, use of contempt by congress. good morning. guest: good morning. host: if no agreement happens today, what is the hurdle if they pull that trigger? guest: if the house judiciary committee approves a contempt citation and the full house also approves it, it goes onto the u.s. attorney of the district of columbia. the u.s. attorney can choose not to take that contempt citation to a grand jury to pursue prosecution. indeed, we have seen in several recent high-profile cases involving congress' contempt power, that is what the u.s. for, and in some cases it is because the executive branch is claiming executive privilege in saying that the person is the subject of the contempt citation and acting at the direction of the president, and the justice department has long maintained it does not have to prosecute those cases. host: if it goes to the judge, that person decides not to go forward, does it end when it comes to the use of contempt? guest: what would most likely happen is that then we would see the house of represen

and in congress' defense, we've done some things. we passed the support act in the last congress. that does make progress. but there are so many other things we could be doing. we have jurisdiction, oversight over the drug enforcement administration in this committee, over the fbi, law enforcement. yet, we're having hearings on this. we could be talking about reforming our prison system. yes, we did do some second chance legislation. that's a good first step. and we did it in a bipartisan manner which we ought to do a lot more in this committee than we do. the folks behind bars right now will be out some day, most of them. and if they have a skill. if we can actually do something with them, if they have a skill, there's much less chance they'll be breaking into your house or hijacking your car or selling drugs to your kids. we ought to be doing that in this committee. we have members of our institution who can't get out of their own way. they have demonstrated their own anti-semitism. and we pass legislation that says all hate is wrong. but we didn't focus on what the real problem

all of this is a setup to congress. because mueller is writing this report against the backdrop of the watergate and white water investigations which were, after all, turned over to congress for their investigation and that is what i think mueller is saying between the lines today. >> neil, as always, he lays it out clearly, gene. >> if i ask you a question about that, would you answer me honestly? >> always. i swear to god. >> well, sir, do you think the majority of members of congress have read the mueller report? >> no, i don't. >> gene, you take mueller's aspirations or hopes. can it handle the nuance that mueller is resting his argument on today? >> well, we'll see if it can handle the nuance if they would read the report. congress should ask a question. if you're not going to indict -- excuse me. if you're not going to start an impeachment into donald trump, imagine -- tell me -- describe the president for whom you would start an impeachment inquiry. they would use the state to go after his political enemies. the

mostly our women members of congress. we salute our co-chairs of the bipartisan house caucus for women's issues. congresswoman brenda lawrence and congresswoman debbie lesko. [applause] and let us welcome cokie roberts, a trail blazing force for women in journalism and her daughter rebecca, an outstanding journalist in her own right, writing about women. [applause] as many of the women members know, the lindy boggs room, this room, the only room named for a woman in this capitol is named mother, s lovely rebecca's grandmother, lindy boggs. we thank the women's bipartisan suffrage centennial commission for their leadership to educate the american public about the sufficient rang movement. we're honored to have kay james, the chair of the committee, senator barbaramy cullsky, the vice chair, and rebecca, the executive director with us today. let us acknowledge them. and to each and every one of you, i could name you all for the contributions you make for expanding freedom and opportunity in our country. est person -- especi

to proceed with congress. i think senator lay lee said it best when he was interviewing william barr when he said he seems to know the rules of fill busters perhaps better than members of congress. perhaps he was hoping to run out the clock as opposed to having the opportunity to have holistic questioning that could be followed through, follow-up questions even without all of that being said and with it all being said, however, it really is absurd that this is a form over substance matter when william barr should be more than capable of answering questions about matters of extreme importance of which congress has the ability and the right to exercise oversight. >> david chalian, you heard doug collins the ranking republican's argument there saying that, you know, the democrats were imposing rules that were unfair, in effect blaming the democrats for the fact that barr didn't show up which is a bit of a stretch you might say, but do you understand what the complaints are? are they legitimate complaints? >> well

despite a subpoena from congress. so what do democrats do now about the stonewalling coming from the white house? >> the chairman of the house judiciary mmte

