sending drafting letters without the knowledge of what the department had actually done in terms of the investigations, that he was being reckless. and i recall towards the end saying what you re proposing is nothing less than the united states justice department meddling in the outcome of the election. knowing they would not support his false election claims, president trump offered mr. clark the job of acting attorney general. in a dramatic january 3rd meeting, rosen, donahue, pat cipollone and white house lawyer eric hirsh man strongly objected to the appointment of jeffrey clark as acting attorney. mr. clark pleaded his case and offered to send the letter that he had drafted, the white house council called it a murder-suicide pact. numerous white house lawyers and department of justice lawyers all threatened to resign. donald trump would be leading a graveyard.
0 testimony from people we have not heard from before. it doesn t mean the justice department wasn t. but there was some evidence until they started remember, they started a year ago july that s right. long before justice was engaged january 6th. and we know they have spoken to more than a thousand witnesses. we don t know what the just department has said and done. they don t present it in the way congress does. it s very likely. and andrew made this point earlier, that the committee started sooner and may have moved more quickly. i have no doubt that the justice department, a, has much better tools, much more experience, and if they haven t caught up will not only catch up but exceed the work of the committee. all right. we should expect to see those double doors open any moment now with bennie thompson coming in, the committee behind him. again, we just have another couple weeks before this committee will be disbanded and a new congress is sworn in. frank, as we await this
demanded that the white house chief of staff intervened, he wanted trump to call the day after for prosecution, to talk about the violence, he knows a lot, according to this committee. he absolutely knows a lot, the question is, how much will they be looking out of him, because of the relationship he has as the counsel to the president of the united states, we do not know the answer yet, but if he is forthcoming, he has the ability to corroborate some very damaging evidence that has already been presented, and possibly some additional stuff that we really don t even know about. there is great anticipation about that, one thing that we know about this committee, so far, is that they have generally delivered more than they have promised. and i think the question now is will this be the question with him? they have delivered more. one of the biggest issues about the january 3rd meeting, the former assistant attorney general, opposite legal counsel, talking about that when trump wanted
former president. so if we veer out of the areas of agreement, then cipollone can say, sorry, i have to consult and refuse to talk. but the main areas that we expect are things like that violent intent on january 6th, the january 3rd meeting, the corruption of doj, and the other issues that have already surfaced. i think we ll hear about those. john, obviously a lot of comparisons are being made between your testimony during the watergate hearings and cipollone s testimony. are they fair comparisons? how important do you think cipollone s testimony will be? anderson, i think the two of us are coming at this issue from very different points of view and state of mind. i was somebody who was still trying actively to end a ongoing cover-up of elicit activities at
out of the areas of agreement, then cipollone can say, sorry, i have to consult and refuse to talk, but the main areas that we expect are things like that violent intent on january 6th, the january 3rd meeting, the corruption of doj, and the other issues that have already surfaced. i think we ll hear about those. john, obviously a lot of comparisons are being made of your testimony during watergate and cipollone s testimony. are those fair? how important do you think cipollone s testimony will be? i anderson, i think that the two of us are coming at this issue from very, very different points of view and state of minds. i was somebody who was still trying actively to end an ongoing coverup of illicit activities at the white house, and it wasn t just a bungled break-in. there were whole categories of