nadler: call the vote. you recognize the man from florida. >> the clerk will result -- record the vote. >> mr. chairman, i appeal. that was on the table. rep. nadler: the clerk will report the result. and ramn sit this through. no's.ayes and 22 rep. nadler: the motion to table is not adopted. >> we didn't even get the results of the earlier vote. >> mr. chairman? rep. nadler: motion to table is not adopted. >> mr. chairman. rep. nadler: next item on the agenda was mr. gaetz. >> no need to apologize, gentleman. rep. nadler: for an amendment. the motion to table was not adopted. mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the amendment. mr. gaetz is offering an amendment? point of order is reserved, the clerk of court the amendment -- report the amendment. >> offered by mr. gates of florida. motion to remove attorney general william barr as the 2, 2019 forhe may committee hearing entitled oversight of the u.s. department of justice. report by special counsel robert mueller the third on the special investigati

nadler: appreciate that. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have heard some extraordinary claims this morning. i've been taking notes as my colleagues have commented on all of this congresswoman sheila jackson lee said the executive branch is, quote, taking a wrecking ball to the constitution. and mr. chairman, you said that the d.o.j. doesn't recognize congress as a co-equal branch of government or acknowledge our oversight responsibility. mr. johnson: mr. cohen said we're trampling upon article 1. anyone who looks at these facts objectively knows the truth is exactly the opposite. the attorney general and d.o.j. are objecting to this charade based upon the rule of law. they are trying to protect the integrity of our institutions. mr. chairman, you said that the preliminary protective assertion of executive privilege this morning buzz a last-minute outburst. exactly the subpoena out of -- o-- the opposite of that in fact the d.o.j. letter sent to you t

chairman nadler made that decision on the night of the election when donald trump won. and that's what he's continuing to carry out. that's why -- i never had so many people come to me, not on the argument what's happening in committee, but his lack of ability even to handle the most basic motions. from whether there is a quorum, whether it's a privileged motion or not. his lack of knowledge of that. it shows time and again, one, to try to change the rules after you asked and attorney general barr agreed to come. second was yesterday itself. think about what yesterday was all about. it was a subpoena that he put forth. the own subpoena that he wrote was not the intent of what he said. he has a plan of what he wants to do to the president and he doesn't even have the ability or the knowledge to make it work. yes, ma'am. reporter: about the question of the ability to be chairman. are you thinking he should resign? mr. mccarthy: if i was in position that i was in charge of their conference, i would make sure to bring chairman nadler in and meet with the parliamentarian. yo

nadler: thank you, mr. collins. without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. i now recognize myself for purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. the. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find william p. barr -- mr. nadler: without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for purposes of amendment. i will recognize myself to explain the amendment. the amendment in the nature of a substitute contains a technical change to page 2 of the committee report. simply changes the reference on that page to judiciary committee, to the committee on the judiciary. with this modest change, i urge the committee to support the amendment. i now recognize the ranking member, mr. collins, for any comments he may have on the amendment. ms. collins: on the amendmen

nadler: mr. speaker, anybody who says that this bill would dictate the churches what they may preach or practice doesn't know what he's talking about. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the chair of the democratic caucus and senior member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished chair and i thank my good friend, david cicilline, for his extraordinary leadership on this incredibly important legislation. when the words we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, they were eloquent in their articulation, but incomplete in their application. as the legendary barbara jordan once observed, those words did not originally apply to african-americans. they did not apply to people of color. they did not apply to native americans. they did not apply to women. hey did not apply to members of the lgbt community. we have come a long way here in the unite

nadler: yes, we will. in every prayer case, the attorney general has joined the judiciary committee or congress and asking for a grand jury material in all the major cases granted. this attorney general has simply said he won't do it. he has not given a reason. he's not given a reason why he's has not precedent and said he will oppose it, but he has said they will oppose it or take no position. in every previous case, the attorney general has joined the committee in requesting the release of the grand jury information. it has always been granted. the committee has handled it responsibly. it hasn't leaked. it has been used properly. issue awill you subpoena for the other four white house officials including hope hicks? rep. nadler: when it seems most advisable. >> [inaudible] rep. nadler: of course we are concerned. we are concerned that the president's declaration and the apparent intention to deny all information is going to be a chilling effect or more. remember, in every case that people have talked abo

