mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i am pleased that today we are considering h.r. 8. the bipartisan background checks act of 2019. we have promised the american people that congress would take steps to reduce gun violence and this bill is a critical first step toward doing so. during the past four weeks, as the judiciary committee and now the full house have discussed the issue of gun violence, i have cited grim statistics. nearly 40,000 americans lost their lives because of guns in 2017. in fact, every day in america on average 34 people are murdered with a firearm and more than 183 people are injured in an attack. gun violence of this magnitude is a distinctly american problem. a country to country comparison is shocking. for example, in 2011 the united kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence. denmark, 71. portugal, 142. and japan, just 30. the united states that year, about 35,000. a recent study the -- in the american journal of medicine found that compared to 22 other high-income countries, gun-relat

mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, the chairperson of the crime subcommittee, ms. bass. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. bass: thank you. mr. chair, i rise in strong support of h.r. 8, the bipartisan background checks act of 2019, which will extend the current federal background check requirement to unlicensed sellers of guns. it is about time that congress takes this issue seriously and i am pleased that this bipartisan bill has been brought to the house floor with the urgency this issue deserves. in recent years, our nation has experienced an increase in mass shootings and our nation is appropriately horrified. however, mass shootings are just one symptom of our gun violence epidemic. the daily toll of shootings occurs in communities across our country, on our streets, in our schools, and even in our houses of worship. as one testified before the judiciary committee earlier this month, one year after the terrible shooting

mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i am pleased that today we are considering h.r. 8. the bipartisan background checks act of 2019. we have promised the american people that congress would take steps to reduce gun violence and this bill is a critical first step toward doing so. during the past four weeks, as the judiciary committee and now the full house have discussed the issue of gun violence, i have cited grim statistics. nearly 40,000 americans lost their lives because of guns in 2017. in fact, every day in america on average 34 people are murdered with a firearm and more than 183 people are injured in an attack. gun violence of this magnitude is a distinctly american problem. a country to country comparison is shocking. for example, in 2011 the united kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence. denmark, 71. portugal, 142. and japan, just 30. the united states that year, about 35,000. a recent study the -- in the american journal of medicine found that compared to 22 other high-income countries, gun-relat

mr. nadler, the judiciary committee's willingness to take up back grouped checks. and i want this to be a universal back grouped check. so unlike mr. woodal, i want it to cover as many people as possible and those individuals who don't have anything to hide. and take advantage that you did fix nics. and we have more available information. i want to be able to use that. and this bill allows that and those people who have no issues, no felonies, no severe mental illness, fine. they are going to be able to have a gun transfer, no problem. those individuals for whatever reason that are picked up by the nics system, we are going to slow it down. and in my opinion and after colorado, we faced a lot of gun violence. not so much the day-to-day stuff but the mass shootings. and i support this. i think you are being reasonable in the exceptions that have been allowed so far and i hope to move this thing forward. mr. mcgovern: mr. burgess. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. thank our witnesses for being here today. just on the issue of the process . a little less than two y

mr. nadler: correct. mr. woodall: i'm looking also at the section -- looking at the section on loans of guns. my dad's friend gary gave him a .243 bolt action for deer hunting when i was a kid my dad passed away last summer he still had that .243. gary has so many guns he didn't need it back. a t's been a 30-year year -- 30-year transfer. if my dad's best friend wanted to dad's best friend wanted to sell him that rifle instead of learning him the rifle for 30 transfer.t would be a now that we go to a gun dealer mydo, i can no longer -- in hunting club, i can no longer sell weapons back and forth, it .f.l. issue?, >> the purpose of the bill estimate sure that every time someone gets a hold of a gun, a background check is done with no section. >> and the committee concluded that not having that exception toadened, not allowing me sell guns within my hunting we would expect that to save lives, not just create a burden for gun owners, but it will make a difference in the committee's judgment? >> i am much were wh

