>> why did the committee refer -- [indiscernible] the justice department. rep. raskin: we wanted to focus on -- i'm sorry. our criminal referrals were based on the gravity of the event, the centrality of the actors, and the evidence we had available to us. there were undoubtedly other people involved, but we were stymied by virtue of a lot of people refusing to come and testify, refusing to give us information they had, or taking the fifth amendment. we chose to advance the names of people where we felt certain

that there was abundant evidence that they had participated in crimes. and so we are sending those over. it's not to the exclusion of anyone else. if you read the report, you will see there are a number of other people named, and that is ultimately going to be up to the department of justice. >> so you say trump and others. will you be filling in the blank of "and others"? rep. raskin: no, the others are contained in the report, and that judgment will be made by the department of justice as to whether they have sufficient evidence and probable cause to bring charges. we wanted to proceed in such a way that we could all feel certain that these were people where evidence exists that they engaged in criminal offenses against the country. >> what do you see the legacy of your committee? rep. raskin: oh, jeez, our committee is -- we had a meeting

five minutes ago. i don't know what our legacy is going to be. i hope our legacy is going to be an unswerving devotion to the facts, the rule of law, and the constitution. we were charged with dealing with an event that was radically unique in american history. nobody before, much less a president, had ever come so close to overthrowing presidential election. that is what we were dealing with. our greatest legacy and our most enduring legacy would be one that is certified by time, which is that we never encounter anything like this again and that we keep the progress of american democracy moving. >> you mentioned seditious conspiracy in the executive summary. why did he not mention that is one of the statutes? rep. raskin: well, seditious conspiracy has been charged of the oath keepers, the proud boys. there is a rigorous proof

following particular legal elements that are there. we brought forth those instances where we thought it is clear that criminal conduct took place. it is not to the exclusion of others, as i said at the end there. it is possible there department of justice would have a further evidence that could support charges of seditious conspiracy, but that is a judgment that the department of justice will have to make -- >> are you not charging on seditious conspiracy? rep. raskin: seditious conspiracy is not one of the offenses. yes, one of the ones mentioned there. >> there is a few days left of the democratic majority. what is the thinking behind just now, the totality of the committee's legislative recommendations, as well as referrals to the ethics committee, matters that have to be adjudicated by the house and

by congress? rep. raskin: i'm not certain -- >> what is the thinking behind waiting until the very end of the democrats' house majority of leasing matters that have to be dealt with by the house? rep. raskin: well, we have obviously been in the process of collecting all the evidence that we can come and we have been moving as quickly as possible. the legislative recommendations we set forward come about a dozen of them are things that can be undertaken by this congress during the lame-duck period and by future congresses, and we will see that we do take action. >> in the executive summary you mentioned that there are a number of instances you have found where the former president tried to influence witnesses. how many instances could do you find of that in terms have making phone calls to witnesses or trying to influence their testimony? rep. raskin: i don't own exact number, but the ones we are

aware of, at least the ones i am aware of, appear in the executive summary. they are there. >> does the committee plan to provide the raw material to the justice department, and do you plan to brief the special counsel about what you found, or has the process been ongoing? rep. raskin: well, we just adopted the motion to have the chairman send this over, so i mention it will have to quickly -- we have a few more days of business. >> the special counsel so far up to this point? rep. raskin: not personally, i have not been. the chair would undoubtedly -- >> no, i don't think individual members have, but our staff has been in contact with the department about the process, the request along the way. but we expect that the evidence will be, i think beginning wednesday, made available with

transcripts to the public as well as the justice department. >> [indiscernible] does the committee believed she was not truthful? rep. schiff: you know, i don't want to comment on any particular witness, but we are providing material that has raised concerns in terms of the credibility of witnesses generally, as well as the role that some of the lawyers representing the former president's interests may have played in trying to influence the testimony of witnesses. we will let the record speak for itself, but we want to put that evidence before the public. >> as members of congress, you referred 4 members of congress including kevin mccarthy to the ethics committee. there have been a number of republican lawmakers you mentioned throughout your investigation. why was rep. schiff: the focus was

essentially placed on their contempt of the committee, contempt of congress and failing to show up when they received lawful subpoenas. we did not choose to make referrals based on the underlying conduct, but rather on the open and shut failure to comply with the congressional subpoena. reporter: but you instructed the justice department to potentially bring in. rep. schiff: this is a broader point we are trying to make. we also subpoenaed a number of witnesses, not just members of congress, who refused to comply with the subpoenas. it would've have taken us years to litigate to try to defeat the assertion of those privileges. our subpoenas we had to go hat in hand to the justice department and we were batting

at percent when we made a criminal referral for contempt. so they can move more swiftly based on public reports, they have moved more swiftly and have been able to obtain testimony from people who refused to cooperate with us. none of us know what the character of testimony is and whether witnesses asserted privileges that the justice department will also have to litigate. we possess evidence that the justice department may not have. they possess evidence that we do not have. the cumulative impact of all the evidence will hopefully lead to justice for those who have broken the law here. reporter: republicans plan to issue their own support said there were security failures that day. how is that not a focus of this investigation? rep. schiff: a has been a focus

of our investigation. there will be material in the report that we will be releasing this week on that very issue, on the nature of intelligence that agencies have and to the degree it was shared and not shared. so those issues are addressed in our report. reporter: did the committee come across any evidence that further corroborated cassidy hutchinson's story about she overheard president trump luncheon at a member of his secret service detail. rep. schiff: we will be releasing testimony about president trump's indignation about not being able to accompany the mob to the capitol. i found cassidy hutchinson's testimony to be entirely credible.

i will leave it to you to assess the other witnesses. reporter: do you believe any of the witnesses committed perjury? rep. schiff: i certainly have questions about the veracity of some of the testimony received. i will leave it to the justice department and the public. reporter: should the justice department follow-up on what was said about witnesses being offered lucrative positions ahead of the testimony? rep. schiff: the justice department should weigh all of the evidence we have provided and seek to obtain their own evidence about efforts to influence testimony before congress and whether ben cross the line into illegality. on the issue of our criminal referrals, merrick garland announced that the department of justice investigation would

follow the evidence. that is our sense of the law as well. we believe that donald j. trump, that there was evidence he violated multiple criminal laws. if the justice department concurs with that, then he should be prosecuted like any other american. nobody should get a pass. i think the day start giving passes to presidents or former presidents, that would be the day that would be the beginning of the end of our democracy. we hope that while low criminal referral from congress does not carry legal weight, we hope the evidence we presented and the way we have identified the

offenses will be taken seriously by the department of justice. thank you very much. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including wow. the world has changed. fast and reliable internet connection is something nobody can live without. wow is there for our customers. now more than ever it all starts with great internet. wow supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.

>> the 118th congress convenes on tuesday, january 3 and noon eastern. republicans will control the house of representatives while democrats retain control of the senate. the new congress will be more diverse, with a record number of women serving, including more women of color. new congress, new leaders. watch the opening day of the one who 18th congress, tuesday, january 3 at noon eastern live on c-span and c-span2. also on c-span now or online at c-span.org.

>> argue one nonfiction book club looking for a new podcast? -- are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast? learn something new on book notes plus through conversations with the nonfiction authors and historians. on about books we talked about the business of boats with interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now at.