tv CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto CNN July 1, 2021 7:00am-8:01am PDT
assesses included, six to 12 inches movement in a large column hanging from the structure that could fall and cause damage to the support columns and the garage area. slight movement in the concrete floor stabs on the south side of the structure in the north and south corner of the building. it could cause additional failure of the building. movement in a debris pile immediately adjacent to the south side of the structure. data points are to continue monitoring. -- will work with structural engineers and other subject matters experts to develop options for continued rescue operations. >> thank you, chief. for spanish, miami-dade fire rescue director erica bena. [ speaking foreign language ]
>> stand by as we wait for updates. we have boris sanchez. and perhaps we could put up the video that you obtained that of water pouring into the garage moments before the collapse of the building. tell us as we're watching this now, boris, how soon before the collapse did this take place? >> just minutes, jim. minutes before the collapse took place. so this video comes from a pair of tourists that were visiting and they were staying at a hotel next door to the champlain towers south. and the wife, ariana, said she heard a loud sound and alerted her husband when they were outside on the pool deck and ran into the street and captured this video. and you see in the garage, there is running water, pouring into the garage. there is debris there as well. they say that moments later they watched lights up and down the building turn on as residents
were clearly woken up by the loud sound that adrianna heard and many ran to their balconies and tried to wave them down. she told her husband that she thought the tower was going to collapse. he said that doesn't happen in the united states. he was in disbelief that would happen. they ultimately started walking back toward their building and that is when the tower came down and as i spoke to them yesterday, they were traumatized. the husband, humerto telling me he doesn't remember anything except dust, concrete, glass and running for his life. they took videos of the scene immediately after and you could hear adrianna breaking down and crying saying that she couldn't believe what happened to the people that were on the the balconies. she was having a hard time processing everything that she had seen, understandably so. the two of them were bloodied and bruised but ultimately they were glad to escape in one
piece. again, unmanageable moments from this couple that were staying next door and potentially a very important clue, that footage is going to be reviewed by investigates, it corroborates what we've heard from other witnesses at the scene. there was this report in the "miami-herald," the husband of a resident, a woman living in the building, said she called him early on thursday morning franticly complaining that the building was shaking and that she went out on her balcony and sawa huge hole. she described it as a sinkhole near the pool, moments later the line went dead. that woman remains missing. >> well, as we're watching, we're seeing the aftermath that took place just, well, minutes after. the warning signs are part of this story. 2018, 2019 and that video as well just before.
let's listen in to questions at the press conference here. that is the fire chief you're seeing. >> up until the stop of the search, our homicide and crime scene personnel has been on the scene and at times we have recovered human remains. but right now, there is no process until we ensure that that site is secure so we could immediately get back to work and keep doing what we're doing. [ speaking foreign language ] this is cnn breaking news. >> we have breaking news. the supreme court has just issue aid ruling on a challenge to arizona's voting law changes. let's get to jessica schneider for more. what did they rule. >> this is a major decision coming from the supreme court on voting rights and in particular how challengers to many of the restrictive voting bills around
the country enacted by the republican-led states, how they'll be able to enk the laws in court. so first of all, i'll tell you that the supreme court was ruling specifically on two arizona laws, the supreme court upholding these two laws. these were one regulation, one law, the first regulation said that election officials had to discard ballots that were cast at the wrong polling precinct. the second was a law that actually made it a criminal offense to help in ballot collection. something that critics call ballot harvesting. and it said that anyone who wasn't a family member or a caretaker or an election worker could not help another person deliver their ballot to the right precinct. so the supreme court saying that both of those regulations or laws were okay. now that doesn't come as a big surprise. because we know that these regulations or laws, they were in place for 2020 and 2016. there wasn't a big pushback against these regulations. in fact, the biden
administration said that these laws might be okay. but what we're seeing in this opinion, is this a 6-3 opinion, this is the traditional conservatives versus the three liberal justices and it appears, we're taking a closer look at the opinion, but the dissent here saying that the conservative majority is significantly weakening section 2 of the voting rights act. now why does this matter? well section 2 is being increasingly used by voting rights groups to challenge a lot of these laws that have been enacted by republican-led states because in the past several years there is no longer been section five in effect. section five required that jurisdictions around the country that had a history of racial discrimination, they had to get any of these laws precleared by either judges or the justice department. but in 2013, the chief justice wrote an opinion for the majority gutting that provision and no longer requiring that
