[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Hey, let's talk about some of the newest and most interesting things from the January 6th committee presentation yesterday. I will assume that you already know the basic fact that they referred Donald Trump to the Justice Department recommending four criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States with the whole big lie campaign, plus inciting or assisting an insurrection, and how unprecedented those things are for a former president.

We're not going to go over the basics for the 45th time for your ears in the last 24 hours. One of the interesting things to me that we will focus on was how they spotlighted his consciousness of guilt. Evidence that he knew he was setting the crowd up for violence to happen, and then egging that violence on once it began. Showing consciousness of guilt would be a powerful tool if it ever does come to a criminal trial for Trump in front of a jury.

Here's a clip from yesterday that was brand new, not presented publicly before of a top Trump advisor Hope Hicks, describing how she was in contact with Trump attorney Eric Herschmann in the days leading up to January 6th, right leading up January 4th, January 5th, urging Herschmann to urge the president to remind the assembling protestors to be non-violent when they gather Hope Hicks.

[start of audio playback]

Speaker 1: When you wrote, I suggested it several times and it presumably means that the president say something about being non-violent. He wrote, "I suggested it several times, Monday and Tuesday and he refused." Tell us what happened.

Hope Hicks: Sure, I didn't speak to the president about this directly, but I communicated to people like Eric Herschmann, that it was my view that it was important that the president put out some message in advance of the event.

Speaker 1: What was Mr. Herschmann's response?

Hope Hicks: Mr. Herschmann said that he had made the same recommendation directly to the president and that he had refused.

Speaker 1: Just so I understand, Mr. Herschmann said that he had already recommended to the president that the president convey a message that people should be peaceful on January 6th and the president had refused to do that?

Hope Hicks: Yes.

[end of audio playback]

Brian Lehrer: Former senior Trump advisor Hope Hicks as played at the January 6th committee hearing yesterday. That was from her deposition. We have more clips to play that are not necessarily the ones you keep hearing on the newscasts and we'll talk about what happened yesterday and what it all means with Jacqueline Alemany, Congressional Investigations reporter for The Washington Post. Jackie, I know you're very in demand on this, so thanks for giving us some time. Welcome back to WNYC.

Jacqueline Alemany: Oh, thanks so much for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start with that Hope Hicks clip. It's one of the most direct pieces of testimony that I've heard yet about Trump through a mission, in that case, not doing something, consciously creating the conditions for a violent attack on the Capitol for January 6th. How new was that to you?

Jacqueline Alemany: That's exactly right, Brian. It was definitely one of the pieces of evidence that stood out to me yesterday and it does add very meaningfully to the insurrection charge that the committee put forward. We had always known and it was already stated in three legal opinions that were issued by federal court judges previously about the committee's plans to charge to criminally refer charges against the former president for conspiracy to defraud the American people and obstruction of Congress.

Where we were surprised was this additional charge of the insurrection charge and Hope Hicks spoke directly to that, that the former president found utility, potentially, and supported the violence on January 6th. Hope Hicks is really just, I think, the bow that wraps it all up because there were several other people including Eric Herschmann and others who said that the Trump, during this 187 minutes, repeatedly turned down suggestions to call for his supporters to be peaceful and to go home and that even in the lead up to January 6th. The days beforehand he also rebuffed such suggestions.

Brian Lehrer: I guess that was new testimony that Hope Hicks clip and another one will play since the committee's last public presentation and that's why we had never heard it before.

Jacqueline Alemany: Yes, that is exactly right. This committee was still conducting depositions right up until the very end through the report-writing process. The testimony from Kellyanne Conway was also new. We had yet to see that and there's also going to be other new depositions that are going to come to light that were conducted in the time between the final public hearing that we saw over the summer and yesterday's hearing from Bobby Engel and Tony Ornato, two secret service agents who were also involved and assisting the president on January 6th.

Brian Lehrer: Remind us, staying on that same Hope Hicks clip, who Eric Herschmann is, the Trump lawyer, who Hope Hicks was having that exchange with.

