MARTHA MACULLUM (FOX ANCHOR): You know this is the first time we have heard anything from Pat Cipollone's testimony, which just happened on Friday, John and Sandra. And you know, it kind of lines up with what we expected to hear because we knew there was a lot of friction between the in-house counsel, White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, and Eric Herschmann, on the team and the people who came in who supported the president's theories that the election had been stolen from him.
So you have Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn in that room and also folks from – Patrick, the former head of Overstock, who Pat Cipollone said he walked in and said who are you. And then it sort of explodes according to the testimony that we just heard into this battle where Sidney Powell says that the president says see what I have to deal with, you know, these people don't support me, they are not giving me options at this point, and Flynn and Powell sort of saying that they can provide these other options, they are talking about, you know, thermostats and links to these voting machines and why they should be seized and we know that Bill Barr had said he did not see any evidence that would allow the D.O.J. to go further into that investigation to seize any machines.
So it really painted a vivid picture, John and Sandra, of what we were – what was happening in that room and it also then – the case that they are making, is that because that was such an unsatisfactory and chaotic night, they're – the case that they are making is that led the then President Donald Trump to tweet, you know, Jan 6, be there, will be wild, that he wanted to then sort of reach out over Twitter and make sure that people came to make their feelings known, you know, that – you know – near the Capitol building on January 6th.
And then they make this leap I think is a little tricky which goes into the response of people on Twitter, what they were saying, what they were gleaning from that be there be wild, and you know, anybody who spends any time on Twitter knows that you cannot channel or program responses. So I think this is where drawing the line between what the president said he wanted and what – how these people interpreted it becomes difficult at that point. And I think that's where you are going to see some, and that's where also it would be helpful to also hear a little bit of some cross-examination which we have talked about a lot, but I think if the case is strong you don't have to worry about having someone in there sort of poking and prodding and asking some more challenging questions.
SANDRA SMITH (ANCHOR): Jonathan, we were able to speak to you briefly before we got into the hearing on what you were looking for, what struck you as you were listening?
JONATHAN TURLEY (FOX CONTRIBUTOR): Well, it was not what I was looking for. It was not a nexus between the President and any conspiracy, perhaps they will bring that type of evidence forward after the break. But I want to amplify what Martha says. Just interviewing an anonymous former Twitter employee or picking out these alarming comments from the internet really doesn’t make a very persuasive case of a conspiracy. It's clear the president wanted a rally, the president tends to call for rallies almost as much as he used to tweet.
That does not necessarily mean that because the meeting failed this was plan B to take over Congress. Now that's not saying they cannot produce evidence to show that, but it remains circumstantial. And so, the purpose here seems more persuasive than investigative. Witnesses generally have been very confined in answering questions, they have been taking little snippets out of depositions and basically hanging them on this tree to make a persuasive narrative, and it’s interesting that the head of the Oath Keepers recently said that despite his indictment, in spite of the fact he's facing trial, he's willing to testify in public but he doesn't want to be subject to that type of editing. He wants to testify live. And the committee has not responded yet to that request.