. >> 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

. >> 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

if that passes, it goes to the justice department, it will be out 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 four trial. appeals could dried out for years. and steve bannon knows that. house members have also subpoenaed other former trump officials for deposition. ex panic panic on official kash patel, mark meadows, his deputy dance to be no, they were set to do to appear today and tomorrow, they've all been given short postponements by the committee. former president has related, referring to what he calls the an select committee, and said quote, they should hold themselves in criminal content. tonight, committee chairman thompson said this about whether donald trump will be subpoenaed. >> a former president trump thinks he can get away with what happened on january six, by being cute with his press releases. then, he has another thing coming. nobody is off limits to a subpoena from this committee. >> trump is facing a more immediate legal iss

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 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

questions about how attorney general merrick garland intends to handle the matter will come up when he testifies tomorrow before the house judiciary committee. in the meantime there is the ongoing biden presidency after all, democrats are working with the white house on salvaging the presidents ambitious the mystic spending plan. today he was back on the road, the simon's hometown of scranton pa, to promote what is now a slimmed down version of his proposal to expand several social programs and address climate change. biden plan to raise taxes to pay for those proposals has now meeting increased resistance from wait for, democrat it later kyrsten sinema of arizona. there was also joe manchin of west virginia. according to new report from other jones mentioned quote, told associates that he is considering leaving the democratic party if president joe biden and democrats on capitol hill do not agree to his demand to get the size of the social infrastructure bill from 3.5 trillion to 1.7 five trillion. manchin has said that if this were to happen, he would declare himself an american inde

questions about how attorney general merrick garland will testify comes up tomorrow. meantime the ongoing biden presidency after all and democrats are working with the white house on salvaging the president's domestic spending plan. today he was back on the road, this time in his hometown of scranton, pa, to promote a slimmed down version of his original proposals to expand several social programs and address climate change. he planned to raise taxes to pay for those proposals is meeting increased resistance from, wait for it, democrat senator sinema. and there's drama around joe manchin, he told associates he is considering leaving the democratic party if they do not agree to cut the infrastructure bill from $3.5 trillion to 1.75. he has said he would declare himself an american independent and he has dedised a detailed strategy for his departure and today there was a colorful response to the point. >> it's -- spelled with a b, capitol b. >> the white house did get an assist today on one aspect of its domestic policy. fda has authorized booster shots of both the j an

garland >> we >> i have a pretty high level high level of confidence in merrick garland, it's his first opportunity perhaps in his legal career or at least in the last 25 years, to act in a way that is not judicial. meaning, he can take aside and go hard at it. as opposed to having to be this even-handed judicious figure on this court. and all of the years that he was auditioning for the supreme court, and the seat that was stolen from him, which would have probably been the crowning achievement of his career. well that lens has shifted, and now he exists in now a partisan fashion but a fashion in which he can take a clear position here. and there is a clear position on all things related to january six, be it congressional subpoenas, which we're dealing in an instant case. or the overall much larger umbrella attempt to thwart democracy, in the interest of one donald j trump. so i think mayor jay garland, his personal feelings about not being on the supreme court aside here, he's gonna do the right thing. and i think that, you know, it's fairly non controversial to be passionate and pur

>> pretty high confidence in merrick garland. this is his first opportunity and perhaps his legal career in the last 25 years to act in a way that's non-judicial. he can take a side and go hard at it. well, that lens have shifted, he's in a fashion where he can take a clear position here, there is a clear position on all things related to january 6th, via congressional subpoenas which we are dealing with the instant case or the overall much larger umbrella attempt towards democracy in the interests of one donald j. trump. his personal feelings of not being on the supreme court aside here, he's not doing the right thing. i think that it's fairly non controversial to be passionate and pursue justice in light of what happened. i expect a lot out of merrick garland. >> the governor of texas continues his push to prove he loves trump the most. s push to e loves trump the most (man 1) oh, this looks like we're in a screen saver. (man 2) yeah, but we need to go higher. (man 1) higher. (man 2) definitely higher. (man 1) we're like yodeli

