♪ host: it's "washington journal," for december 20. the january 6 committee finished its work with plans to send criminal referrals to the justice department. referrals rain from -- range from obstruction to giving aid to insurrection. the former president said that

the referrals strengthen him. for the next hour, tell us if you support or oppose the referrals made by the january 6 committee regarding donald trump to the justice department. here's how you can call to let us know. if you support the (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose the criminal referrals. if you want to text us your thoughts, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. post on our facebook page, facebook.com, or on twitter. the january 6 committee finished its final hearing yesterday. a little over an hour in length. you can still see the entire proceeding on our website, c-span.org, or watch yesterday's proceedings on our app, c-span now. when it comes to specific criminal referrals, jamie raskin of maryland laid out the

specific referrals the committee plans to make to the justice department. [video clip] >> the first is title 18, sexton 1512 c, making it unlawful for anyone to corrupt the obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding of the united states government. we believe the evidence described by my colleagues today , assembled throughout the hearings, warrants the criminal referral of former president donald j. trump, john eastman, and others for violations of this statute. the entire purpose and obvious effect of trump's scheme were to obstruct, influence, and impeded this official proceeding. the central moment for the lawful transfer of power in the united states.

second, we believe there is more than sufficient evidence to refer former president donald j. trump, john eastman and others for violating title 18, section 371. this statute makes it a crime to conspire to defraud the united states. in other words, to make an agreement to impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful functions of the united states government by deceitful or dishonest means. the former president did not engage in a plan acting alone, he -- entered into formal and informal agreements with several other individuals who have -- assisted him with his criminal objectives. our report describes in detail the actions of numerous co-conspirators who agreed with or participated in the trump plan to defeat the certification

of president biden's electoral victory. that said, the subcommittee does not attempt to determine all of the tensile participants in the conspiracy as our understanding of the roles of many individuals may be incomplete even today because they refused to answer our questions. we trust that the department of justice will be able to form a far more complete picture through its own investigation. third, we make a referral based on title viii section 1001 making it unlawful to knowingly and willfully make materially false statement to the federal government, evidence clearly an attempt to submit fake collectors to congress and the national archives. we believe the evidence in the report is more than sufficient for a criminal referral of

former president donald j. trump and others in connection with the offense. as with before we don't try to determine all the participants in the conspiracy, many of whom refuse to answer questions under oath. we trusted that the department of justice will be able to form a more complete picture through its own investigation. the fourth and final statute for referral is title 18, section 2383, applying to anyone sites, assists, or engages in insurrection against the united states of america and anyone who gives aid or comfort to insurrection. insurrection being rebellion against the authority of the united states. it is a grave federal offense anchored in the constitution itself that repeatedly opposes insurrections and domestic violence and uses participation in insurrection by officeholders

as automatic grounds for disqualification from ever holding public office again at the federal or state level. host: if you support the referrals being made by the committee, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose them, (202) 748-8001. if you want to text us, it's (202) 748-8003. former president trump making a series of statements on his true social platform yesterday when it came to the referrals. he starts by saying these folks don't get it, when they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me, strengthens me, what doesn't kill me makes me stronger. i pushed for troops to prevent violence on the sixth and called for everyone to go home.

the democratic bureau of investigation is out to keep me from running for president because they know i will win and the business of prosecuting me is like the impeachment, and attempt to sideline the republican party. it's impeachment hoax number two and i won, convincingly. double jeopardy. finishing the statements by saying that liz cheney lost by a record 40 points. you can find more on that plat, there. a supporter of the referrals, starting off with sandra in lummis, ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm well, thanks. caller: i support all of the way they presented that information in the investigations they did. the one thing i liked about it was in an intelligent way.

republicans in their investigations, i hope they look at what the panel did, the 160th. i can't stand jim jordan kicking and screaming and carrying on like he did in the house. the other thing i want to say real quickly is that this was a thing where these were all republicans. it wasn't democrats downing republicans. it was all republican witnesses letting you know what was going on. thank you. host: robert, illinois, on the oppose line. go ahead. caller: it's a dog and pony show. half of them people of their trying to impeach a president

over a made up democratic story. eyes see government spending money to fight the government and people keep paying for it. the only person killed was a veteran, shot by an incompetent cop. i'm baffled how the gall of these people, sitting there when there is so much wrong in this country. burnt down cities. black lives matter. they are not terrorists? white privilege? i'm white, i'm not a criminal. i don't burn cities down. i'm scratching my head going these people are sick. what's sad is half the republicans are that way, too.

it's all about the money. how much can we scam the american people before they squeal. host: one of the aspects will be referring to the house ethics committee. a subpoena for lawmakers sent to the ethics committee for investigation by the january 6 committee, including kevin mccarthy of california and representative jim jordan in ohio, and andy biggs of arizona. we will hear from willie in annapolis, maryland, supporter of criminal referrals. you are next, go ahead. caller: yes i definitely support the way the committee handled this. if the president is punished, how will he be punished? sent to regular prison? if they do, i wonder how much taxpayers will pay for his separate quarters.

will he be going to a country club? yes, i support this. i don't know what kool-aid the last caller was talking about about black lives. i feel offended by that. black lives matter did not attack the capitol like these people did in these people really kind of scare me because i don't know what else they are doing. i think about the grid in north alina. who knows what these nuts may do . yes, i think it was perfect what they did. host: again we will spend the hour looking at these criminal referrals and your opinion of that. kevin, michigan, hello. caller: yeah i've just been watching this for the last couple of days. for one, this january 6 kangaroo court is illegitimate. for one, they don't have the jurisdictional duty to, to hold these kinds of hearings.

they got, they got nothing to do with, they are changing the separations of power in our country, stating that, that congress can go after people. yeah, it's not right. we have enough issues. to all you democrats out there, i wanted to say something about the border. host: no, we will stop there and stick to the topic at hand as far as the january 6 committee is concerned. sean saying this was a kangaroo court. a person who identifies as a snowman says that the department of justice must indict, the evidence is overwhelming, lock him up. anthony from twitter saying the laws -- walls are closing in for real. another viewer says the nonsense is meant to disqualify trump from running, the goal of the

kangaroo court from day one. want to post on our twitter feed, you can do so at c-span wj. diane, jacksonville, support line. go ahead. caller: i am in support. no man in the united states is above the law. i don't consider it a kangaroo court and i'm a republican. i feel that they had all republicans testify. if you commit a crime against the united states, of course it should be investigated. they are not prosecuting anyone. it's an investigation, hearing. at the hearing they found a lot of dirt being done and people refusing to testify setting a bad example for everyday americans who are also subpoenaed to court, who are also called for julie duty.

so what, now they set this example that we can all do that and get away with it? of course the department of justice needs to test a to why they refused to testify. host: ok that is diane. the justice department conducting its own separate investigation of january 6 under a special counsel when it comes to her recommendations of the committee on usa today highlighting what has been done as far as recommendations are concerned and where the status is, recommending criminal charges of contempt of congress against four people, including steve bannon, peter navarro, who is awaiting trial, and no charges yet for mark meadows or danced aveeno, former deputy chief of staff.

they have charged more than 800 people in the capital attack, two members of the oath keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy. when it comes to these criminal prosecutions, phone lines are for support or oppose. good morning, earl. caller: it's nothing but a sham. they have been after trump for six years. the man has never gotten a deep draft. these people calling in on the democrats side, they must be, i don't know who is paying them but this is crazy. our country needs to be straight out loud. look at the border. might go down to the border. host: we will stick to the topic at hand. let's hear from wendi in clinton township, michigan, on the support line. caller: good morning, pedro.

merry christmas. host: thank you. caller: i listened yesterday. when are they going to finally get trump and put him in jail? he has done so much wrong. i heard him yesterday and thinking they did it again. he just keeps making it worse for himself. he seems to think he's above all this. i'm tired of listening to him. he thinks he can get away with murder and just anything he says, i can do this? no. host: do you think the justice department will do anything with these referrals? caller: i hope so. i would really like to see someone come down on him. the only way they are going to do it is to get the justice department after him. he cannot run for anymore offices because he just is, it's, it's criminal. i just want to see him not be

able to run for any office again. so that's what i want to see. host: that's wendi in michigan. one of the respondents yesterday was mike pence on fox news, before the criminal referrals came. here's the former vice president's take on the work of the committee. [video clip] >> to have a committee appointed in its entirety by the democratic speaker of the house really violates the history of the tradition of congress in the united states. in 2007 i was the ranking member on a select committee that looked into voting irregularities that took place on the floor of the congress. we had proper representation of both political parties, all parties were allowed to ask questions of witnesses and we produced a report at the end. this, this, this select

committee from the beginning has, has, has represented a kind of partisan pain and it's one of the reasons why so few americans are paying much attention to what will happen today or the results are recommendations of the committee. >> if you feel that way and answer it that way, you don't believe it should be a criminal case referred to the department of justice? >> well, i wrote this in my book, how many times adam schiff said there was evidence of collusion with russia. two and a half years we listened to adam schiff talk about that and it was never there. let me be very clear about this point. congress has, has no formal role in justice department decisions. they can make recommendations today but when it comes to their decision about, about, about bringing charges in the future,

i would hope they would not bring charges against the former president. i don't, look, as i wrote in my book, i think his actions and words on january 6 were reckless. but i don't know that it's criminal to take bad advice from lawyers. host: again, former vice president mike pence yesterday before the criminal referrals came from the january 6 committee. as reaction from some members of congress, ed markey says that the american people today are in debt to the committee for their work to uncover and document the fraud committed and violence stoke by donald trump and it's clear he belongs in a jailhouse, not the white house. a representative from new jersey saying that they were the first to demand the trump prosecution and if we fail to hold him accountable, future january 6's will happen and we lurch towards

authoritarian rule. they are expected to ask for a pursuit of criminal charges and it has always been a partisan witchhunt to that the american people are sick of and marjorie taylor greene posting charts taking a look at sources, we don't know exactly, but as far as the reelection possibilities of the president she writes here's the real reason this communist committee is making terminal referrals, they can't beat him and they know it, january is coming. those are just some of the reactions from congress when it comes to the actions of the committee yesterday. mississippi on the oppose line, hello. caller: yes this is a kangaroo committee that had an agenda to criticize and chastise the former president. he's extremely popular in mississippi and he will carry

mississippi by a big vote if he runs for president of the united states. we have got to stop all of the corruption within the fbi and all these folks and cleanup, clean up everything. trump is the man outside government. he doesn't have anything to do with, with, with big government. i'm totally opposed. they should have had a complaint committee [indiscernible] equal democrats if they want to be fair. but they don't want to be fair. it's sad, sad, sad. thank you for listening to me. host: roy and florida. hi. caller: yeah i, i, i support.

here's the problem with the situation. trump is not the only one who should be held accountable. the senate republicans who stood up and voted with the for the overture in the election should all be thrown also along with him. this is ridiculous. failure to prosecute trump could actually be a breakdown of law & order if the justice department doesn't do it and it shows they are very weak and that one man is above the law. with all trump floaters who can't see through this for some reason, the guys a scum bucket, he always has been. how many trump supporters does it take to screw in a lightbulb? none, they are all in the dark. my mother included. they just don't understand. how can you be christian if you believe in someone like this? this guy is a devil from always.