yet nadler has a whole other standard for president trump. democrats care about collusion, but not if it's ukraine and hillary. they care about obstruction but not hillary and her leaning subpoena emails, 33,000 leads been in hammers, sim cards removed. they care about i believe but only for a high school student, kavanaugh, not for the commonwealth governor of virginia. watch this. >> a culmination of three months of request, negotiations with the complete unredacted report by special counsel mueller. >> perhaps the ranking judiciary member is going to have to go over this material, the 400-500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is a matter of decency and protecting people's privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent, parties that must not be released at all. >> do you believe the president obstructed justice? >> yes, i do. it's very clear the president obstructed justice. >> we must not remove a president from office except to defend our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. >> we have to pro

nadler: appreciate that. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have heard some extraordinary claims this morning. i've been taking notes as my colleagues have commented on all of this congresswoman sheila jackson lee said the executive branch is, quote, taking a wrecking ball to the constitution. and mr. chairman, you said that the d.o.j. doesn't recognize congress as a co-equal branch of government or acknowledge our oversight responsibility. mr. johnson: mr. cohen said we're trampling upon article 1. anyone who looks at these facts objectively knows the truth is exactly the opposite. the attorney general and d.o.j. are objecting to this charade based upon the rule of law. they are trying to protect the integrity of our institutions. mr. chairman, you said that the preliminary protective assertion of executive privilege this morning buzz a last-minute outburst. exactly the subpoena out of -- o-- the opposite of that in fact the d.o.j. letter sent to you t

that's what nadler said. what are you hearing? >> mueller testifying would be fascinating because barr was daring him to contradict him on the kwarcharacterization of noty their phone call which he said a staff member took notes of but also the way he shaped the report. there's a bit of a conflict emerging between the special counsel and the attorney general over the way this report was handled. i think this is not a surprise that barr is not showing up. this has been going back and forth for several days that he did not want to be questioned by the sfaf lawytaff lawyers. today showed why. if there was someone like a kamala harris sitting there questioning him and the way she did for 30 minutes straight on, that would be a very different format than having someone who questions him and they pontiff cat and then kwet to tget to th questions. it's a different format if it's a lawyer questioning even though the staff lawyer to question him too. i do not think it's a surprise inside the white house she's he showing up tomorrow. >> it

nadler: this committee will be in order. without objection, the chair is authorized to decarer recesses of the committee at anaheim. we welcome everyone to today's hearing and oversight of the report by special counsel robert mueller the third. former white house counsel donald mcgahn ii. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. more than a year ago white house counsel don mcgahn sat through the first of several interviews of special counsel robert mueller. over the course of those interviews, he described how the president directed him to have the special counsel fired. he described how the president ordered him to lie about it. he described several other obstructive incidents outlined in the special counsel's report. the president in contrast refused to be interviewed by the special counsel or even to answer written questions about his attempts to obstruct the investigation. instead, to address the allegations spelled out by mr. mcgahn and outlined in the report, president trump relied on his preferred mode of

well chairman nadler is right. people need to understand how completely unprecedented donald trump's strategy here is. you said at the close of the last segment he is claim agabsolute right to say no to the congress, no president in 240 years of history has ever claimed that. richard nixon when ordered to turn over the tapes of the conversations in the oval office turned over the tapes of the conversations in the oval office. bill clinton didn't imagine that he would say i'm not going to be interviewed by the starr investigation team. he was interviewed it was there was negotiation bus evers interviewed. the president is not on any way, shape, or form on legal ground. and you know, so mcgahn must show up. that is what the law will say. now, look, we can have a conversation about executive privilege. executive privilege is important in the sense that any president should have the right to believe that the private conversations he has with advisers about policy will be protected. but remember, bottom line whether he

