lae for fast sinus relief. ♪♪ we're about an hour away from a pivotal vote in the house as the january 6th committee presses forward with its investigation into the attack on the capitol. the full house is set to vote on whether to hold trump loyalist steve bannon in contempt of congress for refusing to cooperate with the committee. the yes vote will send the matter to the u.s. attorney who could pursue criminal charges against bannon. the vote is expected to fall mostly along party lines, with republicans being urged by leadership to vote no. we've been watching a lively debate unfold on the house floor. >> getting to the truth of what happened or placating the ego of a former president, that shouldn't be a tough call. >> get another partisan

investigation of questionable motives and purpose. >> we're setting a dangerous precedent that will have a chilling effect on the rights of private citizens in the future. >> if you can't take the constitution, go to russia. >> protect america and protect democracy. >> this is a time for courage. >> take back your party. you can start by holding steve bannon accountable. good afternoon. i'm garrett haake in washington in for hallie jackson. and our nbc news team is here as well. ally voir dire tally is on capitol hill. we're joined by barbara mcwade, u.s. legal analyst and attorney. and jake founder, msnbc political contributor. ally, i'll start with you. i caught up with republican adam kinzinger, he's on that january 6th committee, and i asked him what's at stake with the contempt vote. he said it's not just about

steve bannon. it's about showing congress can follow through and do its job. walk me through what we expect to see with this contempt vote later this afternoon. >> what kenz ger said there is the same thing his fellow republican liz cheney has said throughout this process really trying to speak to republicans and her fellow conservatives appealing to her better angels and trying to unlink the hold that former president donald trump still has over the bulk of his party. while we do expect to see, in kinzinger's words, that a handful of republicans may join the vote and send it over to doj, that's not even a small part of the republican party. the majority still stands in the former president's corner as he continues to tell the big lie about the 2020 election, which of course fed into the events here on january 6th. what we do expect, though, you said this vote could come in about an hour. that's an optimistic timeline. what we're watching to see here

is after they end this debate period, whether or not there are any procedural delays made by republicans. you mentioned they are being whipped to vote no on this. what we do expect to see is that after 4:00 p.m. or whenever those procedural tactics end up finishing, we're going to see that vote happen. if the house votes yes, as we expect them to, we're going to see speaker pelosi refer the matter to doj and doj will be forced to consider the criminal contempt charge. the larger picture here though, garrett, is something that kinzinger and cheney and others have repeated over the last few weeks and months as they've undertaken this invs. interrogation. yes, this is about enforcing congress's ability to have oversight and their ability to subpoena and get the information they need. but it's also about the broader precedent they're trying to set, taking back that control after years in the trump administration where allies of the former president and even the president himself sort of trampled all over attempts from congress to have oversight of

what they were doing at various points in the administration. this is an attempt now by referring it over to doj at trying to compel people to testify in front of congress when they are asked to do so. it's an important precedent to set not just in this small scenario but in the larger scope of washington and the precedents that are set between congress and the white house. >> and pete, democrats are hoping that this justice department led by attorney general merrick garland, who was on the hill earlier today, will be more inclined to work with them on pushing forward with this contempt, making it a criminal case here. here's what merrick garland had to say when he was asked about this by the judiciary committee earlier today. >> the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge, the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances. we'll apply the facts in the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution.

>> so, pete, how will they make that decision? because as you've been reporting, it's not exactly straightforward. >> no, it's not. i think there are factors to weigh on both sides. on the one hand the committee has a clearly demonstrable need for this. the administration has endorsed that need, saying this was the worst attack on the u.s. since the civil war. the president's claim of executive privilege here is relatively weak because biden has said it should be waived for documents and testimony, specifically on steve bannon as well. this executive privilege anyway applies only to official comp communications. and that presumably what the committee wants to know about was not the president's official business. those are reasons weighing in favor of prosecution. on the other hand there is still some validity to the former president's claim of executive privilege. we just don't know how much. but it's something. he could say -- bannon could say he was relying on the advice of

his lawyer. and at least some federal courts have said that's a complete defense to a charge of contempt. executive privilege is not limited to white house officials. bannon wasn't in the white house. people point this out a lot. but the justice department in a 2007 office of legal counsel opinion said the whole point is for presidents to get candid advice from anybody, so it's not limited to just white house officials. although it's clearly strongest for people around the president's official advisers. and there's the other fact that the justice department has never before prosecuted a case of contempt of congress when someone has asserted executive privilege. to be clear most of those assertions in the past, if not all of them, have been from people in the government. this is somebody outside the government, doubly so, mr. trump and mr. bannon. but it would be setting something of a precedent. and, you know, the justice department always is worried about well what if the tables are turned here and things are going the other way? do we want to buy in future justice departments on this sort of thing.

