tv January 6 Committee on Contempt Charges for Fmr. Trump Advisers CSPAN March 28, 2022 10:29pm-11:31pm EDT
recommending the house of representatives holding peter navarro and dan scavino in contempt of congress for refusing to cooperate with subpoenas. i will not recognize myself for the opening statement. this evening, the select committee is required to consider two more citations for criminal contempt for congress for dan scavino and peter navarro. i want to comment quickly on the ruling today in john eastman's lawsuit to stop the select committee from obtaining certain records. as the vice chair, this ruling
is a clear victory for the rule of law. i encourage people at home to read what george carter wrote and consider has words very carefully. his warnings about the ongoing direct to american democracy should alarm every person in this country. i want to read a short excerpt on george carter's ruling. dr. eastman and president trump launched a campaign to over -- overturn a democratic election, and action unprecedented in american history. the campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. it was a coup in church -- in search of an would you -- a legal theory. it deepened public distrust in our political process. more than a year after the
attack on our capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. i am proud to say this committee is helping to lead that search for accountability. that is why we are here tonight. let's turn to mr. savino and mr. navarro. these are not household names. my colleagues will share some details about who they are and why they are so important to our investigation. in short, these two men played a key role in the ex-president's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. the select committee subpoenaed them for records to learn more about their roles and what they knew. in mr.'s camino's case, she strung us along for months before making it clear that he believes he is above the law. mr. navarro, despite sharing relevant details on tv and in
his own book, he also stonewalled us. the contempt report gets into the weeds on this. they are claiming that the information they want -- we want from them is shielded by executive privilege. executive privilege is the power of the president to make sure officials sensitive information stays private. it is a privilege used to protect the presidency and our national security. this usually involves the president and that president's closest advisers, cabinet secretaries and top aides. in the lead up to january 6, mr.
savino and mr. navarro were both government employees. they had conversations with the ex-president, so that -- so now they are saying they will not answer any other questions because of executive privilege. there are couple of problems with that. executive from which does not belong to any white house official. it belongs to the president. president biden has been clear that executive privilege does not prevent cooperation with the select committee by either mr. scavino or mr. navarro. while the ex-president has raised looked concerns, nobody has even tried to invoke privilege except mr. navarro himself. peter navarro is not the
president. even if a president -- president has formally invoked executive privilege, the witness has the obligation to sit down under oath and answer question by question. but these witnesses did not even bother to show up. second, if the ex-president had a legitimate claim to executive privilege, this is something that applies to things that happened in a official capacity. if mr. scavino or mr. navarro are claiming that all the information they have is protected by executive privilege, they are basically saying everything they did they did in their official roles, paid by taxpayers. we want to talk to mr. scavino and mr. navarro about the roles
to overturn an election. there are a lot of laws that set up what government officials are not allowed to do when they are on the clock by using government resources. it is important that taxpayer dollars to do not support political activity. there are a few white lines about every specific situation. i cannot sit in my office in capitol hell and make fundraising calls. every staff member has to dig ethics training every year to remind them what is in and out of bounds. i do not mean to make light of it, trying to overturn an election is out of bounds. weight out of bounds. -- way out of bounds.
mr. scavino and mr. navarro will not talk about it because they claimed they were white house officials at the time. they played a part on the attack on american democracy. they can ignore our investigation because they were for the government at the time. that is their argument. they are not fooling anybody. they are required to cooperate with our investigation. they refuse to do so and that is a crime. we will also leave you with some unanswered questions to consider for yourselves. questions about a sort of people who deserve the power and responsibility of public trust. for a great many of us, it means something profound when we raise our hands and swear an oath.