Jacqueline Alemany: Eric Herschmann was one of then-President Trump's lawyers in the White House counsel's office at the time. He is the person, if you've been tuning in to these hearings or at least have seen snippets of it. He is the very blunt-speaking man who I think was, at times, one of the former president's biggest allies and really speaks quite clearly about what he believes to be the criminal activity conducted by those who were around the former president. People like John Eastman and perhaps his most memorable piece of testimony said that he recommends John Eastman to hire a lawyer to represent him for potential criminal charges.

Brian Lehrer: People who may not, right away, know who Eric Herschmann is. If you've watched any TV coverage of the January 6th hearings, he's the guy who has this kind of I know better than you, smile almost smirk on his face that reads, "quit the BS." I know what's really going on here. That Eric Herschmann. oh--

Jacqueline Alemany: I also know he also--

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead.

Jacqueline Alemany: Has the very memorable contemporary art collection. One of his panda paintings that was behind him made a lot of headlines [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: I did not notice that. Now, again, staying with that exchange, Hicks says Herschmann also urged the president to urge his followers to be non-violent when they come for the DC rally that Trump had tweeted will be wild and wouldn't say be non-violent while you're being wild. Trump refused Herschmann too on that according to Hicks. When Herschmann testified to the January 6th committee, did he corroborate Hope Hicks's version of that that we heard in that clip?

Jacqueline Alemany: Oh, that's actually a good question that I am having trouble recalling. Maybe actually you know the answer.

Brian Lehrer: I actually don't know the answer to that, but I asked because I think if they had that, and I'm not sure if they played it. Maybe they didn't play it because they don't have it, I don't know. If they do have that, then that would be really powerful at trial for the two of them to corroborate that.

Jacqueline Alemany: That's exactly right and that corroboration element is important. I think that is the one criticism, I think, that you have been hearing about some of the testimony, at least, from the January 6th committees. Most star-studded deposition from Cassidy Hutchinson and that some of the claims in there actually that Cassidy Hutchinson made a former top aide to White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, made were not necessarily corroborated by some of the Secret Service Agents.

I know that Eric Herschmann, while he was very forthcoming, he did decline to comment during some of his depositions on conversations that he had with the former president directly claiming executive privilege, of course, in the Department of Justice, those executive privileged claims we have since discovered have not been upheld and people like Pat Cipollone and other White House counsel and those who worked closely with the former president when they've appeared for their grand jury depositions, they've actually had to disclose what those conversations that they were having with the former president were. If Herschmann isn't corroborating that with the January 6th committee, it is possible that's something that he could corroborate with the Department of Justice.

Brian Lehrer: Right. If it comes to a grand jury or a jury and I understand why somebody who was a lawyer to the president might, in some instances, want to invoke either executive privilege or lawyer-client privilege doesn't mean it didn't happen. Now, listeners, for this segment, I'm going to ask for a very specific thing on the phones, and screeners, heads up on this too. I want to ask for lawyers to call in. Everybody, we know and you know how you feel about January 6th, and about the Big Lie, and about Trump generally, one way or another, we've been through it with you all a hundred times.

What the committee did yesterday was to recommend criminal charges to the Justice Department. Lawyers, hello, lawyers. Prosecutors, hello, prosecutors. Defense attorneys, retired judges, anyone out there with that kind of legal experience, what do you think after yesterday? From a legal standpoint, do they have a case, not just a moral case, not just a heinous, narcissist, political low-life case, but an actual criminal case to bring on any of the charges that they referred Trump to the Justice Department for?

212-433-WNYC is our phone number, 212-433-9692. Lawyers, judges, if you've never called us before, 212-433-9692 or tweet @BrianLehrer. You tell us what are the strengths and weaknesses of any case they may present to a grand jury for indictment or to a trial jury for a conviction on any of these four alleged counts. 212-433-WNYC. Oh, and could they even seat a jury? Lawyers, judges, can you find 12 unbiased members of the public who haven't formed an opinion about Donald Trump one way or another, who could be impartial enough in a jury kind of way?

