TOP

Soumya Dayananda

Chapters

The FRONTLINE Interviews

Soumya Dayananda

Soumya Dayananda served as senior investigative counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. For more than a decade prior, she was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York. She is currently a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher in Washington, D.C.

This interview offers perspective and legal analysis on the four-count federal indictment against Donald Trump. The former president has pleaded not guilty to all four counts.

The interview was conducted by Kirk Documentary Group’s Mike Wiser for FRONTLINE on Oct. 12, 2023. It has been edited for clarity and length.

This interview appears in:

Democracy on Trial

Text Interview:

Highlight text to share it

The Indictment of Donald Trump

When you hear there's a federal indictment against the former president for his actions after the election, the run-up to Jan. 6, what do you think when you read it, when you hear that news?

The Mar-a-Lago indictment had come out before, right, so that was a kind of point where at least he was going to be held accountable federally for one set of actions.But on Aug. 1, when the federal indictment came down about his efforts to overturn the election, it was—the instant reaction was that it was validating for the committee's work.And I think the news broke.I rushed home to watch [special counsel] Jack Smith's press conference and read the indictment word for word, and was really impressed to see the work that myself and our colleagues had put together, the fact-gathering, kind of repackaged in the form of this indictment, with the conspiracy laid out.

And when you compare it to the titles of the committee hearings or to the chapters of the book, how does it relate, the indictment, to the way you had organized the story, the “multipart conspiracy”?

Right. It very much reflected the hearing layout, which Ms. [Liz] Cheney had laid out a multipronged conspiracy led by the former president.And the indictment reflected that, in many ways, the conspiracy to undermine the Department of Justice, the pressure on the vice president, the pressure on state elected officials.So all of these conspiracies that were laid out were featured in the summer hearings.There was some new information, of course, but largely it reflected the work that was in the report and that much of the public had learned already during the hearings.

And separate from your work, how big a deal is it that a former president is charged with this particular set of actions, for actions that he took while he was president of the United States?

Historically it's huge in the sense of the actions that he took.I would separate the actions versus the indictment, right?So to have actually seen what he, as far as how wide the conspiracy was and how focused he was to stay in office, and the incredible efforts that he and his allies took, to know that those actions were now being held accountable for a former president is historic.And it's really, as someone who's a former prosecutor, incredibly validating to see the process work.So the facts that we gathered as a congressional committee will be tested in a courtroom, which are two very different things.

And how high are the stakes in a moment like that for the rule of law, for the country, with this trial coming up?

I think it's incredibly important.I think the committee received criticism initially that it was partisan, and it wasn't being viewed as a balanced presentation of facts.And here, witnesses will take the stand.They'll be cross-examined.There will be a judge holding people in the courtroom accountable.The former president will have able counsel representing him.And that's how the system should work, and it will continue to work.And it's been tested over time.So I think that's where the rule of law will prevail, and that's what's important for the American people to see.

And I do think, in some respect, that's what the American people are more accustomed to seeing, a criminal trial versus a congressional investigation with the number of hearings that we had.It's two very different things.

The January 6 Committee’s Process

… You had prosecuted complicated criminal cases before.Did it feel like a criminal investigation, like a Mafia or a gang investigation, as the committee is trying to get close to these events?

It felt like a very vast conspiracy, because there would be these overlap of events, which, if you've prosecuted long-term organizations, you try to organize indictments by events.So when someone is talking about an event that happened, whether it's the Dec. 18 White House meeting or the Dec. 21 meeting with congressional members at the White House, there's other activity that you—that happened after that.

So, for example, on the Dec. 18 White House meeting, the tweet that goes out at 2:00 a.m. happens right after that.¹

New York Times: ‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’

So to be able to build that narrative is something that felt very much like you were building a narrative, and whether it leads to an indictment or not, that's what it means to investigate.You take a vast amount of facts, and you try to put it within a story, a timeline, and then you see these overlapping of characters and themes, and that's what felt familiar in terms of criminal investigation.

You were working mostly in secret for an extended period of time.There's a lot of questions about what can the committee actually add to all of this.And then you're going towards this very public hearing, the first prime-time hearing.What was that like?What was the first hearing like?What was the anticipation of it like, and to be in the room?

It was nerve-wracking, the first one.It was a prime-time hearing.There was a lot of pressure to get it right.We had already committed, I think, to eight hearings over the course of the summer, and it was clear that that would set the tone for how the rest of the hearings would then be perceived.So I think it was an 8:00 p.m. hearing.I remember being in the building at 3:00 p.m., and just there was nervous energy as to how everything would be able to go, whether it would run flawlessly.We had a tremendous amount of production involved.So without having seen that happen before, obviously there was tremendous anticipation.

As you say, there’s this production involved, which is unlike other congressional hearings, and unlike, really, any congressional hearing.What was going on behind the scenes? …

Our office was on one floor, and James Goldston's team was on the floor right above us, and they came in about a month before the hearings started and just were incredibly professional and offered their perspective that, frankly, as lawyers, we don't have, in terms of being storytellers.I think a lot of us can convince people, a box of 12 people, to vote one way when you're a prosecutor, but to really educate millions of viewers outside the confines of a courtroom is a completely different skill.