do you agree with chairman nadler, is it a crisis? >> the -- nadler's lawsuit will force the -- will be a moment of truth for the supreme court of the united states, which is now dominated by originalists. crucial to the founding vision is that the president of the united states is not king george iii. king george iii treated -- assaulted the independence of the colonial legislatures and the parliament and made war without the consent of parliament. it is precisely the question brought by nadler's lawsuit, is the new roberts court serious in its originalism. and this will also be raised by another lawsuit that nancy pelosi should bring on behalf of the house of representatives challenging the president trump's decision to make war against the explicit command of both houses of congress. the self-conscious principle of the founders was that it was congress that had the exclusive power to make war, and this was reaffirmed and a crucial decision by the supreme court in 1952 called the steel seizure case. harry truman was faced with a rea

chairman nadler disagrees with that. there have been plenty of people who weren't cabinet officials questioned by staff but it would be rare for the attorney general could be questioned not behind closed doors. i think the remedy would be to try to do that civil contempt order. they have to decide where do they want to sort of use their power here and where do they want to flex their muscle. they have a number of other issues going on and they want to get robert mueller in. of course, this he want to hear from the man who was actually writing to the attorney general, voicing his concerns at the same time. they are negotiating with the justice department on that at the same time as they're going after the attorney general for his own testimony. >> christine blasey ford is an example outside impeachment hearings where a witness was questioned by a lawyer, that being just a few months ago. he will. >>> he honig, people go to jail for being held in contempt by congress for not appearing. again, unusual obviously to pursue th

jerry nadler told you a few weeks, he wanted mueller next week. if barr all of a sudden changes, does an about face and that's key he would have to do an about face. >> absolutely. >> it means that mueller can't even begin to discuss testifying until he leaves the justice department. >> and that under the circumstances p barr in a really difficult position because he is basically admitting for all to see if those of you think imp t impacting as the president's patsy, i am, because i'm changing my position. that may 15th deadline that had been floated would seem to be not operative, but once mueller is a private citizen in full presumably the testimony -- >> i wouldn't put it past the white house justice department to file lawsuits to try to stop that. they're trying to stop don mcgahn who is now a private citizen from testifying. >> absolutely. >>> now to good news, the best story of the day, we just got our first glimpse of the new royal baby. that is a very attractive baby right there. will we get a name today? >> we have an answer to that quest

chairman jerry nadler claiming there's a constitutional crisis. reaction to that breaking news later but first "the new york times" published trumps taxes from 30 years ago. you might ask how did they get the stuff but

yet nadler has a whole other standard for president trump. democrats care about collusion, but not if it's ukraine and hillary. they care about obstruction but not hillary and her leaning subpoena emails, 33,000 33,000s been in hammers, sim cards removed. only for a high school student, cavanagh, not for the commonwealth of virginia of virginia commonwealth governor of virginia. >> a culmination of three months of request, negotiations with the complete unredacted report by special counsel mueller. >> perhaps the ranking judiciary member is going to have to go over this material, the 400-500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is a matter of decency and protecting people's privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent, parties that must not be released at all. >> do you believe the president obstructed justice? >> yes, i do. it's very clear the president obstructed justice. speak we must >> except to defend our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. >> we have to protect the rule of law, and that me

and chairman jerry nadler joins us next live. kno >> mom: honey is that a chip? >> tech: they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. >> mom: hi. >> tech: with our in-shop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. >> mom: really? drive safely. all right. ♪ acoustic music >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, ♪ safelite replace. my time is thin, but so is my lawn. now there's scotts thick'r lawn 3-in-1 solution. with a soil improver! seed! and fertilizer to feed! now yard time is our time. this is a scotts yard. who wanted to get away who used expedia to book the vacation rental that led to the ride which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. flights, hotels, cars, activities, vacation rentals. expedia. everything you need to go. activities, vacation rentals. did you know comcast business goes beyond fast with a gig-speed network. complete internet reliability. advanced voice solutions. wifi to keep everyone