we have not finished the work of our investigation, but i can say that many involved in the run-up to january 6 oh a statement of fidelity to democracy was nothing more to them than the limitless words. -- meaningless words. i fear what happens if those people are again given the reins of power. i encourage my colleagues to support adoption of this report. i am confident the house will adopt a resolution setting them for this crime. i hope the justice department will move swiftly to hold them accountable. i am pleased now to recognize my friend, the gentlewoman from wyoming, liz cheney for any remarks she might care to offer. rep. cheney: thank you very much mr. chairman. we are entering a critical stage
of our investigation. we have taken the testimony of hundreds of witnesses with knowledge of the events of january 6. including more than a dozen former trump staff members. we learned that president trump and his team were warned in advance that the effort they overtook to overturn the 2020 election would violate the law and our constitution. they were warned that january 6 could and it likely would turn violent. and they were told repeatedly by our state and federal courts, buyer justice department, and by agencies of our intelligence communities that the allegations of widespread fraud were false and were unsupported by the evidence. and yet, despite all these warnings, president trump and his team moved willfully through multiple means to attempt to
halt the peaceful transfer of power, to halt our constitutional process for counting votes and to shatter the constitutional bedrock of our nation. as a federal judge concluded today, the illegality of president trump's plan for january 6 was obvious. today we addressed two specific witnesses who have refused to appear for testimony. mr. scavino worked erected with president trump to spread president trump's false message that the election was stolen. and to recruit americans to come to washington with the false promise that january 6 would be an opportunity to take back their country. this effort to deceive was widely effective and widely destructive. the committee has many questions for mr. scavino about his
political and social media work for president trump, including his interactions with online forms and with qanon, a bizarre and dangerous cults. president trump working with mr. scavino successfully spread distrust for her courts, which have found no basis to overturn the election. and trumps stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking violence on january 6. there is no doubt the committee has videos, and sworn statements from violent writers demonstrating these facts. mr. navarro is also a key witness. he wrote a book boasting about his role. yet, he does not have the courage to testify here. we have many questions for mr. navarro, including about his
communications with roger stone and steve bennett regarding the planning for january 6. as the judge concluded today, the court found that more likely than not that president trump attempted to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6, 2021. our committee will continue to litigate and to attempt to get the testimony we need. as the court said today, under any of the tests advocated by former president trump, the profound interest in disclosure advance by president biden in the genesis committee far exceed his generalized concerns for executive branch confidentiality. that same conclusion should
apply to mr. savino and mr. navarro. let me pause for a moment on one specific legal point. like mr. meadows, mr. navarro insists that he is above the law and is immune from any congressional subpoena regarding january 6. we are aware of no court anywhere in america that has ever agreed with this proposition. to the extent that mr. navarro and mr. meadows are attempting to rely upon memoranda from the justice department office of legal counsel, those explicitly do not apply here. mr. navarro was not acting as a white house aide, advising the president unofficial matters of policy. he was acting as a trump campaign operative planning of clinical effort to impede
congresses constitutional proceeding to come to look to world votes. -- two count electoral votes. department leadership should not apply any doctrine of immunity that might block congress from fully uncovering and addressing the causes of the january 6 attack. congress is a separate and equal branch of government. it must have the ability to protect its independence and safeguard the constitutional separation of powers. in the coming months, or committee will convene a series of hearings. the american people will hear from our fellow citizens who demonstrated fidelity to our constitution and the rule of law. and who refused to bow to president trump's pressure. the committee has heard from
many of these individuals, including republicans appointed by president trump to post in the department of justice, republicans who stood firm, who threatened to resign and refused to participate in efforts to corrupt the department with the stolen election lies that led to january 6. we have heard from leading republicans who also stood firm, who resisted pressure from the former president, and did their constitutional duty. we have heard from republicans who were serving in the trunk white house, including those who warned in advance that the president's plans were unlawful. and those who tried to intervene with the president to get him to halt the violence when it erupted on january 6. in a time when many republican members of congress have abandoned their obligation to
our constitution and are putting politics above duty, each of the individuals i mentioned have by contrast demonstrated a firm and unwavering commitment to this nation. and to our constitutional republic. each has done what is right despite tremendous personal, political, and professional cost. each is a model for the american people of the kind of public servants this nation needs. men and women who know our institutions do not defend themselves and who recognize the application that comes from holding positions of public trust. as we meet here tonight, vladimir putin continues his brutality against ukraine. killing innocents, reminding us what happens when authoritarians grow. each day, we see footage of the
unyielding courage of the ukrainian people who are fighting and dying to defend their freedom. their bravery reminds us that democracy is fragile. democracy only survives if citizens are willing to defend it. we live in the greatest constitutional republic in history. no citizen and a republic can be a bystander. if we do not stand for our freedom and a republic, we will lose them. in his ruling today, judge carter put it this way. if president trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power. undermining american democracy and the constitution. if the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the court fears january 6 will repeat itself.
thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. rep. thompson: i now call a report on a resolution recommending that the house of representatives find peter navarro and dan scavino in contempt of congress for refusal to cooperate with subpoenas issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. rep. thompson: without
objection, the report will be considered read it and open to amendment at any point. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> think you mr. chairman. there is a phrase we use all the time. nobody is above the law. but it seems as if a few of the former president's coldest -- closest aides and allies seem to think they are. including dan scavino. who is he? mr. scavino met mr. trump around 1992. he worked for him for many years , first at the trump international golf club and then ask director of social media for his 2016 presidential campaign. then ex-white house deputy chief of staff for communications and on his 2020 campaign. and later on efforts to reverse the election results, which former vice president mike pence
has denounced as un-american. according to many published reports, mr. scavino worked closely with mr. trump to use social media to spread lies regarding nonexistent election fraud and to inflame a violent, angry mob. for example, one twitter account priced a false report alleging election of fraud, treating -- tweeting, "a great report. big purchase on washington dc on january 6. be there. it will be while." this committee has reason to believe that doing so provided mr. savino with explicit advance
warning of the violence that was to occur on january 6. mr. scavino may have shared these warnings of violence before january 6. he attended several meetings with mr. trump and others regarding reversing president biden's legitimate victory. mr. scavino was also with mr. trump during the capitol attack while mr. trump failed to immediately stop it despite urgent bipartisan calls for them to do so. mitch mcconnell rightly said that the public needs to know everything about what caused and occurred on january 6. to inform both the american people and legislative reform proposals, this committee needs to speak with mr. scavino. he has to fulfill his legal and
moral obligations to provide testimony and documents or he should face the consequences. that is why we are taken this action to date. in the united states of america, nobody is above the law. this committee is doing its job. the department of justice needs to do theirs. i yield back, mr. chairman. rep. thompson: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dan scavino met donald trump when he was 16. he became a longtime trump employee and remains a true trump loyalists. dan scavino served as director of social media and as deputy
chief of staff for communications. dan scavino was president -- was with president trump on gender effects and gender six. he spoke with him several times on january 6. and it was with the president when many urged him to help stop the violence at the capitol. she was a trump white house insider. shaping france was his business. they monitored an extremist social media sites. and accused those sites to shape public perceptions. there is a great deal of highly important information that mr. scavino has. i want to focus on one aspect of that. what mr. scavino about what that
president trump thought was likely to happen on january 6. when trump noted on the evening of january 6, that he had a fired up crowd, did he know that they might take it literally when the next morning he told them to fight hard. mr. scavino was there and can tell us a lot about that. we need to hear from him. he is hiding the truth. president trump knowledged that dan scavino helped to shape his tweets. on december 19, donald trump retreated of video that ended by urging viewers to fight for trump. here it is. january 6 was then just 2.5
weeks off. mr. scavino can't tell us something useful about why donald trump retreated that message. he also retweeted a video title on how to steal a election. among other things, is said that covid-19 was created to make sure that trump would lose the election. dan scavino had every reason to know that they would be violent. he was well aware of what his
boss wanted. dan scavino sent out a video that the user new to be war drums. they knew that january 6 could turn violent. they knew exactly what they were doing and the select committee needs to hear directly from dan scavino about his and president trump's role in inciting violence that day. i yield back. rep. thompson: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> our committee has a singular purpose. to ensure that our nation never again experiences violence of january 6. that there is never again an
effort to overturn a presidential election or to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. that is our object. every witness called before this panel should cooperate. it is up patriotic duty to help congress understand how the tragedy of january 6 came about. it is a necessity when served with a lawful subpoena to appear . which is why we are here today. dan scavino and peter navarro have refused to cooperate. he has clearly relevant testimony for our committee. mr. scavino was directly involved with president trump's social media strategy. we believe that he was with trump and january 6 -- on
january 6. he may have also had prior knowledge regarding the likelihood of violence on january 6 due to his monitoring of social media sites were such violence was discussed and predicted. specifically repress reporting, we are aware that on january 6, he was advising mr. trump throughout the day. potentially even sending messages from the white house. potentially playing a role in the video message mr. trump released hours after the writers reach the capitol. -- rioters reached the capitol. this is why mr. savino has obligation to appear before us.
he claims to be protected under executive privilege. but that claim is not grounded in the law or reality. executive privilege does not allow for a person to refuse to appear. it does not apply to his campaign activities on behalf of the former president. it does not apply to an unlawful scheme to obstruct congress. i have one more thing to add tonight. the department of justice has a duty to act on this referral and others we have sent. without enforcement, there is no oversight. without oversight, no accountability. not for the former president or any other president. without enforcement of its lawful process, congress ceases to be an equal branch of government.
and the balance of power it would be for about -- forever altered. i want to return to judge carter's opinion. finding that a former president of the united states may have committed a crime and fraud against the united states. the judge said, that dr. eastman and president trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in american history. their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. the place spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers. as the vice chair pointed out, he also said, if the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the court fears january 6 will repeat
itself. that responsibility to investigate and pursue accountability extends to those who hold the highest office in the land or those who hold no office at all. if nobody is above the law, then nobody must be above the law. we are upholding our responsibility. the department of justice must do the same. i yield back. rep. thompson: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you mr. chairman. our committee is dedicated to getting to the truth. and to taking steps necessary to do so. when witnesses failed to comply with subpoenas, we have no choice but to refer them for contempt of congress. peter navarro's testimony is integral to our investigation.
despite the fact that he has given multiple tv interviews, he has failed to comply with our investigation in any way. mr. navarro has publicly stated that he is protected by executive privilege, but has never stopped counsel as others have. an economist, mr. navarro ran unsuccessfully for office in my home state of california five times. he wrote several books on economics and trade, many of which focused on china. he was left on by the trump campaign in 2016 to advise the former president on economic and trade issues. he was such an important advisor to the former president, that an office was created just for him. he was the architect of the presidents's trade policies, which hurt the u.s. economy and
failed to achieve major policy goals. i think the american people might be wondering why her committee would need to speak with the trade official about the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. it is because mr. navarro held that title, but she devoted much of his time to white house political efforts outside the scope of his official duties. the american people are likely to know mr. navarro so late in his political capacity. he was so active in the campaign that big united states make a state mr. navarro repeatedly violated the hatch act. that is because the former president trusted mr. navarro. she was so involved with these efforts that mr. navarro letter
calling january 2 about the effort to convince vice president pence to delay the election certification for 10 days. a text handed over to this committee by mr. meadows from a member of the press read, "mark, i am reaching out because i've details on the call that navarro helped convene yesterday with legislators as part of his effort to get mike pence to delay certification of the election for 10 days. were you on the call when the president spoke? " among the many questions we have, we need to hear from him about that conversation and about that phone call. we need to cure him him about his other calls with steve bannon, who without house has already held in contempt.
-- who the house has already held in contempt. this is as clear a case for contempt as we are likely to see. i yield back. rep. thompson: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. over a month ago, mr. navarro was subpoenaed by this committee. we sought documents regarding his efforts to discredit the election and to prevent the results from being certified. this information is central to our inquiry. he refused to comply, making a claim of executive privilege. there are many reasons why this assertion of executive privilege lacks merit. most fundamentally, net of the incumbent nor the former
president has asserted privilege regarding mr. navarro's testimony. mr. navarro has no unilateral authority to assert privilege. since the election, he has spoken widely about the precise objects that are the focus of our subpoena. clearly, he is eager to tell his story so long as he can do so on his own terms. in 2020, mr. navarro published a three-part report on this website called the navarro report. he makes allegations that -- about election fraud that have been debunked. furthermore, he published a book called in trump time. he described in detail actions he took to change the outcome of the election. mr. navarro claims credit for working with steve bannon to concoct a scheme.
the core of this plan was to encourage mike pence to delight certification of electoral college votes and to send the election back to state legislators. in his book, he writes what he calls -- called attorney general barr asking him to support president trump's efforts to overturn the election results. which mr. burke refused to dupe -- which attorney general barr refused to do. mr. navarro made multiple media appearances during which she discussed his roles in the events that culminated in the january 6 attack. i would like to play a media clip right now. can you please q the clip? -- cue the clip?
