This is a man who has interesting stories to tell—stories about what we increasingly know was a sustained, multi-part coup attempt. As Blake notes, that doesn’t mean Donoghue’s testimony will be as fruitful as his contemporaneous written responses to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, because “We’ve seen before that people we thought might be motivated witnesses against Trump clam up a bit and decline the harsh spotlight that comes with criticizing the efforts of the former president.”
Even if Donoghue turns out to be a cautious witness, though, his paper trail offers investigators enough to ask him some very pointed questions, not just about Clark’s draft letter—which Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi told MSNBC was just one of six such letters to different states, seeking to overturn the results of all of them.
The Washington Post’s Philip Bump has written that Donoghue’s response to Clark’s draft letter was “probably written with an eye toward it eventually being read by external eyes.” This is true, and it might mean that he is also prepared to speak honestly and fully to investigators, having thought through what he wants his public legacy to be. Even if he’s not, though, it’s worth considering that in the Trump administration, someone writing with an eye toward their words eventually being read in a post-Trump context stands in sharp contrast to Clark, who likewise had a longer-term plan: help Trump overturn the election, and come out the other side as Trump’s attorney general, one even more committed, regardless of the law, to making sure Trump got his way than even William Barr had been.
Going way beyond the usual sore loser behavior, Donald Trump tried to throw out an entire election. Thanks to Richard Donoghue, congressional investigators have the receipts. Will Donoghue give them more in in-person testimony?