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

in other words, i think the justice department and merrick garland if the house votes for contempt, has to enforce it. it's not discretion, it's not nearly as discretionary as the past examples. >> if we were sitting in a law office, and you said that as senior partner, and i was the research associate, i would only say to you that you're right. but those are the only precedents we have. so explain to the viewers what you mean about why they're what we have, but they might not really rise to the stakes here. >> the key thing in any privilege is the need for the evidence. the need for the evidence is, what is the particular case about? this is the most monumental, important investigation in our lifetimes, or close to it. prior contempt decisions don't tell us too much. if i'm sitting in the attorney general's seat, i have to think, yes, the public has a right to this evidence. the justice department has a right to get this evidence. someone who is stonewalling and acting like a guilty organized crime member is not someone who, you know, deserves any benefit of the doubt. so he has to com

the question is merrick garland, who in some cases has been a reticent -- he's been anti-bill bar and that means a lot but in terms of vindicating the rule of law with regard to january 6th and the rule of law with regard to whether or not congressional subpoenas are going to be optional, you want someone, i think, who is going to be a bit more of a bulldog and we'll see if he steps up. >> yeah, and let's take a little listen to how bannon is playing this today on his war room podcast. take a look. >> what actions, it's going to be actions that convince the deplore abls their votes are going to count. so what actions are they taking to make sure this is going to count. everybody says your vote counts. seth has made a name for himself going around the country. >> he almost see the tension there, michelle, of someone who is discussing voter turnout and republicans and firing up the base, which is standard and both parties do that, but against the backdrop of constantly having to echo trump's claims that everything is stolen. >> it tells us so much that youngkin goes on steve bannon's sh

this will certainly be one of the first big tests that we know about of attorney general merrick garland ho referred to this process which is a criminal referral without tipping his hand. >> the department recognized the important over sight rule that this committee and house of representatives and the senate play with respect to the executive branch. >> everyone should have the ability to vote as readily and easily as possible. the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances. we'll apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> i'm joining now by melissa murray and emily bazelon. and professor, the attorney general there was measured and vague as fits his position. contrast that to what we heard on the house floor in this big vote today. take a listen. >> we need to give the american people answers about what happened. there needs to be swift accountability. >> congress is prohibited from conducting criminal investigations, period. but that is exactly what this select committee is doing. >> i have no doubt th

they are accusing attorney general merrick garland of using the f.b.i. to intimidate parents and demand the d.o.j. immediately stop targeting so-called threats to school officials. indiana attorney general is leading the effort. he says the federal government must back off. >> this is crazy. parents will win the day. they are trying to divide the family, brian, so the state can come in and run our lives and grow our kids. you can talk at a school board meeting. you cannot commit violence or trespass but there are laws for that, brian. you don't need the d.o.j. involved in this matter at all. we'll stand up for the parents of this country. >> harris: so why would the federal government want to step in so heavy handedly when we have law enforcement, at least for a while. the vaccine mandates are complicated. we'll get to that later in the show. >> it is intimidation pure and simple. the heavy hand of federal government. they don't want to hear from parents. you see this playing out in virginia. terry mccauliffe says it out loud. parents have no say. they b

garland get pretty testy at times. everything from whether or not republicans could show and in particular congressman jim jordan could show a video supporting the questions that they are asking the a.g. about parents being targeted by the f.b.i. specifically about those things and they were denied based on what chairman nadler of the house judiciary committee said was a point of rule there. someone objected and they went on. the back and forth got chippy for a bit. and then just moments ago, we saw something else and they are taking a break now and while they do we'll step in with "the faulkner focus". i'm hair use -- harris "the faulkner focus". a moment ago you saw the a.g. pressed on what may seem to be naked eye a conflict of interest for him to talk at all about going after parents and leveraging the f.b.i. to do that over issues that parents may have on what is being taught inside their children's's classroom. critical race theory. i believe we have a little bit of that. i will ask my team for that. >> given the

merrick garland gets schooled. mr. garland provided no evidence to suggest an escalation in the violence against school boards and no explanation for why such facts, even if criminal, are federal offenses. republicans hit garland on any coordination there might be between the d.o.j. and white house before sending out that controversial memo targeting parents at school board meetings. here is how he answered. >> has the white house told you to white the memo? >> no one spoke to me about the memo at all. i'm sure i -- at least i certainly would believe that the white house communicated its concerns about the letter to the justice department and that is -- >> my next question, did you or anyone at the justice department discuss the memo with white house personnel or with anyone at the white house before the memo was sent? >> i did not. >> harris: okay. let's add this into it. new emails show the white house collaborated with the national school board association on that very letter it sent to the d.o.j. that prompted the

