environmental and elections challenges is they both start with e and based on your answers tonight, i m not even sure you know that. at this point, pat cipollone said this say murder/suicide pact, this letter. i would note too, congressman, that it was in this part of the conversation where steve pointed out that jeff clark would be left leading a graveyard. the optics of this, this mass departure from the justice department, stopped donald trump from going through this sort of coup he was planning, but there was other evidence that stood out. you mentioned the handwritten notes by richard donoghue, he says he just wants the then president trump wanted them to say the election was corrupt and leave the rest up to him and the republican congressmen. we also learned more about the pardons, we have seen members of this committee sort of tease they were going to put more information forth about the republican lawmakers who sought pardons, they named a whole lot of names in the hearin
the fbi, andrew mccabe, caroline pelosi, good morning, all of you. caroline, let me begin with you on what we heard from evan s other reporting yesterday that i thought was really significant, and would be used here in any defense is that rosen, donoghue and engel all concluded that despite all these efforts by the former president, former president trump never ordered them to break the law. you have an interesting read on that in that you don t think that it would be relevant in a criminal prosecution if there were one, why? well, poppy, the point it is not legally relevant per se that the words never came out of president trump s mouth, i want you to break the law, we talk a lot about criminal intent here, in terms of whether or not the president actually knew that there was no evidence of election fraud, that he actually lost the election. however for a number of statutes, criminal statutes at play here, that type of
president and that s where this becomes relevant. i agree that those, you know, statements are somewhat inconsistent, i don t know if it gets you there legally in terms of a real complete 180 in terms of what she said in her interviews, whether or not they were on the cutting room floor and to the committee, the committee i will say has used her testimony in a really judicious manner, sprinkled throughout, you know, since the very beginning, they really used few words, but very impactful and resonates, so to hear her say she believed bill barr, well, it is just exactly what andy was saying, you know, and it goes to this idea of willful blindness, whether or not he truly believed the election was stolen, there is a point at which there is a legal theory, willful blindness, you should have known that, you know, there was no election fraud and ivanka s testimony goes to that. just like i should know i m not the center fielder for the
a calculus that congressional investigators had to consider which is how much a mess they want to bring to our hands and may not be worth it because you are getting a lot of information from a lot of sources including congressional staff not just the members themselves . former doj official and trump loyalist jeffrey clark appear before the committee yesterday, and pleaded the fifth of before more than 100 times in questioning. i mean just tonight, they are considering granting clark immunity there. how does that work? and what would it mean? a couple of things, the mere fact that you have a former justice department official seeking immunity because the fact that he thinks they might have committed a crime, that is why witnesses seek community. they are immunized against the statements that they used being used against them in a future proceeding, so what congress would do is just work out with the justice department that he won t be prosecuted based on his statements. the problem