so, those are all the sort of things they have to take into account. >> barbara, can you pick up on that point there? how would a prosecutor view that question of precedent as they're trying to decide whether or not to move forward? >> i think pete is right to show those as the pros and cons of going forward here. the principles of prosecution, which merrick garland preferred to earlier, say that prosecutors should analyze any legal question this way. is there probable cause a crime has been committed. is it probable a crime was committed to sustain a conviction. i think you have a clear case of a willful violation of a subpoena. i think that question is answered. the harder question, i think, is whether prosecution would advance a federal interest. that is the one that is discretionary where you have to weigh not only can we bring this but should we bring this. one of the things the justice department tries hard to do is avoid being perceived as a political actor, instead being

seen as a mutual arbiter, somebody who weighs cases on fact and law. in this instance where congress is seeking to defend its ability and its institutional power to compel witnesses, i think there's argument in favor of interest. steve bannon has refused even to appear. if he believes he has executive privilege claim, he needs to assert it on a question-by-question basis, not simply defy the subpoena. >> and certainly the committee's argument they need to show their subpoenas are worth more than the paper they're printed on if congress is going to be able to do its oversight job. jake sherman, i asked speaker pelosi why she thought it was important to get republicans to vote to hold steve bannon in contempt. here's what she told me. >> this goes beyond bannon in terms of its importance. and you would think that if they take an oath to protect and

defend the constitution, they would vote for the system of checks and balances. >> nobody's more wired with house republicans than you are, jake. how much will that argument be ringing in their ears compared to kevin mccarthy simply telling them to vote no? >> i would say not only will it not be ringing in their ears, garrett. they won't hear it. they won't care. this means less than nothing to them. i just want to add one point here. i think the mistake that bannon is making here and the reason this is happening is that his lawyer is not engaging with this committee at all. you see kash patel and mark meadows, their lawyers are in contact with the committee and that's why they're not being held in contempt. this is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy for someone like bannon. republicans are going to stick together. mccarthy has said this subpoena is not valid. it does not have a valid

legislative purpose, which is why -- maybe pete can speak more to this -- but does not have a valid legislative purpose, thus does not need to be followed. i don't have any sense there's any validity to that. i don't really -- i understand what he's trying to get at, that bannon's testimony itself will not result in any legislation. i guess that's what he's saying. by logical extension, garrett, hillary clinton's testimony in the benghazi case, did that have legislative import? i don't know how you would make that argument. and i -- as you know, i pressed mccarthy on this today, and he didn't really -- he didn't really have much to say. so, i'm not sure what their argument actually is here. >> i don't know if you've noticed ally and jake, i think we've heard people talk about this lately. you've started to hear lawmakers say we're going after not just to get to bottom of what happened january 6th but so that we can pass laws to potentially prevent something like that from

happening again. liz cheney just said that in her floor remarks. they are attaching legislative purpose to this investigation to try to counteract that argument. jake, i have one other question for you as someone who's been covering the hill. you heard barbara wade talking about precedence. isn't precedent the thinking among republican leadership here in how they're advising their members to vote on this? are they not at all concerned if and when the shoe's on the other foot, if they should take back the house next year that having congressional subpoenas not being worth very much could come back in their face when they're trying to engage in oversight over the biden administration? >> they should. they should care about this because much of their majority, much of their power and agenda in a republican majority with at least two years of a democratic president and perhaps democratic senate is going to be oversight. we know that because they're saying it already. many republicans are saying it already. we know that from history.

if you look back in 2010, subpoenas flying out the door almost as the first thing in his chairmanship in that majority. so, if you're somebody like hunter biden or somebody who is advising the president and you might get a subpoena, you're going to look at this and say, this is interesting. maybe i'm not going to follow a subpoena when i get one. i've heard that argument made by a lot of people on the democratic side of the aisle over the last couple of days. and i think that's something republicans -- although i'm not sure they care much about precedent. i think this is all a political exercise. but if they cared about precedent, absolutely that's something they should consider. >> we've got the chairman bennie thompson of the january 6th committee at the microphone now. let's listen in to the arguments from the floor. >> -- air force veteran and a lieutenant general in the air national guard. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. let me say first madam speaker

as a republican, don't let my side use the security posture as the straw man argument in this. the reality is that's the equivalent of blaming the victim of a crime for the crime. and while it is important, that's not what we're here to talk about today. madam speaker, voting on a criminal contempt resolution is not the position we hoped to be in, but steve bannon went out of his way to earn this resolution before us. and now we must approve it. mr. bannon's willful disregard for the select committee subpoena demonstrates his utter contempt for the american people's right to know how the attacks on january 6th came about. he has advanced a ludicrous legal argument in support of his decision not to cooperate or comply, a decision that defies the rule of law and rejects the will of the american people. mr. bannon's reported actions put him near the center of the investigation into the events surrounding january 6th. his own words strongly suggest

