by the president, especially since he already knew from the justice department there was no genuine basis for this request. no one could think it would be legal for the secretary of state to simply find the votes the president needed in order to win. the secretary told the president the truth, that he lost the election in georgia. but president trump did not accept that answer. instead, he suggested that the secretary himself might be prosecuted. >> that's the thing, you know, that's a criminal -- that's a criminal offense, and you know, you can't let that happen, that's -- that's a big risk to you and to ryan, your lawyer, that's a big risk. >> we know that president trump's white house advisors reacted negatively. immediately after the call, cassidy hutchinson had a conversation with chief of staff mark meadows.

>> i said mark, you can't possibly think we are going to pull this off, that call was crazy, and he shook his head and no, he knows it's over, he knows he's lost but we are going to keep trying. there are some good options out there still, we are going to keep trying. >> this call and other related activity is now the focus of an ongoing criminal investigation in fulton county, georgia. georgia is not the only state where president trump tried to pressure state officials to change the results. he also attempted to pressure state officials in arizona, pennsylvania, and michigan to change the results in those states as well. while president trump was pressuring state officials, he was also trying to use the department of justice to change the election results. his top officials told him that there was no evidence to support his claims of fraud. but he didn't care. as he told them, just say the

election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congress. when these officials would not do what he said, president trump installed jeff clark, his acting attorney general, solely because he would do what others in the department would not do. we know trump was doing so for a specific purpose. so clark could corruptly employ the justice department authority to help persuade the states to flip electoral votes. for example, when richard and jeff, both appointed by president trump, learned of mr. clark's proposal, here is why they said they forcefully rejected it. >> and i recall toward the end saying what you are proposing is nothing less than the united states justice department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election. >> but more importantly, this was not based on fact. this was actually contrary to the facts as developed by the department investigations over

the last several weeks and months. so responding to that, and for the department to insert itself into the political process this way i think would have had grave consequences for the country. it may very well have spiralled those into a constitutional crisis. >> we know from our investigation that president trump offered jeff clark the position of acting attorney general, and that jeff clark had decided to accept it. the only reason this ultimately did not happen is that the white house counsel and a number of justice department officials confronted the president in the oval office and threatened mass resignation. >> and then i said something to the effect of you are going to have a huge personnel blowout within hours because you are going to have all kinds of problems with resignations and other issues and that's not going to be in anyway's interest. >> the president ultimately

relented, only because the entire leadership of the department of justice, as well as his white house counsel, threatened to resign. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the woman from florida, mrs. murphy, for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. president trump's efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election were not limited to the big lie and pressuring state officials and department of justice officials. another key part of the president's effort was a scheme to assemble fake electors to cast false electoral votes in the states president trump lost. this was something done not only with the president's knowledge, but also with his direct participation. rona mcdaniel testified before this committee that president trump and his attorney, dr. john

eastman, called her and asked to arrange for the fake electors to meet and rehearse the process of casting fake votes. >> when i received a call, again i don't remember the exact date, it was from the white house switch board and it was president trump who had contacted me. >> and did president trump have any one else on the line with him? >> he introduced me to a gentleman named john eastman, so i vaguely remember him mentioning that he was a professor and then essentially he turned the call over to mr. eastman who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the rnc helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of any of the states.

>> those fake electors were ultimately part of the president's plan to replace genuine biden electors with trump electors on january 6th. as part of this plan, the false electoral slates were sent to the national archives and to the capitol. the fake electors' plan was also tied to another plan, the coercive pressure campaign to make vice president mike pence reject or refuse to count certain biden electoral votes so president donald trump would "win re-election" instead. here is what vice president pence has said about this scheme. >> president trump said i had the right to overturn the election. but president trump is wrong. i had no right to overturn the election. the presidency belongs to the american people and the american people alone. and frankly there, is no idea more un-american than the notion

that any one person to choose the american president. >> make no mistake. president trump knew that what he was demanding vice president pence do was illegal. he was informed of this repeatedly and specifically on january 4th. even his lawyer, john eastman, admitted in front of president trump that this plan would break the law by violating the electoral count act. >> did john eastman ever admit as far as you know in front of the president that his proposal would violate the electoral count act? >> i believe he did on the 4th. >> and dr. eastman confirmed this in writing. recall they mail written on january 6th in which vice president pence's counsel asked dr. eastman, did you advise the president in your professional judgment the vice president does not have power to decide things

unilaterally. he replied, he's been so advised. of course president trump's own white house counsel, pat cipollone also recognized the plan was unlawful. here is mr. cipollone's testimony. >> my view is the vice president didn't have the legal authority to do anything except what he did. >> there is no doubt that president trump's pressure campaign on vice president pence was significant. on the morning of january 6th, president trump called the vice president from the oval office and demanded that he overturn the results of the election. numerous witnesses told the select committee about the invective that he leveled at his own vice president. >> something to the effect this is the wording is wrong, being i made the wrong decision 4 or 5 years ago. >> and the word that she relayed

to, the president called the vice president, apologize for being impolite, do you remember what she said her father called him? >> the p-word. >> but vice president pence didn't waiver even when his own life was in danger by president trump and the rioters at the capitol on january 6th as you will see in more detail later. a federal judge concluded based on this and other evidence, the pressure campaign likely violated multiple criminal statutes. in the end, department of justice officials, state elections officials, his own vice president, stood strong in the face of president trump's immense pressure. but as we now know, president trump had already summoned tens of thousands of his supporters to washington on january 6th to take back their country. on december 19th, president trump first told his supporters to come to washington.

in this and numerous other tweets he fraudulently and repeatedly promoted january 6th as the day americans could come and change the election outcome. for weeks, president trump worked with others to plan the rally. intending all along that he would send an assembled crowd of angry supporters to the capitol after his speech on the ellipse january 6th. we obtained a text message one rally organizer sent january 4th, in part, that potus is going to have us march there/the capitol, and potus is going to just call for it unexpectedly. again, each of those examples, the big lie, the pressure campaigns against state officials, the pressure campaign against the department of justice and his vice president, the fake electors, summoning the mob, all of this demonstrates president trump's personal and substantial role in the plot to overturn the election.

he was intimately involved. he was the central player. the thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> chairwoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff for opening statement. >> thank you, in our past hearings you have seen direct evidence president trump sent a crowd of supporters to the capitol on january 6th knowing they were armed and angry. this was the last most desperate and dangerous prong of his plan to disrupt the joint session and prevent the orderly transition of power. on the morning of the 6th, secret service was at the ellipse screening members of the crowd as they entered the rally site and they noticed something significant about the crowd. tens of thousands of people were outside the rally site but did not want to go through the

magnotometers, the metal detection. text messages were erased, even though documents and materials related to january 6th had already been requested by the department of justice and congress. but we were able to obtain nearly 1 million emails, recordings and other electronic records from the secret service. over the month of august the select committee began its review of hundreds of thousands of pages and multiple hours of that material providing substantial new evidence about what happened on january 6th and the days leading up to it. that review continues. what you are about to hear is just a sample of the new and relevant evidence that we have received. mounting evidence before

january 6th predicted violence and not just violence generally, but violence directed at the capitol. intelligence about this risk was directly available to the u.s. secret service and others in the white house. in advance of the speech, in advance of the march to the capitol. the committee has shown evidence that president trump was aware of the risk of violence. the fbi, u.s. capitol police, metropolitan police and other agencies all gathered and disseminated intelligence suggesting the possibility of violence at the capitol prior to the riot. we are now going to show you a sample of the evidence we received. days before january 6th, the president's senior advisors at the department of justice and fbi, for example, received an intelligence summary that included material indicating that certain people travelling to washington were making plans

to attack the capitol. this summary noted online calls to occupy federal buildings, rhetoric about invading the capitol building, and plans to arm themselves and to engage in political violence at the event. other agencies were also hearing predictions suggesting possible violence at the capitol. on a call with president trump's white house national security staff in early january 2021, deputy secretary of defense david norquist had warned the potential the capitol would be the target of the attack. general mark milley describing the warning. >> so during these calls i only remember in hindsight, almost like -- norquist says during one of the calls, the greatest threat is the direct assault on the capitol, i'll never forget

it. >> they mail, for example, was an alert that the secret service received on december 24th, with the heading armed and ready, mr. president. according to the intelligence, multiple users online were targeting members of congress instructing others to march into the chambers on january 6th and make sure they know who to fear. in this report received on december 26th, secret service field office relayed a tip that had been received by the fbi. according to the source of the tip, the proud boys planned to march armed into d.c. they think that they will have a large enough group to march into d.c. armed, the source reported and will outnumber the police so they can't be stopped. the source went on to say their plan is to literally kill people. please, please take this tip seriously and investigate

