Jan. 6 committee tries to prove 'the former president wasn't just a bystander:' Dupree
Jan. 6 committee hearings Tuesday call for testimony on what former President Trump's mindset was going into the Capitol riot last year.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree weighed in Tuesday with Neil Cavuto on "Your World" on the ongoing January 6 committee hearings. Tuesday's hearing focused on testimony condemning former President Trump for his alleged responsibility for the events of January 6.
NEIL CAVUTO: This just seems to make Donald Trump look awful. Just awful. Your thoughts?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TOM DUPREE: Neil, today I thought that the committee focused a lot on linking the former president to this scheme to create the fake electors. And it seems to be a real theme that the committee members are trying to bring out in their statements, in their questioning, to show that the former president wasn't just a bystander or that people who work for him were trying to do this, but that the President was a central player in all of this. That really seems to be one of the themes that these committee members have been pounding on the last few hearings.
GINNI THOMAS SAYS SHE CANNOT WAIT TO MEET WITH JAN. 6 COMMITTEE TO 'CLEAR UP MISCONCEPTIONS'
NEIL CAVUTO: Now, of course, the next leap some people make, well, that's criminal behavior. And of course, that's something this committee can't decide and might make recommendations to the Justice Department in that regard. But what is it, then, when a sitting president is challenging the validity of election results in key states, and even when he is presented time and again, especially in the case of Georgia, that count after count was on the up-and-up and that there was nothing to those arguments. And he kept pushing those arguments. What are we to make of that?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}DUPREE: Yeah, that and that last piece of it, Neil, is really the critical one here. And that's why the committee is so focused on trying to establish that the president knew that he had no ground to claim that he had won the election. He had no ground to claim fraud on the scope that he was claiming it, that he had no basis for doing that because his own lawyers were telling him that he didn't have a case. State officials were telling him that there simply weren't votes there. We heard today that in Georgia, the president was claiming there were thousands of dead people who voted and the Georgia officials were saying they found two. So it does get to the question of intent, Neil, as to what exactly did the president know? And if he knew he didn't have an election victory in hand, what was his basis for moving ahead with the plan?
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW HERE: