tv The January 6th Hearings The House Investigates MSNBC June 28, 2022 9:00am-1:00pm PDT
♪♪ good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington joined by katy tur ahead of a surprise hearing by the january 6 committee. we will hear from a witness kept secret until this morning. cassidy hutchinson was an aid with mark meadows and was interacting with meadows and president trump and on before january 6. there were reports of harassment or security concerns about her
appearance. the sudden scheduling of the hearing suggests she will tell more than during her previous four taped depositions, clips of which were played last week, including the revelation that after the riot, a number of republican congress members had sought pardons from the white house. s had sought pardons from the white house. >> her boss, mark meadows, appears to be a central figure for the committee's investigation. first turning over his text messages, including the ones he received during the january 6 insurrection from top republican lawmakers, media figures and trump family members, like donald trump junior, marjorie taylor greene and a text chain
between top trump white house officials including jared kushner. earlier this month, the department of justice declined to charge meadows on a context referral from the full house. it was made in december on the grounds that meadows abruptly changed course and refused to cooperate with the committee. andrea, this is a surprise witness. this was an emergency hearing. we only found out about it almost one day ago now at 1:00 yesterday. it could be that she has quite a bit to reveal about what the oval office was talking about, what the president was talking about in the oval office with top aides. i know that she's changed lawyers in the past few weeks, going from somebody who was very close in the trump orbit to somebody outside of it, somebody who represented jeff sessions at one point. this could be an interesting day. >> indeed, because first of all, the new attorney representing
her had actually worked for jeff sessions when he was attorney general. you know he left under very bad terms with former president trump. her former attorney, as you point out, was a trump insider. so that is a big change. there are reports about some security concerns. the committee has hinted at that in the brief statement they made. as recently as two days ago, there was no indication at all that they were going to be coming back before the week of july 11th at the earliest, most likely july 12th when congress is back in session. so this is a very sudden change. it does indicate that she's now probably prepared to say things that she had not said in those previous depositions, the tapes were exposed when she talked about the pardons, something that some of the members of congress were denying, vigorously denying. >> might i add before we go to our correspondents, there's a lot of talk about whether mark
meadows was going to cooperate. some of the more high profile figures within the trump world. let us note that the committee itself has interviewed so many of the lower level aides in and around the white house, around capitol hill. this sean indication that although they would have loved cooperation from is somebody like mark meadows, they don't need it given cassidy was extremely close. she was in meetings with mark meadows when he was on the hill every single one. either big or small. it goes to show you that these lower level aides could potentially give a lot more information that some of the higher profile people in washington might be willing to testify to. that's brendan buck who said that about cassidy hutchinson and her time with mark meadows on the hill. >> mark meadows was the head of the freedom caucus, a leading
republican congress member. brendan buck was a top aid to two former republican speakers of the house. what she might be able to reveal and not mark meadows deciding not to testify, he might be able to reveal what the president was doing on january 6. how he was responding to the violence. remember that 187 minutes of silence they have been trying to get to the bottom of. there was suggestion from her in the past that some of the documents from that day, time line, phone logs, whatever, were destroyed. we now have the reporters from the hill joining us now. capitol hill correspondent ali vitali, nbc washington correspondent yamiche alcindor, joining us from aspen, from the ideas festival there, and "new york times" chief white house correspondent peter baker, betsy
woodruff-span and chuck rosenberg. ali, let's talk about the buzz up there surrounding this hearing. >> andandrea, a lot of buzz. very spur of the moment. we were under the impression we were going to have several weeks of quiet from this committee as they went back to the drawing board and sort of figured out what new facts they gathered as they went into the final narrative phase of the hearings. we thought they were going to pick up mid july. that's still our understanding. this is a hearing that was not even officially part of their initial count of seven hearings. it speaks to the urgency and questions unanswered, even though we know cassidy hutchinson is testifying in person. we have a little bit of a sense of what she's previously told the committee in four different testimonies that she's done with them. there's a lot of questions about what's new here that she could possibly illuminate. we heard her, for example, say that she was one of the people who was privy to the
conversations around current lawmakers asking for pardons in real time. that's something that a lot of people up here on capitol hill are very concerned about. when i asked chairman thompson about it after the last hearing, he said we had not heard all there was to hear regarding those pardons. that's one of the things i'm looking at here. the other piece is that as much as cassidy hutchinson can speak to the conversations that she was privy to or briefed on, because she was very much front row seat to history in a lot of the rooms, she was also someone who was implementing the strategy and communicating with officials in georgia about the strategy that they were trying to undertake there to overturn or at least muddy the waters on the election results in georgia in an attempt to try to put forward false slates of electors and effectively overturn joe biden's victory in the state. that's something else we are looking for here. all the things we can enumerate, we have been promised there's more we don't know.
that's why this hearing has such high expectations. already the things that she told the committee are, frankly, very explosive. now there's a question of, what is left there? >> yamiche, i want to talk about her role within white house. you covered the donald trump white house, you were there during this. what do you know about her? >> what we know about cassidy hutchinson is she was someone who was a close aide to mark meadows. she was in a lot of meetings, close to former president trump in what he was thinking and saying in the days surrounding january 6. we know that she's someone who cooperated with the committee. it has been reported she sat down for three separate interviewed with the committee. that's important. what we know about her is that she has been someone who has been very forthcoming when it comes to information. we know about, as ali pointed out, this list of pardons, naming republicans by name. that, of course, was remarkable. it was a newsy thing that happened.
the big thing about this hearing and the hearings overall have been that lawmakers have promised that there's new information. it has coming from cassidy hutchinson. apart from the pardons, even though some are saying she might be mistaken, you have representative brooks who says up to 100 republicans may have asked for pardons during the times around january 6. we know that cassidy hutchinson, she was the aide who was given the information that former president trump said that maybe it was okay to hang mike pence and maybe his supporters who were tracking the hallways of capitol hill, trying to get at mike pence, trying to murder mike pence, at one point that former president trump said, maybe it was okay, because he was so angry. she's someone who is very, very interesting. someone who is going to be key to listen to. i think it's interesting to hear how she has had to weather being front and center. part of this being a surprise hearing.
it's that she was shrouded in secrecy. part of the reporting is they were worried about her personal security. that connects to what we heard from other witnesses, including shea and her mother ruby who were targeted by former president trump. people had to deal with threats, breaking into homes. i want to focus on sort of what is the life of cassidy hutchinson and can she talk to us about the sort of threats that she's had to face? >> peter baker, mark meadows has given the committee insight into conversations he had via text throughout the insurrection. could cassidy hutchinson fill in some of the blanks regarding conversations with the president himself? >> yeah. she absolutely can. brendan buck alluded to this in that tweet. she was seen as his right-hand person. to the point where a lot of people on the hill during the white house negotiations were puzzled because show would be in the room as opposed to the official white house legislative fairs staf s somebody who was sort of at his right hand -- mark
meadows' right hip for important moments that you presume she not only had access to the information she's provided but as yamiche said to much more. because of the way they have presented this, it ought to be somethingensational or melodrams everybody wonder what she has to say. the questions you ant to know is more about what the president was doing or not doing on january 6. it has been shocking enough. does she have something else to say that she hasn't told before or she hasn't been willing to have made public before? she's about to tell us, that's what we want to know. >> betsy, i'm hoping to get more about this reporting that's out today. yamiche alluded to it. hutchinson told investigators that meadows was warned of potential violence before january 6 and that he burned
papers in his office weeks after the 2020 election. there's also information that politico is reporting that meadows told aides of trump during the riot that he expressed a positive view of them hanging vice president mike pence. >> that's all material that sources familiar with hutchinson's information that she shared with the committee have subsequently described to me. of course, on the condition of anonymity. one piece of this that's really important is, i'm told hutchinson was backstage at the rally on january 6 and that she was involved in logistical conversations about potentially moving president trump from the elipse to the capitol once the speech concluded. there's been so many attempts to muddy the waters on that detail. meadows wrote in his book that trump told him it was met for
-- metaphorical. she will be pressed about the movements he was considering taking that day. that's subject matter i believe she will have firsthand knowledge of. additional, we expect that a topic that could arise is further detail about warnings that meadows received prior to january 6, that the day could potentially turn violent. this is all going to be new information. it's information that she will have firsthand detail regarding. one other point in regards to the house republican members who are now saying that hutchinson maybe misremembered or got confused about the pardon issue, she worked officially on legislative affairs matters for the trump white house before joining meadows' team specifically. in that capacity, it was her job to know everything about house
republicans. it was her job to have knowledge of who they were, what they wanted, what their priorities were. the notion that some of the house republicans are now pushing that she just got a little confuse and misremembered, that's not a notion that's likely to hold water. >> chuck rosenberg, the significance of tieing any loose threats here between what mark meadows knew, any suggestions about expecting violence, warnings of violence, and the president himself, you have to close that loop. what would be the significant of the president knowing that there could be violence and perhaps not -- rejecting the idea that mike pence, his vice president was under threat or he should be moved to a safe location? >> you are right, andrea. you have to close that loop. the difference between what the president might have been told on one hand and what the president knew on the other. because you don't know everything that you are told. i certainly don't. this is where miss hutchinson
might be very helpful. it's one thing for me to tell you stuff. it's another thing for you to repeat it or to sort of incorporate it into your own body of knowledge. does her testimony reveal what the president knew, said, understood as opposed to what he was told? one of the things i'm looking for is what's new to us as opposed to what's new to the committee. the committee has spent, as you said, four sessions with her. you had a graphic up that showed 20 hours. i doubt it's going to be very knew to the committee. it could be new to us. it could be in more detail as the committee understands and recognizes that the key here is detail. the more detail we have, the more we understand what the president actually knew. >> could there be significance to her change of attorney from someone who was involved with some of the other potential defendants or players and somebody who is totally separate, who came from the jeff
sessions department of justice before it really changed hands? >> conceivably. i don't say that impugn her first attorney in any way or praise her second attorney. it's simply that the more people who speak with her and ask her different questions and follow up with her, the more perhaps she remembers. if i had a trial -- i used to do it all the time. i had an important witness. i would speak with her seven, eight, nine, ten times before trial as part of my trial prep. even if someone is telling the truth, spending more time, asking new questions, asking all questions in a different way, sometimes elicits more and more important information. >> chuck, i have a question just to drill down a little bit more on timing. again, a surprise. she's sat for four depositions. they were planning on taking a two-week break and then all of a sudden yesterday, late in the morning and at 1:00 officially, they said, we're going to have this hearing.
it turns out to be cassidy hutchinson who they have already spoke within. what do you make of the timing, of the close hold on this? her name wasn't even revealed until this morning. >> yeah, it's funny. i have two contradictory answers to your very good question. one, it could be the product of really good and thoughtful planning. the other is that it could be the product of really bad and thoughtless planning. they presumably know more than we do and have a lot of the detail. so you have to wonder why all of a sudden this becomes rather urgent. we will see. i guess the answer is, in part, we will see. my sense of it is that they recognize that there's much more information that cassidy hutchinson had given them that they have not yet shared. whether or not that makes this an emergency, well, i will let other people try to define that. my guess is that it will be different than what we have heard before and important. >> chuck, i know you are sticking around.
don't go anywhere. peter baker, thank you. yamiche, betsy, you are sticking around. don't go too far. we will be back with you as the hearing gets under way. the lawyer at the center of donald trump's efforts to reverse the results of the election says the doj seized his cell phone outside of a restaurant last week. what could the department be looking for? you are watching special coverage of the january 6 committee hearings on msnbc. e h. 0
intelligence and national security correspondent ken delaney. why would they go after eastman? >> great question. a lot of people don't understand that inspector generals are not just auditors, they also have criminal investigators within their staff who have powers of fbi agents. in january 2021, doj inspector general michael horowitz announced he was investigating whether current or former doj employees improperly used the justice department to try to overturn the election. this appears to be an outgrowth of that. it happened on the same day that the home of former justice department lawyer jeffrey clark was searched by federal agents, not fbi agents. his electronic devices were seized.
if clark is a target of the inspector general, the justice department inspector general and he was commuting with eastman, then he comes under that authority. stepping back, this is a huge development in the justice department investigation. these people when the architects of some of the major efforts to try to overthrow the election. it's the first time that people have come into the crosshairs of the justice department with no actual nexus to the violence on january 6. neither of the men were there. the justice department is investigating them nonetheless. they convinced a judge there was probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the evidence of that crime was on their phones. i should add that both men deny wrongdoing. >> ken, as part of his argument to try to get his phone back, john eastman says he is not subject to the department of justice inspector general's investigation because he never worked at doj. you have touched on this already. he is brought in with clark.
what are legal experts telling you about that? >> legal experts say it has no merit. as i was mentioning, because agents are federal agents. they can do everything that an fbi agent can do pursuant to subpoenas that u.s. attorneys get or grand jury subpoenaed or in this case a search warrant. they had to convince a judge that there was probable cause. by the way, according to eastman, it was fbi agents who accosted him outside a restaurant in new mexico, frisked him, used his face to open his phone and then seized his phone. the documents show -- we have a copy of the warrant. the documents show they were acting on behalf of the justice department inspector general. a lot of people i talk to say there's no way that the ig is acting alone in this. this is a hybrid investigation involving multiple law enforcement agencies, ultimately being coordinated by the justice
department, presumably with eyes from the highest level of the justice department because of the implications here. that said, we are still a long way from any indication that former president trump is a target of this investigation. >> it makes me wonder. we saw the photo of john eastman next to rudy giuliani, whether he might be wrapped up into this at some point. phil, tie this together for us. tie eastman to jeffrey clark. tie that back to the white house and to the effort to overturn >> yeah, both eastman and jeffrey clark and rudy giuliani were central figures in the plot, in the inside the white house campaign for trump to overturn the results of the election. eastman was the lawyer who had been in the run-up to january 6 advising then president trump, coaching him on how he might be able to manipulate the laws, manipulate the constitutional responsibilities of the vice
president in certifying the electoral college count in a way to effectively overturn the results, by sending -- by rejecting the electors, sending them back to the states and hoping republican state legislatures in a number of the key states could flip the results for trump. that, of course, was not legal. it was nonetheless the strategy that eastman laid out in private meetings with president trump, with mark meadows, other aides as well as with vice president pence. jeffrey clark was the figure that trump wanted to install as the acting attorney general in those final days in january because he was such a loyalist, because he was such a proven believer in the election fraud conspiracy by trump. trump thought if he could get clark in there at the department of justice, he could somehow sort of work the institution to keep him in power, even though he lost the election. that never came to pass. but clark and eastman are both key figures in the plot to try
to overturn the election and can shed light on the motivations of the former president and anything he was doing in orchestrating this attempted coup. >> in fact, phil, the january 3rd meeting in the oval office, that critical meeting when we know that richard donoghue and engel, the acting attorney general, they went to that meeting to say that they were going to quit if jeffrey clark were inserted in as in charge of doj. jeffrey clark was a medium level officer, an assistant attorney general in charge of the environment. they were very disparaging of his qualifications for that position. in fact, went to that meeting and later the committee on thursday produced a lot of evidence from that meeting from them quoting the president, the closest anyone has come to quoting the president, about being aware that this was a fake attempt to overturn the
election, and actually that clark was listed on the white house call sheet as a participant in the meeting as acting attorney general. it wasn't he was about to be named. the president, in his mind, had already given him the job. >> in his mind. clark didn't have the job in reality. and by title. you are right to bring up the testimony last thursday. it was compelling, some of the most gripping detail we have seen from the january 6 hearings. it speaks to the degree of revolt, frankly, inside the justice department were trump to follow through with this plot to install jeffrey clark as the acting attorney general, as the president, he had the authority to put whoever he wanted as the acting attorney general. it would have been lawful to have clark there. but he certainly would have had the blow back from the resignations. it would not have worked from a political and public posture. >> ken and phil, thanks to both
of you. still ahead, she is the january 6 committee's star witness today. cassidy hutchinson has sat with the investigators four times for as many as 20 hours of testimony. what can she tell them and the public today? all of us, that's not known? that's what's coming up. you are watching special coverage of the surprise january 6 committee hearing on msnbc. stay with us. with us wrong sport, chuck. just hold the sub, man! subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refreshi- i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about program.nsurance through tn subway keeps refreshing and refreshing if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford,
a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.