whether congress put in a mens rea for one element and there are three others, or whether congress put in no mens rea at all, we apply the mens rea. is that a correct statement of the law? mr. kedem: that is, and let me give you another example, a textual clue that congress didn't want to require knowledge of status here. there are two instances, only two that we're aware of, where someone actually might not reasonably know or congress might worry that they wouldn't reasonably know their own status, and congress was explicit for both of them in its treatment. the first one is subsection (g)(8), which applies to someone who's subject to a restraining order, which you might not know because some restraining orders are issued ex parte. and so congress specified in (g)(8) that the restraining order has to have been issued "after a hearing of which such person received actual notice and at which such person had an opportunity to participate." the other example is someone who is subject to an indictment. one court pointed out that a lot of indictments are under seal, and so you wouldn't nece

washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered congress -- content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true power. in the 40 years, the landscape has changed. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. youtube stars or anything. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money support c-span. coverage is an public service by your cable provider. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. so, you can make up your own mind. shortly, house judiciary committee chair, jerrold nadler will do a news conference on the molar report. what comes next for congress. representative nadler will speak to reporters in new york life starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. earlier today, special counsel robert mueller made his first public statement on the investigation into russian interference in the to sit -- 2016 russian campaign. his remarks at the justice headquarters were 10 minutes. office to investigate russian interference in the to have -- in 16 russian -- presidential election. this included any link or coordinat

it is congress' duty to do oversight. and if they want the underlying investigative materials for that reason, i think they're making the argument they should see and this should be up to the courts to figure out. >> a democrat of georgia earlier today saying -- confirming for what a lot of republicans think this is really all about. >> we have lawful responsibilities, constitutional responsibilities, to engage in, one of which is possibly impeachment. how can we impeach without getting the documents? >> how can we impeach without getting the documents? >> wouldn't have been how i would have phrased it but, look, i think the person who is leading this effort in determination the strategy is nancy pelosi. she's gotten a lot of criticism from the left wing of the party, people who want her to move more quickly. she's listening to the members, many of which are hesitant about this especially when they are in vulnerable seats. what they're also doing strategically is trying to make the public case and they are trying to bring

that's obstruction of congress. as i reread my constitution, i carry it around, it sounds weird but i do that, you know, you see that article 1 is about the congress. by the way, impeachment is right up there. right up there. it's not a road anyone wants to go down. we have a vacancy, it seems to me, at the top. we have a president who 900 bipartisan former prosecutors said obstructed the mueller probe, absolutely did that. now he is obstructing congress. he throws a hissy fit and walks out of a meeting and says i'm never doing legislating until you stop your investigations which congress can't stop because that's their constitutional job. >> barbara boxer and liz, thank you for joining me. for more on the impeachment question, i'm joined by katie hill who is a democrat. i've been thinking about you and other members of the freshman group. you are in districts that are not dem plus ten or six. you have a lot of republicans, conservatives in your district. what are you hearing from the folks in your district about th

so congress and what you are seeing is the congress standing up and reasserting the preem nancy of the design. it's magnificent to watch. >> you don't have the super majorities. >> you know, some of my colleagues from pennsylvania like them are sounding more and more thaddeus stevens every day. there are very special people emerging in this process as we are speaking up for america against the lawlessness of a president. the framers wanted to prevent our president from becoming a king. by the way, the foremost thing in their mind is they didn't want a president able to go out and plunge us into foreign wars without a declaration by congress. that's why we have the exclusive and sole power to declare war. that's why what we are talking about with the war mongers surrounding the president try to drive us towards combat. we are not going to accept that. >> just one area in which the executive has expressed their lack of need for your a cent or authority. let me ask you about the current status. there is a reporting about a meeting with the caucus and the leadership that got fraud or conte

congress's motives are off limits. the president's lawyer argued to the judge last week that congress is not allowed to conduct criminal investigations. it is only authorized to conduct investigations for legislative purposes. to that, the judge said today it is simply not fathomable that a constitution that grants congress the power to remove a president for reasons inblugd criminal behavior would deny congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct past or present even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry. the judge reminded us of the most historic investigations of presidents that began before impeachment proceedings. "twice in the last 50 years, congress has investigate aid sitting president for alleged law violations before initiating impeachment proceedings. it did so in 1973 by establishing the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the special committee to investigate whitewater development corporation and related matters.

pelosi: he lied to congress. he lied to congress. if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. nobody is above the law, not the president of the united states and not the attorney general. being the attorney general does not give you a bath to say whatever you want and it is a fact because you are the attorney general. reporter: should he go to jail for it? ms. pelosi: there's a process involved here. and as i said, i'll say it again, no matter how many questions you have, the committee will act upon how we will proceed. reporter: last week, you have said that you wanted your caucus to focus on the investigations that are ongoing. given the fact that there is some obstruction from the white house, do you think the time has come to move that deadline up? ms. pelosi: no. i think the statements being made by the president of the united states has given a blanket statement that he's not going to horny subpoenas is obstruction of justice. many of the statements that the administration has made has been about obstruction of ju

congress --nt all bets are off. we win. ms. sinzdak: i think that is one effect of this being jurisdictional. congress did say this they jurisdictional rule. that is focusing on one relatively rare instance rather than on the reasons that congress would make a provision like this jurisdictional. justice ginsburg: what about the notion that if congress wants to make something jurisdictional it can? like the controversy in diversity cases. do that here. it didn't say is jurisdictional. ms. sinzdak: i think that it did. i think that text of section 2000 he five makes it clear that a civil action may be brought only after the eeoc has either dismissed the claim or has 180 days past and then section 2000 jurisdictiononfers over actions brought under this subchapter. >> two separate sections. what is theburg: jurisdictional section. that doesn't say anything at all but exhaustion. exhaustion is in a separate provision. they are not linked together. both in ak: they are subsection together. byy are certainly linked textual

congress can override that but that presumption exist for all elements whether congress puts us in for one element or three others or none at all. is at a correct statement? . >> that is. i will give you another example that congress did not want to require status. to instances only two that we are aware of somebody may not reasonably know their own status. congress was explicit the first subsection ga applying to someone from a restraining order because you may not know some are issued x partake. so congress specified it has to be issued after a hearing of which they receive actual notice and has had an opportunity to participate. the other example is the indictment brca1 court pointed out they are under seal. so congress took that language put it into its own subsection with a willfulness requirement. >> so the person who oversees and is brought to the country at two years old by his parents and now is 21 years old and they have never told him anything about being brought here when he was two years old and has lived in austin texas. he knows that. there are many other examples. >> co

>> he lied to congress. he lied to congress. and if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. nobody is above the law. not the president of the united states, and not the attorney general. being attorney general does not give you a back to go say whatever you want, and it is the fact, because you are the attorney general. it just isn't true. >> should he go to jail for it? >> there's a process involved here, and as i said, i'll say it again, the committee will act upon how we will proceed. >> speaker pelosi, last week you said you wanted your caucus to focus on the investigations that are already ongoing. given the fact you can't get information, given the fact there has been this unprecedented obstruction from the white house, do you think the time has come to move that impeachment deadline up? >> no, i think that the statements being made by the president of the united states has given a blanket statement that he's not going to honor any subpoenas, is obstruction of justice. i think that many of the statements tha

destroying article i and congress' prerogatives. now, we had a question, i think it was maybe the ranking member said we should be doing legislation and how many signatures, how many bills have been sign eed into law by this committee? well, ask mitch mcconnell who has decided that the senate is a graveyard for all legislation that has come from the house. we have passed outstanding legislation out of this committee. it has gone to the graveyard, where mitch mcconnell, who first kills supreme court nominees of the last president of the united states in his one year before and voids and frustrates the constitutional prerogative of the president to nominate members to the supreme court, but now frustrates the other house by not having hearings whatsoever. somebody said we're afraid. yes, we're afraid. we're afraid of the loss of the rule of law. we're afraid of the loss of the power of congress to be an independent and co-equal branch of government. and we face that today if we don't stand up. and somebody else said that russia, there