do you think that is weighing on jerry nadler and should it? >> i think it is and i suspect it should not. i would suggest that to make an absolute statement like that i think misreads what the founders intended with the impeachment weapon and it was to put a check on a president who was committing high treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. it wasn't about whether it was a popular course of action. it was one of the checks and balances that was to in fact institute the capacity of reason to combat passion. i would respectfully disagree with the speaker of the house and with congressman nadler in saying that because something is partisan does not mean it not patriot tick. there is a, in theory and i'm not being naive about this, in theory, there is arguably a higher constitutional duty on the part of the legislative branch to check and balance the executive no matter whether or not it would be broadly popular in the public. again, this sounds very highbrow and i'm not in congress and i don't have to face the voters and i understand a

jerry nadler was asked of the press conference, why not move on with impeachment? that might not be the right remedied this point in time. they are trying basically to have it both ways. they think the president obstructed justice, than they should impeach him. if they don't, they don't. they have 98% or 92% of the mueller report and only a percent redacted in another less redacted version made available to members of the committee. certain members of the committee, something like 98%. so they are really in this battle -- yeah and they didn't even go read the report. so this is really sort of much to do on behalf in my opinion, the democrats wanting to create some conflict here surrounding the president and the attorney general. >> bret: are right. obviously, the other day the speaker said the president is trying to goad democrats into impeaching him. an interesting take from nancy pelosi -- speaker pelosi. "new york times" about the trump taxes back in the 80s or early 90s, decades and the red, trump tax figures show 1 billion in bill -- $1 billion in business los

what he's trying -- >> nadler was? >> nadler was. he's trying to make clear he is not going to stand by and accept not sharing documents, not being transparent with information. he will keep pushing. he doesn't want to give any leg on it. >> a lot of americans say you could read 92% of the report. >> almost the entirety. >> the stuff that's not protected by grand jury or other ongoing -- >> 99.8%. >> maybe he hasn't even seen it. mueller will come up there, let's see what he has to say. >> and nadler had a good comeback. you want this information, too. we want to have this information before we interview mueller. >> the one thing president trump is not doing today after new taxes come to light. so should the way you bank. virtual wallet from pnc bank. just one way pnc is modernizing banking to help make things easier. pnc bank. make today the day. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain.

mueller: no questions. >> coming up shortly, house judiciary chair general nadler -- jerrold nadler holds a news conference on the mueller report. the statement, and what comes next for congress. representative nadler speak to reporters live starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we have an economist and a senior fellow at the hoover institution. authorently helped an study with educational inequality across the past century. for some terms to get us on the same page.

devin nunesequate with nadler? >> they are asking for the same thing. >> they are not the same thing. is a subpoena the same thing is a letter? >> it is not the same thing but -- >> ok so we got that framework. nunez is not holding barr in contempt. i think the same position, i have before. if nadler is so concerned and if you watch the history of being in his position before, such as committee concerned about an attorney general holder, that ended up with a contempt about a year later, having a bipartisan vote were democrats voted with it, what did chairman nadler do at that moment? he was strong. he stood up for his members. he ran out of the chambers. he was proud. he left. now, we have witnesses, a democrat witnessed that has asked to come to the committee this week. in this subpoena, dlerten by chairman na to william barr, with the attorney general have to break the law? yes, the answer was. not by a republican witness. by democrat witnessed asked to come by a committee he chairs. it is not just me. members in

jerry nadler knows it. it's about putting politics prayed as he does mention, 99% of this report, unredacted, sit. a secure location. not one single democrat has gone to read it yet. it's because the democrats it don't care about getting information. they care about getting this president. it has been very clear from the start of this. the information that came out for everyone in this country to see and understand what's there is no collusion, no obstruction. they wanted it to be so true, they believed all the people on the democrat side and the media so they had evidence. stone cold proof that there was collusion with the president of the united states, a foreign government. proved not to be the case. no evidence, no proof. they pushed a lie on the american people for more than two years. i understand, why they don't want to come to that, they would be admitting the last two years of their life was a complete and total lie. the fact is this president has done nothing wrong and now the world knows that. >>