assistant fbi director frank figliuzzi. joyce, to you. the significance of this testimony from cassidy hutchinson. we have hear -- the committee has heard from her for as many as 20 hours in private. this is the first time she will be a live witness. they say that it was put together very quickly because of
of new evidence and they have live witness testimony and they raised issues about security. possible security involving this witness, of course. what does that tell you, if anything? what can you infer from that, joyce? >> i think, frankly, andrea, we will have to wait and see what direction her testimony goes. it's difficult to see what the committee could have suddenly found to be urgent, if what she's going to testify to today is part of the ground she had previously covered with them. i heard chuck make a really smart point earlier in the show, which is that as a prosecutor, of course, these folks aren't prosecutors in their role today, but they are acting in an analogous way. you go back to witnesses for more detail, to discrepancies, you learn more and details that to that witness might not have seemed important as they tell more of their story to you, can become very
important. it's possible that this is something of that nature. we have heard reporting that there was some sort of threat or some possible intimidation posed to miss hutchinson. that would be a very serious matter, likely a matter the justice department would be aware of and perhaps get involved in. that, too, could create urgency. often, you will be in the situation with a key witness who is, frankly, at risk of being threatened, you want to lock that testimony down as quickly as possible. here locking it down could mean presenting it to the jury of public opinion and holding this public hearing today. >> frank, she's only 25 years old. just to continue that conversation of the potential for threats against her, the safety concerns surrounding her, we have only seen snippets of what she told the panel. i know she sat four times. we have seen a couple snippets, including one regarding pardons. when you hear concerns about her safety, in your role as a former
member of the fbi, what are you thinking? >> a great question. because she is now outside the parameters, we believe, of an fbi and doj investigation in terms of protective umbrella. she's attached herself to the committee. we don't know if the committee is talking to law enforcement, capitol police. that would make sense for a congressional witness. who really is protecting her? i have seen reports this morning that she went and acquired security. is it being paid for by the committee? who is doing that? who is the security? lots of questions around this. if it switches over to a doj investigation, she becomes a witness for them, the fbi, doj, the marshalls will have to start thinking about how to secure her. like joyce, like chuck, very concerned about why it's happening today. i'm concerned about why it had
to be moved to today and the content what have she's going to say. if the move toward has to do with security, then we need to know who is threatening her? who is attempting to tamper with a witness if that's true? that in itself could have prompted the need for testimony today. we may learn that someone is trying to get to her. lots of questions. some of them around security. >> frank, if i can follow up on that. if she does testify or when she does testify today, will she have access to different security, more security just from the committee itself? does it make it easier to give her protection? >> the security -- the budget of the committee is significant and likely would account for the ability to pay for security. listen, around the clock professional security becomes quite expensive. whether the capitol police would get involved in extending protective services to her, we
are way in front here. we don't know if there's a security threat. if there is, i think the first place they would look is capitol police who have protective security experience. they take members home to and from their districts when necessary. that could be done. i'm concerned about the next steps. how long does that go on? does doj need her as a witness? do they take over? lots of questions. let's hear if there is a valid threat regarding this witness. >> just to point out that, as we know, katy, you and i have covers these hearings, the hill, this was unusual. this is a congr recess. they called them back. that doesn't happen except under extraordinary circumstances. the committee is raising the bar here for some really important testimony to come today, for this to be scheduled so suddenly while the rest of the committee is off -- the rest of congress is out of town.
chuck, what does it indicate to you also that her testimony, those clips that were released last week, were very controversial because they were about republican lawmakers asking for pardons from white house after january 6, after the riot? there were denials from some of them. that was played publically. >> she said some had specifically and directly asked her about raising the propect of the pardon. she seems to know exactly what she's talking about. here is what's interesting to me. i have never asked for a pardon. i'm guessing you never asked for a pardon. there's a reason for that. we don't think we have done anything that is illegal. when you are a prosecutor, the thing that's hardest to prove in a court of law is intent. literally, almost crawling into someone's mind and proving to the jury what it is they are thinking.
when someone asks for a pardon, let's be clear, it's not a confession to a crime. they are not saying, i robbed the bank. but they are saying, however, that they have some consciousness of guilt. there's something bugging them. if there wasn't anything bugging them, you don't ask for a pardon. if there's something bugging them, perhaps you do. it is evidence. it's not conclusive. it's evidence of consciousness of guilt. >> it's also potentially politically damaging to these sitting members of congress. katy? >> andrea, thank you. chuck, joyce, frank, you are sticking around throughout our special coverage today. we will get back to you shortly. we do want to move on to another interesting story. in colorado, voters will cast ballots in the primary featuring several gop candidate who embraced donald trump's false claims of election fraud to this day. this ties into what we are seeing in the hearings. ron hanks, first-time senate representative, was inspired to
run for office after attending an event centered on false claims the 2020 presidential election was stolen. lies. a former mayor turned candidate for governor, greg lopez, believes trump was the true winner of the 2020 election. trump was not. he has made election security a central point of his platform. not sure what that means when trump did not win. and tina pieters, a prominent election die denier, is running secretary of state, the office that manages elections. joining me now is vaughan hillyard, former florida congressman david jolly and michael steele, former rnc chairman. michael, in looking ahd, i know we are talking about the committee right now and what they are finding out about what happened on january 6 and today could prove extremely interesting. but we have have to also look forward. this lie about the election, which has been repeated by
donald trump and then by republicans throughout the country now for going on two years, a year and a half -- no, two years. my math is beating me. it's pervasive. there are a number of people who are running for elections positions who are embracing it. whether they actually believe it or they are just using it to their advantage for their own political power, that doesn't matter. some people are eating it up. >> they are. it's the self-perpetuation of the lie. it keeps them in good stead with the base in the gop. it's one of the things mitch mcconnell and others have been concerned about coming out of the primaries. you are putting forth candidates who while they may wow the base and get everybody all revved up, they have to win a general
election. that becomes a problem. they don't necessarily translate more broadly across a congressional district or across an entire state. that hampers the opportunity to actually not just gain momentum but take advantage of the momentum to take the house back, for example, to win more state legislative races in various states. this is the continuation of that long strain of rabid republicanism in the party. it's all about standing with donald trump, not necessarily about putting forth something that voters more broadly are going to accept. >> david jolly, there are now, i believe, 17 candidates in different states, as many as 23 states, who are election deniers running for governor or secretary of state. positions that will have a critical role over the electors in 2024.
this spreading conspiracy would be enough, if these people are elected and if they stick to their election positions, these people would be in position, if donald trump were to run again or any candidate who wants to deny an election, anyone who loses and tries to win by having fake electors successfully chosen and battleground states changed. >> that's right, andrea. i would say the challenge is to our democracy from today's republican party, to not end with a sunset on january 6. they have continued as we have seen donald trump and the trump wing of the republican party try to put in place administrators of future elections to reflect donald trump's vision that winning at all cost is fair if that means undoing our democracy and undoing the rule of law. i think in many ways what is most important about these hearings that we are seeing as it relates to today's republican party's placement of the
election administrators is short of merrick garland's department of justice indicting donald trump, this is the moment where the country sits in the jury box considering the fate of donald trump and the election deniers in today's republican party. if the country says, maybe bad things happened, but we are not able to wrestle control of the republican party, then this becomes doctrine and dogma of the republican party. it's akin to when the tea party snuck in. republican elders said, it won't be a problem. then the republican party became the tea party. what you are seeing now is the framework of election deniers becoming the backbone and asserting the doctrine of today's republican party that will be a reflection of the party tomorrow. >> now there's reporting the tea party is uncomfortable with the members that have taken over that wing of the republicans in
congress. vaughan hillyard, we have fixed your audio issues. you are in colorado watching primaries out there. give us the state of the races and who is running and what their chances are. >> reporter: i think there's also some important context that i think we should alert the broader public to. that is the way in which the democratic aligned forces have waded into these gop primaries. let's look at colorado here. you have a u.s. senate primary, a gop primary. there are two candidates. john o'dea, a construction company ce. he suggested if he were to go into congress, he would vote to codify a certain level of abortion protection, reproductive rights into federal statute. then he is facing a guy by the name of ron hanks who was outside the capitol on january 6, is an election denier, who recorded a video of himself shooting up a mock dominion
voting machine. when you look at this primary, the democratic super pac spent millions of dollars propping up the campaign of ron hanks on airwaves across colorado. they have blanketed campaign commercials knocking down the campaign of john o'dea, the more moderate candidate in the race. you are also seeing that in the governor's race. there's an election denier running in a contested gop primary here. the democratic governor's association is running campaign ad that lift up his candidacy. you see this in illinois. there's a competitive gop primary in the governor race in illinois. there's a trump-backed candidate who has had ads promoted by the democratic governor's association promoting his candidacy. the idea is the democratic forces are trying to help
candidates who they see as easier to beat come the general election. as we laid out. that's a dangerous game by ultimately promoting individuals who could, in a general election, be in charge of not only having votes in the u.s. senate butresults. >> that's also, as you point out in illinois, been the case with the governor. it's dangerous, because you never know what is going to happen when the voters vote. there's enough anger and frustration in this country and inflation and other headwinds, there are so many cross currents, you don't know who will end up being elected. it could be the case in pennsylvania if a similar strategy were tried there. another january 6 participant, the republican nominee for governor, running who says he is in favor of total abortion ban and would go along with the republican legislature there, which has tried that before. they are repeatedly vetoed by
the democratic term-limited governor. there are different factors here. michael steele, i want to bring in, returning to the hearing and what's at stake. this gets back to the alleged scheme to try to deny the election, the role we now of eastman, jeffrey clark in trying to create that scheme, carry it out, take over the justice department and now this key witness, cassidy hutchinson. just to point out, she's 25 years owed. there's this tweet from the cybersecurity expert who was forced out for saying that there was no fraud, there was no problem on the cyber front. he tweeted, cassidy hutchinson is showing remarkable courage for speaking up about the efforts to overturn a legitimate election and the peaceful transfer of power. he writes, what she has through and will experience no one should go through. this is fortitude. that's a key point, michael,
that by. exposing herself, as a live witness, given whatever reported pressure or threats or intimidation may be involved, she is now a public figure. >> she is. i think that's important at this point to recognize how this has come together. clearly, she had given testimony before at two or three times before. but in the process of that, she probably had her own personal revelations about all of this and decided to come forward with something else. that's what brought us to this moment. she's stepping into history in a very important way in terms of the work of this committee. it will be really telling today how this plays out. what the ramifications are from this unprecedented sort of quick gathering of the committee when every was told, we're going to take a couple weeks, we're going to push to the middle of july, come back then.
she's now moved the needle on this discussion to the point where the committee feels that what she has to offer at this moment is that critical and that important. she's really stepping into a leadership here in a history immoment, and now we just sit and wait and see exactly what that is and how this will play out going forward. >> we want today wait that long because we're just ten minutes from the start of this hearing. the witness. you mentioned that tweet that was set by chris krebs. a former deputy press secretary. she is choosing to put her country first and tell the truth, this is what real
courage, integrity, and patriotism looks like. >> and case -- katy you're starting to see more that are willing to come forward and those that are not. you covered the campaign, you know all of the pressures and the difficulties of that campaign more than anyone. these threats of violence for you and other people throughout that campaign, this is a difficult position for anyone to take. she worked for mark meadows. we should not forget that mark meadows has been unwilling to
answer the subpoenas. >> on that point, listen, i was just reporting what was going on in the campaign and the onslaught that i felt was significant. there was a point where secret service had to walk me to my car. this is a woman who potentially worked in the white house, was executive assistant to mark meadows. the chief of staff, privy to inside information. and she tells the committee what she knows in the face of the people out there that don't want to hear it that including the president, the former president of the united states and all of his highpowered allies, and the millions of people in this
country that choose to believe that the election was stolen, chosing to believe a lie is the truth, it takes incredible courage to answer those questions. it takes incredible courage to be there and you have to, just knowing the world, knowing the trump orbit, knowing everything as we look ahead to the start of the hearing, chuck rosenberg, i don't want to get away from the premise here. they are trying to overturn the votes and hold on to the oval office. this has never happened before
in history. we know that george washington laid the predicate for a peaceful transfer of power. that abraham lincoln wrote a secret memo and add all of his cabinet members sign on to it without reading it that if the war went the other way that he would concede to the confederacy. the fact that the former president was behind this whole scheme, and the question is do you really knee he lost the election. and i they is becoming increasingly apparent. >> i think it is becoming more and more clear with the evidence and the witnesses. still, if it were to go to trial in federal court as a charged crime, prosecutors would have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt which is different from "proving it"? right. the way you do it in court a a
lot more detailed than that. so i think thatviewers should keep those venues in mind. we have been blessed with leaders like washington in the beginning that stepped away from power while others tried to clink to it. >> nixon, january 6th was on the podium as the vice president conceding to john f. kennedy in an election that was far closer and of course al gore in 2020, was conceding to george bush in supreme court. the decision for merick garland, it is difficult for any attorney general to prosecute a former president. you could argue, people are arguing that no matter the
evidence you have to really believe that you can prove it in a court of law. >> yeah, here to is literally unprecedented if has not happened, and i don't think is simply a question of applying the justice department's manual and rules and procedures. this is monumental. >> it is a wild card, frankly, what that would do to the country. if it would enflame tensions or tamp them down. we're seeing the violence inspired by president trump supporters and we're finding out whether or not donald trump knew about that violence and if he was woke it.
we have reporting suggesting he was okay with it when it came to mike pence. joist, in hooking what we might see today, and whether or not you can convict the former president, convince a sir of intent here, ari melbur had a comparison. you're at an airport, you think it's your suitcase, you walk off with it, it can't be proved that you had the intent to steal that suitcase. but what if you're told over and over and over again by your lawyers, by your family, by your aids, the people around you, that that is not your suitcase, don't take that suitcase, that is someone else's suitcase over and over and over again. and if you say i believe it is
mine and i walk off with it, can i be convicted of stealing? >> i heard you and ari have that conversation, katie and i thought it was the perfect example and you made the right point. if you look down at the suitcase and it has a pickpink sticker t you know is not on yours, or you realize it is much lighter, and someone says that is mine, not yours, and your wife says to you, well honey that is not your suitcase, at some point you heard so much evidence that it is tantamount to having knowledge. prosecutors all that willful blind blindness. that is something that prosecutors are not unfamiliar with. judges will give you a very favorable instruction to someone that asserts a very insincere
believe. at best, given the evidence that we heard, it is an insincere belief, so chuck makes a key point here, the folks at d.o.j. are used to making these assessments. we have seen the evidence, we know how good it is, and the calculus they make comes down to not only whether or not there is enough evidence to convince a jury at trial or if there is any legal issues that could interfere on appeal and far more calculations about the impact on the prosecute and the country. one of the key differentiaters. he is still a feature of the landscape. he made it clear he intends to run again in 2024. he is exerting control and power
over the republican party. he is continuing to perpetuate the big lie. and if you're merrick garland thinking about where the national interest lies in this prosecution landscape you have to be acutely aware of the damage that happens at the same time as evaluating the strength of your potential case. >> in a moments away, let me set the stage here. we see the forecasters are there. they're ready and waiting for the chairman to come in, and of course liz cheney, we understand it will be them leaving the hearing today. we expect other members of compete to be there and participating orally as questioners of the witness and the witness herself has not come into the room yet. this is, she will be the first
white house employee to testify publicly. someone that can give us that inside look as to what was happening. what was happening for documents, timelines, and phonelogs, were they distroyed and as she testified to, the kev in her deposition, a number of republican congress members had asked for pardons. and we see benny thomas now, the chair coming in, and we see the witness, as well. obviously 25-year-old who was a top aide to mark meadows when he was a leading member of the congressional freedom caucus. she was in the room, taking calls, asking for pardons.