Who would be a jury of his peers? Would Trump's peers need to be ex-presidents? Members of the proud boys maybe? Could you see the jury? Lawyers, ex-lawyers, judges, help us out here. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 with Jacqueline Alemany from The Washington Post. Jackie, still staying on the whole picks clip, in Trump's speech on the Ellipse on January 6th before they march to the Capitol and the break-in began, Trump was riling up the crowd to go over there and stop the "steal," but he did also say peacefully.

He said, "Peacefully and patriotically, make your voices heard." If he gets charged with inciting or assisting and insurrection, and they use that Hope Hicks testimony as an example of how he was setting up violence, that one little phrase, "Go peacefully and patriotically, and make your voices heard." One little phrase, peacefully and patriotically is going to do a lot of work for his defense.

That tucked into two months of riling them up, including in that speech and saying he was okay with some of them being armed and everything else. He did say it that one time, peacefully and patriotically. Is there any way to tell yet how the Justice Department will hear that body of evidence about creating conditions for violence as evidence of inciting and insurrection or not enough to charge him?

Jacqueline Alemany: Well, that's a really good question. The Department of Justice has been extremely opaque with where they are in the process and where the Special Counsel's Office now is in terms of January 6th. There's always been a sentiment that insurrection charges would be far harder to prove than a criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people and conferring to obstruct Congress.

The case for that is much more clear cut and laid out in emails, discussions, and these scenes that are now really embedded in the American public's recollection of the events leading up to January 6th. The insurrection charges, again, for the point that you make, which is that there are certain things that the former president did that can do some heavy lifting for him potentially, especially in any criminal proceedings.

Brian Lehrer: Another thing they leaned on yesterday regarding Trump inciting violence was how he apparently poured gasoline on the fire once the break-in began, both through his refusal to call them off with a tweet or other public statement. I'm sure most of you listeners know about that very well. The tweet he did put out about Mike Pence, who parts of the crowd were chanting to hang. Here's committee member Pete Aguilar, Democrat from California at yesterday's hearing.

[start of audio playback]

Pete Aguilar: In his speech on the Ellipse on the afternoon of January 6th, former President Trump told the crowd that Vice President Pence needed the courage to do what he has to do. Once the riot began, President Trump deliberately chose to issue a tweet attacking Mr. Pence, knowing that the crowd had already grown violent. Almost immediately thereafter, the crowd around the Capitol surged, and between 2:30 PM and 2:35 PM, the Metropolitan Police line on the west front of the Capitol broke.

This was the first time in MPD history that a line like this had broken. Rioters at the Capitol were heard chanting, "Hang Mike Pence" through the afternoon. As a result of this unrest, Vice President Pence was forced to flee to a secure location where he actively coordinated with law enforcement and other governmental officials to address the ongoing violence.

[end of audio playback]

Congressman Pete Aguilar yesterday, and we'll keep going on this with Congresswoman Liz Cheney from her presentation about how no president in the history of the United States ever tried to defeat the peaceful transfer of power, which began with George Washington once the courts and the electoral college had spoken. Liz Cheney.

[start of audio playback]

Liz Cheney: Among the most shameful of this committee's findings was that President Trump sat in the dining room off the Oval Office watching the violent riot at the Capitol on television. For hours, he would not issue a public statement instructing his supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol despite urgent pleas from his White House staff and dozens of others to do so. Members of his family, his White House lawyers, virtually, all those around him knew that this simple act was critical.

For hours, he would not do it. During this time, law enforcement agents were attacked and seriously injured. The Capitol was invaded, the electoral count was halted, and the lives of those in the Capitol were put at risk. In addition to being unlawful as described in our reports, this was an utter moral failure and a clear dereliction of duty. Evidence of this can be seen in the testimony of President Trump's own White House counsel and several other White House witnesses. No man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again, he is unfit for any office.

