--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Welcome to Today Explained. I'm Sean Rameswaram.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Thanks for having me on the show.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Today, we're talking about the January 6th committee's final report and the four criminal referrals against former President Donald Trump. Andrew Prokop is a national correspondent at Vox, and he's been covering this story for months. Andrew, let's start with the basics. What's in this report?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The committee's report is a thousand pages long, but they also released a hundred-page executive summary that's a good starting point. They've gathered all the evidence and testimony and woven it into a central narrative that says this was a deliberate and planned effort by Trump to stay in power.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And what are the four crimes that the committee alleges Trump committed?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They say he obstructed an official proceeding, which is the January 6th counting of the electoral votes in Congress and the transfer of power. They argue that by trying to prevent the transfer of power and getting his supporters to make trouble, Trump was trying to obstruct that official proceeding, which is illegal.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Number two, conspiracy to defraud the United States. This is a pretty broad statute that we've seen in other corruption investigations. The committee says that Trump conspired with others to make an agreement to impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful functions of the United States government by deceitful or dishonest means.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Number three is conspiracy to make a false statement. The evidence suggests that Trump conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to Congress and the National Archives. The goal was to get those into the hands of Vice President Mike Pence, who was supposed to open the envelopes of the electoral votes and read them out.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And number four is assisting an insurrection against the United States. This is a grave federal offense anchored in the Constitution itself, which repeatedly opposes insurrections and domestic violence. The committee says that Trump's conduct was part of a larger plan, that there was some evidence it was premeditated even before the election.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So, what happens next? The committee has referred these crimes to the Justice Department for consideration. What does that mean?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: It means that the Justice Department will now review the evidence and decide whether to charge Trump with these crimes. The committee's referral doesn't do anything procedurally, it's just a recommendation from Congress.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And what about the two Republican members of the committee, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger? They're both Republicans who were appalled by what Trump did on January 6th. What role did they play in this investigation?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They were the two Republicans on the committee, and they were instrumental in pushing the investigation forward. Liz Cheney, in particular, was a leading force in the investigation and was the one who really drove the committee's efforts to hold Trump accountable.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Now, let's talk about the Justice Department's investigation. We know that they've been investigating Trump for months, but what's the current state of that investigation?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The investigation has gotten much more serious and intense over the course of the year. The Justice Department has issued subpoenas, and a special counsel has been appointed to take charge of the investigation.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And what about the Supreme Court? Could they potentially get involved in this case?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Yes, the Supreme Court could potentially get involved. If the Justice Department uses creative interpretations of certain statutes to indict Trump, the Supreme Court may be waiting in the wings to say that Trump was just doing normal politics and wasn't breaking the law.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Andrew Prokop is a national correspondent at Vox. Thanks for explaining this complex story to us today.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Thanks for having me on the show.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Today's episode was produced by Hady Mawajdeh and Siona Peterous, edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Efim Shapiro, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram.
--:-- [Support for Today Explained comes from the FIFA World Cup]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The FIFA World Cup is coming to North America next summer. You can get closer to the beautiful game with a hospitality package, closer to the action, the best seats, the best suites, closer to match day and that world-class food and that world-class entertainment.
--:-- [Support for this show comes from strawberry.me]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Are you happy with your job? Or are you stuck in one you've outgrown? Or never wanted in the first place? Let a career coach from strawberry.me help you get unstuck.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: What do you think today explained this? I don't know.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I don't know either.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Andrew Prokop, Vox, the House Select Committee looking into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol is wrapping up its inquiry this week. They're going to release a thousand-page report that will surely be a top of most Americans' holiday reading list. But just in case it isn't, they released a hundred-page executive summary of the report that's coming out later this week.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: What the heck is in it? They put together all of the evidence and testimony and weave it into a sort of central narrative, trying to make the point that this was very much a deliberate and planned effort on Trump's part and making the case that he broke the law in several specific ways.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: No man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again. They say here are the crimes, essentially. And the committee voted on Monday to officially recommend Trump's referral for prosecution for these crimes by the U.S. Justice Department.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Number one, obstruction of an official proceeding. That is the January 6th counting of the electoral votes in Congress and the transfer of power. Title 18, Section 1512C, which makes it unlawful for anyone to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding of the United States government.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They argued that by trying to prevent the transfer of power, trying to get Mike Pence to overturn the outcome, and getting his supporters to make trouble, Trump was trying to obstruct that official proceeding, which is illegal.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: We believe that the evidence described by my colleagues today and assembled throughout our hearings warrants a criminal referral of former President Donald J. Trump, John Eastman and others for violations of this statute.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Number two, conspiracy to defraud the United States. In other words, to make an agreement to impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful functions of the United States government by deceitful or dishonest means.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: This is a pretty broad statute that we've seen often in the Mueller investigation, other corruption investigations that the Justice Department can use when they think that a public official or anyone really is trying to abuse their power to prevent the government from fulfilling its official functions.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And in this case, that function would be recognizing the lawful and accurate result of the election and turning power over to the rightful winner, Joe Biden.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Number three is conspiracy to make a false statement. The evidence clearly suggests that President Trump conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to Congress and the National Archives.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: He said that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Michigan and Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, that they were going to put together a slate of Trump electors from each of these states, and they were going to submit them to Congress and say, these are the electors from the state.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So the goal here was to get those into the hands of Vice President Mike Pence, who was supposed to open the envelopes of the electoral votes and read them out.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And Trump wanted Pence to say, oh, I've got two sets of electors from this state. I don't know what to do about it. Maybe we shouldn't count them or that Congress would have to vote on what to do about it.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But the committee's position is that this was essentially fraud. They were creating a list of electors that were not the true electors from the state. That was a lying list of electors and that that deserves to be officially prosecuted.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And then number four is assisting an insurrection against the United States. It is a grave federal offense anchored in the Constitution itself, which repeatedly opposes insurrections and domestic violence, and indeed uses participation in insurrection by officeholders as automatic grounds for disqualification from ever holding public office again at the federal or state level.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Four crimes there, in their opinion, and then they will refer it to the Justice Department for the consideration of recently appointed special counsel Jack Smith.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The committee has developed significant evidence that President Trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transition of power under our Constitution.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Because this is coming from Congress, does that carry any more weight than some guy mailing the Department of Justice a letter saying, hey, I think my neighbor is committing bank fraud?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So I think the context for this has changed over the course of the year. There was a debate earlier in 2022 about whether the committee should recommend charges against Donald Trump, should make this criminal referral.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The referral does not procedurally do anything. It does not force the Justice Department's hands. It's a recommendation from Congress. It says this is what we think.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Now, at the beginning of this year, it wasn't totally clear how intensely the Justice Department was investigating Trump himself for his involvement in January 6th and what they were thinking about it criminally.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So in that context, it was possible that perhaps the committee's recommendation could be a wake-up call to the Justice Department, a call to action, say, hey, we think this is really important and you should go after it.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But over the course of the year, DOJ's investigation has seemed to grow a lot more serious and a lot more intense. The subpoenas have been flying. The special counsel has been appointed. They're clearly looking at this very seriously.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So as compared to yesterday, will the decision to make these criminal referrals today change anything about DOJ's mind?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I don't think so.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Was the whole process of unearthing new evidence undertaken by the committee helpful in shifting DOJ's thinking on this topic?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: That is possible.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So was it just the former president, or were there criminal referrals for anyone else?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So the committee also referred several other people, mostly lawyers for Trump, who were deeply involved in this effort to overturn the election results.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They were John Eastman, Kenneth Chessebro, Rudy Giuliani, and Jeffrey Clark, Clark being the Justice Department official who Trump considered appointing to put in charge of the Justice Department and who wanted to enlist DOJ in declaring the election results were false and untrustworthy and that state legislators should disregard them.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: By that point in time, election-related litigation was over in all or nearly all of these states. And Trump campaign election lawyers realized that the fake slates were unjustifiable on any grounds and may be unlawful.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: In spite of these concerns and the concerns of individuals in the White House counsel's office, President Trump and others proceeded with this plan.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There was also Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, for just being involved in this whole effort.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Meadows is interesting because, yeah, Meadows transcends the legal team. He was in the administration. But I feel like this stuff could apply to some members of Congress, too.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Yeah.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So there were also some members of Congress who the committee referred to the House Ethics Committee for them to look into what they did.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: This includes likely next speaker Kevin McCarthy, as well as likely next House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Representative Scott Perry, who was involved in this Jeffrey Clark Justice Department scheme, and also Representative Andy Biggs.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Doozy!
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But those referrals were generally in connection to them not testifying before the committee in response to its subpoenas.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: They didn't really try to issue a final assessment of the legality of the behavior of various members of Congress who were involved in Trump's scheme.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And I know all of this feels sort of familiar and even maybe slow moving to people who believe something very detrimental to our democracy transpired on January 6th, 2021.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But as a reminder, has anything like this ever happened before?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Criminal referrals from Congress to the Department of Justice against a former president? No.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Did anything like January 6th ever happen before?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: No, I know this is a totally unprecedented situation.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And I think what happened initially is that there was some confusion and some lack of clarity, lack of precedent within the department, within Congress about how to even think about what transpired.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And what the committee has been doing is providing what they hope to be more clarity about how to think about what Trump did what it amounted to and why in their view it was criminal.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: More with Andrew in a minute on Today Explained.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Support for today's show comes from Adio.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Adio is an AI-native customer relationship management system built specifically for the next era of companies.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: They say it's extremely powerful, adapts to your unique data structures and scales with any business model.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: According to Adio, Adio takes less than a minute to set up, And within seconds, you will have your email and calendars synced.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You'll see all your relationships in a fully-fledged platform, they say, all enriched with that actionable data.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And they say you can build AI-powered automations and use its research agent to tackle some of your most complex processes so that you can focus on what matters, building your company.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You can join industry leaders such as Flatfile, Replicate, Modal, and so much more.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: You can go to attio.com slash todayexplained to get 15% off your first year.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: That's attio.com slash todayexplained.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Save the day like you always do by being smart, sharp, and almost always find mistake.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The Hulu original series, Only Murders in the Building, premieres September 9th.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney Plus for bundle subscribers.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Terms apply. New episodes Tuesdays.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Today Explained, we're back with Andrew Prokop from Vox.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Thanks for having me back on the show.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Andrew, we've talked about these hearings a bunch of times on Today Explained, including just now with you, but some things are different now.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: As you mentioned, the committee is done. The former president has announced he's running again. Meanwhile, Republicans are going to take over control of the House in less than two weeks.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: What are they going to make of this January 6th committee's referrals and report in which some of them are named and referred to the House Ethics Committee?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The new Republican majority is expected to either shut the committee down totally or to try to do an investigation of the investigators looking for malfeasance in the way that Republicans tried to prove misconduct for the Trump-Russia investigation as well.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So they're not going to take this particularly seriously or reflect on it in any way.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And the former president announced he's running. How do these referrals and the GOP taking control of the House play into that?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So Trump is running again. Allegedly, he announced his campaign, but he hasn't really held any rallies or done very much.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And he seems to be declining in the polls a fair amount.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But I wouldn't really say it adds to the legal jeopardy he was facing because he was facing a lot of legal jeopardy already.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The big thing that has happened over the course of the year is that the DOJ investigations of Trump have gotten much more serious and that just recently a special counsel was appointed to take charge of them, specifically because Trump announced he was running again.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So now there is one person in charge of both the January 6th investigations and the other probe into whether Trump violated classified information laws and taking documents to Mar-a-Lago.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So he was already facing very serious legal scrutiny. And this report does not necessarily do anything to change that by itself.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So this sets the stage for the former president to be running for office again while being investigated by the current Department of Justice.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And perhaps indicted.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And that Department of Justice is run by his potential opponent in this next election.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I mean, isn't this automatically fodder for him to say, like, look at this corruption, look what they're doing to me, they're trying to impede my campaign by investigating me, by indicting me?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: He is absolutely going to say those things regardless of what happens with the investigation, what the strength of the evidence is, and so on.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But I think the Justice Department made the decision that, you know, if they think that he broke the law here in this unprecedented sweeping effort to stay in power and then that they were going to follow the facts where they lead in their view and to try to hold him accountable.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And he can protest however he likes, but, you know, they're not going to let him off the hook because he's going to whine and complain about it.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: There are a lot of people out there, Andrew, who believe that this president is above accountability. And some people are happy about it, and some people are not.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Is there any reality, is there any world in which Donald Trump faces the music for what happened on January 6th?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I do think that's quite possible.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I mean, we're still a bit of a ways away from there. But, you know, I know that hypothetical people out there may feel a bit disillusioned, a bit like we're in Groundhog Day, that Trump's been investigated so many times and nothing's come of it, etc., etc.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: This is just going to be more of the same. And, you know, maybe it will. I can't say for sure what the future holds.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But there are some really important differences now. All of the investigations while he was president ended with the problem that DOJ said it would not indict a sitting president.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Now he's not president. He doesn't have those protections anymore.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There's also the Supreme Court lying in wait. If there are some creative interpretations of certain statutes that DOJ uses to indict Trump the Supreme Court may be lying in wait to say no actually we think Trump was just doing kind of normal politics and he really wasn't breaking the law so we don't think your charges stand.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: So, you know, there would be several twists and turns lying ahead.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But personally, as someone who's covered Trump's legal jeopardy since 2017, I think he's closer to facing charges today than he has ever been in the past.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Of course, whether or not the former president faces charges or the music, one of the great tragedies here beyond January 6th itself is that most Americans can't agree on what happened that day and can't agree on the import of the work that was done by this committee.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Did the committee ultimately accomplish anything before we see what the DOJ does?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I think the committee accomplished a lot, much more than I initially expected.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: When this was initially being put together, and it was envisioned as a truly bipartisan committee with Republicans and Democrats represented perhaps equally, I didn't think it would accomplish anything.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: I thought it would be just completely bogged down in partisanship and nonsense.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But the committee ended up with just Democrats and with two Republicans who were really, really mad at Trump for January 6th, ended up being kind of the best of both worlds for them because it is still bipartisan.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Liz Cheney is not a Democrat. She is a rock-solid Republican on essentially every issue.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But she was just truly appalled by what Trump did after the election and on January 6th and wants him to be held accountable.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: 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.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And she was more than any other person on this committee. She was the leading force in its investigation and what it did.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: It often acted more aggressively than I would have expected. It found more. It got surprising results in testimony, most notably from the White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: She revealed several really surprising things, such as that Trump really, really did want to go to the Capitol on January 6th.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: He really tried to get the Secret Service to bring him here.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The president said something to the effect of, I'm the effing president. Take me up to the Capitol now.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: When we all watch Trump's attempt to stay in power unfold in real time, it often seemed kind of comical.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There were unhinged figures like Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, the pillow salesman, playing starring roles, spreading like total nonsense.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Establishment Republicans were averting their eyes.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: All Trump's lawsuits were getting thrown out of court.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: There was a press conference at four seasons total landscaping where Rudy Giuliani appeared to be melting in public.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Like, it all seemed kind of ridiculous.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But the committee has really tried to dig in and make the case that rather than something flailing and silly, that this was deadly serious and that the seriousness was not just about the violence at the Capitol on January 6th itself.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The seriousness was that Trump's conduct was part of a larger plan, that there was some evidence it was premeditated even before the election.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And that they don't buy anyone's arguments that Trump may have believed his own lies or became lost in conspiracy theories.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: They say he was knowingly prevaricating.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: The whole purpose and obvious effect of Trump's scheme were to obstruct, influence, and impede this official proceeding, the central moment for the lawful transfer of power in the United States.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: And their work is over, but the story isn't.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So to be continued?
--:-- Andrew Prokop: The ball is really in the special counsel's court now.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Today, I signed an order appointing Jack Smith to serve as special counsel.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: Jack Smith, he's a career prosecutor. He headed the public integrity section of the Justice Department, and he stepped down from the department in 2017.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And since then, he has been chief prosecutor for a European Union body that's investigating war crimes in Kosovo.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: He's been working out of the Hague.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And he's really been removed from the Trump era controversies, not playing a part in them at all.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: But he has a reputation as being like a tough, serious, no-nonsense prosecutor who is going to follow the facts where they go.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And so now the ball is in his court.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: He's now taken charge of this. He is still ultimately accountable to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Garland will have to sign off on any charging recommendations that Smith makes, but his eventual view of the facts will carry great weight in determining what happens and whether Donald Trump does end up being indicted.
--:-- Andrew Prokop: All right, so we'll see you, Jack, Merrick, and Don in the new year.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I guess we will.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Andrew Prokop is a national correspondent at Vox. Read his work at Vox.com, won't you?
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Our program today was produced by Hady Mawajdeh and Siona Peterous.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: It was edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, and engineered by Efim Shapiro.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I'm Sean Rameswaram from Today Explained.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You can get in touch with us anytime via email. We're todayexplained at Vox.com.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: We may not always reply, but we most definitely read.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Consider and appreciate your feedback.
