raskin: as the member designated by mr. doggett of texas, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. doggett will vote aye on the pappas amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. kelly: as the member designated by mr. meeks, i inform the house that mr. meeks will vote yes on the pappas amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote yes on the pappas amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. cawthorn of north carolina, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote no on amendment number 1. mr. nehls: as the member designated by mr. babin from the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. babin will vote no on amendment number 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does

jamie raskin is a member of the house committee to investigate john 6th. joining us now, joyce vance, former u.s. attorney, and katie benner, the "the new york times" justice department reporter whose story on this this morning is required katie, who is looking into this, where is the corpus of information going to come from? as he mentioned and as you reported on, the justice department is prosecuting lots and lots and lots and lots of people. the folks being prosecuted for disorderly conduct and trespass are not going to get us all the way down the road of who started this, who fomented it, who funded it, who organized it, who perpetrated it. is there a bigger investigation going on at the justice department that mirrors or parallels the one that this congressional committee is undertaking? >> sure. so first i would say that your question is also being echoed by judges here in the district. we saw the chief judge beryl howell say that the justice department's approach to this investigation, she called it schizophrenic. she said, you're calling this one o

congressman raskin, good evening to you, thank you for making time for being with us tonight. >> youet. >> i noticed in an article written by katie benner why will be speaking within a few moments, you gave her a quote in which you said it is great to have a justice department that is back in business. earlier you tweeted in fact that the indictment shows that donald trump and his allies are not above the law and the american justice system is back in business, you are very confident in this move. this is significant. >> well, what happened under attorney general bill barr was that we had an attorney general who was essentially acting like a white house counselor at best, a personal lawyer to the president of the united states up until the very end when bill barr decided to jump off that sinking ship and he turned against the president, but up until then he was following orders. so it's good to have a u.s. attorney that is able to enforce law against clear defiance of a congressional subpoena, and it is great to have a grand jury that hears all of the evidence and renders a judgment

raskin mentioned them possibly using it. the second best alternative they have that they have deferred to in bannon's case is asking doj to actually prosecute him for what they believe is the crime of defying the subpoena that they have issued. now the hot potato is very much over at the justice department. the official who will be in charge of making that decision is the u.s. attorney for the district of d.c. biden's nominee for that job was confirmed last week. his name is matt graves. he is just taking over. i can guarantee this is at the top of what's likely to be a long to-do list for him in terms of what his office will do next. >> another name now for my viewers to get familiar with, matt graves. betsy, even if i knew some portion of what you know, which i don't, i don't know if i could explain it as clearly as you do at 8:00 a.m. on a sunday morning. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >>> joining me now is brenda lawrence. she's the vice chair of the house appropriations committee and is on the oversight comm

that would be extraordinary, but raskin has floated it. >> i'll believe it when i see it.n. what has happened to steve bannon? has he faced any consequences? do we have a timeline on when merrick garland is going to make a decision? >> the biggest change that's happened is biden's nominee to head the dc u.s. attorney's office has been sworn in. so now that office, which makes the decision as to whether or not to prosecute steve bannon, is headed by someone who is a political appointee who has been confirmed by the senate. it's possible that attorneys in that office were waiting to have senate-confirmed leadership before moving forward on this issue regarding whether or not to prosecute bannon. of course, the most senior leaders in the department are also going to weigh in on this decision. one thing which people may not be happy to hear, i've talked to every smart lawyer i know about whether or not they think doj will bring charges against bannon for contempt. most, but not all have said they think doj will. i've talked to people who are smart, serious, normal lawyers who

peter: one name that has been floated a lot is sarah raskin, a former governor on the fed board of governors. she would be an outstanding pick. there are others who have been floated for various regulatory positions as he would a comptroller of the currency, people like michael barr. and the point is the democratic party then shone supervisory regulation is deep. my hope is they will not repeat what they did with the powell versus brainard fed chair sweepstakes. by prolonging that debate unnecessarily -- the time is past due for us to get the name of that nominee. there are some any good candidates that could fill it, it's time to get that candidate so he or she can be vetted by the senate banking committee so we can get a better sense on his or her worldview. katie: you bring up a good point. some of the commentary i read said by delaying this, you let the politicians lead where the president is going and set of saying the president can make the ticket and the rest can get in line. where does that happen with the -- when you give the time for politicians to weigh in and front run a decision