further. the source also made clear the proud boys will detailed plans on multiple websites, including donald.win. they had information ten days beforehand with the proud boys planning january 6th. we now know proud boys and others did lead the assault on the capitol building. on december 31st, agents circulated intelligence reports that president trump supporters had proposed a movement to occupy capitol hill. in particular, they flagged spikes, violent #s like we are the storm, 1776 rebel, and occupy capitols. on january 5th, the secret service flagged a social media account on the donald.win threatened to bring a sniper

rifle to a rally on january 6th. user also posted a picture of a handgun and rifle with the caption "sunday gun day," providing overwatch january 6th, will be wild. later on the evening of january 5th, secret service learned during an fbi briefing that right wing briefings were establishing armed qrfs, quick reaction forces, readying to deploy for january 6th. groups like the oath keepers were standing by at the ready should potus request assistance, by invoking the insurrection act, agents were informed. as we all know now, the oath keepers did play a specific role in january 6th, and had stashed weapons in virginia for further violence that evening. also on that day the secret service was readying security precautions with the president's speech the next day. a secret service deputy chief

instruct the agents to add certain objects to the list of items that would be prohibited at the rally site, including ballistic vests, tactical vests, armored or not, and ballistic helmets. by the morning of january 6th, it was clear that the secret service anticipated violence. it felt like the calm before the storm one agent predicted in a chat group. another remarked how agents were watching the crazies on livestream. by 9:09 that morning, secret service could see many rally-goers were outside the security perimeter. one agent emailed possibly because they have stuff that couldn't come through? would probably be an issue with this crowd, just a thought. by 9:30 that morning, agents reported more than 25,000 people outside the rally site.

an hour later, the secret service reported that the crowd was on the mall watching but not in line. the head of the president's secret service protective detail was specifically aware of the large crowds outside the magnatomometers, he passed it along to tony arnato, the crowd outside was armed and the agents knew it. take a look at what they were seeing and hearing on the ground. one report from the rally site at 7:58 a.m. said some members of the crowd are wearing ballistic helmets, body armour, radio equipment and military grade backpacks. and not said possibly oc spray, meaning pepper spray, and/or

plastic riot shields. 11:23 a.m., agents reported possible armed individuals, one with a glock, one with a rifle. over the next hour, agents reported possible man with a gun reported, confirmed pistol on hip located in a tree, and one detained at 14th and i street northwest. individual had an assault rifle on his person. minutes before president trump began his speech, members of the federal protective service, an agency tasked with protecting federal buildings, were alerted about an arrest of a protestor with a gun on his waistband, and during the speech the weapons-related arrests continued. at 12:13 p.m., united states park police arrested a man with a rifle in front of the world war ii memorial. these agents remarked on the number of weapons that had been seized that day, speculating

that the situation could get worse. with so many weapons found so far you wonder how many are unknown, one agent wrote at 12:36 p.m. could be sporty after dark. at 12:47 p.m., another agent responded, no doubt. the people at the ellipse said they are moving to the capitol after the potus speech. as the documents we received make clear, secret service was aware of weapons possessed by those gathered at rallies in d.c. as early as the evening before. take this document, for instance, which details multiple arrests in the crowds demonstrating on january 5th. those arrests were for weapons offenses, handguns, high capacity feeding devices, ammunition. what the secret service saw on the 6th was entirely consistent

with the violent rhetoric circulating in the days before the joint session on pro trump websites. at times amplified by the president's own advisors. on one of these sites, as you have heard, one of those was called thedonald.win. and jason miller, senior communications advisor sent to mark meadows less than a week before january 6th. i got the base fired up, he wrote, in all caps. he sent a link to this page on the donald.win. comments about the joint session of congress on january 6th. take a look at some of those comments. gallows don't require electricity. if the filthy commy maggots push it through, there will be hell to pay. members of congress with leave 1

of 2 ways, one, a body bag, two, after trump is the winner. and -- >> if i had seen something like that i probably would have given it to someone -- if i had seen something of that nature said we have to flag this for secret service or something of that nature. >> the trump administration was aware of this type of violent rhetoric prior to january 6th. in fact as we have seen, the secret service and other agencies knew of the prospect of violence well in advance of the president's speech. despite this, certain white house and secret service witnesses previously testified that they had received no intelligence about violence that could have potentially threatened any of the protectees on january 6th, including the vice president.

