during the day he never spoke with national guard, department of defense, department of justice or any law enforcement agency. at no point during the day or any other did he issue any order to deploy any law enforcement agency to assist. multiple witnesses, including president trump's white house counsel, testified to these facts. your white house employees had been speaking directly with president trump state that he didn't want anything done. the president was making phone calls that afternoon, but they were not to law enforcement officials, rather president trump continued to call his lawyer, rudy giuliani. both president trump and mr. giuliani spoke with congressional leaders, even after the violence had begun, to encourage them to continue delaying the session. approximately three hours after being informed of the violence at the capitol, ours during which as our evidence has shown, donald trump sat in his dining room and watched the violence on television, the president released a video statement in which he again repeated that the election was stolen, told his supporters at the

going to be up to the department of justice. >> so you say trump and others. will you be filling in the blank of "and others"? rep. raskin: no, the others are contained in the report, and that judgment will be made by the department of justice as to whether they have sufficient evidence and probable cause to bring charges. we wanted to proceed in such a way that we could all feel certain that these were people where evidence exists that they engaged in criminal offenses against the country. >> what do you see the legacy of your committee? rep. raskin: oh, jeez, our committee is -- we had a meeting five minutes ago. i don't know what our legacy is going to be. i hope our legacy is going to be an unswerving devotion to the facts, the rule of law, and the constitution. we were charged with dealing with an event that was radically unique in american history. nobody before, much less a president, had ever come so close to overthrowing presidential election. that is what we were dealing with. our greatest legacy and our most enduring legacy would be one that is cert

it is possible the department of justice would have a further evidence that could support charges of seditious conspiracy, but that is a judgment that the department of justice will have to make -- >> are you not charging on seditious conspiracy? rep. raskin: seditious conspiracy is not one of the offenses. yes, one of the ones mentioned there. >> there is a few days left of the democratic majority. what is the thinking behind just now, the totality of the committee's legislative recommendations, as well as referrals to the ethics committee, matters that have to be adjudicated by the house and by congress? rep. raskin: i'm not certain -- >> what is the thinking behind waiting until the very end of the democrats' house majority of releasing matters that have to be dealt with by the house? rep. raskin: well, we have obviously been in the process of collecting all the evidence that we can, and we have been moving as quickly as possible. the legislative recommendations we set forward, about a dozen of them are things that can be undertaken by this congress during the lame-duck period and

most such crimes are already being prosecuted by the department of justice. we propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of the specific offense, the severity of its actual harm, and the centrality of the offender, to the overall design of the unlawful scheme to overthrow the election, compel us to speak. ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ring leaders get a free pass. mr. chairman, as you know, our committee had the opportunity last spring to present much of our evidence to a federal judge. something that distinguishes our investigation from any other congressional investigation i can recall. in the context of resolving evidentiary privilege issues related to the crime fraud doctrine, in the eastman case, u.s. district court judge david carter, examined just a small sub-set of our evidence to determine whether it showed the likely commission of a federal offense. the judge concluded that both former president donald trump and john eastman likely violated two federal criminal statutes. t

we want the department of justice to pursue with charges. these were people where evidence exists that they engaged in criminal offenses against the country. >> what do you see as the legacy of your committee? >> our committee is now, we just had our last meeting five minutes ago. i don't know what our legacy is going to be. i hope our legacy will be an unswerving devotion to the rule of law, and the constitution. we were charged with an event radically unique in the country's history. no one had come so close to overthrowing a presidential election. our greatest legacy would be one that is certified by time. that we never encounter anything like this again and we keep the progress the -- and we keep the progress of american democracy moving. seditious conspiracy has been charged with oath keepers, the proud boys. there is a rigorous factual proof about legal elements that are there. we brought more of those offenses where we thought it is clear where criminal conduct took place. it is not the exclusion of others. it is very possible the dep

ros: finally, let talk about the department of justice. is it going to take kindly to being encouraged by a group of politicians that -- to do something that it could have done on it own had it chosen to? >> that's an interesting point because it kind of boxes the department of justice in a little bit because the department rightfully prides itself on making decisions without fear or favor. it decides its prosecutions on the merits, not due to pressure, whether from the white house or congress or anywhere else. so while it will be difficult orism possible to ignore all in evidence that's now in the public domain, i'm confident that the department will continue looking at the evidence and pursuing the lolls and applying the laws it feels are necessary and appropriate under 24 situation. ros: jim, thanks for your time. we appreciate you joining us. >> thanks for having me. ros: now, president putin is in bell rules for talks with his alley alexander lukashenko. there's speculation he may be there to try and organize an attack on coach on bel

