not to act.
Here is the former employee, whose voice has been obscured
to protect their identity, discussing Trump's ``stand back and
stand by'' comment and the effect it had.
Former Twitter Employee. My concern was that the former President,
for seemingly the first time, was speaking directly to extremist
organizations and giving them directives. We had not seen that sort-of
direct communication before, and that concerned me.
Mr. Glick. So, just to clarify further, you were worried, others at
Twitter were worried, that the President might use your platform to
speak directly to folks who might be incited to violence?
Former Twitter Employee. Yes. I believe that Twitter relished in
the knowledge that they were also the favorite and most used service of
the former President and enjoyed having that sort of power within the
social media ecosystem.
Mr. Glick. If President Trump were anyone else, would it have taken
until January 8, 2021, for him to be suspended?
Former Twitter Employee. Absolutely not. If Donald--if former-
President Donald Trump were any other user on Twitter, he would have
been permanently suspended a very long time ago.
Mr. Raskin. Despite these grave concerns, Trump remained on
the platform completely unchecked. Then came the December 19th
tweet and everything it inspired.
Former Twitter Employee. It was--it felt as if--if a mob was being
organized, and they were gathering together their weaponry and their
logic and their reasoning behind why they were prepared to fight.
Prior to December 19th, again, it was--it was vague. It was--it was
nonspecific but very clear that individuals were ready, willing, and
able to take up arms. After this tweet on December 19th, again, it
became clear not only were these individuals ready and willing, but the
leader of their cause was asking them to join him in this cause and in
fighting for this cause in DC on January 6th as well.
I will also say what shocked me was the responses to these tweets,
right? So, these were--a lot of the ``locked and loaded,'' ``stand
back, stand by,'' those tweets were in response to Donald Trump saying
things like this, right? So, there would be a response that said, ``Big
protest in DC on January 6th, be there, be wild,'' and someone would
respond and say, ``I'm locked and loaded and ready for civil war part
two,'' right?
I very much believe that Donald Trump posting this tweet on
December 19th was essentially staking a flag in DC on January 6th for
his supporters to come and rally.
Mr. Glick. And you were concerned about the potential for this
gathering becoming violent?
Former Twitter Employee. Absolutely.
Mr. Raskin. Indeed, many of Trump's followers took to
social media to declare that they were ready to answer Trump's
call.
One user asked: ``Is the 6th D-Day? Is that why Trump wants
everyone there?''
Another asserted: ``Trump just told us all to come armed.
Fucking A, this is happening.''
A third took it even further: ``It `will be wild' means we
need volunteers for the firing squad.''
Jim Watkins, the owner of 8kun, the fringe online forum
that was birthplace of the QAnon extremist movement, confirmed
the importance of Trump's tweet.
Mr. Glick. Why did you first decide to go to DC for January 6th?
Mr. Watkins. When--when the President of the United States
announced that he was going to have a rally, then I bought a ticket and
went.
Mr. Raskin. Watkins was at the Capitol on January 6th. Some
who have since been indicted for their involvement in the
attack on the Capitol also responded. One of them posted on the
19th: ``Calling all patriots. Be in Washington, DC, January
6th. This wasn't organized by any group. DJT has invited us,
and it is going to be `wild.' ''
Some of the online rhetoric turned openly homicidal and
White nationalist.
Such as: ``Why don't we just kill them? Every last
Democrat, down to the last man, woman, and child?''
And: ``It's time for the day of the rope. White revolution
is the only solution.''
Others realized that police would be standing in the way of
their effort to overturn the election.
So one wrote: ``I am ready to die for my beliefs. Are you
ready to die police?''
Another wrote on TheDonald.win: ``Cops don't have
`standing' if they are laying on the ground in a pool of their
own blood.''
TheDonald.win was an openly racist and antisemitic forum.
The Select Committee deposed that site's founder, Jody
Williams. He confirmed how the President's tweet created a
laser-like focus on the date of January the 6th.
Mr. Williams. And people had been talking about going to DC since
the election was over.
Mr. Glick. And do you recall whether or not the conversation around
those dates centered on the 6th after the President's tweet?
Mr. Williams. Oh, sure. Yeah. I mean after it was announced that,
you know, he was going to be there on the 6th to talk, yes. Then--then
anything else was kind of shut out, and it was just gonna be on the
6th.
Mr. Glick. Okay. And that was pretty clearly reflected in the--the
content on--on the site?
Mr. Williams. Yeah. Yeah, sure.
Mr. Raskin. On that site, many shared plans and violent
threats.
``Bring handcuffs and wait near the tunnels,'' wrote one
user.
A commenter replied suggesting ``zip ties'' instead. One
post encouraged others to come with ``body armor, knuckles,
shields, bats, pepper spray, whatever it takes.'' All of those
were used on the 6th.
The post concluded: ``Join your local Proud Boys chapter as
well.''
TheDonald.win featured discussions of the tunnels beneath
the Capitol Complex, suggestions for targeting Members of
Congress, and encouragement to attend this once-in-a-lifetime
event.
While Trump supporters grew more aggressive online, he
continued to rile up his base on Twitter.
He said there was overwhelming evidence that the election
was the ``biggest scam in our nation's history.''
As you can see, the President continued to boost the event,
tweeting about it more than a dozen times in the lead-up to
January the 6th.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair requests that those in the
hearing room remain seated until the Capitol Police have
escorted Members from the room.
Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the Chair
declares the Committee in recess for a period of approximately
10 minutes.
[Accordingly, at 2:08 p.m., the Committee recessed until
2:33 p.m., when it was called to order by the Chairman.]
Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, President Trump's tweet drew tens
of thousands of Americans to Washington to form the angry crowd
that would be transformed on January the 6th into a violent
mob.
Dr. Donell Harvin, who was the chief of Homeland Security
and Intelligence for D.C., told the Committee how his team saw
Trump's December 19th tweet unite violent groups across the
spectrum on the far right.
Dr. Harvin. We got derogatory information through OSINT suggesting
that some very, very violent individuals were organizing to come to
D.C.; and not only were they organizing to come to D.C., but they
were--these groups, these nonaligned groups were aligning.
And so all the red flags went up at that point, you know, when you
have armed militia, you know, collaborating with White supremacy
groups, collaborating with conspiracy theory groups online all toward a
common goal, you start seeing what we call in, you know, terrorism, a
blended ideology, and that's a very, very bad sign. [ . . . ]
[T]hen, when they were clearly across--not just across one platform
but across multiple platforms of these groups coordinating, not just
like chatting, ``Hey, how's it going? What's the weather like where
you're at?'' But like, ``What are you bringing? What are you wearing?
You know, where do we meet up? Do you have plans for the Capitol?''
That's operational--that's like preoperational intelligence, right, and
that is something that's clearly alarming.
Mr. Raskin. The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers are two key
groups that responded immediately to President Trump's call.
The Proud Boys are a far-right street-fighting group that
glorifies violence and White supremacy.
The Oath Keepers are extremists who promote a wide range of
conspiracy theories and sought to act as a private paramilitary
force for Donald Trump. The Department of Justice has charged
leaders of both groups with seditious conspiracy to overthrow
the Government of the United States on January the 6th.
Trump's December 19th tweet motivated these two extremists
groups, which have historically not worked together, to
coordinate their activities.
December 19th, at 10:22 a.m., just hours after President
Trump's tweet, Kelly Meggs, the head of the Florida Oath
Keepers, declared an alliance among the Oath Keepers, the Proud
Boys, and the Florida Three Percenters, another militia group.
He wrote: ``We have decided to work together and shut this shit
down.''
Phone records obtained by the Select Committee show that,
later that afternoon, Mr. Meggs called Proud Boys leader
Enrique Tarrio, and they spoke for several minutes. The very
next day, the Proud Boys got to work.
The Proud Boys launched an encrypted chat called the
Ministry of Self-Defense. The Committee obtained hundreds of
these messages, which show strategic and tactical planning
about January the 6th, including maps of Washington, DC, that
pinpoint the location of police.
In the weeks leading up to the attack, leaders in both the
Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers worked with Trump allies. One
such ally was Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Trump's former
National Security Advisor and one of the participants in the
unhinged meeting at the White House on December 18th.
He also had connections to the Oath Keepers.
This photo from December 12th shows Flynn and Patrick
Byrne, another Trump ally, who was present at that December
18th meeting, guarded by indicted Oath Keeper Roberto Minuta.
Another view of the scene shows Oath Keepers leader Stewart
Rhodes in the picture as well.