evidence strongly suggests that this testimony is not credible. and the committee is reviewing additional material from the secret service and other sources. the secret service was monitoring this kinds of online activity and was sharing and receiving the results of that effort. they worked closely with other agencies sharing intelligence about the joint session of congress derived from social media and other sources. the same day jason miller sent his text message, agents received reports about a spike in activity on another platform called parlor. this was december 30th. in they mail, an agent received a report noting a lot of violent rhetoric on parlor directed at government people and entities. including secret service protectees. one of these protectees was vice president pence. perhaps the primary target of

president trump's pressure campaign in the days leading up to january 6th. the day before the joint session, on january 5th, secret service was aware of increased chatter focused on vice president pence. in particular, whether he would do what president trump wanted him to do. reverse the results of the election in the joint session the next day, january 6th. on the morning of the 6th, agents received alerts of online threats that vice president pence would be "a dead man walking if he doesn't do the right thing." another agent reported "i saw several other alerts saying they will storm the capitol if he doesn't do the right thing." the anger reflected in these postings was obvious the man at the center of the storm on january 6th, president trump. on the evening of january 5th, president trump gathered a few

of his communication staffers in the oval office. the door was open, allowing the president and others assembled there to hear the sounds of the crowd gathered at freedom plaza just a few blocks from the white house. president trump could tell that his supporters were riled up. here again is a deputy white house press secretary describing the president's reaction. >> he fairly quickly moved to how fired up the crowd is or was gonna be. >> and what did he say about it? >> just that they were fired up, they were angry, they feel like the election has been stolen, that the election was rigged,

that -- he went on and on about that for a little bit. >> yes, the president knew the crowd was angry because he had stoked that anger. he knew that they believed that the election had been rigged and stolen because he had told them falsely that it had been rigged and stolen. and by the time he incited that angry mob to march on the capitol, he knew they were armed and dangerous. all the better to stop the peaceful transfer of power. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. at this point in our meeting we'll take a brief recess pursuant to the order of the committee of today. the chair declares the committee in recess for a period of approximately ten minutes. >> sandra: the committee taking a ten-minute brief recess there, you heard from the chairman.

this was originally called, by the way, january 6th committee hearing. our congressional correspondent noting there was a last-minute change from it being labelled a hearing to a business meeting. he notes that there is a technical difference in that, and it may not be anything, but a business meeting -- -- somebody former president trump during the proceedings. so we are working to independently confirm that, interesting to note the change. >> and we should note as well adam schiff, the last person to speak said he believes if there is a vote on whether to somebody the former president, he believes the vote should be

unanimous. of course, that could be considered a low bar, considering this panel seems to all be on the same bar in that aspect of it. so, that would be an interesting definition or dynamic to see if that actually comes to fruition. >> sandra: during this brief recess, we will bring in those kind folks that have been standing by with us. martha maccallum, jonathan turley, andy mccarthy as well. martha, you are about to take over coverage of this. jonathan turley, to you first. the vice chair, liz cheney, started out by saying she believes and the investigation believes that president trump was "the central cause of the violence that happened on january 6th," saying that it was due to one man, donald trump, who many others followed. what has been your reaction so far to what you've heard from those committee members today? >> well, congressman schiff and

others promised new and important disclosures, nothing substantially new, more granular. more emails and comments, saying that donald trump was the focus of the protests is hardly news. parts of this seems like an infomercial but they have sold the product. nobody is in favor of what happened on january 6th. most people have condemned it. as i did when it was occurring and many others on this network did while it was occurring. the question is what new material has been offered. there has not been anything substantial in that respect. now, the idea of a subpoena for the former president would suggest this is not the final hearing, and that's going to trigger a series of challenges very likely by his lawyers but he is under no obligation to give system unless they grant him immunity. he can show up and refuse to testify. >> it's interesting, andy, you look at the make-up of this

committee and as professor turley was just saying there, this could not, may not be the last meeting but yet you have liz cheney about to leave, you have adam kinzinger about to leave, and wondering what you think of the legal aspects, andy. you mentioned that they are now using the phrase seditious conspiracy, you point that out, you were the last federal prosecutor to use that charge in a criminal trial. what does it mean, andy, ab how does it pertain to this? >> well, i think the interesting thing, trace, and this goes to your point about how everybody seems to be of one mind on this committee. very interestingly we heard a lot about the oath keepers. what we did not hear, a few blocks away there is a seditious conspiracy trial of the oath keepsers which is ongoing. justice department has a theory of seditious conspiracy, the opposite the premise the

