WHAT WE FOUND in our investigation into former President Trump’s campaign to pressure DOJ to overturn the 2020 Election.
⬇️⬇️⬇️
On Jan 22, @ktbenner reported that Acting AAG Jeffrey Clark sought to involve DOJ in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results & plotted with then-President Trump to oust Acting AG Jeffrey Rosen, who reportedly refused Trump’s demands. /1 nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/…
Two days later, @JessBravin & @sgurman reported that Trump had urged DOJ to file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate President Biden’s victory. /2 wsj.com/articles/trump…
The Senate Judiciary Committee immediately launched an investigation into these reports. On January 23, we asked DOJ to produce documents related to these efforts, which led to the receipt of several hundred pages of calendars, emails, & other documents in the ensuing months. /3
The Committee interviewed key former DOJ personnel, including Rosen, former Principal Associate Deputy AG Richard Donoghue, and former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Byung Jin (“BJay”) Pak.
The Committee requested to interview Jeffrey Clark, whom DOJ authorized to testify in July. Clark still has not agreed to the Committee’s request that he sit for a voluntary interview. Today, Chair @SenatorDurbin asked the D.C. Bar to conduct a review of Clark's conduct. /5
Today, October 7, the Committee Majority staff released a 394-page report detailing the investigation thus far, including 6 key findings.
FINDING 1: President Trump repeatedly asked DOJ leadership to endorse his false claims that the election was stolen & assist his efforts to overturn the election results, beginning on the day AG Barr announced his resignation and cumulating to the January 6 insurrection. /7
FINDING 2: White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asked Acting Attorney General Rosen to initiate election fraud investigations on multiple occasions, violating longstanding restrictions on White House-DOJ communications about specific law enforcement matters. /8
FINDING 3: After personally meeting with Trump, Jeffrey Bossert Clark pushed Rosen and Donoghue to assist Trump’s election subversion scheme—and told Rosen he would decline Trump’s potential offer to install him as Acting Attorney General if Rosen agreed to aid that scheme. /9
FINDING 4: Trump allies with links to the “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6 insurrection participated in the pressure campaign against DOJ, including U.S. Representative Scott Perry (R-PA), PA State Sen. Doug Mastriano, and Trump campaign advisor Cleta Mitchell. /10
FINDING 5: Trump forced the resignation of U.S. Attorney Byung Jin (“BJay”) Pak, whom he believed was not doing enough to address false claims of election fraud in Georgia. Trump then went outside the line of succession when naming an Acting U.S. Attorney. /11
FINDING 6: By pursuing false claims of election fraud before votes were certified, DOJ deviated from longstanding practice meant to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in the election. DOJ took overt steps to investigate false claims of election fraud before certification. /12
More will come to light. We're still waiting on additional Trump White House records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), dating back to November 3, 2020. And we will conduct additional witness interviews as appropriate. /13
At this point in our investigation, we can say that, without a doubt, Donald Trump’s efforts to spread his "Big Lie" and undermine the results of the election helped incite almost 1,000 Americans to breach the Capitol in a violent insurrection on January 6, 2021.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here's the big picture: Donald Trump’s efforts to spread his "Big Lie" and undermine the results of the election helped incite the violent insurrection on January 6, 2021.
While the Committee continues our investigation, HERE are our recommendations for next steps (so far) ⬇️
The Judiciary Committee report highlights several ways in which bad-faith actors can exploit DOJ policy and norms to provide a platform for election fraud claims—even when the claims are not backed by any credible evidence—and insert DOJ unnecessarily in political controversies.
The following are potential legislative and oversight steps to strengthen DOJ’s protections against politicization of its investigative and prosecutorial powers and additional measures that should be taken in response to this episode:
There was a claim made in today's exec meeting that Vanita Gupta has the "potential of being the most dangerous nominee to the Department of Justice." Yet she has broad support from law enforcement and conservatives.
Why do Republicans keep attacking qualified women of color?
If the fear is "defund the police," Vanita Gupta does NOT support defunding the police. But you know what does? Voting against the state and local aid in the American Rescue Plan, which included support for law enforcement. And who voted against the ARP? Every Senate Republican.
Take it from the FOP’s executive director, Jim Pasco: “You know what defunding the police is? Holding up the state and local aid bill, the COVID package. That’s de-facto defunding the police. A vote against that legislation is a vote to defund the police.”
Republicans: Vanita Gupta wants to defund the police.
Wrong. In fact, Gupta stated unequivocally she opposes defunding the police. Plus, Gupta’s nomination has been praised by virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country.
Houston Chief of Police Art Acevedo said during a conference call that “It gets a little old: Elected officials stand for the blue, they back the blue... Well, guess what? There is unanimous support [for Vanita Gupta] from all the major law enforcement groups in this country.”
The Fraternal Order of Police wrote that Ms. Gupta, “always worked with us to find common ground even when that seemed impossible.”
This is a debunked and hypocritical talking point. Republicans falsely claim that Judge Garland refused to answer all of their nearly 850 questions, but were ok with former AG Barr evading question after question posed by Democrats AND Republicans. Let's take a look (THREAD)
Remember when AG Barr said he wouldn’t comment about the Zero Tolerance Initiative that drove the Trump family separation policy because he didn’t know all its details?
Remember when AG Barr was asked what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor under the Constitution and replied that he had “not studied” the question?