putting pressure on merrick garland. he said on our air here on cnn multiple times the reason we couldn't do this in the past is because we had bill barr in the trump doj. on the one hand, how could he not bring charges? it is a federal crime to commit contempt of congress. on the other hand, the history here is actually against charging these cases. nobody's been charged with this criminally in over 50 years and even over the last decade, doj, under both parties, has declined to bring these criminal prosecutions. the question is will merrick garland recognize that we're now in unprecedented territory and do what he has to do to impose some accountability here? >> appreciate it. thanks. >>> coming up next. william shatner's flight. more of his moving thoughts on it and some thoughts from neil degrasse tyson as well. >>> and later, new research on a different kind of booster showing the benefits of getting a covid booster if you initially got the johnson & johnson shot. why mix and match could be better ahead on "360." ab

we don't know how quickly the merrick garland justice department will be able to move on this, and in, you know -- in the past these kinds of things have been able to be handled very, very quickly. what is your expectation of a timetable at the justice department for this? >> i would expect they could move pretty quickly. look, the justice department has a rule that they will not prosecute someone for contempt of congress if they are refusing to testify because there has been a legitimate claim of executive privilege by the president of the united states. it ought to be pretty easy for the attorney general to pick up the phone, call the white house counsel and say, dana, did president biden invoke executive privilege for jeff clark or steve bannon or any of these other within witnesses and when the answer is no, as we know the answer is, it's a pretty straightforward prosecution. i think the justice department could do more, by just making it clear that if you are not the subject of an executive privilege assertion by the sitting president of the united states, not donald trump but jo

. >> that will likely be a topic for attorney general merrick garland when he testifies next week. meanwhile, the white house focused on trying to head off an economic crisis caused by supply chain disruptions. empty shelves and increased prices are a reality for so many americans. meanwhile, we may soon know more about boosters for people who received the moderna and johnson & johnson vaccines. an fda advisory committee will meet tomorrow on whether to recommend additional shots. one new study is getting attention, and deservedly so. showing j&j vaccine recipients may fare better with a second shot from a different brand. we have a doctor, a leading expert standing by to take our questions on this in a few minutes' time. but first, let's bring in our starting line on this wednesday night. yamiche alcindor, claire mccaskill, and robert costa. his latest book, "peril," is currently at the top of "the new york times" best-seller list. claire, to channel your prior experience as a prosecutor and member of congress, tell us the scope of what this committee is likely looking for from a

how long likely is it that merrick garland with approve it? >> he said the reason we don't this before in the past because we had a trump person in there. how could he not charge these cases? nobody's been charged with this criminally this over 50 years and even over the last decade, d.o.j. under both parties has declined to bring these criminal prosecutions. the question is will merrick garland do what he has do to have some responsibility here? >> coming up, william shatner and his thoughts on flights and a new kind of booster. why mix and match could be better. ahead on 360. ♪ look for the bare necessities ♪ ♪ the simple bare necessities ♪ ♪ forget about your worries and your strife ♪ ♪ the bare necessities of life will come to you ♪ all the delivery, no delivery fees. dashpass. imagine having someone else do your books for you. as your quickbooks live bookkeeper, i'll categorize expenses, reconcile accounts, and close your books. cool. - yep. know where your business stands. intuit quickbooks live bookkeeping. talking about

garland suspended federal executions to allow them to review the policies and procedures. with this case they're defending the death sentence martin richard was the youngest killed in the attack he was 8 his parents wrote an essay in 2015 asking for the death penalty to be dropped. we know that the government has its reasons for psyching the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could prolong living the worst day of our life for months. >> it has been 8 and a half years since the bombs went off and this story continues he's being held in a super max prison called the alcatraz of the rockies. >> perry russ some live in boston >>> what does it feel like, havana syndrome? american diplomats stricken with a mysterious condition are now speaking out to andrea mitchell. >> what i have is an exposure. what did the neurologists tell you about the changes in your brain? >> he said, well, it's like you aged, you know, 20, 25 years all at once. >> how is your health today? >> it's not easy to talk about our health because it's an invisible injury it's 4 1/2 year

garland, the federal formal judge leading that process which what transparency looks like if we want government to uphold the rules of law. >> shannon: sound like they're trying to stay hands off and let it proceed. >> if we want to uphold the rule of law we need to start at the border where we have hundreds of thousands of illegals coming at the border but the reality -- hunter biden is the greatest example of liberal provision the history of america and this is just another example. >> shannon: leave it there. we appreciate your time. have to leave it there and we will watch that investigation and have faith that we will be handled independently. and tw mention this, the border crisis fox news has of exclusively obtained leaked border patrol documents that show the biden administration has leaked more than 70,000 immigrants into the u.s. in the last two months alone. that includes granting parole to nearly 32,000 migrants since august 6th. a move under federal law that is only to be granted for noncitizens on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant publi

we do not know how quickly the merrick garland justice department will be able to move on this. and you know, in the past, these kinds of things have been able to be handled very quickly. what is your expectation on a timetable at the justice department for this? >> i'm expecting they can move pretty quickly. the justice department has a rule that they will not prosecute someone for contempt of congress if they are refusing to testify, because there's been a legitimate claim of executive privilege by the president of the united states. that will be pretty easy for the attorney general to pick up the phone, call the white house counsel and say, did the president, did president biden invoke executive privilege for geoff clark or steve bannon or any of these witnesses? and when the answer is no, as we know the answer. is it's a pretty straight up and down prosecution. i actually think the justice department can do more to send a signal to these witnesses, and all of the other witnesses we know, this committee and other committee want to talk to you from the trump administration, by

. >> that will more than likely be a topic for attorney general merrick garland, when he testifies before the house judiciary committee next week. meanwhile the white house focused on trying to head off an economic crisis, caused by supply chain disruptions. empty shelves escalating prices for goods, or now realities for so many americans. just ahead, we will have more on what the administration is planning to do about that. meanwhile, we may soon know more about boosters for people who received the moderna and johnson & johnson vaccines, and fda advisory committee will meet tomorrow and friday to decide whether to recommend additional shots. one new study on boosters is now getting a lot of attention, and deservedly so. research from the nih shows the j&j vaccine recipients may fare better, with a second shot of another brand. either moderna or pfizer. we have a doctor, a leading expert in fact standing by to take our questions on all of this. in just a few minutes time. but first, let's bring in our starting line show we. on this wednesday night. the white house correspondent for the pb

garland to approve it and again, how does that work? >> look, at our peril, we try to assume what people might do. the way it would work is congress will just approve making a referral to congress -- to the justice department for prosecution for criminal contempt and again, they can also file a civil suit in the federal court in washington d.c. and then it's up to the justice department to decide whether to pursue it. look, i'm certain that even if they're not talking, which they probably wouldn't be now, the justice department is at least thinking about how to proceed on this question. this is a huge public interest to at least not consider what will happen if tomorrow at 12:01 a.m. steve bannon does not show up, the justice department ought to be prepared to know how they're going to proceed. >> the select committee subpoenaed jeffrey clark. there's been a lot of reporting about his role in trump's attempts to overturn the election. tell us about him. >> jeffrey clark is the trump stooge who was installed at the trump justice departme

garland didn't even get a hearing for his nomination to the court. and they want a more balanced approach on the court with a bench not dominated by conservatives right now. the white house has said that the commission's purpose goes beyond just the number of justices, but also examines term limits and altering the court's case selections, rules and practices. cnn's joan busasked justice bre about this yesterday. >> i've seen the court over 27 years to try to explain a little bit of its history so that people understand it's always been controversial. and how difficult it is to get people to accept rules, the decisions that they are really wrong, and yet if they don't, we won't have a rule of law and it will be harder to hold us together. before people make major changes in the court, i would like them to read or otherwise understand what i've written and to think about it pretty deeply. and it is an institution. i'll just repeat this. it's an institution that, fallible though it is, over time has served this country pretty well. >> supreme court jus

garland who is sicing the fbi on parents who want to have a say in their children's education. whether you vote republican or democrat, you're not going to be happy about that. i think in the midterms this is going to come back to bite democrats and a even earlier it will bite terry mcauliffe. dagen: let me leave you with the exact quote from terry mcauliffe. i don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach. i do appreciate a politician screwing up and telling you what he really thinks. [laughter] >> exactly. that's what a scandal is. dagen: charlie, by the way, i'm going to share with the viewers a photo of you and my dad and the math teacher who changed my life later in the show. so we didn't have time to get it up. but charlie sent me a photo of him and my father and barbara bass, my high school math teacher. so it's one for the books. i'll leave it at that. >> we heard some stories that night. dagen: i am sure you did. about me. [laughter] dagen: god help us all. charlie, great to see you this morning. charlie hurt. >> great to see you. dagen: coming u

host: what do you want merrick garland to do? caller: i want him to investigate trump's actions after november 3. he called election officials in the states and told them to commit perjury. where was merrick garland? what is this man doing? absolutely nothing. how useless is this guy? guest: i am coming to a similar opinion, if the opinion is, listen, we need him to step up. i agree these are serious, potentially criminal allegations or problems. keep in mind, we have seen hundreds of regular americans who showed up on january 6 and physically stormed the capital. they are being held accountable. they are being criminally investigated. some of them are being sentenced. they are having to hire lawyers or get public defenders that are overworked. they are having to pull into their own pockets and take from their family budgets to provide criminal defenses. that is on the backend, the people that showed up. what about the people inside government? that is what the judiciary committee is looking at. i agree merrick garland should be

garland in a very difficult position because merrick garland made re clear he does in the want to get -- wade into politics and this is an extremely political moment for the justice department, an extremely political moment for someone who say former appellate judge, methodical, thoughtful. so it is a difficult question, but there is a procedure in place, and we'll see how -- to what degree merrick garland is willing to follow the procedure and that's a question mark, but it is a very real possibility. >> one thing to not get involved, but at a certain point there is a nexus of not doing your job, right, where we're going to see where that line certainly is. norm, whitney, thank you so much to both of you. >>> so today and tomorrow a panel of fda adviser will look again at covid-19 booster shots. a new study shows some people might be better off getting another vaccine than their original shot. cnn's senior medical correspondent elizabeth cohen joins us now with that. elizabeth? >> john, good morning. so these fda advisers, these are external advisers, mostly folks who are scientists

merrick garland has to stand up here and do his job, even if it may be difficult. >> what do you think the chances are that happens, elie? >> i'm split on this. on the one happened, merrick garland has not shown a lot of appetite for anything that may be politically fraught during his time here. i think he's undercharged some of the january 6th defendants. i think he's not gone high up enough in the chain. he's shown no interest in investigating anything relating to donald trump. the steve bannon case in particular is so extraordinary, his claim of executive privilege is so utterly ridiculous that you can't just let it go with no consequence. >> here's the thing, yes, the politics are messy. this is not the first time that politics have been messy or sensitive with an issue like this. but january 6th, and what happened prior and afterwards, a sitting president trying to overturn the results of an election, using multiple levers of government is inherently political. it is weaponizing politics, so is this a case, right, where you have to pursue the criminal path because otherwise there

garland a hearing after he was nominated for the high court in 2016. nomination of amy coney barrett before the 2020 election. president shrank the size of the supreme court in 1860s to undercut president andrew johnson. stuart. stuart: thank you very much for that report. next case, leaked border patrol documents show the biden administration is releasing thousands of migrants into the country. we'll talk to texas congressman chip roy on that. impact in texas. we're talking to a company called hungry. they call themselves the uber of office catering. is business booming for back to work? yes, the ceo says it is booming. we'll have that after this. as an independent financial advisor, i stand by these promises: i promise to be a careful steward of the things that matter to you most. i promise to bring you advice that fits your values. i promise our relationship will be one of trust and transparency. as a fiduciary, i promise to put your interests first, always. charles schwab is proud to support the independent financial advisors who are passionately d

garland? >> quite possibly. you would normally give the witness an opportunity to at least show up. common sense dictates, and every indication we have is that steve bannon is not going to, but it benefits congress when they go too court eventually to say they called this witness in, he chose not to comply and he is acting in violation of the subpoena. they have a few options. two big ones are, one, they can go to the justice department and seek a criminal penalty. that doesn't get you the testimony. that just punishes him for breaking the law. that's leverage they could have. they could sue him to enforce the validity of the subpoena. they're free to take those steps. you punish him in one sense but compel him to testify in another sense. we'll have to see what happens as this plays out. >> i'm curious about where this ultimately leads, right, because beyond those support players, the question is what did the former president attempt to do and can congress prove it, right? they had eight hour

garland pursues this case. if even steve bannon is convicted, that still does not guarantee that the committee will get the deposition, will get the documents that they're looking for, does it? >> no. and the way that would be enforced is steve bannon would have to decide whether to defy the court. because it's essentially getting a court order, a criminal contempt order, he would go to jail and sit in jail until he decided to testify. we saw this in the white water investigation with susan mcdougal and she wouldn't respond to ken starr's subpoena, and she served, i think, 18 months in prison for noncompliance. but the u.s. attorney would probably impanel a grand jury to make, i think, a pretty short investigation as to whether steve bannon was actually in defiance of a lawful subpoena out of the committee, and then would charge him and then there would have to be a trial. so yes, this takes some time, and as i said, i think this is -- this is a ploy to run out the clock so that it just -- there isn't any time

take us inside merrick garland's head, if you can. he would have to sign off on a prosecution. so what's the likelihood of that? >> so i think they could move very quickly. this is pretty open and shut here. there's not much to investigate. the question is whether steve bannon has defied a lawful subpoena. it is pretty clear they had. there is no lawful assertion of privilege from the president. i would expect the u.s. attorney in dc, a long time career doj official named channing phillips, very well-respected by both parties. i expect it would have to be approved by the attorney general himself. the only complicating factor is if the president has gone to court somehow and tried to assert executive privilege to try to either quash the subpoena or in some other way pursue a civil action to block the committee. that might delay the department of justice if it wanted to see how that played out. but i don't think it would have to. if they wanted to move quickly and indict bannon and force the president to try to block that or force bannon to try to block that, they would be well w

garland and rick saying what will it take to get biden to replace merrick garland at the doj and trump this group are going to get through this unscathed. and few other comments and calling and and carolina pretty. >> good morning and thought i would like to make a suggestion for questions and comments because i was an election judge and no with the laws are needed about so i want to express. and give you suggestions on c-span but anyways about the laws that the republicans are making, you don't need these laws, the trying to secure it with id, we run so many laws just for id and if there was all this voter fraud, how come nobody has been charged of. if i saw you rob a store, board million 20 other people so you never gets arrested, nobody has been arrested so people said they seem fraud are doing it so if you know it did not happen so nobody is locked up and trump was the president at the time the doj to go after anybody and they never reported there never was an first of all, in order to i say make voting we should all have paper ballots but this is my suggestion, you should go to wh

it will be up to merrick garland. paula reid, how is this process going to work? >> on tuesday they say they are going to get to work. they are going to have a meeting where they will adopt a report detailing how they tried to get bannon to comply with the subpoena and how he refused. they adopt that report, it will move to the house for a vote. if that succeeds, it will be referred to the justice department. so ultimately it's up to attorney general merrick garland if he wants to move forward with a prosecution. it's unclear how he will handle it. bannon has said he is not going to comply unless he is ordered to do so by a court and he notes the fact that the former president has directed him not to comply because he wants to raise issues of privilege. today the committee said we reject that argument in its entirety. now, if he is prosecuted and found guilty, he could be looking at a fine and even jail time. look, jake, this is not a common kind of proceeding. it rarely results in jail time p but i spoke to the lawyers, even in the trump orbit, who say jail could

merrick garland, the attorney general, has said he wants the justice department under his leadership to not be political, and i guess one of the questions i have here is how much do you perceive this as a political matter? i get that republicans, some republicans think that this committee, which is bipartisan, and it has liz cheney and adam kinzinger on it, is out on a witch hunt or whatever, but there was an insurrection. there was a violent attack on the capitol. so what are the political considerations that garland has to think about? >> well, there are, as you say, jake, there are very serious legal issues at play here. let's not kid ourselves. anything with respect to -- any decision with respect to a possible prosecution is going to become politicized. there is just no way around it. and merrick garland, i think, is going to be very careful in the decisions he makes because he doesn't want embroiled at the department of justice into a political food fight. i think he is probably going to be careful, be measured, he wants to be able to stand up to the american people at some poi

police week continues into police weekend this weekend attorney general merrick garland will honor the fallen, president joe biden will do the same saturday at the u.s. capitol. bret. >> bret: david spunt at the doj. thanks. up next, the treacherous journey through central america on the way to the u.s. southern border. we will take you there and we will hear from some migrants who survived it. first, here's what some of our fox affiliates around the country are covering tonight. fox 2 in separate cisco, where it's the first day for the city's first responders to be fully vaccinated or risk losing their jobs. the san francisco police association says 120 officers there will be on paid administrative leave. the fire department confirms 41 firefighters are in the same situation. fox 46 in charlotte as south carolina attorney alex marlow is arrested in connection to insurance settlements obtained after the death of his housekeeper in 2018. he's charged with two felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. lawyers say the housekeeper's heirs never received money after the fatal