[end of audio playback]

Brian Lehrer: Liz Cheney there, and you've probably heard the end of that clip played as a short sound bite on the news a lot in the last day. We played the longer version there as she laid out that timeline from January 6th. We are with Washington Post correspondent who covers congressional investigations, Jacqueline Alemany here. Jacqueline, what are the lawyers telling you about that if you have lawyer sources? Are the things in that timeline grounds for an incitement to insurrection criminal charge? We keep saying unprecedented, is there any precedent for that kind of evidence, hers and Pete Aguilar's setting up a conviction of a crime?

Jacqueline Alemany: Before I actually get to that question, Brian, I do want to say that that last graph from Liz Cheney, the last snippet of her speech, really, I think it underscores the bigger mission of the committee which is that at the end of the day, whether or not the Department of Justice ultimately decides to prosecute the former president and any of his allies and takes up some of these criminal referrals, which I should just point out for people who are just tuning in, have no legal weight that they are important for the public record.

As Liz Cheney very clearly said that there was a moral failing here and that some of these people, including the former president [unintelligible 00:19:33] and others should be prevented from holding future public office going forward and from being in positions of power in the future.

[crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Let me jump in on that because it might be interesting to point out to the listeners, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that only the charge of insurrection among the four that they laid out. If he's convicted of insurrection, only that would legally prevent him from running for president again. The other things, if you're convicted of a crime, you can run for public office in this country if the people will have you.

Jacqueline Alemany: That's true, but in the court of public opinion, at least, this was their ultimate mission, but you're exactly right, and it's a good point to make that that could have been part of the reason why insurrection was thrown into the criminal charges at the last minute. We don't know all that much about the deliberations that happened between Jamie Raskin, Zoe Lofgren, Adam Schiff, and Liz Cheney. Those were the four lawyers that sit on the committee who formed a subcommittee that put together these recommendations that are, again, grounded in three opinions that have been issued by federal court judges.

We do know that Jamie Raskin was the impeachment manager for House Democrats during the former president's second impeachment process, and that insurrection was a part of those impeachment charges. Again, I'm not a lawyer, I do have lawyer sources. What we saw in this final hearing yesterday was the committee trying to make that insurrection case by showing pieces of evidence from people like Hope Hicks and her testimony regarding the [inaudible 00:21:37] from the former president and the potential utility that he saw in fomenting and insurrection and having violence play out on Capitol Hill.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Let's hear what some of the lawyers calling in have to say about some of this. Elliot in Manhattanville, you're on WNYC. Elliot, thanks so much for calling in today.

Elliot: Brian, can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Elliot: Absolutely. I'm going to take you off speaker. Hi. Yes. First of all, Brian, you made an excellent point about the right to run for president. Anyone in the United States who is a naturalized citizen and has lived here for seven years and is 35 years old, is entitled to run for president.

Brian Lehrer: Not a naturalized citizen. You can't be an immigrant.

[crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Just to be clear, you mean what they call a natural-born citizen. You can't be an immigrant and a naturalized citizen in that respect and run for president, right? Not naturalized.

Elliot: There was an exception because people were born as British subjects and then [unintelligible 00:22:57] became United States.

Brian Lehrer: Okay.

Elliot: Yes, you're right. You have the exact language. I get uneasy when somebody like Liz Cheney, who is a knowledgeable lawyer, sits up at a big desk and says something like that. It could be prejudicial in a trial, but anyway, I think they--

Brian Lehrer: He should be seen as disqualified from running for office again and on the evidence?

Elliot: No man who's like that. The evidence I'm going to put aside a conspiracy charge and insurrection charge because they're very complex. It seems to me that the Department of Justice will have enough evidence to take up the charge of lying. I think that's separate from the charge of obstructing the congressional investigation. I will tell you that I believe it was the first impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee hashed out the question of whether to charge obstruction of their own investigation. There's a lot of a scholarly--

Brian Lehrer: That was their investigation into the alleged Ukraine bribery or blackmail of Zelensky.

Elliot: Precisely. They had a lot of scholarly discussion under what conditions it's proper to charge someone with interference with obstructing with a congressional investigation. That's a lot of what I know on the topic. I think that the DOJ has plenty to go to a grand jury on that and on the lying. Absolutely, I think they think they could do it very quickly.

