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

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

attorney general merrick garland making remarks right now. he's joined by his assistant attorney general. let's listen in. >> at the same time that the federal government was constructing this monument to justice, it was instituting a profoundly unjust nationwide real estate practice known as redlining. redlining is a process by which lenders deny services to individuals in a neighborhood because of the race or national origin of the people who live in those communities. redlining has its roots and programs that were designed to make home ownership widely available for the american people, but that purposely excluded minority neighborhoods from accessing purposely excluded minority neighborhoods from accessing those benefits. much has changed since the federal government engaged in depression era redlining but zrim father practices by financial institutions still exists. unfortunately, redlining remains a persistent form of discrimination that harmed communities. lending discrimination runs counter to fundamental promises of our economic syst

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

attorney general merrick garland at the center of a legal and political firestorm. we'll have live team coverage next. [coins clinking in jar] ♪ you can get it if you really want it, by jimmy cliff ♪ [suitcase closing] [gusts of wind] [ding] the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now. it helps keep you effortlessly comfortable by sensing your movements and automatically responding to both of you. and, it's temperature balancing to help you stay comfortable all night. it even tracks your circadian rhythm, so you know when you're at your best. in other words, it's the most energy-building, wellness-boosting, parent-powering, proven quality night's sleep we've ever made. and now, save up to $1,000 on select sleep number 360 smart beds and adjustable bases. only for a limited time. to learn more, go to sleepnumber.com. some things are good to know. like where to find the cheapest gas in town, and which supermarket gives you the most bang for your buck. something else that's good to know? if you have medicare and medicaid, you may be able to get more healthcare be

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

attorney here in d.c., merrick garland, neither of them tipping their hand. they continue to say in statements. we saw merrick garland testifying yesterday that they will follow the facts and law to make an independent decision as to what they ultimately do. >> jessica schneider, thank you. >>> let's discuss this with congresswoman zoe lofgren. we just learned your committee is going to hear from jeffrey clark, the former trump justice department official. what do you want to hear from him? what is he going to testify about? >> well, our posture has been that we're not going to discuss publicly or with the press the witnesses, what we're going to ask and the like. but what we've said from the beginning that we want to find out what was planned, what was the intent, who paid for it, and i think mr. clark certainly has information about what was planned and what the intent was. so we will hopefully learn even more from his appearance and his discussion. we're very committed to getting to the bottom of everything about january 6th and leading up to it. not only

and how i thought merrick garland did not dom play yesterday. america dodged a bullet when he did not come a supreme court justice. he had no answer with it. did you ever consult with ethics official about the fact that your son-in-law and possibly your daughter is on panorama as investor or creator making millions of dollars on crt? didn't come up. i'm just investigating parents. excuse me, how could that not come up? he had a nonanswer. how could he be unprepared as the attorney general of the country to answer that? ainsley: 6:12 on the east coast. brian laundrie found dead as the fbi confirms his remains were found in a florida swamp. next a live support with his family's response to rumors they planted evidence at the site. brian: president biden claims he has been on the border despite there is no record he has been on the border. is this a town hall tale? da'da da. ♪ ♪ [narrator] this is steve. he used to have gum problems. now, he uses therabreath healthy gums oral rinse with clinically-proven ingredients and his gum problems have va

police week continues into police weekend this weekend attorney general merrick garland will honor the fallen, president joe biden will do the same saturday at the u.s. capitol. bret. >> bret: david spunt at the doj. thanks. up next, the treacherous journey through central america on the way to the u.s. southern border. we will take you there and we will hear from some migrants who survived it. first, here's what some of our fox affiliates around the country are covering tonight. fox 2 in separate cisco, where it's the first day for the city's first responders to be fully vaccinated or risk losing their jobs. the san francisco police association says 120 officers there will be on paid administrative leave. the fire department confirms 41 firefighters are in the same situation. fox 46 in charlotte as south carolina attorney alex marlow is arrested in connection to insurance settlements obtained after the death of his housekeeper in 2018. he's charged with two felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. lawyers say the housekeeper's heirs never received money after the fatal

. >>> right now attorney general merrick garland is about to answer questions from the house judiciary committee for the first time. it is expected to be a contentious hearing as lawmakers will likely press him on the enforcement of subpoenas from the january 6 committee as well as the capital riot, voting rights, migrants at the southern border and the ongoing abortion ban in texas. >> cnn justice correspondent jessica schneider is joining us live from washington. as jim pointed out, expected to get contentious. i think we're all waiting for a little bit of that. we also have a sense of what merrick garland is going to say going into this. >> the interesting thing about this, this is a standard oversight hearing. this is a chance for committee members on the judiciary committee to question the attorney general about what's happening at the department of justice. you can bet that the attorney general will do everything he can to steer it to a conversation about what the department of justice has done in his seven months at the top and what it will continue to do. in his opening stateme

