investigations on these key allegations, the AG was in a position to say that they're not supported by the evidence and, therefore, there's no reason to doubt the outcome of the election.
Now, we still had January 6th; we still have, to this day, tens of millions of Americans who doubt the outcome. So it obviously didn't avoid that. But I think the situation would've been even worse if the Department were to say, well, we, as pursuant to our practice, sat on our hands, didn't do any investigation, so we can't tell you whether there's any truth to this or not.
Q But my question is, by the Department saying, we are not going to investigate the number of claims that you just walked through that the White House wanted DOJ to investigate—if those investigations had happened, would the joint session certification have happened? I'm not talking about the rally, but there would've been—
Mr. Andres. I'm sorry . I don't think that's what the testimony was or what Rich said. Can you just break that down a little more, when you say—
. Sure.
Mr. Andres. —the Department didn't investigate?
- BY :
Q If the investigations that the White House had requested were open, were being pursued by Department of Justice, in your, you know, understanding of the certification, the significance of the joint session, would that still have been able to occur?
A So I think the answer is, the Department did do investigations, albeit limited ones.
So, if you take the allegation about the difference between the number of votes certified and the number of votes cast in Pennsylvania, we looked at it, we addressed it, it was easy to dispel that allegation.