the department of justice. as soon as they wrap up the proceedings today, they're going to make sure this information is in the hands of prosecutors. and of course not just the referrals themselves but the evidence to back it up. >> and, andrew weissman, as you pointed out earlier, people at the department of justice and jack smith are going to take this seriously to the point where they're going to look at it and they know they have to be able to respond, you know, very affirmatively and responsibly to references to what referrals they get. >> absolutely. and the part about the underlying evidence is really key. and although everyone is focusing on this stark nature of this with respect to donald trump, if i'm the department of justice one of the things i'm looking at is not just the evidence with respect to him, but is there evidence with respect to lower level people where we will charge people and seek to get their cooperation. the way you get people to cooperate is if you're lucky they walk in the door and

department of justice, and dr. greta el goodwin, and justice for the you -- it is the custom of the subcommittee swear in all witnesses, and at this time i will ask you to please stand and, raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony that you're about to perform before the subcommittee is the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth, so help you god? >> let the wreckage of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. we will be using a timing system today. your written testimony is entirely printed in the record, and we will ask you to limit your oral testimony to five minutes. we will hear from you first, thank you. you may proceed. >> you will need to turn that microphone on. thank you. >> is it on no, can you hear me? >> yes, thank you. >> thank. you thank you making -- and distinguished members of the subcommittee. i'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today about the work in the department of justice to implement the death and custody reporting act, and they ways that we work with

the tax division of the department of justice. there is nothing about you that doesn't continue to surprise me. you've had a hand in everything. please, if you, would lay out the significance of this decision by the house ways and means committee, to release donald traffic returns and white matters now after all these years? why we want to see donald trump 's tax returns before he ran for president. because that is the important information on making a determination on who you vote for? why does that matter in 2022? >> to your point, it matters less now. when someone is president, you want to see whether they have conflicts of interest, whether they have business interests abroad, and whether their policies are designed to further the got of the united states, or their own personal investment. that's why it's important when someone is running for president, and why it is important while they are president. i would say that it is less important now. and let me also mention a few things that you are not going to learn from the tax r

much crimes are already being prosecuted by the department of justice. we propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of specific events, severity of actual harm and this on an -- unlawful harm to speak. ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and the ringleaders get a free pass. our committee had the opportunity last spring to present much of our evidence to a federal judge. something that distinguishes our investigation from any other congressional investigation i can recall. in the context of resolving evidence for issues related to the crime fraud doctrine and the eastman case, u.s. district court judge examined a small subset of our evidence to determine whether it shows the likely commission of a federal offense. the judge concluded that former president donald trump and john eastman likely violated two criminal statutes. this is the starting point to our analysis today. the first group we invoked a referral title 15 seven c which makes it unlawful for anyone to corruptly obstruct, influ

judy: we know the department of justice is already looking into so much of this. what will be different and what they can do as they look at these referrals? mary: the department of justice will be eagerly looking through everything the committee provides to them. they have already impaneled a grand jury, a body of community members who review the evidence presented and ultimately are the people who will decide whether to vote to return an indictment. in the course of presenting evidence to the grand jury, the department of justice can subpoena additional witnesses, including probably many of those who took the fifth amendment in front of the committee. if the department agrees with their assertion of the fifth amendment, they can appeal to a judge saying we don't think the person -- they should have to testify. they also have the power if they see fit to grant immunity to a witness in order to obtain testimony. they can issue search warrants on probable cause. there are many things they can do that the committee did not have the same power to do. judy: so they ha

programs of the off -- department of justice. dr. l goodwin serves as homeland security and justice for the u.s. government accountability office. it is the custom of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses. at this time, i would ask you to please stand and raise your right hands. >> they swear that the testimony you are about to get before the subcommittee is a truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record reflect that witnesses answered in the affirmative. you may return to your seats. we will be using a timing system today. your written testimonies in their entirety will be printed in the record. we will ask that you try to limit your oral testimony to five minutes. miss hannah burke, we will hear from you first. thank you. you may proceed. you don't need to turn that microphone on, miss hannah burke. thank you. >> is it on now? can you hear me? thank you. >> thank. you >> okay, thank. you thank you chairman ossoff. member -- i'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today about our w

