the bannon issue now goes to the justice department, headed by attorney general merrick garland. before today's vote, garland opted not to tip his hand to whether the department will ultimately prosecute him. >> we will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. judy: the department is already in the middle of prosecuting hundreds of defendants facing criminal charges of their own, stemming from january striate. -- stemming from january's riot. now, for a deeper look, i am joined by josh gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for politico. thank you so much for joining us. tell us, how ordinary is it for someone to say that -- for congress to say that someone is contempt of committee. >> we seen a number of citations, former attorney general eric holder was cited, what is really unusual here is to have a criminal referral that the justice department may seriously look at. it has been about 40-45 years since the justice department has brought a case under this particular criminal contempt of congress statute. judy: so remind us,

>> 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

garland must then decide if a case will be presented to a grand jury. >>> president biden will take his economic pitch before the nation today he will answer questions directly about his massive spending plan at a cnn town haln in baltimore back on capitol hill he's scaling back some of his key proposals to win support within his own party. here is mike memoli. >> reporter: in 2018, candidate bind came to the scrantop area to layout his build back better economy. as agenda as president he came back to push it over the finish line wednesday was the first time he returned to his hometown since taking office in january he says this northeast pennsylvania town was home not because of the memories, but because of the values he learned here this stop was an effort to turn the focus away from washington and his plans nearly $2 trillion price tag to instead focus on the benefits this would bring for the middle class he said america's global competitiveness in child care and green energy initiatives, in road, railways, and bridges would help put america's economy back on track. biden will co

live now to the house judiciary committee for testimony by attorney general merrick garland. this is live coverage here on c-span3. >> i'm going to countdown to start, four, three, two, one. you can begin. >>> house committee on judiciary will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. welcome everyone to this morning's hearing and oversight of the department of justice. before we begin i would like to remind members we have established an e-mail address and distribution list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions or other materials members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. fuld like to submit materials please distribute them and we'll circulate them to members and staff as quickly as we can.if y materials please distribute them and we'll circulate them to members and staff as quickly as we can. also face conversation are required for all meetings in enclosed space such as committee hearings except when you are recognized to speak. i will now recognize myself in opening statement. good morning

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, he has launched this partisan lawsuit against georgia and its voting rights. he has this letter out about parents going to school boards. now up the president making this comment. all it does is undermine what little bit of trust had been rebuilt but perhaps this department is going to operate separate and above politics and with its eye, instead, on justice and the law. >> bret: yeah. brit, a little bit of an audible here just in the past few minutes a meeting on capitol hill between senators sanders and manchin and over the weekend. senator sanders wrote an op-ed in west virginia newspaper going after senator manchin for failing to support what he called the human infrastructure bill. what was originally billed as 3.5 trillion and now obviously is getting scaled back. they had a good talk. both of the gentlemen say. but it doesn't seem like this is moving forward, brit. >> it does not. so far, but one has to believe that in the end after all manchin has said he would favor a spending bill a social spending bill just not one as big as the staggering 3.5 trill

merrick garland is unlikely to kick that rock over? >> i think the attorney general is in a difficult position, because on one hand, what he's really trying to do with his willingness to serve at this time is to restore the norms of the justice department, to return to regular order, to insulate the department from political influence. on the other hand, we had an insurrection at the u.s. capitol on january 6, as everyone here knows. and so the justice department is conducting a robust investigation of hundreds of pe people who have been prosecuted in that case who participated in that event. the piece that is missing and the piece that the january 6 committee is trying to address is the planning of it. critical advisors were involved in conspireing and potentially planning and involved in that. i don't think we know the answer yet as to whether the justice department is pursuing those types of investigations and charges. >> it's also an important question for the future, right, because those same advisors and trump himself as well are

garland could intervene if he wants to. historically, most people don't actually go to trial after their cases are referred to doj. even if steve bannon is ultimately charged here, any prosecution could take a while and he could obviously appeal. so there is a long road ahead here. >> laura, separate from this, very connected, former president trump sued the january 6th committee and national archives to try to keep the records from his presidency a secret. these records that they have specifically requested. what is going on here? >> right. this fight is all about what the former president was doing and saying leading up to the riot on january 6th. the problem for him is he isn't president anymore and doesn't have the records he wants to keep secret. they live in the national archives. the man who is president, president biden, is standing by his decision not to assert executive privilege over these materials. in a new statement late last night, more forceful in tone, trump's actions are called a unique and existential thr