Another central figure with ties to this network of
extremist groups was Roger Stone, a political consultant and
long-time confidant of President Trump. He pardoned both Flynn
and Stone in the weeks between the election on November 3rd and
January 6th.
In the same time frame, Stone communicated with both the
Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers regularly. The Committee
obtained encrypted content from a group chat called Friends of
Stone, FOS, which included Stone, Rhodes, Tarrio, and Ali
Alexander. The chat focused on various pro-Trump events in
November and December of 2020, as well as January 6th.
As you can see here, Stewart Rhodes himself urged the
Friends of Stone to have people go to their State capitols if
they could not make it to Washington for the first Million MAGA
March on November 14th.
These Friends of Roger Stone had a significant presence at
multiple pro-Trump events after the election, including in
Washington on December the 12th. On that day, Stewart Rhodes
called for Donald Trump to invoke martial law promising blood-
shed if he did not.
Mr. Rhodes. He needs to know from you that you are with him--that
if he does not do it now, when he is Commander in Chief, we're going to
have to do it ourselves later in a much more desperate, much more
bloody war. Let's get it on now while he is still the Commander in
Chief. Hooah!
Mr. Raskin. That night, the Proud Boys engaged in violence
on the streets of Washington and hurled aggressive insults at
the police.
Voice. You're oath breakers. Do your fucking job! Give us 1 hour!
One hour!
Mr. Raskin. Just the previous night, the co-host of
InfoWars issued an ominous warning at a rally alongside Roger
Stone and Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio.
Voice. I don't give a shit. [inaudible]
Mr. Shroyer. We will be back in January! [applause]
Mr. Raskin. Encrypted chats obtained by the Select
Committee show that Kelly Meggs, the indicted leader of the
Florida Oath Keepers, spoke directly with Roger Stone about
security on January 5th and 6th. In fact, on January 6th, Stone
was guarded by two Oath Keepers who have since been criminally
indicted for seditious conspiracy.
One of them later pleaded guilty and, according to the
Department of Justice, admitted that the Oath Keepers were
ready to use ``lethal force, if necessary, against anyone who
tried to remove President Trump from the White House, including
the National Guard.''
As we have seen, the Proud Boys were also part of the
Friends of Stone network. Stone's ties to the Proud Boys go
back many years. He has even taken their so-called ``Fraternity
Creed'' required for the first level of initialization to the
group.
Mr. Stone. Hi, I'm Roger Stone. I'm a Western chauvinist, and I
refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.
Voice. Thank you, Roger.
Mr. Raskin. Kellye SoRelle, a lawyer who assists the Oath
Keepers and a volunteer lawyer for the Trump Campaign,
explained to the Committee how Roger Stone and other figures
brought extremists of different stripes and views together.
Mr. Childress. You mentioned that Mr. Stone wanted to start this
Stop the Steal series of rallies. Who did you consider the leader of
these rallies? It sounds like from what you just said it was Mr. Stone,
Mr. Jones, and Mr. Ali Alexander. Is that correct?
Ms. SoRelle. Those are the ones that became, like, the center point
for everything.
Mr. Raskin. We will learn more from Mrs. Murphy about these
individuals and their involvement in the days leading up to the
violent attack on January 6th. We will also hear how they were
allowed to speak at a rally for President Trump the night
before January 6th, even though organizers had expressed
serious concerns about their violent and extremist rhetoric
directly to Mark Meadows.
You will hear testimony from White House aides who were
with the President as he watched the crowd from the Oval Office
and will testify about how excited he was for the following
day.
Let me note now that our investigation continues on these
critical issues. We have only shown a small fraction of what we
have found.
I look forward to the public release of more of our
findings later, Mr. Chairman.
I now yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs.
Murphy.
Mrs. Murphy. During our most recent hearing, the Committee
showed some evidence of what President Trump, Chief of Staff
Mark Meadows, and other White House officials knew about the
potential for violence on January 6th. Despite this
information, they made no effort to cancel the rally, halt the
march to the Capitol, or even to lower the temperature among
President Trump's supporters.
Katrina Pierson, one of the organizers of January 6th rally
and a former campaign spokeswoman for President Trump, grew
increasingly apprehensive after learning that multiple
activists had been proposed as speakers for the January 6th
rally. These included some of the people we discussed earlier
in this hearing: Roger Stone, a long-time outside advisor to
President Trump; Alex Jones, the founder of the conspiracy
theory website InfoWars; and Ali Alexander, an activist known
for his violent political rhetoric.
On December 30th, Ms. Pierson exchanged text messages with
another key rally organizer about why people like Mr. Alexander
and Mr. Jones were being suggested as speakers at the
President's rally on January 6th.
Ms. Pierson's explanation was: ``POTUS.''
She remarks that the President ``likes the crazies.''
The Committee asked Ms. Pierson about these messages, and
this is what she said:
Mr. Tonolli. So when you said that he likes the crazies, were you
talking about President Trump?
Ms. Pierson. Yes, I was talking about President Trump. He loved
people who viciously defended him in public.
Mr. Tonolli. But consistent in terms of the support for these
people, at least with what the President likes, from what you could
tell?
Ms. Pierson. Yes. The--the people that would be very, very vicious
in publicly defending him.
Mrs. Murphy. On January 2nd, Ms. Pierson's concerns about
the potential rally speakers had grown serious enough that she
reached out to Mr. Meadows directly.
She wrote: ``Good afternoon. Would you mind giving me a
call regarding this January 6th event? Things have gotten
crazy, and I desperately need some direction. Please.''
According to phone records obtained by the Committee, Ms.
Pierson received a phone call from Mr. Meadows 8 minutes later.
Here is what Ms. Pierson said about that conversation.
Mr. Tonolli. So what specifically did you tell him, though, about
other--other events?
Ms. Pierson. Just that there were a bunch of entities coming in.
Some were very suspect, but they're going to be on other--on other
stages, some on other days. A very, very brief overview of what was
actually happening and why I raised red flags.
Mr. Tonolli. And when you told him that people were very suspect,
what--what did--did you tell him what you meant by that, or what did
you convey to him about what you were--the problems with these folks?
Ms. Pierson. I think I even texted him some of my concerns. But I
did briefly go over some of the concerns that I had raised to everybody
with Alex Jones or Ali Alexander and some of the rhetoric that they
were doing. I probably mentioned to him that they had already caused
trouble at the other capitols or at the previous event--the previous
march that they did for protesting. And I just had a concern about it.
Mrs. Murphy. Ms. Pierson was especially concerned about Ali
Alexander and Alex Jones because, in November 2020, both men
and some of their supporters, had entered the Georgia State
Capitol to protest the results of the 2020 election.
Ms. Pierson believed that she mentioned this to Mark
Meadows on this January 2nd call. Notably, January 2nd is the
same day on which, according to Cassidy Hutchinson, Mr. Meadows
warned her of things--that things might get ``real, real bad''
on January 6th.
After her January 2nd call with Mr. Meadows, Katrina
Pierson sent an email to fellow rally organizers. She wrote:
``POTUS expectations are to have something intimate at the
Ellipse and call on everyone to march to the Capitol.''
The President's own documents suggest that the President
had decided to call on his supporters to go to the Capitol on
January 6th but that he chose not to widely announce it until
his speech on the Ellipse that morning.
The Committee has obtained this draft, undated tweet from
the National Archives. It includes a stamp stating: ``President
has seen.''
The draft tweet reads: ``I will be making a big speech at
10 a.m. on January 6th at the Ellipse south of the White House.
Please arrive early. Massive crowds expected. March to the
Capitol after. Stop the Steal.''
Although this tweet was never sent, rally organizers were
discussing and preparing for the march to the Capitol in the
days leading up to January 6th.
This is a January 4th text message from a rally organizer
to Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO. The organizer says: ``You
know, this stays between us. We are having a second stage at
the Supreme Court again after the Ellipse. POTUS is going to
have us march there/the Capitol. It cannot get out about the
second stage because people will try and set up another and
sabotage it. It can also not get out about the march because I
will be in trouble with the National Park Service and all the
agencies. But POTUS is going to just call for it
`unexpectedly.' ''
The end of the message indicates that the President's plan
to have his followers march to the Capitol was not being
broadly discussed. Then, on the morning of January 5th, Ali
Alexander, whose firebrand style concerned Katrina Pierson,
sent a similar text to a conservative journalist.
Mr. Alexander said: ``Tomorrow: Ellipse then U.S. Capitol.
Trump is supposed to order us to the Capitol at the end of his
speech, but we will see.''
President Trump did follow through on his plan, using his
January 6th speech to tell his supporters to march to the
Capitol on January 6th. The evidence confirms that this was not
a spontaneous call to action, but rather was a deliberate
strategy decided upon in advance by the President.