that the actions of the mob that stormed the capitol came as no surprise to him. he and a few others were by all accounts involved in planning that day's events and encouraged by those who attacked the capitol. our officers and our democracy. i have no doubt that mr. bannon's scorn for our subpoena is real. but no one -- and i repeat no one -- is above the law. and we need to hear from him. as the select committee's contempt report states, it was mr. bannon who on january 5th predicted with chilling accuracy, quote, all hell is going to break lose that day. on his radio show, he sated, quote, it's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. okay? it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. all i can say is strap in. you made this happen, and tomorrow, it's game day. so, strap in. let's get ready. and it was mr. bannon who was recorded as saying, quote, it's all converging, and now we're on

the point of attack tomorrow. mr. bannon said these things publicly as a private citizen, someone deeply involved with stop the steal movement, and he said them nearly three years after leaving his job at the white house. mr. bannon was also reportedly among the small group of trump confidants assembled at the willard hotel to discuss plans to stop or delay the january 6th count. is it any wonder that the select committee needs to hear from him, that we want to see related materials he has? furthermore, does anyone believe mr. bannon's actions are covered by executive privilege, one the former president has never made? madam speaker, as a key witness, he has yet to say or produce anything to the subpoena, and his assertion of executive privilege is farfetched and extreme and not his to make. i urge my colleagues to support me in the contempt resolution,

and i yield back. >> gentle lady from wyoming. >> i yield three minutes to mr. raskin. >> the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentle lady from wyoming and thank you, madam speaker. today donald trump said the insurrection took place on november 3rd. no, mr. trump, i'm sorry. that's what we call an election in america, an election that was validated by more than 60 federal and state courts, including before eight judges nominated to the bench by president trump himself and all the way up to the united states supreme court, all of them rejecting every claim of electoral fraud and corruption that was advanced. we know an insurrection when we see one in this body because we lived through one. under the banner of this continuing and deranged big lie, the stop the steal movement brought down a violent insurrection against this congress, an attempted coup

against vice president mike pence. they interrupted the counting of electoral counting votes for the first time in american history, caused the work attack on congress since the war of 1812, and injured and wounded more than 140 police officers. capitol officers, metropolitan police officers and others breaking their noses, breaking their necks, breaking their vertebrae, breaking their legs, breaking their hearts and their spirits. we are investigating the attack on american democracy because we are americans. we are investigating the attack on congress by domestic enemies of our constitution because we are sworn to do so by our oaths of office. but now the big lie has become a big cover-up. after being impeached twice by the house, after losing in 61 different courts, after seeing a 57-43 vote against him in the

u.s. senate in the most sweeping bipartisan senate presidential conviction vote in american history, trump now tries to get his followers like steve bannon not to testify here and not to turn over evidence that they have about this vicious assault on american democracy. in america when you are subpoenaed to testify in court or in congress, you show up. period. you can invoke your fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination to specific questions if you think you committed a crime. you can claim executive privilege to specific questions if you think you're president of the united states. but you cannot blow off a subpoena in america. you cannot sit on your couch and defy the people's representatives in congress. so, we must enforce the rule of law here, my colleagues. we must do it. if you act deliberately with sneering, cavalier contempt for the american people and their representatives, we will hold you in contempt.

we will get to the truth of the violent assault on america. i yield back. >> gentleman from indiana. >> you don't have to look far to realize the absurdity of what's happening in congress today. in fact, "politico" just reported moments ago that the capitol police whistleblower is telling us -- telling "politico" -- that they have not been contacted by the january 6th select committee. the capitol police whistleblower. he said that the united states capitol police deserves more scrutiny than its gotten so far and that he would talk to investigators if they reach out to him. and the select committee has not reached out to the capitol police whistleblower. yet here we are today focused on holding a private citizen in contempt, an unprecedented action by this sham committee and their sham investigation. with that, i yield to my colleague from florida, mr. gaetz. >> how much time? >> two minutes.

>> gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> why are we here on the floor of the house of representatives listening to the democrats and socialists and their republican puppets reviewing steve bannon's podcast? can't imagine that that would be the case if they had a bill, a reconciliation deal, legislation to help the american people. we're not here because of democracy. save me the alligator tears on that. these are the folks who assaulted our democracy for two years under the specter of the russia hoax. it's sure not about violence because they didn't seem to give a damn when our country was being engulfed in flames during the summer of 2020. it's not about congressional process. if it was about congressional process, democrats would be doing what they've done in other cases. they would go to court. but the reason they haven't gone to court, like they did for trump's taxes in the deutsche bank subpoenaed, in the may czar's manner or don mcgahn

matter is because each of those circumstances they did not per vail in court. so, invade of using the real process, here we are just enduring this politics. and because they can't build back better they've just decided to build back meaner. i yield back. >> gentleman from mississippi -- >> we've been listening to a spirited floor debate on the question of whether to hold former trump adviser steve bannon in contempt of congress. we'll keep an eye on the floor and bring any updates, especially if they come to a vote here as they're expected to do in the next hour. new reporting from both ends of pennsylvania avenue on how close or not democrats are to a deal on the president's multitrillion dollar agenda. but first why u.s. officials are concerned, even stunned, over china's expanding and increasingly aggressive military mite. we're live at the pentagon next. we're live at the pentagon next. .

oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! my zone... lowering my a1c, cv risk, and losing some weight... now, back to the game! ozempic® is proven to lower a1c. most people who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. and you may lose weight. adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. in adults also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. ozempic® helped me get back in my type 2 diabetes zone. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® 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. tell your provider about vision problems or changes.

taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

the united kingdom, once considered a global leader in the fight against the pandemic for its aggressive vaccination program is now room to one of the worst outbreaks in europe. the country eased lockdowns in july, even branding the 19th of that month freedom day despite rising cases. experts say the government must take action or face further

spikes in cases and deaths. boris johnson defending his government's reaction, saying they will stick to the approach. >> the numbers of infections are high, but we're within the parameters of what the predictions were, what the others said we would be at this stage given the steps that we've taken. so, we're sticking with our plan. >> the spike in cases across the pond has been raising some alarm in the states because covid trends and cases have often mirrors britons here in the united states. so, let's bring in nbc correspondent matt bradley, who's been following from london. uk lockdown for over a year, vaccinated over three-quarters of its population, but it's still facing this outbreak. what's driving the spike there and what does it mean for us on this side of the atlantic? >> reporter: the troubling thing that's driving the spike here, a lot of the reporting that's come

out at least in the local press is that it's children, people who are ages 12-15. they are being encouraged to get additional shots. that's one of the really troubling things. now, whether or not it means the same thing for the united states, that's almost impossible to tell, garrett. i've been covering this on the international level for as long as this has been going on, this pandemic. and it's so hard to make a control group and to compare countries because none of them are the same. but one of the things that we can say is that this is about learning from your mistakes. that's one of the things that doctors here who are in an almost state of open revolt against the government, they are saying that last year that the government had tried to push back, adding new restrictions. and in the end they had to impose even harsher restrictions in order to control the virus that was getting way out of control. and they say that if we're not learning our lessons now to make these restrictions in place now and to do it to get ahead of the curve, then we're going to pay

for it later on. and that's one of the things that a lot of countries throughout the world can certainly learn from. >> interesting stuff, matt. it makes me think about our segment yesterday about the plan being put in place to make sure we're able to get kids vaccinated as quickly as possible as those approvals go through. taking a look at the emerging military power that is china as part of our behind the wall series. a number of headlines have highlighted china's push to increase military power, from launching a suspected hypersonic mission to shows of intimidation to taiwan and threats over disputed waters around the region. kourtney, how are u.s. officials now reacting to this increasing aggression by the chinese military? >> garrett, one defense official i spoke with said it was stunning to see how fast the chinese military has been growing in the past cue years. you mentioned that hypersonic test, that was a hypersonic

glide. what was particularly concerning about this test back in august was how far it flew. so, here we're talking about something that could be married up with a missile and launched and would fly extremely fast, five times the speed of sound, fly lower and it's maneuverable while it's going. so, that is extremely difficult for the u.s. or any other nation to be able to intercept it or shoot it down to stop it from landing. that's the hypersonics. there's also been increasingly aggressive chinese military behavior towards taiwan. now, of course the chinese ultimate goal is what they call the reunification of china. that would mean taiwan would once again fall under mainland china. what's concerning u.s. and defense officials who i've spoken to just recently is that one of these -- some of the increasingly aggressive behavior, including nearly 150 military flights over a four-day

period, chinese fighter jets, bombers, military aircraft flying into taiwanese airspace. defense officials are saying that was not only an attempt to intimidate taiwan but may also have been an effort by the military to familiarize themselves with the routes. not just that. they've also seen that the chinese have been taking advantage of the recent united states -- what the u.s. has been going through in afghanistan. so, when the u.s. withdrew a very chaotic withdrawal from afghanistan, the chinese began messaging to the taiwanese saying the u.s. is who you're going to rely on to defend you. you better look at what they're doing in afghanistan. they're walking away from this ally and partner. increasingly aggressive behavior from the chinese military. defense officials are watching very closely and they are increasingly concerned. >> courtney kube at the pentagon. thank you. up next, why the white house is heading back to the drawing board today with a single

democrat blowing up their party's plans to pay for their agenda. spoiler alert, folks, it's not joe manchin. 's not joe manchin. ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪ if you smell gas, you're too close. leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.