when asked how big the fines would be, jerry nadler said, very large. they're making very clear that despite this hardline from the white house, wolf, democrats not backing down any time soon in their myriad of probes on the capitol. >> the attorney general, bill barr, and the house speaker, nancy pelosi, they're hardly allies but there was an interesting moment webetween th two of them on capitol hill today. >> both found themselves in the same holding tent during the national peace officer's memorial here on capitol hill, an annual event. both were in attendance to pay their respects to officers that have fallen in the line of duty and when they ran into one another in that holding tent, we're told from sources the attorney general joked with the speaker if she had any of her handcuffs in case she needed to arrest him, kind of following on that inherent contempt line. pelosi, we're told from a source, not missing a beat, smiled and let him know that the sergeant-at-arms was in fact nearby if an arrest did need to be made. they were just kidding around

nadler is trying to violate the law. the president and the attorney general are upholding it. >> reporter: the standoff comes one day after the administration instructed former white house counsel don mcgann to refuse to cooperate with nadler's committee prompting house speaker nancy pelosi to drop the i-word. >> the president is goading us into impeachment, whether it's obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. obstruction of having people come to the table with facts, ignoring subpoenas every single day. the president is making a case. he's self-impeachable. >> reporter: the president is defending his practice of avoiding paying taxes after a "new york times" report found he suffered more than $1 billion in business losses in the '80s and '90s tweeting real estate developers in the 1980s and 1990s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write-offs and depreciation. almost all real estate developers did. and often renegotiate with banks. it was sport. "the new york times" reveal mr. trump was able to avoid paying

nadler. >> mr. nadler votes yea. >> miss jackson lee votes yea. >> mr. johnson of georgia. >> ms. bass votes yea. >> mr. jeffries? >> mr. swallow. mr. lu. mr. -- ms. demings votes aye. >> ms. scanlon votes aye. ms. garcia. ms. garcia votes aye. >> ms. macbeth. ms. macbeth votes aye. >> mrs. escobar? >> ms. escobar votes aye. >> mr. collins votes no. mr. shabt. >> no, this is disgraceful. >> mr. gomer? mr. gomer votes no. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes no. mr. buck. mr. buck votes no. mr. radcliffe. mr. radcliffe votes no. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana. mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs. mr. mcclintock votes ms. lesco. mr. klein? mr. klein votes no. mr. armstrong. mr. armstrong votes no . >> anyone who wishes to vote who hasn't voted? there are 21 ayes and 13 nos. the hearing is adjourned. >> you have been watching the how judiciary committee in which mcgahn was a no show. republicans arguing this was political theatrics and congressman nadler firmly saying our subpoenas will not be ignored. kasie hunt is still with us on capitol hill along with charlie sabb

nadler's statement. in the close of his statement today relating to the attorney general he said history will judge us how we face this challenge. we'll be held accountable one way or another and he, barr, if he doesn't provide this committee with the information and respect it deserves mr. barr's moment of accountability will come soon enough. i think that applies. the committees are trying to make accommodations in terms of receiving the redacted -- unredacted mueller report. let them work their will and we'll go to the next step. [inaudible question] >> 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 badge to say whatever you want and it is the fact because you are the attorney general. [inaudible question]. >> there is a process involved here. as i said, i'll say it again, the committee will act upon how we will proceed. [inaudible

nadler is intracksable. charles: nothing that you will get new after yesterday's session for all involved. i want to switch gears here. president trump earlier in the week proposing changes to the asylum process. dhs will do voluntary dna test at the border in an effort to curb child trafficking. are these the moves we need to be done? neither perhaps a silver bullet but mitigate what is become a crisis everyone acknowledges? >> absolutely right. dna test something important. we know kids are being trafficked, used as basically the child for a false family unit. so they can bet in and released into the interior since we don't have any place to detain them. but they're going to do it voluntarily. that is critical. we also know that president is suggested that we should charge fees for asylum-seekers. i agree with that. most of these people coming over here literally paying 5, 6, 7, $8,000 to get into the country. they should be able to afford a asylum application fee as well. charles: with all due respect tho

