We gotta get going—time is running out to overturn the election
In the weeks before January 6, 2021, a quiet architecture of coordination was taking shape between some of Congress's most conservative members and the Trump White House — one aimed not merely at protest, but at halting the constitutional transfer of power. Court filings and text messages now reveal that at least eleven Republican lawmakers participated in strategy sessions to pressure Vice President Pence into rejecting certified electoral votes, even after being told the plan was unlawful. What began as political maneuvering has since drawn the attention of both a congressional select committee and the Department of Justice, raising the enduring question of where democratic dissent ends and obstruction of democracy begins.
- Text messages and sworn testimony place at least eleven Republican members of Congress inside White House strategy sessions where officials were explicitly told the alternative electors scheme was not legally sound — and proceeded anyway.
- Lawmakers amplified Trump's call for supporters to march on the Capitol even as warnings about potential violence circulated, with one member tweeting 'Today is 1776' as the assault unfolded.
- The same figures who helped build the pressure campaign scrambled to contain it mid-riot, texting the White House to ask the president to call off the mob — then quickly blamed Antifa for the violence.
- Legal experts warn that the emerging evidence may move well beyond First Amendment protection, placing the coordination squarely in the territory of criminal obstruction of Congress.
- Two parallel investigations — the House select committee and an expanding DOJ criminal inquiry — are now converging on the same question: did this coordination cross the line from protest into interference with the peaceful transfer of power?
In the weeks before January 6, Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania was texting White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows with mounting urgency, counting down the days to the certification of the 2020 election. What has since emerged from court filings and text messages is a picture far more deliberate than previously understood: at least eleven members of Congress participated in White House strategy sessions aimed at pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes from states Joe Biden had won.
The plan, built on a legal theory advanced by conservative lawyer John Eastman, was described by members of both parties as a blueprint for a coup. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Meadows, testified that Perry, Matt Gaetz, and Louie Gohmert were present when White House lawyers told the group the scheme was not legally sound. Meadows allowed it to continue regardless. Text messages show Andy Biggs embracing the plan as early as November, and Jim Jordan pressing it to the final hours — urging Pence on January 5 to reject any electoral votes he deemed unconstitutional.
On social media, the coordination became public-facing. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted in December that she was planning 'a little something' for January 6. Lauren Boebert tweeted 'Today is 1776' as the Capitol was breached. Mo Brooks appeared at Trump's rally that morning in body armor, urging the crowd to 'start taking down names and kicking ass.'
When the violence erupted, the fracture was immediate. Greene texted Meadows pleading for the president to calm the crowd. Within hours, she texted again to suggest the attackers were Antifa dressed as Trump supporters — a claim Gohmert echoed publicly. The coordination that had built toward January 6 dissolved into deflection as the Capitol fell under assault.
Legal experts now say the central question is whether what these messages reveal constitutes protected political speech or criminal interference with Congress. The House select committee and the Justice Department are both pursuing that answer, and the distinction, as one former federal prosecutor put it, is the difference between assembling to protest and conspiring to obstruct the transfer of power.
In the weeks before January 6, Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania was growing impatient. "Time continues to count down," he texted Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, with less than two weeks to go. "11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going!" It was a moment of urgency in what would become one of the most consequential days in American political history—and new evidence now shows just how deeply embedded some of Congress's most conservative members were in the effort to keep Donald Trump in power.
For more than a year, it has been known that ultraconservative lawmakers joined baseless lawsuits, promoted false claims of widespread election fraud, and were among the 147 Republicans who voted against certifying Joe Biden's victory on January 6, 2021. But court filings and text messages obtained by CNN reveal something more specific and more troubling: at least eleven members of Congress participated in strategy sessions with White House officials about how to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes from states Biden had won. These discussions happened despite being told the plan was unlawful. Some of these same lawmakers also discussed encouraging Trump's supporters to march to the Capitol that day, even as warnings circulated about the potential for violence.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Meadows, testified to the House select committee investigating January 6 that she recalled conversations involving Perry, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Jody Hice and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Debbie Lesko of Arizona, and Lauren Boebert of Colorado. The plan they discussed was based on a legal theory promoted by conservative lawyer John Eastman—a scheme that members of both parties have compared to a blueprint for a coup. Hutchinson testified that Perry, Gaetz, and Gohmert were present when White House lawyers explicitly told the group the alternative electors plan was not "legally sound." Meadows allowed it to proceed anyway.
