but then committees are unique. so we really have to discuss what it is that you are willing to give up for the benefit of transparency. but i want to be clear, we don't take a position here in the clerk's office, you make the decisions, you provide us the reasonable time and sufficient resources and we will certainly make certain that it's developed and implemented and we will do so with very high-quality standards. mr. timmons: sure. i really appreciate that. thank you. i think that's something we should look into, mr. chairman. just creating a portal, a platform that everyone can use. it can be a versatile platform that meets all the different committees' needs but standardization would go a long way. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. kilmer: thanks, vice chair timmons. mr. latta. a reminder to members, if you have a question, feel free to raise your virtual hand if you want to get in on this conversation. mr. laturner: thanks very much, -- mr. latta: thanks very much, mr. chairman and mr. vice chairman,

but then committees are unique.really have to discuss what you are willing to give up for the benefit of transparency. but i want to be clear, we do not take a position here in the clerk'sma office. you make the decision, you provide us the reasonable time and sufficient resources. and we will certainly make certain it is developed and implemented. we will do so with very high quicky standards for sure i really appreciate that. i think that is something we shouldld look into mr. chairman creating a portal, a platform everyone can use pretty can be a versatile platform the standardization we go along way, think it went thaton mr. chairman i yield back.r >> thank you, mr. lata and remember to remind her to members raise your virtual hand if you want to get in on this. >> thank you very much chairman and vice chair fortt today's hearing to art witnesses, thank you for being with us. c i am just curious what are we doing when it comes to making sure we are cyber secure? >> is that for me? >> i am sorry, i did not hear t

a central location to share committee vote data and the creation of a common scheduling for committees to assist in our aa nall and scoping of this work -- analysis and scoping of this work, we're working to release two r.f.i.'s, requests for information, for the purpose of gathering information and investigating possible solutions. and we expect that the r.f.i.'s will be released later this month. finally i want to lend my support to other recommendations that this committee has made. anywayly, the recommendation -- namely, the recommendations to improve staff recruitment, diversity, retention, compensation and benefits and to improving accessibility. i fully support each recommendation. thank you again for this opportunity to speak before the committee and i look forward to your questions. mr. kilmer: thank you, ms. johnson. our next and final witness is kathryn spinedder, the chief administrative officer for the house. shea served in this role since 2020. previously she served as the chief information officer for the house. she joined the house in 2011 as the director of enterprise

committee. this requirement is being filled by our subcommittee on elections. oversight of federal elections is important and a key piece of the committee's jurisdiction. elections are a fraction of what members are able to speak to during a true members hearing day. we should be able to speak that the people's house is not open to tours. it is not open to the people. we should be able to talk about mask requirements on house floor. the friday before christmas. almost like the democrats are trying to hide something from the public of the bad policies of their legislation. kind of like they did in rushing through hr1, a mandate to states and localities on every minute detail of how elections should be operated. hr1 would have gutted voter id laws, would have nationalized elections, would have restricted state abilities to maintain accurate rolls, and would have legalized handouts funded with taxpayer money. this process is repeating itself in the senate where they are trying to pass a compromise

committee because every -- any committee has oversight subcommittee. and that was an interesting thing that i never thought of before. so we're gonna have a lot of interesting ideas that we're gonna be talking about. i just wanted to throw that one early, but look forward to look your testimony and with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. i'm honored to welcome our three witnesses joining us this morning, witnesses are reminded that your written statements will be made part of the record. our first witness is josh chafetz. dr. chaffetz is a professor at georgetown university law school prior to his current position. he spent 12 years on the faculty at cornell law school. his research interests include constitutional law, american and british constitutional history, legislation, and legislative procedure, and the intersection of law and politics. his recent book, congress's constitution, legislative authority and separation of powers, explores how congress uses the various tools at its disposal during conflicts with other branches of governme

in another committee. and you get different results. there's no question about it. so, in the setting that we have, which is different than a corporate setting, you know, it's we're sort of in the game the whole time. how do you manage that? how do you bring out civility? how do you bring out the collaboration? i guess that's my question. >> sure. it -- if i can jump in on this. i think i do think there's a perception issue more so than, i mean, there's about -- a majority of research showing that the majority of members are mostly just focused on, you know, creating policy solutions and or district advocacy, like a majority are a bare majority, but a majority are, are focused on that end. and so that's where i see the rule of collaboration. i think being really impactful is actually getting those like rank and file members who are less concerned about the partisan fighting that's going on over here and more concerned about working together and making these connections and because like i said, you know, ki

