i was on this rules committee probably two committees ago when mr. baner sought and received from the rules committee the permission to sue the administration over some aspect of appropriations and the affordable care act. we had a lengthy hearing here in this hearing room. we had two democrat and two republican witnesses so it was a balanced hearing, all law school professors. everyone was reminding me why i didn't go to law school. but at the same time, i think at the end of that hearing, there was pretty good elucidation what the problems were and what was hoped to be accomplished. i don't think you can say the same in this situation. certainly from a standpoint as a member of the rules committee and we're the ones being asked to vote on this. again, i'll stand with mr. cole, he's right, we need to postpone this and come back and do a normal standard hearing like we had do for any other person. just because it's donald trump doesn't mean we need to lose contact with reality. we should stay focused on what is correct and proceed accordingly. >> i a

>> the committees themselves are created, the senate house committee and senate, the house committees were created out of big political issues. and abuses that took place in the intelligence committee in the 60s and 70s. so, in one sense, controversy and sensitive issues and politically charged issues have been part of the reason, part of the committee's work in part of the reason the committee were created even to begin with. i do think that the partisanship and the effectiveness of the committees has ebbed and flowed over those years. and, a lot of that has had to do, and it has been different on the two different committees, the ci versus a house intelligence committee. and it has depended a lot on the leadership. you know, when you talk to folks who, i was working on those issues roughly from 2000- 2010 during a lot of counterterrorism heightened activity, obviously. and when former staffers and former members of the community, when we talk about the intelligence communities, the leadership tenure of congressman letha's burger and congressman rogers, everyone recognizes that was r

this motion goes with you on the committee. is for every committee that is being held up. in conducting its legislative inquiry. the oversight committee is trying to investigate the white house personnel because of corruption a security clearance process. there were 25 people who were denied the security clearance by the professional staff. then they were overruled by the president for his political agenda. we are trying to get what was the basis for the original denial. it is extremely rare. there may have been more people denied their security clearance. in the last seven or eight administrations. we do not know what the basis of that was. then, we have not seen y they were overruled. there was not even a written explanation. it was just an order for the present. we are not going to participate. it is unusual unprecedented? that we would delegate to the chair the ability to go to court. what else can we do? there is a defiance. we want to put aside all of our work and have contempt rulings and request for the power to go to court? from every committee and subcommittee th

services committee, and the oversight committee. we're getting critical documents related to the mueller investigation from the department of justice. and we are seeking much more. today we added a new tool to our arsenal to make sure that the committee chairs can compel answers and enforce subpoenas. we're building the case and we're doing so in a transparent way. ultimately, this is not about donald trump or donald trump alone and it is not about simply this congress. ultimately this is a fight over whether any congress can oversee any president. whether any congress in the future can hold a president accountable for corruption, for criminal activity, for malfeasance or simple incompetence. so there's a great deal at stake. if we can't do our oversight of this administration, it means any president in the future, democrat or republican, can act with impunity, can be as corrupt as they choose without consequence. in the intelligence committee, we are already reviewing documents that go to the counterintelligence and foreign intelli

that's why intelligence committees exist. nevertheless, when mueller's redacted report was released to the public and there was no sign in that report of what happened to any of the counterintelligence investigation that had reportedly been started at the fbi concerning the president and the potential import of all those contacts between his campaign and his business and the russian government including all those contacts and ties they lied about, when there was no sign of that investigation in mueller's report, the intelligence committee including adam schiff, demanded that the justice department hand over that information, hand over the counterintelligence and foreign intelligence information that was produced as part of this investigation because it's not in the report. what happened to that stuff? the intelligence committees are legally entitled to get that type of information. in that case the justice department under attorney general william barr, they initially said no, no, no, you can't have it. so that request for in

>> you know the committees were created so the house intelligence committee and the senate -- and were created out of political issues. and abuses that took place in the intelligence community in the 1960's and 70's, so in one sense controversy and sensitive issues and politically charged issues have been part of the reason, part of the committee's work and part of the reason that committees were created to begin with. i think that the partisanship and the effectiveness of the committees has ebbed and flowed over those years. and a lot of it has had to do with -- it has been different on the two different committees -- and it has depended a lot on the leadership. you know, when you speak with onks who -- i was working those issues from 2000-2010 during a lot of counterterrorism activity, obviously. and when former staffers and former members of the community, when we talk about the intelligence committees, the re of congressman rogers and congressman rogers berger, everybody notices it was a moment and bipartisanship. but one of the reasons we are having this conversation is that in my

and judiciary committee. specific documents that we could specify. and 6 e materials is a part of it. operable under the law. even the attorney general and doj walking into court, with us. saying what can be released. or not opposing when we go into court to get a court order. the false narrative that the whole premise is on trying to get grand jury materials that i'm sure the redundancy of this has strained the imagination of the american people. what is 6 e? it only means that documents used in a grand jury like you would be down in your own back yard you had a grand jury for a criminal case, those materials are typically not seen. in this instance, because of need for the thorough investigation that we have for the american people. we would use the courts. i want to move away from that. that is not the anchor of what we have requested. and then you cannot ignore the series of meetings and engagements that the staff has had. but what occurred in the last 24 hours, was a saturday night massacre of rejection.

to hold committee votes but floor votes to try to get movement from a special committee, which is basically run by speaker pelosi to get permission to intervene or launch legal action without any other authority. this five partisan legal advisory committee is an all-new structure? sincehas been around 1992. it has been used by speakers both republican and democrat to get kind of shortcut permission to intervene in lawsuits. what is new now is that this is going to allow not only judiciary committee chairman jerrold nadler or oversight committee chairman elijah cummings or anyone else to just simply use their chairman subpoena power to also basically launch legal actions, not even going to their own members on their own committee. that has raised some legal concerns among experts, but at the same time, those who depend -- defend it say that the house will not now be burdened a constant votes on contempt and subpoenas on the house floor or at committee. >> give us a quick look at what we will see next week starting with a house rules meeting on monday and then the floor action on this resolut

i loved the finance committee. i served on a lot of committees. at that time, everyone said you --t to be on finance or on because i could not get on finance. it took me at least 12 years to get on the committee. it took ron nine. chuck grassley got on in year one. blanche lincoln got on in year one. pat took a few years. bill cassidy got in in his first term. it is not fair. it took me my third term to get him a fincance committee. but i will tell you, i look back at the other committees, i was on budget for 24 years, that is just all work. a lot of the committees are just work. finance, there is so much positive, so much good. you touch health care, all of the and titles, medicare, medicaid, tax rates, so on. you make a genetic impact on people's lives. that is so important. and you make history. elected,k and i were it had to be the same year ronald reagan was elected. maximum tax rate was 70%. eight years later, 28%. wow. ist israel history -- that real history. that is changing things. it is really positive. it was a bipartisan bill for a lot

now, he told the committee, mr. speaker, and i quote, you have to tie your request carefully to your authority to demand information. if bill barr are actually complied with the subpoena, as written, he would have violated federal law. if he would have complied, he would have violated federal law. mr. speaker, that's why we're here. not only, mr. speaker, does the chairman of that committee ask the attorney general to break the law or he'll try to hold him in contempt, he won't even go read the report. on may 8, only a few weeks after the first subpoena was issued, house judiciary democrats voted to hold a.g. barr in contempt, the attorney general of the united states in contempt. why would they vote to hold him in contempt? because they were so angry that the attorney general wouldn't break the law. they wanted him to break the law. in a may 24 letter to the attorney general, chairman nadler offered for the first time to negotiate and narrow the scope of his subpoena request, but then you know what, he changed his

i'm proud my fellow committee -- judiciary committee chairman nadler, ways and means committee chairman neal, intelligence committee chairman schiff and financial services chairwoman waters joined us. this deserves support from both sides of the aisle. now, i know this sounds from some of my republican friends to what this president is doing has been deafening, but this moment demands you finally speak up and say enough is enough. this resolution is not about politics or partisanship. it is about defending the rule of law and the very notion of separation of powers. because the challenge here is so great that if we don't stand up to president trump today, then we risk losing the power to stand up to any president in the future. so i strongly urge my colleagues, let's make clear that the law still matters even in donald trump's america. we can do that by voting yes on this resolution and making clear that no one is above the law, not even the president of the united states. let's do right by the american people. let's restore the dignity of this institution, and let's pass this resolutio