these states go through the preclearance. so now that many of the states, in fact the brendan center calculating that 43 states have enacted some sort of voting restriction. these states don't have to go through a pre-clearance. so the only real way to challenge these laws is through section two and progressives were hoping that the court here would not weaken the way that groups could challenge these laws and in fact, guys, we're seeing in this 6-3 decision that in fact section two has been weakened. we're going through the final points of this decision and we'll get back to you on exactly how. but this is a defeat for people challenging these voting laws around the country, guys. >> we have jeffrey toobin joining us now. at a critical time. a time when multiple state legislatures are passing laws that restrict the right to vote. so if 2013, section five is weakened. no more federal oversight rights in effect for these kinds of
laws. now section two, the provision of that, i'm going to quote from it, from the original voting rights legislation which said that no voting regulation could be imposed that quote results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the united states to vote on account of race or color. so jeffrey, in legal terms explain how these justices and this decision has weaken that standard or that test? >> well just to focus for a minute on the big picture here. every tenure of chief justice is known for certain things. like earl warren was chief justice, he was known as the civil rights period at the supreme court starting with brown v board of education. when we look back at john roberts, one of the signature accomplishments and we'll see whether people view it as an accomplishments, but one of the signalure results of the roberts court was destruction of the most important civil rights law in american history, the voting
rights act of 1965. because as we've been saying, in 2013, in the shelby county case, the court crippled, ended section five which was the federal oversight provision and now with this decision today, we see the crippling of at least part of section two, which is the law that says the federal government or private parties can sue to stop election policies that have discriminatory results or discriminatory intent. this case is about discriminatory results and what the case has -- what the case is going to do, and obviously i haven't read the whole thing yet, it just came out moments ago, but it will make it much harder for plaintiffs to say, look, the laws that you are -- that you passed in arizona or
iowa or florida or georgia or all of the cases where the new laws are in effect, it is going to be harder to prove that there were discriminatory results. that is a big deal under all circumstances, but especially now when so many states are making it harder to vote. especially for black people. >> so to your point, jeffrey, i keep thinking back to the roberts decision when he wrote the majority opinion in shelby countiy and he said a large portion of the reasoning of the court was our country has changed. right. and remember justice is ginsburg warned that is like throwing away your umbrella in a rain storm because you're not getting wet. look at how big the rainstorm is now. can you -- go ahead. >> well the rain started literally the next day after the shelby county case was decided. the next day, after shelby county, north carolina and texas, which north carolina was then under total republican
control, texas still is, started passing laws that made it harder to vote. limiting absentee balloting, limiting early voting, passing photo i.d. requirements, all of those restrictions started after shelby county. but now after president trump's lies about what led to his loss in the 2020 election, all of these states are making a bad situation worse. are trying to restrict the laws even more. now, as we know, there have been attempts in congress, that are ongoing, to strengthen the voting rights act. essentially to overrule shelby county, to overrule this decision, which is -- which was not a surprise. but those have failed because the democratic majority of 50 doesn't have 60 votes to overcome a republican filibuster
and the democratic party at least so far has shown in the senate has not been -- has not been willing to change the filibuster rules. but i think if anything this law, this decision today will certainly strengthen those who say, look, we need to get rid of the filibuster because the voting rights act is getting weaker and weaker all of the time thanks to these judicial interpretations. we need to pass a revised voting rights act. it is not happening now. and it may not happen at all. >> also joining us, correspondent dana bash, also gloria brown marshall, a constitution law professor and author of the book "she took justice", dana, this is a supreme court decision, a legal decision with enormous political ramifications today. right. because as poppy and jeffrey toobin were saying, these laws are also getting passed that will restrict voting coming up
next year and this appears to make it a whole heck of a lot harder to challenge those and at least it is the republican party party that this helps them in that election beyond. >> this appears to be the worst fears of democrats and even those who are registered republicans or independents who are pushing for broader federal oversight over the way that states vote. the worst fear is coming true. and that is because, as you all have been discussing, already the landmark civil rights act of 1965 was chipped away in a very big way in 2013. and this is another important section that appears to be be chipped away and that is specifically protecting people for section two, specifically protects people and the results in denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the
