Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

January 6th Committee Reveals Evidence Showing Trump Pressured DOJ to Overturn U.S. Election; Feds Raid Home of Former DOJ Official Jeffrey Clark; Documentary Showed Trump Believes He Won, the Election Stolen. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired June 24, 2022 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:39]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Very good Friday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Poppy Harlow. We're glad you're with us.

We begin this morning with stunning new details on former President Trump's relentless efforts to weaponize the Department of Justice in his plot to try to overturn the 2020 election. The January 6th Committee is laying out new wide-ranging evidence showing how top Justice Department officials resisted repeatedly the former president's pressure campaign, as he demanded they seize voting machines, declare the election corrupt, and investigate conspiracy claims. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFREY ROSEN, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Between December 23rd and January 3rd, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day.

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, "DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election." How did the president respond to that, sir?

RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm

asking you to do, what I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Just say it was corrupt. We also learned that when top DOJ officials refused to back his false election claims, Trump wanted to install a little-known DOJ environmental attorney and Trump loyalist Jeffrey Clark as the acting attorney general. Just hours before yesterday's hearing, federal agents raided Clark's home. We're going to have much more on the details of that in just a moment.

First, though, let's begin with CNN political correspondent Sara Murray.

So a lot that stood out from yesterday's hearing yesterday, consequential because you have eyewitness accounts of what the president said in those moments. What was most consequential?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I mean, absolutely. And just the sort of intimate but also blunt assessment we got from these Justice Department officials as well as the White House lawyer in his video testimony about this plan and about how they were going to react to Jeffrey Rosen's plan or sorry, to Jeffrey Clark's plan if he was installed to try to investigate this voter fraud, how they would have responded. Take a listen to what some of these officials said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: When he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said, good (EXPLETIVE DELETED), excuse me, sorry -- congratulations, you just admitted the first step or act you take as attorney general would be committing a felony and violating Rule 6c. The best I can tell is the only thing you know about environmental and elections challenges is they both start with E and based on your answers tonight, I'm not even sure you know that.

STEVEN ENGEL, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: At that point, Pat Cipollone said yes, this is a murder-suicide pact, this letter.

ROSEN: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: You know, the optics of this, the mass departure from the Justice Department, ultimately stopped Donald Trump from going through with this sort of coup that he was planning, but there was other evidence that stood out. You know, you mentioned the handwritten notes by Richard Donoghue, where he essentially says he just wants -- the then President Trump just wanted them to say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest up to him and the Republican congressmen.

We also learned more about these pardons. You know, we've seen members of this committee sort of tease that they were going to put more information forth about the Republican lawmakers who sought pardons. They named a whole lot of names in the hearing yesterday, people like Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a number of these folks have said they didn't actually seek pardons or you're misunderstanding what was going on here. The committee of course says they have the proof. Back to you.

HARLOW: Sara Murray, thanks very much for all of that reporting. It was a really significant day yesterday and federal investigators also, we learned in the middle of all of this yesterday, conducted a search of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark's home. That's who Sara was just talking about. This happened on Wednesday.

SCIUTTO: CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez with us now.

Evan, tell us what exactly they were looking for in his home and why did they take the measures that they took to do so, to carry out this raid?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim and Poppy, it's an extraordinary thing for the -- for federal agents to show up at the home of, you know, someone who was obviously a former senior, former Justice Department official, who as you can tell was very nearly the acting attorney general at the end of the Trump administration.

[09:05:02]

And they would have had to tell a judge that there was reason to believe that there was criminal material that was evidence of a crime inside that home and that they couldn't just go and ask for it, they had to -- they had to believe that there was the possibility of the destruction of evidence. And so that sets the scene for this predawn search at the home of Jeffrey Clark.

