on c-span3, merrick garland testifies. you can watch online at c-span.org, or with our new video app, c-span now. >> you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in the studentcam video competition. we are asking you to create a five to six minute documentary but answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? the documentary must show supporting and opposing points of view. use c-span video clips, which are easy to find and access at c-span.org. the competition awards $100,000 in total cash prizes with a grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman david price, represents the fourth district of north carolina for his 17 term. he joins us this morning from capitol hill. good morning and welcome back to "washington journal." guest: good to be back. host: the first item on the agenda, your announcement that you would not seek reelection in 2022. tell us why not. guest: i do not have any elaborate reason

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

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

. >>> another legal issue, merrick garland is the attorney general. he's going to have a big decision to make. it may be a slam dunk for the democrats in congress to say that bannon should be prosecuted for contempt but what will the attorney general do? is it a different decision for him than it is for the politicians on the january 6th committee? and did president biden make things tougher for garland? how? we'll explain. and then we'll take up the question with a former attorney general under a republican president. what would he do? inside the exposed dentin to help repair sensitive teeth. my patients are able to have that quality of life back. i recommend sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair. trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high you know how i feel ♪ ♪ breeze drifting on by you know how i feel ♪ [man: coughing] ♪ it's a new dawn, it's a new day... ♪ no matter how you got copd it's time to make a stand. ♪ ...and i'm feelin' good ♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as

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

. >>> another legal issue, merrick garland is the attorney general. he's going to have a big decision to make. it may be a slam dunk for the democrats in congress to say that bannon should be prosecuted for contempt but what will the attorney general do? is it a different decision for him than it is for the politicians on the january 6th committee? and did president biden make things tougher for garland? how? we'll explain. and then we'll take up the question with a former attorney general under a republican president. what would he do? next. we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. tonight, i'll be eating a buffalo chicken panini. fire! nas... spare a pound? what? you know, bones, shillings, lolly? lolly? i don't have any money. you don't look broke... ♪ i'm a reporter for the new york times. if you just hold it like this. yeah. ♪ i love finding out things that other peopl

., but the decision on whether to proceed with prosecution ultimately lies with merrick garland. it's not clear which way he will go. it's also not clear if these toefr efforts to hold bannon in content are having the intent. his lawyer said at this point his client is not willing to comply. >> congress adam kinzinger, thanks as usual for joining us. why is bannon's testimony so important to your select committee you're willing to go all the way to justice department, potentially, with a criminal referral. >> all you have to do is look at the history of steve bannon with donald trump. you see his comments the day before, and there's a lot of other information out there, but i think the key is this. you know, you can't resist a subpoena from congress. congress has the same authority, in essence, as a court. you can't recyst a subpoena from court. while we hope and expect the justice department will take up the contempt, when we need it. some will not resist subpoenas to this level. it's very costly to do that, as it should be, because consequence -- this isn't the january 6th comm

this is congressman adam schiff on merrick garland's reluctance to look back yards. obviously f the d.o.j. chooses no the prosecute, bennie thompson's commitments may not hold. let me show you that. >> look, i think there is a real desire on the part of the attorney general for the most part not to look backward. do i disagree with that? i do disagree with that. and i disagree with it most vehemently when it comes to what i consider even more serious offenses. for example, a taped conversation of donald trump on the phone with brad raffensperger, the secretary of state from georgia, trying to coerce him into fraudulently finding 11,780 votes. because i think so if you or i did that, we would be under indictment by now. >> so, claire, the question is, do you believe that under merrick garland, d.o.j. will enforce these contempt votes in the house? >> it will be interesting to see, first, how quickly d.o.j. acts, and what they do, whether they pursue civil contempt or criminal contempt. if they quickly pursue criminal contempt, we have another problem. that is, there w

. >> reporter: and it's still unclear what attorney general merrick garland will do, if he receives that bannon contempt referral. the committee chairman says three other trump associates, kash patel, mark meadows and dan scavino are being somewhat cooperative. scavino's lawyer tells cnn he's not entered into negotiations with the committee and at this point, jake, he is not ready to cooperate. >> paula reid, thank you. >>> we're following breaking news out of florida right now. any moment the fbi is set to give an update on the search for brian laundrie after items belonging to him were found when cadaver dogs were called in. stay with us. ♪ you pour your heart into everything you do, which is a lot. so take care of that heart with lipton. because sippin' on unsweetened lipton can help support a healthy heart. lipton. stop chuggin'. start sippin'. sharing smiles together is a gift. at aspen dental, it's easy to gift yourself the smile you deserve. new patients, get started with a comprehensive exam and full set of x-rays with no obligation. and if you don't have insurance, it's free.

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

this is going to be pressure on merrick garland, the question of supporting criminal contempt charges which was done successfully during watergate, less successfully during the 1980s. but this is a -- you want an issue of precedent, precedent is an attempt by a sitting president of the united states to overturn an election and execute a coup. if we don't enforce the laws in this circumstance, to ensure maximum transparency, that is setting up the next insurrection attempt. >> all i'm saying is watch the supreme court. because once -- if the -- they may want to grant an injunction temporarily while they decide this. >> they may. but they have to act really quickly. it has to go up through this judge and then the court of appeals and then the supreme court. it can take a while. >> john, laura, thank you very much. >>> amazing, miraculous, both would apply after a plane ran off a runway in texas, struck a fence and went up in flames. 21 people, everyone on board survived and most did so without even so much as a scratch. cnn's rosa flores live for us at the houston executive airport. ros

if the recommendation charge willing bannon is approved, merrick garland will have to decide whether to prosecute him. joining me now is maggie haberman. good morning, maggie. >> reporter: good morning. >> i want to start with what liz cheney said. the indicates he certainly had knowledge, she said, before january 6th and was likely involved in the planning. how significant is that? >> reporter: it is certainly a significant statement. it is hard to assess. it's coming at a time obviously when they are trying to add weight to their argument as to why they should have access to records and why bannon should be held in context for defying this congressional subpoena he is refusing to comply with. it's hard to separate these things out. i think they are related. they clearly have a massed some information. >> things steve bannon has said out loud, we know he was talking about this stuff. what is your reporting on what he was doing in the days at the end of december and the beginning of january or how close he was to the president, for instance? >> reporter: we know he was speaking to th

it will then be in the hands of the attorney general merrick garland to begin the prosecution phase of this. at the end of this, it is all about the committee trying to get this information from steve bannon. they also are hoping to send a message to the other individuals they would like to cooperate with the committee. they aren't messing around. they will do whatever it takes to get that information. ryan nobles, cnn, on capitol hill. >>> well, of the 11 people the committee has subpoenaed, bannon is the only one to defy the call to testify. members of the committee explain the importance of hearing from him to reconstruct the days leading up to january the 6 and to send the message the committee intends to enforce the rule of law. take a listen to this. >> we have to hear from the people who were closest to the former president at the time of january 6th and we're familiar with his thinking and can understand as liz cheney said, things we know publicly from public statements that the president, the former president was aware of these things going on around him. and, you know, made c

merrick garland is looking at a very important, very difficult decision. will he bring charges? on the one hand, it hasn't been done in 38 years. on the other hand, how can he not? steve bannon is sort of the extreme example of defying a subpoena with no excuse. if merrick garland doesn't prosecute this, he's just completely knee-capping the committee and our balance of powers itself. our balance of powers is strong, but it is delicate. if congress shows they are ineffectual to get information about such a key event as january 6th, then where does that really leave congress with respect to the executive branch and a former president? >> listen, elie, bannon tried to claim, you know, executive privilege even though he hasn't worked in the white house since 2017. this is -- i want you to listen to what congresswoman liz cheney has to say about that. >> mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th, and this committee will get to the bot

they have proven time and again, that they are getting away with, it in the question for merrick garland, is is that with the rule of law, means to him, and i don't think it is. >> you're the lawyer that allegedly defrauding his supporters. steve bannon, he's a real -- we've got a situation to, where, look part of what's so maddening here, is. it's been true since early's stays, this is a guy skated as well. life is wiggle out of stuff. the new york times ran a 10,000 word piece basically accused him of criminal tax fraud. in black and way, another thing the new york times says lately, there's multiple criminal investigations in there's one in fulton, county there's one in the manhattan district attorney's office. he's been impeached twice. he whipped up a violent insurrection, in front of all of. us which we also. here's bannon who's been part, and saying i'm going to get away with. it the lie here is that it's super clearer is? it won't controls? you that is really the worry, two-way's report does with all, this is whether the house is essentially the power that they want to have and b

what does the attorney general merrick garland do now? >> mr. bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena. that's not acceptable. no one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful is above the law. nnectg to the environment. seeing yourself as an artist - legitimate and genuine - can be transformational. daddy! for the best audio entertainment and storytelling. audible. ♪ your new pharmacy is here. to help you compare prices, and save on your medication. amazon prime members get select meds as low as $1 a month. who knew it could be this easy? your new pharmacy is amazon pharmacy. you could spend half an hour preparing for the half hour status meeting. orrr... you could cancel the meeting and share updates in slack instead. it's where your whole team is in one place so everyone can stay up to date. slack. where the future works. ♪ ♪ peerless design, cutting-edge tech, and a world-class interior. the exhilarating mercedes-benz glc. extraordinary runs in the family. >>> we're back now with our breaking news. the

garland. and the department of justice to begin the process of prosecuting this case. it will likely go before a grand jury. and then, the process will begin from a criminal prosecution standpoint. and all of this, with the goal of trying to get steve bannon to cooperate with this committee not just to offer up his testimony but also to provide the documents and communications and information that he knows about what happened on that day. >> yeah. i mean, to see how many republicans in the house actually have the courage of liz cheney, of adam kinzinger, um, that is one thing we will be watching very closely. ryan nobles, thank you. joining us is cnn senior political commentator and former senior adviser to president obama, david axelrod. cnn chief political correspondent, dana bash. so, dana, just on a political level, how significant is this move by the committee tonight? i mean, if the former president and his allies are able to stall the investigation, obviously, in the months ahead while

if merrick garland doesn't prosecute this he is completely kneecapping the committee. and our balance of powers itself, our balance of powers is strong but it is delicate. if congress shows they're just ineffectual to get information about such a key event as january 6th, then where does that really leave congress with respect to the executive branch and a former president? >> listen, elie, bannon tried to claim, you know, executive privilege even though he hasn't worked in the white house since 2017. this is -- i want you to listen to what congresswoman liz cheney has to say about that. >> mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> they've got to prove that. how do they do it? >> yeah, it is a good and logical point by representative cheney here. i mean we know steve bannon the day before, we heard the clip earlier in your show, don, was essentially predicting and he

what does the attorney general merrick garland do now? >> mr. bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena. that's not acceptable. no one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful is above the law. - legitimate and genuine - can be transformational. daddy! for the best audio entertainment and storytelling. audible. (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 yodeling high. [yodeling] yo-de-le-he... (man 2) hey, no. uh-uh, don't do that. (man 1) we should go even higher! (man 2) yeah, let's do it. (both) woah! (man 2) i'm good. (man 1) me, too. (man 2) mm-hm. (vo) adventure has a new look. (man 1) let's go lower. (man 2) lower, that sounds good. (vo) discover more in the all-new subaru outback wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru. ♪ when you have nausea, ♪ ♪ heartburn, ingestion, upset stomach... ♪ ♪ diarrheaaaa. ♪ pepto bismol coats your stomach with fast and soothing relief. and try

the question for merrick garland is, is that what the rule of law means to him? and i don't think it is. >> you're the lawyer. i have to say allegedly, allegedly defrauding his supporters. steve bannon, you know -- >> allegedly. >> yeah. he is a real mench. i can't see him doing that. look, the law -- part of what is so maddening, right, this has been true from, the you know, the earliest days, like, this is a guy who skated his whole life. he wriggled out of stuff. "the new york times" ran a 10,000 word piece accusing him of criminal tax fraud, you know, in black and white. there is multiple criminal investigations. one in fulton county. there is one in the manhattan district attorney's office. what's been impeached twice. he whipped up a violent insurrection in front all of us which we all saw. bannon has been pardoned saying i am going to get away with it. the law isn't that super clear, or is it? what controls here? that is the worry, too? what a court does with this and whether the house has the power that they want tro have and believe they should have here

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'

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

so if merrick garland says no on bannon, forget it. game over. all these guys are going to defy and have no fear of meaningful prosecution and meaningful consequences: >> and another legal issue, what sort of legal fight do you actually expect for the select committee to get its hands on the documents from the trump white house? >> well, biden has already, you know, asserted that he's -- or not asserted executive privilege over these documents. so i think, you know, they are going to get the documents they want one way or the other. i don't think that they are going to be stopped from conducting their own investigation. the key here with bannon is that he has specific firsthand knowledge about certain things. possible foreknowledge of the january 6th attacks, which he talked about. the fact that he was in the war room with john eastman and rudy giuliani on the day of the attack. so that's like additional information that could be helpful to them. what could also be helpful is locking in his testimony because department of justice is undoubtedly a

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

but the decision on whether to proceed would lie with the loss, attorney general merrick garland and at this point it's not clear exactly what he will do. he is facing considerable political pressure, even though the white house and justice department are supposed to be completely separate, president biden weighed in late last week saying, yes, he believes bannon should be prosecuted. and, of course, we've seen democratic lawmakers also calling on the justice department to proceed with this arguing that if they don't, then trump associates won't have any incentive or need to cooperate. it's interesting, jake, in speaking with legal experts on both sides of this, including people who used to work for the former president they suggested that bannon could have made this a lot more difficult for the attorney general. he could have shown up and invoked privilege on some questions. could have taken the fifth. would have been harder to argue he wasn't complying. but instead he and his attorneys snts sent this attorney citing privilege, even though many of the items are not related to conver

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

this is going to be a legacy-defining decision for merrick garland. look, he's under political pressure, adam schiff and other members of the committee have been out there essentially saying we're counting on you, mr. attorney general. joe biden was asked by our kaitlan collins do you think bannon should be charged with criminal contempt and he said straight up yes, i do. doj pushed back on that, but ultimately it will be merrick garland's decision. >> so remind us about how criminal contempt stacks up in the committee's legal toolbox because it is rarely used and what kinds of consequences are there if convicted? >> yeah. so there is a federal crime for contempt of congress. if a person receives a subpoena and defies it without a good legal reason, that is a crime. now, it's a misdemean are o. misdemeanors are the less serious variety of crimes or the more serious crimes so the maximum penalty is one yore or 12 months behind bars and a $1,000 fine. however, an interesting wrinkle here is there is a mandatory minimum of one month in prison, so if stev

., merrick garland, to agree to proceed. then they have to go to the courts, get a grand jury convened, and it is a process. >> yes, and the d.o.j. said we're handling it by the book and no political pressure. so even though they say they want to see action here, the doj made it very clear that it is by the book. >> kristin, talk about your view. the president put his finger on the scale on a way that he said he wouldn't. and the justice department quickly came out with a statement saying, you know, we'll do our thing on our own. so we don't know what what he is going to do, but the president, do he did indicate he thinks it should be approved. >> it is great to be back, so great to be with you. he was asked if those that defy asked if he show be subpoenaed and he said yes. jen was pressed on that repeatedly yesterday and she dug in, she swiped away and said yes, he still believes it should belied up to. that it is independent from the executive branch. she said he is not backing away from the very tough comments and it come

garland is very methodical. so the question is just because this is biden's white house, biden's doj, does doj move very fast on this and the democrats don't know the answer. >> this is the question of a power of a person who was president versus the power of the presidency and that's ultimately what's at stake here. the privilege is meant to protect the institution so there can be democratic governance, not to protect individuals so that they can, you know, work around government. >> and the question do both the political and legal systems get the urgency of this, the urgency that have day and the urgency of the truth, the don mcgawn subpoena in the impeachment inquiry, the case ultimately settled in may 2021 so in the past, rear view mirror, this can take too long. the question is what is it like out the windshield. meetings, signs of progress. lawmaker meetings and key players in the biden agenda. they are all getting together, too, but are they cole vinagre anything? oh! are you using liberty mutual's covera

>> 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, the attorney general, still has prosecutorial discretion here. so there are a few open questions. but let's drill down on what bannon is essentially arguing. so basically what he's saying is that because the former president has said that he is trying to assert executive privilege over these records and over these communications, steve bannon is saying, i don't know what the options are because there is this outstanding question about executive privilege and hasn't been decided yet, so i don't know what my authority is. however, the committee says that that is just not a defensible argument, basically what they're saying is that he knows that his communications with the former president are not covered by executive privilege. here is a quote from the resolution that came out last night. >> the law is clear that executive privilege does not extend to discussions between the president and private citizens relating to nongovernmental business or among private citizens. the observation we made several times on this air is that steve bannon wasn't a m

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

on thursday, two oversight hearings at 10:00 live on c-span3, attorney general merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the just -- issues facing the justice department. homeland security secretary alejandra mayorkas will appear before the senate judiciary committee. watch this week on the c-span networks, or watchful coverage on our new video app. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events that explore our nation's past. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction authors. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: brad smith is with us, former chair of the federal election commission. he is also founder and chair of the, here with us to talk about his organization and their look at threats to american free-speech rights. good morning. guest: good morning, thank you. host: tell us abou