committee is working from. according to the committee, from liz cheney at the beginning and adam at the end, trump is the center of everything, the be all and end all of the conspiracy. if you go down to where they are trying the case against the oath keepers, donald trump is not the center of the storm. he's a passing cloud. he's a tangential figure. their theory in the courthouse is that the oath keepers were planning to make war against the united states, use force against the government, which is what the seditious conspiracy charge is, and that donald trump was just a pretext for them to do what they were planning to do anyway. and the reason for that is clear. to say that you are making war against the united states, it would be very difficult in my case, for example, it was very clear that we were dealing with jihadists, enemies of the united

states. no ambiguity who the good guys and the bad guys were, who the alternative sides were. here what the oath keepers want to say, they thought they were being called out not to make war against the government but called out by the head of the government, the chief executive, to save the government, not to make war on it. so the justice department's incentive is to keep trump on the sidelines and make him a completely tangential issue, whereas when you go to capitol hill where this is a very political body conducting what's not really a traditional investigation, they want to make trump the center of the universe. so they are only 3 or 4 blocks away but different view of seditious conspiracy. >> sandra: chad has some breaking news. >> we understand they are going to have a vote to issue a subpoena to former president trump.

you noted at the beginning of this break here that they changed this from a hearing to a business meeting. now, that might not mean a lot to people back home, but usually a business meeting is when you meet to issue subpoenas or maybe criminal referrals to the department of justice or something like that. so what we are being told is to expect a vote and you know, they are kind of going off script here. these hearings have largely been scripted down to the minute, down to the sound bite. this is something that was not expected, and that changed not long before the hearing. i should underscore where this is so rare. as far as we can tell, only has happened a couple of times. an effort in the late 1840s to subpoena two former presidents, john tyler and john quincy adams, both were out of office, james polk was president, they did not have to come before congress. there was a question of using funds for clandestine intelligence activities and effort after harry truman was

out of office in 1953 to bring him before the house committee on un-american activities, he ultimately did not appear. and you think you have a big clash right now between the justice department and the former president's legal team about what happened at mar-a-lago, this would be another clash with a former president and trying to exert executive privilege with the committee and remember that the shelf life of this committee is probably not very long. it's expected, if republicans win the house of representatives this fall, goes to republican control in january, that they would disband this committee. they might investigate some things regarding january 6th and the security posture here, and what would then be former speaker of the house nancy pelosi and what she knew, but they have a short shelf life to get to the bottom of that. >> sandra: chad pergram, keep us posted. live from capitol hill, still in the brief recess. i'm sure the hearing, i should say the meeting will be back

underway a few moments from now. >> trace: martha maccallum, executive editor and anchor of "the story," and i keep looking at the polls to see how the hearings have or might impact the midterm elections and does not seem to be resonating, but the phrase they use over and over again, martha, which is of course the threat to democracy does seem to be resonating, gaining some traction. is it your sense that that's a byproduct of what we are seeing in the january 6th hearings? >> trace, great to be with you and sandra. i would say we see evidence on both sides of the political spectrum of dissatisfaction with the process, right. people concerned about voting, people concerned about integrity, people concerned about what happened during covid in terms of voting rules. some of those have been changed, some of them haven't. when you poll people about the election, many do not agree with the outcome, regardless of everything that has been trod between then and now.

you still have people who express that sentiment. so i think that when you see that concern it's probably bubbling up a bit on both sides of the political aisle. i would also say this is an interesting effort, this potential to somebody, to take a vote to somebody the former president at the end of this now business meeting, not hearing. it is really sort of the last gasp of this particular process. they have a moment where 26 days from the midterm election, so if they can make some, you know, large announcement here about subpoenaing the former president, i think they hope that will put a big exclamation point on the process. as you say and chad has said, we head into this election, no one knows what the outcome will be but liz cheney and adam kinzinger will not be in office after this. very much in lock step with the mission of this, and revisit of

this day, january 6th, obviously important in the country, will not look like this. so i think there is an effort here to sort of, as i said, put a big exclamation point. i would say the former president would not comply with the subpoena, he told four advisors they should not comply, he told four not to comply so i think the likelihood you'll see him in this venue is slim. >> sandra: back to jonathan turley confirmed the news the complete plans to vote to subpoena the former president today during this meeting. >> well, seems a bit of political theater. they are waiting for the end of the process to subpoena a former president knowing that it's going to result in legal challenges and more importantly, knowing the house is likely to flip in the midterms so the subpoena is unlikely to go

