trump was his circle was shrinking. the pool of qualified people was shrinking. and so he put people around him who was willing to do his bidding. and what these tapes reveal, it s another set of data points and i have a feeling we re going to see a white house, whether it s the chief of staff or mr. trump himself with a full-time job of calling people, elected officials, state election officials, legislators trying to overturn the election. mark meadows is it s gravely disappointing and of course we ll need to hear much more about these phone calls, emails and others, trying to persuade people to say the election was fraudulent when 60 courts or more said it was not. yes. congresswoman, how do you view the former acting attorney general, jeffrey rosen? some democrats have hailed him as a courageous whistle-blower, but he didn t come forward
i have a feeling we re gonna see a [inaudible] was a full-time job of calling people, elected officials, state election officials, legislatures trying to overturn the election. mark meadows, it s gravely disappointed and we will need to hear much more of these phone calls, emails and others. trying to persuade people to say the election was fraudulent when 60 quartz or more said that it was not. yes. congresswoman, how do you view the former attorney general jeffrey rosen, some democrats have held him as a courageous whistle blower, but he didn t come forward during the impeachment hearings in which you are a manager, did he? he testified before congress earlier this year and was asked whether trump asked him to interfere in the election and he dodged that question, have a listen. prior to january six were you asked or instructed by
lisa murkowski. the question isn t should we throw the president out on the eve of an election? the question before the american people is did the president of the united states abuse power? did he obstruct congress? and the answer is yes, and these these offenses rise to the level of impeachment. the difference here and the reason why the democrats said that they wanted it to be bipartisan and they were hoping for that, that was before ukraine. once the ukraine happened and we saw what happened with the courageous whistle-blower, that information being proven true for the most part that the 17-plus witnesses that came forward and demonstrated there was a quid pro quo and the evidence is overwhelming and that s what changed here. the idea that it has to be bipartisan is a different dynamic now. the problem here also is that there are no profiles encouraged. lindsay graham is the biggest hypocrite walking the planet right now. lindsay graham, i remember, because i was around the 98
undermining congress in performing its role, which is to provide oversight. so here you have a whistle-blower report that credibly implicates the role of the attorney general. we must investigate the attorney general s actions in this case. the complaint says that multiple white house officials listened to the ukraine call and thought that they were witnessing an abuse of office for personal gain. they said that some were directed to move the transcript to it s called a code word server, a level server. if the information got to foreign intelligence, could this be used to blackmail those officials, maybe even the president? remember the coverup in the case of irey iran-contra, worse the crime. here are people recognizing something is wrong, instead of doing what this courageous whistle-blower did, they took
serious as the possibility of removing and undoing a legal election. my argument is if you re going to do this, do it right. make sure that all of the information of that whistle-blower is confirmed before you even do something like this. i ve got some ideas on this. let s get the other guys in. susan, let s bring you in. if the whistle-blower ultimately testifies, it seems like one of the first questions will be who are these white house officials who told him about the call and who say they were directed by the white house lawyers to remove the transcript from its proper server, correct? yes. this is actually one of the things i think is so damning about this document, that the whistle-blower is up front about the fact he does not have firsthand information, but he points to people who do have firsthand information. he is quite explicitly and directly and in some cases by name addressing investigators to individuals he believes has firsthand knowledge to related,