| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
True Investigations?
00:14:46
|
||
| What we told our reviewers is that that was the goal. | ||
| You know, there's this mantra out there that, oh, you know, the Department of Justice is supposed to protect Donald J. Trump, and that's what we were telling. | ||
| That's not true. | ||
| That was never the case. | ||
| We are always concerned about the victims. | ||
| When we said that we were not legally allowed to release documents, that's a fact. | ||
| That was true. | ||
| It remains true today. | ||
| And then with the acts passage, we are able now and directed to release documents, which is what we are doing. | ||
| But so hopefully some of those frustrations are now eased. | ||
| Listen, any victim that wants to speak with the department has done so, hopefully. | ||
| If not, they should. | ||
| The prosecutors from this case in New York have given hundreds, if not thousands of hours to working with victims, and that's what we do every day, and that's what we did in this case as well. | ||
| Very quickly, can you assure the American public that President Trump, like every other prominent person whose name came up in relation to the Epstein files, that all documents, photos, and anything relevant to him connected to the case are being released? | ||
| I mean, yes, I can assure that we complied with the statute, we complied with the act, and there is no, we did not protect President Trump, we didn't protect or not protect anybody. | ||
| I mean, I think that we, that there's a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. | ||
| And there's nothing I can do about that. | ||
| But President Trump, of all the people in Washington, D.C. and around this country that have said for years the same consistent message about Jeffrey Epstein is President Trump. | ||
| And so there's not been a change of course or anything. | ||
| And certainly his direction to the American people and the Department of Justice, sorry, his direction to the Department of Justice was to be as transparent, release the files, be as transparent as we can. | ||
| And that's exactly what we did. | ||
| I want to clarify your remarks on the Alex Predi killing. | ||
| Are you saying that the Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation into his death? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, look, I know there's been a lot of discussion among the media around that, but just think about what that means. | ||
| All that that means is that DHS, as the Secretary has said, is conducting an investigation as they should and as they do every time there's a tragic event like this. | ||
| And the FBI, in their role, which is a separate role from DHS, is also looking into it and conducting an investigation. | ||
| And that's not, that shouldn't be treated as making news. | ||
| We've said that for a week, and it remains as true today as it was last Sunday when I said it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Two questions for you, one on topic and one separate. | |
| Yeah, two questions for you, one on topic and one separate. | ||
| On topic. | ||
| Do you have any information that you could just share? | ||
| Because 3 million documents is a lot for people who are watching this at home. | ||
| Are there any new names or new people, public people in positions of power who you're found in these filings? | ||
| I don't have anything to share about what's new or not new. | ||
| And there's no, I don't have anything to share about that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And to follow up on that, do you have a reaction to the arrest of Don Lemon overnight? | |
| Do I have a reaction to what? | ||
|
unidentified
|
To Don Lemon's arrest overnight? | |
| Do I have a reaction to it? | ||
| I don't know what that means. | ||
| What are you looking for me to do? | ||
| Jump up and down? | ||
| No, I don't have a reaction to it. | ||
| I don't know that the charges are unsealed yet. | ||
| So no, I can't. | ||
| I'm not going to comment on that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| You said this is the end of the Epstein, of your review of the Epstein files. | ||
| So just to clarify, is the public going to learn the identities of the men who abused the girls with the information that you're releasing? | ||
| And if not, why not? | ||
| And then I have a quick follow-up. | ||
| I mean, you just baked in an assumption into your question that I have never said and I don't know to be true. | ||
| Is the public going to learn about men that abuse these girls? | ||
| Like, what does that mean? | ||
| I don't understand what that means. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I mean, the men who abused the young women through Epstein's. | |
| We said in July, and it remains as true today as it was in July, if we had information, we meeting the Department of Justice, about men who abused women, we would prosecute them, right? | ||
| We talked about the work that we're doing. | ||
| That's why I said that. | ||
| I said this earlier. | ||
| There's this built-in assumption that somehow there's this hidden tranche of information of men that we know about that we're covering up or that we're choosing not to prosecute. | ||
| That is not the case. | ||
| I don't know whether there are men out there that abuse these women. | ||