it's going in the hands of the rich and the few, including merrick garland's son-in-law. that's where it's going. but these are parents -- the organization called parents defending education. watch nomani. she used to write for "the wall street journal." she is fired up. they're behind the freedom of information act request. it will come pouring out. finally parents across the country regardless of their race will take back the education of their kids from the unions and the woke consultants. >> make one more point, i'd also like to blame cnn besides barack obama for this. because guess what, cnn didn't report this loudoun county rape scandal. msnbc didn't report it. clueless about a major development in the crux of this case to label them domestic terrorists because the main stream media didn't cover that story because it didn't fit the narrative. >> they didn't do it perfect. >> put it on the doj. >> they didn't brief him on purpose. >> exactly. >> i didn't racialize this at all. race has nothing to do with this for me. two, the way you impact your school board is you e

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

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

. >> laura: merrick garland is focusing on the january 6th grandma and grandpa's commode to make sure they stay in whatever type of confinement they are in. they gave you in the explicit instructions on how churchgoers could actually vote. watch this. >> early voting has only started. the first year that you can vote on sunday. please, vote after today's surface. if you cannot vote today, please make a plan to go vote. go to iwillvote.com. >> laura: professor, this is called pushing folks to a specific website? that brings more problems to them if we had a justice department or the irs arm that was going to do something. >> it's an extraordinary video because the white house can argue that we just made the video. the violators are the churchgoers who decided to play them. but that doesn't work when the video is referencing churches and their services. those directly from church to vote. the question here, did the white house knowingly create a video to violate federal law? clearly, they are not the ones who have a tax-exempt status. but there is a serious problem if you're encouraging

. >> merrick garland is focusing on january 6th, making sure they stay in confinement. they give explicit instructions on how churchgoers could vote. watch this. >> early voting has started, this is the first year you can vote on sunday so please vote after today's service and if you cannot vote today make a plan to go vote. goes whywillvote.com. will: this is called the soul for the polls, pushing folks with specific website. does that bring more problems to them if we had a justice department or an irs prosecutorial arm that was going to do something? >> an extraordinary video. the white house could argue we made the video, the violators are the churches who decided to play them but that doesn't work when the video is referencing churches and their services, directory from church to vote so the question is did the white house knowingly create a video to violate federal law? they are not the ones that will lose their tax-exempt status. it the the churches if this was a fully enforced but there's a serious problem if you are encouraging violation. what is interesting is

it's pathetic. >> laura: merrick garland today denies that. he said we don't consider parents were angry at school board meetings to be domestic terrorists. they know this is hurting them but they dipped into the white supremacist rhetoric and kept beating that drum today. also decided to use the event today to go back to the well of questioning the integrity of our elections. >> this struggle is no longer just about who gets to vote but making it easier for eligible people to vote. it's about who gets to count the votes, if they get count at all. jim crow and the 21st century is now a sinister combination of voter suppression and election subversion. >> laura: what is he talking about here? i thought we weren't supposed to cast out our elections. >> i think we are listening to the kind of talk you might expect in a madhouse or maybe the faculty lounge. this makes absolutely no sense. counting the vote, is there any attempt to stop people from counting a vote? no. what you really have is we have a country flooded by illegals, we know from the

attorney general merrick garland was in the hot seat today, congressman craig steube caught him in some rank hypocrisy. he is your next. days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. .. it's so good to see you. you too! so really, how are you? oh well, look! that's what we're both taking right now, fanapt. you know it's really been helping me manage my schizophrenia. i used to hear these terrible voices. loser! you're such a failure. you're so embarrassing. i used to feel like everyone was staring at me. but we're doing much better now, right? yeah. fanapt is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. in clinical trials, fanapt significantly improved symptoms of schizophrenia compared to placebo. fanapt may change your heart rhythm which could elevate risk of sudden death. your doctor will consider this when deciding among treatments and may prescribe another medication first or may instruct you to take a smaller dosage of fanapt. the good thing to know, is we're not alone. call 8557 fanapt and there you hav

