we want mr. bannon to answer our questions. we want him to turn over whatever records he possesses that are relevant to the select committee's investigation. the issue in front of us today is our ability to do our job. it is about fulfilling our responsibilities according to health resolution 503 to provide the american people answers about what happened january 6 and help ensure nothing like that may ever happen again. we fulfill our responsibilities by discovering the facts behind the january 6 attack so that congress can consider legislation with a full understanding of the activities that lead to an attack on congress itself. i want to make it clear how isolated mr. bannon is in his refusal to cooperate with the select committee. we have reached out to dozens of witnesses. we are taking in thousands of pages of records, conducting interviews on a study basis. this is a serious, focused investigation. it is not flashy and gets results. it is essential we get mr. bannon's factual and complete testimony to get a full a ccounti

mr. bannon and mr. trump's privilege arguments do however appear to reveal one thing. , they suggest president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6. and this committee will get to the bottom of that. let me add one further thought for my republican colleagues. we all agree america is the greatest nation on the face of god's earth. truth, justice, and our constitution have made america great. almost every one of my colleagues knows in your heart that what happened on january 6 was profoundly wrong. you all know that there is no evidence of widespread election fraud sufficient to have changed the results of the election. you all know that the dominion voting machines were not corrupted by a foreign power. you know these claims are false. yet former president trump repeats them almost daily. he has now urged republicans not to vote in 2022 and 2024. this is a prescription for national self-destruction. i asked i colleagues -- my colleagues to please consider the fundamen

now steve bannon. now steve bannon. mr. bannon is a target of the investigation, quote, his efforts to plan political activity, that's the standard. you are involved in political activity, they are going to investigate you. we know this is what about. this is about getting at president trump. try to stop president trump before he was even elected with the russian investigation, tried to remove president trump from office twice while he was in office and tried to do that and now trying to get him after the fact after he has left all because he cut taxes and greatest economy in the history, lowest unemployment all because he built the wall and put the embassy in jerusalem and americans got their christmas presents on time. the reuters story said this, the f.b.i. has found no evidence that people around him were not in charge. no evidence of a coordinated plan. they are going to drag these 11 people in for depositions with subpoenas because they are so determined to get their political enemies. the speaker pro tempore: the gen

mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do however appear to reveal one thing, they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th. and this committee will get to the bottom of that. let me add one further thought, principally from my colleagues. we believe america is one of the greatest things on god's earth. truth, justice and the constitution have made america great. almost every one of my colleagues knows in your hearts that what happened on january 6th was profoundly wrong. you-all know that there is no evidence of wide spread election fraud sufficient to have changed the results of the election. you-all know that the dominion voting machines voting machines were not corrupted by a foreign power. you know these claims are false, yet former president trump repeats them almost daily, and he has now urged republicans not to vote in 2022 and 2024. this is a prescription for national self-destruction. i ask my colleagues, please consider the fund

costello, mr. bannon's attorney. mr. bannon's attorney said they needed time to, quote, assess the select committee's request in light of litigation filed by former-president trump in the district of columbia district court yesterday. however, the former president's lawsuit is immaterial to mr. bannon's defiance of our lawful subpoena. i made that clear in a letter to mr. costello this morning. without objections, my full letter is in the record. furthermore, white house yesterday issued a letter to mr. bannon's attorney stating, quote, we are not aware of any basis for your client's refusal to appear for a deposition, end quote. the select committee further said, quote, president biden has already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest and, therefore, is not justified with respect to certain subjects within the purview of the select committee, end quote. without objection, i include the full white house letter in the record. this amendment and the nature of a substitute updates

bannon a letter of their own telling mr. bannon that the white house is, quote, not aware of any basis for your refusal to appear for a deposition. either legal or otherwise. bannon has tried to claim that he can refuse the subpoena on the basis of trump asserting executive privilege. the white house reminding mr. bannon today that only the sitting president can assert on executive privilege and in this case president biden is not doing so.pr ahead of tonight's vote, the january 6th committee released n report outlining the ways in which bannon is delinquent in his response to their subpoena but also why it's in the public interest that he reply. it says in part, mr. bannon's ha testimony and document production are critical to the select committee's investigation. among other topics, the anonct committee seeks facts that explain why the events of january 6th turned violent.wh statements publicly made by mr. bannon on january 5th suggest that he had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur the next day.em inf