i'm proud my fellow committee -- judiciary committee chairman nadler, ways and means committee chairman neal, intelligence committee chairman schiff and financial services chairwoman waters joined us. this deserves support from both sides of the aisle. now, i know this sounds from some of my republican friends to what this president is doing has been deafening, but this moment demands you finally speak up and say enough is enough. this resolution is not about politics or partisanship. it is about defending the rule of law and the very notion of separation of powers. because the challenge here is so great that if we don't stand up to president trump today, then we risk losing the power to stand up to any president in the future. so i strongly urge my colleagues, let's make clear that the law still matters even in donald trump's america. we can do that by voting yes on this resolution and making clear that no one is above the law, not even the president of the united states. let's do right by the american people. let's restore the dignity of this institution, and let's pass this resolutio

i want our committee to do what our committee is supposed to do. i want our congress to do what it's supposed to do. and i want to preserve the power that the founding fathers gave us in their wisdom. i do not want it diluted. i don't want it power-light. i want the full power that the congress is supposed to have, and so i'm not going to be supportive of this. okay? who else? who's next? >> chairman cummings? thank you. i >> mr. rouda. >> i'm a freshman. i had never run for office before coming here. and my message was that most americans are between the 20 yard lines. we have a lot more in common than what separates us. and one of the most poignant moments in my journey here was when i raised my right hand with my eyes welling up and taking an oath to the constitution of the united states of america. and in taking that oath, we're not taking an oath to a party. we're not taking an oath to a president. we're taking an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states of america. and i take the issues we are facing here today and appreciate the

the committee wants him to answer questions. the committee is entitled to have its procedures. the minority in the committee is entitled to oppose the manner of asking questions and that is what the motion before us does -- and that is what their opposition to the motion does. however, this motion is a very simple motion, to permit questioning by staff. you are either for it, or you are against it. we have to get to a very important piece of legislation. the ranking member told us in his opening statement that he would engage in dilatory tactics. we see those tactics now. instead of just opposing the motion and explaining their reason -- >> we will debate the motion. point of order. 's setan nadler: gentleman of just opposing the motion and explaining the reasons why -- gentlemen, we can debate the motion. .ou will debate the motion but we will get to a vote on the motion within a half-hour because we have to go to a very important bill. the motion is simple. either you allow staff to question the witness. or you don't. does not need a lot of debate. it is simply dilatory and t

and as liz said, this week in the house, both in the armed services committee with our committee markup and also on the floor with the defense appropriations, we have the opportunity to build upon what those in normandy fought and sacrificed for. we consistently had testimony in the armed services committee since 2017 that there needed to be 3% to 5% of real growth in the defense budget through 2025 to repair our military and maintain our current position versus russia and china. neither the bill on the floor or the chairman's mark in the armed services committee meets that mark. i will have an amendment to give members the opportunity to go up to the 3% real growth, which is the same as the president requested, which is the same as the senate is marking to. and i hope my colleagues will follow through. another key area for you all to pay attention to is the nuclear deterrent. all of us probably have gotten to the point where we take for granted that the united states has a strong nuclear deterrent that prevents others from using nuclear weapons against us. unfortunately in the bill bef

keyword there, senate intelligence committee. they subpoenaed the president's eldest son weeks after the mueller probe ended. top republicans, include iing t president, declared case closed. doesn't look like the case is cloesd. let's bring in cnn's lauren fox. what's about to happen in the house oversight committee, the hearings that are about to begin and what does it mean exactly? >> they are planning to vote to hold the attorney general, william barr, and secretary of commerce, wilbur ross, in contempt of congress, for not turning over documents related to their investigation about why a question of citizenship is to be added to the census. department of justice said they would ask to exert executive privilege overall of this, a clear escalation in this fight between house democrats and th trump administration for information related to this census investigation. now, this is just a marker in a broader fight between the trump administration and house democrats for information. of course, yesterday the full house voted to all

i'm going to defend this committee and i will defend the integrity of this committee. we have issued properly done subpoenas and we have to make sure that we do every single thing in our power to enforce them and i think you. >> mr. chairman? >> thank you mr. chairman. i wanted to just weigh in on actually a transcribed interview and this amendment. literally what we have got is both sides characterizing what we believe to be the truth. somewhere between the way it is being characterized on the other side and by the way it is being characterized here is the truth. let's make sure that we are clear that the interview that happened yesterday was one that you and i worked on together to make sure that this individual got there. i know my good friend from missouri is talking about all the questions that were answered. of the questions that were answered, you can come on back and sit down, i'm not going to say anything negative about it. but, some of the questions that were answered was the fact that that witness had nothing to do, didn't actually have any position with art