it sounds like chairman nadler expects mueller to do just that. it sounds like the president will claim executive privilege over everything, including anything mueller would say. that's a palamapably ridiculous claim, but i can go to amazon and download it on my phone. yes, it's not the whole thing, but 93% of it. the president today has injected privilege even over that. the gentleman we talked about before, john yu, teaches university of california, president bush's very strong executive power person. john yu called it a novel and dangerous theory. he said, quote, trump is treating congress like they're the chinese or a local labor union working on a trump building. when you lose john yu in a debate over executive power, that tells you how strong these arguments are. >> whatever the merits of that claim, and that's a striking assessment of the merits of that claim, will that assertion of privilege serve to delay any potential testimony by mueller? will that have to be resolved in the courts or by some other negotiation or some other means before

it's been less than 20 days since chairman nadler subpoenaed documents. when the oversight department held attorney general in contempt, more than 450 days passed between the committee's initial request to the justice department and the committee's contempt vote. judiciary democrats are moving more than ten times faster than oversight did with holder. they have moved from request to contempt vote in only 43 days. and yet the justice department is at the negotiating table waiting for the democrats to arrive in good faith? why this rush? without any legislative reason we can only assume the democrats to bill barr's good name and reputation to accomplish two goals. first, democrats are angry the special counsel's report did not produce the collusions they expected. i feel compelled to remind everybody the report found no one from the trump campaign knowingly conspire would the russian government. you can't help but notice the phrase russian collusion has vanished from the talking points and left a void in the narrative. since the special counsel did, the dep

nadler, tries to change the rules of the committee. the other thing that chairman nadler has done and he should know better than this, to send a subpoena down to the white house. those aren't his papers, those are the white house papers. he should know that in the process. if you really want to start thinking about what he's asking attorney general barr to do is to break the law. if attorney general will not break the law, he's going to hold him in contempt. chairman nadler has not even gone down and he has the right to do it to read the redacted portions inside the mueller report. >> dana: do you get is sense or do you hear anything from the speakers office, she wishes they would tap the brakes on this and maybe try to pass legislation. >> i think they would want to accomplish that. they've been in congress quite some time. when you look at the report, it's in two volumes. was there collusion or obstruction? 90% of everything inclusion is made public, not just congress but to everybody. 98% of the collusion portion. the part exactly w

jerry nadler has been very clear that if nadler -- that if bill barr doesn't show, that he will issue a subpoena for the attorney general, compel his appearance. if he does not listen to that subpoena, they could take other steps, potentially, possibly hold him in contempt. so there's a dramatic escalation here. bill barr saying that he will defy the request for the democratic chairman over a dispute over the format, and democrats plan to take steps to try to get him to appear before their committee. wolf? >> clearly, jerry nadler's not backing down. hep wants those staff lawyers to have an opportunity to spend 30 minutes on the republican side, 30 minutes on the democratic side, to ask questions in addition to the lawmakers. laura jarrett, you cover the justice department for us. what are you hearing? >> well, wolf, we're still waiting to hear from the justice department formally. they're expected to notify capitol hill in a letter. but it's interesting. we had heard all week that barr had really dug in on this issue of the staff attorneys questioning. and although that had happened

the ball is now in nadler's court. the question is will he go to court to try to get mcgahn to show up or will he, as he did with the attorney general, bill barr, attempt to hold him in contempt of congress? >> jon: john roberts our chief white house correspondent. >> sandra: for more on this let's bring in political analyst brit hume. you saw what went down there at the top of the 10:00 hour eastern time. what did you think of it? >> i've covered a bunch of these executive privilege assertions in the past. i'm not sure nadler has got it right when he says that the court -- supreme court has rejected such claims. supreme court has at times ruled that certain presidential documents or testimony over which executive privilege has been claimed still must come forward but in the watergate case where it had to do with tapes of white house conversations, they were turned over to a criminal inquiry, not a congressional hearing. the court in that opinion recognized the existence of an executive privilege for the purpose of mak

for now, house jerry nadler agrees. there are signs he might be shifting. >> white house counsel don mcgahn will not appear at a white house committee today, defying a subpoena. the white house directed mcgahn not to testify. now, chairman nadler says there will be serious consequences. nadler tells cnn the first step will be holding mcgahn in contempt of congress. joining us now to discuss all of this, we have rachel bade, congressional reporter for the "washington post," who has inside scoop of what happened behind those closed congressional doors last night. we also have jennifer rogers, former federal prosecutor and cnn analyst. david gregory, political analyst.

