0 preserve his communications related to the january 6th attack on the capital, including his communications with former president trump, and others at the trump white house. they are asking him to come in for a transcribed interview, asking him to commit a transcri interviewed. they are not subpoenaing him, nor are they raising that prospect, of course, that kind of prospect looms in an investigation in which lots of other people have been subpoenaed. in this letter to the cable news host, they released a series of his texts. his communications with trump white house chief of staff mark meadows in particular. the reason they have released those texts it appears is to make the case both to him and the public. that he is an important fact witness for the investigation. and they need to ask him asks about what he knows. he may know stuff other people don't. now the tv host in question is a man named sean hannitity. he's a prime time week night host at the fox news channel. and regardless of whether or not you have heard of him or seen his commentary about january 6th or about trump more broadly, it does appear from what the investigation released tonight that mr. hannity was kind of in the thick of it, at least with the white house chief of staff, and apparently with the president himself. they say quote, the select committee now has information in its possession indicating you had a advanced knowledge regarding president trump's and his legal teams planning for january 6. it also appears that you were expressing concerns and providing advice to president trump at certain white house staff regarding that planning. you also have relevant communications while the riot was underway and the days thereafter. these communications make you a fact witness in our investigation. the select committee is in possession of dozens of text messages you sent to and received from former white house chief of staff mark meadows and others related to the 2020 election and president trump's efforts to contest the outcome of that vote. for example, on december 31, 2020, you texted mark meadows the following. quote, we can't lose the entire white house counsel office. i do not see january 6 happening the way he is being told. he presumably meaning the president? after the 6th, he should announce he will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity. go to fl -- presumably, that's florida. and watch joe, joe biden, mess up daily. stay engaged when he speaks people will listen. this text suggests you had knowledge of concerns by president trump white house counsel office regarding the legality of the former president's plans for january 6. these facts are directly relevant to our inquiry. similarly, on january 5th, the night before the violent riot you sent and received a stream of texts you wrote, quote, i'm very worried about the next 48 hours, but the counting of the electoral votes scheduled for the following day january 6th, 1:00 p.m., why were you concerned about the next 48 hours? also on the evening of january 5, you texted white house chief of staff quote pence pressure. white house counsel will leave. what communications or information led you to conclude white house counsel would leave? what precisely did you know at that time? the committee continues, quote, it also appears from other text messages that you may have had a conversation directly with president trump on the evening of january 5th, and perhaps other times regarding his planning for january 6th. we're aware of and interested in your communication to mr. meadows and others during the violent attack on january 6. as the rioters were attempting to occupy the capitol building. for example on january 6 you texted to mark meadows, press coverage relating to a potential effort by members of trump's cabinet to remove him from office using the 25th amendment. as you may recall secretary devos and secretary chou both resigned following president trump's conduct on january 6th. as did members of the president's white house staff. we would like to question you regarding any conversation you had with mark meadows or others about any effort to remove president trump using the 25th amendment. additionally you appear to have had a discussion with president trump on january 10, that may have raised a number of specific concerns about his actions in the days before the inauguration january 20. you wrote to mark meadows and congressman jim jordan on january 10th, quote, guys, we have a clear path to land the plane in nine days. he can't mention the election again. ever. i did not have a good call with him today. and worse i'm not sure what is left to do or say. i don't like not knowing if it's truly understood. ideas? then that text message sent to white house chief of staff mark meadows and republican congressman jim jordan. the committee continues, quote, in the communications are subject to privilege. they bare directly on the issues before the committee. we cannot in good faith fail to question you on these and specific issues relevant to the vgs. including an investigation into the facts and circumstances relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power. this is interesting. again this gentleman is a cable news host. the committee says quote, we stress that our goal is not to seek information regarding any of your broadcasts. or your political views. or commentary. we have deep respect for the first amendment to our constitution. as we detailed above, you appear to have factual information directly relevant to the events of january 6th and the attack on institutions of our democracy. we have a duty to understand all of the under lying facts and make legislative recommendations. please identify for the select committee the name of your counsel. we'll work closely with the person as soon as possible. to schedule a time for a transcribed interview. we're also interested in any other communications you may have had with the white house, president trump or any other persons involved in the events of january 6th. we now ask you to preserve all records of such communication. we have no doubt that you love our country and respect our constitution. now is the time to step forward and serve the interest of your country. we thank you in advance for your cooperation. and it is signed bennie thompson, the chairman and liz cheney, vice chair of the investigation. what a world we're in. again this letter sent tonight to a cable news host at the popular fox news channel. we don't know how he will respond. we don't know if he'll provide information to the committee or not. the committee should be noted