What we learned on Day 3 of the Jan. 6 committee hearings

Judy Woodruff:

To further understand today's hearing, I'm joined now by journalist Garrett Graff.

He's the author of the new book "Watergate: A New History," and Ned Foley, who directs Ohio State University's Election Law program. He is also the former solicitor general of the state of Ohio.

And we welcome both of you to the program.

Ned Foley, I'm going to start with you.

What stood out to you today? We have been discussing for several minutes now what happened at today's hearing. What stood out to you?

Ned Foley, The Ohio State University:

Well, great to be with you.

You played the clip that made the strongest impression on me. That was the moment where Greg Jacob, Vice President Pence's attorney, said that Eastman essentially confessed that he wouldn't want a Democratic vice president, like Al Gore or Kamala Harris, to have this power.

And that's just a confession of how unprincipled and partisan this whole enterprise was. And I think that put the exclamation point about just how wrongful this was for our country.

Judy Woodruff:

And, Garrett Graff, the same question.

And especially as someone who's spent so much time studying Watergate, and including the Watergate hearings, what struck you about today?

Garrett Graff, Author, "Watergate: A New History": Today was just a stunningly historic hearing in American democracy.

And what I think really stood out to me, to echo and rephrase a little bit of what Ned was just saying, is, it's absolutely crazy that we had a congressional hearing today largely focused on debunking the very obviously wrong idea that the vice president of the United States has a chance in our electoral system to choose a different president than the people.

And that's — that came through in Judge Luttig's testimony, in Jacob's testimony, that sort of basic common sense rejected the president's argument, rejected John Eastman's argument, and yet they pushed forward with it.

And I think one of the things that really stood out to me in this hearing and the last couple of hearings has been just how isolated the president really was in these final weeks, that President Trump's most senior aides, Vice President Pence's most senior aides all told him he was wrong and that he was doing something that was illegal and unconstitutional, and against the very basic tenants of American democracy.

And yet he persisted.

Judy Woodruff:

It's clear, Ned Foley, that the former Vice President Mike Pence was at the center of so much of today.

And you were telling us this afternoon, though, that you still have questions about how Mike Pence handled all this.

Ned Foley:

Well, yes.

I mean, he absolutely did the right thing on January 6 itself. There's, I think, no doubt about that. He rejected President Trump's attempt to abuse the process in the way we were just talking about.

But I'm — still have some questions about the timeline between when the Electoral College voted in mid-December, then the days and weeks leading up to January 6, because, as some people may remember, Senator Mitch McConnell acknowledged President Biden's victory right after the Electoral College voted, and said that was the time for closure, because all the lawsuits were over by then.

Under the Constitution, when the Electoral College votes, that's really the end of the process. All Congress does is count the votes. And I can't help but imagine how December, into early January might have unfolded if Vice President Pence had given a concession speech analogous to what Senator McConnell did, acknowledging the President Biden had — or president-elect Biden had indeed won by that point.

So I'm glad he did the right thing on January 6, but I still have questions about mid-December to early January.

Judy Woodruff:

Garrett Graff, do you have similar questions?

Garrett Graff:

I do.

And one of the things that really did stand out in the hearing today is the extent to which Mike Pence really investigated the claims from Eastman, went through a listening tour to try to understand whether he had this power. And, of course, what we now understand from the hearing and the testimony is that it was soundly rejected by all of his aides, his leadership.

And then we also heard today even calls from former Speaker Paul Ryan into Pence's office to say: Hey, Mike knows he can't do this, right?

Judy Woodruff:

Yes.

And, I mean, just picking up on that, Ned Foley, I mean, as Garrett Graff is saying, there was an effort on the part of the vice president to ask about the arguments being made to him, and to — it was as if he wanted to be sure he understood what the choices were, if there was a choice.

Ned Foley:

I think that's right.

I think it's important to focus on two different parts of this. One part, which I think was the primary focus of today's hearing, was this idea that the vice president, as a single individual, could control the outcome. And, again, it sounds like Vice President Pence immediately, instinctively rejected that, as he — as well he should have.

And, again, we wouldn't want any vice president to do that in any circumstance. And, there, that's where the reference to Florida 2000 and Bush vs. Gore is useful, because that was a single state, very close. And even in this — in that context, you wouldn't want Vice President Gore say, well, I'm just going to reject the Supreme Court. I'm going to decide myself.

But as we were just saying before, you have to put today's hearing together with Monday's. And what Monday told us is that Attorney — former Attorney General Barr said this whole predicate was nonsense. The campaign adviser said the same thing.

So the idea that this theory would be used, when there was no predicate at all, is even more outrageous. And so given that there — it was baseless from the beginning, why didn't the vice president come forward early and say there's no role for me as vice president and that, in my role as a candidate for reelection, I should acknowledge that our ticket lost?

Judy Woodruff:

Garrett Graff, back to the question, the central point that we are told — or one of the central points that the committee very much wants to make, and that is to draw — to offer incontrovertible evidence that President Trump directed the attack on the Capitol

Are you seeing that evidence so far in these hearings?

Garrett Graff:

What we are seeing, I think, hearing to hearing is the building of a very strong case that Donald Trump knew what he was doing was wrong, was being told what he was doing was wrong, and yet continued to build this multifaceted pressure campaign against the institutions that protected the election, whether that's the Justice Department, whether that's the state election officials, or whether that's Vice President Pence certifying the electoral vote.

And there I do think — you asked about Watergate. I do think that there is a distinction that we should draw here between Richard Nixon's crimes, which were many and terrible and came out through the result of those Watergate hearings in the summer of 1973, but were fundamentally all abuses of power and crimes against the American people, abuses of civil liberties, abuses of executive power.

Donald Trump's crimes here very clearly target the heart of American democracy. And that, to me, is a different order of magnitude of severity. And it's one that I think the committee is making a very strong argument that this is one of the most serious crimes we have ever seen committed in the United States.

And in fact, Judge Luttig today, one of the most conservative voices in the judicial establishment, made the case that, had Donald Trump succeeded, it would have been the nation's first and most severe constitutional crisis in its history.

Judy Woodruff:

Well, we certainly took note, sat up straight when we heard that.

Garrett Graff, Ned Foley, thank you both.

Ned Foley:

Thank you.

Judy Woodruff:

And we want to remind that the next January 6 Committee hearing is scheduled for this coming Tuesday. That is June the 21st.

It will begin at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, and we will again have live coverage here on PBS, on television and online.