one of the most important things you can do is to make sure you call 811 before you dig. calling 811 to get your lines marked: it's free, it's easy, we come out and mark your lines, we provide you the information so you will dig safely.

we are back in washington where we're going to rejoin the debate on the floor over the steve bannon contempt vote. let's listen to congresswoman liz cheney. >> -- the chariot of time. and she takes notes in her book, reminding all of us that our words and our actions will be judged by history. ist history particularly will judge those of us in positions of public trust for what we are doing today. in the immediate aftermath of the attack, madam speaker, we all recognized how profoundly wrong january 6th was. my colleague from ohio, mr. jordan, who just suggested that we were here because we opposed president trump's

policies, seems to have forgotten that actually on january 6th he himself said, quote, what happened today is wrong and is not what america is about. the next day mr. jordan said, what happened wednesday is a tragedy. everyone knows it's as wrong as wrong can be. and today, madam speaker, the former president suggested that the violence was justified. my colleagues in the republican party, the republican members of this body, have to understand, have to recognize, that there's a moment when politics must stop if we want to defend and protect our institutions. a violent assault on the capitol to stop a constitutional process of counting electoral votes is that moment. they all knew that on that day. in fact, the minority leader himself stood in this chamber and said, quote, the president bears responsibility for wednesday's attack on congress

by mob rioters. he should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. mr. mccarthy was right then. the president bears responsibility. we need to know what happened. this body must have the ability to understand what caused the attack, to understand who was responsible and to take legislative action to ensure that it never happens again. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this motion for contempt for mr. steve bannon. i urge them to do so because it is right. it is morally right. it is constitutionally right. and it is all of our duty. and with that, i yield back. >> republican liz cheney closing up debate here on the house's motion to begin -- to vote on contempt proceedings for steve bannon. we're getting very close to the end of this debate. we're going to hear the final vote here shortly. and when that happens, when we

get a result, we'll come back. but there's so much happening in washington, we have to talk about the other big story. democratic leadership vowing things are on track for a spending bill framework -- and we can debate what that means later this week. but behind the scenes new debate on unfolding portions of the plan. this includes debates on climate provision, with senator manchin's provisions central to those talks. then there's the child tax and the one year timetable. there's also prescription drug reform. and kyrsten sinema reportedly complicating that. we've got medicare expansion that might now be limited to funds for dental expenses, with dental and hearing possibly cut. and key to this is moving on to a plan of where the money comes from. it's a lot to cover. we've got a great team to do so. monica alba is at the white

house. along also "washington post" congressional policy reporter tony ra. he's also an msnbc contributor. and we've got jonathan cod who is a senior adviser to joe manchin and understands his mind better than anyone in d.c. the white house is running points on all this right now. what do they see as the biggest obstacle to wrapping up these talks right now? >> it's definitely a question of timing right now. that's something they are keenly aware of and worried about. for days and weeks they're saying they're not working on the artificial self-imposed deadline. but of course we know there's increasing pressure given the fact the president is supposed to be leaving from europe a week from today, not to mention heading to a major un climate summit where he hoped to tout progress on that particular part of the bill that is now in peril. or we just don't know how much money is ultimately going to be dedicated to that and whatever

the final legislation looks like. the white house will also tell you these conversations continue. they're talking out wardly about progress. but there is a sense of frustration that simply the action needs to happen now, that the time for talk is over and past. and notably the deputy press secretary was asked do you believe senators manchin and sinema are negotiating in good faith. the white house saying yes they still believe that but refusing to answer when senator sinema gave them heads up about her opposition to this corporate tax rate shift, something that had been a pillar of the plan. we're waiting to hear about those details. something that perked up my ears and would your ears is we don't need congress, we can do things on our own to advance the president's agenda, something i'm sure will come as quite a surprise to lawmakers who of

course are hammer rg out the final details on this. but that also i think indicates the sense of urgency here and a little bit of exacerbation that as this gets tied up the white house is going to try to do things on their own. but they haven't been able to say yet that's what they're going to do. ideally they want to work with congress to get this done. that's a sense of where things are today and patience is wearing thin. >> well, not meeting congress on the environmental portions would certainly be news. we've been watching the floor where we've now got voting underway on the contempt motion for steve bannon. house floor votes can take a significant amount of time. there's a clock in the bottom of the screen. i would urge you to ignore it. house votes are going to take about a half hour sometimes. we'll come back when we have the results of that vote. i do want to continue this conversation with tony. when it comes to how to pay for this, the white house messaging is whatever the top line number is they're going to pay for the bill. that's a specific problem with

kyrsten sinema, according to our nbc reporting saying she's not in favor of raising tax rates on individuals or corporations. they're talking about more complicated ways to raise the tax revenue here that would not be otherwise available. how is congress going to fight through this problem, especially if senator sinema cannot be moved off her position here? >> we have a bit of a chicken and egg problem in washington. on one hand you're right. there's a huge debate over how to finance this package, whatever the ultimate size is. but that being said there are democrats who aren't willing to engage in that conversation just yet because they don't know what they're paying for. they want to see the top line before they start talking about tax increases or whatever the case may be. kyrsten sinema has made clear she does not support the kinds of tax increases president biden and other democrats have put forward. that would include things like raising the corporate rate to