i a republican, to. i used to be. not anymore. i've seen this party go all the way down. i'll never vote for a republican again after what these people did. host: the committee is expected to release the report later on this week. some of the factoids coming out or being reported, this is from "the washington post," the weapons seized on january 6, a document produced by the capitol police shows secret service confiscated a haul of weapons, 240 two canisters of pepper spray, 269 blades, 18 tasers, body armor, three gas masks, blunt instruments, and miscellaneous items like screwdrivers. those were just the people who submitted to going through the

magnetometer. the report adds that thousands of others purposefully remained outside the magnetometer or left their packs outside, with six cases in which people were observed carrying guns or what looked like guns before the presidential speech began. that is again "the washington post or co-massachusetts, opposing the criminal referrals. go ahead. caller: any chance i will be allowed to talk or will i be shut off like all the other republican? host: we are talking about the criminal referrals, go ahead. caller: the most important election of all time is going to be audited for handwriting. if they get around the legislature. in one place it was more ballots than it was people who voted. so that doesn't make any sense.

another problem is -- host: that's the election itself, what about the criminal referrals, what do you think about them? caller: we eliminate the competition. how come democrats want a one party country? it's going to be all democrats from here on in. that's democracy? host: i will give you one more chance to comment on the criminal referrals yesterday made by the committee. what do you think of those? caller: i just told you. they want to eliminate the guy running that's possibly going to beat and one last thing before you hang up on me. hunter biden -- host: i'll stop there. connecticut, support line. caller: yeah, i support it. the republican future of america is mass shootings and the norm is going to be insurrections.

they don't care about the law. fox news didn't even mention it this morning. that tells you a lot. host: how does that relate to the referrals yesterday? caller: republicans testified against him. if you can't believe your own republican leaders, you know, in the white house, they all testified against him. the attorney general testified against him. judges that trump appointed said there was no case so that should began of the case. host: ok. kevin, connecticut. another resident of the cut -- of connecticut, woodstock, go ahead. caller: i oppose. the election was stolen. it's been proven. the guys switch the votes and are already in jail. host: ok, that's the election. what do you think about the

criminal referral? caller: i oppose. there have already been people put in jail for the stealing of the election. this whole thing is to cover up them stealing the election. host: how does that refer to the referrals yesterday? caller: the referrals? he didn't do anything wrong. go down to peacefully protest? make your voices heard? they seem to cut that out. there were four people that died that day. there was one that was beaten by one of the cops. they put flashbangs into the crowd that caused a heart attack at a stroke. then you've got ashli babbitt that was shot. it's all out there. you can see these videos. when the republicans get into office show the videos, are the democrats going to apologize? this is a scam. this is to hide their stealing

of the election. host: ok, that is been in connecticut. let's hear from a person on the oppose line. steve, arizona, hello. caller: pedro, love your tie. too many callers. i oppose this because nobody prosecuted hilary. are you listening, hilary? what about the stuff she did, smashing phones? nothing came out of that. that was more serious than the attack or the allege that he caused it. what caused it was nancy pelosi tearing up the speech like a child on national television. there's just so many things that democratic party is doing causing disruption in this nation. host: how does that specifically refer to the referrals made yesterday, those points? caller: well, it's, we are talking

fairness, right? no longer living in a country of fairness. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. the reason i oppose it is like i said, nobody has done anything or looked into hilary's illegal activities. she didn't even get a slap on the wrist. they completely turned their heads the other way. host: and how do they relate specifically? caller: they are focusing on trump because they know that if he gets back in, things will change in the democratic party big time and they don't want that, so this is why this is going on. you have republicans on the same side says democrats and those are rhinos and we all know what our rhino stands for. host: we spent about a half-hour looking at these referrals made yesterday by the committee and we will spend the next half-hour doing the same if you want to comment on those. if you support those criminal referrals, (202) 748-8000 is the

number to call. if you oppose them, (202) 748-8001. text us at (202) 748-8003. you can always post your thoughts on our social media sites on facebook and twitter. one of the things discussed yesterday was by one of the committee members, phil lofgren, about president trump, his efforts to spread disinformation are based on an effort to sway the work of the committee. [video clip] >> through the election and even after, donald trump spread false allegations of fraud to aid his effort to overturn the 2020 election. the ex-president's decision to declare victory falsely on election night was not a spontaneous decision. it was premeditated. the committee has evidence that he planned to declare victory and unlawfully to call for the vote counting to stop.

as he told numerous allies about his tent in the weeks before the election. the committee found mr. trump raised hundreds of millions of dollars for false representations made to his online donors. proceeds of this fundraising we have learned have been used in ways that we believe are concerning. particularly the committee has learned that some of those funds were used to hire lawyers into obtain evidence of efforts to provide or offer employment to witnesses. for example one lawyer told a witness that a witness could in certain circumstances tell the committee that she didn't recall fact when she actually did. that lawyer also did not disclose who was paying for the lawyer's representation, despite questions from the client seeking that information, telling her that we are not

telling people where funding is coming from right now. we have learned a client was offered potential employment that would make her financially very comfortable as the days of testimony approached, these entities were apparently linked to donald trump and his associates. these offers were withdrawn or didn't materialize as reports of the content of testimony circulated. the witness believed it was an effort to affect her testimony. we are concerned that these efforts may have been a strategy to prevent the committee from finding the truth. host: the complete hearing is available on our website, c-span.org. we have a special site dedicated to the hearings any information from that and you can see it for a short time on the c-span now app. editorial this morning in "the wall street journal," in part

they write "what about the first amendment"? mr. trump has a right to argue that it was stolen even though he knows he's misleading his followers. this isn't to police partisan deceit as criminal conspiracy. the justice department has evidence that may have turned a proof of a broader conspiracy, but we have a hard time believing such information, as already leaked to the press, it was a disgrace and trump's behavior on that day is a reason not to trust him with the presidency ever again, but justice must balance the decision to indict esther trump. the risk of setting a momentous president -- precedent. those of the thoughts of the editors of "the wall street journal." rene, good morning.

host: how are you this morning? -- caller: how are you this morning? host: i'm fine, thank you. caller: this is a hearing. i have heard people state that this is a trial. donald trump, from the time he walked down, went down that escalator, he has been's billing vicious act's. he has really drummed up everything that's going on. everyone that has been, as far as a witness or a someone to really speak on what happened on january the sick, they all have been republicans. they all have been appointed by him. i commend these people because they are speaking the truth.

we have to have some type of truth. if someone broke into your home, you would like to know the truth as far as why. everything, we have to have the truth. that's all i have to say. i support, regardless of if i agree. and i have to listen to it. host: let's hear from cindy in mississippi on the oppose line. caller: yes, i oppose it because it's going to be for nothing. because there's been no defense side. in order for the department of justice to take a case in the first place, they have to present the other side. you can see where the republicans come from. that part of it has never been

shown. only, only the prosecute side. to have a legitimate prosecution you have to present both sides. that's going to happen somewhat. we have had a hearing this whole time from the democratic side, even though liz cheney was on their. the people have spoken, the house will have a hearing and present the other side and then it will all be a waste of money. that's the way i see it. host: cindy in mississippi, let's go to joe in washington, these -- washington, d.c. caller: i do support the referrals. i think it would be great to see an indictment. i don't think the man is fit her office, it be great to have had not run again. in a way i agree with the

previous caller, even if a serious indictment is brought against him, it's not going to do anything to change the minds of his supporters. he has some so much doubt -- sewn so much doubt in the institutions. he has convinced of those that support him that they can't trust anything the government says or anything from anyone who doesn't completely blindly support him. in a way i'm glad we have the information, the fact, that these republicans came forward to testify against them. whether or not it amounts to anything, i'm doubtful. host: that is joe in washington, d.c. when it comes to the political futures of members of the committee, "the new york times" highlights that adam kinzinger,

amy murphy, deciding not to run again. two others host: let's hear fromhost: brad in kentucky on the oppose line for criminal referrals. go ahead. caller: people keep saying we have all the things, but objectively we don't have the fact. there are 14,000 hours of unreleased video from that day that they won't release that i think would tell the whole story. why won't they release that video? host: what do you think the

video would reveal? caller: well i don't know, it could be anything. do you know how much 14,000 hours is? that's a lot of time of a total video. the video we have seen have shown things like the police waving people in. the magnetic doors being unlocked from the inside. that's just the few hours we have seen. i would like to also bring the attention of people to a judge who found jail officials in contempt in the d.c. jail, political prisoners. there's a lot more going on here. this is a political persecution to smear conservatives and to make conservatives afraid. so far, it's working and people are applauding it. host: kent, clinton, maryland, support line. caller: good morning, pedro.

i support the criminal referrals but i'm saddened, saddened by the fact that people have selective memories. they keep saying it was a kangaroo court selected by nancy pelosi. if i recall correctly, kevin mccarthy was given the opportunity to seat five individuals on the panel and refused to do so. only after nancy pelosi named kinsinger and liz cheney, then he decided, and i assume it was pressure from other republicans, to try to name jim jordan and some other antagonizing people onto the panel and nancy lowe's he was not having any part of a kangaroo or kabuki court because that is what it would have been if jim jordan had been on there. yes, i support the criminal referrals and i hope that something does come from it

because no person is above the law. host: we will go to rich on the oppose line. rich, florida, you are next. go ahead. caller: good morning. i oppose the criminal, the criminal charges because it's, first of all, on the committee there was really no one, was there anyone really defending the former president? it seemed like it was just, everyone was just against him, number one. there was no opposing view. i think it would be a waste of money. he's got the orders. he sidestepped every attack on him. all of this attention that would come about as it's coming about now, it's taking our country and our lawmakers away from other

issues that are probably more important than having people collude to a tv, diverting attention away from other things that are more important to bring our nation back together. the one thing i think you did wrong, the one thing that is a clear dereliction of duty, it's the charge that for 90 minutes they did nothing. host: taking you to july of last year, a story looking at the selection process for members of the committee from "usa today," house speaker nancy pelosi that wednesday rejected two republican members to it -- from the committee, adding that kevin

mccarthy said house republicans were being left out of the process, selecting -- mccarthy selecting multiple representatives and it was then that speaker pelosi said that she must reject the recommendations of banks and jordan saying that she had spoken with mccarthy about the objections raised about those representatives and the impact that there ointment may have on the integrity of the investigation, adding that both of those gentlemen were among those opposed to certifying the results of the election. this story saying that mccarthy called it an egregious abuse of power and that republicans would not be party to a sham process and would be investigating their own pursuit of the fact.

illinois, duane on the support line. go ahead. caller: i don't understand nothing about these democrats, why don't they stop this man? he intimidates them in front of their wives, sends kids to jail. i don't understand why he can just do whatever he want to do. mike pence is scared of him. host: what do you think about the criminal referrals specifically? caller: him and all his kid should be in jail immediately, that's what i think. host: ok. james, virginia, on the oppose line. caller: all of this is just one big farce. after four years of what adam schiff did, knowingly lying, sitting on tv every day to talk about it. maxine waters got out there

every day to get in there face. nothing was done about it. pelosi with integrity? adam schiff was sitting there. senator schumer from new york city, manhattan state. when trump said something about the fbi? our government has six plus ways to get you if they want to. host: what about the referrals that came yesterday? take it to that. caller: to me it's irrelevant. what happen for two years with adam schiff, these are the same people who impeached him with a phone call and now they want to lock him up? we had an investigation of $32 million. everybody knew that it was a lie . the evidence was there. but they still pursued it. they fed it to the american people and we believed it. i listened to this show every

morning and for two and a half years you had guest after guest after guest saying about the lie. i would love you to have a show that calls the people back saying that since you know the lie, would you apologize? host: that's jason in virginia. let's hear from a representative from virginia as part of the committee yesterday that specifically dealt with what they called the trump dereliction of duty in the after hours of the initial attack. here's elaine luria from yesterday. [video clip] the president -- >> the president never spoke with the national guard, department of justice, or any law enforcement agency. at no point during the day did he issue an order to deploy any law oarsman agency to assist. multiple witnesses, including the trump white house council, testified to this fact. white house employees speaking

directly with president trump stating that he didn't want anything done. the president was making phone calls that afternoon but they were not to lawn oarsman officials. he continued to call his lawyer, rudy giuliani. president trump and mr. giuliani spoke with congressional leaders , even after the violence had begun, to encourage them to continue delaying the session. three hours after being informed of the violence at the capital, hours during which as evidence has shown, donald trump sat in his dining room and watched the violence on television, he released a video statement in which he again repeated that the election was stolen, told his supporters that the capital that he loved them and ultimately suggested they disperse. it had in immediate impact on elements of the crowd, many of whom have testified that it led them to depart the capitol.

at 6:01 p.m., in his last tweet of the day, he did not condemn the violence. instead he attempted to justify it. these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously stripped away, he wrote. remember this day forever. there is no doubt that he thought that the actions of the riders were justified. in the days after january 60 spoke to several different advisors. in those conversations he minimized the seriousness of the attacks. here's new testimony from another one of his senior advisers, kellyanne conway. >> you said you talked to the president the next day. tell us about that conversation. >> it wasn't very long, called a terrible day, crazy. >> what did he say? >> he seemed upset, very upset.