she was not just moving papers around. >> as we're about to see this thing begin, we don't know what we don't know. we don't know what she is going to say or not say, let's not raise expectations here or diminish expectations here. let's listen and hear what she has and i think that they just gavelled. i guess we're going to go in. >> the united states capital will be in order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any point. pusuant to house regulation 10, the chair announces the committee's approval to release the material presented during this hearing. good afternoon. in our hearings over the previous weeks, a select committee laid out the details of a multipart pressure campaign driven by the former president
aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election and blocking the transfer of power. this was based on a lie. a lie that the election was stolen. in the weeks ahead, the committee will hold additional hearings about how trump summoned a mob, and failed to take action to quell the violence as it was unfolding. however in recent days the select committee obtained new information dealing with what was going on in the white house on january 6th and on the days prior. specific details and information about what the former president and his top aids were doing and saying in the critical hours. firsthand details of what
transpired in the office of the white house chief of staff just stepping from the oval office as the threats of violence became clear and violence descended on the capital in the attack on american democracy. it is important that the american people hear that immediately. that's why in consultation with the vice chair i recalled the committee for today's hearing. as you have seen and heard, the select committee developed a massive body of evidence thanks to the many hundreds of witnesses that voluntarily provided information real ant to our investigation. it has not always been easy to get that information because the same people who drove the former president's pressure campaign to overturn the election are now trying to cover up the truth about january 6th.
thanks to the courage of certain individuals, the truth won't be buried. the american people won't be left in the dark. our witness today, ms. cassidy hutchinson has emboied that courage. her testimony will show, i will allow her words to speak for themselves and i hope that everyone at home will listen very closely. first i recognize our distinguished vice chair for any statements she cares to offer. >> thank you, mr. charge. in the first five hearings the committee heard from a significant number of republicans including former trump administration justice department officials, several members of president trump's white house staff, a program nant judge, and several others. today's witness is another
republican an another former member of president trump's white house staff. certain of us in the house of representatives, she once worked for steve scalise, she also held a prominent role in the white house legislative affairs office and later was the principal aide to president trump's chief of staph, mark meadows. she spent time up here on capitol hill representing the trump administration and we welcome her back. we have been organized to address specific elements of the plan welcome . we have several cross cutting topics that are relevant to each of our future hearings.
she handled a sensitive issues. she spoke daily with members of congress, high ranking officials, senior white house staff including mr. meadows, white house council lawyers and with mr. tony ornado. she also worked on a daily basis. she informs a position to know a great deal. she has already sat for four videotaped interviews with investigators and we thank for her for her cooperation and courage. we will cover topics in ms. hutchinson's knowledge today. we will put the testimony today
in a broader and more complete context. today you will hear her relate certain first-hand observations of president trump's conduct on january 6th. you will also hear new information regarding the actions and statements of mr. trump's senior advisors that day including chief of staff mark meadows and his white house council. and we will begin to examine evidence on what members of the white house knew about the prospect for violence on january 6th. to best communicate the information that the committee has gathered, we will follow the practice of our recent hearings playing videotaped testimony and posing questions to her live. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, our witness ms.
cassie hutchinson. she was in the white house chief of staff office from march 2020 to january 2021. ly now swear in our witness. the witness will please stand and raise her right hand. do you swear or affirm on the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> yes. >> thank you, you may be seated. let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. i now recognize myself for questions. ms. hutchinson, i would like to start with a few questions about your background. these are some photographs we obtained highlights your career. these show you with members of
congress including steve scalise and the white house with leader kevin mccarthy and jim jordan. others show you with the president and members of congress aboard air force one. before you worked in the white house, you worked on capitol hill for representative steve scalise, the republican whip, and senator ted cruz. and then in 2019 you moved to the white house and served there until the end of the trump administration in 2020. when you started at the white house you served in the office of legislative affairs. we understand that you were initially hired as a staff assistant, but was soon promoted to a position of greater responsibility. can you explain your role for the committee? >> when i moved over to the white house chief of staff's
office with mr. meadows, when he became the fourth chief of staff, it's difficult to describe a typical day. i was a special assistant to the president and advisor to the chief of staff. the days depended on what the president was doing that day, and that's how my portfolio was reflected. i had a lot of outreach with members of congress, senior cabinet officials. we were working on policy issues with relevant internal components and members on the hill as well as security protocol at the complex. >> and you received another promotion in march 2020. at that time you became the principal aide to the new white house chief of staff mark meadows, is that right? >> that's correct, sir. >> what did a typical day look like for you in your work with mr. meadows. >> it varied with what was going on. we spent a lot of time on the
hill. i was independently there as well, as i was his liaison. we did a lot of presidential travel engagements, but mostly i was to understand what the chief of staff needed and a lot of times it was a reflection of the president's schedule telling steve what to do that day. >> is it fair to say you spoke regularly with members of congress and senior members of trump administration. >> that's correct, that's a fair assessment, sir. >> would you say in your work with mr. meadows you were typically in contact with him and others throughout the day? >> that's correct. mr. meadows and i were in contact, pretty much throughout every day consistently. >> so much of grave importance happens in the west wing of the white house, it's a sll
bhil. above me on the screen you can see a map of the first floor of the west wing of the white house. on the right you can see the president's oval office. on the left the chief of staff's office suite. within the chief of staff's office suite is the heart of the west wing and your desk which was between the vice president's office, and the oval office. is this an accurate depiction of where you sfwhr. >> yes, it's smaller than it looks. >> this shows the short distance between your office and the president's oval office. it takes five to ten seconds to
walk down the hall from your office to the oval office, is that right? >> that's correct. pursuant to the section 5c 8, the chair recognizes the young woman from wyoming, mrs. cheney for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will start with an exchange, on january 2nd, president trump's lead lawyer was meeting with white house chief of staff with mark meadows and others. do you remember mr. giuliani meeting with mr. meadows on january 2nd, 2021. >> yes, they met in the evening. >> and we understand that you
walked mr. giuliani out of the white house that night and he talked to you about january 6th. >> as we were walking to vehicles that evenings, he said something to the effect of cass, are you excited for the 6th? it's going to be a great day and i remember saying rudy, can you explain what's happening on the 6th? and he responded something to the effect of we're going to the capitol, it's going to be great, the president is going to be there, he will look powerful, he will be with the members and the senators, talk to the chief about it, he knows about it. >> did you go back then, up to the west wing and tell mr. meadows about your conversation with mr. giuliani? >> i did, after mr. giuliani left, i found mr. meadows on his couch, he was on the couch, controlling on his phone, and i
said i had an interesting conversation with rudy, he said we're going to the capital and he said there is a lot going on, i don't know, but things might get real bad. >> mr. meadows is engaged in litigation with the committee to avoiding here. what was your reaction when he said to you things might get real, real bad? >> in the days before january 2nd, i was apprehensive about the 6th. i heard general plans for a rally. i heard tentative movements to go to the capitol. but that was the first evening that i felt scared and nervous on january 6th and i had a
deeper concern for what was happening with the planning aspects of it. >> thank you, today we're going to be focussing on the events of january 5th and 6th at the white house. but to begin and frame the discussion i want to talk about a conversation that you had with mr. john ratcliff. you had this conversation in december of 2020. he was nominated by president trump to oversee u.s. intelligence, u.s. intelligence community, and before his appointment, he was a republican member of congress. as you will see on this clip, director ratcliff's comments in december of 2020 were preshient. >> my understanding st that director ratcliff didn't want much to do with the post election period.
he felt that it wasn't something that the white house should be pursuing. he felt it was dangerous for the president's legacy. he had expressed concern that it could spiral out of control and potential i will be dangerous. either in our democracy or for the way that things were going on the 6th. >> when you say it, was he in? >> trying to fight the results of the election. finding missing ballots, pressuring -- filing lawsuits in certain state where's there did
not seem to be significant evidence and reaching out to legislatures about -- that's pretty much the way the white house is handling the post election period. they felt there could be dangerous repercussions in terms of precedents set for elections, for our democracy, for the 6th. they were hoping we would concede. >> now we're going to turn to certain information that was available before january 4th. and what the trump administration and the president knew about the potential for violence before january 6th. on the screen you will see an e-mail received by acting deputy attorney general donahue on january 4th from the national security division of the department of justice. he testified in our hearings last week. the e-mail identifies apparent planning by those coming to washington on jan 6th to occupy federal buildings and
discussions of "invading the capitol building." here is what mr. donahue said to us. >> we knew if you have tens of thousands of obsessive people showing up in washington dc there was potential for violence. >> the u.s. secret service was looking at similar information and watching the planned demonstrations. in fact, their intelligence division sent several e-mails to white house personnel, including certain materials listing events like those on the screen. the white house continued to receive updates about planned demonstrations including information regarding the proud boys organizing and planning to attend events on january 26th. although ms. hutchinson did not
have anything to do with the planning on january 6th, she heard did say this. >> i heard the words oathkeeper and proud boys closer to the planning of the rally when rudy would be around. >> the police issued a special assessment and the capitol police noted that the proud boys and other groups planned to be in washington dc on january 6th. and unlike previous post election protests, the targets of the pro-trump supporters are not necessarily the counter protestors as they were previously, but rather congress itself is the target on the 6th. of course we all know now that the prow boys showed up on
january 6th, marched, and led the mob to invade and occupy our capitol. i want to play you a clip, when you described a call, that you received from national security advisor robert o brian about the potential violence. >> i received a call from robert o'brien and he want today speak with mr. meadows about the violence he was hearing would happen on the hill on january 6th. i asked if he connected with tony ornado, because he had had a conversation with mark about that topic and he said i'll talk to tony and then, i don't know if robert ever connected with mark about the issue.
>> can you describe for us mr. arnado's responsibilities as the deputy chief of staff? >> the deputy chief of staph position is arguably one of the most important positions that someone can hold. they are in charge of all security protocol for the campus, the first family, and anything that requires security for any individual that has presidential protection. so the chief of staff, the national security advisor, to t would oversee all of that and he was the conduit between the white house and the secret service. >> you described a brief meeting about the potential for violence. the meeting was on january 4th, they were talking about the potential for violence on january 6th. let's listen to a clip of that
testimony. >> remember mr. ornado talked and gotten energy reports, i remember him saying he had intel reports of potential violence on the sixth. >> you spoke about reporks of violence throughout the day on the 5th and 6th. >> correct. >> are those some of the report that's you recall hearing about? >> they are. >> of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the capitol on january 6th had many different types of weapons. when a president speaks, the secret service requires those attending to pass through metal
detectors. the select committee learned that people that entered the enclosed area were screened so they could attend the rally. they had weapons and other item that's were confiscated, pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, body armor, gas masks, batons, blunt weapons and those were just from the people dhoes go through security. not the thousands of members of the crowd that refused to go through and watched from the lawn near the washington monument. the select committee learned about reports from outside of the magnitometers and has police radio transmissions talking about people with firearms, including ar-15s, near the
elipse. >> a individual entering, white male, about six foot tall, blue jeans, blue jean jacket, and under the jacket is an ar-15 and a group of individuals, five to eight others, two of the viblgs in that group were areaing green fatigues. white males, brown cowboy boots, and they have glock style guns in their waistbands. >> the man in the tree has a weapon on his hip. >> make sure he knows they have an elevated threat in the tree on the south side of constitutionality. the american flag face mask, cowboy boots, weapon on the
right side hip. >> i have three men walking down the street carrying ar-15s at independent. >> ar-15 at 14th and independence. as you saw in those e-mails, the first report that we showed we now know was sent in the 8:00 hour on january 6th. this talked about people in the crowd wearing ballistic helmets and body armor carrying military grade backpacks. the second was sent by the secret service about a man with a rifle. you described a meeting in the white house around 10:00 a.m. in the morning involving chief of staff meadows and tony ornato.
were you in that meeting? >> i was. >> i think last time we talked you mentioned some of the weapon that's people had at the rally, included flag poles, over sized sticks, bear spray, is there anything else that you recall hearing about? the people that gathered? >> i recall tony and i having a conversation with mark around 10:00 a.m., 10:15 a.m. where i remember tony mentioning knives, guns, in the forms of pistols and rivals, bear spray, body armor, spears, and flagpoles. spears were one item, flagpoles another, and tony relayed to me and these f-ing people are fastening spears on to the end of flagpoles.
>> here is a clip of your testimony to mr. meadows response learning the rally attendees were arm thad day. >> what was mark's reaction to this list of weapon that's people had? >> when tony and i went in to talk to mark that morning, he was sitting on his couch on his phone, which is something typical, and tony got right into it, but sir, i want to let you know this is how many people we have outside right now. these are the weapons that we're going to have -- he may have listed more weapons, i don't recall, but given a brief explanation, but it was thorough. and i remember distinctly, mark not looking up from his phone. i remember tony mentioning his explanation, and it taking a few seconds for mark to say something to the point where i
was -- mark, did you hear him? and then mark chimed in and he was like, all right, anything else? still looking down at his phone. and tony looked at me and i looked at tony and tony said no, sir, do you have any questions? and he was like what are you hearing? and he told you about what is happening at the rally and then he looked up and said "have you talked to the president" and tony says yes, sir, he is aware, too, and he said all right, good. >> he asked tony if tony informed the president, and tony said he had. >> is it your understanding that he told the president about weapons at the rally on the morning of january 6th. >> here is how you characterize his general response when people raise concerns about what could happen on january 6th.
>> so at the time, in the days leading up to the 6th, there was lots of public reports about how things might go back and there is a pension for violence. if i'm hearing you correctly what stands out to you that mr. meadows did not share or act on the concerns. >> did not act on the concerns would be accurate. >> but you mentioned other people brought it up to him. >> that's correct. >> we're going to show now an exchange of texts between you and deputy chief of staff ornato. these text messages were exchanged while you were at the elipse. in one text you say the crowd looks good from this vantage point as long as we get the shot, he was f-ing furious. and it stresses that president trump kept mentioning the otr,
an off the record movement. we're going to come back and ask you about that in a moment, who is it in the text who was furious? >> the me in that text that i was referring to was the president. >> and why was he furious ms. hutchinson? >> because he wanted the arena that we had to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. the events team relayed that it was free flowing, everyone that wanted to come in had come in and he was angry about the extra space and he wanted more people to come in. >> did you go to the rally in the presidential motorcade? >> i was there, yes, in the motorcade. >> were you backstage with the president and other members of staff and family? >> i was. >> and you told us about particular comment that's you heard while you were in the tent
area. >> when we were in the off stage announce area tent behind the stage he was very concerned about the shot, meaning the photograph that he would get, because the rally space was not full. one of the reasons, which i previously stated was because he wanted it to be full, and for people to not feel excluded. and he felt the mags were at fault for not letting everybody in, but another leading reason, likely the primary reason, is he wanted it full and he was angry that we were letting people through the mags with weapons, what secret service deemed as weapons and that are weapons, but in the tent i was part of a conversation. i was in the vicinity of a conversation where i heard the president say something to the effect of, you know, i don't
care that they have weapons. they're not here to hurt me, take the f-ing mags away, let the people in, take the f-ing mags away. >> just to be clear, is it your understanding that the president wanted to take the mags away and said the armed individuals were not there to hurt him? >> that's a fair assessment. >> the issue was not with the amount of space available in the official rally area only, but instead that people did not want to have to go through the mags. let's listen to a portion of what you told us about that. >> in this particular instance, it wasn't the capacity of our state, it's the mags and the people that didn't want to come through and that is what tony was trying to relay this morning. it's not the issues we encountered on the campaign. there is enough space, they don't want to come in, they have
weapons they don't want confiscated by the secret service. they're fine, they can see you on the mall and they want to march to the capitol from the mall. >> the president wanted all attendees in the rally space and repeatedly said "they're not here to hurt me." >> and just to be clear, so he was told, again, in that conversation, was he told again in that conversation that people could not come through because they had weapons? >> correct. >> and that people, and his response was to say they can march to the capitol from the elipse. >> something from take the mags away, they're not here to hurt me, let me people in, they can march to the capitol after the rally is over. they can march from the elipse, take the f-ing mags away and
then they can march to the capitol. >> photos provided by the national archives showing the president in the off stage tent, you're in some of those photos as well. and i just want to confirm that that is when you heard the president say that the people with weapons weren't there to hurt him and he wanted the secret service to remove the mag magnatometers. >> that's correct. we were standing in the tent close where he would walk out to go on to the stage. these conversations happened two to three minutes before he took the stage that morning. >> let's reflect on that for a moment. president trump was aware that a number of the individuals in the crowd had weapons and were wearing body armor, and here is what president trump instructed the crowd to do. >> we're going to walk down, i'll be there with you, anyone
you want, but i think right here to the capitol. >> and the crowd, as we know, did proceed to the capitol. it became apparent to the secret service, including the secret service teams in the crowd, along with white house staff that the security at the capitol would not be sufficient. >> i had two or three phone conversations with mr. ornato at the elipse and then i had four men on mr. meadows detail with me. me, those individuals, and a few others and they were getting notifications through their radios and mr. ornato called me and said make sure the chief knows they're getting close to the capitol and they're planning
on stacking bodies. >> when you said they were having trouble stacking bodies, did you mean law enforcement at the capitol needed more people to defend the capitol from the rioters? >> it was becoming clear to us and the secret service that capitol police officers were getting overrun outside of the security barricades and they were short of people to defend the building against the rioters. >> and you mentioned that mr. ornato conveyed this to you because he wanted you to tell mr. meadows. so did you tell him that the capitol police were having difficulty? >> after i had the conversation with mr. meadows -- mr. ornato, i went to tell mr. meadows. he informs a secured vehicle having a phone call.
he immediately shut the door. i don't know who he is speaking with. that is not something he regularly did. i was a bit taken aback but i didn't think much of it, and i thought i would be able to have the conversation with him a few moments later. >> were you able to have that conversation a few moments later? >> about 20 or 25 minutes later there was another period when he shut the door again and when he finally got out of the vehicle we had a conversation. there was a backlog of information that he should have been made aware of. >> so you opened the door to the control car and mr. meadows pulled it shut? >> that's correct. >> he did that two times? >> correct. >> when you were finally able to give mr. meadows the information about the violence at the capitol, what was his reaction? >> he almost had a lack of
reaction. i remember he said something like how much longer does the president have in his speech. >> much about this was known or learned before the onset of the violence. early enough for president trump to take steps to prevent it. he could have urged the crowd not to march to the capitol. he could have condemned the violence immediately or taken multiple other steps, but as we will see today and in later hearings hoe had something else in mind. one other point, were you aware of concerns that white house council had about the language that president trump used in his speech? >> there was more, it headlines
along to the effect that fight for trump, we're going to march to the capital, i'll be there for you. fight for me, fight for what we're doing, fight for the movement. things about the vice president at the time, too. they didn't want him to include that because of the optics of what was happening that day. >> and he said he would be with his supporters even though he did not end up going, he certainly wanted to.
some have questions whether or not president trump genuinely planned to come here to the capitol. mark meadows said he was speaking metaphorically about the walk to the capitol. as you will see donald trump was not speaking metaphorically. as we heard earlier, rudy giuliani told ms. hutchinson that donald trump plans to go to the capitol on january 6th. explain some of the terminology that you will hear today. we heard you use two different terms to describe the plans for the president's movement, the capitol, or anywhere else. one of those is a scheduled movement and another is otr. can you describe for what those are. >> a scheduled presidential
movement is on his official schedule. it's notified to press and a wide range of staff. known to the public and the secret was a and they can coordinate the movement days in advance. off the record is confined to the knowledge of a very small group of advisors and staff. usually a small group of staff would travel with him. mostly that are included in the national security package. you can pull it together in less than an hour if is a way to circumvent having to release it to the press, if that's the goal, or to not have to have as many security parameters in place to make the movement happen. >> thank you. let's go back to the president's plans to travel to the white house. we know that pat was worried
with the trip and he agree thad it should not happen. did you have any conversations with pat about his concerns and the president going to the capitol on january 6th? >> he approached me knowing mark raised the idea of going to the capitol. we had a brief private conversation where he said to me we need to make sure this doesn't happen. this would be disastrous. he urgd me to continue to relay that to mr. meadows. it's my impression that he thought mr. meadows was planning this along with the president
and he said something along the lines of make sure that this movement doesn't happen. >> that's right, he said something to the effect of please make sure we don't go to the capitol, cassidy, keep in touch with me, we're going to be charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> do you remember which trims mr. cipollone was concerned with? >> in the days leading up to the 6th we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count. >> let's hear about some of those concerns that you mentioned earlier in your interview with us. >> having a private conversation
with path, late in the afternoon of the third or fourth that pat was concerned it would look like we were on instructing justice, or obstructing the electoral college count. i apologize if i'm not perfect with my legal terms here. but he was also worry thad it would look like we were enciting a riot or encouraging a riot at the capital. >> president trump expressed to multiple aides that he wanted to go to the capitol after his speech. here is what various aides told the committee about the president's desire to go to the capitol. >> did the president tell you he
wanted to speak at the capitol? >> correct, yes. >> in the meeting in the dining room, did the idea of the president proceeding or walking to the capitol on the 6th after his speech come up? >> walking to the capitol? no. >> driving to the capitol? >> it came up. >> how did it come up and what was discussed? >> he brought it up and he said i want to go down to the capitol. >> what about him marching to the capitol on the 6th? >> yes. >> tell us about that. >> so, it was just a general thing, i was aware of a desire of the president to potentially march to, or accompany the rally attendees to the capitol. >> when did you first hear about this idea of the president accompanying rally attendees?
>> this was at the 6th, after he finished his remarks. >> when the president said he would be going to the capitol after his speech the secret service scrambled to find a way for him to go. we know this from witnesses and the secret service. also from messages among staff on the president's national security council. the staff was monitoring the situation in realtime and you can see how the situation evolved in the following chat log that the community obtained. as you can see, staff believed that mogul, the president, was going to the capitol. and "they are finding the best route now." from these chats, we also know the staff learned of the attack on the capitol in realtime. when president trump left the
ellipse stage at 1:10 the staff knew that rioters invaded the stage and capitol police were calling for all available officers to respond. when kevin mccarthy heard that the president was going to the capitol, he called, isn't that right? >> that's correct. >> this is texas message you told ornato "mccarthy just called me too, are you coming to my office"? tell us about that conversation with mccarthy. >> i was still in the tent behind the stage and when ewe in there you can't really hear what is going on in front of you. mr. mccarthy called me this information, i answered the call and he sounded rushed but also
frustrated and angry at me and i was confused because i didn't know what the president just said. he then explained that the president just said he is marching to the capitol, and you told me you're not coming up here, why would you lie to me. and i said i'mme? i said, i'm not lying. i wasn't lying to you, sir. we're not going to the capitol. he said, well, he said it on stage, figure it out. don't come up here. i said, i'll run the traps on this and shoot you a text. i can assure you, we're not coming up to the capitol we've already made that decision. he pressed a little bit more, believing me, but i think frustrated that the president had said that and we ended the phone conversation after that. i called mr. soranato to re-confirm we weren't going to the capitol, which is also in our text messages. i sent mr. mccarthy another text telling him the affirmative,
that we were not going up to the capitol. he didn't respond after that. >> we understand, miss hutchinson that the plans for the trip to the capitol had included discussions at some point about what the president would do when he came up to the capitol on january 6th. let's look at a clip of one of your interviews discussing that issue with the 80. >> when you were talking about a scheduled movement, did anyone say, look what the president wanted to do when he got here? >> no not that i can specifically remember. i remember, i have discussed with mark and scott terry, mark and rudy guiliani, i don't know which conversations were held related to the president. i don't know what he personally
wanted to do when he got up to the capitol that day. i know that there were discussions about him having a speech outside the capitol before going in and there was a conversation about him gentleman into the house chamber at one point. . >> as we've all just heard in the days leading up to january 6th on the day of the speech, both before and during and after the rally speech, president trump was pushing his staff to arrange for him to come up here to the capitol during the electoral vote count. let's turn now to what happened in the president's vehicle when the secret service told him he would not be going to the capitol after his speech. first, here's the president's motorcade leaving the ellipse after his speech on january 6th.
miss hutchinson, when you returned to the white house in the motorcade after the president's speech, where did you go? >> when i returned to the white house, i walked upstairs to the chief of staff's office. we started lingering outside the office. once we paid contact, he quickly waved me to go into the office, which is just across the aisle from mine. when i went in, he shut the door, i noticed mr. bobby engel, the head of trump's detail, sitting in the chair a little come bob lated and lost. he said, did you f'ing hear what happened in the beast? i said, no, tony, i just got back. what happened? tony proceeded to tell me that
when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from mr. meadows that the off-the-record movements to the capitol were still possible and likely to happen but that body had more information. so the president hadn't gotten into the vehicle with bobby, he thought that they were going up to the capitol and when bobby had related to him, were not, we don't have the access to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the west wing, the president had very strong, a very angry response to that. tony described him as being irate. the president said something to the effect of i'm the f'ing president, take me up to the capitol now. to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the west wing. the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel.
mr. engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you snead to take your hand off the steering wheel. we're going back to the west wing. we're not going to the capitol. mr. trump then used his free hand to hundred him towards bobby engel and when he recounted the story to me, he motioned towards his clavicles. >> and what mr. engel in the room as mr. oranato told you this story? >> he was. >> did mr. engel correct or disagree with any part of the story from mr. oranato? >> mr. engel did not correct or disagree with any part of the story. >> did they ever after that tell you what mr. oranato said was untrue? >> neither mr. oranato or mr. engle told me it was ever untrue. >> and despite this altercation this physical altercation during
the ride back to the white house, president trump still demanded to go to the capitol. here's what kaylee mcenany, the white house press secretary set wrote in her personal notes and told the committee about president trump's desire to go to the capitol after returning to the white house. >> when you wanted to walk to -- potus wanted to walk towards the capitol, was there anything he or anybody said after w5erds? >> to the bet of my recollection, i believe when we got back to the white house, he said he wanted to physically walk with the marchers. according to my notes, he then said he'd be fine just riding the beast. to my recollection, he wanted to be a part of the march in some fashion. >> and just for the record he refers to the presidential limousine? >> yes. >> president trump did not go to
the capitol that day. we understand that he blamed mark meadows for that. >> so prior to leaving the rally site, when he got off the stage and everybody was making a move back to the motorcade. i overheard mr. meadows say to him him then prior to mr. trump taking the stage that morning that he was still working on getting an off-the-recovered movement to the capitol. so mr. trump took the stage, he was under the impression by mr. meadows that it was still possible. so when he got off the stage, i had related to mr. meadows, i had a conversation with the attorney, it's still not possible. mr. meadows said, okay. so when i proceeded to go to the motorcade, and mr. meadows had replicated, we're going to work on this, the body has more information. mark got into his vehicle. to my understanding. trump got into the beast and
after we all arrived back at the white house, within a day, it had been released via mark that the president wasn't happy that bobby didn't pull off for him and mark didn't work hard enough to get the movement on the books. >> the physical altercation that miss hutchinson described in the presidential vehicle was not the first time that the president had become very angry about issues related to the election. on december 1, 2020, attorney general barr said in an interview, that the department of justice had not found evidence of widespread election fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election. miss hutchinson, how did the president react to hearing that news? >> around the time that i understand the ap article went live, i remember hearing noise coming from down the hall.
so i poked my head out at the office. i saw the valet walking towards our office. he had said, get the kiev down to the dining room. the president wants him. so mark went down to the dining room, came back to the office a few minutes later. after mark had returned, i left the office and went down to the dining room and i noticed that the door was propped open and the valet was inside the dining room, changing the table cloth off the dining room table. he motioned for me to come in and pointed toward the front of the loom near the fireplace mantle and the tv where i first noticed there was catchup dripping down the wall and there was a shattered porcelain plate on the floor. the valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the attorney general's a.p. interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall,
which was causing him to have to clean up. so i grabbed a towel and started wiping the catch-up off the wall to help the valet out. he said something to the effect of, he's really ticked off about this. i would stay clear of him for right now. he's really, really ticked off about this right now. >> miss hutchinson, was this the only instance that you are aware of where the president threw dishes? >> it's not. >> and are there other instances in the dining room that you recall where he expressed his anger? >> there were several times throughout my tenure as the chief of staff that i was aware of him either throwing dishes or flipping the table cloth to let all the contents of the table go onto the floor and likely break or go everywhere. >> and miss hutchinson, attorney general barr described to the committee the president's angry
reaction when he finally met with president trump. let's listen. >> and i said, look, i didn't know you were dissatisfied with me. i'm glad to offer my resignation. he pounded the table very hard and everyone sort of jumped. he said, accept it? >> mr. chairman, i reserve. >> chair woman reserves. the chair requests those in the hearing room to remain seated until the capitol police have escorted our witness from the room pursuant to the order of the committee of today. the chair declares the committee recess for a period of approximately ten minutes. >> and with the gavel coming down, benny thompson, the chair recesses after the most dramatic testimony from the witness cassidy hutchinson describing
the fury of the president when he was told by the secret service when he got back into the vehicle known as the beast, the armored vehicle, that it was too dangerous for him to go up to the capitol as he had planned, as he had wanted to. she had already testified that there was a plan they first heard act on the 2nd or the 3rd to go back up to the come and th in fact, the secretary, excuse me, the president of the united states got in an altercation, a physical altercation with bobby everything him, the head of his secret service detail. he tried to grab the steering wheel and lunged when the secret service handed the detail, grabbed his arm and stopped him from doing that. katy tur is with me. i want to play that clip of cassidy hutchinson's extraordinary testimony of what she was told. this mart is hearsay. but she had also observed many of the things, including that the president had thrown plates
and broken plates previous times on december 1st, in particular, when the tomorrow bill barr said there had been no evidence of election fraud. let's play that clip. we'll discuss it on the other side. >> bobby had related to him, we're not, we don't have the access to do it. it's not secure. we're going back to the west wing. the president had very strong, a very angry response to that. tony described him as being irate. the president said something to the effect of, i'm the f'ing president, fake me up to the capitol now. to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the west wing. the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to gran at the steering wheel. mr. engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. we're going back to the west
wing. we're not going to the capitol. mr. trump then used his free hand to lunge towards bobby engel and when mr. oranato recounted story to me, he motioned the classify cals. >> he tried to grab the steering wheel, motioned towards his classifyic am. donald trump knew, andrea, the crowd at the ellipse the rally was carrying weapons. he was told that they were armed. he said, take down the megnetometers. they're not here to hurt me. he wanted, according to his testimony, to go to the capitol. he thought he was going to the capitol. when he found he was not going, he tried to force the car. let me reiterate, he knew they were armed. he said, they're not here to hurt me. our panel is back with us. chuck rosenberg, joyce vance. chuck, i want to get your
reaction. >> i have a bunch of them, katie. i was thinking about believe it or not john f. kennedy's 1961 inaugural address, which i think is one of the most eloquent speeches delivered by an american president, which he said among other things, civility is not a sign of weakness, a lesson apparently lost on our former president who strikes me as a remarkably indecent, vial and uncivil man. to your more substantive point, katie, we now know from the testimony today, although the committee apparently knew it well before us, that the deputy chief of staff to the president had told the president, specifically, that people at the rally were armed. they carried all sorts of weapons, body armor, helmets, and that the president understood to the extent he can understand anything, that they were not there to harm him. so the question i think is an
open one. who did he believe they were there to harm? because he is the one that urged them onto the come. knowing how they were dressed and the weapons that they carried? it's really a rather remarkable day of testimony. perhaps not new to the committee. but new to many of us. >> and, katie, i also wanted to bring up the fact for you and others that the white house counsel, pat cipollone, who has refuse to testify and he may have been, liz cheney called him out in saying last week, we think he had an obligation to testify had said perjury to this witness hutchinson, it could open up all sorts of legal issues for the president, for justice, obstruction of the electoral count, inciting to
riot. katie. >> it is remarkable. you know, it goes to show you what we've heard over and over again during these hearings, donald trump was told, the election wasn't stole him. he was told there was no fraud. he was told that he lost. he was told that the crowd that showed up to support him at the ellipse was armed. he knew they were going to the capitol. he wanted to go to the capitol as well. he knew this was all going to happen. he knew. they're saying it over and over again. he knew, it wasn't just him, it was mark meadows as well, pat cipollone as you just mentioned, the panel has been very clear, they want to hear from him, please come in, talk to us. you can corroborate so much of this. in this circumstance so far, pat cipollone looks pretty good, like the person that said over and over again, this is not okay. we are going to get in trouble. there are legal problems here. i do wonder if cassidy
hutchinson's testimony will make pat cipollone rethink his position? i know he tried to assert executive privilege. joyce, what do you think? >> well, hutchinson's testimony puts all of these people in play. one unusual feature of these congressional hearings is that unlike in a court of law, there is no cross examination. we hear her side of the story. she is an awfully good witness. she appears to be telling the truth. she doesn't appear to be overplaying her hand in anyway. if anything, she is a little hesitant sometimes as the story comes out. that makes it all the more important for people like meadows and pat cipollone to tell their full story. we also have two members of the secret service here, anthony oranato. she speaks about you will recall was an active duty secret service agent when he came over and took a political job in the white house. very unusual.