congressman raskin is the chairman representing the majority and i represent the minority on that particular subcommittee. work is being done, but we cannot work together when we are fighting and when we are picking fights with each other. that includes picking fights with republican on republican or democrat on democrat. i will be honest with you, a couple of months ago i had to get my concealed carry permit because i get threats from the far right and the far left and i now carry a gun everywhere i go when i'm back home in my district and i am partially through getting a concealed carry permit and i'm here in the seed to protect myself and my family. we have to think about how we communicate and talk to one another even when we disagree. the beauty of our country and the foundation and the american experiment that our nation was built upon is that we should have the ability to have these debates and these discussions without fear of physical reprisal or physical threats or fighting. we should be able to have the debate of ideas and agreed to degree or agree to disagree at the end of the da

here's what we heard yesterday or recently from jamie raskin, he's a member of the committee and he gaveo the thinking of what the members are thinking right now as they are subpoenaing people. >> you can't stay home and sit on your couch and, you know, talk to people about the 5th amendment or executive privilege, but not show up. you have a legal duty to show up. once you show up, you begin to answer questions. >> reporter: so, even with every single step forward we have, you hear raskin there talking about what they are hoping this signals. we still don't know how much the committee has learned that we already don't know out there from public reporting. >> kaitlan, yesterday juan of the most memorable faces really of the riot at the capitol, the qanon shaman, he's going to serve some serious prison time. tell us more. >> reporter: that's right. this is a man named jacob chansley, essentially the most recognizable image from the capitol riot aside from those pictures of the capitol with smoke coming out of it. i mean, this is a guy, he was shirtless. he wore these viking horns inside t

raskin: as the member designated by mr. doggett, i inform the house that mr. doggett will vote aye on 5221. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 406. the nays are 17 and zero recorded as present. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from new mexico, ms. leger fernandez, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3616 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 120. h.r. 3616, a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the bear river national heritage area, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made po

raskin. the reference that the gentleman from south carolina made about the average manufacturing price, that is the same ceiling, floor, whatever that's used for the v.a. and for medicaid. >> i want to get quickly to a couple of other things. mr. smith accused me of fighting hard for my constituents and to this charge i plead guilty. i am a very strong supporter of not double taxing people on their state and local income taxes and you know which radical president was the one who first championed this policy of not double taxing people on their state and local income tax, the founder of the republican party, abraham lincoln who in 1862 when they were instituting the income tax said of course we're not going to tax people on taxes they've already paid at the state and local level. that's a double tax and our party shouldn't stand for that. apparently today's republican party wants to stand for double taxation against people. mr. smith points out, well, this disproportionately benefits those st

>> the committee is expected to subpoena additional witnesses this week, but representative jamie raskinld not confirm whether one would be going to john eastman, who worked with trump's legal team to pressure pence to overturn the election results with fringe legal theories. >> he was the act rchitect of t legal strategy to claim for the first time in american history that the vice president had the unilateral authority to reject electoral college votes that were the result of popular elections in arizona, pennsylvania, in georgia. >> eastman has recently tried to distance himself from that plan but cnn uncovered a radio interview just days before the insurrection where eastman claimed pence did have the power to throw out the electoral college votes if he had the spine. >> i think a lot of that depends on the courage and the spine of the individuals involved. >> that would be a nice way to say a guy named mike, vice president mike pence? >> yes. >> this comes as "the washington post" published a series on the attack revealing that mark milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff,

now, another democrat on the committee, jamie raskin, had strong words for donald trump's allies. he said all of the friends of donald trump should take note, justice system of the united states will not tolerate con tem shoe us violations of rule of law. strong words from members of the committee to any other witnesses or anyone subpoenaed that doesn't comply with the committee's investigation. they're trying to send the message if they don't comply, there will be consequences. fred? >> thank you so much for that. joining me, former nixon white house counsel john dean. good to see you. your reaction now to the fact that there is an indictment, that bannon is expected to appear monday. how does this perhaps impact the ongoing probe involving the january 6th committee? does it give them now some teeth as they continue forward? >> it certainly does. it means you can't ignore a subpoena. fred, the statute under which bannon was indicted has two parts. one is willful default, what bannon did, didn't show or make effort through his attorney. said i'm not coming. the statute has another