you went to this committee before this committee. i read that they were asking more questions about afghanistan, which seems rather odd to me. but you have a timeline of the events that day. you were backed up by the inspector general, department of defense in terms of you taking the right actions. my question to you, what is in that timeline that people need to know? >> no, fantastic question. it is backed up by writing. mayor bowser written refusal, the communication between the leader in the capitol police and chain of command to the dod refusing our request to allow national guardsmen and women to stage january 4, january 5, before january 6. repeated refusal and they followed and i will leave you with this, sean, the dod is not only no fail mission on gods green earth. we were proven right that we acted lawfully on january 6th under the law and under president trump's authority. and the timeline as well. >> sean: it sounds like they were not interested. is it fair to conclude that donald trump's request for national guard troops

the committee on foreign affairs and the science and technology committee. you are recognized for approximately five minutes. rep. meijer: ensuring the integrity remains a priority of mine. in recent years, politicians have sought to undermine that confidence. this erosion led to a crisis of confidence where fraud and voter suppression echo one another. the people in this chamber should seek to restore faith in the voting public and the integrity of our elections. hr-1 trips faith of local governments of their ability to determine how best to administer. it goes on to make those agencies responsible for administering those rules explicitly partisan by changing the structure of the sec from six to five. it goes further by removing the requirements for bipartisan agreement, an important check against partisan impulses. it enables the irs to discriminate in its issuance of fundraising on the basis of partisanship and to issue focus. i cannot think of a system better designed to undermine public confidence. then you make those enforcement mechanisms explicitly p

acting committees? that won't help us stopping somebody like me going to talk to my colleagues legislative ideas or oversight ideas, it breaks down not in a good way. social media, how is that impacting our ability to exercise bipartisan oversight. >> i've looked at oversight a lot of different eras and it's not clear to me this particular -- it stronger now. the committee and merchants you look at the mccarthy hearings in the late 40s and 50s and the earrings in the 90s, these are all media environments, the first one is radio and the second is television, third is pre-social media and social media era and they are in different ways, sometimes the nastiness is cross partisan in both parties and sometimes it is more partisan i would suggest to whatever extent we are in a moment in a high political passion, the fault is the media or even -- there are things congress has an institution to turn down the temperature in congress but the truth is the american public is more polarized over a century and of the

committee's work, he could have slowed the committee's work down. he would know what was going on. right now he has no idea what's going on behind the scenes, jake. >> governance by tantrum seldom works out. jamie gangel, thank you. here to discuss, legal analyst carrie cordero who previously worked with the u.s. justice department. what's your reaction when you hear about all this evidence the committee has gathered about what trump was doing while his supporters attacked the capitol? >> well, one thing i think that's important, jake, is that it sounds that people are actually cooperating. so up until now we've heard a lot about those who are not cooperating with the committee but the example that jamie gave of keith kellogg shows there are individuals close to the former president who are voluntarily cooperating and providing the committee with information. that's a really important development. i think the question that the committee has to look at, if they're exploring potential criminal referral or criminal charges is the actual conduct. so i t

judiciary committee. request which jordan called an outrageous abuse of select committee's authority. today the committee went to the very top requesting testimony from house minority leader kevin mccarthy, the highest ranking republican in the house caucus. now mccarthy yet to respond. he previously indicated he would cooperate with the investigation. but he also called the committee a sham. i want to bring in michael steel, former member of the committee and barbara wade from the eastern district of michigan. michael, let me start with you on just the oh, snap implications here of, you know, going straight to the top of the house republican caucus and saying like you clearly have information we want to know about. >> yeah. i think that's important. what it says is that the information that committee has been collecting has led to this moment. you don't make this move unless you got something that creates the impetus for it, supports the impetus for it and justifies making -- because you know the politic