28%, for example, raising the individual rate on tax cuts president trump had secured in 2017. our sources say maybe she is not as inflexible as it appears. there's some lobbyists who heard, for example, she might be open to a much more limited corporate tax increase, something to 23%. although, you know, there were folks that weren't even sure of that at the time. but this put democrats in a bind. they have said they're going to pay for this package. they've got to come up with alternatives. and i think they may have some in these ideas that would tax the ultra wealthy, the wealthiest of the wealthy. but it remains to be seen if that alone is going to get them to that $1.9 trillion or whatever the top line we end up with. >> tony, do you get any sense at all that she can moved off this position? she's on a bit of an island today. just today she had five members of an advisory council, constituent advisers, publicly

break from her. does the pressure on sinema move her or cause her to dig in further? >> at least in the eyes of democrats the pressure is not enough to move her. they think she is dug in on the issues of principle. there may be wiggle room with a corporate increase. that's just conjecture. it speaks to the other problem we which is that senator sinema has not been forthcoming about what she wants. she was exiting the capitol today as most members did. she was asked yet again by reporters whether she supports corporate tax increases or what her alternative might be. and once again she didn't say anything. so, that has bred this frustration on capitol hill that it's hard to have negotiations and really understand what is and isn't on the table if she isn't willing to put that out there herself. and even the mere suggestion that some of these rates could be off the table infuriated some democrats yesterday. so many of these lawmakers ran on the premise that they are going to kill the trump tax

cuts. and that's the very thing right now that does not appear to be on the table because of the objections she appears to have raised. >> thank you. we're going to dip back in here as we start to watch this vote come up here. we're seeing just the very beginnings of what, as i mentioned, can be a lengthy vote process here. the two republican votes on the board so far, i can tell you with some degree of confidence will be liz cheney and adam kinzinger, the two republicans who have been taking part in the january 6th committee's work here. one of the big questions we've been asking today is how many republicans might join with democrats on this contempt vote. democrats have framed this as a vote about the powers of congress, their ability to conduct oversight here. republican leaders pushing back against that. adam kinzinger when i interviewed him earlier today, he told me there may be five or ten republicans who cross over in support of this bannon

contempt vote. john cod, i know you're a senate guy, but let me bring you in on this because i do think these stories are intertwined here. how do you see the discussion going back and forth from the house side working on essentially an oversight function here trying to do their investigatory work while on the senate side the focus has been heavily based on bringing these two moderates along here? the president has to oversee all of it. is this just the challenge of one party run in washington when you've got to run all these things at once here? or how does the administration try to thread this needle? >> i think one of the things that biden ran on is that he's competent. he understands how the government works. and he can do multiple things at once. so, i don't think he has a problem doing this. he's probably the most experienced president we've ever had. he understands the senate like nobody. but he also understands the house and has plenty of friends there. so, i am sure the team at the house know exactly how to juggle

multiple issues. but, yeah, it's difficult when you have an issue as serious as this january 6th commission and you're still trying to pass a $2 trillion bill which i know people get frustrated with the timeline. but i would just question people, this is a big bill that has a lot of -- a lot of small pieces of legislation in there. we need to get it right more than we need to get it done quickly. and i think that's where you see senator manchin and senator sinema -- it may frustrate people that they're not publicly telling them what their negotiating point is. but they're more interested in making sure this bill, which is going to have a long-lasting effect, is done the right way and not the quick way. >> monica alba, how does the white house view what's going to be coming next, the idea that -- we do not have monica alba? ally, are you joining us now? ally, what are you looking for

here as this vote continues? does your reporting suggest anything like what adam kinzinger is saying will be the case here, five to ten republicans -- i see four yes votes now from republicans. what are we seeing in terms of republican support for this measure today? >> what i'm going to be looking for here is who those other two yes votes are on the republican side of this. i'm checking the capitol hill chain that we live in right now and waiting to see who those republicans are. i think that is one of the key questions here. we've heard all week kinzinger and cheney both trying to appeal to other republicans in their party, asking them to come along not for partisan reasons but for the moral reasons of looking into what happened on january 6th, something that every single member in that chamber experienced, something that you experienced, that's still so fresh in the minds of people who are here on capitol hill every day. we've consistently seen