united states to vote on account of race or color. so, what does it mean? it means as jeffrey was alluding to, all of the focus is on the united states congress. it was before. but this even more so. because what shelby did in 2013 was make a ruling, but also put the ball back in congress's court back then, saying if you want to update the law, to make it more modern, from their perspective, and not written as it was back in 1965, please do it and that is where john lewis spent the last years of his life trying to do. that is why the bill they're trying to push right now to reclaim federal over site has his name on it. and now i guarantee you my colleagues in the united states senate, they are running towards joe manchin's office, they are running toward kyrsten sinema's office trying to find out what this means for them because it is not theoretical, it was
already very real that the states were making changes that, you know, didn't necessarily comport with the idea of the 1965 voting rights act. but this makes it even more real and the question even more pertinent. >> as they run, they might carry part of the majority opinion with them. gloria, to dana's point, sorry the control room was just in my ear. okay. i'll get right back to you. let me get to jessica schneider with the next opinion from the court. jess. >> this final opinion of the term and this one again coming down 6-3. we're seeing this conservative majority take hold of both of the decisions today. this next case, this last case of the term, it is allowing for a charities not to have to disclose their donor information to the california attorney general. this is going to be a decision
that concerns a lot of people concerned about dark money coming into the system. so this was a regulation that was in place in california that made charities disclose their donor information to the attorney general's office only on a confidential basis. but two conservative groups here, americas more prosperity and affiliated with the koch brothers and the thomas moore center challenged this and said that this chilled information on a confidential basis, this was a slight chance per leaks or hacks that maybe this information would get released. so the groups have challenged it all the way to the supreme court. and now the supreme court is saying that, yes, in fact, this regulation violates free speech, that these charities who are in california, operating in california getting donors, they do not have to disclose the donor information to the
california attorney general. this is once again a big concern for people. allowing potentially dark money into the system that can't be accounted for. notably, though, these groups do have to report this information to the federal government, to the irs. so the donor information is still being reported. but this is coming down a 6-3 decision from a conservative court. this is an opinion written by chief justice john roberts. and in the final two opinions of the term, we're seeing how this court is coming down. we saw some opinions earlier in the term, whether it pertained to the affordable care act or student free speech or even religious liberties come down to some interesting vote totals where the liberals in some cases did join but now in these two cases concerning big issues, we're seeing how the court is coming down. 6-3, solidly conservative, guys. >> and remember history behind the 6-3, with neil gorsuch after
mitch mcconnell denied president obama's nomination of merrick garland. that is one justice. and then of course barrett following a very late confirmation process in donald trump's term which many republicans said they would not have done so close to the election. that gets you from 6-3 to 4-5 potentially the other direction. jeffrey toobin, there you have it. this is a conservative court. >> you know, as it is often said, elections have consequences. and donald trump got elected president when he was able to fill three vacancies at the supreme court thanks to mitch mcconnell. he got the first one because mcconnell stopped barack obama from filling the seat left by antonin scalia's seat and then got to fill the last one because he jammed through the confirmation of amy coney barrett in a handful of days.
it is worth remembering when both gorsuch, and brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett were nominated, millions were spent from dark money operations on behalf of her nominations. millions were spent on television commercials, we don't know who put up that money. because the laws do not require disclosure of that. now they do require disclosure of money donated to campaigns themselves. but as we all know, lots of money is spent in this country that is not technically given to campaign committees, but given for political purposes, including the confirmation of supreme court nominees. well the people who gave millions of dollars to support the nomination of gorsuch, of kavanaugh, of barrett, they got what they paid for today for sure because they got the supreme court results they wanted and we still don't know
who they are. >> let me as bring into this conversation our supreme court analyst joan biscubic. i was in the middle of a question to gloria so let's finish that as we got that second opinion in and turn back gloria to the arizona voting decision. as dana said, you probably have senators running down to manchin and sinema's office saying what does it mean for the view of the filibuster and they're carry a majority opinion here which reads that they believe that the lower court misunderstood and misapplied section two in the way that it exceeded their authority and then writes this court has to right to remake section two of the voting rights act. quote, but congress gets to make that call because it has not done so, this court's duty is to apply the law as written. gloria, putting it right on congress. >> well, here is the problem i have and i listed to the oral arguments in both of these cases. what we have is a court that is