weighing a criminal contempt charge for mark meadows after he denied the subpoena and congressman jamie raskin, quote, they haven't gotten there yet. if steve bannon's indictment was meant to set an example for oh, i think others are asking why not meadows? why is this decision tougher? >> it's much tougher. remember, steve bannon was not a part of the administration, not an employee of the executive branch since at least 2017. had fallen out of the good graces of president trump, so the discussion that he would have with a president would be akin to really president trump talking to an uber driver, right in the idea of mark meadows however, is far more an interesting discussion about what we hope the executive privilege will achieve. we want members of the cabinet. we want members of the inner circle let alone the inner oval, the chief of staff, to be able to have these frank conversations with the president of the united states without fear of having confidentiality compromised so he's always had a stronger more colorful claim about conversations with the president of the united states as po

but jamie raskin says they are not there yet. ryan nobles is with us. any movement on this? >> reporter: haven't heard anything yet, but hopefully we'll see some of the members of the committee here in the next hour or so to get a readout as to what they talked about. but what we've learned from our reporting is that the situation with mark meadows is a little bit more complicated than it is with steve ban non. steve bannon attempted to say that he was protected by executive privilege which is the reason that he didn't come before the committee, but he wasn't even an employee of the executive branch at the time that the committee is interested about learning more. mark meadows was chief the staff. so perhaps his privilege claims are a little stronger. but still the committee believes that it is his responsibility to come before the committee and answer the subpoena and at least attempt to answer some of the questions that they have had before him. what the committee now will have to figure out exactly how do they compel that testimony. and of course the

taylor greene has gotten into fights with congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, liz cheney, jamie raskin she's able to do that because house minority leader kevin mccarthy hasn't said anything and the idea that he hasn't said anything about this paul gosar video that twitter had the good sense to finally take down tells me all i need to know about how fearful and concerned we should be about a speaker mccarthy if the republicans take control of the house next year's midterms. judy: gary, who is responsible for this and do you see a turning back from this kind of language? >> i hope there's a turning back and i think it needs to come from everybody in congress saying, wait a minute, i'm in the united states congress, i'm not a 12-year-old playing a video game here. i don't want to be accused of both-siderism here and i will be but i think back to a lot of the memes that members of the democratic party were retweeting about donald trump when he was in office that are pretty disgusting. i think of nancy pelosi, after trump finishes a state-of-the-union address, ripping up the pages of his a

the colleagues were congresswoman liz cheney and jamie raskin. they're on the floor of the house.rlie, oh, one more thing, marjorie taylor greene. this is element for her. marjorie taylor greene launches an attack on the 13 republican quote unquote traitors who voted for the biden infrastructure bill. trade tors. i -- charlie, i'm old enough to remember when republicans loved infrastructure. they would love to be there for the bill signing and take all the credit and now it's triggerous behavior? >> yes, and of course, donald trump had proposed infrastructure bill and they would have enthusiastically supported it. a party of bigotry and violence, republican leaders could refute that dramatically by kicking out paul gosar or marjorie taylor greene and say no, this is not who we are but in fact, they embrace them and treat them like rock stars so this is objectively true but the contrast between the anger against the members who voted for bridges and roads versus the absolute indifference to somebody like paul gosar says something. mentioning the word traitor. it's the entire trust

raskin: as the member designated by mr. polk can, mr. pocan will vote yes on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does reason the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. wilson, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote yes on s.1095. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason the gentleman from new york seek recognition sng as the member designated by mr. jacobs of new york, nows that mr. jacobs will vote yes on s.105. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition ? >> as the member designated by ms. matsui, i inform the houser that ms. matsui will vote yes on s.1095. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? as the member designated by joe wilson from south carolina, i inform the house that he will vote yes on s.1095. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. kelly: as the member designated by ms. clarke of new york, i inform the house that ms. clarke

