frustration on the 28th, just about a little over an hour later, at 5:50. I won't ask you to read it to us, but just summarize for us your overall reaction and what's reflected in the email.
A I tried to make it clear to him that this is not the Department's role. Again, we don't do quality control for State elections. The States run the elections. We investigate crimes, and we look at civil rights matters. So I tried to make it clear to him that this is simply not our role, to recommend to the States what they do and, secondly, that we have conducted investigations and that the factual claim he was making here was simply not accurate. And so I reminded him that AG Barr had made public statements on this point, less than a week prior, or, I guess, exactly a week prior was the last time he had made some public statements, and that this was just completely unacceptable and not anything that I would ever sign. And I know Jeff Clark—or Jeff Rosen, rather, had the same response.
Q You say in the first paragraph: There's no chance that I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this. You sort of lead with the conclusion. You then, in the first paragraph, challenge his factual assumptions. You said: The investigations that I am aware of relate to suspicions of misconduct that are of such a small scale that it would simply not impact the outcome of the election. AG Barr made that clear to the public only last week, and I am not aware of intervening developments that would change that conclusion.
So, setting aside whether it would be appropriate for the Department to tell a State what to do, you're challenging—is it fair to say you're challenging the factual basis included in his letter to the State official?
A That's right. And he himself, Jeff Clark, would have no way of knowing what investigations we had conducted or not because he was not involved in election