>> i have so much knowledge to share with you. >> given that you told me that you have a plan or put you set in public, trump was on board. did you say all these things out here? why risk a legal battle or going to jail to refuse to discuss them with the committee under oath? >> because i have a loyalty to the constitution and a loyalty to the president. the president has invoked executive privilege. it is not my authority to revoke that privilege. >> you say it is not your privilege to wave. let's make -- let's look at some of the news you have made. >> peter navarro is spilling the beans. >> we had over 100 congressmen
ready to implement this week. the boss tells mike pence to take my calls. it was about sending the votes back. most of the states would decertify the elections. >> how do you expect people to take seriously your claim that this is secret and privileged when you are out there talking about it? it seems now that the dog has barked. >> he has so much knowledge to share, but he refuses to share in response to a lawful subpoena. mr. navarro is only concerned with executive privilege with keeping certain matters confidential when it is convenient for him. that is not how the law works.
no president has claimed privilege regarding mr. navarro's testimony and documents. his claim of executive privilege is undermined by his extensive public disclosures on the same issues the committee seeks to question him about under oath. mr. navarro is clearly in contempt of congress and should be referred to the department of justice for criminal prosecution. i yield back. rep. thompson: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentle man maryland. >> my hero tom payne said the cause of america is the cause of mankind. today's democracy is under siege all over the world. just as we are working to defend democracy abroad in ukraine and other places, we are working to defend democracy here at home.
the assault on american democracy exploded on january 6. it had two coordinated elements. one was a violent insurrection from the outside infused by propaganda and led by violet extremist groups. but the prop boys, the three presenters, the qanon networks. the militia groups. the other component was a secret campaign on the inside to replace our constitutional processes governing elections with counterfeit processes that make up mockery of american democracy. this is what political scientists call a self coup. it is a coup organized by the president against the
constitutional framework itself. the two contempt citations will go to persons who have critical information about both components of this assault on america. peter navarro worked to overthrow the election by nullifying 79 electoral college votes cast by millions of americans who lived in arizona, georgia, pennsylvania, michigan, new mexico and wisconsin. had his green bay sweep not been blocked by the bravery of police officers, 150 of whom were injured or hospitalized by insurrection violence and by
michael pence is refusal to abandon his duties, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power in america. threatening the survival of democracy and the constitution as the judge put it so powerfully in his remarkable decision today, rejecting the claims of peter navarro's come right in these efforts, john eastman. we subpoenaed mr. navarro to produce documents by figure 23rd. and to appear for a deposition on march 2. she has produced no documents. he has failed to appear for his scheduled deposition. peter navarro must be held in criminal contempt of congress and the american people can see he is acting with criminal contempt.
the american people want to know what sets him above the law. the supreme court said that a subpoena creates a public duty which every person is bound to perform when properly summoned. in 2020, the supreme court emphasized it is the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the subpoena. but navarro invokes the words executive privilege. it repeats the phrase over and over again. it is not my privilege to wave. he thinks he has found a magic wand to nullify the powers of the u.s. congress, just like he has found a magic wand to nullify the power of the states to cast their own electoral votes.
if executive privilege is not his to wave, then neither for the exact same reason and by definition, is that his to assert in the first place. the supreme court has been clear that the executive privilege belongs to the president of the united states. on february 28, the white house counsel notified him that president biden determined that executive privilege is not justified with respect to his effort to cover up his participation on this assault on american democracy. he then appears to fall back on the assumption that executive privilege belongs to former president trump, which is not only dubious but entirely irrelevant. our committee has not been given any invocation of executive privilege by donald trump, either formally or informally.
nothing. there is no assertion of executive privilege here, either by the actual president or by any former president. even if there were, even if president biden tried to assert executive privilege from peter navarro, it would fail immediately because it does not apply to private political business, much less to criminal activity like conducting coups against the government. the privilege applies only to professional speech on government policy by advisors rendering confidential advice on matters within their domain of professional responsibility. peter navarro was the white house trade advisor. he was -- it was not within his job description to overthrow elections, course vice president into abandoning the
responsibilities, or impose counterfeit regimes in place of the u.s. constitution. when navarro was plotting to overthrow the election to seize the presidency for his chosen candidate, she was not rendering advice on trade policy. we are not seeking documents from navarro on his official duties as trade advisor. on the plus call -- press call, he acknowledged publicly that he was writing as a private citizen. so please spare us the nonsense to about executive privilege.