but congress certainly could. and in some statutes has made it jurisdictional to the language it has enacted. good example is the ftca. the federal court claims act. mcneil, which the pre-arbor case but we think it was correct and all. because the jurisdictional granted section 1346 be begins by saying, subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of title 28, which includes the presentment requirement of mcneil -- that satisfies the for statement role because there is an expressly between the jurisdictional grant and the presentment requirement. on top of which, it involves only claims that -- which is jurisdictional on its own. >> what you say to the chief justice is concerned that this is a statute that predates our buck? i know you're going to tell me immediately, that we have done this before. and applied our bar retroactively in statutes with existing are about. but, besides that argument, what rationale do you think supports us doing so? >> i would point to the rationale that are buggy. it was about reflecting

a bicameral congress. there is certainly a rationale there but there are all of these trade-offs with all of these institutional reforms. from sensitivity to the ways in which those reforms can have downsides. >> as it relates to previous reforms that you have identified have created some concerns or unintended consequence is, can you address any of those? i know you are talking about new reforms we may not be considering but pass reforms you feel like have caused unintended consequences. >> going back to the 70s of opening up -- it goes to mr. reeves point that who is paying attentional attention to congressional transparency? the people that show up are those who have a stake in the outcome. as we open up committees what that opens congress up to is more pressure from organized interests. they are the ones with the strongest incentive to pay attention. you want to reach your constituents. you want to reach that broader audience but most americans are not that tuned in with public affairs. we don't want t

not necessarily in congress. but after consulting with some of his folks, he meant that to include his testimony as well. he said, this is my decision. i made this decision myself. nobody told me whether i can or should testify or speak further about the matter. from his own lips, bob mueller does not want to testify before congress. will he ultimately agree to do so in a closed session? perhaps so with a transcript to be released later. what he said is, don't get your hopes up, i'm not going to go beyond what's in the report. as for access to my materials that my staff gathered, that's not my call, that's up to the justice department, in essence, he no longer works for the government as of today. that's point one. point two is nothing about how he summarized his report as new. what the president said today, what jerry nadler said, all these other people, they could have said the same thing and, in fact, largely did after the report itself came out because he added nothing to it, nor did he intend to. i thought w

last congress and we now have for women in congress. good things can happen in pennsylvania and elsewhere. and like my friend representative scalon i feel like we are at an extraordinary moment. i can't believe i have the privilege of sitting here and raising again the era and the valuable requirement and need to do it. but that is met by also a paradoxical moment. how in god's name have we not done this yet? and why would anyone want to stand in the way? so floating in my head is what is anybody afraid of? what is there to be fearful of inslee make this enshrined in our constitution that women hold the same rights? i was thinking about this as a mother. i am a mother to three grown white men. i don't worry about whether they will be treated equally. i have that privilege. but i have a seven-year-old granddaughter and i absolutely worry if she will see that everything is open to her. that she is equal under the law and protective under the law. and so miss sullivan, i wanted to go back to you. why are we here? why can't we get this done

members of congress introduce in any given to your congress? this is a question i make my students write on paper and make a guess and see how we do. the answer is roughly 12,000. 12,000 bills and members of the house and senate and congress. which begs the next question, how many of these bills are ever enacted into law? either freestanding bills or likely as amendments to larger bills? the short answer to that is, an astonishingly two percent or sometimes as much as 2.5 or three percent, two percent of all the bills the member of congress think are important for the future of the nation, two percent of those paths. 98 percent don't pass and many of those 98 percent members know from the get go they are never going to pass. these are introduced for talking points for issuing press releases about how much they are doing. this is a staff driven process of the bottom, it's not like members of the house and senate come up with 12,000 ideas about how to perfect our republic. most of these are staff driven. staff comes up with idea they ticketed the

i have been in congress a long time. i understand we have a difference of opinion in terms of a policy. you come to congress confident in your point of view but humble enough to listen to other views. you represent your district and other people represent theirs. what the founders had in mind was we have this debate. what is the role of government on the spectrum? how much federal, how much local, how much state? that is exciting. when you have a white house that is antigovernment, anti-science, it is very hard to stipulate a set of facts. we don't want any more government than we need. there is a proper role for governance. president george washington cautioned against political parties at war with their own government. they have acting everything. acting chief of staff. that doesn't even require congressional approval. we should be very prayerful about this. imagine the courage they had to declare independence. to wage a war against the greatest naval power that existed at the time. to win that war and establish a coun

if congress had in mind this kind of crime, you think congress would say, no, that's not a crime of violence? >> as to the robsries, certainly i agree. >>> as to the conspiracy. >> as to the conspiracy -- >> they would say that's not a crime of violence? >> congress has not spoken clearly on that question. do you have any doubt what they would say? >> i certainly do have doubt whether congress intended to include conspiracy when it was thinking about traditional violent kriisms. >> counsel, looking at what actually was written so far once we've heard about so far and heard about is the canon of constitutional avoidance. this court will attempt, when possible, sometimes to avoid a construction that renders congress's work null. >> yes. >> we also have, though, the canon of rule of alenity. >> and for the notice problems that you've talked about, the separation of powers problems, if congress wants to asked more grievously, it needs to speak more clearly. usually those two canons point in the same direction. this is an unusual case where they point in opposite directions. have you done any stu

has the power to remove a president how in the congress not have the power to investigate him what's the argument so the argument on the other side would be when congress is in gauging its oversight right there's no impeachment on the table yet we're not an impeachment inquiry we're not an impeachment trial so congress has to provide some sort of legitimate legislative reason for wanting something they can't just say we can have anything for any reason we were. want to but you can you can create a lot of different kinds of reasons for why you need it and here the most important argument is michael cone basically told us told us congress that there was all sorts of financial shenanigans going on and the only way that we're going to know if that's true and engaging in our broader oversight of whether there is potentially any ongoing criminal conduct is for us to get this information and the judge is basically saying yeah that's a good enough reason i was surprised to see him throwing in the reference to impeachment because you're right congress has the power. to enter into an impeachme

section 2000-e-5. >> how does congress give a party the right to sue a state as congress has waived immunity? >> that is correct but the question is how narrowly to construe sovereign immunity and this court repeatedly held that waivers of sovereign immunity with respect to states and the federal government need to be narrowly construed and i would add it does implicate the federal government sovereign immunity because section 2000-e-5-gloggle is expressly incorporated on section 2000-e-16 which allows parties to do the federal government. >> who waves that immunity? >> it waives the immunity but how broad a waiver? we know it needs to be narrowly construed. of congress said you can bring suit against the federal government or against the state, but only after you attempt to resolve this claim through non-adjudicatory methods, we need to honor congress's decision about the breadth of the waiver that is at stake in the case. >> do you think congress meant that if you take the case they can take it through a court of appeals? not one word about that, the defendant loses in district court and s

congress' purview in many decades. it's just a losing argument and why that's especially important in this case is that the accounting firm is not under the white house's control. the congress may actually get the tax returns. the president unless he gets a stay from the court of appeals which is by no means a sure thing, he is -- the congress is really likely to get those documents. the mcgahn issue is a very different one. the white house has some good arguments there. that is a very unsettled issue which is the scope of testimony by top white house advisers. there was a case that involving harriet miers, the white house counsel under president george w. bush. congress won but it was never appealed so it's not a clear precedent, don mcgahn and the white house has some pretty good arguments to keep him off the stand but the one about the accounting firm, that is one that congress is very likely to win. >> you heard the president call that decision by this federal judge a -- he said it was crazy. they're going to do a

they are uniformly rejecting subpoenas from congress. this means that they have decided to oppose the role of congress as a coordinate branch of government representing the american people. they are stone walling the american people from information. this cannot be. we cannot have a government where all the information is in the executive branch. where america and congress are stone walled from information they need to make decisions and know what they need. while this is stone walling information with respect to the russian attack on our democracy of 2016, with respect to the president's campaign, cooperation with that attack. to the president's obstruction of justice in seeking to stop the investigation of that attack, it goes far broader than that. it's an attack on the ability of the american people to know what the executive branch is doing and to have responsible government. it is an attack on the essence of our democracy, and we must oppose this with every fiber of our being. that's why we today referred a contempt citation to the

that's exactly why the congress passed a law way back, saying that congress should be able to review the work of the irs. the irs ultimately comes under the jurisdiction of the president. congress as an independent body should be able to figure it out. >> there is a standoff here. i guess is it your understanding and your colleagues understanding that the courts will rule on this and that will be that? >> well, i think the courts are going to be the ultimate arbiter here. clearly the president, the administration, is flouting what has been the justifiable and recognized oversight responsibilities of the congress and that means we have to take it to court. the courts are going to be essential.th the issue, as you know, is the timeline here. this seems to be a deliberate strategy to drag things out and we hopre the courts will expedite the hearings and decisions. >> lindsey graham who is the chair of the judiciary advised s donald trump, jr., jr. to ignord or disobey a subpoena from a no committee chair in the united a states senate. you have seen something like that? >> i have not. it

1st a setback for donald trump's effort to keep his personal financial information from the hands of congress this week a federal judge sided with democrats in the house oversight committee who've been trying to access trump's financial information for months so where does the legal fight go from here let's start there with dan abrams chief legal affairs correspondent for a.b.c. news and co-author of the new book theodore roosevelt for the defense the courtroom battle to save his legacy dan joins me now from new york city dan welcome to the program out there so let's get to your fascinating book shortly right now we've got some crazy developments going on between the law and the trump administration so what's happening. this is an interesting case because here you've got the banks sort of stuck in the middle right saying we'll do whatever you tell us to do you subpoena the documents we'll give them to you oh wait a 2nd the trump folks are telling us we can't you guys figure it out and so now there is this battle between the trump folks and congress over whether he asked to allow in effect thi

we in congress will rein him in and hold him accountable. >> as a first-time member of congress, i can't imagine else place else i would rather be right now. i mean, as a student of american history, as a supporter of our constitution, this is just such a grave moment, and i hope everyone is understanding how grave it is, particularly those at the white house. thank you. >> good morning everyone. you know, i just have to say as a former police chief, that it was painful and disgraceful to see the nation's top cop abandon his responsibility to allow an empty chair to speak for him of this morning. however, as a committee member, we were respectful enough to put the honorable william p. barr, to put honorable on his name tag, if you will this morning. however, if you look at what the attorney general has done since he has been in office, he certainly worked harder to protect someone does not deserve to be protected. there's not much that the attorney general has done as the nation's top cop that we can consider honorable. so this morning was a dark day, a dark morning for the united states

not leave it for congress to decide. this is crazy. as far as attorney general barr goes, he is not going to put up with this ridiculousness. he is going to get up and leave. he has already started this investigation, which has been yearson two-and-a-half into why did this start. guest: let me address that second part first. that is what i find to be a very confusing situation concerning the attorney general's lack of understanding of how this investigation started. he is uniquely positioned as the attorney general of the united states to know everything that the department is doing and has done. he could, on his first day as attorney general, have asked his deputy attorney general to convene a briefing and bring all the relevant people in, and he could have learned every detail, including every classified of everything about the underlying predication of this investigation. the fact that he has not received that briefing and as a result has speculated that hearings isll confusing to me. i don't know why he doesn't know the answer to t

we in congress will rein him in and hold him accountable. >> as a first-time member of congress, i can't imagine anyplace elsie would rather be right now. i mean, as a student of american history, as a supporter of our constitution, this is just such a grave moment, and i hope everyone is understanding how grave it is, particularly those at the white house. thank you. >> good morning everyone. you know, i just have to say as a former police chief, that it was painful and disgraceful to see the nation's top cop abandon his responsibility to allow an empty chair to speak for him of this morning. however, as a committee member, we were respectful enough to put the honorable william p. barr, to put honorable on his name tag, if you will this morning. however, if you look at what the attorney general has done since has been in office, he certainly worked harder to protect someone who does not deserve to be protected. there's not much that the attorney general has done as the nation's top cop that we can consider honorable. so this morning was a dark day, a dark morning for the united states o

