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

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

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

host: what do you want merrick garland to do? caller: i want him to investigate trump's actions after november 3. he called election officials in the states and told them to commit perjury. where was merrick garland? what is this man doing? absolutely nothing. how useless is this guy? guest: i am coming to a similar opinion, if the opinion is, listen, we need him to step up. i agree these are serious, potentially criminal allegations or problems. keep in mind, we have seen hundreds of regular americans who showed up on january 6 and physically stormed the capital. they are being held accountable. they are being criminally investigated. some of them are being sentenced. they are having to hire lawyers or get public defenders that are overworked. they are having to pull into their own pockets and take from their family budgets to provide criminal defenses. that is on the backend, the people that showed up. what about the people inside government? that is what the judiciary committee is looking at. i agree merrick garland should be

garland and rick saying what will it take to get biden to replace merrick garland at the doj and trump this group are going to get through this unscathed. and few other comments and calling and and carolina pretty. >> good morning and thought i would like to make a suggestion for questions and comments because i was an election judge and no with the laws are needed about so i want to express. and give you suggestions on c-span but anyways about the laws that the republicans are making, you don't need these laws, the trying to secure it with id, we run so many laws just for id and if there was all this voter fraud, how come nobody has been charged of. if i saw you rob a store, board million 20 other people so you never gets arrested, nobody has been arrested so people said they seem fraud are doing it so if you know it did not happen so nobody is locked up and trump was the president at the time the doj to go after anybody and they never reported there never was an first of all, in order to i say make voting we should all have paper ballots but this is my suggestion, you should go to wh

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

merrick garland was unaware of it. how is he unaware of it? they pushed through, they injured a police officer, nobody gives a damn. when the portland courthouse, a federal courthouse was attacked night after night with fire and all kinds of stuff, when the police were under attack, who nancy pelosi called stormtroopers, merrick garland says "well, that is not domestic terrorism because nobody there, it was happening at night." meanwhile, they got your parents. liz cheney concerned about that? not in the least. now we have a big problem in this country, ladies and gentlemen, we have a rogue presidency, we have a rogue department of justice, we have an out-of-control democrat-controlled house. by three votes. the democrat-controlled senate. 50/50. by the luck of the constitution, the vice president breaks the tie, and what do they want to do? what do they say they want to do? fundamentally transform our economic system. well, you have a choice. free-market economic system that you have in free countries, that respects individuals, creates growt

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

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

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

merrick garland 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

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

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

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

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

., 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

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

merrick garland when he testified before congress. he didn't know that congress had sent him a letter raising concerns about hunter biden's art sale. that was news to the a.g. >> i just received the letter today and we'll take it under advisement. i wasn't aware that you sent me a letter. >> tech: when you get a chip in your windshield... trust safelite. this couple was headed to the farmers market... when they got a chip. they drove to safelite for a same-day repair. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech: that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ hi i'm joe montana. when you get to be 65, you have little patience for nonsense and inefficiency. you know what works and you become a pro at pretty much everything. ♪ ♪ that's why when i qualified for medicare, i went with wellcare. ♪ ♪ with no cost or low monthly premium plans, and no primary care or prescription copays. they're pros at helping you keep more money in your pocket. ♪ ♪ yeah! o

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

i was in that hearing room today with attorney general merrick garland, and if you flash back, sadly, to the last administration and how difficult it was to have then attorney general barr come before us, it was refreshing that we had merrick garland there and that he so thoughtfully said they will follow the evidence and the law and where it guides us. a very refreshing, it shouldn't need to be refreshing but a very refreshing moment today. i was proud of that moment. >> is there any response from the justice department that you could accept that was something other than the prosecution of steve bannon? >> oh, i'm -- number one, i'm so pleased with our committee and moving so swiftly, and making sure that we brought the vote to the floor of the house tonight and made sure that the referral was made to the department of justice. so yes, we saw in the last administration -- under the last administration a dragging of feet, a department of justice that was wetted to the trump administration in a very perverse way. we are still going to learn more about. so today was a really good day, i

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

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

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

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

attorney general merrick garland on the hot seat, we have a look at what to expect from today's hearing with house judiciary member jim jordan. he's coming up. it all start next hour right here on mornings with maria live on fox business. ♪ ♪ ♪ nuplazid is the only approved medicine prescribed to significantly reduce hallucinations and delusions related to parkinson's. don't take nuplazid if you are allergic to its ingredients. nuplazid can increase the risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis and is not for treating symptoms unrelated to parkinson's disease. nuplazid can cause changes in heart rhythm and should not be taken if you have certain abnormal heart rhythms or take other drugs that are known to cause changes in heart rhythm. tell your doctor about any changes in medicines you're taking. the common side effects are swelling of the arms and legs and confusion. now this is something we want to see. don't wait. ask your healthcare provider about nuplazid. an official message from medicare. did you try it yet? comparing plans? oh yeah. they sure can cha

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.