i just see, as you noted, merrick garland is a centrist. he has a very moderate reputation. he was very centrist as a judge. he seems to be pretty centrist as an attorney general. i just don't have a lot of confidence that garland and the justice department are going to go throw the book at trump or anybody else. >> i appreciate the point you're making, and as mentioned, you have a lot of experience in the upper echelons at least in the older version of the republican party and pushing back on the trump era. eli, max, also points to the political blowback out there. prosecutors claim not to do it. some do it. james comey gave a lot of thought as to what the political perception of him would be, and as you know, that's why he's such a hero. i wanted to get the joke in. i have to get libby in. libby is a straight political reporter, so i didn't want to get the joke in on her. james comey said he thought a lot about things and how he would be perceived. i bring that up as a subject to you, libby, because we just got told by one guest what should happen, by another what will hap

host: what do you want merrick garland to do? caller: i want him to investigate trump's actions after november 3. he called election officials in the states and told them to commit perjury. where was merrick garland? what is this man doing? absolutely nothing. how useless is this guy? guest: i am coming to a similar opinion, if the opinion is, listen, we need him to step up. i agree these are serious, potentially criminal allegations or problems. keep in mind, we have seen hundreds of regular americans who showed up on january 6 and physically stormed the capital. they are being held accountable. they are being criminally investigated. some of them are being sentenced. they are having to hire lawyers or get public defenders that are overworked. they are having to pull into their own pockets and take from their family budgets to provide criminal defenses. that is on the backend, the people that showed up. what about the people inside government? that is what the judiciary committee is looking at. i agree merrick garland should be

one thing we know about merrick garland, he's a laumw man. he's not going to turn his back on this and in a clear case like this, it can move quickly and i have to ask what does bannon have to hide? why not come in and cooperate? why is trump covering all this up? why are we having this sto stonewalling that we had in the white house when he was there? they're hiding and it's not going to work. >> will any of this actually scare bannon or get them to comply? >> it's hard to know. i mean -- this is something that appeals to his demographic, his fans. >> fair. >> that he's fighting the democrats in congress and he's standing up for donald trump. this thing is going to play itself out. he does not have a president who's likely to pardon him for anything. that's a potential problem for him. i think right now he wants to run the string out on this as well. to a certain group of people he's a hero and a martyr as a result of this. you can say in a way this is fine with him. i think he knew, steve bannon knew what he was doing. >> well -- he may be

garland's domestic terrorism in the form of parents actually putting up protests to the way their kids are being taught in schools, classic example of changing the subject, and mark my words, you are going to see more of it. >> tucker: you blame the records for the failure of the potato harvest. white supremacist, no one has ever seen one, but they are everywhere. i think that is a pretty hard case to make, though in the face of increasing poverty. can you actually convince people they are getting poorer because qanon is bad? >> you have this battle on the left, tucker, not a lot of people on the right appreciate this distinction. the occupy wall street left mostly left in the stands for ten years, then you have the new woke left that has actually held the reins over power. as you begin to see economic recession and economic consequences of this country and you begin to see inflation -- gas prices go up, i think you are going to see the rise of the occupy wall street left come back, and we are on the left need to go back to arguing about economic inequality as a fault to talking about

. >> proof in the pudding is going to be whether merrick garland and the justice department get off the bench and get in the game. >> right, that's right. >> i totally agree with that. >> it will be up to doj, 100%. >> it is, which is why congress couldn't wait to get it to them. that's why they're going to have their vote. jimmy, the only reason this doesn't go bad is because the optics are bad. when you started mentioning biden, i thought you were going to say, does biden really want to make bannon a martyr? does he want to have this guy sitting out there as someone who seems he was unfairly punished? although i don't think that's true under the facts. i've got to jump. i appreciate it. ben, thank you very much. jimmy, appreciate you, thank you for not running away when your picture went out, i know you had second thoughts. no, i'm kidding. thank you very much to both. >>> we're going to keep an eye on tonight's breaking news at the top of the show. we have learned former president bill clinton was hospitalized tuesday. he's still in the hospital now. not about his heart. does not sou