we don't know what other evidence the department of justice has. they have been conducting their own investigation over the last 2 years. but it's so been over 2 years since donald trump started his effort to reverse the results of the 2020 election to evade the democratic rule. in honest states. the committee talked to over a 1000. people reviewed millions of documents, but they never spoke to the man. they are building this case around why i don't believe that donald trump would have agreed to speak with. he has the right under the 5th amendment of the united states constitution not to incriminate himself. and a given the criminal charges they could very well be pending in connection with the insurrection of december through january. this was a really a 2 month attempt to overthrow the results of the election that he was at the center. i would believe that his lawyers would tell him not to speak with a committee or anyone to do to remain silent as he has the right to do under the united states constitution. we saw a lot of bomb shells come out of

we don't know what other evidence the department of justice has. they have been conducting their own investigation over the last 2 years. but it's so been over 2 years since donald trump started his effort to reverse the results of the 2020 election to evade the democratic rule in united states. and the committee talked to over a 1000, people reviewed millions of documents and they never spoke to the man. they're building this case around why i don't believe that donald trump would have agreed to speak with. he has the right under the 5th amendment of the united states constitution not to incriminate himself and a given the criminal charges they could very well be pending in connection with the insurrection of december through january. this was a really a 2 month attempt to overthrow the results of the election that he was at the center. i would believe that his lawyers would tell him not to speak with the committee or anyone to do to remain silent as he has the right to do under the united states constitution. we saw a lot of bomb shells come out

that include classified information that caused the referral of the department of justice that cause the may subpoena and issued this contempt requests, there isn't a contempt requests. that resulted in 36 documents, but that was not all because we know we have 100 more classified documents found during the search warrant several months later. and we know that there has been additional searches conducted by trump's team in the last week and some additional documents found. i think what the department is trying to do is get some accountability because right now it seems like the trump team is avoiding accountability by failing to appoint a custodian of records and understandably, no one wants to be that person because nobody feels like they could ever be competent in signing their name, a testing that all documents were turned over. >> it's like the drummer for a spinal tap. who's going to be the person, i am the person who will vouch under penalty of perjury that donald trump is 100 telling the truth about all the documents. the history is here striking to. harry, lawyers did that, p

they found a lot of information and they were way ahead of the department of justice on some key moments. some key findings. the january 6 committee, a group of congressional staffers along with often former department of justice investigators, uncovered a lot of material about how trump and some of his aides were coordinating on the levers they were pushing to try to claim the election was fraudulent. to try to pressure vice president pence not to do his constitutional duty and certify the election. to try to embroil the department of justice itself in claiming falsely that the election was problematic and fraudulent and rigged and therefore interfere in some way in the results being certified. all of that coordination or i shouldn't say all, much of the evidence we know about coordination came from the congressional committee first. it's a little bit of a comedown for the department of justice to have been learning these things from the committee and because the committee has a political motive, you can't separate -- from politics, right. they have a political goal along with their fac

that's where the department of justice comes. it, though, the january 6th committee meet a criminal referral to the department of justice. anyone can do that. i can make a criminal referral to the department of justice. there's probably has more weight and lives certainly got the documents this time to say look, this is where you should be looking. and this is what you should be looking at. but we already know the department of justice has got an investigation ongoing or we don't know where it's gone. who had spoken to or hope born. it was gone. and hundreds of thousands of airline passengers flying in and out of the u. k. a facing delays or disruptions over the christmas weekend after border force work has started 8 days of strike action over pay and conditions. military personnel has been drafted in to try to minimize delays at the airport. that brings you up to speed with all of our top stories. the bottom line with steve clemens, is the program coming out next? i'll see you soon. ah. i am steve clements and i have a question