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

the 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

if merrick garland chooses not to charge this, where does that leave the committee? where does that leave congress? where does that leave our balance of powers? where does that leave the justice department? this is a really moment of truth for merrick garland coming up right here. >> elie, we know the strategy in trump world, right, is to try to delay at all costs. usually that's through, you know, extending litigation. the m.o. was to sue people and take them to court long enough so i guess they would run out of resources or run out of time, run the clock out. is there anything more that the committee can do? >> so the committee, all they can do is get this over to doj quickly on the criminal side, get it into the courts quickly on the civil side. they can do both of those things. they should. why not? they're both available. at that point the people we need to be looking at are merrick garland on the criminal side and whatever judge in the district of columbia gets this case. look, judges can move as quickly as they want. i've had judges thoput what i thought were

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

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

. >> 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

when asked this morning by lawmakers attorney general merrick garland said the doj will, quote, do what it always does, apply the facts and the law and make a decision, unquote. right to cnn's ryan noebels he is live on capitol hill for us. we know that liz cheney and adam kinzinger the two members of congress who are republican who are on this committee, we know how they voted. will any other republicans, have any other republicans voted to refer this criminal contempt of congress charge? >> reporter: yes, jake. in fact, they have. even though the vote as you point out has really been largely along partisan lines there are now eight republicans that have voted to refer the criminal contempt of congress charge to steve bannon to the department of justice. you mentioned congresswoman liz cheney and adam kinzinger. also representatives meyer, gonzalez, simpson, upton, catco, and mace all voting in the affirmative. those eight votes along with the democratic majority assuring that this criminal contempt referral will pass. >> thank you very much. >> steve bannon, a long-time adviser of for

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

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

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

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

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

garland. garland was on capitol hill today promising lawmakers that he would make that decision based solely on the law. cnn's ryan nobles is on capitol hill, so ryan, explain what we will see this afternoon. >> reporter: well, what we're going to see, victor and alisyn, is a pretty standard legislative process here. this particular resolution offering up a criminal contempt referral of steve bannon has already made it through two different house committees and today it will come to the floor of the house of representatives. they will have about 20 minutes of debate around this -- i'm sorry, an hour's worth of debate around this particular issue, and then the members will vote, and we expect that vote to really fall along partisan lines. all the deputies expected to vote for it and maybe just a couple of republicans voting for it while the vast majority of republicans will vote against it. from there, the criminal contempt referral will then head to the u.s. attorney's office here in washingto

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

host: what do you want merrick garland to do? caller: i want him to investigate trump's actions after november 3. he called election officials in the states and told them to commit perjury. where was merrick garland? what is this man doing? absolutely nothing. how useless is this guy? guest: i am coming to a similar opinion, if the opinion is, listen, we need him to step up. i agree these are serious, potentially criminal allegations or problems. keep in mind, we have seen hundreds of regular americans who showed up on january 6 and physically stormed the capital. they are being held accountable. they are being criminally investigated. some of them are being sentenced. they are having to hire lawyers or get public defenders that are overworked. they are having to pull into their own pockets and take from their family budgets to provide criminal defenses. that is on the backend, the people that showed up. what about the people inside government? that is what the judiciary committee is looking at. i agree merrick garland should be

attorney general merrick garland 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

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

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

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 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,

it will be up to merrick garland. paula reid, how is this process going to work? >> on tuesday they say they are going to get to work. they are going to have a meeting where they will adopt a report detailing how they tried to get bannon to comply with the subpoena and how he refused. they adopt that report, it will move to the house for a vote. if that succeeds, it will be referred to the justice department. so ultimately it's up to attorney general merrick garland if he wants to move forward with a prosecution. it's unclear how he will handle it. bannon has said he is not going to comply unless he is ordered to do so by a court and he notes the fact that the former president has directed him not to comply because he wants to raise issues of privilege. today the committee said we reject that argument in its entirety. now, if he is prosecuted and found guilty, he could be looking at a fine and even jail time. look, jake, this is not a common kind of proceeding. it rarely results in jail time p but i spoke to the lawyers, even in the trump orbit, who say jail could

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

how long likely is it that merrick garland with approve it? >> he said the reason we don't this before in the past because we had a trump person in there. how could he not charge these cases? nobody's been charged with this criminally this over 50 years and even over the last decade, d.o.j. under both parties has declined to bring these criminal prosecutions. the question is will merrick garland do what he has do to have some responsibility here? >> coming up, william shatner and his thoughts on flights and a new kind of booster. why mix and match could be better. ahead on 360. ♪ look for the bare necessities ♪ ♪ the simple bare necessities ♪ ♪ forget about your worries and your strife ♪ ♪ the bare necessities of life will come to you ♪ all the delivery, no delivery fees. dashpass. imagine having someone else do your books for you. as your quickbooks live bookkeeper, i'll categorize expenses, reconcile accounts, and close your books. cool. - yep. know where your business stands. intuit quickbooks live bookkeeping. talking about