this is america. there was no executive privilege for presidents, much less trade advisors, to plot coups against the people's government and the people constitution and then to cover up the evidence of their crimes. the courts are not buying it and neither are we. navarro insists on adding insult to his contempt. more than a year after biden beat trump by more than 7 million votes, navarro continues to spread the big lie that trump won. she brags about his work with steve bannon to apply pressure on vice president mike pence to do the wrong thing. he tells the complete story in his book and in his report, which was made up of titles like the immaculate deception, about
how they tried to get mike pence to abandon his constitutional duties. he goes on steve bannon's podcast and makes noises about the next insurrection. a year after the election was over, he said if they want an insurrection, it will push the american people over the edge. the american people opposed the insurrection and the american people oppose future insurrections against the government. we are fighting to defend the institutions and values of democracy at home against insurrectionists and we are supporting other democracies around the world under siege by autocrats. we are on the side of the people of ukraine against vladimir putin, who was not a genius but
the mess murderer. -- mass murderer. these men are in contempt of congress and we must cite them both for the brazen disregard for their duties. i yield back. rep. thompson: the chair recognizes that gentle woman from virginia. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their commitment to providing a full and factual accounting of everything that led to january 6 . and to ensure that such an attack never happens again. mr. chairman, i served in the
navy for 20 years. when you talk to people in the military, they state they serve in the military. they serve the american people. i continue to serve, as we all do, on this committee. when mr. scavino and mr. navarro entered the administration, they agreed to serve the american people. the president has a unique duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. those that serve under the president, especially those closest to him in the administration, are integral to performing that duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. not to undermine those laws. congress has a constitutional duty to investigate. we have a duty to the american people to investigate the violent attack on the capitol.
mr. scavino and mr. navarro have a duty to respond to the subpoenas of this committee. however, they decided that they are above the law. 50 years ago this year, a small group of people in the nixon administration also decided they were above the law. they engineered a cover-up to hold on to political power. they were all successful, but it took congress to get to the truth. the truth that the american people deserved. this committee has conducted more than 800 voluntary depositions and interviews. including witnesses who worked in the previous administration. the committee has received 90,000 documents pertaining to january 6. we followed up to more than --
many tips to the tip line. mr. scavino and mr. navarro refuse to answer this constitutional duty. why are they special? why is it when we get closer and closer to the former president, his inner circle, why are those the ones who refused to tell the american people what they know? what is it they are covering up? now mr. scavino and mr. navarro have attempted to obstruct the pursuit of justice. and to conceal the truth despite both publicly acknowledging the roles and promote election fraud conspiracies and counseling the former president about changing the outcome of the election. what do mr. scavino and mr. navarro are covered up?
who are you covering for? what, mr. meadows, are you covering up? when it given the opportunity to tell the truth about the attack on january 6, they continued to put laura t2 done -- loyalty to donald trump before the constitution. i will vote to hold them accountable for their actions and recommend that the house of representatives cite both of them for tempt of congress. -- contempt of congress. i will echo what my colleagues have already said. attorney general garland, do your job so that we can do ours. and i yield back. rep. thompson: if there is no further debate, i now recognize that gentlewoman from wyoming.
>> mr. chairman, i move that the committee report to the house the committee's report on the resolution recommended that the house of representatives find peter navarro and dan scavino in contempt of congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. rep. thompson: the question is on the motion to favorably report to the house. those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. >> i recrossed a recorded vote. -- i request a recorded vote.
--nos. >> i request that members have two calendar days to file on the measure order reported by the committee tonight. >> so ordered. without objection, steph is authorized to make any necessary -- staff is authorized to make any necessary changes to the report. there being no further business, without objection, the select committee stands adjourned.
>> we are funded by these television companies including charter communication. rod band is a force for empowerment that is why charter has invested the lien's, billions in infrastructure of reading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is committing us. >> and opposition leader and belarusian, spoke to washington post that they are in ukraine to fight against russia. she wore not to take up
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on