Another part of the President's strategy involves certain
Members of Congress who amplified his unsupported assertions
that the election had been stolen. In the weeks after the
election, the White House coordinated closely with President
Trump's allies in Congress to disseminate his false claims and
to encourage members of the public to fight the outcome on
January 6th.
We know that the President met with various Members to
discuss January 6th well before the joint session.
The President's private schedule for December 21, 2020,
shows a private meeting with Republican Members of Congress. We
know that Vice President Pence, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows,
and Rudy Giuliani also attended that meeting. We obtained an
email that was sent from Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama to
Mark Meadows setting up that meeting.
The subject line is: ``White House meeting December 21st
regarding January 6th.''
In his email, Congressman Brooks explained that he had not
asked anyone to join him in the ``January 6th effort,'' because
in his view ``only citizens can exert the necessary influence
on Senators and Congressmen to join this fight against massive
voter fraud and election theft.''
At this point, you may also recall testimony given in our
earlier hearing by Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard
Donoghue, who said that the President asked the Department of
Justice to ``Just say that the election was corrupt and leave
the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.''
According to White House visitor logs obtained by the
Committee, Members of Congress present at the White House on
December 21st included Congressmen Brian Babin, Andy Biggs,
Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, Andy Harris, Jody Hice,
Jim Jordan, and Scott Perry. Then-Congresswoman-elect Marjorie
Taylor Greene was also there.
We heard testimony in an early hearing that a pardon was
ultimately requested by Congressman Mo Brooks and other Members
of Congress who attended this meeting. We have asked witnesses
what happened during the December 21st meeting, and we have
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. In one of our earlier hearings, you
heard in great detail that President Trump was trying to
convince Vice President Pence to do something illegal.
His White House counsel confirmed all of that in testimony
last week.
Mr. Heaphy. And tell us your view, Mr. Cipollone, upon those
discussions with Mr. Philbin, with Greg Jacob, what was your assessment
as to what the Vice President could or could not do at the joint
session?
Mr. Cipollone. What was my assessment----
Mr. Heaphy. Yes.
Mr. Cipollone [continuing]. About what he could or couldn't do?
Mr. Heaphy. Yes, your view of the issue.
Mr. Cipollone. My view was that the Vice President didn't have the
legal authority to do anything except what he did.
______
Mr. Heaphy. They have both told us, Mr. Philbin and Mr. Jacob, that
they looked very closely at the Eastman memos, the Eastman theory, and
thought that it had no basis, that it was not a strategy that the
President should pursue. It sounds like that's consistent with your
impression as well.
Mr. Cipollone. My impression would've been informed, certainly, by
them.
Mrs. Murphy. Campaign senior advisor Jason Miller told us
that Mr. Cipollone thought John Eastman's theories were nutty.
Something Mr. Cipollone wouldn't refute.
Mr. Heaphy. We've received testimony from various people about
this. One was Jason Miller, who was on the campaign. He said that,
``The way it was communicated to me was that Pat Cipollone thought the
idea was nutty, and at one point, confronted Eastman basically with the
same sentiment.''
Mr. Cipollone. I don't have any reason to contradict what he said.
Mrs. Murphy. On January 4th, John Eastman went to the White
House to meet with the President and Vice President. Mr.
Cipollone tried to participate in this meeting, but he was
apparently turned away.
Mr. Heaphy. You didn't go to the meeting in the Oval Office where
Eastman met with the President and Vice President. Do you remember why
you didn't personally attend?
Mr. Cipollone. I did walk to that meeting, and I did go into the
Oval Office with the idea of attending that meeting. And then, I
ultimately did not attend that meeting.
Mr. Heaphy. Why not?
Mr. Cipollone. The reasons for that are privileged.
Mr. Heaphy. Okay. Were you asked to not attend the meeting, or did
you make a personal decision not to attend the meeting?
Mr. Cipollone. Again, without getting into.
Mr. Purpura. Privilege.
Mrs. Murphy. Recall that Greg Jacob, the Vice President's
counsel, stated that Mr. Eastman acknowledged he would lose 9
to 0 if his legal theory were challenged in the Supreme Court.
Mr. Cipollone had reviewed Mr. Eastman's legal theory and
expressed his view repeatedly that the Vice President was
right. He even offered to take the blame for the Vice
President's position.
Mr. Cipollone. I thought that the Vice President did not have the
authority to do what was being suggested under a proper reading of the
law. I conveyed that. Okay? I think that I had actually told somebody
that, you know, in the Vice President's--just blame me, I'm not a
politician. And, you know, I just said, ``I'm a lawyer. This is my
legal opinion.''
But, let me tell you this, can I say a word about the Vice
President?
Mr. Heaphy. Please.
Mr. Cipollone. I think the Vice President did the right thing. I
think he did the courageous thing. I have a great deal of respect for
Vice President Pence. I worked with him very closely. I think he
understood my opinion. I think he understood my opinion afterwards as
well. I think he did a great service to this country, and I think I
suggested to somebody that he should be given the Presidential Medal of
Freedom for his actions.
Mrs. Murphy. Earlier this year, a Federal district court
judge concluded that President Trump and Mr. Eastman relying on
Mr. Eastman's theory more likely than not violated multiple
Federal criminal laws in their pressure campaign against the
Vice President.
Also, recall earlier in this hearing, we saw that Rudy
Giuliani's team did not have actual evidence of fraud
sufficient to change the result of the election. That is
important because, as January 6th approached, the Republican
Members of the House and Senate were looking for reason to
object to the electors. No real evidence was ever given to
them.
We know that Republican Members of the House received a
memorandum from the Chairwoman of the House Republican
Conference in the days before January 6th explaining in detail
the many constitutional and legal problems with objections and
describing the principal judicial rulings dismissing the claims
of wide-spread fraud.
But their plan to object to the certification of the
election on January 6th went forward anyway. The next day on
January 5th, the day before the attack on the Capitol, tens of
thousands of people converged on Washington. While certain
close associates of President Trump privately expressed
concerns about what would occur on January 6th, other members
of the President's inner circle spoke with great anticipation
about the events to come.
The Committee has learned from the White House phone logs
that the President spoke to Steve Bannon, his close advisor at
least twice on January 5th.
The first conversation they had lasted for 11 minutes.
Listen to what Mr. Bannon said that day, after the first call
he had with the President.
Mr. Bannon. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.
______
Mr. Bannon. It's all converging, and now we're on, as they say, the
point of attack. Right? The point of attack tomorrow.
______
Mr. Bannon. l'll tell you this, it's not going to happen like you
think it's going to happen. Okay? It's going to be quite
extraordinarily different. And all I can say is, strap in . . .
Mrs. Murphy. From those same phone logs, we know that the
President and Mr. Bannon spoke again on the phone that evening
this time for 6 minutes.
That same day, on the eve of January 6th, supporters of
President Trump gathered in Washington, DC, at another rally.
This rally was held at Freedom Plaza, which is located near the
White House and featured some of the speakers who Katrina
Pierson and others deemed too extreme to share the stage with
the President the next morning.
As this rally was under way, the President asked members of
his staff to come to the Oval Office. Let's hear from the White
House aides who were in the Oval Office that night.
Mr. Luna. I was in the office--in the Oval Office--and he had asked
me to open the door so that he could hear, I guess, there was a concert
or a--or something going on.
Mr. George. Did he say anything other than just, ``Open the door''?
Mr. Luna. He--he made a comment, I don't remember specifically what
he said, but there was a lot of energy.
______
Ms. Matthews. When we walked in the staff was kind-of standing up
and assembled along the wall, and the President was at the desk. And
Dan Scavino was on the couch. And the President was dictating a tweet
that he wanted Scavino to send out. Then, the President started talking
about the rally the next day.
He had the door of the Oval open to the Rose Garden because you
could hear the crowd already assembled outside on the Ellipse. And they
were playing music. And it was so loud that you could feel it shaking
in the Oval.
______
Ms. Matthews. He was in a very good mood. And I say that because he
had not been in a good mood for weeks leading up to that. And then it
seemed like he was in a fantastic mood that evening.
______
Mr. Deere. He asked if--if Members of Congress would be with him
tomorrow.
Mr. Wood. And what did you understand by--meaning voting in his
favor, as opposed to physically with him or anything like that?
Mr. Deere. Yeah, I took that to mean not voting to certify the
election.
