0 >> i don't think voting tonight is productive. let people work more. >> reporter: in a positive sign from mccarthy, some of the opponents came out sounding positive, including scott perry of pennsylvania sounded that -- he said talks had been productive as well as congressman chip roy. they had been asking for more sway over the speakership. some of them had asking to encourage mccarthy's super pac to stay out of certain primaries. they did agree to do that. that may have won some. his path, very narrow. there are at least four republicans who are almost certainly going to vote against him. they absolutely will not vote for kevin mccarthy, including matt gaetz. he can only look forward to lose four republican votes. one more says they will not vote for him, mccarthy cannot get there, which is why these talks are so critical, expected to continue through tonight until tomorrow. the house reconvenes at that time. >> he had given up a lot to get the votes he has gotten thus far. how much more is there that he can give up on? the super pac is based on the money he poured into candidates the far right are angry that he was supporting. >> reporter: that's the big question. how much more does he give? one thing they asked for is to allow one individual to call for a vote to oust a sitting speaker. kevin mccarthy agreed to five. that's one area that they are pushing for. they want key committee assignments, including on the house rules committee. those are some key issues that they have been negotiating. it sounds like mccarthy is moving in the direction. the concern is if he moves too far, he could lose support from more of the moderate members who do not want him to give in too much to the right wing of the conference. that is the balancing act of kevin mccarthy as he negotiates with them. he has to make sure he doesn't put off any other members. they believe that they are making progress to getting to 218. we will see if they are able to do that. >> let's listen in. the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibin. >> would you pray with me? build this house, lord, lest all who labor therein do so in vain. watch over our gathering, lest we stay awake without purpose. provide wisdom, discernment and forbearance, lest we eat the food of our anxious toil and exhaust ourselves for nothing. you have called us together from the corners of the great nation to uphold a vision founded on our belief in the fundamental rights endowed by you, god, our creator. you have appointed each person here to represent this country's rich diversity of thought and experience, race and creed, that collectively we would serve as a city on a hill, a light to the world, revealing the strength and nobility to be found in our union. remind us that we fulfill this divine mission only when we acknowledge that we are meant to function as one body. nothing ordain can be accomplished without the trust in and respect for each other. you have graced each of us differently with passion and compassion, insight and oversight, voice and vote, that we would use these gifts to build up the larger body which is these united states. deliver us from impudence. free us from fear and control. in our deliberations this night, the light that shines from the dome above us would clearly reflect the commitment we each make to freedom, justice and peace in our world. in the name of our guard dian, guide and stay, we offer our prayer. amen. [ applause ] >> by now, the names of the hardcore so-called never kevin members are well-known. matt gaetz, lauren boebert, andy biggs. you can take a look. if it comes to another vote, which kevin mccarthy does not want there to be tonight, you can tally off the names and see who, if anyone, has changed their mind. if not, we will keep track of it for you. joining us now, not one of the 20. pete sessions who has voted six times for kevin mccarthy. congressman, thanks for joining us. what's the latest you are hearing about what's going to happen? >> we are hearing this as you did, jake. that is that this negotiation, it took place with mr. mccarthy, was really a wide ranging viewpoint, not just on his duties as speaker here, but also his campaign activities as he would engage himself in the money that he collected across the country. also to the rules committee, as you recall, i spent 20 years on the rules committee, six years as its chairman last time we were in the majority. to substantively change those procedures at the rules committee would have wide ranging viewpoints up to a point of orders, votes that would be on the floor, things that would be available to any member, meaning the minority. so it really seems like to me that the discussion is for the house to look more like the senate. as you know, they have -- >> congressman, i'm sorry to interrupt. we need to listen to the clerk. i'm sorry. i will bring you back in a second. >> a sufficient number have been risen. members will record their vote by electronic device. >> vote on whether or not -- i believe this is a vote on whether or not to adjourn and reconvene until noon tomorrow. congressman sessions, let me bring you back. is that your understanding what the vote is, a motion to adjourn? >> yes, sir. >> congressman tom emmer is recommending that house republicans vote to adjourn until noon tomorrow. that's what house republican leadership is recommending. go ahead. >> i would be for that also, as we need that time. what i would say to you is that the appearances of what we are talking about of the rules committee, that the chairman of the rules committee traditionally is literally the most pour powerful chairman in washington, d.c. because they have the ability to self-execute bills. that is, to take bills that -- i'm sorry, amendments. they have the ability to take things that may have been handled in committee and completely change them. when i was chairman of the rules committee and i self-executed, which i did, i had an obligation that i told people i would tell them. it's hard to go through a 100 page bill or a 1,000 page bill if someone doesn't tell you what changed. it's been vetted at the previous committee. with that also the chairman of the rules committee can protect that and not allow it to a point of order, which many times is important not just to change the law but against procedures that necessarily people want to attack it on. it means that the majority cannot always have their way. each of these would be subject to a vote on the floor. this is pretty much the way most statehouses handle their business. it's more bipartisan. it would definitely be designed to have a less powerful not just speaker but a less powerful majority. it would mean the majority would be like the king with no clothes. >> right now, what's going on, for anyone tuning in, is earlier today the house republicans in the house of representatives had a motion to adjourn until 8:00 eastern tonight. they have reconvened. right now, they are voting on a motion to adjourn until noon tomorrow, noon thursday. house republicans, which are the majority, the leadership is recommending the republicans vote to do that. you can see so far, 122 republicans have voted yea to adjourn until noon tomorrow. democrats are generally voting nay on that. congressman sessions, one of the things that's going on here is there has been talk about is there possibly going to be some other house republican whose name gets thrown into the mix who might be able to get to 218? i'm wondering if you have heard anything. i heard from a house republican who told me that there is scuttlebutt about somebody who has previously voted for kevin mccarthy six times, putting forward the name of steve scalise. i'm wondering if you have heard that as that was a possibility for this evening? >> i think the negotiation with mr. mccarthy, if it's not successful, they will look for the next able person who will agree with what mr. mccarthy would not agree with. once again, if mr. mccarthy does not make it, his political operations become inconsequential. what then becomes the same subject would be on mr. scalise. once again, this is a very interesting process to go through that makes our majority less able and adaptive to be onot only to get our work done but be powerful. every day, whoever is the speaker has to recheck with everybody on their vote. that's what's done in the senate in an organization where you may have 50 on one side and 50 of another. a large organization makes it way cumbersome and different. we will see. >> 435 is more difficult than 100. >> yes, sir. >> one of the questions that this house republican with whom i'm communicating is suggesting is that if steve scalise, who is the number two house republican, if his name was about to be nominated on the floor, this is a question i'm asking you now, is republican leader mccarthy's desire to not go forward with any more action tonight and to adjourn until noon tomorrow, is that at least partly to squash any effort to put steve scalise's name on the floor of the house for a vote? >> i don't think there's any question in my mind that mr. mccarthy wants to be in a position of strength. until the bitter end, until he replied back and knew the answer of what was being asked from him, he would not want to move aside. at the point he realizes he may have ended his nose egotiation, would become apparent he would move to mr. scalise. they are very close and very much, i guess, you could say the same in their philosophies. >> when kevin mccarthy says that progress has been made in negotiations -- i certainly find that credible when it comes to some of the rebels, including chip roy of texas, your fellow texan or even congressman bishop. is your understanding that the progress has been sufficient to get him to 218? or is it just peeling off a couple of the 20? as you know, there are at least four, maybe five people that say they will never vote for kevin mccarthy. i find it difficult to imagine any progress being made with them. >> i would suppose that those five or six or seven will not ever vote for mr. mccarthy. the other is based upon pure and simple negotiating skills and tactics and agreements. i would think that it's still -- it doesn't answer the full question. they have to come back tomorrow and figure out what that is. >> congressman sessions, republican of the great state of texas, thank you for joining us. >> you bet. >> appreciate it. jamie, i have been talking to this republican congressman. i would hardly say that i heard anything from congressman sessions that makes me think this other republican congressman is wrong, that there was talk of a mccarthy supporter, a tepid, but a supporter bringing steve scalise's name. one of the reasons mccarthy wants to adjourn right now is they want to squash this effort. it sounds like you are hearing the same. >> exactly. what you heard from congressman sessions there was a very carefully worded but nuanced yes. >> yeah. >> the important thing is, they are moving forward with scalise. it's being floated more and more. i was told the reason that they were coming back at 8:00 tonight, that kevin mccarthy originally wanted to adjourn until tomorrow and that between the democrats and the 20 rebels, those votes weren't there. they wanted to keep the pressure up. that's why we're back at 8:00 now. kevin still wants more time to get there. i'm hearing that -- he keeps saying there's progress. but there's no deal. that says it all. sessions said five, six or seven. >> that's the thing. >> we have been doing the math. >> he can only afford to lose four. i said there are five. sessions upped it to seven who are never going to vote for kevin mccarthy. >> if you look at the list, it makes complete sense. >> look, obviously, if steve scalise is going to end up as the next speaker -- that's a big if. but if that's going to happen, he can't do it in a way that's seen by kevin mccarthy supporters as stabbing him in the back or the front. he needs to let it come to him in a way. >> yeah. so far, i think if that's his plan, his plan has been working fine. >> yep. >> he has always had to appear like he has been loyal. so far, he appeared like he has been loyal. he hasn't floated any trial balloons or anything like that that we can discern. his only way to the speakership is for kevin mccarthy's bid for the speakership to implode. if you are steve scalise, it's not looking bad for that plan. there's nothing wrong with that. right? they have apparently a testy but good relationship. he said, i'm going to support you until the end, until it's your call to bail out. if he bails out, then i think scalise has always been the obvious alternative. >> right. former congressman dent said -- i don't know if it was yesterday or a week ago. i don't remember when it was. let's assume it was yesterday. he thought theoretically it was going to end up with scalise. the republican party is rooted in the south now. they are not in california. beyond the mistrust of kevin mccarthy and all that. geographically, it makes more sense. >> i think that is a part of this that we haven't talked about a lot. the distrust of mccarthy goes deeper beyond just his seeming d duplicitousness. he tried to move himself where the party has gone. i think that that has mostly worked for him. with this group, you know, i don't want to say they are purists, because i think a lot of them it's just about kind of giving a show of conservatism. i think it matters to them that mccarthy really did not come from deep red stock when he first got to congress. i think that's part of it. whether or not scalise is from the south -- he could be from the west. as long as i think his ideology is more deeply rooted in con sfsh conservatism. i think he's not named kevin mccarthy. if his name came up, members would vote for him because it's an easy way to get rid of mccarthy and have another candidate -- i don't think scalise is going to have an easier time. but he is more -- >> the fact -- you talk to house republicans. they really value the talking point that he was shot as a badge of credibility for scalise. >> against this idea of democratic extremism. they want to have this argument that the extremism is on both sides. that incident with scalise is huge. >> we should be careful not to poe l politicize it too much. he handled that with such grit and such grace in the aftermath. i think he earned a lot of respect from people on both sides of the aisle. >> he almost died. >> i covered that closely when it actually happened. i think -- i developed a relationship with scalise in covering him through that prism. i think there are other people who he wouldn't have necessarily built strong relationships with if he hadn't gone through that. we should consider that. i think the smart political play for scalise also is to sit and wait in the wings. if he angers mccarthy's supporters -- there are a bunch of them. they are standing by him. those are the people he would need. he needs this to happen to him. there's a lit irony in this. i doubt we have a picture of this that we can show our audience. one of the things being passed around on the internet is the cover of kevin mccarthy's book "young guns" where he stands next to paul ryan and eric canter. he was the first to fall over the immigration issue as this divide in the republican party just absolutely exploded. then paul ryan became speaker. now has become a pariah to this wing of the party. now here's kevin mccarthy was standing with them at the beginning of his career. he tried to reinvent himself. they still think that he is the guy on the cover of that book. >> just to make sure people understand, or people notice, that's kevin mccarthy there on the left side of your screen as republicans vote to adjourn until noon tomorrow. da dana bash, kevin mccarthy has gone from smylilesmiling, happy warrior, to very glum expressions on his face. >> yeah. to touch on what you were asking congressman sessions about, which is the notion of why we're seeing this motion to adjourn right now, there's no question that it is because kevin mccarthy doesn't want another embarrassing vote, because if they don't adjourn, which might happen, there will be another vote. it is also because there are -- there are movements to push somebody else. maybe it's scalise. maybe it's another potential candidate for speaker. while that is happening, we don't know how real it is, but there are talks going on behind the scenes. chip roy even, who was on with you, jake, yesterday, i believe, who is one of those holdouts is saying that they are so constructive, he might be able to get ten people to come on board. we have all become mathematicians in the last two days. that's not enough. if you have 20 and then he gets 10, you still -- he needs to convince six other people. >> yeah. >> these talks are real. the question is whether they are enough to get mccarthy over the edge. it's hard to see the math. >> it's hard to see the math. anderson? >> jake, thanks very much. the house vote to adjourn until noon tomorrow, we are waiting on that. joining us now, former pennsylvania republican congressman charlie dent and maggie haverman. do you think more time will help mccarthy? >> i think we gotta see if what jake tapper and his panel were talking about happens tonight. is the scalise play finally going to be introduced tonight? does it make any difference with those hardliners? is this an opening gambit of the scalise bid? will we see a collapse of mccarthy's vote total? he did not want this to happen tonight. we will see what happens with the adjournment, whether or not they are able to get it or not. we see where the democrats are. we see what republicans are doing. >> let's listen. there is some confusion. congressman dent, explain what's going on. >> there's a motion to adjourn. it looks like the republicans will prevail. there were four republican no votes. i think they need one more republican nay vote. if you are confused at home, i think there's many people confused on the floor of congress as well. particularly even the clerk right now. seems somewhat baffled by what is going on. see if there's more clarity. she hasn't turned her microphone on. congressman dent, is this normal? >> no, it's not. what happened is the cheief clek closed out the vote. some were upset she closed it sooner than they liked. they were hoping people would change their votes. if one more republican were to become a no vote, then 214 to 214 would be a tie. it wouldn't pass. it appears republicans are going to prevail on the motion to adjourn at 216 to 213 right now. there might be a few outstanding votes. you can see there's a few people -- five people have not voted. maybe they are waiting for those five to show up. that could be what's happening right now. i think the commotion was that the chief clerk was shutting down the roll call sooner than the democrats would have liked. that's why there's some commotion. she reopened the vote. so they're still voting, waiting for those four people, assuming they are around the capitol. >> they are having mike issues. congressman dent, how does mccarthy then convince enough of the holdouts to change their votes? >> it appears he might be making progress based on what we are hearing. he has to move more votes. >> let's listen. >> on this vote, yea are -- on this vote the yea are 216. the nay are 214. accordingly, the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon tomorrow. >> they adjourn until noon tomorrow. this begins again at noon. sorry, charlie, i interrupted you. what does the speaker do now? >> i think -- >> or want to be speaker. >> what kevin mccarthy is going to do is they will go into sessions and try to make concessions. you hear some people say that they maybe have moved a few people. they have to move a lot of people. by my count, they need 16,