He complains that he was made to stand outside in his pajamas, while agents conducted an hours long search, he says, that they took electronics from his home. Here's him on FOX News last night describing what he went through during this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFREY CLARK, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: At one point, you know, 12 agents and two Fairfax County police officers went into my house, searched it for three and a half hours. They even brought along something, Tucker, I've never seen before, or heard of, an electronic- sniffing dog, and they took all of the electronics from my house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREZ: Jim and Poppy, this is all part of the investigation that the Justice Department has going into the efforts to overturn the election. This search that happened at Jeffrey Clark's house happened during the time that there were searches -- sorry, there were subpoenas being served to the people involved in the fake electors scheme all over the country. There are seven states where the Trump campaign tried to essentially organize these fake electors.

And pretty much every one of those people and people who are associated with this effort either have gotten subpoenas, and if they haven't yet, they will be getting subpoenas according to sources we have talked to. So this is an investigation that is accelerating by the day here.

HARLOW: Evan, thank you for that and for obviously breaking that significant news on what happened at Clark's home.

Let's also bring in for this discussion as Evan sticks with us, CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, federal and white-collar criminal defense attorney, Caroline Polisi. Good morning, all of you.

Caroline, let me just 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?

CAROLINE POLISI, FEDERAL AND WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Poppy, the point -- it's not legally relevant per se that the words never came out of President Trump's mouth, I want you to break the law, you know, we talk a lot about criminal intent here in terms of, you know, 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 knowledge isn't necessarily relevant, so if you take an obstruction of an official proceeding charge, for example, the knowledge and intent requirement there is not necessarily one to defraud the United States, rather it's one to justice as the statute says, obstruct an official proceeding.

So if they took steps knowing that they wanted to impede or hinder the official Electoral Count Act, the counting of the votes, you know, it doesn't really matter what they thought with respect to voter fraud, it just had to do with whether or not they intended to really halt that proceeding and all of the evidence, Poppy, points to that they did. These hearings are just building one after the other.

SCIUTTO: Caroline, if I could just follow on that because as a layman when I look at this, first of all, we know the then president was told that the fraud claims -- told repeatedly by high level officials, fraud claims had no basis. He is claiming and we even have this from the documentary filmmaker to still have believed the election was stolen, but it strikes me again, I'm not the lawyer, but I mean, I can believe anything I want if it's in my interest or claim to believe anything I want if it's in my interest, right.

I mean, is that a defense? Does that defense I can claim to be the center fielder for the New York Mets, I'm not, or hope that I qualify for that or should be, but in a courtroom, does that stand up?

POLISI: Well, Jim, you're getting to what is known as an advice of counsel defense and it only really matters with respect to this one specific area, which is whether or not Trump could reasonably rely on, you know, these really, you know, as Bill Barr stated BS claims from these sort of, you know, nonteam normal attorneys, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, et cetera, whether or not he can reasonably rely on those assertions.

And again we're only really talking about with respect to a conspiracy to defraud the United States charge. Again, there are other charges at play here that he could not invoke an advice of counsel defense, so there is a lot going on here. [09:10:00]

The January 6th Committee is telling the story in a very compelling manner, and we're only, you know, five parts in, and we'll see whether or not they can sort of tie it all up in a nice little bow with this seditious conspiracy on top, tying President Trump to what we saw in that first hearing about the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, about really the violence that took place on that day.

HARLOW: Andy, let me ask you about the raid on Jeffrey Clark's home because Jamie Raskin, obviously who sits on this select committee, said last night that the committee was caught off guard by the raid on Clark, which would be normal, obviously, they wouldn't be given a heads up about that. It was conducted by the DOJ this week, to be clear to our viewers, not the committee.

I wonder what it tells you about the sort of case that the Department of Justice may be building here.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Sure. I think, Poppy, it's probably worth mentioning that one of the things that just amazes me with this whole situation is the man who -- Jeff Clark, who was a heartbeat away from being the attorney general, really his only understanding of search warrants is not having had one executed at his house. I think it goes to the way that Richard Donoghue described him as being so totally unprepared for the job of attorney general.