| If we learn about information and evidence that allows us to prosecute them, you better believe we will. | ||
| But I don't think that the public or you all are going to uncover men within the Epstein files that abuse women, unfortunately. | ||
| And then just to follow up, on the investigation into Federal Chairman Jerome Powell, is the Justice Department, what's the status of that investigation? | ||
| Now that President Trump has nominated a new Fed chair, is the Justice Department looking to bring a close to the investigation into Chairman Powell's as soon as possible? | ||
| I don't have a comment on that, on the subpoenas that were issued. | ||
| I don't think the timing of President Trump's decision to nominate somebody is a controlling factor in any investigation. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I just wanted to follow up on Alana's question. | |
| So you're saying that the shooting investigation of Alex Predi is now a civil rights investigation. | ||
| You're saying you're implying that that's always been the case. | ||
| Can you also say if, has that, what about the shooting of Renee Good? | ||
| I mean, why or why not? | ||
| Is that a civil rights investigation? | ||
| I didn't say it was always the case. | ||
| I said it's the same thing that we said as of last Sunday with respect to last weekend. | ||
| There are thousands, unfortunately, of law enforcement events every year where somebody is shot. | ||
| The civil rights division of the Department of Justice does not investigate every one of those shootings. | ||
| There has to be circumstances or facts or maybe unknown facts, but certainly circumstances that warrant an investigation. | ||
| So when we talked about, when I talked about last weekend and when others have talked about this week, the fact that President Trump has said repeatedly, of course this is something we're going to investigate. | ||
| That's what I meant about what we're doing. | ||
| It doesn't mean that every time that there's a federal officer related shooting, that that's something civil rights takes up. | ||
| It depends on the circumstances. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Follow up on that. | |
| Can you just, I know you can't be specific about details of the investigation, but can you kind of just characterize the scope of the Predi investigation, what kinds of things that they'll be looking for and who will be involved? | ||
| Well, I mean, it's an investigation. | ||
| So what do we think we're looking at? | ||
| We're looking at everything that would shed light on what happened that day and in the days and weeks leading up to what happened. | ||
| And that's like any investigation that the Department of Justice and the FBI does every day. | ||
| It means we're looking at videos, talking to witnesses, trying to understand what happened. | ||
| I mean, you're talking about an incredibly tragic morning and then trying to unwind and investigate that. | ||
| It takes a lot of time. | ||
| I'm not going to prejudice what they're doing or not doing by laying any markers, but I expect that the folks that are doing this are the most experienced in this space and are doing that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So, to follow up on that, how would a civil rights investigation work with DHS taking the lead, which is what was said over the weekend? | |
| And are prosecutors in Minnesota, I mean, who is involved in this? | ||
| We know that there's a lot of frustration within the department, both in Minnesota and the Civil Rights Division, that they feel they are not being brought in and they are the experts here. | ||
| So, just develop, how would this work with DHS taking the lead and who is from DOJ involved in this investigation? | ||
| I don't think that, look, I think anytime there's a every single federal agency, including DHS, has a process that they use when there's something like this that happens, an internal review, investigation, however you want to call it. | ||
| That's what DHS was doing, as they do every single time something like this happened. | ||
| There was nothing unique to these facts. | ||
| There might have been outsized focus on it because of what happened, but DHS was doing an investigation. | ||
| I don't know that that will stop. | ||
| I don't expect that investigation to stop because we're investigating, and of course, we're coordinating with them. | ||
| There's nothing, we're not working against them, but there's, I suppose, potentially separate goals or potential goals in the two investigations. | ||
| I mean, DHS is conducting an investigation, and then the FBI conducts an investigation. | ||
| It's not as if one goes one way and one goes the other, but they are their own investigations. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Very clearly said on Sunday that HSI is leading the investigation. | |
| He did not want to overstep and say anything. | ||
| Was that not true anymore, or was that true at the time? | ||
| I don't think it's fair to say whether it's true anymore, okay? | ||
| And I don't think it's also, I don't want to say who's lead or not lead. | ||
| I don't even really know what that means in the course of an investigation. | ||
| The FBI is investigating. | ||
| They are for sure coordinating with Secretary Noam and her folks as well. | ||
| And I expect DHS is also continuing their investigation to some extent. | ||