raskin: no, the department of justice has brought more than 900 criminal prosecutions of this event for everything from assaulting a federal officer to destruction of federal property to resisting arrest to seditious conspiracy, which means conspiracy to overthrow and put down the government. so, the department of justice is fully engaged in the process of examining all of these events, so we have every confidence and hope they will pursue it all the way to the top. but, there have been no charges leveled yet against donald trump or john eastman. we want to set forth the elements of these crimes and all of the evidence that is coming to the possession of our committee. laura: former vice president mike pence, the rioters were calling for him to be hanged. he said today that mr. trump was reckless, but seem to imply he was not necessarily criminal. wouldn't it be divisive to prosecuted former president? mr. raskin: first of all, reckless is the very least you could say of someone who responded when told his vice president mike pence was being subjected to a mob yelling "hang mike pence,"

department of justice and has been made available over the last few months to the department of justice, republican lawyers and you both know better than me that, you know, you're not a republican lawyer working on capitol hill if you're a sort of milk soap type of republican. you're a committed conservative if you're a republican lawyer working on capitol hill. and i think what they have given themselves in their personal -- in terms of their personal sense of self-respect is something they can point to to say, no, i'm a true conservative. i believe in the constitution. i believe in the peaceful transfer of power. i believe in holding people to account for their actions under the rule of law in a land where the law is king. and so i share what you have just said, joe, and also what mika, what everybody said, which is the skepticism that i felt at the beginning of this process last june with the first committee hearing has been completely belied. this has been way more impressive than i expected and for those very reasons. >> yes. jon meacham, i'm curious. i talked before about what i t

the department of justice is tasked with delivering the ultimate measure of accountability here. our job was to find the facts, interview witnesses and put together a comprehensive report which we have done. we have met our obligation, but ultimately to have full accountability the department of justice is going have to act. >> if doj doesn't bring charges against trump or doesn't bring all of the charges that you think that they should and you waited, the committee waited this long to share all of its evidence, will you second guess that decision? >> no, not at all. the committee work product we were going through all of that material over the last few months. i understand that folks wanted information out and to the public. it will be out and to the public and everyone including the department of justice will be able to see that by-product and the information that we have gathered, but there will be no second guessing of the members. we feel confident in what we have put together. we feel that it meets our obligations within the house resolution that created, but more important

we don't know what other evidence the department of justice has. they have been conducting their own investigation over the last 2 years. but it's so been over 2 years is donald trump started his effort to reverse the results of the 2020 election to evade the democratic rule in the united states. and the committee talked to over a 1000, people reviewed millions of documents and they never spoke to the man. they're building this case around why i don't believe that donald trump would have agreed to speak with him. he has the right under the 5th amendment of the united states constitution not to incriminate himself and a given the criminal charges they could very well be pending in connection with the insurrection of december through january. this was a really a 2 month attempt to overthrow the results of the election that he was at the center. i would believe that his lawyers would tell him not to speak with the committee or anyone to do to remain silent as he has the right to do under the united states constitution. we saw a lot of bomb shells come

we don't know what other evidence the department of justice has. they have been conducting their own investigation over the last 2 years. but it's so been over 2 years since donald from started his effort to reverse the results of the 2020 election to evade the democratic rule in the united states. and the committee. * talked to over a 1000, people reviewed millions of documents and they never spoke to the man. they're building this case around why i don't believe that donald trump would have agreed to speak with him. he has the right under the 5th amendment of the united states constitution not to incriminate himself and given the criminal charges they could very well be pending in connection with the insurrection of december through january. this was a really a 2 month attempt to overthrow the results of the election that he was at the center. i would believe that his lawyers would tell him not to speak with the committee or anyone to do to remain silent. does he has the right to do under the united states constitution? we saw a lot of bomb shell

department of justice? >> absolutely. >> thank, you professor. ms. maley, thank you again for sharing your families personal tragedy with the public today. i'd like to ask you, what has more to debated you to take this step? >> the biggest motivation, and it will serve no justice for my son, there will be none. the biggest motivation i have is everyone knows or knows somebody that is affected by drug use, i'll call use, mental illness, and sometimes your carelessness, that can end you being pulled over by your local law enforcement agent and put in jail. it's a horrible thing for me to think of, maybe my next door neighbor may be going to the store and get pulled over for something, a minor infraction, as we all know, which can put you in jail. it can jeopardize your life. i would like some transparency. i would like to be able to know that the system -- according to our health care providers in these institutions. >> thank you, ms. maley. ms. fano, thank you as well for sharing your families story, as diff

for the folks of the department of justice? >> had adequate care been given to my brother, jonathan louis fano, i do believe i would still have him in my life. i believe that if we provide the resources that are necessary to inmates who struggle with mental illness, or less tragedies will occur. it is just a matter of acknowledging those mistakes and acknowledging that we can improve and be better so that search traumatic incidents will not occur. so that families will not have to deal with the horrible reality of rather than a loved one coming out of an institution more well-established and aware of how to integrate back into society, they come back and a casket. so, i ask that we acknowledge our mistakes and move towards a better future for everyone. >> thank you miss fano. at this time, with the ranking member's permission i will yield to senator idea for his questions? thank you mister chair. thank you for the accommodation. i have a meeting to get to in a few minutes but i wanted to first of all thank you mister chair for

that judgment will have to be made by the department of justice. about whether they have sufficient evidence and probable cause in their case in order to bring charges. we wanted to proceed in a such a way that we could all feel a certain that these were people where evidence exists that they engaged in criminal offenses against the country. >> what do you see as a legacy of your committee? >> our committee is now -- i think we have had our last meeting five minutes ago so i do not know what our legacy will be. i hope our legacy will be an unswerving devotion to the facts, the rule of law, and to the constitution. we were charged with dealing an event that is radically unique in american history. nobody before had ever come so close to overthrowing the presidential election. and bypassing the constitution. that is what we were dealing with. our greatest legacy and our most enduring legacy would be one that is certified by time, which is that we never encounter anything like this again and that we keep the progress of american democracy moving. >> c

certainly one of the many important components of our federal government is the department of justice. it's the body that represents -- that is responsible for enforcing our laws and investigating criminal wrongdoing. for this reason, it's of the utmost importance that our department of justice operates as a fair and neutral body that enforces our federal laws without fear or without favor. it is this critical function that president trump sought to corrupt. as he sought to use the department of justice to investigate and prosecute purported election fraud and to help him convince the public that the election was stolen. the select committee has made the following findings with respect to the department of justice. in the weeks immediately following the 2020 election, attorney general bill barr advised president trump the department of justice had not seen any evidence to support trump's theory that the election was stolen by fraud. no evidence. over the course of the three meetings in this post-election period, attorney general barr assured president trump that the justice department

certainly, one of the many important components of our federal government is the department of justice. it's the body that is responsible for enforcing our laws, investigating criminal wrongdoing. for this reason, it's of the utmost importance that our department of justice operates as a fair and neutral body that enforces our federal laws without fear or without favor. it is this critical function that president trump sought to corrupt. as he sought to use the department of justice to investigate and prosecute purported election fraud. and help him convince the public that the election was stolen.select committee has made the following findings with respect to the department of justice. in the weeks immediately following the 2020 election, attorney general bill barr advised president trump the department of justice had not seen any evidence to support trump's theory that the election was stolen by fraud no evidence. over the course of the three meetings in this post-election period, attorney general barr assured president trump that the justice department was properly investigating cl

the impact of criminal referrals to the justice department. watch washington journal live tuesday seven eastern. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. >> are you a nonfiction book lover can for a new podcast? try listening to one of the many podcasts c-span has to offer. you can listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter. learn something new on book notes plus with conversations with nonfiction authors. influential interviewers for it -- for wide-ranging intellectual conversation. talk about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find all of our podcasts downloading the free c-span app wherever you get your podcasts. >> 118 congress continues on tuesday, january 3 for the first time in two years, they were returned to washington as a divided government. republicans will control the house of representatives while democrats maintain control of the senate. the new incoming members are younger compared to the average age of 58. more d

for this reason, it is of the utmost importance that our department of justice operates as a fair and neutral body that enforces our federal laws without fear or without favor. it is this critical function that president trump sought to corrupt. he sought to use the department of justice to investigate and prosecute purported election fraud and to help him convince the public that the election was stolen. the select committee has made the following findings with respect to the department of justice. in the weeks of neatly following the 2020 election, attorney general bill barr advised president trump the department of justice had not seen any evidence to suppt trump's theory the ection was stolen by fraud. no evidence. over the course of the three meetings and this postelection period, attorney general barr assured president trump the justice department was properly investigating claims of election fraud. he debunked numerous election fraud claims. many of which the president would then go on to repeat publicly. he made clear president trump was doing "a great, great disservice to the

at the end of the day, it is still the department of justice that makes the ultimate decision. you can get a referral from congress, or some other body, if it has no merit than you don't proceed. still, when you get that you do take it quite seriously. you take quite a good look. more than if you just got some crank letter from someone in the public who doesn't seem like they have any merit at all. >> let's talk about the things that we think the january six committee may refer to the department of justice. the insurrection one it's interesting to some people because they read it -- and especially if you read the 14th amendment of the constitution they read that as if you are convicted of that you can't run for office. there are other parts of the constitution that say you cannot limit someone running for office. is that the important thing to be thinking of with regard to the insurrection cause or is that a red herring? >> i would say that is somewhere in between. i do you think that if there were to be a conviction for that charge there is the potential that the department co

with the department of justice. but clearly, those conversations will now begin happening, or at least the d.o.j. will see everything that we're going to get to see come wednesday, when we start pouring over these hundreds and hundreds of pages. i think the last thing i'll say, is it is really striking, and these track with what we heard reported before the hearing, the three categories of referrals here on obstruction, on conspiracy, on inciting an insurrection, and it is very notable to me that the only person that they're charging with incites and assisting an insurrection is donald trump. >> ali, quick question. prior to today's meeting and prior to the releafs the executive summary in this report, there would be some question about perhaps the referrals, not just the d.o.j. and the house ethics, and beyond, the fcc and the bar association. and could those still be going? >> they koochl and you tugged on some of those threads there, too, about whether the campaign fines violations, or anything for several of the

of justice. does this, in and of itself, carry legal weight, and why not, if it does not? >> so, no, in the sense that their decision to say yes, we are referring charges, i mean, does that separately carry any legal weight? what carries legal weight is the basis of their decision. so, it is the evidence which i believe they have already largely, if not completely, turned over to the department of justice. but, the department of justice, in making a decision as to moving forward, they will not look at whether or not members of congress voted in favor of a criminal referral, in deciding whether or not they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. that is a separate issue. this is really a political issue. the house select committee wants to go down in history as saying, based on what we saw, we cannot say stay silent, and we think that there should be criminal charges in this case. >> who ultimately makes that decision to move forward at the doj? >> in the first instance, it is going to be the i

we don't know what other evidence the department of justice has. they have been conducting their own investigation over the last 2 years. but it's so been over 2 years since donald trump started his effort to reverse the results of the 2020 election to evade the democratic rule in united states. and the committee talked to over a 1000, people reviewed millions of documents and they never spoke to the man. they're building this case around why i don't believe that donald trump would have agreed to speak with him. he has the right under the 5th amendment of the united states constitution not to incriminate himself and given the criminal charges they could very well be pending in connection with the insurrection of december through january. this was a really a 2 month attempt to or overthrow the results of the election that he was at the center. i would believe that his lawyers would tell him not to speak with the committee or anyone to do to remain silent as he has the right to do under the united states constitution. we saw a lot of bomb shells come

that's where the department of justice comes in. now the january thinks committee made a criminal referral to the department of justice. anyone can do that. i can make a criminal referral to the department of justice. there's probably has more weight and they've certainly got the documents this time to say look, this is where you should be looking. and this is what you should be looking at. but we already know the department of justice has got an investigation on going. and we don't know where it's gone, who had spoken to, or how long it will go on. what we do know is the house to make it case has got a much lower level of proof for the justice department to take something to court. they really have to have a standard be owned, a reasonable doubt. and of course, here's a big caveat to all of this. that has never been a president charged with any crime in the united states for what he did when he was an office. and the reality is that the, the, the justice department wants to make sure that if it decides to do that, a case against do

there could be other evidence that the department of justice already has. one thing i want to note real quick, my general barometer for how successful a hearing is is how outraged the former president is. he went out and put out a screed on truth social in no way denying what was said basically saying i had requested troops at the capitol. he wanted 20,000 troops there. if you didn't incite a mob, there wouldn't be a need for troops and then blaming everyone from the department of justice to the fbi and bringing up hunter biden. he's clearly rattled by this. >> the criminal referrals are not trump's only concern. democrat led house ways and means committee will meet to decide what if anything should be done with the former president's tax returns. the clock is ticking. they only have two weeks left until they take over the house majority. >>> gasoline prices are continuing to fall but the latest prices show national average now standing at $3.12 a gallon. prices have cooled off significantly. the national average hit $5 a gallon. it dropped more than 54 cen