at that allegation, we looked at both ends, the people who load the truck and people who unload the truck. that allegation was not supported by the evidence. again he said, "okay," and then he said, "nope, i didn't mention that one. what about the others?" and i said, "okay, with regard to georgia, we looked at the tape, we interviewed the witnesses. there is no suitcase." the president kept fixating on the suitcase that supposedly had fraudulent ballots, that it was rolled out from under the table. and i said, "no, there is no suitcase. you can watch the video over and over, there's no suitcase. there is a thing where they carry the ballots and that's just how they move the ballots around the facility. there's nothing suspicious about that at all." i told him that there was no multiple scanning of the

ballots, the allegations that they are taking one ballot and scanning it through three, four, five times to rack up votes for vice president biden. i told him the video did not support that. then he went off on double voting, he said that dead people are voting, indians are getting paid to vote, and he meant people in native american reservations. he said there's lots of fraud going on here. i told him flat out that much of the information he's getting is false and therefore is not supported by the evidence. we looked at the allegations, but they don't pan out. >> mr. barr and his advisors were not the only ones to determine that the president's allegations regarding dominion voting machines were false. i asked unanimous consent, reports issued by the department

of homeland security, cybersecurity, and infrastructure security agency otherwise known, that reject the claims of manipulation of voting machines in the 2020 election. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also asked unanimous consent to include in the record report prepared by the michigan senate oversight committee that disproves chains of election fraud in michigan as well as a statement by 59 of the country's leading election security scientists, noting the absence of any credible evidence that the 2020 election had been altered through technical compromise and five other reports from organizations and individuals confirming there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election, or describing the spread of the former president's lies. >> without objection, so

ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> pursuant to the order for today, the chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately 10 minutes. [gavel] >> the hearing will go into recess for 10 minutes, so we will take advantage of that here. the questions this morning being posed, what did the president know and when did he know it, about the election results? and his intent to try and find some evidence that there was widespread voter fraud. the attorney general bill barr said that, at the time, nothing he saw led him to that conclusion, nothing he has seen since would have led him to that conclusion. >> so this particular session began on november 3rd, election night 2020, and around

11:20 p.m. eastern time when we made a call here at the fox news channel for arizona, which was in the end a devastating blow to the trump campaign trying to win reelection. we then moved into mid-december, about december 14th, about two and a half weeks from january 6th. clearly they are building their case about what was happening in the white house, the points being made about those around the president telling him that there's no chance this thing was over. we are back with our panel now. with this in the studio's martha maccallum, and also for analysis katie pavlich, and marie harf, and our attorney, jonathan turley and andy mccarthy as we bring you back the brady bunch today here. just a couple minutes after 12:00 eastern time in new york. two andy mccarthy and to jonathan turley first. our legal minds, take us through it. are they building a solid case? what is your impression of it? frankly, a lot of this, i would

say the testimony of the deposition notwithstanding, jonathan, a lot of this information was already out there. >> it is. there is some important new information here. it is good to have this level of transparency. but they are proving a point that most people accepted two years ago, most of us within a short time of the election reach these conclusions. and we did know about the aids going to the president, including attorney general bill barr, and giving him this news. it is ironic to watch bill barr brought forth as the champion of democracy. i happen to agree with him. i'm a good friend of bill barr's. i testified at his confirmation hearing. so it's not a surprise to me, but it's a surprise to see some of these members. adam schiff on this committee described bill barr as the second most dangerous man in the country. some of them pushed for his impeachment, or for perjury or

other issues. the fact is that bill barr spent his entire time as attorney general fighting for the integrity of the justice department. i think he really is vindicated in many of these deposition videos. >> andy, one of the things that struck me is the people working on this trump campaign or even within the white house, a lot of them had to be part of this hearing because they were called to testify. obviously there is some strain and their voices. as you listen to it. i wonder what you picked up on any of the videos in terms of the wear and tear that they were going through after a brutal campaign, in the middle of covid, and the aftermath of the election. >> well, i think it makes it more authentic, dana. it's obvious they were struggling with what was a very fraught political situation with a lot of emotion involved in it, and what turned out to be the struggle to do the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing for their side. i would just say, with respect

to them and with respect to attorney general barr, and to jonathan's point, i would say that this really underscores what a blunder it was for speaker pelosi to make this a one-sided hearing. listening to the clips from barr reminded me that a lot of the best prosecution i was ever involved in, we won with me sitting in my chair. because at the end of the day it's about the witnesses and the way they hold up on cross-examination, which makes not only for compelling proceeding, but a proceeding that actually has integrity. as i sat here watching the clips of barr, i couldn't help but think, why would they be so afraid to have jim jordan sitting there on the panel? did they think jim jordan would have laid a glove on the testimony that barr gave, or that he couldn't have taken questions to make if they were dumb enough to go after him that