Brian Lehrer: Tha thank you very much. That's interesting. Jackie to what he just said there, it perfectly sets up our next clip. It's California Congressman Zoe Lofgren, January 6th Committee member, suggesting at one point yesterday that Trump's people were trying to bribe witnesses or at least one witness into lying or holding back the truth in some way about Trump when they testified before the committee. Here's Zoe Lofgren.

[start of audio playback]

Zoe Lofgren: We've learned that a client was offered potential employment that would make her "financially very comfortable" as the date of her testimony approached by entities that were apparently linked to Donald Trump and his associates. These offers were withdrawn or didn't materialize as reports of the content of her testimony circulated. The witness believed this was an effort to affect her testimony, and we are concerned that these efforts may have been a strategy to prevent the committee from finding the truth.

[end of audio playback]

Brian Lehrer: Jackie, was that new to you, or can you get any more specific about who she was referring to there?

Jacqueline Alemany: Brian, you were asking all the right questions, the ones that we're actually still pursuing in real-time. This was the ending to a cliffhanger that Liz Cheney had left us with when she said during one of the hearings over the summer at the very end of it, that they were aware of people trying to interfere with their investigation and coach a witness and threaten her.

We have a feeling that we know who this witness is, in particular, and what her legal arrangement was, but we haven't confirmed and nailed down those details yet. I will say we have previously reported that there was a feeling amongst some of-- At one point, Trump loyalists and allies who ultimately had their legal fees being paid for by Trump super PAC, that there was some conflict of interest there, and a feeling that if so long as Trump was paying for their legal fees they were limited in some ways.

We do know that, know that at the end of the day, Cassidy Hutchinson was one of the witnesses in this investigation who changed lawyers midstream. She was working with a lawyer that was being paid by former President Trump and who had actually worked at one point in the White House Counsel's office and then switched to a different lawyer I believe his name is Jody Hice. After that switch is when we saw Cassidy finally appear publicly and make some of the damning and remarkable statements that she made when she appeared during that. She made that surprise appearance during one of the summer hearings.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute to talk about what was new and what was important from yesterday's January 6th committee presentation. More lawyers. Do you want to call in and say, if you were a prosecutor, would you take this case? Do you think you could win against Trump on any of those four charges? I'm sure that's a key question, if not the key question that Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, and Attorney General Merrick Garland are asking themselves, if we bring these charges, would we win? Lawyers, what do you think? 212-433-WNYC. We'll continue after this.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we talk about the criminal referrals made by the January 6th committee yesterday. Focus on the question. Lawyers, would you bring a case on any of the four things that they referred Trump to the Justice Department about? We'll talk about some of the other things. We'll continue to talk about some of the other things that they brought up about other people as well with Jacqueline Alemany. Who is the Washington Post Congressional investigations reporter? Joel in Newark, a retired lawyer. Joel, you're on WNYC, hello?

Joel: Good morning. I would ask that one of your prosecutor listeners, please describe, in detail, exactly what goes on inside a grand jury process. Your guest this morning I think earlier made reference to Garland or their special prosecutor deciding whether to bring charges or not. It is not their decision at this point in time. It is the decision of 12 at of 23 grand jurors who are currently sitting. These are real live human beings doing their job. They participate in the process.

They're drawn from a DC population. They're probably politically savvy or minorities, probably some lawyers and they understand what's going on. They ask questions, they vote on issuance of subpoenas. This is a real thing that's happening. It's not the decision of the prosecutors. It's the decision of the grand jurors.

Brian Lehrer: It's a great point, Joel. Thank you very much. The grand jurors, if they get to that point, Jackie would be drawn, I imagine, from DC the alleged crimes were committed in DC. I assume this would be a DC jury. The DC population does include a lot of people in law and politics. A lot of African-Americans who are lawyers and involved in politics just to disaggregate his examples there but he's right, isn't he? That this would have to go to a grand jury.