we've heard from congressman jamie raskin on the committee. he says learning more about'sman's role is key. eastman's deposition is set for december 8th. we'll see if that actually happens. then bill stepien. he was the manager of the trump election campaign, and the committee says that makes him a key witness to trump's efforts to overturn the election. the committee also says that a witness has hold them that stepien was deeply involved in the messaging campaign around the stop the steal message. then jason miller. he's long been with trump, a longtime adviser, senior adviser for the 2020 re-election campaign. he was present at the willard hotel in that meeting to try to overturn the election january 5th. and the committee claims that miller used his platform as senior adviser to peddle lies about election fraud. he coordinated news conferences with trump and rudy giuliani to claim the election was rigged. then angela mccallum, she was the national executive assistant for the re-election campaign, and she allegedly left this voice mail press

congressman jamie raskin is a member of the january 6 house committee had a strong reaction this week indictment. take a look. >> a criminal defense he violated the law when he stood us up, when he blew off the subpoena and he violated the law when he refused to produce the documents in the papers we are looking for. >> the problem for the committee, undoubtedly steve bannon and his lawyers are going to try to delay this case as long as possible, do everything that they can procedurally to play it out and there's a good chance, probably better than 50/50, year from now on them in terms, republicans may take control of the house in which case no matter what happens in this case they would probably kill the committee and there's no place for bannon to testify even if his order to. >> i agree with what doug said there are a couple of long term applications here. one is getting to the truth of what happened on january 6. that is first and foremost what this is all about. number two is about establishing and defending the role of congress in oversight. that cannot be a partisan thing. repu

representative jamie raskin. "never were so few words listen to by so few people."et's get back to work. don buyer, democrat from virginia sang mr. mccarthy ended his bizarre rambling hearing various opinions unrelated to the bill. we are focused on reducing child and health care costs, fighting climate change and child party. -- poverty. stay close to c-span. derek in seattle, independent line. caller: pedro, what i would like for you to ask all these republicans who call in, if they don't vote for the bill, should they get any of the aid in their district? they are already getting the child tax credit. they talk about socialism. they talk about debt and deficit. when trump was in office herein up over $7 trillion in debt. the tax cut they are talking about paying for. they have supporters who vote for these republicans. they get the things that the democrats an independents get to the people. ask these people when they call in, instead of about the cost, show who gets it and what state. west virginia is poor. they get all the child tax credit. they talk about givi

raskin: as the member designated mr. levin of michigan, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. levin will be voting aye on h.res. 795. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. butterfield: madam speaker, as the member designated mr. kildee of michigan, i inform the house that mr. kildee will vote -- vote yes, will he vote yes on h.res. 795. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? mrs. hayes: as the member designated by ms. wilson, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote yes on h.res. 795. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. roybal-allard, i inform the house that ms. roybal-allard will vote yes on resolution -- house resolution 795. . the speaker pro tempore: f or what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. underwood of illinoi

sarah raskin was the mayor of banking supervisor before she was appointed to the fed and she went on to be deputy treasury secretary. karen dinan was the treasury chief economist, also a possible candidate for the boston fed. alix: it feels like the conversation on wall street is who president biden picks will be more dovish. it may be an opportunity to install three more dovish individuals on the fed. is that the right conversation because if you're worried about inflation, why would he do something dovish and can we assume that they would be dovish? mike: there is a political answer and an economic and are -- economic answer. the fed is dealing with high inflation and politically, it is difficult to avoid someone who is seen as significantly dovish. but the forecast from all economists is that inflation will go back down and sunday, when it goes back up again, do you clampdown more quickly? do you stick with the framework that you have now and wait it out? that is where the new policy makers come into effect. also, they have their framework that says they want to -- want a diverse