______
Ms. Matthews. Then, he did look to the staff and asked for ideas of
how, if I recall, he said that we could make the RINOs do the right
thing, is the way he phrased it. And no one spoke up initially because
I think everyone was trying to process what that--he meant by that.
______
Ms. Craighead. The President was making notes--talking then about:
``We should go up to the Capitol. What's the best route to go to the
Capitol?''
______
Mr. Deere. I said he should focus on policy accomplishments, and I
didn't mention the 2020 election.
Mr. Wood. What was his response?
Mr. Deere. He acknowledged that and said, ``We've had a lot.''
Something along those lines. And then, he fairly quickly moved to how
fired up the crowd is--was going to be.
Mr. Wood. And what did he say about it?
Mr. Deere. Just that they were--they were fired up. They were
angry. They feel like the election's been stolen, that the election was
rigged.
Mr. Wood. Did he give you any indication of how he knew that the
crowd was fired up or angry?
Mr. Deere. He continued to reference being able to hear them
outside.
Mrs. Murphy. Through the open door of the Oval Office, the
President could hear the sound of the crowd and the music at
the rally at the Freedom Plaza. These are some of the things
that they were saying there at the plaza just blocks from where
the President sat that evening excited for the next day.
Mr. Stone. This is nothing less than an epic struggle for the
future of this country between dark and light. Between the godly and
the godless. Between good and evil. And we will win this fight or
America will step off into a thousand years of darkness.
General Flynn. Tomorrow, tomorrow, trust me, the American people
that are standing on the soil that we are standing on tonight--and
they're gonna be standing on this soil tomorrow--this is soil that we
have fought over, fought for, and we will fight for in the future.
The Members, the Members of Congress, the Members of the House of
Representatives, the Members of the United States Senate, those of you
who are feeling weak tonight, those of you that don't have the moral
fiber in your body, get some tonight because tomorrow, we the people
are going to be here, and we want you to know that we will not stand
for a lie. We will not stand for a lie.
Mr. Alexander. I want them to know that 1776 is always an option.
These degenerates in the deep state are going to give us what we want,
or we are going to shut this country down.
Mr. Jones. It's 1776! 1776! 1776! 1776!
Crowd. 1776!
Mrs. Murphy. At 5:05 p.m., as the Freedom Plaza rally was
under way just blocks away, President Trump tweeted:
``Washington is being inundated with people who don't want to
see an election victory stolen by emboldened radical left
Democrats. Our country has had enough. They won't take it
anymore.''
To the crowds gathering in D.C., he added: ``We hear you
and love you from the Oval Office.''
The Committee has learned that on January 5th, there were
serious concerns at Twitter about the anticipated violence the
next day. Listen to what the Twitter witness told us about
their desperate efforts to get Twitter to do something.
Mr. Jackson. What was your gut feeling on the night of January 5th?
Former Twitter Employee. I believe I sent a Slack message to
someone that said something along the lines of, ``When people are
shooting each other tomorrow, I will try and rest in the knowledge that
we tried.''
And so, I went to--I don't know that I slept that night to be
honest with you. I--I was on pins and needles. Because, again, for
months, I had been begging and anticipating and attempting to raise the
reality that if nothing--if we made no intervention into what I saw
occurring, people were going to die.
And on January 5th, I realized no intervention was coming. And even
as hard as I had tried to create one or implement one, there was
nothing. And we were--we were at the whims and mercy of a violent crowd
that was locked and loaded.
Mr. Jackson. And just for the record, this was content that was
echoing Statements from the former President but also Proud Boys and
other known violent extremist groups?
Former Twitter Employee. Yes.
Mrs. Murphy. There were also concerns among Members of
Congress. We have a recently released recording of a
conversation that took place among Republican Members in the
U.S. Capitol on the eve of January 6th. This is Republican
Congresswoman Debbie Lesko from Arizona, who led some of the
unfounded objections to the election results.
Mrs. Lesko. I also asked leadership to come up with a safety plan
for Members. I'm actually very concerned about this because we have who
knows how many hundreds of thousands of people coming here. We have
Antifa. We also have, quite honestly, Trump supporters who actually
believe that we are going to overturn the election. And when that
doesn't happen--most likely will not happen, they are going to go nuts.
Mrs. Murphy. That same evening, as President Trump listened
to the rally from the Oval Office, he was also working on his
speech to be delivered the next day. Based on documents we have
received from the National Archives, including multiple drafts
of the President's speech, as well as from witness testimony,
we understand how that speech devolved into a call to action
and a call to fight.
One of the first edits President Trump made to his speech
was to incorporate his 5:05 p.m. tweet, revising his speech to
say: ``All of us here today do not want to see our election
victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats. Our
country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.''
He also added: ``Together, we will Stop the Steal.''
President Trump's edits continued into the morning of
January 6th.
As you can see from the President's daily diary here, the
President spoke to his chief speechwriter Stephen Miller for
over 25 minutes that morning. Following his call with Mr.
Miller, President Trump inserted for the first time a line in
his speech that said: ``And we will see whether Mike Pence
enters history as a truly great and courageous leader. All he
has to do is refer the illegally submitted electoral votes back
to the States that were given false and fraudulent information
where they want to recertify.''
No prior version of this speech had referenced Vice
President Pence or his role during the joint session on January
6th. These last-minute edits by President Trump to his speech
were part of the President's pressure campaign against his own
Vice President.
But not everyone wanted these lines regarding the Vice
President included in the President's speech, including White
House lawyer Eric Herschmann.
Mr. George. Did you ever speak to anybody in the White House at the
time about this disagreement between the President and the Vice
President, other than the President, based on the objection from your
counsel?
Mr. Stephen Miller. Maybe had a brief conversation about it with
Eric Herschmann.
Mr. George. Tell me about that. What do you remember him saying to
you about this disagreement?
Mr. Stephen Miller. I just remember him saying that--that he had
a--I'm trying to remember. I don't want to get this wrong. Sort-of
something to the effect of thinking that it would be counterproductive,
I think he thought to--to discuss the matter publicly.
______
Mr. George. So it came up in the context of editing the President's
speech on January the 6th?
Mr. Stephen Miller. It just came up in the conversation where Eric
knew it was in the speech, and so he had a--a sidebar with me about it.
Mrs. Murphy. So the speechwriters took that advice and
removed the lines about Vice President Pence. Later that
morning at 11:20 a.m., President Trump had a phone call with
the Vice President.
As the Committee detailed in an earlier hearing, that phone
call was, by all accounts, tense and heated.
During this call, the Vice President told the President
that he would not attempt to change the outcome of the
election. In response, the President called the Vice President
of the United States a ``wimp'' and other derogatory words.
As you can see in this email, after Vice President Pence
told President Trump that he would not unilaterally deliver him
a second term in office, the speechwriters were directed to
reinsert the Mike Pence lines. Here is how one of the
speechwriters described President Trump's last-minute change to
the speech.
Mr. Haley. And as I recall, there was a very tough--a tough
sentence about the Vice President that was--that was added.
Mrs. Murphy. President Trump wanted to use his speech to
attack Vice President Pence in front of a crowd of thousands of
angry supporters who had been led to believe the election was
stolen. When President Trump arrived at the Ellipse to deliver
his speech, he was still worked up from his call with Vice
President Pence. Although Ivanka Trump would not say so, her
chief of staff gave the Committee some insight into the
President's frustration.
Mr. Heaphy. It's been reported that you ultimately decided to
attend the rally because you hoped that you would calm the President
and keep the event on an even keel. Is that accurate?
Ms. Trump. No. I don't know who said that or where that came from.
______
Mr. Tonolli. What did she share with you about why it was
concerning that her father was upset or agitated after that call with
Vice President Pence in relation to the Ellipse rally? Why did that
matter? Why did he have to be calmed down, I should say.
Ms. Radford. Well, she shared that he had called the Vice President
a not--an expletive word. I think that bothered her. And I think she
could tell, based on the conversations and what was going on in the
office, that he was angry and upset and people were providing
misinformation. And she felt like she might be able to help calm the
situation down, at least before he went onto stage.
Mrs. Murphy. The President did go on stage, and then he
gave the speech that he wanted to give. It included the formal
changes he had requested the night before and in that morning,
but also many important last-minute, ad-libbed changes.
A single, scripted reference in the speech to Mike Pence
became eight. A single, scripted reference to rally-goers
marching to the Capitol became four, with President Trump ad-
libbing that he would be joining the protesters at the Capitol.
Added throughout his speech were references to fighting and the
need for people to have courage and to be strong. The word
``peacefully'' was in the staff-written script and used only
once.
Here are some of these ad-libbed changes that the President
made to his speech.
President Trump. Because you'll never take back our country with
weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
______
President Trump. So, I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has
to do. And I hope he doesn't listen to the RINOs and the stupid people
that he's listening to.
______
President Trump. We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like
hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
______
President Trump. But we're going to try and give our Republicans--
the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help.
We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that
they need to take back our country. So, let's walk down Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Mrs. Murphy. White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his
deputy did not attend the speech, and they were concerned that
the statements in the speech about the election were false. In
fact, the message that President Trump delivered that day was
built on a foundation of lies. He lied to his supporters that
the election was stolen. He stoked their anger. He called for
them to fight for him. He directed them to the U.S. Capitol. He
told them he would join them, and his supporters believed him,
and many headed toward the Capitol.
As a result, people died. People were injured. Many of his
supporters' lives will never be the same.
President Trump's former campaign manager Brad Parscale
recognized the impact of the speech immediately, and this is
what he said on January 6th in excerpts from text messages to
Katrina Pierson.
Mr. Parscale said: ``This is about Trump pushing for
uncertainty in our country. A sitting President asking for
civil war.''
Then when he said, ``This week I feel guilty for helping
him win,'' Katrina Pierson responded: ``You did what you felt
right at the time, and, therefore, it was right.''
Mr. Parscale added: ``Yeah, but a woman is dead.''
And: ``Yeah. If I was Trump and I knew my rhetoric killed
someone.''
When Ms. Pierson replied, ``It wasn't the rhetoric,'' Mr.
Parscale said: ``Katrina, yes, it was.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back. We are
joined today by Mr. Jason Van Tatenhove and Mr. Stephen Ayres.
Mr. Tatenhove is an artist and journalist. He is a former
spokesman of the Oath Keepers and a former close associate of
Elmer Stewart Rhodes, the founder and president of the Oath
Keepers, who has been charged with seditious conspiracy in
relation to the Capitol attack.
Mr. Van Tatenhove broke with the Oath Keepers and has since
spoken out forcefully against the violent group.
Mr. Ayres is a former supporter of President Trump. He
answered the President's call to come to Washington, DC, on
January 6th. He marched to the Capitol on the President's
orders. He pleaded guilty last month to disorderly and
disruptive conduct at the Capitol.
Mr. Ayres, who no longer supports President Trump, came
forward voluntarily to share his story as a warning.
I will now swear in our witnesses.
The witnesses will please stand and raise their right
hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
I recognize myself for questions.
Today we have discussed how President Trump summoned an
angry mob of supporters to Washington, DC, many of whom came
prepared to do battle against police and politicians alike.
We are fortunate enough to be joined by two witnesses who
can help us understand who was in the mob that day, both hard-
core violent extremists like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys
and average Trump supporters swept up in the fervor of the day.
Mr. Van Tatenhove, can you help us understand who the Oath
Keepers are?
Mr. Van Tatenhove.\1\ I can. Thank you. My time with the
Oath Keepers began back at Bundy Ranch at that first stand-off
when I went to cover them as an independent journalist. I then
subsequently covered two more stand-offs, the Sugar Pine Mine
stand-off and the White Hope Mine stand-off. It was at that
time that I was offered a job as national media director and an
associate editor for the web page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Van Tatenhove has been included
in the Appendix and may be found on page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I spent a few years with the Oath Keepers, and I can
tell you that they may not like to call themselves a militia,
but they are. They are a violent militia, and they are largely
Stewart Rhodes. They--I think, rather than try to use words, I
think the best illustration for what the Oath Keepers are
happened January 6th when we saw that stacked military
formation going up the stairs of our Capitol.
I saw radicalization that started with the beginning of my
time with them and continued over a period of time as the
member base and who it was that Stewart Rhodes was courting
drifted further and further right into the alt-right world,
into White nationalists, and even straight-up racists.
It came to a point where I could no longer continue to work
for them, but the Oath Keepers are a dangerous militia that is
in large part fed by the ego and drive of Stewart Rhodes, who,
at times, seemed to see himself as this paramilitary leader. I
think that drove a lot of it.
So, in my opinion, the Oath Keepers are a very dangerous
organization.
Chairman Thompson. Well, thank you very much. You have
talked a little bit about that danger. So what is the Oath
Keepers' vision for America and why should Americans be
concerned about it?
Mr. Van Tatenhove. I think we saw a glimpse of what the
vision of the Oath Keepers is on January 6th. It doesn't
necessarily include the rule of law. It doesn't necessarily
include--it includes violence. It includes trying to get their
way through lies, through deceit, through intimidation, and
through the perpetration of violence. The swaying of people who
may not know better through lies and rhetoric and propaganda
that can get swept up in these moments. I will admit I was
swept up at one point as well, too.
But I don't know if that answers the question.
Chairman Thompson. Well, it does. You talk about being
swept up. So at what point did you break with the Oath Keepers?
Mr. Van Tatenhove. There came a point--there were many red
flags, and I probably should have broke with them much earlier
than I did, but the straw that broke the camel's back really
came when I walked into a grocery store. We were living up in
the very remote town of Eureka, Montana, and there was a group
of core members of the group--of the Oath Keepers and some
associates, and they were having a conversation at that public
area where they were talking about how the Holocaust was not
real.
That was, for me, something I just could not abide. You
know, we were not--we were not wealthy people at all. We were
barely surviving, and it didn't matter. I went home to my wife
and my kids, and I told them that I have got to walk away at
this point. I don't know how we are going to survive or where
we are going to go or what we are going to do, but I just can
no longer continue, and I put in my resignation.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ayres, there were many people in the crowd that day
January 6th, including you, who were not part of an extremist
group. I would like to start by having you tell the American
people a little bit about yourself.
Can you tell us about your life before January 6th?
Mr. Ayres. Yeah. Basically nothing but a family man and a
working man. Worked at the company, a cabinet company up in
northeast Ohio for going on 20 years. You know, family is my
life. You know, I was a supervisor there. So that took up a lot
of my other--you know, a lot of my free time. Other than that,
I'm with my family, camping, playing basketball, playing games
with my son.
Chairman Thompson. Just what any ordinary, American
citizen, family man would do.
Mr. Ayres. Yep, exactly.
Chairman Thompson. So this Committee has reviewed thousands
of hours of surveillance footage from January 6th. During this
review, we identified you entering the Capitol, as we see in
this video.
Mr. Ayres, why did you decide to come to Washington on
January 6th?
Mr. Ayres. For me personally, you know, I was, you know,
pretty hard core into the social media, Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram. I followed, you know, President Trump, you know, on
all the websites, you know. He basically put out, you know:
Come to Stop the Steal rally.
You know, and I felt like I needed to be down here.
Chairman Thompson. So, you basically learned about the
rally on social media and at some point made a decision to come
to Washington?
Mr. Ayres. Yep, yep. I had some friends I found out were
coming down. I just hopped--you know, hopped on with them right
at the tail end when I found out, and came down here with them.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes the Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming,
with any questions she may have.
Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ayres, when you entered the Capitol last year, did you
believe that the election had been stolen?
Mr. Ayres. At that time, yeah. You know, everything that I
was seeing online, I definitely believed that that is exactly
what--that was the case.
Vice Chair Cheney. When you heard from President Trump that
the election was stolen, how did that make you feel?
Mr. Ayres. Oh, I was very upset, as were most of his
supporters. You know, that is basically what got me to come
down here.
Vice Chair Cheney. Do you still believe the election was
stolen?
Mr. Ayres. Not so much now. I got away from all the social
media when January 6th happened, basically deleted it all. You
know, I started doing my own research and everything. For me,
for me--for something like that to be that--for that to
actually take place, it is too big, you know. There is no way
to keep something like that quiet, as big as something like
that, you know. With all the--you know, all the lawsuits being
shot down one after another, that was mainly what convinced me.
Vice Chair Cheney. Well, and I think that is very
important. We've also talked about today and in previous
hearings the extent to which the President himself was told
that the election hadn't been stolen, by his Justice
Department, by his White House counsel, by his campaign.
Would it have made a difference to you to know that
President Trump himself had no evidence of wide-spread fraud?
Mr. Ayres. Oh, definitely, you know. Who knows, I may not
have come down here then, you know.
Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs.
Murphy.
Mrs. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, earlier today we showed how Donald Trump's
December 19th tweet summoned both extremist groups as well as
rank-and-file supporters of President Trump to come to
Washington, DC, average Americans. He told them to ``Be there,
Will be wild,'' and they came. We showed how President Trump
repeatedly told them fight, fight, fight, and they marched to
the Capitol.
Mr. Ayres, you were in that crowd at the rally and then the
crowd that marched to the Capitol. When you arrived on the
Ellipse that morning, were you planning on going to the
Capitol?
Mr. Ayres. No, we didn't actually plan to go down there.
You know, we went basically to see the Stop the Steal rally,
and that was it.
Mrs. Murphy. So why did you decide to march to the Capitol?
Mr. Ayres. Well, basically, you know, the President, he had
got everybody riled up, told everybody to head on down. So, we
basically were just following what he said.
Mrs. Murphy. After the President's speech, as you were
marching down to the Capitol, how did you feel?
Mr. Ayres. You know, I am angry, you know, after everything
that was basically said in the speech. You know, a lot of the
stuff he said he already put out in tweets. A lot of it I had
already seen it and heard it before. So, I mean, I was already
worked up, and so were most of the people there.
Mrs. Murphy. So as you started marching, did you think
there was still a chance the election would be overturned?
Mr. Ayres. Yeah, at that time I did, because everybody was
kind-of, like, in the hope that, you know, Vice President Pence
was not going to certify the election. You know, also, the
whole time on our way down there, we kept hearing about this
big reveal I remember us talking about, and we kind-of thought
maybe that was it. So that hope was there.
Mrs. Murphy. Did you think that the President would be
marching with you?
Mr. Ayres. Yeah. I think everybody thought he was going to
be coming down. You know, he said in his speech, you know,
kind-of like he was going to be there with us. So, I mean, I
believed it.
Mrs. Murphy. I understand.
We know that you illegally entered the Capitol that
afternoon and then left the Capitol area later on. What made
you decide to leave?
Mr. Ayres. Basically when President Trump put his tweet
out, we literally left right after that come out. You know, to
me, if he would have done that earlier in the day, 1:30, you
know, we wouldn't be in this--maybe we wouldn't be in this bad
of a situation or something.
Mrs. Murphy. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Van Tatenhove, in the run-up to January 6th, Stewart
Rhodes publicly implored President Trump to invoke the
Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that allows the President to
call up militias to put down a rebellion against the United
States. I want to get your thoughts about this in the context
of your prior relationship with Stewart Rhodes.
I understand that you had conversations with Rhodes about
the Insurrection Act. Why was he so fixated on that and what
did he think it would enable the Oath Keepers to do?
Mr. Van Tatenhove. Well, I think it gave him a sense of
legitimacy, that it was a path forward to move forward with his
goals and agendas.
I think we need to quit mincing words and just talk about
truths. What it was going to be was an armed revolution. I
mean, people died that day. Law enforcement officers died this
day. There was a gallows set up in front of the Capitol. This
could have been the spark that started a new civil war, and no
one would have won there. That would have been good for no one.
He was always looking for ways to legitimize what he was
doing, whether by wrapping it in the trappings of it is not a
militia, it is community preparedness team. We're not a
militia, we're an educational outreach group. It is a veterans
support group. But, again, we've got to stop with this
dishonesty and the mincing of words and just call things for
what they are. You know, he is a militia leader. He had these
grand visions of being a paramilitary leader, and the
Insurrection Act would have given him a path forward with that.
You know, the fact that the President was communicating,
whether directly or indirectly, messaging, you know, kind-of--
that gave him the nod. All I can do is thank the gods that
things did not go any worse that day.
Mr. Raskin. What did the Oath Keepers see in President
Trump?
Mr. Van Tatenhove. They saw a path forward that would have
legitimacy. They saw opportunity I think, in my opinion, to
become a paramilitary force, you know.
Mr. Raskin. Last week the Department of Justice indicated
that it has evidence of the Oath Keepers bringing not just
firearms, but explosives to Washington, ahead of January 6th.
The Committee has also learned that Stewart Rhodes stopped to
buy weapons on his way to Washington and shipped roughly $7,000
worth of tactical gear to a January 6th rally planner in
Virginia before the attack.
Did you ever hear Rhodes discuss committing violence
against elected political leaders?
Mr. Van Tatenhove. Yeah. I mean, that went back from the
very beginning of my tenure. One of the first assignments that
he brought to me wanting me to do as more of a graphic artist
function was to create a deck of cards. You may remember back
to the conflict in the Middle East where our own military
created a deck of cards, which was a who's who of kind-of the
key players on the other side that they wanted to take out.
Stewart was very intrigued by that notion and influenced by it,
I think, and he wanted me to create a deck of cards that would
include different politicians, judges, including up to Hillary
Clinton as the queen of hearts.
This was a project that I refused to do, but from the very
start, we saw that. There was always the push for military
training, including there were courses in that community that
went over explosives training. So, yeah, this all falls in
line.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Van Tatenhove, you say in your very
thoughtful written testimony that we received today that you
fear what the next election cycle will bring, and you also say
that we have been exceedingly lucky in that we have not seen
more bloodshed so far. I wonder if you would elaborate on those
two statements.
Mr. Van Tatenhove. I think as far as the luck goes, we've
had the potential from Bundy Ranch on, I mean, being boots on
the ground at these stand-offs--and they were stand-offs--where
there were firearms pointed across lines at Federal law
enforcement agencies, you know, whatever it may be with that
particular stand-off. But I do--I think we have gotten
exceedingly lucky that more bloodshed did not happen because
the potential has been there from the start, and we got very
lucky that the loss of life was--and as tragic as it is, was
that we saw on January 6th, the potential was so much more.
Again, all we have to look at is the iconic images of that
day with the gallows set up for Mike Pence, for the Vice
President of the United States, you know. I do fear for this
next election cycle because who knows what that might bring. If
a President that is willing to try to instill and encourage to
whip up a civil war amongst his followers using lies and
deceit, and snake oil, and regardless of the human impact, what
else is he going to do if he gets elected again? All bets are
off at that point, and that is a scary notion. I have three
daughters. I have a granddaughter. I fear for the world that
they will inherit if we do not start holding these people to
account.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Van
Tatenhove.
Mr. Ayres, I first want to ask you about what finally
caused you to leave on January the 6th. We know that the
medieval-style combat with our police, the occupation of the
building, this was going on for several hours until the
President issued at 4:17 a tweet, I believe, that included a
video telling people to go home.
Did you see that and did that have any effect on what you
were doing?
Mr. Ayres. Well, we were there. As soon as that come out,
everybody started talking about it, and it seemed like it
started to disperse, you know, some of the crowd. Obviously,
you know, once we got back to the hotel room, we seen that it
was still going on, but it definitely dispersed a lot of the
crowd.
Mr. Raskin. Did you leave at that point?
Mr. Ayres. Yeah, we did. Yeah, we left.
Mr. Raskin. So, in other words, that was the key moment
when you decided to leave when President Trump told people to
go home?
Mr. Ayres. Yeah, yep. We left right when that come out.
Mr. Raskin. You were not a member of an organized group
like the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys as most of the crowd
wasn't. I wonder, on January 6th, was it your view that these
far-right groups, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and
Three Percenters and others were on your side? Did you have any
reservations about marching with them and rallying with them?
Mr. Ayres. Well, I definitely didn't have a problem, you
know. I was probably following them online myself. You know, I
liked--I thought, you know, hey they're on our team. Good. That
is how I kind-of looked at it at the time, you know, like, I
didn't have a problem with it. I thought it was a good thing.
Mr. Raskin. I am interested in hearing about what has
happened to you since the events of January 6th. You told the
Vice Chair that you no longer believe Trump's Big Lie about the
election, but that is what brought you originally to
Washington. Looking back on it now, how do you reflect on the
role that you played in the crowd that day and what is going on
in your life?
Mr. Ayres. Basically, you know, I lost my job since this
all happened, you know, pretty much sold my house. So
everything that happened with the charges, you know, thank God,
a lot of them did get dismissed because I was just holding my
phone, but at the same time I was there. So, I mean, it
definitely--it changed my life, you know, and not for the good,
definitely not for, you know, the better. Yeah, I mean, that is
what I would say.
Mr. Raskin. Well, President Trump is still promoting the
Big Lie about the election. How does it make you feel?
Mr. Ayres. It makes me mad because I was hanging on every
word he was saying. Everything he was putting out, I was
following it. I mean, if I was doing it, hundreds of thousands
or millions of other people are doing it or maybe even still
doing it. It is like he just said about that, you know, you
have got people still following and doing that. Who knows, the
next election could come out, you know, they could end up being
down the same path we are right now. I mean, you just don't
know.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Ayres, I see that your wife has joined you
today, and welcome to Washington. We know this has been very
difficult on you both and your family.
What lessons finally do you want the American people to
learn from the way you and your family have suffered as a
result of these events?
Mr. Ayres. The biggest thing is, I consider myself a family
man, and I love my country. I don't think any one man is bigger
than either one of those. I think that is what needs to be
taken. You know, people dive into the politics, and for me, I
felt like I had, you know, like, horse blinders on. I was
locked in the whole time. The biggest thing for me is take the
blinders off and make sure you step back and see what's going
on before it is too late.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony
and for appearing, both of you, today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
The Members of the Select Committee may have additional
questions for today's witnesses, and we ask that you respond
expeditiously in writing to those questions.
Without objection, the Members will be permitted 10
business days to submit statements for the record, including
opening remarks and additional questions for the witnesses.
Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for a closing statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When Donald Trump sent out his tweet, he became the first
President ever to call for a crowd to descend on the Capital
City to block the constitutional transfer of power.
He set off an explosive chain reaction amongst his
followers. But no one mobilized more quickly than the dangerous
extremists that we have looked at today. Seizing upon his
invitation to fight, they assembled their followers for an
insurrectionary showdown against Congress and the Vice
President. On January 6th, Trump knew the crowd was angry. He
knew the crowd was armed. He sent them to the Capitol anyway.
You might imagine that our Founders would have been shocked
to learn that an American President would one day come to
embrace and excuse political violence against our own
institutions or knowingly send an armed mob to attack the
Capitol to usurp the will of the people.
But, you know, Mr. Chairman, the Founders were pretty wise
about certain things. At the start of the Republic, they
actually warned everyone about Donald Trump, not by name, of
course, but in the course of advising about the certain
prospect that ambitious politicians would try to mobilize
violent mobs to tear down our own institutions in service of
their insatiable ambitions.
In the very first Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton
observed that history teaches that opportunistic politicians
who desire to rule at all costs will begin first as demagogues
pandering to the angry and malignant passions of the crowd but
then end up as tyrants trampling the freedoms and the rights of
the people.
A violent insurrection to overturn an election is not an
abstract thing as we've heard. Hundreds of people were
bloodied, injured, and wounded in the process, including more
than 150 police officers, some of them sitting in this room
today.
I want to give you an update on one officer who was badly
wounded in the attack and is well-known to the Members of this
Committee because he testified before us last year.
Sergeant Aquilino Gonell is an Army veteran who spent a
year on active combat duty in the Iraq War, and then 16 years
on the Capitol force. Nothing he ever saw in combat in Iraq, he
has said, prepared him for the insurrection where he was
savagely beaten, punched, pushed, kicked, shoved, stomped, and
sprayed with chemical irritants, along with other officers, by
members of a mob carrying hammers, knives, batons, and police
shields taken by force and wielding the American flag against
police officers as a dangerous weapon.
Last month, on June 28th, Sergeant Gonell's team of doctors
told him that permanent injuries he has suffered to his left
shoulder and right foot now make it impossible for him to
continue as a police officer. He must leave policing for good
and figure out the rest of his life.
Sergeant Gonell, we wish you and your family all the best.
We are here for you. We salute you for your valor, your
eloquence, and your beautiful commitment to America.
I wonder what former President Trump would say to someone
like Sergeant Gonell who must now go about remaking his life. I
wonder if he could even understand what motivates a patriot
like Sergeant Gonell.
In his inaugural address Trump introduced one commanding
image, ``American carnage.'' Although that turn of phrase
explained little about our country before he took office, it
turned out to be an excellent prophecy of what his rage would
come to visit on our people.
Mr. Ayres just described how the trust he placed in
President Trump as a camp follower derailed his life and nearly
wrecked his reputation and his family.
A few weeks ago, we heard Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby
Freeman, Speaker Rusty Bowers from Arizona, and Georgia's
secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, describe how hate-
filled intimidation campaigns by Trump and his followers made
them prisoners in their homes and drove their stress and
anxiety to soaring new heights when they refused to do Trump's
bidding.
American carnage, that is Donald Trump's true legacy. His
desire to overthrow the people's election and seize the
Presidency--interrupt the counting of electoral college votes
for the first time in American history--nearly toppled the
constitutional order, and brutalized hundreds and hundreds of
people. The Watergate break-in was like a Cub Scout meeting
compared to this assault on our people and our institutions.
Mr. Chairman, these hearings have been significant for us
and for millions of Americans, and our hearing next week will
be a profound moment of reckoning for America. But the crucial
thing is the next step: What this Committee, what all of us
will do to fortify our democracy against coups, political
violence, and campaigns to steal elections away from the
people.
Unlike Mr. Ayres and Mr. Van Tatenhove, people who have
recovered and evolved from their descent into the hell of
fanaticism, Donald Trump has only expanded his Big Lie to cover
January 6th itself. He asserts the insurrection was the real
election and the election was the real insurrection. He says
his mob greeted our police officers on January 6th with hugs
and kisses.
He threatens to take one of America's two major political
parties with him down the road to authoritarianism, and it is
Abraham Lincoln's party, no less.
The political scientists tell us that authoritarian parties
have two essential features in common in history and around the
world: They do not accept the results of democratic elections
when they lose, and they embrace political violence as
legitimate. The problem of incitement to political violence has
only grown more serious in the internet age as we have just
heard.
But this is not the problem of one party. It is the problem
of the whole country now. American democracy, Mr. Chairman, is
a precious inheritance, something rare in the history of the
world and even on earth today. Constitutional democracy is the
silver frame, as Lincoln put it, upon which the golden apple of
freedom rests. We need to defend both our democracy and our
freedom with everything we have and declare that this American
carnage ends here and now. In a world of resurgent
authoritarianism and racism and antisemitism, let's all hang
tough for American democracy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from Florida, Mrs. Murphy, for a closing statement.
Mrs. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At one of our first hearings, Chairman Thompson explained
that the Members of this Committee would not spend much time
talking about ourselves. Rather, we would let the evidence play
the leading role. The Chairman was right because this isn't
about promoting ourselves as individuals. It is about
protecting the country we love. It is about preserving what
actually makes America great, the rule of law, free and fair
elections, and the peaceful transfer of power from one elected
leader to the next.
But if I may say a word about myself, and why I am proud to
serve on this Committee, I am the only Member of this Committee
who is not blessed to be born an American. I was born in
Vietnam after the Vietnam War, and my family and I fled a
communist government, and were rescued by the U.S. Navy, and
were given sanctuary in America. My patriotism is rooted in my
gratitude for America's grace and generosity. I love this
country.
On January 6th, four decades after my family fled a place
where political power was seized through violence, I was in the
United States Capitol, fleeing my fellow Americans.
Members of the angry mob had been lied to by a President
and the other powerful people who tried to convince them
without evidence that the election had been stolen from them.
Some of them then tried to use physical violence to overturn
the outcome of a free and fair election.
Our Committee's overriding objective is to fight fiction
with facts, to create a full account for the American people
and for the historical record, to tell the truth of what
happened and why it happened, to make recommendations so it
never happens again, to defend our democracy. To me, there is
nothing more patriotic than that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for a closing statement.
Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me put what you have seen today in a
broader context. At the very outset of our hearings, we
described several elements of President Trump's multi-part plan
to overturn the 2020 election. Our hearings have now covered
all but one of those elements: An organized campaign to
persuade millions of Americans of a falsehood that the 2020
election was stolen by wide-spread fraud; a corrupt effort to
pressure Vice President Pence to refuse to count electoral
votes; an effort to corrupt the U.S. Department of Justice;
efforts to pressure State election officials and legislators to
change State election results; a scheme to create and submit
fake electoral slates for multiple States.
Today, you saw how President Trump summoned a mob to
Washington for January 6th, and then knowing that that mob was
armed, directed that mob to the United States Capitol.
Every one of these elements of the planning for January 6th
is an independently serious matter. They were all ultimately
focused on overturning the election, and they all have one
other thing in common: Donald Trump participated in each
substantially and personally. He oversaw or directed the
activity of those involved.
Next week, we will return to January 6th itself. As we have
shown in prior hearings, Donald Trump and his legal team, led
by Rudy Giuliani, were working on January 6th to delay or halt
Congress's counting of electoral votes. The mob attacking and
invading the Capitol on that afternoon of January 6th was
achieving that result. For multiple hours, Donald Trump refused
to intervene to stop it. He would not instruct the mob to leave
or condemn the violence. He would not order them to evacuate
the Capitol and disperse.
The many pleas for help from Congress did no good. His
staff insisted that President Trump call off the attack. He
would not.
Here are a few of the many things you will hear next week
from Mr. Cipollone.
