tv CNN Newsroom With Alisyn Camerota and Victor Blackwell CNN October 21, 2021 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
have. the question they ask is why were we so unprotected on january 6 and what has changed since then? getting to the bottom of those questions should be the top priority for all of us in this house. there are serious security vulnerabilities that have been not addressed by this house in 11 months after january 6, and this is what the majority has decided to spend its time on. holding a private citizen who wasn't even part of the administration at the time in contempt for refusing to comply with house democrat subpoenas? this is after more than 600 people have been arrested for their role in the tragedies we saw on january 6.
when i get the article i would like to submit for the record, madam speaker, a reuters record talking to the fbi that there was no effort to overthrow the government on january 6. i will submit it once i get a copy of that. i did not bring it with me. but our job, again, is to secure this capitol. we've never seen a breach like the one we saw that day. and it's our responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again. but that hasn't been done under the leadership of this house. we've had two independent reports regarding january 6, one bipartisan report in the senate and another one commissioned by the speaker herself. that came out in march. these have never been acted on. but this is what the select committee has been working on? the capitol police ig has released seven reports related to january 6, making
recommendations on what is needed to secure this capitol. to my disappointment, the majority has not acted in a meaningful way to ensure that all 103 ig findings are implemented. these reports have all told us what the problems are and the recommendations on how to fix them, but congress, us, have failed to even debate these changes let alone act on them. we know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection, training, leadership structure, decision-making processes and many, many more are needed, but neither the select committee nor the committee on house administration seem at all interested in ensuring these changes are made. a committee on house administration which has oversight of security hasn't held a single hearing since august 5, with no upcoming hearings scheduled, according to the majority's website. the select committee, right now as we see, is clearly focused on
political subpoenas. and without objection, i'd like to introduce these articles into the record, madam speaker. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. additionally a number of questions from that day still remain unanswered. i'm still waiting for the speaker of the house to answer a letter i sent her back in february that asks why the national guard requests, by then police chief, was designed. why was the speaker involved in eventually approving the request. why the house sergeant of arms has refused to comply with preservation and production requests from my office. and we have many, many more questions about why the capitol was so unprepared that day. our top priority should be ensuring our capitol is never as vulnerable as it was on january 6, but this majority has done absolutely nothing to make the security changes needed to make this capitol safer.
madam speaker, we must do better. we have not fixed the institutional problems with our security apparatus that led to the lack of preparation, the danger that our brave officers were put in on that day and any other possible day like that in the future. that's a failure of leadership in this institution. we must fix the problems that led to the terrible security posture here, and i will tell you after witnessing what we saw a few different days and security postures this house was put into a couple other days since january 6, and i urge you to talk to the brave officers that stand around these buildings and protect all of us every day. ask them the same question i do. ask them if we have put them in a better position than they were
in on january 5th. the answer out of every single officer i asked that question to is no. what is stopping this house from fixing the problems? it's a lack of will. a lack of focusing on the true issues that led for them to be put in a dangerous spot on january 5th. instead we're talking politics. it's wrong and we must do better. i've said time and time again and i stand willing to work with my democratic colleagues to make this house, this capitol, safer for everyone. instead it's all about political points like the one being scored today. i'm disappointed, you can tell. my frustration is going to continue to boil over until we're if a position to fix the problems that i've laid out and that we know exist. i yield back.
>> the gentleman from mississippi. >> madam speaker, in response to the gentleman from illinois's statement, the select committee actually held an interview for offices who put their lives on the line defending all of us who work here in this body. so i assure you my directions to the committee have always been we'll look at all the facts and circumstances surrounding what occurred. we are genuinely interested in getting to the facts. we're working to get the answers, and that's why we are on the floor today, to get answers from steve bannon about what he knew, what he did leading up to january 6.
also the gentleman from indiana, i'm glad he finally agreed that the select committee has a legitimate, legislative purpose, and that's why we're here today pursuing that legislative purpose. i'm happy that the record will reflect his comments. with that i yield to the gent gentlelady. >> madam speaker, i rise to the level of steve bannon as a member of congress. it didn't have to be this way. he could have done the patriotic thing and cooperated with our bipartisan committee. if mr. bannon is proud of the role he played in connection with january 6, he should be
eager to tell his side of the story. and, instead, he's acting like a man who has something to hide. our committee seeks only the truth. that is our legal charge and our moral obligation. we cannot let any individual impede our inquiry, and we will not tolerate mr. bannon's evasion. why must we be so unrelenting in our pursuit of truth? because on january 6, the greatest nation on earth came under attack. and this attack wasn't carried out by officials in beijing, moscow or turan or foreign terrorists, even. it was regular americans who were radicalized because they believed outrageous lies fed to them by other americans in positions of power and influence. the attack was launched against the seat and symbol of our republic. it was designed to disrupt the certification of the presidential election results, to defy the will of the voters. this was no peaceful protest in
a proud american tradition, it was violent and vicious. members of the mob wielded weapons that called for the death of the vice president. they hunted members of congress. they caused severe harm to law enforcement officers, and the real disservice to the police comes from those who want to whitewash the violence of january 6 and pretend that the riot of that day was anything short of the violent attack that it was, aimed at derailing the peaceful transfer of power. america is not just a place, it's an idea. and on january 6, there was an attack on the very idea of america. and i believe that patriots of all political stripes should want to protect our capitol, this country and her constitution. our committee will make a full accounting of what happened -- >> the gentle lady's time has exp expired. -- and prevent this from ever happening again. >> the gentlelady from wyoming. >> i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from
california, mr. aguilar. >> the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> like many of our colleagues, i was here in the violent attack on our capitol. i saw the doors shaking, rioting of many who wanted to enter. i saw the policemen rolling up their sleeves, preparing for the even eventuality. and i saw capitol police saving people in this chamber. their actions saved lives. but what we didn't see was the officers engaging in brutal hand-to-hand combat. officer fanone told us he was grabbed, beaten and tased, all while being called a traitor to this country. this is what officers dealt with defending our democracy. some lost their lives.
many are living with the physical wound and trauma they suffered that day. this is what our officers dealt with defending our democracy. officer harry dunn told us more than six months later, january 6 still isn't over for me. these officers are heroes. i want to thank the chair and the vice chair for their leadership in making our first hearing directly from those heroes in their own words. we wanted to hear and make sure that all of our colleagues in this country heard firsthand what we experienced on the ground that day. we asked them to explain the violence they had to endure to protect our democratic process, and in return, they made one simple request, to get to the bottom of this. they want answers, and quite frankly, they deserve answers. so far the metro pd and capitol police have been excellent allies in this investigation. they have cooperated, shared their stories and expertise and
provided us with key evidence and accounts of the violence they endured that day. and we owe it to them to see this investigation through. the order we make today is a conclusive roadblock to this investigation. we owe our lives on the line to the officers who protected us that day. we deserve answers, and this committee intends to get to those answers as much as necessary. i plead you vote yes. the gentleman from mississippi. >> madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, senator kinsinger and a member of the air national
guard. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. don't let my side use the security posture as the straw man argument in this. the reality is that the equivalent of blaming the victim of a crime for the crime, and while it is important, that's not what we're here to talk about today. madam speaker, voting on a criminal contempt resolution is not the position we hoped to be in, but steve bannon went out of his way to earn this resolution before us, and now we must approve it. mr. bannon's willful disregard for the select committee subpoena demonstrates his utter contempt for the american people's right to know how the attacks on january 6 came about. he has advanced a ludicrous legal argument in support of his decision not to corroborate or comply, a decision that defies the rule of law and the american people. mr. bannon's actions put him in the center of the investigation surrounding january 6. his own words strongly suggest
that the actions of the mob that stormed the capitol and invaded this very chamber came as no surprise to him. he and a few others were, by all accounts, involved in planning that day's events and encouraged by those who attacked the cap capitol, our officers and our democracy. i have no doubt that mr. bannon's scorn for our subpoena, but no one, and i repeat no one, is above the law, and we need to hear from him. as the select committee's contempt report states, it is mr. bannon who predicted on january 5 with chilling accuracy, quote, all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. on his radio show that day he stated, quote, it's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen, okay? it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. all i can say is, strap in. you made this happen. and tomorrow it's game day. so strap in, let's get ready. and it was mr. bannon who is recorded as saying, quote, it's
all converging, and now we're on the point of attack tomorrow. mr. bannon said these things publicly as a private citizen, someone deeply involved with stop the steal movement, and he said them nearly three years after leaving his job at the white house. mr. bannon was also reportedly among the small group of trump confidants assembled at the willard hotel to stop the election count. is there any wonder that the select committee wants to hear from him, that we want to see any related materials he has. furthermore, does anyone believe his testimony is protected by a blanket? madam speaker, steve bannon is a key witness to the select committee's probe. he has yet to say or produce anything in response to the subpoena, and his assertion of executive privilege is far-fetched in the extreme and not his to make. i urge my colleagues to join me to support the contempt l
resolution, and i yield back. >> the gentlelady from wyoming. >> madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin. >> the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the distinguished gentlelady from wyoming, and thank you, madam speaker. today donald trump said the insurrection took place on november 3rd. no, mr. trump, i'm sorry. that's what we call an election in america, an election that was validated by more than 60 federal and state courts, including before eight judges nominated to the bench by president trump himself and all the way up to the united states supreme court, all of them rejecting every claim of electoral fraud and corruption that was advanced. we know an insurrection when we see one in this body, because we lived through one. under the banner of this continuing and deranged big lie, the stop the steal movement brought down a violent insurrection against this congress in an attemptive coup
against vice president mike pence that interrupted the county of collected college votes in united american history, produced the worst attack on congress since 1812 and injured and wounded more than 140 police officers, capitol officers, metropolitan police department officers and others, breaking their noses, breaking their necks, breaking their vertebrae, breaking their arms, breaking their legs, breaking their hearts and their spirits. we are investigating the attack on american democracy because we are americans. we are investigating the attack on congress by domestic enemies of our constitution because we are sworn to do so by our oaths of office. but now the big lie has become a big cover-up. after being impeached twice by the house, after losing in 61 different courts, after seeing a 57-43 vote against him in the
u.s. senate in the most sweeping, bipartisan, senate vote in american history, trump now tries to get his followers like steve bannon not to testify here and not to turn over evidence that they have about this vicious assault on american democracy. in america, when you are subpoenaed to testify in court or in congress, you show up, period. you can invoke your fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination to specific questions if you think you committed a crime. you can claim executive privilege to specific questions if you think you're president of the united states. but you cannot blow off a subpoena in america. you cannot sit on your couch and defy the people's representatives in congress. so we must enforce the rule of law here, my colleagues. we must do it. if you act deliberately with sneering, cavalier contempt for the american people and their representatives, we will hold
you in contempt. we will get to the truth of the violent assault on america. i yield back. >> the gentleman from indiana. >> speaker, you don't have to look far to realize the absurdity of what's happening in congress today. in fact, "politico" just reported moments ago that the capitol police whistleblower is telling us, telling "politico" that they have not been contacted by the january 6 select committee. the capitol police whistleblower. he said that the united states capitol police deserve more scrutiny than it's gotten so far and that he would talk to investigators if they reach out to him, and the select committee has not reached out to the capitol police whistleblower. yet here we are today focused on holding a private citizen in contempt, an unprecedented action by this sham committee and their sham investigation. with that i yield to my colleague from florida, mr. gates.
two minutes. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> why are we here on the floor of the house of representatives listening to the democrats and socialists and their republican puppets, reviewing steve bannon's podcast? i can't imagine that would be the case if they actually had a bill, a reconciliation deal, legislation to help the american people. we're not here because of democracy. save me the alligator tears on that. these are the folks who assaulted our democracy for two years under the spector of the russia hoax. it's sure not about violence because they didn't seem to give a damn when our country was being engulfed in flames during the riots in the summer of 2020. it's not about congressional process. if it was about congressional process, democrats would be doing what they have done in other cases. they would go to court. but the reason they haven't gone to court, like they did for trump's taxes, in the deutsche bank subpoenas, in the mazers
matter, they did not appeal in court. the courts realized their subpoenas were overly broad. so instead of using the real process, here we are just enduring this politics. and because they can't build back better, they've just decided to build back meaner. i yield back. >> the gentleman from mississippi. >> thank you, madam speaker. just for the record, again, the gentleman from indiana referenced the whistleblower. we have not talked to the whistleblower, but we've talked to the whistleblower's lawyer. and we are doing our work. so, clearly, since he's quoting "politico," i want him to just get the record straight. madam speaker, i yield two and a half minutes to the gentlewoman from virginia, ms. luria, who served two decades in the navy and was among the first women to
serve in the navy's nuclear power program. >> the gentlelady is recognized for two and a half minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, we reaffirm that oath on january 3rd, yet only three days later in this very chamber, this body was assaulted while carrying out the peaceful transfer of power, the very hallmark of our democracy. i first took that oath when i was 17 years old and entered the naval academy. i was willing to put my life on the line to serve my country and protect the foundation of this republic, a foundation that was shaken but not broken on january 6. mr. bannon, a former naval officer like me at one point understood this oath. he took it multiple times, he served his country honorably in the navy. i don't know what happened between the time lieutenant bannon left the navy and today.
what force has corrupted his understanding of this oath? mr. bannon has been given the opportunity to voluntarily provide information relative to the work of our committee, but he's not complied. truly, this is larger than mr. bannon and this is larger than this investigation, and this is larger than the tragic and horrific events of january 6. this vote is a test of that oath. to my colleagues who chose to vote against enforcing the subpoena, you're saying to all future men and women who are called before this body that they can ignore a subpoena from congress without consequence. you can make that choice today, but that will be a vote to abdicate the power of the legislative branch against which you are elected to serve. that would be a vote to undermine the government and the constitution which you took an oath to support and defend. the consequences of that vote won't be limited to this
investigation and this subpoena alone. your vote will do serious, long-lasting damage to congress as an institution. and that in turn will do serious damage to our country, which we all love so dearly. we ask our young men and women in uniform to go forth every day and protect us, to protect this republic, to protect our form of government. i'm asking you to do the same, to protect our democracy from those forces to destroy it within. and i yield back the remainder of our time. >> the gentlelady from wyoming. >> i reserve. >> the gentleman from indiana. >> i yield as much time as he could use to mr. jordan. >> we recognize the gentleman. >> we went from safe streets to violent crime, we've seen stable
prices turn into inflation and empty shelves, the respect for the world we had has turned into the debacle in afghanistan and we went from peace in the accords to thousands of rockets being thrown to israel. what scares me most is what this administration and democrats are doing to freedom. every right we join under the first amendment has been assaulted over the last year. you're right to practice your faith. there are still places in the country where a full congregation can't meet on a sunday morning. every single freedom has been attacked. we just learned in the judiciary committee from the attorney general, attorney general national school board association last month sends a letter to the president of the united states asking the fbi to get involved in local school board matters.
five days later the attorney general issues a memo to do just that. the first sentence of the memo says this. in recent months there has been a disturbing spike in harassment and intimidation threats at school board meetings. we asked him a simple question. what's the evidence for that spike, what's your data, what's your review? the only reference, the only letter he reviewed was the letter from the school board association, from a political organization. now they're going to target parents at school board meetings, and we have the january 6 committee issuing subpoena after subpoena. the names of people they submitted subpoenas to. individual exercising of their first right to assemble, the government granted them permission and now these 20 and 30-year-olds whose names are on that application, they will be deposed by these guys for exercising the first amendment. here's what they asked. we want to know who the speakers were
and how they were selected. we want to know how any of these names got permission from government. we want to know any members of congress you talked to. wow. your right to petition your government? that's what they want -- that's why they're subpoenaing these people? this is scary where they want to go. these questions, coordination of speakers, discussion of contents, this sounds like what the irs did to people ten years ago when they were asking 501-c groups. first it's school board meetings, then it's people applying for a permit. we saw what the irs did to people a few years ago. not to mention what else the committee is doing. preservation letters to all the carriers, all the companies. preserve every call, every e-mail, every text. think about that. every call someone made -- hundreds and hundreds, supposedly, according to news reports. texts to your spouse, calls to your mom, preserve it all. this is just what's been
reported. now steve bannon. and now steve bannon. mr. bannon is a target of the investigation for the investigation because, quote -- this is from the select committee's own report -- quote, his efforts to plan political activity, that's the standard. if you're involved in political activity, they're going to investigate you. we know what this is really about. this is about getting at president trump. getting at president trump. tried to stop president trump before he was even elected with the russia investigation. tried to remove president trump from office twice. while he was in office they tried to do that, and now they're trying to get him after the fact, after he's left. all because this guy cut taxes, reduced regulations, the greatest economy in 50 years, the lowest unemployment all because he built a wall, got us out of the iran deal. americans got their christmas presents on time. but they're coming after him.
the roeuter story said this. they don't care the fbi has no evidence. no evidence of a coordinated plan. they don't care. they're going to drag these 11 people in with subpoenas, in for depositions with subpoenas because they're so determined to get their political enemies. >> the time has expired for the gentleman from mississippi. >> i yield back. >> madam chair, the vice chair of the committee put on the record that the department of justice declared no such thing of january 6. so the fact they conducted an investigation just isn't true.
i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, the distinguished chairman of the house intelligence committee. >> the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> madam speaker, we are here this afternoon to test the proposition as old as the country's founding. are we a nation of laws? we are here because one man has decided that we are now only a nation of men, and that rich and powerful men need not follow the law. and the question we must confront is nothing less than this. is he right? are some people now truly above the law, beholden to nothing and no one, free to ignore the law and without consequence? congress is investigating the worst attack on our capitol in over a century, made worse still by the fact it was carried out by our own people, people who had been misled to believe that their election had been stolen and that violence was now justified. people who are still being misled by a dangerous lie that
may lead to even more bloodshed. this is not some theoretical matter. we were here. we heard the doors breaking, the glass shattering, the cries from outside the chamber, and we saw the bloody results, the officers injured and those who died. in the wake of the horrors of that day, the days in which capitol police put their lives on the line to defend our democracy, it falls on us to defend that same democracy albeit at far less risk to ourselves. the founders intended that ambition should be made to check ambition. if we fail to uphold congress' power to compel information, then we cease to be a co-equal branch of government, unable to perform oversight or check any abuses of check actexecutive po. take away the court's power and it fails to be a court.
take away congress' ability to do the same and it fails to be a congress, becoming instead a mere plaything for a corrupt executive. do not believe for one moment that if we fail to hold steve bannon accountable that he will be the exception. he will become the rule. not a rule of law, but the misrule of men. either we are all equal before the law or none of us is. this is the essence of our democracy. and as lincoln said, whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference is no democracy. i yield back. >> the gentlelady from wyoming. >> could i inquire as to how much time is remaining, madam speaker? >> the gentlelady from wyoming has five and a half minutes. the gentleman from mississippi has two minutes, and the gentleman from indiana has no time remaining. >> all right. i'm prepared to close, then,
madam speaker. >> gentlelady is recognized to close. >> thank you very much. madam speaker, just outside this chamber, over the north door in s statuary hall, which is the old house chamber, stands the statue of cleo, the muse of history. she is one of the oldest works of art in our capitol. she stands in a winged chariot, the chariot of time, and she takes notes in her book, reminding all of us that our words and our actions will be judged by history. history particularly will judge those of us in positions of public trust for what we are doing today. in the immediate aftermath of the attack, madam speaker, we all recognized how profoundly wrong january 6 was. my colleague from ohio, mr. jordan, who just suggested that we were here because we opposed
president trump's policies seems to have forgotten that actually on january 6, he himself said, quote, what happened today is wrong and is not what america is about. the next day mr. jordan said, what happened wednesday is a tragedy. everyone knows it's as wrong as wrong can be. and today, madam speaker, the former president suggested that the violence was justified. my colleagues in the republican party, the republican members of this body, have to understand, have to recognize that there is a moment when politics must stop if we want to defend and protect our institutions. a violent assault on the capitol to stop a constitutional process of counting electoral votes is that moment. they all knew that on that day. in fact, the minority leader himself stood in this chamber and said, quote, the president bears responsibility for
wednesday's attack on congress by mob rioters. he should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. mr. mccarthy was right then. the president bears responsibility. we need to know what happened. this body must have the ability to understand what caused the attack, to understand who was responsible, and to take legislative action to ensure that it never happens again. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this motion for contempt for mr. steve bannon. i urge them to do so because it is right, it is morally right, it is constitutionally right, and it is all of our duty. and with that i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from mississippi. >> thank you very much. madam speaker i yield myself the balance of my time. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> over the last hour we heard a lot about what we're not debating today.
the select committee is charged with investigating a deadly attack on the seat of our democracy and making recommendations to ensure it never happens again. i can't think of anything more serious. but many of our colleagues would rather talk about anything else. i think i know why. i think they are performing for an audience of one. i do, however, want to commend my colleagues on the select committee for laying out clearly why the house must cite mr. bannon for contempt. if our investigation is to succeed, if the house's constitutional authority to investigate and legislate is to remain robust, then this man cannot flout the laws with impunity. the select committee is made up of people of character with a profound commitment to service in our constitution. they all elevate the committee's work. i especially want to thank and
acknowledge our vice chair, ms. cheney, for her leadership and partnership. there is no doubt in my mind that history will record her courage in stark relief. history will record what we all do today. we can be on the wrong side or the wrong side. i urge all my colleagues to make this vote. i yield back. >> pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the resolution. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. >> pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and
nays are ordered. proceed to your electrical device. >> you've been listening there to the debate among house members of whether or not to basically hold steve bannon responsible for defying a subpoena, and you heard interesting arguments, i would say, from both sides. they are now going to vote on this. and i just thought it was really interesting to hear the republicans who seem to be kind of using the strategy of diversion to talk about anything but steve bannon. >> yeah. >> and the things that they were upset about rather than kind of the, i guess, matter at hand of why they're all there today and what the vote is about. >> the list of red herrings and decoys is wrong. we heard everything from christmas presents to gas prices to the embassy in jerusalem, from jim jordan to talking about the security posture there at the capitol, which is an important element, but we heard from adam kin ssinger who is on of the two republicans on the committee is to not use that to
distract from what the conversation is today. can steve bannon defy a subpoena from congress? >> we've ryan nobles on capitol hill for us, correspondent paula reed, harry lichtman and margaret telev. ali, i want to start with you. what did you think made the most legal sense? >> i'm going to start with what made least legal sense. they were illogical and manipulative. first, they argued the reason steve bannon is subpoenaed is because people don't like thiz political beliefs. that's nonsense. there are plenty of people who have popular political beliefs. the reason steve bannon is subpoenaed is because he predicted what happened and he was at the willard hotel.
second, this idea that the committee is not focusing on security. it is focusing on security. and let's not forget dan hodges who looked at the committee and said, we need you to figure out if someone more powerful was behind this. and finally, this is about more than steve bannon. this is about congress' authority to have oversight. meadows and patel and scavino and clark, they're all watching. if congress can't take action here in such a flagrant case as steve bannon, those guys won't be held to account and we'll never get to the truth. that's what this is about. >> margaret, i believe it was
the committee who said they needed to get to the bottom of what happened on 1/6. that was proposed, a commission. republicans voted that down. >> correct. the idea was to take this out of congress altogether, create a 9/11 style committee. they decided it would be better to do it this way so you can't say the process wasn't valid. you're hearing that from mccarthy saying the subpoena is somehow invalid. i think important to remember steve bannon is not facing this prospect of contempt for anything that he did or said ahead of the january 6 attacks. it's for not responding to congress' requests. and this is a real moment for congress. congress' power has been eroding for years, anyway, vis-a-vis the president, the executive branch.
this has been true since 9/11 through republican and democratic administrations. but if congress foregoes its own subpoena power, if they say there is no such thing as subpoena power, it's just up to the supreme court whether somebody has to testify, then they have really put themselves in a spectacularly weakened position, and this is the moment where bennie thompson said they are performing for a party of one, and i think the republican party understands it is making a short-term play with long-term consequences here. >> olivia, i thought it was interesting that thompson and -- we don't have olivia at the moment, so let me pose this instead to paula. paula, they were taking on the role of fact checkers in realtime. you know, having to get up and say, okay, what we just heard from the gentleman from indiana or whoever is not true. but i also think that liz cheney kept bringing it back to what
she feels really is the ultimate point here. that is history is watching and there is revisionist history going on right now. let's just play for everyone what her mission statement was. >> there are people in this chamber right now who were evacuated with me and with the rest of us on that day during that attack? people now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on the constitution, the assault on our congress. there is no doubt that mr. bannon knows far more than what he said on the video. there is no doubt that all hell did break loose. just ask the scores of brave police officers who were injured that day protecting all of us. the american people deserve to hear his testimony. >> as we watch the vote particular on the right side of our screen there, i'm sure
you're also focused on will any republicans side with liz cheney or adam kinsinger who are moving ahead with this vote trying to hold steve bannon to this subpoena. >> that's what we're looking at, to see in anyone was swayed by liz cheney's comments. she kept moving to how people will judge how we handled this moment. there were a lot of fact checking going on and also claims of what the committee has not done yet. those were things the chairman was trying to fact check. the four rounds of subpoenas, the four trump associates, these individuals were specifically targeted because there was anticipation that they would resist, that there could be litigation and could be delays. so today's vote is a sign of just how aggressive the house select committee is willing to be to pursuit anyone who does not want to cooperate. this is meant to send a message
to all the other witnesses that they will pursue about what happens if you do not cooperate. now, whether this will be successful in the long term when it goes to the justice department, if and when it's prosecuted, that is unclear. but at this point what they're trying to do is send a message to all the other wnzitnesses wh they are going to target in this investigation. >> i want to hear from you, lichtman, that it's not about steve bannon and it wasn't about steve bannon from many of the republicans who responded, either. here's what he said this is about. >> we need to take a stand for the integrity of the select committee what sort.
for what are they doing facing any kind of consequences? to the witnesses of our investigation, i'm not willing to find out. >> to that point, i know that so much of this is partisan, but an ap apartisan point is that republicans at some point will be back in the majority. if they issue a subpoena, they would want some consequence as well. speak to us of just the institutional element here of someone being able to just completely ignore congressional subpoena without consequence. >> for sure, and schiff made this point very well, too. he said, look, if we can't do this, we are not a co-equal branch. that's all correct. thompson, to the extent this wasn't all dueling narratives and rhetorical positioning, there was one legal kernel he was trying to press on, victor, and that is the notion that they have a legislative purpose.
that's also why liz cheney was saying the here's the legislation we could pass. to the extent trump has an argument to make and it's not very strong, it's going to be, this is just law enforcement, this has nothing to do with any legitimate legislative purpose. under the constitution it's true that the house needs to be pursuing some legislation, some action they can take. so there was a little bit of rhetorical positioning to say, hey, there is legislation down the line. >> let's listen in to jamie raskin at the capitol. >> this is a decision for going before the grand jury and we hope mr. bannon will be held in contempt because he has held our process in contempt. you can be subpoenaed by the u.s. congress or by a court and feel like you've got a privilege against self-incrimination. then you go before the court, then you take the 5th. you plead the 5th, or if you think you're president of the united states, you plead executive privilege.
but he didn't even boyther to come in and make my pleas, he just blew us off. you can't blow off the united states congress from your sofa and think you're going to get away from it. most everybody else has been directly participating or at least engaged in active good faith negotiations with our committee. everybody owes the sovereign his or her best evidence about what took place on january 6. that's what we're asking about, and we have the complete power as established by the supreme court under article 1 of the constitution to get the evidence we're seeking. >> congressman raskin, can you talk about the republican response to what you guys outlined today? it seems like they want to talk about everything but steve bannon during the debate. >> i think that's right. obviously we were arguing against members of congress who have voted for this in the past, so they can't somehow pretend as though they don't believe in the principle that congress has the
authority and the right to get the evidence that it wants. all of us share that interest, you know, in the article 1 branch. that's why they decided to talk about marijuana and afghanistan, hillary clinton's e-mails, whatever. obviously that was an irrelevant distraction from the matter at hand. >> do you think this will get through the courts before the next congress? >> absolutely. we're not fooling around, and what happened in the mcgahn litigation was that president trump was president and there was an attorney general who was acting as a partisan guard or tackle blocking the investigation. that's not going to happen now. we've got a real attorney general. we're not trying to lobby or anything like that, but we just want the rule of law to be vindicated there. we are absolutely convinced that we're going to win this case. >> there is a pullouoll out thik
that 66% of americans feel like they know enough about january 6. why is it important to hear from steve bannon? >> i don't know what you're referring to specifically. current and robust majorities in the senate have determined as a fact that donald trump incited a violent insurrection against the union. that's one guy, that's one crime. what we need is a comprehensive inventory of everything that took place. what were the causes of the insurrection, what were the causes against mike pence by donald trump. we need to prepare for future coups and insurrections organized by disappointed candidates. it is a very serious issue for democracy. we've never faced this before in american history, never faced interruption of the electoral count and not seen a violent sweeping attack on the u.s. congress since the war of 1812.
>> -- representative bank is sending letters saying he wants the same information -- >> we've been listening to congressman jamie raskin who made the case you can't blow off the united states congress from your sofa and get away with it. that is why they are continuing this process. you see the vote happening right now. interestingly we see five republicans siding with the democrats' argument steve bannon should be held in contempt. we'll work to get those names. we want to bring back in our panel for a moment. harry, i want to go to you legally because i thought there was an interesting argument that republicans were making. they kept saying steve bannon is a private person. why would you go after a private person? what would a private person know about this? but the argument that steve bannon i think was making is that he is entitled to executive privilege because he was connected to president trump. so are those two arguments at odds? >> they are. they're shooting themselves in the foot. it is just as you say of course a private person could have
relevant information and of course to have executive privilege you need to be in the executive branch which he wasn't at the time. it was self-defeating like much of what they had to say, i thought. >> let me bring the same point to you elie because the ethics czar in the obama administration pointed out a 2007 case. i printed out a memo from the doj in which they said in an investigation from congress, democrats in control then during that period they were trying to figure out why george w. bush had dismissed some u.s. attorneys. and the opinion says that communications between white house officials and individuals outside the executive branch fall within the scope of executive privilege in that specific case and he suggested that maybe the doj would need a waiver from the president. you are familiar with this case. is this applicable to what we're watching here? >> so this is exactly what steve
bannon and perhaps others are going to point to, this internal opinion memo from within the justice department in 2007 essentially saying that people outside the executive branch can have some interest in executive privilege. the memo says basically sometimes the president needs to consult with people outside the executive branch. however, that is an internal memo. no court has ever found that. it sort of goes against the nature of what a privilege is in the first place. a privilege means a closed loop of communication between spouses, between a doctor and a patient, between an attorney and client. i don't know that it will ultimately hold up in court. i think it is really a stretch of executive privilege to bring it outside the scope of the executive privilege but absolutely that is what steve bannon is going to be resting his argument on. i don't think it is a winning argument. it gives him the thinnest branch to argue. >> margaret, i thought that it was interesting that we kept hearing from some of the republicans who were speaking, congressman jim banks, congressman rodney davis, we need to find out what happened. we need to make sure this never
happens again. that was what they kind of kept hammering but for some reason they don't think that steve bannon though he telegraphed he did know something the day before january 6th should be called. you know, i think that it probably can't be easy to be congressman adam kinzinger or liz cheney today but i just want to play what adam kinzinger said about his republican colleagues. >> as a republican, don't let my side use the security posture as the straw man argument in this. the reality is that is the equivalent of blaming the victim of a crime for the crime. and while it is important, that's not what we're here to talk about today. madame speaker, voting on a criminal contempt resolution is not the position we hoped to be in but steve bannon went out of his way to earn this resolution before us and now we must approve it. >> your thoughts, margaret?
>> the sound bite sort of stood out to me also when he said it because it helped explain the dynamic here. there has been a real willingness among many republicans to condemn the violence that occurred or some of the individuals who stormed the capitol that day and sort of perpetrated the violence but to try to separate it from the former president or his associates, to try to separate it from egging people on or giving them a predicate, you know, the suggestion, the incorrect suggestion that the election was inconclusive and there was some sort of fraud or whatever, i think what kinzinger is doing is saying, yes, it's true that the police and other law enforcement are supposed to protect the capitol but it doesn't mean that it is their fault when people try to storm the capitol and commit acts of violence. sort of an attempt to unpack the logic here.
i think it is -- republicans who have taken this position are kind of trying to make the case that violence is bad but it is not trump's fault. if you need to blame someone you should blame the police that weren't out in force that day and i think this is kinzinger saying that doesn't make any sense. setting all of this aside none of this is about that. it is about whether someone who has been subpoenaed has to comply or be responsive to the subpoena. >> all right. we are keeping an eye on the tally of those who are voting in favor of this resolution. all of the democrats, 36 there, and seven republicans. we're working to get the list of those who have voted in favor of this. you remember there were ten democrats who voted in favor to convict or refer the articles of impeachment over to the senate for the second impeachment of president trump after the insurrection. let me come back to you on a legal point. there are the ten faces there.
we heard from matt gaetz, heard a lot. but there was one point he made that democrats should take this to court. that this committee if they believe that they should get -- there should be some consequence for steve bannon or they want these documents they should go to court. your view on that point. >> talk about a brar rabbit strategy. what he knows of course, it is very cynical, is that is what they tried to do with mcgahn and others and were foiled because it was just a strategy to run out the clock regardless of the merits or lack of the merits of the actual claim. so that is why he is saying it. in the meantime of course they are hoping to take it to court. to criminal court. u.s. vs. mcgahn and have a court and a jury judge him guilty. i just want to underscore that -- the solid point that this, a lot of this is about trying to change the incentives and sort of shake up the other witnesses. if mcgahn goes to court it'll be
a couple years but at the end of that he may be facing a jail sentence of up to 12 months. that is the point they want to sober up the other witnesses with starting now. >> paula, as we watch this vote count now, we think it is up to eight republicans. sometimes it's a little fluid there. but it looks like the majority is going to win in terms of getting this criminal contempt referral sent over to the doj. what happens next? >> that is the big question. coincidentally, attorney general merrick garland was on the hill today for a routine oversight hearing and he was asked about how the justice department will handle this referral. he just would not tip his hand. he said what the justice department has said overall which is, look. we'll make a decision based on the facts and the law. it is expected this referral will go to the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. it is expected it would go before a grand jury. but ultimately the decision on whether to prosecute in this manner and how to proceed lies with the boss, the attorney
general, and at this point it is not clear how he will proceed but we know he is under a lot of political pressure. almost every day we hear lawmakers saying that they really need him to prosecute this. again, because they need the deterrent effect on other witnesses and even president biden came out late last week and says he, too, believes bannon should be prosecuted. the justice department is pushing back on that and insists it is independent and will make this decision independently. >> we're getting the names now of some of the republicans that have voted with the majority democrats to send this referral over to the department of justice because as you know steve bannon has defied this subpoena so we believe it is liz cheney, adam kinzinger, congressman meyer, congressman gonzalez, nancy mace, john katgow, congressman upton, brian fitzpatrick. that is what we know so far. >> we should point out congressman gonzalez, anthony gonzalez, announced he is retiring from congress after so
much of the pressure and the impact on his family after his vote for the support of the impeachment during the second impeachment of president trump. "the lead" with jake tapper continues with breaking news right now. congress sending a message right now to seditionists. "the lead" starts right now. the house is voting right this second to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress and refer the matter to the department of justice for prosecution as the former president desperately tries to keep secret white house records. president biden about to face the american people in a special cnn town hall. will he have a deal to show them legislatively by the time he takes the stage? plus, it may