So the collaboration that we had with these producers was incredibly important.So for each hearing, there would be a senior trial counsel or a counsel essentially paired up with a producer.We would review all of the transcripts, pick out what the important pieces were, and then to hear the perspective of what might be important to a lawyer versus what might be important to a producer are sometimes two different things.But as part of that process, I think we were able to put together a compelling narrative of some of the vignettes of the activity of the former president during that time.

The Case Presented by the January 6 Committee

…Liz Cheney lays out where you were headed and this “multi-part conspiracy” that's going to be detailed in the hearings, in the report.And if you watched that, is she outlining the case that will eventually end up in the indictment?

Whether she knew it or not, I think that's exactly what happened.Each of the multipronged conspiracy that she spoke of at hearing one is what's laid out in the indictment, so—and what was in the criminal referrals, obviously, for the December hearing and then ultimately published in the report.So yes, to see that the indictment tracks that pretty accurately is really what—she was prescient at that point.

… A place where it all begins is election night.And the committee talks about—gets testimony from members of the campaign, talking about Giuliani on one side, Jason Miller, Bill Stepien on the other.Why is that night so important?

I think it's that night, but it's the weeks and months preceding that, that no matter what happened, even if it was declared at 6:00 p.m. that the former president had lost the election, he was going to say he won and I think that was pretty clear from what witnesses had said beforehand.So to hear the witnesses say that they told him, “You lost the election,” and then to hear him say, “I won,” was consistent with what had been expected.That was the significance of it.But again, if you had investigated what happened before that, it wouldn't have been a shock that that's what the former president was going to say on that day.

… One of those things … some people have told us that the committee added to the story was a lot of evidence about the president's mental state, about his intent at each of these moments.What does it tell you about his intent, about his eventual criminal liability, potential criminal liability, to have the campaign staff saying one thing and Rudy Giuliani, allegedly intoxicated, on the other side?

Well, I think as a prosecutor, proving intent is an incredibly different, difficult thing.You don't have an X-ray into someone's mind.To be able to prove intent, it comes down to those conversations, so proving the intent that he intended to undermine the 2020 election comes down to him knowing that he lost the election.So those conversations are critically important.For him to say, “I won. I believed I won,” and then you're able to point to multiple conversations from multiple witnesses who say, “No.In fact, we told you that you lost,” that is something that goes directly to his knowledge and that's incredibly key in proving the indictment.

How important is it to have, on video, Jason Miller, Bill Stepien, the campaign staff?

Right. All of these people worked for the former president.They're all high-level Republican officials, so I think that that was somewhat of the game changer for the hearings, was to see these people who worked for the former president, who were in his administration, who voted for him, speaking truth and saying, “I told the president that he lost,” or “I told him that these claims were bulls---,” as [former U.S. Attorney General] Bill Barr said.And for the Department of Justice officials, for each of them to look to the president, look him in the eye, and say, “There is no credibility to these so-called fraud in any of these states,” that's incredibly a compelling testimony.

… One of the other things I'll ask you about—maybe it doesn't go directly to his knowledge of things, but one of the things the committee plays that's very powerful is this audio recording of Steve Bannon saying the president is going to say he won, no matter what; of Roger Stone also talking about what's going to happen even before the Election Day.What's the power of that when the committee plays it, finds evidence like that?

Steve Bannon was senior adviser to the former president, so for these people who were really his strongest allies to be advocating what he intends to do, you know that's only coming from him, right?It's not someone who's distant from him or removed from him in any way.These are his closest people saying he's going to declare victory, no matter what.So there's credibility in that.You can rely on that as essentially Steve Bannon being a proxy for the former president.So that's where it becomes a reflection of the president's knowledge and intent, because it is his co-conspirators are sharing that goal of saying that the election is stolen in an effort to overturn it.

As the committee lays it out, there's two things going on in those early days after the election.On one hand, there's the campaign staff, who becomes called “Team Normal.”I don't know if they call themselves that or that gets applied to them.And on the other side, there's Rudy Giuliani.What does it tell you that there's these two groups inside the campaign and this choice that the president has to make?

I think it goes, again, to his intent.He's going to find the people that he wants to hear from, who will say what he wants to happen, that the election was stolen, and that he really sought them out.I mean, he disregarded the advice and guidance that his own attorney general was providing him and looked to people like Sidney Powell.… He wanted to name her special counsel to investigate the so-called election fraud.… It's almost a conscious avoidance of the reality, and he made significant steps to seek out people who would affirm his own belief.

A lot of it seemed to be happening in public.One of the things that the public saw was, on Nov. 7, the networks call the election, and Rudy Giuliani is at Four Seasons Total Landscaping saying there was fraud in the election, without a lot of specifics.²

Associated Press: Four Seasons Total Landscaping Press Conference

And it seemed like a joke.They weren't at the real Four Seasons.I don't know if you thought it was funny at the time, but when you look back at it now and know what was going on, was it a humorous moment?Was it a serious moment?

