6. you will see certain segments of pat cipollone's testimony today. we will also see today how president trump summoned a mob to washington and how the president's stolen election lies provoked that mob to attack the capitol. and we will hear from a man who was induced by president trump's lies to come to washington and join the mob and how that decision has changed his life. today's hearing is our seventh. we have covered significant ground over the past several weeks, and we have also seen a change in how witnesses and lawyers in the trump orbit approach this committee. initially, their strategy in some cases appeared to be to deny and delay. today there appears to be a general recognition that the committee has established key facts, including that virtually everyone close to president trump, his justice department officials, his white house advisers, his white house

counsel, his campaign, all told him the 2020 election was not stolen. this appears to have changed the strategy for defending donald trump. now the argument seems to be that president trump was manipulated by others outside the administration, that he was persuaded to ignore his closest advisers, and that he was incapable of telling right from wrong. this new strategy is to try to blame only john eastman or sidney powell or congressman scott perry or others and not president trump. in this version, the president was "poorly served" by these outside advisers. the strategy is to blame people his advisers called "the crazies" for what donald trump did. this, of course, is nonsense. president trump is a 76-year-old man.

he is not an impressionable child. just likeveryone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices. as our investigation has shown, donald trump had access to more detailed and specific information showing that the election was not actually stolen than almost any other american, and he was told this over and over again. no rational or sane man in his position could disregard that information and reach the opposite conclusion. and donald trump cannot escape responsibility by being willfully blind, nor can any argument of any kind excuse president trump's behavior during the violent attack on january 6. as you watch our hearing today, i would urge you to keep your eye on two specific points. first, you will see evidence

that trump's legal team, led by rudy giuliani, knew that they lacked actual evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to prove that the election was actually stolen. they knew it but they went ahead with january 6 anyway. and second, consider how millions of americans were persuaded to believe what donald trump's closest advisers in his administration did not. these americans did not have access to the truth like donald trump did. they put their faith and their trust in donald trump. they wanted to believe in him. they wanted to fight for their country and he deceived them. for millions of americans, that may be painful to accept but it is true. am opening remarks from vice chair of the house select committee liz cheney. seventh public hearing was tuesday. stay with us.

♪♪ [music break] amy: this is [captioning made possible by democracy now!] democracy now! a major focus of tuesday's hearing of u.s. house select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol was a tweet that was sent by then president trump on december 19, 2020. in the tweet, trump called for a big protest at the coming joint session of congress on january 6 and told his supporters, "be

there, will be wild!" trump sent the tweet one day after a tense meeting at the white house between his official and unofficial advisors that was described in testimony as unhinged. committee member jamie raskin laid out in detail how the meeting unfolded and how the tweet ultimately led some of trump's most extreme and violent supporters to the attack the -- to attack the capitol. raskin featured excerpts of deposition testimony from trump lawyer sidney powell, white house lawyer eric herschmann, and white house counsel pat cipollone, among others. this is congressmember raskin. >> let's return to that meeting on the summer 18. that night a group showed up at the white house including sidney powell, retired lieutenant general michael flynn, and former overstock.com ceo patrick byrne. after gaining access to the building from a junior white house staffer, the gro made their way to the oval office. they were able to speak with the president by himself for some

time until white house officials learned of the meeting. what ensued was a heated and profane clash between this group and president trump's white house advisors who traded personal insults, accusations of disloyalty to the president, and even challenges to physically fight. the meeting would last over six hours, beginning here in the oval office, moving around the west wing, and many hours later ending up in the president's private residence. the select committee has spoken with six of e participants as well as staffers who could hear the screaming from outside the oval office. what took place next is best told in their own words as you will see from this video. >> did you believe that it was going to work, that you were going be able to get to see the president wiout an appointment? >> i had no idea. >> in fact you do get to see the president without an appointment. >> we did.

