the senate or the house ethics committee has to approve it. it is somewhat time consuming. it can be quite expensive and perhaps not surprisingly, there's only been a very limited number of members of congressed including we just mentioned tom, he also went this route after he had run into some trouble. and othersth who have gone ahead and have taken this step. but the vast majority of members of congress owned. and so, the question of do members of congress have to play by a different set of rules than just average americans, they do. the stock act is a different set of rules that members of congress are subject to, and i should also note to some extent there are federal walls for congressional candidates that have to at least record annual financial transactions disclosures that some of them have as we have reported as well not been very good about disclosing in that application with really no penalty coming to bear as well. >> host: question on twitter's is why the constant reference to nancy pelosi, has speaker pelosi actually violated any law? >> guest: speaker pelosi,

this kind of came up when the house at the -- ethics committee let three members and ultimately for off the hook who had violated the stock act disclosure provisions. one was a republican from texas one was a democrat from new york. a democrat from new york or a republican from new york and all three of them even though you can demonstrate that they had broken the rules and you can read the rules and compare it to their actions, and they violated it. the ethics committee says this was not a knowing and double violation. this was just a mistake. we are going to give them the benefit of the doubt here and beyond pain just that standard $200 late filing fee there were no other ramifications. they were given basically the free and clear to go on with their business without having any type of reprimand or additional penalty beyond what they already had. host: why are not all stockholders of congress made public? so the public be made aware of all conflicts of interest for what is the public through in this area? guest: that really strikes to the heart of the disclosure aspect. the provision

now this has happened before, as i understand it, house ethics committee has has done this before. so there is some for it. i'm sure that this will end up in a lawsuit of some sort. my hope would that the court here in the district of columbia that hears the case will do so on an expedited basis and so that we actually hear from the people who have who have been subpoenaed. but i think the question that the american people to ask themselves of the i don't five or six people who are who are subpoenaed why aren't you talking to the january six committee? what are you trying to hide? you know, kevin mccarthy, you said an awful lot of stuff. you talked a lot smack, you know, immediately after the election that you seem to have changed. you took the trip down to mar a lago well, you know what? what's the truth? held president trump accountable. what happened on january the six? or you're saying this is something was overblown and these were just peaceful protesters? why are you afraid of talking to the january sixth committee? why you afraid to talk to the american people about and the

the fact is the ethics committee, the committee of jurisdiction, the house administration committee, ey have to make sure they are in sync with the ethics committee at this are that, and that's called legislating. >> this is women today. yes, go ahead. >> would ask you about a a vey well-known woman, the queen. i know you signed her condolence book yesterday. in terms of her funeral next week, it appears at the president and the first laid are going to be the only ones represent the united states. do you expect that a change at all, any last-minute changes as far as a potential congressional delegation? do you have any regrets if members are not able to go? >> of course there are a large number of members would like to go but the fact is there are only like 2000 people who fit into the westminster abbey, whatever the chapel is that it will be in. yesterday we had a lovely bereavement resolution put forth by congressman ron kind, ron kind of wisconsin. he has been the chair of the uk interparliamentary group, but also he is cochair of another subgroup that uk-u.s. ron kind ancestor cam

the fact is -- the committee of jurisdiction, house administration committee, they have to make sure they are in sync with the ethics committee and that is called legislating. this is women's day. go ahead. [indiscernible] it appears that the president and first lady are the only ones representing the united states. do you expect that to change, any last-minute changes -- [indiscernible] ms. pelosi: there are a large number of members who would like to go but there are only 2,000 people that can fit into westminster abbey and yesterday we had a lovely resolution put forth by congressman ron kind of wisconsin. ron has been the chair of the u.k. interparliamentary group. he is co-chair of another subject group that u.k. ron kind's ancestor came over on the mayflower. he fell off the ship and rescued him and now we have ron kind in the congress of the united states. he offered the be reeive meant resolution and we had a moment of silence for her majesty. and i wrote a note and i wrote a note to say in my comments regarding the queen, she is a monarch for the u.k. but a matriarch for democracy and for women around the w

this kind of came up when the house at the -- ethics committee let three members and ultimately for offook who had violated the stock act disclosure provisions. one was a republican from texas one was a democrat from new york. a democrat from new york or a republican from new york and all three of them even though you can demonstrate that they had broken the rules and you can read the rules and compare it to their actions, and they violated it. the ethics committee says this was not a knowing and double violation. this was just a mistake. we are going to give them the benefit of the doubt here and beyond pain just that standard $200 late filing fee there were no other ramifications. they were given basically the free and clear to go on with their business without having any type of reprimand or additional penalty beyond what they already had. host: why are not all stockholders of congress made public? so the public be made aware of all conflicts of interest for what is the public through in this area? guest: that really strikes to the heart of the disclosure aspect. the provision provid

ethics, and anti-corruption. he served as special counsel to the house judiciary committee as u.s. ambassador to the czech republic and as president obama's special counsel for ethics in government reform. he got an undergraduate degree from brown and a law degree from harvard. next step, misses janai nelson, who served, and she will be remote, as president and director counsel of the naacp legal defense and educational fund since march of 2022. she previously served as associate director counsel at atf for eight years. earlier in her career, she was an associate dean and associate director of the ronald h. brown center for civil rights and economic development at st. johns school of law. she holds a bachelor degree from and why you, lot agree from the university of california los angeles. senator blunt. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. i want to thank all our witnesses for being here today. i have two witnesses that i'm able to introduce. first is jon gore, mr. gore is currently a partner in the -- at jones day, in washington, where he practices we voting elections, regulatory liti

house january 6th committee. others have been subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury, and even more are facing ethics complaintsawyer, what do you make of this? what is what does this say one of the lawyers need a lawyer? >> what it first says, i think that i said that phrase on this network multiple times, before the new york times reported it. i am uncredited in luke broadwater's article. i'll just say that for the record. again, i think we see michael cohen, pat cipollone, all of the former trump world lawyers seem to be lawyering up themselves. and again, as a lawyer, it really is a grave step when you are seeking counsel for yourself, and it can't be something that is undertaken likely. but it really just goes to show that the kind of work that donald trump is doing and what he expects of his lawyers, again, the sort of ray cohn's style lawyer, often really pushes the ethical boundaries that are obstructed, legal professionals, and in some cases, they actually push the boundaries of the law, requiring lawyers to get someone to help them through these episodes of legal jeopardy. so, again, maga, making atto