tv Deadline White House MSNBC October 21, 2021 1:00pm-3:00pm PDT
people. again, we thought that the ceiling was the ten people who voted to impeach. clearly, that's not exactly true. you but look at the list here of the eight people, they are mostly those folks who voted to impeach the former president. but that one really did catch my attention. >> ally vitale, thank you. with 70 votes to go we are out of time. thank you for watching this hour of hallee jackson reports. i'm garrett haake. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we are following that breaking news from capitol hill, where the house is voting right now to trump ally steve bannon in contempt of congress for defying a subpoena from the january 6th select committee. so far a handful of republicans aboard right now it shows eight on board with democrats to refer bannon for criminal charges. for much of the house republican
caucus, today's vote forces them to get on the record as choosing the side of the disgraced expresident and his disinformation fueled push to whitewash the insurrection overupholding the powers of the legislative body on which they sever and even democracy itself. for the third time this week liz cheney is calling out her fellow republicans for lashing out what happened on january 6th at first. and then trying to appease the former president. watch. >> there are people in this chamber right now who were evacuated with me and with the rest of us on that day, do you go that attack. people who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on the constitution, the assault on our congress. >> right there is where we start today. ben rose is here, former deputy national security adviser to
president obama. now an msnbc contributor. also joining us, anna palmer. and robert costa is here national political reporter for the "washington post" and coauthor with bob woodward of "peril". anna palmer, let me start with you. what is happening right now? >> right now, is we are finally getting to this vote on the house floor. there was about 70 votes here as i was last looking before we went on camera. there have been a handful, about eight votes so far by republicans. most unsurprisingly. right? you would expect liz cheney, for example, adam kinzinger, members of the january 6th committee would vote to put bannon under contempt. but anthony gonzalez is another. peter minor from michigan. the interesting one i would point to is nancy mace. she is somebody who worked for donald trump, who has been you
know pretty criminal account of what is -- pretty critical on what is happening, she has been outspoken on the dangers of that day, that they shun be forgotten. she is a surprise in where we are looking now in terms of the ten or show republicans who voted to impeachment trump. she didn't. her vote stands out this afternoon. >> robert costa, your thoughts about the few, the bereave, the people who can see the truth about january 6th. the eight people so far on the board to hold steve bannon in contempt? >> so much of this is they don't want to defy donald trump ahead of their 2022 re-election contests. it is a wait and see game. a lot of them believe the supreme court may decide whether bannon has to testify, whether
trump has executive privilege over conversations with bannon, who didn't work at the white house during this transition period. it is important to understand what happened. bannon's talking to trump. as woodward and i documented. he's not just someone hosting a podcast. he is talking to trump in the willard on january 5th working with jason miller and giuliani as trump is pressuring pence. >> say more about that, robert costa. liz cheney has been explicit in calling out donald trump as a threat and a danger to our democracy, as talking about this erosion of faith in elections as one of the gravest threats to our country and to our democracy. it's abundantly clear through your reporting and through the eastman memo that you guys reported for the first time in the book, that this was, in their view, the plan. they weren't doing this in secret.
as you said, they met at the willard. why the furious fight to keep all the secret now when the plotting and planning to take over the election took place in full view? >> trump and his allies have often cast the insurrection as a sporadic moment that happened on january 6th, one. but our reporting in "peril" reveals this was actually just a chapter in a very long, winding story, a pressure campaign of institutions being pressured at times to the brink, from the vice presidency to the department of justice, to the integrity of state elections. and on the eve of the insurrection, you had the president of the united states communicating with an outside war room at the willard hotel. sometimes real power is not always exercised in the official white house. it can be right outside. you had giuliani, the president's lawyer, bannon, the president's political adviser, jason miller, his spokesman,
trying to pull the levers of power, including speaking in the name of vice president pence, issuing a statement in his name in defiance of where pence actually stood in an effort to push this process forward. it was all about unraveling the certification process. what we still need to learn -- that's why this committee's work is critical -- is to figure out what else don't we know? it took us months to figure out that this war room was happening a the willard and that bannon and giuliani were working together. what else don't we though about the eve of january 5th, the morning of january 6th? about all of these different personalities and intertwining story lines. >> ben, rose that's a perfect question to set up what this is about. this is about chairman bennie thompson, his vice chair liz cheney articulating that all those questions must be answered not for a single political purpose but for the protection of our democracy so our democracy continues to exist.
what do you make of the significance, not in political terms, but historic terms, of this vote under way right now to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress? >> well, i think, first of all, the only difference i would have with the liz cheney clip you played is not that the republicans who are voting against this have forgotten. it's that they don't care. that's much more disturbing. they don't care that there was an insurrection against our democracy. they don't care to learn the facts, and nicole, they don't even care about the role of congress in our constitutional system. let's take a step back and look at this executive privilege claim. it's completely insane. it is absurd. steve bannon hadn't worked in the white house for years. i was -- i appeared in front of republican investigation sbs benghazi four years after this attack. complied, went voluntarily to talk with them about something that i thought was an absurd investigation. people like jim jordan were on that committee upholding the right of congressional oversight
is part of the sanctity of our democracy. they are saying we are so in league with donald trump that we will throw ourselves in front of steve bannon, to protect this guy, who wasn't even a white house official, at the same time when we have a situation where january 6th is not over. there are on going efforts to perpetuate the big lie, to pass laws at the state level that will make the next january 6th successful. what you are seeing here is republicans once again saying that their own role, their own power, is far less important to them than whatever donald trump said. and that's a really dangerous ongoing crisis for our democracy. >> anna palmer what do they say about cutting off their noses to spite their faces, babiening the body in -- weakening the body in which they serve?
>> i think republicans are super focused just on their own election. i don't know that they have the fortitude nor the desire to look towards what is happening in the institution ten years from now, 12 years from now. so much of the civility and the reverent institution that i spent decades covering is lost. honestly, i think you have a new generation of politicians. there is just a flap right now on the house floor between marjorie taylor green and liz cheney, marjorie taylor green calling cheney a joke. that kind of interaction -- you couldn't fathom that happening ten years ago. it's really gotten to a real low at this point. i also just want the note there is a lot of news coming in here, jamie herrera butler has also now voted in support of going forward with -- you know, turning over bannon to the contempt resolution. not necessarily surprising, another republican moderate who has had some issues with how
kevin mccarthy, the leader of republicans has been leading that chamber. >> let's stop on that, anna palmer. she became a really important witness in the impeachment trial. over in the senate she released a statement and really i think was one of the first to put her name to what she understood kevin mccarthy had communicated about during the insurrection. so much of what liz cheney has communicated about kevin mccarthy's importance as a witness. and list cheney has gone so far as to say he should be subpoenaed, if he doesn't testify it is about those communications that took place while the insurrection was under way, while the chance to hang mike pence was still happening, while people like chris christie were on live tv calling for trump to tell his people to go home. while we now know from reporting donald trump was cheering like a sporting event and forced to record multiple videos ultimately to force all of his people to go home, but reminding
them he loved them. talk about her. talk about that testimony and tell me about the other nine who make up these nine republicans on the board now as voting to hold steve bannon in contempt. jamie herrera is one of the -- house leaders decided to not -- this vote is a vote of conscience. basically, you can decide where you are at on this issue. jamie has been a focal point. maybe not quite as out there as liz cheney and adam kinzinger. not on the january 6th committee but certainly someone who is seen as a serious lawmaker who, you know, saw that she had to come forward. and it really became an issue. i think this is part of the reason, what bob was talking about, why this committee needs to go forward, the work needs to
happen. because we don't know what exactly kevin mccarthy knew, when he knew it, who he was involved in those recollections. her recollection appears to be different from his. it is putting all of those pieces togetherba because they are disparate and recollections can be faulty. it has now been months since january 6th. what exactly happened. what were people like steve bannon doing at the willard planning all of these different things that happened? it is pretty outstanding that you have just this view of republicans who were willing to go on the record to support this. >> i don't want to put you on the spot, but if you know and can name all nine, anna palmer can you take us would they are. >> i can take you through many. anthony gonzalez, the republican from ohio. he of course was seen really as the future of the republican party in ohio. potentially a senate candidate. is now retiing -- from michigan. republican.