way. to get to the bottom of this, and they didn't need to do it, because these witnesses, for the very reasons you underscored, would have done fine under cross-examination. >> bill: thank you for that. in studio now, martha maccallum joins us. we were crunching the numbers trying to go back to that november night in arizona. what were your observations? >> you make a great point. when you go back to that arizona call, it came in at 11:20 p.m. at night with roughly 70% of the vote in. he heard it laid out by her former colleague just how thoughtful that process was. i also want to make a point with regard to bill barr, because i think jonathan turley is right on, and andy echoes the feeling. it's a long period of time when bill barr was beaten up daily on other networks, by other commentators, for being in president trump's back pocket,

because he believed that the russia collusion hoax was just that, and he believed that the perpetuation of a notion that the president was illegitimate-the elected -- i looked back at her article in "the washington post" were hillary clinton did an interview and she said that president trump was illegitimate and he had stolen the election. and that americans across the country knew that, and were aware of that, and felt the same way. so bill barr pushed back on that notion. he felt the russia collusion hoax had been largely fabricated and perpetuated with the help of the media, essentially. so then when bill barr calls it as he sees it, as we see him doing in this situation where he says he couldn't find any evidence that there was any reason to think this election had been stolen or was illegitimate, he comes across as someone who was evenhanded, who weighs evidence in a way that he has done his entire career, the only person who has served as attorney general twice, so i think it should cause a

reflection on some of the judgments made on bill barr over the course of his service. that's one point i would make. >> dana: katie pavlich, let's get your reaction today. we have this panel, there's going to be a second panel where more election attorneys and the commissioner of philadelphia for elections will be on, as well. >> well, just watching this hearing -- i've been in washington, d.c., covering countless hearings on capitol hill for over a decade now, and watching this one cited to show, quite literally a shell, that has been produced for television, play out, it's really astonishing in terms of the norms that have been broken here, in terms of cross-examination, witnesses that are called by the minority. the minority party in this country is not represented in this hearing despite them representing almost half the people in this country who stood at capitol hill to represent them. the other thing i would say, if you take away what president trump said about the election being stolen, but

rudy giuliani was saying, there are actually legitimate questions that people have about the electoral process. when votes are not finished counting, and they stop being counted in the middle of the night, and picked up early in the morning, when you have, as bill barr mentioned, boxes coming in at different hours of the day, not being accounted for, those are legitimate questions that people have. beside in florida after the 2000 election. florida went through a number of different election reforms to make sure people had confidence in their election. they weren't suspicious of the process. we saw that recently enjoyed in georgia,in the most recent e. this idea that you are not allowed to look at the way that certain things went down in any election and, as democrats have done historically, and ask questions about how the process can be cleaned up and advocate for election integrity, it is something i think democrats are missing, as well, today. >> bill: you mention florida in 2000. we saw ben ginsburg at the

table, a lawyer who represented president bush in tallahassee in late 2000 during that 36-37-day ordeal. marie harf, welcome back to our coverage here. what do you think about andy mccarthy's point a moment ago? was it, in hindsight, a mistake to reject republicans on this committee that may have offered them greater credibility, knowing that you have bill barr on videotape with his voice saying, "i went to the president numerous times and told him we can't win this." in other words, how would you question a witness once bill barr make statements like that? >> first i would remind everyone, again, that there are two republicans on this committee. this is not just democrats. but bill barr's words really stand for themselves. if we take a step back here, we have seen now several hours this morning largely of testimony from folks who were supportive of president trump. that is what is so extraordinary.

