thank you so much.
Rep. Schiff: Thank you.
Judy: To further understand
today's hearing I am joined by
journalist Garrett Graff, author
of "Watergate: A new history."
And Ned Foley, who directs Ohio
state university's election law
program and is the former
solicitor general of Ohio.
We welcome both of you to the
program.
Ned, I am going to start with
you.
What stood out to you today?
We have been discussing for
several minutes what happened at
today's hearing.
What stood out to you?
Ned: Great to be with you.
You played the clip that made
the strongest impression on me.
That was the moment where rig
Jacob -- Greg Jacob said that
Eastman essentially confessed he
would not want a democratic vice
president like Al gore, Kamala
Harris, to have this power.
That is just a confession of how
partisan this whole enterprise
was.
And I think that put the
exclamation point of how
wrongful this was for our
country.
Judy: And Garrett, this in
question, and especially as
someone who has spent so much
time studying watergate.
Including the watergate
hearings.
What struck you about today?
Garrett: Today was just a
stunningly historic hearing in
American democracy.
And what I think really stood
out to me, too echo and rephrase
what Ned was saying, is that it
is absolutely crazy we had a
congressional hearing today,
largely focused on debunking the
very obviously wrong idea that
the vice president of the united
States has a chance in our
electoral system to choose a
different president than the
people.
That came through in judge
luttig's testimony, in Jacob's
testimony, the basic common
sense rejected the president's
argument, rejected John
Eastman's argument, and yet they
pushed forward with it.
One of the things that stood out
to me in this hearing and the
last couple of hearings has been
how isolated the president
really was in these final weeks.
That president trump's most
senior aides, vice president
pence's most senior aides, all
told him he was wrong, and that
he was doing something that was
illegal and unconstitutional,
and against the very basic
tenants of American democracy.
And yet, he persisted.
Judy: It's clear, Ned Foley, the
former vice president, Mike
pence, was at the center of so
much of today.
You were telling us this
afternoon that you still have
questions about how Mike pence
handled all of this.
Garrett: -- Ned: Yes.
He did the right thing on
January 6.
There is no doubt about that.
He rejected president trump's
attempt to abuse the process in
the way we were talking about.
But I still have questions about
the timeline between when the
electoral college voted in
mid-december, then the days and
weeks leading up to January 6.
Some people may remember,
senator Mitch Mcconnell
acknowledged president Biden's
victory right after the
electoral college voted.
And said that was the time for
closure.
Because all of the lawsuits were
over by then, under the
constitution, when the electoral
college votes, that is really
the end of the process.
All congress does is count the
votes.
I can't help but imagine how
December into early January
might have unfolded if vice
president pence had given a
concession speech analogous to
what senator Mcconnell did,
acknowledging that president
Biden -- President-Elect Biden
had won by that point.
I'm glad he did the right thing
on January 6.
But I still have questions about
mid-december to early January.
Judy: Garrett, do you have
similar questions?
Garrett: I do.
One of the things that really
did stand out in the hearing
today is the extent to which
Mike pence really investigated
the claims from Eastman, went
through a listening tour to try
to understand whether he had
this power and what we now
understand from the hearing and
the testimony is that it was
soundly rejected by all of his
aides, his leadership, and we
also heard today, even calls
from former speaker Paul Ryan
two pence's office to say hey,
Micah knows he can't do this,
right?
Judy: Just picking up on that,
Ned Foley, as Garrett Graff is
saying, there was an effort on
the part of the vice president
to ask about the arguments being
made to him.
As if he wanted to be sure he
understood what the choices
were, if there was a choice.
Garrett: I think that's right.
I think it is important to focus
on two different parts of this.
One part which was the primary
focus of today's hearing was
this idea that the vice
president, as a single
individual, could control the
outcome.
And again, it sounds like vice
president pence's immediately,
instinctively rejected that, as
well he should have.
Again, we would not want any
vice president to do that in any
circumstance.
That is where the reference to
Florida 2000 in bush versus gore
is useful.
Because, that was a single
state, very close,, and even in
that conch -- in that context,
you would not want vice
president more to say, I'm going
to decide myself.
As we were saying before, you
have to put today's hearing
together with Monday's.
What Monday told us is that
former attorney general Barr
said this whole predicate was
nonsense.
The campaign advisor said the
same thing.
The idea that this theory would
be used when there was no
predicate at all is even more
outrageous.
Given it was baseless from the
beginning, why didn't the vice
president come forward early and
say, there is no role for me as
vice president, and in my role
as a candidate, for reelection,
I should acknowledge our ticket
lost.
Judy: Garrett, back to the
question, the central point we
are told, one of the central
points the committee very much
wants to make, and that is to
draw -- to offer evidence that
president trump directed the
attack on the capital.
Are you seeing that evidence so
far in these hearings?
Ned: What we are seeing, hear
two hearing, is the building of
a very strong case that Donald
Trump knew what he was doing was
wrong, was being told what he
was doing was wrong, and yet,
continued to build this
multifaceted pressure campaign
against the institutions that
protected the election, whether
that is the justice department,
whether that is the state
election officials, or whether
that is vice president pence
certifying the electoral vote.
And there, I do think -- you
asked about watergate.
I do think there is a
distinction that we should draw
here between Richard Nixon's
crimes, which were many and
terrible and came out through
the result of those watergate
hearings in the summer of 1973,
but were fundamentally all
abuses of power and crimes
against the American people.
Abuses of civil liberty, abuses
of executive power.
Donald Trump's crimes here very
clearly target the heart of
American democracy.
That, to me, is a different
order of magnitude of severity.
And it is one that the committee
is making a very strong argument
that this is one of the most
serious crimes we have ever seen
committed in the United States.
And in fact, judge luttig today,
one of the most conservative
voices in the judicial
establishment, made the case
that had Donald Trump succeeded,
it would have been the nation's
first and most severe
constitutional crisis in its
history.
Judy: We certainly took notes
when we heard that.
Garrett Graff, Ned Foley, thank
you both.
We want to remind that the next
January 6 committee hearing is
scheduled for this coming
Tuesday, June 21.
It will begin at 1:00 P.M.
Eastern and we will again have
live coverage here on pbs on
television and online.