he also voted to impeach trump. liz cheney, adam kinzinger, butler, what we were just talking about, and fitzpatrick, i am getting up there. and then you have fanse mace, who i spoke about at the beginning who is a republican who worked for trump but whab somewhat critical. it was a bit of a surprise. she did not vote to impeach the president. >> anna, thank you for that. the news now is official. by a vote of 229-202, the house of representatives has voted today to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress. robert costa, what happens next? >> the anna say that congressman brian fitzpatrick of pennsylvania was one of the republicans? >> anna? >> yes, i believe so. yes. >> that's really interesting, nicole, because brian fitzpatrick is from thewell
weather district, the first congressional district in pennsylvania. the scene is always a battleground. he's a moderate republican. one of the few moderate republicans in the house. he is someone who is always seen as a reporter as someone you track f. fitzpatrick is going in a different direction people in tough districts on the gone side always watch his vote. maybe someone like fitzpatrick ahead of 2022 is calculating in my suburban vote-rich middle class, upper middle class philadelphia area district, that he can't be going pro-bannon at this point. and that's something to watch, beyond the kinzinger and cheney crowd, who have been very adamantly pro -- anti-trump during this process. >> robert costa, that's a great point. s that vote today about steve bannon. s that not even at the twice impeached disgraced expresident who was impeached by the house on a bipartisan basis and
frankly convicted in a bipartisan vote although obviously not enough to convict him. but this idea of political peril of voting with steve bannon. say more. >> at this point, a question ahead of 2022 and 2024 is who is in control of the republican party? it is easy to say oh, trump's in control. but it's more of the trump movement. not even trump himself seems to be directing that much from mar-a-lago or his new jersey golf course. it's now his allies who are in the conservative media, at conservative pressure groups. they are exerting power. bannon with his daily, quote, war room podcast. these are people weaponizing republican power. ahead of 2022 and 2024 all of these lawmakers who are voting today are being tested and questioned in sense, who are you taking cues from? is it the trump ring of the republican party that's trying to become empowered?
or is it mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy. mccarthy is more in step with trump than mcconnell. but these are decisions people are making not just about trump and bannon, but about their own pril futures, where do they want to go. >> there is depressingly few people to talk about this that category. nine republicans according to the tally we know of so far have voted with all the democrats to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress, to uphold the prerogatives of congress to investigate a deadly insurrection at the united states capitol whose mission statement was to hang mike pence. your reaction? >> well, i think it's important to remind us, yeah, we were talking about steve bannon, who had not been a white house official for years, and he's claiming executive privilege, which shouldn't apply to him. someone who is a white nationalist. someone who has been many times disgraced. he was trying to defraud people to get money to build a wall. that's the face of the republican party.
i think the challenge for people who are concerned about this, the challenge for people who care about this, the challenge for the biden administration is to connect these different pieces. it is not just about holding steve bannon in contempt. it's not just about having an investigation into january 6th. it is about the existential danger to american democracy that steve bannon represents on behalf of donald trump. the fact all these things are connected. voter splegs laws, laws to allow state official to overturn lucks. rampant big lie that republicans have to back up that he actually won the election. all these things are of a piece. it is why it is so hard to get anything on the in washington. these lawmakers aren't going to washington to be members of congress. they are going to participate in this kind of maga movement that steve bannon himself represents. this to me is a very important moment. unfortunately, the headline, as much as i do think it is interesting if people like congressman fitzpatrick is changing his vote. the headline is how few
republicans refuse to put the institutional prerogatives of the body they choose in their constitutional responsibilities ahead of steve bannon. if you are afraid to stand up to a white nationalist guy with podcast. >> what was steve bannon indicted for? wasn't he indicted for fraudulent misappropriation of build the wall money before he was pardoned. did i have that right. >> exactly right. he was using private funds to build a version of the trump wall. and he was being investigated about this. and prosecuted. president trump pardoned him from that. so you see the president working -- not only talking to bannon in the final days, but giving bannon a pardon. there are still more questions to be asked about that process. and here's the big picture when i really step back as a reporter
and say what do i want to know? think about this -- the oath keepers and the proud boys start to march down pennsylvania avenue towards the capitol, across the mall while president trump is speaking on january 6th. so many of them, the proud boys, oath keepers and other affiliated groups, who were militarized in their garb, if their mentality that day were marching down. that same night, january 5th, as they are allarying in the ellipse and outside the willard hotel on a 31-degree night in washington. bannon, giuliani and trump allies are inside the hotel working, talking to trump. what i want to know as a reporter -- i'm sure the committee is curious about this as well, is these crowds are right next to each other. the trump crowd inside the willard, the trump people and the proud boys on the outside. where did the lines cross, if they crossed aught at all? what were the communications, if any. but this block in washington was the power center of whatever was
going to happen on the 6th. that's where so many questions remain. who was talking to who? who was coming into giuliani suite and out of it and maybe going down into the crowd? >> it is such a perfect, perfect way to frame the questions, and the importance of the select committee. i am going to ask all of you to stay with us if you are able. i want to bring into our coverage congressman jim hines, member of the intelligence committee. i want the recap the news for viewers just joining us. the house approved a contempt resolution for steve bannon. nine republicans voted with all of the democrats. i am going to read them real quick. liz cheney, adam kinzinger, congressman myer, congressman up ton. cat go, who had put together a legislation that would have formed a bipartisan commission. congresswoman mace, fitzpatrick, gonzalez, and jamie haira
butler. your thoughts about the vote today to hold steve bannon -- >> nine is actually better than we usually do when the question is about, you know, the future of our constitutional republic. or what today's vote was really about -- look, you and i both know that issues of executive privilege don't apply today. that steve bannon was long gone from the white house when he had the conversations that allowed him to predict the events of january 6th. what was really on the table today was the institutional pregnantives of the united states congress, whether somebody can just say, sorry, i'm going to ignore your subpoenas. hillary clinton didn't do that when the republicans were interested in talking to her about benghazi. she showed up and spoke for nine hours, right? 202 republicans, members of congress, of this institution who were quite happy to say, my
slavish loyalty to donald trump will even allow me to damage this institution in which i serve. that's mind boggling. >> not even donald trump. as robert costa reminds us this was about steve bannon at least today. kinzinger hasn't ruled out a subpoena for donald trump but this is an accused fln felon who was pardoned by donald trump in the final days who hosts a podcast, who has no claim to executive privilege? >> i will respectfully degree. this isn't actually about steve bannon. i don't know that my republican colleagues have any particular loyalty to steve bannon. but i promise you that the nine republican yes votes today are just waiting for the comment from the former president in mar-a-lago. you know, steve bannon is obviously a proxy for donald trump. but it does show how completely the republican party has become the party of donald trump, because only nine republicans were willing to risk the wrath
of donald trump indirectly because they would stand up to steve bannon. >> right. let me go through with you, congressman, what happens next. the house speaker certifies the vote that just took place and writing. then that's delivered to the u.s. attorney's office in washington by courier. i understand. do i have that right? >> i think that's right ask. then the department justice will need to make a decision whether they follow up on the criminal referral. at this point it should cease to be a political process. i know that's a foreign concept considering what we saw for the last four years. the d.o.j. should make an unpolitical decision whether they are going to prosecute steve bannon for what is a federal crime, standing in contempt of congress. >> let me show you something that congressman adam schiff said about that, being about more than just whether or not steve bannon is prospected but whether or not there are any guardrails left on our democracy. >> if we fail to uphold
congress's power to compel information, then we cease to be a cocall branch of government, unable to perform our oversight. take away a court's power to subpoena witnesses and it tilts to be a court. take away a congress's ability to do the same and it fails to be a congress, becoming instead a mere play thing 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. >> congressman schiff making clear the stakes are at the department of justice as well. do you agree with that assessment? >> i do. i do. can sort of boil that down a little bit. >> please. >> and i can say sometime the
republicans will be a majority this the house. i hope it is later rather than sooner. sometime they are going to be a rt jo. when that moment arrives they want to be able to hold the executive and do oversight. and 202 of them voted today to do away with that congressional oversight tool. what are they going to say let's imagine five years from now when they want to subpoena somebody in a democratic administration to come up with a elliptical and that administration says five years ago you said steve bannon didn't have to show up so clearly you don't really care about congressional prerogatives. if that happens, and it was the message during the trump administration when any number of witnesses refused to appear before congresses, you have given up a system of checks and balances and americans need to ask themselves whether they want their representatives to give up the 240--year-old system of checks and balances in this country. >> the republicans have already taken that position.
