watched it on television. despite pleas from his senior advisors, from lawmakers on the hill, and from his own children, president trump would not issue a public statement, instructing his supporters to disperse and leave the capitol. mr. trump's failure spanned the period from 1:10:0ten to over 4. as we have established through months of investigation, that is because the mob wanted what president trump wanted, to impede the peaceful transition of power. these are the select committee's findings about president trump's dereliction of duty. from the outset of the violence

and for several hours that followed people at the capitol, people inside president trump's administration, elected officials of both parties, members of president trump's own family, even fox news commentators were sympathetic to president trump, all tried to contact the white house to urge him to do one singular thing, the one thing that all of these people immediately understood was required, instruct his supporters to leave the capitol. the president repeatedly refused pleas as he watched from the capitol on television. during the day he never spoke with national guard, department of defense, department of justice or any law enforcement agency. at no point during the day or any other did he issue any order to deploy any law enforcement agency to assist. multiple witnesses, including president trump's white house counsel, testified to these facts. your white house employees had

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

capitol. it's 6:01:, his last tweet of te day. did not condemn the violence, instead attempted to justify it. these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away. remember this day forever. no doubt that president trump thought the actions were justified. in the days after january 6th, he spoke to several different advisors, and in those conversations he minimized the seriousness of the attack. here is new testimony from another one of president trump's senior advisors, kellyanne conway. >> you said you talked to the president the next day. tell us about the conversation, on the 7th. >> i don't think it was very long, i just said it was a terrible day, i'm working on a long statement, i said it's crazy.

>> what did he say? >> no, these people are upset, they are very upset. >> the days following the attack, president trump also expressed a desire to pardon those involved in the attack. he said he will do so if he returns to the oval office. in summary, president trump lit the flame, poured gasoline on the fire and sat by in the white house dining room for hours watching the fire burn, and today he still continues to fan the flame. that was his extreme dereliction of duty. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin for opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your extraordinary leadership of this committee. generations to come will praise you and the vice chair for your

unswerving devotion to the rule of law. several months ago you tasked several of our members in the subcommittee with bringing recommendations to the full committee about potential referrals to the department of justice and other authorities based on evidence of criminal and civil offenses that has come to our attention over the course of our investigation. we are now prepared to share today. relevant background considerations to our criminal referrals. the dangerous assault on american constitutional democracy that took place on january 6, 2021, consists of hundreds of individual criminal offenses. most such crimes are already being prosecuted by the department of justice. we propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of the specific offense, severity of actual harm and the centrality of the offender to the scheme to overthrow the

election compel us to speak. ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the master minds and ring leaders get a free pass. mr. chairman, as you know, our committee had the opportunity last spring to present much of our evidence to a federal judge. something that distinguishes our investigation from any other congressional investigation i can recall. in the context of resolving issues related to the crime fraud doctrine in the eastman case, u.s. district court judge david carter examined just a small subset of our evidence to determine whether it's showed the likely commission of a federal offense. the judge concluded that both former president donald trump and john eastman likely violated two federal criminal statutes. this is the starting point for our analysis today. the first criminal statute we

invoke for referral, therefore, is title 18, section 1512c, makes it unlawful for anyone to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding of the united states government. we believe that the evidence described by my colleagues today and assembled throughout our hearings warrants a criminal referral of former president donald j. trump, john eastman, and others for violations of this statute. the whole purpose and obvious affect of trump's scheme were to obstruct, influence and impede 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 trump, john eastman and others, for violating 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. former president trump did not engage in a plan to defraud the united states acting alone. he entered into agreements, formal and informal, with several other individuals who assisted him with his criminal objectives. our report describes in detail the actions of numerous co-conspirators who agreed with and participated in trump's plan to impair, obstruct and defeat the certification of president biden's electoral victory. that said, the subcommittee does

not attempt to determine all of the potential participants in this conspiracy, as our understanding of the role of many individuals may be incomplete, even today, because they refuse 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 18 section 1,001, makes it unlawful to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the federal government. the evidence clearly suggests that president trump conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to congress and the national archives. we believe this evidence we set forth in our report is more than sufficient for a criminal referral of former president donald j. trump and others in connection with this offense. as before, we don't try to

