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

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

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

this is what attorney general merrick garland said about the decision of whether to prosecute. >> the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts in the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of the constitution. >> what do you think will happen? zblipt to say a couple of things. when he made those comments, that was maybe six or eight hours before this case even existed. so, it would have been inappropriate for him to go further than that. i think they're going to take a close look at it and there's a basis for charging him with a crime. the committee put out a pretty long detailed report indicating all the ways in which steve bannon sort of didn't respond to communications and was blowing off the committee. there's a basis for a charge to say he willfully violated a subpoena. we shall see. >> how long do you expect it's going to take ag garland to ultimately make a decision? >> i hesitate to impose timing on anybody. i think anybody is aware of how politically sensitive and how much public interest there is in this. i

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

merrick garland in his opening statement said this was an intolerable assault on the capitol, the capitol police, and the transfer of power, of fundamental premise of our democracy. so given that, given that bannon was not an employee, therefore, there is no executive privilege, therefore, and because there is a valid legislative purpose here -- remember, after 9/11 it passed the usa patriot act after january 6th. they're most likely looking at other legislative corrections. so everything here indicates an indictment is warranted because congress must assert its power under these circumstances. >> all right. we'll see how quickly the acting u.s. attorney acts and how much we hear out of him. michael zelden, former federal prosecutor, nice to see you. >> thanks. >> thank you. >>> planned testimony in the first trial of the capitol riot defendant could highlight the per it including official mike pence faced during the insurrection. vice president had to be whisked away as rioters chanted, "hang mike pence" outside the capitol. the justice department plans to call a secret service official

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

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

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'

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

here's what merrick garland had to say when he was asked about this by the judiciary committee earlier today. >> the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge, the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances. we'll apply the facts in the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> so, pete, how will they make that decision? because as you've been reporting, it's not exactly straightforward. >> no, it's not. i think there are factors to weigh on both sides. on the one hand the committee has a clearly demonstrable need for this. the administration has endorsed that need, saying this was the worst attack on the u.s. since the civil war. the president's claim of executive privilege here is relatively weak because biden has said it should be waived for documents and testimony, specifically on steve bannon as well. this executive privilege anyway applies only to official comp communications. and that presumably what the committee wants to know about was not the president's official business. those are reasons we

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

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

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

it's important for folks to remember that no matter what ends up happening, if merrick garland makes the decision to go after steve bannon and we go through the process and he's found guilty, that doesn't mean that he is compelled to testify, right. they're still unlikely to get any information out of steve bannon, so this process is going to go through. and what the house wanted to make sure, especially, those republicans, some of the usual suspects that we've seen voting on bipartisan things, they want to make sure that congressional subpoenas hold weight and power. and that is something that democrats have talked about, like, they have concerns about. you have kevin mccarthy at some point, possibly the speaker of the house, whoever has voted against this, and what does that mean for when he wants an investigation and someone doesn't want to come and talk to some committee or panel that he's created? and that is where these folks are right now. >> eugene daniels and cal perry, thank you for being with me this morning. >>> coming up, we're following several developments in haiti rig

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

. >> 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

merrick garland mentioned this in his statement yesterday. this is basically a way they deduce whether or not they're going to move forward with prosecution. there's four questions they need to answer. walk us through that and what you expect to happen here, what you expect the answers to be. >> sure. this is just the bible for prosecutors, different questions apply in different situations. but first prosecutors have to be sure that they have sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. that question looks like one that they can answer in the affirmative here. betsey references the executive privilege aspect of that question, and if bannon really wanted to assert that in a serious way he would have to appear in front of the committee and assert it question by question that he hasn't done that really influences the calculus here. along with the fact there's an old olc memo that addresses the fact executive privilege could extend to people outside the white house, in a situation like this where the president has already ma

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

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

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

garland in a very difficult position because merrick garland made re clear he does in the want to get -- wade into politics and this is an extremely political moment for the justice department, an extremely political moment for someone who say former appellate judge, methodical, thoughtful. so it is a difficult question, but there is a procedure in place, and we'll see how -- to what degree merrick garland is willing to follow the procedure and that's a question mark, but it is a very real possibility. >> one thing to not get involved, but at a certain point there is a nexus of not doing your job, right, where we're going to see where that line certainly is. norm, whitney, thank you so much to both of you. >>> so today and tomorrow a panel of fda adviser will look again at covid-19 booster shots. a new study shows some people might be better off getting another vaccine than their original shot. cnn's senior medical correspondent elizabeth cohen joins us now with that. elizabeth? >> john, good morning. so these fda advisers, these are external advisers, mostly folks who are scientists