But nevertheless, the fact that the FBI had an agent and a prosecutor go before a judge, lay out a whole -- an affidavit full of facts about why they believe that a crime was committed by Jeff Clark and that evidence of that crime would be at his residence. A judge heard that pitch, signed a search warrant indicating that there was probable cause to believe there'd be evidence of a crime that Jeff Clark's house, and then they went out.

And it sounds like they executed a search warrant strictly according to the manual. So it tells you they are at a pretty fairly developed place in an ongoing investigation, one that's been going for some time, to have confidence in those facts to know they were going to go out and be able to get evidence at that location yesterday or the day before.

SCIUTTO: Evan, I'm curious, because you've been covering this from the beginning and you're aware as others are that there have been some criticism of the Justice Department from moving slowly on this in the eyes of some, but now we have this week subpoenas to key witnesses and we have this search of Clark's home. Are you hearing from inside the Justice Department that this is progressing? And, again, I know that these things are deliberately kept under wraps, but any sense of timeline?

PEREZ: We don't have a timeline, but you know, they are working, Jim and Poppy, on a five-year timeline. Generally these types of crimes have a five-year statute of limitations. I'm not sure what specific statute they're looking at here. So, you know, a year and a half in, I'm not surprised that it has taken this long because it does take time. The work that they do is they're building stuff up from the bottom up.

I would not be surprised if they have some cooperating witnesses. Again this is all part of this big scheme that now we know, you know, spans seven states, seven battleground states that the Trump campaign was trying to organize these electors. And, you know there is a lot of things that Jeffrey Clark was involved in, including trying to figure out how to get Georgia to send these fake electors to Washington on January 6th.

So there is a lot of things here that are ongoing and there is -- there are multiple investigations that are essentially crossing paths with each other, and on top of that, they're also prosecuting 850 people right now in federal court, in Washington, for the riot itself. And they're looking for another 250 or so that they expect to prosecute. So there is a lot on the table for these agents here in Washington.

And prosecutors who have been brought in from around the country to help with what is the most -- frankly the biggest investigation in the history of the Justice Department. It's not surprising to me it's taken this long, you know, and that it will take a little while longer to get to the bottom of all of this.

SCIUTTO: And in the sweep of history, just a remarkable week in terms of the evidence that's been revealed in these hearings.

PEREZ: Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: Including the president's own words, according to witnesses testifying under oath, his own words about attempting to over overturn the election.

Evan Perez, Andrew McCabe, Caroline Polisi, thanks so much. But do stay with us because we got just a few more questions for you. We also want to talk about the newly released clips from the filmmaker I referenced who followed Trump before, during and after the Capitol attack. What happened when he spoke to the January 6th Committee, the filmmaker there.

Plus, as the House is set to pass a bipartisan gun bill today, I'll speak live with the governor of Rhode Island who just signed three gun control bills into law in his state. They go much further than the congressional deal. But what does the Supreme Court decision mean for this law?

HARLOW: And later how inflation is making energy bills unsustainable for many Americans, just as temperatures reach dangerously high levels across the country.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:19:11]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: We won Georgia. We won Michigan. We won Pennsylvania. We won them all.

IVANKA TRUMP, DAUGHTER OF DONALD TRUMP: As the president has said, every single vote needs to be counted and needs to be heard. And he campaigned for the voiceless.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's interesting to see Ivanka Trump say that her father wanted every vote to be counted because Trump's mission in the days after the election was to stop the counting of votes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: That clip from "Unprecedented," the documentary focusing on former President Trump and his family during his final days in office, and surrounding the Biden transition, and, of course, the insurrection. We should note the documentary is from Discovery Plus, which, of course, shares the same parent company as CNN.

SCIUTTO: Last night CNN spoke with the filmmaker, Alex Holder, about Trump and his comments following his loss to President Joe Biden.

[09:20:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST, "DON LEMON TONIGHT": Did he at any point acknowledge that he lost?

ALEX HOLDER, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: No. He absolutely, genuinely believes that he won and that the election was stolen from him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Andrew McCabe, Caroline Polisi back with us.