determine all the participants in the conspiracy, many of whom refused to answer our questions while under oath. we trust that the department of justice will be able to form a more complete picture through its own investigation. the fourth and final statute we invoke for referral is title 18, section 2383, the statute applies to anyone who incites, assists or engages in insurrection against the united states of america and anyone who gives aid or comfort to an insurrection. it's a grave federal offense, anchored in the constitution itself, repeatedly opposes insurrections and domestic violence, and indeed uses participants in insurrection by officeholders as automatic grounds for disqualification from ever holding public office

again at the federal or state level. anyone who incites others to engage in rebelling, assist them in doing so, or gives aid and comfort to those engaged in insurrection is guilty of a federal crime. the committee believes that more than sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of former president trump for assisting or aiding and comforting those at the capitol who engaged in a violent attack on the united states. the committee has developed significant evidence that president trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transfer -- transition of power under our constitution. the president has an affirmative and primary constitutional duty to act to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, nothing could be a greater betrayal of this duty than to assist in insurrection against the constitutional order. the complete factual basis for

this referral is set forth in detail throughout our report. these are not the only statutes that are potentially relevant to president trump's conduct related to the 2020 election. depending on evidence developed by the department of justice, the president's actions could certainly trigger other criminal violations, nor are president trump and his immediate team the only people identified for referrals in our report as part of our investigation. we asked multiple members of congress to speak to us of issues critical to our understanding of this attack on the 2020 election, and our system of constitutional democracy. nonagreed to provide that essential information. as a result, we took the significant step of issuing them subpoenas based on the volume of information particular members possessed about one or more parts of president trump's plans to overturn the election. none of the subpoenaed members

complied. and we are now referring four members of congress for appropriate sanction by the house ethics committee for failure to comply with lawful subpoenas. mr. chairman, we understand the gravity of each and every referral we are making today, just as we understand the magnitude of the crime against democracy that we describe in our report. but we have gone where the facts and the law lead us, and they lead us here. in light of these facts, i ask unanimous consent the chairman be directed to transmit to the united states department of justice relevant select committee records in furtherance of these criminal referrals. >> without objection, so ordered. thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield back. >> gentleman yields back. pursuant to notice i now call up select committee's final report

pursuant to section 4a of house resolution 503. the clerk shall designate the report. >> final report of the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. >> without objection, the report will be considered read, and open to amendment at this point. i now recognize the gentlewoman from virginia. for a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee favorably report to the house the select committee's final report, which includes the committee's legislative recommendations and criminal referrals of donald j. trump and others, pursuant to section 4a of house resolution 503. >> the question is on the motion to favorably report to the house those in favor say aye, those opposed no? and the opinion of the chair,

the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, i record a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote taken] >> mr. sciff? aye. mr. aguilar? aye. mrs. murphy? aye. mr. raskin? aye. mrs. lauria? aye. mr. kinzinger aye. mr. chairman, you are now recorded. chair votes aye. >> mr. chairman, aye. >> clerk will report the vote. >> mr. chairman, on this vote,

there are nine aye, and 0 no. >> the motion is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, staff is authorized to make any necessary technical or conforming changes to the report to reflect that actions of the committee. the chair requests those in the hearing room remain seated until the capitol police have escorted members from the room. there being no further business, without objection, the select committee stands adjourned. >> john: and there you have it, the final meeting of the january 6th committee, at least in public for criminal referrals of donald trump to the department of justice, conspiracy to defraud the united states, false statement and for inciting, assisting or aiding or

comforting an insurrection. the big question now, sandra, is, what does the department of justice do about this? does it initiate a criminal prosecution of the president? does it leave it hanging over his head during the entire campaign, or does it come out and say we are not going to pursue? >> sandra: let's ask our legal panel and anchor of the story, martha, and jonathan turley and can you weigh in on what this means? obviously from this day forward the threat of the president, the former president being legally blocked from holding office, this could hang over his candidacy unless the doj makes it very clear where they stand on this referral. >> well, that's always the risk of a referral. first of all, obviously has no binding effect, but the risk is the department of justice could just reject this, and really contradict the claims of many that the criminal conduct here