conservatives like cheney and kinzinger try to elevate this out of the partisan muck that we often find parties in here on the hill. but frankly until we see who those two other people are that voted yea i'm not sure what can be drawn from this. the larger point is one we've made before which is about setting precedence. i think this vote can also underscore the hold that the former president still continues to have over the party. you've seen people like house minority leader kevin mccarthy try in every way to rhetorically invalidate the work of the january 6th committee. and what we're going to see going forward as this contempt referral likely makes its way out of the house and over to the department of justice, what we're going to see is the gears kind of grind to a halt here on steve bannon while the doj potentially works through this. on the other side of it though, i'm struck by something chairman thompson said a day or so ago

where he pointed out that bannon is the only one not complying in some way with the people on the committee. event kash patel and dan sko vie know. all of these people are speaking to the committee through their lawyers. that's nothing to say of the other people who are a little bit lower profile who have also received their subpoenas. several of them are former advanced staffers, people who helped plan the rallies on january 6th that happened at the ellipse and here on capitol hill. there are a lot of people who are complying here. so, even though the information steve bannon has will be slower getting to the committee, that's not to say the committee has nothing to work off of here. and they've made the point that they have thousands of documents coming to them, both that they've compelled to come their way and also that people have volunteered to send them. people have volunteered to come and talk with them. so, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that

we are going to start seeing soon. this subpoena is part of it. it's part of the larger precedent setting of congress' ability to have oversight. broadly speaking for the january 6th committee, they are getting information. it's not like they're sitting in a black hole of nothing. they're just not having access to what steve bannon has, which is important because we know he was in touch with the former president. at the same time, there are other people who were subpoenaed who also were. that's just as important as well. >> barbara mcwade is back with us. i'm thinking back to the conversation we were having about precedent here but also this idea that even if bannon is found in contempt and even if he's prosecuted and in fact even if he's convicted, my understanding is none of those things can compel him to speak if he wants to do his time and say nothing regardless. how important is the criminal component of this or congress following through in encouraging or scaring other potential witnesses into making sure they

comply with their subpoenas? >> yeah, i think you hit the nail on the head, garrett. i think what you really wanted was compliance here there might be other avenues like filing a civil case, which may bring with it some delays but such as fili charges. instead, this is about punishment, this is saying you have violated the laws and we are going to punish you for it. one of the goals of uponishment of course is to promote respect for the rule of law and deter other people from engaging in similar misconduct. i think when other people might be thinking about defying a congressional subpoena in the future, that -- what happened to steve bannon might cause them to think twice n. many ways this is an of the by congress to protect its own institutional power. >> for folks wondering what's going on at the micro phones, we are still in an age where lawmakers often vote remotely because of the pandemic here. that slows the process down

significantly. that's why you see members coming to the microphone to announce they are voting by proxy for other lawmakers. i promise we are not skipping out on anything important that you want to hear. john cot, i recognize this is something of a cynical political question but i think it is interesting. i mean you have got a democratic party that's mostly united around their big picture agenda items but not entirely here. as we watch the votes come in, they will be entirely united on this point. is there a rallying element to this, a political rallying let me for democrats who can say, look, we may not agree on everything but we are going to hold together and do our constitutional duty here. what does that do for kinds of party morale to be addressing something like, a big constitutional issue n a forceful way? >> i think it is a good sign that every democratic is coming together. but it's more disappointing that republicans aren't. as somebody who was in the

russel office building while all this happened, watched it outside the window, had to shelter in place and had to search my office for potential weapons in case somebody broke in, i don't understand why republicans don't want to get to the bottom of this so this doesn't happen again so they are not running off the floor afraid for their lives. yeah, i think it is great that democrats are coming together. but it is more telling that republicans aren't. >> yeah. >> i think that's something democrats might get united around. >> absolutely. our team in the chamber is giving us a list of the republican yes votes so far. cheney and kinzinger, also voting yes, anthony gonzalez, the ohio congressman who voted in favor of trump's impeachment and then a few weeks ago announced he will not be running for re-election that republican nomination is likely to go to a former trump staffer. the other yes vote of note, peter meyer from michigan.

