I'd like to start with the personal story. So in May of 2009, I returned
from service in Iraq and I announced my intention to run for Congress.
A big reason I decided to run for Congress was my motivation to ensure
freedom and democracy were defended overseas.
I remember making a commitment out loud, a few times and in my heart
repeatedly even to today.
That if we are going to ask Americans to be willing to die and service
to our country,
We as leaders must at least be willing to sacrifice our political
careers when integrity and our oath requires it.
After all, losing a job is nothing compared to losing your life.
Within the halls of power in the face of a president. That commitment
can easily be forgotten. Presidential pressure can be really hard
to resist.
Today, we'll focus on a few officials who stood firm against President
Trump's political pressure campaign.
When the president tried to misuse the department and install a loyalist
at its helm.
These brave officials refused and threatened to resign.
They were willing to sacrifice their careers for the good of our
country.
The Department of Justice is unique in the executive branch.
The president oversees the Department of Justice. Yet the president's
personal or partisan interests must not shape or dictate the department's
actions.
The president cannot and must not use the department to serve his
own personal interest and must not use its people to do his political
bidding, especially when what he wants them to do.
Is to subvert democracy.
The president cannot pervert justice nor the law to maintain his
power.
Justice must both In fact and law be blind.
That is critical to our whole system of self governance.
During this hearing, you'll hear time and time again about the president's
request to investigate claims of widespread fraud.
Our witnesses. Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donohue and Mr Engel stood firm in
the face of overbearing political pressure because they understood
that their oath was to the Constitution.
And not to the personal or political interests of the president.
The president and his allies became keenly aware that with legal
challenges exhausted and electoral votes certified
Their only hope.
Would be a last ditch scheme to prevent Congress from certifying
the win.
Thus throwing the entire system in the constitutional chaos.
The president wanted the department to sow doubt in the legitimacy
of the election to empower his followers and members of Congress
to take action.
The department could just lend its credibility to the conspiracies.
People would have the justification they needed to spread the big
lie.
So President Trump ultimately wanted the Department of Justice to
save the election was quote, corrupt and quote. Leave the rest to
me and the Republican congressman.
As you will hear. Today, the department's top leadership refused.
Not surprisingly, President Trump didn't take no for an answer.
He didn't accept it from Attorney General Bar and he wouldn't accept
it from Mr Rosen either.
So he looked for another attorney general, his third in two weeks.
He needed to find someone who was willing to ignore the facts That
is not the norm.
Let's look at what attorneys General Democrats and Republicans alike
have said about upholding their oath to the Constitution.
Attorney general. Ultimately roses loyalty onto the integrity of
the American people and to the fidelity to the Constitution and the
legitimate laws of the country. That's what he's ultimately required
to do. It will be an independent attorney general. I will be the
people's lawyer if, however,
There were an issue that I thought were that significant that would
compromise my ability to serve as attorney general. In the way that
I have described it as the people's lawyer, I would not hesitate
to resign.
As you and I discussed if the president proposed to undertake
A course of conduct that was in violation of the Constitution that
would present me with
A a difficult but not a complex problem. I would have two choices.
I could either try to talk him out of it or leave. Those are the
choices.
Attorney general's position as a Cabinet member is perhaps unique
from all of the Cabinet members. Yes, a member of the president's
Cabinet, But the attorney general has a unique responsibility to
provide independent and objective advice to the president or any
agency when it is sought, and sometimes perhaps, even when it is
not sought.
Everyone in that video from Eric, Holder to Jeff Sessions spoke as
one about the independence of the department.
It's a point of pride at justice to apply the law without the president's
political self interest, attaining its actions are dictating how
it uses its authorities.
But President Trump did find one candidate at Justice who seemed
willing to do anything to help him stay in power.
Let's hear what President Trump's own lawyer, Erik Hersman, had to
say about Jeff Clark's plan to overturn the election.
I'd like to advise viewers. This video contains some strong language.
And when he finished discussing what he planned on doing
I said good.
Fucking soothing. Sorry. The whole congratulations. You just admitted
the first step to actually take as attorney general would be committing
a felony and violating rule 60.