Caroline, to that point, does it matter? If he convinced himself based on no evidence, despite and over the repeated reports from his senior lieutenants that the election was not stolen, does it matter that he still believed that dream?

POLISI: Right, well, again, with respect to the J6 Committee, the story that they're trying to tell, you know, not necessarily with respect to the criminal prosecution, the answer is maybe. But I would just note that it is illustrative of sort of this theme throughout Trump's presidency. Remember, we only got to Bill Barr because Trump removed Jeff Sessions because he wouldn't essentially be a yes, man. He recused himself from the Russia investigation.

These hearings are showing he's just going down the line farther and farther to see who will potentially be his ally and when he finally got the pushback that, no, you know, the entire Justice Department would resign, putting Jeff Clark in there, you know, that's when he stopped. But who is to say when he would have. And I think, you know, these inconsistencies with Ivanka's statements are just further, you know, along that path.

HARLOW: And, Andy, to Jim's point, I mean, the DOJ repeatedly gave clear information to Trump and everyone around him who would listen, no, it wasn't stolen, it wasn't rigged, it wasn't unfair, there was none of this nefarious action that you're claiming, so there was no evidence to back his claim, and then you have this Clark letter, right, which was -- he was told according to the testimony yesterday to states call the murder-suicide pact claiming the opposite, claiming well, DOJ does have some of this evidence. When DOJ was so clear on this, how would that play into even Trump's belief that he won?

MCCABE: Well, I think -- well, look, there is no question that Trump's belief becomes a primary leg of his defense, if in fact he's ever charged with anything, which is a big if. There is -- the jury, let's say that that case goes to a jury and Trump comes in and says, no, I actually legitimately believed and still believe that the election was stolen from me. Well, the prosecution will enter the kind of evidence you just referred to, Poppy.

There will be a litany of people, not just anyone, but lawyers, not just any lawyers, but Trump's own lawyers, Trump's campaign lawyers, Trump's Justice Department in the form of the men that we saw testify yesterday, all of whom will say that we very clearly and logically based on law and fact explained to him that he was wrong.

So looking at that conflicting evidence, Trump's claim that he believed it and this litany of witnesses that will testify that there is no way he could have, the jury is free to decide that Trump is not telling the truth and that it's just not even reasonable to think that someone in those circumstances wouldn't know, wouldn't be able to understand what they were being told, which is that the election was not stolen.

SCIUTTO: Remarkable to imagine, by the way, we don't know this can happen, but to imagine a jury trial of a former U.S. president.

Caroline, the British filmmaker Alex Holder who filmed that documentary, of course, he told CNN that the panel was interested among other things in raw footage of Ivanka Trump's comments like the one we just aired to examine whether there was any consistency. Earlier in the hearings we had that sound bite of hers played -- testimony I should say, where she said in effect she believed Bill Barr, that the election was not stolen. Then in here you have a comment that seems be saying she believed Trump.

I mean, what inconsistency and what exposure would that be for Ivanka, if they were to establish an inconsistency?

POLISI: Yes, absolutely. And, remember, Ivanka was not just, you know, the president's favorite child, but she was actually a senior adviser to the 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, you know, a real complete 180 in terms of what she said in her interviews, whether or not they, you know, 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, you know, few words, but very impactful and it resonates. And so to hear her say that she, you know, believed Bill Barr, well, it's 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, you know, willful blindness, well, you really should have known that, you know, there was no election fraud and Ivanka's testimony goes to that.

[09:25:01]

SCIUTTO: Just like I should know I'm not the center fielder for the New York Mets and never will be.

HARLOW: Not yet.

SCIUTTO: And rightfully --

HARLOW: Not today. Not today. Maybe tomorrow. Andy McCabe, Caroline Polisi, thanks both very much. Have a great weekend.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead, the same day the Supreme Court hands a blow to gun restrictions, the Senate has advanced its biggest gun safety bill in some 30 years. Next, how four senators finally got a gun deal that no one really thought was possible.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: In just hours, House lawmakers will vote on the first major piece of federal.