anywhere. the president's unlikely to testify, even under subpoena. it's unlikely that the house after the midterm elections will pursue such a subpoena. so there's a bit of planned obsolete, to say we were just about to subpoena the president and they shot us down. why didn't you do this at the beginning? why would you wait to the end when you know there is going to be trench warfare over trying to compel testimony of a former president. and a lot of this really does go back to the missed opportunity here. you know, the fact that they did not have any members from the other side, selected by the republican party. they had two republicans, but not anyone selected by the party. the blame is on both sides have pointed to the others. but the committee used that as basically a license to present only one narrative.

this is just the latest hearing in which no alternative viewpoints have even been offered. this was the case with witnesses who seemed more like props reciting what they had said before. and i think this investigation could have been so much more, because i said earlier, most of us condemn what happened on january 6th, and most of us did want to get more information. but i think that the democrats really yielded to every temptation to produce one narrative and not allow alternative explanations or viewpoints. >> andy, i think the professor makes a good point, why would you wait until the end? if this is your big moment, if you are going to issue a somebody, why wait until the end when it becomes largely symbolic? >> i'm completely with john on that. i would just point out what they have said up until now is that we are supposed to get their final report some time around

now, prior to the midterm elections. if he's a central witness, an essential witness, why do you wait 'til the very end and what does that say about their report if what they are saying is they need president trump as a witness to complete their investigation, how can they possibly issue a report which we were led to believe up until now was the big crescendo for the way this was all going to end. so i think this is -- is theater because there is no -- this is the last hearing, they are not going to have another hearing, they are going to run out of time. trump is not going to testify for all the reasons that martha mentioned and jonathan mentioned. it's not going to happen. so they want to end with the splash and they think that's the splash, i don't know. >> sandra: martha, we are about to hand the baton to you for continuing coverage of the meeting of the january 6th committee. we are inside about the two-minute window when this will resume on capitol hill and

eventually the vote will happen. your final thoughts before that begins. >> i was watching stephanie murphy, speaking on another channel this morning and she said she really hoped that the point of these hearings has been to get the message of all of this out there, to prove to people that democracy was under serious threat and to make sure that it never happens again. but i would go back to the comments by jonathan and andy that unfortunately so many people view this process as sort of one-sided and would have maybe achieved that goal in a more effective way if they had not been afraid to allow this to be a more bipartisan process. if they had not -- if they had allowed people to question these witnesses in a little bit more provoking way, what we do in this country in order to get to the truth of any given element. and what they have not been able to do so far, although they have said that president trump was at the center of this from the very beginning, is directly tie him to the break-in and the riot at

the capitol, and doing everything they can, 26 days to the election, their last gasp, and hoping it will have an impact. if they had the courage to do it in a more fullsome way it might have had a stronger impact. >> maybe if i could hold you until they come back in, do you believe the final report from this committee will include a criminal referral? is that the sense? >> you know, the truth is there are already criminal cases going on, georgia, oath keepers that andy mentioned and those things move forward. so they could make a recommendation to the department of justice. the department of justice has gone through a number of these factors, and has not acted so far, and you may be heading towards a stage you are going to get a very different sort of backdrop in terms of the people in charge of a number of these committees. we'll see. >> sandra: all right. martha joining us there, thank you. we'll see you as you continue coverage at 3:00, jonathan

turley, andy mccarthy as well, thank you for joining us throughout our coverage of this january 6th committee business meeting happening on capitol hill chairman and the vice chairman have entered the room. >> gentleman from california, for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the morning of january 6th, president trump knew that the crowd was angry. he knew that they were armed and dangerous and he knew that they were going to the capitol. it's important to understand the lengths the president was willing to go to physically be at the capitol because it was part of his strategy to disrupt congress and to stay in power. as the time for the rally approached, email circulated among intelligence officials, including secret service, attaching communications among

rally-goers that contemplated violence. trump has given us marching orders, one post wrote, basically if you are east of the mississippi, you can and should be there. the advance on the capitol. keep your guns hidden, don't [bleep] around, full kits, 180 rounds minimum, remain rifle, another 50 for side arm per person. the white house had more than enough warning to warrant stopping any plan for ellipse rally and certainly for stopping any march to the capitol. and as evidenced from our prior hearings suggested, the president was aware of the information. despite awareness for the potential for violence and weapons among the crowd, the event, nevertheless, went forward and donald trump instructed the angry crowd, some of whom were armed, to march to

