[House Prints 117-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     BUSINESS MEETING ON THE JANUARY 6TH 
                               INVESTIGATION

=======================================================================

                                 MEETING

                                 OF THE

                          SELECT COMMITTEE TO
                      INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH
                             ATTACK ON THE
                         UNITED STATES CAPITOL

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 13, 2022

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-5

                               __________

Printed for the use of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
                    Attack on the United States Capitol
                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                    

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               __________
                               
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
50-118 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 Professional 	 
    Associate                             Staff Member
Temidayo Aganga-Williams, Senior	Rebecca L. Knooihuizen, Financial 	 
    Investigative Counsel		  Investigator
Alejandra Apecechea, Investigative	Casey E. Lucier, Investigative Counsel 
    Counsel				Damon M. Marx, Professional Staff Member	
Lisa A. Bianco, Director of Member 	Evan B. Mauldin, Chief Clerk
    Services and Security Manager	Yonatan L. Moskowitz, Senior Counsel
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Investigator	Hannah G. Muldavin, Deputy 
Bryan Bonner, Investigative Counsel	  Communications Director
Richard R. Bruno, Senior 		Jonathan D. Murray, Professional Staff
    Administrative Assistant		  Member
Marcus Childress, Investigative 	Jacob A. Nelson, Professional Staff Member
    Counsel				Elizabeth Obrand, Staff Associate
John Marcus Clark, Security		Raymond O'Mara, Director of External
    Director				  Affairs
Jacqueline N. Colvett, Digital		Elyes Ouechtati, Technology Partner 
    Director				Robin M. Peguero, Investigative Counsel	
Heather I. Connelly, Professional	Sandeep A. Prasanna, Investigative Counsel
    Staff Member			Barry Pump, Parliamentarian
Meghan E. Conroy, Investigator		Sean M. Quinn, Investigative Counsel
Heather L. Crowell, Printer 		Brittany M. J. Record, Senior Counsel
    Proofreader				Denver Riggleman, Senior Technical Advisor
William C. Danvers, Senior 		Joshua D. Roselman, Investigative Counsel
    Researcher				James N. Sasso, Senior Investigative Counsel
Soumyalatha Dayananda, Senior 		Grant H. Saunders, Professional Staff 
    Investigative Counsel		  Member
Stephen W. DeVine, Senior Counsel	Samantha O. Stiles, Chief Administrative 
Lawrence J. Eagleburger, 		  Officer
    Professional Staff Member		Sean P. Tonolli, Senior Investigative 
Kevin S. Elliker, Investigative           Counsel
    Counsel				David A. Weinberg, Senior Professional Staff 
Margaret E. Emamzadeh, Staff 		  Member
    Associate				Amanda S. Wick, Senior Investigative 
Sadallah A. Farah, Professional 	  Counsel
    Staff Member			Darrin L. Williams, Jr., Staff Assistant
Daniel A. George, Senior 		Zachary S. Wood, Clerk
    Investigative Counsel
Jacob H. Glick, Investigative 
    Counsel
Aaron S. Greene, Clerk
Marc S. Harris, Senior 
    Investigative Counsel
Alice K. Hayes, Clerk
Quincy T. Henderson, Staff 
    Assistant
Jenna Hopkins, Professional Staff 
    Member
Camisha L. Johnson, Professional 
    Staff Member                                                              
                                    
                         
                       
                       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 of Members of Congress

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     3
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of California............................................     5
The Honorable Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Illinois..........................................     9
The Honorable Elaine Luria, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Virginia..............................................    14
The Honorable Stephanie Murphy, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Florida...........................................    17
The Honorable Adam Schiff, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of California............................................    19
The Honorable Pete Aguilar, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of California............................................    24
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Maryland..............................................    27

                           Committee Business

Committee Resolution 1...........................................    35

 
           BUSINESS MEETING ON THE JANUARY 6TH INVESTIGATION

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, October 13, 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 meeting.
    Good afternoon, and may God bless the United States of 
America.
    Four months ago, this Committee started to present our 
findings to you, the American people. From the beginning, we 
understood that some people watching those proceedings would 
wrongly assume that the Committee's investigation was a 
partisan exercise. That is why I asked those who were skeptical 
of our work simply to listen--to listen to the evidence, to 
hear the testimony with an open mind, and to let the facts 
speak for themselves before reaching any judgment.
    Over the course of these hearings, the evidence has proven 
that there was a multi-part plan led by former President Donald 
Trump to overturn the 2020 election.
    Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection. As shown from the 
testimony of some of the President's closest allies and 
advisers, Donald Trump knew he lost.
    Despite this knowledge, Donald Trump went to court to 
contest the 2020 election, and he lost in court. The electoral 
college met and declared Joe Biden the winner. Yet, Donald 
Trump continued to pull out all the stops in his attempt to 
stay in power.
    What Donald Trump proceeded to do after the 2020 election 
is something no President has done before in our country. In a 
staggering betrayal of his oath, Donald Trump attempted a plan 
that led to an attack on a pillar of our democracy. It is still 
hard to believe. But the facts and testimony are clear, 
consistent, and undisputed.
    How do we know this? How have we been able to present such 
a clear picture of what took place? Because of the testimony we 
have heard and that we have now presented to you through these 
proceedings. Because of the documentary evidence we have 
gathered and also made available directly to you, the American 
people.
    When you look back at what has come out through this 
Committee's work, the most striking fact is that all this 
evidence comes almost entirely from Republicans. The evidence 
that has emerged did not come from Democrats or opponents of 
Donald Trump. Instead, look at who has written and testified 
and produced evidence.
    Who has that been?
    Aides who have worked loyally for Donald Trump for years.
    Republican State officials and legislators.
    Republican electors.
    The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.
    Political professionals who worked at the highest levels of 
the Trump Campaign.
    Trump appointees who served in the most senior positions in 
the Justice Department.
    President Trump's staff and closest advisers in the White 
House.
    Members of President Trump's family.
    His own White House counsel.
    I have served in Congress a long time. I can tell you, it 
is tough for any congressional investigation to obtain evidence 
like what we have received, least of all such a detailed view 
into a President's inner circle.
    I want to be clear: Not all these witnesses were thrilled 
to talk to us. Some put up quite a fight. But ultimately, the 
vast majority cooperated with our investigation. What we have 
shown you over the last 4 months has been centered on the 
evidence--evidence that has come overwhelmingly from Republican 
witnesses.
    So I say to you again, as I did in June, this investigation 
is not about politics. It is not about party. It is about the 
facts, plain and simple. It is about making sure our Government 
functions under the rule of law as our Constitution demands.
    Today, as in previous proceedings, my colleagues and I will 
present new evidence. That includes new testimony from 
additional Republicans who served in the Trump administration; 
never-before-seen footage of congressional leaders on January 
6th working to coordinate the response to violence and ensure 
the people's business went forward; new materials produced to 
the Committee by the Secret Service; details about the ongoing 
threat to American democracy.
    Today's proceeding will also be grounded in the facts. But 
it won't look exactly like all our other hearings. We will also 
take a step back and look at the evidence in a broader context, 
providing a summary of key facts we have uncovered, facts 
relevant to former President Trump's state of mind, about his 
motivation, and about his intent.
    What did President Trump know? What was he told? What was 
his personal and substantial role in the multi-part plan to 
overturn the election?
    For those of you who have watched our prior hearings, some 
of this evidence will look familiar. For those of you tuning in 
for the first time, we will summarize some of the most 
important facts, and we urge you to go on-line and watch our 
hearing in full.
    There is one more difference about today. Pursuant to the 
notice circulated prior to today's proceedings, we are convened 
today not as a hearing but as a formal Committee business 
meeting, so that in addition to presenting evidence, we can 
potentially hold a Committee vote on further investigative 
action based upon that evidence.
    Before we get to that evidence, I would recognize our 
distinguished Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any 
opening statement she would care to offer.
    Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Much has happened since our last public hearing on July 
21st. As the Chairman mentioned, we have received new and 
voluminous documentation from the Secret Service, which we 
continue to analyze. We have received new witness testimony, 
including about efforts to obstruct our investigation and 
conceal key facts. According to public reporting, the 
Department of Justice has been very active in pursuing many of 
the issues identified in our prior hearings.
    Our Committee may ultimately decide to make a series of 
criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. But we 
recognize that our role is not to make decisions regarding 
prosecution. The Preamble to our Constitution recites among its 
purposes to, ``establish justice,'' and our Nation's judiciary 
and our U.S. Department of Justice have that responsibility.
    A key element of this Committee's responsibility is to 
propose reforms to prevent January 6th from ever happening 
again. We have already proposed, and the House has now passed, 
a bill to amend the Electoral Count Act, to help ensure that no 
other future plots to overturn an election can succeed. We will 
make further specific recommendations in our final report based 
in part on the evidence you will hear today.
    Our hearings last summer began with an outline of President 
Trump's multi-part plan to overturn the 2020 Presidential 
election. We then proceeded to demonstrate each of these 
elements in detail with more than 20 hours of evidence. Today 
we will see new evidence, but as the Chairman said, we will 
also synthesize evidence you have seen before.
    The vast weight of evidence presented so far has shown us 
that the central cause of January 6th was one man, Donald 
Trump, who many others followed. None of this would have 
happened without him. He was personally and substantially 
involved in all of it.
    Exactly how did one man cause all of this? Today we will 
focus on President Trump's state of mind, his intent, his 
motivations, and how he spurred others to do his bidding, and 
how another January 6th could happen again if we do not take 
necessary action to prevent it.
    As you view our evidence today, I would suggest a focus on 
the following points.
    First, as you will see, President Trump had a premeditated 
plan to declare that the election was fraudulent and stolen 
before election day, before he knew the election results. He 
made his stolen election claims on election night, against the 
advice of his campaign, without any evidence in hand.
    Then, over the next 2 months, he sought to find those who 
would help him invent and spread lies about the widespread 
fraud. Many of those who stepped forward to help, including 
Rudy Giuliani, knew they never had real evidence sufficient to 
change the election results. On the evening of January 5th, 
they admitted they were still trying to find that phantom 
evidence.
    Of course, as a result of making intentionally false claims 
of election fraud, Mr. Giuliani's license to practice law has 
now been suspended.
    Second, please recognize that President Donald Trump was in 
a unique position, better informed about the absence of 
widespread election fraud than almost any other American. 
President Trump's own campaign experts told him that there was 
no evidence to support his claims. His own Justice Department 
appointees investigated the election fraud claims and told him 
point-blank they were false.
    In mid-December 2020, President Trump's senior advisers 
told him the time had come to concede the election. Donald 
Trump knew the courts had ruled against him. He had all of this 
information, but still he made the conscious choice to claim, 
fraudulently, that the election was stolen, to pressure State 
officials to change election results, to manufacture fake 
electoral slates, to attempt to corrupt our Department of 
Justice, to summon tens of thousands of supporters to 
Washington. Knowing that they were angry, knowing that some of 
them were armed, he sent them to the Capitol.
    Then, as the riot was underway, he incited his supporters 
to further violence by publicly condemning his Vice President. 
Then he refused for hours to disband his rioting supporters and 
instruct them to leave the Capitol, even when he was begged 
repeatedly to do so.
    None of this is normal or acceptable or lawful in our 
Republic.
    Third, please consider today who had a hand in defeating 
President Trump's efforts to overturn the election: Vice 
President Pence. Bill Barr, Jeff Rosen, and others at the 
Department of Justice. State Republican officials. White House 
staff who blocked proposals to mobilize the military to seize 
voting machines and run new elections. Our Capitol Police, 
aided by the Metropolitan Police. Other Federal law enforcement 
and our National Guard, who arrived later in the afternoon. All 
of these people had a hand in stopping Donald Trump.
    This leads us to a key question. Why would Americans assume 
that our Constitution and our institutions in our Republic are 
invulnerable to another attack? Why would we assume that those 
institutions will not falter next time?
    A key lesson of this investigation is this: Our 
institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make 
them hold, regardless of the political cost.
    We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in 
place next time. Any future President inclined to attempt what 
Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people 
who could stand in the way.
    Also, please consider this: The rulings of our courts are 
respected and obeyed because we as citizens pledge to accept 
and honor them. Most importantly, our President, who has a 
constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws, 
swears to accept them.
    What happens when the President disregards the courts' 
rulings as illegitimate, when he disregards the rule of law? 
That, my fellow citizens, breaks our Republic.
    Finally, as you view the evidence today, also consider 
this: President Trump knew from unassailable sources that his 
election fraud claims were false. He admitted he had lost the 
election. He took actions consistent with that belief.
    Claims that President Trump actually thought the election 
was stolen are not supported by fact and are not a defense. 
There is no defense that Donald Trump was duped or irrational. 
No President can defy the rule of law and act this way in a 
constitutional republic, period.
    Mr. Chairman, our Nation's Federal judges are sworn to do 
impartial justice, to preserve our Constitution, and preserve 
our Union. Dozens of these judges have been addressing January 
6th cases, and many have given us plain, unmistakable warnings 
about the direction of our Republic.
    Let me read from one judge's statement given at a recent 
sentencing hearing. ``High-ranking Members of Congress and 
State officials who know perfectly well the claim of fraud was 
and is untrue and that the election was legitimate are so 
afraid of losing their power, they won't say so.
    ``It has to be crystal clear, that it is not patriotism, it 
is not standing up for America to stand up for one man who 
knows full well that he lost instead of the Constitution he was 
trying to subvert.''
    Mr. Chairman, the violence and lawlessness of January 6th 
was unjustifiable, but our Nation cannot only punish the foot 
soldiers who stormed our Capitol. Those who planned to overturn 
our election and brought us to the point of violence must also 
be accountable. With every effort to excuse or justify the 
conduct of the former President, we chip away at the foundation 
of our Republic. Indefensible conduct is defended. Inexcusable 
conduct is excused. Without accountability, it all becomes 
normal, and it will recur.
    So as we watch the evidence today, please consider where 
our Nation is in its history. Consider whether we can survive 
for another 246 years.
    Most people in most places on Earth have not been free. 
America is an exception, and America continues only because we 
bind ourselves to our Founders' principles, to our 
Constitution. We recognize that some principles must be beyond 
politics, inviolate, and more important than any single 
American who has ever lived.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Lofgren, for an opening statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We begin this meeting by returning to election night, 
November 3, 2020. As the Chairman noted, we have previously 
presented testimony about how the election results were 
expected to come in that night. In certain States, ballots cast 
by mail before election day would be counted only after the 
polls closed that evening. That meant that election results 
would not be known for some time.
    Although President Trump's campaign manager, Bill Stepien, 
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Jared Kushner had 
advised Donald Trump to encourage mail-in voting by 
Republicans, President Trump did not do so.

    Mr. Kushner. Yeah, I just remember generally, you know, you had 
people arguing that we had a very, very robust get-out-the-vote effort 
and that, you know, mail-in ballots could be a good thing for us if we 
looked at it correctly.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Stepien. There was one meeting that was had in particular. I 
invited Kevin McCarthy to join the meeting, he being of like mind on 
the issue with me, in which we made our case for why we believed mail-
in balloting--mail-in voting--not to be a bad thing for his campaign. 
But, you know, the President's mind was made up.

    Ms. Lofgren. So it was expected before the election that 
the initial counts in some States--in other words, those votes 
cast on election day--would be more heavily Republican, and 
this would create the false perception of a lead for President 
Trump, a so-called ``red mirage,'' but as the results of the 
absentee ballots were later counted, there could be trends 
toward Vice President Biden, as those mail-in ballots were 
counted.
    Now, on election night, Donald Trump's advisers 
specifically told him he didn't have a factual basis to declare 
victory. He should wait for the remaining ballots to be 
counted.
    Here is campaign manager Bill Stepien.

    Mr. Stepien. It was far too early to be making any calls like that. 
Ballots were still being counted. Ballots were still going to be 
counted for days. And it was far too early to be making any 
proclamation like that.
    My belief, my recommendation, was to say that votes were still 
being counted, it is too early to tell, too early to call the race.

    Ms. Lofgren. But President Trump did declare victory in the 
late hours of election night. Not only did he declare victory, 
he also called for the ongoing count of votes to just stop.
    Stopping the count would have violated both Federal and 
State laws and also disenfranchised millions of voters who 
lawfully cast their vote. He called for that action anyway.
    Here is what he said.

    President Trump. This is a fraud on the American public. This is an 
embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this 
election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election . 
. . .
    We want all voting to stop.

    Ms. Lofgren. We now know more about President Trump's 
intentions for election night. The evidence shows that his 
false victory speech was planned well in advance, before any 
votes had been counted. It was a premeditated plan by the 
President to declare victory no matter what the actual result 
was. He made a plan to stay in office before election day.
    Now, the Vice President's staff was concerned with what 
Donald Trump might do on election night. They took steps to 
ensure that Mr. Pence would not echo a false victory 
announcement from President Trump.
    Here is what the Vice President's counsel, Greg Jacob, told 
us about his preparations with the Vice President's chief of 
staff, Marc Short.

    Mr. Jacob. Marc had indicated to me that there was a possibility 
that there would be a declaration of victory within the White House 
that some might push for--and this is prior to the election results 
being known--and that he was trying to figure out a way of avoiding the 
Vice President sort-of being thrust into a position of needing to opine 
on that when he might not have sufficient information to do so.

    Ms. Lofgren. Now, following this conversation, Mr. Jacob 
drafted a memo to Mr. Short which the Select Committee got from 
the National Archives. The memo was sent on November 3rd, 
election day, and advised `` . . . it is essential that the 
Vice President not be perceived by the public as having decided 
questions concerning disputed electoral votes prior to the full 
development of all relevant facts.''
    A few days before the election, Mr. Trump also consulted 
with one of his outside advisers, activist Tom Fitton, about 
the strategy for election night. The Select Committee got this 
pre-prepared statement from the National Archives. As you can 
see, the draft statement, which was sent on October 31st, 
declares, ``We had an election today--and I won.''
    The Fitton memo specifically indicates a plan that only the 
votes ``counted by the election day deadline''--and there is no 
election day deadline--would matter. Everyone knew that ballot 
counting would lawfully continue past election day. Claiming 
that the counting on election night must stop before millions 
of votes were counted was, as we now know, a key part of 
President Trump's premeditated plan.
    On election day, just after 5 p.m., Mr. Fitton indicated he 
had spoken with the President about the statement. ``Sending 
along again. Just talked to him about the draft below . . . ''. 
Again, this plan to declare victory was in place before any of 
the results had been determined.
    In the course of our investigation, we also interviewed 
Brad Parscale, President Trump's former campaign manager. He 
told us he understood that President Trump planned as early as 
July that he would say he won the election even if he lost.
    Just a few days before the election, Steve Bannon, a former 
Trump chief White House strategist and outside adviser to 
President Trump, spoke to a group of his associates from China 
and said this.

    Mr. Bannon. And what Trump's gonna do is just declare victory, 
right? He's gonna declare victory. But that doesn't mean he's the 
winner. He's just going to say he's the winner.
    The Democrats--more of our people vote early that count. Theirs 
vote in mail. And so they're going to have a natural disadvantage, and 
Trump's going to take advantage of it. That's our strategy. He's gonna 
declare himself the winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it's 
going to be a firestorm.
    Also--also, if Trump--if Trump is losing by 10 or 11 o'clock at 
night, it's going to be even crazier. No, because he's going to sit 
right there and say, ``They stole it. I'm directing the Attorney 
General to shut down all ballot places in all 50 States.'' It's going 
to be--no, he's not going out easy. If Trump--if Biden's winning, Trump 
is going to do some crazy shit.

    Ms. Lofgren. As you know, Mr. Bannon refused to testify in 
our investigation. He has been convicted of criminal contempt 
of Congress, and he is awaiting sentencing. But the evidence 
indicates that Mr. Bannon had advance knowledge of Mr. Trump's 
intent to declare victory falsely on election night, but also 
that Mr. Bannon knew about Mr. Trump's planning for January 
6th.
    Here is what Bannon said on January 5th.

    Mr. Bannon. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.
    It's all converging, and now we're on, as they say, the point of 
attack, right, the point of attack tomorrow.
    I'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. You have made this happen, 
and tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready.

    Ms. Lofgren. Another close associate of Donald Trump 
apparently knew of Mr. Trump's intentions as well.
    Now, Roger Stone is a political operative with a reputation 
for dirty tricks. In November 2019, he was convicted of lying 
to Congress and other crimes and sentenced to more than 3 years 
in prison.
    He is also a longtime adviser to President Trump and was in 
communication with President Trump throughout 2020. Mr. Trump 
pardoned Roger Stone on December 23, 2020.
    Now, recently, the Select Committee got footage of Mr. 
Stone before and after the election from Danish filmmaker 
Christoffer Guldbrandsen, pursuant to a subpoena. Right before 
the election, here is Roger Stone talking about what President 
Trump would do after the election.

    Mr. Stone. Let's just hope we're celebrating. I suspect it'll be--I 
really do suspect it will still be up in the air. When that happens the 
key thing to do is to claim victory. Possession is nine-tenths of the 
law. No, we won. Fuck you. Sorry. Over. We won. You're wrong. Fuck you.
    I said, fuck the voting. Let's get right to the violence.
    Voice. That's what I am fucking saying. There is no point.
    Mr. Stone. We will have to start smashing pumpkins, if you know 
what I mean.
    Voice. Oh, yeah.

    Ms. Lofgren. The Select Committee called Mr. Stone as a 
witness, but he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination.

    Vice Chair Cheney. Do you believe the violence on January 6th was 
justified?
    Mr. Stone. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to 
answer your question on the basis of the Fifth Amendment.
    Vice Chair Cheney. And, Mr. Stone, did you have any role in 
planning for the violence on January 6th?
    Mr. Stone. Once again, I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to 
decline to answer your question.

    Ms. Lofgren. Although we don't yet have all the relevant 
records of Roger Stone's communications, even Stone's own 
social media posts acknowledge that he spoke with Donald Trump 
on December 27th as preparations for January 6th were underway.
    In this post, you can see how Roger Stone talked about his 
conversations with President Trump. He wrote, ``I also told the 
President exactly how he can appoint a Special Counsel with 
full subpoena power to ensure those who are attempting to steal 
the 2020 election through voter fraud are charged and convicted 
and to ensure Donald Trump continues as our President.''
    As we know by now, the idea for a Special Counsel was not 
just an idle suggestion. It was something President Trump had 
actually tried to do earlier that month.
    We know that Roger Stone was at the Willard Hotel on 
January 5th and 6th, and we know from other witness testimony 
that President Trump asked his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to 
speak with Roger Stone and General Michael Flynn that night.
    In addition to his connection to President Trump, Roger 
Stone maintained extensive direct connections to two groups 
responsible for violently attacking the Capitol, the Oath 
Keepers and the Proud Boys. Individuals from both of these 
organizations have been charged with the crime of seditious 
conspiracy.
    Now, what is seditious conspiracy? It is a conspiracy to 
use violent force against the United States, to oppose the 
lawful authority of the United States.
    Multiple associates of Roger Stone, from both the Oath 
Keepers and the Proud Boys, have been charged with this crime. 
Close associates of Roger Stone, including Joshua James, have 
pled guilty to this crime.
    We know that at least seven Oath Keepers--who have been 
criminally charged--provided personal security for Roger Stone 
or were seen with him on January 6th or in the weeks leading up 
to January 6th.
    For example, Joshua James, the leader of the Alabama Oath 
Keepers, provided security for Roger Stone and was with him on 
January 5th. This is a picture of the two together on January 
5th.
    James entered the Capitol on January 6th. He assaulted a 
police officer. Earlier this year, he pled guilty to seditious 
conspiracy and obstruction of Congress.
    Another example is the married couple Kelly and Connie 
Meggs. Now, Kelly Meggs was the leader of the Florida chapter 
of the Oath Keepers. Both he and his wife provided security for 
Roger Stone, and both are charged with leading a military-style 
stack attack of Oath Keepers attacking the Capitol on January 
6th.
    Perhaps even more disturbing is Roger Stone's close 
association with Enrique Tarrio, the national chairman of the 
Proud Boys. Roger Stone's connection with Enrique Tarrio and 
the Proud Boys is well-documented by video evidence, with phone 
records the Select Committee has obtained. Tarrio, along with 
other Proud Boys, has been charged with multiple crimes 
concerning the attack on January 6th, including seditious 
conspiracy.
    During the attack, Tarrio sent a message to other Proud 
Boys claiming, ``We did that!'' He also visited the White House 
on December 12th.
    Later that day, he posted a disturbing video claiming 
credit for the attack. This video, posted on January 6th, was 
apparently created prior to the attack.
    This Big Lie, President Trump's effort to convince 
Americans that he had won the 2020 election, began before the 
election results even came in. It was intentional. It was 
premeditated. It was not based on election results or any 
evidence of actual fraud affecting the results or any actual 
problems with voting machines.
    It was a plan concocted in advance to convince his 
supporters that he won. The people who seemingly knew about 
that plan in advance would ultimately play a significant role 
in the events of January 6th.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Kinzinger, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Very shortly after the election, the Trump campaign 
recognized that they had likely lost the election, and they 
informed Donald Trump of that fact.
    Even before the networks called the race for President 
Biden on November 7th, his chances of pulling out a victory 
were virtually nonexistent, and President Trump knew it.

    Mr. George. Do you know if anybody ever told the President that he 
had lost and that there wasn't a chance of him winning?
    Mr. Jason Miller. The--I know that the President, when the networks 
called--it--of course, he was informed about the network--decision--
that--afternoon, at some point, myself and a handful of other folks 
went over and sat down with the President and communicated that the 
odds of us prevailing in legal challenges were very small.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Lofgren. You know, after the election, as of November 7th, in 
your judgment, what were the chances of President Trump winning the 
election?
    Mr. Stirewalt. After that point?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Mr. Stirewalt. None.

    Mr. Kinzinger. At times, President Trump acknowledged the 
reality of his loss. Although he publicly claimed that he had 
won the election, privately he admitted that Joe Biden would 
take over as President.
    Here are a few examples of that.

    General Milley. So we're in the Oval and there's a discussion going 
on. And the President says--I think it's--it could've been Pompeo. But 
he says words to the effect of, ``Yes, we lost, we need to let that 
issue go to the next guy,'' meaning President Biden.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Farah. I remember, maybe a week after the election was called, 
I popped into the Oval just to like give the President the headlines 
and see how he was doing, and he was looking at the TV, and he said, 
``Can you believe I lost to this F'ing guy?''
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Hutchinson. So Mark raised it with me on the 18th. And so 
following that conversation, we're in the motorcade ride driving back 
to the White House, and I had said like, ``Does the President really 
think that he lost?'' And he said, ``You know, a lot of times he'll 
tell me that he lost but he wants to keep fighting, and he thinks that 
there might be enough to overturn the election. But, you know, he 
pretty much has acknowledged that he--that he's lost.''

    Mr. Kinzinger. Knowing that he had lost and that he had 
only weeks left in office, President Trump rushed to complete 
his unfinished business.
    One key example is this: President Trump issued an order 
for large-scale U.S. troop withdrawals. He disregarded concerns 
about the consequences for fragile governments on the front 
lines of the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists.
    Knowing he was leaving office, he acted immediately and 
signed this order on November 11th, which would have required 
the immediate withdrawal of troops from Somalia and 
Afghanistan, all to be complete before the Biden inauguration 
on January 20th.
    As you watch these clips, recall that General Keith Kellogg 
was the National Security Advisor to the Vice President and had 
served as chief of staff to the National Security Council for 
President Trump, and General Milley was the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.

    Mr. Wood. Are you familiar with a memo that the President 
reportedly signed on November 11, 2020, ordering that troops be 
withdrawn from Afghanistan and Somalia?
    Mr. Kellogg. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    General Milley. So I think you might have seen some things where 
there's a memo or something from Johnny McEntee to Douglas Macgregor. 
It says, ``Here's your task: To get U.S. forces out of--out of Somalia, 
get U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.''
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Dayananda. When you first interviewed and met Colonel Douglas 
Macgregor, is it fair to say you discussed this decision of withdrawing 
from Somalia and Afghanistan? Correct?
    Mr. McEntee. Yes, I'm sure that was part of it, yes.
    Ms. Dayananda. And that was--the position that he was taking over 
there was senior adviser to the Secretary of Defense. Is that correct?
    Mr. McEntee. Yes.
    Ms. Dayananda. So on that same day, just so I'm clear, he responded 
back to you that they, meaning DOD leadership, was not going to do--
take any of those steps without an order?
    Mr. McEntee. Without a directive, yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Macgregor. I explained in language that should be in the order, 
while I was in the meeting with McEntee, and this was my answer to him. 
I said, if you want this to happen, or if the President wants this to 
happen, he's got to write an order.
    Mr. Marx. So you never wrote this down in any capacity?
    Mr. Macgregor. Well, I sketched on a piece of paper for him some 
key statements. You know, ``The President directs.'' You know, this 
is--what's the right word? Boilerplate language?
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Dayananda. Who was in his office that drafted the order?
    Mr. McEntee. It was myself and one of my assistants.
                                 ______
                                 
    General Milley. McEntee duly types it up, brings it in to the 
President, the President signs it, and boom, it's over--faxed over or 
emailed, scanned over--and Kash Patel delivers it to me.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Dayananda. Was it by autopen, or was it the President himself 
signing it?
    Mr. McEntee. It was the President.
    Ms. Dayananda. And who obtained that signature?
    Mr. McEntee. I did.
                                 ______
                                 
    General Milley. It is odd. It is not standard. It is potentially 
dangerous. I personally thought it was militarily not feasible nor 
wise.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Kellogg. And I proceeded to tell the PPO and proceeded to tell 
Macgregor that if I ever saw anything like that, I would do something 
physical, because I thought what was done was a tremendous disservice 
to the Nation. And by the way, it was--that--it was a very contested 
issue. There were people who did not agree with getting out of 
Afghanistan. I appreciate their concerns.
    An immediate departure that that memo said would have been 
catastrophic. It's the same thing what President Biden went through. It 
would have been a debacle.

    Mr. Kinzinger. Keep in mind, the order was for an immediate 
withdrawal. It would have been catastrophic. Yet, President 
Trump signed the order. These are the highly consequential 
actions of a President who knows his term will shortly end.
    At the same time that President Trump was acknowledging 
privately that he had lost the election, he was hearing that 
there was no evidence of fraud or irregularities sufficient to 
change the outcome.

    Mr. Cannon. I remember a call with Mr. Meadows where Mr. Meadows 
was asking me what I was finding and if I was finding anything. And I 
remember sharing with him that we weren't finding anything that would 
be sufficient to change the results in any of the key States.
    Mr. Harris. When was that conversation?
    Mr. Cannon. Probably in November, mid-to-late November. I think it 
was before my child was born.
    Mr. Harris. And what was Mr. Meadows's reaction to that 
information?
    Mr. Cannon. I believe the words he used were, ``So there's no 
`there' there?''
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Stepien. It would be our job to track it down and come up dry 
because the allegation didn't prove to be true. And we'd have to relay 
the news that, yes, that someone told you about those votes or that 
fraud or nothing came of it. It would be our job as the truth-telling 
squad. And it's not a fun job to be much--it's an easier job to be 
telling the President about wild allegations. It's a harder job to be 
telling him on the back end that, yes, that's--that wasn't true.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Morgan. What was generally discussed on that topic was whether 
the fraud, maladministration, abuse or irregularities, if aggregated 
and read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome-
determinative. I think everyone's assessment in the room, at least 
amongst the staff, Marc Short, myself, and Greg Jacob, was that it was 
not sufficient to be outcome-determinative.

    Mr. Kinzinger. Look, it is the right of any candidate to 
litigate genuine election disputes. Nobody argues that. But 
President Trump's litigation was completely unsuccessful.
    In our past hearings, we told you that the Committee had 
identified a total of 62 election lawsuits filed by the Trump 
Campaign and its allies between November 4th and January 6th of 
2021. Those cases resulted in 61 losses and only a single 
victory, which did not affect the outcome for any candidate.
    The claims were not supported by any sufficient evidence of 
fraud or irregularities. In fact, they were baseless, as judges 
repeatedly recognized. In none of these 62 cases was President 
Trump able to establish any viable claims of election fraud 
sufficient to overturn the results of the election.
    In those hearings, we shared with you the words used by 
judges around the country in rejecting the Trump Campaign's 
claims. It is strong language, criticizing the lack of 
evidentiary support for the claims of election fraud in those 
lawsuits. For example, a Federal appeals court in Pennsylvania 
wrote, ``Charges require specific allegations and proof. We 
have neither here.''
    A Federal judge in Wisconsin wrote, ``The Court has allowed 
the former President the chance to make his case, and he has 
lost on the merits.''
    Another judge, in Michigan, called the claims ``nothing but 
speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were 
either destroyed, discarded, or switched to votes for Vice 
President Biden.''
    A Federal judge in Michigan sanctioned nine attorneys, 
including Sidney Powell, for making frivolous allegations in an 
election fraud case, describing the case as ``a historic and 
profound abuse of the judicial process.''
    Recently, a group of distinguished Republican election 
lawyers, former judges, and elected officials issued a report 
confirming the findings of the courts.
    In their report, entitled ``Lost, Not Stolen,'' these 
prominent Republicans analyzed each election challenge and 
concluded this: ``Donald Trump and his supporters failed to 
present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant 
enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential 
election.''
    On December 11th, Trump's allies lost a lawsuit in the U.S. 
Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance at success in 
the courts. A newly obtained Secret Service message from that 
day shows how angry President Trump was about the outcome: 
``Just FYI, POTUS is pissed--breaking news--Supreme Court 
denied his lawsuit. He is livid now.''
    Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, 
was present for that conversation and described it in this way.

    Ms. Hutchinson. This is the day that the Supreme Court had rejected 
that case. Mr. Meadows and I were in the White House residence at a 
Christmas reception. And as we were walking back from the Christmas 
reception that evening, the President was walking out of the Oval 
Office, so we crossed paths in the Rose Garden colonnade. The President 
was fired up about the Supreme Court decision.
    And so, you know, I was standing next to Meadows, Mr. Meadows, but 
I stepped back, so I was probably 2, 3 feet catty-corner, from a 
diagonal from him. You know, the President is just raging about the 
decision and how it's wrong and why didn't we make more calls, and, you 
know, just his typical anger, outburst at this decision.
    And the President said he had--I had put the quote--okay. So he had 
said something to the effect of, ``I don't want people to know we lost, 
Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out. We need to figure it out. I 
don't want people to know that we lost.''

    Mr. Kinzinger. Our country is a country of laws where every 
person, including the President, must follow the law and 
respect the judgment of our courts. President Trump's closest 
advisers held that view both then and now.

    Vice Chair Cheney. Well, do you believe the President should abide 
by the rulings of the courts?
    Secretary of State Pompeo. Oh, yes, we should all comply with the 
law at all times to the best of our ability, every one of us.
    Vice Chair Cheney. So once the courts had ruled and the electoral 
college had met, the election was over, in your view?
    Secretary of State Pompeo. Yes. I think I--I think I've said 
previously that when the Vice President made the certification and the 
litigation was complete, it was complete.
    Vice Chair Cheney. When the electoral college met on the 14th?
    Secretary of State Pompeo. Yes, as of December 14th. Is that right? 
I think that's the right date, yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    Vice Chair Cheney. I assume, Pat, that you would agree the 
President is obligated to abide by the rulings of the courts?
    Mr. Cipollone. Of course.
    Vice Chair Cheney. And I assume you also would----
    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.
                                 ______
                                 
    Vice Chair Cheney. Ivanka, do you believe the President's obligated 
to abide by the rulings of the courts?
    Ms. Trump. I do.

    Mr. Kinzinger. By mid-December 2020, President Trump's 
senior staff were attempting to persuade him to concede the 
election outcome.

    Mr. Cipollone. But if your question is did I believe he should 
concede the election at a point in time, yes, I did.
                                 ______
                                 
    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.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Deere. I told him that my personal viewpoint was that the 
electoral college had met, which is the system that our country 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.

    Mr. Kinzinger. Secretary of Labor Gene Scalia, the son of 
late Justice Scalia, visited President Trump in mid-December 
and explained the situation clearly.

    Secretary of Labor Scalia. And so I had put a call in to 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.

    Mr. Kinzinger. Not only did the courts reject President 
Trump's fraud and other allegations, his Department of Justice 
appointees, including Bill Barr, Jeffrey Rosen, and Richard 
Donoghue, did as well. President Trump knew the truth.
    He heard what all his experts and senior staff were telling 
him. He knew he had lost the election. But he made the 
deliberate choice to ignore the courts, to ignore the Justice 
Department, to ignore his campaign leadership, to ignore senior 
advisers, and to pursue a completely unlawful effort to 
overturn the election. His intent was plain: Ignore the rule of 
law and stay in power.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs. 
Luria.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mid-December was a turning point. President Trump made a 
decision, a choice, to ignore the courts and his advisers and 
to push forward to overturn the election.
    His efforts to overturn the election were not random or 
disconnected; rather, they were part of a coordinated, multi-
part plan to ensure that he stayed in power.
    Donald Trump was the driver behind each part of this plan. 
He was personally and directly involved.
    Of course, a key element of the plan was continuing to 
convince tens of millions of Americans that he did not, in 
fact, lose. Again, he did this even though his own campaign 
advisers and his Justice Department officials told him his 
claims of fraud were wrong.
    In this video, you will see that even when top law 
enforcement officials told the President his election fraud 
claims were false, he still repeated the claims in the days and 
weeks that followed, sometimes even the very next day.

    Attorney General Barr. He specifically raised the Dominion voting 
machines, which I found to be among the most disturbing allegations, 
disturbing in the sense that I saw absolutely zero basis for the 
allegations. I told him that it was crazy stuff, and they were wasting 
their time on that, and it was doing a grave disservice to the country.
                                 ______
                                 
    President Trump. We have a company that's very suspect. Its name is 
Dominion. With the turn of a dial or the change of a chip you can press 
a button for Trump and the vote goes to Biden. What kind of a system is 
this?
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Donoghue. We definitely talked about Antrim County again. That 
was sort-of done at that point, because the hand recount had been done 
and all that. But we cited back to that to say, you know, ``This is an 
example of what people are telling you and what's being filed in some 
of these court filings that are just not supported by the evidence. And 
this is the problem. The problem is people keep telling you these 
things and they turn out not to be true.''
                                 ______
                                 
    President Trump. In addition, there is the highly troubling matter 
of Dominion Voting Systems. In one Michigan County alone, 6,000 votes 
were switched from Trump to Biden, and the same systems are used in the 
majority of States in our country.
                                 ______
                                 
    Attorney General Barr. I went into this and would, you know, tell 
him how crazy some of these allegations were and how ridiculous some of 
them were. I'm talking about some of the things like, you know, more 
votes--more absentee votes were cast in Pennsylvania than there were 
absentee ballots requested, you know, stuff like that, it was just easy 
to blow up. There was never--there was never an indication of interest 
in what the actual facts were.
                                 ______
                                 
    President Trump. There were more votes than there were voters. 
Think of that. You had more votes than you had voters. That's an easy 
one to figure. And it's by the thousands.
                                 ______
                                 
    Attorney General Barr. Then he raised the big vote dump, as he 
called it, in Detroit, and he said people saw boxes coming into the 
counting station at all hours of the morning. And I said, ``Mr. 
President, there are 630 precincts in Detroit, and unlike elsewhere in 
the State, they centralize the counting process so they're not counted 
in each precinct. They're moved to counting stations. And so the normal 
process would involve boxes coming in at all different hours.''
                                 ______
                                 
    President Trump. This is Michigan. At 6:31 in the morning, a vote 
dump of 149,772 votes came in unexpectedly.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Donoghue. With regard to Georgia, we looked at the tape. We 
interviewed the witnesses. There is no suitcase. The President kept 
fixating on this suitcase that supposedly had fraudulent ballots and 
that the suitcase was rolled out from under the table. And I said, 
``No, sir, there is no suitcase. You can watch that video over and 
over. There is no suitcase. There is a wheeled bin where they carry the 
ballots, and that's just how they move ballots around that facility. 
There's nothing suspicious about that at all.''
                                 ______
                                 
    President Trump. Election officials pull boxes, Democrats, and 
suitcases of ballots out from under a table. You all saw it on 
television. Totally fraudulent.

    Mrs. Luria. This happened over and over again, and our 
Committee's report will document it, purposeful lies made in 
public directly at odds with what Donald Trump knew from 
unassailable sources, the Justice Department's own 
investigations, and his own campaign. Donald Trump maliciously 
repeated this nonsense to a wide audience over and over again. 
His intent was to deceive.
    President Trump's plan also involved trying to coerce 
Government officials to change the election outcome in the 
States he lost. He personally reached out to numerous State 
officials and pressured them to take unlawful steps to alter 
the election results in those States.
    These actions, taken directly by the President himself, 
made it clear what his intentions were: to prevent the orderly 
transfer of power.
    We all recall, for example, President Trump's tape-recorded 
call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. At the 
time this call occurred, President Trump had already been told 
repeatedly by the U.S. Justice Department, by his campaign, and 
by his advisers that his allegations of fraud in Georgia were 
false.

    President Trump. So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to 
find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the 
State.
    Look, we need only 11,000 votes. We have far more than that as it 
stands now. We'll have more and more.
    So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. 
Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.

    Mrs. Luria. ``I just want to find 11,780 votes.'' That is 
an extraordinary demand by the President, especially since he 
already knew from the Justice Department there was no genuine 
basis for this request. No one could think it would be legal 
for the secretary of state to simply ``find the votes'' the 
President needed in order to win.
    Secretary Raffensperger told the President the truth--that 
he lost the election in Georgia. But President Trump did not 
accept that answer. Instead, he suggested that Secretary 
Raffensperger himself might be prosecuted.

    President Trump. That's a--you know, that's a criminal--that's a 
criminal offense. And, you know, you can't let that happen. That's a 
big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That's a big risk.

    Mrs. Luria. We know that President Trump's White House 
advisors reacted negatively. Immediately after the call, 
Cassidy Hutchinson had a conversation with Chief of Staff Mark 
Meadows.

    Ms. Hutchinson. I remember looking at Mark, and I said, ``Mark, he 
can't possibly think we're going to pull this off. Like, that call was 
crazy.'' And he looked at me and just started shaking his head, and 
he's like, ``No, Cass, you know, he knows it's over. He knows he lost. 
But we're going to keep trying. There are some good options out there 
still. We're going to keep trying.''

    Mrs. Luria. This call and other related activity is now the 
focus of an ongoing criminal investigation in Fulton County, 
Georgia.
    Georgia is not the only State where President Trump tried 
to pressure State officials to change the results. He also 
attempted to pressure State officials in Arizona, Pennsylvania, 
and Michigan to change the results in those States as well.
    While President Trump was pressuring State officials, he 
was also trying to use the Department of Justice to change the 
election result. His top officials told him that there was no 
evidence to support his claims of fraud, but he didn't care. As 
he told them, ``Just say the election was corrupt, and leave 
the rest to me and the [Republican] Congressmen.''
    When these officials would not do what he said, President 
Trump embarked on an effort to install Jeff Clark as Acting 
Attorney General, solely because he would do what others in the 
Department would not do.
    We know that Trump was doing so for a specific purpose: so 
Clark could corruptly employ the Justice Department's authority 
to help persuade the States to flip electoral votes.
    For example, when Richard Donoghue and Jeff Rosen, both 
appointed by President Trump, learned of Mr. Clark's proposal, 
here is why they said they forcefully rejected it.

    Mr. Donoghue. And I recall toward the end saying, ``What you're 
proposing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department 
meddling in the outcome of a Presidential election.''
    But, more importantly, this was not based on fact. This was 
actually contrary to the facts as developed by Department 
investigations over the last several weeks and months. So I responded 
to that.
    And for the Department to insert itself into the political process 
this way I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It 
may very well have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis.

    Mrs. Luria. We know from our investigation that President 
Trump offered Jeff Clark the position of Acting Attorney 
General and that Jeff Clark had decided to accept it.
    The only reason this ultimately did not happen is that the 
White House Counsel and a number of Justice Department 
officials confronted the President in the Oval Office and 
threatened mass resignations.

    Mr. Donoghue. And then--and I said something to the effect of, 
``You're going to have a huge personnel blowout within hours, because 
you're going to have all kinds of problems with resignations and other 
issues, and that's not going to be in anyone's interest.''

    Mrs. Luria. The President ultimately relented, only because 
the entire leadership of the Department of Justice, as well as 
his White House Counsel, threatened to resign.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. 
Murphy, for an opening statement.
    Mrs. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    President Trump's efforts to unlawfully overturn the 
results of the 2020 election were not limited to the Big Lie 
and pressuring State officials and the Department of Justice 
officials. Another key part of the President's effort was a 
scheme to assemble fake electors to cast false electoral votes 
in the States that President Trump lost.
    This was something done not only with the President's 
knowledge but also with his direct participation. Ronna 
McDaniel, chair of the Republican National Committee, testified 
before this Committee that President Trump and his attorney Dr. 
John Eastman called her and asked her to arrange for the fake 
electors to meet and rehearse the process of casting their fake 
votes.

    Ms. McDaniel. When I received the call--again, I don't remember the 
exact date--it was from the White House switchboard, and it was 
President Trump who had contacted me.
    Mr. Wood. And did President Trump have anyone else on the line with 
him?
    Ms. McDaniel. He introduced me to a gentleman named John Eastman. 
So I vaguely remember him mentioning that he was a professor, and then 
essentially he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded 
to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather 
these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were 
ongoing changed the result of any of the States.

    Mrs. Murphy. These fake electors were ultimately part of 
the President's plan to replace genuine Biden electors with 
Trump electors on January 6th. As part of this plan, the false 
electoral slates were sent to the National Archives and to the 
Capitol.
    The ``fake electors'' plan was also tied to another plan: 
the coercive pressure campaign to make Vice President Mike 
Pence reject or refuse to count certain Biden electoral votes 
so that President Donald Trump would ``win'' reelection 
instead.
    Here is what Vice President Pence has said about this 
scheme.

    Vice President Pence. President Trump said I had the right to 
overturn the election, but President Trump is wrong. I had no right to 
overturn the election. The Presidency belongs to the American people 
and the American people alone. And, frankly, there is no idea more un-
American than the notion that any one person could choose the American 
President.

    Mrs. Murphy. Make no mistake: President Trump knew that 
what he was demanding Vice President Pence do was illegal. He 
was informed of this repeatedly and specifically on January 
4th.
    Even his lawyer John Eastman admitted in front of President 
Trump that this plan would break the law by violating the 
Electoral Count Act.

    Mr. Wood. Did John Eastman ever admit, as far as you know, in front 
of the President that his proposal would violate the Electoral Count 
Act?
    Mr. Jacob. I believe he did on the 4th.

    Mrs. Murphy. Dr. Eastman confirmed this in writing. Recall 
this email, written on January 6th, in which Vice President 
Pence's counsel asked Dr. Eastman, ``Did you advise the 
President that in your professional judgment the Vice President 
does not have the power to decide things unilaterally?'' Dr. 
Eastman replied, ``He's been so advised.''
    Of course, President Trump's own White House Counsel, Pat 
Cipollone, also recognized that this plan was unlawful. Here is 
Mr. Cipollone's testimony.

    Mr. Cipollone. My view is that the Vice President didn't have the 
legal authority to do anything except what he did.

    Mrs. Murphy. There is no doubt that President Trump's 
pressure campaign on Vice President Pence was significant.
    On the morning of January 6th, President Trump called the 
Vice President from the Oval Office and demanded that he 
overturn the results of the election. Numerous witnesses told 
the Select Committee about the invective that President Trump 
leveled at his own Vice President.
    Mr. Luna. Something to the effect--this is--the wording's wrong--
``I made the wrong decision 4 or 5 years ago.''
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Tonolli. And the word that she relayed to you that the 
President called the Vice President--I apologize for being impolite, 
but do you remember what she said her father called him?
    Ms. Radford. The P word.

    Mrs. Murphy. But Vice President Pence didn't waver, even 
when his own life was endangered by President Trump and the 
rioters at the Capitol on January 6th, as you'll see in more 
detail later.
    A Federal judge concluded, based on this and other 
evidence, that President Trump's pressure campaign against the 
Vice President likely violated multiple criminal statutes.
    In the end, all these people--Department of Justice 
officials, State elections officials, his own Vice President--
stood strong in the face of President Trump's immense pressure.
    But, as we now know, President Trump had already summoned 
tens of thousands of his supporters to Washington on January 
6th to ``take back'' their country.
    On December 19th, President Trump first told his supporters 
to come to Washington. In this and numerous other tweets, he 
fraudulently and repeatedly promoted January 6th as the day 
Americans could come and change the election outcome.
    For weeks, President Trump worked with others to plan the 
rally, intending all along that he would send an assembled 
crowd of angry supporters to the Capitol after his speech on 
the Ellipse on January 6th.
    We obtained a text message that one rally organizer sent on 
January 4th. In part, it reads that ``POTUS is going to have us 
march there/the Capitol'' and ``POTUS is going to just call for 
it `unexpectedly.' ''
    Again, each of these examples--the Big Lie, the pressure 
campaigns against State officials, the pressure campaign 
against the Department of Justice and his Vice President, the 
fake electors, summoning the mob--all of this demonstrates 
President Trump's personal and substantial role in the plot to 
overturn the election. He was intimately involved. He was the 
central player.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In our past hearings, you have seen direct evidence that 
President Trump sent a crowd of his supporters to the Capitol 
on January 6th knowing they were armed and angry. This was the 
last, most desperate and dangerous prong of his plan to disrupt 
the joint session and prevent the orderly transition of power.
    On the morning of the 6th, the Secret Service was at the 
Ellipse screening the members of the crowd as they entered the 
rally site, and they noticed something significant about the 
crowd: Tens of thousands of people were outside the rally site 
but did not want to go through the magnetometers, the metal 
detectors that were used to screen for dangerous weapons.
    Since our last hearings, the Select Committee has received 
greater cooperation from the Secret Service. Nevertheless, the 
Secret Service text messages from this period were erased in 
the days and months following the attack on the Capitol, even 
though documents and materials related to January 6th had 
already been requested by the Department of Justice and 
Congress.
    But we were able to obtain nearly 1 million emails, 
recordings, and other electronic records from the Secret 
Service. Over the month of August, the Select Committee began 
its review of hundreds of thousands of pages and multiple hours 
of that material, providing substantial new evidence about what 
happened on January 6th and the days leading up to it. That 
review continues.
    What you are about to hear is just a sample of the new and 
relevant evidence that we have received.
    Mounting evidence before January 6th predicted violence--
and not just violence generally but violence directed at the 
Capitol. Intelligence about this risk was directly available to 
the U.S. Secret Service and others in the White House in 
advance of the Ellipse speech, in advance of the march to the 
Capitol. The Committee has shown evidence that President Trump 
was aware of the risk of violence.
    The FBI, U.S. Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police, and 
other agencies all gathered and disseminated intelligence 
suggesting the possibility of violence at the Capitol prior to 
the riot.
    We are now going to show you just a sample of the evidence 
we have received.
    Days before January 6th, the President's senior advisors at 
the Department of Justice and FBI, for example, received an 
intelligence summary that included material indicating that 
certain people traveling to Washington were making plans to 
attack the Capitol.
    This summary noted online ``calls to occupy Federal 
buildings''; rhetoric about ``invading the Capitol Building''; 
and plans to ``arm themselves and to engage in political 
violence at the event.''
    Other agencies were also hearing predictions suggesting 
possible violence at the Capitol. On a call with President 
Trump's White House national security staff in early January 
2021, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist had warned 
about the potential that the Capitol would be the target of the 
attack.
    Here is General Mark Milley, who was also present for this 
call, describing Deputy Secretary Norquist's warning.

    General Milley. So, during these calls--I only remember in 
hindsight because he was almost, like, clairvoyant. Norquist says 
during one of these calls, ``The greatest threat is a direct assault on 
the Capitol.'' I'll never forget it.

    Mr. Schiff. This email, for example, was an alert that the 
Secret Service received on December 24th with the heading 
``Armed and Ready, Mr. President.'' According to the 
intelligence, multiple users online were targeting Members of 
Congress, instructing others to ``march into the chambers'' on 
January 6th and ``make sure they know who to fear.''
    In this report, received on December 26th, a Secret Service 
field office relayed a tip that had been received by the FBI. 
According to the source of the tip, the Proud Boys planned to 
march, armed, into DC.
    ``They think that they will have a large enough group to 
march into D.C. armed,'' the source reported, ``and will 
outnumber the police so they can't be stopped.'' The source 
went on to say, ``Their plan is to literally kill people. 
Please, please take this tip seriously and investigate 
further.''
    The source also made clear that ``the Proud Boys had 
detailed their plans on multiple websites,'' like the 
TheDonald.win.
    Let's pause here. The Secret Service had advance 
information, more than 10 days beforehand, regarding the Proud 
Boys' planning for January 6th. We know now, of course, that 
the Proud Boys and others did lead the assault on our Capitol 
Building.
    On December 31st, agents circulated intelligence reports 
that ``President Trump supporters have proposed a movement to 
occupy Capitol Hill.'' In particular, they flagged spikes in 
violent hashtags like ``We Are the Storm,'' ``1776 Rebel,'' and 
``Occupy Capitols.''
    On January 5th, a Secret Service Open Source Unit flagged a 
social media account on TheDonald.win that threatened to 
``bring a sniper rifle'' to a rally on January 6th. The user 
also posted a picture of a handgun and rifle with the caption 
``Sunday Gun Day Providing Overwatch January 6th Will be 
Wild!''
    Later on the evening of January 5th, the Secret Service 
learned during an FBI briefing that right-wing groups were 
establishing armed QRFs, or quick reaction forces, readying to 
deploy for January 6th. Groups like the Oath Keepers were 
``standing by at the ready should POTUS request assistance'' by 
invoking the Insurrection Act, agents were informed.
    As we all know now, the Oath Keepers did play a specific 
role on January 6th and had stashed weapons in Virginia for 
further violence that evening.
    Also on that day, the Secret Service was readying its 
security precautions for the President's speech at the Ellipse 
the next day. A Secret Service deputy chief instructed agents 
to add certain objects to the list of items that would be 
prohibited at the rally site, including ``ballistic vests, 
tactical vests (armored or not), and ballistic helmets.''
    By the morning of January 6th, it was clear that the Secret 
Service anticipated violence. It felt like the ``calm before 
the storm,'' one agent predicted in a Protective Intelligence 
Division chat group. Another remarked how agents were 
``watching the crazies'' on livestream.
    By 9:09 that morning, the Secret Service could also see 
that many rally-goers were assembled outside the security 
perimeter. One agent emailed, ``Possibly [because] they have 
stuff that couldn't come through? Would probably be an issue 
with this crowd. Just a thought.''
    By 9:30 that morning, agents reported more than 25,000 
people outside the rally site. An hour later, the Secret 
Service reported that the crowd was ``on The Mall watching but 
not in line.''
    The head of the President's Secret Service protective 
detail, Robert Engel, was specifically aware of the large 
crowds outside the magnetometers. He passed that information 
along to Tony Ornato, who worked for Mark Meadows in the chief 
of staff's office.
    The documents we obtained from the Secret Service make 
clear that the crowd outside the magnetometers was armed and 
the agents knew it. Take a look at what they were seeing and 
hearing on the ground.
    One report from the rally site at 7:58 a.m. said, ``Some 
members of the crowd are wearing ballistic helmets, body armor, 
carrying radio equipment and military-grade backpacks.''
    Another, from 9:30 a.m., said that there were ``possibly OC 
spray,'' meaning pepper spray, ``and/or plastic riot shields.''
    At 11:23 a.m., agents also reported ``possible armed 
individuals, one with a Glock, one with a rifle.''
    Over the next hour, agents reported ``possible man with a 
gun reported . . . confirmed pistol on hip, located in a tree . 
. . '' and ``one detained at 14th and I Street NW. Individual 
had an assault rifle on his person.''
    Minutes before President Trump began his speech, members of 
the Federal Protective Service, an agency tasked with 
protecting Federal buildings, were alerted about an arrest of a 
protester with a gun on his waistband.
    During the speech, the weapons-related arrests continued. 
At 12:13 p.m., United States Park Police arrested a man with a 
rifle in front of the World War II Memorial.
    These agents remarked on the number of weapons that had 
been seized that day, speculating that the situation could get 
worse. ``With so many weapons found so far, you wonder how many 
are unknown,'' one agent wrote at 12:36 p.m. ``Could be sporty 
after dark.''
    At 12:47 p.m., another agent responded, ``No doubt. The 
people at the Ellipse said they are moving to the Capitol after 
the POTUS speech.''
    As the documents we received make clear, the Secret Service 
was aware of weapons possessed by those gathered at rallies in 
DC as early as the evening before.
    Take this document, for instance, which details multiple 
arrests in the crowds demonstrating on January 5th. Those 
arrests were for weapons offenses--handguns, high-capacity 
feeding devices, ammunition.
    What the Secret Service saw on the 6th was entirely 
consistent with the violent rhetoric circulating in the days 
before the joint session on pro-Trump websites, at times 
amplified by the President's own advisors.
    One of these sites, as you have heard, was called 
TheDonald.win. The Select Committee has obtained a text message 
that Jason Miller, a senior communications advisor, sent to 
Mark Meadows less than a week before January 6th. ``I got the 
base FIRED UP,'' he wrote in all caps.
    He sent a link to this page on TheDonald.win. The linked 
web page had comments about the joint session of Congress on 
January 6th. Take a look at some of those comments:
    ``Gallows don't require electricity.''
    ``If the filthy commie maggots try to push their fraud 
through, there will be hell to pay.''
    ``Our `lawmakers' in Congress can leave one of two ways: 1. 
In a bodybag. 2. After rightfully certifying Trump the 
winner.''
    Mr. Miller claimed that he had no idea about the hundreds 
of comments like these in the link that he sent to Mark 
Meadows.

    Mr. Jason Miller. If I had seen something like that, I probably 
would've flipped it to someone at the White--or, if I had seen 
something of that nature, I would've said, you know, flag this for 
Secret Service or something of that nature.

    Mr. Schiff. But the Trump administration was aware of this 
type of violent rhetoric prior to January 6th. In fact, as we 
have seen, the Secret Service and other agencies knew of the 
prospect of violence well in advance of the President's speech 
at the Ellipse.
    Despite this, certain White House and Secret Service 
witnesses previously testified that they had received no 
intelligence about violence that could have potentially 
threatened any of the protectees on January 6th, including the 
Vice President. Evidence strongly suggests that this testimony 
is not credible, and the Committee is reviewing additional 
material from the Secret Service and other sources.
    The Secret Service was monitoring this kind of online 
activity and was sharing and receiving the results of that 
effort. They worked closely with other agencies, sharing 
intelligence about the joint session of Congress derived from 
social media and other sources.
    The same day Jason Miller sent his text message, agents 
received reports about a spike in activity on another platform 
called Parler. This was December 30th.
    In this email, an agent received a report noting ``a lot of 
violent rhetoric on Parler directed at government people [and] 
entities,'' including Secret Service protectees. One of these 
protectees was Vice President Pence, perhaps the primary target 
of President Trump's pressure campaign in the days leading up 
to January 6th.
    The day before the joint session, on January 5th, Secret 
Service was aware of increased ``chatter focused on Vice 
President Pence''--in particular, whether he would do what 
President Trump wanted him to do: reverse the results of the 
election in the joint session the next day, January 6th.
    On the morning of the 6th, agents received alerts of online 
threats that Vice President Pence would be ``a dead man walking 
if he doesn't do the right thing.'' Another agent reported, ``I 
saw several other alerts saying they will storm the Capitol if 
he doesn't do the right thing.''
    The anger reflected in these postings was obvious to the 
man at the center of the storm on January 6th--President Trump.
    On the evening of January 5th, President Trump gathered a 
few of his communications staffers in the Oval Office. The door 
was open, allowing the President and others assembled there to 
hear the sounds of the crowd gathered at Freedom Plaza just a 
few blocks from the White House. President Trump could tell 
that his supporters were riled up.
    Here again is Judd Deere, a deputy White House press 
secretary, describing the President's reaction.

    Mr. Deere. He fairly quickly moved to how fired up the crowd is--or 
was going to be.
    Mr. Wood. Okay. And what did he say about it?
    Mr. Deere. Just that they were fired up, they were angry, they feel 
like the election has been stolen, that the election was rigged, that--
he went on and on about that for a little bit.

    Mr. Schiff. Yes, the President knew the crowd was angry--
because he had stoked that anger. He knew that they believed 
that the election had been rigged and stolen--because he had 
told them, falsely, that it had been rigged and stolen.
    By the time he incited that angry mob to march on the 
Capitol, he knew they were armed and dangerous--all the better 
to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    At this point in our meeting, we will take a brief recess. 
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 2:27 p.m., the Committee recessed until 
2:43 p.m., when it was called to order by the Chairman.]
    Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Aguilar, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    On the morning of January 6th, President Trump knew that 
the crowd was angry. He knew that they were armed and 
dangerous. And he knew that they were going to the Capitol.
    It is important to understand the lengths the President was 
willing to go to physically be at the Capitol because it was 
part of his strategy to disrupt Congress and to stay in power.
    As the time for the Ellipse rally approached, an email was 
circulated among intelligence officials, including a Secret 
Service intelligence official, attaching communications among 
rally-goers that specifically contemplated violence.
    ``Trump has given us marching orders,'' one post on 
TheDonald.win wrote. ``Basically, if you're east of the 
Mississippi, you can and should be there.'' ``ADVANCE ON THE 
CAPITAL!'' ``Keep your guns hidden . . . Don't fuck around, 
full kits, 180 rounds minimum for main rifle, another 50 for 
sidearm, per person.''
    What is clear from this record is that the White House had 
more than enough warning to warrant stopping any plan for an 
Ellipse rally and certainly for stopping any march to the 
Capitol.
    As evidence from our prior hearings has suggested, the 
President was aware of this information.
    But, despite awareness of the potential for violence and 
weapons among the crowd, the Ellipse event nevertheless went 
forward, and Donald Trump instructed the angry crowd, some of 
whom were armed, to march to the Capitol.
    As my colleague Mr. Schiff just described, the Secret 
Service reported that thousands in the crowd near the 
Washington Monument would not enter the rally area because 
magnetometers used in screening attendees would detect any 
prohibited items they carried. Mr. Trump knew this. The Secret 
Service had told him about it that morning.
    Even in spite of these warnings, Cassidy Hutchinson 
overheard the President say this shortly before he took the 
stage:

    Ms. Hutchinson. He wanted it full, and he was angry that we weren't 
letting people through the mags with weapons--what the Secret Service 
deemed as weapons and are--are weapons.
    I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the 
President say something to the effect of, you know, ``I don't F'ing 
care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the 
F'ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from 
here. Let the people in. Take the F'ing mags away.''

    Mr. Aguilar. When he went onstage, President Trump himself 
asked law enforcement to let his supporters into the rally 
site.

    President Trump. And I'd love to have--if those tens of thousands 
of people would be allowed. The military, the Secret Service. And we 
want to thank you and the police law enforcement. Great--you're doing a 
great job. But I'd love it if they could be allowed to come up here 
with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them come up, please?

    Mr. Aguilar. President Trump then told his supporters to 
march to the Capitol.
    Let's pause at this point to consider President Trump's 
state of mind, his motivation at this moment.
    By that point, it was known to Secret Service that members 
of the crowd were armed. President Trump had been told. There 
was no doubt that President Trump knew what he was going to 
do--sending an angry mob, a number of whom were clad in 
tactical gear and military garb, armed with various weapons, to 
the Capitol.
    There is no scenario where that action is benign, and there 
is no scenario where an American President should have engaged 
in that conduct. It did not matter whether President Trump 
believed the election had been stolen or not; this could not be 
justified on any basis, for any reason.
    You may also recall testimony from our summer hearings 
regarding Mr. Trump's efforts to lead the mob to the Capitol 
himself and his angry altercation in the Presidential SUV when 
the Secret Service told him it was far too dangerous for him to 
go.
    As we detailed in testimony from the Metropolitan Police 
and White House personnel during our July 21st hearing, 
information about the altercation was widely known--so widely 
known that one former White House employee with national 
security responsibilities explained that this information was, 
in fact, water-cooler talk in the White House complex. As that 
professional told us, they remember hearing in the days after 
January 6th ``how angry the President was'' when he was in the 
limo that afternoon.
    That professional also testified that they were 
specifically informed of the President's ``irate'' behavior in 
the SUV by Mr. Ornato in Mr. Ornato's office. ``It was Mr. 
Engel . . . with Mr. Ornato in that office.'' ``They had 
expressed to me that the President was irate, you know, on the 
drive up.'' Mr. Engel ``did not deny the fact that the 
President was irate.''
    That, of course, corresponds closely with the testimony you 
saw this summer from Cassidy Hutchinson, a Metropolitan Police 
Officer who was in the motorcade, and from multiple sources.
    Additionally, after concluding its review of the voluminous 
additional Secret Service communications from January 5th and 
January 6th, the Committee will be recalling witnesses and 
conducting further investigative depositions based on that 
material. Following that activity, we will provide even greater 
detail in our final report.
    I will also note this: The Committee is reviewing testimony 
regarding potential obstruction on this issue, including 
testimony about advice given not to tell the Committee about 
this specific topic. We will address this matter in our report.
    We also want to remind you now of how security 
professionals working in the White House complex and who 
reported to national security officials responded when they 
learned that Mr. Trump intended to lead the mob to the Capitol.

    Security Professional. To be completely honest, we were all in a 
state of shock.
    Ms. Dayananda. Because why?
    Security Professional. Because it just--one, I think the actual 
physical feasibility of doing it, and then, also, we all knew what that 
implicated and what that meant: that this was no longer a rally, that 
this was going to move to something else if he physically walked to the 
Capitol. I don't know if you want to use the word ``insurrection,'' 
``coup,'' whatever. We all knew that this would move from a normal, 
democratic, you know, public event into something else.
    Why were we alarmed?
    Ms. Dayananda. Right.
    Security Professional. The President wanted to lead tens of 
thousands of people to the Capitol. I think that was enough grounds for 
us to be alarmed.

    Mr. Aguilar. President Trump was still considering 
traveling to the Capitol even after returning to the White 
House. He knew well before 2 p.m. that a violent riot was 
underway at the Capitol. He was aware of the ongoing 
lawlessness. But his motorcade was held on West Executive 
Avenue, outside the White House, because he still wanted to 
join the crowd.
    Here is Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, 
describing an exchange she had with the President as soon as he 
arrived back at the White House.

    Ms. McEnany. So, to the best of my recollection, I recall him 
being--wanting to--saying that he wanted to physically walk and be a 
part of the march and then saying that he would ride the Beast if he 
needed to, ride in the Presidential limo.

    Mr. Aguilar. From the Secret Service, the Select Committee 
has also obtained important new evidence on this issue. It 
shows how frantic this hour must have been for the Secret 
Service, scrambling to get the President of the United States 
to back down from a dangerous and reckless decision that put 
people in harm's way.
    Take a look at this Secret Service email from 1:19 p.m. on 
January 6th, the minute that President Trump got out of the 
Presidential vehicle back at the White House.
    As soon as the President left his motorcade, leadership 
from the Secret Service contacted Bobby Engel, the lead agent 
for the Presidential detail, and warned him that they were 
``concerned about an OTR''--an off-the-record movement--``to 
the Capitol.''
    The people sworn to protect the safety of the President of 
the United States, and who routinely put themselves in harm's 
way, were convinced that this was a bad idea.
    Secret Service documents also reveal how agents were poised 
to take President Trump to the Capitol later that afternoon. 
Agents were instructed to don their protective gear and prepare 
for a movement. A few minutes later, they were told the 
President would leave for the Capitol in 2 hours.
    It wasn't until 1:55 p.m. that the President's lead Secret 
Service agent told them to stand down. ``We are not doing an 
OTR to [the Capitol].'' By then, rioters had breached the 
Capitol and were violently attacking the efforts of the brave 
men and women in law enforcement trying to resist the mob.
    President Trump may not have gone to the Capitol on January 
6th, but what he did from the White House cannot be justified. 
While congressional leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, 
worked with Vice President Pence to try and address the 
violence, President Trump refused urgent pleas for help from 
nearly everyone around him, and what he did do only made the 
situation worse.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Raskin, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The President was still exhorting his supporters at the 
Ellipse to go ``fight like hell'' at 12:50, around the time 
that the first wave of rioters first breached barricades 
defending the Capitol.
    Secret Service documents we recently received give a time 
line of precisely what the White House knew and when.
    At 1:19, the President's emergency operations center sent 
an email to Secret Service, national security, and military 
advisors to the President and Vice President, informing them 
that ``hundreds of Trump supporters stormed through metal 
barricades at the back of the Capitol Building about 1 p.m. 
Wednesday, running past security guards and breaking fences.''
    When the President returned to the White House around 1:20, 
he entered the Oval Office and was told right then about the 
onset of violence at the Capitol.
    From that point until approximately 4 p.m., over the next 2 
hours and 40 minutes, the President stayed in the White House 
dining room attached to the Oval Office and watched this 
unprecedented assault take place at the Capitol.
    We have testimony from several members of the President's 
White House staff establishing that President Trump refused 
entreaties from his closest advisors and family members to tell 
his supporters to stand down and leave the Capitol.
    Here is the testimony of President Trump's White House 
Counsel, Pat Cipollone.

    Mr. Cipollone. I can't talk about conversations with the President, 
but I can generically say that I said, you know, people need to be 
told, there needs to be a public announcement, fast, that they need to 
leave the Capitol.
    Vice Chair Cheney. And, Pat, could you let us know approximately 
when you said that?
    Mr. Cipollone. Approximately when? Almost immediately after I found 
out people were getting into the Capitol or approaching the Capitol in 
a way that was violent.
    Vice Chair Cheney. Who on the staff did not want people to leave 
the Capitol?
    Mr. Cipollone. On the staff?
    Vice Chair Cheney. In the White House.
    Mr. Cipollone. I can't think of anybody, you know, on that day who 
didn't want people to get out of the Capitol, particularly once the 
violence started. No. I mean----
    Mr. Schiff. What about the President?
    Vice Chair Cheney. Yes.
    Mr. Cipollone. Well, she said the staff. So I answered.
    Vice Chair Cheney. No, I said in the White House.
    Mr. Cipollone. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. I thought you said who 
else on the staff.
    Yes. I can't reveal communications. But, obviously, I think, you 
know--yes.

    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Cipollone's testimony is corroborated by 
multiple other White House staff members, including Cassidy 
Hutchinson. Here is Ms. Hutchinson describing what she heard 
from Mark Meadows.

    Ms. Hutchinson. He had said something to the effect of, you know, 
``You heard him, Pat. He doesn't want to do anything more. He doesn't 
think they're doing anything wrong.''

    Mr. Raskin. A former White House employee with national 
security duties similarly recalled an exchange between Mr. 
Cipollone and Eric Herschmann about President Trump's inaction 
against the mob assault underway at the Capitol. ``Mr. 
Herschmann . . . said something to Mr. Cipollone. He seemed to 
relay that, you know, the President didn't want anything 
done.''
    Throughout this period, some of the President's most 
important political allies, family members, and senior staff 
all begged him to tell his supporters to disperse and go home. 
They included Sean Hannity; Laura Ingraham and other allies at 
Fox News; his son, Donald Trump, Jr.; the House Minority 
Leader, Kevin McCarthy; others in Congress; and officials in 
the Cabinet and Executive branch. All of them made appeals to 
Donald Trump, which he rejected and he ignored.
    The Select Committee interviewed several people who were in 
the dining room with Donald Trump that afternoon, and every 
single one of these witnesses told us that he was watching the 
violent battles rage on television. He did not call his 
Secretary of Defense or the National Guard, the chief of the 
Capitol Police, or the chief of the Metropolitan Police 
Department.

    Mr. Wood. And, to your knowledge, was the President in that private 
dining room the whole time that the attack on the Capitol was going on? 
Or did he ever go--again, only to your knowledge--to the Oval Office, 
to the White House Situation Room, anywhere else?
    Ms. McEnany. To the best of my recollection, he was always in the 
dining room.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Heaphy. What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the President, at 
all, during that brief encounter that you were in the dining room? What 
do you recall?
    General Kellogg. I think they were--everybody was watching the TV.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Apecechea. Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining 
room when you talked to him on January 6th?
    Ms. Michael. It's my understanding he was watching television.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Heaphy. When you were in the dining room, in these discussions, 
was the violence at the Capitol visible on the screen, on the 
television?
    Mr. Cipollone. Yes.

    Mr. Raskin. As the President watched the bloody attack 
unfold on Fox News from his dining room, Members of Congress 
and other Government officials stepped in to the gigantic 
leadership void created by the President's chilling and studied 
passivity that day.
    What you are about to see is previously unseen footage of 
congressional leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, as they 
were taken to a secure location during the riot.
    You will see how everyone involved was working actively to 
stop the violence, to get Federal law enforcement deployed to 
the scene to put down the violence and secure the Capitol 
complex--not just Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House 
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, but Republicans like Vice 
President Pence, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, 
Majority Whip John Thune, and countless other appointees across 
the administration.
    All of them did what President Trump was not doing, what he 
simply refused to do. Take a listen.

    Voice. We're starting to get surrounded. They're taking the North 
Front scaffolding.
    Voice. Unless we get more munitions, we are not gonna be able to 
hold.
    Voice. A door has been breached, and people are gaining access into 
the Capitol.
    Speaker Pelosi. Well, you know what? We have got to finish the 
proceedings, or else they're going to have a complete victory.
    Crowd. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
    Voice. Senator Schumer is at a secure location, and they're locked 
down in the Senate.
    Speaker Pelosi. There has to be some way we can maintain the sense 
that people have that there is some security or some confidence that 
government can function and that we can elect the President of the 
United States.
    Did we go back into session?
    Voice. We did go back into session, but now apparently everybody on 
the floor is putting on tear gas masks to prepare for a breach. I'm 
trying to get more information.
    Speaker Pelosi. They're putting on their----
    Voice. Tear gas masks.
    Speaker Pelosi. Do you believe this? Do you believe this?
    Voice. I can't.
    Voice. We need an area for the House Members. They're all walking 
over now through the tunnels.
    Crowd. Bring her out! Bring her out here! We're coming in if you 
don't bring her out!
    Senator Schumer. I'm going to call up the F'ing Secretary of DOD.
    We have some Senators who are still in their hideaways. They need 
massive personnel now. Can you get the Maryland National Guard to come 
too?
    Speaker Pelosi. I have something to say, Mr. Secretary. I'm gonna 
call the Mayor of Washington, DC, right now and see what other outreach 
she has, other police departments, as Steny--Leader Hoyer has 
mentioned.
    Voice. Officer down. Get him up. Get him up.
    Voice. Hold up.
    Voice. Get him up.
    Voice. Hold up.
    Speaker Pelosi. Hi, Governor. This is Nancy. Governor, I don't know 
if you have been approached about the Virginia National Guard. Mr. 
Hoyer was speaking to Governor Hogan. But I still think you probably 
need the okay of the Federal Government in order to come into another 
jurisdiction? Thank you.
    Oh, my gosh. They're just breaking windows. They're doing all kinds 
of--it's really--that somebody--they said somebody was shot. It's 
just--it's just horrendous. And all at the instigation of the President 
of the United States.
    Okay, thank you, Governor. I appreciate what you're doing. And, if 
you don't mind, I'd like to stay in touch. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-
bye.
    Senator Schumer. The Virginia Guard has been called in.
    Speaker Pelosi. Yes, I was just talking to Governor Northam. And 
what he said is, they sent 200 of State police and a unit of the 
National Guard.
    They're breaking windows and going in, obviously ransacking our 
offices and all the rest of that. That's nothing. The concern we have 
about personal harm----
    Senator Schumer. Safety.
    Speaker Pelosi. [continuing]. Personal safety is--it just 
transcends everything. But the fact is, on any given day they're 
breaking the law in many different ways. And, quite frankly, much of it 
at the instigation of the President of the United States. And, now, if 
he could at least--somebody----
    Senator Schumer. Yes, why don't you get the President to tell them 
to leave the Capitol, Mr. Attorney General, in your law enforcement 
responsibility? A public statement they should all leave.
    Crowd. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
    Senator Schumer. This cannot be just we're waiting for so-and-so. 
We need them there now, whoever you got. Okay?
    Mr. Hoyer. You also have troops--this is Steny Hoyer--troops at 
Fort McNair, Andrews Air Force Base, other military bases. We need 
Active Duty National Guard.
    Senator Schumer. How soon in the future can you have the place 
evacuated, you know, cleaned out?
    Voice. I don't want to speak for the leadership that's going to be 
responsible for executing the operation, so I'm not gonna say that, 
because they're the--on the ground and they're the experts.
    Speaker Pelosi. Well, just pretend--just pretend for a moment it 
was the Pentagon or the White House or some other entity that was under 
siege. And let me say, you can logistically get people there as you 
make the plan.
    [Crowd noise.]
    Speaker Pelosi. We're trying to figure out how we can get this job 
done today. We talked to Mitch about it earlier--he's not in the room 
right now, but he was with us earlier--and said, you know, we want to 
expedite this, and hopefully they could confine it to just one 
complaint, Arizona, and then we could vote and it would be--you know, 
then just move forward with the rest of the States.
    The overriding wish is to do it at the Capitol. What we are being 
told very directly is it's gonna take days for the Capitol to be okay 
again. We've gotten a very bad report about the condition of the House 
floor, with defecation and all that kind of thing as well. I don't 
think that that's hard to clean up, but I do think it is more from a 
security standpoint of making sure that everybody is out of the 
building, and how long will that take?
    I just got off with the Vice President.
    Senator Schumer. I got off with the Vice President-elect, so I'll 
tell you what she said.
    Speaker Pelosi. Okay.
    Senator Schumer. Yes.
    Speaker Pelosi. But what we left the conversation with--because he 
said he had the impression from Mitch that Mitch wants to get everybody 
back to do it there.
    Senator Schumer. Yes.
    Speaker Pelosi. I said, well, we're getting a counterpoint that it 
could take time to clean up the poo-poo that they're making all over 
the--literally and figuratively--in the Capitol and that it may take 
days to get back.
    Vice President Pence. Yes. So I'm at the Capitol Building. I'm 
literally standing with the chief of police of the U.S. Capitol Police. 
He just informed me what you will hear through official channels. Paul 
Irving, your Sergeant-at-Arms, will inform you that their best 
information is that they believe that the House and the Senate will be 
able to reconvene in roughly an hour.
    Senator Schumer. Good news.
    Vice President Pence. So your Sergeant-at-Arms will be in touch 
about the process for getting Members back in the building.
    Speaker Pelosi. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. Good news.

    Mr. Raskin. In this video, you just saw Senator Chuck 
Schumer urging Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen to get 
President Trump to call off the rioters. Of course, Acting AG 
Rosen did take action to defend the Government, as did many 
other officials. But congressional leadership recognized on a 
bipartisan basis that President Trump was the only person who 
could get the mob to end its violent siege of the Congress, 
leave the Capitol, and go home.
    Here is Senator McConnell speaking after January 6th about 
how President Trump abandoned his duties and failed to do his 
job.

    Senator McConnell. It was obvious that only President Trump could 
end this. He was the only one who could. Former aides publicly begged 
him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration.
    The President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't 
take steps so Federal law could be faithfully executed and order 
restored. No.

    Mr. Raskin. In the midst of this violent chaos, Kevin 
McCarthy implored Donald Trump to tell his supporters in the 
mob to leave the Capitol. When that didn't work, McCarthy 
called Trump's adult children to try to get them to intercede 
with Trump to call off the insurrectionary violence.
    In our prior hearings, we showed you a description of what 
McCarthy told Republican Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler 
about his conversation with Trump during the violence. Another 
witness, Mick Mulvaney, President Trump's former chief of 
staff, has also come forward and corroborated her shocking 
account.

    Ms. Herrera Beutler. You know, I asked Kevin McCarthy, who's the 
Republican Leader, about this. And he said he called Donald--he finally 
got through to Donald Trump, and he said, ``You have got to get on TV, 
you've got to get on Twitter, you've got to call these people off.''
    And you know what the President said to him? This is as it's 
happening. He said, ``Well, Kevin, these aren't my people. You know, 
these are--these are Antifa.''
    And Kevin responded and said, ``No, they're your people. They 
literally just came through my office windows, and my staff are running 
for cover. I mean, they're running for their lives. You need to call 
them off.''
    And the President's response to Kevin, to me, was chilling. He 
said, ``Well, Kevin, I guess they're just more upset about the 
election, you know, theft than you are.''
    And that's--you know, you've seen widespread reports of Kevin 
McCarthy and the President having basically a swearing conversation. 
That's when the swearing commenced. Because the President was basically 
saying, ``Nah, I'm okay with this.''
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Mulvaney. I had a conversation at some point in the day or week 
after the riot with Kevin McCarthy.
    And, yes, it was very similar to what Jaime had, the conversation 
she had retold about how he called and asked the President to get them 
to stop, and the President told him something along the lines of, 
``Kevin, maybe these people are just more angry about this than you 
are. Maybe they're more upset.'' I had a conversation similar to that 
with Kevin in the day to week after the riot.

    Mr. Raskin. We know how Kevin McCarthy described President 
Trump's conduct, both in public and in private.

    Mr. McCarthy. The President bears responsibility for Wednesday's 
attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should've immediately denounced 
the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate 
action by President Trump: accept his share of responsibility, quell 
the brewing unrest, and ensure President-elect Biden is able to 
successfully begin his term.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. McCarthy. But let be very clear to all of you, and I have been 
very clear to the President. He bears responsibility for his words and 
actions, no ifs, ands, or buts.
    I asked him personally today, does he hold responsibility for what 
happened? Does he feel bad about what happened? He told me he does have 
some responsibility for what happened. And he needs to acknowledge 
that.

    Mr. Raskin. At 2:24 p.m., knowing the deadly riot was now 
bearing down on his own Vice President, President Trump 
composed and sent a tweet attacking Vice President Pence, 
accusing him of cowardice for not unilaterally rejecting 
electoral college votes for Joe Biden and simply handing Trump 
the Presidency.
    The impact of that tweet was foreseeable and predictable. 
It further inflamed the mob, which was chanting ``Hang Mike 
Pence,'' and provoked them to even greater violence. This 
deliberate decision to further enrage the mob against Vice 
President Pence cannot be justified by anything that President 
Trump might have thought about the election.
    The tweet came precisely at the time Pence's Secret Service 
detail was most seriously concerned for the Vice President's 
physical safety.
    We have obtained new documents from the Secret Service, 
real-time chats, that underscore the threat they knew the Vice 
President would be facing because of the President's escalating 
incitement of the mob.
    After Trump's tweet, one agent in the Secret Service's 
Intelligence Division immediately warned, ``POTUS just tweeted 
about Pence. Probably not going to be good for Pence.''
    Another agent reported the dramatic impact of Trump's anti-
Pence tweet on his followers: ``POTUS said he lacked courage. 
Over 24,000 likes in under 2 minutes.''
    Employees at Twitter were nervously monitoring the 
situation. They knew that certain Twitter users were rioting at 
the Capitol and tweeting about it at the same time. As the 
afternoon progressed, the company detected a surge in violent 
hashtags on the platform, including lines of lethal incitement 
like ``Execute Mike Pence.''
    Listen to this former Twitter employee, Anika Navaroli, who 
first came to the Committee anonymously but has now bravely 
agreed to be named because she wants to speak out about the 
magnitude of the threats facing our people.

    Mr. Glick. And you were also seeing content on the platform at that 
time that was threatening toward the Vice President? Hashtag----
    Ms. Navaroli. Yes.
    Mr. Glick [continuing]. ``Execute Mike Pence''?
    Ms. Navaroli. They were literally calling for his execution.
    Mr. Glick. As this tweet was going out?
    Ms. Navaroli. Yes. And after, in response to this tweet too. 
Because I think, as many of Donald Trump's tweets did, it again fanned 
the flames. And it was individuals who were already constructing 
gallows, who were already willing, able, and wanting to execute someone 
and looking for someone to be killed. Now the individual who has called 
upon them to begin this coup is now pointing the finger at another 
individual while they're ready to do this.

    Mr. Raskin. Here is a small sample of the reactions that 
President Trump's fan-the-flames tweet provoked among Capitol 
rioters in real time.

    Voice. What percentage of the crowd is going to the Capitol?
    Voice. One hundred percent. It has spread like wildfire that Pence 
has betrayed us. And everybody is marching on the Capitol, all million 
of us. It's insane.
    Voice. Mike Pence will not stick up for Donald Trump. Mike Pence, 
traitor. Mike Pence is a traitor.
    Voice. Mike Pence has screwed us, in case you haven't heard yet.
    Voice. What happened? What happened?
    Voice. I keep hearing that Mike Pence has screwed us. That's the 
word. I keep hearing reports that Mike Pence has screwed us.

    Mr. Raskin. Between 2:30 and 2:35, within 10 minutes of 
President Trump's tweet, thousands of rioters overran the line 
that the Metropolitan Police Force's Civil Disturbance Unit was 
holding on the West Side of the Capitol. This was the first 
time in the history of the Metropolitan Police Department that 
a security line like that had ever been broken. President 
Trump's conduct that day was so shameful and so outrageous that 
it prompted numerous members of the White House staff and other 
Trump appointees to resign.
    In prior hearings, you have heard Deputy National Security 
Advisor Matt Pottinger and Deputy White House Press Secretary 
Sarah Matthews explain why they felt compelled to resign on 
that day.
    Since then, we have spoken to more high-ranking officials, 
like President Trump's envoy to Northern Ireland and former 
Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Transportation Secretary 
Elaine Chao, who resigned after the 6th in protest of Trump's 
misconduct and to dissociate themselves from his role in the 
violence.
    Take a listen to what they had to say.

    Mr. Mulvaney. I was stunned by the violence and was stunned by the 
President's apparent indifference to the violence. Now is the time for 
the President to be Presidential. I thought he failed at doing it. I 
thought he failed at a critical time to be the sort of leader that the 
Nation needed.
                                 ______
                                 
    Secretary of Transportation Chao. I think the events at the 
Capitol, however they occurred, were shocking. And it was something 
that, as I mentioned in my statement, that I could not put aside. And 
at a particular point the events were such that it was impossible for 
me to continue, given my personal values and my philosophy.
    I came as an immigrant to this country. I believe in this country. 
I believe in a peaceful transfer of power. I believe in democracy. And 
so I was--it was a decision that I made on my own.

    Mr. Raskin. When security assistance began to arrive at the 
Capitol and the tide turned against the insurrection, President 
Trump finally gave his painfully belated instruction at 4:17 
p.m.
    So after multiple hours of rioting and more than 100 
serious injuries suffered by our law enforcement officers, the 
crowd finally began to disperse. Listen carefully to what they 
said as they decided to leave the Capitol.

    Voice. I am here delivering the President's message. Donald Trump 
has asked everybody to go home. That's our order. He says, go home. He 
says, go home. Yes. He said to go home.

    Mr. Raskin. Finally, at 6:01, President Trump tweeted 
again, not to condemn the mass violence in any way but rather 
to excuse and glorify it. Significantly, he made it clear that 
he considered the violence perfectly foreseeable and 
predictable. Check it out.
    ``These are the things and events that happen when a sacred 
landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously 
stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and 
unfairly treated for so long.''
    ``These are the things that happen,'' he said, giving the 
whole game away. Trump was telling us that the Vice President, 
the Congress, and all the injured and wounded cops, some of 
whom are with us today, got what was coming to us.
    According to Trump, January 6th should not be a day that 
lives in shame and infamy in our history but rather in glory. 
``Remember this day forever!'' he wrote proudly, as if he were 
talking about D-Day or the Battle of Yorktown.
    Trump did nothing to stop the deadly violence for obvious 
reasons: He thought it was all justified, he incited it, and he 
supported it.

    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 came out? Would that have 
been possible?
    Mr. Cipollone. Would it have been possible?
    Mr. Heaphy. Yes.
    Mr. Cipollone. Yes, it would have been possible.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Matthews. If the President had wanted to make a statement and 
address the American people, he could have been on camera almost 
instantly.
    And conversely, the White House press corps has offices that are 
located directly behind the briefing room. And so if he had wanted to 
make an address from the Oval Office, we could have assembled the White 
House press corps probably in a matter of minutes to get them into the 
Oval for him to do an on-camera address.

    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, nothing in law or fact could 
justify the President's failure to act.

    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.

    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, in numerous places our 
Constitution strongly opposes insurrection and rebellion. 
Article I gives Congress the power to ``call forth'' the 
Militia to ``suppress insurrections.'' Section 3 of the 14th 
Amendment disqualified from holding Federal and State office 
anyone who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution but 
betrays it by engaging in ``insurrection or rebellion.''
    It was President Lincoln at the start of the Civil War in 
1861 who best explained why democracy rejects insurrection. 
Insurrection, he said, is a ``war upon the first principle of 
popular government--the rights of the people.''
    American democracy belongs to all the American people, not 
to a single man.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    During this Committee's first hearing, in July of last 
year, our witnesses were four police officers who helped repel 
the riots of January 6th. We asked them what they hoped to see 
the Committee accomplish over the course of our investigation.
    Officer Gonell wanted to know why the rioters were made to 
believe that the election process was rigged.
    Officer Fanone asked us to look into the actions and 
activities that resulted in the day's events.
    Officer Hodges was concerned about whether anyone in power 
had a role.
    Officer Dunn put it simply: Get to the bottom of what 
happened.
    We have worked for more than a year to get those answers. 
We have conducted more than a thousand interviews and 
depositions. We have received and reviewed hundreds of 
thousands of pages of documents.
    Thanks to the tireless work of our Members and 
investigators, we have left no doubt--none--that Donald Trump 
led an effort to upend American democracy that directly 
resulted in the violence of January 6th. He tried to take away 
the voice of the American people in choosing their President 
and replace the will of the voters with his will to remain in 
power. He is the one person at the center of the story of what 
happened on January 6th.
    So we want to hear from him. The Committee needs to do 
everything in our power to tell the most complete story 
possible and provide recommendations to help ensure nothing 
like January 6th ever happens again. We need to be fair and 
thorough and gain a full context for the evidence we have 
obtained.
    But the need for this Committee to hear from Donald Trump 
goes beyond our fact finding. This is a question about 
accountability to the American people. He must be accountable. 
He is required to answer for his actions. He is required to 
answer to those police officers who put their lives and bodies 
on the line to defend our democracy. He is required to answer 
to those millions of Americans whose votes he wanted to throw 
out as part of his scheme to remain in power. Whatever is 
underway to ensure this accountability under law, this 
Committee will demand a full accounting to every American 
person of the events of January 6th.
    So it is our obligation to seek Donald Trump's testimony. 
There is precedent in American history for Congress to compel 
the testimony of a President. There is also precedent for 
Presidents to provide testimony and documentary evidence to 
congressional investigators.
    We also recognize that a subpoena to a former President is 
a serious and extraordinary action. That is why we want to take 
this step in full view of the American people, especially 
because the subject matter at issue is so important to the 
American people and the stakes are so high for our future and 
our democracy.
    So I recognize the Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, to 
offer a resolution.
    Vice Chair Cheney. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to today's 
notice, I send to the desk a Committee resolution and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
    Chairman Thompson. The clerk will report the resolution.
    [The clerk reported the resolution as follows:]

                         committee resolution 1
    Resolved, That the Chairman be, and is hereby, directed to subpoena 
Donald J. Trump for documents and testimony in connection with the 
January 6th attack on the United States Capitol pursuant to section 
5(c)(4) of House Resolution 503 and clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives.

    Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is 
recognized on her resolution.
    Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, our Committee now has sufficient information 
to answer many of the critical questions posed by Congress at 
the outset. We have sufficient information to consider criminal 
referrals for multiple individuals and to recommend a range of 
legislative proposals to guard against another January 6th.
    But a key task remains: We must seek the testimony under 
oath of January 6th's central player.
    More than 30 witnesses in our investigation have invoked 
their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and 
several of those did so specifically in response to questions 
about their dealings with Donald Trump directly.
    Here are a few examples. This is Roger Stone with Oath 
Keepers at the Willard Hotel on the morning of January 6th, and 
here is Mr. Stone testifying before our Committee.

    Vice Chair Cheney. Did you speak to President Trump on his private 
cell phone on either January 5th or January 6th?
    Mr. Stone. Once again, on advice of counsel, I will assert my Fifth 
Amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question.

    Vice Chair Cheney. This is General Michael Flynn walking 
with Oath Keepers on December 12, 2020. Here is General Flynn's 
testimony before our Committee.

    Mr. George. Did you, General Flynn, talk to President Trump at any 
point on January 6, 2021?
    General Flynn. The Fifth.

    Vice Chair Cheney. Here is John Eastman fraudulently 
instructing tens of thousands of angry protesters that the Vice 
President could change the election outcome on January 6th. 
Later, on this same day, Dr. Eastman acknowledged in writing 
that Donald Trump knew what he was attempting was illegal.
    Here is John Eastman testifying before our Committee.

    Mr. Wood. Did President Trump authorize you to discuss publicly 
your January 4, 2021, conversation with him?
    Mr. Eastman. Fifth.
    Mr. Wood. So is it your position that you can discuss in the media 
direct conversations you had with the President of the United States, 
but you will not discuss those same conversations with this Committee?
    Mr. Eastman. Fifth.

    Vice Chair Cheney. Here is Jeff Clark, who conspired with 
Donald Trump to corrupt the Department of Justice. President 
Trump wanted to appoint Jeff Clark as Acting Attorney General, 
and as you can see in this call log we obtained from the 
National Archives, he did so. Here is Mr. Clark testifying 
before our Committee.

    Mr. Wood. Mr. Clark, when did you first talk directly with 
President Trump?
    Mr. Clark. Fifth.
    Mr. Wood. Mr. Clark, did you discuss with President Trump 
allegations of fraud in the 2020 election?
    Mr. Clark. Fifth.

    Vice Chair Cheney. Other witnesses have also gone to 
enormous lengths to avoid testifying about their dealings with 
Donald Trump.
    Steve Bannon has been tried and convicted by a jury of his 
peers for contempt of Congress. He is scheduled to be sentenced 
for this crime later this month.
    Criminal proceedings regarding Peter Navarro continue.
    Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's former chief of staff, has 
refused to testify based upon executive privilege. The 
Committee's litigation with him continues.
    Mr. Chairman, at some point the Department of Justice may 
well unearth the facts that these and other witnesses are 
currently concealing.
    But our duty today is to our country and our children and 
our Constitution. We are obligated to seek answers directly 
from the man who set this all in motion, and every American is 
entitled to those answers so we can act now to protect our 
Republic.
    So this afternoon, I am offering this resolution: that the 
Committee direct the Chairman to issue a subpoena for relevant 
documents and testimony under oath from Donald John Trump in 
connection with the January 6th attack on the United States 
Capitol.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
    If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing 
to the resolution.
    Those in favor will say ``aye.''
    Those opposed, ``no.''
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    Vice Chair Cheney. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Thompson. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk 
will call the roll.
    [The clerk called the roll, and the result was announced as 
follows:]

                     Select Committee Rollcall No. 5
                         Committee Resolution 1
      Directing the Chairman to issue a subpoena to Donald J. Trump
                       Agreed to: 9 ayes to 0 noes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Members                               Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Cheney, Vice Chair....................................          Aye
Ms. Lofgren...............................................          Aye
Mr. Schiff................................................          Aye
Mr. Aguilar...............................................          Aye
Mrs. Murphy (FL)..........................................          Aye
Mr. Raskin................................................          Aye
Mrs. Luria................................................          Aye
Mr. Kinzinger.............................................          Aye
Mr. Thompson (MS), Chairman...............................          Aye
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Thompson. The resolution is agreed to.
    Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The Chair requests that those in the hearing room remain 
seated until the Capitol Police have escorted Members from the 
room.
    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]