it will be up to the attorney general merrick garland to decide on prosecution. those are broad strokes of the process, of course. it could be drawn out by legal challenges or other actions. could go to a full trial. appeals could draw it out for years. and steve bannon knows that. house members have also subpoenaed other former trump officials for depositions. ex-pentagon official kash patel, former chief of staff mark meadows, his deputy dan scavino, they were set to appear today and tomorrow. they've all been given short postponements by the committee. former president has weighed in, referring to what he called the unselect committee and said, "they should hold themselves in criminal contempt." tonight committee chairman thompson said this about whether donald trump would be subpoenaed. >> if former president trump thinks he can get away with what happened on january 6th by being cute with his press releases, then he has another thing coming. nobody's off limits to a subpoena from this committee. >> trump is facing a more immediate legal issue, however, in hi

obama did not have the senate the year that merrick garland was goat supposed -- was supposed to have that hearing. host: on the history of adding justices to the bench, the last president to try to add justices -- franklin roosevelt. the high court has had nine justices 1869. before that, it fluctuated between five and 10 justices. jim, pittsburgh, independent. caller: i do not support changing a system that is not broken. we need to elect an ethical president and u.s. senate members. host: who is an ethical person narrative pennsylvania who should be in congress -- person out of pennsylvania who should be in congress right now? caller: i can't name anyone. host: who was the last president you thought did a good job of obeying his oath of office. caller: i don't think any of them do in my lifetime. host: who in history with you .2 / -- who in history would you poit to? caller: george washington. old hickory, president jackson. host: this is dena, princeville, hawaii. caller: it seems to me instead of calling it packing -- what he wants to do is bring balance. host: so it is all about

ultimately the decision lies with the attorney general, merrick garland, if he wants to move forward with this. bannon has argued he will not cooperate unless ordered to do so by a judge. he says he's been directed by trump not to participate because he wants to raise issues of privilege, though it's not clear he will do that. if he is prosecuted, there is a trial, if he is found guilty, a lot of ifs, if that happens he could face a fine or jail time. this is incredibly rare, but i'm told by lawyers within the trump orbit, jail is a potential possibility here. >> the ifs, jennifer, is where i'm stuck as paula lays out really well. i have questions of how much teeth a congressional subpoena and criminal contempt has. how do you see this moving next? >> well, you know, it's interesting because bannon is the one to try this with because he has the least effective claim of executive privilege. so they're counting on the fact that doj is going to be first of all willing to proceed, period, when we really haven't seen any indication that merrick garland wants to move forward with these kin

garland to delay. >> it is my wishes for the attorney general to decide to expedite the process. we hope that the attorney general sees the importance of moving ahead with this indictment, moving ahead with locking steve bannon up. you can't conduct an insurrection on the government of the united states of america and nothing happen. he has to do his job. >> joining me now, leigh ann caldwell. and also susan page and kimberly atkins. bring us up-to-date. apparently the committee is united behind that. >> the committee is united behind this and they will meet on tuesday where they will vote and likely refer that steve ban nongets criminal contempt charges. that would then go to the house of representatives for a full vote where once again it is expected to pass. and if it does pass, then it would go to the department of justice where the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia would take up the case. now, most people expect the u.s. attorney to in fact move forward with that prosecution. that is when steve ban noncould either be acquitted, he could be found guilty. if he is acq

garland, the attorney general targeting parents at school board meetings, some on the left calling them domestic terrorists, meanwhile, there were a real terrorist gathering in the wake of the fall of afghanistan so seeing is believing, what is the truth here? >> absolutely, those are all great points and it's important to remember as you know starting next year, every week that passes, we get closer to next year's elections so every week that we get closer, more and more democrats are going to wake up and start speaking acknowledging reality which is that there is a crisis and it does cross everything. for example, joe biden just now in his remarks talked about how he wants to lower child care costs for families. everybody wants people to have lower child care pair that's not the issue. the issue is how do you get there and the credibility problem comes in if you're going to lower the cost of child care the way you lowered gas prices and the price of meat at the grocery store, no thank you. americans don't want lower prices like that, they want actual lower prices. >> anita: i want to