first, sarah bloom raskin, professor of the practice of law. and david zervis, mike santoli as well. sarah, i'll come to you first, and your take on this announcement that tapering is going to begin immediately, and whether or not this was ultimately a dovish announcement, the market is right to interpret it that way in terms of when it comes to rate hikes >> well, wilf, you know, the fed and the fomc, they did exactly what they said they would do they said they would telegraph it, they would plan it, they would announce it. it would happen in november, and sure enough, that is what they have landed. so what we are seeing here is a disciplined approach where they have told us exactly what they will be doing for the next several months they have announced the amount they have announced the pace and significantly, note that they have separated the tapering decision from the lift-off and that is straight out of the fomc's playbook. that is a disciplined approach they're going to first discuss the tapering, which they have done they are not discuss

i've had a chance to talk with jamie raskin on and off the floor in terms of what they're doing and howd, the cooperation they're getting from many people, the information they're gathering for many people. something i wanted to emphasize is what you all spoke about, which is to what end did they have this rally? why the coordination? why the funding? why on that day? and when did the rally go from rally to march to riot to insurrection? to what end? you know anybody involved in the planning of this, and it's pretty clear the president had some involvement in setting up a b list stage for the likes of alex jones, who happened to have said that echo, the president in his own remarks that day said, and i'll be right there with you. i'll be going up pennsylvania avenue with you. alex jones saying the president will be meeting us here. nobody goes through that level of planning, coordination and funding without an end goal. guys, what are we doing this for? what they were doing it for is obviously what happened, an attempted coup, an attempt to overthrow and interview with the peaceful tran

i just talked to jamie raskin who is a member of the committee who said that because the current occupante white house, joe biden, has said that there are not executive privilege protections for the former president and his associates, that, therefore, meadows needs to comply with the committee and at least needs to show up and answer that subpoena. what we're seeing here, though, pam, is a standoff between the committee and meadows. they desperately want to learn about the role that he played in the events leading up to january 6th. if there are connections to some of the people that were here on that day, and if the lies that the trump administration was telling about the election results in november were part of what led to all the violence and chaos on that day. at the end of the day, pam, they want the information. this aggressive legal posture may complicate that process but the committee says they're committed to learning as much as they can as soon as they can. >> ryan nobles, thanks so much. >>> also in our politics lead, a woman who helped perpetuate trump's big lie wants to be

democratic governor andrew cuomo resigned from the governorship of new york, amid a sexual raskin sexualws. and part of what was surprised about that charges against him that was filed last week was how we learned about it. the first anyone knew it happen when a local court in albany new york suddenly issued a summons first cuomo, based on a criminal complaint from the albany county sheriff. from the sheriff? in this criminal complaint from the sheriff, cuomo was charged with forcible touching, which is a misdemeanor, related to claims that he allegedly groped a staffer under her blouse at the governor's mansion in december. i was one of those -- those corroborated in a devastating report that was corroborated -- that a.g. investigation found that cuomo had arrived at least 11 women while he was governor. that led to his resignation even as he continue to deny the allegations. but there's something different about a criminal complaint rather than just a report. and when this criminal complaint against cuomo suddenly became public last week, it apparently blindsided both the local prosecu

reporter: the committee is expected to subpoena additional witnesses this week, but representative jamie raskinhether one will be going to conservative law professor john eastman, who worked with trump's legal team to pressure pence to overturn the election results with fringe legal theories. >> he was the architect of the legal strategy to claim for the first time in american history that the vice president had the unilateral authority to reject electoral college votes that were the results of popular elections in arizona and pennsylvania and georgia. >> reporter: eastman has recently tried to distance himself from that plan, but cnn uncovered a radio interview just days before the insurrection where eastman claimed pence did have the power to throw out the electoral college votes if he had the spine. >> i think a lot of that depends on the courage and the spine of the individuals involved. >> that would be a nice way to say a guy named vice president mike pence? >> yes. >> reporter: this comes as the "washington post" published a series on the attack revealing that mark milley, the chairman o

subpoenas today, all of whom worked in the white house and all of whom one member of the committee, jamie raskinribes as super spreaders of disinformation that led to the disunion you mengsded stephen miller, controversial former adviser to donald trumpo change the resultf the 2020 pointin the committee says he encouraged states to change the result of the 2020 pointing an alternate slate of electors and helped prepare remarks at the day of the ellipse that led to the mob attacking the capitol. kayleigh mcenany made false allegations of fraud and they argue they thank contributed to that that she was with the president on the day of january ofth, they want to develop what happened donald trump responded to the latest round of subpoenas and called the events of january 6th a pro test not a riot and says the real insurrection what happened election day november 3rd, 2020, to put it bluntly an alternate reality from the facts of at ground the fact he's not willing to acknowledge he lost the election is in the eyes of the committee more to continue the justification and get to the facts. >> late yes

congressman jamie raskin who is a member of the january house committee had a very strong reaction tont. take a look. speak out he violated the law wn he stood us up, when he blew off the subpoena, and he violated the law when he refused to produce the documents and the papers we were looking for. >> chris: the problem for the committee is that undoubtedly, steve bannon and his lawyers are going to delay this case as long as possible and do as much as they can procedurally to play it out. there's a good chance, probably better than 50/50, that a year from now on the midterms, republicans may take control the house. and which has come no matter what happens in this case, they would probably kill the committee and there being no place for steve bannon to testify even if he is ordered. >> mo: i agree with what was just said. there are a couple of long terms implications here. one is getting to the truth of what happened on january and that is first and foremost what is about. it is about defending the role of congress in oversight and that cannot be a partisan thing. republicans have hel

. >> so, adam schiff there is referring to an idea that was floated by jamie raskin, another member ofthis deal to immunity to certain individuals who might have information that may be self-incriminating. going after the big fish here and not the small fry. >> julie, i had a little bit of an audio issue right there which i hope has been fixed, but thank you very much. let's bring in a law professor. melissa, i'm going to be honest, right now, i can't hear anything. although you haven't said anything, say a quick hi. let me see if i can hear you. >> how are you doing, alex? >> nope. i can't. let's take a really short break right here. melissa, stay right where you are. we're going to get my audio fixed. we'll be right back, everybody, stay with us. stay with us (man 1) oh, this looks like we're in a screen saver. (man 2) yeah, but we need to go higher. (man 1) higher. (man 2) definitely higher. (man 1) we're like yodeling high. [yodeling] yo-de-le-he... (man 2) hey, no. uh-uh, don't do that. (man 1) we should go even higher! (man 2) yeah, let's do it. (both) woah! (man 2) i'm good. (ma

but i did speak to sarah bloom raskin, who was on the board of governors at the time. >> so, many ofools had not been tried before. they were definitely like break the glass kind of tools. like, what are we going to do in order to restart the economy here? >> jacoby: you voted for quantitative easing two. what was your thinking there? >> right, so, my thinking was that we still had an economy that was far from its potential. as qe began, it showed great promise. we started to see that people's sense of economic wellbeing was ticking up somewhat. people were finding jobs, people were finding homes. the foreclosure rate had slowed. so there was a sense that something was working. and for that reason it was, in my mind, worth supporting. >> jacoby: but outside the fed, some were saying that the costs of quantitative easing might already outweigh the benefits. >> a lot of talk about quantitative easing, qe2-- the likelihood that that will have a significant effect is close to zero. >> but the markets love it. >> jacoby: joseph stiglitz is one of the most well-known economists in america

select committee member jamie raskin said this about steve bannon's indictment on msnbc last hour. >> here we pursued criminal contempt and that's just a crime. it was a criminal offense. he violated the law when he stood us up, when he blew off the subpoena. and he violated the law when he refused to produce the documents and the papers we were looking for. but at the same time on a parallel track, if we bring a civil contempt action against him the courts also have the power to compel him to testify and to bring us those documents. and if he doesn't, he can be held, again, behind bars. but he has the key to his own freedom as the contempt of bar says because all he has to do is testify and turn over the documents and he can get out of jail on the civil contempt side. but on the criminal contempt side if he's found guilty he could be sentenced to jail or to probation, work some other kind of diversionary punishment. >> leading off our discussion tonight democratic congressman eric swalwell of california. he served as house impeachment manager during the second impeachment trial of do