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

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

when i see -- in every single reply, he says merrick garland, he says the attorney general. it seems to me, that the public strategy of the committee today, publicly became, it's merrick garland time. we need the justice department to enforce, this subpoena. >> in the previous administration, this white house and this president, i have to stay out of this. this is the kind of decision the attorney general makes his own. lawrence, merrick garland is concerned about the independence of the department, he doesn't want to look like you're bringing political prosecutions, against the former administration. but he also has to be concerned about the message it would send if he does not bring a case, unless steve bannon get away with giving congress the finger. nobody likes to be pulled in front of the congress of the united states. and forced to turn over documents and it's submit to a deposition. why would anyone else show up if there are no consequences? >> and, jennifer, when we see the committee moving to this stage of criminal contempt, as quickly as they have. it's another pu

lawrence, merrick garland is probably concerned about the independence of the department. he doesn't want to look like you're bringing political prosecutions against the former administration. but he also has to be concerned about the message it would send if he does not bring a case and lets steve bannon get away with giving congress the finger. nobody likes to be hauled in front of congress of the united states and forced to turn over documents and submit to a deposition. why would anyone else show up if there are no consequences? >> jennifer, when we see the committee moving to the stage of criminal contempt as quickly as they have, it is another public declaration by the committee in effect that we know how urgent this is. we know that if we don't move immediately we can lose all of the ground here that we have and the time can run out. we heard committee members today saying that they are in some negotiations with some other witnesses but if they get the feeling that those negotiations are just a delay game, they're going to hit them with the criminal contempt also. >

., where was received at 5:30 pm today, at a house judiciary hearing, attorney general merrick garland said this. >> the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge, the department of justice will do it always doesn't such circumstances, will apply the facts and a lot to make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. joining our discussion now is congresswoman madeleine dean of pennsylvania, she is a member of the judiciary committee, and the second impeachment of donald trump. thank you very much for joining us, tonight, i want to begin with where we just ended, and that is the attorney general's comments today. it's difficult to imagine him saying anything else, under these circumstances, and yet there is more suspense tonight in washington about what this attorney general will decide, and there has been a long time. >> and yet, lawrence, thank you number one for having me tonight, it's a pleasure to be with you, i was in that hearing room today with attorney general merrick garland, and if you flashback to the last administration and how difficul

i was in that hearing room today with attorney general merrick garland, and if you flash back, sadly, to the last administration and how difficult it was to have then attorney general barr come before us, it was refreshing that we had merrick garland there and that he so thoughtfully said they will follow the evidence and the law and where it guides us. a very refreshing, it shouldn't need to be refreshing but a very refreshing moment today. i was proud of that moment. >> is there any response from the justice department that you could accept that was something other than the prosecution of steve bannon? >> oh, i'm -- number one, i'm so pleased with our committee and moving so swiftly, and making sure that we brought the vote to the floor of the house tonight and made sure that the referral was made to the department of justice. so yes, we saw in the last administration -- under the last administration a dragging of feet, a department of justice that was wetted to the trump administration in a very perverse way. we are still going to learn more about. so today was a really good day, i

and attorney general merrick garland, the leader of the justice department, he today was tight-lipped about what to expect about that process. he told a congressional committee where he was testifying today basically that the department will handle this, like he says they handle everything. they will handle this by the book, no fear, no favor. >> i will say what the spokesperson for the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia said yesterday or the day before. the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge. the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> we will apply the facts and the law, make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. in other words, i'm not going to tell what you we're doing. we are just going to do it on our own times, we don't take advice from anybody, so you can leave me alone about it. which is, honestly, the right way to answer those kinds of questions. and you know, stepping back fr

attorney general merrick garland, the leader of the justice department today was tightlipped about what to expect about that process he said the department will handle this like he says they handle everything. they will handle this by the, book no fear in our favor. >> i will say what's spokesperson for the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia said, yesterday, the day before, house of representatives votes for a referral of a contempt charge the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, we'll apply the facts and law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> we will apply the facts and law, make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. in other words, are not going to tell you what we are doing. we are going to do it on our own terms, we don't take advice from anybody. you could leave me alone about it. which is, honestly, the right way to answer those kinds of questions. you know, stepping back from this, in terms of the news worthiness of what is going on here and all this drama in washington. ste

do something, merrick garland. i would like to be wrong. i would like to be wrong this time, but i'm worried. daniel goldman, thank you very much. >>> up next on "the reidout," the gospel of donald trump is built around one grievance that he cannot accept that he lost and his feelings are hurt. >>> plus, a reidout, joining me in his first national television interview since launching his campaign for governor. >>> plus, the high price that a black maryland school superintendent paid for simply stating that racism exists and black lives matter. that superintendent dr. andrea cane joins me. and tonight's absolute worst, taking a stand for something isn't courageous, it's indulgent, and probably deadly for some of the people who look up to you. "the reidout" after this. ♪darling, i, i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪girl, i don't know, i don't know,♪ ♪i don't know why i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪oh no, babe girl, if i could only make you see♪ ♪and make you understand♪ get a dozen double crunch shrimp for $1