is obvious. it's not obvious. that this committee again promised that there would be new evidence being displayed today. there was a couple videos that we had not seen before, but there was no direct new evidence of criminal act by the former president. not to say his conduct was not reckless or reprehensible, but it's not a criminal act, and basically a rehashing of what we have seen in virtually every one of these hearings. and they simply attached these referrals to it. so the department of justice could reject the referral and take it nowhere, and also take it to trial and look for a favorable jury in places like d.c. the problem is i don't think these convictions on this evidence would likely be -- would likely withstand judicial scrutiny. the biggest problem are those counts that turn on the president's speech. that speech in my view was protected under existing supreme

court cases like branbenburg. it would not meet the standard the supreme court has set out for the criminalization of speech, that's my view. but even if they were to eek out a conviction, they would have a pretty hard time on appeal. >> john: so martha, what do you think is the bigger impact here? potential legal impact of this final meeting of the january 6th committee and all the work that it has done in public, and behind the scenes up until now, or is it political impact, and how long could it last because between the election, between the last january 6th public hearing, the election and now, it really had kind of faded from view, obviously because of the criminal referrals in the final public meeting, back in the public eye for some time. but it did not seem to have a lot of staying power. >> you know, john, their ability to affect anything at this point is political, as far as congress is concerned.

the legal side of this question is well underway at the department of justice and you've had people, including bill barr say he would not be surprised to see indictment based on the work that is now underway by the special counsel, jack smith. and his purview is mar-a-lago documents and january 6th. feels it's a political exercise to an extent, obviously they were put out as a commission to come forward with a report, that report is final, the whole thing will come out on wednesday, so that will be part of the public record. and all of this has to happen now because republicans are about to take over the house that will lead to the disbanding of this commission and the work will be done and the doj will have their work to continue. it's hard to say how much january 6th impacted the midterm elections. we know abortion was a bigger

factor than most people on the republican side thought it was going to be. how much voters care about these issues at this point. the only way you can see any expression of that, perhaps, john, is in the candidates that were sort of selected and supported by president trump. did they -- were they hurt in any way because of the connection to this, and that is one thread that might show the political implications to this, when it comes to voting, the say on this whole matter. >> sandra: andy, your general reaction to what we just heard. >> well, you know, again, i think not only is the justice department, jonathan mentioned this is not binding, and you know, the justice department could reject it. my sense is the justice department will ignore it, what the justice department generally does when congress grand stands in this fashion. i would just point out the last referral that they made was about incitement and incitement

of the violence at the capitol. the justice department has prosecuted upwards of 800 people on -- in connection with the capitol riot. insurrection is a federal crime. they have not brought a single insurrection case against anybody prosecuted. they have taken the position in the most serious cases in connection with seditious conspiracy that trump was not an unindicted co-conspiracy and they tried to blame trump in those cases, the justice department took the position that he was basically a pretext for the things the militia type groups were planning to do anyway. so the justice department, in order to prosecute trump at this point for inciting or aiding and abetting the incitement of the capitol riot, they would have to completely unwind and reverse the position that they have taken for about two years on

these cases. and the other thing about that, the committee knows that, and yet they don't -- they have not addressed it, they don't address it. in connection with trump's speech, he took pains in the speech to say that you know, he wanted them to march peacefully. the fact that the committee doesn't broadcast that he said that doesn't make that go away. so again, this is a theatrical exercise more than a hearing process. >> sandra: jonathan, i was following along with you, you were tweeting while the meeting was happening and you focused in and said it was notable that cheney began the entire discussion of evidence by focusing on trump's delay in calling supporters to leave the hill. and you say that focus on inaction versus action is not going to work in their favor. here was cheney, cheney's opening statement, part of it. >> among the most shameful of

this committee's findings was that president trump sat in the dining room off the oval office watching the violent riot at the capitol on television. for hours he would not issue a public statement instructing his supporters to disperse and leave the capitol despite urgent pleas from his white house staff and dozens of others to do so. >> sandra: so you say this is evidence of inaction, not action, criminal charges require prove of intent and other elements and you did not see that today. jonathan. >> as a criminal defense attorney i was really struck at how weak this was. you know, they keep on referring to things that might have occurred, appointments that might have been made, letters may have been sent but were not. that's not a compelling case for a criminal prosecution. many of us were looking to see if they had anything new that was actually direct.

