>> well, that's part of the decision merrick garland has to make. it if a criminal contempt case is brought, that in and of itself won't force steve bannon to testify. though it could land him in jail when he refuses to do so. but that's really the question here. will a judge quickly enough for the house to act make a determination on executive privilege and have that wind its way through the court on appeals? i don't think so. there are too many layers of court review, too many possible appeals. the other interesting wrinkle here is that trump needs an injunction. those records are going over from the national archives in november. unless there is an injunction. so kind of a flip side to what we saw on the trump administration where the stone walling actually served to not have things go to congress. this i think is going to end up being the opposite. a judge is not going to give him an injunction. it is not going t ining to wind through on time. i think it is pretty likely that those documents go over, rendering some of this moot in terms of what

attorney general merrick garland at the center of a legal and political firestorm. we'll have live team coverage next. [coins clinking in jar] ♪ you can get it if you really want it, by jimmy cliff ♪ [suitcase closing] [gusts of wind] [ding] the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now. it helps keep you effortlessly comfortable by sensing your movements and automatically responding to both of you. and, it's temperature balancing to help you stay comfortable all night. it even tracks your circadian rhythm, so you know when you're at your best. in other words, it's the most energy-building, wellness-boosting, parent-powering, proven quality night's sleep we've ever made. and now, save up to $1,000 on select sleep number 360 smart beds and adjustable bases. only for a limited time. to learn more, go to sleepnumber.com. some things are good to know. like where to find the cheapest gas in town, and which supermarket gives you the most bang for your buck. something else that's good to know? if you have medicare and medicaid, you may be able to get more healthcare be

. >>> right now attorney general merrick garland is about to answer questions from the house judiciary committee for the first time. it is expected to be a contentious hearing as lawmakers will likely press him on the enforcement of subpoenas from the january 6 committee as well as the capital riot, voting rights, migrants at the southern border and the ongoing abortion ban in texas. >> cnn justice correspondent jessica schneider is joining us live from washington. as jim pointed out, expected to get contentious. i think we're all waiting for a little bit of that. we also have a sense of what merrick garland is going to say going into this. >> the interesting thing about this, this is a standard oversight hearing. this is a chance for committee members on the judiciary committee to question the attorney general about what's happening at the department of justice. you can bet that the attorney general will do everything he can to steer it to a conversation about what the department of justice has done in his seven months at the top and what it will continue to do. in his opening stateme

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

visit indeed.com/hire >>> all eyes now on attorney general merrick garland after the house voted to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress. nine republicans voting with all 220 democrats to pass the resolution. so now it's up to the justice department to decide whether to prosecute the trump aide. >> the vast majority of republicans deciding not to enforce a subpoena from their own chamber. members of the january 6th committee believe he had significant knowledge around the planning of the capitol attack. whitney wild joins us. you look at this. there are a lot of steps here waiting for a decision from the justice department, but how about in the investigation itself? >> well, they're still moving forward. this, as i have said before, this message to bannon was also meant to be a message for anyone planning to defy the subpoenas. there's an expectation people are supposed to be handing over documents this week and next week. the assumption is those documents are rolling in. several people know many of the people who have been subpoenaed are cooperating, and by cooperating we mean actu

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