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

garland. he is testifying right now on capitol hill before the house judiciary committee. he just weighed in on the bannon decision. let's get over to cnn's jessica schneider who's following this for us. jessica, what is the attorney general saying? >> well, this has been a wide-ranging hearing, kate. the attorney general has very much tried to stay on message to talk about the moves that the justice department has made during his seven months at the top. in particular, he referenced the fact that they have doubled the staff of their voting rights section in the past year to be prepared to evaluate this influx of voting rights laws that have been enacted by mostly republican states. at the same time, the attorney general here, he is sticking to this message that he always focuses on. he repeatedly has said the justice department is not political and that its sole goal is to uphold and protect the rule of law. but of course today is that house vote on the steve bannon contempt referral. when th

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

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

. >> 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 is a very effective lawyer. and he and his team and the u.s. attorney and the district of columbia will make their own decisions. we will not try to push them, lobby them, sway them. we saw enough of that during the trump administration. we will continue to use other tools in our tool belt here to try to get the testimony of everybody that we have subpoenaed. the vast majority of people we have approached have come in voluntarily or have accepted the subpoena or in good faith negotiation right now about rendering their testimony. we're not fooling around. this is a responsibility everyone has. with he don't have a special class of people who happen to know donald trump who are somehow above the law. >> have trump's attorneys been in touch with the committee about any concerns they may have about executive privilege? >> well, they have sued as, as you know, but they have not tried to intervene in steve bannon's case specifically. and they brought a suit against the committee. and that might be a great forum for different subpoenas that are in th

the current attorney general may soon have a key decision to make, merrick garland. if there is a criminal contempt referral, if these guys are 6th to show up, comply with subpoenas and congress there's a criminal referral, if you were attorney general, would you pursue charges? . >> well, i'd have to know a lot of information. a lot of things to weigh here, john, quite frankly. obviously, it's important to ensure that criminal statutes are enforced. that's the job of the department of justice. and there is a criminal statute that makes it a crime not to comply with a congressional subpoena. my sense is that general garland is fairly measured in his approach to the job. he may look to see whether or not congress would exercise other options. for example, there is a practice that hasn't been done since in modern times. civil judgment route where you go to court and obtain a civil judgment against someone who defies a subpoena. he may look to see have all other options been exercised. on the other hand, what is weighing here i think will be equally important is the rea

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.

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

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

garland. at this point, it's unclear what the attorney general will do, but we know two things. one is that the attorney general is facing a lot of political pressure, and according to experts i've spoken with, bannon has made the decision a little bit easier for him. in terms of the political pressure, late last week, president biden said that he believes, yes, bannon should be prosecuted for contempt. that is notable because the justice department is, of course, supposed to be independent, but other democratic lawmakers have also come out and said they want this prosecution because they believe if there are no consequences for refusing to comply with the subpoena, they won't be able to do their job. but the justice department has come out and said they will make an independent decision based on the facts and the law, full stop. now, in terms of the case before the attorney general, potentially, if this continues to move forward, i'm told by legal experts on both sides of the aisle that banno

will merrick garland prosecute bannon? >>> and president joe biden about to face voters in cnn's town hall. anderson cooper is getting ready for that up to hall right now and will join me next. let's go outfront. >>> good evening, i'm erin burnett. we are less than one hour away from cnn's town hall with president biden. anderson cooper will join me in just a moment for a preview. you can see that live location there in baltimore, maryland. first, we have breaking news. the fbi just confirming the human remains found in that florida nature reserve are indeed those of 23-year-old brian laundrie. the news coming exactly one month after we learned that laundrie's fiancee, gabby petito, was murdered in wyoming by strangulation. tonight we're also learning about a crucial piece of evidence that could shed light on how petito died. a note booker discovered near laundrie's remains we're learning tonight is possibly salvageable, according to a source. leyla santiago is live. i know you had a chance to speak with an official from n

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

attorney general merrick garland wouldn't say today what he is going to do, saying only the doj, quote, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. david? >> jon karl following this all day long for us. jon, thank you. >>> and overseas tonight and we're following a developing headline at this hour involving queen elizabeth. we have learned that she spent the night in the hospital. she's now back home at windsor castle, but of course, a trip to the hospital always gets attentio so, let's bring in our foreign correspondent james longman live in london tonight. and james, what do we know about the queen's visit to the hospital? the queen is back at windsor l,- castle tonight. we don't know exactly why she went into the hospital. buckingham palace is always very tight-lipped about her majesty's health. but we do know it was a very short stay. she went in yesterday, she came out at lunchtime today. she was last seen hosting a reception on tuesday night at windsor castle after which she was told by her doctors that she could get some re

it's a sign of how deeply and troubled our democracy is. >>> attorney merrick garland helps to contain protesters violent. republicans criticized garland for an october 4th em memo issued. they're asking the biden administration to make action. >> the sometimes over school rules surrounding the pandemic and sometimes over what conservative charged are history that's two lessons -- >> the charge the attorney general repeatedly denied adding of any effect on the curriculum talking or the ability of parents to complain. what we have seen is undeniable and we have seen aggressive behavior by some parent and that goes down to mandates and about masks and critical race theory and the question that comes up to the governor's race that's disposed a lot on education, there is no denying that's ham ng the school board, what about this memo from the justice department set off republicans? >> yeah, it's the republican feeling clearly as we have seen around the country that the parents have the right to protect these man days and have much more influence, why is education has become the number one

will merrick garland prosecute bannon? >>> and president joe biden about to face voters in cnn's town hall. anderson cooper is getting ready for that up to hall right now and will join me next. let's go outfront. >>> good evening, i'm erin burnett. we are less than o

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

garland will appoint a special counsel to look at this. because the evidence is so clear for a massive watergate style attempt to destroy the process of electing a president. >> a massive watergate style attempt to destroy the process of electing a president. how deep does it go? because one of the things liz cheney suggested yesterday was that the president's assertion of executive privilege in and of itself was some kind of an indication that he had either knowledge of or was involved in the planning of the insurrection itself. >> well, when you string it all out, and you just look at his tweets, i mean, he says, you know, in his tweet on december 30th, january 6th, see you in d.c. he is actually talking about january 6th. and then he tweets in a -- there is no ambiguity in this, he says in a tweet, just hours before. i mean, this is 1:00 a.m. on january 6th, the day of the insurrection, if vice president mike pence comes through for us, we will win the presidency. many states want to direct -- believe they want to decertify the mistake

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

now the ball is in merrick garland's court. what's your expectation for how quickly the doj will move on this? >> it's my hope and expectation they will move quickly. that they understand the urgency here. and i think there are good signs in what the justice department did with respect to some of the witnesses we wanted to talk to. a former top ranking justice officials. they did not assert executive privilege. they did not assert any kind of work product privilege. and made it clear that they view the public interest in getting all the facts out about that violent attack on our democracy to be paramount. i think that same logic ought to apply here. so it's our hope, it's our expectation, that they will move quickly. >> i want to play for our viewers something that congresswoman liz cheney, the top republican on the january 6th committee, something she said on the house floor yesterday as she explained why steve bannon's testimony in her view is so critical. look at this. >> mr. bannon's own public statements make clear he knew

. >>> also we're keeping an eye on merrick garland's system before the house judiciary committee on the january 6th insurrection and other issues. >>> meantime the fda authorizes booster shots for the moderna and johnson & johnson vaccines as we learn more about the effectiveness of the pfizer booster shot. >>> and we are live on the ground in haiti, as the search continues for 17 american and canadian missionaries, including children, who were abducted by a haitian gang. >>> and on this latina equal payday, take a closer look at the huge pay gap between latinas and white non-hispanic men. >>> we begin on capitol hill, democrats are once again grappling with how to pay for their multi-trillion-dollar social safety net bill, and arizona senator kyrsten sinema is apposed to raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations to president biden and democratic leaders said is key to funding their reconciliation bill. with me is kristen welker and leighanne caldwell. how does the news affect efforts to get the outline of the bill in place by the halloween deadline for a vote on the bipartisan infr

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

. >>> 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

the question is, will merrick garland put him in jail? steve bannon's refusing to testify about his interactions with trump in the lead-up to the deadly capitol insurrection. >>> and an fda advisory panel voted unanimously today to recommend an extra half dose of moderna's covid vaccine for americans 65 and older and adults at high risk. and now you know the news. this thursday, october 14th, 2021 i'm shepard smith. follow us on twitter and ig at the news on cnbc you're an owner with access to financial advice, tools and a personalized plan that helps you build a future for those you love. vanguard. become an owner. >>> it is 5:00 a.m. in new york and here's your top five at 5:00 call it an earning rallies stocks coming off the best day since march. futures they are popping. >>> a big green light for moderna, the fda clearing the way for the second booster shot. >>> falling back to earth, trouble, richard branson and his plan to get tourists to space as early as next year. >>> busted at boeing, a former employee at the center of the 737 m

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

but the decision is ultimately up to attorney general merrick garland. as for who else could be a target? lawmakers are not ruling out anyone, including vice president mike pence or former president donald trump. >> nobody is off limits to a subpoena from this committee. >> reporter: the committee has agreed to postpone depositions with other trump advisers, kash patel, mark meadows and dan scavino to give them more time for negotiations. but the committee says their patience is limited. jake, lawmakers have a long list of witnesses lined up. next week they expect documents or depositions that they have subpoenaed from several people involved in organizing the stop the steal rally on january 6th. the following week they have subpoenaed former justice official jeffrey clark who tried to help trump overturn the 2020 laexs results. a source tells cnn at this point clark's options are really limited and he may testify now that he's under subpoena after months of talking with lawmakers. >> and i have to say, just to take a moment, this capitol police officer

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

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 they do that, the big decision will come down to merrick garland. adam schiff, by the way, has been putting pressure on merrick garland. a lot of pressure on him. now, if you look at the history, will merrick garland charge, on the one hand. yes, it is a federal crime, punishing by up to one year. minimum of one month. however, if we look at the history, it's been over 50 years since doj has criminally charged anyone for this. in the last decade or so, we have seen both parties get contempt referrals. barr and wilbur ross under the trump administration. learner and holder under the obama then station. we will see if merrick garland recognizes we are in new territory here >> there is also a civil track. >> absolutely. they could go to court and try to compel the witnesses to testify and compel documents. we will have a battle in the courts over executive privilege. joe biden has said, i'm not asserting executive privilege. meaning those documents can go over to the committee. unless donald trump objects, he has made noises that he will object, but no

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

. >> the pressure on merrick garland will be intense. and his decision on whether to prosecute will be consequential, not only for bannon and donald trump, but also the future ability of congressional power to call witnesses, demand information and documents, and enforce subpoenas for those who refuse to cooperate. now, if history is any indicator, the doj has historically been reluctant to use its power of prosecution against witnesses found in contempt of congress. and so far, the ag has stressed removing any hint of politics from the doj after the norms destroyed during the trump administration. but the circumstances surrounding the attack on the capitol could push garland to make a move. so will he or won't he? and if he does, how quickly could we see bannon charged? and is it all headed for a cliffhanger at the supreme court? joining us to talk about it are nbc news capitol hill correspondent ali vitali, "washington post" white house bureau chief ashley parker. you've got all the democrats voting for it, expected to, anyway, plus ch

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

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

garland 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

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

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

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

so i just don't see anything else for merrick garland to do. i am not sure -- i think he doesn't relish being in this position. i am sure he much rather bannon would go and tell the truth under oath. when someone doesn't do that there has to be consequences. >> i want to -- you referenced attorney general garland's predecessor, bill barr. i want to show you something adam schiff. >> we can't look at this enforcement action against steve bannon in isolation. it is part of a broad assault on our democratic institutions where you can ignore subpoenas, use the justice department in ways that bill barr did to go after the president's enemies. you can ignore the prohibition on using the white house grounds for political conventions. you can enrich yourself as president. the list goes on and on. at some point you have to say enough, we have to put back the guardrails of our democracy in he is making an argument that i feel like we have discussed. the stakes for the department of justice in doing what bill barr would do seem catastrophe cattic, not jus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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