>> how much time did you have alone with the president? i say alone, you had other people with you, but, i think from his aides before the crowd came running. >> probably no more than 10 or 15 minutes. >> was that -- >> i bet pat cipollone set a new land speed record. >> i got a call either for molly or from eric herschmann that i need to get to the oval office. >> so that was the first point that i had recognized, ok, there is nobody in there from the white house. mark's gone. what's going on right now. >> i opened the door and i walked in, i saw general flynn, i saw sidney powell sitting there. i was not happy to see the people who were in the oval office. >> explain why. >> well, again, i don't think they were providing -- well, first of all, the overstock person -- i've never met -- i never knew who this guy was. actually the first thing i did,

i walked in, i looked at him, and i said who are you? and he told me. i don't think -- i don't think any of these people were providing the president with good advice. and so i -- i didn't understand how they had gotten in. >> in the short period of time that you had with the president, did he seem receptive to the presentation that you were making? >> he was very interested hearing particularly about the cisa findings and the terms of 13848 that apparently nobody else had bothered to inform him of. amy: that is sidney powell. >> and i was asking, like, are you're claiming the decrats were working with hugo chavez, venezuelans, and whomever else. at one point, general flynn took out a diagram that supposedly showed ip addresses all over the world. and -- or isp -- who was -- who was communicating with whom via

the machines and some comment about like nest thermostats being hooked up to the internet. >> so it's been reported that during this meeting, ms. powell talked about dominion voting machines and made various election fraud claims that involve foreign countries such as venezuela, iran, and china. is that accurate? >> the fifth. >> was the meeting tense? >> oh yeah. it was not a casual meeting. >> explain. >> i mean, at times there were people shouting at each other, hurling insults at each other. it wasn'just sort of people sitting arnd on the couch ke chit chatting. >> do you recall whether he raised to ms. powell the fact that she and the campaign had lost all of the 60 cases that they had brought in litigation? >> yes. he raised that. >> and what was the response?

>> i don't remember what she said. i don't think it was a good response. >> cipollone and herschmann and whoever the other guy was showed nothing but contempt and disdain of the president. >> i remember the three of them were really sort of forcefully attacking me verbally. eric, derek, and we were pushing back and we were asking one simple question as a general matter. where is the evidence? >> what response did you get when you asked ms. powell and her colleagues where's the evidence? a varietyf responses based on my cuent recoection including, you know, i can't believe you would say something, like, you know, things like this. like, "what do you mean where's the evidence? you should know." things like that or -- a

disregard, i would say, a general disregard for the importance of actually backing up what you sawith facts. >> and, you kn, then there was discussion of, well, you know, we don't have it now but we will have it whatever. >> i mean, if it had been me sitting in his chair, i would have fired all of them that night and had them escorted out of the building. >> which derek and i both challenged what she was saying. and shsays, well, the judges are corrupt. and i was like, every one? every single case that you've done in the country u guys lost, every one of them is corrupt? even the onewe appointed? and i'm being nice. i was mu more harsh to her. >> so one of the other things that's been reported that was said during this meeting was that president trump told white house lawyers mr. herschmann and mr. cipollone that they wer't offering him any solutions, but ms. poll and others were. so why not try what ms. powell and others were proposing? do you remember anything along the lines being saidy president trump? >> i do. that sounds right. >> i think that it got to th point where the screaming was

completely, completely out there. i mean, you got people walk in, it was late at night, had been a long day. and what they were proposing i thought was nuts. >>'m going to -- i'm going to categocally describe it asou guys are not tough enough. or maybe i put it other wa you' a bunch of pussies. excuse the expression, but that that's i -- i'm most certain the word was used. >> flynn seamed at me that i was a quter and evything, kept on standing up and turning around and screaming at me. and at a certain point iad it with him. i yelled back better come over. beer sit your effing ass back down. >> the president and the whi house team went upstairs to the resince, but to the public part of the residence.

you kn, the big -- the big parlor where you can have meetings in the conferce room. >> yellow oval. they call that the yellow level. >> yes, exactly. the yellow oval office. i always called it the upper. and'm not exactly sure where the sidney group wt. i think maybe the roosevelt room. and i stayed in the cabinet room, which is kind of cool. i really liked that, all my -- all by myself. >> at the enof the day, we landed where we started the meeting, at ast from a structural standpoint, which was sidney powell was fighting. mike flynn was fighting. they were oking for avenues that would enable -- that wod result in president trump remaining president trump for a second term. >> the meeting finally ended after midnight. here are text messages sent by

cassidy hutchinson during and after the meeting. as you can see, ms. hutchinson reported that the meeting in the west wing was unhinged. the meeting finally broke up after midnight. during the early morning of december 19, cassidy hutchinson captured the moment of mark meadows escorting rudy giuliani off the white house grounds to "make sure he didn't wander back into the mansion." certain accounts of this meeting indicate that president trump actually granted ms. powell security clearance and appointed her to a somewhat ill-defined position of special counsel. >> he asked pat cipollone if he had the authority to name a special counsel and he said yes. and then he asked him if he had the authority to give me whatever security clearance i needed and pat cipollone said yes. and then the president said, ok,

