Democracy on Trial: Soumya Dayananda (interview) | FRONTLINE

when you hear there's a Federal indictment against uh the former president for his actions um after the election and the run after to January 6 what do you think when you read it when you hear that news so the mar laggo indictment had come out before right so that was uh one you know a kind of point where at least he was going to be held accountable federally for one set of actions but on August 1st when the Federal indictment came down about his efforts to overturn the election it was the instant reaction was that it was validating for the committee's work and I think the news broke I rushed home to watch Jack Smith's uh press conference and read the indictment word for word and was really um impressed to see the work that myself and our colleagues had put together the fact cther fact Gathering kind of repackaged in the form of this indictment with this with the conspiracy laid out and and when you compare it to the titles of the um committee hearings or to the chapters of the book how does it relate the indictment to the way you sort of it organized the story that the multi-part conspiracy right it very much reflected the hearing layout which Miss Cheney had laid out a multi-prong conspiracy led by the former president and the indictment reflected that in many ways right the conspiracy to uh undermine um the Department of Justice the com the the pressure on the vice president the pressure on state elected officials so all of these conspiracies that were laid out were featured in the summer hearings um there were some new information of course um but largely it reflected the work that was in the report and and that much of the public had learned already during the hearings and separate from your work how big a deal is it that a former president is charged with these this particular set of actions for for actions that he took while he was President of the United States I mean it's historically it's it's huge in the sense of the actions that he took so it's I would separate the actions versus the indictment right so to actually seen what he as far as how wide the conspiracy was and how focused he was to stay in office and the incredible efforts that he and his allies took to know that that those actions were now being held accountable for former president is is historic and it's really as someone who's a former prosecutor incredibly validating to see the process work work so the facts that we gathered as a congressional committee will be tested in a courtroom which are two very different things and how high are the stakes for in a moment like that for the rule of law for the for the country with this trial coming up I think it's incredibly important I think the committee received criticism initially that it was um partisan and it wasn't being um viewed as a as a balanced uh presentation of fact acts and here witnesses will take the stand they'll be cross-examined there will be a a judge uh holding people in the courtroom accountable the former president will have able Council representing him and that's that's how the system should work and it it will continue to work and it's been tested over time so I think that's where the rule of law will prevail and that's what's important for the American people to see and I do think in some respect that's that's what American people are more accustomed to seeing a criminal trial versus a congressional investigation with the number of hearings that we had it's two very different things I mean you had prosecuted complicated criminal cases before did it feel like a a criminal investigation like a a mafia or a gang investigation as the committee is trying to get close to these events it it felt like a a very vast conspiracy because there would be these overlap of events which if you've prosecuted uh long-term organizations you try to organize uh indictments by events so when someone is talking about an event that happened whether it's the December 18th White House meeting or December 21st meeting with Congressional members at the White House there's other activity that you that happened after that so for for example on the December 18th White House meeting the the tweet that goes out at 2 a.m. happens right after that so to be able to build that narrative is something that felt um felt very much like you were building a narrative and and whether it leads to an indictment or not that's what it means to investigate you you take a vast amount of facts and you try to put it within um a story a timeline and then you see these overlapping of char characters and themes and that's what felt familiar in terms of criminal investigation you were working mostly in secret for extended period of time there's a lot of questions about what can the committee actually add to all of this and and then you're going towards this very public hearing the the first Prime Time hearing what was that like what was the first hearing like what was the anticipation of it like and and to be in the room it was the nerve-wracking um the first one it was a prime time hearing there was a lot of pressure to get it right we had already committed I think to eight hearings over the course of the summer and and it was clear that that would set the tone for how the rest of the hearings would then be perceived so I think it was an 800 p.m hearing I remember being in the building at 300 p.m. and just there was nervous energy as to how everything would be able to to go whether it would run flawlessly we had a tremendous amount of production involved um so without having seen that happen before um obviously there was tremendous ant anticipation as you say there was this production involved which is unlike other Congressional hearings and unlike really any Congressional hearing uh what was going on behind the scenes our office was on on one floor and um James goldson's team was on the floor right above us and they came in about a month before the hearing started and just were incredibly professional and offered their perspective that frankly as lawyers we we don't have in terms of being storytellers I think a lot of us can convince people a box of 12 people to vote one way whether when you're a prosecutor but to really educate millions of viewers um outside the confines of a courtroom is a is a completely different so the collaboration that we had with these producers was incredibly important so for each hearing there would be a a senior trial Council or Council essentially paired up with a producer we would review all of the transcripts you know pick out what the important pieces were and then to hear the perspective of what might what might be important to a lawyer versus what might be important to a producer sometimes two different things but as part of that process I think we were able to put together a compelling Narrative of some of the vignettes of of the activity of the former president during that time Liz Cheney lays out what you know where you're headed and this multi-part conspiracy that's going to be detailed in the hearings in the report and if you watch that is she outlining the case that will eventually end up in the indictment I mean I think whether she knew it or not I think that's what exactly what happened um each of the the multia conspiracy that she she spoke of at hearing one is is what's laid out in the indictment so and what was in the criminal referrals obviously for the for the December hearing and the and the ultimately published in the report so um yes I think for to to see that the indictment tracks that pretty pretty pretty accurately is is really what she was press in at that point so a place where it all begins is election night and that the committee talks about gets testimony from members of The Campaign talking about Giuliani on one side Jason Miller bill sepian on the other why is that night so important I think it's that night but it's it's the weeks and months preceding that that no matter what happened even if it was declared at 6 p.m. that the former president had lost the election he was going to say he won and I think that was that was pretty clear from what Witnesses had said beforehand um so to to hear the witnesses say that they told him you lost the election and then to hear him say I won um was consistent with what was had been expected um so that was that was the significance of it but again if you had investigated what happened before that it wouldn't have been a shock that that's what the former president was going to say on that day one of the things some people have told us that the committee added to the story was a lot of evidence about the president's mental state about his intent at each of these moments and what does it tell you about his intent about his criminal eventually criminal liability potential criminal liability to have the campaign staff saying one thing and Rudy julan allegedly intoxicated on the other side well I think as a prosecutor proving intent is an incredibly different difficult thing you you don't have an x-ray into someone's mind so to be able to prove intent it comes down to those conversations so proving the intent that he in intended to undermine the 2020 election comes down to him knowing that he lost the election so those conversations are critically important for him to for him to say I won I believed I won and then you're able to point to multiple conversations from multiple Witnesses who say No in fact we told you that you lost that is something that goes directly to his knowledge and that's incredibly key improving the indictment and how important is it to have on video Jason Miller Bill SE and the campaign staff right I mean all of these people worked for the former president they're all highlevel Republican officials so I think that that was somewhat of the game Cher for the hearings was to see these people who worked for the former president who were in his administration who voted for him speaking truth and saying I I told the president that he lost or I told him that these claims were were as as Bill bar said and for the Department of Justice officials for each of them to to look to the president look him in the eye and say there's no credibility to these socalled um fraud in any of these states that's incredibly compelling testimony one of the other things I'll ask you about maybe it doesn't go directly to his his knowledge of things but one of the things the committee plays that's very powerful is audio recording of Steve Bannon saying you know the president's gonna say he won no matter what of Roger Stone also talking about what's going to happen even before the election day what what's the power of that when the the committee plays it finds evidence like that I mean Steve Bannon was a senior advisor to the former president so for these people who are really his strongest allies to be advocating what he intends to do you know that's only coming from him right it's not someone who's who's distant from him or removed from him in any way these are his closest people saying he's going to declare Victory no matter what so there's credibility in that you can rely on that as essentially Steve Bandon being a proxy for the former president so that's where it becomes a refle reflection of the president's knowledge and intent because it's is his co-conspirators are sharing that goal of saying that the election is stolen stolen an effort to overturn it as the committee lays it out there's two things going on those early days after the election on one hand there's the campaign staff who becomes called team normal or I don't know if they call themselves that or or that gets applied to them and on the other side there's Rudy Giuliani what does it tell you that there's these two groups inside the the campaign and this choice that the president has to make I think it goes again to his intent he's going to find the people that he wants to to hear from who will say what he wants to happen that the election was stolen and that he he really sought them out I mean he disregarded the advice and guidance that his own attorney general was providing him and looked to people like Sydney pal we wanted to name her of special counsil to investigate the so-called election fraud it's almost a conscious avoidance of the reality and he made significant steps to to seek out people who would affirm his own belief as I said a lot of it seemed to be happening in public one of the things that the public saw was on November 7th the networks called the election and Rudy julani is at Four Seasons total Landscaping saying there was fraud in the election without lot of specifics and and it seemed like a joke they weren't at the real Four Seasons I don't know if you thought it was funny at the time but when you look back at it now and know what was going on you know was it a humorous moment was it a serious moment I I think there's many moments you can find humorous if you don't think about the big picture of of what was happening right so to hold a press conference that a landscaping company that you thought was the actual five-star hotel sure it's like a comedy routine but what he was doing and saying and how it impacted people that this election was stolen and they had proof that it was stolen that's what drove the people to come to on January 6 so you can see that there's really while there's moments of of of you know laughter about it really ultimately every every single time Giuliani spoke these lies people listened and people reacted and people showed up the indictment lists a moment that's the beginning of the conspiracy which is that choice that we talked about that choice to push Rudy Giuliani to lead things and to push down the team normal how important a decision was it for the president to say Rudy Giuliani is going to lead this effort not the campaign staff not the the campaign lawyers but Rudy Giuliani I mean at that point I don't know who he had left right like that's reflective of who left him who was not going to support this notion that the election was stolen so to use you know Rudy Giuliani as your um voice to say the election was stolen it's it's reflective of desperation because at that point it's unclear how respected Rudy J Giuliani was certainly he didn't have his Fall From Grace right before January 6th it had been happening you know years before so that is a real reflection of the former president just not having any credible person to back his claims and I mean I guess that's part of the value of the Attorney General United States you know calling it a clown show talking about Jenna Ellis Sydney Powell Giuliani that that's part of that evidence that that decision Trump was making was was an intentional one absolutely again because you have everyone on the other side telling him otherwise if you didn't have the people who testified for the committee to say I told the president there's no evidence of wides widespread election fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election then the clown car it becomes more prevalent but the people who were the team normal you know that they're they're ignoring those people really reflects his intent to follow this path how important was Bar's deposition when it happened did it send a ripple through the the committee to know that you had the former Attorney General speaking so frankly it was incredibly important because you had the former AG who was involved at that critical time obviously he was the AG on the weeks before the election the day of the election December 1st when he issued the statement that there was no widespread fraud that affected the outcome of the election and then when when he you know announced that he was stepping down in mid December those are critical moments preceding January 6th that it was publicly known within the Department of Justice and they are telling the nation that the election was legitimate to have him go through methodically those conversations with the former president was incredibly incredibly powerful one of the things the committee does is says the next day he records a video where he repeats allegations that bar had disputed and the committee puts together a montage and a table in the report where they're laying out what the president was told and what he said how impactful was that to be able to show that and what was the point that's being made you know and and what did you find when you put all of those examples together it's incredible to see it in a visual manner right so you have the conversations of this is this is or no you know Mr President we're this is this is not what we found in Pennsylvania or Michigan whatever the state is and then the next day whether it's a tweet or whether it's a a press conference or whether he's calling into a conference to say the exact opposite it it's important to show that he is incredibly aware of what he is being told and just ignores it blatantly ignores it to push this idea that the election was stolen so that ju to position of a credible person like Bill bar talking to the president the president then immediately ignoring that and saying the exact opposite really goes to show you what what the president's intent was and that was to stay in power at all costs so the indictment says this is part of the conspiracy and one defense that the the president might say or supporters might say is yeah politicians lie all the time and lies are not illegal wh why is this part of part of the indictment so so that's my my question why why are the lies part of the indictment so I think that Jack Smith really addresses that issue upfront in the Preamble of the indictment in that you can challenge the outcome of an election you can litigate it there's paths to to actually voice your grievance which is completely separate from taking action and spreading a lie so I think that is it's an important point that the American public should be aware of that of course president Trump had his right to challenge the election and at some point that becomes exhausted when 61 cases don't go your way but then to put pressure on state officials then to put pressure on the Department of Justice then to put pressure on the vice president all of these additional steps in spreading this lie that the election was stolen it's it's it's critical to understand that part of what you do in the beginning is okay that's what the system allows for but this next stage that he took was is why he's under a criminal indictment and the other defense you know yeah maybe if you'd heard the Attorney General you would have believed him but the president didn't you know he's in his own world and he did believe the fraud do you give any any Merit to that defense I I don't because again it's all going to come down to credibility of who is putting forth that defense right when you have credible Witnesses who are educated on the topic of whether there indeed was election fraud taking the stand and saying we told him there was none then to put forth the the a a a defense of well we we didn't believe those people there's going to be common sense of these jurors that comes into play why wouldn't you believe attorney general bar and if it's for your own self-interest to stay in power then that's the reason that you're not believing him not because you have independent knowledge of actual fraud one of the chapters that the committee tells is the story of pressure on states which I think comes in different ways and stopping the certification or getting the legislator involved what what what important to know about the state pressure aspect of this multi-art conspiracy I think what was incredibly important and compelling particularly for the summer hearings was hearing from Shay Ross and Ruby Freeman and at that point I think before you had highlevel government officials who were who were involved you had Brad rasenberger who the who people were aware about that phone call but to put the face of these women whose Liv lives had been completely destroyed because the president simply targeted them as people who undermined the election I think that that's where the story about the state pressure campaign becomes real and it's not just abstract um and to just see how their lives got turned upside down I think that was a turning point for the for the public in terms of our role in educating them as to how extensive this conspiracy was to see the impact on pole workers was something that was really compelling do you remember your personal reaction when you saw that there's a one particular clip of of Ruby Freeman saying why me you know it was incredibly incredibly you know sad there's so many people across this country who volunteer to help with elections from giving water out to to driving to pick people up to go to the go to the polls that day and these people they they were volunteers and wanted to help ensure that the that the votes were counted right and it was just incredibly incredibly sad to see you know the most powerful man in this country wreck these women's lives was was really just awful to see in their story and in a lot of this the state the state pressure story this violence there threats that that are bubbling up I mean and how are those related to the statements the president is making that that Rudy juliani is making what what did the committee find about this sort of growing violence sure so again I think with the timeline of it all there was the December 18th meeting that I mentioned and then there was a tweet December 19th and the committee found and it was uh testified to by a number of law enforcement officials that after that December 19th be there will be wild tweet that the amount of violent rhetoric on social media increased by tenfold so that's the impact right then you know that once he announces that he himself is going to be there on January 6th that's another inflection point that there's more people who are going to then come on January 6th so that impact of the spreading of the lie and which then runs runs hand inand with some of these violent posts that were found on parlor for example um really goes to the weeks right before January 6th and the increase of this the the kind of the violent atmosphere that it was in place for January 6th so you've talked about it already but maybe we talk a bit more detail because it does seem crucial which is that tweet that he sends early in the morning of December 19th where he says will be wild he has the date January 6th what is the context for that what do you know about his intent in in sending that well I think it goes back to the meeting on December 18th where there was a number of Team crazy as they were called who were advising the president attached to that December 19th tweet is Peter Navarro's uh report claiming that there was election fraud so I think what's important about that tweet and kind of the timeline in the weeks following is the level of the the frenzy of the desperation and just pursuing as many different paths to stay in power as possible so one of the Pursuits was getting people to come on January 6th and that's where it essentially uh started to reach the masses right that was through that tweet and through the tweets that that followed the indictment is pretty STK it says after cultivating widespread anger and resentment for weeks with his knowingly false claims the defendant urged his supporters to travel to Washington on the day of the certification I mean that match the story that that you guys found I think that's that does in Broad terms I mean I think clearly the indictment isn't the entire story or the entire amount of evidence that the that the special council's office has but as a segue into the greater point there um where I think that paragraph is taken from I think that that that's the right way to couch it because while we referred for sish conspiracy obviously that wasn't uh that wasn't a charge of the indictment so that level of the language used in the tweets or in the speech really isn't as important as the as the days before and weeks before as to what led them there his obviously rallies of supporters as you said what did the committee find about like the extremist supporters and how how did they interpret the Tweet inside militia groups and O Keepers and others the red team that was focused on the individuals who came the protesters who came I think it was consistent that this was something that they cited that that I am here because the president asked me to be here I think there was one hearing that focused on the impact of the of the former president's own words on the IND idual who showed up so I think I think it did matter it everything that he said whether it was through tweets through press conferences um mattered to the people who showed up and if if he hadn't have said that I'm I'm you know I want to see you there um there likelihood been less people who showed up on January 6th just like it impacted the prior two rallies so the next chapter I think you know uh more about which is which is the pressure on the Department of Justice and you were you were involved in helping to present the the doj what was the story you were trying to tell in that hearing or in that chapter so that hearing really did focus on the pressure campaign that started on attorney general bar and then once he actually uh resigned from the Department shifted to Jeffrey Rosen so Jeffrey Rosen was was named in mid December as the acting attorney General and the importance of the hearing was to show how it was essentially a Relentless and daily pressure campaign from the former president on doj to declare that there was widespread fraud and and even more so it was just for them to declare that there was an investigation happening whether that investigation would actually was going to happen or whether there would be a conclusion to that investigation didn't matter they he just wanted them to state that there was an investigation into election fraud which obviously they would not do because there was no evidence pointing to widespread fraud so I think the point of the hearing was to be able to put faces to this pressure campaign to show The credibility of these public servants who were long-standing Department of Justice officials and it really put in a timeline of events of mid December until January 6th and then culminating with the January 3rd Oval Office uh Showdown where the former president wanted to essentially put in Jeff Clark as the Attorney General um so he could make the Declaration that there was there was fraud in the election but also send a letter to the Georgia assembly to reconvene because the Department of Justice had had found that there was widespread fraud which again was not the case can you tell me about interviewing Jeffrey Rosen was he a reluctant witness he was definitely a trump supporter he was a trump appointed justice department official and acting attorney general sure I think that um you know Jeffrey Rosen as he came across during the hearing is as he was during the deposition very very much a career Department of Justice official um very much sword the to the Constitution to uphold his his job and upold the rule of law and he was incredibly thoughtful throughout the deposition with his answers um there was there wasn't a moment where any of these any of these officials who came in were were happy to be there that's that wasn't the case but they were forthright and candid and explicit about their conversations with former president Trump which was which was incredibly important and the impact of a moment where he said something like the president said the election was corrupt you know and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressman when you hear testimony from Rosen or from Donahue or or from others repeating a statement like that from the president what's the impact of it what does it mean why why does it matter so I think that just say it was corrupt and leave the rest of the Republican Congressman that was in Rich Hugh's notes which becomes even more compelling because those are his contemporaneous notes that he took during the conversation on December 27th so to know that that that lends itself um credibility to the words that were spoken and he had it in quotes that it came from former president so it was in those moments where you have obviously a credible witness like Rich Donahue corroborated by his own contemporaneous notes um gives even more more gravitas to that moment of what the president is actually saying to him that it's just a declaration that the that the election was corrupt so then he could then essentially again stay in power um with the help of his Republican allies in Congress there's meetings and then there's this phone call that you mentioned this December 27th that apparently goes on for hours and and involves yet again again a fact discussion of the fraud allegations and Trump's response and what is the story that they tell and what does that say about about Trump at this point at the end of end of December I think it was Bill bar who called it whack-a-mole that he would bring up something and they they' just have to dismiss it and that was happening from the election night till mid December but this call was December 27th so it's still have been weeks later and the allegations continued whether it was the truckload of of ballots or whether it was the Dominion voting machines or all of these things were investigated and found not to be credible and I think that those conversations really just go to show how Relentless Donald Trump was how he was so focused on using the department for his own devices and not for the for the good of the the people or the public it was more so he thought this was his own personal Department of Justice and he could get these uh officials to to do what he wanted them to do which obviously uh they they weren't willing to do and actually know how the department works how the FBI works and and stood up to him to continuously uh relay to him that it had indeed been investigated and it was baseless so I think those conversations on one side show desperation from the former president but from the Department Side Show how absolutely thoughtful um these officials were in terms of dealing with the president and obviously maintaining the rule of law any sense from talking to them that the president was interested in the facts wanted to know why they didn't believe them was engaging with them on on that level I think that it it was clear from the depositions that there was no interest in the actual investigation it was solely to reach the conclusion that there was fraud right so whether was whether it was engaging with them or not you would he would hear Rich Donahue go through the analysis of why the asog report isn't accurate um and it sounded like it fell on dead ears and I guess that's why he says just say the election was corrupt that's all he wants why does he want that how does that help him for the justice department to say that the election was corrupt sure so I think at that point he had he had realized that he he had lost credibility right they hadn't found the evidence this is this is you know December 27th there many of the the cases had been lost um and there wasn't anything to support him but if you have the Department of Justice making this declaration that there is widespread fraud that revives you that that gives you the ability to then say to the public the Department of Justice which is which is key law enforcement in the country is telling knew the American people that there was fraud so believe me when I say the election was stolen with without that without a source he's merely just stating words as he had been for for the weeks before and continued this justice department official Jeffrey Clark who becomes involved in all of this what's the best way to understand who he is and what his role is in this story it's it was interesting to learn how he came about uh and that he was in the Civil side of the Department of Justice and the environmental department and there's a civil side and there's a criminal side to the Department of Justice and the criminal side does the investigations particularly for election fraud issues and there's protocols and there's people who are well-versed in these issues um Rich Donahue being one of them and certainly Jeff Clark was not did not have that subject matter in any manner so what the committee was able to find through the text of Mark Med was that he Jeff Clark was promoted um by Scott Perry Congressman Perry and I think that was an important Ally for Jeff Clark because he was able to then gain access to the White House so through the investigation and through the receipt of documents of the White House visitor logs and phone logs you saw this contact that there was between uh Scott Perry and Jeff Clark there was a white house meeting on the 18th and the next day Jeff Clark comes to the White House which as a Department of Justice official he certainly cannot go to the White House without informing his superiors which he never had so the hearing I think lays out the compelling narrative as to Scott Perry promoting him to to Mark Meadows and then simultaneously uh Mr Rosen and Mr Donahue kind of learn about about his contact with the White House which again cannot be done with by the Department of Justice unless you're the Attorney General himself so tell me about that letter and what it suggests he was doing on behalf of the president the letter essentially stated that the Department of Justice had found that there was widespread election fraud and that the Georgia assembly should reconvene and essentially recertify um which was essentially the department of jce jce meddling in a state election which is why uh you have the testimony from Rich Donahue saying how completely outrageous this letter would uh be for the Department to sign um but it's exactly one of the paths that the president wanted the department to do was was this letter and I guess it it comes maybe not initially but at some point it comes with a threat that if they don't go along with this they they might be replaced became such a compelling story because you had Jeff Clark was essentially told by the former president you're my guy you're the you're the AG and then there's a conversation between Jeff Clark and Mr Rosen where Jeff Clark says oh he offered me the job you know I wanted to give you the heads up um you can stick around and and and be my Deputy which you know obviously Jeff Rosen found to be Preposterous this testimony was really important because it obviously shows how much much of an ally Jeff Clark was to president Trump at that time and and the committee find phone logs that's that refer to him is the acting attorney general yes so on January 3rd there's a series of phone calls that morning um from the White House of Jeff Clark and then there's a conversation there's an entry at 419 that says Jeff Clark is the acting Assistant Attorney General and then obviously that's the same day that Jeff Clark had told Jeff Rose and two hours after that um a meeting occurs with Jeff Rosen Rich Don Hugh Pat zalone and Eric hman and others in the White House that Sunday evening I mean this is this moment which maybe got overshadowed by all of the other moments but at least in the Justice Department history you know if you think back to Saturday massacre to the wire tapping program the Bush Administration I mean this moment really stands out even by even by those standards I mean how dramatic was it at the at the justice department as they get this word I mean leading leading up to that they had uh convened a call with all the senior leadership of the Department of Justice Jeff Rosen and Rich Don who informed them what was happening until then it had been a bit of a of a close hold as to what was happening with Jeff Clark and all the senior leadership agreed that they would uh resign if indeed the former president uh replaced acting attorney general Rosen and it wasn't about the jobs it was about the the rule of law just being destroyed if this replacement would occur because if it had happened Jeff Clark would have had a press conference that there was widespread election fraud appointed a special counsel sent the letter to Georgia there would have been a number of different events that occurred um and as a as a result would have been placed former president right before January 6th in a completely different position so yes the significance of of that meeting of who attended the meeting and the level of back and forth and contentiousness um was really really something remarkable that happened within the Trump Administration was Mike Pence their last chance you know in that multiart attempt that Liz Cheney lays out at the beginning is that why there's so much pressure on him I think that's right and that's you know obviously had he had he not gone through with the certification if he had agreed that this legal Theory um with John Eastman if he had just decided to pause the proceedings he was kind of the the last the last gatekeeper in terms of um what had happened in the in the weeks preceding was this the most dangerous moment hence uh the one that that could have gone differently that's a tough question um I think that if he had not stayed strong the entire day would have gone differently um and and it would have been undermined right if they had actually succeeded in halting pausing stopping the The Joint session that day then Donald Trump would have been successful in his in his goal would he have stayed in office maybe not but at least that that goal would have been achieved how much pressure is on is on Pence who's been incredibly loyal all the way through the the Trump Administration um how hard a moment is that as as we're getting towards January 6th I think from you know what happened the morning of January 6th um the contentious conversation between the former president and the vice president when he he said he's going to go to go to the capital to certify the result as well as the the tweet that the former president put out saying that he does not have courage um all of this obviously has to have an impact on the vice president um but for him to have the fortitude to to stay true to the Constitution and uphold his oath I think was it was really one of those moments that we talk about where it was thank God for the for people who who held strong how important is the evidence of those conversations there's there's a string of them I mean there's one where the president allegedly says you know you're too honest there's there's some more details now in the indictment about about those conversations with with the president and that you know and but we know Jacobs that they're pushing back they're saying this isn't legal how important is that evidence to Trump's State of Mind to to the allegations you know in the indictment it goes to one of the the conspiracies charge right look at one of the uh discreet conspiracies is the pressure against the vice president so who who better of a witness to talk about those conversations than the vice president himself um it's not hearsay it's not coming from another co-conspirator or middle person it's those one-on-one conversations um that will be really compelling for a jury to hear and improving that particular account was he warned was was Trump warned that this wasn't legal right I believe there's testimony that you know Greg Jacobs told the vice president obviously the vice president relay that to the president I'm unclear whether Greg Jacobs had that direct conversation with the former president but I the answer to that is is yes that is the basis is to why the vice president wouldn't um wouldn't do what he was being asked to do as we get into uh into the moment of January 6 um I mean one of the one of the moments that the committee plays is is is video of Staff talking about the night before January 5th um you mentioned it as well I mean what was being conveyed in that in that video and why does it matter to the indictment it was really reflecting the atmosphere of what what was happening right before January 6th it showed that this is precisely what the former president wanted that he was almost anticipating the next day um with with some sort of like Glee that this would this could all turn and go his way um obviously this was before he had his conversations with the vice president so um in that that video it it shows the hope that he had that this was going to actually become successful told that the kessie Hutchinson testimony that the hearing was in in some ways was was a turning point for for the committee how how dramatic was that when the committee learns that she's willing to talk more the there's a hearing an emergency hearing and we're on the outside all wondering what is going on and what was it like on the inside so I wasn't involved in that um in kind of putting that together I was uh you obviously became aware of it and and was in the room for the actual hearing but I I do think it's it became the face of a young woman who was able to you know testify in this manner that was compelling and give a different side of some of these events that happened from the perspective of of a staffer to to the chief of staff was really an Insider's view to what was occurring within the White House which was which was you know an interes in perspective and some of the things she says she says um that he was told that there were weapons in the crowd and uh he wanted to remove magnetometers what why does that matter so it matters that the former president was aware of the potential for violence that day um because he had not yet gone to the ellipse um had he not gone to the ellipse perhaps things would have gone differently but for him to have known that there was a violent element in the crowd that there were weapons in the crowd um as she testified was relate to him um became it it became important to his knowledge as to what he and the impact of his words during the speech so in other words if you knew folks in the crowd had weapons and you tell them to go to the capital um that makes that what you're saying um more to the incitement of the crowd the committee also gets evidence that he had planed to go to the capital before even before he mentions the speech because when you see the speech and he says I'll be there with you it it seems like maybe he was winging it which the president former president was known to do why does it matter that there was discussion about it before that they had a draft tweet that they knew this was something the president wanted to do well I think it goes It goes to how he wanted the how he expected the day to play out right it was always unclear what it meant that I will go to the capital I'll go with you would he you know go to the go to the capital go inside the chamber who who knows but it was important that that was what his intent was in terms of that's how much he wanted to be personally involved in pausing or disrupting The Joint session that day and whether he Gra grabs the steering wheel or not it seems that the committee has established that he after the speech he wanted to go up to to the capital what does that tell you that after the speech he he still wanted to go up there I think it goes goes to the same thing that he he saw this crowd and he wanted to participate in some manner whether it was leading the crowd or being part of the crowd or going but certainly there was a level of frustration when he was told that he couldn't um which goes goes to his intent that he was so focused on disrupting The Joint session that day he himself wanted to go so now when you watch that speech that he gives and now we know some of the things behind it that he's been warned about the weapons we know that the vice president has told him he's not going to go along with it what do you see in that hour and 10 minute speech that he gives how Central is that and what is he doing I think when you watch that speech that begins at like noon and goes until 1:10 it's the same list of so-called fraud that we had heard from multiple witnesses that had been debunked um and for him to continue the the lies on repeat um is is jarring I I don't expect anyone have have watched that speech multiple times but many of us on the staff had and it's a litany list of you know the top 10 grievances that he had and then when it culminates of him saying know go to the capital I'll go with you and then knowing the events that happened particularly from 1:00 on when the there was the breach of the capital um it's it's it's hard to watch there is some reference to to being peaceful but he also says when you catch somebody in fraud you're allowed to go by very very different rules and we fight we fight like hell if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore what's the importance of that of that language I think that language is more powerful than the than the you know the reference to peace that he makes one time during that speech if you look at that speech broadly there is more of a call to violence than a call for peace as the committee spoke to people on the ground people who were there that day what did they hear from him what were they hearing him telling them to do well I think that the there was testimony that once it reached a certain pitch of you know and and go to the capital I'll go with you a certain portion of the crowd started going towards the capital so the impact of the words coming from the former president the testimony about that from people in in on the ellipse was was incredibly important it again shows that he he's the the lead conspirator of this of this effort to undermine the election he himself was able to get the people there for that event that day and then get them to go to the capital the indictment says that by sending the crowd out there he was trying to stop the proceeding and he was still trying to pressure the vice president I mean by that point based on what what you know had he given up was it just a a protest which I think will be what his defense is is I wanted I was angry and wanted to convey that that my people were angry um that this was just a political speech did you find that that's what it was that it was political speech or or something closer to what the indictment says so I think there's protests and there's riots right so I think the protest aspect of it is on the ellipse you hear a number of speakers that are again spreading the LIE listing their grievances about the 2020 election but then when you get to the point where it is saying fight like hell that's where to me becomes a riot because then the people are taking those words and putting it into action and I think this this country is built on civil disturbance protest um which obviously are incred L different from what we saw played out on January 6th so how important were the 187 minutes to the story to understanding his State of Mind to to understand what happened so the 187 minutes is from the moment when he leaves the ellipse and comes back to the White House so you're talking about like 1:15 in the afternoon that day and the complete and utter silence until his um tweet or video of telling telling everyone to go home so in action uh speaks volumes silence speaks volumes and I think that was what was incredibly uh valuable to see juxtaposed against all of the law enforcement officials all of the men and women in blue who are who are fighting for their lives and he's in his kitchen watching it on TV so to anyone you would think that that just that visual is is is just jarring um and it goes to show that there was just no leadership in that moment and he's tweeting about the vice president that he didn't have the courage to do what what should have been done I mean what's the what's going on the White House and and what's going on at the at the capital I mean I think the White House from the testimony we we gathered is just in in shock and many of them testified that they tried to get the president to take some sort of action to get the crowd to leave the capital um and do it in a more forceful manner than the than the tweets that he had put out which were not impactful at all so I think that the significance of that hearing that showed the footage of people breaking windows and and you know attacking law enforcement officers and then knowing that nothing was happening from the former president despite people his own advisors telling him to issue a statement of some sort um is is is jarring and it again goes to his intent as to this is what he wanted to see happen in some form because it was a disruption because obviously it was delayed I I mean it almost seems like he's the only person who isn't shocked by it I mean if you look at the Mark Meadows text Fox News hosts even Don Jor who's been feeding this himself are are saying the President should be doing something yeah it's it's it's hard to tell what what actually was was happening because there was no one who testified who agreed with the inaction so if there was a witness who said yes he didn't do anything because of XYZ perhaps we'd have visibility into it be but contrary every witness who was in contact with the president that day didn't agree with absolutely doing nothing which is what he did it's interesting how you describe it because yeah usually not doing something isn't a crime um but in this case you're saying it it sort of suggests that this was part of his plan uh it might have been part of his plan from from the beginning it might not have been his plan to have this type of violence happen at the capital but the goal of not having the the the um the certification happening at the time it was supposed to happen was obviously achieved you talked to General Mark Millie as part of as part of the investigation what what was that like what was his his take on on that day and on what what went down so General Millie sat with us for almost eight hours and provided incredible compelling testimony about different aspects of uh the election fraud he went back to the summer of 2020 and the use of the National Guard for the Civil disturbance protests as well as the um chain of command for the National Guard on on January 6 and some of the decisions that were made um and it was clear from his his testimony that he you know was was impacted deeply by by the former president and and the actions that he took and um he really provided testimony in a in a manner that painted a a broader picture of what was what was occurring the committee points out that he doesn't get a call from a president what was his testimony in that regard we we made it a point to ask every highlevel official did you hear from the former president that day that was to General Millie attorney general Rosen Deputy attorney uh General Rich Donahue there was a Litany of witnesses who you would think during a violent attack you they would hear from the president the chief of Capitol police chief of Metro Police Department you know director of the F whoever it was you would normally think that they would receive a call from from the commander-in-chief did not General Millie did speak to vice president Pence and vice president Pence was on the phone calling a number of people that day from the secure place where he was located within the Capital so it was it was clear by the by the testimony of no phone calls from the president but then the number of calls placed by the vice president who who showed leadership that day and who was concerned about law enforcement um at the capital it's an amazing image that that Pence is at the Capitol Under Siege and he's on the phone and Trump is in the kitchen watching it on television uh it is quite a JX position between the two of them yes and I think that we were able to show that during the 187 minutes pretty effectively I mean with with the Secret Service um you know surrounding vice president Pence while he's in the secure location and he's you know calling people you know just to make sure that people were okay and that most importantly that there was a plan in place to get the people out of the capital so that the joint session could reconvene which was his which was his concern and things came really close at the capital to Pence to to lawmakers yes we had the footage from inside the capital where he's rushed down the steps by his uh Secret Service detail along with his family and it is it is one of those things that you you realize how close he came um to people who who's who was focused they were clearly focused on vice president Pence and by him not doing what the president asked him to do they he became the target for that for the um riers so this this story we've been talking about uh the committee lays it out over uh hearings puts it into a report and you get to the to the end and the clock is ticking and uh it's it's the end of Summer and the committee is making a decision to um make a criminal referral um why why do they decide to do that was that an important moment moment at the end of this process I think there were there were obviously referrals to the Department of Justice before for people who did not uh respond to the subpoenas right so you had Mark Meadow Steve Bannon Peter Navaro so the the referral process had happened before but I think it is an important aspect of a congressional committee to to gather the facts and the committee can only take it so far the Congressional committee cannot hold a person accountable that's not the role it's not the purpose so I think the criminal referral to the Department of Justice based upon the facts that were gathered was the next logical step the impact of I mean of the of the committee is pretty impressive when you look at the number of people who watched it when you look at the at the indictment um but on the other side the polls of Republicans um who haven't changed their opinion the fact that the president a former president is a leading Contender for the for the nomination now how do you how do you handle that how do you resp feel about that um after the work that you've done to to see where the where the country is um now on that I think there's two aspects of it so seeing seeing the indictment um was a firming of of the committee's work um seeing the this play out now now before an election is is different as as a citizen versus a staffer so to know that the former president is is leading in the polls for the Republican nomination um it it it makes it makes me feel uh how how far have we come have we come far at all but that's separate from the work that we as a committee did um which again will play out in a trial and uh and and go through the the the process and the system in the way that the Department of Justice and the the evidence that we gathered will be tested but it's two separate feelings so while part of me feels validated for the committee work that I did as as a person who intends to vote in this in this year's election um it it's worrisome

Channel: FRONTLINE PBS | Official

Views: 56,637

Keywords:

Id: cGn1mpxXs2E

Length: 64min 18sec (3858 seconds)

Published: Tue Jan 30 2024