committee, which, again, is not the judiciary committee. he listed events that took place in transcript that were not public testimony. my problem here is this, bill barr so far, and you can disagree with him, but it is amazing that up until a few weeks ago, he was a good man. up until a few weeks ago, people thought he was a good attorney. until a few weeks ago, robert top-notchs a investigator, until the report came out and it did not say what you wanted it to say. it is amazing to me the words that have been said at this point. but there's two reasons for this motion. on --, and i will focus the chairman has decided along with the majority, that they want to appear as if they are doing impeachment. they want to have an impeachment-like inquiry. for staffe precedent questioning is impeachment. but the problem is they can't bring themselves to bring impeachment. they can't bring themselves to take one of the resolutions already been addressed on the democratic side to this committee and open impeachment. open it up. then we go to separate

i'm saying the committee and that's the relevant committee, peter rodino's committee that i served oniciary that they should just be permitted to proceed. i'm sure they'll have subpoenas. i'm sure there will be fights. president nixon wound up being an article of impeachment was obstruction of the subpoenas by the house judiciary committee. that could well come again because mr. trump hassoid he's going to cooperate rate with nobody no how if he investigate him or miss family or his administration at all. that's breathtaking. that's never been said before by a president. we'll see where that goes. >> a quick word, governor, on your path in this campaign. i'm sure you hope to do very well, better than pat buchanan in new hampshire, your neighboring state of new hampshire. then what? >> well, two paths, lawrence. one is geographic. it would be the six new england states down into the mid-atlantic. then california and the west, oregon, washington, some of the mountain and intermountain states where i spent a lot of time in the last cycle, utah, president trump got 14% of the vote there i

to thank the rules committee. the democrats and the republicans and our staffs. for all the time that they have put in during not only this week but last week as well. i mean, it's like final exam week. these are all-nighters for the staff. often times that gets overlooked. so i want to thank them for their patience and diligent work. i urge a yes vote on the previous question. yes on this rule. and on the underlying resolution. i yield back the balance of my time and prove the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back . the request se on ordering the eprevious question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to claus

. -- of the judiciary committee. the equality act came out of judiciary. the dream and promise act, out of the judiciary. background checks, came out of the judiciary committee. so again, violence against women, came out of the judiciary committee. this is a very active and busy committee, and among its legislating, investigating, and litigating, they're doing a remarkable, remarkable job. but we're not going to investigate and litigate at the expense of our legislating. we are here to do the people's business and make their lives better, to challenge the senate, to take up legislation that does just that, and hopefully public sentiment will weigh in on the senate. i think they passed three bills or something since they've been there, complete bill. not a good record. but in any event, the committee in its wisdom and experience will make a decision. we're very proud of our house counsel, he has done a terrific job, as well. working with them. thank you all very much. we're going off to normandy, right now. isn't it e

i know that's information that this committee has asked for as of other committees. as soon as we had it we came to other committees in order to be as transparent as possible >> you mentioned some 34,000 documents that have been submitted. do you have any idea what percentage-wise has been redacted and what you have submitted? i should know better. to be clear, 34,000 pages of documents. i could probably get a document count for you. it's a little -- you know, just happy to do that if that's helpful. i don't believe we've made significant redactions in what we've produced to this committee. i double-checked -- happy to get you an account but i think they there have been very minimal if any at all. >> my time is almost gone. i just want clarification was the decision from the f.b.i. location 100% made within the f.b.i.? >> sir, although the decision-making predates my tenure at the f.b.i., my understanding that the decision was made bill director ray. i'm certainly in close consul twation the administrative g.s.a. >> so no thoughts or discussions were take under consi

committee but she is the only member of the committee who was there when the committee voted to impeach president richard nixon in 1974, back then, congresswoman lofgren was a staffer on the house judiciary committee during the nixon impeachment proceedings. and she will join us next. feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin and relief from symptoms caused by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. ♪ applebee's new loaded chicken fajitas. now only $10.99. be go[ laughing ] gone. woo hoo. ♪ welcome to my house mmm, mmm, mmmmm. ball. ball. ball. awww, who's a good boy? it's me. me, me, me. yuck, that's gross. you got to get that under control. [ dogs howling ] seriously? embrace the mischief. say "get pets tickets" into your x1 voice remote to see it in theaters. >>> house democrats scored a big win in their struggle to obtain more douts underlying documents of the mueller report. today, house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler announced that the justice

in the course of the committee's back and forth in the justice department the committee did produce a sort of provocative list describing things from mueller's report that they wanted to see. we got this in a letter from nadler to the judiciary committee. that big long list you see on your screen there, that's a list of 302s that the committee wants to see. a 302 is the number on the form that the fbi uses when they write up official notes from their fbi interviews. so anytime anybody spoke to the mueller investigation, any witness that came in and talked to mueller, the fbi would have had at least one agent in that interview, whether or not prosecutors were there. there would always be somebody from the fbi, and the fbi would write up a 302 about the content of that interview. well, the judiciary commit has already previously explicitly told the justice department they want to see all these 302s. they want to see the fbi official interview notes from all of these people, from steve bannon who did four different interviews of the fbi and has four different 302s. from new jersey govern

ultimately, the committee voted to hold both officials in contempt of congress. >> the committee will come to order. without objection, declaring a recess at any time. pursuant to committee rule five 11, house rule 11, the chair may postpone further proceedings today. one, the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment at which a .ecorded vote the yays and nays are ordered. now pursuant to order, i call -- >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. rep. cummings: may i finish? may i please finish? thank you. now, pursuant to notice, i call up a report containing a contempt resolution related to the 2020 census. clerk will report the report which has been distributed in advance. >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. rep. cummings: the gentleman is not recognized. >> well, the point of order actually from the parliamentary standpoint is a privileged motion. so i have a point of order. rep. cummings: what is your point of order? >> my point of order is that rule 2f of the committee rules have been violated and the chairman has received a letter which would ou

chair nadler: the judiciary committee will come to order. without objection, the chair's authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to today's hearing on lessons from the mueller report, presidential obstruction, and other crimes. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. just over two years ago special counsel robert mueller was charged with conducting a full and thorough investigation of the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, unquote, including examination of, quote, any links and/or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of president donald trump and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, close quote. he concluded in his own words "russian intelligence officers who were part of the russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. those officers used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the clinton campaign. they

speaker pelosi: we're going to work with the committee. it's not about by passing the committee. what it is about is taking it one step at a time as fast as we can move expeditiously. this doesn't mean we couldn't do inherent contempt at some other point, but you have to get started. one more. yes, ma'am. reporter: your reiterated -- you reiterated robert mueller testified, chairman nadler -- speaker pelosi: i'm a big committee person. this is the judgment that they will put forth, and they're doing the negotiation. take it one step at a time. hopefully, he would accept an invitation to come. hopefully, if there is a subpoena, that would be friendly and he would come. but we'll see. it's up to them. they will decide because they're doing negotiations. what's important for people to know, first of all, i travel all the time in the country, do you know most people think that impeachment means you're out of office? did you ever get that feeling? or are you just in a bubble here? they think you get impeached, you're gone. and that is completely not true. i may have thought that mysel

the budget committee, your budget committee, was not able to pass a budget. was not even able to pass out of committee an amount of money to determine what we could spend in the house or the senate. there is not an agreement at all. in fact, if you look, it's the first time in nine years that the house budget committee did not produce a budget. in that budget that is usually the document that says this is e amount of money that the appropriations bills can ultimately equal up to. whether it's defense, or all of the other bills. next week more than half of the discretionary spending of the country is going to be on the house floor. the department of defense bill alone represents more than half of the discretionary spending. and there is not an agreement between the house or senate or the white house on how much we're going to fund defense. i'd like to see us get that agreement, but clearly the gentleman knows we don't have one. unfortunately, those bills are typically bipartisan and the appropriations committee has produced a very partisan defense bill that do

no other committee can do it. no other committee should do it. you do not need to have public hearings on it. i would argue you should never have public hearings on those things. we actually moved the ball. when you get into this other stuff beyond the confines of the committee, what happens is you will have to regain the trust of the intelligence. they will say, i hope they don't don't find that. that is what happened. i guarantee you it is happening today. nobody wants it. if you talk to anybody in the intelligence community, nobody wants to go up there. i think i'm going to be sick that day, look at me, i am pale. [laughter] no one wants to do it because they do not respect the process and respect is both ways. oops, that is boehner calling you. [laughter] he is really mad at you right now. if respect only comes from a subpoena, you will not be successful. dutch: i want to say something on that, too. the first thing is about priorities. anything you do in life you need to prioritize. we had to make sure we did what was in our scope and was a h

and ting committee understands that. >> reporter: but the chairman of the committee who issued a subpoena for trump junior's testimony, who trump junior fought that subpoena, declined to comment about the testimony when he left earlier today. >> very busy day, indeed, up on capitol hill. president trump, meanwhile, is digging in on the issue that led to that contempt vote in the house. let's go to our white house correspondent, kaitlan collins. kaitlan, the president clearly is not budging. >> yeah, wolf, that's a vote that the white house said was unnecessary and premature. but today when the president was asked about adding that question to the census, he showed no signs of backing off as he ramped up his fight with house democrats. >> it's ridiculous. >> reporter: tonight, the president is amping up his showdown with congress, this time exerting executive privilege to keep census documents away from house democrats. >> i think it's totally ridiculous that we would have a census without asking. >> reporter: trump standing by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. a move that

>>> the committee will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. pursuant to committee rule 5 and rule 11, house rule 11, the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter on adopting an amendment for the recorded vote where yays and nays are orders. i pull up a report containing a contempt resolution -- >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. >> may i finish? may i please finish? thank you. now, pursuant to notice, i call up a report containing a contempt resolution related to the 2020 census. clerk will report the report which has been distributed in advance. >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. >> the gentleman is not recognized. >> well, the point of order actually from the parliamentary standpoint is a privileged motion. >> what is your point of order? >> rule 2f of the committee rules have been violated and the chairman has received a letter which would outline that that particular rule requires

will the members of the judiciary committee and the intelligence committee sit concurrently for thatestimony or will those be sequential hearings with each committee in turn? >> they'll be sequential hearings on the same day. >> okay. >> followed by private discussions or private testimony in executive session with his staff, but the open portions of the hearing will be back to back in the two committees. >> the closed session that will happen with your committee following those open sessions, you mentioned that will be mueller's staff. will that be mueller as well in addition to his staff and can you tell us who from his staff is expected to testify at that session? >> his testimony will be purely in open session. so all the questions we have for him, we expect to ask in open session. in terms of which of his staff, i can't go into those particulars at this point, but there are any number of areas that may involve redacted material or may involve a pending case where it's appropriate to ask those questions in closed session. but our predominant interest is being able to shed light o

, the committee his pay for communications, and how do i find what committee paid for this? it talks about disclaimers, it talks about how to use committee names to then use the dashboard on our website to look that committee up, how is the committee funded, and how's it spending its money, et cetera, and it also talks about, what you do if you see an ad that doesn't have a disclaimer, but it is promoting a san francisco candidate or measure, and it provides our office phone number it says to contact the enforcement division for potential disclaimer violation. we see this as an important way to help the public, especially those who might not be aware of campaign-finance law, and the general structure of for sixties and committees, to help them have some kind of entry point into this world, it is straightforward, it instead of containing a single webpage, it is tailored towards electronic media users, people who are maybe not watching t.v. or radio , but who are really tuned into social media and e-mail and that kind of stuff, we think this will be a huge step forward , and w

in the last hour the house judiciary committee announcing she has agreed to sit down with the committee next wednesday. this testimony will be behind closed doors but the committee plans to release a transcript of her testimony. she'll, of course, be facing questions about her time on the trump campaign, her time in transition, and certainly her time in the white house. that, of course, could be an open question. last week they directed hope hicks not to turn over documents that the committee wanted related to her time at the white house. it will be key and a huge question if the white house will seek executive privilege to prevent her from speaking about her time at the white house, but her time on the campaign will be fair game. >> the committee has agreed to hold two in contemp? that's right. they will hold the attorney jen ran and wilbur ross in contempt for refusing to comply with their subpoenas. this is all in relation to a it extend ship question related to a 2020 census. democrats threw a fit about this. they want to know more and how it was related to that. this comes hours af

find a committee. you know, i can continue on and on about issues we have here and whatever you want to have in saying he's wlak mailing this committee and terrified. yesterday he proved he he's not terrified. you can atree with the attorney general or disagree and the largest tragedy was yesterday. what happened yesterday on this dime was a travesty. when you do not recognize members for valid motions, and when you question motives i have sat on this committee six years and have sat through hours and hours. why do you let it continue? the question i have here is not what bill bar is scared of. what are the democrats scared of sth they have the report and don't like what is in it. amazing he won't go read it. this problem perfect yesterday is not over. if the majority wants to run a committee in which minority lives do not matter apartmentry procedure does not matter. we saw it on we'll exercise which is the minority rights just like we got to spend hours and let you do it. that is not how this committ

committee but she is the only member of the committee who was there when the committee voted to impeach president richard nixon in 1974, back then, congresswoman lofgren was a staffer on the house judiciary committee during the nixon impeachment proceedings. and she will join us next. n imp. and she willoi jn us next. feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin and relief from symptoms caused by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. >>> house democrat

maybe you're not on that committee. the reason this is important, in terms of the strategic plan we expect staff to do things. every item, they're labeled deliverables, something we're expecting staff to do. part of the concept of deliverables, if a group is supposed to meet and decide, if the group doesn't meet, huge botched it up in gettin gettings done, much like hearings for disability. things that should take a few months take one to six years to get done. >> but sometimes we are at fault because we don't do what we're supposed to do. we have our strategic plan or they're waiting for us to act, and i think that maybe as the guy who started the committee system over claire's objections may need to revisit the committee system to discuss do we have the right committees and are we in the -- are we doing everything or should we be consolidating? i think that's a discussion you'll have to think out in the next month as you make your committee appointments in amonging at thlooking at the co, because we're looking at not

you are on the oversight committee, the ways an means committee. you want to see the president's tax returns for the past six years. you believe you have a strong case. how is that working out so far? >> hey, we're in -- we're following it through and one of the things that i've always said. and i said on this show, i just said it, this president as well as everybody associated, they have one strategy, it's called dodge, delay and lie. and i want the american people to know it. because they're going to keep doing it. but we're going to follow every piece of evidence, if we're going to issue subpoenas, if they don't follow up on the subpoena, we're going to issue contempt. if they don't have, don't follow up on the contempt, we're going to go to court. you know what, we're winning in the court right now on the fact we have a a right to investigate and hold this administration accountable. >> congressman jimmy gomez, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >>> just ahead, cnn has learned the house judiciary committee jerry nadler is backing a

of the science committee. we did very vigorous oversight on the patriot act, as the chairman, the gentleman from new york, recognized. i did vigorous oversight of our involvement with the russians in terms of the space station, as those who were around here at that time recognized, but in ten years as a committee chairman, i never issued a subpoena. and the reason i never issued a subpoena is that i was able to get the information the committee needed to do its oversight simply by negotiating, by writing letters to the agency heads, some of which i admit used some very tart language, but at least i was able to get the information that the committee needed to make the agencies operate better without issuing a subpoena. what we're seeing here is subpoena first and then figure out, you know, what we can do to make people embarrassed because they cannot comply with all parts of the subpoena. mr. barr can't do that under rule 6e. so the chairman has put the attorney general between a rock and a hard place. comply w

committee on the same day. a month ago robert mueller delivered a nine-minute public statement about the mueller report that he hoped would be his last public words about it. >> i hope and expect this to be the only time that i will speak to you in this manner. i am making that decision myself. no one has told me whether i can or should testify or speak further about this matter. >> july 17th, 9:00 a.m. is when you will next hear robert mueller speak. chairman jerry nadler of the house judiciary committee, chairman adam schiff of the house intelligence committee, made a joint announcement tonight saying special counsel robert s. mueller iii has agreed to testify pursuant to a subpoena before both the house judiciary committee and house intelligence committee in open session on wednesday, july 17th, 2019. the chairmen said americans have demanded to hear directly from the special counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered and determined about russia's attack on our democracy, the tru