the committee is not wrong. this is all public record. mccarthy stone certainly sounded different in the statement posted on facebook along with the voters. great meeting with president trump today. house republicans in the trump administration a treat historic results for all americans. as mccarthy essentially started to do trump's bidding. the summer, when the january six committee was being formed. he appointed five republicans, three of whom voted to -- speaker nancy pelosi veto to the picks including jim jordan of ohio who has since been asked to appear before the committee as a witness to some of the most important events and is refusing to cooperate. mccarthy, of course, then pulled the remaining nominees. the committee concluded their letter by pointing out that mccarthy has recently indicated that he might be open to cooperating, quote, wouldn't hide from anything. which is good. they asked mccarthy to appear for them. proposing the time in the first week of february. we watched as one rioter after another sentence over january s

committee. welcome to washington post live. always great to have you on. president biden went after donald this morning in a pretty forceful speech. he denounced the web of lies spread by trump and his supporters. will your colleagues embrace resident biden's characterization today of the january 6 riot, and should they? rep. kinsinger: they should, but will they? not at least in the near-term future. who is the audience? i very recently have had to come to the realization that 60%, 70% of my party is going to believe that donald trump won and i political identity -- and a political identity has become a personal identity. to lose your personal identity is a scary thing for a lot of people. but the thing i am heartened by , in a time of real disheartening times, is still over 70% of americans recognize that joe biden did win. and that is the kind of margins you need to keep winning elections, to put bulwarks down. i thought the president's speech was necessary. i thought going after a former pre

this committee will convene remotely until the committee is authorized to meet in person. public comment will be allowed on each agenda item. each speaker will have an opportunity to speak and is available by calling (415) 655-0001. access code 24895082806 then pound and pound again. when connected, you will be muted and in listening mode only. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. you may submit your public comment to ocoh.con at sfgov.org and it will be forwarded to the committee and it will be part of the official file. please note this meeting will be recorded and will be available at sfgovtv.org. >> president: thank you. welcome to the our city our home oversight committee. it is january 27th, 2022. and we'll call this meeting to order starting with roll call. >> clerk: [roll call] you have quorum. >> chairman: thank you so much. we'll go to public comment on items that are not on the agenda at this time. >> clerk: members of the public dial (415) 655-0001. access code 24895082806. please wai

legislative purpose which he claimed he doesn't believe the committee has. it is a way of being less than honest without appearing to be. if the question is does he have anything of interest to the committee, the answer is clearly, yeah, he does. here's committee member adam schiff talking about text messages to former white house chief of staff mark meadows in and around the insurrection. >> i want to display just a few of the message he received from people in congress. if we could cue the first graphic. this one reads on january 6th, 2021, vice president mike pence as president of the senate should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all. >> so that message he read was from congressman jordan. it is a dubious legal theory on overturning the election, which he forwarded. again, this is the ranking member of the judiciary committee fronting a theory for a potential coup. the same jim jordan who is rarely at a loss for words except when it seems about something the committee wants to know about, his con

committee. are you prepared for pens to cooperate? what would that look like? >> i think -- i would love to have an interview with the vice president. maybe it is written questions. the vice president obviously knows a lot. he has direct conversations with donald trump. he was there on january 6. i am sure he would have been privy to some discussions prior to january 6. his cooperation will certainly be helpful if it comes through. he has some former staff members that have been helpful. i think the key with all of this is if we can focus on specific people, i understand this is important, but there are over 300 people we interviewed that we have information from. it is just a key of the puzzle. -- piece of the puzzle. we have to put it together and make a picture. >> critics of the committee argue it has not uncovered any new information that is not already publicly known. if they are wrong, can you give us an example of something new with the committee covered that you think is important to kn

the january 6th committee, what now, how do you view the work of the january 6th committee. again, you see that 53% number. they say the committee is important for the future of our democracy. but over 40% say no, it's a waste of time from other important issues. and check this out, partisan divide on this one is even more clear. nearly 90% of democrats say the committee is important to the future of democracy. nearly 80% of republicans say no, that committee is a waste of time. the one area where you actually do see real overlap between the parties, this is interesting, is when you ask, how worried are you about the future of america's democracy. there, more than 80% of americans say they are worried, they're either very or somewhat worried about it. and it completely cuts across party lines. democrats, republicans, independents, they all say they are worried about the future of democracy in this country, katy. but obviously it breaks down when you breaks down when you ask the question, why are you worried, what about democracy makes you worried. >> count me among those wor