you know, i'm the naming her that and i'm giving her security clearance. and then shortly before we left and it totally blew up, that's when cipollone and/or herschmann and whoever the other young man was said you can name her whatever you wt to namher, and no one's going to pay any attention to it. >> how did he respond? how did the president respond to that? >> something likyou see what i deal with. i deal with this all the time. >> over the ensuing days, no further steps were taken to appoint sidney powell, but there is some ambiguity about what the president actually said and did during the meeting. here is how pat cipollone described it. >> i don't know what her understanding of whether she had been appointed, what she had been appointed to, ok? in my ew, she hadn't been appointed to anything and ultimately wasn't appointed to anything because there had to be

other steps taken. and that was my view when i left the meeting. but she may have a different view and others may have a different view and the president may have a different view. >> were any steps taken, including the president himself telling her she'd been appointed? >> again, i'm not going to get into what the president said in the meeting. you know, my recollection is you're not appointed -- you're not appointed until steps are taken to get the paperwork done, get -- and when i left the meeting, ok -- i guess what i'm trying to say is i'm not going to get into what the president said or want -- sa he wanted. >> mr. cipollone, when the matter continued to flare up over the next several days, was it your unrstanding that sidney powell was still seeking an appointment or that she was asserting that she had been appointed by the presidentt the december 18 meeting? >> you know, now that you

mention it, probably both, you know, in -- in terms of like i think she was -- i think she may have been of the view that she had been appointed and was seeking to, you know, get that done and -- and that she should be appointed. >> as you listen to these clips, remember that ms. powell, the person who president trump tried to make special counsel, was ultimately sanctioned by a federal court and sued by dominion voting systems for defamation. in her own defense to that lawsuit, sidney powell argued that "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact." not long after sidney powell, general flynn, and rudy giuliani left the white house in the early hours of the morning, president trump turned away from both his outside advisers' most

outlandish and unworkable schemes and his white house counsel's advice to swallow hard and accept the reality of his loss. instead, donald trump issued a tweet that would galvanize his followers, unleash a political firestorm, and change the course of our history as a country. trump's purpose was to mobilize a crowd. and how do you mobilize a crowd in 2020? with millions of followers on twitter, president trump knew exactly how to do it. at 1:42 a.m. on december 19, 2020, shortly after the last participants left the unhinged meeting, trump sent out the tweet with his explosive invitation. trump repeated his big lie and claimed it was "statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election" before calling for a big otest in d.c. on january six bang, "be there, will be

wild." trump suppters responded immediately. women for america first, a pro-trump organizing group, had previously applied for a rally permit for january 22 and 23 in washington, d.c., several days after joe biden was to be inaugurated. but in the hours after the tweet, they moved their permit to january 6, two weeks before. this rescheduling created the rally where trump would eventually speak. the next day, ali alexander, leader of the stop the steal organization and a key mobilizer of trump supporters, registered wildprotest.com, named after trump's tweet. wildprotest.com provided comprehensive information about numerous newly organized protest events in washington. it included event times, places, speakers, and details on transportation to washington , d.c.

meanwhile, other key trump supporters, including far right media personalities, began promoting the wild protest on january 6. >> it's saturday, december 19. the year is 2020 and one of the most historic events in american history has just taken place. president trump, in the early morning hours today, tweeted that he wants the ameran people to march on washington, d.c., on january 6, 2021. >> and now donald trump is calling on his supporters to descend on washington, d.c., january 6. >> he is now calling on we the people to take action and to show our numbers. >> we're going to only be saved by millions of americans moving to washington, occupying the entire area, if necessary, storming right into the capitol.