| And there's outsized focus on this. | ||
| This happens, like I said, thousands of times a year. | ||
| And it is tragic every single time it happens. | ||
| And it's tragic this time, like it's tragic every other time. | ||
| And so there is a process that has to be allowed to play out internally with these law enforcement organizations and certainly with the FBI as well to allow this investigation to go on. | ||
| You've talked about the expectations surrounding the Epstein files. | ||
| Do you agree that the DOJ itself, senior officials at the DOJ, played up those expectations for the first half of this year? | ||
| I'm just sort of trying to understand what responsibility does the Justice Department have for the criticism that has come over the handling of the Epstein files. | ||
| I'm not commenting on criticism. | ||
| People can criticize all they want. | ||
| My point was just to make plain that when it comes to what we've been doing the past two months and why we weren't able to complete the review of over 6 million pages. | ||
| Okay, so you're talking about two Eiffel Towers of pages in 30 days in a way that made sure we complied with the Act, right? | ||
| So the Act had multiple requirements. | ||
| Get it done in 30 days, and you better not release any victim information. | ||
| All right, so there's a lot of statutory construction. | ||
| There's a lot of case law that exists that says that if those two are in conflict, we obviously are not violating the 30-day requirement by taking our time to comply with the act. | ||
| And so my comments were directed at this idea that because we didn't review the six-plus million pages within 30 days, somehow the Attorney General doesn't care about victims or is further doing damage to victims because of that, because exactly the opposite is true when it comes to the Attorney General. | ||
| Sir, I have questions on Epstein and Minnesota. | ||
| First, on Minnesota, for transparency, would you commit to releasing the body cam video from federal officers that was involved in that shooting and their names at a point when the investigation can allow that? | ||
| Will you make that public? | ||
| And I did not hear clarity on whether Renee Good's case is also in the civil rights realm. | ||
| I'm not committing to anything with respect to that investigation. | ||
| That would be completely unfair to the investigation itself for me to stand here and commit to something for any reason. | ||
| It just, it depends. | ||
| It depends on what happens at the investigation, and that's a decision that was made by the folks that are working the investigation. | ||
| As it relates to Ms. Good, I don't, like I said before, there's investigations that happen all the time with respect to shootings like what happened last Saturday, and cases are handled differently by this department depending on the circumstances. | ||
| Sir, on Epstein, sir, if I may just ask one on that, please. | ||
| You mentioned a letter to Congress. | ||
| How and to whom did you notify the White House about the production that you're announcing today before you came out and spoke to us? | ||
| How did I do what? | ||
| Notify the White House. | ||
| What was your interface with the White House? | ||
| You said there's a letter to Congress. | ||
| Who did you update at the White House about this? | ||
| Well, I don't know. | ||
| I don't really understand the question. | ||
| You mean who did I update? | ||
| Did you provide them an explanation of what today's release would be? | ||
| Look, my team has certain communications with the White House. | ||
| Let me just be clear. | ||
| They had nothing to do with this review. | ||
| They had no oversight over this review. | ||
| They did not tell this department how to do our review, what to look for, what to redact, what to not redact. | ||
| They absolutely knew that I was doing this press conference today and that we were releasing the materials today, but there's no oversight by the White House into the process that we've undertaken over the past 60 days. | ||
| I wanted to ask a question about the evidence in the Alex Predi investigation. | ||
| Early on, our reporting showed that the only type of evidence that the FBI initially had in its possession that it was processing for ballistics and DNA, et cetera, was Predi's firearm. | ||
| It did not have the firearm, the two firearms that were used to shoot Predi. | ||
| Those were in the hands of HSI, and also there were concerns about chain of custody, things not being properly bagged and tagged, et cetera. | ||
| Where are the guns now? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Are they in the FBI's possession and being reviewed at one of their labs? | |
| And who has the phone that Predi was using in filming? | ||
| And is that going to be reviewed by the FBI? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I don't have an answer to those questions. | ||
| Look, I think that there's Secretary Noam has been clear with the American people, but also with the Department of Justice, that we're doing this together. | ||
|
Surprise Over Gabbard's Role
00:04:15
|
||
| We're coordinating. | ||
| And so I'm not following in the weeds about who actually has possession of the firearms that were discharged. | ||
| That was something the FBI would need in order to conduct a thorough investigation into a color of, this is obviously a color of blood. | ||