not giving any direction when it comes to section two. and so i think it is disingenuous on the part of the chief justice who we said before is the one who wrote the opinion in shelby county. his background was in voting rights. that is why he was the golden boy of the conservative movement, because in his days when he was a private attorney, he came up with theories that would gut the voting rights act. so what we've seen from the conservatives, i have to give credit where credit is due, is a very good long-term gain that the progressives have not been using, the progressives go from election to election, where the conservatives are going generationally, trying to have an eye toward what they want on the supreme court and what kind of laws they want to see in action. if i could give it over to americans for prosperity case, and in that case once again we have this destruction of the voting rights act for people of color. they have been moving the polling places in arizona so
that when people are showing up to the wrong polling place, and are having a law that said that ballot now will be discarded, because a person filed it in the wrong place, it is because these attempts to undermine voting has led to something that is very intentional. and intent is seen as one of the motivations behind the law to stop what they call harvesting of the ballots, having people collect the ballots from native americans who live 45 miles away from certain polling places and then have those ballots sent in. those things are now considered to be not only not allowed under voting rights law, but criminal offenses. so the conservatives as jeffrey has pointed out have struck a blow in two major areas of what we claim to be one of the shining lights of democracy. >> joan, you are a biography of the chief justice john roberts and have said to me, wisely as
always, that despite some decisions by him, that have disappoint the conservatives and given hope to liberals that perhaps he's a little more middle of the road, that at his core, he is a very conservative justice. in these two decisions, do you see that core coming through? >> absolutely, jim. and i'll add one other to it. the partisan gerrymandering case from a couple of years ago when he wrote the majority opinion 5-4 to say is that judges couldn't look at excessively partisan gerrymanders. that decision plus these two today cut to the heart of democracy. this is exactly right, what you say about some moderate decisions, some of the things that we saw earlier this session. but if you want to define the roberts court, you have to really look at these two. and i'll start with voting rights because as gloria mentioned, this is part of his roots in the reagan administration. he's always wanted to scale back and when he wrote the shelby
county versus holder decision back in 2013, gutting part of the law that said that states with a history of discrimination, and arizona was on the list, had to get clearance for any electoral change. when he wrote the decision, essentially eviscerating that, he said but you always have section two and that is what was at issue in this case. you always have the chance to come after the fact and say that these laws discriminate on the the basis of race. but today that provision is hallowed out and it comes surprisingly to me, given the chief's awareness of public sentiment, when everyone is so concerned about the franchise and who is able to vote and all of the false claims about fraud. so i think you could combine that with the one he wrote today on the disclosures that could effect campaign contributions,
add in the gerrymandering and this is a defining moment for the roberts court. and another thing, the conservatives are all so much younger than the liberals here. all three of the trump appointees are going to be here for a generation. jim. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> jeffrey toobin -- >> just speaking of which, there is -- we have now completed the term of the supreme court as of about seven minutes ago. and let's talk about what has not happened. >> briar. >> steven briar has not retired yet. now, one of the weird things and joan knows this as she has covered the court for longer than i have. there is no specific procedure that justices must follow in order to retire. many justices who retire do it on the last day of the term. that is today. that is what anthony kennedy did. but some wait a few days, like
justice o'connor waited a few days after the end of the term. so the fact that stephen briar, the 82-year-old bill clinton appointee has not retired today, doesn't mean -- or not retired yet today, does not mean he won't retire. >> let me just jump in. >> can i jump in. >> yes. >> so we're clear to viewers, we have seen no indication that justice steven briar is going to retire today or any time soon. and want to stress that all of the signs are frankly in the opposite direction. he's certainly trying to fight some of the battles. he's arranged some things for september when he's giving speeches and hiring a contingent of clerks so i would say all indications for us are that he's not stepping down any time this week or at least in the upcoming weeks, just to clarify on that. >> dana bash, democrats have been watching these decisions
very closely, they did not go their way. does this bring urgency among democrats and particularly joe manchin to act now on voting rights and a filibuster? >> absolutely. and they do go hand in hand. because on this particular issue, one of the open questions has been whether or not despite joe pamanchin and others opposition to doing away from the filibuster at large, whether they could do a carve out for this particular issue. if their concern is about preserving democracy, and that is the argument that they make, when they say we don't want to get rid of the filibuster because the senate wasn't supposed to be like that and what happens when the republicans are in charge and all of the arguments we've heard over and over again. the pushback is if you're so concerned about democracy, look at what the court said about these voting rights laws.