you understand our, and the power of congress. and you get pressure from the executive branch in recent weeks especially from attorney general william barr. today's house judiciary committee is considering possible contempt proceedings. do you believe he should be held in contempt? >> well, first let me thank you and thank fred for his kind words of introduction, for the opportunity to chat with you. understand some people from trinity college might be in the audience. [applause] >> a great school. >> i want to acknowledge that fred's mom, excuse me, bob's mom -- there's some overriding principles and one of them is the guidance from our founders, e pluribus unum, from many come one. they couldn't imagine how many we would be or how different we would be from each other but they guided us to remember where one. when we make decisions and prioritize actions and consider options that oneness, what keeps us together as a nation is a very and compelling imperative for me and for house democratic leadership. so impeachment is a very di

scope of congress' constitutional authority?" president's lawyer, "i have to look at what the basis they were providing and, again, we have --" at which point the judge interrupts. "they weren't inquiring about criminal law. it's pretty straightforward." that's a federal judge in d.c. circuit court today. the first judge to consider one of the many subpoenas that this president and white house is defying. trying to get the president's lawyers to concede that congress would have been allowed to investigate something like watergate, right? congress does investigate potential crimes by presidents, right? you concede that congress -- president -- presidents can be investigated for crimes and stuff? president's lawyers stammering but not willing to concede that. i mean, hard to tell from oral arguments, right? from today's hearing, it doesn't sound like the president's lawyers are going to get away with this argument for long if the courts have anything to say about it. but as always, watch this space. stay with us. but it's not jus.

what you think congress intended in 1986? >> a couple points -- >> without reference to our later holding. >> a couple points. first of all we don't agree about the bail reform act necessarily. the ordinary case categorical approach or any categorical approach was not well established in 1986. they identified a single decision that was a per curiam decision of the second circuit that had applied a form of categorical approach to hold a drug trafficking crimes were not covered by the then existing version of 924(c). congress repudiated that when added the definition of -- >> you thought for a very long time that the language was best read as applying the categorical approach? >> as far as the government's role in this, after a few fits and starts the were briefs we found the urge a circumstance specific approach. i would also note the sentencing commission read the language in a circumstance specific way from 1987-1989. we settle 1989. we settle into the categorical approach because that's what courts seem be going particularl

, conservatives and progressive members of congress concerned about the inability of congress to do their job on foreign policy. host: same thing as your efforts as you oppose so many issues. do good andotto is no one do harm. rivalryhad an intense over the years on a host of have hadrganizations many political battles in races across the country but we found common ground and found some shared goals. we are putting together our resources and leveraging our grassroots armies that we have respectfully built across the spectrum to ultimately advance policies we believe will lead to a better foreign policy for the united states. the issue is that the foreign policy we have been pursuing, especially over the last 17, 18 years, has not made us safer. wasinvasion of iraq probably one of the worst foreign-policy disasters in american history if not the worst and has led to problems in the middle east today. we need to make sure that does not happen again and one of the ways we think we can help pursue a better foreign policy is by urging congress to reassert its role in shaping american fo

move, help congress act. so i think just a recognition of the pressures that leaders have had to deal with and some understanding of why regular order is often untenable in today's era of messaging politics. >> pressure on the leaders do often lead to bad outcomes which is why we are so fortunate to be on the committee here with two leaders who have been doing nothing except to advance the cause of us on the committee. i want to tell you how much i appreciate that and how much i appreciate you calling this particular meeting today. thank you, mr. vice chairman. >> i want to say thank you. i think this was actually a really good conversation. frankly i look at part of the charge of our committee as actually trying to make sure that there's more clarity, more transparency for the american people so this place functions better on their behalf. i think the conversation around deliberation is an important one, though. how do the discussions and the deliberations happen within the people's house so that we can actu