the capitol. as my colleagues mr. schiff described, secret service reported that thousands in the crowd near the washington monument would not enter the rally area because they were screening attendees would have detected prohibited items they carried. mr. trump knew this. his secret service had told him about it that morning. even in spite of these warnings cassidy hutchinson overheard the president say this shortly before he took stage. >> he wanted it full and he was angry we were not letting people through the mag with weapons, the secret service deemed as weapons and are weapons. i was in the vicinity of a conversation i overheard the president say something to the effect of i don't care that they have weapons. they are not here to hurt me, take the f-ing mags away, let my people in, they can march from the capitol from here, and take

the f-ing mags away. >> and on stage, president trump asked law enforcement to let his supporters in the rally site. >> and i would love to have, if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed, the military, the secret service and we want to thank you and the police, law enforcement, great, you are doing a great job, but i would love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us. is that possible? can you just let them come up, please? >> president trump then told his supporters to march to the capitol. let's posit this point to consider president trump's state of mind. his motivation at this moment. by that point it was known to secret service that members of the crowd were armed, president trump had been told and there was no doubt that president trump knew what he was going to do, sending an angry mob, a number of whom were clad in tactical gear and military garb,

armed with various weapons to the capitol. there's no scenario where that action is benign. and there's no scenario where an american president should have engaged in that conduct. it did not matter whether president trump believed the election had been stolen or not, this could not be justified on any basis for any reason. you may also recall testimony from our summer hearings recording mr. trump's efforts to lead the mob to the capitol himself and angry altercation in the presidential suv when the secret service told him it was far too dangerous for him to go. as we detailed in testimony from the metropolitan police and white house personnel during our july 21st hearing, information about altercation was widely known. so widely known that one former white house employee with national security responsibilities explained that this information was, in fact, water cooler talk in the white

house complex. as that professional told us, they remember hearing in the days after january 6th how angry the president was when he was in the limo that afternoon. that professional also testified that they were specifically informed of the president's irate behavior in the suv by mr. ornato in his office. it was mr. engel with mr. ornato in that office. they had expressed to me the president was irate, you know, on the drive up. mr. engel did not deny the fact that the president was irate. that, of course, corresponds closely with the testimony you saw this summer from cassidy hutchinson, metropolitan police officer in the motorcade and from multiple sources. additionally, after concluding its review of the additional secret service communications from january 5th and january 6th, the committee will

be recalling witnesses and conducting further investigative depositions based on that material. following that activity, we will provide even greater detail in our final report. and i will also note this. the committee is reviewing testimony regarding potential obstruction on this issue, including testimony about advice given not to tell the committee about this specific topic. we will address this matter in our report. we also want to remind you now of how security professionals working in the white house complex and who reported to national security officials responded when they learned that mr. trump intended to lead the mob to the capitol. >> to be completely honest, we were all in a state of shock. >> because why? >> because just -- one, i think the actual physical feasibility of doing it and then also we all

knew what that indicated and what that meant, this was no longer a rally, that this was going to move to something else if he physically walked to the capitol. i don't know if you want to use the word insurrection, coup, it would move from a normal democratic public event into something else. why were we alarmed? >> right. >> the president wanted to lead tens of thousands of people to the capitol, i think that was enough grounds for us to be alarmed. >> president trump was still considering travelling to the capitol even after returning to the white house. he knew well before 2:00 p.m. that a violent riot was underway at the capitol. he was aware of the ongoing lawlessness but his motorcade was held on west executive avenue outside the white house because he still wanted to join the crowd. here is kayleigh, the white house press secretary describing an exchange with the president

as soon as he arrived back at the white house. >> so to the best of my recollection i recall him being, wanting to -- saying that he wanted to physically walk and be a part of the march and then saying that he would ride the beast if he needed to, ride in the presidential limo. >> from the secret service, the select committee has also obtained important new evidence on this issue. it shows how frantic this hour must have been for the secret service, scrambling to get the president of the united states to back down from a dangerous and reckless decision that put people in harm's way. take a look at the secret service email from 1:19 p.m. on january 6th, the minute that president trump got out of the presidential vehicle back at the white house. as soon as the president left his motorcade, leadership

contacted the lead agent for the presidential detail and warned him that they were "concerned about an otr, an off the record movement, to the capitol." the people sworn to protect the safety of the president of states and routinely put themself in harm's way were convinced it was a bad idea. and how agent were poised to take president trump to the capitol later that afternoon. agents were instructed to don their protective gear and prepare for a movement. a few minutes later, they were told the president would leave for the capitol in two hours. it wasn't until 1:55 p.m. the president's lead secret service agent told them to stand down. we are not doing an otr to the capitol. by then rioters had breached the capitol and were violently attacking the efforts of the brave men and women in law enforcement trying to resist the mob. president trump may not have gone to the capitol on

january 6th, but what he did from the white house cannot be justified. while congressional leaders, both democrats and republicans worked with vice president pence to try and address the violence, president trump refused urgent pleas for help from nearly everyone around him. and what he did do only made the situation worse. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin for opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the president was still exhorting his supporters to go fight like hell at 12:50 around the time that the first wave of rioters first breached barricades defending the capitol. secret service documents we recently received give a timeline of what the white house knew and when. at 1:19, the president's emergency operation center sent an email to secret service

national security and military advisors to the president and vice president informing them that "hundreds of trump supporters stormed through metal barricades t he back of the capitol building about 1:00 p.m. wednesday, running past security guards and breaking fences." and the president returned to the white house around 1:20, he entered the oval office and was told right then about the onset of violence at the capitol. from that point until approximately 4:00 p.m., over the next two hours and 40 minutes, the president stayed in the white house dining room attached to the oval office and watched this unprecedented assault take place at the capitol. we have testimony from several members of the president's white house staff establishing president trump refused from his closest advisors and family members to tell his supporters to stand down and leave the capitol. the testimony of white house

counsel pat cipollone. >> i can't talk about conversations with the president but i can generically say i said, you know, people need to be told there needs to be a public announcement fast that they need to leave the capitol. >> and could you let us know approximately when you said that? >> approximately when, almost immediately after i found out people were getting into the capitol or approaching the capitol in a way that was -- was violent. >> you on the staff did not want people to leave the capitol. >> on the staff? >> in the white house. >> i -- i can't think of anybody, you know, on that day who didn't want people to get out of the capitol once, particularly once the violence

started, no. i mean -- >> what about the president? >> she said the staff. so i answered. >> no, i said in the white house. >> oh, i'm sorry, i thought you said who else on the staff. i -- i can't reveal communications, but obviously i think, you know -- >> mr. cipollone's testimony is corroborated by other staff members, including cassidy hutchinson. miss hutchinson describing what she heard from mark meadows.

>> he had said something to the effect of you heard him, pat, he doesn't want to do anything more, he doesn't think they are doing anything wrong. >> former white house employee with national security duties similarly recalled an exchange between mr. cipollone and eric herschmann about president trump's inaction against the mob assault underway at the he said something like he seemed to relay that, you know, the president didn't want anything done. throughout this period, some of the president's most important political allies, family members and senior staff all begged him to tell his supporters to disburse and go home. they included sean hannity, laura ingraham and other allies at fox news, his son, donald trump jr., kevin mccarthy. officials in the cabinet and

executive branch, all of them made appeals to donald trump which he rejected and he ignored. the select committee interviewed several people in the dining room with donald trump that afternoon and every single one of these witnesses told us that he was watching the violent battles rage on television. he did not call his secretary of defense, the national guard, the chief of the capitol police or the chief of the metropolitan police department. >> to your knowledge, was the president in that private dining room the whole time that the attack on the capital was going on or did he to your knowledge to the oval office, to the white house situation room, anywhere else? >> best of my recollection, he was always in the dining room. >> what did they say? >> mr. meadows or the president. during that brief encounter. what do you recall? >> everyone was watching the tv. >> do you know when he was

watching tv in the dining room when you talked to him on january 6? >> it's my understanding he was watching television. >> when you were in the dining room, was the violence at the capitol visible on the screen, on the television? >> yes. >> the president watched the bloody attack unfold on fox news from his dining room. members of congress and other government officials stepped in to the gigantic leadership void created by the president's chilling and steadied passivity that day. what you're about to see is unseen footage of congressional leaders, republicans and democrats as they were taken to a secure location during the riot. you'll see how everyone involved was working actively to stop the violence to get federal law enforcement deployed to the scene to put down the violence and secure the capitol cpl