I think there's many moments you can find humorous if you don't think about the big picture of what was happening, right?So to hold a press conference at a landscaping company that you thought was the actual five-star hotel, sure, it's like a comedy routine.But what he was doing and saying and how it impacted people, that this election was stolen, that they had proof that it was stolen, that's what drove the people to come on Jan. 6.So you can see that there's really, while there's moments of laughter about it, really ultimately, every single time Giuliani spoke these lies, people listened, and people reacted, and people showed up.

The indictment lists a moment that's the beginning of the conspiracy, which is that choice that we talked about, that choice to push Rudy Giuliani to lead things and to push down the Team Normal.

… How important a decision was it for the president to say, “Rudy Giuliani is going to lead this effort, not the campaign staff, not the campaign lawyers, but Rudy Giuliani”?

At that point, I don't know who he had left, right?That's reflective of who left him, who was not going to support this notion that the election was stolen.So to use Rudy Giuliani as your voice to say the election was stolen, it's reflective of desperation, because at that point, it's unclear how respected Rudy Giuliani was.Certainly he didn't have his fall from grace right before Jan. 6.It had been happening years before.So that is a real reflection of the former president just not having any credible person to back his claims.

I guess that's part of the value of the attorney general of the United States calling it a clown show, talking about Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, Giuliani, that that's part of that evidence; that that decision Trump was making was an intentional one.

Absolutely.Again, because you have everyone on the other side telling him otherwise.If you didn't have the people who testified for the committee to say, “I told the president there is no evidence of widespread election fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election,” then the “clown car” becomes more prevalent.But the people who were the Team Normal, that they're ignoring those people, really reflects his intent to follow this path.

…How important was Barr's deposition?When it happened, did it send a ripple through the committee to know that you had the former attorney general speaking so frankly?

It was incredibly important because you had the former AG, who was involved at that critical time.Obviously he was the AG on the weeks before the election, the day of the election, Dec. 1, when he issued the statement that there was no widespread fraud that affected the outcome of the election.³

Associated Press: Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud

And then when he announced that he was stepping down in mid-December, those are critical moments preceding Jan. 6, that it was publicly known within the Department of Justice, and they are telling the nation that the election was legitimate.To have him go through methodically those conversations with the former president was incredibly, incredibly powerful.

… One of the things that the committee does, it says the next day he records a video where he repeats allegations that Barr had disputed, and the committee puts together a montage and a table in the report, where they're laying out what the president was told and what he said.How impactful was that, to be able to show that?And what was the point that's being made?And what did you find when you put all of those examples together?

It's incredible to see it in a visual manner, right?So you have the conversations of “This is bullshit,” or, “No, Mr. President, this is not what we found in Pennsylvania or Michigan,” whatever the state is.And then the next day, whether it's a tweet or whether it's a press conference or whether he's calling into a conference to say the exact opposite, it's important to show that he is incredibly aware of what he is being told and just ignores it, blatantly ignores it to push this idea that the election was stolen.So that juxtaposition of a credible person like Bill Barr talking to the president, the president then immediately ignoring that and saying the exact opposite, really goes to show you what the president's intent was, and that was to stay in power at all costs.

So the indictment says this is part of the conspiracy, and one defense that the president might say is, or supporters might say is, “Yeah, politicians lie all the time, and lies are not illegal.Why is this part of the indictment?”So that's my question to you: Why are the lies part of the indictment?

So I think that Jack Smith really addresses that issue up front in the preamble of the indictment, in that you can challenge the outcome of an election; you can litigate it.There's paths to actually voice your grievance, which is completely separate from taking action and spreading a lie.

So I think that is an important point that the American public should be aware of, that of course President Trump had his right to challenge the election, and at some point, that becomes exhausted when 61 cases don't go your way.But then to put pressure on state officials, then to put pressure on the Department of Justice, then to put pressure on the vice president, all of these additional steps and spreading this lie that the election was stolen, it's critical to understand that part of what you do in the beginning is OK—that's what the system allows for—but this next stage that he took is why he's under a criminal indictment.

And the other defense, yeah, maybe if you had heard the attorney general, you would have believed him, but the president didn't; he's in his own world, and he did believe the fraud.Do you give any merit to that defense?

I don't, because again, it's all going to come down to credibility of who was putting forth that defense, right?When you have credible witnesses who are educated on the topic of whether there indeed was election fraud taking the stand and saying, “We told him there was none,” then to put forth a defense of, “Well, we didn't believe those people,” there is going to be common sense of these jurors that comes into play.Why wouldn't you believe Attorney General Barr?And if it's for your own self-interests to stay in power, then that's the reason that you're not believing him, not because you have independent knowledge of actual fraud.

Pressure of State and Local Officials

One of the chapters that the committee tells is the story of pressure on states, which I think comes in different ways in stopping the certification or getting the legislatures involved.What's important to know about the state-pressure aspect of this multipart conspiracy?

I think what was incredibly important and compelling, particularly for the summer hearings, was hearing from [Georgia election workers] Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman.And at that point, I think before, you had high-level government officials who were involved.You had [Georgia Secretary of State] Brad Raffensperger, who people were aware about that phone call.But to put the face of these women whose lives had been completely destroyed because the president simply targeted them as people who undermined the election, I think that's where the story about the state-pressure campaign becomes real, and it's not just abstract.And to just see how their lives got turned upside down, I think that was a turning point for the public in terms of our role in educating them as to how extensive this conspiracy was.To see the impact on poll workers was something that was really compelling.