my guess is congressman adam kinzinger, one of two republicans on the committee. it's a pleasure to have you on. >> thanks for having me. >> president biden went on after donald trump in a forceful speech. he denounced the web of lies spread by trump and his supporters will republicans and their colleagues embraced president biden's of the january 6 rally and event? >> certainly they should. will they? probably not, at least not in the near-term future. we have to look at thisand say who's the audience ? very recently i had to come to the realization that 50, 70 percent of my party is going to believe that donald trump won the election and it's become a political identity and a political identity has become personal identity and that's the scary thing for a lot of people so nothing's going to change their mind but the thing i am heartened by in a time of disheartening times is the fact that still over 60, 70 percent of americans, it should be 100 recognize joe biden did win and that's the kind of margins you need to keep winning elections and put votes down the pr

one of those committees is house administration committee, we're joined by a member of that committeerepublican on that committee congressman rodney davis from the great state of illinois, welcome to you congressman. what are you looking for as the ranking member of the house administration committee? >> first, trey, great to see you again. you know from your experience, when we served together, the capitol security is run, not by just the capitol police, but political appointees like the house sergeant at arms, those appointees. the senate sergeant at arms and architect of the capitol, they make up the capitol police board. that board makes all the security decisions. they made all of the security decisions leading up to and on january 6. we're asking, is simple, i want to know what communications exist between the pelosi appointed sergeant at arms was on the and any other law enforcement officials or military officials leading up to that day and on that day. i have been rebuffed by the speaker and her own appointees since january 6. trey: i served with a bunch of progressive, provoc

this committee is bipartisan committee. it was constituted completely in accordance with the rules of the house, and with the rules of resolution that created it. and minority leader mccarthy refused to name people. he pulled back all of the people that he had appointed to the committee. we are working in a nonpartisan fashion and we are going to get our work done despite attempts to try to block and obstruct. >> bret: and will you push for the release of the hundreds or thousands of hours of videotape that has not come out. >> yes. i think it's really important for the american people to have a full picture. there are a lot of conspiracy theories that people are pushing that are dangerous and that are wrong. and i think people need to have a full picture of what happened on january 6th here at the capitol, at the white house, and also in the weeks leading up to it. >> bret: congresswoman cheney, we appreciate you coming on. we want to hear from all sides, thanks. >> i appreciate it, thank you. >> bret: chaos in kazakhstan

is that the consensus view of the committee? >> the committee is going to follow the facts wherever they lead. we have made tremendous progress. if you just think about what we know now about what the former president was doing on the 6th while the attack was under way. the committee has firsthand testimony that president trump was sitting in them to the oval office, watching on television, as the capitol was assaulted, as the violence occurred. we know that that is clearly a supreme dereliction of duty. one of the things we're looking at is whether we need enhanced penalties for the dereliction of duty. but we have certainly never seen anything like that as a nation before. >> brennan: one of the things we've seen in cbs news polling there is a hard percentage of the population that believes what the former president is claiming. eight million people believe in violence to restore him to office. seven out of 10 republicans still believe president biden is illegitimate. so these numbers are pretty hard here. why hasn't this conv

of course the committee wants to talk to him. of course they do. they want to talk to jim jordan, too. he claims he has no relevant information that would assist the select committee in advancing any legitimate legislative purpose, sound similar? because that's kind of what kevin mccarthy is saying as well. you know what might be relevant? whether he talked to the then president on january 6th. that might be relevant. >> did you speak with president trump on january 6th? >> yeah, i mean, i spoke with the president last week. i speak with the president all the time. i spoke with him on january 6th. i mean, i talk with president trump all the time. that's -- i don't think that's unusual. i would expect members of congress to talk with the president of the united states when they're trying to get done the things they told the voters in their district to do. i'm actually kind of amazed people keep asking me this. i talk with the president all the time, i talked with him last week. >> on january 6th, did you speak with him before, during, or after the c