outspoken, one of those who voted for then former president trump's impeachment after the january 6th attack. the fifth yes vote is still a bit of a mystery. as it comes to me, it will come to you. ally vitale, if that's the universe of yes votes here we are not looking for a wide lane for republicans. there were ten votes for impeachment. that's probably our ceiling? >> yeah. that seems like where we are at. the estimate that kinzinger gave you earlier of the 5 to 10 range seems like that where they are going to be pulling from. it is telling that anthony gonzalez one of those members who did vote yes here is not going to be in congress much longer. he said he wasn't going to run for his seat again, not just because he was facing a challenge from a pro-trump republican max miller there, but at the same time because the temperature has gotten so hot, he cited threats to his family, their safety. that's what the climate is right now if you are a republican who has chosen to take on the former

president in any way, shape, or form. but certainly, if you were someone who chose to take on the president in the aftermath of january 6th on this impeachment vote in the house. that's something the former presidenters are, people who still around him know that the names liz cheney, adam kinzinger, they get the former president angry. i have been to several of his rallies over the last few months. he is very much still focused on this. he is not focused on the future of policy in the republican party. not that he was ever an itio logical thought leader in that way. what he is focused on is retribution at the ballot box for people like liz cheney and anyone who came after him after january 6th and those who spoke against him in the aftermath of the election. that's what's at stake here.

the aftermath of january 6th, also the things that we learned that went on in the administration in the wanings weeks of its sbisence. what's crazy, you look at that as an example of something that could come back around. the former president continues to tease he could run for president again. look at the straw polls at these conservative gatherings. former president donald trump is the first person on this list. republicans want to see him by and large run for office again. when we look back at january 6th in the waning weeks of the trump administration it is a also a look ahead at what the republican party could continue to endorse if and when the treasure gets back on the ballot. >> as we are watching the vote tally continue to come in, i can report that fred upton, a republican of michigan another vote for impeachment is one of the yes votes. there is a reasonee never call votes until they are over. because sometimes there are votes that get changed along the process. mike simpson of idaho, a staunch

conservative member, among the yes votes. it's possible he's a yes, it's also possible he misvoted as is often the case in situations like this. regardless we will have a result sometimes in the next 20 minutes at the maximum here. then this bill will be enrolled. it is technically a piece of legislation. pete williams shared with us it would be taken by courier down to the d.o.j. then there is a process that has to happen where the d.o.j. has to decide what they want to do with this. i am curious from your perspective barbara mcquaid how long you think it might take, your thoughts on the things that have to be weighed here, the claims of privilege, the questions of if and how to start a criminal proceeding here. will this n your view, likely go to a grand jury? my understanding is as a misdemeanor, it doesn't have to. but a nervous u.s. attorney might want to take that extra step here, to be sure. >> the statute actually says

that the attorney general shall present to it a jand jury. so that suggests it does need to go before a grand jury. also what's important even though it says shall as a separation of powers the justice department can decline to that. what is interesting, the facts are already known. oftentimes the first thing you have to do is gather all the facts, then figure out whether a law has been violated. here i think the facts are all known. really the only question are the legal questions. i think there are some issues that need to be decided regarding executive privilege. but the fact that bannon has failed to appear, to even engage and invek on a question by question basis and instead defied the subpoena altogether and refused to show up, this mange it a strong case. i don't know how long it may take to work through those issues, but i would think days and weeks but not months. >> i have to think this goes all

the way to the top of d.o.j. leadership given how sensitive this issue is, wouldn't you say? >> yes, although it is the decision of the u.s. attorney when you have what is considered a significant matter you have an obligation to alert the attorney general through the deputy attorney general so if he wants a briefing he can have it and if he wants to overrule your decision he has that authority as well. >> as we watch the floor come in, notes for folks who like to watch these votes for us. the timer has reached zero. congressional voting time is more like soccer stopping time at the end of the half. the referee will call it when they feel like it. it is not like watching the last tenths of a second tick off at a basketball game. sometimes the votes go up and sometimes they go down. the aforementioned mike simpson of idaho changed hess vote to a no. we are seeing votes coming in.

is there anything sticking out. the name i am looking at is congresswoman nancy mace who did not vote to impeach the president during the impeachment hearings but who was outspoken about the danger of a day like january 6th. nancy mace is someone who was elected to congress in one of these swingy swing districts. she was a woman in the republican party at a time when republican women were beingishered in in 2020. she is someone who worked for donald trump. i met her on the campaign trail in the 2016 campaign election. she is also someone who supported the ouster of liz cheney from house leadership. she doesn't necessarily want to continue looking back at the intraparty fighting that happened in the immediate months after trump's departure from washington. instead, she wants to look forward. but she also has been outspoke benn the role that the former president has played in the party. i am very interested in the fact

that she is among these eight people. again, we thought that the ceiling was the ten people who voted to impeach. clearly, that's not exactly true. you but look at the list here of the eight people, they are mostly those folks who voted to impeach the former president. but that one really did catch my attention. >> ally vitale, thank you. with 70 votes to go we are out of time. thank you for watching this hour of hallee jackson reports. i'm garrett haake. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we are following that breaking news from capitol hill, where the house is voting right now to trump ally steve bannon in contempt of congress for defying a subpoena from the january 6th select committee. so far a handful of republicans aboard right now it shows eight on board with democrats to refer bannon for criminal charges. for much