i mean, you've got to keep in mind that within a few weeks the alleged victim in this case, the house of representatives, representing the people, of course, is going to change. the new house will come in and either try to rescind or renounce this referral, puts the department of justice in a curious position. i do think that andy is right, that the department will do what it will do regardless of this referral. what we have always said on this network and some of us have emphasized is that the more serious threat is coming from mar-a-lago, not january 6th. actors very -- refusing to leave the stage. each time they say we will have new powerful evidence and then

they repeat it. you need more than that for prosecution, you need more than mere reputation. >> john: i want to direct this to martha and pull up call for number two, benny thompson. we talk about whether or not the justice department is going to give an indication of whether or not it will pursue this, we would be wise to keep in mind what benny thompson said here and cut to. >> never had a president of the united states stir up a violent attempt to block the transfer of power. i believe nearly two years later this is still a time of reflection and reckoning. if we are to survive as a nation of laws and democracy, this can never happen again. >> john: martha, i think you could interpret what he didn't say there as being as long as donald trump is a candidate for president of the united states, that threat is still out there. so, what do you think the department of justice would do

here? might it actually take up this criminal referral, might it leave this hanging over donald trump's head to say if he gets near the presidency maybe we'll pull the trigger on it again, how do you read all this? >> obviously the department of justice has been, and the fbi have been sort of swept into these broad accusations that they act politically at times, and the choices that they make about prosecution. so, this is going to be a very sensitive topic for them, and i think in many ways they would be best to sort of ignore, even to say, you know, we thank you for your referral, and we appreciate your right to make a referral, congress, but we are keeping that separate from the investigation which we have had going on for quite some time, and that's why we have a special counsel now who is the effort being to kind of keep this at a political arm's length from them. a lot of suggestions whether or not this individual, jack smith, will be completely apolitical,

we have not seen his work yet and hope he will take it in a straightforward one. one of the things congress can do is the electoral count act and that's one area they might be wise to put their focus and talking about making it a rider in the final budget bill before the end of the week to try to clarify some of these things. that is the point made by liz cheney and thompson, the figures time in the history of the country we have seen a president try to halt the process of moving from the president in office to the president that was elected, and that's something congress can do if they get their heads together on it. >> sandra: we are getting some reaction from some lawmakers in the ethics referral, jim jordan, saying it's another partisan and political stunt made by a select committee that knowingly altered evidence, blocked minority

representation on the committee the first time on the house of representatives and failed to respond to mr. jordan's numerous letters and concerns surrounding the politization and legitimacy of the committee's work. your response, jonathan turley. >> well, i think that that's sort of baked in, right. this -- the needle has not moved despite this focus of the j-six committee, the highly produced videos, the repetition, the reading from these prompters, the producer they brought in. it really is singing to the choir, and so you are not going to have much of a change here on how people view this. polls have indicated that the public views this as a riot, as an insurrection, but does not mean they don't condemn the people responsible, including president trump. that many people feel act the recklessly and many of us criticized the trump speech while it was being given. but this is a question whether

that constitutes a crime and what we saw today does not create that basis. now, whether jack smith will have some new evidence we'll have to see. but if i were defense counsel for president trump, my eyes would still remain fixed on mar-a-lago. i don't see this as much of a threat of something that could be actually defended at trial or on appeal. >> john: jonathan, andy, martha, stand by. a quick break on the other side. would a democratic white house really seek to prevent a former republican president from seeking public office ever again. we'll be right back. as an independent financial advisor, i stand by these promises: i promise to be a careful steward of the things that matter to you most. i promise to bring you advice that fits your values. i promise our relationship will be one of trust and transparency. as a fiduciary,