It's not up to Jack Smith, a special counsel, or Merrick Garland, the attorney general, by themselves. They have to present. I don't know if you've ever been on a grand jury. I was once and he's right. It's not unanimity like in a jury trial where you have to get all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict. It's just majority rule. At least in New York, it is 12 out of 23 and you don't really get excused from grand jury service when you get called.

If you know the potential defendants who they may be bringing charges against or had a similar crime in your background or in your family or something like that, they don't really dismiss grand jurors. It's really more random than a jury trial. If Smith and Garland decide to try to bring these charges, is that the next step, do you know?

Jacqueline Alemany: Yes, I believe that is the next step as prosecutors are currently eyeing whether Trump engaged in conspiracy to obstruct the January 6th electoral certification or engaged in potential fraud to block the peaceful transfer of power. I should note that there are also a handful of other criminal investigations into the former president that are actually already far further along. For example, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. She is also investigating efforts to overturn Trump's loss in Georgia's 2020 presidential election. The grand jury is actually expected to potentially issue a report with recommendations before the end of the year ad so that could become--

Brian Lehrer: That's the Trump calling the Secretary of State, Josh Raffensperger, and saying find 11,000 votes, that case?

Jacqueline Alemany: Exactly, Brad Raffensperger. Prosecutors are currently scrutinizing Trump's calls along with testimony that Trump allies have already given to Georgia State lawmakers in December and so based off of this grand jury report that comes, Willis will then decide whether or not to bring criminal charges but it is a very good point to make that this is not all in Merrick Garland's hand at the end of the day.

Brian Lehrer: Garland does need to even decide to take that step and present it to a grand jury and so we will see what happens there. Josh in Montclair, a criminal defense lawyer. Josh, you're on WNYC. Thanks a lot for calling in.

Josh: Hi. You do have to present the case to a grand jury. I would be relatively confident that there's sufficient evidence to get a grand jury to issue an indictment. Personally, I have little doubt that Donald Trump committed crimes but I would be very hesitant, as a prosecutor, to bring this case because that's not the end of the story. You should bring a case when you believe that you have deficient proof to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and the witnesses have to be subject to cross-examination. The prospect, to me, it seems of being able to secure a conviction in this case, it's very iffy. If you don't get a conviction, you've done probably worse because you've given this person another grievance to kick at going forward.

Brian Lehrer: That's a political risk.

Josh: Many of these witnesses are Trump loyalists. When they're subject to cross-examination, they will provide lots of helpful information to Donald Trump. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. To take one example you were talking about the Raffensperger case. He's on a call. His lawyers are on the call. People don't ordinarily commit crimes when they were lawyers. The other side has their lawyers on the phone. He says find me the votes. He has to do something corrupt to find the votes. If he actually had some plausible belief that they would find those votes, that's a complete defense to that case.

If you look at every charge in many of the federal cases that are being discussed now so, for example, he's relying on Eastman. A lot of people told him Eastman was a nut job and did not know what he was talking about but is it for Trump to say as a defense, I'm relying on Eastman, as a highly credentialed lawyer telling me what I'm doing is plausible? That's the kind of thing that's going to come out at a trial.

Brian Lehrer: That's really interesting, Josh. I hear you. I wonder if you, as a defense attorney, watched the hearings where the certain eye because this was not a normal congressional hearing where one party asked questions and then the other party asked questions and there is an adversarial process. This was presentations by a committee that was unified and there was no cross-examination. They did not see Jim Jordan who Kevin McCarthy wanted to place on the committee and other Trump loyalists. Were you asking yourself in your head many times I wonder what the defense attorney would ask this same witness or even conjuring those questions in your head at any important points?

Josh: Absolutely. What we saw on TV was akin to a grand jury presentation because in the grand jury they only hear really from one side.

Brian Lehrer: The prosecutor.

Josh: Those witnesses were interviewed. I guess we're going to see the full text of their interview although there was certainly nobody on the committee sympathetic Trump who would've brought out more sympathetic facts towards him. Yes, you're only seeing what they choose to present, that's how they would present it to the grand jury. Look, I would love to see this man charged and convicted but I think that people are awfully glib about the prospect of obtaining a conviction once you've--

Brian Lehrer: Gone some trial.

Josh: -got past the grand jury state.

Brian Lehrer: Josh, thank you so much for your call. I really appreciate it.

Jacqueline Alemany: Brian, I just want to say Josh makes a good point also in that this is the reason why this is all taking so long, why the Department of Justice has taken over a year and a half to put together the January 6th case. They're not going to bring forward a case that they know they're going to lose exactly for some of the reasons Josh outlined which is to give some of these players yet another political grievance. That also brings us to another investigation where some of the sources we've spoken to feel like the Department of Justice actually has a more clear cut case here.

That's the mishandling of classified information, a federal crime that could lead to prison crime. We've been told that the special counsel's team is actually further along in potentially bringing charges and prosecuting this case against the former president for potentially deliberately mishandling classified information and that the case is clearer for a number of reasons but primarily because there is a very direct link to the former president as in he was the person who was mishandling the classified information as opposed to January 6th which is a bit more of a convoluted case where the former president was able to keep a bit of an arm's length from what some of his allies were implementing as a part of this plan to overturn the results of the election.

Brian Lehrer: We're almost at time and obviously we can't go through everything that the committee presented yesterday. There was really so much regarding what they will refer to a grand jury about Trump and others, but let me ask you one last thing about your reporting because you reported that the report writing process has been marred by disagreements.

We usually see the January 6th committee as very unified but you wrote that former and current staff have complained that important findings have been overlooked and deprioritized and bristle at least Cheney's influence over the final report and you wrote, "Cheney has clashed with other members of the staff or other members and staff over her desire to keep the work squarely focused on Trump."

People familiar with the matter have said she has tussled in particular with representative Stephanie Murphy, Democrat of Florida, a retiring lawmaker Murphy also presented I thought very effectively yesterday. What happened there?

Jacqueline Alemany: Yes. This is actually at this point long-standing disagreement between staffers, some staffers and members, and others, and primarily Liz Cheney, who has been really the driving force behind this entire process. Many of these same people who have expressed some criticisms to us about Cheney's decision have also credited her with the massive success but they have complained that she has been too focused on the former president and that she has essentially turned this committee into a vehicle to make sure that former President Trump never runs office ever again and there are some people who feel that is coming at the expense of telling the broader story of and some of the other bigger forces, forces bigger than the former president that led to the insurrection and some of the intelligence and security failures that occurred as well.

Some parts of the report that were deprioritized has been the work of the green team and the blue team the green team on the committee was traced, was following the money, figuring out who funded the insurrection, and actually, we saw, we heard a new piece of evidence in regards to that yesterday which was that the former president and his allies raised, what was it a quarter of a billion dollars between January-- between the election--

Brian Lehrer: Election.

Jacqueline Alemany: -and January 6th of the big lie.

Brian Lehrer: The grift.

Jacqueline Alemany: The claims. Yes.

Brian Lehrer: The big lie meets the big grift.

Jacqueline Alemany: Exactly. Also, the Blue team which was the team that was investigating the US Capitol Police failed to adequately prepare for the attack on the Capitol despite knowing in advance some of the potential threats. Look at the end of the day, every single member agreed to release all of the source materials so we are going to see ultimately every piece of evidence that has been collected but it might just not be highlighted in some of the in these chapters that we're going to see tomorrow.

Brian Lehrer: I tick Liz Cheney's what I think is her main point about the public hearings which is that if you presented every moving part about Capitol Police and this and that, you know secret Service FBI, it would DC police it would come out as a mush. As it is they presented a cogent case against Trump which was the most important thing for history and for the sake of the nation today as Cheney saw it and so I guess people will debate this.

We will see the full report released tomorrow and listeners we will do another segment on that on Thursday. We thank Jacqueline Alemany Congressional Investigations reporter for The Washington Post, who's been on this so well and so long. Thank you so much for coming on again, Jackie. We appreciate the--

Jacqueline Alemany: Oh, thank you so much, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.