mr. nadler: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. clyburn: let me take this minute to go back to what i had repared to say here today. in troubling times many of us find solace in the surrenity prayer. -- serenity prayer. god, grant me the serenity to accept the things i can cannot change. currently to change the things i can. and wisdom, wisdom to know the difference. the charleston loophole is something all members of congress should have the courage to change. and by doing so, grant the american people the serenity they deserve in their schools, in their entertainment venues, in their neighborhood streets. and god forbid in their places of worship. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ew york is recognized. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. i have great sympathy for what the gentleman from south carolina just spoke of. but also i have even greater sympathy for the fact he could have been avoided and had nothing frankly to do at the end when t

mr. nadler pointed out and you -- >> and i agree with mr. turley that on the statutory grounds it's more ambiguous because it appears to be a delegation to the president. if the interpretation is completely deranged and off the wall, then maybe a court would -- >> there are two parts of the statuto statutory grounds. i think a court can say this is not an emergency because it lacks all the criteria that any emergency would need to have. but with respect to the use of fen funds, i'm very confident that we're going to prevail on that. >> you want to interrupt the statue in a way that's consistent with the constitution and the constitution nil at a times a reading which protects congress's power over the purse rather than giving the president the license to mangle the legislative will. >> we're leaving justice jackson concurring and moving to justice fra frankfurter. certainly a constitutional avoidance can be applied and we can win this on a pure statutory ground. i think it's more likely to go back to justice jackson. this is to me one of tho

mr. nadler or any of your attorneys spoken to mr. nadler? >> i don't know about my attorneys -- >> you don't know about your attorneys -- >> i have not spoken to congressman nadler, and i'm not aware if my attorneys -- i can ask them. >> you can turn around and ask. >> the answer, sir, is no. >> okay. and you said at this present time mr. davis is not getting paid. does that -- are you anticipating him receiving some kind of compensation in the future? >> when i start to earn a living -- >> he's going to wait three years? wow. >> the answer is yes. >> that's a first. i've never known a lawyer to wait three years to get paid. >> i guess he thinks it's important. >> all right. with that i yield to the gentleman from arizona. >> well, thank you. mr. cohen, you know, you're a disgraced lawyer. i mean, you've been disbarred. and so i'm sure you remember -- well, maybe you don't remember. duty of loyalty. duty of confidentiality. attorney-client privilege. i think the gentleman over your right side actually understands that very, very well. and wou

mr. nadler and some of our democratic colleagues a lot of credit for that as well. thank you very much. i thank the chairman very much. these are extraordinary times, mr. attorney general. we know that the former director of the fbi testified to the house intelligence committee in open hearing that there was an active investigation into the associates of the trump campaign, and he was fired subsequently. mr. mueller was then hired. the investigation has consumed indictments and guilty pleas, and of course a deal with perjury charges such as obstruction of justice, perjury, false statements. at current rate we're seeing so many of the trump organizations being indicted. and with the short time that i have, i want to make sure your questions are answered in a yes or no manner. this is the first oversight hearing we have had in the justice department in almost 15 months. you did not have a confirmation hearing and you have not yet appeared for an oversight hearing, yes or no? yes or no? >> congresswoman, i am the acting attorney general. >> yes or no, have you appeared in an oversight commi

mr. nadler to go ahead and move ahead with impeachment.hts ago, tom steyer was in baltimore in chairman cummings' district, encouraging his constituents to push ahead with impeachment there that's what this thing was about today. >> bret: marc, these are frustrating to watch the questioning, obviously republicans decided that they will spend their time to reduce or take away any credibility that cohen had. but your thoughts on their strategy? >> taking away cohen's credit ability is low-hanging fruit. but i'll tell you, they have a point not only on cohen's credibility but the democrats' credibility. to have this hearing on this day, when you're in vietnam, the president is in vietnam meeting with kim jong un, trying to focus on the d&e realization of the korean peninsula which is possibly the most important national security issue facing our country and both sides, everybody, has an interest in him succeeding, to have specifically chosen this day in order to have -- they wanted to have a split screen, it's unpatriotic. i think americans s

mr. nadler to ensue impeachment. last night in baltimore, tom steyer organized a town hall and the district to encourage impeachment. this is the best they've got, a guy who is going to prison for lying to congress. this is how they will launch their effort to ultimately getting to impeaching the president. that is how desperate they are. but it starts tomorrow. >> sean: all the president is here in vietnam, trying to negotiate the denuclearization of the peninsula is outrageous. congressman nunez, one question so many people asked me we have been able to slowly unravel this onion, take a layer off the day as it relates to the deep state. james baker the general counselor, the top lawyer fbi thought james comey hillary should be indicted. a slam-dunk case and waiting on fisa three oh two interview, and when are we going to get all of that? >> so here is what we are going to be doing talking about the last phase of the investigation and laying out everything else we have left to do. we will be working with jim jordan

mr. nadler and the judiciary committee's willingness to take up universal background checks and i want this to be a universal background check. unlike mr. woodall, i want to see it cover as many people as possible and those individuals who don't have anything to hide because i want us to take advantage of the fact you did fix this and there is better information, more accurate information, more available information and i want us to be able to use that. this bill allows that in those people who have no issues, no felonies or severe mental illness, fine. they will be able to have a gun transfer no problem. those individuals who are picked up by that system, we will slow it down. in my opinion and after colorado, we've faced a lot of gun violence and not so much the day-to-day stuff but certainly, the mass shootings. i wholeheartedly support this and i do think you are being very reasonable in the exceptions that have been allowed. i hope we move this thing forward. >> mr. burgess? >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for the witnesses for being here today. on the issue of the process, a l

mr. nadler, congressman nadler who is heading up the committee and he is asking for mark, the acting attorneyy about why or why not, what his process was on not recusing himself from the russia investigation when he became acting attorney general then they said they are going to subpoena him also even though he said he was going to come and talk to them. >> three reasons that jerry nadler did that number one so that you and i would be talking about it and others talking about it the acting a.g. under subpoena. number two it does compel attendance but matt already said he is coming thirdly and importantly and what i don't think your viewers know is when matt says i can't answer that question because it's privileged, i can't answer that question because it's an ongoing investigation, if you are under subpoena, it makes it much easier for the committee to compel you to answer that's why they are doing it they are not worried about him not showing up. he already said he is coming. although, martha, i hope he doesn't. he will be the a.g. another week. he has another week. he is certainly not going

mr. schiff tomorrow. have you spoken to chairman nadler or anyone on his staff ors have your attorneys spoken to mr. nadler. >> i don't know -- i have not spoken to congressman nadler and i am not -- sir, i am not aware if my attorneys. i can ask them. >> you can turn around and ask them. >> the answer, sir, is no. >> okay. and you said at this present time mr. davis is not getting paid. are you anticipating him receiving some kind of compensation in the future? >> when i start to earn a living. >> he's going to wait three years? wow! >> the answer -- that's a first. i've never known a lawyer to wait three years to get paid. >> i guess he thinks it's important. >> all right. with that i yield to the gentleman of arizona. >> you are a disgraced lawyer. we've been disbarred. i'm sure you remember, maybe you don't remember, duty of loyalty, duty of confidentiality, attorney-client privilege. i think the gentleman over your right side actually understands that very, very well and would aren't do what you are doing here today. so let's go back at this credibility. you want us to make sure that we think of

mr. nadler raised in this letter to whitaker. and that's interesting about matt whitaker.aker we believe is on the way out, but it also raises this prospect that the white house has been through its contacts at the justice department, through its appointees at the justice department, that they have been trying to get information or trying to put pressure on what the justice department is doing. do you know that they have done that one way or the other? and do you think it has had an effect on what the justice department or even the special counsel has been able to pursue? >> i don't know the answer. you know, i will say this, though. this is someone who has refused to follow the advice of ethics lawyers. so, you know, you start out with a great skepticism about whether you're getting the full story from someone like that. this is someone who obviously auditioned for the part by showing his hostility to the investigation. and i think that the judiciary committee needs to demand answer, and if there is credible reason to believe he has not been truthful, they need to do ever

mr. nadler has witnesses who say there was a back and forth. and we know he did say they need adult supervision in the southern district of new york. instead of it being it's a misinterpretation. whitaker has to make a choice. does he back up the no phone call, or does he say something happened? it's a more difficult situation the president put him in. if the president called and tried to get the united states attorney changed, that's obstruction of justice. >> let me talk about something else relating to the department of justice. that's the andrew mccabe cook tour of the week. he was on "morning joe" and asked specifically to clarify what he told and who he told as far as it relates to members of congress about the idea that the fbi was opening a counterintelligence investigation into donald trump. just a reminder the gang of eight as we talk about it including four democrats, four republicans, the top members that are involved in intelligence as it relates to capitol hill. specifically here was what mccabe said about what he told this group.

mr. nadler has actually specifically referenced, if a president goes after the separation of powers, that's >> yet, chairman nadler is not starting impeachment proceedings and showing no signs of doing so. he's seeming to be much more cautious. what are you going to do about it? >> well, what we're trying -- we have 7.3 million people who've signed our petition. 26,000 of them are in congressman nadler's district. in fact, we polled his district and 96% of the democratic primary voters think this president is unfit for office. so we have -- what we're trying to say is this is a movement of americans across the whole country. >> yeah. >> very specifically in his district and they are demanding action from their congress and their congressman. >> so would you primary him? is that the -- that sounds like what you're saying, you're saying, look, 96% of your primary voters would support this, so if he doesn't do it, you could fund someone to challenge him in a primary? >> actually, what we're doing, erin, is something much earlier than that. we're making the point that, in fact, his constituents

mr. nadler. >> wow. >> he's a big guy. >> can you believe how much he has on his plate? >> yup. i talked to him after your interview. he's a good guy. i got to run. have a great weekend. >>> this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. we have big news to get to on the mueller investigation tonight involving three key players on team trump. first up, we have paul manafort to tell you about. prosecutors want the former trump campaign chairman to get up to 24 1/2 years behind bars for financial crimes, which would amount to a life sentence for a man who is nearly 70, not in great health. they laid out just how serious his crimes were, saying, quote, manafort acted for more than a decade as if he were above the law. let's not forget he's still facing a separate case in d.c. so that's not the end of it. that has prosecutors say in another court filing they have evidence of trump ally and dirty trickster roger stone communicating directly with wikileaks during the campaign. and there's more. we've learned today that mueller's team has interviewed white house press secretary sarah sanders. h

mr. nadler forwarded to you prior to this hearing with anyone at the white house or the president's legal counsel? >> congressman, i did not. >> so when you claimed earlier you were going to invoke a privilege, you were invoking a privilege about questions the president hasn't even seen. >> congressman, to be clear, i'm not invoking any privilege. >> you said earlier in your written testimony you would not answer questions about your conversations with the president, did you not? >> yes, i did. >> so you are not sitting here today saying the president has instructed you not to answer a question, correct? >> i am not sitting here today saying the president has instructed me. >> so you're prepared to answer all these questions? >> i think i was pretty explicit in my opening statement. >> have you spoken to the president about the mueller investigation? >> congressman, as i have previously testified, i did not talk to the president about the mueller investigation. >> have you ever spoken to the president or parts of his legal team about information that you've learned in your capacity as act

mr. nadler forwarded to you prior to this hearing with anyone at the white house? or the president's legal counsel? >> congressman, i did not. >> so, when you claimed earlier that you were going to invoke a prilk, you are invoking privilege about questions the president hasn't seen. >> congressman, i'm not invoke being any privilege. >> you said earlier in your written testimony you would not answer questions about your conversations with the president, did you not? >> yes, i did. >> so you are not sitting here today saying the president has instructed you not to answer a question, correct? >> i am not sitting here today saying that the president has instruct the me -- >> then you're prepared to answer all these questions? >> congressman, i think i was pretty explicit in my opening statement -- >> have you spoken to the president, mr. whitaker, about the mueller investigation? >> congressman, as i have previously testified, i had -- did not talk to the president about the mueller investigation. >> have you ever spoken to the president or parts of his legal team abo

mr. nadler and some of our democratic colleagues as well as mr.llins and others a lot of credit for that as well. so thank you very much. yield back. >> thank the chairman very much. these are extraordinary times, mr. attorney general. we know that the former director of the fbi testified to the house intelligence committee in an open hearing that there was an active investigation into the associates of the trump campaign and he was fired subsequently. mr. mueller was then hired. investigations have secured numerous indictments, convictions or guilty pleas, and of course a deal with perjury charges like obstruction of justice, perjury, false statements. so at the current rate we are seeing so many of the trump organizations being indicted, and with the short time that i have, i want to make sure that your questions are answered in a yes or no manner. this is the first oversight hearing we have had in the justice department in almost 15 months. you did not have a confirmation hearing and you have not yet and for an oversight hearing, yes or no? yes

mr. nadler. i just want to say, thank you for being here. can you please explain again how these well-intentioned laws actually hurt you from allowing you not -- not allowing you to defend yourself. >> so i do want to say, thank you for speaking publicly about being a survivor of domestic violence. it's terrible that anyone has to go through that. but it can feel very alone. it's great to see people in positions of power talking about it. so the laws that specifically disarmed me are in the sate of pennsylvania where i was going to school, my cleej, was a fun-free zone. so you couldn't have firearms of any kind unless you were the police. and i live in virginia and went to undergrad in pennsylvania which would require driving through maryland, which would make me immediately a felony. it's a combination of those two things. >> time of the gentle lady has expired. >> i want to thank our witnesses for being here. your testimony is incredibly inspiring and invaluable and i cannot overstate the importance and urgency of this hearing and i want t

mr. nadler, of the committee. and i am glad that these bills that we have just debated and one coming up that i know is mr. collins' bill dealing with the fees to provide resources to those who file lawsuits, justified lawsuits and have no recourse, these bills are coming outs of the judiciary committee in a bipartisan -- out of the judiciary committee in a a bipartisan manner. this is a a very important statement we're making. the new majority and working with the minority on very important issues. this was an issue that has claimed our attention for decades and the fact that we're working every day to improve and do as mr. collins has just indicated, never have to talk about sex traffic, human trafficking again. if we can eliminate this scourge, i think all of us will find peace. just a few years ago as the ranking member on the homeland security committee, we did the first human trafficking hearing ith then chairman mccaul and ranking member thompson in houston, texas. to listen to many who claimed and documente

mr. nadler: president trump's declaration of a national emergency as an excuse to build a wall that congress explicitly rejected can in the be tolerate wesmed must reject this unlawful power grab. the constitution could not be clearer. no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. that command reflects a fundamental principle that is older that our democracy itself. the chief executive cannot unilaterally spend taxpayer money. earlier this year, congress reached a bipartisan compromise to fund the government signed by the president. congress allocated funding for fencing in certain areas but rejecked the president's request to build a medieval barrier across the southern border. almost immediately the president changed the budget, he did an end run and made an emergency. he and his aides have barely tried to pretend that the so-called emergency is a real one. the women an children coming here are not an invading army. they refuse fuse to let the facts and law stand in the way of their political agenda. even worse, the emergency law that president

mr. nadler and some of our democratic colleagues, and others, a lot of credit for that as well. uch. [coughing] >> i think the treatment very much prethese are extra ordinary times, mr. attorney general we know that these former direcr of the fbi testified to the house intelligence can dull my committee and open hearing. there was an active investigation into the associates of the drum campaign and he was fired subsequently. mr. mueller was hired, investigations have secured numerous indictments, convictions or guilty pleas, and of course a deal with perjury charges like obstruction of justice, perjury, false statements. so, at the current rate, we are seeing so many of the trump organization being indicted. with the short time that i have, i want to make sure that your questions are answered in a "yes" or "no" manner. this is a first over siding meeting we have had in the justice apartment for over 14 months. you did not have coverage in hearing any of not appeared. yes or no? yes or no? >> congressman, i am the acting -- >> yes or no. have you appear before an oversight hearing

mr. chairman. rep. nadler: mr. meadows. rep. meadows: do you know when pat? -- do you know lynn patton. michael: yes, i do. rep. norton: how long have you known her? forael: i am responsible her joining the trump organization and the job she holds. rep. norton: i am glad you acknowledge that. you made demeaning comments about the president that she does not agree with. it has to do with your claim of racism. of a manas a daughter born in birmingham, alabama, that there is no way she would work for an individual who was racist. how do you reconcile those? michael: as neither should i as a son of a holocaust survivor. rep. norton: i guess what i am talked to the president 300 times and not heard one time a racist comment out of his mouth in private. how do you reconcile it? you have proof of those conversations? do you have tape recordings? you take everybody else. michael: that is not true. rep. norton: how many times have you taped individuals? michael: 100 times over 10 years. rep. norton: i heard it is 200. michael: no, it is 100. rep. norton: do you have proof? patton howked ms. many

mr. nadler: president trump's declaration of a national emergency as an excuse to build a wall that congress explicitly rejected can in the be tolerate wesmed must reject this unlawful power grab. the constitution could not be clearer. no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. that command reflects a fundamental principle that is older that our democracy itself. the chief executive cannot unilaterally spend taxpayer money. earlier this year, congress reached a bipartisan compromise to fund the government signed by the president. congress allocated funding for fencing in certain areas but rejecked the president's request to build a medieval barrier across the southern border. almost immediately the president changed the budget, he did an end run and made an emergency. he and his aides have barely tried to pretend that the so-called emergency is a real one. the women an children coming here are not an invading army. they refuse fuse to let the facts and law stand in the way of their political agenda. even worse, the emergency law that president

the judiciary committee that will be overseeing this will be my colleague and good friend jerry nadler. >> mrairman, you've got power now and you've got some clout and there's no way this isn't getting to the house. what about in the republican senate? >> that remains to be seen. i'm encouraging a couple of senators and core gardner and a couple of others. it's been a long road. it took us seven years to pass the bill in 2003 when we started to 2010 and the health program and the victims compensation fund program for five years knowing perfectly well that was inadequate. five years later we were able to extend the health care program indefinitely and the victims compensation fund we just renewed for five years and it turns out it was inadequate funding and we have to do the last piece of the job and extend the victims compensation fund with adequate funding for 70 years. >> jon stewart, this is not a new fight for you. you've been in it since the beginning. i want to show you in 2010 with some of the first responders and then again with empty chairs five years later in 2015 from your program.

mr. schiff's committee tomorrow. have you spoken to chairman nadler or anyone on his staff, or have any of your attorney spoke determinedly? >> mr. cohen: i don't know about my attorneys, i have not spoken to him. i have not spoken to congressman nadler. and i'm not aware if my attorneys -- i can ask them. >> you can turn around and ask them. >> mr. cohen: the answer, sir, is no. >> and he said at this present time mr. davis is not getting paid. are you anticipating and receiving some kind of compensation in the future? >> mr. cohen: when i start to earn a living -- >> are you going to wait three years? wow. >> mr. cohen: the answer is yes. >> that's a first. i've never known a lawyer to wait three years to get paid. >> mr. cohen: i guess he thinks it's important. >> i yield to the gentleman from arizona. >> well, thank you. mr. cohen, you are a disgraced lawyer. you have been disbarred. i am sure you remember -- well, maybe you don't remember -- duty of loyalty. duty of confidentiality. attorney-client privilege. i think the gentleman over your right

mr. jordan on the republican side and others as well. i think he was given certain talking points and he stayed on message. >> chairman nadler indicated he doesn't feel he's done hearing from mr. whitaker. do you think there's any point in calling hum again? >> we8, he'd be under oath again. and we could ask him the questions and i think he's going to start to realize the fact that he could be in jeopardy. he didn't answer the questions forth rightly. it's hard for me to believe that donald trump didn't can ask him as he did jim comey and others about the investigation and to have loyalty and be easy on flynn or those types of things. he was upset with sessions. he didn't have his own attorney general. and he wanted his own guy and whitaker comes out of nowhere. he wasn't in the line of succession. goes through a group of officials that have been approve bide the senate. he was not one of them. so it was an aberration there and somebody -- most of his jobs have not been in the legal sector and what he had in the political world had been abject failure and had a encounters where he headed opcharity group and got $1.2 million to do work an

mr. jordan on the republican side and others as well. i just think he was given certain talking points and he stayed on message. >> well, chairman nadler doesn't feel he's done hearing from mr. whitaker. given the performance today, do you think there's any point in calling him again? >> well, he would be under oath. it would be a deposition, and we could ask questions. i think he's going to start to realize the fact that he could be in jeopardy. he didn't answer the questions forthrightly, it's hard for me to believe that donald trump didn't ask him as he did jim comey and others about the investigation and to have loyalty and to be easy on flynn and those type of things. he was upset with sessions. he did he didn't have his own attorney general. he wanted his own guy and this whitaker comes out of nowhere. he wasn't in the line of succession, which ted deutsch made clear. it was an aboerration there, an most of his jobs had not been in the legal sector and in the political world had been abject failure and he had some encounters where he headed up some charity group where he got $1.2 million when he came to washington to do some work and the

mr. chairman, for your clarification. >> a point of parliamentary inquiry. rep. nadler: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is there a process in the committee whereby, if the very same people are repeatedly interrupting the time of the members, that those people will be asked to depart the committee, or is there -- rep. nadler: i will -- excuse me. if the gentleman repeats that or any other comment, i will direct he be removed. i will direct he be removed if he repeats it. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i would observe that's three interruptions of my time by the same individual, and that the chair is not utilizing his discretion to remove the individual. i believe i have about a minute of time remaining and i wanted to take the time -- >> will the gentleman yield for -- my friend yield for a question. >> i typically do, my friend from florida, but since my time has been interrupted by members of the other side, perhaps you can have a colleague yield time to you. the time i have remaining, i believe was at a minute and 12 seconds. rep. nadler

tried to turn the tables, telling judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler that his five minutes of question time were over. >> mr. chairman, i see that your five minutes is up, and so... i'm-- we-- we-- i am here voluntarily. we have agreed to five-minute rounds. >> reporter: democrats were not amused. >> we're not joking here. and your humor is not acceptable. ( applause ) >> reporter: before replacing attorney general jeff sessions last november, whitaker had been hiblicly critical of robert mueller's russia investigation, which he now oversees. so democrats wanted to make surh >> the witness wilswer questi >> there hasn no event, decision that has required me to take any action, and i have not interfered in any way with the special counsel's investigation. >> reporter: whitaker, who is mpll liked by president trump, denied ever briefing the president or anyone at the white house about details of the investigation. >> i have not talked about the special counsel's investigation with senior white house esficials. >> reporter: but whitaker declined to defend the special counsel against the president's common line

mr. jeffries: the thing was, he came and he was so disrespectful and petulant to jerry nadler when he said, your five minutes are up. he set the tone how we were going to proceed. he should also respect the house of representatives. democrats and republicans. mike: ultimate question, you are the former whip of the congressional black caucus. what should happen in virginia? mr. jeffries: well, i think -- save the toughest question for the next to the last question. i think what i've said is based on the governor's initial acknowledgment that he was in that photo, either in blackface or as a k.k.k. figure, that the right thing to do for the commonwealth of virginia would have been for him to resign. that's a position i took once it was clear that the virginia congressional delegation in the house, beyond other figures in the senate and elsewhere in virginia, had concluded that in fact was the case. my view now, given the mess that exists as it relates to both the governor, lieutenant governor, where there's very serious allegations made by very serious people which demand a very serious inve

mr. holder were here? eric: jerry nadlerhere will be another hearing with whitaker, he says down the road. he said, quote, he obviously didn't answer a lot of the questions. he will. arthel? arthel: eric, thank you. a freshman democratic congresswoman from minnesota keeping up a streak of provocative tweets, this time taking aim at the department of homeland security. david spunt has more now from washington. >> reporter: we've seen some democrats calling for the defunding of immigration and custom it is enforcement, or i.c.e., but this congresswoman is taking it to a new level. she wants the department of homeland security to vanish. omar tweeted yesterday, quote: when democrats stood our ground last month, we proved that individual number one does not have the public support to ram his hateful wall through congress. let's stand firm. hashtag not one dollar for dhs. the department of homeland security is one that includes the secret service, tsa and fema. the most recent tweet about funding homeland security came after a tw

mr. schiff's committee tomorrow. have you spoken to chairman nadler or your attorneys? >> i don't know about my attorneys. >> you don't know if your attorneys spoke -- >> i have not spoken to congressman nadler and i am not aware -- sir, i am not aware if my attorneys -- i can ask them. >> you can turn around and ask. >> the answer, sir, is no. >> okay. and you said at this present time mr. davis is not getting paid. are you anticipating him receiving some kind of compensation in the future? >> when i start to earn a living -- >> he's going to wait three years? >> the answer is yes. >> wow, that's a first, i've never known a lawyer to wait three years to get paid. >> i guess he thinks it's important. >> all right. i yield to the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. mr. cohen, you know, you're a disgraced lawyer. i mean, you've been disbarred. and so i'm sure you remember, maybe you don't remember, duty of loyalty, duty of confidentiality, attorney/client privilege. i think the gentleman to your right side understands that very well and wouldn't do what you're doing her

nadler. >> have you ever been asked to approve any request or act be taken by the special counsel? >> mr. chairman, i see that your five minutes is up. >> reporter: whitaker eventually answered "no." the senate votes on the confirmation of william barr next week, then he will take is over, supeg the mueller investigation including the ouitical decision about how to make the specialel's report public. lester? >> pete williams in our washington newsroom, thank you. >>> there is breaking news in the scandals rocking virginia's capitol. the latesthoe to drop, a second woman has come forward to accuse lieutenant governor justin fairfax of sexual assault. nbc's geoff bennett is in richmond tonight. geoff, what do we know about this? >> reporter: that second woman now accusing virginia lieunant governor justin fairfax is meredith watson. in a statement from her lawyer, watson alleges that fairfax raped here when they w both students at duke university in 2000. she said the attack was premeditated and aggressive and described fairfax as a friend whom she had never dated.wa on says she can corrobo

nadler. does your one-stop origin -- organization received contributions from foreign donors? mr. chairman out of order the general state point of order. >> is it outside the scope of the hearing? >> you can go sit down they are, but you're not his lawyer. gentleman is suspended. >> you can sit down they are,l both gentlemen are suspended. >> laura: okay, we have to suspend too. i'm sure that won't last will be the last award this season. too many things happening.ti a democrat starting all manner of trump investigation. you can rest assured there will be lots of dramatic and absurd performances, twist and turns in the days of ahead. and that is the angle. still ahead of them i go one-on-one with former dnc chair donna brazile. she is or to respond what is going on in virginia tonight, plus increasing creep of pc puritanism. i discussed in last nights angle. stay right there. (vo) this is the avery's. this is the avery's trying the hottest new bistro. wait...and the hottest taqueria? and the hottest...what are those? oh, pierogis? and this is the avery's wondering if eating out is

mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt. >> melissa: meanwhile, house judiciary chairman jerrold nadler it reportedly has hired two veteranes as his panel gears up to investigate through justice department and review mueller's final conclusions whenever they release. over in the senate, senators richard blumenthal and chuck grassley have already introduced a bill that will require the mueller report to be made public moving the decision from the attorney general. they are already firing up and setting up to dispute the outcome of this report, kennedy. we don't even know when -- >> kennedy: we have no idea what's in it! anybody who thinks they know it is that it based on who has been indicted, who has been interviewed, the fact that the grand jury was extended for several months, the length of time -- it's almost two years since the beginning of the special counsel investigation. nobody knows what's in it. therefore, if you have no idea, get set up a defensive posture. it's a ridiculous. i do like that has a bipartisan effort, because no matter who the president is or who is bring the charges we deserve to see if who's in

mr. chairman, i see that your five minutes is up, and so -- >> that went over like a lead balloon. and chairman nadler was not having any of it. >> in all your time in congress, have you ever had a witness tell you that your time is up? >> no. but i've never been chairman. >> were you offended by that? >> i laughed at it. i was surprised by it. i laughed at it. it was arrogant, but okay. >> whatever, not bothered. congresswoman sheila jackson lee was definitely not amused. >> mr. attorney general, we're not joking here, and your humor is not acceptable. now, you are here because we have a constitutional duty to ask questions, and the congress has the right to establish government rules. >> she was channeling my grandma. that's how my grandma used to speak to me. you're not funny, don. cut it out. that's exactly what she did to whitaker. >> again and again whitaker dodged questions about the mueller investigation, saying he couldn't talk about an ongoing investigation. >> yes or no? since your appointment as acting attorney general, have you been briefed on criminal or counterintelligence matters withi