>> in the days following the attack, he expressed a desire to pardon those involved in the attack and since then he has asked that he will do so if he returns the oval office. in summary, he lit the flames, poured gasoline on the fire, and sat by in the white house dining room for hours watching the fire burn. host: that was from yesterday's last hearing of the january 6 midi. earlier we told you several members of republican representatives of the house at the -- house ethics committee failed to survey -- failed to obey a subpoena, one of whom put out a statement about that yesterday saying that the 11th hour referral proved that it was a sham and they never needed our testimony, they only wanted

testimonies so that they could misconstrue our statements and this is their final political stunt against the health essex committee -- house ethics committee to help them reach a predetermined conclusion and i look forward to reviewing the documents publishing their lives and setting the record straight in the 100 18th congress. that's representative andy biggs of arizona. chuck, massachusetts, on the support line. go ahead. caller: in order to convince people whether the committee is right or wrong, positive or negative, all you have to do is listen to the people who oppose it. they sound like the victims of a demagogue who depends on people who can be easily swayed.

if you could, which i'm sure you can't on the air, i would love you to find out, and i might sound like an elitist, the educational level of the people opposing. host: those specific criminal referrals, what did you think of those? caller: i saw, one more thing, i record fox, msnbc, i go back and forth. this morning fox did not mention, fox and friends, did not mention anything about yesterday's hearings. host: that point said, what did you think about the referrals themselves? caller: as far as, as far as, as far as the indictment, another thing mentioned by someone is that indictment and conviction are two different things. host: criminal referrals, not indictments. caller: in other words, if trump is indicted so to speak and goes to trial and acquitted and it

could be by the objection of one jurist he will come out and say like he did with the mueller report, i'm not guilty. which is a problem that anybody thinking of prosecuting him has to take into consideration. because like i say, if he gets indicted and goes on trial, god for bid is found not guilty, he will use that as, you know what i'm talking about. host: let's hear from arkansas, rebecca, go ahead. caller: hello. i think the whole thing is a joke. trump had a target on his back from day one the time he walked down the stairs. the committee was anti-trump, no way he was going to get a fair shot, a fair hearing. just a joke. nothing was done about what hillary clinton did to.

nothing was done about hunter biden. they are just going to walk. host: that's rebecca, they are. a couple of other stories on the criminal referrals yesterday, this coming from roll call, the deadline from friday, government to run out of money. a reported deal reached by legislators on what's known as the abyss package, final numbers including 858 billion dollars in defense-related spending, and increase over the previous year, which republicans celebrated. a 4.6% pay raise. praising the inclusion of funding for veterans benefit care, not counting the infusion for toxic exposure benefits from over the summer. the total figure was not immediately clear but both sides

took credit, republicans claiming to have held defense outside medicare to a low-inflation increase with house democrats having their own . the friday deadline when it comes to funding and an effort to pass these bills that played out this week, when it comes to the supreme court this was yesterday as reported by axios, john roberts temporarily halting the policies allowing the u.s. to expel migrants without a chance for asylum. after making up a case earlier monday they asked to intervene with a retention of the controversial policy from last week. these story is playing out in the last few weeks of this year, criminal referrals that took place yesterday at the last

hearing of the january 6 committee. we are asking you if you support or oppose those. let's hear from sally, washington state, support line. go ahead. caller: yes, i support all the work the committee did for the american people in support of the constitution. i find that i am a democrat because there is nothing about my representative that doesn't make me think she's involved because she didn't approve it in the first place. you know, the transfer of power. and that's what's important. referring the criminal conduct to be looked at by our department of justice. thank you. host: ok.

jennifer, minnesota, on the oppose line. caller: i absolutely oppose it because of the fact the one thing this committee is, completely unconstitutional. this is a legislative branch of the government, meaning they make laws. they do not refer people for criminal content. that's the first reason why. also the fact that they didn't have anybody represent the other side. they made this into some kind of a media blitz, hiring producers to film it. it was all just either anti-trumpers with trump derangement syndrome. this is nothing but a clown show and i'm glad it's going to be over with with the republicans getting in. they hold their own committee for doing this, they will show both sides, not just one sided.

the fact that it's unconstitutional is the main is and i knows this. thank you, have a great day. host: some of the behind the scenes of the writing of this or what was taken up by "the washington post," "former in current staff complained that important findings have been overlooked because of the liz cheney influence over the final report, clashing with other members of staff, saying she tussled in particular with stephanie murphy, democrat of florida, sparring extensively during a meeting wednesday after cheney insulted murphy and murphy was urged to take a sober approach to the final report before cautioning her not to call the post at least the deliberations, according to people who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

mike, alabama, on the support line. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. yes, i support the comedy, the one/six committee. -- i support the one/six committee. donald trump is no doubt the worst president that's ever been in the united states. host: you say they did a fair job, why do you say that? caller: well, they gave the republicans a chance to people. they wanted to appoint people they knew would disrupt the proceedings. there were two republicans on the committee, liz cheney and adam kinzinger. when they say it was partisan, it was not.

it was just looking into what happened january 6. host: caller: i don't think it did, i think that they looked to what happened on january 6 and i think that he wanted an insurrection. he tried to phone meant and insurrection. you must got away with it. on october 28th 2016i wrote an article entitled trump's gift to putin, the nuclear codes. within hours, i got hundreds of junk emails and russian language. a site that i usually get 10 emails in a month. host: jean from michigan on the support line. caller: good morning, i want to say that i do not support --

even mitch mcconnell said, the nation knows who is responsible for what happened on january 6. not saying it was trump. trumpism been a disrupter since the moment he came down that escalator. he has shown who he is in the people who support him feel the same way. i just hope that he is indicted and put on trial and found guilty for what he did. thank you. host: finishing off the -- at this hour. you can follow along on our app. two guest are joining us to talk

about various things. one will talk about the report card for congress, talking about the grade that congress will get, that is james wallner of r street institute resident senior fellow and former senate aide. we will talk to former congressional chief counsel jeffery robbins about the investigation, the impact of criminal referrals to the justice department. those are to come. ♪ >> are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a podcast. on q&a, you will listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter. learn something new with conversations with nonfiction authors and historians.

wide-ranging ranging, our long conversations. on about books, we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find all of our podcast by downloading our free c-span now app wherever you get your podcasts. the new 118 congress convenes on tuesday, january 3 at noon eastern. for the first time in two years, a divided government. republicans will control the house of representatives while democrats have a slight majority in congress. the new congress will also be more diverse with a record number of women serving including more women of color. follow the progress of the 118th congress.

new congress, new year. watch the opening day of the 100 18th congress tuesday, january 3 on noon eastern life on c-span and c-span2. also on c-span now, our free mobile app. or online at c-span.org. preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118 congress. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. information on committees, the cabinet, state governors. scan the code to preorder your copy for delivery in march. every purchase helps our nonprofit operations at c-spanshop.org. "washington journal," continues. host: our first guest of the

morning is james wallner with the r street institute resident senior fellow and former senate aide. thank you for joining us today. guest: thank you for having me. host: a little bit about the r street institute, how do you describe it? guest: it's a public policy organization, unlike anything i have seen in two decades working in washington dc. it's a think tank that thinks outside the box. it is looking for real solutions to real problems that we currently confront today. host: to get a little clarification, you formally worked in the senate working with various members of congress. can you give us an encapsulation of who you worked with them what you did? guest: i work for a variety of senators from jeff sessions to pat toomey who gave his farewell address last week in the united states senate.

and mike lee, i was the executive director of the steering committee it was a great honor to work in that fabulous institution. host: part of your work is taking a look at the effects of congress. you wrote a piece taking a look at the lame-duck congress. you call it a threat to democracy. can you talk about what's for the song? guest: in the lead up to the election, there has been a lot of talk about election deniers and discussion about threats to americans democracy and is helpful for americans, regardless to be concerned about their government. they want to make it better however they may see fit. with regard to the lame-duck, it was concerning to me because we have a congress and the standard practice is to wait until after americans vote. wait until after they cast their ballots to make important decisions.

congress intentionally waited until after the election so that it could make decisions with members who are retiring and not seeking to come back in january, who can no longer be a held accountable. or members that could be on the ballots two years from now. americans love a hard time remembering what took place over the weeks of december following that election. that is by definition, a threat to democracy because it undermines that voters ability to hold elected officials accountable for decisions they make on their behalf. host: if people were voted out of office, they are technically still in office. what's wrong with them making these kinds of decisions? guest: they still have time in their term. the ratification of 2013, lame-duck could last until march to the upcoming year, in this case march 2023. the 20th amendment tried to lame

lame-duck section -- try to and lame-duck sections. it was for congress to address emergencies and that is how they use those sessions. the real problem is that members are purposefully, intentionally waiting until after the people vote to make decisions. they are not doing it because it's an emergency. they don't do it because they ran out of time, they are doing it intentionally because it is easier to pass big controversial bills and the dead of night with no one looking when you have the holidays bearing down on you and you're not worried about people going to the polls in the days to cast ballots. host: our guest is with us until 845 time, giving us the highs and lows of the 117th congress. you can call us republicans