why else does the select committee want to hear from mr. bannon? because on january 5, mr. that, quote, all hell was going to break loose tomorrow. so according to the select committee, no person could have might occur that day. according to the committee that mr. bannon warned of violence on the fifth is proof that, quote, mr. bannon had foreknowledge of the attack on the sixth. never mind that the f.b.i. that theit was coordinated or potential violence occurringt -- every america with internet access knew that violence was a possibility on january 6. the question the committee should be asking is this -- how the united states capitol police the d.c. metropolitan police and the f.b.i. all have no clueg to break loose? steve bannon, a private citizen knew. so why didn't the capitol police have enough riotelds? why did it take multiple hours to deploy the national guard? these are worthwhile questions, and congress has duty answer them. because january 6 was an enormous intelligence failure. there was a0ó in security, a breakdown that was repeated on good friday when office

bannon? because on january 5th, mr. bannon warned that, quote, all hell was going to break loose tomorrow. so according to the select committee, no person could have predicted that violence might occur that day. according to the committee, that mr. bannon warned of violence on the 5th is proof, quote, that mr. bannon had foreknowledge. never mind that the attack wasn't coordinated. never mind that the capitol police received actionable intelligence about potential violence occurring weeks before the 6th. never mind that every member of con congress, every american with internet access, knew that violence would be committed on the 6th. the question we should be asking is how did the washington, d.c. police, capitol police and everybody else have no clue that violence was going to break loose? steve bannon knew. so why did the police have ample amounts of shields? why did it take all day to deploy the national guard? these are questions they have the duty to answer, because january 6th was an enormous failure. there was a

now steve bannon. and now steve bannon. mr. bannon is a target of the investigation for the investigation because, quote -- this is from the select committee's own report -- quote, his efforts to plan political activity, that's the standard. if you're involved in political activity, they're going to investigate you. we know what this is really about. this is about getting at president trump. getting at president trump. tried to stop president trump before he was even elected with the russia investigation. tried to remove president trump from office twice. while he was in office they tried to do that, and now they're trying to get him after the fact, after he's left. all because this guy cut taxes, reduced regulations, the greatest economy in 50 years, the lowest unemployment all because he built a wall, got us out of the iran deal. americans got their christmas presents on time. but they're coming after him. the roeuter story said this. they don't care the fbi has no evidence. no evidence of a coordinated plan. they don't care.

to hold mr. bannon in contempt. we understand that the next stop is the vote in the full house, which we have just learned will happen the day after tomorrow on, thursday. what do you expect from that vote? do you expect any republicans, for example, other than the two on your committee, might join democrats in voting to hold mr. bannon in contempt? >> well, rachel, we are hoping so. as you know, this is an opportunity for the house to express its displeasure with what mr. bannon is trying to do. he is actually trying to chart the process of democracy. what we have going for us is an opportunity to set the record straight. i hope my republican colleagues will join us it is unfortunate that people saw would have been, play out on january six before their very eyes. i, now all of a sudden, people are trying to make a mockery, that it didn't happen, that we have to wait, we need more time. this is not. it we are looking forward to going to rules committee, rachel, and obviously a vote by the full house on thursday. and

let's listen to the way she put this. >> mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do however appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th. and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> what was your reaction to that point? >> it was a strong statement, it was a great statement and representative cheney, vice chair cheney has been an amazing colleague to work with an the issues. she's not going to be shy about calling it like she sees it. we'll continue to follow the leadership of her and the chairman as we guide through this process. we're in uncharted territory here. we know that. we have a duty and obligation to find out the truth. that's all we've said we want. we don't bring any joy and the chairman talked about this. we don't bring joy about taking this step. we hope people compile. we hope they feel the patriotic duty to compile with the lawful subpoena but if they don't, there have to be consequences and we promised the american people we

however, when subpoenaed to testify mr. bannon told the select committee to pound the fan. mr. bannon is a private citizen and not above the law and cannot refuse to obey a subpoena any more than you nor i or any american can. neither mr. bannon or or the former president made any credible argument to shield his testimony. patriotism demands anyone with knowledge of that dark day come forward and the rule of law and our constitution demand everyone in our congress support this investigation. i'm incredibly disappointed that the republican leadership and so many of their colleagues continue to oppose any attempt to investigate the january 6 attack. they oppose legislation to create a bipartisanship commission, they opposed the creation of the select committee, and they're now trying to stop the committee from carrying out its work. had this is not a time for delays. it's allowed others like mr. bannon to escape's responsibility thus far. this is for courage to product our national integrity. i'm grateful to the members of the select committee for having the courage to put loyalt