the testimony this morning paints the picture of a president who is hearing from all of his top advisors -- not all, but many of his top advisors, the normal team, as bill stepian called them. saying that his claims are outrageous, they were b.s., not based in any fact. he went out to his supporters and told them they were true, encourage them, lit to this match, encouraged people to believe these "b.s. allegations." he asked them for money to help with his legal cases, he gave them a false sense of hope, and that culminated, as i think the committee will get to, in what we saw on january 6th. so let's take a step back from the process and the inside baseball of who is on the committee and who isn't. we saw reports of a president today who is increasingly at odds with reality, and that is according to his own advisors, including people like bill barr. >> bill: we expect -- i mentioned ginsburg. we may get apparently, according to the committee, a former

public prosecutor in atlanta who was forced to resign. i don't recall from the back-and-fourth, because the president was angry he wasn't doing enough to investigate claims of fraud in the boat down there in georgia. >> yes, and the former city commissioner of philadelphia. martha, president trump is not on twitter, as i'm sure we'll probably hear from him at some point. any thoughts about what's happening as they watch this from florida today? >> i think, obviously, one of the big things to look to is what the former president trump decides to do about running in 2024. i think there's a lot of interesting discussion about these hearings on the republican side, as well, as you look ahead. and he evaluates whether or not he feels he should run again. i think there's a lot of momentum in that direction. but i think it's going to be interesting, dana, to hear whether or not any of this seeps

into that groundwater and impact that decision for him. these hearings will be over after, i guess, five or six more. we will see how much attention continues to be paid to them. it is important to have a transparent look at this, as jonathan says. we never want to see what we happened on january 6th at the capitol ever happen again. a lot of security questions need to be answered, as well. i look forward to this panel digging into some of those and protecting people in the future from anything like this happening again. >> bill: in talking with several people since going back to thursday night, if you ask democrats about the hearing on thursday night, many told me point blank that it was effective, and they watched. i spoke to a lot of people i would consider republicans, and they, frankly, did not watch. i think as we go through this it'll be curious to see whether or not you attract more viewers

or less, or do you stay the same? prime time is one thing, but a late morning early afternoon hearing is different. >> dana: and you have the chairman of the committee, from california, right behind him. and i believe -- i did see liz cheney of wyoming come as well. another 15 minutes, i believe, with a january 6th committee. the second panel of the day, on the third hearing of the committee. [gavel] >> the committee will be in order. i now welcome our second panel of witnesses. we are joined today by bj pat,

al smith, and ben ginsburg. mr. pak is a former united states attorney for the northern district of georgia. mr. smith is a former city commissioner for the city of philadelphia, where he served for more than ten years. mr. ginsburg is one of the leading election law attorneys in the country and has direct demographics and did republican presidential candidates in election litigation dating back to 2000 where he represented george w. bush in the bush v. gore litigation. i will now swear in our witnesses. please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?

thank you. please be seated. let the record reflect witnesses answered in the affirmative. pursuant to section 5c8 of house resolution 503, i know recognize the gentleman from california for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before the break i think you've all heard mr. barr and mr. donohue talk about the false claims that mr. trump and his supporters made about suitcases of fake ballots in georgia. we have witnessed here today who thoroughly investigated that issue. mr. pak, i want to thank you for appearing before us today. you were appointed by president trump to serve as the u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia, and he served from 2017 until january of 2021. the e.u. where the lead federal

prosecutor there and work for the department of justice under then-attorney general bill barr. were you ever asked by attorney by attorney general barr to investigate claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election? and, if so, what were those claims? >> thank you, congressman lofgren. thank you for the question. approximately december 4th of 2020 attorney general barr and i had a conversation about an unrelated case at issue. at the end of the conversation, mr. barr had asked me to obtain a certain videotape that was being reported in the news, where mr. giuliani, in a senate subcommittee hearing that was held the day before, may 3rd, showed a videotape of a purportedly -- a security tape at the state farm arena in atlanta, which is also in

fulton county, in the city of atlanta. i'm sorry, the city of -- at the time, mr. barr asked me that he had made a public statement that he had not seen any widespread election fraud that would question the outcome of the election. because the videotape and the serious allegation mr. giuliani was making with respect to these suitcases full of ballots purported in the video, he asked me to find out what i could about it, as he had envisioned that, some days after, he was going to go to the white house for a meeting and the issue might come up. he asked me to make it a priority to get to the bottom and try to substantiate the allegation made by mr. giuliani. >> thank you. i understand that the georgia secretary of state's office investigated those state farm

arena allegations and didn't find any evidence of fraud. what did you find when your office conducted its own investigation? >> we found that the suitcase full of ballots, the alleged black suitcase that was being seen pulled from under the table, was actually an official lockbox where ballots were kept safe. we found out that there was a mistake in terms of a misunderstanding that they were done tallying ballots for the night, and the partisan watchers assigned by each respective party were announced sent home. but once they realized the mistake, they indicated that they are not done for the night, that you need to go ahead and continue counting, so once they packed up the lock box full of ballots, they brought back the official ballot box again and continued to tally the ballots from that lockbox.