(202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002, you can text us at (202) 748-8003. the 20th amendment on the 20th day of january, it goes on from there. you talk about purposely waiting in these lame-duck sessions where we are butting up against the deadline for funding. would you cite that as an example of waiting, especially for this congress to take on something this big? guest: congress voted on an omnibus package. i doubt anyone has had the chance to read it and they have

waited until the last possible minute. they have had a whole year to complete work on this. you should have the stuff done by the end of september. congress does not meet its deadline. it doesn't mediate because it is not trying to meet there deadline. this is the way that they have decided to do business over the last 20 years or so. when you have a $1.7 bill that is thousands of pages long released in the dead of night and they are going to vote on it and get it to the presidents desk in a mad rest to get home for the holidays, it's hard to identify who the players are in this debate. it's hard to identify what is in that bill. it's hard to keep people accountable and influence the process if you don't like what is in that bill you want something else in that bill. here we see representative

government breaking down in front of us. what's striking is that it is so routine that both democrats and republicans do it and no one seems to care. host: some republicans, kevin mccarthy made the case. let's wait till then until we make those kinds of decisions, is that a sound argument? guest: if you just took over the house of representatives and you will have more leverage in the new congress if you have a majority and makes no sense for you to go along with the big omnibus when you could pass another continuing resolution and delay it into the new congress. congress loves passing continuing resolutions when they think they will have an easier time doing something in the future. i don't think the republican leader mccarthy, the anticipated speaker of the next congress, he is not doing this from a concern

of democracy. he has in the past supported spending packages in the lame-duck before. he has supported other landmark legislation and lame-duck's before. we have to look at his effort and call to delay this as an effort to get a better deal in the new congress. there is nothing wrong with that and that has happened in the past. it doesn't speak to the problem with representative government that the lame-duck currently represents. host: many legislators have said on this program that they were called to regular order when it comes to passing these budget bills. why has that been unable to happen? guest: it's important for your viewers to point out that regular order is simply one way that bills go on their way to become law. you have committee hearings, the debate things, members have a chance to weigh in on it and ultimately congress passes a

bill. there are lots of different ways for a bill to become a law. what we should look at is what level of engagement are the lawmakers -- what will bc? rank-and-file lawmakers want to go along with passing something as quickly as possible. if there is a widespread agreement on something, that they simply don't need all of this extra time and all of these extra steps. the problem right now, the reason we don't see regular order is that the two parties are divided internally. the two parties are divided internally and they don't like showcasing those division. they like to keep bottled up. they are lawmakers, leaders to control the process, negotiate these agreements behind closed doors. if you put them on the floor

they feel jammed. they have to go along with this even though they may not want to and they can speak out of both sides of their mouth. that is why we don't see a lot of regular order these days in the united states senate. the house has a better time controlling the legislative process. it's a lot harder in the senate to keep members from offering amendments that could reveal divisions in the republican and democratic parties. host: if you want to ask him about how congress works, it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents and others. we will hear first from lisa from minnesota. caller: good morning. my question is, with respect to amy coney barrett after voting had already started in the senate confirmed her, she had a

party with trumbo for ginsberg was buried in they denied merrick garland to even meet with senators. the majority of the american people said they did not want her appointment or anyone appointed until after the presidential election that was ongoing. how does he respond to that? guest: i think you are correct to be concerned about the state of the confirmation process. i would direct you to article two of section two that gives the president the joint responsibility to nominate and appoint or confirm a supreme court justice. the senate has its own independent role and he gets to decide, whoever's in control of the senate, how they want to use

that role. how they want to use that power. the senate is within his right to not hold hearings are not allowed boats and other senators get to push back on that. you mentioned merrick garland, they decided to not hold a hearing to become a supreme court justice. democrats could've voted on that. they could've forced republicans to take a stand and the people would've had a chance to weigh in more aggressively. they chose not to. that really highlights a big source of dysfunction in the united states senate today with the confirmation process. both lawmakers on the right and left seem to be more interested in using the senate as a sounding board and media platform so that they can make statements that appeal to the people and make forward leaning public addresses instead of rolling up their sleeves, looking themselves in the mirror and i will hustle and scrape and

do everything i can to prevail to get my nominee confirmed. to get my bill passed or get a vote on my amendment. we don't see that anymore. we see a drive-by vote and lots of talking points, lots of ads and other things. we see very little action in the united states senate today and that speaks to his dysfunction. host: from san diego california, on the republican line, this is roberta. caller: to begin with, i am an active person and trying to make a difference in things and i sit here and watch people in congress not want to take your phone calls. they say you are not a my district i don't want to hear it. you can call a congressional office, if they don't take what you have to say with any meeting it all, it never goes anywhere. that is the gospel truth. and never goes anywhere. we sit here and everyone says how much they care and we have

inflation for two years, we have some serious issues of how we have chipped into the social security amount of money because of inflation for two years. last year, i got 107 and usually i would get $22 or things like that. that is a huge problem for the future and no one talks about it. everyone says they care. thank you for listening. guest: i think that underscores the concerns that i see with the lame-duck. americans need to understand that they are not ruled by the people they choose every two years in an election. we have a lot of things that happen between elections. in this country, the people themselves who are ultimately sovereign. they choose people to act on their behalf. politics is an activity we

participate in. we don't go into a voting booth and do nothing for the next two years. there are lots of great examples of people who chose, even when the congress would not listen or society would not listen to them, they engage in acts of civil disobedience. if you think of the suffragette movement. if you think about dr. king and the civil rights movement. the montgomery bus boycott, that is a long time. it takes effort and you cannot just pick up the phone and call someone and asked them to do something and expect everything to go well. when it does not, it's incumbent on all americans to do the things that we have seen in american history, nonviolent direct action, pleading and

making your case to make sure that your government is taking your concerns to heart and acting in a way that you see fit. host: the caller had given her congress her grade. how will you grade the 117, and what highlights and low lights do take from that? guest: i am not too encouraged by the congress and that is not a change from past years. if we look overall, congress continues to struggle to find a way to legislate in this new environment. there struggling to tackle the issues that are of utmost concern of the american people. if you think about the dobbs decision which is a great decision, there was one vote to codify roe v. wade ahead of the dobbs decision when the decision was leaked. they failed to get 60 votes, they dropped it. they dropped it as quickly as

they could. they have not tried again. if we will call back to an earlier era, and 2003, 2004, when the congress was more productive. there was a nominee who was nominated for the circuit by george w. bush. republicans wanted to confirm him. they forced seven votes over a very long. of time. they held all line sessions, they really tried. then we look at the dobbs decision in the effort to codify roe. they had one vote, they lost it and they could not be bothered to try again. we see this time and time again with democrats, republicans on a whole host of issues and we wonder why nothing happens. compromise doesn't happen it emerges out of a struggle when

people try to debate and when different things the old to millie have to compromise along the way. host: next year, the house will be ruled by the republican party presumably kevin mccarthy will become speaker but he is facing issues with that. they have a new minority leader and a senate that his world by democrats. what do you think about this idea divided government and the quality of legislating on capitol hill? guest: it will change the discourse a little bit. i don't think the outcomes will be different. in 100 years you will have a hard time distinguishing the hundred 17 congress from the 118 congress. it is a step in the right direction fully to the extent that we need more political conflict, within the house and senate. we need rank-and-file lawmakers to aggressively push to take power back from their leaders and to achieve their goals.

when they do so, their constituents can take note and reward or punishment as they see fit in the next election. host: let's hear from kenneth in kentucky on the republican line. caller: good morning. how is her body going today? host: pretty good. caller: in my opinion, i think united states is gone. we don't have any congress. we got no military. i think we are already incompetent. i got no respect for the people of the united states right now as far as running the country. it is gone to the dogs and they are can i have to do something to show people that what is going on in this united states. i really appreciate it and thank you and have a good day. host: what do you think about public perception as far as how

it impacts what congress does? guest: kenneth makes an astute point with regards to congress. an institution only exists as long as we use it for the purposes is created. congress is a crucible of conflict. it's a place where we go to debate and argue. when we no longer use it for that purpose to achieve those outcomes and to achieve our goals, for all intents and purposes it's gone. it doesn't mean it can't come back tomorrow. lawmakers could wake up again to become lawmakers. until then, congress is not doing what it was ultimately designed to do as an institution. host: you've written a couple of books on the side, you have the liberation. do you think it is still possible? guest: there will always be decisions made behind closed doors. the key difference is the degree

to which the rank-and-file lawmakers are able to participate in the process. they are doing it to themselves. there is no shadowy figure who is forcing everybody to do something. if you want to know why it is broken is because the members broke it. we think of deliberation and compromise when what we are thinking about is consensus. we don't like disagreement and we think disagreement is a bad thing and that it will prevent us from compromising. that is not how it works. before you can compromise you first have to disagree and have a difference of opinion. if we had a consensus we would not need congress. if we want deliberation, if we want more compromise, more bar patterson ship, we have to embrace the outliers, the liberals and conservatives. we have to embrace political conflict and disagreement and see them as good things because that is how we got things like

the civil rights act. that's how we got the voting rights act and that is how we did all the things that the congress did in the 60's and 70's when it had its most productive legislative. . host: the p you has laws that were enacted. there were 408 substandard bills, and 116 it's 213. the numbers go up and down but as far as passing laws, is that the number you look at the quality of laws that you look at? guest: i think you do a little bit of both. the number of laws that are not consequential or have broad, widespread support. if you think about any kind of minor legislation. those numbers do matter. what has congress done via guns.

they had a gun-control bill but that bill is like the civil rights act, not many people remember that act. it was the lowest common denominator. it didn't really change things much. if you look at guns, abortion, immigration, things that the top of the agenda right now. congress is not passing legislation to deal with that. they could pass a thousand laws but if it's not adjudicating in a way we can see, there are thousands of laws that don't mean much in the end. host: from lawrence in new york on the democrat line. caller: my name is lawrence, i wanted to note that biden is doing his job. many people have complaints about him and i think he is doing his job.

that is the number one job and highest point of stater office. host: that was lawrence in new york. mr. biden because of his senate career, what you think about his relation to congress with the experience he has in congress? guest: he is your quintessential legislator and senator. i worked in the senate when he was there. he had great relationships with democrats and republicans alike. i want to underscore a point that lawrence made which is often lost. the members of congress, people in the executive branch, they are doing a very difficult job. we may disagree with them are like what they do all the time. our comments can get critical sometimes and perhaps nasty at times. it is important that we recognize that these are all americans, they are all doing what they think is best.

they step into the arena in their own unique way and they are all good people and they are really trying. i disagree with what they do but i think it's important to keep that perspective in mind. host: from peter on the republican line. he's also a new york state. caller: good morning. i agree with everything you said. there is a big talk about there would be this big red wave and republicans did not do as well as they were saying. they were trying to blame and said they had backed candidates. the republican party no longer stands for anything. what have they done to prove to the american people that they deserve to take power? in the senate, they should be trying to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and nobody is even talking about it.

you require 60 votes to pass legislation out of the senate but yet you have 12, 15 republicans who vote along with the democrats. for instance, mr. mcconnell should turn around until president biden i am not going to work with you on any legislation until you secure the border. republicans can do that. unfortunately, republicans they hem and haw and they complain but when it comes time for them to act, they don't act and that is why they are doing so poorly. unless the republican party changes his tactics and actually shows people that they mean business, they will stay in the minority. i believe mitch mcconnell wants to be in the minority. that's my opinion, sir. guest: it's important and you raise a great point here, mitch

mcconnell doesn't call out mr. biden because he doesn't agree with a large part of his own party on immigration. in 2007 he supported immigration reform. they led an effort to defeat the bill that was supported by half of the party. it was supported by george w. bush and mitch mcconnell was frustrated on the final vote. you can look at all of that on the c-span library. he has his own policies and challenges to try to unify the party that does not agree on things like immigration. one other point you raised about the election and candidates. i would encourage your viewers to resist the urge to have a one size but it's all explanation for something. there were great republican candidates that did good in some

places in poorly and others. trump backed candidates did well in some areas and worse in others. we have to recognize that we don't have one republican party one democratic party. we have 50 democratic and republican party in all 50 states. until we recognize and see that nuance and diversity in the nation, i don't think we will understand it and continue to be perplexing used by it. host: you talked about the senate and your experience in the senate. what did you think about the decision for kyrsten sinema to become an independent? guest: at the end of the day, it will not change what happens inside the senate. she will continue to caucus with the democratic party. bernie sanders is not a democrat but he caucuses within the party. if she decides not to caucus

with the party we could see real differences. i don't think her becoming an independent will change how the senate operates in any many way of -- meaningful way. host: what you think about how cinema and mansion impact their parties? guest: when i worked in the senate you realized how difficult it is for one senator to do anything when people don't want to listen to you. as long as it continues to operate by unanimous consent. we don't want to rules -- use the rules on the book, they use unanimous consent. if they don't want them to object or say no, they should not ask for their permission. there are rules on the books for them to go around and force them to vote one way or the other on

the floor. they may lose some of those votes and they could win some of those foes. we have seen the leaders play hardball in the past. we have seen this in congress in pelosi, she forced the progressives to go along with the highway bill, other legislation. she called their love. schumer could have done the same with kyrsten sinema and joe manchin. we have to see what makes these two powerful is how the senate is currently run by the two leaders. host: since you brought her up, house speaker nancy pelosi will just become a member of congress along with others. how much influence will she have on the workings of the democratic side? guest: i think she is a towering figure. she is an extraordinary leader. she has been, i don't agree with everything she's done from a policy perspective.