what the court said is that it is up to congress to deal with it. well congress can't deal with it if you have a party that is blocking this -- any legislation on this. from going through. and and i want to say we have two final rulings of the supreme court. both of them have the substance of both of those are part of the democrats, at least the house democrats, and the majority senate democrats legislation. not only voting rights but how you deal with campaign finance laws. it is all tied together and it is all there ready for congress to act on just as, poppy, you read, the supreme court said it is up to you. >> it is not like -- not unlike the ruling on aca. if you want to change it, do it in congress. so we'll see if it happens there. >> thanks, everyone. next, mounting legal troubles for the trump organization. the cfo allen weisselberg sur
runded this morning to criminal tax charges. the trump organization response ahead. and in minutes joe biden will visit surfside, florida and meet with families, first responders, still struggling with this tragedy. the pictures from there just alarming. we're going to be live on the scene. [sfx]: happy screaming [music ends]
more protection, more sun, more joy. neutrogena® beach defense® the suncare brand used most by dermatologists and their families, neutrogena® for people with skin. you need an ecolab scientific clean here. and here. which is why the scientific expertise that helps operating rooms stay clean now helps the places you go too. look for the ecolab science certified seal.
speaking live now about her plans for commission for the jo january 6 select committee. let's listen now. >> -- passed in house in a bipartisan way. it got majority vote in the senate in a bipartisan way. to get the 60 votes. they asked for another week, another week, another week, another week, and at the end of last week said we can't do this until 2023. so we can't wait that long. then we went right into motion to establish this select committee. as you can see, i am very proud to be able to announce the members of that committee this morning. our chairman will be benny thompson, his chair of the homeland security committee and negotiated the bipartisan commission and we thank him for his leadership.
jerome lofgren having keir hearings a jurisdiction for the safety of the capitol. and intelligence being very important to this, chair adam schiff of the intelligence committee. pete aguilar, house appropriations committee, that is a committee of jurisdiction for this as well as member of the house administration committee. i'm saying this in seniority order. congresswoman liz cheney, of the armed serviced committee has patriotically agreed to serve on the committee. she has a family matter that she's dealing with and may joining us depending on how long this takes. but we're very honored and proud that she has agreed to serve on the the committee. representative stephanie murphy of armed services committee. representative jamie raskin, a constitutional scholar as you
know, oversight committee. that is a major committee of jurisdiction, the committee on over sight, also on the judiciary committee which has standing in all of this. and we're proud that elaine loria, a navy veteran, captain of the ship -- what was the title? retired commander, oh, my gosh, and member of the armed services committee. her interest in this is long-standing in the congress. she's also a member of the homeland security committee. now i just wanted to read the bill. it is really important for you all to know what our purpose is for this. and that is that the findings of
the legislation speak to the testimony of the director of the fbi when he basically said there were more deaths from domestic terrorism than from global terrorism in our country in the previous year. testimony from the department of homeland security about concerns that are out there, all of these institutions talking about, well i hate to even go there, but it is what they have said in terms of white supremacy, anti-semitism, islama phobia, all of the attitudes that have well contributed to what happened on january 6. and so that is purpose -- do we have -- you could go to speaker.gov to read the findings, which establish the purpose of what we are setting out to do.
to make sure that this never happens again. i just put out a press release so you have the fames of the members on the committee. again it was our hope that we could have done this with a bipartisan outside commission. maybe one day that will be possible. it took 14 and a half months for the 9/11 commission to be signed into law. perhaps this is on the horizon. but in the meantime, then and in the meantime now, it is going to be congressional investigation. then i happen to be a co-chair of that investigation, and that t was bipartisan and bicammeral. its hard to do bicammeral since they limit the investigation on their side as to what we could look into. but i'm very proud. and as i say, decisions are liberating. they enable you to go to the next step.