the last i checked, he had gone back to the secret service and the led of trump's detail in what would be an enormously unusual move for the secret service. i think they'd be very hesitant to testify about one act one of their protectese. you have an assault committed, it almost becomes incumbent on them to testify. >> frankly, i want to also bring you in here. because there was john ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence saying it was a terrible idea to go up to the hill. the white house was advised by john ratcliffe, a trump loyalist and conservative member of corporation had difficulty getting confirmed to dni, the acting dni. you also had more testimony from others in the white house telling them that this was bad to go up and they played the police radio saying that there was a man with a rifle for instance blocks from where the
president on the ellipse was speaking, he, that morning, according to her own eyewitness testimony was furious using the f-word that they would not take down the megnetometers, again then saying, you know, it was pointed out they were armed. there was plenty of evidence in real time that those people were armed. they didn't want to go through megnetometers. they had all kind of weaponry, tony told him that. he is saying, i don't care, i want the masks down, he wanted more people in the ellipse. he was eager for the largest possible crowd. all of this adding first-hand testimony by her, by cassie hutchinson to his intent, as to what you say is his intent to be a part of that crowd on the hill. >> yeah. andrea, look, remarkably significant testimony here, even with potential legal significance. the insertion of the dni into this even more significant.
because presumably he's the person with the 30,000, of all the intelligence gathered, he is saying this is a really bad idea. look, we can make a distinction between being held liable or someone asserting you are guilty because of your passive inaction. you've heard before the president watched tv while january 6th was playing out. he was passive, he failed to stop it. today we heard something more significant. which is he actively took steps to make things happen. after being told there was weapons in the crowd, sir. we got all kind of reports of people in trees with ar-15s. the police are telling us the capitol has been breached. he wants to go. he wants to go. even though everyone is telling him, you are not going. now we also have meadows, the chief of staff in a very negative light here. cassidy hutchinson saying on two occasions, he slams the door of
his limo on her, which she says is highly unusual, as she is trying to tell him how bad it is getting, he does not want to hear it. he's signature on his phone. she says we got concerns about violence, he barely looks up, if ever, from his phone. have you told president, yeah, good. he doesn't want to hear it. so it's not only active conduct by trump versus inactive now, but we got meadows being put at the center of this not wanting to hear it. it all begs the question, how much was this planned? who planned it? how was meadows involved? how is rudy guiliani, whose name has been used several times today by miss hutchinson? this speaks to or at least has us infer, pre-planning, pre-knowledge. >> so we have a statement from donald trump from truth social and it falls in line with what we've heard him say about other people who have said this exthat could get him into trouble.
here's what he says, i hardly know who this person cassidy hutchinson is, other than i heard very negative things about her. a total phony and leaker. when she requested to go with certain others the team to florida after having served a full term in office, i personally returned her request down. why did she want to go with us if we were so terrible. i understand she was very upset and angry i did not want her to go or be a member of the team. she is bad news. he said this of a number of other folks in the past, he didn't like, including his campaign chairman paul manafort. i want to play that moment she testified to about the knowledge, the knowledge, again the knowledge that the people in the crowd at donald trump's rally on the ellipse on january 6th had weapons. let's listen. >> you also described a brief meeting between mr. oranato and
mr. meadows on a potential for violence. the meeting was on january 4th. they were talking about the potential for violence on january 6th. let's listen to a clip of that testimony. >> mr. oranata had talked about intelligence reports. i remember him coming in saying, we have intelreports saying there could be potential violence on the 6th. >> i want to say the summit took pains to establish her credibility, where she was, who she spoke to, the interactions she had every day, what information she was privy to. i think anticipating how donald trump was going to respond to her testimony. chuck, to you, i know we keep talking about this. i think it's worth going back to on this, if you are mer reconciling garland and you are watching this and you see donald trump was told people had weapons, he said take the megnetometers down, what do you do with that if you are merrick
garland? >> i think the president said they are not mere here to hurt me, who are they hear to hurt? by my quick and rough math, the committee has probably heard from 1,000 witnesses and you know that probably means 5 or 6,000 hours of deposition testimony. we have now seen somewhere between 10 and 12 hours of it. so if are you merrick garland, this is all well and good. there is another 99.9% of evidence you have to review in order to make an informed judgment and to joyce's point from earlier, not trying to deal with it, there has to be the ability for your evidence to withstand cross examination and that's a hard thing to do. they're getting closer. but there is a lot of work left to be done at the department if they want to charge. >> you can see the witness is back at the table. benny thompson is in the chair.
the hearing is about to resume, katie, extraordinary testimony about the temper of the president. it doesn't mean it's illegal. it certainly talks to his behavior. >> having to compleen the catchup. >> in the state dining room. exactly. >> the chair recognizes the chair woman from wyoming, vice chair cheney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before we turn to what miss hutchinson saw and heard in the white house during the violent attack in the capitol on january 6th, let's discuss certain communications white house chief of staff mark meadows had on january 5th. president trump's associate, roger stone, attended rallies during the afternoon and the evening of january 5th in washington, d.c. on january 5th and 6th, mr. stone was photographed with multiple members of the oath keepers, allegedly serves as his
security detail. as we now know, multiple members of that organization has been charged with or pled guilty to crimes associated with january 6th. mr. stone has invoked his fifth amendment privilege before this committee. general michael flynn has also taken the fifth before this committee. mr. stone previously had been convicted of other federal crimes, unrelated to january 6th. general flynn pleaded guilty to a felony charge also predated relating to january 6th. president trump pashd pardoned flynn after election. until july of 2020, he commuted the sentence roger stone was to serve. the night before january 6th, president trump instructed his chief of staff, mark meadows, to contact both roger stone and michael flynn regarding what would play out the next day.
miss hutchinson, is it your understanding in president trump asked mark meadows to speak with roger stone and general flynn on january 5th? >> that is correct. that is my understanding. >> miss hutchinson, is it your understanding miss meadows called mr. stone? >> i am under the uning he called the evening of the 5th. >> do you know what they talked about that evening, miss hutchinson? >> i'm not sure. >> is it your understanding that mr. guiliani, mr. eastman and others had set up what has been called quote a war room at the willard hole on the night of the 5th? >> i was aware of that, the night of the 5th. >> did you know if mr. meadows intended to go to the willard hotel on the night of the 5th? >> mr. meadows had a conversation with me, where he wanted me to work with secret service on a movement from the
white house to the willard hotel so he could attend the meeting or meetings with mr. guiliani and his associates in the war room. >> and what was your view as to whether or not mr. meadows should go to the willard that night? >> i had made it clear to mr. meadows that i didn't believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the willard hotel that night. i wasn't sure everything that was going on at the willard hotel. although i knew enough about what mr. guiliani and his associates were pushing during this period. i didn't think that it was something appropriate for the white house chief of staff to attend or to consider involvement in. i made that clear to mr. meadows. throughout the afternoon, he mentioned a few more times, going up to women ard hotel that evening and then eventually dropped the subject the night of the 5th and said he would dial in, instead.
>> so general flynn has appeared before this committee and when he appeared before our committee, he took the fifth. let's briefly view a clip of general mike flynn taking the fifth amendment. >> general flynn, do you believe the violence on january 5th was justified? >> fifth. >> all right. i'm back. >> chair woman cheney, could you repeat the question, please? >> yes, general flynn, do you believe the violence on january 6th was justified? >> can i get a clarification a normal question or a deep
question? >> i am asking both. >> i said the fifth. >> do you believe the violence on january 6th was justified morally? >> i take the fifth. >> you believe the violence on january 6th was justice legally? >> fifth. >> general flynn, do you believe in a peaceful transition of power in the united states of america? >> the fifth. >> let's move on now to january 6th. and the conduct of donald trump and mark meadows during the attack on the capitol. miss hutchinson, i'd like now for us to listen to a description. your description of what transpired in the west wing during the attack. the context in this clip, you
describe the time frame starting at about 2:00 p.m. >> i remember mark being alone in his office, very quite some time and i hadn't spoken about them going at one point. i don't personally remember he had gone in, but i remember him being alone in his office for most of the afternoon. around 2:00 to 2:05, around 2:00 to 2:05, we were watching the tv, i could see the rioters were getting closer and closer to the capitol. mark still hadn't popped out of his office or said anything about it. i went into his office, i saw he was signature on his couch on his cell phone, he was scrolling and typing. and i said, hey, are you watching the tv, chief? his tv is small.
i couldn't see it. i didn't know if he was paying attention. are you watching tv, chief? he's like, yeah. the rioters are getting close. have you talked to the president? he says, no, he wants to be alone right now. still looking at his phone. so i start to get frustrated because i sort of felt like i was watching not a great comparison but a bad car accident that was about to happen, where you can't stop it, but you want to be able to do something. i had remember thinking in that moment mark needs to snap out of this and i don't know how to snap him out of it. he needs to care. i said, mark, do you know where jim's at right now? he looks up, jim? mark, he was on the floor a little while ago, giving a floor speech. did you listen? he said, yeah, it was real good.
did you like it? i said, yeah, do you know where he's at right now? he says, no, i haven't heard from him. i said, you might want to check at him pointing at the tv, theory rioters are getting close. they might get in. he said something to the effect, all right. i'll give him a call. >> long after the rioters broke into the capitol, you described what happened with white house counsel pat cipollone. >> no more than a minute, a minute-and-a-half later, i see pat cipollone barreling down the hallway towards our office and rush right in, looked at me, said, is mark in his office? i said, yes. he just looked at me and started shaking his head and whatever opened mark's office door, stood there with the door propped opened.
said something, mark is still on his phone. i remember mark saying to him something to the effect of, the rioters have gotten to the capitol, mark, we need to go down and see the president now! mark looked up and said, he doesn't want to be -- pat said something and very clearly had said this to mark, something to the effect of, mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and it will be on your f'ing hands. this is out of control. i'm going down there. at that point mark stood up, he had his phone in his hand and glasses on still. he walked out with pat. he purt both his phones on my desk. let me know if jim calls. they walked out like that to the dining room. >> a few minutes later, representative jordan called back. >> a couple minutes later, so
likely around between 2:15 and 2:25, i notice he went on at 2:24. i don't remember if the tweet went on or it happened right afterwards, jim had a calm. i answered the phone, said, i don't remember if he called the my cellphone or if he had called one of mark's. but i answered the phone, i'm going to go hand him the phone. he said, okay. i went down and asked if mark was in the dining room, found him, yes. i opened the door to the dining room, briefly stepped in to get mark's attention, showed him the phone, like flipped the phone his way he could see it said jim jordan. he stepped there where i had the phone, took the phone, talking to jim with the door still propped open, so i took a few
steps back, so i probably was two feet from mark. he was standing in the doorway going into the oval office dining room. they had a brief conversation and in the cross fires, i heard in the back, i heard conversations in the oval dining room at that point talking about the hang mike pence chances chants. >> that clip ended with you heard mr. meadows and counsel discussing the hang mike pence chants. then you described what happened for us next. >> it wasn't until mark hung up the phone, handed it back to me. i went back to my desk. a couple minutes later, him and pat came back, possibly erush hershel i think he was there.
but i am confident it was pat that was there. i remember pat saying something to the effect of, mark, we need to do something more. they're literally calling for the vice president to be f'ing hung. mark responded something to the effect of, you heard him, pat, he thinks mike deserves it. he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. to which pat said something, this is f'ing crazy. when mark had said come in, he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong, knowing what i had heard briefly in the dining room, coupled with pat discussing the hang mike pence chants in the lobby of the office, mark's response i understood there to be the rioters in the capitol that were
chanting for the vice president to be hung. >> let me pause here on this point. the rioters chanted hang mike pence. the president of the united states, donald trump, said that quote, mike deserves it and that those rioters were not doing anything wrong. this is a sent imt he has expressed at other times as well, in an interview with abc correspondent jonathan karl. president trump was asked about the supporters chanting hang mike pence last year. instead of condemning them, the former president defended them. >> it's common sense, john, it's common sense, that you're supposed to protect -- how can you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to congress? >> president trump's views that the rioters were not doing anything wrong and that quote
mike deserved it helps us to understand why the president did not ask the rioters to leave the capitol for multiple hours. in fact, he put this tweet out at 2:24 p.m. miss hutchinson, do you recall seeing this tweet in which the president said the vice president did not have the courage to do what needed to be done? >> i do. >> miss hutchinson, what was your reaction when you saw this tweet? >> as a staffer that works to always represent the administration to the best of my ability, and to showcase the good things he has done for the country, i remember feeling frustrated, disappointed and really, it felt personal.