i worked for republican colleagues during her tenure and we are on opposite side of things. but her skill as a leader has been incredible. if you look at harry reid with the affordable care act, those two leaders are why that became along the united states. it was not any special interest or president obama, it was their skillets leaders. it shows that republicans should take note and say, this is what effective leadership looks like and we want very skilled leader so we could also achieve those goals. host: this is in pennsylvania, on the democrats line, hello. caller: i have a question for you. i know you are claiming a lame-duck session and we don't agree with making decisions in a lame-duck session. i don't agree that corporations are people.

i just don't. i don't believe in citizens united. i think we need politicians and the american people have to be clear with who is funding them. that is what drives to decisions in congress is the money. you can even identify who is getting what most of the time. what is your opinion on that? the supreme court making decisions that are more political in my lifetime, recently. what is your cure for these problems that were generated by the court in summer generated by the parties attacking the election process. guest: i think that's the big problem with the lame-duck. we all have different views,

different concerns but ultimately we all have a right to see our representatives adjudicate those concerns and we should be able to call on them to do so and we should be able to see who makes decisions, what people ultimately decide and we should be able to hold our elected officials accountable. that is inherent in self-government. the problem is, among the american people in the representatives in congress, we have come to the point that if you don't agree with i ultimately think is right, i will do everything that you don't have a right to participate in the process and aren't able to adjudicate your concerns and i will not vote because you may win. that is the common view and i think that kind of thinking is what leads to us making our decisions in congress and the lame-duck. after the american people vote. host: this is james wallner,

he's here to talk about the 117 congress. this is bill from the maryland line. caller: i confess i turned in late but your guest, my attention. as a voter who is an independent but i usually vote republican, i live in a deep blue state of maryland. i just look at what is going on and i see a uni-party. the big issue which is a fiscal concern, i am watching this country sink and debt. you have the entitlement programs of social security and medicare which have not been addressed since tip o'neill and ronald reagan addressed it.

it seems to me that the politicians in this country are making decisions based on their own self-interest in their career politicians and what we need, we need citizen legislators who are not going to be voting in their own self-interest colluding with the opposition. as you said, it should be a crucible of conflict and instead i see a group of people who collude with each other so they can continue their careers as politicians and get rich. they all come out of there as millionaires. i just want to get your thoughts on that point. host: thank you bill. guest: we should not be hard -- surprised to change the status quo. the party who supports it, they can lose the debate but it can be done. i think the american people have

to feel empowered. right now, you see a lot of apathy and frustration. a sense of powerlessness in the population. that is very concerning because ultimately until that changes, congress will not change. if we look at the 1950's and 1960's, the status quo on issues like civil rights was extraordinarily powerful in the senate. in 1958 you had a number of liberal senators who came and who did not continue to business as usual because their constituents push them. they said we will not tolerate you continuing business as usual and if you don't do what we will get someone else. they disrupted things and they forced votes. they went around regular order, we want to debate and we want to see action on things like civil rights. that is how you ultimately got

the civil rights act of 64, the clean water act, the clean air act. a whole host of other things that the did. a whole host of things were because the american people demanded that their representatives go to washington's and adjudicate their concerns on their behalf. host: what is to think about the january 6 committee in light of the final hearing yesterday and the criminal recommendations they may? guest: i think we should applaud congress anytime they try to act or size of oversight. -- exercise oversight. it's a good thing when congress wants to try to do something. that's a good thing in my book. you can resist it, and you can resist it inside congress. in regards to the substance, fewer should remember we had an unprecedented impeachment of a

president who was not at office and during that trial when people justified why it was important to convict someone of an impeachment even though they were a private citizen we resolve that this was the only way to hold someone accountable. now we have people suggesting formal charges to the justice department and that underscores that there are other ways to punish citizens. you should not be impeaching citizens because that is not in the constitution. if we look at the impeachment trial and juxtapose it to the january 6 hearing. one reason they wanted to convict the former president and that trial is because they wanted to ensure that he could not run again. it gives the senate the ability that an impeached official could run again. they did not prevail on that vote but ultimately, if you look

at the january 6 committee efforts, it could be seen in a way to convict the president in the court of public opinion so that he cannot run again. it's important that we distinguish the legal implications and value them both independently. host: would it have been a different result if the original site of republicans wanted on the committee, would've made a difference? guest: if that's finding a smoking gun or there's other evidence, may be more conflict does lead to that. it would've led to a better understanding of what happened because there would've been disagreement. anytime you have disagreement is it raises issues, invites people into the process. it gives them something to watch. it gives them a sense of engagement and helps to bring out information we otherwise would not see.

it's important that any representatives participating on the republican side just go along with what the democrats wanted to do. out of conflict, disagreement we get a better understanding of the truth and reality in the realm. i am not sure there is a lot of support for that kind of process on the democratic side or republican supporters on the committee. host: let's hear from paul in texas on the independent line. caller: good morning mr. wallner and i wanted thanks c-span for all they do. your thoughts on citizens united, the 2010 supreme court case that has allowed a flood of money to come in from corporate donors. what is your take? guest: there are a lot of different views on campaign finance. you and i may disagree on that.

where do we disagree? the supreme court under the constitution that adjudicates disputes between individuals. it does not make policy, doesn't set law and it doesn't get to say what the constitution means with regards to congress and the president. we would not have the separation of powers, we would be ruled by nine individuals who wear robes to work. it's vital that it is healthy and strong but as long as we continue to look to the supreme court to be the final arbiter on the most controversial decisions in american politics we will continue to be disgruntled and frustrated because the supreme court takes those issues out of politics and we can adjudicate them or debate them. we can debate these things because the supreme court has spoken and now the only way to get around that is to have a new supreme court. that undermines the supreme court makes it a weaker

institution and harder for the supreme court to do the job it has to do under the constitution. host: the website is our street.org. james wallner from r street institute resident senior fellow and former senate aide, inc.'s for talking to us. guest: thanks for having me. host: later on we will hear from jeffrey robbins. you can talk about the referrals of charges to the justice department. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. we will take those calls. ♪ >> january 1 on in-depth, chris

hedges will be our guest. he will talk about political revolution, war and incarceration in america. his books include america, the farewell tour. hourglass and recently, the greatest field of war. join the conversation with your phone calls, texts and tweets. in depth with chris hedges, live sunday january 1 in eastern on but tv on c-span2. middle and high school students it is time to get out your phones and start recording for your chance to win 100,000 in total cash prizes. the grand prize is $5,000. you can enter c-span's documentary contest. we are asking students to picture yourself as a newly member elected of congress and

tell us what your top issue would be and why. show the importance of your issue from opposing and supporting points of view. be bold with her documentary, don't be afraid to take risks. there is still time to get started. the deadline for entries is january 20, 2023. for composition rules and how to get started visit our website at studentcam.org. be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcasts about books. with current nonfiction releases and bestseller list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. "washington journal,"

continues. host: participate in open forum, you can text if you like at that number is (202) 748-8003. the omnibus bill was released in an effort to keep the government funded after friday. the final numbers including 580 and billion defense spending. 119 billion for veterans medical care, it also says that the measure would appropriate 85 billion for ukraine military and economic aid. as well as money for the victims of the recent hurricanes in florida and puerto rico. that figure is about $10 billion that matches the president supplemental request except lawmakers diverted covid request to beef up ukraine. that was the package release.

we will watch that play out this week in congress towards the friday deadline for funding of the federal government. the texas tribune reported that the chief justice pasta schedule lifting and emergency health order. turning away migrants seeking asylum on the southern border. this comes after a coalition led by arizona 17 states to prevent the lifting of title 42. it's unclear how long the temporary pause will last. but he gave president biden until tuesday to respond. you can see that in other places as well. the numbers will be on the screen and you can text us at (202) 748-8003. elizabeth from pennsylvania, eight year of next. caller: good morning, i would

like to talk about the prosecution referral and yes, trump should be prosecuted. he is the pied piper of rats. these people have always existed but they were not visible until he brought them to the surface. the oath of office means nothing to him. the republican should be ashamed of how they are supporting him. they are just cowards, because the only care about winning they don't care about what is right for the people in their district and a caller earlier talked about how he sounds elitist for talking about trump. when covid existed, he said it

helped and he didn't have to shake hands with these people. host: let's go to ben and mississippi. caller: good morning how are you? host: good. caller: i heard a few callers said trump was not guilty of collusion but his attorney general changed it. he came out and changed most of everything that moeller said. when they say that, would he really reported. they said he committed a crime but he could not prosecute a sitting president.

that is the reason he wasn't indebted. they could indict a sitting president. host: let's go to danny in missouri on the democrat sign. caller: how are they gonna do this year after they get an office? in the election of 2024, have them do the right thing. that's all i have to say. host: the new york times takes a look at a newly elected member of congress. questions are being asked about that person's background. this is george santos from new york saying that according to the newark times, the republican

whose victory in long island and northeast queens helped his party clinch a majority in the house may have misled voters about his college graduation, and his business on wall street. state party leaders were silent on monday but joseph cairo, the republican chairman said in a statement that the times reporting raise serious issues that he believes mr. santos should address. he has declined numerous requests to be interviewed. he said he used twitter to circulate a statement that his lawyer released. mr. murray characterized the times article as a shotgun blast of attacks but did not provide specific criticisms. that is the new york times and you can read it there. let's hear from irene in illinois on the democrat sign. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i wanted to go back to donald trump. i want to say that he was the president of the united states who took an oath of office to uphold our constitution. he was part of this planned insurrection to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. he sat there for hours and did not call the national guard when a president can activate soldiers right away but he sat there and did nothing. i do support this because it exposed all of him and the people in congress that worked with him. i just want to want to say one thing to his supporters. it's ok to support donald trump and like him but you have to stand with what is right. on january 6, this people

climbing up the walls and breaking into the capital like that. if it was anybody else they would call this wrong. thank you for taking my call. host: let's hear from jack in wisconsin on the republican line. caller: there are so many things that are going on in this country that people are so misinformed on. let's take the january 6 commission. they did not have one republican that was appointed by the house. or by the majority leader, all right? are minority leader should say. it makes it an illegal congressional hearing. nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, picked out the people they wanted from the republicans to sit on that commission.