you know, they're -- we know the rules of engagement. if you have enough people, you can push down any kind of a fence or a wall. >> this could be trump's last stand. and it's a time when he has specifically called on his supporters to arrive in d.c. that's something that may actually be the g push trump supporters need to say this is it. it's now or never. >> you better understand something, son. you better understand something. red wave, bitch. red wed -- there's going to be a red wedding going down january 6. >> on that day, trump says show up for a protest. it's going to be wild. and based on what we've already seen from the previous events, i think trump is absolutely correct. >> mother[beep] you better look outside. you better look out january 6. kick that door open, look down the street. there're going to be a million plus geeked up armed americans. >> the time for games is over. the time for action is now. where were you when history

called? where were you when you and your children's destiny and future was on the line? >> in that clip, you hea one of trump's supporters predict a red wedding, which is a pop culture reference to mass slaughter. but the point is that trump's call to washington reverberated powerfully and pervasively online. the committee has interviewed a former twitter employee who explained the effect that trump had on the twitter platform. this employee was on the team responsible for platform and content moderation policies on twitter throughout 2020 and 2021. the employee testified that twitter considered adopting a stricter content moderation policy after president trump told the proud boys to stand back and stand by from the lectern at the september 29 presidential debate, but twitter chose not to act. here's the former employee, whose ice has been obscured to protect their identity,

discussing trump's stand back and stand by comment and the effect it had. >> my concern was that the former president, for seemingly the first time, was speaking directly to extremist organizationand giving them directives. we had not seen that sort of direct communication before and that concerned me. >> so just to clarify further, you were worried, others at twitter were worried, that the president might use your platform to speak directly to folks who might be incited to violence? >> yes. i believe that twitter relished in the knowledge that they were also the favorite and most used

service of the former president, and enjoyed having that sort of power within the social media ecosystem. >> if president trump were anyone else, would it have taken until january 8, 2021, for him to be suspended? >> absolutely not. if donald -- if former president donald trump were any other user on twitter, he would have been permanently suspended a very long time ago. >> despite these grave concerns, trump remained on the platform completely unchecked. then came the december 19 tweet, and everything it inspired. indeed -- >> it was -- it felt as if -- if a mob was being organized and

they were gathering together their weaponry and their logic and their reasoning behind why they were prepared to fight. prior to december 19, again, it was -- it was vague. it was -- it was nonspecific but very clear that individuals were ready, willing, and able to take up arms. after this tweet on december 19, again it became clear not only were these individuals ready and willing, but the leader of their cause was asking them to join him in this cause and in fighting for this cause in d.c. on january 6 as well. i will also say what shocked me

was the responses to these tweets, right? so these were -- a lot of the locked and loaded, stand back, stand by, those tweets were in response to donald trump saying things like this, right? so there would be a response that said big protest in d.c. on january 6, be there, be wild, and someone would respond and say, i'm locked and loaded and ready for civil war part two, right? i very much believe that donald trump posting this tweet on december 19 was essentially staking a flag in d.c. on january 6 for his supporters to come and rally. >> and you were concerned about the potential for this gathering becoming violent? >> absolutely. >> indeed, many of trump's followers took to social media to declare that they were ready to answer trump's call.

one user asked, is the 6th d-day? is that why trump wants everyone there? another asserted, trump just told us all to come armed. [beep] a, this is happening. a third took it even further. it will be wild means we need volunteers for the firing squad. jim watkins, the owner of 8kun, the fringe online forum that was birthplace of the qanon extremist movement, confirmed the importance of trump's tweet. >> w did youirst decide to go to d.c. for january 6? >> when the president of the united states announced th he was gog to have rally, then i bought ticket and went. >> watkins was at the capitol on january 6. some who have since been indicted for their involvement in the attack on the capitol also responded. one of them posted on the 19th,

"calling all patriots. be in washington, d.c., january six thing. this wasn't organized by any group. djt has invited us, and it's going to be wild." some of the online rhetoric turned openly homicidal and white nationalist, such as why don't we just kill them, every last democrat, down to the last man, woman, and child, and it's time for the day of the rope. white revolution is the only solution. others realized that police would be standing in the way of their effort to overturn the election, so one wrote, "i'm ready to die for my beliefs. are you ready to die, police?" another wrote on thedonald.win, "cops don't have standing if they're laying on the ground in a pool of their own blood." thedonald.win was an openly racist and anti-semitic forum.

the select committee deposed that site's founder jody williams. he confirmed how the preside's tweet created a laser like focus on the date of january the 6th. >> and people had been talking about going to d.c. since the election was over. >> and do you recall whether or not the conversation around those dates centered on the 6th after the president's tweet? >> oh, sure. yeah. i an, after it was announced that, you know, he was going to be there on the 6th to talk, yes. then -- then anything else was kind of shut out and it was just gointo on the sixth. >> ok. and that w pretty clearly reflected in the -- the content on -- on the site? >> yeah, sure. >> on that site, many shared plans and violent threats. "bring handcuffs and wait near the tunnels," wrote one user.