. >> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

attorney general merrick garland was in the hot seat today, congressman craig steube caught him in some rank hypocrisy. he is your next. days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. .. it's so good to see you. you too! so really, how are you? oh well, look! that's what we're both taking right now, fanapt. you know it's really been helping me manage my schizophrenia. i used to hear these terrible voices. loser! you're such a failure. you're so embarrassing. i used to feel like everyone was staring at me. but we're doing much better now, right? yeah. fanapt is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. in clinical trials, fanapt significantly improved symptoms of schizophrenia compared to placebo. fanapt may change your heart rhythm which could elevate risk of sudden death. your doctor will consider this when deciding among treatments and may prescribe another medication first or may instruct you to take a smaller dosage of fanapt. the good thing to know, is we're not alone. call 8557 fanapt and there you hav

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

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

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

it's going in the hands of the rich and the few, including merrick garland's son-in-law. that's where it's going. but these are parents -- the organization called parents defending education. watch nomani. she used to write for "the wall street journal." she is fired up. they're behind the freedom of information act request. it will come pouring out. finally parents across the country regardless of their race will take back the education of their kids from the unions and the woke consultants. >> make one more point, i'd also like to blame cnn besides barack obama for this. because guess what, cnn didn't report this loudoun county rape scandal. msnbc didn't report it. clueless about a major development in the crux of this case to label them domestic terrorists because the main stream media didn't cover that story because it didn't fit the narrative. >> they didn't do it perfect. >> put it on the doj. >> they didn't brief him on purpose. >> exactly. >> i didn't racialize this at all. race has nothing to do with this for me. two, the way you impact your school board is you e

on c-span3, attorney general merrick garland testifies before the house judiciary committee. you can watch on www.c-span.org or with their new c-span app, c-span now. the white house covid 19 responds team held a briefing on the biden administration's plan to rollout vaccines for children ages 5-11. they anticipate approval from federal regulators in the coming weeks. the team spoke with reporters for about 20 minutes. mr. zeints: good morning, and thanks for joining us. today i'll first turn to doctors walensky and fauci to cover the state of the pandemic and the importance of vaccinations. then dr. murthy and i will provide an update on the work we're doing to prepare for potential vaccinations for kids ages five through 11. over to you, dr. walensky. dr. walensky: thank you, jack. good morning, everyone. let's begin with an overview of the data. as of yesterday, the seven-day

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

when you bring this merrick garland and the fbi, it becomes something else entirely. if it's not domestic terrorism and they're not planning to use the patriot act to prosecute parents who speak out at these meetings, then what do we need him for? we don't. david: and if they jumped, very quickly, when they got a letter from this organization, they're going to react to other letters from this organization. it's not going to be the fbi agents necessarily that are going to target domestic terrorists, it's going to be these left-wing groups that are going to put their finger on people who might have strong opinions but are certainly not domestic terrorists. they're parents concerned about their kids. >> absolutely. i think what's happening across the country is amazing. i think parents have really realized over the last 20 months or so what their kids are learning in school, what's being forced on their kids. it's not just crt, like you said. in cases like palm beach county, the meetings are up because of masking, the county school board is illegally masking kids in defi

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

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,

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

if it passes, next steps will be determined by attorney general merrick garland's justice department. as we speak the attorney general testifying before the house on a separate issue. we're going to share with you what he just said a few moments ago when he was asked about january 6th, and steve bannon. also less than an hour from now, president biden, vice president harris will be marking the 10th anniversary of the dedication of the martin luther king junior memorial in our nation's capitol. when it starts, we'll take you there. that's not all we're following this hour. there's a crisis in our classrooms. we simply do not have enough teachers in this country. i'll talk to two folks on the front lines of this issue about why, and how to fix it. also ahead, backlash for netflix. employees staging a mass walkout over the streaming giant's handling of a dave chappelle standup featuring comments about the trans community. we start with a full house vote expected this afternoon on whether to refer former trump adviser steve bannon to the department of justice for criminal charges of conte

but the big question is what will merrick garland do. it is unusual for a.g.'s to bring this charge but we've seen something interesting over the last several days which is high-profile politicians and the president saying they believe merrick garland ought to charge. they pushed back and they said they will make their own decision but i think he understands the gravity of the decision coming up. >> as i'm here you heard this weekend congressman adam schiff reity ear ated that no one is off the table in terms who have they might subpoena so it is realistic they could subpoena former president trump? >> i don't think that is realistic. i don't see that happening. first of all, as another member, adam kinzinger said, it is going to be a circus and i think the committee wanted to avoid that. should they subpoena trump? of course. the main thrust is what did donald trump know and do leading up to january 6. but they're going for people around trump that would have had access and that is why they chose meadow and cash patel and others for a subpoena. and the committ