this is somebody outside the government, doubly so, mr. trump and mr. bannon. but it would be setting something of a precedent. and, you know, the justice department always is worried about well what if the tables are turned here and things are going the other way? do we want to buy in future justice departments on this sort of thing. so, those are all the sort of things they have to take into account. >> barbara, can you pick up on that point there? how would a prosecutor view that question of precedent as they're trying to decide whether or not to move forward? >> i think pete is right to show those as the pros and cons of going forward here. the principles of prosecution, which merrick garland preferred to earlier, say that prosecutors should analyze any legal question this way. is there probable cause a crime has been committed. is it probable a crime was committed to sustain a conviction. i think you have a clear case of a willful violation of a subpoena. i think that question is answered. the harder question, i think, is whether prosecution would advance

there is no conceivably applicable privilege that could shield mr. bannon from testimony. mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6. and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> the committee's recommendation now goes before the full house, which is expected to hold a vote on thursday. if it passes as expected, a criminal referral will then be sent over to the justice department. doj can then present the case to a grand jury and bannon could then be formally charged with contempt of congress. all of that takes time. as that issue heads to the house floor, president biden spent today pressuring his own party, democrats, to finally get behind his priorities. tonight the "washington post" reporting biden told liberal democrats he believes a deal on a new tax and spending proposal, quote, between $1.75 trillion and $1.9 trillion is a possibility. that is substantially less, of course, than the original bernie sanders budget a

bannon, while there is an argument that can be made, he has not really advanced it mr. patel and meadows, they have hired lawyers. there is legal arguments they could make regarding executive privilege, but that is a more sophisticated approach mr. bannon has taken a more thumbing his nose at the committee. he will need legal counsel at some point in the future if he wants to salvage this situation. >> thanks so much. >>> americans should be allowed to get the covid bostoner of their choice regardless of which vaccine you got first. a cdc advisory panel just made that recommendation this afternoon. now it's up to the cdc director to sign off on the plan. we are told she could give the okay as early as tonight and they unanimously endorsed boosters for those who got j&j shots and those who got moderna. those include those 65 and older and those at high risk because of conditions or jobs. >>> some districts are starting to drop mask requirements in schools. is it the right time to end masks in classrooms? doctors weigh in >>> the supply chain crisis hitting schools in caf

mr. bannon's and mr. trump's peripheral arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> associate white house counsel under president barack obama, ian, we all expect the next few days will be voted out of the full house and go to the department of justice. i think there is a real open question about what happens when this lands on merrick garland's zesk. and you worked add a government lawyer, worked in the white house, you have sort of been around the people that will be making decisions on this. i wonder what your perspective is on it. >> well, i think the good sign is in the letter from white house counsel dana remus that rejected any serious claims of executive privilege in turning over documents. she made clear this is a unique and exceptional circumstance. it's important to remember what the stakes are here, which is that steve bannon and donald trump very much want the failed coup attempt of last year to be p

what would happen to you if you did what mr bannon is doing? if you were a material witness in a criminal prosecution of a lawsuit what would happen if he refused to show up? do you think you would be able to just go about your business? know the answer to that. there is not a different set of rules for mr bannon. he knows this. you know is there are consequences for outright defiance and he has chosen a path towards criminal contempt taking this position. in the uk — the government has set out its plans to reduce the uk's carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. the transition will be driven by electric vehicles with a price tag running into hundreds of millions of dollars. there will also be extra money for tree planting and to help replace old gas boilers. but the big question is do the plans go far enough? more from our science editor david shukman. every aspect of life is going to have to change as we go zero carbon. and now, after a long delay, the government is laying out its plans. and the key to it all is a belief that new green technol

they are important for all congressional investigations mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privileged arguments, do however, appeared to reveal one thing, they suggest that president trump, was personally involved in the planning in execution of january 6th in this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> served as associate white house counts are under president barack obama, cofounder and executive -- protector micro a non partisan organization, dedicated to fighting efforts to undermine democracy, we all expect the next few days this will be voted out of the full house and then go department of justice and i think there's really open question, about what happens when this, lands on a mayor garland's desk, and you've worked as a government, lawyer you worked in the way, as you've sort of been around the circles of people that will be making the decisions, on this i'm wondering, what is your perspective on it? >> i think the good side, is in the letter from white house counsel dana, remiss that rejected the claims of executive, privilege and turning over, docum