a commenter replied suggesting zip ties instead. one post encouraged others to come with body armor, knuckles, shields, bats, pepper spray, whatever it takes. all of those were used on the 6th. the post concluded, "join your local proud boys chapter as well." thedonald.win featured discussions of the tunnels beneath the capitol complex, suggestions for targeting members of congress, and encouragement to attend this once in a lifetime event. while trump supporters grew more aggressive online, he continued to rile up his base on twitter. said there was ovwhelming evidence that the election was the biggest scam in our tion's history. as you can see, the president continued to boost the event, tweeting about it more than a dozen times in the lead up to january the 6th. amy: january 6 committee congress never jamie raskin at

tuesday's hearing. we will be back with more in a minute. amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. two live witnesses testified at tuesday's hearing of the house

select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. jason van tatenhove, and stephen ayres, a former trump supporter who pleaded guilty last week for illegally entering the capitol january 6. congressmember jamie raskin questioned jason van tatenhove first. >> in the run-up to january 6, stewart rhodes publicly implored president trump to invoke the insurrection act, the 1807 law that allows the president to call up militias to put down a rebellion against the united states. and i want to get your thoughts about this in the con of your prior relationship with stewart rhodes. i understand that you had conversations with rhodes about the insurrection act. why was he so fixated on that, and what did he think it would enable the oath keepers to do? >> well, i think it gave him a sense of legitimacy, that it was a path forward to move forward with his goals and agendas.

i think we need to quit mincing words and just talk about truths, and what it was going to be was an armed revolution. i mean, people died that day. law enforcement officers died this day. there was a gallows set up in front of the capitol. this could have been the spark that started a new civil war and no one would have won there. that would have been good for no one. he was always looking for ways to legitimize what he was doing, whether by wrapping it in the of it's not a militia, it's a community preparedness team. we're not a militia, we're an educational outreach group. it's a veterans support group. but again, we've got to stop with this -- this dishonesty and the mincing of words and just call things for what they are. you know, he's a militia leader.

he had these grand visions of being a paramilitary leader, and the insurrection act would have given him a path forward with that. you know, the fact that the president was communicating, whether directly or indirectly messaging, you know, kind of that gave him the nod. and all i can do is thank the gods that things did not go any worse that day. >> what did the oath keepers see in president trump? >> they saw a path forward that would have legitimacy. they saw opportunity, i think, in my opinion, to become a paramilitary force, you know. >> last week, the department of justice indicated that it has evidence of the oath keepers bringing not just firearms but explosives to washington ahead of january 6. and the committee has also learned that stewart rhodes stopped to buy weapons on his

way to washington and shipped roughly $7000 worth of tactical gear to a january 6 rally planner in virginia before the attack. did you ever hear rhodes discuss committing violence against elected political leaders? >> yeah, i mean, that went back from the very beginning of my tenure. one of the first assignments that he brought to me, wanting me to do as more of a graphic artist function, was to create a deck of cards. you may remember back to the conflict in the middle east where our own military created a deck of cards, which was a who's who of kind of the -- the key players on the other side that they wanted to take out. and stewart was very intrigued by that notion and influenced by it i think. and he wanted me to create a deck of cards that would include different politicians, judges, including up to hillary clinton

as the queen of hearts. this was a project that i refused to do. but from the very start, we saw that. there was always the push for military training, including there were -- there were -- there were courses in that community at went over explosives training. so, yeah, this all falls in line. >> mr. van tatenhove, you say in your very thoughtful written testimony that we received today that you fear what the next election cycle will bring. and you also say that we have been exceedingly lucky in that we have not seen more bldshed so far. i wonder if you would elaborate on those two statements. >> i think, as far as the luck goes, we've had the potential from bundy ranch on. i mean, being boots on the ground at these standoffs -- and

they were standoffs where there were firearms pointed across lines at federal law enforcement agencies. you know, whatever it may be with that particular standoff. but i do -- i think we've gotten exceedingly lucky that more bloodshed did not happen because the potential has been there from the start. and we got very lucky that the loss of life was -- and as tragic as it is that we saw on january 6, the potential was so much more. again, all we have to look at is the iconic images of that day with the gallows set up for mike pence, for the vice president of the united states, you know. and i do fear for this next election cycle, because who knows what that might bring? if a president that's willing to try to instill and encourage to