unfortunately during the senate hearing mr. giuliani only played a clip that showed them pulling out the official ballot box from under the table, and referring to that as a smoking gun of fraud in fulton county when, in actuality, under review of the entire video, it showed that was actually an official ballot box kept underneath the table and we saw them pack up, because they thought they were done for the night, and then once the announcement was made, that they should continue counting, they brought the ballot box back out and continued to count. the fbi, the individuals depicted in the videos, they were reportedly double and triple-counting ballots, they determined that nothing irregular happened in the accounting period and the allegations made by mr. giuliani were false. >> thank you very much. i would like to play again a

testimony from mr. donoghue, who appeared before the committee before today. >> mr. donoghue, we talked at length about whether or not the white house said it was informed about this report. on the result of the investigation, the interviews that have gone on in fulton county, how would those results have been communicated to the white house, to the president? >> i don't know how they were initially communicated. i do know they came up in subsequent conversations with the president, and we essentially told him that we looked into it and it's just not true. >> okay. so he was informed? >> i told the president myself that, several times, and several conversations, that these allegations about ballots being smuggled in, in the suitcase, run through the machine several

times, that it was not true. it would look at the video, we interviewed the witnesses, and it was not true. >> mr. pak come after you left the u.s. attorney office on january 4th, 2021, did the next u.s. attorney, did he investigate any remaining claims of fraud? if so, did he find any evidence that supported the president's claims of voter fraud? >> it is my understanding that he continued any investigations that were pending at the time of my departure, but he was unable to find any evidence of fraud that affected the outcome of the election. >> after investigating the president and mr. giuliani's claims about voter fraud in georgia, is this your view today that there was no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the election in georgia? >> that is correct. >> thank you, mr. pak.

and i want to thank you, also, for the service you have given to our country. we appreciate that. next i would like to turn to president trump's false allegations about election integrity in philadelphia. the attorney general discussed these allegations at some length. >> you know, the idea that the president has repeatedly suggested that there was some sort of outpouring of unexpected votes in inner-city areas like philadelphia, as recently as january 13th when he walked off the npr set, he was asked by the interviewer what the evidence is of fraud. and he said more people voted in philadelphia than there were voters, and that was absolutely wrong. the turnout in philadelphia was in line with the state's turn out, and in fact it was not as impressive as many suburban counties.

there was nothing strange about the philadelphia turn out. it wasn't like there was all these unexpected votes that came out in philadelphia. so, you know, i think once you actually look at the votes, there is an obvious explanation. for example, in pennsylvania, trump ran weaker than the republican ticket generally. he ran weaker than two of the state candidates, then the congressional delegation running for federal congress, and he ran weaker than the republican -- i haven't looked at this recently, but he generally was a weak element on the republican ticket, so that does not suggest that the election was stolen by fraud. >> how the pennsylvania? when we were talking about this internally, philadelphia had an alleged discrepancy between the number of ballots issues and the number of ballots cast. >> that was one of the big ones.

it was gettysburg by giuliani or something, and it kept on being repeated, and i found it annoying, because i didn't see it was right. i called and explained and he got back to me and said, no, the problem is that they threw out the number and mix apples and oranges, and took the number of cases for the republican primary and compared it to the number of absentee votes cast in the general election. but once you actually go and look and compare apples to apples, there's no discrepancy at all. i think at some point i covered that with the president. >> we have another witness here today who has detailed knowledge about the election process in philadelphia.

mr. schmidt, at the time of the 2020 presidential election, you are serving as the only republican member of philadelphia's 3-member-city commission that is responsible for overseeing election throughout the city. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> president trump made numerous claims regarding fraudulent voting practices in philadelphia, including the claim that dead people were voting. in fact, mr. giuliani told pennsylvania state legislators that 8,000 dead people voted in pennsylvania. you investigated those claims of fraud. can you tell us what you found? >> not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead voters voting in pennsylvania -- there was no evidence of 8. we took seriously every case that was referred to us, no matter how fantastical and no matter how absurd, and took every one of those seriously,

including these. >> as it turns out, even mr. trump campaign lawyers knew that the dead voter claims were invalid? >> i guess the crooks in philadelphia are disappointed in this, but they only submitted 8,021 ballots from dead people. mail-in ballots for dead people. it's probably easier for dead people to submit mail-in ballots than it is devoted in person person. >> rudy was, at this stage of his life, the same ability to manage things at this level are not. obviously i think they publicly said, they never prove the allegations that they were making. that they were trying to develop. >> mr. schmidt, on november 11th, 2020, president trump tweeted about you saying -- and here's the quote -- "a guy named al schmidt, a philadelphia commissioner and so-called republican, or rhino, is being

