# Transcribed Interview of Richard Peter Donoghue, (Oct. 1, 2021)/1:04pm

Layout 2
​[1:04 p.m.]
Mr. Donoghue. That was commentary on the YouTube video itself. I wasn't making a remark about the chief of staff or the fact that he forwarded this or anything like that. I had no idea if the chief of staff even looked at this video.
But I did watch the video. It was about a 20-minute YouTube video by this individual who identified himself as Brad Johnson. And it had this very conclusory explanation of how multiple intelligence agencies—U.S., British, and others—conspired to use Italian military satellites to change vote tabulations in the U.S. Presidential election.
And it just seemed to me to be completely off the wall. It was not evidence. It was an internet conspiracy theory that was presented in a very conclusory manner, saying this, in fact, is what happened, without citing to any evidence that supported it.
    BY :
Q I see. So it didn't even give rise to anything credible that could be pursued with a factual investigation, in your view?
A No, not in my view.
Q And did the source of it impact that?
There's a discussion on that same email chain, exhibit 22, between you and Mr. Rosen about Brad Johnson and his relationship with Mr. Giuliani. Tell us a little bit more about the fact that Mr. Johnson was involved and his relationship with Giuliani bore upon your evaluation of the credibility of the YouTube video.
A I don't think it bore upon it because I clearly watched the YouTube video and had my response before I got that information about Mr. Johnson being associated with ​Mr. Giuliani.
Q I see.
A So you'll see that the DAG's response is several hours later.
So he forwarded this to me. As I said, there were emails flying throughout the day, phone calls going throughout the day. I sat down, I watched the video. I was—as an investigator, I was not impressed. And I made my response at 3:39, according to this email chain.
And then, much later, Jeff Rosen told me that there was more to this and that this guy was associated with Giuliani and so on.
Q Did Mr. Rosen make a decision that he wasn't going to meet with Giuliani or anyone associated with him at this point? Did he tell you that?
A He did. He certainly told me in the email, and he might have told me in the phone calls as well. He was getting a little irritated that day, I think understandably so. And he relayed to me, at least in the email, if not also on the calls, that he was not going to meet with Rudy Giuliani.
Rudy Giuliani certainly knew how to bring allegations of criminal conduct to the attention of a U.S. attorney's office or the FBI, and he could follow the regular channels if he chose to do that.
Q Got it.
All right. Mr. Meadows emails you and Mr.—or, actually, Mr. Rosen a little bit later, still on Friday, the holiday, January 1st, at tab 23, about signature match anomalies in Fulton County, Georgia. And he asks, "Can you get Jeff Clark to engage on this issue immediately to determine if there is any truth to this allegation?"
Do you remember having that forwarded to you and what your response was?
A Yes. My response is the next tab, 24. I say, "At least it's better than the ​last one, but that doesn't say much."
So when I'm—I'm melding a couple of different things together here. I took Jeff Rosen's comment, "Can you believe this? I'm not going to respond to the message below," to be a commentary on the fact that someone in the White House believed Jeff Clark should be involved in these things.
The issue about signature matching, that might be a legitimate issue. It might give rise to some concern about whether there was criminal conduct in an election. So, when I say "at least it's better than the last one," at least this isn't some fanciful notion of Italian satellites changing votes in the Midwest. Signature verifications are something that routinely happen after elections, and that's what I'm saying when I say "at least it's better than the last one."
Q Yeah.
A So I'm mixing and matching a little bit off of his comment. His comment I took to be a reference to the Jeff Clark issue, and mine is more of a comparison of signature matches to Italian satellites.
Q I see.
And, at that point, Mr. Donoghue, had the Department already evaluated signature matches and any anomalies in Fulton County and resolved that as not sufficient to cause concern?
A I think we left that to the civil litigants. And I don't think there was anything that raised a sufficient question about signature matching in Fulton County to warrant any sort of criminal review by the Department.
I could be wrong about that. The U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Georgia would have a better idea. But I don't recall the FBI or anyone else looking at signature matching in Georgia.
​Q Yeah. Because there was no evidence of any potential criminal conduct.
A I think that's right. I think they wanted to do a signature match review in the hopes of finding some criminal conduct, but we don't go out and just start fishing expeditions in the hope of finding criminal conduct. We need something to base it on, and I don't think that was ever presented to us.
Q Last question on this line is the next tab, 25, another email from Mr. Meadows—busy afternoon for him—Friday, January 1st, now it's almost 7 o'clock—with some attachment involving ballot security in New Mexico.
Mr. Meadows asks, "Can you forward this list to your team to review the allegations? … Steve Pearce is the chairman of the Republican Party." And then there's a short, two-page document that is titled "New Mexico List of Complaints."
What, if anything, do you remember about issues in New Mexico and whether the Department took any action upon receipt of this message from Mr. Meadows?
A I don't recall anything about New Mexico. I've seen this email in some of my prior interviews with the Senate, but I don't ever recall New Mexico being on our radar screen. I don't think I talked to the U.S. attorney there, who I knew. I don't think DAG Rosen ever forwarded this to me.
Q Okay.
All right. Let me stop there and see if there are any questions. I'm not sure—I think Representative Cheney is on. I saw Mr. Raskin briefly.
Ms. Cheney, let's start with you, if you have any followup questions.
Ms. Cheney. I don't. Thanks,
. All right.
And, Mr. Raskin, I don't know if you're still on, but—there you are. Do you have anything that you'd like to follow up on?
​Mr. Raskin. I have no further questions. Thanks.
. Okay.
    BY :
Q My only other question, Mr. Donoghue, is just, again, for your assessment of Meadows, whether he took seriously any of these claims or whether you continued to believe it was "get them off my desk," forward them, without necessarily vouching for their credibility.
I'm just trying to get your sense as to whether Meadows was, sort of, believing that these were valid and that the election was riddled with fraud or whether he was just checking the box by passing this stuff along to you. What was your impression?
A Well, of course, to some extent I'm speculating here, but I think it was the latter. I think he didn't have a firm opinion one way or the other about these matters. They were landing on his desk, and he was sending them off.
Q Okay.
I think what I'd like to do now, Greg, is maybe take a break. I'm close to being finished. I'm literally up to the last two White House meetings, the brief one on the 31st and then the January 3rd meeting. And then I'll be finished and I'll turn it over to
But it might make sense now to take a short break and let Mr. Donoghue, you know, have a little bit of lunch before we continue. It's 1:14. Maybe at 2 o'clock we could start up again. Is that okay?
Mr. Andres. Look, whatever you like. We don't need that much time and—
We can go faster, if that would be your preference.
Mr. Andres. Yeah. Again, the shortest period of time that's reasonable for people so that the people on your side don't kill you for stealing their lunch and the ​people on my side don't kill me. But 15 or 20 minutes is more than enough. But it's up to you. I—
No, I want to be as accommodating to Mr. Donoghue as we can, so why don't we say 30 minutes? That'll be enough for us to grab something quickly. It's 1:15. We'll resume at 1:45.
Mr. Donoghue, I really—I know this is long, and I know you've told the story before. We're going to march through it as quickly as we can and finish, you know, before our appointed time.
Mr. Donoghue. That's fine. I appreciate it. Thank you.
All right. We'll see you in 30 minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Andres. Okay. Yep.
[Recess.]