| When I said I didn't know, I wasn't being critical of the question. | ||
| I was just simply saying I don't know. | ||
| On the Fulton County seizure of ballots, local officials there, election officials say those materials were set to become public by February 9th and that the Justice Department could have simply asked for them. | ||
| Why was it necessary to conduct a search warrant? | ||
| And do you expect the affidavit in that search warrant matter to become public anytime soon? | ||
| Or do you have any comment or explanation as to why that was necessary? | ||
| Listen, I'm not going to comment on it's a criminal investigation. | ||
| I'm not, I will not comment on it. | ||
| Will say that it should be no surprise to many of this room that, or anybody watching, that election integrity is extraordinarily important to this administration, always has been, and always will be. | ||
| And so, the fact that President Trump and this administration are investigating to make sure that, well, are investigating issues around elections to make sure that we do have completely fair and appropriate elections should not be surprising. | ||
| But I can't comment on any criminal investigations. | ||
| To follow up on that regarding Fulton County, can you explain Tulsi Gabbard's role in DOJ activities? | ||
| Could you please explain Tulsi Gabbard's role in DOJ activity regarding the Fulton County search? | ||
| What do you mean her role? | ||
| It was reported that she happened to be present in Atlanta. | ||
| I mean, yes, I saw the same photo as you did. | ||
| I mean, she's not, she doesn't work for the Department of Justice or the FBI. | ||
| She's an extraordinarily important part of this administration. | ||
| This administration coordinates everything we do as a group. | ||
| And so I think her presence shouldn't be, there shouldn't be questioned. | ||
| Of course, that's a big part of her job. | ||
| And so the fact that she was present in Atlanta that day is something that shouldn't surprise anybody. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Chairman Maximo, we're over with him. | |
| All right, just two more. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Just following up on that. | |
| So are you saying that Gabbard's appearance in that area had nothing to do with the Justice Department action? | ||
| I most certainly did not say that. | ||
| No, I did not say that. | ||
| I said that exactly the opposite. | ||
| I said this administration works closely together in all kinds of different areas. | ||
| And so I'm not sure if they're surprised that the administration is working together on things like election integrity. | ||
| But if there is surprise, let me unequivocally state, we are working together as an administration on election integrity type issues. | ||
| And so that's all I can say about that. | ||
| All right, one more. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Can you clarify who at the Justice Department is involved in the pretty investigation? | |
| Is it the Civil Rights Division? | ||
| Is it the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota? | ||
| So I want to be careful about, I want to choose words carefully about involved. | ||
| Investigations like this are led by law enforcement, so that's the FBI. | ||
| There's coordination with the civil rights, with Harmie Dillon's group, and there's trial attorneys there that have, this is their lives. | ||
| They've done this for decades. | ||
| And so to the extent there's questions during an investigation that require a trial attorney to weigh in, or if you need a civil rights attorney to draft a search warrant or help with an investigative process, I expect the civil rights division here at Maine Justice will be part of that effort. | ||
| But I don't want to overstate what's happening. | ||
| I don't want the takeaway to be that there's some massive civil rights investigation that's happening. | ||
| This is what I would describe as a standard investigation by the FBI when there's circumstances like what we saw last Saturday. | ||
| And that investigation, to the extent it needs to involve lawyers at the Civil Rights Division, it will involve those. | ||
|
Relive Apollo Missions
00:02:18
|
||
| All right. | ||
| Thanks a lot, everybody. | ||
| I appreciate that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do you have a comment on the career prosecutors that are resigning in Minneapolis? | |
| Today on C-SPAN Ceasefire, Democratic San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and Oklahoma City Republican Mayor David Holt come together for a bipartisan conversation on the top issues facing American cities. | ||
| Watch ceasefire at 7 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN. | ||
| Houston, F2, 1-1-60 a second for a shadow of photography on the sequence camera. | ||
| Travel through the history of America's space program on American History TV all day on C-SPAN 2, featuring classic NASA films and historical newsreels from past space missions. | ||
| Watch Saturday, starting at 8 a.m. Eastern, as American History TV sits down with Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Apollo curator Tiesel Muir Harmony to explore Americans in space from the creation of NASA in 1958 through the early Gemini flights to Neil Armstrong's historic first steps on the moon in July 1969. | ||