used big time by the fake news media to explain how honest things where with respect to the election in philadelphia. he refuses to look at a mountain of corruption dishonesty. lee win. as a result of that tweet and a cnn interview you gave, where he stated the dead voter claims in pennsylvania were false, you and your staff were subjected to disturbing threats. can you tell us about that? >> the threats prior to that tweet -- and on some level it feels silly to even talk about a tweet, but we can really see the impact they have, because prior to that the threats were pretty general in nature. corrupt election officials in philadelphia are going to get what's coming to them. "you are with the second moment is for." "you're walking into the lion's den." all sorts of things like that. after the president tweeted at me by name, calling me out the way that he did, the threats

became much more specific, much more graphic, and included not just me by name, but members of my family by name, their ages, are addressed, pictures of our home, just every bit of detail you could imagine. that is what changed with that tweet. >> behind me are redacted threats that you received that you provided to the committee, and the redacted portions of the text to protect your family. mr. schmidt, i think i speak for all of my colleagues when i say we are deeply sorry for what you and your loved ones have been through. i also want to thank you for your service to your country and for standing up for the rule of law. i want to thank both mr. pak and mr. schmidt for their service, their testimony, and for standing up for the rule of law.

i would like to turn to another subject. the courts in our country provide a legitimate that you for campaigns to challenge what they view as irregular election process. courts have the final say in how the law applies to those challenges. we have a renowned legal expert here to address the trump campaign activities in court. mr. ginsburg, you have spent your entire career representing republicans in election-related litigation. he served as the national counsel on republican presidential campaigns in 2000, in 2004, and 2012. he played a key role in the 2000 florida recount that led to the supreme court decision in bush v. gore. he served as the cochair of the

presidential commission on election administration. i think it is fair to say you are the most prominent republican lawyer who has litigated in the election field. you have analyzed the trump campaign litigation pretty carefully. what is the normal process for post-election litigation? how is the trump campaign different than the kinds of post-election litigation you have been involved in and know about? >> in the normal case of things, any campaign on the night of the election and the days after will do a couple of different things. one is they will analyze precinct results to look for abnormalities in the results, and they will send people to those precincts to ask more questions. secondly, all campaigns will have poll watchers and poll workers and observers in the polling place, so campaigns will talk to those people if they saw

any irregularities that could cause problems in the election. the trump campaign talked predilection about having 50,000 poll workers, so presumably they did have eyes on the ground and all these places. in the normal course of things, the campaign will analyze the reports that come in. the trump campaign had a couple of basic problems, however. the 2020 election was not close. in 2000 that was 537, and the most narrow margin was 12,000 something in arizona, and you just don't make up those sorts of numbers in recounts. when the claims of fraud and irregularities were made, you have heard very compelling testimony from mr. stepian and

others about those claims and how they didn't believe them. that put the trump campaign on a process of bringing cases without the actual evidence that you have to have anna with the process is designed to bring out. >> are you aware of any instance in which a court found these fraud claims to be credible? >> no. there was never that instance, in other cases brought. and i looked at more than 60 that included more than 180 counts. and, no, the simple fact is that the trump campaign did not make its case. >> the select committee has identified 62 post-election lawsuits filed by the trump campaign and his allies between november 4th, 2020, and january 6th, 2021. those cases resulted in 61 losses and only a single

victory, which actually did not affect the outcome for either candidate. despite those 61 losses, president trump and his allies claimed that the courts refuse to hear them out, and as a result they never had their day in court. mr. ginsburg, what do you say about the claims that mr. trump wasn't given an opportunity to provide the evidence they have of voter fraud? today have their day in court? >> they did have their day in court. about half of those cases you mentioned were dismissed at the procedural stage for a lack of standing, the proper people didn't bring the case, where there wasn't sufficient evidence and it got dismissed on a motion to dismiss. in the other, there were discussions of the merits contained in the complaint, and in no instance did a court find that the charges of fraud were real.

it is also worth noting that, even if the trump campaign complained that it should not have its day in court, there had been post-election reviews in each of the six battleground states that could have made a difference. and those range from the somewhat farcical cyber ninjas case in arizona to the michigan senate report that was mentioned earlier, the hand recount in georgia, that mr. pak address. in each one of those instances, there was no credible evidence of fraud produced by the trump campaign or his supporters. >> thank you. as mr. ginsburg has explained, there are no cases where the trump campaign was able to convince a court that there was widespread fraud or irregularity in the 2020 election. over and over, judges appointed by democrats and republicans alike directly rebutted this false narrative. they called out the trump

campaign's lack of evidence for its claim, and the judges do that even in cases where they could have simply thrown out the lawsuit without writing a word. you can see behind me a few excerpts from the decisions in the 62 cases. the trump campaign lack of evidence was criticized by judges across the political spectrum. in pennsylvania, a judge included "charges require specific allegations and proofs. we have neither here." another trump-appointed judge warned that, "if cases like these succeed, any disappointed loser in the presidential election able to hire a team of clever lawyers could flag claim deviations from election results and cast doubt on election results." the list goes on and on. allegations are called "an

amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation." in another, "strained legal arguments without married to mike marriott." an obvious misreading of the constitution. the rejection of president trump's litigation efforts was overwhelming. at 22 federal judges appointed by republican presidents, including ten appointed by president trump himself, and at least 24 elected or appointed republican state judges dismissed the president's claims. at least 11 lawyers had been referred for disciplinary proceedings due to bad faith and baseless efforts to undermine the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. rudy giuliani had his license to practice law suspended in new york, and just this week a newly filed complaint will

potentially make his suspension from practicing law in d.c. permanent. as we have just heard from perhaps the most preeminent republican election lawyer in recent history, the trump campaign's unprecedented effort to overturn its election laws in court with the deeply damaging abuse of the judicial process, as stated by u.s. district court judge david carter, this was "a coup in search of a legal theory." thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> i want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. the members of the select committee may have additional questions for today's witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. without objection, members will be permitted to ten business

days to submit statements for the record, including opening remarks and additional questions for the witnesses. the second panel of witnesses is now dismissed. without objection, the chair recognizes the gentle woman from california, ms. lofgren, for a closing statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. now that we understand the litigation efforts by president trump and his allies, i would like to present additional action taken by the trump campaign during this time. president trump continued to push the stolen election

narrative even though he and his allies knew that their litigation efforts making the same claim had failed. it is worth pointing out that litigation generally does not continue past the safe harbor date of december 14th. but the fact that this litigation went on, that decision makes more sense when you consider the trump campaign's fund-raising tactics. because if the litigation had stopped december 14th, there would have been no fight to defend the election, and no clear path to continue to raise millions of dollars. mr. chairman, at this time i would ask for unanimous consent to include in the record a video presentation describing how president trump used the lies he told to raise millions of dollars from the american people. these fund-raising schemes were also part of the effort to disseminate the false claims of

election fraud. >> without objection. >> i am senior investigative counsel at the house select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. between election day on january 6th, the trump campaign sent millions of emails to trump supporters, sometimes as many as 25 a day. the emails claimed the "left-wing mob" was undermining the election, and told supporters to "step up to protect the integrity of the election," and encourage them to "fight back." as the select committee has demonstrated, the trump campaign knew these claims of voter fraud were false and yet continue to barrage small dollar donors in emails encouraging them to donate to something called "the official election defense fund." the select committee discovered no such fund existed. >> i don't believe there is actually a fund. >> this was another -- i think we call the marketing tactics.

tell us about these marketing tactics. >> just a matter where money could potentially go and how it could be used. >> the claim the election was stolen was so successful that president trump and his allies raise $250 million. nearly $100 million in the first week after the election. on november 9th, 2020, president trump created a separate entity called the "save america" pac. the select committee discovered that this made millions of dollars of contributions to pro-trump organizations, including $1 million to trump the trump chief of staff mark meadows' charitable foundation, $1 million to the american first policy institute, a conservative organization that employs several officials. to the trump hotel collection,

and over $5 million to event strategies incorporated, the company that ran the rally. >> all of us today do not want to see our election victory stolen by an bold and radical left democrats, which is what they're doing. >> the evidence developed by the select committee highlights how the trump campaign aggressively pushed false election claims to fund raise, telling supporters it would be used to fight voter fraud that did not exist. the emails continued through january 6th, even as president trump spoke. [crowd shouting] the capitol was breached. >> every american is entitled and encouraged to participate in our process. political fund-raising is part of that.