if we get the votes, the speaker will then transmit that document to merrick garland and he has to do his job. >> if prosecuted and convicted, bannon could face a fine and prison time. this committee is indeed working at speed. over the last month they issued subpoenas that from 19 individuals in addition to the witnesses. adam schiff did not rule out witnesses for higher profile. congressman adam schiff of the california, a member of the select committee on the january 6th attack and author of "midnight in washington how we almost lost our democracy and still could." thank you for being here. congratulations on the success of the book. let's get right to the last point. in your view, if the justice department does not fully hold accountable steve bannon to show up and honor these subpoenas that, would you agree with me there would be no hope of ever being able to obtain testimony from people like senate -- i mean, house minority leader mccarthy. >> it's very hard to see how we can get timely information if we can't enforce our own subpoenas that. this is an early test whether our dem

garland. >> he's right. he's not making a controversial statement. he's saying people who break the law should be prosecuted. don, i don't like it. he stepped up to the line and look, you and i sat here for the greater part of four years talking about a president who sort mettled in the affairs of the justice department and you tiptoe to the line. look i don't want to equate this to the conflict over the past four years. it's not the same. the president stays out and i can tell you from time when i was there, look, when you're in a joint meeting with the white house and justice department and you need to talk to the case, send the white house folks out. that's how it works. there is a we'll of separation between the two and this got close to it so they are pushing back. >> a comment, i get your point. comment and actual behavior, two different things considering the -- >> nope, nope, nope. >> the last administration. yeah. steve bannon is the poster child for this. how important is it he is held accountable,

you have the department of justice with merrick garland saying if you're a mom and you're irate about what they're teaching your kids at school -- it is awful. but you need to be aware that your government can listen to every phone call, can discover everything about you, yank you off a plane, prevent you from flying. that's not the america i want to live in and we have to push back. >> laura: senator paul, thanks for leading in this. we warned you the left would come for the founding fathers. now the radicals controlling new york city, they're coming off city councilman joe barelli. he has an answer. and disdain for our history has been embraced by walmart. chris rufo has the latest next. one of my favorite supplements is qunol turmeric. turmeric helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. unlike regular turmeric supplements qunol's superior absorption helps me get the full benefits of turmeric. the brand i trust is qunol. >> laura: the most extreme abolish america elements on the left are embolden. you can see it and feel it. they have cultural power, they have momentum. sta

and then it gets to merrick garland and he's got to make a decision about what to do. let's say he decides to go forward. that means he's got to go to the grand jury. then there has to be an arrest. there has to be an arraignment. and there will be a long discovery process. you've got to get yourself on dockets in d.c. courts. d.c. courts are really busy right now. nothing is moving very quickly. so, the idea they could rap up this investigation in the spring like they say they're going to do and have bannon's testimony by then is fantasy. they are not going to have it. he is going to stall and he is going to succeed to stall until after the midterms. if the democrats lose the house, the subpoena could be withdrawn and the whole thing is moot. we've all wasted our time. >> okay. that's a lot. doctor, some nights it feels preferable to discuss the pandemic over politics. let's go there. today the recommendation on j&j boosters was expected. it was also expected they would say or do something on brand mixing, which we kind of know anecdotally people are already doing on

what is likely to happen when some or all of this lands at the doorstep of merrick garland's doj? >> when it finally gets there, it certainly moving at a snail's pace, they're going to vote, and i read a report -- they hope to have the report on contempt before thanksgiving. i don't know why they're waiting so long. and then it gets to mayor garland, and he's got to make the decision about what to do. let's today he decides to go forward, which is what he should do. but that means it's gotta go to the grand jury, doesn't take very long. but then there has to be an arrest, there has to mean arraignments. ends, there will be a long discovery process. you've got to get yourself on dockets in the bc courts, and the d.c. courts are moving quickly right now. so the idea that they could wrap up this investigation this ring like they say they're going to do, and have bannon's testimony by then's fantasy. they're not going to, he's going to stall, and they're going to succeed to stall until after the midterms. if the democrats lose the house, we might always throughout time. >> okay, that'

and, you know, merrick garland and the attorney general does have a decision to make once this referral is brought to the department of justice as to exactly how they plan to prosecute it. do they take him into a court of law? do they arrest steve bannon? could he face jail time at some point? this isn't just a cut and dried, black and white issue, so there is some decision-making that has to take place on behalf of the department of justice. and critics -- this is not me saying it, don. critics could say perhaps the president is putting his thumb on the scale in terms of the decision-making process of the department of justice. he clearly wants to see the subpoena answered. it's just a matter of how they go about forcing that compliance. >> so what is ahead, then, this week for the select committee's investigation? should we expect more subpoenas? >> reporter: so subpoenas are always on the table. the select committee has said they're interested in people getting information from certain individuals, and they feel like they're not getting compliance, they will issue subpoenas. we don't