the committee writes this.n led you to conclude that white house counsel would leave? what precisely did you know at that time? on january 5th. we know that mr. eastman, i think, was in the oval office on the 5th, meeting with trump and pence, and i wonder what other questions you have when you see that paragraph in the letter, joyce. >> so, this is just an astonishing suggestion, both that there were people -- i mean, as you read this nicole, it looks like not just the white house counsel but perhaps the entire office was ready to step back, to leave the white house if there was some sort of effort to move forward with this plan to interfere with certification of the vote, that's speculative but i think that that's not a bad reading based on what's in this letter. beyond that, there's this notion of interlocking communications. who was hannity talking to? how did he know this? was all of it firsthand? who else can he point the committee to who was having firsthand conversations? this is -- it's not close to th

we were stuck in committee. you get the report and we prepare in committee to deal with the report. what were your thoughts going into that important hearing? it set the stage if it was going to be a time, last chance to back them down this was the chance. >> guest: it was here it was come into that november timeframe because if people haven't figured this out, the reason the title of the book is "the clock and the calendar" because i said clock in the calendar many times during this year and it was because i never felt that was based on facts. it was based on we got to present whatever we can because the clock and the calendar was kicking down the agenda first. january 1 was election year and anything that they would've done before then would've been or after that would've been in the house would've been perceived as political. more political than it already was. they were rushing this. what bothered me the most is, you brought this up, taking jerry nadler is own words about timing and how we were investigate. he was willing to throw all that away. when our first drinking remember

here's republican congresswoman liz cheney, who is the vice chair of the committee. >> the committeet president trump was sitting in the dining room next to the oval office watching on television as the capitol was assaulted, as the violence occurred. we know that is clearly a supreme dereliction of duty. one of the things that the committee is looking at from the perspective of our legislative purpose is whether we need enhanced penalties for that kind of dereliction of duty but we certainly have never seen anything like that as a nation before. imagine a man who, while the assault was under way, while he was watching television, watching it unfold, not telling his supporters to stop and go home, instead, was sending out a tweet saying mike pence was a coward. this is a man who is too dangerous ever to play a role again in our democracy. >> let's talk about this with jamie gangell. liz cheney, the vice chair of that committee saying firsthand knowledge, that is notable and i know that you've learned more about that. >> right, there was no accident that she said firsthand. so here's

the select committee in advancing any legitimate legislative purpose. notice, he doesn't say he has no relevant information that would assist the committee in its investigation. only, quote, any legitimate legislative purpose, which he's already made plain he doesn't believe the committee has. it's a way of being less than honest, without appearing to be, frankly. because if the question is, does he have anything of interest to the committee and its investigation? the answer is clearly, yeah, he does. here is committee member adam schiff talking about text messages to former white house chief of staff mark meadows in and around the insurrection. >> i want to display just a few of the message he received from people in done guess if we could queue the first graphic. this one reads, on january 6th, 2021, vice president mike pence, as president of the senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all. >> so, that message he read was from congressman jordan. now, it is a dubious legal theory on ov

the quote from the committee is this. mr. jordan has previously said that he would cooperate with the committee's investigation, but it now appears that the trump team has persuaded him to try to hide the facts and circumstances of january 6th. the select committee will respond to this letter in more detail in the coming days and will consider appropriate next steps. here is what punchbowl says about that. the select committee response suggests the panel could be heading toward a showdown with trump at some point. note the panel's response says jordan was going to speak to the panel but the trump team intervened to dissuade him from doing so. we've seen, it looked increasingly, and liz cheney was suggesting possible criminal charges against the president in her sights for sure. is it your sense that is the end game here, that the committee is increasingly clear in its mind that all roads in some ways lead to trump? >> well, look, the former president has been interfering with the committee's work at every step of the way. his

one is that because the committee or members of the committee have stated unabashedly that they want to call members in for the purpose of inducing perjury and sending them off to the department of justice among other purposes, they've really revealed two things. they revealed that they're more aligned in that respect with law enforcement than they are with a legislative inquiry. secondly, they are on the cusp of stripping members of their speech and debate clause privilege which they would have if, for instance, the department of justice subpoenaed them directly to a grand jury or charged them. and this privilege is not for the personal aggrandizement of the members. it's to protect the independence and sanctity of members of congress and their position vis-À-vis co-equal branches and in this case their own house. and the second thing i would say is that member discipline, subpoenaing members, has never been done by legislative committees. that's always been the province of the ethics committee. and that's because the ethics committee is evenly split between democrats and republican

>> they're gonna throw them -- the january six committee, the people on this committee are going to go to jail so, the route served you colored superior not aware of what the stakes are republicans are out there every day making it very clear with the intent to do. democrats have to matchup. >> kurt barr della, as always, thank you for your insight we're just getting started coming up, there is a new witness in the investigation of conservative congressman matt gates, a florida all the details on the other side of this break ther side of ther side of this break it's still the eat fresh refresh™ and subway's refreshing everything it's sweet, it's tangy, it's tender, it never misses. you could say it's the steph curry of footlongs. you could, but i'm not gonna. subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and re... we gotta tell people that liberty mutual customizes car insurance so you only pay for what you need, and we gotta do it fast. [limu emu squawks] woo! new personal record, limu! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ (vo) verizon is going ultra! and so is

for download on the aging committee's website.aging.senate.gov. in 2013 the aging committee started its toll free fraud hotline where the the goal of making it easier for seniors to report fraud and to seek assistance. since that time, since 2013, the committee has received thousands of calls. and the hope is that the hotline provides the caller with helpful advice. but i also helps the committee keep a pulse on the types of threats that older americans are facing. so for people listening at home the fraud's hotline toll-free number is 1-855-303-9470. 4rz. . . and i'd like to thank jose and jasmine on my staff for their efforts to keep the fraud hotline up and running. this is the first time ranking member scott and i have released the fraud book together. and i think i can say on his behalf that we're proud to do that and proud to join those who have worked on this on the committee for many years. one final point. today's hearing will include senators participating both in person and online. we also have votes coming up. so we're

the committee will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. i recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. i won't use all five. it's one thing to acknowledge conflict in the workplace is unples but it's quite another to rel dig sdoo that unpleasantness to ask why it exists and what we can do to address it. these conversations are hard because they force us to consider our own actions and think about the roles we play in an institution that's become polarized. none of us want a shoulder to blame for congress low approval rating but every member bears responsibility as one of our witnesses has said, there's never been a drop of rain that's believed it's responsible for the flood. i thought of that on my walk to the capitol this morning as i got drenched. while these conversations are tougher, we need to keep having them. we need to address the institutions problems instead of acting like they will resolve themselves. the committee gives us an opportunity to

i have confidence in the bipartisan nature of the committee. they are working very hard as we can see in the public domain, the product of their work, and i have confidence in them. reporter: madam speaker, just so i understand your position on this here. [indiscernible] -- committees are investigating -- [indiscernible] -- years ago when -- [indiscernible] -- you even referred to -- [indiscernible] -- this is a particular issue for congress, if you have members who are uncosmopolitannive, -- uncooperative, subpoenas -- [indiscernible] -- go through you to sign off on some particular discipline or ethics committee or whatever you decide to do -- [indiscernible] -- particularly the minority leader. ms. pelosi: i've served on the ethics committee for many years, longer than anybody else. i always said any issues about the ethics committee should not come out of the leader's or the speaker's office. that's up to the process to put forth and also now people can bring a charge from outside because we established the outside entities to bring somethi

how forthcoming would you expect him to be with this committee? >> i feel like former ag barr might be in cya mode, like covering himself and trying to communicate with the select committee at this point because the timing here is what it comes down to when the select committee reached out to him or started these conversations because we know with his resignation around the same time now this newly dropped draft executive order came out just days after that, it signals something to the select committee. what did you know, what were you running from? why did you finally step away from this administration with only a few weeks left in office? so going to barr as chairman thompson said, signals they're exploring all options to make sure that they have a clear picture because what we know is by calling in trump's allies and communicating with his allies in the select committee, not only are they trying to corroborate information from other witnesses that we know that 350 other people have testified before the select committee, but they're zeroing in o

remember, our committee is not a criminal investigatory committee, our committee is an investigative committee for the american people to figure out what happened to us and how did we get set up for a situation where we almost lost our democracy. >> apostles of the big lie. for more on our breaking news, on those new january six subpoenas, we want to bring in david plouffe, and senior adviser to the president, michael steele the foreman of the -- former lieutenant governor of maryland. he's a host of the michael steele podcast. gentlemen, good evening to you. david, there's been a cast of intriguing characters who have been investigated and subpoenaed by the committee. some of them are names that the public has never heard of, including jeffrey clark's, senior and important people, but you never knew what they were up. to these four who have been subpoenaed our names that everybody knew and watched in realtime. would you make of these subpoenas, and what do you think it means about where the committees? >> it's getting closer and closer to the president. this is the clown car that wa

thus far, it's been only positive signals from the select committee. where involving bill barr, and that in of itself is a big deal. >> all right, betsy woodruff swan, thank you very much. next up, republican governor glenn youngkin's been in droves for ten days. he's already being sued. plus, the suspicious firing of a virginia lawyer working with the january six committee, after this. it is my last remember last november when the entire country was just one first some divine lesson from the victory of a moderate candidate in virginia's governor terrell race. youngkin who ran mitt romney to employ no campaign. youngkin had a delicate tightrope to rob just in a year after a coup. because even in a state how joe biden won by ten points nowhere in public and get elected without the support of donald trump's base. but he also couldn't tack to hard to the right or else he would use ground with the moderate suburbanites away from biden. so youngkin found him in -- not talking very much about the president trying to have it both ways he skipped both virtual

talks to the committee provided batch of documents to the select committee. i raise that to know that obviously the people that don't comply, steve bannon mark meadows news items for obvious reasons. but the vast majority of people that you have wanted to talk to, you have talked to. including some people like bernie kerik that one might suppose wouldn't talk to you and so much as he is an ally. or a loyalist to former president trump >> that's right, mr. kerik worked very closely with mr. giuliani it's a matter of public record and a great number of people are cooperating with us great many now i think have cooperated with us, but getting back to the point i was making earlier as we get to more and more significant witnesses, they are often closer and closer to donald trump. and therefore people that the former president is urging. and has some leverage over, in terms of getting them to refuse to cooperate. but we are, as you say, getting a lot of help. and sometimes, even less publicly known witnesses can offer some of the most important insights, but i can

i am glad the committee is trying to do that.ou want. >> garrett haake, chuck rosenberg, wow, thank you all so much for spending time with us on today's breaking news. a quick break for us. we'll be right back. g news a quick break for us a quick break for us we'll be right back.there's pley of magic in all that chaos. ♪ so different and so new ♪ ♪ was like any other... ♪ ght in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! (sighs wearily) here i'll take that! (excited yell) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health. that's a pretty tight spot. watch this. of course your buick parks itself. that's so you. it's just up here on the right. of course you know where we're going. that's so you. i kinda got a sixth sense. and a head up display. [whistle blows] [horn honks] they're here. hit the field. warm up. you brought all these players in your buick. -yup. -that's so you. it is. there's a buick that f

that's not something the committee wants to ask giuliani about but the committee's letter covers several areas that could involve federal and state crimes. the committee's letter to rudolph giuliani said you publicly promoted claims the 2020 election was stolen to disrupt or delay the certification between november 2020 and january 6th, 2021 and thereafter and you actively promoted claims of election fraud on behalf of former president trump and sought to convince state legislators to take steps to overturn the election results according to witness testimony and public reporting in december 2020, you urged president trump to direct the seizure of voting machines around the country after being told that the department of homeland security had no lawful authority to do so. according to public reporting, on january 6th and in the days prior you were in contact with then president trump and members of congress regarding strategies for delaying or overturning the results of the 2020 election. three other possible criminal co-conspirators received say sydney powell has been sanctioned and reco

it tells the story of where the committee is gonna go. i don't think it is a coincidence that the committee mentions in this letter the president's state of mind. three times. because they want to find out from mccarthy what the president's intent was before, during, and after the insurrection. and they believe, of course, that mccarthy, having had all these conversations with the president, with his staff, can shed some light on it. but there is another bread crumb in this letter that i don't think we should overlook, and that is over the question of obstruction. the letter asks, did president trump or his representatives discuss or suggest what you -- meaning mccarthy -- should say publicly, either, during impeachment or any investigation about january 6th? so, is that -- are they leading towards obstruction? are they leading towards witness tampering? you have a good lawyer right over here. maybe, we can ask him. but i think this is another important thing that the committee is investigating. intent and obstruction. >> norm, what jumpe

i am the chair of the committee joined by the vice chair. the committee clerk is erica major. i would like to thank the folks at sfgov tv. >> clerk: the committee members participating