it was brief, maybe 15 minutes or so before chairman nadler calls it out. thank you for your patience. waiting on the line harper woods, michigan, on the republican line, this is linda. good morning. >> good morning. i want to thank you for answering and letting me have my say. i watched the hearings yesterday and i watched the mockery of the committee this morning. i have to say that seeing the chicken buckets from colonel sanders, seeing the pieces of chicken and leaving the remains of that on the table and sitting there and laughing, i think it's -- oh, i want to say that is a slap in the face to the american people. i think that somebody should have handed mr. nadler the book on rules and regulations on holding meetings, roberts rules, because he really did not do what he was supposed to do with that. he had his own agenda and that's all he cared about. he didn't listen to anybody except himself. they talk about the attorney general. that man has more knowledge and more backbone than all of them put together. he has a mind of his own. he doesn't have to

and i was -- nadler's comments were very, very guarded. the house clearly is not ready to go into impeachment. i can understand why. they certainly feel that what happened during the republican era when they impeached bill clinton and then lost in the senate, he was found not guilty. it hurt the house badly. they don't want to go there again. and i think that speaker pelosi is proceeding very carefully as is chairman nadler. and that is to try to educate the american public more. that really hasn't happened yet, brooke. so there is a good bit of process yet to play out. >> and also in that post, clinton impeachment world eventually it was the republicans who won back the white house. to your point, though, on congressman nadler and your word "guarded", when he guarded in the sense that when he was asked about moving on impeachment proceedings, and his answer was vague. all options are on the table. and speaker pelosi as you know has been reluctant, despite the growing cries in her own caucus to tame on impeachment and after what they saw t

nadler issued subpoenas for his chief of staff. even former aid hope hicks, currently serves as ebp at this network, here at fox. we're going to make hope hicks spend another million dollars on lawyers to answer the same exact questions again? only this time it will be a perjury trap, god forbid anyone that goes before congress, they have one minor detail, one little discrepancy. that's wrong or different from the last time they testified. it's called a perjury trap. the attorney general, barr, defied a request to appear before nadler's circus. he's now speaking out telling the "wall street journal," quote, i felt the rules were being changed to hurt the president, president trump, and i thought it was damaging to the presidency over the long haul. if you destroy the presidency, and make it an errand boy for congress, we're going to be a much weaker, more divided nation. democrats don't seem to care. they're still fuming. and don't forget, clinton aid brian pagliano, hillary's aid, server, he totally ignored his 2016 congressional

do you think that is weighing on jerry nadler and should it? >> i think it is and i suspect it should not. i would suggest that to make an absolute statement like that i think misreads what the founders intended with the impeachment weapon and it was to put a check on a president who was committing high treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. it wasn't about whether it was a popular course of action. it was one of the checks and balances that was to in fact institute the capacity of reason to combat passion. i would respectfully disagree with the speaker of the house and with congressman nadler in saying that because something is partisan does not mean it's not patriotic. there is a, in theory and i'm not being naive about this, in theory, there is arguably a higher constitutional duty on the part of the legislative branch to check and balance the executive no matter whether or not it would be broadly popular in the public. again, this sounds very highbrow and i'm not in congress and i don't have to face the voters and i understand al

nadler. mr. nadler: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 5. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: i yield myself three minutes. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 5, the equality act, which amends the civil rights act of 1964 and other core civil rights statutes to explicit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. today is a historic day. e first time a comprehensive lgbtq civil rights bill has come to the floor of the house. this legislation will provide members of lgbtq americans protections from being denying medical care or being fired or thrown out of their homes. much of the history of the united states has been about expanding the definition who is understood to be included in the declaration of independence. when words were written, the phrase did not include black and latino men, native americans, did not include women a