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

merrick garland isn't an aggressive man when it comes to holding donald trump or any of the people involved in what amounts to threats of violence against our citizenry, against members of congress and our democracy. he hasn't exactly been aggressive. should congress take it upon themselves and throw steve bannon in the jail under the capitol? >> we should pass legislation that would put in place inherent contempt. i'm an original sponsor of it. that's one way to do this. without the senate, you know, on board to also assist us in giving us that leverage, we should encourage merrick garland to treat donald trump no better but no worse than any other person who would be evaluated by the department of justice. he'll testify on thursday to the judiciary committee and that's one of the questions we'll have. will you agree that he should be treated no better, no worse and not just sweep this under the rug because for the sake of moving on, we would be better off. we're not better off if we don't recognize that he took a wrecking ball to every institution we value in this country and if he broke

and for his part, attorney general merrick garland is not showing his hand. in hearing today, he gave no indication of whether the justice department would bring charges against bannon, saying they will make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. joining me now is congressman bennie thompson of mississippi, the chairman of the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. mr. chairman, thank you for coming back. i really appreciate you being here again. and i want to get your reaction to the claim by the house minority leader kevin mccarthy that the subpoenas issued by your bipartisan committee are invalid. >> well, he is dead wrong. but that's not consistent with the law. clearly, we have, as you know, the authority as a duly constituted committee to issue subpoenas. we're doing that. we're doing our work. and he knows it, but, you know, he has to do the talking points. we are clear. we're on firm ground, and we look forward to the attorney general doing his job. >> there were two members of the republican side

merrick garland agreeing to have the fbi investigate. so that's the context that is coming in. you know what is hurting in this tight race, you know, terry mcauliffe has a lead in most of the polls i've seen. it's very small. it's within the margin of error. but less not behaving like a person in the lead. he's behaving like a person that knows he's taken a big hit that might prove fatal. >> martha: he was asked about the budget deal and the sort of larger, you know, net, social net that it represents. he said oh, we have to get this deal passed. and then he looked who is coming in. you have jill biden and former president obama coming in. it's going to be an interesting thing to see the suburban voters that voted for former president trump and joe biden how they vote in two weeks. >> you put your finger on the issue. what makes this schools issues so interesting is that democrats typically have an advantage own education among the public, especially among suburban voters. a lot of the suburbanites showing up are democrats or at least they're not the typical trump supporters. t

it's all over the top. >> martha: so if you're the attorney general, if you're merrick garland and asked to look into this, wouldn't you hesitate to go that route if you didn't have specific examples that merited some sort of coordination, some sort of potential effort to hurt these school board members or to truly threaten them. wouldn't you want that evidence? >> yeah, what general garland should have said, we have seen no evidence of domestic terrorism. so to use the patriot act is unfounded. he could say any types of threats made against school board members can be addressed on the local level and if there's any intrastate elements, the department of justice will get involved. there's ample laws protecting school board members from outbursts. >> martha: if anybody is being threatened, they should be put in place. if it crosses border, it's a different issue. the evidence is not there at this point. thanks, jonathan. jonathan turley. >> thanks, martha. >> martha: that's "the story" for this wednesday. tonight bret baier anchors live from the port of los angeles where over 100 containe

merrick garland says he will apply facts. chad pergram is watching that and all of the movement going on to try to get towards a reconciliation bill on the hill as well. update us, chad. >> good afternoon, martha. steve bannon rejected a subpoena by the 1-6 committee. he claimed executive privilege even though he was long gone from the white house. house gop leaders oppose wheeling in bannon. >> they're issuing an invalid subpoena. issuing that weakens our power. he has a right to go to the court to see if he has executive privilege or not. i don't know if he does or not, but neither does the committee. >> when the gop controlled the house, it held irs figure lois learner contempt of congress and eric holder. nancy pelosi said the gop should hold bannon in contempt. >> the genius of our constitution and:0 our founders was the separation of power, checks and balances. if in fact you went to negate the ability of one check of another branch of government over another, your undermining the constitution. >> the vote on the bannon