brings us right back to merrick garland. he'll have a big decision to make. >> there's a lot going on. thank you for explaining all of it. every hour today could bring new developments in this. >> absolutely. >>> on capitol hill, a critical day for the fate of the biden agenda. seems to be some movement, some progress in the standoff between liberals and progressives and moderates in the democratic party. senators joe manchin and bernie sanders, complete opposites on how much to spend and for what, they're finally meeting, talking, they say. the same goes for manchin and the leader of the progressives in the house. congresswoman pramila jayapal. biden is set to hold two in-person meetings today with both factions as negotiations heat up over infrastructure and social structure bills. let's talk about with this former ohio state senator and co-chair of the bernie sanders' 2020 presidential campaign. nina turner with us. and political commentator and former adviser to president bill clinton. nina, we see this moment playing ou

but ultimately, this is going to be a defining moment for merrick garland. there's political pressure on him. the committee is publicly applying pressure to him. the president of the united states said he wants to see this charge. doj pushed back and said we are going to make this decision independently. however, if mairk garland takes on this fight and he should, it is going to be a tough fight but sometimes as a prosecutor, that's what you have to do. but if he does not, if he says i am he not charging this, he will knee cap this committee. he will prevent them from compelling testimony -- >> thank you very much. so, you know, tonight, we did hear from donald trump and under oath -- well, not we but somebody did. the former president just leaving trump tower because he gave a videotaped deposition for four and a half hours and the purpose of this was to see if he could be held responsible for an alleged assault of protestors outside of the building in 2015. the demonstrators were protesting trump's anti-immigration rhetoric during the campaign. they claim

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

merrick garland immediately put the brakes on that and said, no, the department would actually work independently and review evidence. what does that say to you between what the biden administration may want to happen versus what we're seeing with an independent department of justice? >> it will be really, really fascinating to see how the doj handles this contempt referral which we think will happen. the white house has positions on things. they did make a very, very strong point both in nominating attorney general garland, a very solid, non-partisan reputation. and after the trump administration making a point they'll be independent. at the same time he also talked about how it's getting to the bottom of january 6th is critical for our democracy. it is going to be an interesting tension in terms of how these issues are handled. >> susan, last question here on this, do you believe that the commission will subpoena trump? and what are the fault lines if they do or don't? >> i don't believe they'll subpoena donald trump. i think that would just be too much of a circus. and if they can't get to the

and doj, again, merrick garland, there's a lot of pressure on merrick garland. joe biden has said he thinks this case should be charged. so all three of those actors need to stiffen up and show some spine here. >> we saw the justice department say that they'll be making the decision, not the president. the chair of the january 6th committee congressman bennie thompson told cnn earlier this week that the committee has not ruled out subpoenaing the former president donald trump in that, quote, nobody is off limits. adam kinzinger was asked about this earlier this morning. here's what he said. >> if we subpoena all of a sudden the former president, we know that's going to become kind of a circus so that's not necessarily something we want to do up front. but if we need a piece of information, we certainly will. >> some hesitancy to bring him in here and create a spectacle, which is what would happen. >> i'm spectacle they will subpoena the former president. it would be a circus. let's be clear here, the focus of all of this, the central focus here is donald trump.

part of the reason that biden named merrick garland as attorney general is because he wanted someone there running the department, who would be totally apolitical and who hadn't ever been part of his political -- of biden's political ambitions. biden put garland in place at doj, specifically so that he would help the department reassert its independence from political institutions. and that -- the result of that is, the result of that project, moving forward, effectively, is this uncomfortable moment, where biden, at least in the justice department's view, overstepped by suggesting a particular prosecution should take place and the justice department succinctly, firmly, and politely pushed back and said, the president's allowed to say what he wants to say, to paraphrase doj, but we're not going to be deciding how to bring cases or who to bring cases against based on anything that the white house tells us. >> which given the last four years, five years, almost, is refreshing. betsy woodruff, thank you, my friend. >>> suing donald trump. he has been trying to dodge tomorrow's depositio

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

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

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

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

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

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'

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

which means that attorney general merrick garland will have to weigh in. what do you think he will do? >> i think they'll go forward with a criminal contempt charge. that it's what i expect to happen. but i suspect some things will happen in between. first of all, bannon may try to say he's taking the fifth as a way to get out of this. he may have an attorney who ends up charting a different course. he may ultimately comply. i think for a lot of folks, just the mere fact that they may get indicted is a very good inducement to testify. so i think there is definitely some chapters yet to go. >> how long will this take, because we know the strategy in trump world is delay at all costs, and to use the legal system to do it. litigation, and so forth. >> yeah. i think it's going to take time. first of all, once the committee votes, the full house has to vote. then it goes to the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. they're going to consider carefully whether to indict. let's say they do convene a grand jury, he's indicted. i have clients where there's a backlog of yea

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