selection loss, was a letter. mr. donahue, on december 28th, mr. clark emailed you and mr. rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to georgia state officials. you testified that this could have grave constitutional consequences. can you tell us what you meant by that? i had to read both emails in the attached letter twice to make sure i really understood what he was proposing. it was so extreme to me, i had a hard time getting my head around it. i read it and i did understand it for what he intended. and i had to sit down and serve , compose what that was an appropriate response. i went next door to the acting ig s office. he was not there. we both had an email. he was not in his offers. i returned my office. . this is not the departments role. to suggest or dictate to state legislatures how they should select their electors. but, more importantly, this was not based on fact. this is actually contrary to the facts, as developed by the department investigati
despite function of the departments chain of succession, mr. engel would be in the seat. we wanted to make sure he knew what was going on sure that be. the three of us knew. we also brought mckinney in. so, the four of us knew. but, no one else other afternoon.e else other we chose to keep a close hold because we didn t want to create concern or panic in the justice department leadership. but at this point, i asked the acting a.g., what else can i do to help prepare for this meeting at the oval office? and he said, you and pat should get the aags on the phone and it s time to let them know what s going on. let s find out what they may do if there s a change in leadership, because that will help inform the conversation at the oval office. pat subsequently set up that meeting. we got most, not all, but most of the aags on the phone. we very quickly explained to them what the situation was. i told them, i don t need an
i told him what was going on. he said he would go into the white house to make sure he was at the meeting and he would be supporting the justice department s position as he had been doing consistently. three, i called steve, i was at the department. it was a sunday. there have been some reasons i needed to be there. i called him at home and asked him if you come in and go to the meeting. which he did. proved to be quite helpful. number four, i asked rich donahue and pat, who was previously my chief of staff, take it the departments senior leadership on a call and let them know what was going on. which they did then, eric called me to tell me that he was going to go to the meeting and that he would be supporting the department of justice position as well. so, i knew that the meeting was on course and that i would have a number of people supportive
justice department functions on facts, evidence, and law. those are not going to change. you can have whatever leadership you want. but the department s position is not going to change. the president white house counsel was also present. do you remember what his position was? pat was very supportive throughout these conversations. externally supportive of the justice department. he was consistent. he always sided with the justice department. it was new year s eve. president trump, talking about seizing voting machines and making the same demands that have already been shut down by the former attorney general on at least three occasions. and by mr. rosen and donnie you on multiple other occasions. claim after claim not down. but, the president didn t care. the next day, the chief of staff sent a flurry of emails to you, mr. rosen.