You're clearly the right candidate for this job.
So who's Jeff Clark?
An environmental lawyer with no experience relevant to leading the
entire Department of Justice.
What was his only qualification.
That he would do whatever the president wanted him to do, including
overthrowing a free and fair democratic election.
President Trump's campaign to bend the Justice Department to his
political will culminated in a showdown on January 3rd.
Today. We will take you inside that early evening Oval Office meeting.
We're top Justice Department officials met with the president.
At stake, the leadership and integrity of the Department of Justice.
The meeting, talked about another 2.5 hours from the time I entered
Um, it was entirely focused on whether there should be a T O. J leadership
change.
I was sitting directly in front of the president.
Jeff Rosen was to my right. Jeff Clark was to my left. He looked
at me and underscored the one thing we know
you're not gonna do anything. You don't
Not even agree that the concerns that are being presented balance.
Here's someone who has a different view. So
Why shouldn't I do that?
That's how the discussion
Proceeded, Jeff Clark was proposing
That
Jeff Rose and be replaced by Jeff Clark.
And
I thought the proposal was
Ass annoyed what we're Clark's purported basis for why it was in
the president's interest for him to step in. What would he do? What
would would things change? According to Mr Clark in the meeting
He repeatedly said to the president that if he was putting the seat,
he would conduct real investigations that would, in his view, uncover
widespread fraud.
He would send out the letter that he had drafted and that
This was
The last opportunity.
To sort of set things straight with this defective election and that
he could do it and he had the intelligence and the well and the desire.
To pursue these matters in the way that the president thought most
appropriate and he was making a pitch. And every time you get clobbered
over the head, he would like, say, like, You know what we could call
to order. You know, the president's Your decision. You get the chance
to make this decision and you know, you've heard everybody and you
can make your determination and then we jump back in.
And you know, really clobber him made the point that Jeff Clark is
not even confident to service, the attorney general.
He's never been a criminal attorneys never conducted a criminal investigation
in his life. He's never been in front range ary, much less a trial
jury. Um and he kind of retorted by saying, Well, I've done a lot
of very complicated.
Appeals, civil litigation, environmental litigation and things like
that, and I said, That's right. You're an environmental lawyer. How
about you go back to your office and we'll call you when there's
an oil spill.
And
Bologna weighed in. At one point, I remember saying
That letter that this guy wants to send that letter is a murder suicide
pact. It's going to damage everyone who touches it.
And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I don't ever want
to see that letter again.
And so we went along those lines. I thought Jeff's proposal. Of course
proposal was nuts. I mean, the guy to have a certain point, you know?
Listen, the best I can tell is the only thing you know about environmental
and elections challenges as they both start with e. And based on
your answer tonight. I'm not even sure. Do you know that?
The president's supposed. I do this. Suppose I replaced him Jeff
Rosen with him. Jeff Clark, What do you do?
Before us did the right thing.
But think about what happens if these justice officials make a different
decision.
What happens if they bow to the pressure?
What would that do to us as a democracy as a nation?
Imagine a future where the president could screen applicants to the
Justice Department with one question.
Are you loyal to me or to the Constitution?
And it wouldn't take long to find people willing to pledge their
loyalty to the man.
We know many of President Trump's vocal supporters on January 6th
also one of the Justice Department to do whatever you ask, as long
as it meant he could stay in power.
They made sure Justice Department officials heard his message as
they protested loudly.
In front of the department on their way to the capital on January
6th.
Prove yourself
your job. Your
job. Do your job lives in D. C. We're marching to the capital
at the Department of Justice right now telling me cowards to do their
job.
We're gonna take the capital.
I want to take a moment now to speak directly to my fellow Republicans.
Imagine the country's top prosecutor.
With the power to open investigations.
Subpoena charge crimes and seek imprisonment.
Imagine that official pursuing the agenda of the other party instead
of that of the American people as a whole.
And if you're a Democrat, imagine it the other way around.
Today. President Trump's total disregard for the Constitution and
his oath will be fully exposed.
Now, let's get this hearing underway so we can do our part to protect
the freedoms that we often take for granted so that we can see how
close we came.
To losing it all.