Do you remember your personal reaction when you saw that?There's one particular clip of Ruby Freeman saying, “Why me?”

It was incredibly, incredibly sad.There are so many people across this country who volunteer to help with elections, from giving water out to driving to pick people up to go to the polls that day.And these people, they were volunteers and wanted to help ensure that the votes were counted right.And it was just incredibly, incredibly sad to see the most powerful man in this country wreck these women's lives was really just awful to see.

In their story and in a lot of the state-pressure story, … there's violence; there's threats that are bubbling up.How are those related to the statements the president is making, that Rudy Giuliani is making?What did the committee find about this sort of growing violence?

Sure. Again, I think with the timeline of it all, there was the Dec. 18 meeting that I mentioned, and then there was the tweet Dec. 19.And the committee found, and it was testified to by a number of law enforcement officials, that after that Dec. 19 “Be there. Will be wild!” tweet, that the amount of violent rhetoric on social media increased by tenfold.So that's the impact, right?Then you know that, once he announces that he himself is going to be there on Jan. 6, that's another inflection point, that there's more people who are going to then come on Jan. 6.So that impact of the spreading of the lie and which then runs hand in hand with some of these violent posts that were found on Parler, for example, really goes to the weeks right before Jan. 6 and the increase of this, the kind of the violent atmosphere that it was in place for Jan.6.

“Will be Wild!” Tweet

… So you've talked about it already, but maybe we could talk in a little more detail, because it does seem crucial, which is that tweet that he sends early in the morning of Dec. 19, where he says, “Will be wild!”He has the date, Jan. 6.What is the context for that?What do you know about his intent in sending that?

Well, I think it goes back to the meeting on Dec. 18, where there was a number of “Team Crazy,” as they were called, who were advising the president.Attached to that Dec. 19 tweet is Peter Navarro’s report claiming that there was election fraud.So I think what's important about that tweet and kind of the timeline in the weeks following is the level of the frenzy, of the desperation, and just pursuing as many different paths to stay in power as possible.… One of the pursuits was getting people to come on Jan. 6, and that's where it essentially started to reach the masses, right?That was through that tweet and through the tweets that followed.

The indictment is pretty stark.It says, “After cultivating widespread anger and resentment for weeks with his knowingly false claims, the defendant urged his supporters to travel to Washington on the day of the certification.”Does that match the story that you guys found?

I think that that does, in broad terms.Clearly the indictment isn't the entire story or the entire amount of evidence that the special counsel's office has.But as a segue into the greater point there, where I think that paragraph is taken from, I think that that's the right way to couch it, because while we referred for seditious conspiracy, obviously that wasn't a charge of the indictment, so that level of the language used in the tweets or in the speech really isn't as important as the days before and weeks before, as to what led them there.

But he obviously rallies his supporters, as you said.What did the committee find about the extremist supporters, and how did they interpret the tweet, inside militia groups and Oath Keepers and others?

The Red Team that was focused on the individuals who came, the protesters who came, I think it was consistent that this was something that they cited, that “I am here because the president asked me to be here.”I think there was one hearing that focused on the impact of the former president's own words on the individuals who showed up.So I think it did matter.Everything that he said, whether it was through tweets, through press conferences, mattered to the people who showed up.And if he hadn't have said that, “I want to see you there,” the likelihood would have been less people would have showed up on Jan. 6, just like it impacted the prior two rallies.

Pressure of the Department of Justice

… So the next chapter I think you know more about, which is the pressure on the Department of Justice.You were involved in helping to present the DOJ.What was the story you were trying to tell in that hearing or in that chapter?

So that hearing really did focus on the pressure campaign that started on Attorney General Barr and then, once he actually resigned from the department, shifted to Jeffrey Rosen.So Jeffrey Rosen was named in mid-December as the acting attorney general, and the importance of the hearing was to show how it was essentially a relentless and daily pressure campaign from the former president on DOJ to declare that there was widespread fraud.And even more so, it was just for them to declare that there was an investigation happening.Whether that investigation actually was going to happen or whether there would be a conclusion to that investigation didn't matter.He just wanted them to state that there was an investigation into election fraud, which obviously they would not do because there was no evidence pointing to widespread fraud.

... So I think the point of the hearing was to be able to put faces to this pressure campaign, to show the credibility of these public servants who were long-standing Department of Justice officials, and it really put in a timeline of events of mid-December until Jan. 6 and then culminating with the Jan. 3 Oval Office showdown, where the former president wanted to essentially put in Jeff Clark as the attorney general so he could make the declaration that there was fraud in the election, but also send a letter to the Georgia Assembly to reconvene because the Department of Justice had found that there was widespread fraud, which, again, was not the case.

Can you tell me about interviewing Jeffrey Rosen?Was he a reluctant witness?He was definitely a Trump supporter.He was a Trump-appointed Justice Department official and acting attorney general.