bannon. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. provided by these television companies and more, including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to internet. bridging the digital divide. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up friday on c-span,

listen to this. >> mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6. and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> that means that trump and bannon -- because, remember, even if there were a privilege here, and there isn't, bannon can't exercise it, trump can exercise it. so cheney's argument is that trying to get the privilege is proof that you have conversations about your knowledge that you want to hide. that's aggressive. we're going to test this assertion with a key member of the committee coming up as well as the timing for the next step. you're going to have a full vote now in the house. then pelosi would refer it, certify it to the doj. we understand that vote may come as soon as thursday, is that accurate? assuming the doj takes any referral from pelosi, how long before it goes in front of a grand jury, how long before any prosecutorial action? for now the pressing qu

so it is a shame that mr bannon has put us in this position but we won't take no for an answer. this position but we won't take no for an answer. let's get more from our north america correspondent david willis. what more did we learn today? we learned that this committee is extremely determined to get to the bottom of the events on that fateful day. the 6th of january of this year when a mob of donald trump supporters staged an insurrection at the us capitol and they are pressing ahead with getting steve bannon to give testimony. testimony that he is seeking to avoid giving to this committee on the grounds that there is executive privileged attach to the remarks to the documents that you might forward to them. i have to say there was a feeling today that this is going to go all the way to the house vote later in the week and then perhaps be referred to the attorney general of the district of columbia and then to the us justice department for steve bannon to be held potentially in contempt of congress. it is a milestone in the committee's work and this is a committee that, as i say,

left may encourage others to follow mr bannonin encourage others to follow mr bannon in the same path. then came this _ bannon in the same path. then came this from _ bannon in the same path. then came this from one _ bannon in the same path. then came this from one of- bannon in the same path. then came this from one of the - bannon in the same path. then came this from one of the two l came this from one of the two republicans on the committee. based on the committee's investigation it appears that mr bannon had substantial advance knowledge of the plans forjanuary six. and like we had — forjanuary six. and like we had an— forjanuary six. and like we had an important role in formulating those plans. the committee — formulating those plans. the committee voted _ formulating those plans. tie: committee voted unanimously formulating those plans. tte: committee voted unanimously to hold him in contempt of congress. the matter will go to a full vote of the house later this week whereupon it will be “p this week whereupon it will be up to the usjustice department to decide whether

it's not optional for mr. bannon to shed the subpoena. these aren't optional. he has an obligation as anyone should to follow the subpoena. >> my colleague rachel maddow that it was for epa administrator embroiled in a san e scandal about allegations of misuse of super fund sites at the epa. she was given this criminal complaint by a house that voted unanimously because they viewed it add a institutional to not be trampled by the executive. what does it say that house republican leadership is recommending a no vote on this vote now, 30 years later? >> i say it's shocking but it sure doesn't feel that way given the political temperature and how folks on the other side of the aisle have treated this issue since january 6th when many of them spoke out against the former president. now they seem to walk back those remarks. it's deeply unfortunate. these were individuals, many of them, were on the house floor with us and they were witnesses and they saw what happened. they still continue to avoid the accountability that is due. that's the problem that we have here.

mr. bannon and his lawyers might want to take a look, though at that scene. contempt leading to someone sitting in that prison jumpsuit inside a prison for a long time. mcdougal was imprisoned under this third and final type of contempt, civil contempt. that uses the courts, but it's a civil lawsuit, just like any other lawsuit in america that you've ever come across. civil. you can just sue people, right? this is aimed at forcing people to comply. she didn't back down, so she was after that imprisonment for civil contempt, she was then hit with separate new criminal contempt charges to go after the punishment. that's an interesting footnote. because a jury did not convict her on the second round, or was rather deadlocked, forcing a mistrial. so what are the takeaways here? one, congress has options. two, contempt is a very real, valid power. it can land you in that jumpsuit, but it can take a long time with long odds to get to the jumpsuit. that's the difference that makes a difference with witnesses. and three, this is not just another investigation we're t