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

merrick garland in the hot seat on capitol hill thursday. republicans on the house judiciary committee peppering the ag over his recent memo focusing on parents and students over their conduct and comments at school board meetings and beyond. the attorney general said he defends the right to free speech and that the parents are not domestic terrorists but that issue and others made for heated moments in that hearing. rick has a story for us. speak out and two and a half weeks after warning of an increase in threats of violence against school administrators, attorney general merrick garland appeared before the house judiciary committee defending department of justice against criticism that the government is unfairly targeting parents. >> when did you first review the data showing the soap called disturbing uptake? >> i read the letter and we've been seeing over time -- >> i didn't asked -- you read the letter. that is your source? >> that letter is a september 30th plea from the national school boards association to president biden. to "inves

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

here's how merrick garland responded. >> did you see 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 committee review the case and make the results public? >> this memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence -- >> i understand you're talking point. you're not answering my question. >> tucker: what a repulsive little sleaze ball that guy is. he six the fbi on people who criticized his family's business. he six to the fbi on people who criticized his family business, that is what he did. and he won't even admit it. with the group parents defending education, the group has released a woke consultant report card saying panoramic education received millions of dollars. give us a sense of what this com

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, 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

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

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

attorney general merrick garland testified today and giving to hint as to what he will decide to do. joining us now is joyce vance. if the house refers to bannon has is respected with all republicans going against, is the attorney general going to go ahead and charge him? what do you think the justice department will do? >> it is hard to predict what this justice department right now. what merrick garland has done is committed that doj will use the same principals of federal prosecution that they have used to decide in any other situation whether or not there should be an indictment. whether or not that is evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. if it the prost kus is a matter of national interest, and and i suppose it is possible that he could, the civil remedy is sufficient. in a case like this where there is just a raw effort for the oversight abilities, this would be the case. >>. >> what about the prosecution? is it contempt? >> thee ratically congress can file a lawsuit and we saw them do that with don mcgann and it was 750 days from the time he was subpoenaed to when he a

earlier merrick garland was asked about what he would do >> we will do what we always do, apply the facts and law and make a decision >> bannon's prosecution could send a message to the other former trump aides also subpoenaed by the committee. we have full analysis. ali? >> a near party line vote, what we expected. but nine republicans broke with the party sending it over to the justice department among those nine faces your viewers may know well. seven voted to impeach donald trump for the role they say he played in the january 6 insurrection one of those said although she didn't vote previously, she did vote to bolster the subpoena for when and if the republicans retake the house, she wants them to have that advantage as well r representative banks >> the committee is engaged in a sham investigation conducted by a sham committee >> and if we are tracking people who did and didn't vote here, it's notable former vice president mike pence's brother, greg pence, did not vote at all. but now a look at what comes next this will land at the steps of the justice department it is said they shou

so congress doesn't actually have a ton of power, and we don't know what merrick garland is going to do. he wants to aid the investigation. but at the same time the administration wants to show that the doj is independent. so we don't know, and even if they do decide to pursue criminal charges, it's going to wind up in a lengthy court battle. so it could take years to resolve. the truth is the committee doesn't have that type of time. the house could flip to republicans next year, and then this whole select committee would go away. >> having lived through the two impeachment investigations, specifically the first investigation where i feel like the former president's lawyers figured out that you could basically destroy the investigation by just saying no to absolutely everything. is this going to be the same situation where everybody's waiting for three years to see anything about anything? and by that point everybody's moved on. >> i think it very well could be, which is not only, it's a shame mostly because the american people deserve to sfaknow what happened on january 6th, the fu

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

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

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

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

. >> 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

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

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

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

youne know, garland, merrick garland wouldn't fess up at his hearing, he was completely duplicitous. but basically, it was the white house driving this story. parents, domestic terrorists. >> it's shocking, larry s and hi organization has called for an inspector jenin dependent investigation -- general independent investigation into the collusion between the department of justice, the white house and outside groups that are in favor of critical race theory in order to brand these parents as domestic terrorists and to use the awesome powers of federal law enforcement against everyday families. it really is something you never thought you would see in this country, and i hope everyone joins me in calling for a thorough, independent investigation. larry: that's good. that's terrific. i hope you get a lot of support on that. got another one for you. president biden doesn't have time to look at the southern border. we're going to play this sound, hang on a second. >> do you have plans to visit the southern border? >> i've been there before. i haven't had a whole hell of a lot of time to g

"mcauliffe was also asked about merrick garland's october 4th memo addressing recent school board protest that virginia has been ground zero four. mcauliffe responded "listen, i believe the attorney general of the night states to make their decisions. i had no knowledge of it, they will make their own decisions, we want to keep our schools say." today republican candidate glenn duncan said this. >> he's losing it, he knows his race is slipping away from him. >> mcauliffe walked off after 10 minutes of an interview. >> john: a new monmouth poll came out today. 46-46. as an old colleague of mine once said, this is kick tight. >> sandra: thanks, john. this controversy has spread far beyond virginia. many other places in the nine states are dealing with this. our next guest has been looking at the study of critical race theory in her kids classrooms. as well as math mandates at her children's colorado schools. molly lamarr has three children in the cherry creek school district in denver. molly, i know you have four kids. three in school. i know you have been actively involved in the school bo

garland of trying to criminalize free speech. dueling demonstrations outside netflix headquarters on the streets of los angeles wednesday as a large group of the streaming giants employees staged a walkout in protest of a controversial comedy special from dave chapelle. end of the company's handling of complaints related to it, that's where we begin tonight's lightning round with the author of oak inc., great to see you. the ceo had been defending dave chapelle at least in the respect that we are about free speech, we aren't going to muzzle people and shut things down. that has changed a bit, here is what he said more recently. him "when i should've led within those emails and the internal discussions with humanity. he said in an interview tuesday evening, i should have recognized the fact that a group of our employees was really hurting. "he was about free speech and now he said he didn't want to hurt anybody, he has heard their requests and their concerns, where does this debate go? i haven't seen it and i think you have. >> ba

. >> 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

attorney general merrick garland said the focus will be on mortgage lending, and patterns of racist policies. it's the first such crackdown since the obama administration. and on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained 74 points to close at 35,677. the nasdaq fell 125 points. the s&p 500 slipped five. still to come on the newshour: on the border. crossings into the u.s. from mexico reach an all-time high, as an alarming new report details claims of abe by immigration officials. david brooks and jonathan capehart break down the state of play over president biden's spending bill. a cuban lens. one of the country's most celebrated avant-garde painters gets his due in the united states. and much more. >> nawaz: as we reported, beginning today, covid-19 booster shots for both moderna and johnson & johnson are available to eligible populations. the c.d.c. issued that guidance after an advisory committee unanimously approved it yesterday. the f.d.a. also authorized mixing and matching vaccines and boosters. to help viewers understand more about what they should consider, i'm join

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

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

attorney general merrick garland on capitol hill as we speak. lawmakers will grill him on everything from immigration and the border crisis to abortion laws, covid mandates and his threats against educators. i'm dana perino. bill hemmer is off today. good morning trace. >> trace: i'm trace gallagher. the nation's top law enforcement officer appearing for the first time before the house judiciary committee facing tough questions from both sides of the aisle on a long lils of hot button issues. committee member mike johnson told us earlier about some major concerns. watch this. >> millions of americans and all of us, all the republicans on this committee deeply concerned that president joe biden and attorney general merrick garland have weaponized the justice department. inserting the d.o.j. into culture war matters and using it to attack republican-led state initiatives. eroding constitutional norms along the way while they try to push these far left policies. >> trace: david spunt is live at the justice department with more. good morning. >> goo

attorney general merrick garland in the hot seat answering multiple questions from republicans about his october 4th memo that directs the federal bureau of investigation working with each united states attorney to convene meetings in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. >> i think your memo was the last straw. i think it was the catalyst for a great awakening that is just getting started. >> the memo issued five days after the national school board association wrote to president biden about the rise of threats by parents to school board officials writing these heinous actions could be the equivalent of a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes. >> not in a million years did we dream that one day we would see the justice department treat american parents as domestic terrorists. >> but garland said his memo doesn't use the words domestic terrorism or patriot act. >> i can't imagine any circumstance in which the patriot act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can i imagine a circumstance whe

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. >

>> 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

merrick garland is not going to do an inspection. he was asked if he would and he said, it was noncommittal but it looked like a note to me. >> john: because it was a local issue. if you think on the subject of his son-in-law, and he said look i welcome a review of this in the department of justice, i got nothing to hide here. how about it. murray and i, good to talk to you and thanks for your perspective on things. >> sandra: thank you miranda. let's bring in colorado congressman ken buck just questioned -- the judiciary committee and as you know the house is set to vote on the ban and contempt of congress. we do expect hearing will reconvene in the next few moments but, you just had the chance to question him, and specifically you asked about a special counsel for hunter biden. he was the exchange, listen. >> will you appoint a special counsel to investigate hunter biden? >> for the same reason i'm not able to respond to investigations of the former president or of anywhere else, i'm not able to discuss any investigations pending o

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

attorney general merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the justice department. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and the new app, the homeland security secretary will appear before the senate judiciary committee. watch this week on the c-span networks, or you can watch our full coverage on c-span now. also head to c-span.org for scheduling information and to stream video. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> now, president biden gives remarks at the 40th annual national police memorial service to honor the 491 law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty during 2019 and 2020. his remarks are just over half an hour. [applause] >> good aften.

attorney in d.c., not to merrick garland himself. take us inside the room per se. does the u.s. attorney pick up the phone and call garland, tell him i just got this referral? how does it work with a prominent and potentially thorny case? >> so technically the case goes to the relevant u.s. attorney, in this case, the u.s. d.c. attorney. i led a famously independent u.s. attorney's office, the southern district of new york, often called the sovereign district of new york. each u.s. attorney's office operates with some degree of independence from the rest of the justice department and from the attorney general. my office more maybe stridently than others. given the weight of the matter, the focus of the nation on it, i can't imagine the u.s. attorney in d.c. who i know who is an honorable prosecutor would be doing that without consulting with merrick garland. whether garland picks up the phone or the u.s. attorney picks up the phone, someone will and there will be a discussion about it. >> preet bharara, thank you. >>> president biden holding talks with both sides of the split. a

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

>> that will be up to merrick garland. if the committee follows through, and they've made very clear they intend to, then it will shift over to merrick garland to make the decision, does he charge the federal crime of contempt of congress. and a lot of people are asking that question. my question is, how can he not? when you look at the fact here, steve bannon has zero legitimate basis. he's saying executive privilege, he's saying attorney/client privilege. those things have no application to someone who is not an attorney and was not part of the executive branch. if merrick garland chooses not to charge this, where does that leave the committee, where does that leave congress, where does that leave our balance of powers, where does this leave the justice department? this is a moment of truth for merrick garland. >> we know the strategy of trump world is to delay at all costs, usually that's extending litigation. the m.o. was to sue people until they run out of resources or run out of time, they would run the clock out. is

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

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

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

merrick garland needs to make his own decision. he has lots of good reasons to rule as norm eisen says. but it's got to be the ruling of the department of justice without any undue pressure from the president of the united states. >> so, laura, steve ban's lawyer has asked the committee to delay tonight's vote for at least a week because of trump's lawsuit, right? which was filed last night. right? when trump is -- is suing to prevent, you know, 45 unknown documents from coming out from the national archives to the committee and bannon's lawyer's saying, okay, we got to wait to see how that goes. and the committee needs to wait on that before, you know, talking to bannon. the committee denied their request. so, does that -- does that change this at all in terms of do you think they'll be successful at getting more delays because of trump's lawsuit? >> the -- the committee should have denied his request because remember when you get a subpoena, you have an assertion of privilege if it's valid, you have got to prove it. but it doesn'