i wonder if you think this is a moment for congress to sort of reassert all those authorities and if you think inherent contempt is something that should be under consideration. if you could explain it and then tell me whether you think that's a good idea? >> i do. inherent contempt is exactly what happened today. but instead of going to the department of justice to make a decision as to whether or not to prosecute congress does, and has in the past asserted its own power. so a congress in the past -- this is an authority that hasn't been used in decades, has actually sent officers of the congress out to arrest people who are in contempt of the congress. that's called the power of inherent contempt. it is a little awkward even though there is long precedent for it. we are not really in the law enforcement business here. we don't really have a jail. in a moment in time, the truth under the trump administration where the department of justice has become a political arm of the president n this case, president trump, you have to think about those things if you
are serious about a system of checks and balances. i would hope that most people would be serious about checks and balances. >> look, i want to pull out what you are saying. this is not just a vote about steve bannon. obviously, he's a proxy for donald trump. but it's also republicans going on the record with their true views about how disposable congress really is. 202 republicans don't think that congress is thing on the same level as donald trump in exile at mar-a-lago. and i wonder if you can answer a question that i asked just about everyone. can a single party protect this country from a radicalized party sort of high on misinformation, disdainful of their own institutions authority and prerogative? >> that's the question of the age, nicole. the good news is we had nine members of the republican caucus do the right thing today, do the principled thing. when we saw the last impeachment of donald trump we had a number of republican senators, many of
whom are suffering the attacks of donald trump because of that, stands up and do the right thing. but, no, it is not at all clear that one party, abiding by the norms and the rules -- i have got to tell you, this is really hard for me to say. because i am kind of a norms and rules guy. i am sort of a traditions guy. but when you have a president who is willing the violate every norm and every tradition and to continue to do so after the -- after his presidency is over, you really have to scratch your head and say, wait a minute, does that mean we need to do things that we had never contemplated is real? everything from the minting of a coin to stop a default by the united states. i used to think it was an absurd idea until i saw that every one of my republican colleagues were happy to let the country default. in extraordinary times norm focused people need to contemplate whether we are going color outside the lines of tradition. >> it is a pattern. i think it is fair to describe senator angus king as norm
oriented as well. and this week he said he would use the filibuster in the same way you are talking about dealing with bannon and inherent contempt. thank you very much. >> thank you, nicole. >> robert costa, inherent contempt. let me explain more to the viewers what happens. under inherent house proceedings the sergeant at arms takes a person into into custody for proceedings to be had he would in congress. congressman jim hines, obviously someone with a big and important role in the impeachment investigations not ruling it out just now. >> not ruling it out because this is a serious matter. i mean, this was an insurrection at the united states capitol. many democratic lawmakers who i know well have told me they don't love the idea because they are worried if republicans have power, they don't want to see republicans abuse this and have democrats facing a flurry of
subpoenas, and then maybe facing possible jail time. and they could see how this unravels in terms of american democracy. but they also really believe on the democratic said and perhaps some of the republicans who voted with the democrats today that if the answers are never found out to the fullest extent on january 6th and the days before, steve bannon connects trump to the eve, to december 30th, to talks beforehand. not just the day of. because so much of the impeachment proceedings in the trial were about president trump's speech and stoking an insurrection. but the fuller story is of course the days prior as well. if answers aren't found out now, when will they be? and next time, maybe there will be alternate slates in the states. when you look at what republicans are doing in the states right now, bannon is encouraging people run for
office on his podcast. get elected to election positions, be in more control next time around. >> look, this is the perfect place to sort of pull this in and pull all this together. the insurrection didn't end on the 6th for the trump side. what they are doing is running against the brad rachbsbergers who again are not heroes. but on the question of finding those 11,780 votes donald trump wanted him to find in georgia, he said no. in arizona, the reporting about the ringing phone. i mean, there were republican run the-supporting officials who refused to overturn the bill of the voters, refused to participate in the coup plot. i want to end this part of this coverage on the evidence. because this is -- it's not just about bannon and trump. it's about the evidence. and i want to show you something that jamie raskin said, ben rhodes, about this witness and about the evidence and the sort
of premeditated nature of what happened on january 6th. >> do you think steve bannon had more knowledge that there would be violence on january 6th? >> i will let you be the judge. on january 5th. steve bannon said on his podcast that all hell is going break loose tomorrow. he promised something unprecedented, unforeseen, and told everybody to buckle up or fasten on or whatever. i mean, you tell me. when you go out and you organize and call for people to come for a wild protest and you are talking about the proud boys who were told to stand back and stand by, and the oath keepers, the three percenters, the areaia nations, the militia men, the qanon volters, we saw what happened. >> was he at the meeting at the willard hole. >> i don't know enough about it. that's one of the things we are
investigating. but it sounds to me like every insurrection needs a headquarters. you know, every mass protest or riot likely has someplace where they were organizing it. so willard hotel was clearly a place where people were meeting. we want to find out a lot more about that. >> ben rhodes, congressman raskin, irhas robert costa's interest in the willard hotel. he describes it as potentially the headquarters of the insurrection. talk about the evidence at stake and how important bannon is to actually getting it before this committee. >> i think it gets to what bob costa was saying, that there are real questions we don't know the answer to. sometimes we think that because some of this played out in plain sight that we know the whole story, that donald trump was encouraging these rallies, people like steve bannon were encouraging people to come to washington. but you don't get that number of people on the mall, and then you don't get them to move with
force to the capitol. you know that there are people embedded in that crowd who were quite organized, who clearly intended to do something that day, who were armed. again, for people who don't know washington that well, the willard hotel is like two blocks from white house, it is between where the white house is, where the white house is and where the mall is where that crowd was. if you have the inner circle sitting in that venue potentially directing the insurrection, we need to know the answers to that question. i think you got to the heart of it, nicole work congressman hines, which is when you have one political party that's playing by no rule and the one thing we have seen is that when the democratic party binds itself to norms the other political party has completely tossed out and disregarded you will not be able to get to the truth. that you have to use the full weight and power of the office that democrats currently control to get the answers to that
evidentiary question of hey, did somebody tell those people to march on the capitol? was it part of a plot to overthrow the american government? was it directed from the white house? was it directed from a handsful of people close to the president n touch with the president, sitting in a hotel two blocks from the white house is this we don't know the answer to these questions. as you said, this is ongoing, the insurrection is not over. steve bannon is selling the big lie every day. donald trump is demanding campaign on the big lie in the next two elections. this is an ongoing threat. it is not over. anna palmer had to leave early to do more reporting. bob costa is i am sure in the same vote. wave and come back if you get anything in the next 1:25. after the break, merrick garland on capitol hill facing questions on what he will do when this bannon referral lands on his desk at the united states
department of justice. we'll be right back. wondering what actually goes into your multi-vitamin. at new chapter. its innovation organic ingredients and fermentation. fermentation? yes, formulated to help your body really truly absorb the natural goodness. new chapter. wellness well done. meet stuart and byron, owners of sml, a tiny home architecture firm. they were getting ready to travel to portland, maine for a pitch when their 3d-printer broke. luckily, sml is with american express business platinum, and has access to over $1000 in value per year with the business services suite. so they got new software and created a full augmented reality experience. sml won the pitch, and with their membership rewards® points, extended their hotel stay for a few extra days. they had a whale of a time. get the card built for business. by american express. your eyes. beautiful on the outside, but if you have diabetes,
there can be some not-so-pretty stuff going on, on the inside. it's true, if you have diabetes, you know high blood sugar is the root of the problem. but that excess sugar can cause the blood vessels to be seriously damaged. and when that happens, this could happen, vision loss or even blindness. that's right, diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of blindness for adults in the u.s. but even though you can't see it, there is something you can do about it. remember this: now is the time to get your eyes checked. eye care is an incredibly important part of your long-term diabetes management. see a path forward with actions and treatments that may help your eyes— and protect against vision loss. just say to yourself, “now eye see.” then—go see an eye care specialist. visit noweyesee.com to get the facts about diabetes, your eyes, and what you can do next—to take control of your sight. brought to you by regeneron.
covering breaking news in the house. voting earlier this hour to find steve bannon in contell of congress. legally speaking, it's just a referral. the next step in terms of whether or not he's held in criminal contempt, and whether or not possible charges -- whether he will face charges and prosecution will be up to the department of justice. hours before the vote attorney
general merrick garland told the house judiciary committee he would handle bannon by quote applying the facts. watch. >> the department recognizes the oversight role this committee the house of representatives and the senate play rapt with respect to the consultive branch. the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge that the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> joining our coverage, neil cattial. take me inside that process in the department of justice. what will the attorney general, merrick garland do when he address applies the facts? >> i think what he will do is carefully review the facts, look at the law, and then make a decision. it is true that criminal contempt is not something that's
ordinarily prosecuted from members -- you don't have congressional referrals. it is a very, very unusual thing, which is why the news today is such a big deal. but at the end of it he is going the ask is there a need for this evidence? congress has said there is one. i think he would be differential to congress's judgment. then he would ask, there any valid defense? i think he would find that the answer is no. i think it is virtually inevitable that the merrick garland justice department will launch a prosecution of steve bannon. steve bannon is refusing to tell the truth under oath. that's what he's doing. that's why he's getting this criminal contempt charge. he's not just doing it son some rinky disk traffic cop violation or something like that. it's on one of the most, if not the most serious investigations in our lifetime, what happened on january 6th.