garland saying if you are a mom, angry about what they are teaching your kids at school or mandating them to be vaccinated. of your irate and upset and raise your voice you might be a domestic terrorist. former president george bush comparing moms at these rallies and school board meetings to domestic terrorists. it is awful but you need to be aware your government can listen to every phone call, discover everything about you, yank you off a plane, prevent you flying and that is not the america i to live in and we need to push back. laura: thank you for leading on this again and we want you that the left was going to come for the founding fathers, now the radicals controlling new york city are coming after thomas jefferson. city councilman joe marelli has an answer to that plus disdain for our history has been embraced by walmart, details on the latest investigation next. .. it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the las

merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the justice department. at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and the new c-span that -- now at. an appearance before the senate judiciary committee. watch next week on the c-span network, or watch on c-span now, our new video app. head on over to c-span.org for scheduling information or stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> a new mobile video app -- c-span now. download today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and we want to know what your top new story of the week was. are there particular topics that were in the mainstream media that you want to talk about or is there something else going on that you think americans need to know about? call in and let us know what your top new story of the week wise. here are some stories that did come out this week that you may want to talk about. first of all, there is a supply chain disruption that happened and will happen in the future around the united states. the inflation concern

eastern on c-span3, the attorney general merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the justice department. 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and on the new c-span now app, homeland security secretary appearing before the senate judiciary committee. watch next week on the c-span network. or you can watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand, anytime. c-an

eastern on c-span3, the attorney general merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the justice department. 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and on the new c-span now app, homeland security secretary appearing before the senate judiciary committee. watch next week on the c-span network. or you can watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> a new mobile video app from c-span. c-span now, download today. >> washington journal continues. back and we want to know what your top new story of the week was. are there particular topics that were in the mainstream media that you want to talk about or is there something else going on that you think americans need to know about? call in and let us know what your top new story of the week wise. here are some stories that did come out this week that you may want to talk about. first of all, there is a supply chain disruption that happened a

. >> looking ahead to attorney general merrick garland who is set to appear before one of your committees, the house judiciary committee for the first time on thursday, with the topics ranging from january 6th to texas abortion law and the assaults on voting rights, what do you want to ask the attorney general? >> so that is a great question, alex. a lot also depends on what the people before me ask the attorney general. >> good point. >> so i do have a thousand questions i would like to ask merrick garland, so it will depends on what is asked before it gets to me. >> i would suggest, though, those topics are among those consideration, those three that i rattled off? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay, what about "politico," which is predicting a tense and contentious hearing especially with republicans likely to dig in on the hot button issues like the ones around vaccine mandates and crime in major cities. are you preparing for gop fireworks? something you've certainly seen before. >> i'm prepared that radical republicans are going to continue to be extreme and say dangerous things. for exampl

if you think back to when mitch mcconnell said that merrick garland couldn't be appointed to the supreme court because it wasn't fair to appoint him in the same year that the president was going to be leaving office, and then, of course, he turned around a few years later, after lecturing america and pointing his finger at us and lecturing on the virtues of when scotus's should be appointed and then turned around and put amy coney barrett in within 60 days. if we don't reform the filibuster, we need to do 50 votes just for this, because what's happening right now, redistricting across the country, how black and brown communities are being trampled over and how in states like texas, where they're debating redistricting right now, trying to tie these black and latino districts into yurl districts where there's been no growth. voting rights in this country are being set back right now and states where republican legislatures are dominating the redistricting process and you've already seen these egregious anti-voting bills that republicans keep throwing up and the american public's face and

it is a memo that is signed by merrick garland. it is a memo that's gone to the criminal division of the justice department, the national security division, the civil rights division, the executive office of u.s. attorneys, the federal bureau of investigation, as if this is kind of in east german [inaudible]. parents in this country, they are going to spy on you, gather intelligence on you, they are going to track you, and the organizations you belong to, and a special phone number is set up so a teacher or a bureaucrat or union or whomever thinks if you're threatening or harassing them, they will set loose the fbi to come to your home and to interview you. among other things in this memo, loose language, like they are going to look at efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. they're going to be committing to using their authority and their resources. they have a dedicated line of communication for threat reporting. there's a problem here. the federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever in the classroom