if it is past next week when congress returns -- passed next week when congress returns, what is the process for getting the money to these states? guest: it goes to several different agencies. they all have their own processes. we've been looking at the community development block grant program, which is run through housing and urban development. it has a few structural issues. that's one of the things lawmakers are hoping to clear up in this disaster aid package. they did a series of three different disaster aid bills after the 2017 hurricanes and andfires to help texas puerto rico start to recover. a lot of that was community development block grant funding. they are designed to help people whose homes could be -- couldn't through rebuilt insurance or fema grants. one of the issues with that program, it is not permanently authorized by congress. every time a disaster aid bill passes, hud has to issue new guidelines, print those in the federal register. states have to come up with how they want to spend this money. they have to submit financial controls and an action plan and anoth

whereas congress is simply doing its job. if we can get this information, get it out to the public, let the american people see for themselves, then we can move on and we can do the other work as well. host: let's hear from bob. he's in hometown, illinois, on ur line for republicans. delegate stacey plaskett. caller: the country wants to move on. my comment, though, after the ueller -- expense of the mueller report, everything they tick on the list, they come up with no collusion and the other thing i think by given it to -- >> we'll take you live now over the white house, the rose rosevelt room, where the president will talk about the effect on the agriculture sector. that's the secretary of agriculture, sonny perdue, near the podium there. the administration has been working on a plan to help farmers and ranchers affected by the recently implemented tariffs. also, news from the capitol hill about the deal with the white house on disaster relief. congress reportedly reaching a deal on a $19 billion plan that does not include

when we look at last congress we passed over 34 rule, 50 rules, i'm sorry, 50 rules last congress. so far this congress only 34 rules. we actually had 30 bills signed into law at this point in the congress, last congress. 30 bills signed into law under our majority. only 16 signed into law here. so hopefully we see more productivity as well as more openness in that process. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i think that the viers and the members of congress are probably being glazed over right now with these numbers but i'll tell the gentleman there was not a single open rule in the house that was presided over by paul ryan. not one. not one. check your record. as i say, mr. mcgovern has clearly said that we want to soe amendments made in order that both sides can get a fair hearing. and i think he will -- he's been doing that. i think he'll continue to do it. and i'll yield back the balance of my time if the gentleman is -- i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman -- mr. scalise: as eyes are glazing over, for clarity, there were many rules where every single democrat amendment was incl

barr will do it with congress. the truth is courts look much more favorably on requests for the release of grand jury testimony when it comes from the government, from the attorney general. so it would enhance our chances of success. but i think the committee is fully prepared. and the absence of mr. barr doing this with us, to do it on our own. i think we can try to reach an accommodation to get the materials we need as quickly as we can to continue to do our oversight work. >> congressman, can i also ask in terms of the documents and materials and testimony that you're not only seeking, but in the case of don mcgahn you've issued a subpoena for. don mcgahn was subpoenaed to testify later this month. he is also directed by that subpoena to hand over a whole bunch of documentation by tomorrow morning. do you expect that he'll meet that deadline? >> yes. the document requests are returnable tomorrow. see scheduled to testify on may 21st. those are a lawfully issued subpoena. we expect mr. mcgahn to comply with that

that can't go on unless congress is prepared to roll over and play dead. >> congress shouldn't be calling people's tacks ju taxes just to if they can get dirt on the person. >> announcer: this is "new day wday" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> could contempt be the work of the week? no certainly seems to be the word of the morning. steve mnuchin, treasury secretary, is saying no to an official request from the ways and means committee to turn over the president's tax returns, saying it lacks a legitimate legislative purpose. for what it is worth, there is a law that says the irs shall furnish the returns on requests from congress. mnuchin's move sets the stage for a legal battle, one that could be a long legal battle over the president's taxes. >> justice department officials and house judiciary committee staff will meet today to try to work out a deal for a congressional access to the mueller report. this comes ahead of a planned vote tomorrow on whether to hold attorney general william barr in contempt for defying that subpoena to turn over the full, unredacted mueller report to

central command met with members of congress they briefed members of congress on the situation regarding iran and while that meeting was closed afterwards there were mixed feelings from members of congress who described the meeting our biggest focus at this point is to prevent the running of miscalculation. very much but intentionally or unintentionally we create a situation in which a war will take place this is about deterrence not about war that's been our worry