| She also looks ahead to the upcoming Artemis missions with the goal of returning astronauts to the lunar surface. | ||
| Plus, relive the race to the moon, Skylab, and the Space Shuttle program. | ||
| And hear first-hand accounts from legendary NASA flight directors Gene Krantz and Gerald Griffin. | ||
| The crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send to you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Watch the history of the American space program all day Saturday, starting at 8 a.m. Eastern on American History TV on C-SPAN 2. | |
| In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together. | ||
| According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced. | ||
|
Why C-SPAN Matters
00:15:03
|
||
|
unidentified
|
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate. | |
| Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides. | ||
| Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source. | ||
| No commentary, no agenda, just democracy. | ||
| Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks. | ||
| House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke to reporters ahead of a potential partial government shutdown. | ||
| He talks about the current funding package in the Senate, the arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon, and a GOP bill requiring voter IDs. | ||
| Morning, everyone. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Morning. | |
| Taxpayer dollars should be used to make life better for the American people, to drive down the high cost of living, to fix our broken health care system, and to deliver a government that actually promotes the health, the safety, and the economic well-being of the American people. | ||
| Instead, Donald Trump and his administration have been using taxpayer dollars to brutalize everyday Americans, kill American citizens, and violently target law-abiding immigrant families. | ||
| It's unacceptable, it's unconscionable, and it's un-American. | ||
| This administration continues to weaponize the Department of Justice, weaponize the Department of Homeland Security, weaponize the power of government to undermine the ability of everyday Americans to live their best life because they're so consumed with jamming their right-wing extremism down the throats of the American people. | ||
| We will not be intimidated by any of their actions. | ||
| We will stay the course as it relates to making sure that we actually fund the government in a manner that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution, and consistent with the American way of life. | ||
| There's a big difference between the Trump administration, Republicans, on the one hand, and how Democrats want to spend your taxpayer dollars on the other. | ||
| Republicans, in their one big, ugly bill, enacted the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, ripped health care away from more than 14 million Americans, and at the same period of time took $186 billion from SNAP, literally stealing food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans. | ||
| And in that same one big, ugly bill, used taxpayer dollars to give the Department of Homeland Security and ICE a slush fund that's been used to unleash a killing machine in Minneapolis using taxpayer dollars literally to kill American citizens in cold blood. | ||
| That's what Republicans have done in their one big ugly bill. | ||
| That's their policy. | ||
| And Democrats are going to continue to push back aggressively against it. | ||
| We want to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security conducts itself in a manner that elevates public safety, not undermines it. | ||
| And the American people are demanding accountability, and that's what Democrats are going to deliver. | ||
| Questions? | ||
| Should we expect any sort of organized response from Democrats to the arrest of Don Lemon this morning? | ||
| And what do you think that says about the Trump administration? | ||
| Trump administration has systematically targeted the free and fair press because they want to intimidate America and oppose anyone who is not willing to bend the knee to their extremism. | ||
| We are not going to be intimidated at all. | ||
| The free and fair press is central to the foundation of American democracy. | ||
| Thomas Jefferson famously made that clear that he would prefer a country that had newspapers over government as opposed to governments over newspapers. | ||
| This is central to who we are as a country. | ||
| And so Don Lemon, we know, is an accomplished journalist who was doing his job as part of the free and fair press. | ||
| There's no legitimacy, no basis to Don Lemon's arrests, no basis to the arrest of the other journalists. | ||
| And the American people are not going to stand for it. | ||
| And House Democrats are going to stand up for them. | ||
| And the rights of the free and fair press as central to American democracy and our values in terms of who we are. | ||
| But how? | ||
| I issued a statement as it relates to where we are right now. | ||
| It just happened. | ||
| And so we haven't had an opportunity, even as members of Congress, to talk to each other about next steps. | ||
| But of course, next steps will be forthcoming. | ||
| Mr. Leader, I'm sure you've been monitoring what's going on in the Senate. | ||
| What's your reaction to the fact that there's not a deal yet with the government deadline looming? | ||
| Do you have any plans to speak to Speaker Johnson between now and when the House gets back? | ||
| And do you think that two weeks is enough time to negotiate the reforms that you're looking for? | ||
| I know that there's a lot there, so you can. | ||
| To deal with the issue of reigning ICE and the Department OF Homeland Security in with the fierce urgency of now, and a two-week window will evaluate whether that's sufficient time. | ||
| But there's urgency to dealing with this issue because ICE, as we've seen, is out of control and the American people know it. | ||
| The American people know that the Trump administration, on all of the things, has gone too far and that taxpayer dollars should not be used to brutalize the American people and, in some instances, kill them. | ||
| So this is something that has to be addressed. | ||
| And Democrats in the Senate led by Chuck Schumer, supported by the House, made a clear demand. | ||
| Separate out the five bills that clearly have bipartisan support. | ||
| And then separately, we can deal with making sure that ICE is brought under control in a variety of different ways, including our demand, which we will not walk away from, which is that judicial warrants should be required before ICE can storm homes and rip people out of their cars. | ||
| Judicial warrants. | ||
| The masks have to come off. | ||
| And body cameras need to be turned on for everyone. | ||
| There should be an explicit prohibition on the detention and deportation of American citizens. | ||
| Period, full stop. | ||
| And lawless agents who are brutalizing everyday Americans and law-abiding immigrant families, targeting them violently in violation of the law, should be investigated and prosecuted independently of the Department of Justice. | ||
| We cannot trust the Department of Justice. | ||
| They're an illegitimate organization right now under the leadership of Pam Bondi and the direction of Donald Trump. | ||
| And so, if anything, the events of today reinforce, as it relates to the Department of Justice targeting journalists and part of the free and fair press, that the Department of Justice cannot be trusted to freely and fairly work through the criminal justice system. | ||
| And it reinforces our demand that agents who violate the law should be investigated and prosecuted independent of the Department of Justice and the Trump administration and state and local officials. | ||
| It should be made clear that they have the investigative and prosecutorial authority to go after any rogue actors who are part of ICE, CBP, or the Department of Homeland Security. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, sir, thank you so much for your time. | |
| Could I ask you your reaction to the Republicans' new voter integrity plan, the mega bill, and are there any provisions that the Democrats could support there? | ||
| It's a dead on arrival bill. | ||
| They know it. | ||
| Listen, voter suppression is part of the Republican plan to try desperately to hold on to power. | ||
| Republicans since the beginning of this administration have been losing elections all across the country. | ||
| They've been wiped out electorally. | ||
| The American people know that it's Democrats who are focused on making their life better, driving down the high cost of living and fixing our broken health care system. | ||
| And it's Republicans who have unleashed this extremism and brutality on the American people and this assault on the American way of life, our values and our democracy, and have had enough of it. | ||
| And so Republicans are playing games just like was evidenced by the unprecedented FBI raid in Fulton County, Georgia. | ||
| Republicans don't want a free and fair election because they know when that happens and will ensure that it happens, they're going to lose. | ||
| They're going to lose the House. | ||
| They're going to get crushed all throughout America. | ||
| So the latest voter suppression bill is not a serious thing. | ||
| Let's just be clear about that. | ||
| You're asking me a legitimate question, but it's an illegitimate bill that's dead on arrival. | ||
| It's going nowhere. | ||
| I do have a policy follow-up on that bill. | ||
| Just regarding, I remember covering during the first Trump administration, Democrats were very concerned about Russia meddling in elections. | ||
| Are you confident that the current election systems in all 50 states and U.S. territories will protect the ballot of U.S. voters? | ||
| What I am thankful about is that the administration of elections are done locally as opposed to in the hands of the Trump administration and this group of corrupt sycophants. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Leaders, I just wanted to know if you are going to be whipping against the resolution that Greg Stewie said he's going to force to vote next week to expel Sheila Ferrells-McCormick. | |
| Congresswoman is, of course, entitled to the presumption of innocence. | ||
| She's going through the process right now, and any effort to expel her lacks any basis at this moment in law, fact, or the Constitution. | ||
| And if, in fact, there's a resolution that is brought to the floor to try to expel the Congresswoman, it's going to fail. | ||
| It's going to fail. | ||