>> i know how informed you are. i really want to understand what you are saying. you don't have inside knowledge that d.o.j. will take the path you just describe. but if they do what the attorney general testified to today was that he would apply the facts and follow the law. and it's your analysis that if you apply the facts and follow the law, he will be criminally prosecuted? >> exactly. i think it is just too hard to do anything else. in the last administration when you had some joker attorney, maybe. even then it would have been hard. here i find it virtually impossible that given what bannon is doing, his intransjens in simply refusing to tell the truth under oath coupled with the seriousness of what this evidence is and the seriousness of the investigation, it's just incredibly hard to do anything else. just putting myself in that chair it doesn't matter whether
you are -- it doesn't matter what your disposition is politically. this is a matter about truth and justice and what happened. and the idea that a citizen can just stonewall and say no to congress. i mean, if that becomes the rule, then we are living in a banana republic. so i just don't see anything else for merrick garland to do. i am not sure -- i think he doesn't relish being in this position. i am sure he much rather bannon would go and tell the truth under oath. when someone doesn't do that there has to be consequences. >> i want to -- you referenced attorney general garland's predecessor, bill barr. i want to show you something adam schiff. >> we can't look at this enforcement action against steve bannon in isolation. it is part of a broad assault on our democratic institutions where you can ignore subpoenas,
use the justice department in ways that bill barr did to go after the president's enemies. you can ignore the prohibition on using the white house grounds for political conventions. you can enrich yourself as president. the list goes on and on. at some point you have to say enough, we have to put back the guardrails of our democracy in he is making an argument that i feel like we have discussed. the stakes for the department of justice in doing what bill barr would do seem catastrophe cattic, not just plirtcally, but in regard to the rule of law. do you see the participation of republicans, the vote of nine republicans as a little bit of sort of political cover for merrick garland to do what you have made clear is the only logical conclusion if you evaluate the facts and follow the law? >> i don't think garland needs any cover nicole for this. i think this is like really the essence. this is what i think congressman schiff is getting at, the
essence of the rule of launch it means nothing if it means that after congress votes and says look we really need this evidence and you say huh-uh, i'm afraid i am not going to give it to you. that's destruction of the rule of law. we have seen the same in many different areas. what bothers me to the core -- i am not a particularly partisan person. what bothers me to the core is that the republican party has become the enemy of the rule of law. when i went to law school that was not the case. the republican party stood up for it many times now on instance after instance it is not about truth, justice, or fairness. it is literally about what gets them ahead and what lie they can tell themselves because they are afraid the truth coming out. that's i think why garland has to do this. because, you know, i think the majority of american people, regardless of what party they are in, just want to know what
actually happened. they deserve that, on something as momentous as january 6th. i mean our children and grandchildren are going to be read being this event. to not know what happened is just unforgivable. >> well, and just to -- the obvious extension is to not use or any public servant to not use the full power and authority of the office they hold, the position of public trust they hold, either the members of the select committee, the sitting attorney general, the u.s. attorney has any role in this. for people in position of public trust to not do what you just described and use their positions to get to the bottom of a deadly insurrection whose mission statement was to hang the sitting vice president, that seems like a real abdication of responsibility and duty. i don't want to follow all that out the window. do you think there is any
scenario where garland disappoints everyone and says, nah, political hot potato i am not doing this? >> i don't think so. everyone looks at his demeanor and how lawyerly he is, we -- we have lived through fire breathers attorney generals general and the jokers, if he doesn't seek to jail bannon, if he doesn't do a full investigation into trump, if he doesn't prosecute the january 6th insurrectionist, then, yes, i think garland is going to be rightly condemned. i think he will do those things because there is no choice. as a law enforcement officials, unless you believe in the dereliction of our duties, that's what you do. janet reno appointed nine independent councils on clinton. that's the be jo. to do law enforcement, to do it kbashlly. it doesn't matter who you are.
wealth is shutting down the office for mike's retirement party. worth is giving the employee who spent half his life with you, the party of a lifetime. wealth is watching your business grow. worth is watching your employees grow with it. principal. for all it's worth. with relapsing forms of ms... there's a lot to deal with. not just unpredictable relapses. all these other things too. it can all add up. kesimpta is a once-monthly at-home injection... that may help you put these rms challenges in their place. kesimpta was proven superior at reducing the rate of relapses, active lesions, and slowing disability progression vs aubagio. don't take kesimpta if you have hepatitis b, and tell your doctor if you have had it, as it could come back. kesimpta can cause serious side effects, including infections. while no cases of pml were reported in rms clinical trials, it could happen.
tell your doctor if you had or plan to have vaccines, or if you are or plan to become pregnant. kesimpta may cause a decrease in some types of antibodies. the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and injection reactions. ready for an at-home treatment with dramatic results? it's time to ask your doctor about kesimpta. ♪ ♪ your new pharmacy is here. and here. and here, too. it's here to help you save time and money and trips to the pharmacy. it's here to get you the medication you need when you need it. who knew it could be this easy? your new pharmacy is amazon pharmacy. breaking news we've been
discussing all hour, the house of representatives has voted to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress. nine republicans joining all of the democrats. congressman jim himes says inherent contempt is not off the table. joining our coverage, former republican strategist steve schmidt. my friend, what are your thoughts? >> well, this is an important power for congress to exercise. we remained, at least for a little while longer in this country, a nation of laws, and steve bannon has shown contempt for the lawful authority of congress as he seeks to uncover as a matter of fact what happened in the events leading up to the incitement of a murderous mob that led to an insurrection and desecration of the capitol of the united states in a deliberate effort to stop the counting of the electoral votes, part of the ceremony and the process of the peaceful transition of power that has gone on uninterrupted since the beginning of the country.
so, congress must show steel here. they must show resolve. they must show to all witnesses that they are not messing around. they will leave no stone unturned, and that steve bannon and the rest of the cretins around trump are not above the law. this was an act of violence against all of us, against our nation, and getting to the bottom of it is as important a duty as we've seen in our lifetimes. >> steve, we've talked a lot about the nine republicans who voted with the democrats but how about the 202 republicans who voted against their own authorities? >> well, there's no mystery here. what we have seen is a great mass act of corruption in the sense of intellectual corruption. the corruption of ideas and
beliefs and principles and surrendering it to the cynicism of power. that is what this is. all of these people, and we know this because they all have statements, most of them, except the truly certifiable ones, at one time condemning trump, this type of behavior, and now what they stand as part of is a movement, a party that has rejected democracy and is setting up a catastrophic crisis in this country. we are beyond, now, the realms of gravity of the last election. everything we're talking about sets the stage to disqualify the legitimate results of the next election as has been pointed out, should trump run, and i think he will, but if not, in someone else, at the hour of defeat, let's suppose, they will declare victory. >> right. >> and an election beyond that, should they lose power, from a position of holding it,
certainly it seems that they will be unwilling to relinquish it, so everything that we're seeing played out, to me now, is prelude of a disaster to come and the contours of that republican party, such as they are, aren't just well known. they're hardened into a type of granite contour at this point. there's no mystery left to any of it. >> steve, they unveiled a new tool today. donald trump announcing that he's creating a social media platform called, wait for it, truth social. your reaction was instant and scathing. you said that trump's truth is a hideous deception, a mirage cloaked in cynicism and malice. >> absolutely. truth is elemental in a democratic society. and where the truth and the lies stand equal. in a society. that society is clearly in
decay. much of the debate that we have in this country right now is between the truth and the lie. if you want to understand where the front in our fight is, in the civics of the moment, in this idea of, if we can expand it, what the public good is, all of this is at its core a contest between the truth and the lie. and trump has sustained an auto autocratic movement, made it more extreme, hardened it on the basis of a lie and it's a lie of power, a lie of authority that requires submission of the reality that we have companies like facebook, two clicks on trump and four months later, you're down the qanon rabbit hole. algorithmic imprisonment. all of this, the subversion of the idea of the truth. it's an existential issue in the heart of a democracy, and it speaks to the unhealth of our
system in the great danger to its survival as we look ahead over the next couple of elections. >> it will also be a big factor in watching this fight that was certainly escalated today by that vote in the house of representatives. steve schmidt, a day like today is not complete without hearing from you. thank you for spending time with us this hour. the next hour of "deadline white house" starts after a quick break. don't go anywhere today. s after quick break. don't go anywhere today. who have become their parents... okay, everybody, let's do a ticket check. paper tickets. we're off to a horrible start. ...but we can overcome it. we're not gonna point out our houses, landmarks, or major highways during takeoff. don't buy anything. i packed so many delicious snacks. -they're -- -nope. would you say, ballpark, when group two is gonna get boarded? 2 hours and 58 minutes. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. someone should've left home earlier. instantly clear everyday congestion but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. with vicks sinex saline. for fast drug free relief vicks sinex.
we need to give the american people answers about what happened. there needs to be swift accountability. >> i have no doubt that mr. bannon's scorn for our subpoena is real, but no one, and i repeat, no one is above the law. and we need to hear from him. >> 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.
>> hi again, everyone, it's 5:00 in new york on a day of potentially tectonic plate shifting news. today a victory for the rule of law as the house of representatives in just the last hour voted to cite former trump senior advisor, steve bannon, for criminal contempt, now a crucial witness for the january 6th select committee faces potential prosecution for refusing to comply with the committee's subpoena. today's vote was notable because when forced to go on the record, both about getting to the truth of what happened on january 6th and about their beliefs in the power of the legislative body in which they serve, nine republicans voted alongside their democratic colleagues. these days, that counts for something. speaker pelosi will now send the house's recommendation to doj and steve bannon could face jail time and a fine of up to $100,000. members of the select committee stress that today's vote was a vote about democracy, a vote for the health of our country's
future. take a listen to congresswoman stephanie murphy of florida on what was at stake today and how whether there's a "d" or an "r" next to your name should not matter. >> 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. this was no peaceful protest in a proud american tradition. it was violent and vicious. members of the mob wielded weapons. they called for the death of the vice president. they hunted members of congress. they caused severe harm to law enforcement officers. america's not just a place. it's an idea. and on january 6th 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. >> that is where we start this hour. joining us now is congresswoman stephanie murphy of florida. she's a member of the house
select committee on january 6th. i want your reaction to the vote, but did you know that these nine republicans would vote with all of the democratic members? >> thank you so much for having me. and we did have a sense that we would have more than just representative cheney and representative kinzinger who would be voting with us and i'm really grateful for that because again, this vote wasn't just about steve bannon and his actions but rather it was about the powers of congress, and in a republic, each branch has to jealously guard its powers and today, we had a bipartisan vote in the house to do so. >> congresswoman, i want to get to steve bannon as a witness and some of what the committee is interested in. i want to show you something that congresswoman liz cheney posted on twitter. let me play it. >> all hell is going to break
loose tomorrow. just understand this. all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it's going to be moving. it's going to be quick. this is not a day for fantasy. this is a day for maniacal focus. focus, focus, focus. we're coming in right over the target, okay? exactly, this is the point of attack we always wanted. >> so, congresswoman, you could chalk that up to the rantings of a lunatic, exactly what he described didn't come to pass the very next day. i wonder if you could speak to the importance of steve bannon's testimony. >> the select committee's charge is to fully understand the planning and the execution of january 6th and then providing recommendations how we ensure it never happens again. and so, steve bannon is a critical person from whom we need to hear because clearly, he was involved in the run-up to and on the day of january 6th. i think that he has to come before our committee and testify and tell us what he knows, and
you know, he seems quite proud of himself in that recording. if he doesn't have anything to hide, then he shouldn't have any trouble coming and telling us his side of this story. but he's behaving as if he is somebody who wants to hide the truth. >> i want to show you something that your fellow committee member, adam kinzinger, said about what the republican posture and sort of pr is in terms of security. >> don't let my side use the security posture as the strawman 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. 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.
>> does that extend to the committee's views on how the department of justice should treat the referral? >> the house has done our duty by passing the resolution, and i fully expect the department of justice will do its duty in a fair way in executing on this law. you know, i know that this department of justice shares our values that nobody is above the law. it doesn't matter how famous you are, how rich you are, you are not above the law. when you receive a subpoena, you must comply, and if you do not, there are consequences. >> congresswoman, can you tell us what the status is of the committee's engagement with mark meadows, who has recently retained a very serious conservative lawyer in george, kash patel, and dan scavino. >> to put in context the apparition of steve bannon,
everyone else that we have subpoenaed are engaging with the committee and we are working with them and there are lawyers to move forward to set a date for when they will come before the committee. and we are still working on that, but this committee is not with limitless patience. there will come a time we see they are trying to play games, if they are trying to play games, and they too will have to face consequences for trying to evade this committee or evade the subpoena. >> adam kinzinger hasn't ruled out a subpoena for the ex-president, donald trump. is it a theory that perhaps steve bannon is a proxy for how the committee will treat a subpoena ignored and defied? >> i certainly think steve bannon was a proxy for the 202 republicans who were fearful of defending their very own powers of congress by voting against this resolution. they were more fearful of what the former president would say about them than they were --
than they had strong convictions about their own jobs and their duty to the constitution. and you know, i tend to agree with my friend and colleague, mr. kinzinger, that there will be a time and a place where we will seek to get information from all of the people, no matter how high up in government they were. and you know, we are -- there's nobody who is above the law in the eyes of the select committee. >> congresswoman stephanie murphy, thank you very much for spending some time with us on what is a momentous day. we're grateful. >> great to be with you. joining our conversation, betsy woodruff swan, national correspondent for politico and charlie sykes, it tore at large of the bulwark. betsy, i would like to pick up with you where robert costa and i left off. in terms of the evidence that steve bannon could unlock for the select committee, a lot of it turns around this meeting at the willard hotel.
i know you've got information on the participants and the work they did ahead of that, there was a white paper, there was a plan. the coup was the plot. >> that's right. the goal of this meeting was discussing efforts to reverse the legal outcomes of the 2020 election. that was what the project was. what we don't know is if this meeting discussed specific violent tactics toward the capitol, but we do know that scare tactics in general were a big part of what trump was trying to use to frighten republican members of congress and democratic members of congress into resisting the outcomes of this race. we know part of the focus was, send a massive crowd to the capitol. frighten members of congress. have this show of force that would make people in the capitol building think something really bad would happen to them if they didn't move to overturn the election. that's why bannon is such a pivotal figure here. he has a direct view into so
many of the people who are key apparatus in trump's planning to try to reverse the outcome of the election. he has visibility both within the white house because of his communication with president trump before january 6th and with the efforts of people outside, this constellation of truly bizarre characters who came together at this frightening moment in our nation's history to try to reverse the outcome of an election. he's a really important witness here, and that's part of the reason the select committee is moving hard and fast to try to secure his testimony. >> charlie sykes, donald trump supporters maimed, injured, and their conduct preceded the death by suicide of four capitol police officers. let me show you what sergeant ganell, who's appeared on this program before, had to say about scott macfarlane about missing the funerals of those other officers. >> did it bother you, you couldn't go to the funerals for the officers who died? >> it did.
>> you were just too injured. >> i was too injured. afterward, one of the officers, well, in my squad, she told me, if you had let me know, i would have taken you. and in a way, impacted to, but i knew i couldn't. because i was still -- my foot was still too swollen, too injured, so i couldn't even keep it elevated if i wanted to. so, it was too painful. >> i played that, charlie, because before we go down the rabbit hole with all the steve bannon b.s., and try to sort of parse what the meaning of "we're coming in right over the target, okay, exactly that's the point of attack we've always wanted"
means. let's remember that donald trump incited violence that led to the death of police officers. law enforcement officials who were clearly still suffering from their injuries and their trauma. >> and it's still stunning when you think this is the party of law and order. >> but it's not. >> the republicans decided they're going to look the other way. no, and -- and you know, the steve bannon thing, we've gotten a little bit numbed, maybe, no all of this, but this is really an extraordinary vote that republicans in congress voted 202-9 not to hold steve bannon in contempt. so, you know, which basically surrenders congress's prerogative of oversight. i think that adam schiff is right. this is a fundamental constitutional issue about congressional power. you know, i mean, what profits a man to gain the whole world if he loses his soul? but for steve bannon to do this, for steve bannon, somebody who was charged with a felony for
ripping off republican voters, their own constituents to build the fake wall, and yet more than 90% of them then turn around and say, yeah, we're going to let him thumb our nose at this body, at the congress of the united states over something like january 6th. look, i mean, the republicans have made a very, very clear decision, with the exception of the nine, that they're either going to ignore it or they're going to go along with trump, who is now rather aggressively engaging in revisionist history. that tweet that he put out that the real insurrection was november 3rd and the protest was january 6th, he is at some point going to demand that republicans celebrate january 6th despite the fact that police officers ended up losing their lives and were attacked, and that's extraordinary. i would like to say that's a bridge too far for republicans, but i think that one of the things that we've seen, nicole, over the last four years, is that there is no bridge that's too far for many of these
republicans if they are willing to go along with something like this. i mean, to basically die on the hill of protecting steve bannon defying a subpoena really does mark a new low in the history of, there is no bottom. >> yeah. and my only tweak is donald trump can't tweet, not allowed to, so it was a message delivered by other means. >> right, right. >> but you know, to what charlie is pointing out, quite -- in quite powerful terms, it's steve bannon, it's rudy giuliani, trial by combat, and then it's, you know, nonpolitical cops, capitol police officers. here's one officer. >> until there is real accountability or every means of attaining accountability has been exhausted, i will continue to bring attention to the events of january 6th and how we got
here. it's not to say that he's not or doesn't potentially bear some responsibility here. but donald trump did not create the environment that we live in now. he just did a, you know, an amazing job of exploiting it for his own personal benefit. and i think every american needs to look at their own actions and what part they may have played, however small, in the events that led up to january 6th. this is a greater discussion for the entire country, not just for republicans, not just for democrats, for americans. >> what's been clear to me, talking to you over the months, is that it's just hard to move on when there is no closure. >> correct. i don't even think we've begun the process of closure, unfortunately.
and it seems like there's a whole lot of people in congress right now. they happen to be republicans that are trying to stand in the way of that process. >> i want to just pull out and repeat this one line. donald trump did not create the environment that we live in now. he just did an amazing job of exploiting it for his own personal benefit. professor fanone understands this is the grift to end all grifts. this was about donald trump saving face, saying that the biggest popular vote defeat in history was a result of fraud because his frail ego couldn't handle the truth, the truth as delivered to him by bill barr, by chris krebs, lifelong republican. officer fanone seems to understand something that 202 republicans cannot. what is their side of their participation in the grift? >> it's the same type of
arguments that republicans made when they were explaining or trying to explain why they opposed the second effort to impeach then president trump. they sort of appealed to technical stuff, timeline stuff, things that aren't related to the substance of the allegations and the realities of what actually happened on january 6th. it tends to be a little ticky tacky, a little push the glasses up the nose, well, you aren't quite doing this the right way so we can't get on board. watching the clips of the police officers talking about the horrors they survived that day and from my own conversations with members of the capitol police force, it's just gutting, the extent to which so many men and women still carry the horrors of january 6th with them and are still holding out hope to the point that you made, still holding out hope there will be deeper investigations, more accountability for more people. one thing that i hear from
capitol police officers is this hope that the congressional select committee will take a deep look at leadership within the capitol police force. there are still concerns among capitol rank and file that there hasn't been enough focus, even from the bevy of investigations that have played out, into what went wrong within that department, why management in that department didn't make the decisions that they should have made based on the intelligence that they had to keep the building safe and to make it so that those officers would have been safe too. there's still such an appetite for accountability and for truth to come forward, and that's part of the reason that you're hearing these officers speaking out about something that, you know, i can't imagine how hard it is for them to talk about. >> these officers, charlie, i'm sure, have no interest in being on television. but they need to be, because the republican party is an entity without shame, and when you look at the nine republicans who voted with all of the democrats,
i wonder if you think it's shame, patriotism, disgust with trump, what do you think motivated those nine? >> i can't really say. there are obviously patriots there. there are people who understand that this is a very, very simple vote. steve bannon is defying congress. others might be looking at the electoral fallout of being too associated with steve bannon, but to your point about why these cops are on television, i will say that one of the -- to use betsy's term, one of the gutting things about watching officer fanone was the way that the contrast between how seriously he takes what happened and understands the danger here in contrast to condolezz rice who says we should just move on and i've always admired
condolzza rice, and we talk about the republican party but it's the failure of the leaders, those who ought to be the best among the republicans and you work with condolezza rice and i have to say that came as a gut punch to see her saying, can we just move on. that contrast between someone who had been at the pinnacles of government saying, yeah, can we just turn the page and this street cop who is explaining why that can't happen and the threat to democracy. that contrast is pretty dramatic and it does tell you something about our politics, something that we have seen before again and again but i think, you know, we see it at the very highest level and the disappointment of, you know, the best lacking all conviction on something that matters so fundamentally. >> it's a very good point, and i want to explain that that fanone clip i played with brianna
keilar, what she had asked him about was her claim that it's time to move on. and that is what officer fanone was talking about. and what's amazing to me is it stands in contrast to her old boss, george w. bush, calling domestic terrorists the same -- of the same evil, foul ilk as the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. so, you're right to have republicans -- >> that's what made it so disappointing. >> -- thought leaders all over the map without much more conviction than the republican elected officials is disturbing and jarring and part of why we're still here with no answers for officer fanone and officer ganell. betsy woodruff swan, thank you for bringing your reporting to this conversation. charlie's sticking around. when we come back, the chairman of the house intelligence committee, congressman adam schiff, will be our next guest with his reaction to the breaking news today. plus, with deadlines looming and the success of his presidency at stake, president
joe biden ramping up his efforts to bring democrats together behind his very popular domestic agenda. new york senator kirsten gillibrand will be our guest. expect legal problems facing the disgraced ex-president continue to pile up. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. nues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪
i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! ( sighs wearily ) here, i'll take that! ( excited yell ) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one-gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health! ( abbot sonic ) ♪♪ (calls dog) buttercup... (whines) ♪♪ ♪ ohh ohh ♪
michael myers is the essence of evil. the boogeyman... needs to die. if you track michael's victims, it's a straight line to michael's childhood home. [ screaming ] tonight my family will kill him. [ gasps ] [ screaming ] let's bring into our ongoing coverage of the house vote to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress, congressman adam schiff of california, the chairman of the house intelligence committee and a member of the house select committee investigating the january 6th insurrection. i'll ask you the same question i
asked your colleague on the committee, congresswoman stephanie murphy. were you surprised about the nine republicans who voted with all of the democrats to hold steve bannon in contempt? >> i was surprised. you know, it's telling about this era when you're surprised and delighted to get as many as nine republicans to uphold our system of checks and balances and hold people to account when they ignore congressional subpoenas. but that is the status of things these days. so, i'm glad we did. that it was a bipartisan vote. and it was a bipartisan vote that went beyond our committee. >> at many points in the trump era, we've had to pull out, you know, civics books and understand the process. can you explain the process to us about what happens after the house votes to hold bannon in contempt and how quickly it takes place. >> the speaker will essentially transmit this criminal contempt finding of congress to the
justice department. that should happen, i think, very soon. then it will be up to the justice department how quickly they bring it before the grand jury or even if they bring it before the grand jury. it's certainly our expectation that they will. but that hasn't always been the case. here, though, i think there are lots of signs why the justice department is likely to take this very seriously. they made it very clear to mr. bannon they were not asserting executive privilege and didn't think that he had one to apply here. what's more, even if bannon had some colorful claim, you can't just not show up. so, this is about as strong a case for contempt as you can imagine, and i also think that the justice department recognizes the need to re-establish the rule of law and that no one is above the law. so, i'm optimistic and the quicker the better. >> and if they don't, then what? >> well, you know, look, i think it will still have a deterrent impact on others. but the deterrent impact will be a lot less.
if the justice department decides they're not going to prosecute, then what's to stop other witnesses from similarly saying, well, clearly, congress's oversight power is a paper tiger. so, we would pursue other remedies. we would have to look at things like inherent contempt. we'd have to look at civil litigation, but as we've seen, civil litigation, in particular, can be very time consuming, and were we to go the route of criminal or inherent contempt and congress use its inherent power if we were to, for example, impose fines that way, we would still have to go to court to garnish the wages of anyone who was in contempt, so no easy answers. the very best answer is the one we've pursued. >> congressman, can we speak about steve bannon as a witness. liz cheney put up a couple of clips from his podcast on the eve of the insurrection, making very clear what he was directing donald trump supporters to do that day. talking about targets, talking about attacks, talking about
focus, focus, focus. used the word "maniacal." what is your interest in steve bannon as a witness? >> well, our interest is he apparently knew or expected there to be violence on january 6th. he was in communication with the president, so he must have some information about what the president was contemplating for that rally, what would take place. he may be able to shed insight into whether this was the plan all along. if mike pence wouldn't do what donald trump had been, you know, urging him to do, bannon may know about the organization or the funding that went into those rallies. and the only way to find out is to be able to put him under oath. so that's what we intend to do. there are a great many witnesses in addition to steve bannon that can help us fill in the pieces as well. >> congressman, we covered the impeachment investigation that you led, and each witness came in, you know, in a different part of the story, but they all testified to the same picture of
this corruption, the relationship of this extortion of president zelensky, of donald trump wanting dirt on the man who would ultimately become his general election opponent and defeat him. i wonder if you can just speak to the investigative approach to this investigation. are you looking at building a case in a similar manner, and is the target, the focus, the white house? >> you know, our target really is to shed light on everything that happened in the run-up to the 6th, on the 6th. what role everyone played. the former president, what role members of congress may have played, what role these white nationalist groups played who funded and financed this operation, and to make a series of recommendations about how to protect the country. but let me, you know, just shed a little light on why i think this is so important. and it gets to that pattern that you mentioned that we had seen, the corruption in the administration and the greater and greater abuses of power. you can draw a pretty straight line from donald trump's escape
of accountability over his russia misconduct, his invitation to russia to intervene in 2016 to help him get elected, you can draw a pretty straight line between, you know, getting off the hook on that to the very next day, after bob mueller testified, being back on the phone with ukraine, seeking another nation's help to cheat in another election. and when he escaped accountability for that, you can draw another straight line to him trying to cheat in even more new and devastating ways in the 2020 election and the insurrection that followed. and so, there needs to be accountability, because we have seen, so amply, what happens when there is a lack of accountability. >> do you have any doubt that steve bannon is covering up donald trump's true communications and conduct and intentions in the hours and days and during the insurrection? >> well, if he wasn't, i don't know why he would be seeking to thwart our inquiry. but look, i've had experience
with steve bannon. when the republicans were chairing the intelligence committee, they subpoenaed him as a witness, and he refused to answer anything but 25 questions that had been written out for him in advance by the trump white house. he had had that kind of disdain for congress even when the committee was run by republicans. he believes he's above the law, as, indeed, donald trump believes he's above the law. but i hope they're still going to find out from the garland justice department they are not above the law. no one is above the law. >> it's an interesting point, considering the pardon. i mean, he was pardoned for committing crimes of fraud against republicans or at least ideologically aligned people when it came to building the wall. what kind of witness do you think he would be if he ultimately did comply with a subpoena and answer all your questions? >> you know, it's a good question. how much then the fear of a potential perjury prosecution would move him. he would know that in the case of the current administration that he would not get a pardon if he attempted to deceive the
congress. but you're absolutely right. nicole, i have to say i'm astonished every day that you have a situation where a man runs for president on a platform of building a wall that mexico is supposed to pay for, an absurd idea to begin with, he becomes president, mexico doesn't pay for a wall, the wall doesn't get built, his pal, steve bannon, and others start raising money from his own supporters to build the wall and then they steal the money from his own people and then he pardons them. it's just a group of complete grifters. and it takes your breath away that anyone who led that grift could run for any office in the future. but it is an illustration of just how dangerous i think it would be to let that man anywhere back near the oval office. >> well, this is exactly who they are, and is this is -- just as a final point, this is who 202 of your republican colleagues voted today to side with over the rule of law. >> yes, it is. >> over the -- what do you think of them?
>> you know, i wrote about this in my book. >> i know. >> what trump did to tear down our institutions would not have been possible without so many enablers in congress, and they continue to enable him and enable the big lie, which is undermining the foundations of our democracy, so stunned but at all, again, not surprised. >> yeah. shocked and stunned but not surprised is sort of the name for the times in which we bev. congressman adam schiff, thank you so much for spending time with us on a day like today. we're grateful. >> thank you. an important programming note to tell you about. d.c. metro police officer michael fanone, whose searing sound we just played at the beginning of the hour, will be the guest of our friend and colleague, chris hayes, tonight at 8:00 eastern on "all in." when we come back, the other developing story in washington, the push by democrats to reach a deal on president joe biden's big, ambitious domestic agenda.
we'll talk to senator kirsten gillibrand after a quick break. gillibrand after a quick break it's a sunny day. nah, a stormy day. classical music plays. um uh, brass band, new orleans. ♪ ♪ she drives hands free... along the coast. make it palm springs. ♪ cadillac is going electric. if you want to be bold, you have to go off-script. experience the all-electric cadillac lyriq. there is no place like home y'all! if you want to be bold, you have to go off-script. and these people know that there is no place like wayfair. i never thought i'd buy a pink velvet sofa, but when i saw it, i was like 'ah'. and then i sat on it, and i was like 'ooh'. ooh! stylish and napable.
okay now. i can relate to this one. i'm a working mom with three boys. [ yelling ] wayfair is my therapy. amen, kim! yup! i'm hiding from my kids, as we speak. wondering what actually goes into your multi-vitamin. at new chapter. its innovation organic ingredients and fermentation. fermentation? yes, formulated to help your body really truly absorb the natural goodness. new chapter. wellness well done. at heinz, every ketchup starts with our same tomatoes. but not every tomato ends in the same kind of heinz ketchup. because a bit of magic unfolds when there's a ketchup for everyone.
i always protect my voice. it's how i make my living. and you and i make a country with our voices. your vote is your voice. but more than ever, our freedom to vote is under attack. so please: call congress. tell them to pass the freedom to vote act. to protect our ability to have our say on the issues that matter most. so, let's pass the freedom to vote act and protect all our voices.
president joe biden ramping up his efforts to get his build back better plan through congress. "washington post" reports that president biden has been delving into the specifics of what would go and what would stay in a slightly scaled-back version of the bill. it was originally budgeted at $3.5 trillion. that move comes amid reports democrats are backing away from their plan to tax the
ultra-wealthy due to opposition from arizona senator kyrsten sinema, instead drafting a plan that includes new ways to tax the wealthy and multinational corporations. leaders in the house and in the senate have reportedly promised their members a deal would be finalized by the end of this week. but there's always a but. senator joe manchin said moments ago he doesn't believe that is likely, saying this, quote, this is not going to happen any time soon. joining us now to clear it all up, senator kirsten gillibrand of new york. she's a member of the intelligence and armed services committees. where do things stand? >> we're deep in negotiations. i think both senator manchin and senator sinema have been talking with the white house in depth about what they'd like to see this bill look like. what we're trying to do is help people. we're trying to help families recover from covid, get the economy moving again, and there's lots of ways to do that. making sure everyone who wants to be working is working, like having affordable day care and universal pre-k and a paid leave
plan, addressing global climate change by doing something about the severe weather we've been having and the destruction it's been causing all across the country. making sure people have access to housing and better healthcare. these are the kinds of things that people are desperate for in new york state and all across the country and i'm very hopeful that with both senator manchin and senator sinema's efforts to find common ground that the white house will get this across the finish line. >> you have been very vocal and you just mentioned it now about some of the most popular pieces of this and that's the child tax credit and paid family leave. i want to show you something speaker pelosi said about the child tax credit, ask you how you feel about it on the other side. >> on the child tax credit, you talked about the importance of that. would a one-year extension be sufficient or acceptable to you? >> if that's -- that's what the president has agreed to. let me just say, i want permanent child tax credit. i've wanted it for years.
this is the president's big issue. it's called the biden child tax credit so if it's acceptable to him, in light of the bill, it's acceptable to me. >> you share the speaker's position on that? >> uh-huh. it makes sense to me. i mean, the truth is, we're sharing our vision for the country right now, how to fix it, how to help people who are struggling, making sure families with children have money to buy shoes, to buy clothes, to buy food, afterschool programming. in new york, the child tax credit money was used for kids to be able to be on the soccer team, to buy a soccer uniform, to be able to go to camp in the summer, to be able to afford dental work. i mean, the kinds of stuff that every parent wants to provide for their kid. so democrats want to help families. if because we've put some guidelines around what we can afford today and we can only afford to provide that for a certain amount of time, fine, we
will all be on board to be as helpful as we can for as long as we can. but the design of what we want to do for the country is really important. things like affordable day care matter. if you don't have affordable day care and your kid can't go to day care, you can't go to work. we saw that during covid. when day care centers closed, or when schools were closed and kids had to learn remotely, 5 million women left the workplace, and about 2.25 are still looking for work and trying to get back to it because the truth is, the care economy matters and you need this basic economic infrastructure for people to be working at their full capacity if you want this economy to be rebuilt. and that's why we're fighting for all of these ideas, because they help people and we'll fund them for as long as we can, and the best way we can. that's consistent with what our colleagues are ready and willing to do and i am very optimistic that president biden will be able to find that common ground with both senator manchin and
senator sinema to what they want to do now, given the crisis that we're in, and how we want to help the american people. >> i want to switch gears for a minute. we spend a lot of time on this program covering what from the outside at least has looked like a largely hopeless fight to protect the right to vote and protection against voter nullification in the united states of america, 400 bills racing through 48 states, 33 of them signed into law, i don't have to tell you because you tweeted this yesterday. the right to vote is sacred. it is your voice over and over and over again, republicans have blocked any attempts to protect that right. it's time to stop letting our democracy be held hostage by the filibuster. so, you were for abandoning the filibuster to get federal voting rights legislation? >> yes. and you know, the truth is, when you eliminate the filibuster, you will have enormous struggle when you are in the minority, and that is going to happen because you're never going to stay in the majority forever. but the truth is, all the bad
things that we worry about that will happen to us when we're in the minority are actually happening now while we're in the majority. so, the attack on voting rights is happening in red and purple states all across the country. and people are going to be denied that right to vote, whether it's through outrageous rules on i.d.s or not letting people vote on certain days or not -- i mean, the types of restrictions that these states are creating are designed to make it harder for people to vote. older people, students, people of color, and they're specific and they're targeted. so, we need to amend the filibuster now to protect that sacred right. and i do it with eyes wide open. and i think both senator manchin and senator sinema understand that when you amend the filibuster, risks will arise, but we are at a point where all those bad things we're afraid of in the future are actually happening now. >> it's such a great way to put the choice, and it is sort of the most adult and honest way to put it.
we're choosing between lousy and more lousy, and it's a question of which is more lousy, and i wonder if you have made that point in that way to joe manchin or to senator manchin and senator sinema, to their face? >> not yet, because i'm really focused on making sure we get paid leave and affordable day care and other really high priorities in this package across the finish line, so i have sat down with both senator sinema and senator manchin many times over the past week to talk to them about these ideas and why protecting families and keeping workers working really matters. i've also met with the white house twice about it, and this is the most urgent thing we could do right now to help certainly our national economy but also families who want to provide for their kids and want to stay at work but need the flexibility to be there during an emergency, whether it's an ill or dying family member or a new baby or kids being sent home from school. so, my focus right now is paid leave, affordable day care, universal pre-k, the things that i know will help the economy,
and i think the process of going through, trying to get republicans on senator manchin's negotiated voting rights bill is useful, because it demonstrates very clearly that you don't have republican allies on this, that it's -- you either protect the democracy and amend the filibuster or you don't. and i think watching this lack of participation by republicans is instructive, and i think we will get to a filibuster vote at some point in the future after we get over this first hurdle of building this country back stronger and better as president biden wants us to accomplish here in the senate and in the house. >> we will ask you to come back after you have had those face-to-face conversations. senator kirsten gillibrand, thank you so much for spending time with us today. when we come back, another criminal investigation into the disgraced ex-president's businesses. we'll explain why prosecutors in suburban new york are digging into one of trump's golf clubs. that's next. g into one of trump's golf clubs that's next.
your eyes. beautiful on the outside, but if you have diabetes, there can be some not-so-pretty stuff going on, on the inside. it's true, if you have diabetes, you know high blood sugar is the root of the problem. but that excess sugar can cause the blood vessels to be seriously damaged. and when that happens, this could happen, vision loss or even blindness. that's right, diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of blindness for adults in the u.s. but even though you can't see it, there is something you can do about it. remember this: now is the time to get your eyes checked.
eye care is an incredibly important part of your long-term diabetes management. see a path forward with actions and treatments that may help your eyes— and protect against vision loss. just say to yourself, “now eye see.” then—go see an eye care specialist. visit noweyesee.com to get the facts about diabetes, your eyes, and what you can do next—to take control of your sight. brought to you by regeneron. [uplifting music playing] and what you can do next—to take control of your sight. ♪ i had a dream that someday ♪ ♪ i would just fly, fly away ♪ do you take aspirin?
plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. new vazalore is the first liquid-filled aspirin capsule clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. vazalore is designed to help protect... releasing aspirin after it leaves your stomach... where it is absorbed to give you the benefits of life saving aspirin... to help prevent another heart attack or stroke. heart protection with your stomach in mind. try new liquid-filled vazalore. aspirin made amazing! stressful job these days being a lawyer for donald trump or one of his businesses. here is the indictment in manhattan on top of at least ten pending civil cases over allegations of fraud, defamation and incitement of violence. this week he was deposed under fourth in connection with a case brought by protesters who say donald trump's bodyguards assaulted them at a
demonstration in 2015. there is that ongoing criminal investigation into georgia focused on donald trump's efforts to over turn the results of the election he lost there. now according to the "new york times" there is another criminal investigation, this one in the new york city suburbs of west clefter county. no one has been accused of any wrong doing just yet but the times report that the full scope of the investigation could not be determined but the district attorney is focused in whether trump's company the trump org mislead about the property's value to reduce its taxes. joining our conversation is tim o'brien and charlie sykes is back with us. and we know reducing value is something donald trump does to avoid taxes because michael cohen testified under oemg that that is exactly what donald
trump does where does this investigation come from. >> it came from the same place every other investigation surrounding donald trump, and it is whether or not he lies to one group for example lower his tax rate and said the value of the property is less than it actually is and turns around to the bank and getting a bigger loan and the issue is whether or not that amounts to illegal deception. i think mimi rocca's case is a very targeted case if the whole sweep of things. this is not as sweeping as the manhattan d a but it still involved potential illegal. trump is going after mimmy rocca and she was a critic on social media but elected by the voters of west chester to hold the office she's in now and she's exercising the powers an the
duties of that office and it is yet another bon fire that trump's lawyers have to put out because he has decades financial shenanigans dancing around like skeletons had niz closet. >> let me look at what is being looked at. charlie, the times reports that the value of the property determined the amount of taxes that the club ma pay to local authorities. the higher value, the bigger the tax bill. now for the town estimates that the value of the club could challenge the assessment and that is what it has done. every year since 2015 the club has appealed its tax bill in court. [ inaudible ] the practice is something that donald trump campaigned on. he campaigned on knowing how to cheat on your taxes. so in some ways there is also a confession to the practice. >> oh, yeah.
and tim o'brien has been writing about this for decades, would that be right, tim. the pattern and practice of donald trump. >> unfortunately. >> lying about his assets, yeah, i mean lying about his assets, fudging the numbers and finding a way to skate. a word that i think that we need to use more often is kakistocracy which is the rule by the worst among us, the most unscrupulous among us and that is what we experienced over the last four years. we talk a good game about nobody being above the law and most people and private citizens if they engaged in the kind of conduct that donald trump has, routinely engaged in, would certainly have suffered significant legal consequences and he has not. look, i don't think that we ought to raise people's expectation that this case is going to derail trump politically because i think it is baked in that donald trump
will play the they're coming after me, i'm a victim, rallying his supporters to defend him from all of this. but it is good to see prosecutors essentially saying, look, we know this is going on and then they have to make the decision and merrick garland has to make the decision, are you afraid to charge donald trump? are you afraid to go after this guy simply because he was for a time the president of the united states. so, again, this may not be the most important case, but i do think that there is this growing crowd and maybe this will embolden other prosecutors to do their job when it comes to someone like trump. >> you know, it does speak to our collective numbing that we all say well it might not be the biggest, i'm old enough to remember that a politician with a potential tax fraud case against anything he was involved in was disqualifying. he's running or seems to be using some of these risks as part of an incentive for people
to elect him back to he so squash all of the efforts of holding him to account, tim. >> yeah, well he was impeached twice and skated past that. he came to learn quickly that his supporters and his voters would forgive any kind of obscenity or illegality or bruce of the powers of his office and stand behind him. and when you empower someone like donald trump who at his core is corrupt and has no respect for the rule of law, and it is a path logic liar you are setting a cracken loose upon the world and we have not seen the last of him on the political stage. and the framers never images that this would be occupied by someone who would abuse it in this fashion. we have a rough road ahead. >> tim o'brien, charlie sykes thank you for never sug coating anything at the end of two years. a quick break for us. we'll be right back.
♪girl, i don't know, i don't know,♪ ♪i don't know why i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪oh no, babe girl, if i could only make you see♪ ♪and make you understand♪ get a dozen double crunch shrimp for $1 with any steak entrée. only at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. ♪ ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪
thank you so much for letting is into your homes during these extraordinary times. we're grateful. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. >> hi. welcome to the beat and i'm ari melber. later, a new problem for maga leader matt gaetz. but we begin right now with this action on the house floor today where congress took the grave step of green lighting a path to jail for resistant witness. this is a big vote you see on your screen. holding trump