and the next step for us is always been to seek and to find the truth. we want to do so in the most patriotic and nonpartisan way so that the american people have confidence in the results. now it is my pleasure to yield and as i announce that the chairman schiff of this committee to be the chairman benny thompson of mississippi, a person who has fought such a long time to call to the attention of the american people the issue of domestic terrorism. we're very proud of his service and his leadership on that committee and very honored that he has a greed to serve as the chair of the select committee. mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank you for your steadfast commitment to getting to the truth behind the january 6th domestic terrorist attack on the
capitol. next week will mark six months since the world watched in horror as americans violently stormed the citadel of our democracy to try and stop congress from carrying out our constitutional duties to certify a presidential election. over the last six months, at every turn, you've been laser focused on doing whatever it takes to get to the bottom and to deliver the truth for the american people. you met republicans, more than half way in an effort to stand up in a bipartisan independent commission, the reason i say that is i participated in negotiating what was to be negotiated and you did a good job. i thought from the standpoint it should have been approved. we passed it in the house. unfortunately we could not get the senate to do likewise. so we come to where we are
today. your source of the select committee and the approval by the house in doing so and the membership behind me. we'll do our job. we'll do it according to the oath we took as members of congress, but more importantly, we have to get to the bottom of finding out all of the things that went wrong on january 6. i look forward to working with the members of the select committee, both democrats and republicans. i chaired the house homeland security committee. we have the reputation as being one most bipartisan committees in congress. and that is because we work hard at it. i look forward to coming up with the causes and effect. it will come in due time. i can't give it a timeline,
we'll let the facts help determine how long we'll meet. but a -- but i assure you that the product will be based on investigation, based on what those investigations bring forth, and there is nothing sacrosanct in this review that won't be brought out in the end. thank you. >> thank you so much. any questions? no? no questions. well we anticipated them all. okay. yes, sir. >> house minority leader mccarthy -- >> i'm not responding to him. we're making our presentation here. go ask him about what he says, okay. >> who will accept your appointment to the committee. >> i'm sorry, what? >> mccarthy said he would sfrip the committee assignments -- >> that is a matter for the republican caucus.
we are full of responsibility and duty and patriotism and almost joy as we go into the 4th of july weekend as we observe the birth of our nation, that we are committed to doing something that honors the vision of our founders. it is going to be a high level and it is going to justify the support of the american people. it's not political, so i'm not getting involved in any discussion about what goes on in the republican caucus. any other questions? >> madam speaker, congresswoman cheney is going to serve and you said you've appointed here. you could walk us through that conversation was like and why she said yes to you and what you asked of her? >> the question -- the conversation resembled a congresswoman cheney's public
statements. and by the way, i saw your -- this morning, this is not about some of the things that had you there. it is about what is in the bill as to what our purpose is. our purpose is not any phone call that mccarthy made or something like that. it is about protecting our country from the negative forces that provoked that attack on the capitol. >> may i follow up with a separate question very quickly. this week congresswoman ilhan omar. >> stay with this and i'll answer that -- but we have some of the best leaders in the congress on this subject and i'm sure they would be happy to answer any questions that you have. what do you have today? >> madam speaker, i ask if would you like to see former trump testify before the committee and if there is a chance that the committee will subpoena him. >> the committee will make its decisions an we look forward to republicans making their appointments to the committee so
they could be part of those decisions. yes, sir. >> chair thompson, i wan so ask you about -- and madam speaker, the importance of mccarthy's conversation with president trump. >> i'm not going into that now. the committee will establish working with staff what the priority of timing is on how we go forward. we're not having that discussion right here now in this room. jake? >> do you anticipate getting started? i mean mccarthy could choose -- are you going to wait for him to choose his people or are you going to -- what is your -- >> we hope they would choose them expeditiously. >> and if they don't? >> well we have a quorum. >> you have a what -- >> a quorum. let me go back to purpose. because your presentation this morning reminded me that we have to remind people what the purpose of this is.
whereas on january 6, 2021 was one of the darkest days of our democracy during which insurrectionists attempted to impede congress's constitutional mandate to validate a presidential election. this is something that is very important to all of our members, including, i might be able to say, because she's said it publicly, congresswoman cheney, that peaceful transfer of power, it is a hallmark of democracy. and then the department of homeland security issued on january 27th a national terrorism advisory system bulletin calling our attention to the need to act so that this doesn't happen again. because there are perceived grievances fueled by false narratives could continue to mobilize or insight to commit violence. and then of course the threats
of violence again that i referenced from the director of the fbi. it goes on and on. but i think it is really important, speaker.gov, if you go there, if you go here, you'll have a clear path. on any of these questions? being the chair of the homeland security committee, do you want to say anything about -- >> well house administration committee has held a series of hearings primely with the inspector generals looking at deficiencies in the management of the capitol police. and unfortunately we have found many. but that is not about what spurr spurred -- the attack. the fact that there were deficiencies in the management of the police doesn't cause the riot. so we'll make sure that the interim steps to be more safe at the capitol continue. but it is not a substitute for finding out what happened here.
what caused a mob of americans to think that they were somehow supporting the constitution when they tried to disrupt the constitutional process of counting the electoral college votes. who paid for it? how was it organized? we need to find that out to keep the country safe. i thank you, madam. >> in terms of the capitol police, they saved their lives. we'll be forever grateful to them. they an abled us to return to honor our constitutional responsibility prescribed in the constitution as january 6, not just any day did they have their -- as the republicans describe it, normal tourist day in the capitol. no. it was a date prescribed in the constitution. they came to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. and how could the capitol police suspect that the president of the united states would incite
an insurrection. so we want to support them, we want to shore up any short comings in -- not only personally but also physically for the capitol. but let us always salute them for what we've done. and they did. and i'm so glad that in both houses we have voted a gold medal to salute their courage. intelligence has been a very important part of all this. mr. schiff, did you have something you wanted to say. >> thank you, madam speaker. we know there was intelligence collected prior to the attack and we know that there was intelligence that was not collected that was available to help law enforcement identify in far greater depth and detail the danger to the capitol that day. why that intelligence wasn't gathered, whether the intelligence that was gathered was appropriately shared, whether that intelligence was acted upon, these are just some of the questions that we have
been looking at in the intelligence committee. but frankly have not been able to get suv answers. and it is certainly my hope and expectation that with the specific focus on the events of january 6 of the select committee, with a staff dedicated to that purpose to uncovering why didn't we see this coming, what kind of advanced warning did we have, should we have had, what are the appropriate mechanisms that law enforcement could use to identify whether there is a threat to the nation's capitol and how that information could be shared. it is my hope that through our efforts we could get those answers an put additional pressure as needed on the agencies to be forth coming with that information so we could prepare for the future. >> thank you, mr. schiff. another -- mr. aguilar serves on two committees of jurisdiction, the appropriations committee and house administration committee. did you want to share some
thoughts? >> thank you, madam speaker. and i just wanted to underscore that the focus of this is on seeking the truth. the focus is on making sure that the american public understands the threat to democracy that took place on january 6. but there were real people effected by those actions. 140 capitol police officers injured, some of them permanently that day. five people lost their lives. people were barricaded here in the capitol. members were effected. everyone touched by january 6 deserves to find the truth of what transpired, what led up to it, and how we could protect our democracy moving forward. so i'm honored to be part of this group. i look forward to chairman thompson leadership and working with my colleagues. thank you. >> i want them to self-introduce
so you hear more from them than from me. >> i'm stephanie murphy and i fled a country where political violence was how political transitions were made. and i've never lived a day in this country where i haven't been proud to live in a democracy, to have the freedoms that this country offers, but i also understand i have a responsibility to protect our democracy. and so it broke my heart to be in this building on january 6th and see the kind of political violence that occurred in the country i fled and in countries that i worked on when i was at department of defense, happening here in our country. and so i look forward to executing my responsibility on this committee to understand fully exactly what happened on january 6th. what is motivating domestic terrorism and how we build a better whole of government approach to addressing domestic terrorism and how we secure the citadel of democracy here at
this capitol. thank you. >> i'm so proud of stephanie murphy's patriotism. she came to america as a baby from vietnam and she -- she's always talked about how much sher family appreciates america. and she, of course, has served our country very well in the department of defense, now in the congress of the united states. but her story is one that is the american dream many times over. i'm now want to yield to the distinguished no stranger to any of you because he served on so many, judiciary house administration and core, the committee on over site, jamie raskin. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. the over sight committee has
been conducting for several years now an investigation into violent white supremacy. the department of homeland security has declared domestic violent extremism the number one security threat in the country. and we saw that threat explode right in front of us on january 6th. so, the impeachment trial of donald trump determined, i think by robust bipartisan bicammeral majorities who incited the violence on january 6th. but we need to figure out who organized the violence on january 6th, how did they organize it and why did they organize it? what were the purposes of the different critical actors who were present on that day. that is why this investigation is critical for every american living and as yet unborn, because we need to defend our democracy with everything that