what would happen to you if you did what mr. bannon is doing? if you were a material witness in a criminal prosecution or some other lawsuit, it's a shame that mr. bannon has put us in this position, but we won't take no for an answer. no one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful, is above the law. we won't be deterred. we won't be distracted. and we won't be delayed. >> well, a person found liable for contempt of congress could face a fine and one year in prison, but the process is rarely used. this is designed to send a message to others under subpoena. ryan nobles reports on what's ahead. >> reporter: the house select committee designed to investigate the january 6 insurrection has formally reported out a criminal contempt referral against steve bannon. the trump ally, who as a podcast host and conservative provocateur, encouraged people to come to washington on january 6, inciting what he called a revolution in the days leading up to that event. the committee, holding a 30-minute meeting on tuesday night where they voted 9-0

we want mr. bannon to answer our questions. we want him to turn over whatever records he possesses that are relevant to the select committee's investigation. the issue in front of us today is our ability to do our job. finally there seems to be some urgency in washington regarding the subversion of justice. people trying to flout the law and subpoenas. and we need that urgency when it comes to getting something done, a deal on infrastructure, and especially voting rights. where is the lie? am i wrong? >> well, i agree with that. i don't know where the january 6 committee gets you in terms of what i believe the hill was to die on for democrats, which is putting voting rights into a place that they're safe based on what's happening across the country right now. but it's up to them what they decided to do. they're trying to get the spending bill and infrastructure bill done. we'll see how it takes them. but the part of that document that matters most is the resolution creating the committee, which says you want to find the facts a

today, madam speaker, we are hear to address one witness, mr. steve bannon. i urge all americans to watch what mr. bannon said on his podcast on january 5 and 6. it is shocking and indefensible. he said "all hell is going to break loose." he said, quote, we are coming in right over the target. this is the point of attack. we have always wanted. madam speaker, there are people in this chamber right now who were evacuated with me and with the rest of us on that day during that attack. people who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on the constitution, the assault on our congress. people who you will hear argue that there is simply no legislative purpose for this committee, for this investigation, or for this subpoena. in fact, there is no doubt that mr. bannon knows far more than what he said on the video. there is no doubt that all hell did break loose. just ask the scores of brave police officers who were injured that day protecting all of us. the american people deserve to hear his testimony. let me give you just four examples of

so it is not optional for mr. bannon to shed the subpoena. these are not optional, he has an obligation as anyone should to follow the subpoena. >> my colleague rachel maddow last night pointed out that the -- was epa administrator who had been embroiled in a scandal about allegations of misuse of superfund the epa. she was given this criminal complaint by a house that voted unanimously, every single vote of both parties because they viewed it as an institutional prerogative to not be trampled by the executive? what is the state house republican leadership is recommending a no vote on this vote now, 30 years later? >> yeah, it's i know i'd say it's shocking it doesn't feel that way. -- when many of them spoke out against the former president. now they seem to have brought back those remarks. it's just deeply unfortunate, these are individuals many of them were on the house floor with us, they were witnesses and saw what happened, and they still continue to avoid the accountability that is due. that is the problem that we have here, and it is

mr. bannon's own public statements made clear he knew what was going to happen before it did. and thus he must have been aware of and may have well been involved in the planning of everything that played out on that day the american people deserve to know what he knew and what he did. >> on the vote today was 220 9202. that was nine republicans along with all the democrats including this cheney joining all of the democrats in the house to reverse the van into the justice department for prosecution over his refusal to obey a subpoena from the january 6th investigation. as to whether or not the justice department will put him on trial, we don't know. the d.c. u.s. attorney could decide not to. the d.c. u.s. attorney could convene a grand jury, present evidence to that grand jury and let the grand jury decide whether not an indictment against mr. bannon as warranted one other option i believe don't hold me to this if it's not the case but i believe based on my understanding of how these things, work based on the type of charge this would theoretically be against mr. bannon, i bel

bannon is tied up in that. mr. bannon's idea is we should get people into positions where we can swing the elections, we don't have to win. we can install the person we want to install. this is all tied together in one package. >> let's listen to what congressman jamie ras kin who is on the january 6th committee said about prosecuting steve bannon. >> steve bannon is under the spell of donald trump who travels with an army of lawyers. these people think they're above and beyond the law. we expect and we demand that people comply with our orders. >> so i want to ask you, you know, both points of view, is there a danger in prosecuting bannon, that it will give him a platform for his ideas of tearing down democratic institutions or is the danger bigger by not prosecuting him? >> i mean, i would go back to the foundations of all of this, which is that we as a democracy with a long history. we have to know what actually happened on january 6th. that's the real issue, it seems that mr. bannon was closely involved in the