it's all over the top. >> martha: so if you're the attorney general, if you're merrick garland and asked to look into this, wouldn't you hesitate to go that route if you didn't have specific examples that merited some sort of coordination, some sort of potential effort to hurt these school board members or to truly threaten them. wouldn't you want that evidence? >> yeah, what general garland should have said, we have seen no evidence of domestic terrorism. so to use the patriot act is unfounded. he could say any types of threats made against school board members can be addressed on the local level and if there's any intrastate elements, the department of justice will get involved. there's ample laws protecting school board members from outbursts. >> martha: if anybody is being threatened, they should be put in place. if it crosses border, it's a different issue. the evidence is not there at this point. thanks, jonathan. jonathan turley. >> thanks, martha. >> martha: that's "the story" for this wednesday. tonight bret baier anchors live from the port of los angeles where over 100 containe

and, you know, merrick garland and the attorney general does have a decision to make once this referral is brought to the department of justice as to exactly how they plan to prosecute it. do they take him into a court of law? do they arrest steve bannon? could he face jail time at some point? this isn't just a cut and dried, black and white issue, so there is some decision-making that has to take place on behalf of the department of justice. and critics -- this is not me saying it, don. critics could say perhaps the president is putting his thumb on the scale in terms of the decision-making process of the department of justice. he clearly wants to see the subpoena answered. it's just a matter of how they go about forcing that compliance. >> so what is ahead, then, this week for the select committee's investigation? should we expect more subpoenas? >> reporter: so subpoenas are always on the table. the select committee has said they're interested in people getting information from certain individuals, and they feel like they're not getting compliance, they will issue subpoenas. we don't

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

we start on capitol hill where merrick garland was on the hot seat, the attorney general was grilled over his doj memo targeting concerned parents at school board meetings, it all started last month when the national school board association sent a letter to joe biden demanding action over what they call violence and intimidation at board meetings across the country but listen to this. new reporting reveals that the ns b.a. had "collaborated with the biden white house before sending a controversial letter calling on the fbi to investigate parents as potential domestic terrorist. "was the biden administration colluding, with the national school board administration, with the white house weaponize the doj to label parents all across this great nation as domestic terrorists? the answers to those questions seem to be unequivocally yes. the justice department and then quickly followed the ns b.a.'s lead a memo saying they would identify and prosecute these domestic threats. but how did the doj reach that conclusion? did they do some type of in-depth research? did they conduct a nationwide

visit indeed.com/hire >>> all eyes now on attorney general merrick garland after the house voted to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress. nine republicans voting with all 220 democrats to pass the resolution. so now it's up to the justice department to decide whether to prosecute the trump aide. >> the vast majority of republicans deciding not to enforce a subpoena from their own chamber. members of the january 6th committee believe he had significant knowledge around the planning of the capitol attack. whitney wild joins us. you look at this. there are a lot of steps here waiting for a decision from the justice department, but how about in the investigation itself? >> well, they're still moving forward. this, as i have said before, this message to bannon was also meant to be a message for anyone planning to defy the subpoenas. there's an expectation people are supposed to be handing over documents this week and next week. the assumption is those documents are rolling in. several people know many of the people who have been subpoenaed are cooperating, and by cooperating we mean actu

attorney general merrick garland testifying today at an explosive house hearing amid multiple doj controversies. joining us now. he was at the hearing, louisiana congressman mike johnson of house judiciary. congressman, thanks so much for joining us. you were there, tell us what happened and what is going on with the white house knowing ahead of time before ag garland sent out the memo threatening parents with federal firepower meant for terrorists to investigate them for threatening school boards? what is going on with this story? what do you think? >> well there is a lot here. as you said, liz, it was an important hearing. it was explosive. the attorney general sat before us for a number of hours. this is the first time we had an opportunity to question him since he took the helm of the doj seven months ago. the judiciary committee has oversight responsibility. we took it serious today. one of the big headlines came out of it, what you pointed out a lot of questions are being raised about the directive the attorney general, mr. garland sent out to the fbi and u.s. attorneys offices wanted to

merrick garland has to stand up here and do his job, even if it may be difficult. >> what do you think the chances are that happens, elie? >> i'm split on this. on the one happened, merrick garland has not shown a lot of appetite for anything that may be politically fraught during his time here. i think he's undercharged some of the january 6th defendants. i think he's not gone high up enough in the chain. he's shown no interest in investigating anything relating to donald trump. the steve bannon case in particular is so extraordinary, his claim of executive privilege is so utterly ridiculous that you can't just let it go with no consequence. >> here's the thing, yes, the politics are messy. this is not the first time that politics have been messy or sensitive with an issue like this. but january 6th, and what happened prior and afterwards, a sitting president trying to overturn the results of an election, using multiple levers of government is inherently political. it is weaponizing politics, so is this a case, right, where you have to pursue the criminal path because otherwise there