they did not listen to all the evidence. host: speaker mccarthy put out five nominees and pelosi negated two of those. caller: it proves the point that there was an republican on that commission who was in donald trump's partner. as far as nancy pelosi is concerned, she is the person this term for president biden, according to the constitution, she was the administrator of the capital. she was in charge of everything for the capitol. in the next administration it will be the senate majority leader. they will be the administrator of the capitol. she was never brought in front of the commission to ask where was the security for the day? they had 84, 94 capitol police

on duty on a day where there was going to be a full senate and full house there. when the is open to tourists, there is more 84 people online. host: that was jack in wisconsin, let's go to raymond and colorado. caller: good morning america. i do agree with january 6. with the committee, but the republicans seem to be making excuses for donald trump. al capone was not found guilty of murder. and look at history, donald trump is going to get caught on tax evasion. the same thing that happened to al capone. i would sc spin to please bring on mary trump and have her answer questions.

she's his knees, look at the man, not his policies but the man. if he gets reelected i feel scared that he will set off a nuke in revenge. thank you and have a good, good day. host: associated press reporting that the democratic controlled house ways and means committee debating whether to release president trump's tax returns which he tried to shield. richard neal has kept a close hold on the panel. if they move forwards to release returns is unclear how quickly that would happen. expect to hear some action on that in ohio, democrat line. caller: mine is going to be unusual. my one call a month, i want to wish everyone, whether it be --

i know hanukkah started sunday, and kwanzaa is the 26th. everything in between, christmas and whatnot, wish everybody a happy holiday. i wish, and i guess it is a prayer, maybe just for this holiday season that we could just be thankful, grateful. we live in this wonderful usa, yes we have problems. but we all do. that is all i have to say. host: happy holidays to you. one of the things you may have not seen on the senate floor yesterday was the senate foreign relations committee chairman bob menendez, it was monday that he slammed turkish leadership, including the president, for the missile strike on athens,

greece. it was senator menendez who responded to that on the senate floor yesterday, here's part of his response. [video clip] >> they might be using this as a diversion from the dire failure of his own economy. they might be doing get out of spite, or they might be doing it because he is a thug. but one thing is clear. the united states must take the turkish president's actions seriously. those who simply say oh, it is a bluster, they do so at risk. they said putin was bluster, and we have a war on the european continent. we need to hold him accountable for his behavior when he violates international law, or challenges democratic norms, or allows his forces to commit human rights abuses. that is why i am calling for

free and fair elections in turkey. i am asking the international community of democracies to condemn his jailing of his political opponent. i want our allies to use their leverage to try and prevent further incursions into northeastern syria, and i am demanding he and all overflights of greece, and pull every last turkish soldier out of cyprus. i think, given all of this recent behavior, the united states should not be putting f-16 fighter jets in his hands. that is why, as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, i will not approve any f-16s for turkey until he halts his campaign of aggression across the entire region. host: that was on the senate floor yesterday, you can go to our website to see more. the wall street journal

reporting the russian defense ministry said yesterday the attachment of warships of the pacific fleet is participating in exercises with chinese counterparts starting wednesday through the 27th. it will include joint rocket and artillery firing at air targets and artillery firing at sea targets and practicing antisubmarine actions with the practical use of weapons, according to the defense ministry. the announcement of the drill part of the annual endeavor between the two nations since 2012, it came the same day the russian president met with the belarusian president during unease. that is in the wall street journal, if you want to read it. let us hear from dwight in hawaii, independent line. caller: hello, good morning. i want to talk about the declaration of independence and what is in the u.s.

constitution. most people do not realize, like the second amendment, because those rights in the u.s. constitution and limitations on the u.s. government in the constitution actually comes from the declaration of independence as the source. the right to declare. that was limited to the 13 colonies states. i am calling from hawaii, this is the hawaiian kingdom. we had gun control imposed on this kingdom since 1893 by the u.s. citizens and u.s. government. like today, it is under title x, chapter 134. title x is issues controlled by congress, chapter 134 is to arm the police department the if you want to buy a gun -- department. if you want to buy a gun, you

need a permit. you need a license from the chief of police. most people do not realize under the u.s. constitution, there is no police during the writing of the constitution. new york created the first police in 1840 and was considered a standing army. as you will see in the 13 colonies states, as well as this kingdom, the police department is king. they grant the right -- host: that is dwight in hawaii, let us hear from shawn in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: happy holidays to you, many more to your family. i am a nice republican, bear with me. i am handicapped, disabled, ok? anyway, i vote for donald j. trump, ok, republican.

he was a good president of the united states of america. i will make this short and sweet. donald trump did not cheat the polls. if you showed what happened, joe biden son whatever dead, nobody want to believe that stuff. you know what i am saying? i believe republicans should come back whoever is on the committee to tell them what is going on. they should do an investigation for democrat people. i did not like the courthouse. donald trump, that was wrong, uncalled for. host: ok, sean in pennsylvania. if you're interested in british politics, this morning the british prime minister is going to take questions from senior members of parliament's liaison committee. some topics expected to be discussed are the war in

ukraine, cost-of-living, possible workers strikes, climate change issues. you can see that back and forth starting at 10:00 on the main channel c-span, watch on the free mobile app c-span now, and watch online at c-span.org. mark in texas, democrat. hello. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to say this. we had an election last month, before that all you heard was republicans talking about inflation and gas prices, food prices, this and that. you have not heard that since the election was over, right? another thing was, i watched fox news last night. america, get ready. the republican party is trying to tear down the fbi because they're going to, donald trump,

they're going to do everything in their power to disgrace the fbi, lie and make people not believe in the fbi and the work they are doing. pay close attention the next couple weeks, because this is what the republican party trying to do. thank you, america. host: the washington times is the biden administration will proposed new rule monday that would phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs, replace them with more efficient leds. it estimates phasing out the incandescent will cut 131 metric tons of carbon dioxide and 903,000 tons of methane equal to the electricity used by 29 million homes per year. in a statement, the energy department estimates the proposal will save about $20 billion in collective consumer costs and estimated leds could save the average family $100 annually with lower energy bills. first, independent in lexington,

kentucky. caller: i would like to think the democrats for all the great stuff they have done -- thank the democrats for all the great stuff they have done, open borders and let everyone come in, i think that is really great. and this january 6 committee, that is a sham. also, thanks for obamacare. i have got obamacare, i've got pre-existing conditions. i need to see a specialist. on obamacare, you cannot find a specialist that will take it. i am sick of hearing all these great things democrats have done about health care, i cannot even go see my doctor. thank you. host: next, andy in kentucky, republican line. caller: good morning. the gentleman earlier about the hundred 17th congress, he was

talking about why did they codify roe v. wade, there is a lot of reasons. it is also because you have a country -- a small country people do not realize, the leader of that country has more power in this nation then russia, putin could ever hope and dream of having. they already drew the group to this country, they are going to codify roe v. wade because they already changed their minds on gay marriage in this group, they're going to make this group to be the state religion of america. that foreign country is the vatican. the catholics are going to be

the chosen religion through all these illegals coming into the country, they're going to go to all these catholic churches because they are predominantly catholic -- i am trying to hurry before you shut me off. [laughter] i'm surprised you have not already. it is going to be the state religion and they are throwing leaps and bounds. host: suzanne, democrat line. caller: let me be blunt for a moment. the reason why the republican party is scared to death right now is they fear trump will break from the party and establish a third-party, and run on the ideals of america first. if that happens, all of his supporters, the far right, all of the suppression of scripts will go over and join, that will split the gop right down the middle. causing irreplaceable damage from which it may never recover, that is what i think he will do in the long run.

they are scared to death of that, so they are free to alienate him. only a handful of republicans have, and attacked trump. this is what they are fearing, that is all i have to say. have a good holiday, goodbye. host: one of the efforts the biden administration plans to tackle is homelessness. yesterday, proposals to cut homelessness 25%, according to reporting, saying the plant built off the march 2020 one american rescue plan give tens of billions of dollars in rental assistance to people struggling during the pandemic. mr. biden also requested increase in the homelessness assistant spending of more than 300 62 million dollars for the 2023 fiscal year. the plan is to maximize the use of existing resources and inform future budget requests across all agencies. this also adds that this comes

as several cities have amped up their own efforts to reduce homelessness. virginia, independent line. caller: good morning, thank you for what you do. i did not know where you get the patient's for some of these people. [laughter] i do not share your patience, god bless you and happy. i am not going to vote for trump, have never voted for trump. i would like him to run again, and i hope some reporter is listening and gets the drift. in the last two years since the election, think about how many things we learned about donald trump. we learned about his fraudulent taxes, his scary ways of operating a business, how petty and small he and his administration were or are, all these things against immigrants and he has mark meadows, who was born in france. he has all these slimy people around him that are still there

and somehow, i want him to run, because i think he will get beat like a drum. he lost by almost 8 million votes because joe biden, who is not the greatest candidate -- i do not think he is the greatest president, but i will take him over trump in a heartbeat. if trump runs again, i think you will lose by 20 million. host: duane in indiana, republican line. hello? caller: yes, hello. i am retired cpa, i am calling to give a little bit of my thoughts on the potential release of the income tax returns of trump area -- trump. i can see one issue there from them releasing anyone's tax return, that would be dangerous. a compromise would be if they would require all presidential candidates, once they are on a

major party, to release their tax returns prior to the election so we can view them and see what is going on. you learn a lot of information from a tax return. i've looked at virtually every tax return of the presidents from kennedy on up. nixon's return required some changes to the tax law, because he took deductions which were basically just paper income, he did not report the income but got a big deduction for contribute in presidential papers. we see from joe biden's return that he made contributions primarily to those that are defense protection in the courts, so you learn so much from looking at returns. i would suggest that would be

something congress might look at. host: can i ask you a question? we heard president trump before come as he was running for office and during his term in office, many times saying his records were being audited. is it reasonable for that length of time for a person of his wealth to take that long to audit records? caller: i have never seen any return that takes eight years for an audit. that is not reasonable. host: go ahead. caller: some returns might still be under audit, but the older returns obviously are available and have been audited. to see the audit results would be interesting as well, to see if all the deductions he claimed were allowed. host: that is duane in indiana, giving us the cpa perspective. the house means committee expected to take a look at the release, or at least vote of the possible release of those records. we will see that play out this

week in congress. michael in florida, you will be last call. mccright line. -- democrat line. caller: i am calling about the budget and how they hold -- they tried to hold up the fiscal budget. they should have something put in the law that congress has got to stay in their -- there and get a physical budget done not short-term, but the whole year. as long as they are not willing to sit down and do that, they can sit there and not draw their money. cut their money, cut their benefits in the money until it is done. make them stay there and get a budget for the year. this going on and extending, they are playing with fire. they are playing with bad fire here. that is all i have to say. host: that is michael in florida. one of the things to watch out for is the deadline on friday for funding for the federal government.

announcements early this morning of a possible package deal, so watch that to play out in congress as well. we will return to talking about the decision by the january 6 committee about criminal referrals and what that means not only for the committee referrals, but the justice department with former congressional chief counsel jeffery robbins to discuss the investigation by congress, take your questions about the process. that conversation coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you afterword from book, a program were nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislators and others on their latest books. this week, chris miller traces the history of microchip technology and how it has become the most critical resource globally in his book. he is interviewed by a

democratic congressman. watch it every friday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day, and weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 eastern. catch washington today for a fast-paced report of stories of today, listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. ♪ >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for the newsletter using the qr code on the scheme -- screen. book tv, every sunday on c-span two or anytime online at bookt

v.org. television for serious readers. ♪ >> life sunday, january 1 on in-depth, chris hedges will be the guest to talk about political revolution, war and incarceration in america. his books include america the farewell tour, hourglass trauma and transformation in an american prison, and the greatest people is war. join the conversation. in-depth with chris hedges, live sunday, january 1 at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is jeff robbins