we've got. so it is a great honor to be able to serve on this select committee under chairman shops and with these colleagues. thank you madam speaker. >> now a title that very few in the congress have a right to, but we're very proud that elaine norria has decided to serve in congress, commander elaine gloria. >> well thank you, madam speaker, and i stand here today as someone who served two decades in uniform. the first time that i took the oath to protect and defend our constitution against allen enemies, i was 17 years old. and i never thought i would be serving in this campus its looking into why we have a violent mob attack our capitol, the process of a smooth transition of government. and like all of my colleagues here have said, we have to get to the bottom of this and this can't be a partisan thing. i back to my time on many
deployments of one aircraft carrier deployment to the middle east and foreign terrorist targets but one thing about serving in the military is that we don't ask about political party. it is not about partisanship. i didn't turn to the sailer next to me operating the nuclear reactors and saying are you a democrat or a republican? it was about accomplishing a mission and i hope this committee could accomplish that together and leave behind that partisanship at the door because these are answers that the american people need and deserve and getting pot bottom of it is the first step in making sure it doesn't happen again. so thank to you madam speaker for appointing me to this committee and i look forward to working with my colleagues. >> thank you so much. i've been informed that we have four minutes left in the invest act. we're very proud of that legislation. that is part of our purpose here, to do good things for the people. i just wanted to say how proud i
am of this select committee. so glad that benny thompson will be leading it for us. and so glad that it will be bipartisan from the start. we're proud that liz cheney has made the public -- excuse me liz cheney has made the public statements that she has made and that she has agreed to join the committee. another time she will say her why and her purpose. but she has spoken very clearly about the committee and that gives us great confidence that we'll be able to work in a nonpartisan way for the people. and as we go into the 4th of july, with great pride in the fact that we'll be closer to the truth because of the willingness of such a distinguished group to take this responsibility. thank you all very much. >> there you have house speaker nancy pelosi and the committee
members that she has chosen to help lead this house select committee to investigate what happened. what led to the insurrection on january 6th. and liz cheney named as a republican. it was irning when she was asked to describe the conversations with congresswoman cheney and she said they're similar to her public statements and you have some reporting on adam kinzinger. >> he was not asked to join this committee. only other republican who voted yes along with democrats to form the select committee. so cheney will be the one out of the eight who is a republican. >> because it was 13, so that would have made seven then republicans and six democrats. dana bash what, are your thoughts? >> you know, i think the most important thing to keep in mind as we hear the lineup for this committee is that it wasn't supposed to be like this. there was going to be, and the desire of the speaker and early on, the stated desire of many
republicans was to have a select special independent commission, like the 9/11 commission, that would have taken -- obviously there are always politics, but taking the direct political players, most elects officials, out of the process so that we as americans could get real answers, just like we did after 9/11. it took a while. but we got real answers and a lot of recommendations, most of which were implemented to change the way that america does business. and that is not going to happen now. and it is not going to happen now because by definition this is a partisan enterprise made even more so because of the fact that although the speaker wouldn't answer questions about kevin mccarthy, kevin mccarthy is threatening, according to cnn reporting, any republican who dares to get to the bottom of this as part of this select committee, being done because there is no commission. they will be striped of their
committee assignments and the only one who doesn't want to did it, as you were mentioning, the only one who doesn't care, who is willing to take that risk is list cheney. >> adam kinzinger was asked about that threat and his answer to reporters was who gives a -- an s.h. asterisk t. and he's not pulling the punches here. >> fair point. it is not a even panel. it is not close to even. there will be republicans represented. >> exactly. and we reported there was a proposal for an even split and that went before congress which was rejected and so here we are. if we were going to ask the question what could picause thi a violent insurrection on january 6th is not it. >> dana, thank you very much, we'll hand this off to the next hour. we appreciate you being here. for all of the breaking news over the last two hours, thank you for joining us.
we'll see you tomorrow, i'm poppy harlow. >> and i'm jim sciutto. wolf blitzer picks up our coverage right now. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> hello, i'm fredricka whitfield joined by wolf blitzer. breaking news, house speaker nancy pelosi announced members of the house select committee to investigate the deadly capitol insurrection. it includes republican congresswoman liz cheney. cnn has learned that kevin mccarthy is threatening to strip republican members of their committee memberships if they join pelosi's committee to investigate the insurrection. and we're also following breaking news from the u.s. supreme court. a major ruling upholding two arizona voting provisions saying they do not violate the roting rights act. and more breaking news, the