>> well, that's part of the decision merrick garland has to make. it if a criminal contempt case is brought, that in and of itself won't force steve bannon to testify. though it could land him in jail when he refuses to do so. but that's really the question here. will a judge quickly enough for the house to act make a determination on executive privilege and have that wind its way through the court on appeals? i don't think so. there are too many layers of court review, too many possible appeals. the other interesting wrinkle here is that trump needs an injunction. those records are going over from the national archives in november. unless there is an injunction. so kind of a flip side to what we saw on the trump administration where the stone walling actually served to not have things go to congress. this i think is going to end up being the opposite. a judge is not going to give him an injunction. it is not going t ining to wind through on time. i think it is pretty likely that those documents go over, rendering some of this moot in terms of what

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

ultimately the decision lies with the attorney general, merrick garland, if he wants to move forward with this. bannon has argued he will not cooperate unless ordered to do so by a judge. he says he's been directed by trump not to participate because he wants to raise issues of privilege, though it's not clear he will do that. if he is prosecuted, there is a trial, if he is found guilty, a lot of ifs, if that happens he could face a fine or jail time. this is incredibly rare, but i'm told by lawyers within the trump orbit, jail is a potential possibility here. >> the ifs, jennifer, is where i'm stuck as paula lays out really well. i have questions of how much teeth a congressional subpoena and criminal contempt has. how do you see this moving next? >> well, you know, it's interesting because bannon is the one to try this with because he has the least effective claim of executive privilege. so they're counting on the fact that doj is going to be first of all willing to proceed, period, when we really haven't seen any indication that merrick garland wants to move forward with these kin

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 question is, will merrick garland put him in jail? steve bannon's refusing to testify about his interactions with trump in the lead-up to the deadly capitol insurrection. >>> and an fda advisory panel voted unanimously today to recommend an extra half dose of moderna's covid vaccine for americans 65 and older and adults at high risk. and now you know the news. this thursday, october 14th, 2021 i'm shepard smith. follow us on twitter a welcome to allstate. ( phone notification ) where you can pay a little less and enjoy the ride a little more. now, get new lower auto rates. you're in good hands with allstate. click or call for a lower rate today. it's another day. you're in good hands and anything could happen. it could be the day you welcome 1,200 guests and all their devices. or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutions give you the power of sd-wan and advanced security integrated on our activecore platform so you can control your network from anywhere, anytime. it's network management

eastern on c-span3, the attorney general merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the justice department. 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and on the new c-span now app, homeland security secretary appearing before the senate judiciary committee. watch next week on the c-span network. or you can watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> a new mobile video app from c-span. c-span now, download today. >> washington journal continues. back and we want to know what your top new story of the week was. are there particular topics that were in the mainstream media that you want to talk about or is there something else going on that you think americans need to know about? call in and let us know what your top new story of the week wise. here are some stories that did come out this week that you may want to talk about. first of all, there is a supply chain disruption that happened a

. >> so merrick garland was keeping it close to the vest. what will the outcome be? do you think he'll bring charges himself, go to a grand jury or neither? >> well, a federal law says that upon certification by the speaker and after we pass this successful bipartisan vote the speaker will certify and it will go to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia where they have a duty, and the federal law specifically mentions that, a duty to bring it before a grand jury. and so that's our expectation is that they will do just that, and this was a victory for the rule of law. and if we follow the law, then that will be the end result. >> it will be quicker if he just does a felony warrant on his own or just does his own charges, which you can do in other matters. is he not allowed to do that? is the duty a must, or is it a must to do something? >> well, they always maintain their prosecutorial discretion but the law specifically says duty. so our expectation they'll do that and bring it before a grand jury. what people need to understand is this a pursuit of the truth

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

merrick garland isn't an aggressive man when it comes to holding donald trump or any of the people involved in what amounts to threats of violence against our citizenry, against members of congress and our democracy. he hasn't exactly been aggressive. should congress take it upon themselves and throw steve bannon in the jail under the capitol? >> we should pass legislation that would put in place inherent contempt. i'm an original sponsor of it. that's one way to do this. without the senate, you know, on board to also assist us in giving us that leverage, we should encourage merrick garland to treat donald trump no better but no worse than any other person who would be evaluated by the department of justice. he'll testify on thursday to the judiciary committee and that's one of the questions we'll have. will you agree that he should be treated no better, no worse and not just sweep this under the rug because for the sake of moving on, we would be better off. we're not better off if we don't recognize that he took a wrecking ball to every institution we value in this country and if he broke