, he is the former assistant u.s. attorney for the district of massachusetts in joining us to talk about the congressional investigation of january 6. thinks for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you expand on the role you served in congress, particularly in investigation and how congress investigates things, or events and things? guest: i was simultaneously chief counsel for the democrats, minority at the time, for something called the senate permanent subcommittee on investigations, which is a great subcommittee with a significant bipartisan tradition. at the same time, i was dippy chief counsel for the minority for the senate governmental affairs committee, the full committee. at the time, it was investigating allegations and proprieties by the clinton-gore campaign in the 1996 election. host: when did you think about

the january 6 criminal referral -- what did you think about the january 6 criminal referral? guest: the underlying volume of serious work done by this committee, nobody -- regardless of political inclination -- can challenge it. this was 1000 witnesses, nearly a million documents. the executive summary of the report being released tomorrow runs 150 pages, 76 to two footnotes. when you have an executive summary longer than winston churchill's six volume history of world war ii, you are dealing with a serious document. with respect to the referrals, there is obviously an anonymous amount of evidence that supports each of the referrals. that is not to say that ends the equation as far as justice department lawyers on the receiving end of those referrals are concerned. because they have a very different calculus to make.

they have to assess whether or not that evidence is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that will enable them to proceed with some confidence that they can persuade a jury of 12 unanimously that there has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so much so to convict a former president, which is never been done before. while i think the charges are supported by evidence, that is far from the end of the equation , as far as the justice department or special counsel lawyers who now have to review it are concerned. host: obstruction of official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the u.s., conspiracy to make a false statement, giving aid to the insurrection. are you saying you can find evidence in what was presented directly to the former president trump on those fronts? guest: yes, for certain. it should be noted, for example, with respect to the first two charges, conspiracy to impede

and to defraud, which are related, there is a federal judge ruling on a very narrow sliver of the evidence the committee had before, judge carter in california, wrote a decision finding in his view, it was likelier than not that the former president violated those criminal statutes. there is evidence supporting each of the four, there is enough evidence of corrupt intent, which is an element that straddles all four of these potential charges. we are not talking about a mountain of evidence of corrupt intent, we are talking about a mountain range at this point. that is not to say the former president would not have significant defenses, in the event those charges are brought. that is what the justice department lawyers in special counsel lawyers have to assess. there will be a lot of sleepless nights over at the justice

department, probably already have been. people ask themselves the question, ok, i get it. but can i persuade a jury of 12, unanimously, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the former president is guilty? especially where there are these defenses that are related to speech and asking lawyers for advice and the like. host: we seen the committee refer other criminal referrals to the justice department, the justice department took some, did not take others. what is the process like in determining what is done with that? guest: number one, as said, i think a lot over the last 24 to 36 hours -- the fact of the referral is of no consequence. the justice department, traditional way -- there have been blips along the way, including under the trump administration, is an institution that prides itself on independence. it prides itself on holding itself to very tough standards

and frankly, it knows the federal judges before whom lawyers appear will hold that to very tough standards. what there will be is an independent review of the evidence that is sent over, the transcripts and documents, in conjunction with the evidence the justice department lawyers have already amassed. the analysis will be independent of whether or not seven members of the congressional committee, however smart they are, and some members of the committee are not just smart, but very good lawyers. there will be an independent test, that test will be charged by charge, with respect to those for and other potential charges. is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? is there a great deal of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? given the anticipated defenses, how likely is it that we can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that, under

these extraordinary circumstances, a former president should be found guilty of charges, which would send him or could well send him to prison? host: (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independent. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. jeff robinson served on capitol hill and is talking about yesterday's recommendations from the january 6 committee. you talked about the idea of possibly charging a president, how much does it matter he is running for office? guest: at this point, we are beyond that. i take the attorney general at face value when he says that really can't be a factor, and the appointment of a special counsel is strong indication it will not be a factor. special counsel who has been

appointed is a very experienced prosecutor. i do not think the fact the former president is running for reelection is going to have any impact on this to liberation. the deliberation will be is this an indictable offense, is it clearly indictable, is there a significant quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and how valid are the anticipated defenses? host: you brought up the special counsel, it is conducting its investigation of the referrals coming in from the justice department. is there any crossover between the two? guest: i think the special counsel's office will be staffed, in part, or stand chili, by justice department prosecutors who have already been not only sifting evidence, but presenting evidence to a grand jury. the justice department has already done a lot of work

before the handoff to the special counsel. negotiating with witnesses, presenting witnesses to the grand jury. it is not as if the special counsel is starting from square one, because it surely is not. host: let me follow-up. if the house delivers its report or evidence that is associated with that, can the special counsel take the evidence brought in from criminal referrals and use it in its own case? guest: very much so. that is the principal value of this series of evidence that is being turned over by the committee to the justice department. there are reams and reams of transcripts of sworn testimony that can be presented to a grand jury. there are reams of documents that can themselves be presented to a grand jury, or form the basis for presentation to the grand jury. that, by the way, is why the

justice department has been pressing the committee to turn over the transcripts before now, for reasons which are perplexing , the committee was reluctant to do that. now the evidence is being turned over by the committee to the special counsel. there are treasure troves of evidence that can be used in concrete fashion by the special counsel. host: when it comes to referrals from yesterday, will it be the attorney general merrick garland that makes the decision? guest: yes. there will be a recommendation by the special counsel, ultimately it will be the attorney general who makes the decision. host: let us start with mike in texas, republican line. you are on. go ahead. caller: good morning yes, mr. robbins, do you put a lot of stock, or do you think there is a conversation to be had about the admission of evidence? when is the omission of evidence

become part of the equation? guest: if there are emissions of evidence, if there is evidence exculpatory of the former president, i am not aware of it. one hears a lot that the committee did not focus on issues some on the others of the aisle wanted them to focus on, like deficiencies, supposedly, with the capitol police response, or the like. i guess i just do not think most people think that the issue here is whether there were malfunctioning walkie-talkies or enough capitol police officers on standby, or big enough padlock for the capitol. i do not think that is what the issue is. so, if there is evidence that x completes the president -- exculpates the evidence -- the

president, that is evidence that should be presented to the special counsel. i am just not aware of what it is. i do not know any of us is aware of what it is at the moment. host: this is from brenda in indiana, pennsylvania. democrat line. caller: good morning. i think one of the most important things in the january 6 committee proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that donald trump knew he lost the election. i am kind of disappointed the last public hearing the other day, that this was not the centerpiece of that public hearing. jason miller, bill stepien, pat cipollone, eric hirschman, bill barr, jeff rosen all part of trump's administration, they all testified under oath that donald trump knew he lost the election.

he admitted it privately. very furiously and begrudgingly, but he admitted it privately. in my opinion, anything donald trump did after that point in time is fraudulent and a crime. the stop the steal fundraising he did, the gofundme page, he knew there was no steel to stop. like i said, i think anything he did after he privately acknowledged he lost, anything he did after that, was criminal in fraudulent. host: thank you, brenda. guest: i actually agree that the evidence that the former president knew he lost the election is overwhelming. i also think, as i said, the evidence of corrupt intent on part of the former president at various -- in conjunction with various steps he took, whether it is the phone call to the georgia secretary of state or the conversations with the

former vice president, or other things. i think it is clear. when you are asking someone to find over 11,000 votes, come on, give me a break. that is stark evidence. that does not necessarily translate into anything close to a layup, if criminal charges are brought. that may give an example. the former president would say, no doubt if he is charged, look. i am not entitled to make a speech, i am not entitled to ask my supporters to demonstrate. i am not entitled to ask lots of different lawyers for their best legal opinion. of course i am entitled to do that. you can't put me in jail, you should not be able to put me in jail for that. that is the kind of defense you would expect to hear, if any of these particular four charges are brought. that is not a defense to the various espionage act and related charges that are apparently being contemplated.

with respect to the charges referred yesterday, that is the kind of defense, the kind of basket of defense you would expect to see the former president raise. they are not negligible defenses. host: one of the people commenting yesterday told us about the challenges ahead if this goes forward with jonathan, here is some of the case he made yesterday. i want your response. [video clip] >> there was no direct, new evidence of criminal act by the former president. that is not to say his conduct was not reckless or reprehensible, but that is not a criminal act. it was basically a rehashing of what we have seen in virtually every one of these hearings. they simply attach these referrals to it. the department of justice can project the referral and to get nowhere, they can also take it to trial and look for a favorable jury in place like d.c..

i do not think these convictions, on this evidence, would likely be -- would likely withstand judicial scrutiny. the biggest problem are those that turn on the president's speech. that speech was protected under existing supreme court cases, like brandenburg. it would not meet the standard supreme court has set out for the criminalization of speech. that is my view. even if they were to seek out a conviction, they would have a hard time on appeal. host: one perspective, go ahead. guest: i disagree on some counts with what the professor said, i agree on other counts. i disagree this was a rehashing of old evidence, i think there was in and or is an amount of new evidence nobody knew about -- an enormous amount of new evidence nobody knew about when the hearings began in may or

june, that includes evidence from the inside circle he was advised he could not, should not do what he was doing, including, for example, the lawyers in mike pence's office who provided information and analysis that this was a bogus claim. the pressure tactics on the vice president, that is new. there is a lot more. so i disagree with the professor on that. i disagree that a charge, there is insufficient evidence to charge. i disagree that if you were convicted, charged and convicted, the evidence would be too thin to prevail on appeal. what do agree with him that the issue of speech, as i said before, is a live one. that is to say the former president can argue through his lawyers, because he is quite unlikely to take the stand in his own defense, but he can argue all i was doing was urging my supporters to demonstrate.

i was urging them to demonstrate enforceable terms. i used a phrase fight like hell, which is a phrase used all the time without people being indicted for it. i asked lawyers for their legal opinions, i asked lots of lawyers, even controversial lawyers. i am entitled to do that. i think what the professor indicates would be the defense utilized by the former president are the defenses he would use. i do not think they are negligible defenses, as i said before. host: jeffery robbins with us, let us hear from john in ohio, republican line. caller: nice to talk to you. let me say anybody who broke anything or assaulted anyone on that day should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. my biggest question is, when did the insurrection end and what stopped it?

my theory it was actually just done for instagram snaps and once everyone had their instagram photos, they left. was there a pitched battle at some point where the capitol hill police fought them back, push them out and locked the door? if there was not, it was not in insurrection. it was just an opportunity for pictures. that is all. guest: unless we are living in the land of optical illusions, i think we saw the videotape of exactly what you say did not happen. there was very much a pinch battle, once all the evidence of it hours and hours of footage, from one angle or another. people were hurt, some people died. if the callers standard is was there a pitched battle, and if there was, he satisfied there was an insurrection, we do seem to have pretty overwhelming

evidence in the form of video that is exactly what occurred. host: this is a text from a viewer in arizona. can mr. robbins elaborate regarding potential exculpatory evidence? guest: actually, i can't. because i do not know with a x couple tori evidence is. let me give an example -- exculpatory evidence is. let me give an example. the call to the secretary of state of georgia, find me 11,000 votes, give me a break. if there is some exculpatory explanation for that, i am not aware of what it is. if there is some explanation for sitting there for 180 seven minutes while people's heads are being bashed in and all of your advisors, or many of them are telling you to do something to stop in you do not, i do not know what that would be.

i am not being flip, i am just saying you would expect if there was exculpatory evidence that someone would have offered it during the course of these hearings. not necessarily at the hearings themselves, but in commentary or otherwise by people on team trump. i just have not heard that evidence. host: another viewer off of twitter, they talk about the january 6 committee itself, but also there was no due process during the actual proceedings. can you elaborate on that? guest: i do not know what that refers to. there were people who were asked , subpoenaed to testify and answer questions. they refused to. the people who were subpoenaed and offered a chance to testify about what occurred, some of them simply did not show up, told the committee to jump in the lake, only words that were not that polite.