i promise to put your interests first, always. charles schwab is proud to support the independent financial advisors who are passionately dedicated to helping people achieve their financial goals. visit findyourindependentadvisor.com trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high, you know how i feel. ♪ ♪ breeze driftin' on... ♪ [coughing] ♪ ...by, you know how i feel. ♪ if you're tired of staring down your copd,... ♪ it's a new dawn, ♪ ♪ it's a new day... ♪ ...stop settling. ♪ ...and i'm feelin' good. ♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis.

call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy, and save at trelegy.com - "best thing i've ever done." that's what freddie told me. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage, but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home, and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you?

- [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen.

>> for 187 minutes he actively disregarded his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

as we have established through months of investigation, that is because the mob wanted what president trump wanted, to impede the peaceful transition of power. >> sandra: all right, it all happened a few moments ago as we were watching live on capitol hill, the january 6th committee culminating an 18-month probe, voted to prefer the former president for criminal charges. chad pergram is with us now. chad, you set this up for us. what can you assess we just heard and where it all goes next? >> they had to get this report in before the end of this congress. republicans take control of the house of representatives in january and so this was all going to go away. we'll get the final report on wednesday. this is unprecedented to refer a former president to the department of justice on criminal charges. the department of justice does not have to take this up. we often talk about congress and often flexes its muscles and

says we are going to send criminal, and steve bannon has been prosecuted and convicted, and another with peter navarro, and more interesting from a congressional standpoint, referrals to the ethics committee. kevin mccarthy, jim jordan, and perry, and they say the committee failed to respond to his concerns about the legitimacy of the committee. the reason that's intriguing, the ethics committee can start next year, it's a bipartisan committee, under republican control, and to see what they did. republicans next year have said we are going to call on anthony fauci, call in alejandro mayorkas, we want them to comply with subpoenas and these members, including mccarthy and jim jordan, central to the investigations, never complied with those subpoenas. and you have even some republican members of congress,

nancy mace, indicated at one point she thought republicans were basically talking out of both sides of their mouth, not complying with those subpoenas yet saying we are going to subpoena everybody from the biden administration next year. this report will be out later next year. the house of representatives is coming back into session later this week, the senate will be in session, a lot of reaction here on capitol hill. but a lot of this was thing, we new they were going to sends down the referrals on former president trump and the most significant thing here, something that liz cheney, the outgoing congresswoman from wyoming has said consistently this was all about trying to keep former president trump out of the white house. now, what is different from when the committee last convened a formal hearing is that mr. trump announced he is running for president again in 2024. so what the committee is trying to do here is build this mountain of evidence, be it in a court of law, here in congress, or perhaps more importantly, the

court of public opinion to say president trump is unfit for action, or as one put it lack of action on 1-6 to quell the riot nearly two years a. >> john: chad, as you suggested, momentum will change as of january 3rd when the republicans take over the gavel and the chairmanship of the committees and they start investigating hunter biden, they'll investigate i'm sure the fbi's involvement with twitter, origins of covid, and many other issues that they believe are important to get to the bottom of. at the same time, special counsel jack smith will quietly do his work-related to january 6th and the documents housed at mar-a-lago. it's expected that this referral will be given to him. and when you get into the realm of a special counsel, things can go in ways you don't expect them to. and while the doj at large, if it were to be looking into this,

may say lock, investigating a former president or launching a prosecution of a former president with this unprecedented, as you pointed out, referral, might not be exactly palatable to the doj. you get to a special counsel, it could go in a different direction. >> yes, things change all the time. probably the biggest example of that was back in the 1990s. i remember in early 1994, they impanelled a special counsel for president clinton's deal in missouri, and then transferred into the monica lewinski investigation, and impeachment of the president of the united states on the house floor exactly 24 years ago today. two articles of impeachment were approved by the house. four total, just two, but that's how long and that's how far that investigation went when you are dealing with a special counsel. >> sandra: all right, chad