small dollar donors used scarce disposable income to support candidates and causes of their choosing, to make their voices heard, and those donors deserve the truth about what those funds would be used for. throughout the committee investigation, we found evidence that the trump campaign and its surrogates misled donors as to where their funds would go and what they would be used for. so not only was there the big lie, there was the big rip-off. donors deserve to know where there funds are going and they deserve better than what president trump and his team did. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> without objection, the chair recognizes the gentle woman from wyoming, ms. cheney, for a closing statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to thank all of our witnesses today, and i would also like to in particular wish mr. stepian and his family all

the best on the arrival of a new baby. today's hearing, mr. chairman, was very narrowly focused. in the coming days, you will see the committee move on. president trump's broader planning for january 6th, including his plan to corrupt the department of justice, and his detailed planning with lawyer john eastman to pressure the vice president, state legislatures, state officials, and others to overturn the election. let me leave you today with one clip to preview what you will see in auditor hearings to come. this is a testimony of white house lawyer eric herschmann. don eastman called him the day after jerry sixth, and here's how that conversation went. >> i said to him, are you out of your effing mind?

i only want to hear two where it's coming of your mouth from now on: orderly transition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> at the conclusion of last week's hearing, we showed you a video of rioters explaining why they had come to washington on january 6th. it was because donald trump told them to be there. today we heard about some of the lies that donald trump embraced and amplified when it became clear he did not have the numbers of votes to win the election. we heard about how officials at different levels of government explored claims of fraud and found no evidence. yet, the former president continued to repeat those false claims over and over again.

today we will end things were rated on thursday, back on january 6th. hearing words of individuals who wanted to stop the transfer of power, we know they were there because of donald trump and now we hear some of the things they believed. without objection, i enter into the record a video presentation. ♪ ♪ musical [video playback] >> i voted early. it went well, except for can't really trust the software. the dominion software. >> we voted, and right at the top right-hand corner of the dominion voting machine that we use, there was a wi-fi symbol with five bars.

so that was most definitely connected, without a doubt. >> they stole that from us twice. we are not doing it. we are not taking it anymore. no, we are standing up. we are here, and whatever happens, we are not laying down again. >> 200,000 people that weren't even registered voted. 440,000 votes. he can't stand there and tell me that it works. >> i don't want to say that what we are doing is right. but the election is being stolen, what are we going to say? >> the chair requests those in the hearing room remain seated until the capitol police have escorted members from the room.

without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [gavel] >> dana: now the committee has wrapped up its second and final hour of the day. today's hearing was really focused, bill, on the fact that they wanted to lay the groundwork for what the president knew, when he knew it, what was he being told by the people surrounding him, and you heard from his attorney general, his campaign manager, his campaign lawyer, then you heard from another group that was sort of outside experts-type people. chris stirewalt was there, bill stepian's lawyer, and finally from people involved in accounting, including in philadelphia and georgia, although the georgia u.s. attorney was fired by president trump. >> bill: i think liz cheney put a fine point on it. very different from what we saw last thursday evening with the amount of video and et cetera on

january 6th. they will move to another hearing on wednesday. again, 10:00 eastern time, more material. >> dana: please stay tuned to fox news channel and this fox station for continuing coverage of this story. i'm dana perino. >> bill: and i'm bill hemmer. thanks for joining us here in new york. >> dana: we want to bring back our panel. martha maccallum, jonathan turley, marie harf, and andy mccarthy. really great they were all here with us to witness this hearing today. thank you so much. my thought, as they wrapped up they said one of the things they were looking at was a fund-raising effort taking place in the know of all of this. $250 million is what the inspector at the justice department said was raised during this effort. i will also be something you hear about on wednesday. >> no doubt. there was an enormous fund-raising effort that was built off the back of this. i think anybody pays attention to politics knows that is really not that surprising.

there was also an enormous fund-raising campaign that went off the back of the russian collusion, as well. that's the way politics works now. it is not a great state of affairs. i think there's a reason why people have limited trust in government and in elections, because we have seen both sides point the finger at each other, calling each other illegitimate in the oval office. so it is a portrait, honestly, of the very difficult election environment in this country, and i'm also struck by the fact that you have former president trump, who is obviously the focus of this, tying him to these events, and we will see the effort to do that over the course of the next hearings. then you have these stories this morning about democrats saying that they think president biden is the anchor that needs to be cut loose. so you look at the individuals who are most likely clear next rounders for the presidential election, and there's just a lot of questions across the board. >> dana: that the great point. >> bill: let's bring in our legal minds now, jonathan turley and andy mccarthy.