Sure.I think that Jeffrey Rosen, as he came across during the hearing, as he was during the deposition, very, very much a career Department of Justice official, very much sworn to the Constitution to uphold his job and uphold the rule of law, and he was incredibly thoughtful throughout the deposition with his answers.There wasn't a moment where any of these officials who came in were happy to be there.That wasn't the case, but they were forthright and candid and explicit about their conversations with former President Trump, which was incredibly important.

And the impact of a moment where he says something like, “The president said, ‘The election was corrupt, and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,’” when you hear testimony from Rosen or from [acting Deputy Attorney General Richard] Donoghue or from others repeating a statement like that from the president, what's the impact of it?What does it mean? Why does it matter?

So I think the “‘Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to the Republican congressmen,’” that was in Rich Donoghue's notes, which becomes even more compelling, because those are his contemporaneous notes that he took during the conversation on Dec. 27.So to know that, that lends itself credibility to the words that were spoken, and he had it in quotes that it came from the former president.So it was in those moments where you have obviously a credible witness like Rich Donoghue, corroborated by his own contemporaneous notes, gives even more gravitas to that moment of what the president is actually saying to him, that it's just a declaration that the election was corrupt.So then he could then, essentially again, stay in power, with the help of his Republican allies in Congress.

There's meetings, and then there's this phone call that you mentioned, this Dec. 27, that apparently goes on for hours, and involves yet again a fact discussion of the fraud allegations and Trump's response.What is the story that they tell, and what does that say about Trump at this point, at the end of December?

I think it was Bill Barr who called it “whack-a-mole,” that he would bring up something and they'd just have to dismiss it.And that was happening … from the election night to mid-December.But this call was Dec. 27, so it's still been weeks later, and the allegations continued, whether it was the truckload of ballots or whether it was the Dominion voting machines.All of these things were investigated and found not to be credible, and I think that those conversations really just go to show how relentless Donald Trump was, how he was so focused on using the department for his own devices and not for the good of the people or the public.It was more so he thought this was his own personal Department of Justice, and he could get these officials to do what he wanted them to do, which obviously they weren't willing to do and actually know how the department works, how the FBI works, and stood up to him to continuously relay to him that it had indeed been investigated, and it was baseless.

So I think those conversations, on one side, show desperation from the former president, but from the department side, show how absolutely thoughtful these officials were in terms of dealing with the president and obviously maintaining the rule of law.

Any sense from talking to them that the president was interested in the facts, wanted to know why they didn't believe them, was engaging with them on that level?

I think that it was clear from the depositions that there was no interest in the actual investigation.It was solely to reach the conclusion that there was fraud, right?So whether it was engaging with them or not, you would hear Rich Donoghue go through the analysis of why the ASOG [Allied Security Operations Group] report isn't accurate, and it sounded like it fell on dead ears.

And I guess that's why he says, “Just say the election was corrupt.”That's all he wants.Why does he want that?How does that help him for the Justice Department to say that the election was corrupt?

Sure. So I think at that point, he had realized that he had lost credibility, right?They hadn't found the evidence.This is Dec. 27.Many of the cases had been lost, and there wasn't anything to support him.But if you have the Department of Justice making this declaration that there is widespread fraud, that revives you.That gives you the ability to then say to the public, “The Department of Justice, which is key law enforcement in the country, is telling you, the American people, that there was fraud, so believe me when I say the election was stolen.”Without that, without a source, he's merely just stating words as he had been for the weeks before and continued.

This Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, who becomes involved in all of this, what's the best way to understand who he is and what his role is in this story?

It was interesting to learn how he came about in that he was in the civil side of the Department of Justice, in the Environmental Department.And there's a civil side and there's a criminal side to the Department of Justice, and the criminal side does the investigations, particularly for election fraud issues.And there's protocols, and there's people who are well-versed in these issues, Rich Donoghue being one of them, and certainly Jeff Clark was not—did not have that subject matter in any manner.

So what the committee was able to find through the texts of [White House Chief of Staff] Mark Meadows was that he, Jeff Clark, was promoted by Scott Perry, Congressman Perry.And I think that was an important ally for Jeff Clark, because he was able to then gain access to the White House.So through the investigation and through the receipt of documents of the White House visitor logs and phone logs, you saw this contact that there was between Scott Perry and Jeff Clark.There was a White House meeting on the 18th, and the next day, Jeff Clark comes to the White House, which, as a Department of Justice official, he certainly cannot go to the White House without informing his superiors, which he never had.

So the hearing, I think, lays out the compelling narrative as to Scott Perry promoting him to Mark Meadows and then simultaneously, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue kind of learn about his contact with the White House, which, again, cannot be done by the Department of Justice unless you're the attorney general himself.

… So tell me about that letter and what it suggests he was doing on behalf of the president.

The letter essentially stated that the Department of Justice had found that there was widespread election fraud and that the Georgia Assembly should reconvene and essentially recertify, which was essentially the Department of Justice meddling in a state election, which is why you have the testimony from Rich Donoghue saying how completely outrageous this letter would be for the department to sign.But it's exactly one of the paths that the president wanted the department to do, was this letter.

And I guess it comes, maybe not initially but at some point it comes with a threat that if they don't go along with this, that they might be replaced?

... It became such a compelling story, because you had Jeff Clark was essentially told by the former president, “You're my guy.You're the AG,” and then there's a conversation between Jeff Clark and Mr. Rosen, where Jeff Clark says, “Oh, he offered me the job.I wanted to give you the heads up.You can stick around and be my deputy,” which, obviously, Jeff Rosen found to be preposterous.This testimony was really important, because it obviously shows how much of an ally Jeff Clark was to President Trump at that time.

And the committee found phone logs that refer to him as the acting attorney general.

Yes. So on Jan. 3, there is a series of phone calls that morning from the White House to Jeff Clark, and then there's a conversation—there's an entry at 4:19 that says Jeff Clark is the acting assistant attorney general.And then obviously that's the same day that Jeff Clark had told Jeff Rosen, and two hours after that, a meeting occurs with Jeff Rosen, Rich Donoghue, [White House counsel] Pat Cipollone and Eric Herschmann and others in the White House that Sunday evening.

This moment, which maybe got overshadowed by all of the other moments, but at least in the Justice Department history, if you think back to Saturday Night Massacre, to the wiretapping program, the Bush administration, this moment really stands out even by those standards.How dramatic was it at the Justice Department as they get this word?

Leading up to that, they had convened a call with all the senior leadership of the Department of Justice—Jeff Rosen and Rich Donoghue—and informed them what was happening.Until then, it had been a bit of a close hold as to what was happening with Jeff Clark.And all the senior leadership agreed that they would resign if indeed the former president replaced acting Attorney General Rosen.

... And it wasn't about the jobs.It was about the rule of law just being destroyed if this replacement would occur, because if it had happened, Jeff Clark would have had a press conference that there was widespread election fraud, appointed a special counsel, sent the letter to Georgia.There would have been a number of different events that occurred and as a result would have placed the former president right before Jan. 6 in a completely different position.

So yes, the significance of that meeting, of who attended the meeting, and the level of back-and-forth and contentiousness was really, really something remarkable that happened within the Trump administration.

Pressure on Mike Pence

… Was [Vice President] Mike Pence their last chance, in that multipart attempt that Liz Cheney lays out at the beginning?Is that why there's so much pressure on him?

I think that's right.And that's—obviously, had he not gone through with the certification, if he had agreed that this legal theory with John Eastman, if he had just decided to pause the proceedings, he was kind of the last gatekeeper in terms of what had happened in the weeks preceding.

Was this the most dangerous moment, Pence, the one that could have gone differently?

That's a tough question.I think that if he had not stayed strong, the entire day would have gone differently.And it would have been undermined, right?If they had actually succeeded in halting, pausing, stopping the joint session that day, then Donald Trump would have been successful in his goal.Would he have stayed in office?Maybe not, but at least that goal would have been achieved.

How much pressure is on Pence, who's been incredibly loyal all the way through the Trump administration?How hard a moment is that as we're getting towards Jan. 6?

I think from what happened the morning of Jan. 6, the contentious conversation between the former president and the vice president, when he said he's going to go to the Capitol to certify the results, as well as the tweet that the former president put out, saying that he does not have courage, all of this obviously has to have an impact on the vice president.But for him to have the fortitude to stay true to the Constitution and uphold his oath, I think it was really one of those moments that we talk about, where it was thank God for the people who held strong.

How important is the evidence of those conversations?There's a string of them.I mean, there's one where the president alleges, says, “You're too honest.”There's some more details now in the indictment about those conversations with the president, and that—but we know from [Pence’s lawyer Greg] Jacob, they're pushing back; they're saying this isn't legal.How important is that evidence to Trump's state of mind, to the allegations in the indictment?

It goes to one of the conspiracies charged, right?One of the discrete conspiracies is the pressure against the vice president.So who better of a witness to talk about those conversations than the vice president himself?It's not hearsay; it’s not coming from another co-conspirator or middle person.It's those one-on-one conversations that will be really compelling for a jury to hear and in proving that particular account.

Was he warned?Was Trump warned that this wasn't legal? …

Right, I believe there's testimony that Greg Jacobs told the vice president.Obviously the vice president relayed that to the president.I'm unclear whether Greg Jacobs had that direct conversation with the former president.But the answer to that is yes, that is the basis as to why the vice president wouldn't do what he was being asked to do.

As we get into the moment of Jan. 6, one of the moments that the committee plays is video of staff talking about the night before Jan. 5; you mentioned it as well.What was being conveyed in that video, and why does it matter to the indictment?

… It was really reflecting the atmosphere of what was happening right before Jan. 6.It showed that this is precisely what the former president wanted, that he was almost anticipating the next day, with some sort of glee that this could all turn and go his way.Obviously this is before he had those conversations with the vice president.So in that video, it shows the hope that he had that this was going to actually become successful.

Donald Trump on January 6

Someone told us that the [White House aide] Cassidy Hutchinson testimony, that the hearing was in some ways was a turning point for the committee.How dramatic was that when the committee learned that she's willing to talk more, that there's a hearing, an emergency hearing.And we're, on the outside, all wondering what is going on.What was it like on the inside?

So I wasn't involved in that, in kind of putting that together.I was—obviously became aware of it and was in the room for the actual hearing, but I do think it became the face of a young woman who was able to testify in this manner, that was compelling and give a different side of some of these events that happened, from the perspective of a staff to the chief of staff, was really an insider's view to what was occurring within the White House, which was an interesting perspective.

And some of the things she says—she says that he was told that there were weapons in the crowd, and he wanted to remove magnetometers.⁴

New York Times: What are magnetometers, or mags?

Why does that matter?

It matters that the former president was aware of the potential for violence that day because he had not yet gone to the Ellipse.Had he not gone to the Ellipse, perhaps things would have gone differently.But for him to have known that there was a violent element in the crowd, that there were weapons in the crowd, as she testified was relayed to him, it became important to his knowledge as to what [would be] the impact of his words during the speech.So in other words, if you knew folks in the crowd had weapons, and you tell them to go to the Capitol, that makes what you are saying more to the incitement of the crowd.

The committee also gets evidence that he had planned to go to the Capitol before—even before he mentions it in the speech, because when you see the speech, and he says, “I'll be there with you,” it seems like maybe he was winging it, which the former president was known to do, why does it matter that there was discussion about it before, that they had a draft tweet that they knew this was something the president wanted to do?

Well, I think it goes to how he wanted, how he expected the day to play out, right?… It was always unclear what it meant: “I will go to the Capitol. I'll go with you.”Would he go to the Capitol, go inside the chamber?Who knows?But it was important that that was what his intent was in terms of that's how much he wanted to be personally involved in pausing or disrupting the joint session that day.

And whether he grabs the steering wheel or not, it seems like the committee has established that he, after the speech, he wanted to go up to the Capitol.What does that tell you, that after the speech he still wanted to go up there?

I think it goes to the same thing, that he saw this crowd, and he wanted to participate in some manner, whether it was leading the crowd or being part of the crowd or going.But certainly there was a level of frustration when he was told that he couldn't, which goes to his intent, that he was so focused on disrupting the joint session that day, he himself wanted to go.

So now when you watch that speech that he gives, and now we know some of the things behind it—that he's been warned about weapons; we know that the vice president has told him he's not going to go along with it— what do you see in that hour-and-10-minute speech that he gives?⁵

NPR: Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech

How central is that, and what is he doing?

I think when you watch that speech that begins at noon and goes until 1:10, it's the same list of so-called fraud that we had heard from multiple witnesses that had been debunked.And for him to continue the lies on repeat is jarring.I don't expect anyone to have watched that speech multiple times, but many of us on the staff had, and it's a litany list of the top 10 grievances that he had.

And then when it culminates of him saying, “Go to the Capitol.I'll go with you,” and then knowing the events that happened, particularly from 1:00 on, when there was the breach of the Capitol, it's hard to watch.

There is some reference to being peaceful, but he also said, “When you catch somebody at fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules.And we fight.We fight like hell.If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”What's the importance of that, of that language?

I think that language is more powerful than the reference to peace that he makes one time during that speech.If you look at that speech broadly, there is more of a call to violence than a call for peace.

As the committee spoke to people on the ground, people who were there that day, what did they hear from him?What were they hearing him telling them to do?

Well, I think that there was testimony that once it reached a certain pitch of, “Go to the Capitol; I'll go with you,” a certain portion of the crowd started going towards the Capitol.So the impact of the words coming from the former president, the testimony about that from people on the Ellipse, was incredibly important.It, again, shows that he is the lead conspirator of this effort to undermine the election.He himself was able to get the people there for that event that day and then get them to go to the Capitol.

The indictment just says that by sending the crowd up there, he was trying to stop the proceeding, and he was still trying to pressure the vice president.By that point, based on what you know, had he given up?Was it just a protest, which I think will be what his defense is, is, “I was angry and wanted to convey that my people were angry"; that this was just a political speech?Did you find that that's what it was, that it was a political speech, or something closer to what the indictment says?

So I think there's protests and there's riots, right?So I think the protest aspect of it is on the Ellipse.You hear a number of speakers that are, again, spreading the lie, listing their grievances about the 2020 election.But then, when you get to the point where it is saying, “Fight like hell,” that's where, to me, it becomes a riot, because then the people are taking those words and putting them into action.And I think this country is built on civil disturbance protests, which obviously are incredibly different from what we saw played out on Jan. 6.

… So how important were the 187 minutes to the story, to understanding his state of mind, to understanding what happened?

Sure. So the 187 minutes is from the moment when he leaves the Ellipse and comes back to the White House.So you're talking about like 1:15 in the afternoon that day and the complete and utter silence until his tweet or video of telling everyone to go home.So inaction speaks volumes; silence speaks volumes.And I think that was what was incredibly valuable to see juxtaposed against all of the law enforcement officials, all of the men and women in blue who are fighting for their lives, and he's in his kitchen, watching it on TV.So to anyone, you would think that that—just that visual is just jarring, and it goes to show that there was just no leadership in that moment.

And he's tweeting about the vice president, that he didn't have the courage to do what should have been done.What's going on at the White House, and what's going on at the Capitol?

I think the White House, from the testimony we gathered, is just in shock.And many of them testified that they tried to get the president to take some sort of action, to get the crowd to leave the Capitol, and do it in a more forceful manner than the tweets that he had put out, which were not impactful at all.So I think that the significance of that hearing, that showed the footage of people breaking windows and attacking law enforcement officers, and then knowing that nothing was happening from the former president, despite people, his own advisers telling him to issue a statement of some sort, is jarring.And it, again, goes to his intent, as to this is what he wanted to see happen in some form, because it was a disruption, because, obviously, it was delayed.

It almost seems like he's the only person who isn't shocked by it.If you look at the Mark Meadows text, Fox News hosts, even Don [Trump] Jr., who has been feeding this himself, are saying the president should be doing something.

Yeah.It's hard to tell what actually was happening, because there was no one who testified who agreed with the inaction.So if there was a witness who said, “Yes, he didn't do anything because of X-Y-Z,” perhaps we'd have visibility into it.But contrary, every witness who was in contact with the president that day didn't agree with absolutely doing nothing, which is what he did.

It's interesting how you describe it, because yeah, usually not doing something isn't a crime.But in this case, as you're saying, it sort of suggests that this was part of his plan; it might have been part of his plan from the beginning.

It might not have been his plan to have this type of violence happen at the Capitol, but the goal of not having the certification happening at the time it was supposed to happen was obviously achieved.

… You talked to Gen. Mark Milley as part of the investigation.What was that like?What was his take on that day and on what went down?

Gen. Milley sat with us for almost eight hours and provided credible, compelling testimony about different aspects of the election fraud.He went back to the summer of 2020 and the use of the National Guard for the civil disturbance protests, as well as the chain of command for the National Guard on Jan. 6 and some of the decisions that were made.And it was clear from his testimony that he was impacted deeply by the former president and the actions that he took, and he really provided testimony in a manner that painted a broader picture of what was occurring.

The committee points out that he doesn't get a call from the president.

… What was his testimony in that regard?

We made it a point to ask every high-level official, “Did you hear from the former president that day?”That was to Gen. Milley, Attorney General Rosen, Deputy Attorney General Rich Donoghue.There was a litany of witnesses who you would think, during a violent attack, they would hear from the president—the chief of Capitol Police, chief of Metro Police Department, director of the [FBI]—whoever it was you would normally think that they would receive a call from the commander in chief did not.

Gen. Milley did speak to Vice President Pence, and Vice President Pence was on the phone, calling a number of people that day from the secure place where he was located within the Capitol.So it was clear, by the testimony of no phone calls from the president but then the number of calls placed by the vice president, who showed leadership that day and who was concerned about law enforcement at the Capitol.

… It's an amazing image that Pence is at the Capitol, under siege, and he's on the phone, and Trump is in the kitchen, watching it on television.It is quite a juxtaposition between the two of them.

Yes.And I think that we were able to show that during the 187 minutes pretty effectively, with the Secret Service surrounding Vice President Pence while he's in the secure location and he's calling people just to make sure that people were OK, and that most importantly that there was a plan in place to get the people out of the Capitol so that the joint session could reconvene, which was his concern.

And this came really close at the Capitol, to Pence, to lawmakers.

Yes.We had the footage from inside the Capitol, where he's rushed down the steps by his Secret Service detail, along with his family.And it is one of those things that you realize how close he came to people whose focus—they were clearly focused on Vice President Pence, and by him not doing what the president asked him to do, he became the target for the rioters.

The Legacy of the January 6 Committee

So this story we've been talking about, the committee lays it out over hearings, puts it into a report.And you get to the end, and the clock is ticking.And it’s the end of summer, and the committee is making a decision to make a criminal referral.Why do they decide to do that?Was that an important moment at the end of this process?

I think there were obviously referrals to the Department of Justice before, for people who did not respond to the subpoenas, right?So you had Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro.So the referral process had happened before, but I think it is an important aspect of a congressional committee to gather the facts.And the committee can only take it so far.The congressional committee cannot hold a person accountable.That's not the role; it's not the purpose.So I think the criminal referral to the Department of Justice, based upon the facts that were gathered, was the next logical step.

The impact of the committee is pretty impressive, when you look at the number of people who watched it, when you look at the indictment.But on the other side, the polls of Republicans who haven't changed their opinion, the fact that the president, former president, is a leading contender for the nomination now, how do you handle that?How do you feel about that, after the work that you've done, to see where the country is now on that?

I think there's two aspects of it.So seeing the indictment was affirming of the committee's work.Seeing this play out now, before an election, is different as a citizen versus a staffer.So to know that the former president is leading in the polls for the Republican nomination, it makes me feel how far have we come?Have we come far at all?But that's separate from the work that we as a committee did, which, again, will play out in a trial and go through the process and the system in the way that the Department of Justice and the evidence that we gathered will be tested.But it's two separate feelings.So while part of me feels validated for the committee work that I did, as a person who intends to vote in this year's election, it's worrisome.

Latest Interviews

Get our Newsletter

Stay Connected

Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation

Koo and Patricia Yuen

Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.