mr. clinton has faced some health scares. in 2010 he had a pair of stents implanted in a coronary artery. in 2005 he underwent surgery for a partially collapsed lung. and one year before that he had a quadruple bypass surgery after suffering chest pains and sortness of breath. >>> also breaking overnight, a federal appeals court says that a strict abortion law in texas can stay in place for now. earlier this month a u.s. district court blocked the ban. but after the justice department challenged it, last night's ruling is expected to be appealed to the supreme court. the law which went into effect last month does not allow abortions after detection of cardiac activity which is usually around six weeks. >>> and this morning there are major developments when it comes to covid vaccine booster shots. an fda advisory panel voted unanimously to endorse moderna's third dose. and today the same committee will look at a possible second shot for people who got the johnson & johnson vaccine. laura p

. >> mr. bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena that's not acceptable. no one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful is above the law. >> so far mr. bannon's execution is former president trump wishes to invoke some form of executive privilege. this information should not be subject to any privilege at all. >> reporter: because bannon was not a white house employee in january, the committee says he certainly isn't covered by any executive privilege even if it were to apply. they say he is the only figure so far not to cooperate with the investigation. the full house will vote on the contempt recommendation tomorrow if it passes, a criminal referral will be sent to the justice department, a criminal contempt conviction carries up to a year in prison and a fine up to $100,000 it's important to note the department of justice has not prosecuted a contempt of congress charge in nearly 40 years. >> all right chris, thank you >>> the state of minnesota is now rewarding children for getting vaccinated this week tim wolf introduced a new program k

bannon and to other trump aides. to paraphrase what committee member liz cheney said last night, bannon and others have no legal right to ignore what this committee asks in order to investigate the insurrection. >> those in favor say aye -- >> reporter: the bipartisan house committee investigating the capitol insurrection voted to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress. >> left unaddressed, this defiance may encourage others to follow mr. bannon down the same path. >> reporter: the committee views his testimony as critical, arguing statements he made on january 5th suggest foreknowledge about the violence that happened the next day. >> all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. >> reporter: bannon, a longtime aide to former president trump, refuses to turn over documents or show up for a deposition. mr. trump has urged his top aides not to cooperate. something the committee says reveals volumes. >> they suggest that president trump was personally involv

mr. bannon's own public statements make clear he knew what was going to happen before it did. and thus he must have been aware of and may well have been involved in the planning of everything that played out on that day. the american people deserve to know what he knew and what he did. >> the vote today was 229-202. and that was nine republicans along with all the democrats. nine republicans including liz cheney joining all the democrats in the house to refer steve bannon to the justice department for prosecution over his refusal to obey a subpoena from the january 6 investigation. now, as to whether or not the justice department is actually going to put him on trial, we really don't know. the dc u.s. attorney could decide not to. the dc u.s. attorney could convene a grand jury, present evidence to the grand jury and let the grand jury decide whether or not an indictment against mr. bannon is warranted. one other option, i believe, don't hold me to this if this doesn't turn out to be the case, but i believe, based on my understanding of how these things work, based on the type

the panel isn't having it. >> it's a shame that mr. bannon has put us in this position, but

mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do however appear to reveal one thing, they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th. and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> we also saw an attempt by cheney today to cut through the big lie that's clouded the judgment of her gop colleagues and in doing so, she thoroughly emasculated kevin mccarthy for his limp response to the january 6th attack. >> let me address my republican colleagues specifically. i heard from a number of my colleagues in the last several days who say they quote just don't want this target on their back. they're just trying to keep their heads down. they don't want to anger kevin mccarthy, the minority leader whose been especially active in attempting to block the investigation of events of january 6th. despite the fact that he clearly called for such a commission the week after the attack. in many nations, democracy has failed because those with authority would no

mr. bannon will not be producing documents or testifying. >> it's more of the same we saw in the last four years, when the former president played rope-a-dope. >> reporter: he said anyone else who defies subpoenas could face similar consequences. what types of penalties do you want these individuals to face? >> whatever penalties are necessary to ensure compliance. >> reporter: does that mean jail time? >> depends on the person but it could mean jail time, yes. >> reporter: bannon was in close contact with the former president in the days leading up to january 6th, warning all hell would break loose. mr. trump said in a statement tonight the january 6th unselect committee should hold themselves in criminal contempt. the select committee will vote next week to move forward with holding mr. bannon in criminal contempt but the full proceedings could drag on a while. cbs news learned the depositions for other three former top trump officials icials if have been postponed. norah. >> o'donnell: