Yahoo News

Jan. 6 hearing: Key takeaways from 3rd day of testimony on Capitol attack

Caitlin Dickson·ReporterJune 16, 2022, 6:27 PM·8 min readIn this article:

• Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.More content below
• Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.More content below
• Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.More content below

• Mike Pence48th Vice President of the United States
• Donald Trump45th President of the United States
• Joe Biden46th and current president of the United States

In its latest public hearing on Thursday, the House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection zeroed in on former President Donald Trump’s effort to pressure his vice president, Mike Pence, to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.

Following opening remarks from the committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., took the lead, along with the panel’s senior investigative counsel, John Wood, in questioning witnesses and presenting the committee’s examination of the origins of a strategy pushed by lawyer John Eastman that Pence could unilaterally reject electoral votes cast in several states Trump lost, and how Trump’s relentless pressure campaign to convince Pence to do so put him in danger on Jan. 6.

The hearing relied heavily on the testimony of witnesses, including Pence’s former chief counsel Greg Jacob and J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge who advised Pence in the lead-up to Jan. 6, who appeared before the committee in person.

What were some of the most shocking revelations?

• Eastman apparently knew the Pence plan was illegal

In his testimony to the committee, Greg Jacob described multiple conversations he had with John Eastman prior to Jan. 6 in which, Jacob said, Eastman acknowledged that Pence did not have any legal authority to reject certified electors from certain states.

In one such meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 4, Jacob told the committee that Eastman acknowledged, in front of Trump, that his proposal would “violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act,” but he rationalized that it could still be carried out because “in his view, the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional,” Jacob said.

The following day, Jacob said that he and Eastman had another lengthy discussion, during which Jacob said Eastman conceded that if the Supreme Court were to consider the actions he was urging Pence to take on Jan. 6, then “we would lose 9-0.” Once again, Jacob said, Eastman rationalized this by saying that he didn’t think the Supreme Court was likely to get involved in this issue.

(editor：)