tv January 6 Hearings Pres. Trumps Alleged Campaign to Influence VP Pence CSPAN June 16, 2022 1:01pm-3:51pm EDT
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 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 on resource at any point. pursuant to house deposition authority regulation, -- a tear an out of the committees approval, at least the deposition material representative of today's hearing. good afternoon, this is almost no idea more un-american in the notion that any one person could choose the american president. new idea more un-american which is unusual because former vice president mike pence and i don't agree on much. these are his words, spoken a few months ago about donald trump's attempt. to fort -- putting him into going along with an unlawful, unconstitutional scheme overturned the 2020 election and give donald trump a second
term at office that he did not win. today, the select committee is going to reveal the details of that campaign. why does the vice president of the united states even have to do? the constitution says that the vice president of the united states oversees the process of counting the electoral college votes. a process that took place on january 6th 2021. donald trump wanted mike pence to do something no other vice president has ever done. the former president wanted pence to reject the vote and either declare trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again. mike pence said no. he resisted the pressure. he knew it was illegal, he knew
it was wrong. we are fortunate for mr. pence's courage on january 6th. our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe. that courage put him in tremendous danger. mike pence made it clear that he wouldn't give into donald trump's scheme, donald trump term the mob on him. a mob that was chanting hang mike pence a mob that had built a hangman scout just outside the capital. thanks in part to mike pence, our democracy was still donald trump's scheme and the violence of january six. to the danger has not -- there by my colleague, mr. aguilar, today we will lay out the facts for the american people. but first, i recognize my colleague from wyoming, miss
cheney for any opening statement she care to offer. >> thank you very much mister chairman, let me take just a few minutes today to hit get the topic of our hearing and broader context. in our last hearing, we heard unequivocal testimony. president trump was told his election fraud allegations were complete nonsense. we heard this from members of the trump campaign we, heard this from president trump's campaign lawyers, we heard this from president trump's former attorney general, bill barr. we are at this from president trump's former acting attorney general jeff rosen. and we heard this from president trump's former acting deputy attorney, richard donahue. we heard from members of president trump's white house staff as well. today, we are focusing on president trump's relentless effort to pressure mike pence to refuse to count electoral votes on january 6th president trump is wrong, i had no right
to overturn the election the, presidency belongs to the american people and the american people alone. frankly, there is no idea more un-american than the notion that any one person can choose the american president. what the president wanted the, vice president to do was not just wrong it was illegal and unconstitutional. we will hear any details in today's hearing but, please consider these two points. first, president trump was told repeatedly that mike pence lacked the constitutional and legal authority to do what president trump was demanding he do. this is testimony from marc short the vice president chief of staff. who served in the trump administration and multiple positions over four years. >> just to pick up on that, was it your impression that the president had directly conveyed his position to the president
not just to the world, but to president trump. >> many times. >> and he had been consistent and -- >> very consistent. the president trump lauded with john eastman to pressured pence to do so anyway. the federal court has explained, quote, based on the evidence the court finds that is more likely than not that president trump and dr. eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the joint session on january six, 2021. what exactly did president trump know when president trump confined -- would be illegal for mike pence to refuse to count electoral votes. here is one sample of testimony given by one of the witnesses before us today. the vice president general counsel. >> did john eastman ever admit,
in front of the president, that his proposal -- >> i believe he did. >> that was january 4th, two days before the attack on congress. a second point, please listen to testimony today about all of the ways that president trump attempted to pressure vice president pence. including donald trump's tweet at 2:24 pm, condemning vice president mike pence. when president trump already knew a violent riots was underway at the capitol. and future hearings, you will hear from witnesses who are present inside the white house, who were present inside the west wing on that day. today we focus on the earnest efforts of mike pence, who is to torment to abide by his oath
of office. as vice president pence prepared a statement on january 5th and sixth, explaining that he could not illegally refused to count electoral votes, he said this to his staff. >> vice president said this was the most important thing. >> the statement. >> he really wanted to make sure that it was just set up. >> you will hear today that president trump's white house counsel believed that the vice president did exactly the right thing on january six. as did others in the white house, as did fox news host, sean hannity. vice president pence understood that his oath of office was more important than his loyalty to donald trump. he did his duty. president trump unequivocally did not. thank you, mister chairman, i yield back. >> without objection, i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar for an
opening statement. >> thank you, mister chairman. today we intend to show the american people that january 6th was not an isolated incident. in the weeks culminating before it was illegal scheme and deception. we've already learned that president trump knew he lost the 2020 election. shortly after, he began to look for a way to circumvent our country's most fundamental civic tradition. the peaceful transfer of power. the president latched onto a dangerous theory and would not let go. because he was convinced it would keep him in office. we witnessed firsthand what happens when the president of the united states weaponized this theory. the capital was overrun, police officers lost their lives. the vice president was taken to a secure location, because the safety was in jeopardy.
let's take a look at the effect of donald trump's words and actions. i want to warn our audience. the video contains explicit content. >> mike pence is going to have to come through for us. if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country. mike pence, i hope you're going to stand up for the good of our constitution and for the good of our country. if you are not, i'm going to be very disappointed in you. i will tell you right now. >> i'm telling you i'm hearing, i'm hearing the fans just caved. is that hit through? i'm hearing reports that the pence caved. if pence caved, we're going to drive them through the streets. you politicians are going to get jumped in the streets. >> i guess the hope is, there such a show of force here that pence will decide to --
[inaudible] [noise] [inaudible] >> how do we get to this point? how do we get to the point where president trump's most radical supporters led a violent attack on the capital and threatened to hang president trump's own vice president? you'll hear from witnesses that donald trump pressured mike pence to adopt a legally and morally bankrupt idea that the vice president could choose who the next president could be. you'll hear about how the vice president, white house counsel, and others told donald trump that the vice president had no such authority. the president trump would not listen. you hear how vice president
pence with an onslaught of pressure from president trump but publicly and privately. the pressure campaign that built to a fever pitch with a heated phone call on january 6th. you also hear that the president knew there was a violent mob at the capitol when he tweeted at 2:24 pm that the vice president did not have the, quote, courage to do it needed to be done. let me be clear. vice president pence did the right thing that day. he stayed to treat his oath, to protect and defend the constitution. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon. mister chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mister aguilar. we are honored to have two distinguished witnesses who advised vice president regarding his role on january 6th. judge jay michael looted it is one of the leading conservative legal thinkers in the country. he served in administrations of
president ronald reagan and george h. w. bush. he was appointed by the ladder to serve on our u.s. court of appeal for the circuit, where he served from 1991 to 2006. he provided critical advice for vice president pence regarding the role of the vice president in the joint session of congress shortly before that fateful moment. he has written that the vice president does not have the power to select the next president of the united states. he has also written that contrary theory is espoused by one of his own former law clerks was, quote, incorrect at every turn. we are also joined today by one of the people who was with vice president pence on january 6th. greg jacob was council to vice president pence.
he conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the vice president in a joint session of congress under the constitution. the electoral count act and 230 years of his historical practice. he also has firsthand information about the attack on the capitol. because he lived through it. he was with the vice president and his own life was in danger. i will now swear and our witnesses. the witnesses will please stand and raise the right hand. do you swear under penalty of perjury that your testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? you may be seated. let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. i now recognize myself for
questions. and the united states, the people choose our representatives, including the highest official in the land, the president of the united states. the american people on november 3rd 2020 did this. president trump did not like the outcome. he did everything he could to change the result of the election. he tried litigation, 62 cases in fact, and that failed. he tried to pressure state legislatures to reverse the results of the election in their states. they refused. he tried to enlist the department of justice in his efforts to overturn election results. officials leading the department refused to comply. eventually, he latched on to a completely nonsensical and anti-democratic theory that one
man's own vice president could determine the outcome of the election. he wanted the vice president to unilaterally select the president. this theory that the vice president could unilaterally select the president runs completely contrary to our constitution, our laws, and the entirety of our american experience. but that did not stop, that did not matter to president trump. i would now like to explore how president trump came to latch on to this ridiculous legal theory. that the vice president can select the president of the united states. mr. jacob, how did this theory first come to your attention? >> the first time that i had a conversation with the vice
president about the 12th amendment in the electoral count act was in early december, around december 7th. the vice president called me over to his west wing office and told me that he had been seeing and reading things that suggested that he had a significant role to play on january 6th in announcing the outcome of the election. he told me that he had been first elected to congress in 2000. and that one of his earliest memories as a congressman was sitting in on the 2001 certification. he recalled that al gore had gaveled down a number of objections that had been raised to florida. he asked me mechanically, how does this work at the joint session? what are the rules? i told the vice president that, in fact, i had a fairly good idea of how things worked. actually, there aren't rules that govern the joint session.
act but there is is a provision of the constitution that's just one sentence long. and then an electoral count act that had been passed in 1887. i told the vice president that i could put a memo together for him overnight that would explain the applicable rules. so, mr. jacobs, when you look at this theory, what did you conclude? >> we concluded that what you have is a sentence in the constitution that is inartfully drafted. the vice president's first instinct when he heard this theory was that there was no way that our framers, who are bored concentrated power, who had broken away from the tyranny of george the third would ever have put one person, particulate not a person who had a direct interest in the outcome, because they were on the ticket for the election, in
a role to have decisive impact on the outcome of the election. i review of text, history, frankly, just common sense all confirm the vice presidents first instinct on that point. there is no justifiable basis to conclude that the vice president has that kind of authority. >> thank, you mr. jacobs. we will hear more today about how this fight this the conclusion by you and other top legal advisers, the former president used this discredited theory in his campaign to pressure the vice president to decide the outcome of the presidential election. i now recognize the gentlewoman from wyoming, miss cheney for, questions. >> thank you very much, mister chairman. judge looted, thank you for being here as well with us today. you issued a very important
statement earlier today. which i urge all americans to read. i'd like to ask you, judge, about one of the sentences in your statement. and ask if you can explain to us the significance of it. you say, had the vice president of the united states obeyed the president of the united states, america would immediately had been plunged into what would have been tantamount to a revolution within a paralyzing constitutional crisis. could you elaborate on us, judge? >> thank you, madam vice chairman. that passage in my statement this morning referenced the
most foundational concept in america. which is the rule of law. as i interpret your question, you are asking about that foundational truth of these united states which we call america. the foundation truth is the rule of law. that foundational truth it is for the united states of america, the profound truth.
united states of america. the specific question, of course, before you, before the nation, not before me, is weather that foundational rule of law was supremely violated on january 6th, 2021. now, to the question specifically that you asked, madam vice chair. i believe that vice president pence, obeyed the orders from
his president and the president of the united states of america during the joint session of the congress of the united states on january 6th, 2021. and declared donald trump the next president of the united states, not withstand that then president trump had lost the electoral college vote as well as the popular vote in 2020 presidential election.
>> thank you very much, judge, for your salma tension to these issues. for your appearance here today. we are going to describe and discuss in detail what happened. as we do, i'm going to describe a few of the details now of some of the actions taken by a gentleman named kenneth jeez burrow. after the electoral college math and cast their votes on december 14th. the day before they met. kenneth sent a memo to giuliani, the presidents lead outside counsel, mr. chief burrow wrote to mayor giuliani that the president is charged with, quote, making judgments about what to do if there are conflicting votes close quote
mr. cheese burrow wrote that that when the joint session of congress got [interpreter] -- in the alphabetical as the states, the vice president should not count the biden votes. quote, there are two slates of votes. his justification which, we will learn more about in our next hearing, was that a group of trump supporters in arizona and other swing states decided to proclaim themselves the true electors for the state. creating two sets of electors, the official electors selected by the state and a group of fake electors. this document was ordered to be produced to the select committee by a federal district court drudge. as you will see on the screen shortly, judge david carter wrote, quote, the draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the electoral count act. the judge concluded that, quote, the memo is both intimately
related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6th, 2021. a few days later, professor john eastman took up this cause. eastman was at the time a law professor at chapman university law school. he had a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the vice president could decide the outcome of the election at the joint session of congress on january 6th. you will see portions of this memo on the screen. in the first line, he wrote, quote, seven states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the president of the senate. doctor eastman goes on to rely on those so-called dual states of electors to say that vice president pence could simply declare president trump the winner of the 2020 election. mr. jacob, where they're in
fact dual slates of electors from seven states? >> no, they were not. >> just a few days after that, dr. eastman wrote another memo. this one, quote, war gaming out several scenarios. he knew the outcome he wanted and he saw way to go for it if he simply pretended that fake electors were real. you will see that memo up on the screen now. here, doctor eastman says, the vice president can reject the biden electors from the states that he calls, quote, disputed. under several of the scenarios, the vice president could ultimately just declare donald trump the winner, regardless of the vote totals that had already been certified by the states. however, this was false and dr. eastman knew it was false. in other words, it was a lie. in fact, on december 19th, 2020, just four days before doctor eastman sent this memo, doctor eastman himself admitted, in an
email, that the fake electors had no legal weight. referring to the fake electors as, quote, dead on arrival in congress. and quote. because they did not have a certification from their states. judge luttig, did the trump electors in those seven states that were not a sort of fide by any state authority have any legal significance? >> congresswoman, there was no support whatsoever in either the constitution of the united states, nor the laws of the united states, for the vice president, frankly, ever, to
count alternative electoral slates from the states that had not been officially certified by the designated but state official in the electoral count act of 1887. i did notice in the passage from mr. eastman's memorandum, and i took a note on it, correct me if i'm wrong, but he said in that passage that there was any the legal authority as well as historical precedent. i do you know what mr. eastman
was referring to beto when he said that there was a historical precedent. for doing so. he was incorrect. there was no historical precedent from the beginning of the founding in 1789 that even as mere historical precedent and as distinguished from legal precedent would support the possibility of the vice president of the united states
quote counting alternative data electoral states that hadn't be certified victoria to the congress, pursuant to the electoral count act of 1897. i would be glad to explain that historical precedent if the committee wanted, but it would be a digression. >> thank you very much, judge. i know my colleagues will be pursuing that issue in more depth right now i'd like to yield back, mister chairman. >> thank you very much. pursuant of section five c eight of house resolution 503, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar, and staff counsel, mr. john would, for counseling. >> thank, you mister chairman. we are fortunate to have a bipartisan staff. senior investigative counsel
john would previously served as united states attorney in missouri under president george w. bush, he and i will share today's lines of questioning. mr. wood? >> thank, you mr. aguilar. judge lieu tug, i had the honor of serving as one of your lock lurks. another person who did was john eastman. you've written that back to its mystery, that the vice president can determine who the next president of the united states is, in your words, and cracked at every turn. could you please explain briefly your analysis? >> it was my honor, mr. wood, to serve as law clerk.
i could answer that question perfectly if i had at my disposal either mr. eastman's tweet or my own in a little tweet of september 21st. but i don't. but that said, let me try to remember the analysis of mr. eastman's analysis. >> judge, i can read to you and the audience what i think was a really key passage from your very insightful analysis. you wrote, i believe that professor eastman was incorrect at every turn of the analysis
and is january 2nd memorandum, beginning with his claim that there were legitimate competing slates of electors presented from seven states. if already address that issue. but your next sentence said, continuing to his conclusion, the vice president could unilaterally decide not to count the votes from the seven states from which competing slates were allegedly presented. so, what was your basis for concluding that dr. eastman was incorrect in his conclusion that the vice president could unilaterally decide not to count the votes from these disputed states? >> i understand. as i previously stated, in response to congresswoman cheney, there was no basis in the constitution or lives of the united states at all for the theory espoused by mr.
eastman at all. none. with all respect to my co-panelists, he said, i believe in partial response to one of the select committee's questions, that the single sentence in the 12th amendment was, he thought, in artfully written. that single sentence is not in artfully written. it was pristine clear. that the president of the senate, on january 6th, the
incumbent vice president of the united states, had little substantive constitutional authority, if any, at all. the 12th amendment, a single sentence that mr. jacob refers to, says, in substance, that, following the transmission of the certificates to the congress of the united states, and under the electoral count act of 1887, the archivist of the united states, that the presiding officer shall open
it was the electoral count act of 1887 that failed and, if you will i, the simple words of the 12 them and bend amendment, in order to construct for the country a process for the counting of the sacred i process for the counting of the electoral votes from the states i. that neither our original constitution nor even the 12th amendment had done. the irony, if you will, is that,
from its founding until 1887, when congress passed the electoral count act, the nation had been in considerable turmoil during at least five of its presidential elections. beginning as soon thereafter from the founding as 1800, so it wasn't for 100 years later that the electoral count act was passed. so, that's what, in my view, that piece of legislation it is not only a work in progress for the country but, at this moment
in history, an important work in progress that needs to take place. that was long winded, i understand. >> judge luttig, at the risk of oversimplifying for the non lawyers who are watching. is it fair to say that the 12th amendment, basically, says two things happen, the vice president opens the certificates and the electoral votes are counted? is it that straightforward? >> i would not want that to me my testimony before the congress of the united states. the language of the 12th amendment it is that simple. >> thank, you judge. mr. jacob, i have a question
for you. i believe in your deposition before this committee, you said something to the effect that you had read everywhere britain about the 12th amendment, the electoral count act, and historical practice. i know, in response to the chairman's earlier question you gave your bottom line conclusion. but can you give us a little bit about the process that you and your colleagues went through a researching this issue and what conclusion you came to after your thorough research? you, as a lawyer who's analyzing a constitutional provision, you start with the constitutional text you, go to structure you, go to history. we started with the taxed. we did not think that the text was quite as unambiguous as judge luttig indicated. in part, we had a constitutional crisis in 1876. in that here multiple slates of electors were certified by
modern multiple states. when it came to time to count that boat. the antecedent question of which ones had to be answered. that required the appointment of an independent commission. that commission has to resolve that question in the purpose of the electoral count act of 1887. had been through to resolve those latent ambiguities. i am an incomplete agreement with judge luttig. it is an ambiguous that the vice president does not have the authority to reject electors. there is no suggestion of any kind that it does. there is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment. so, the notion that the vice president could do that certainly is not in the text. the problem that we had and that john eastman raised in our discussions was we had all seen
that in congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016 there had been objections raised to various states. and those had even been debated in 2004. and so here you have an amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting and yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the electoral count act. we started with that text. i recall in my discussion with the vice president. he said, i can't wait to go to heaven and meet the framers and tell them, the work that you did in putting together our constitution is a work of genius. thank you. it was divinely inspired. there is one sentence that i would like to talk to you a little bit about. then we went to structure. again, the vice presidents first instinct here is so decisive on this question.
there is just no way that the framers of the constitution who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from george the third and declared him to be a tyrant. there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person the authority to determine who was going to be president of the united states. and then we went to history. we examined every single electoral vote count that happened in congress at the beginning of the country. we examined the electoral count act. we examined practice under electoral count act. critically, no vice president and 230 years of history had ever claimed to have that kind of authority. hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes. had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the states in the entire history of the united states. not once at a joint session
ever returned electoral votes back to the states to be counted. in the crisis of 1876, justice bradley of the united states supreme court who supplied the decisive final vote on that commission had specifically looked at that question and said, first, the vice president clearly doesn't have authority to decide anything. and by the way, also does not have authority to conduct an investigation by sending things back out for a public look at things. the history was absolutely decisive. again, part of my discussion with mr. eastman was, if you are right, don't you think al gore might have liked to have known in 2000 that he had authority to just declare himself president of the united states? did you think that the democrat lawyers just and think of this very obvious court they could used to do that? of course, we acknowledged al gore did not and should not
have had that authority at that point in time. so, text structured history, i think what we have was some ambiguous text that common sense and structure would tell you the answer could not possibly be that the vice president has that authority. as the committee already played the vice president's remarks, that there's almost no idea more un-american than the notion that any one person which is the american president. and then britain broken historical practice for 230 years that the vice president did not have such authority. thank you, i return the remainder of my time. >> mr. jacob, you weren't the only one who knew that the legal theory was wrong though. here is what various advisers told him -- >> clear repeatedly with mr. about the vice president having different views about his authority and honor six. >> i believe i had.
did mr. meadows ever explicitly are tacitly or if you are set, yeah, that makes sense, okay. >> i believe that mark did agree. >> what makes you say that? >> i believe that's what he told me. as i mentioned, i think mark had told so many people so many different things. that it was not something that i would necessarily -- >> i see, tell me more about he told you. >> i think it was, you know, the vice president doesn't have any role. i think he was understanding of that. >> despite the fact he made us that other things, the you said he understand the vice president has no role. >> yes. >> did he say that to you several times? >> a couple times. >> the 14 year? sixth >> day yes. >> why was community made me
was that cipollone thought the idea was 90 and at one point confronted eastman basically with the same sentiment. >> pat expressed that his admiration for the vice presidents actions on the day of the six and said he concurred with the legal analysis that our team had put together to reach that point. >> it made no sense to me that in order protections that were built in the constitution for president to get elected steps out to be taken that the power to choose the next president would be sitting with the vice president. >> you know if mr. clark or mr. morgan knew about that, thought that, mr. investments advice? >> they thought it was crazy. >> you know they are expressed an opinion on whether they thought the vice president had the power that john eastman said he did?
>> i know for a fact i heard both say that his theory was crazy. there was no validity to it anywhere shape or form. did they express that before january six. >> to him? >> anyone who would listen. >> what were your prior interactions with eastman? he >> described me what he thought the ambiguity was in the statute. and he was walking through it at that time. i said, hold on a second, i want to understand you're saying. you're saying that you believe that vice president acting as president of the senate can be the sole decision-maker, your, theory who becomes the next president of the united states? he said, yes. i said are you out of your mind? that was pretty blunt. i said, are you completely
crazy? you're going to turn around and tell 78 plus million people in this country that you are, this is your theory, this is how you're going to invalidate their votes? because you think the election was stolen? as it turns, they're not going to tolerate that, you're going to cause riots in the streets. he said, the worst of the effect, there is been violence in the history of our country to protect the democracy, to protect the republic. >> in fact, there was a risk that the lawyers in the white house counsel's office would reside. for example, fox news host john hannity expressed concern that the entire white house counsel's office could quit. as you can see from these text, mr. hannity wrote to white house chief of staff, mark meadows, that, quote, we can't lose the entire white house counsel's office.
i do not see january 6th happening the way he has been told. a few days later, on january 5th, mr. hannity wrote to mr. meadows that, quote, i'm very worried the next 40 are eight hours. pence pressure, white house counsel will leave. well sean hannity was apparently very concerned about the possibility that the white house counsel would resign and protest. the presidents effort to force the vice president to violate the constitution. some others close to the president were more dismissive of the white house counsel's position. here is what trump said in law, and wet scene adviser jared kushner said in his deposition regarding the white house counsel cipollone's threats to resign. >> are you aware of instances where pat cipollone threaten to resign? >> i said, like i, said my interest on that time was trying to get as many part there's done. i know he was always, him in
the team ruiz saying, we're going to, i'm not going to be here, if this happens, our that happens. i took it up to just be whining to be honest with you. >> the presidents own league outside counsel, rudy giuliani, also seemed to concede that the vice president did not have the authority to decide the outcome of the election. we'll send it back to the states. here is what white house attorney eric herschmann said about his call with mayor giuliani on the morning of the six. >> the morning of january 6th, i think he called me out of the blue. i was getting dressed. we had an intellectual discussion about, i don't know if it's easements theory per se, the vp's role. he was asking me my view, analysis, other practical implications of it. when we finished he said, i
believe that, you're probably right. i think we thought would be something you have to consider if you're sitting on the bench. he probably come down. don't interpret it for sustain the albion long term. >> of course, the fact that mayor giuliani seemed to admit that the theory was wrong did not stop him from going before the crowd just a few hours later on january six and saying the exact opposite. here's mayor giuliani speech at the ellipse rally on january 6th. >> we are here very briefly to make a very important to points. number one, every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for day is perfectly legal. i have professor eastman here with me to say a few words about that.
he's one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the united states. it is perfectly appropriate given the questionable constitutionality of the election counting act of 1887 that the vice can cast it aside and he can do what a president called, jefferson did when he was vice president. you can decide on the validity of these crooked ballots. or he can send it back to the legislature's, give them 5 to 10 days to finally finish the work. >> here is what doctor eastman said in his speech at the ellipse on january 6th. >> all we are demanding of vice
president pence is this afternoon at 1:00, he let the legislatures of the state look into the bottom of it and the american people know whether we have control of the direction of our government are not. even doctor eastman in his theories and hold water. you discussed and even debated this theory at length with doctor eastman. the doctor eastman ever say when he thought the supreme court would do if they had to decide this issue? >> yes, we had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on january 5th. when i pressed him on the point, i said, john, if the vice president did what you're asking him to do we would lose nine to nothing in the supreme court when we? and he initially started, well, i think maybe you lose only 7
to 2. after some further discussion acknowledge, well, yeah, you're right, we would lose nine i think. >> i appreciate that. in our investigation, that select committee has attained evidence suggesting that dr. eastman never really believed his own theory. let me explain. on the screen, you can see a draft letter to the president from october, 2020. in this letter, and idea was proposed that the vice president could determine which electors to count that the joint session of congress. but the person writing and blue eviscerate that argument. a person who wrote the comments and blue wrote, quote, the 12th amendment only says that the president of the senate opens the ballots and the joint session and then, in passive ways, that the vote shall then be counted. the comments and blue further state, now where does it suggest that the president of the senate gets to make that determination on his own.
judge luttig, that that surprise you that the author of those comments was in fact john eastman? >> if it does, congressman. let me -- watching this unfold, let me try to unpack what was at the root of but i have called the blueprint of overturning the 2020 election. it is this. i had foreshadow this answer in my earlier testimony to congresswoman cheney. mr. eastman, from the beginning,
said to the president that there was both legal there as but as well as historical president for the vice president to overturn the election. in what we've heard today, i believe it is what happened within the white house and elsewhere, as all the players data, led by mr. eastman, got wrapped around the axle. by the historical evidence claim by mr. eastman. let me explain, very simply.
this is what i said would require aid to gradation, that i'd be glad to undertake if you wished. in short, if i had been advising the vice president of the united states on january 6th and, even if van vice president jefferson and even then vice president john adams and even then vice president richard nixon had done exactly
what the president of the united states wanted his vice president to do, i would have laid my body across the road before i would have let the vice president overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that historical precedent. but what this body needs to know and now america needs to know is that that was the centerpiece of the plan to overturn the 2020 election. it was the historical precedent in the years, with the vice
president that i named, as congressman raskin understands well. the effort by mr. eastman and others was to drive that historical precedent up to and under that single sentence, single pristine sentence and the 12th amendment to the united states constitution. taking advantage of, if you will, but many have said it is the in artful wording of that sentence in the 12th amendment.
scholars before 2020 would have used that historical precedent to argue not that vice president pence could overturn the 2020 election by accepting non-certified state electoral votes. but they would have made arguments as to some substantive, not merely procedural, authority, that by the vice president of the united states on the statutorily prescribed day for counting the electoral college votes. this is constitutional
mischief. >> judge, i think that's a good point. and i think it kind of begs the question that, if the vice president had this power to determine the outcome of a presidential election, why hasn't it ever been used before? why hasn't that ever happened? why hasn't a vice president simply rejected the outcome of an election and declared someone else the winner? instead, as the chair mentioned in his opening, for over two centuries, vice presidents have presided over the joint sessions of congress in a purely ceremonial role. this even includes, as mr. jacob mentioned, vice president al gore. for those of us who are old enough to remember, the 2000 election came down to one state, florida. -- weeks and recounts and litigation after the election, outdoor conceded. of course, al gore was vice president at the time. but he never suggested that he could simply declare himself the winner of the 2000 election when he presided over the counting of the electoral votes. let's hear what vice president gore said when he described the
situation he faced in 2000. >> the importance of the united states of america, in all of human history, in lincoln's phrase, we still are the last best hope of humankind. the choice between one's own disappointment in your personal career and upholding the noble traditions of america's democracy is a pretty easy choice when it comes down to it. i >> mr. jacob, did dr. eastman say whether he would want other vice presidents such as outdoor, after the 2000 election, or kamala harris, after the 2024 election, to have the power to decide the outcome of the election? >> so, that's why it's one of the many points that we discussed on january 5th. he had come into that meeting trying to persuade us that there was some validity to his theory, i viewed it as my
objective to persuade him to acknowledge that he was just wrong. i, thought this had to be one of the most powerful arguments. john, back in 2000, you weren't jumping up and saying how gore had this authority to do that. you wouldn't want kamala harris to be able to exercise that kind of authority in 2024 when, i hope, republicans will win the election, and i know you have that too, john. he said, absolutely. i would or did not have a basis to do it in 2000. kamala harris shouldn't be able to do it in 2024. but i think you should do it today. >> marc short told the select committee that vice president pence consulted with one of his predecessors, vice president dan quayle, regarding the role of the vice president. vice president quayle confirmed pence's view that the role was purely ceremonial. mr. short also told the committee that he, mr. short, received a call from former house speaker paul ryan. here is mr. short's description
of his conversation with the korean. >> speaker i wanted to call and say you don't have any authority. i said, mister speaker, you know mike, you know he recognizes that. we sort of laughed about it. he, said i get it. he even spoke to the vice president to have the same conversation. >> fortunately, for the fate of our republic, vice president pence refused to go along with president trump's demands that he determined the outcome of the presidential election. mr. jacob, what was the vice presidents reaction when you discussed with him the theory that the vice president had to sign the outcome of the election? >> congressman, if i have testified, the vice president's first instinct was that there was no way that any one person, particularly the vice president who is on the ticket and has a vested outcome in the election, could possibly have the
authority to decided by rejecting electors or to decisively alter the outcome by suspending the joint session for the first time in history, in order to try to get a different outcome from state legislatures. >> despite the fact that the vice president had a strongly held and correct view that he could not decide the outcome of the election, president trump launched a multi week campaign of both public and private pressure to get the vice president, mike pence, to violate the constitution. there is some examples of the intense pressure of the vice president faced from all sides and what his chief of staff thought of it. >> i hope mike pence comes through for us, i have to tell you. [applause] i hope that our great vice president, our great vice president comes through for us. he's a great guy. of course, if he doesn't come
through, i won't like him quite as much. >> was that your impression that the vice president had directly conveyed his position on these issues to the president? not just to the world, through a dear colleague letter, but directly to pass president trump? >> many times. >> and he had been consistent and conveying his message to the president? >> very consistent. >> i am aware of the view that the president was upset with the way pence acted. >> are we to assume that this is going to be a climactic battle? >> i think a lot of that depends on the courage and the spine of the individuals involved. >> would that be a nice way to say a guy named vice president mike pence? >> yes. >> i think we've been clear as to what the vice president's role was, i think the vice president was clear with the president, i think as clear as mark meadows. >> i think the vice president's going to throw down tomorrow and do the right thing. he because, like i said before, this is a time for choosing. people are going to look back at this moment tomorrow and
remember where every single one of their elected officials were. did they vote for the rule of law and getting these elections right? or did they give it away to the democrats and the people who cheated and sole their way through this election? >> when i got back into town approximately the fifth of the sixth, the president was, you know, all the attention was on what mike would do or what mike wouldn't do. >> the vice president really was not wavering in his commitment to what his responsibility was. so, yeah, was it painful? sure. >> the presidents pressure campaign started in december. for example, although the vice president made his views clearly and unmistakably loan known to the president and others in the white house, on december 23rd, president trump re-tweeted a memo from an individual named ivan right colin, entitled operation pence card. that called on the vice
president to refer views the electoral college was from certain states that have certified joe biden as a winner. president trump started his pressure campaign in december and he dialed up the pressure as january 6th approached. the testimony we have received in our investigation indicates that, by the time january 4th arrived, president trump and already engaged in a, quote, multi week campaign to pressure the vice president to decide the outcome of the election. there's that included private conversations between the two leaders, trump's tweets and at least one meeting with members of congress. we understand that the vice president started his day on january 4th with a rally in georgia, for the republican candidates and the u.s. senate runoff. when the vice president return to washington, he was summoned to meet with the president regarding the upcoming joint session of congress. mr. jacob, who attended that meeting? >> the attendees were the vice
president, the president, mark short, the chief of staff to the vice president, myself and john eastman. there is about a five minute period where mark meadows came in on a different issue. >> let's show a photo of that meeting. mr. jacob, during that meeting between the president and vice president, what there is dr. eastman present regarding the role of the vice president counting the electoral votes? >> during the meeting on january 4th, mr. eastman was opining that there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the vice president could exercise two days later on january six. one of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. the other was that he could use his capacity as presiding officer to suspend the
proceedings and declare, essentially, a ten-day recess. during which states that he deemed to be disputed, there is a list of 5 to 7 states, the exact number change from conversation a conversation, but that the vice president could issue a demand to the state legislatures and those states to re-examine the election and declare who had won each of those states. so, he said that both of those were legally viable options. he said that he did not recommend, upon questioning, he did not recommend what he called a more aggressive option. which was reject it right. because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. the imprimatur of state legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have
public acceptance of an outcome, in favor of president trump. so, he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route not suspending the joint session and sending the election back to the states. >> mr. jacob, i know you want to discuss the direct conversations between the president and the vice president. so, rather than asking you with the vice president said in that, meeting all ask you a more general question. did the vice president ever waiver in his position, that he could not unilaterally decide which electors to accept? >> the vice president never budged from the position that i have described as his first instinct, which was that it has made no sense. from everything that he knew and had studied about our constitution. that one person would have that kind of authority. >> did the vice president ever wavered his position that he could not delay certification and send it back to the states? >> now, he did not. >> the doctor easement admit,
in front of the president, that his proposal would violate the electoral count act? >> so, during that meeting on the fourth, i think i raised the problem that death of mr. eastman's proposals would violate several provisions of the electoral count act. mr. eastman acknowledge that that was the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions. but he thought that we could do so because, in his view, the electoral count act was unconstitutional. and, when i read his concerns of that position would likely lose in court, his view was that the court simply wouldn't get involved, they would invoke the political question doctrine and therefore, we could have some comfort proceeding with that path. >> mr. wood i? >> just to reiterate, he told, the maybe this isn't a later conversation, but he told you at some point that if, in fact,
the issue ever got to the supreme court, is there he would lose 90, correct? >> the next morning, starting around 11 or 11:30, we met for an hour and a half to two hours. in that meeting, i've already described the test, structure, history conversation. we started walking through all that. i said john, basically, what you have is some tax that maybe a little ambiguous but then nothing else that would support it, including the fact that nobody would ever want that to be the rule. wouldn't we lose nine to nothing in the supreme court? and again, he initially started, well, maybe you'd only lose 7 to 2. but ultimately li acknowledge that no, you would lose 9 to 0, no judge would support his argument. >> after his meeting with the vice president, donald trump flew to georgia for a rally in support of the republican candidates for the united
states senate runoff. even though the vice president was steadfast in resisting the presidents pressure, president trump continued to publicly pressure vice president pence in his georgia speech. rather than focusing exclusively on the georgia senate runoff, trump turned his attention to mike pence. it is what the president said during that rally in georgia. >> pence comes through for us, i have to tell you. i hope that our great vice president, our great vice president comes through for us, he's a great guy. of course, if he doesn't come through, i won't like him quite as much. >> so, the president had been told multiple times that the vice president cannot affect the outcome of the election. but he nonetheless publicly pressured mike pence to do exactly that by saying, quote, if he doesn't come through, i won't like him heads much.
let's turn now to january 5th. mr. wood? >> i thank you. that morning, january 5th, the president issued a tweet expressly stating that the vice president had the power to reject electors. let's look at what the president wrote. quote, the vice president has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors. mr. jacob, yves already told us about your meeting with the president mr. eastman on the fourth, and you briefly made reference to the meeting you had with doctor easement the next day, january 5th. can you tell us more about that meeting with dr. eastman on january 5th? for example, where was the meeting, who was there? >> so, at the conclusion of the meeting on the fourth, the president had asked that our office meet with mr. eastman the next day, to hear more about the positions he had
expressed at that meeting. and the vice president indicated that it offered me up as it is counsel to fulfill that duty. we met in marc short's office in the executive office building. across the way from the white house. doctor eastman had a court hearing by zoom that morning, so it didn't start first thing. rather, started around 11. that meeting went for about an hour and a half, two hours. chief of staff, marc short, was at that meeting most of the time. there are a few times where he left. essentially, it was an extended discussion. what's most surprised me about that meeting was that, when mr. eastman came in, he said, i'm here to request that you reject
the electors. so, on the fourth, that had been in the past but he had said i'm not recommending that you do that. but on the fifth, he came in and expressly requested that. i grabbed a notebook because i was heading into the meeting, i don't hear much knew from him to record. but that was the first thing i recorded in my notes, was the requests that the vp reject. >> just to be clear. you're saying that dr. eastman urged the vice president to adopt the very same approach that dr. eastman appeared to abandon in the oval office meeting with the president today before, is that correct? >> he had recommended against at the evening before. and then, on the fifth, came in and i think it was his first words after introductions and as we sat down. where i'm here to request that you reject the electors in the
disputed states. >> and you referenced, a moment ago, some handwritten notes which who provided to the select committee. i'd now like to show you those notes. as you can see, you're out there at the top, the writings a little bit faint in the copy, but you wrote requesting vp reject. does that accurately reflect what doctor eastman asked of you in your meeting on january 5th? >> yes. >> but was your reaction when doctor eastman said, on january 5th, that he was there to ask the vice president of the united states to reject electors of the joint session of congress? >> i was surprised, because i had viewed it as one of the key concessions that we had secured the night before from mr. eastman. that he was not recommending that we do that. >> so, what did you say to him? >> well, as i've indicated, to some extent and simplified my task.
the more procedural complexities to send it back to the states, that point of view, and actually spent most of my evening the night before writing a memorandum to the vice president, explaining all of these specific provisions of the electoral count act that that plan would violate. so, instead, since he was pushing the robust unilateral power theory, have already walked the committee through the discussions that we had. again, i started out with our points of commonality or what i thought were our points of commonality. we are conservatives, or small government people, we believe in originalism as the means by which we're going to interpret this. so, we walked to the text, we walked to the history. the committee has shown footage of mr. eastman on the stage on the sixth claiming that jefferson supported his position in a historic example
of jefferson. in fact, he conceded in that meeting, jefferson did not, at all, support his possession position. and the election of 1800, there had been some small technical defect with a certificate in georgia. it was absolutely undisputed that jefferson had won georgia. jefferson did not assert but he had any authority to reject electors, he did not assert that he had any authority to resolve any issue during the course of that. and so, he acknowledged by the end that there was no historical practice whatsoever that supported his position. he had initially tried to push examples of jefferson and adams, he ultimately acknowledge that they did not work, as we've covered. he acknowledged it would lose nine toe in the supreme court. he again tried to say that he didn't think the courts will get involved in this. tell and vote the political question doctrine and so, if
the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we all have the ten days for the states to step in and resolve it. and they will send back the trump slates of electors on the people will be able to accept that. i express my vociferous disagreement with that point, i did not think that this was a political question. among other things, if the courts did not step into resolve this week, there was nobody else to resolve it. you would be in a position way of a standoff between the president of the united states and counter factually the vice president of the united states, saying that we've exercised authorities that constitutionally we think we have. by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election. you have an opposed house and senate, disagreeing with that.
you would have state legislatures that, to that point -- republican leaders across those legislatures had put together, and put out statements, and we collected these for the vice president as well. the people had spoken in their states, and they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election. we did receive some signed letter is that mr. eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those states. but no state had any legislative has a indicated that it had any interest in it. so, you would've had just an unprecedented, constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. and, as i expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets. if we can't work it out politically, we've already seen how charged up people are about this election.
and so, it would be a disastrous situation, to me. so, i said i think the courts will intervene. i do not see a commitment in the constitution of the question, whether the vice president has that authority, to some other actor to resolve. there's arguments about whether congress and the vice president jointly have a constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues. i don't think that they have any authority to object or reject them. i don't see it on the 12th amendment. nonetheless. and i concluded by saying, john, in light of everything that we've discussed, can't we both just agree that this is a terrible idea? he couldn't quite bring himself to say yes to that, but he very clearly said, well, yeah, i see we're not going to be able to persuade you to do this. and that was how the meeting
concluded. you just described a terrifying scenario. it sounds like it could've been chaos under the easement approach. you even described it as a potentially decided in the streets. you described several concessions that dr. eastman made has throughout that discussion or even debate that you had with him. , at some point during that meeting on january 5th did dr. eastman seem to admit that both of the theories that he had presented to the united states today before, the theory that the vice president could reject electors outright and declare donald trump the winner and as less aggressive theory that the vice president could simply send it back to the states. at some point in that conversation on the fifth, the doctor eastman seem to admit that both of these theories suffered from a similar legal flaws? >> i had at least one possibly
two other conversations with doctor eastman later that day. in the earlier meeting, we really were focused because his request that he made had been rejected electors outright on why that theory was wrong. why we certainly would not be doing that. later that day, he pivoted back to, well, we hear you loud and clear. you're not going to reject. remember last night, i said that there is more prudent course, where you could send it back to the states, would you be willing to do that? during the course of our discussion about his renewed request that reconsiders that option, he acknowledged to me that, he put it, both easter easter and myself, are graduates of the university of chicago law school. he said, look, as graduates that institution, you and i
will mutually understand that the underlying legal theory of plenary vice presidential authority is what you have to have to get their. this new theory, as i was pointing out to him, the procedural theory, still violates several provisions on the electoral count act. as he acknowledged. the only way that you could ever be able to ignore several provisions of statutory law is if it was pretty clear that there were unconstitutional. the only way they could be unconstitutional, as if the vice president had the plan early authorities that form the basis for the rejected votes as well. he acknowledged in those conversations that the underlying legal theory was the same. he just thought that the send it back to the states option would be more politically palatable. he hoped more palatable to the vice president for that reason. >> in fact, when doctor eastman
made this concession during that meeting, according to your earlier deposition, dr. eastman said, just between us university of chicago chickens, is that right? >> i don't mean that the university of chicago is going to start a chicago chickens fundraising club. but, yes, that is the terminology that he used. he said, you know, just between us chicago chickens, we will understand as lawyers who had studied the constitution that the underlying basis really is the same. >> i reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, mr. wood. mr. jacob, the president vice president to get on the same topic the next day. january 5th, correct? >> there, so, after my extended meeting with mr. eastman that morning, during that time, the vice president had been back at the his residence working his statements to the nation that release the next day.
he got down to the white house, at some point between 1:00 in 2:00, as my meeting with mr. eastman was wrapping up. when mark short and i went over to meet with the vice president. actually, we thought that maybe we had good news. we felt like we had defeated mr. eastman. sort of acknowledging there was no there. the vice president was then asked down to the oval office. he went down to the oval office while mark and i stayed back in the vice president's office. >> you weren't in that meeting? >> i was not. >> and the book bob woodward and -- the president said, quote, if these people say you have the power, wouldn't you want to? the vice president says, quote, i wouldn't want anyone percentile that authority.
the president responds, wouldn't it also be cool to have that power? vice president is reporting to us said, no, look, i read this, i don't see a way to do it. we have exhausted every option. i've done everything i could and then some to find a way around this. it is simply not possible. my interpretation is, no. two etched, the president says, no, no, no, you don't understand, mike, you can do this. i don't want to be your friend anymore if you don't do that. we asked marc short about this during his deposition. >> understanding that i would have and other conversations with the vice president, he articulated to me that, no, he would want that power of soda upon one person.
mr. jacob, did you, mr. short, and the vice president have a call later again with the president doctor eastman? >> yes, we did. >> what did dr. eastman request? >> on that phone call, which, i, believe was around 5:00 that afternoon, mr. eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning. we are not going to be rejecting electors. would be to be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the fourth, which would be the suspend the joint session and request that state legislatures reexamined certification of the electoral votes? >> that same day, generally, that the new york times ran a story about the disagreements between the president and the vice president. about whether the vice president could determine the outcome of the election. even though the new york times story was indisputably correct,
donald trump denied it. trump issued a statement claiming that the vice president had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election. despite the fact that the vice president had consistently rejected that position. let's look at what's the president said in his statement. quote, the new york times report regarding comments vice president pence supposedly made to beat today's fake news. he never said that. the vice president and i are in total agreement that the vice president has the power to act. mr. jacob, how did the vice presidents team react to the statement from the president, that the vice president could take an active role in determining the winner of the presidential election? >> we were shocked and disappointed. whoever had written and put that statement out, it was categorically untrue. >> vice president chief of
staff mark short had an angry phone call with trump campaign senior adviser jason miller about the statement. here's what mr. short and mr. miller told the committee about that call. >> tell me about the conversation you had with jason. >> it was brief. i was irritated. i expressed displeasure that the statement had could've got out, misrepresented the vice reticence we pride without constellation. >> vice president and i are in total agreement and the vice president has the power -- is that incorrect? >> i think the record shows that's incorrect. we've been through many documents that clarify that this is not where the vice president was. >> essentially, the presidents sending out a boldly false statement about being in alignment, purported alignment, with the vice president despite all of the predicate that you
indicated had gone before the positions, is that what happened? >> i interpret the statement is false. i'll let you figure out who said it out. >> when marc short contacted you, he was upset, is that what you said? >> he was not pleased. >> tell us what he said. >> what's the process for putting out a statement for a meeting with only two people in the room? >> did he ask you to retract the statement? >> now, i think it went right to, what's the process for putting out a statement for a meeting with only two people in the room. >> he clearly disagreed with that substance that, the vice president doesn't agree with, us -- >> i'm trying to think what exactly he said. the town, it was very clearly that he use some language to
strongly infer that the vice president took a ride with that. >> did he take the statement? >> he dictated most of it. typically on these i have a couple of wording suggestions. maybe i have a rough framework or something about that. i know it specifically on this one, it was me and him on the phone talking through it. ultimately the way this came out was the way that he wanted to. the dispute between the president and the vice president had grown to the point where the vice presidents chief of staff mark's george was concern that the president could, it mr. short, words, quote, lash out at the vice
president on january six. in fact, mr. story was so concerned about it that he talked with the head of the vice president secret service detail on january 5th. here is mr. short. >> this was for the vice president security. i wanted to make sure i had the vice president secret service, that they were aware that likely as these disagreements became more public that the president would lash out in some way. >> after the recess, we will hear that marc short's concerns were justified. the vice president was in danger. mister chairman, i reserve. >> to the order of the committee of today, the chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately ten minutes.
this first portion lasting about an hour 42 minutes. so, ten minute break here. and our live coverage will continue. members have been focusing on how former president trump may have tried to pressure vice president pence into not certifying the 2020 presidential election results. congressman pete aguilar leading this hessian. live coverage, again, will continue when they reconvene shortly, here on c-span 3. reminder that the january six committee hearings and all of c-span programming is brought to you as a public service by the cable industry and these television companies. including spark light, wow and verizon firehouse. reminding you again that if you do that to step away from your tv today, you can continue watching the hearing on the go with c-span now, our free mobile video app.
>> committee will be in order. gentleman from california, mr. aguilar, is recognized. >> i'd now like to turn to the events of january 6th, 2021. which turned out to be a fateful day in our nation's history. despite the fact that the vice president consistently told the president that he did not have and would not want the power to
decide the outcome of the presidential election, donald trump continued to pressure the vice president both publicly and privately. as you will hear, things reached a boiling point on january 6th in the consequences were disastrous. in the middle of the night on january 5th, into the morning of the sixth, around 1 am, president trump tweeted at the vice president. meaning that the comments in response to the president's tweet would also show up on the vice president's twitter feed. the tweet stated that the vice president could, quote, come through for us and send it back to the states. then, around 8 am on january 6th, president trump again tweeted. this time to say that the vice
president could send it back to the states and, quote, we win. in that this is the time for extreme courage. mr. short told us during his deposition that the vice president started a meeting on january 6th in prayer. here is what mr. short said. >> -- you arrived at the vice presidents residence? >> as would often be the case, i recall that, knowing it would
be an important day, we gathered in prayer. often, that would be something that a staff member would lead, so it would have just been at that time. i believe the vice president, myself, greg and chris, we would have asked for guidance and wisdom, knowing that the day was going to be a challenging one. >> mr. jacob, did you go to the vice presidents residence is on the morning of january 6th? >> yes. >> who else was with you? >> marc short, devin o'malley, our communications director, and chris hodge son, our legislative affairs director. >> did the vice president have a call with the president that morning? >> he did. >> were you with the vice president during the call? >> so, we had been -- the vice president had finalized his statement
overnight, we were in the process of proving it so that we can get that out. we were told that a call had come in from the president. the vice president stepped out of the room to take that call and no staff went with him. >> the president had several family members with him in the oval that morning, for that call. i'd like to show you what today and others told the select committee about that call, along with never before seen photographs of the president on that call from the national archives. >> when i got in, somebody called me and said that the family and others were in the oval. and do i want to come up? so, i went upstairs. >> who do you recall being in the oval office? >> don junior, erik, laura, kimberly. i believe meadows was there. at some point, ivanka came in.
>> it wasn't a specific formal discussion, of it was very loose and casual. >> he said at some point there is a telephone conversation between the president and the vice president, is that correct? >> yes. >> when i entered the office, the second time, he was on the telephone with who i later found out to be was the vice president. >> could you hear the vice president? we're only heard the presidents and? >> only heard the presidents and. >> at some point, it started off conversational that became heeded. >> the conversation was pretty heated. >> i think, till it became in a louder tone, i don't think anyone who's paying attention to it initially. >> didier or any part of the conversation or just the end of president was speaking from?
>> it's also been something to the reported effect of you don't have that someone a courage. type the president said vice president you don't have the courage to make our decision. >> i remember exactly it, was something like that me. you're not tough enough to make the call. >> it was a different tone than i had heard. with the vice president before. the mr. trump charity any details about that happen or any details about why that happened in the oval office that morning? >> that her dad had just had an upsetting conversation with the vice president. >> recall anything about that either during the meeting or in the office? >> i don't remember specifically. or think she was uncomfortable about the fact there was obviously that type of interaction between the two of them. >> something to the effect, the wording is wrong. i made the wrong decision for a
five years ago. >> the word that she related to the president called the vice presidents, apologize for being impolite, remember what she said her father called him? >> the p-word. >> mr. jacob, how would you describe the demeanor of the vice president following that call with the president? >> when he came back into the room, i'd say that he was steely, determined, grim. >> of course, the most dangerous part what donald trump did on january 6th was when he did himself. it will be discussed in detail in a future hearing. our investigation found that early drafts of the january 6th ellipse speech prepared for the president, included no mention
of the vice president. the president revised it to include criticism of vice president and then further ad libbed. here's what the president said on january six after his call with vice president present. >> i hope mike is going to do the thing. i hope he's going to do the right thing. if mike pence does the right thing, we win the election. all vice president pence has to do is send it back to the state to recertify, we become president, you are the happiest people. i actually, i just spoke to my, i said, mike that doesn't take courage. what takes courage is to do nothing, that takes courage. and then we are stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot. and we have to live with that for four more years. we're just not going to let
that happen. mike pence is going to come through for us, if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country. they want to recertify their votes. they want to recertify. the only way that can happen as if mike pence agrees to send it back. i hope mike has the courage to do what he has to do. i hope he doesn't listen to the rhinos and the stupid people that he's listening to. >> of course, we all know what happened next. the presidents words i had an effect. president trump supporters became angry. when the vice president issued his public letter, the crowd at the capitol erupted in anger. the rioters who had erected makeshift gallows began chanting, hang mike pence. testimony in our investigation has made clear what the target of the rioters ire was, vice president mike pence. the rioters breached the
capitol at 2:13 pm. let's take a look at what's going on at the white house at this time. we received testimony that presents chief of staff mark meadows was notified of the violence at the capitol by 2 pm and, likely earlier. the testimony further establishes that mr. meadows quickly inform the president and that he did so before the president issued his 2:24 pm tweet criticizing vice president pence for not having, quote, courage to do what needed to be done. here's what the president wrote
in his 2:24 pm tweet while the violence at the capitol was going on. here is what the rioters thought. >> he's a trainer, he deserves to burn the rest of them. >> it is all escalated after pence. >> pence didn't do it we wanted. >> pence voted against trump. >> that's when all the started? >> yes, that's when the march on the capitol. we've been shot at with rubble bullets, tear gas. [inaudible] that's right, you've heard it here first. mike pence has betrayed the united states of america. [noise] mike prince has betrayed this president and the people of the united states and
we will never ever forget. >> it's real simple, pence betrayed us. which apparently everyone knew he was going to do and the president mentioned it like five times when he talked. you can go back and watch the presidents video. >> be respectful to him. there are 4 million people coming in. [noise] >> it's only a matter time, justice is coming. >> although the presidents chief of staff mark meadows has refused to testify before this committee, mr. meadows aide, ben williamson and white house deputy press secretary sarah matthews testified that mr. meadows went to the dining room near the oval office to tell the president about the violence at the capitol before the president's 2:24 pm tweet.
and future hearings, you'll hear more about exactly what was happening in the white house at that time. here is what some white house staff told the select committee. do you know where you went? >> yes, i followed him down the hallway. i followed him into the outer oval corridor, which is the hallway between the oval office hallway and the outer oval section of the office. i followed him into that little corridor hallway. i saw him walk into outer oval. i maybe took a step into outer oval and then left. i don't know where he went outside of that. it looked like he was headed in the direction of the oval office. >> we get all talked about at that point how it was bad and that the situation was getting out of hand.
i know ben williamson and i were conferring. we thought that the president needed to tweet something. and wheat something immediately. i think when kayleigh gave us that order of, don't say that anything to the media, i told her that i thought the president needed to tweet something. then i remember getting a notification on my phone, i was sitting in a room with roma and then, we all got a notification me. we knew it was a tweet from the president. we looked down. it was a tweet about mike pence. >> i believe i had sent him a text saying that we may have wanted to put out some statement. because the situation was
getting a little hairy over at the capitol. and that it was common for, after i would text him, i would just go down and see him in person. you went down to speak with mark meadows after this, what was that conversation? >> very brief, i went down and told him the same thing i hadn't attacks that i could recall. i don't remember anything that was said between us, other than i told him that to my recollection, he really got off and left his office. >> our investigation found that immediately after the president 2:24 pm tweet, the crowd both outside the capital and inside the capitol surged. the crowds inside the capitol were able to overwhelm the law enforcement presence and the vice president was quickly evacuated from his ceremonial senate office to a secure location within the capital complex.
[noise] >> by 2:24 pm, the secret service had moved vice president pence from the senate chamber to his office across the hall. >> the noise from the rioters became audible. at which point we recognize that maybe they had gotten into the building. . >> then president, trump tweeted, mike pence didn't have the courage what's should've been done to protect our country and our constitution. giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. usa demands the truth. >> it was clear that it was escalating and exploiting quickly. then when that tweet, the mike pence tweet was sent out, i remember a saying that that was
the last thing that we needed to be treated at that moment. >> the situation was already bad. it felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that. >> 30 seconds later, rioters already inside the capitol opened the east rotunda door just down the hall. and just 30 seconds after that, rioters breached the crypt. one floor below the vice president. >> the secret service could not control the situation and keep do the job of keeping a safe. >> at 2:26 pm, secret service rushed vice president pence down the stairs. >> i think they had been trying to figure out whether they had a clear route to get us to wherever they wanted us to move us to. >> we move pretty quickly down the stairs and through various hallways and tunnels to the secure location. upon arriving there, there was further discussion as whether or not we were going to leave the capitol complex or stay where we were. >> vice president pence and his team ultimately were led to a secure location where they stayed for the next four and a half hours.
barely missing rioters a few feet away. >> approximately 40 feet, that's all there was, 40 feet between the vice president and the mob. mr. jacob, you are there seeing that for the first time. does it surprise you to see how close the bob was to the evacuation route that you took? 40 feet is the distance from edu roughly. >> i could hear the dan of the riders in the building while we moved. i don't think that they were as close as that. >> make no mistake about the fact that the vice president's life was in danger. a recent court filing by the department of justice explains that a confidential explore meant from the proud boys told the fbi the proud boys would've killed mike pence if given a chance. this witness whom the fbi often
referred to as w. one stated that other members of the group talked about things they did that day. they said that anyone they got their hands on they would've killed, including nancy pelosi. that one further stated that members of the proud boys said they would've killed mike pence if given a chance. we understand that congressional leaders and others were evacuated from the capitol complex during the attack. we'd like to show you what happened after the vice president was evacuated from the senate. >> select committee has obtained never before seen photos from the national archives that show vice president pence sheltering in a secure underground location as riders overwhelm the capital. at 4:19 pm, vice president pence is seen looking at a tweet the president had just sent, a tweet asking the rioters to leave the capitol.
after four and a half hours, spent on working to restore order, vice president return to the senate floor to continue the certification of electors. >> vice president pence was a focus of the violent attack. mr. jacob, to the vice president of the capital complex during the attack? >> he did not. >> can you please explain why the vice president refused to leave? >> when we got down to the secure location, secret service directed as to get into the cars. which i did. and then i noticed the vice president had not. i got out of the car that i had gotten into and i understood that the vice president had refused to get into the car. the head of a secret service detailed him and said, i assure
you, we're not going to drive out of the building without your permission. the vice president had said something to the effect of, tim, i know you, i trust you, you are not the one behind the wheel. the vice president did not want to take any chance that the world would see the vice president of the united states fleeing the united states capitol. he was determined that we would complete the work that we had set out to do that day. that it was his constitutional duty to see through. and the rioters who had breached the capitol would not have the satisfaction of disrupting the proceedings beyond the day of which they were supposed to be completed. >> let me see if i understand us right. you are told to get in the cars. and how many of the vice president staff got in the car as well he did not? >> most of us. >> during our investigation, we
received testimony that, while the vice president was in a secure location within the capital complex, he continued the business of government. we understand that the vice president reached out to congressional leaders like the acting secretary of defense and others to check on those safety and to address the ongoing crisis. in addition, the vice presidents chief of staff, marc short, made several calls to senior government officials. it is mr. short's testimony regarding his call with representative kevin mccarthy. >> he indicated that he had had some conversation, i don't recall whether it was with the president or someone at the white house, but i think he'd expressed frustration at not taking the circumstances as variously as i should've in that moment. >> so, mr. mccarthy indicated he'd been in touch with someone at the white house and he conveyed to you that they weren't taking this as seriously as they should? >> yes.
>> answer yes or no. >> yes. >> okay. >> well the vice president made several calls to check on the safety of others, it was his own life that was in great danger. mr. jacob, did donald trump ever call the vice president to check on his safety? >> he did not. >> mr. jacob, how did vice president pence and mrs. pence react to that? >> with frustration. >> mr. jacob, mediately before you and the vice president didn't wear evacuated to a secure location within the capital, you hit send on an email to john eastman, explaining why his legal theory about the vice presidents role was wrong. you ended your email by stating that, quote, thanks to your bowls, it we are now under siege. we will now take a look at that email.
doctor jasmyn replied, this is hard to believe, but his reply back to you was the siege is because you and your boss, presumably referring to the vice president of the united states, did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way to the american people can see for themselves what happened. mr. jacob, later that day you wrote again to doctor eastman, let's show that email on the screen. in that email, you wrote, and i quote, did you advise the president that in your professional judgment the vice president does not have the power to decide things unilaterally? and you ended that email saying, it does not appear that the president ever got the memo. doctor eastman then replied, he has been so advised. he ends his email with, quote,
but you know him, once he gets something and his head it's hard to get him to change course, close quote. mr. jacob, when dr. eastman wrote, when he gets something in his head it's hard to get up to change course, did you understand the he in that email to refer to the president of the united states? >> i did. >> mr. jacob, did you hear from mr. eastman further, after the riot had been quelled? if so, what did he ask? >> late that evening, after the joint session had been reconvened, the vice president had given a statement to the nation saying that violence was not going to win, freedom winds. and that the people were going to get back to doing their work. later that evening, mr. eastman emailed me to point out that, in his view, the vice
presidents speech to the nation violated the electoral count act. that the electoral count act have been violated because the debate on arizona had not been completed in two hours. of course, it couldn't be, since there was an intervening riot of several hours. the speeches that the majority and minority leaders had been allowed to make also violated the electoral count act, because they hadn't been counted against the debate time. then, he implored me, now that we have established that the electoral count act isn't without sack sacrosanct of you made it out to be, i implore you one last time, can the vice president do what we have been asking him to do these last two days? suspend the joint session, send it back to the states. >> and we'll show you the text of that email. which doctor eastman wrote, at 11:44 pm on january 6th.
so, after the attack on the capitol and after law enforcement had secured the capital, he still wrote, as you described. quote, so now that the president has been said that the electoral count act does not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed, i implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation and adjourned for ten days to allow the legislature to finish their investigations. so, even after the attack on the capital have been quelled, doctor eastman requested, in writing no less, that the vice president violate the law by delaying the certification and sending the question back to the states. is that correct, mr. jacob? >> it is. >> did you eventually share doctor eastman's proposal with vice president pence? >> not right at that time, because the vice president was completing the work that it was
his duty today. but a day or two later, back at the white, as i did show him that final email from mr. eastman. >> what was vice president pence's reaction when you showed him the email where doctor eastman, after the attack on the capital, still asked that the vice president delay certification and send it back to the states? >> he said, that's rubber room stuff. >> i'm sorry, he said it's rubber room stuff? >> yes, congressman. >> what did you interpret that to mean? >> i understood it to mean that, after having seen play out what happens when you convince people that there is a decision to be made in the capital, legitimately, about who is to be the president, and the consequences of that ice. that he was still pushing us to do what he had been asking us to do for the previous two days,
that that was certifiably crazy. >> we know that the vice president did not to a doctor's been requested because he presided over their completion of the counting of electoral votes late in that evening. >> a number of electors appointed to vote for the president of the united states is 538. within that whole number of majority is 270. the votes for president of the united states are as follows. joseph r. biden junior of the state of delaware has received 306 votes. donald j trump of the state of florida has received 232 votes. the whole number of electors appointed to vote for vice president of the united states is 538. within that whole number, a majority is 270. the votes for vice president of the united states are as follows. camilla d. harris of the state of california has received 306
votes. michael our pants of the state of indiana has received 232 votes. the announcement of the data vote by the president of the senate shall be named a sufficient declaration of the person's elected president and vice president of the united states, each for the term beginning on the 21st of january, 2021. the other will be gathered with a list of votes on the journal of the senate and the house of representatives. >> mr. jacob, we heard earlier that you and the vice president and the team started january 6th with a prayer. you faced a lot of danger that day. this is a personal question, but how did your faith guide you on january 6th? >> my faith really sustained me through it. down in the secularization, i
pulled out my bible, read through it. i just took a great comfort. daniel six was where i went, in daniel six daniel has become the second in command of babylon, a pagan nation, but he completely, faithfully serves. he refuses and order from the king that he cannot follow. and he does his duty, consistent with his oath to god. i felt that that was what had played out that game day. >> it spoke to? you >> yes. >> at the end of the day, marc short sent the president a text message with a bible verse, here's what he told the select committee. >> at 3:50 in the morning, when
we finally adjourned and headed our ways, i remember texting the vice president a passage from second timothy, chapter four through seven. i fought the good fight, i finish the race, i've kept the faith. >> he started his day with a prayer and ended his day with a bible verse. fought the good fight, finish the race, i've kept the faith. white house attorney eric herschmann testified that the next day, january 7th, he received a call from dr. eastman. here is mr. herschmann's account of that call. >> the day after, you just man, i don't remember why he called me. he texted me or called me, wanted to talk to me and he said he couldn't reach others.
he started to ask me about something dealing with georgia, preserving something, potentially for appeal. and i said to him are you out of your effing mind. i said i only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on, orderly transition. he said, i don't want to hear any other effing words coming out of your mouth no matter what, other than orderly transition. repeat those words to me. we eventually he said, orderly transition. i said, good, john. now i'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life, get a great effing defense, lawyer you're going to need it. and then i hung up on him. >> in fact, just a few days
later, dr. easement rudy giuliani and requested that he be included on a list of potential recipients of a presidential pardon. doctor eastman's emails stated, quote, i've decided that i should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works. doctor eastman did not receive his presidential pardon. so, let's see what doctor eastman did as a result, when he was deposed by this committee. >> it is my fifth amendment right and and a witness against myself. >> did the trump legal team have to prepare a memorandum regarding the vice presidents role in the counting of electoral votes in the joint session of congress on january 6th, 2021? >> yes. >> doctor easement, did you advise a president of the united states or the vice president to reject electors from seven states and declare that the president had been reelected? >> yes. >> doctor eastman, the first sentence of the memo start-up i
think seven states have transmitted duels dates of electors to the president of the senate. is that statement, in this mom, our true? >> yes. >> to president trump authorize you to discuss publicly or january 4th, 2021 conversation with him? >> yes fifth. >> their position you can discuss in the media, direct conversations you could have the president of the united states, but you will not discuss sides and the same conversation with this committee? >> fifth. >> doctor eastman pled the fifth 100 times. finally, let's hear from a federal court judge, the only one today to his opined on whether the president was involved in criminal activity. page 36 of judge carter's ruling says, quote, based on the evidence, the court finds it more likely than not that the president trump corruptly
attempted to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6th in 2021. page 40 of the ruling says, quote, based on the evidence the court finds that is more likely than not that president trump and dr. eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6th, 2021. in page 44, carter eastman and president trump launched a campaign to over turn a democratic election, and action unprecedented in american history. their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. it was a coup in search of a legal theory. mr. jacob, what would have happened to our democracy if vice president pence had gone along with this plan and certified by donald trump as the winner of the 2020 election?
there would've >> been short term and long term effects. the short term i previously described. a constitutional situation, political chaos in washington lawsuits, and who knows what happens in the streets. and you would've had the vice president of the united states having declared that the outcomes of these state elections were incorrect. for all of those reasons, there would have been a significant short term consequences. in the long term, we would've established a situation where a vice president would have asserted that one person could have the authority to determine the outcome of an election. which is antithetical to everything in our democracy. it is antithetical to the rule of law. so, it would have been significant impacts, both in the short and long term.
judge luttig, in a statement released earlier today euro, that the efforts by president trump to overturn the 2020 election work, quote, the most reckless insidious and calamitous failures in both legal and political judgments in american history. what did you mean by that? >> exactly what i said, congressman. >> thank you, judge. thank you, mr. jacob, mr. chairman? i yield back. >> gentlemen -- >> i'm, sorry mister chairman, i want that back. mister chairman, this was a
report about harry. a powerful hearing. i'm grateful for your leadership and the leadership of the distinguished vice chair. donald trump knew he lost the 2020 election. you could not bring us all to participate in the peaceful transfer of power. he latched onto a scheme that once again he knew was illegal. and when the vice president refused to go along with it, he unleashed a violent mob against him. when we began, i asked how we got to this place. i think the answer to that question starts with the fact that people in positions of power but the political party before their country. it cannot be allowed to continue. i yield back, mister chairman. >> thank you very much. without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from wyoming, miss cheney for a closing statement. >> thank you very much, mister
chairman, thank you to my colleague, representative aguilar, thank you very much to our witnesses today. thank you for being here with us. we have seen so far in our hearings that president trump knew that his claims of a stolen election were false. you have seen that mike prince cannot legally refused to count electoral votes. you have seen white presidents romp did to pressure mike pence into taking illegal action. over the course of our next hearings, you will see information about president trump's efforts, john eastman's efforts, the trump legal team's efforts, to apply pressure to republican state legislatures, state officials, and others. judge carter has recently written, quote, doctor eastman's actions in these few weeks indicate that his and president trump's pressure campaign to stop the electoral count did not and with vice president pence.
it targeted every tier of federal and state elected officials. we will examine all of those threats. we will examine the trump team's determination to transmit materially false electoral slates for multiple states, officials of the executive and legislative branches of our government. we will examine the pressures put on state legislatures to convene, to reverse lawful election results. an honorable man receiving the information and advice that mr. trump received from his campaign experts and his staff will, a man who loved his country more than himself would have conceded this election. indeed we know that a number of president trump's closest aides urged him to do so. this committee will address all of these issues in greater detail in the coming weeks. mister chairman, i yield back.
>> the gentlelady yields back. judge luttig, mr. jacob, our nation owes you a great debt for your knowledge, integrity, and your loyalty to our constitution. you and vice president pence are exactly the people our nation needed at a critical time. you had the courage to do what was right. in the weeks leading up to january 6th, many people failed this test when they had to choose between their oath to the country or their demands of donald trump. there were others who, like you, stood tall in the face of intimidation. and put our democracy first. they include the judges -- the bogus claims of the election fraud, the senior justice department officials who stood up to donald trump.
and the state officials who we will hear from in our next hearing. we're deeply grateful to your courage and your devotion to our country. there are some who think the danger has passed. that even though there were violence and a corrupt attempt to overturn the presidential election, the system worked. i look at it another way. a system nearly failed, and our democratic foundation destroyed. but for people like you, jugular look, i want to give you an opportunity to share your thoughts. on the ongoing threat. even in the career and present danger to our democracy. now -- and other political allies appear prepared to seize the presidents in 2024 if mr. trump or one of his candidates is not
elected by the american people. what do you mean by this? mister chairman, i am honored beyond words by your words. i was honored on january 6th, 2021. then also honored beyond words. to have been able to come to the aid a vice president, mike pence. i prayed that day just like the vice president prayed that day.
i believe we may have prayed the same prayer to the same guy. i prayed that same prayer with my wife this morning before i came into these hearings. i have written as, you said, hey, chairman thompson, that today almost two years after that fateful day in january of 2021 that still donald trump and his law allies and
successor as the republican party presidential candidate where do you lose that election says that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election and the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020. i don't speak those words lightly. i would have never spoken those words ever in my life except
that that is what the former president and his allies are telling us as i said in that new york times op-ed. we are in, i was speaking about the electoral count act of 1880 side of the, the former president and his allies are executing that blueprint for a 2024 in open and plain view of the american public. i repeat, i would've never uttered one single one of those
words unless the former president and his allies were candidly and proudly speaking those exact words to america. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today for these proceedings. >> thank you again, judge lena. -- to make recommendations that are informed by other investigative findings, we will be reviewing the views shared by judge luttig and other experts on potential improvements to electoral count acts among a range of other
initiatives. i know the information we presented over the last week is shocking. the idea that a president of the united states would orchestrate a scheme to stay in power after the people i voted him out of office. we're able to present this information because so many witnesses have cooperated with our probe. the fact is, there are more people with direct knowledge, with evidence, to armory arrive asked again. i ask those who might be on the fence about cooperating to reach out to us. the committee's website address is being displayed behind me january 6th dot house.gov. there you can view the evidence we presented and our hearings and find a tip line to submit
any information you might think would be helpful for our investigation. and despite how you might not think it's important, send us what you think. i think those who have sent us evidence for their bravery and patriotism. without objections, members will be permitted ten business days to submit statements for the record. including opening remarks and additional questions for the witnesses. the chair request those in the hearing room remain seated until the capitol police have escorted members from the room. without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
committee hearing. the next scheduled public meeting is tuesday, june 21st. that is also expected to begin at 1 pm eastern. if you missed any of our coverage of the hearing, today we'll show it again and its entirety tonight. that starts at 8 pm eastern on our companion outwork, c span. you can also find today's hearing and all of our previous coverage of the attack on the u.s. capitol at c-span dot org slash january 6th. it is our specially dedicated web page, where you can see hearings, background programs and washington segments related to the matter. again, that's at c-span dot org slash january 6th. don't forget, you can follow all the action on the go with c-span now, our free video app. congressional sessions that hearing, speeches and campaign events and more, available to watch on the go with c-span now. you could find it wherever you get your apps a final reminder that today's january six