pergram on the hill for us. chad, thank you very much. we will check back in with you soon. thank you. >> john: let's bring back martha maccallum, one more appears before she returns for her show begins at the top of the hour. what do you think of that front, what chad said, the whitewater investigation going in so many different directions, it was a different special counsel statute back then, and the special counsel could go down any rabbit hole he wanted to. do you think jack smith may be inclined to take a look at this? >> you know, it's interesting. it obviously was a move by the attorney general, merrick garland to push it out of his purview, but it gives them a little distance from it and clearly, you know, the former

president declared his desire to run again. so this is a very, verying tangled web, and unprecedented nature, congress has never made a criminal referral for a president of the united states and think to yourself, pretty much everything is unprecedented since donald trump came to town, right? so, we'll see where this goes and how forceful that special counsel is in the middle of what will soon become a president election season, but i think the gloves are off here and i would not be surprised we see it expand in ways you don't anticipate. >> sandra: we have seen a lot of mike pence recently, certainly been out there. he weighed in this morning on this network saying the doj should not bring charges after the hearings conclude. >> let me be very clear about this point. congress has no formal role in

justice department decisions, they can make recommendations today. but when it comes to the justice department decision about bringing charges in the future, i would hope they would not bring charges against the former president. >> sandra: and in the interview, martha, and has done so before, what he took issue with was the make-up of the committee and the partisan nature of the committee deployed to oversee this the last 18 months. >> it's interesting watching mike pence in the wake of january 6th because he's been very clear about what he felt was his duty to continue to oversee that election process that led to joe biden becoming president. at the same time, i think he perhaps is playing the role of trying to move the country forward here past it, i mean, kind of reminds me of the watergate era and when gerald

ford came in and pardoned the former president, it's different, but there is an effort for the former vice president to try to heal and move things forward. whether or not he's successful, we'll see. >> john: benny thompson appears to think the justice department will charge president trump. he has said so. there are many other people, martha, i would think that would believe that for a democratic-run department of justice to prevent a former republican president from trying to run for a second term would really be political dynamite and something that president trump could exploit all the while he is running for president again. i'm on his truth social, he has not talked about this just yet. but just speak to that quick before we leave you. a democratic white house -- democratic white house preventing a former republican president from running for office.

>> think about the quote of the hunter biden investigation, one says we don't want to be involved in another election, it could have the opposite impact for the former president, to fire up his supporters which are in the range of, you know, 35, 37, 36%, somewhere, depending which poll you look at on republican voters and that could have the opposite effect of what the doj or benny thompson would like to see here. >> sandra: martha maccallum, we will see you on "the story" at 3:00. and our coverage of this continues, we are going to take a quick break. we'll be right back. listening to see if there is any reaction from the white house. we'll bring that to you on the other side. a quick break.

(singing )i'll be home for christmas.

you can plan on me. please have snow and mistletoe. and presents on the tree. right now all over the country kids at shriners hospitals for children are able to go home and be with their families for the holidays. and that's only possible because of the monthly donations from people like you. thanks to a generous donor every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. with your gift of just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as a thank you. and a reminder of the care you'll be providing so kids can be with their families. (singing) christmas eve will find me.

where the love light gleams. it only takes a moment to call the number on your screen. or you can visit loveshriners.org. thanks to a generous donor your gift will go twice as far and help more kids like me. because every child just wants to be home for the holidays, and your gift makes that possible. your call is the best gift of all. your gift will be my favorite christmas present this year. thank you for giving. please call the number on your screen or go to loveshriners.org to give whatever you can. and when you do, your gift will have two times the impact. if you run a small business,

you need the most from every investment. that's why comcast business gives you more. more innovation... with our new gig-speed wi-fi, plus unlimited data. more speed... from the largest, fastest, reliable network... and more savings- up to 60% a year on comcast business mobile. all from the company that powers more businesses than any other provider. get started with fast speeds and advanced security for $69.99 a month for 12 months. plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

>> many state officials were targeted by president trump and his campaign. the local election workers he accused baselessly of election fraud, the state officials he pressured to stop the count or find votes that didn't exist and the state legislative officials he urged to disregard the popular will of the voters and the oath of office in order to name him the winner instead.