whip up a civil war amongst his followers using lies and deceit and snake oil, and regardless of the human impact, what else is he going to do if he gets elected again? all bets are off at that point and that's a scary notion. i have three daughters. i have a granddaughter. and i fear for the world that they will inherit if we do not start holding these -- these people to account. >> thank you for your testony, mr. van tatenhove. mr. ayres, i firstant to ask you about what finally caused you to leave on january 6. we know that the medieval-style combat with our police, the occupation of the building, this was going on for several hours until the president issued at

4:17 a tweet i believe that included a video telling people to go home. did you see that and did that have any effect on what you were dog? well, when we were there, as soon as that come out, everybody started talking about it and it seemed like it started to disperse some of the crowd. obviously you know, once we got , back to the hotel room, we seen that it was still going on. but it definitely dispersed a lot of the crowd. >> and did you leave at that point? >> yeah, we left. >> so in other words, that was the key moment when you decided to leave when president trump told people to go home. >> yeah, we left right whethat come out. >> you were not a member of an organized group like the oath keepers or the proud boys, as most of the crowd wasn't. i wonder on january 6, was it your view that these far-right groups like the oath keepers and proud boys and three percenters

and others were on your side? did you have any reservations about marching with them and rallying with them? >> well, i definitely didn't have a problem, you know. i was probably following them online myself. you know, i liked -- i thought, you know, hey, they're on our team. good. that's how i kind of looked at it at the time, you know, like i didn't have a problem with it. i thought it was a good thing. >> i'm interested in hearing about what's happened to you since the events of january 6. you told the vice chair that you no longer believe trump's big lie about the election, but that's what brought you originally to washington. looking back on it now, how do you reflect on the role that you played in the crowd that day and what is going on in your life? >> basically, you know, i lost my job. since this all happened, you know, pretty much sold my house.

so everything that happened with the charges, you know, thank god, a lot of them did get dismissed because i was just holding my phone. but at the same time, i was there. so i mean, it definitely -- it changed my life, you know, and not for the good. definitely not for the, you know, for the better. yeah, i mean, really all i can say. >> well, president trump is still promoting the big lie about the election. how does that make you feel? >>t makes me mad because i -- i was hanging on every word he was saying. everything he was putting out, i was following it. i mean, if i was doing it, hundreds of thousands or millions of other people are doing it or maybe even still doing it. it's like he just said about that, you know, you got people still following and doing that.

who knows what the next election could come out, you know? could come out, you know. it could end up being down the same path we are right now. i mean, just don't know. >> mr. ayres, i see that your wife has joined u today, and welcome to washington. we know this has been very difficult on you both and your family. what lessons finally do you want the american people to learn from the way you and your family have suffered as a result of these events? >> the biggest thing is i consider myself a family man and i love my country. i don't think any one man is bigger than either onef those. i think that's what needed to be taken, you know. people dive into the politics. and for me, i felt like i had, you know, like horse blinders on.

i was locked in the whole time. biggest thing for me is take the blinders off and make sure you step back and see what's going on before it's too late. amy: stephen ayres and former oath keepers spokesperson jason van tatenhove questioned by congress member jamie raskin. >> you will hear that donald trump never picked up the phone that day to order his administration to help. this is not ambiguous. he did not call the military. his secretary of defense received no order. he did not call his attorney general. he did not talk to the department of homeland security. mike pence did all of those things. donald trump did not. we will walk through the events of january 6 next week minute by minute. and one more item. after our last hearing, president trump tried to call a witness in our investigation. a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings.

that person declined to answer or respond to president trump's call and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. their lawyer alerted us and this committee has supplied that information to the department of justice. let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously. amy: republican congressmember liz cheney, vice chair of the house select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. the next public hearing is next week, thursday, like 21st. democracy now! will livestream it at democracynow.org as we have all the public hearings and you can go to all of them at democracynow.org. that does it for our show. happy birthday to carl marxer! democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracyoñéñéñéñéñéñéc

(sophie fouron) i have to walk really slowly,

but i can actually get really close to them. right there, royal penguins. we are between argentina and antarctica, in a windswept country: the falkland islands or the malouines, or the malvinas, depending on where you come from. you might remember