professor turley first. how are they doing prosecuting the case? >> i'm not sure, because i'm not sure what the case is so far. you say this is laying foundation for what they said they would be proving, which is an attempted coup. that's a tall order. but so far they seem to be trying to sort of create a persona non grata trial, to declare president trump a horrible person, and they may not get much pushback by the end of the hearing. i thought the most telling moment came at the end when the chairman said, "i'm going to introduce this video, unless there is an objection." that really put a pin on it. it's like asking at a wedding, anyone who objects to this union, speak up. nobody is really there to do it. this is not the committee that you suddenly will have liz cheney say, "wait, this seems unfair, maybe we need to look at other evidence being introduced, as well." so it really put an odd

conclusion, because it sort of emphasize that there isn't anyone to object. >> bill: same question to andy mccarthy. >> well, it was a much tighter presentation today because it was centered around one thing, this idea to "stop the steel," and what they are trying to emphasize obviously is the point they want to make is that trump must have known that there was nothing to this because everybody around him who was credible was telling him it was nonsense, and that there was nothing there. as i've said from the beginning, they've got a very good story to tell. the problem is they have set it up in a process that is not a fair process aimed at getting to the truth and giving whatever contra arguments there are on their day in court. as a result, it's more like messaging than it is like a real investigation. if you had tried this in court, i could have been very impressive in court if they were no defense lawyers, you know?

>> dana: [laughs] the government puts on its own case and exhibits and no cross examination no defense argument, i would have been 1000-0. >> dana: mary, you mentioned a couple times today that the process is not something that should really be focused on, but it is the substance. we have seen the substance, but what we are hearing from the lawyers in particular, they are saying it doesn't feel like the process is fair or right or legitimate in this setting. >> look, we can have debates about the process, and i think the republicans tried to put people like jim jordan onto the committee, and jim jordan isn't involved in january 6th. he's involved in the story. you cannot put someone on a jury or as a defense prosecutor, to use andy's language, that is involved in the possible crimes or the coverups. look, we can talk about the process. i think what was most interesting to me in this last portion was liz cheney previewing what will come next,

and previewing the fact that they will get into the coordination, the planning for january 6th. many people initially thought january 6th sprung up out of nowhere, with a mob that just happened to get violent, and i think the committee is previewing that it wasn't the case. and to what extent anyone in the white house around the trump campaign was coordinating, was talking to these folks, i think that's where these hearings are going, and i think a lot of people who want to hear if they have the goods on that, that's a key part of the story. >> bill: my thought, i was just listening to turley and mccarthy, their analysis of this. in hindsight, would republicans have been smarter to accept an independent investigation so that at least the opinions of the voices within that party would have been filed for the record and for history? >> politically, i don't know. the way it is laid out right now, it gives republicans the

ability to say that they don't think this is a legitimate process. i think obviously for republicans and their politics, they want to put this behind them as quickly as they can and move on. so i have -- my gut tells me that's the reason that they didn't want more here. i do think that, if you feel strongly about your case that you are laying out, there is no reason not to have jim jordan where jim banks as part of this. it would have helped to legitimize it for them. do you have one more? >> bill: professor turley, how much consideration have you given that? that water is under the bridge right now? do you believe from the political exercise that this was the smartest tactic to take it, knowing that nancy pelosi rebuffed the choices offered by the committee? >> this is a signature move by speaker pelosi. i was highly critical during the impeachment hearings. what i testified on with trump, the house leadership decided to forgo any investigation in the

judiciary committee. the calling of essential witnesses. and then in the second impeachment she did one better and did a snap impeachment is no hearings at all. and this is a fairly common process by the speaker. she muscles through to make sure that she gets the conclusion she wants. but i'm not too sure she is going to get the conclusion she wants. she may be singing to the choir on this one. when people view this and say there's really not another side, it's not another side to maybe the riot was good. the other side is more, what was the cause? what should be the focus? should we be spending as much time looking at security? the other thing that comes out of this hearing is that there is a lot of really brave and courageous figures here. bill barr being one of them. the system actually worked to some extent, but it depends who you're trying to convict. i think so far >> thanks to all of you, marie,

jonathan, katie pavlich as well. and the past 2, 3 hours, dana, it calls to mind how important it was to strike first on thursday night and the american people can decide whether or not the presentation on thursday night was the most effective as possible. the last couple of hours, might have been lacking. we'll see what we get. >> dana: that is it for us. "america reports" starts right now with john roberts and jacqui heinrich. >> john: thank you, far left activists are holding a protest outside the supreme court just days after a crazed man allegedly tried to assassinate justice brett kavanaugh. >> the high court could strike down roe vs. wade any moment, but focusing on crimes 17 months ago, critics say biden's justice department is ignoring swaying judges outside of their homes, a federal crime. team coverage straight