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

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

garland, 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

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

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

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

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 nnon 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. >> the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances; it will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> woodruff: the department is already in the middle of prosecuting hundreds of defendants facing criminal charges of their own, stemming from january's riot. now, for a deeper look, i am joined by josh gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for "politico." josh gerstein, thank you so much for joining us. first of all, tell us again how ordinary is it for the congress to say that someone is in contempt of a committee? >> well, that's happened i think increasingly frequently in recent years, judy. we've seen a number of citations, former attorney general eric holder was cited. former attorney general bill barr was cited. what's really unusual here is to have a criminal referral that the justice

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,

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

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

what is likely to happen when some or all of this lands at the doorstep of merrick garland's doj? >> when it finally gets there, it certainly moving at a snail's pace, they're going to vote, and i read a report -- they hope to have the report on contempt before thanksgiving. i don't know why they're waiting so long. and then it gets to mayor garland, and he's got to make the decision about what to do. let's today he decides to go forward, which is what he should do. but that means it's gotta go to the grand jury, doesn't take very long. but then there has to be an arrest, there has to mean arraignments. ends, there will be a long discovery process. you've got to get yourself on dockets in the bc courts, and the d.c. courts are moving quickly right now. so the idea that they could wrap up this investigation this ring like they say they're going to do, and have bannon's testimony by then's fantasy. they're not going to, he's going to stall, and they're going to succeed to stall until after the midterms. if the democrats lose the house, we might always throughout time. >> okay, that'

and then it gets to merrick garland and he's got to make a decision about what to do. let's say he decides to go forward. that means he's got to go to the grand jury. then there has to be an arrest. there has to be an arraignment. and there will be a long discovery process. you've got to get yourself on dockets in d.c. courts. d.c. courts are really busy right now. nothing is moving very quickly. so, the idea they could rap up this investigation in the spring like they say they're going to do and have bannon's testimony by then is fantasy. they are not going to have it. he is going to stall and he is going to succeed to stall until after the midterms. if the democrats lose the house, the subpoena could be withdrawn and the whole thing is moot. we've all wasted our time. >> okay. that's a lot. doctor, some nights it feels preferable to discuss the pandemic over politics. let's go there. today the recommendation on j&j boosters was expected. it was also expected they would say or do something on brand mixing, which we kind of know anecdotally people are already doing on

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

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

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

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

i just see, as you noted, merrick garland is a centrist. he has a very moderate reputation. he was very centrist as a judge. he seems to be pretty centrist as an attorney general. i just don't have a lot of confidence that garland and the justice department are going to go throw the book at trump or anybody else. >> i appreciate the point you're making, and as mentioned, you have a lot of experience in the upper echelons at least in the older version of the republican party and pushing back on the trump era. eli, max, also points to the political blowback out there. prosecutors claim not to do it. some do it. james comey gave a lot of thought as to what the political perception of him would be, and as you know, that's why he's such a hero. i wanted to get the joke in. i have to get libby in. libby is a straight political reporter, so i didn't want to get the joke in on her. james comey said he thought a lot about things and how he would be perceived. i bring that up as a subject to you, libby, because we just got told by one guest what should happen, by another what will hap

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

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

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

we do not know how quickly the merrick garland justice department will be able to move on this. and you know, in the past, these kinds of things have been able to be handled very quickly. what is your expectation on a timetable at the justice department for this? >> i'm expecting they can move pretty quickly. the justice department has a rule that they will not prosecute someone for contempt of congress if they are refusing to testify, because there's been a legitimate claim of executive privilege by the president of the united states. that will be pretty easy for the attorney general to pick up the phone, call the white house counsel and say, did the president, did president biden invoke executive privilege for geoff clark or steve bannon or any of these witnesses? and when the answer is no, as we know the answer. is it's a pretty straight up and down prosecution. i actually think the justice department can do more to send a signal to these witnesses, and all of the other witnesses we know, this committee and other committee want to talk to you from the trump administration, by

we don't know how quickly the merrick garland justice department will be able to move on this, and in, you know -- in the past these kinds of things have been able to be handled very, very quickly. what is your expectation of a timetable at the justice department for this? >> i would expect they could move pretty quickly. look, the justice department has a rule that they will not prosecute someone for contempt of congress if they are refusing to testify because there has been a legitimate claim of executive privilege by the president of the united states. it ought to be pretty easy for the attorney general to pick up the phone, call the white house counsel and say, dana, did president biden invoke executive privilege for jeff clark or steve bannon or any of these other within witnesses and when the answer is no, as we know the answer is, it's a pretty straightforward prosecution. i think the justice department could do more, by just making it clear that if you are not the subject of an executive privilege assertion by the sitting president of the united states, not donald trump but jo

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

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

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