jeremy -- jamie raskin announcer: we take you live to a hearing on barriers facing lgbtq individuals. this just got underway. . live coverage here on c-span. >> good afternoon. i am pleased to convene the subcommittee on diversity and inclusion for a hybrid hearing entitled, there is no pride and prejudice, eliminating barriers to full economic inclusion for the lgbtq+ community. in 27 states there are no explicit statewide laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodation. at the federal level there is no fair housing or credit protections based on expressly sexual orientation or gender identity. this puts many lgbtq+ individuals at risk, youth at risk, for experiencing chronic homelessness, unemployment. we are a nation of many colors, a rainbow, if you will, and today we will explore the lgbtq community and what it faces to barriers of financial inclusion and employment simply because of who we are. just the other day i was at a metro high school where young students in a stand program ha

. >> congressman jerry raskin says the january 6th committee may use civil contempt charges to force bannon to testify. how would that work, joyce? >> so it would work about the same way that what we've seen with bannon would work. with one big difference. because madows was in the white house at the time of these events, he has a somewhat better claim to executive privilege, but i thought the congressman said something very important in his stamtd. he pointed out that meadows completely ignored the subpoena. you have to show up, you have to produce documents or provide a privilege log detailing what you're withholding, you have to answer questions. because privilege isn't the answer to every question. when you're asked your name, the answer isn't, executive privilege. and so you're obligated to go through the questions, responding specifically. it's that total flagrant effort to avoid the subpoena that led to bannon's indictment. it will be interesting to see how doj will address the meadows situation. >> first, we have another clip from that trump interview, showing you he is still

. >> jamie raskin, also a member of your committee, has said he's open to the idea of limited immunity in exchange for this testimony, even for mr. bannon. are you there? >> you know, it will have to be made -- that decision on a case-by-case basis. i certainly wouldn't want to prevent the justice department from prosecuting people who committed criminal conduct, for examples, on january 6th by giving them immunity to testify before our committee. so we have to weigh whatever equities the justice department and the justice system may have. i think with certain specific witnesses, we ought to consider it, but as that kind of immunity makes it very difficult to prosecute, not just them but sometimes others, we need to think about it very carefully. >> it's pretty clear what the strategy is here. delay, delay, delay, in order to try to run out the clock on the investigation. how are you going to combat this? >> well, first of all, the fact that the justice department has moved as quickly as it did is really helpful because as i mentioned, that's already having an effect on other witnesses

. >> the biden presidency ended last night for little, for a little jamie raskin and bennie thompson. quote for your committee. we killed it in the crib. okay? less than one year from the big steal they got shattered last night. >> you see what a provocateur he is. going out of his way to say, here's a quote for your committee. say it in public while i legal he defy your committee and thus defy the doj to do anything about it. how important is the it bannon faces consequences? >> well, it's important. i mean, in some ways, i don't think getting his testimony is that important. because he, you know, likely -- he's lied all along. i don't think because he comes from the committee he'll, you know, tell the truth. i do think the fight over the documents may even be the most important thing. that, you know that's trump is resisting, where he is invoking executive privilege. memos, show what's he's doing that day, memos, phone conversations. probably strong investigative beliefs, just good information that investigative body would want to have that would be realtime information. not someone

i had the chance to talk with jamie raskin as we were voting on the floor tonight, knowing i was going to be joining you, joy, and got my usual daily or weekly update from him on the extraordinary good work of this committee. and what he told me is the quiet story is the number, the tremendous number of people who are cooperating with the committee, who recognize that january 6 was an insurrection where americans attacked americans, where americans attacked and maimed and killed police officers, capitol police officers here. and so the committee's work continues. the quieter story is the quieter work of the committee and americans who are coming forward to tell the truth so that we never have this happen again. >> you know, and i'm going to skip past -- i want to talk to mike pence in a minute. but i want to come back and talk about norm core, what would be norm core republicans, kurt. and by the way, if i said 450, i meant 150 people have been deposed. it was 150 people have been deposed. norm core type republicans even struggle to distance themselves from january 6. they struggle to

i just want to read something from congressman raskin who is on the committee. he says, and i quote, i am certain there will be little patience for anyone who is just blowing off congressional subpoenas. we have been moving promptly to respond to defiance, to any house subpoenas. and that's what they are doing because they have been blowing it off. you saw the former chief of staff today not even showing up for a deposition. blowing it off, not showing up. showing their contempt, if you will. and what the justice department is saying is that this is congress' job. and you cannot do this. we have, you know, three branches of government here. and i think -- so i think it's a hugely important step as we try and unravel what happened on january 6th, but it's also hugely important step for the balance of power. >> yeah, i keep thinking about hillary clinton, secretary of state clinton testifying for hours and hours -- >> 11 hours. >> -- before the house of representatives about the tragedy at benghazi. it's not always pleasant but our system is built around checks an

raskin: as the member designated mr. doggett of texas, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. doggett will vote aye on h.r. 1619. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition mr. pallone: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. sires, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. sires will vote yes on h.r. 1619. as the member designated by mr. payne, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on h.r. 1619. as the member designated by mr. donald nor norcross, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. norcross will vote yes on h.r. 1619. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: madam speaker, as the member designated mr. trone, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. trone will vote yes on h.r. 1619. as the member designated mr. cohen, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house tha

raskin, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. madam chair, donald trump's party of denialism is engaged in campaigns of propaganda and disinformation about climate change, which he said was a chinese hoax, covid-19, which he said would disappear by easter of last year. the 2020 presidential election, which he continues to claim that he won despite the fact that joe biden beat him by more than 7 million votes. 306 to 232 in the electoral college, and of course, the violent january 6th insurrection, which he says really took place on november 3rd, and adding for good measure that the pro-trump rioters treated our police officers with hugs and kisses, which is presumably how more than 140 of them ended up injured with broken noses, necks, vertebrae, arms, legs, and so on. trump's party has turned the denial of facts, science, and history into standard operating procedure. and we see the idealogical machinery of lies working overtime today. but as astronomer neil degrasse tyson has observed, the great thing about science is it's true

raskin: as the member designated mr. pocan of wisconsin, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. pocan will vote aye on the motion to table. as the member designated by mr. lieu of california, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote aye on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: madam speaker, as the member designated mr. burgess of texas, i will vote nay on the motion to recommit -- table. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated chairwoman eddie bernice johnson, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that chairwoman johnson will vote yea on the motion to table. as the member designated by chairman gregory meeks, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that chairman meeks will vote yea on the motion to table. as the member designated by congressman brendan boyle, pursuant to h.res. 8,

raskin: mr. speaker, as the member designated mr. lieu of california, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote aye on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. g.t. thompson of the great commonwealth of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. thompson will vote no on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from virginia seek recognition? ms. wexton: mr. speaker, as the member designated mr. mceachin, i inform the house that mr. mceachin will vote yes on the previous. as the member designated by ms. porter, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated mr. trone, i inform the house that mr. trone will vote yes on the previous question. as the member designated by mr. blumen

raskin: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lieu of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote aye on h.r. 3730. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. clarke: as the member designated by ms. kelly of illinois, i inform the house that ms. kelly will vote yes on h.r. 3730. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. walz of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. walz will vote yes on h.r. 3730. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mceachin, i inform the house that mr. mceachin will vote yes on h.r. 3730. as the member designated by ms. porter, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes on h.r. 3730. the speaker pro tempore

raskin, you are now recognized. >> madam chair, thank you in july, justice department official richard downing testified before the us senate that doj believes only one quarter of ransomware intrusions are reported at this rate. the government is missing crucial information that it could use to help ransomware victims and deter future attacks. but for victims who do want to report a ransomware attack, the guidance on who to report to is not exactly clear or efficiently organized. for example, if i'm the victim and i visit the fbi's website to report it, i'm encouraged to take one of three steps. i can report the ransomware attack to my local fbi field office, submit a tip through the fbi's tip portal. or report to the fbi internet crime complaint center or i see three. assistant director, how may fbi field offices are there? >> sir, there's 56. >> 56. so if i'm the victim of a ransomware attack, there potentially 58 different points of entry to the fbi to report the attack counting the online portals. now, if i visit the website stop ransomware.gov, which is supposed to be the one sobr