they had previously released another of his text messages to the white house. he pleaded for president trump to tell supporters to leave the capitol on january 6th. so, we know from this man's private communications that he believed at the time of the attack on the capitol that trump was responsible for and he could control the behavior of the trump-supporting mob that day. for what it's worth that sentiment, that trump was responsible that he could have stopped january 6 if he wanted to, that is not something this gentleman articulated publicly about january 6. although his private communications at the time suggest that is what he actually knew to be the case, so, we will see. his lawyer says that he's reviewing the request from the committee. and there's been no substantive response yet. we shall see. in terms of connecting the dots here, though, there had been previous reporting including from testimony to the senate that trump's white house chief of staff pat cipollone had said at a white house meeting on january 3rd that he would resign as white house council, he is reportedly to have said that in a meeting in the oval office where trump was discussing the possibility of installing a new attorney general so he could use the justice department to basically force the falsification of the election results. we knew previously from other testimony that cipollone had threatened to resign over that thought, about the justice department being used that way. these new texts from hannity released tonight suggest the white house counsel also threatened to resign. even earlier than that. four days earlier. last new year's eve, what was that threat to resign about? also, from the texts from mr. hannity released by the investigation tonight it would appear the white house council mr. cipollone was renewing the threats to resign. on days later on january 5. the night before the attack on the capitol. according to texts that threat to resign would appear to have been a response to the pressure that was being put on vice president pence. by trump and his co-conspirators, and his pressure to try to get him to effectively spoil the counting of the electoral college votes. in congress. on january 6. did pat cipollone threaten to resign on new year's eve on january 3rd, on january 5th? again we do not know if hannity will respond to this request for him to provide information to the committee. to flesh out the facts around the previously unknown details about what happened. it is interesting they are appealing to his patriotism. and asking him to give information to the committee. i don't know. i think regardless of party, regardless of cable news outlet of your choice, all americans would like to know what mr. hannity knew on january 5th that made him text to the white house, i am very worried about the next 48 hours. what did he know about what was going to happen in the next 48 hours that made him tell the white house chief of staff he was very worried. we shall see. but tonight we have something else new. the publication of a book today. by a member of the january 6 investigation. who was also the lead impeachment manager appointed by house speaker nancy pelosi. to prosecute the case against former president trump in the second impeachment, the impeachment for inciting the attack on the capitol this time last year. as you will recall, it feels like it's been five minutes and also 50 years. this time last year the house in fact voted to impeach trump. that vote in the house was january 13th. one month later, a majority of the u.s. senate 57 senators also voted to convict the former president. that was the largest bipartisan vote for an impeachment in american history. but a 58 -- 57 vote majority is not enough to secure a conviction in the senate. to get a conviction you need two-thirds. 67 senators to vote. not 57. looking back on that i mean, it's pretty -- the historical consequences that are really stark, right, had enough republican senators that day voted to obtain that formal conviction, had it been 67 senators is voting to convict and not 57, former president donald trump would not just be the only president twice impeached in u.s. history which he is, he would also become the law from ever running for any public office again. had they actually convicted him. had they got 67 votes he would have been barred from running for public office ever again. he was not convicted. 57 votes not 67. because he was not convicted, he is not barred from running for office again. he is likely to run for president again. even as the justice department and the january 6th investigation weigh the question right now of whether -- could ever be held criminally liable. for his role in the conspiracy to stop the transfer of power to the new president. and thereby overthrow the united states government. the january 6 attack on the capitol was part of the plan. we know it. thanks to a year of investigation that it was only part of the plan. it was an integral part of the plan. it was just part of it. three term maryland congressman jamie raskin sits on the january 6th investigation now. he also was the lead impeachment manager. he personally led the effort against trump for the january 6 attack. the week the capitol was attacked last year, jamie raskin lost his beloved 25 year-old son tommy to suicide. tommy died on december 31. he was buried on january 5. january 5th last year. congressman raskin was with his daughter and son-in-law at the u.s. capitol the following day, the day after his son's funeral, january 6th when the attack at the capitol happened. congressman raskin's new book out today which "unthinkable:trauma, truth and the trials of american democracy." the book is in some sense it's a biography of his son. a love letter to his son. it's also an astonishing very difficult loving account of losing his son. it is also a memoir about his life. his own leap in particular from being a constitutional law professor to being a very high profile member of congress. it's also a searing and original and at times very surprising account of the attack on january 6. and the impeachment that followed. a lot of insider information about the impeachment effort we never had before. it's also a clarion call about the ongoing threat from trump and from the authoritarian anti-democratic forces that he has unleashed in this country that are more dangerous now than they've ever been. in jamie raskin's new book out today we learned among other things that he had initially proposed a motion that senators should vote on trump's impeachment by secret ballot. they shouldn't stand up and vote in their own name ts. but conduct the vote in secret. a lot of americans believed that had it been a secret ballot the conviction of trump wouldn't have just been assured. it might have been unanimous. raskin proposed that senators should sit alphabetically. rather than by party. to break senators apart from their partisan bonds at least a little bit, at least in that one physical sense so they could more easily vote their conscience, when it came time to convict or acquit. we learn that he's come to see the attack on january 6 as three coinciding rings. the first ring, the outer ring were the rioters who came to scream and smash things. the second ring the middle ring was the insurrectionists who came to actually stop the congressional vote counting process. including the paramilitaries who were trained and in some cases brought arms to the capitol region. to try to achieve that goal. the innermost ring is the ring of the coup. quote in my mind it was here in the bull's-eye center of the action that trump operated likely along with chief of staff, rudy giuliani, house minority leader, michael flynn. senator josh hawley, representative jim jordan and the most extreme elements of the gop house and senate conferences. the strategy for trump to stay in power. the most basic idea from specific states. if in when pence did that, by vaguely citing allegations of fraud in those states and quote returning their votes to the state legislature, pence would succeed in lowering biden's electoral vote total to below 270. which would immediately trigger under the 12th amendment a contingent election. the house contingent election the one place where trump could still, quote, win the election. again, those are the three rings of sort of the attack that jaskin i think presciently describes in terms of what was going on, on january 6. of course there is tonight ahead of attorney general speech tomorrow. merrick garland, 2:30 p.m. will give an address to justice department staff and the american public about the january 6th investigation and prosecution. there's tonight still a wide open pressing question, as to whether anybody in that inner most ring, the ring of the coup, the people who actually devised and tried to implement the plan to overthrow the government, there remains an open question tonight as to whether they'll get off scot-free. efforts will go unanswered. the question remains. whether they will have to answer for that -- for what they did. with anything more than more chance tos try to do it again. here's how jamie raskin writes it. from that day, from the floor of the house. he says, quote, boom. i hear the sound i will never forget. a sound like a battering ram. the sound of a group of people barrelling up against the central door. with some huge hard thick object. hell-bent on entering the house chamber. the members nearby press furniture up against the door and a number of us run to the door to protect it. we are then quickly told to get back by capitol police officers. who rush in and defend the entrance with their guns drawn. the pounding accelerates and we can hear the sound of angry macho chanting out there, too "hang mike pence, hang mike pence." also "we want trump, we want trump." someone official calls upon us to evacuate. calmly. everyone moves. some people run. to the speakers lobby. carrying gas masks. i look up to the gallery to see our colleagues who have been frozen in place on the democratic side crouching and sliding through the rows to make their way to the galleria above the republican side. i see new hampshire representative and california representative gera jacobs, only her fourth day on the job crueling their way over to the gallery above the republican side. we escape and reunited later a colleague tells me they decide ds to cross over to the republican side because they thought a mass shooter who entered would be less likely to aim the republican side of the house. meantime the officers up there have locked all the doors to keep the rioters from breaking in but they will now presumably unlock them to get our colleagues out. i feel strange about leaving them up there. who knows where we're going. where will any of us find safety on january 6? a bloodthirsty mob of hundreds has entered the building outside the medal detectors and with no security check. who knows what weapons they are carrying. what if one of the rioters is carrying an ar-15? many of us are thinking the same thought. i wonder where all the chaos is taking us. whether my daughter tabitha, my son-in-law, hank, chief of staff are safe at the capitol and they will be rescued soon. whether i should try to turn back and find officers. whether the insurrectionists have firearms. and allies plan to escalate the violence. facing an insurrection a coup or civil war. whether we will finally impeach the traitor for setting loose the dogs of war upon us and perhaps invoke at last the unsung 25th amendment. whether deer america will survive this fall of head first descent. i feel curiosity, anger and resolve. we travel down down down. faster. please hurry. down, down, down into the dark complex basement passage way of the capitol. one thing i don't sense as we're jostled this way and shepherded that. there's one emotion i have not experienced at all on this persistlently gloomy and objectively terrifying day and that i will not experience all through the night. that is fear. i feel no fear. i felt no fear today at all. but we have lost our tommy raskin and the very worst thing that could ever have happened to us has already happened. i'm still in the land of the living. and tommy is with me somehow every step of the way. occupying my heart and filling my chest with oxygen. showing me the way to some kind of safety. my beautiful son is giving me courage. as we flee the u.s. capitol building for our lives. my trama, my wound. has become my shield of defense. and my path of escape. and all i can think of is my son propelling me forward to fight. joining us now is congressman jamie raskin. democrat of maryland. the author of the new book "unthinkable:trauma, truth and the trials of american democracy." congressman, thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me, rachel. >> so i have to ask you, reading the book and knowing you a little bit and having talked to you over the course of the last few years. you are incredibly articulate. unimaginably articulate about your choice to stay public and to keep working and indeed write this book in the middle of the grief and challenge. now that you are putting it out to the world, and able to talk about it, does i