| It requires two-thirds. | ||
| It's an exercise that is just designed to get attention and is inconsistent with what due process requires at this moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Leonard, progressive groups are criticizing this deal that's coming out of the Senate. | |
| Do you think the criticism progressives are criticizing? | ||
| I'm asking, none specifically, but different ones here. | ||
| Well, it's hard to respond if I have no idea what groups you're talking about, because I speak to groups all the time, and I haven't heard that criticism. | ||
| Do you support the deal? | ||
| Thanks. | ||
| I haven't, there's no agreement that's been before us right now. | ||
| Lindsey Graham apparently is holding up the agreement, threatening to shut down the government, because apparently Senate Republicans still support using taxpayer dollars to brutalize American citizens. | ||
| And on top of it, to make matters worse, apparently Lindsey Graham wants access to a multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded slush fund. | ||
| That's insanity. | ||
| So the Senate has to do its thing before we have anything to evaluate. | ||
| But I'm going to remain in close contact with Leader Schumer, and hopefully they'll get something done today. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Leader, you said that you were supportive of the House Democrats are supportive of breaking the bills apart, though, and doing the five, alongside a short-term CR for Homeland. | |
| Do you see any problem? | ||
| What I said, just to be clear, what I said is that we've demanded from the very beginning, which John Thune said would never happen. | ||
| John Thune said it's not happening. | ||
| Then he brought the entire package together to the Senate floor yesterday, and it failed spectacularly, notwithstanding what John Thune said, which is the bills are not going to be separated out. | ||
| They will be separated out. | ||
| We made that demand, and it's happening. | ||
| And Donald Trump has agreed to that, apparently. | ||
| So that's what we're supportive of. | ||
| In terms of evaluating the path forward relative to the Department of Homeland Security legislation, we're going to have to evaluate what the real opportunity is to get dramatic change at the Department of Homeland Security. | ||
| It needs to be bold, it needs to be meaningful, and it needs to be transformative. | ||
| And absent a path toward accomplishing dramatic change and making sure that ICE and DHS are conducting themselves like every other law enforcement agency in the country, then Republicans are going to cause another government shutdown. | ||
| You've had dozens of Democrats that said they won't give another penny for ICE. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do you see any problems passing the stopgap on Homeland Security? | |
| If that comes back to the House, do you think that Democrats will be forced to carry the water if they bring that up? | ||
|
Bipartisan Bills and Contempt
00:05:40
|
||
| It all depends on, well, are you talking about a continuing resolution? | ||
| Yeah, like a two-week stopgap on the Homeland Bill. | ||
| Well, it all depends on how people interpret, you know, a continuing resolution. | ||
| If it's two weeks, that's a freeze on ICE funding. | ||
| That's not an additional amount being given to ICE. | ||
| That's a freeze on ICE funding. | ||
| But we'll have to evaluate whatever comes together once Lindsey Graham stops his temper tantrum and clearly is going to have to drop his objection because of his obsessive quest to get this multi-million dollar slush fund. | ||
| This is insanity. | ||
| This is who the Republicans have become. | ||
| Why aren't they focusing on making life better for the American people? | ||
| We are. | ||
| We want to promote the health, the safety, and the economic well-being of everyday Americans. | ||
| That's what the appropriations process is all about. | ||
| But Republicans are making it about themselves and their billionaire donors rather than keep the American people safe. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Chip Roy and some House Republicans have said that if DHS funding comes back on the table, they have some demands. | |
| How do you plan to get this new final product to be both severe enough that your caucus feels comfortable with it and also not get completely held up by House Republicans? | ||
| The demands being made by far-right extremists in the House Republican Conference are going nowhere. | ||
| And if for whatever reason Speaker Johnson bends the knee to the far right, then Republicans are going to shut the government down because they would apparently have zero interest in getting ICE and the Department of Homeland Security under control, which their own voters are demanding happen. | ||
| Their own voters. | ||
| I think, Mr. Leader, last week you expressed hope for a resolution before the House pull to vote on the Clinton contempt resolutions. | ||
| We know House Rules is going to mark them up next week. | ||
| Are you still expecting a resolution? | ||
| Have you been in touch with the Clintons on this? | ||
| I've not been in touch with the Clintons, but it's my understanding that their legal team continues to engage in good faith negotiations to try to get to a resolution. | ||
| My position on the underlying criminal contempt resolutions being brought before the Congress potentially by James Comer remain the same. | ||
| Comer is not interested in any legitimate investigation. | ||
| Democrats had to shame Republicans into joining us to force a vote and pass legislation to compel the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files. | ||
| Pam Bondi and the DOJ are the ones who should be held in criminal contempt at this point because they're in direct violation of a federal law that Donald Trump signed to release the Epstein files that are in their possession. | ||
| And there are millions of documents that haven't been released. | ||
| And the only thing that the public has seen are about 13,000. | ||
| Does that sound like compliance? | ||
| That's not compliance. | ||
| That's a brazen violation of their legal obligations, the Department of Justice's legal obligations, to release documents. | ||
| And so we'll see whether there's a resolution prior to a so-called criminal contempt vote, but my position on it remains the same. | ||
| Yep. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| I know you said that the deal hasn't come out of the Senate yet, but it's looking very likely that it will be five funding bills and a two-week DHSCR. | ||
| If that is what comes to the House after Senator Graham drops his hold, will you support that? | ||
| Well, that question has already been asked and answered in a variety of different ways. | ||
| One thing is clear is that Leader Thun and Mike Johnson and Republicans originally took the position that the five bipartisan bills were not going to be separated. | ||
| The fact that the five bipartisan bills are going to be separated in and of itself, right out of the gate, is a victory for the American people. | ||
| Simultaneously, we have to evaluate: is there a real path toward making the dramatic changes at the Department of Homeland Security necessary to stop the use of taxpayer dollars from brutalizing everyday Americans and killing American citizens like Renee Nicolgood and Alex Predi? | ||
| That's a question to be evaluated, particularly if we find ourselves in a situation where there's going to be an intense negotiation, where Democrats have drawn a hard line in the sand. | ||
| We have not been shy or bashful in articulating what will be necessary, including but not limited to, judicial warrants and an explicit prohibition on the detention and deportation of American citizens, and an end to the roving bands of ICE agents violently targeting people all across America. | ||
| Those have been our conditions. | ||
| Those will remain our conditions until we get this done for the American people. | ||
| Thank you all. | ||
|
Fixing Money in Politics
00:02:52
|
||
|
unidentified
|
Today on C-SPAN Ceasefire, Democratic San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and Oklahoma City Republican Mayor David Holt come together for a bipartisan conversation on the top issues facing American cities. | |
| Watch Ceasefire at 7 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN. | ||
| Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series, Sunday, with our guest Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author John Meacham, who has written numerous books chronicling American history. | ||
| His books include And There Was Light, Thomas Jefferson, and the prize-winning American Lion, Andrew Jackson, in the White House. | ||
| He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein. | ||
| Watch America's Book Club with John Meacham, Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN. | ||
| C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered. | ||
| We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications. | ||
| Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers. | ||
| And we're just getting started. | ||
| Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. | ||
| Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. | ||
| Welcome back to Washington Journal. | ||
| Joining us is Jeff Clements. | ||
| He is co-founder and CEO of American Promise, here to talk about campaign finance laws and money in politics. | ||
| Welcome to the program. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thanks, Mamie. | |
| So tell us about American Promise, what your mission is, and how you get your funding. | ||
| Yeah, we launched American Promise in 2016 with a single mission, and that's to serve Americans across the political spectrum. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We don't care who you vote for. | |
| We're uniting Americans who know we have to fix the money in politics problem in America. | ||
| And the only way to do that, because the Supreme Court has held that unlimited spending of money is just free speech. | ||
| And we now have $20 billion elections, foreign money coming in, dark money super PAC. | ||
| So Americans want to fix. | ||
| The Constitutional Amendment can correct the Supreme Court's mistake. | ||
| And it's got support across the spectrum. | ||
| So American Promise is actually getting it done. | ||
| And our job is not to amend the Constitution at American Promise. | ||
| It's to help Americans do it. | ||
| And it's happening. | ||
| When you say fix the problem of money in politics, spell that out for us. | ||
| What is the problem? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |