https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff...-durbin-2021-8
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said an acting attorney general under former President Donald Trump testified for seven hours about Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Durbin told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that Jeffrey Rosen "told us a lot. Seven hours of testimony."
Rosen testified privately before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Durbin chairs, on Saturday.
Durbin said of Rosen: "I thought he was very open. And there was a lot there. An awful lot there. You can imagine: seven hours of testimony. And it really is important that we ask these questions because what was going on in the Department of Justice was frightening from a constitutional point of view."
CNN's Dana Bash asked Durbin what he thought was the most shocking part of Rosen's testimony.
Durbin replied: "Just how directly and personally involved the president was, the pressure he was putting on Jeffrey Rosen. It was real, very real, and it was very specific."
He said that Rosen "was being asked by the White House, leadership in the White House, to meet with certain people who had these wild, bizarre theories of why the election wasn't valid, and he refused to do it."
Richard Donoghue is also expected to testify on this matter as well.
Of course politics are politics but we should assume that Durbin is being relatively honest about the content of the testimony since Rosen would want to speak up if he was being meaningfully misrepresented in the description of the two testimonies he's given so far. I'm sure we all agree it is beyond improper to put pressure on DoJ to advance issues of direct personal importance, particularly after Barr investigated them and concluded that there was no sufficient scale of election fraud to overturn the election result. Hopefully a sanitized transcript of the testimony will be made public soon but this seems like something we might have to wait a bit for unfortunately.
I don't think Business Insider is a controversial news source but in the case that some consider it to be you get one post in this thread bashing on the news source after which point I'd appreciate staying on the topic of this thread. In fairness I took a (quick) search on Breitbart and other conservative sites but didn't find specific reporting on these claims. Links to articles relevant to these specific interviews / claims are welcome.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said an acting attorney general under former President Donald Trump testified for seven hours about Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Durbin told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that Jeffrey Rosen "told us a lot. Seven hours of testimony."
Rosen testified privately before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Durbin chairs, on Saturday.
Durbin said of Rosen: "I thought he was very open. And there was a lot there. An awful lot there. You can imagine: seven hours of testimony. And it really is important that we ask these questions because what was going on in the Department of Justice was frightening from a constitutional point of view."
CNN's Dana Bash asked Durbin what he thought was the most shocking part of Rosen's testimony.
Durbin replied: "Just how directly and personally involved the president was, the pressure he was putting on Jeffrey Rosen. It was real, very real, and it was very specific."
He said that Rosen "was being asked by the White House, leadership in the White House, to meet with certain people who had these wild, bizarre theories of why the election wasn't valid, and he refused to do it."
Richard Donoghue is also expected to testify on this matter as well.
Of course politics are politics but we should assume that Durbin is being relatively honest about the content of the testimony since Rosen would want to speak up if he was being meaningfully misrepresented in the description of the two testimonies he's given so far. I'm sure we all agree it is beyond improper to put pressure on DoJ to advance issues of direct personal importance, particularly after Barr investigated them and concluded that there was no sufficient scale of election fraud to overturn the election result. Hopefully a sanitized transcript of the testimony will be made public soon but this seems like something we might have to wait a bit for unfortunately.
I don't think Business Insider is a controversial news source but in the case that some consider it to be you get one post in this thread bashing on the news source after which point I'd appreciate staying on the topic of this thread. In fairness I took a (quick) search on Breitbart and other conservative sites but didn't find specific reporting on these claims. Links to articles relevant to these specific interviews / claims are welcome.
Comment