The coordination extended beyond closed-door meetings. Text messages show that Biggs embraced the plan early, writing to Meadows in November that while controversial, it could not be worse than "the lunacy that were sitting out there now." Jordan pushed the strategy to the final day, sending a message to Meadows on January 5 urging Pence to "call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional." Greene, not yet formally sworn in, posted on social media on December 19 that she was "planning a little something myself on January 6th as well," amplifying Trump's call for supporters to descend on Washington for what he called a "wild" protest. On January 6 itself, Boebert tweeted "Today is 1776," a reference to the Revolutionary War that would echo through the day among rally organizers and the mob.
Brooks, a member of the Freedom Caucus, appeared at Trump's rally near the White House that morning wearing body armor beneath his jacket. "Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass," he told the crowd. "Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America?" Other members of Congress had been scheduled to speak at a rally planned for the Capitol's east side by Stop the Steal organizer Ali Alexander, according to permit applications. The event never happened because of the violence that erupted.
What happened next revealed the fracture in the coordination. As the Capitol came under assault, some of the same lawmakers who had most vocally supported Trump's efforts to overturn the election suddenly called on Meadows to ask the president to intervene. Greene texted Meadows: "Mark I was just told there is an active shooter on the first floor of the Capitol. Please tell the President to calm people. This isn't the way to solve anything." Within hours, however, the narrative shifted. Greene texted again: "Mark, we don't think these attackers are our people. We think they are Antifa. Dressed like Trump supporters." Gohmert echoed the claim, saying Capitol Police had warned him that Antifa members would dress as Trump supporters and "likely get violent."
The evidence now emerging sits at the center of two major investigations: the House select committee's inquiry into January 6 and an expanding criminal investigation by the Justice Department. Legal experts say the distinction matters enormously. "If there was a level of coordination that was designed not just to exercise First Amendment rights, but to interfere with Congress, as it certified the electoral count, then we're in a whole different universe," said Joyce Vance, a law professor at the University of Alabama and former U.S. attorney. "There's a difference between assembling and protesting, and trying to interfere with the smooth transfer of power." The question now is whether the coordination revealed in these messages and testimony crosses that line.
Notable Quotes
If there was a level of coordination designed not just to exercise First Amendment rights, but to interfere with Congress as it certified the electoral count, then we're in a whole different universe.— Joyce Vance, law professor and former U.S. attorney
Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass. Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America?— Mo Brooks, speaking at Trump's rally on January 6
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that these conversations happened in private, in texts and meetings? Isn't it just politicians talking?
Because the difference between talking and coordinating is the difference between protected speech and potential conspiracy. If lawmakers were simply expressing frustration, that's one thing. But if they were strategizing with the White House about how to direct a crowd to the Capitol, knowing it could turn violent, that's interference with the constitutional process.
But they didn't physically attack anyone. They just sent messages and spoke at rallies.
True, but the legal question isn't whether they threw a punch. It's whether they knowingly participated in a plan to obstruct Congress from certifying the election. Hutchinson testified they discussed encouraging supporters to march to the Capitol. They knew the fake electors scheme was unlawful. They did it anyway.
What strikes you most about how they responded once the violence started?
The speed of the reversal. Within hours, people who had been amplifying Trump's calls for a "wild" protest were texting Meadows to stop the violence, then claiming the attackers weren't even Trump supporters. It suggests they understood the gravity of what was happening—and that they knew their own role in it.
Does this prove they intended violence?
Not necessarily. But it does show they were willing to direct a crowd to the Capitol despite warnings of potential violence, and they coordinated that effort with the White House. Intent matters in law, but so does recklessness and foreseeability.