merrick garland when he testified before congress. he didn't know that congress had sent him a letter raising concerns about hunter biden's art sale. that was news to the a.g. >> i just received the letter today and we'll take it under advisement. i wasn't aware that you sent me a letter. >> tech: when you get a chip in your windshield... trust safelite. this couple was headed to the farmers market... when they got a chip. they drove to safelite for a same-day repair. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech: that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ hi i'm joe montana. when you get to be 65, you have little patience for nonsense and inefficiency. you know what works and you become a pro at pretty much everything. ♪ ♪ that's why when i qualified for medicare, i went with wellcare. ♪ ♪ with no cost or low monthly premium plans, and no primary care or prescription copays. they're pros at helping you keep more money in your pocket. ♪ ♪ yeah! o

that was a letter they sent to merrick garland that caused him to refer to parents as domestic terrorists and then sic the fbi after these parents at school board meetings. the worst part of all of it is they covered up. they covered up because when they had a meeting to determine whether they would support this transgender policy, crt, vaccines, mask, the superintendent says there are no records of sexual assault that i know of in this school. meanwhile, there was one within a month before. and then he turns to a red herring and he says "time" magazine says this is all ridiculous anyway. the father at that point is like ballistic. his daughter has been forcibly raped and sodomized and he disagrees and the police come after him. you have got the right to assemble, the right to address grievances. first amendment. none of that is working in loudoun county or anywhere in the united states now. >> tucker: i have noticed. they are putting too much pressure on this country. something is going to happen. really bad. judge jeanine, i appreciate your analysis.. great to see you. john gruden was a

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 marky my words, you are goig to see more of it. as the policy failures rack up. >> 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 -- as you begin to see 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 a

here's how merrick garland responded. >> did you seek guidance as required? >> this memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence. >> excuse me, did you seek ethics counsel before you issued a letter that directly relates to the financial interests of your family, yes or no? >> this memorandum does not relate to the financial interests of anyone. it is against -- >> i take that as a no. mr. attorney general, will you commit to having the ethics t committee review the case and make the results public? >> this memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence -- >> ihi understand you're talking point. you're not answering my question. >> tucker: what a repulsive little sleaze ballpo that guy i. he sicced the fbi on people who criticized his family's business. he sicced to the fbi on people who criticized his family business, that is what he did. and he won't even admit it. asra nomani is with the group parents defending education, the group has released a woke consultant report card saying panoramic education received millions of dollars. give u

biden selected merrick garland as attorney general specifically because he's the kind of person who would want to issue statements like this. he selected garland with the specific goal of bringing in someone who was not a long-time political ally and who would be committed to restoring this gap of separation between the white house and the justice department so that americans can be confident that the criminal justice system is not operating as an arm of the republican national committee or the democratic national committee, which was a concern that people had under the trump administration. and the interesting piece about this is to the extent that you see that tension and sometimes little bit of friction between doj and white house to that extent, doj's independence is being restored. if it's not uncomfortable, it's not happening. >> that's a good way to put it, betsy. thanks for your great writing. betsy woodruff swan is a national correspondent for politico and msnbc contributor. >>> joining me now is mondair jones of new york. he serves on the judiciary and ethics committee and the d

garland testifies before the house judiciary committee or the routine hearing on the oversight department of justice. he'll very likely be asked how he's going to handle some of these cases. you know, he might actually get some greater insight into how this could all pay out. >> it's certainly a busy time right now over on capitol hill. you're also following, of course, all negotiations within the democratic party with the bipartisan sfrur deal and an attempt to get a deal on the larger reconciliation package. it seems like there's been a sense of optimism the last couple of days, but also there's a lot of stuff that needs to get sorted outst. tell us where we stand? >> on tuesday there were meetings. and in these meetings, according to sources in our room, he delivered these assessments of what could go and what could stay necessarily in their social spending package, and this is leading to a bit of heartburn among democrats about things they have to let go. you have the longer extension of the child tax credit or free community college, but emerging from all this and after meetings the

attorney general merrick garland was noncommital when testifying before the house judiciary committee yesterday. >> the department recognizes the important oversight role that this committee, the house of representatives, and the senate play with respect to the executive branch. the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge. the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principals of prosecution. >>> joining us now, reporter. what sort of backlash will they face within the gop? >> i mean, absolutely these republicans knew when they took that vote, they're facing possibly becoming political pariah in their party. they voted against the majority whip, the majority party. they've seen this before. congresswoman liz cheney was on the select committee when she voted against -- i'm sorry. when she voted for the impeachment of the january 6 select committee and continued to speak out against donald trump, she was stripped of her leadership position with the blessing