two have been indicted for contempt of congress, one has been convicted. i am thinking of bannon and navarro. as far as due process is concerned, why the former president himself was subpoenaed to come and answer questions, and declined. that is what due process is all about. the right to present your side of the story. people were given the opportunity to present their side of the story, some people declined to do that. i think one can draw the appropriate inference from why they declined to do that, but on the question of whether or not the former president was offered the chance to present his side of the story, i think it is clear he was given that chance and turned it down. host: from new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning pedro and mr. robbins, thank you for c-span. i want to talk about what we do not know and what we do know.

why was nancy pelosi not questioned? where is all this footage that we have not seen on what happened that day? mr. robbins, you look like an honest man and i'm going to ask you a question. do you think that committee was fair when there was really no republican representation? because we know adam kinzinger and liz cheney are not true republicans. now, i want to talk about what we do know. we know there are many people in washington that hate donald trump area -- trump. we know they did not want him to be president in 2016, we also know that when he became president and did such a good job straightening this country out, they made up their minds saying they would make sure he never got back in that white house. i wonder if you could answer some questions, especially about the fairness of that committee. host: thanks for the call. guest: sure, thank you.

as you may know, it is a bit ironic there are some who claim this was a partisan committee, because, as many will remember, the effort that was made was to have a bipartisan, evenly divided 9/11 like commission look into this. that was blocked by the republicans in the senate. so, had the democrats in the house who introduced the resolution to create that commission had their way, there would have been a 9/11 like commission split evenly among republicans and democrats. the reason we do not have that is not because of nancy pelosi, it is because the republicans in the senate blocked it. moreover, you may recall in retaliation against liz cheney and adam kinzinger for even serving on the committee, they were censured by the republican

national committee. the way that the committee turned out as it did is really a function of maneuvers that were made on the republican side. having said that, look, adam kinzinger and liz cheney are rockribbed conservatives. these are people who voted with donald trump on a vast majority of the time. these are not exactly leftists. so i hope that people will see when rockribbed conservatives like cheney ann romney -- and romney -- remember, there were seven republican senators who joined the 50 democratic senators in voting to convict donald trump the second time when he was impeached on the single count of incitement insurrection. so i hope the people do not think this was a witchhunt or a partisan job, because i do not

see it that way. i do not personally think the background of this committee or its work suggests it was a witchhunt. host: alabama, democrat line. hello. caller: yes, i would like to ask your panelist, your guest. jim jordan, andy biggs and kevin mccarthy, they were all asked for subpoenaed to come to congress to the january 6 committee to make their case. they chose not to do so. i had a friend i thought was innocent about something, i would be sure to go and testify and defend him. they had a chance to do it and they would not do it. so, i just do not understand what the gripe is.

they had their chance, but they blew it. thank you. guest: that does seem like a common sense inference to be drawn from the fact those members of congress refused to show up. it is a common sense inference to me from the fact the former president did not show up. it is not merely that, though that is important enough, as the caller points out. there was an attempt to kill any inquiry into these events. that attempt came from those who were supporters of the former president. what should we think about an attempt to kill an inquiry into what occurred? what should one infer about an attempt to prevent the facts from being disclosed? most people will draw an inference from that. so, i tend to agree with the caller. host: going to be referred to the house ethics committee for the investigation as far as the work of the january 6 midi,

taking a look at the referrals, if justice does anything with it, what is the potential penalty? guest: you mean for the congressman refused to show up? host: i'm sorry, the criminal referrals made yesterday by the committee. guest: so, with respect to the criminal referrals against the former president, there are jail terms that range all the way up to 20 years in the case of insurrection. incitement insurrection and disqualification from holding office. there are a couple of those charges that carry with them five-year terms, when i think carries a 10 year term and one a 20 year term, and disqualification. if the charges are brought, and they will be brought if they are brought independently, not on the basis of this referral, special counsel will make the decision to charge or not charge

and what to charge totally independently of what he is asked to do by the committee. by the way, of course, since the committee did not deal with the documents issue, the special counsel's consideration of potential charges under the espionage act, taking of classified documents, obstruction of justice associated with that, that is a separate matter, as well. but the maximum penalties, if there were a charge and the former president is convicted on these charges, ranges all the way up to 20 years. host: las vegas, republican line. caller: i think the january committee was a sham. they kicked jim jordan off the committee, that is like playing in the super bowl and kicking tom brady off tampa bay.

second of all, what about nancy pelosi's job when president trump requested 10,000 national guard? the last thing i want to ask, when they are reviewing all the evidence, they purposely left out or president trump said march peacefully. peacefully. there is no incitement in peacefully. thank you so much, sirs. guest: on the last point, the color pointed out if the former president is charged, absolutely his defense team will use the phrase peacefully. they will also point out places where lots of other politicians -- i think they have done this by video -- have used phrases like fight like hell, and they

will argue ultimately it was a forcible speech, hot tempered speech, maybe. but it was not a criminal act. i think you are right, that is something his team will point out. there is a lot of evidence of criminal intent that some would say override the insertion of the word peacefully, but you are right to pointed out. in terms of nancy pelosi, for the life of me, i am not sure what she has done wrong. she tried to induce the republican party to agree to a totally bipartisan commission of inquiry, like the 9/11 commission. she was blocked. i think the accusations against her are misplaced. host: mr. robbins, a viewer asked if the justice department takes into consideration at all the toll it will take on the nation if we prosecute a former president? guest: it is such a good

question. i think that the attorney general will say he can't take that into consideration. he has effectively said he will not take into consideration by saying he will proceed as the facts and the law dictate. having said that, of course that will find its way somehow into the thinking. one can make the counterargument that, on this evidence, given what occurred, given this quite un-joyous joyride that took america to the brink of having democracy crash, if you cannot indict now, as the expression goes, when can you? it is such a good question. my guess is that people will deny to the death that that issue plays any role in their decision whether or not to indict, but my guess also is, one way or the other, it will

find its way into the mix of calculations. host: independent line from california, hello. caller: i was just wondering, if i am not mistaken, wasn't eric holden still in contempt of congress for never showing up? second, like the lady said earlier, why don't they let out all the video? they are just letting out certain parts of the video, they do not see where the cops let everybody in. what about ray? he was there inciting the night before, it is just out of control. and q. -- thank you. guest: by definition, remember, this is 20 hours of presentation. the committee has hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of video, probably

hundreds of thousands of pages of transcript. you can't present everything. of course, the committee had a view about what occurred, but goodness. the footage we have all seen of the deliberate crashing of windows, beating of cops, smashing in of entryways, that is not evidence of capitol police saying come on in, we would love to have you, would you like in order -- h'ordevours. it cannot be waived away of a violent assault on the capital, complete with people demanding where is nancy and hanging a noose out for the hanging of the former vice president. host: another off of twitter, is

there a separation of power issue with the referral? guest: no. the legislative branch of congress is not prosecuting. it is not purporting to prosecute. it is not engaging in a law enforcement function, that function resides solely with the executive branch, so there is not a separation of power issue. host: massachusetts, democrat line. go ahead. caller: i wanted to call and say couple of things you do not have to show up with the subpoena, the people were talking about -- all these white people can do all this stuff, if black people did it, they would put them in jail. host: do you have a specific question about the investigation or committee work? caller: one of the things, trump

should go to jail. that is one thing that should happen. running around for the last two years, let me tell you something. if you got arrested as soon as you've out of the white house, we would not have gone through this. this guy is trying to take over the country. you telling me about freedom of speech? host: do you have anything? guest: i do, i noted the reference to the subpoenas being disregarded. i do think that is a really important point. congress has an indispensable function to carry out its investigative power, it is a power that is recognized by the supreme court, it is a power that, although not identified in the constitution, has been deemed an implied power of congress. if congress investigation and subpoenas can be disregarded, the ability of congress to carry out its function and serve the american people is significantly

impeded. so i agree with the caller that the disregard of subpoenas, the willful disregard of the subpoenas, it is a serious problem and one which is going to be with us for a while. host: since you have been involved in congress and investigations, how does the congressional committee like the january 6 committee keep itself in check when investigating these things without letting politics get involved or in the way of investigating? i do not know if that makes sense or not, but is there a sense of keeping everybody in check? guest: it is a very important question. the short answer is, there is no way politics does not play a role in these investigations. they always do. to some degree, in fact to a considerable degree, these investigations are self policing. that is to say, it is up to the members of the committee and the members of the leadership team

to have a high regard for the traditions, the norms, the appropriateness, the gravity of a congressional investigation to keep things in check. for example, it used to be the time during the mccarthy era that people were required to take the fifth amendment publicly. now, it is understood you do not do that. you allow people to assert their fifth amendment rights in a much more private setting, out of respect for people's reputations. there are a lot of examples where members of congress need to remember the power they have to damage people's reputations, to impose costs of various kinds , and approach these investigations in a solemn way. i happen to think this committee succeeded in that. host: from arkansas, republican

line. this is john. hello? one more time for john and arkansas -- in arkansas, hello? let us go to ralph and washington, d.c., independent line. caller: i am independent because i think both parties are full of it. but what i have seen recently really scares me. the information that came out of twitter about the fbi coordinating with twitter to sue press -- suppress news about the hunter biden laptop, to remove people against biden. since when does the federal authority and homeland security start getting involved, and what information is available? that is socialism, communism, fascism. that scares me a lot more than

trump's big mouth and biden. someone needs to talk about this, this is a very dangerous area we are going into. host: that is ralph in d.c. as far as the january 6 committee, i know it is early to talk about, but what do you think the legacy is and the imprint it will have on future similar investigations? guest: i think it has conducted itself and performed in a historic way. there were many people who either believed it would flop, or some cases hoped it would flop. that, i think, did not prove to be the case. i think, to a lot of people surprise, americans did follow what went on. 20 and million people watched at least one hearing, that does not count people who are hearing

about it a tertiary way. you can make a case that midterms were affected by peoples appreciation if there was a threat to democracy, they were saying the threat to democracy was a nonissue, would be a nonissue in the it looks as low that was not the case, that people did care more than they told pollsters. they will be remembered as a body that produced a sweeping quantum of evidence of wrongdoing and of jeopardizing the democracy that we all cherish. i know there will be people who will decry it, but it will really serve as a very important historical marker for how close america came to losing democracy

and the fact that we are not out of the woods yet. host: let's squeeze in one more call, tim in arkansas, independent line. we are running short on time, so go ahead. caller: your entire premise of the congressional was a presentation for her by a hollywood producer. none of this is based in fact. nancy pelosi should have been the first one to testify. the doj and fbi spied on republicans, spied on america's mayor, rudy giuliani, suppressed evidence. this whole thing has been a coup from the obama administration and the deep state, continued into buying -- into biden. with all this instruction come here we are putting it out in front of the time they are going

to pass another omnibus bill, trillions of dollars of thievery. host: have to leave it there. i apologize for that. guest: i am not quite sure i see it same way as the caller. the speaker tried to have this 9/11 commission and the fact that it didn't happen that way was not her fault. i think she conducted herself in a way that will land her a place in history. host: jeffrey robinson, former senate minority chief counsel and attorney for the district of maryland -- of massachusetts. thanks for your time. happy holidays to you. guest: same to you. we now take you live to the united kingdom where british prime minister rishi sunak will talk about