Mr. Heaphy. My question's exactly that. It sounds like you, from
the very onset of violence at the Capitol right around 2 o'clock, were
pushing for a strong statement that people should leave the Capitol. Is
that right?
Mr. Cipollone. I was and others were as well.
______
Mr. Heaphy. Was it necessary for you to continue to push for a
statement directing people to leave all the way through that period of
time until it was ultimately issued after 4----
Mr. Cipollone. I felt it was my obligation to continue to push for
that, and others felt that it was their obligation as well.
______
Mr. Heaphy. Would it have been possible at any moment for the
President to walk down to the podium in the briefing room and talk to
the Nation at any time between when you first gave him that advice at 2
o'clock and 4:17 when the video statement went out? Would that have
been possible?
Mr. Cipollone. Would that have been possible?
Mr. Heaphy. Yes.
Mr. Cipollone. Yes, it would have been possible.
Vice Chair Cheney. You will hear that Donald Trump never
picked up the phone that day to order his administration to
help. This is not ambiguous. He did not call the military. His
Secretary of Defense received no order. He did not call his
Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland
Security. Mike Pence did all of those things; Donald Trump did
not.
We will walk through the events of January 6th next week
minute by minute.
One more item. After our last hearing, President Trump
tried to call a witness in our investigation, a witness you
have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to
answer or respond to President Trump's call, and instead
alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us, and
this Committee has supplied that information to the Department
of Justice.
Let me say one more time, we will take any efforts to
influence witness testimony very seriously.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back.
In my opening, I mentioned how we look to our leaders to
serve as a fail-safe if people in this country refuse to accept
the results of an election. That is part of the way those in
positions of public trust uphold their oath, how they show
fidelity to the Constitution.
In the run-up to January 6th, Donald Trump had an
obligation to tell his supporters to accept the results of the
election. Instead, he urged them further along the path toward
mob violence.
The idea of mob violence makes me think of another sort of
fail-safe. All across this country, there are different ideas
about what role the Federal Government should play in our
lives. In fact, up here on this dais, there are plenty of
different ideas. But there are moments when the institutions of
our Federal Government are the fail-safe.
I am from a part of the country where had it not been for
the Federal Government and the Constitution, my parents and
many more Americans like them would have continued to be
treated as second-class citizens. The freedom to be able to
vote without harassment, travel in relative safety, and dine
and sleep where you choose is because we have a Government that
looks over the well-being of its citizens.
This is especially important in moments of crisis. When we
have a natural disaster that State governments can't handle on
their own, when there is an emergency that requires action by
our public health services or our military, we have the Federal
Government.
What happened on January 6, 2021, was another one of those
moments in history that tests the strength of our Federal
Government. January 6th was an attack on our country. It was an
attack on our democracy, on our Constitution. A sitting
President with a violent mob trying to stop the peaceful
transfer of power from one President to another, it still makes
my blood boil to think of it.
In a moment like that, what would you expect to see? You
expect to see the President of the United States sitting behind
the Resolute desk in the Oval Office assuring the American
people that the attack would be repelled and the threat would
be dealt with. You would expect to be reassured that there was
a fail-safe.
Instead, the President of the United States sent the mob.
He disregarded the advice of the people who had taken an oath
to the Constitution. He oversaw a scheme aided by people whose
loyalty was only to Donald Trump.
There is nothing we could compare that to. There is nothing
in our great Nation's history that has ever come close to that
sort of betrayal and dereliction. Thank goodness our system of
government held in spite of a Commander-in-Chief who worked in
opposition to what the Constitution designed.
When this Committee reconvenes, we will tell the story of
that supreme dereliction by the Commander-in-Chief, how close
we came to a catastrophe for our democracy, and how we remain
in serious danger.
The Chair requests those in the hearing room remain seated
until the Capitol Police have escorted witnesses and Members
from the room.
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Jason Van Tatenhove, Former National Media
Director for the Oath Keepers
July 12, 2022
My name is Jason Van Tatenhove, and I am a journalist and author
living in Colorado. I am here giving testimony to the Select Committee
to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
because, for a short period, I had access to an inside view of both the
inner workings of the Oath Keepers and its founder and president,
Stewart Rhodes. From the beginning, I knew this would be a story that
the world would someday need to hear. I am deeply saddened by how
correct this intuition was.
I come from a family of artists and writers and have always worked
in some way as an artist and journalist. I am local to Colorado, where
I have written for several outlets in Northern Colorado. It is
important for me to be here today in front of the Select Committee
because all Americans need to pay attention to the genuine danger that
extremist groups like the Oath Keepers pose to us and our society.
Because of the actions taken on January 6th and the increased political
and ideological polarization in our society, I fear what the next
election cycle will bring. We need to re-learn how to communicate with
one another without guns, body armor, or standoffs. I am trying to make
amends for what I did during my time with the Oath Keepers because I am
remorseful for helping them push their dangerous propaganda. In light
of the Select Committee's work and the truth they have uncovered, I am
optimistic that this experience and my voice can help to shed light on
these issues and to embolden others to walk away from extremist groups
like the Oath Keepers.
I want to note at the outset that my first-hand knowledge of the
Oath Keepers stopped when I resigned, as I will describe. But given my
insider access and close proximity to Stewart Rhodes--including during
several months when he lived in my basement--I can help to paint a
picture of the Oath Keepers, how they worked, how they operated, and
how dangerous they are. I do not know about the planning or execution
of events surrounding what happened at the Capitol on January 6th,
2021. Still, from my experience with the ever-radicalizing
organization, I know the troubling signs were there years before.
My journey with the Oath Keepers began during the 2014 Bundy Ranch
Standoff. I was embedded with Stewart Rhodes in his vehicle as he made
his second trip down to the standoff in the desert of Nevada. I was
given unprecedented access to Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers,
including the organization's inner workings. This access continued as I
covered the subsequent two standoffs: the Sugar Pine Mine standoff and
the White Hope Mine standoff.
This culminated in a job offer with the Oath Keepers after my name
was included in a press release by the group, which led to my
resignation from working for the State of Montana. I was offered a job
as the National Media Director and Webpage Associate Editor for the
organization. I worked closely with Stewart Rhodes for the next year
and a half and often traveled with him to various events throughout the
United States.
During this period, I saw Stewart Rhodes courting members of the
alt-right. Having issues with this radicalization, I knew I had to make
a break with the group, even if it would be financially devastating to
my family. There came the point when I walked in on a conversation in a
local grocery store where long-standing, influential Oath Keeper
members and associates were discussing their thoughts openly, denying
that the Holocaust had ever actually happened. At that moment, I
decided that no matter what, I would need to break ties with this ever-
radicalizing group. I am not a racist, I am not an anti-Semite, I am
not a white supremacist, I am not violent, and I could no longer be
associated with the Oath Keepers, whatever the consequences might have
been.
I now view it as my obligation to sound the alarm and raise public
awareness about the Oath Keepers and to get my perspective on this
paramilitary group into the public conversation. While this may come as
a surprise to some, many of the true motivations of this group revolve
around raising funds, and not the propaganda they push. Stewart Rhodes
and the Oath Keepers insert themselves into crises, situations that
they would not usually have any part of, and seek to make themselves
relevant and fundraise on the back of these conflicts to increase the
membership rolls.
Recruitment is a crucial focus for the Oath Keepers, and a target
demographic is people that feel marginalized. I have seen these
individuals whipped up into dangerous action by the group's leadership,
just as we saw on January 6th.
This, combined with catering to the conspiracy theories of the day
and an attempt to connect with ever-radicalizing communities within the
alt-right, white nationalists, and even outright racists to gain more
influence and money, is a dangerous proposition for our country. We
cannot allow these groups to continue threatening our democracy. We
must focus on understanding this reality and, most importantly,
combating them.
There have been times when I have personally discounted the reach
of this group and its violent messaging. This was a mistake. Because in
the end, they were able to muster a group of heavily armed and
outfitted members who had been trained in modern warfare techniques,
including those we now know had explosives, to storm the Capitol to
stop the process of inaugurating the duly elected president.
We have been exceedingly lucky in that we have not seen much more
bloodshed. But luck is not a good strategy for a country looking for
better ways to move forward.
It is time to speak the truth about these groups and the violent
influence they wield. It is time to show an exit ramp to others like me
who may have been caught up in the rhetoric of these groups and used as
pawns in a dishonest campaign to capture more money, influence, and
power. I have been frightened by what I saw when I was associated with
the Oath Keepers and even more so by what I saw on January 6th. I am
honored to provide my perspective to the Select Committee and the
American people.