i think when chairman nadler's case. look everybody in politics hit the moment where they skipped a couple of meals have been running hard all day and the blood sugar crashes out. i hope that's what happened today. i'm hearing tonight he is okay from a couple of different folks. and i hope he is. because it is important that this committee continue to have somebody on it who is going to put the country first before partisan interests because the republicans on the committee right now are members of the donald trump cheer section and not actual members of a second branch of government. they're like employees at a trump golf course. >> let's talk about mr. barr, the attorney general. those of us -- how do i put this gently with graying or no hair who are old enough to remember incarnation number one of bill barr during the reagan and bush 41 administration remember him as kind of a republican. a bush era republican. but now he has proven to be so pliant to this president that he has been richly rewarded with these new powe

nadler? >> no. >> mr. nadler about snow. -- mr. nadler votes no. >> missus jackson lee votes no. mr. johnson of georgia votes no. mr. richmond? >> mr. jeffries? mr. jeffries votes no. >> mr. cicilline? mr. atkins? mis-direction votes no. miss demings? miss demings votes no. missus scanlon? missus scanlon votes no. miss mcbath? this mcbath votes no. mr. stanton? mr. stanton votes no. miss escobar? >> no. >> miss escobar votes no. >> mr. collins? aye >> mr. collins votes aye. mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes yes. mr. bux? mr. buck votes aye. miss robbie? >> aye. >> miss robbie votes aye. voteshnson of louisiana aye. .s. lesko votes aye mr. cline? >> aye. >> mr. cline votes aye. >> has everyone voted that wishes to vote? votes no.en >> mr. korea votes no. >> gentlelady from texas. florida, i am sorry. has everyone voted who wishes to vote? mr. chairman, there are 15 ayes and 22 nos. 15 ayes and 22 nos. >> i move the previous question. >> point of order. >> there is a point of order. >> the motion is not debatable. >> point of order. >> point of order is not recognized. >> the previous q

and we should mention that the trump/nadler beef goes back decades because jerry nadler blocked a project that donald trump wanted in new york. >> it is like of course the most trumpian thing. >> and that also i think is a piece of this, the disdain trump feels for jerry nadler is special and old. >> and the white house says that they are just pumpinching back,t this is sarah sanders about the tax returns. >> i don't think that congress particularly not this group of congressmen and women are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that i would assume that president trump's taxes will be. >> so they are pathetic and stupid. >> look, the white house didn't listen to me on messaging. i mean many, many times i -- yeah, if i were there, i'd just stick with the top lines of the mueller report, barr has been transparent and given you most of it, it is hardly redacted even though there was a giant freakout for a week. furthermore, the idea that this three week period they set some sort of narrative that was false is in the true because polling doesn't she any of that and it is all at

you just heard chairman nadler. it's happening. after mueller, they think it is supercharged that statement today, even though seessentiall it's the exact same words in the report. >> dana: if anything mueller wanted to scream, would you just read the report. here we are couple months after the report was released, we're still talking about it. i appreciate you being here. thank you. >> see ya, dana. >> dana: special counsel saying moscow's interference is a subject of importance. we'll discuss that next. welcome to seattle. where people are into coffee, tech, and retirement planning. the perfect retirement for me is doing the things that i want to do, not the things i have to do. unlike seattle, less than half of americans participate in their employer retirement plans. so what keeps people more engaged in their retirement? i want to have the ability to easily transact online, great selection of funds, great advice, everything in one place. helping people in their working years and beyond. that's financial wellness. talk to your e

nadler has been wanting to impeach the day after the election. he can't have the facts to prove of why he should, but he will not stop. this is what the american public is frustrated about, the politics of attacking individuals. when you look at the democratic party, they now want to weaponize the i.r.s. they want to go after -- continue to go after the president. they are trying to go after his family. this has got to stop. the american public wants us to move forward and solve the problems. yes. reporter: do you think speaker pelosi should bring to the floor [indiscernible] mr. mccarthy: i believe nancy pelosi should bring it to the floor. one of the major questions that democrats asked before it would come to the floor is that mexico, asking another country to change their own laws, their labor laws. well, the senate and mexico just did that. so i think it's appropriate that they keep their word when they said that's why they would bring it forward. this is a win-win for all, and i believe that you would have a large number of votes from the r