it was really sad. as an american, i was disgusted. it was unpatriotic. it was unamerican. we were watching the capitol building get defaced over a lie. it was something that was really hard in that moment to digest knowing what i had been hearing down the hall in the conversations that were happening seeing that tweet come up and knowing what was happening on the hill and it's something that i stig struggle to work through the emotions of that. >> miss hutchinson, we have also spoken to other multiple white house staff about their reaction to donald trump's 24 tweet condemning mike pence for not having the courage to refuse to
count electoral votes, an act that would have been illegal. mathew pottinger, a former marine intelligence officer who served in the white house for four years, including as deputy national security adviser was in the vicinity of the oval office at various points throughout the day. when he saw that tweet, he immediately decided to resign his position. let's watch him describe his reaction to the president's tweet. >> one of my staff brought me a printout of a tweet by the president, it said something to the effect, mike pence, the vice president, didn't have the courage to do what should have been done. i read that tweet and made a decision at that moment to
resign. that's where ine i was leaving that day, once i read that tweet. >> ultimately, members of the white house staff, sarah mathews, 2nd ciao and deboss resigned as well. here is secretary devos' resignation letter. as can see in resigning january 6th, she said to the president, quote, there is no mistaking the impact your rhetoric had on the situation and it is the inflexion point for me. let's also look at secretary ciao's res egg nation statement. when secretary chao resigned, she spoke of the january 6th attack. she said, quote, as i am sure is the case with many of you, it has deeply troubled me in a way i simply cannot set aside. in our prior interviews, we asked you about what the president's advisers were urging
him to do during the attack. you have described roughly three different camps of thought inside the white house that day. can you tell us about those? >> there's a group of individuals that were strongly urging him to take immediate and swift action. i would classify white house counsel bosses, mr. hirschman, miss ivanka trump in that category of really working to get him to take action and pleading with him to take action. there was a more neutral group where advisers were trying to tow the line knowing that mr. trump didn't necessarily want to take immediate action and condemn the riots, but knew something needed to be done and there was the last group, which was deflect and blame. let's blame antifa, these aren't
our people. it's my understanding that mr. meadows was in the deflect and blame category. he did ends up taking a more neutral route, knowing that there were several advisers in the president's circle urging him to take more action. which i think was reflected in the letter released later that day in the videos. >> you told us that the white house counsel's office was in the camp encouraging the president to tell the rioters to stop the attack and to leave the capitol. let's listen. >> white house counsel wanted a strong statement out to condemn the rioters. i am confident in that. >> now, let's look at just one example of what some senior advisers to the president were urging. miss hutchinson, could you look at the exhibit we are showing on the screen now? have you seen this note before? >> that's a note that i wrote at
the direction of the chief of staff on january 6th, likely around 3:00. . >> and it's written on the chief of staff note card. but that's your mapped writing, miss hutchinson? >> that's my handwriting. >> why did you write this note? >> the chief of staff was in a meeting with eric hirschman, potentially mr. philbin and they'd rush out of the office fairly quickly. mark had handed me the notecard and a pen and started dictating a statement for the president to potentially put out. >> and i'm sorry, go ahead. >> no, that's okay. there were two phrases on there, one illegal, one without proper authority. the illegal phrase was the one mr. meadows had dictated to me. mr. hirschman had child in and said also put without legal authority. there should have been a/between the two phrases. it was an "or" if the president had opted to put one of those
statements out. evidentially, he didn't. later that afternoon, mark came back from the oval dining room and put the palm card on my desk with illegally crossed out but said we didn't need to take further action on that statement. >> so, to your knowledge, this statement was never issued? >> to my knowledge, it was never issued. >> miss hutchinson, did you understand that ivanka trump wanted her father to send people home? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> let's play a clip of you addressing that issue. >> i remember her saying at various points, she wants him, she wanted her dad to send them home, to tell them to go home peacefully. she wanted to include language that he necessarily wasn't on board with at the time. >> you will hear more about this in our later hearings. we have evidence of many others
imploring donald trump and mark meadows to take action. here is some of that evidence, text messages sent to mark meadows during the attack. this is a text message at 2:32 from laura ingram. hey, mark, the president needs to tell people in the capitol to go home. the next message, this is hurting all of us. and then, he's destroying his legacy and playing into every stereotype. we lose all credibility against the blm/antifa crowd if things go south. the president's son, don, jr., also urgently contraktd mark meadows, 2:53, he wrote, he's got to condemn this shit asap. the capitol police tweet is not enough. as you will see, these are number ruse trump supporters and allies urging the president to tell his supporters to leave the
capitol. it would not have been hard for the president to simply wack down to the briefing room arc few feet down the hall from the oval office. as norah o'donnell noted during an interview with house republican leader kevin mccarthy, where leader mccarthy said he believed the attack was unamerican. >> i am quickly brigg kevin mccarthy, the house minority leader. leader mccarthy, do you condemn this violence? >> i completely condemn the violence on the capitol. what we are currently watching is unamerican. i am disappointed. i am sad. this is not what our country should look like, this is not who we are. this is not the first amendment. this has to stop and now. >> reporter: mr. mccarthy, the president has a briefing room steps from the oval office. the cameras are hot 24/7 as you know, why hasn't he walked down and said that now?
>> i convey to the president what i think is best to do. i am hope. he will respond. >> republican house member mike gag ger also implored the president to calm off the attack. >> mr. president, you have got to stop this. you are the only person who can call this off. call it off. the election is over. call it off. this is bigger than you. it's berg than any member of congress. it is about the united states of america, which is more important than any politician, call it off. it's over. >> despite the fact that many people close to donald trump were urging him to send people home, he did not do so until later, much later. at 4:17 p.m., donald trump
finally told the rioters to go home and that he loved them. here's a portion of the video president trump reported from the white house. >> we have to have peace. so go home, we love you, you are very special. you see what happens. you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. i know how you feel. but go home and go home in peace. >> as we will show an even greater detail in future hearings, donald trump was reluctant to 'ut this message out and he still could not bring himself to condemn the attack. miss hutchinson has told us that, too. >> the one that pe hut at it? >> we discussed it and elaborate if i already haven't. i recall him being reluctant to film a video on the 6th.
i was not involved in any planning for that video. i just remember seeing the video go out and was a little shocked after it went out. >> on the evening of january 6th, and the day after, the president's family and senior staff and others tried to encourage the president to condemn the violence and commit to the peaceful transition of power. at 3:31 p.m. january 6th, sean hannity of fox news texted mark meadows, mr. hannity said, quote, can he make a is thatiment? i saw the tweet, ask people to leave the capitol. later he sent another text message. this time he shared a link to a tweet. that tweet reported that president trump's cabinet secretaries were considering invoking the 25th amendment to
remove president trump from office. as you can see on the screen, the 25th amendment to the constitution creates a process for the transition of power if a president is unfit or unable to serve. the 25th amendment mass never been used to remove a president. but the committee has learned after the attack on the u.s. capitol, this was being discussed by members of president trump's cabinet as a way of stripping the full power of the presidency from donald trump. president trump supporters were worried, in addition to the tweet that he sent mark meadows after the attack, sean hannity apparently spoke with president trump and warned him about what could happen. we understand that this text message that sean hannity sent to kailey mcenany on january 7th shows what mr. hannity said to the president.
first, no more stolen election talk. sending, impeachment and 25th amendment are real. many people will quit. miss hutchinson, you told us that you were hearing about discussions related to the 25th amendment. here's a part of what you said. >> they had conversations with mr. meadow in case he hasn't heard discussions about cabinet secretaries and what i understand it was more of a this is what i'm hearing, i want you to be aware of it. technicallily the boss of the secretarys and you know the conversations progressed, you should be ready to take action on this for you and your position with this. if you have questions it would be helpful at all. >> inside the white house, the
president's advisers, including members of his family wanted him to deliver a speech to the country. deputy white house counsel pat philbin prepared the first draft of what will be the president's remarks on national healings, delivered by a pre-taped video on january 7th. when he arrived at the white house on the 7th, mr. philbin believed more needed to be said. so he sat down and started writing. he shared the draft with pat cipollone, who also believed he needed to say more. mr. cipollone agreed with the content, as did eric hirschman, who reviewed is draft. the president did not agree and resisted giving a speech at all. miss hutchinson, do you recall discussion about the president's speech on january 7th? >> i do. >> let's listen to what you told us about that and about the process of crafting those
remarks. >> i learned from the conversation with mark and white house counsel and their version as well that something he necessarily needed to do anything more on the 7th than what he had already done on the 6th when he was convinced to put out a video on the 7th. i understand that he had a lot of opinions about what the context of that work was until i had originally drafted a speech, there were several lines that didn't make it in there about prosecuting the rioters or calling them violent. he wanted to put it in there, that he wanted to have potentially a part of them. it's just with the increased emphasis of his mindset at the time, which was he didn't think
they did anything wrong. the people who did something wrong that day or the person that did something wrong that day was mike pence by not staying with him. >> the president's advisers urged him to give the speech. >> who conducted the interview? >> i'm not sure convinced them. it was a group of people that convinced him. >> who was in the group that are you aware of? >> that i am aware of? mark, ivanka, jared kushner, eric hirschman, pat cipollone, pat philbin. those are the people i am aware of. >> do you know why that group of people thought it was necessary for him to release a statement? >> kailey mcenany as well. from what i understood at the time and from the reports that
were coming in, there's a large concern of the 25th amendment potentially being invoked and there were concerns about what would happen in the senate if it was, if the 25th was invoked. so the primary reason that i had heard other than, you know, not doing that on the 6th, we need to get a stronger message out there and condemn, the secondary reason to that is think about what might happen in the final 15 days of your presidency if we don't do this, there is talks about the 25th amendment. you need this covered. >> the president ultimately delivered the remarks, unlike many of his other speeches, he did not ad lib much. he recited them, without significant alteration, exempt one. even then, on january 7th, 2021, the day after the attack on the u.s. capitol, the president still could not bring himself to
say, quote, this ection is now over. one other point about this speech, miss hutchinson, did you hear mr. trumped a one point wanted to add language about hardening those who took part in the january 6th riot? >> i didn't hear that i understand mr. meadows is encouraging that language as well. >> thank you. here's what you told us previously about that. >> you said he's instructed not to include it. who was instructing him not to include that january 7th? >> white house counsel's office came into our office, they said they didn't think it was a good idea to include that in the speech. >> who was that? >> eric hirschner. >> miss hutchinson, did rudy guiliani ever suggest he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to january 6th? >> he did.
>> did white house chief of staff mark meadows ever indicate he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to january 6th? >> mr. meadows did seek that pardon, yes, ma'am. >> thank you, miss hutchinson, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> >> yes ma'am. >> thank you where he peered i yield back. >> i want to thank our witness for joining us today. the members of the committee may have additional question for today's witness. and we ask you to respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. without objections, members will be permitted pin 10 business days to submit for the record, including opening remarks and additional questions for the witness. without objection, the chair recognizes the vice chair for a closing statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking ms. hutchinson for her testimony
today. we are all in her debt, our nation is preserved by those who abide by their oath to the constitution. our nation are is preserved by those who know the fundamental difference between right and wrong. and i want all americans to know that what ms. hutchinson has done today is not easy. the easy courseayor deny what happened. that brings me to a different topic. witnesses, including many, testified fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness. we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern. our committee commonly asked witness is connected to mr. trump's campaign, whether they have been contacted by any of
their former colleagues or anybody else, we attempted to influence or impact their testimony without identifying any of the individuals involved, let me show you a couple of samples of answers we have received to this question. first. here is how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness' testimony. quote, what they said to me, as long as i continue to be a team player, they know i am on the right team. i am doing the right thing. i am protecting who i need to protect third you know that i will continue to stay in good graces in trump world, and have reminded me, a couple of times, that trump does read transcripts. just keep that in mind as they proceed through the committee, here is another sample in a
different context. there was a call received by one of our witnesses, quote, a person let me know, you have your deposition tomorrow, he wants me to let you know that he is thinking about you. he knows i think that attempting to witness, attempting to testify untruthfully we would be carefully considering our next steps. mr. chairman thank you. i yield back. >> the chairwoman yields back. >> thank you, thank you for doing your patriotic duty in helping the american people get a complete understanding of january 6th and its causes. thank you for your courage in testifying here today. you have the gratitude of this committee, i know it was not
easy to sit here and answer these questions. but after hearing your testimony in all of its can door in detail, i want to speak directly to the handful of witnesses who have been outliers in our investigation. the small number who have been defied out right, those whose memories have failed them, again and again, they are among the most important details. and to those who fear donald trump and his enablers, because of this courageous woman and others like her, you attempt to hide the truth from the american people. and to that group of witnesses, if you heard this tenant, testimony today, suddenly you remember think that you previously could not recall, or the right details you would like to clarify, or you
discovered some courage that you had hidden away somewhere, our doors will remain open. the select committee will reconvene in the weeks ahead, as we continue to lay out our findings to the american people. the chair requests those in the hearing room to remain seated until the capitol police have escorted the witness and the members from the room, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. >> that concludes the sixth public hearing, then emergency hearing, with that witness right there, hutchinson, executive assistant to mark meadows, chief of staff of the white house, in graphics provided by this panel, was situated right in the heart of it, between the vice president, the chief of staff, and the president himself and deemed to
have been privy to quite a few pretty important conversations from what she testified to. liz cheney the vice chair of the community, a minute ago, said that what ms. hutchinson as done today is not easy. no, it was not. also noting that a number of witnesses have been called by people in trump world, to telling them to continue to stay in good graces. protect who you need to protect. trap, trump reads transcripts. what had been struck by is what we have been struck by over the last few weeks now, they are laying out in detail, as you see cassidy hutchinson leaving that hearing room, they are laying out in detail what trump knew and when he knew it. and today we got a whole lot, he knew that he could get violet on january 6th, he knew that the people at the rally were armed, take down, they are
not there to hurt me. he knew that he wanted to go to the capitol, he tried to go to the capitol, at one point, cassidy hutchinson, testifying that he grabbed the steering wheel of his motorcade and then lunged for the clavicle of his top-secret secret service agent, he did not care that they were chanting, hang mike pence, as cassidy hutchinson testified. he did not want to tell them to go home. that the writers could go home, he had to be convinced of it by multiple people, his lawyers, his family, his aides. sean hannity. he did not want to do it, any new all along, that is what she testified to today. and the significance of cassidy hutchinson, she was at the event, she was backstage, she was interacting with mark meadows and shutting the door of the security vehicle twice,
but you try to get information during a 24 minute period, trying to get security information to the chief of staff, but so importantly, she was in the white house, and the door to the small dining room, it is a very small room, where they can help lunch. and it is a small room off the oval office, that door was open, she was hearing what mark meadows possibly was saying via white house counsel. and a little bit of what she testified to. during those 187 minutes, they were trying to get the president to say something, to call them off, but he did not want to. and in fact, he agreed with the hang mike pence chance of the crowd, let's listen to that. >> i remember, mark, we need to
do something more, literally, they are literally calling for the vice president to be hung. and he thinks mike deserves this, he does not think they are doing anything wrong. this is ethane crazy, and they had said something, they had said that she does not think they are doing anything wrong. knowing what i heard briefly in the dining room. a couple of them discussing the hang mike pence chants, when i was in the lobby of mark's office, i understood them to be the writers at the capitol that were chanting for the vice president to be hung. >> let me pause here on this point. the writers chanted hang mike
pence. the president of the united states, donald trump, said, quote, mike deserves it? and that those writers were not doing anything wrong. this is a sentiment that he has expressed at other times, as well. and at that point, according to the testimony today. at that point, the president of the united states tweeted at 2:24 p.m. january 6, mike pence did not have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution. and then vice chair liz cheney asked cassidy hutchinson, how did that make her feel? this 25- year-old woman who had been a top assistant to the white house on top of the hill with mark meadows. watch her reaction. >> ms. hutchinson, do you recall seeing this tweet in which the vice president, in which the president said that the vice president did not have the courage to do what needed to be done? >> i do. >> ms. hutchinson, what was
your reaction when you saw this tweet? >> as a staffer that worked to always represent the administration to the best of my ability and to showcase what he had done for the country. i remember feeling frustrated, disappointed, and really, it felt personal. i was just really sad. as an american, i was disgusted. it was unpatriotic. it was un-american, we were watching the capitol building get defaced over a lie. and it was really hard in that moment to digest, knowing what i had been hearing down the hall and the conversations that i had been hearing, seeing that
tweet come up and knowing it was happening on the hill. and i still struggle to work through the emotions of that. >> all right, well let's get up to the panel. they are here, chuck rosenberg, joyce vance, and chuck. chuck, there is a lot to go through, and this hearing was built up to be a wild moment and it certainly seems to have delivered on that, with all that cassidy hutchinson is about to come up in the moment, during the insurrection, the reaction for the insurrection. we should note that donald trump has put out a statement on the social media site, again, thing that he did not want anyone with guns to join his crowd, who would want that? and then he points a finger to capitol police, saying that ashley babbitt is the one who
got shot at nobody paid the price for that, chuck, i will let you decide where to take it. >> so many places to start, but having put out this in federal court, we also understand that some witnesses, biases and predispositions, we try to evaluate them, by looking at where they come from, how they present, and what they have to say, ms. hutchinson was not somebody who wanted to hurt donald trump, she was a loyal staffer. she had worked for him during most of his term. and she was pretty clear that, when push came to shove, what he did was disgusting, unpatriotic, and un-american, and it seems to me, when you have to look at how it comes to a point like that, whether or not you can trust the testimony. whether or not she is credible. having put on lots and lots of
witnesses, she struck me as very credible and very sad. >> there were several other fact that she brought into this, which is that mark meadows and rudy giuliani also asked for pardons after january 6th. joyce vance, that is stunning information, in addition to the republican congress makers, who you sent it. >> well, it is stunning information, because it suggests that these people all had one consciousness of guilt. that they were concerned about their content on january 6th and that perhaps they were concerned about the president's con, contact. and we do not want , we do not know what their concerns are, we do not know what their stories are. because they declined to testify truthfully and fully to this committee. mark meadows, we saw some text
messages today, but the reality is that this is about more than a criminal prosecution. criminal prosecutions are incredibly important, as a prosecutor, of course i believe that even more so, this hearing of the truth, this telling of the truth that >> i'm sorry, we are going to go to jeremy rack and react if you don't mind >> in that crowd on january the sixth. and, the president, his response to that, according to that, he said, let them all in, take down the bags, take down the machines, let them all in, there were people with ar 15's, there were people with guns and knives. let them all in, because they are no threat to him, it did not trouble him that there were armed people ready for violence in the crowd, in the mob that day, and that confirms that this was a president who was willing
to do anything to overthrow the presidential election of 2020. and to clearly have violence within the site that day. >> we have heard a lot of information today, what do you consider the most significant piece of information from cassidy hutchinson? >> i found that to be quite astounding and the astounding, we had the president of the united states upset that the secret service and other authorities were using metal detectors and he wanted those taken down, including those who were armed, there were official reports of people carrying ar 15's on that day. and so to me, that is something that the american public needs to think about. this crowd was obviously armed and dangerous. and they were -bent on entering
the capitol, this witness simply blew away any pretense that the president and all of the president's men did not know what was going on in that proud. >> this was a last-minute unit, cassidy hutchinson was a lower -ranking official, due to this paid off? >> first of all, cassidy hutchinson's office was between that of the president of the united states and the white house chief of staff. she was the adviser to the white house chief of staff. and she is a young woman of extraordinary poise and understanding and insight, and we learned today that she is a young woman of extraordinary patriotism. she demonstrated a lot of courage when there were people out there, who were not coming forward to tell the truth.