>> john: adam schiff, a member of the january 6th committee who does believe and said in previous statements that president trump likely violated the law there, which is why unanimously that january 6th committee comprised of seven republicans, sorry, seven democrats and two hand-picked republicans by nancy pelosi has voted to refer the criminal referrals to the department of justice. andy, your take on this, it's going to take a second to set that up. one states rebellion insurrection, against the authority of the united states or the laws thereof and gives aid or comfort hereto shall be fined under the title, ten years in prison, or both, and incapable of an office in the

you state. if the department of justice took it up and sought to prosecute former president donald trump, that would be a democratically run department of justice seeking to prevent a former president who was a republican from ever seeking public office again. that seems on the surface to be very fraught politically. >> it's tremendously fraught politically, and i don't think there's any indication, john, that the justice department even if they were to make their own decision, it will not be influenced by what happened with this committee, their own decision. even if they made their own decision, say, to indict trump for obstructing congress, they are not going to invoke that statute to try to disqualify him. there would be a profound constitutional issue because the 14th amendment lays out the office holders who could be disqualified under the

insurrection provision, so it could be argued the statute changes the terms of the constitution, a substitute can't do. academic question. justice department has prosecuted upwards of 800 people, people who actually committed violence at the capitol and have not charged a single person with insurrection. so they have taken the position in these cases that trump was basically the pretext for violence that people were going to commit anyway. they would have to completely reverse the position they have taken in court again and again and again at this point to go after trump on that theory. >> sandra: as i mentioned before we took the commercial break, the white house was conducting the daily briefing, and here karine jean-pierre. >> january 6th the worst attack on democracy since the civil war

and the president is verier cloo. our democracy continues and remains under threat and we all have a part to protect it. the committee has been doing important bipartisan work to get to the truth of what happened on that very day. so we can -- we can make sure that that doesn't happen again. so, i'll leave it there. >> sandra: almost out of time, jonathan. quick response to that. >> well, the reference earlier to disqualification is really the nuclear option. i share andy's response on that, section 3 of the 14th amendment. i don't think this is the type of situation that was meant to address which was an actual rebellion in the civil war with hundreds of thousands of deaths. i think it would be a hard case to make. >> sandra: i ask for a quick answer, you delivered. >> john: jonathan turley, andy mccarthy, good to have you on to digest this. we'll take a quick break. we'll be right back.

oh man. always look for the grown in idaho seal. my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. ray's a1c is down with rybelsus®. i'm down with rybelsus®. my a1c is down with rybelsus®. in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. in the same study, people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration,

which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. are you a veteran, own a home, and need cash? you need to know about the va cash out loan from newday usa. it's called the newday 100 because it lets veterans borrow up to 100% of their home's value. not just 80% like some typical loans. that extra cash can make a huge difference in these times of skyrocketing prices. here's more good news: home values have skyrocketed too. that means even more cash! take out an average of $60,000 to pay down your high-rate credit card debt, consolidate your second mortgage, personal loans, and car loans, and lower your payments by $600 every month. best of all, there are absolutely no upfront out-of-pocket costs with this loan. and even if you have credit concerns, give us a call. the va has granted newday automatic authority to make our own approval decisions. when lenders say no to a veteran, newday can say yes.

i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan

available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

>> sandra: that does it for us. a big monday show to start off a holiday week. >> john: that does it for the january 6th committee for all intents and purposes. republicans will take over in two weeks time. so we'll see what happens with the criminal referral. >> martha: i still can't believe it's december 19. blows my mind. how fast we got here. >> john: christmas is sunday. >> sandra: it's coming. thanks. i'm sandra smith. >> john: i'm john roberts. "the story" starts right now. >> martha: the end of title 42 is two days away. let's to jacqui heinrich at the white house right now. >> we are in constant communication with the mayor of el paso and look, i talked and the venezuelan enforcement initiative that helped drop the migration, which as you know, an init