>> the testimony that she gave you guys behind close doors, the last one in the last 10 days, is this one will you called the surprise hearing? >> she spoke to the committee several times. and her testimony today included aspects of all of the prior conversations. >> [ inaudible question ] >> the, no, the evidence of witness tampering that the committee has released, the two episodes that the vice chair cited today, anonymously, for obvious reasons. it is a crime to tamper with witnesses, in the form of obstructing justice, the committee will not tolerate it. and we have not had a chance to fully investigate or fully discuss it, but there is something on our agenda. >> [ inaudible question ]
>> no comment. >> they mentioned at the last hearing, he said that you guys did not put all of the information in the text. and using it, are you guys interested in reaching out to get more information? >> we welcome the involvement of anybody who has relevant evidence, we want all of the material witnesses to come forward, and i don't think there is a single piece of evidence that we have offered that has been materially contradicted in any way, but obviously if there is a mistake, then, you know, the committee is interested in correcting mistakes, our whole, you know, our whole committee exists in order to correct lies about the 2020 presidential election, the big lie, we are telling the american people the
truth about what happened. >> what questions do you expect, and what you feel about the justice department, i mean, these are some pretty serious, about the president trying to come to congress, what actions can the justice department take at this point? >> that is a question that are posed to the department of justice, i am a separation of powers guy. i know that our mandate, comes from house resolution 503, which is to assemble all of the facts about what happened on january 6th. the causes behind them, and then what needs to be done to fortify american democracy against insurrections and political violence going forward. so, you know, every hearing has involved testimony where, there is a lot of evidence of potential crimes and we know that the department of justice is really their jurisdiction,
the questions need to be posed there, and i know that there is a great hunger for terminal accountability, and we share that, obviously, with all americans, but that is not our jurisdiction, someone else will have to decide whether there were crimes that took place. >> [ inaudible question ] ] >> yes. well. look, congress, a breeze in, that we are a lawmaking branch of the government, and we have a responsibility to try to make government work. and so we will be releasing, at the end of this whole process,
budget recommendations about how to safeguard the integrity of our government, and the separation of powers, and how to make sure that elections do not, under attack in this way. >> [ inaudible question ] >> well, you can see that we have been keeping you on your toes. we are calling hearings as we see obviously, a lot of important information. >> [ inaudible question ] has that been verified? cassidy hutchinson. >> right now, that, well, speaking as one member of the committee, the ever since --
>> >> jim: >> no comment on that. >> before this fourth one, that was heavily featured in this hearing. how is it that some of these explosive revelations, easily the largest revelations that have come out of these hearings -- >> constitutional law, as well as being a committee member, and involved in the trump impeachment, talking about why they are holding this hearing, chuck rosenberg, with me, i wanted to ask you about the alleged witness tampering, pressure on witnesses, really, it is surprise scheduling, and also the fact that there the gr believed, in the aftermath of generator six, during and after, that the president
needed to go to the nation, then there was the group that felt, they did not want to do this, but they knew there had to be something more neutral as they described. and then it was a third group. they really wanted to just deflect, along with the president, and blame it on nt for and we saw the president doing that again, and the capitol police presence, they killed the one woman who was shot, the one rider, it was extraordinary. his family, sean hannity, and laura ingram and jim jordan, all of his, you know, closest supporters wanted him to say something. >> let me take the first camp, the three camp question, if i may, i understand him the adviser's point of view, you want to give the principal, the president in this case, options, normally you try to lay out options so that tony
can choose. apparently, there are three options, blame antifa, or black lives matter, or tell them to stay home, sometimes there is only one option, there is only one, anybody who thought otherwise, it makes me wonder how they would hold a position of trust in the united states government advising the president. it is extraordinary, there was one option. tell everyone to go home now, immediately and peacefully. there is no other option. as your other question, witness tampering, i was very interested. as a prosecutor, unfortunately, we do see that, sometimes it is blatant. someone's house gets firebombed, they get beat up, sometimes it is a setup. ondrea, you know what the boss wants, you know that if you take care of him, we will take care of you, he will be
watching, andrea, go in there and do the right thing. it is not a firebombing. it is not beating someone with a baseball bat, it is still witness tampering, they do not make us difference between blatant and subtle tampering, but the point is clear. he is watching, and you speak in a way, and he will be okay. >> katie, a member now, oh, i'm sorry. >> no, no, it is okay. i was going to mention, there are a couple of notable tweets on twitter. they said, used to be the chief of staff for the first lady, and medications, very briefly, the white house spokesperson for the president, she posted a text exchange between she and millennia, you want to tweak that peaceful protest, that there is no place in this lawlessness. and we also have a tweet from
mick mulvaney, and he says in this, that one thing is clear in his mind, meadows will get indicted for his failure to appear. my guess is that he ultimately shows, let us bring in a member of the journalistic committee, stephanie murphy, mark leno, mark meadows looms large. where does the committee get him to stand? >> we really hoped he would have done his patriotic duty and provided the information to the committee, directly, and come in, and, to date, he has not, but as the chairman said, it is not too late for anybody who has refused to cooperate, has had memory failures, has had information that they have suddenly recalled to come in and speak to this committee, the invitation, and the door, is still wide open to mr. meadows.
everyone should remember, whether they choose to cooperate with us or not, we have interviewed thousands of witnesses, we have received tens of thousands of documents, including text messages, and other communications, so we are putting together this picture, whether they choose to be a patriot and participate in this investigation or not. >> congresswoman, case in point, is what congress will and liz cheney said today, the clip of a retired four-star general mike flynn, repeatedly taking the fifth amendment, that is his right, but it is to the questions that he took the fifth, it is astounding that it officer took the fifth when he asked was asked if he believed in a peaceful transfer of power, he took the fifth when he was asked if he believed the balance on january 6th was justified by your reaction? >> that was stunning to me.
i am somebody who used to work at the department of defense. i note that the uniformed members are committed to the constitution and they would not hesitate to answer the question regarding a peaceful transfer of power, in fact, their jobs are to ensure that that happens i'm about to hear him take the fifth on such fundamental questions about our constitution, when he was somebody who was a general in our u.s. military was just stunning to me, but it is further evidence that the cult of personality has revealed whether or not people are committed to truth, the constitution, or to trump. >> was the committee providing cassie, cassidy hutchinson would scurry? >> i cannot comment on that. >> did they meet in a secure location to talk about potentially classified information that ms. hutchinson may have provided? >> again, i cannot talk or comment on that, but i do appreciate you asking.
>> why the surprise today? why did the three come about so quickly, and why was her name kept under wraps, up until this morning? >> well, as we have always said, our investigation is fluid, we are talking to a lot of people, we are getting new information as we are going through it, our main objective is to make sure that we provide the american people with the broadest set of facts as we can, so that they can understand what we are learning through all of these hours of deposition and documents. because of the investigation, being fluid, as the vice chair indicated r e end of our hearing, there are folks out there who do not want to be witnesses cooperating with the congressional investigation, so it is important to us, that we are able to, that these folks, that they are able to get the facts out there, and to get in front of the american people in a timely manner, as we recover information. >> crump seemed to apply, you
did he get hurt on the record sooner or later, because you were worried about potential, potential influence that, that might occur? i mean, am i reading that wrong? if >> i don't think i am implying that, she has set for our committee four times already, the meeting, dating back a few months, we are laying out the hearing, what she had as a cut across all of the lines of effort that we were presenting in the efforts to overturn the election, so it was a good time to come and share her first- hand experience, and experience what it was like in the white house in the days before and on january 6th. and what you see is that trump and his aides knew that there could be violence, and they did nothing to stop it, they knew that the crowd had these dangerous weapons, the president went out and gave a speech encouraging
them to come out to the capital, they knew that the capitol police were having a hard time protecting the capitol, and they did nothing about it. and those points, those pieces of information, they will be developed further in our future hearing. >> given the timeframe, we have been told to expect hearings, but instead, this was very quickly scheduled, and it certainly sheds new light on mark meadows, and this does create some space for additional pressure, if you will. just from the public testimony, and the way that this is being reported in realtime, their behaviors, trying so hard to stop the violence, and trying to get the president to stop the violence, in a completely different camp, one to get that meeting with rudy giuliani, and generally fifth, and the secret service recommending that it
was not a good idea, and she, cassidy hutchinson, saying this is not a good place for the white house chief of staff to be. so this really does shed a lot of light on mark meadows. now, you have a few weeks. maybe he will come forward. >> i certainly hope you will. >> let me ask you about where you are going with this when it comes to the president of the united states. each hearing, in the case, he knew more than we initially knew that he knew. he knew about the violence in the lead up to january 6th, the potential for violence, he knew on the morning of january 6th that the people were heading toward the capitol, they were armed. the secret service were talking on their radios about people carrying ar 15's and other handguns, and he knew where the writers were going, he said that he wanted to go with them, and according to the testimony,
he did not want them policed, he was really reluctant to tell them to go home and all of this, just the way that we have heard testimony in what he was doing, the lead up to this, the attempts to pressure states, pressure the vice president, it seems to lead to a lot of culpability for the president of the united states. and i am going to ask you again, i know you will deflect on this answer, but, would you be satisfied if the department of justice did not take this up, given all that you have gathered? >> our committee's mission has always been to discover the facts, lay them out for the american people, and for history. and then also to provide legislative recommendations. i think that we were looking at what led up to january 6th and what led up to generally sick. and former president trump was a central figure in this, and we have all been able to lay
out all of this, the pressure campaigns, as well as what he was doing in the days before, and on generator sixth. i think that the department of justice take a look at the facts that are out there, and make a determination about whether or not any criminal investigations need to happen. what you are seeing is that they are apparently very aggressively already doing that. they have prosecuted a lot of people involved in the riot on january 6th, but what appears like, they are beginning the investigation on a former president who provided them with the advice, and how to do other things that are unconstitutional. >> how do you legislate against a president who wants to overturn an election and who wants to break laws to do so? >> etiquette is really important to take another look at the electoral college act, the senate and house has been
having conversations about how we tighten up some of that language, and i also think that it is important that we take a look at our punishment, or, the punishment for interrupting electoral events, high enough to deter people, are the punishment out there for people who physically attack the capitol or, the capitol police officers, federal officials, are they high enough to deter people? i think that there are a lot of areas that we can explore and provide legislation to make the physical capitol but also our democracy safer. >> thank you so much, congresswoman stephanie murphy from florida, as we have said, she has a military background result, thank you for being with us. you are watching special coverage of the hearings on january 6, we will be right back.
wanna help kids get their homework done? well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. this is xfinity rewards. our way of showing our appreciation.
>> we are back now with more of our special coverage of today is january 6th committee hearing, michael, i have been wanting to talk you come because you know the inside of the white house. you are an active person in the white house historical situation, you know the size of the room, the traditions, and the history, and aside from everything else that we offer today, have you ever heard the president of the united states reaching across to grab by the neck the head of his detail, sir cedric service detail, after trying to grab the steering wheel and turn the car, not back to the white house for safety, that he was told had to be done, you know, or in, throwing plates in a small
dining room that had to be cleaned up by the valet, talk to me about what you have heard today. >> you are absolutely right, andrea, and katie, the answer which you are inspecting, no, abraham lincoln did not throw food against the wall in the white house, no, franklin roosevelt never lunged at one of the secret service agents in the presidential limousine and try to grab the steering wheel so that he could lead a violent coup against the capitol and take down our democracy, never before in american history have we ever seen testimony, credible testimony this shocking against a president of the united states before congress. this is an historic day. our defendants are going to ask us what we know about cassidy hutchinson, that is a name that they were low, they are going to ask what it was like to
watch this, and to listen to this, because this is a day that is going to loom very large in american history. >> i am thinking about the president, but we talk about what merrick garland can, could, or should not do. there is the issue of the president, and not prosecuting a former president of the united states unless you can convict him, i am thinking of gerald ford, a very controversial decision which you know very well, it probably fueled his faith in not being elected. and all of those decisions, i am less interested in the accountability question in this moment, surrounded by lawyers, but just the shocking behavior, and the disregard for the peaceful transfer of power, which is clear, knowingly and unwittingly. >> every president of the
united states in history, some of them have been very good, some of them have been really bad, but they are in one category and in the other category there is donald j trump , this is the one president in history who tried to destroy our democracy on the sixth of january by stopping the transition of peaceful power which was begun by george washington and which is a cornerstone of our democracy. that fact is inescapable, above and beyond, i think i told you the story, andrea, that i want set down with president ford in colorado at his house in the mid-1990s and i said, i understand that you wanted to, you know, pardon nixon, and get this chapter over with, but were you worried that you should have demanded that nixon signed a declaration of guilt saying, yes, i was guilty of these things and this terrible scandal of watergate, and i am not going to spend the rest of
my life claiming that i was not guilty. i think that sent a message to donald trump, that you could do things like this and you might be able to get away with it. and he actually spent a lot of times with nixon in new york city, trump did, in his later years. in terms of the themes that we have seen today, this is something, you know, i have seen a lot of things in history, i never thought i would see scenes like this, this was much more out of a mob or out of a john frankenheimer movie like seven days in may or the manchurian candidate, this was not the behavior that we would've ever expected from a president of the united states, and i dearly hope that we will never ever see this happen again. >> i compared it earlier to the scene in the godfather during the senate committee, witnesses, that is something that liz cheney begged me to follow up on, the other piece of this was the exposure of mark meadows. because there were other layers, loyal congress members,
in the days after january 6th, immediate criticism, obviously kevin mccarthy, jim jordan, and others, the behavior in real time, of mark meadows, to have no real understanding, this is the danger of the president going to capitol hill, and attending the meters the night before. >> this was someone who was elected to congress, mark meadows, you know, this is not just a person off the street plotting against our democracy, we have seen people like mark meadows in world history, we saw them in the bunker in berlin in adolf hitler's last days, we saw them around miscellany before he was hanged in a gas station in milan. and there were people who were accessories to terrible, authoritarian leaders who do extremely terrible things. but the main thing today, from my point of view, andrea. you will remember, and everyone will remember that from january
6th onward, trump and his accessories, they claim that this was just a spontaneous demonstration and these angry people, who were in dignan about the election, which had supposedly been stolen, which it wasn't, they went up to capitol hill, and some describe them as tortoise, as of today, irrevocably, it is very clear, very clear that this was a president who led a coup d'etat , you did it from the oval office, was abetted by people like mark meadow and others. our job is, let's find out exactly who the plotters were, bring them to justice, and above and beyond all of that, make sure that we pass new laws to make sure that an atrocity never happens like this in our country again. it almost succeeded, we almost
lost our democracy. >> michael bashlor, thank you so much for putting all of this in contact katie? >> it is interesting today, with mitch mcconnell watching this, is john barrasso watching this? i know that lindsey graham said he was not going to watch it, and we watched any of the subsequent units, have they feel hearing this, and getting this testimony from someone who was within the republican ranks, who was a republican aide. a loyal aide to some high- profile people, coming out and testifying under oath that the president tried to, you know grabbed the steering wheel and drive to the capitol that he knew people were armed, that a through a plate against the wall and got catch-up all over the dining room in the white house dining room, and the valley had to clean it up, these are not just tweets this is sworn testimony, under oath, about the president actions on the day of an insurrection, a day that we almost lost our democracy, he has been posting
messages on truth social, and i am the one who gets to catch them all for us today, but he is really going against cassidy hutchinson, he is calling her a phony, he said that he never said that mike pence deserved to be hung, although we heard him on audio saying something akin to that, john carl, heard him say it, her body language is that of a total bowl blank artist, fantasyland, back with us now, white house chief correspondent, what can we do here, dana baker, and washington correspondent, local moderator, and you and a smile, even if crying, we were talking to ken stark, his deputy, about what he saw today, and what did he tell you? >> deeply involved in the prosecution, or the investigation. not exactly, you know, a liberal you know, a
stalwart here. what he saw today, he said it was a smoking gun. he said the fact that they demonstrated to someone on the premises, in the room, the president understood that there was violence, he knew what was happening, he did nothing to stop it, and he wanted to take down the magnetometers, and all of this, in line to evidence of seditious conspiracy. and he thinks, they can make a case based on what they heard at today's hearing, of course, this is not objective cross- examination, there was no defender there, there was not any real court proceeding, someone could poke holes in this or present contradictory evidence, but in songwriting bird, someone who worked for ken starr, he felt that today is hearing was damning.
>> we heard from republicans in washington to what is happening in the lead up to today, i know there was some reporting from punch bowl, there was some reporting that republicans thought it was a bad idea, that they were not on that panel, that they were not able to participating in that. >> certainly donald trump, his supporters, his allies, they believe it was a mistake to not have their people on the panel, they cannot get the ones that they wanted to put on there that nancy pelosi rejected. they are going to blame that now on kevin mccarty, if donald trump had wanted there to be allies, he could've made that happen back and discredit that committee by refusing to dismiss it as part of an exercise, the truth of the matter, as you mentioned, katie and andrea, all of the most damning testimony to come out of this evening has not come from democrats and deep state actors, it has come from donald
trump's own people, his own aides, advisers, people who work for him people who believed in his ideology, his presidency. and if cassidy hutchinson, or by the president that they were serving, i believe this is something that a lot of republicans find, you know, distressing, and awkward, and they are going to try to turn this subject, and so forth, but on a day like today, i think it is hard for a lot of republicans to watch what they are senior. >> picking up on that thread, initially, here, cassidy hutchinson saying that she felt disgusted. that this was unpatriotic. to see the capitol defaced by something that was a lie. i mean, talk about that. and her credibility. just, in watching her. testify. and how painful this was to a loyal trump aid, as compared to the roster of donald trump's
tweets right now on his social media format. >> certainly, cassidy hutchinson is going to prove to be one of the most important witnesses that will come before the committee to testify publicly. she is someone who had a lot of time in the trump white house, even though she is only 25 years old, she worked in legislative affairs, she was of course the right hand aide to former chief of staff mike, mark meadows, and she was disgusted by that tweet, where president trump was tweeting about how angry he was at vice president mike pence, when a crowd had already broken into the capital, while a crowd was chanting hang mike pence, that tells you thatshe was ing e weight of history on her shoulders. i am sure that part of the reasons that she has been so forthcoming with the committee, and the interviews, i am told, in front of the committee, the thing that really strike me, she thought that it was unpatriotic and un-american. there was only people at the
temple also agreed with her, kevin mccarty, and so many others were lashing out at former president trump, tweeting him privately, saying he had to condemn this right away, including ivana trump, his own child. you look at a commute as fortinet 2022, a lot of republicans who were sharing in that, they have now all turned away and they have started to kiss the ring of donald trump, they have gone down to mar-a- lago, and you have election deniers everywhere across the country, in the republican party, so, in some ways, the have her discuss it, it is striking, it is somewhat of an anomaly in the public, republican party, we also have to point out, while president trump is lashing out, and attacking her, he is not under oath, this young lady came in for the committee, and she is under oath, she cannot lie, there are people who were absolutely standing behind her, including republicans who served president trump, thing this is a credible young woman, this is a woman who wanted
president trump to have four more years in office, much like bill barr and all of the other republicans we have heard from, they wanted from to win, but when he lost what he said, you lost, you have to move on now, and of course am a presidential made the decision not to do that, the lesson that i want to say about this, and of course, will have more questions, former president trump grabbing the neck of a secret service agent, but also wanting to pardon the writers, all of these new deils, it is pulling back the curtain and went back to intent, based on the president's frame of mind while all of the country was under attack. >> thank you, so much. peter baker, as well. now, let's bring in former u.s. attorney and senior fbi attorney, as well as former adviser to both the house speakers john weiner and paul ryan, and republican national jimmy, please come in here, you have watched the capitol and
the white house, you know, from a very different perspective for all of these years. the image of a president of the united states lunching at the lead agent of is detail, i have covered the white house for years and years under four different presidents, and the relationship between their president and service details was very close, you cannot imagine anything like this. >> they trust their lives with. >> take a bullet for pen >> i cannot get past the image of him being successful if he had gone to the capitol, how bad would it have been if he had actually gone up there. and, you know, this testimony that shows very clearly that people in the white house were concerned that there was criminal exposure, what he was doing was leading him down a very bad place, you had the white house council telling that ted and clearly, circling around donald trump, also the mark meadows focus today is
stunning, talk about a person who is just not up to the moment, you have, i guess a 24- year-old ate at that time, who is showing better judgment, and more sense of right and wrong than the white house chief of staff, i understand that donald trump is hard to control, but this is someone who very clearly was not even making an attempt to stop what was going on. he was telling the president what he wanted to hear, which is very in line with what i know about mark meadows, telling everybody what they want to hear bid to catastrophic results. >> and i wanted to bring michael ceiling, as a former party leader. how will people react to the disparity between a 25-year-old royal republican who was disgusted, her words, by what was going on. and a former president who is going on social media and trying to dishonor her and defend her. >> i think, in the main, everybody gets the ugly side of trump, when he feels betrayed. or when he feels that somebody
has not played the game the way he wants them to, that he trashes them. he barely knows who they are, no clue who they are. in her case, that very well may be true. she was assistant to the chief of staff. but it is also someone who, because she was the assistant to the chief of staff was also in the room, he was very much aware of who she was, in that regard, and so, i do not think people will take it seriously. quite frankly, i think most people could care less what donald trump has to say at this point about anyone, particularly someone like ms. hutchinson, because of the fact that they are stepping up. it is exposing what happened on that day and in leading up to that they, that, right now, matters more than his petulant outrage, at a white house staffer. and so, you know, we can play the card, we can play the game of pretending that we are concerned about what donald trump thinks at this moment, but the reality of it is, what was said today, in his hearing
is damning beyond damning and it puts more meat on the bones, then a lot of people inside the gop hope would never be realized. these are the same people who bend the knee to this man. it is of the same people who were running down to mar-a-lago on the heels of what they saw and witnessed on january 6th. and based on conversations that they had, with mark meadows and the president, you know, she brought into clear focus for all of us. especially for doj, and for all of the lawyers watching this thing, you know, they now have a better picture of what happened and the ramifications from that day. >> let's not forget the allegations of tampering became better at the end, those messages, two other messages, let's bring in jake sherman. jake number in your capacity as someone who is always on
capitol hill, you had a lot of interaction, or you are familiar with cassidy hutchinson and the roles that he played, how close was she, and any indication that there was any reason for her, or any motion for her to come out here and make him look bad, any to s motivation is, katie., any to s i would say a few things. anybody who covered the capitol and who covered congress and who worked on capitol hill knew that cassidy was incredibly, incredibly close to mark meadows. i mean, during the heat of covid when congress was readying, you know, multibillion dollar packages to help rescue the country, mark meadows was leading at times those negotiations and cassidy was in the room with them. this is somebody if you go back and look at photos from those times, it was mark meadows, steven mnuchin and cassidy hutchinson walking into rooms in
the plain view of reporters. actually, it doesn't matter how well he knows her or what his view of her is, the fact is she was absolutely 100% in the position to know all of these things, and i don't -- again, i can't really tell you what her motivation is here beyond the fact that she witnessed a lot that's becoming clear, but what she witnessed, i think is becoming clear to a lot of people. what she witnessed was historic, and i'll add just one more note here. the trump world is in overdrive trying to discredit her testimony and discredit anything -- everything that she said and discredit her as a person, i don't think that's entirely fair because, again, she was in the position to know. she was in these rooms where, you know, the room where it happened so to speak, and she's spoken to the committee four times. so again, for somebody who covered this phase of the administration on capitol hill, there is nothing more stunning, if you told me in 2019 and 2020
that cassidy hutchinson would be testifying against mark meadows, he would have been laughed out of the room. >> you got to the substance of what i was trying to ask, but i asked the question kind of poorly with motivation. i was trying to figure out how close she was to mark meadows. so thank you for understanding what i was trying to say, jake. i know you've had conversations on capitol hill among republicans about whether they should have been a part of this. i wonder if you're having conversations with republicans who might be starting to remember how it felt on january 6th, and might be feeling a little uncomfortable with where their party is right now, or is it still full steam ahead on the big lie? >> i would -- and i think brendan would agree with me here, and he spends a long time in house republican circles as well. i don't think that anybody is having second thoughts about now testifying. i can tell you that politically though, you and i have talked about this on tv the last couple of days, there is just a lot of angst about what has gone on in
this room and the fact that house republicans have no response, no visibility into what's coming next, and that's a big problem for them. >> and to chuck rosenberg, brendan buck, michael steele, jake sherman, thanks to all of you. we want to bring back frank figliuzzi. let's talk about the legal ramifications of everything we heard today. >> yeah, i know we've hit this thing before, andrea, but mark meadows is not looking good today, and with regard to those who will say that ms. hutchinson gave a lot of hearsay today, you know, telling us about what she heard people say about somebody else doing something, there was an equal amount of direct evidence about what she knew, and what she knew had a lot to do with her boss, mark meadows. am i -- am i on? >> yes, you are, frank. can you hear -- >> okay, great, i'm hearing a lot of background -- >> it's not just you.
go on with your answer. we'll fix it. >> okay. yeah, great, so let's -- again, i paid really close attention to direct evidence today versus hearsay, and yes, there was hearsay, and yes, i'd love to hear her direct live testimony from tony ornado, from the special agent in charge of the secret service detail, of course, but what ms. hutchinson had to say directly in terms of her direct knowledge was largely about meadows, and one of the things that stood out to me was this issue of a 25-year-old assistant having to talk her boss out of going to the willard hotel war room. think about this. he repeatedly asks her, let's get the secret service to set up the movement to this war room. what is this war room? it's people outside of government, outside of government playing bad things the day before january 6th, and she has to talk him out of it. he eventually says i'll just dial in, but that's where mark meadows is today. he also we heard from hutchinson
today, the president had asked meadows to call flynn and roger stone, general flynn, roger stone, quote, about what's going to happen tomorrow january 6th. meadows is in the middle of this and appears to have prior knowledge of the planning and coordination of january 6th. he is a critical person to testify and to the extent that we're all wondering what the rush was today to get this in, in addition to any general security concerns, i believe part of it is to have leverage and send a message to cipollone and to meadows, we have this testimony locked in. it's now in your court. >> you know, i want to ask you about security because, you know, just watching her 25 years old. i mean, despite her age, she could have been 95 years old, i feel like i'm worried for her safety given all that she came out and testified to having some knowledge of what it's like to be in the cross hairs.
i just asked stephanie murphy, a congresswoman of the committee and i asked her if the committee's providing her protection, and she refused to answer that question. what's your sense of things, frank? >> yeah, she said the right thing because we shouldn't be talking about any specific knowledge of security plans, but i agree with you. i also thought about security as ms. hutchinson testified today, and i don't think it was in a vacuum that co-chairman cheney today ends the testimony with this issue of tampering and intimidation. she doesn't name names, but she's sending a message. we know when people are tampering with our witnesses. we're on to you. the message is don't do it, and you infer don't do it with this witness. that's part of, i think, getting this to happen today. >> frank figliuzzi, thank you so very much. this has been an extraordinary day. it was so god to share it with you because we learned a lot.
>> you know, andrea, i was just going to say the exact same thing. it's a privilege to do this alongside of you on this day in particular. what a spectacular day of testimony from cassidy hutchinson, and that is going to do it for us today. we'll be back in a couple of weeks when these committee hearings start again. in the meantime, there is still special coverage of this at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight and "deadline white house," which i'm sure will be covering this quite a bit starts just a moment right after this very quick break. bit starts just a moment right after this very quick right after this very quick break. is taking care of dinner and desert. you're remembering how to tie a windsor. and while your washer is getting out those grass stains. you're practicing for the big leagues! for all of life's moments get the brands you trust to get the job done at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪
♪ i want to rock and roll all night ♪ ♪ and party every day. ♪ ♪ i want to rock and roll all night ♪ applebee's late night. because half off is just more fun. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. >> hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. earlier this afternoon about one hour ago the january 6th select committee wrapped up a stunning public hearing. it was, we should make no mistake, one for the history books and a complete game changer in terms of what we