garland testifies before the house judiciary committee or the routine hearing on the oversight department of justice. he'll very likely be asked how he's going to handle some of these cases. you know, he might actually get some greater insight into how this could all pay out. >> it's certainly a busy time right now over on capitol hill. you're also following, of course, all negotiations within the democratic party with the bipartisan sfrur deal and an attempt to get a deal on the larger reconciliation package. it seems like there's been a sense of optimism the last couple of days, but also there's a lot of stuff that needs to get sorted outst. tell us where we stand? >> on tuesday there were meetings. and in these meetings, according to sources in our room, he delivered these assessments of what could go and what could stay necessarily in their social spending package, and this is leading to a bit of heartburn among democrats about things they have to let go. you have the longer extension of the child tax credit or free community college, but emerging from all this and after meetings the

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

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

garland of trying to criminalize free speech. dueling demonstrations outside netflix headquarters on the streets of los angeles wednesday as a large group of the streaming giants employees staged a walkout in protest of a controversial comedy special from dave chapelle. end of the company's handling of complaints related to it, that's where we begin tonight's lightning round with the author of oak inc., great to see you. the ceo had been defending dave chapelle at least in the respect that we are about free speech, we aren't going to muzzle people and shut things down. that has changed a bit, here is what he said more recently. him "when i should've led within those emails and the internal discussions with humanity. he said in an interview tuesday evening, i should have recognized the fact that a group of our employees was really hurting. "he was about free speech and now he said he didn't want to hurt anybody, he has heard their requests and their concerns, where does this debate go? i haven't seen it and i think you have. >> ba

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

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

. ♪ announcer: on thursday, attorney general merrick garland testifies on the justice department's mission and policies before the house judiciary committee. we are covering it live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or on the new video app, c-span now. announcer: next, the senate foreign relations committee holds a confirmation hearing for several ambassador nominations, nicholas burns to be invested better to china, rahm emmanuel to japan, and jonathan kaplan to be ambassador to singapore. senator bob menendez chaired this hearing. [indistinct chatter] chair menendez: this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. we are here today to consider nominees for three important positions, ambassadors to china, japan, and singapore. on the first panel, we will hear from ambassador nicholas burns to be ambassador to china. i understand senator markey will introduce senator burns. -- introduce ambassador burns. senator markey. >> ambassador burns is a cherished son of na r massachusetts, fellow boston college alumnist and p senator markey

. ♪ announcer: on thursday, attorney general merrick garland testifies on the justice department's mission and policies before the house judiciary committee. we are covering it live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or on the new video app, c-span now. announcer: next, the senate foreign relations committee holds a confirmation hearing for several ambassador nominations, nicholas burns to be invested better to china, rahm emmanuel to japan, and jonathan kaplan to be ambassador to singapore. senator bob menendez chaired this hearing.

garland won't prosecute the former president. speak of the justice department taking a position that you can't prosecute a sitting president which i also disagree with to say now that is a practical matter, you can't prosecute a former president. doesn't make him against the law? that is a dangerous proposition in the abstract given that trump is already running for president again, it's a more dangerous prospect for the future. spell like that famous line from "breck broke back mountain" just can't quit. but chuck todd is surprised that people are not more outraged by this. it's because this might be a little bit disturbing to the folks in d.c. that are alarmed about january 26 -- january 6, 40% want to hear more, 56% of folks told quinnipiac they know enough already, and boy, i would argue that we have not gotten much at all, right? it has been technically no new information in quite some time. >> will: we know, but that has not stopped you from covering it every single day for the last nine months, so here to react, the host o

expect lawmakers to ask attorney general merrick garland if he will prosecute bannon at a hearing tomorrow. fox has told some gop members will vote yes for bannon because they don't like people ignoring congressional subpoenas. bret? >> bret: chat -- chad pergram. up next, how russia is dealing with afghanistan now that the u.s. gone. >> the american people lost, the afghan people lost. the winners are russia, china and iran. ♪♪ we believe everyone deserves to live better. and just being sustainable isn't enough. our future depends on regeneration. that's why we're working to not only protect our planet, but restore, renew, and replenish it. so we can all live better tomorrow. ♪♪ this isn't just freight. these aren't just shipments. they're promises. big promises. small promises. cuddly shaped promises. each with a time and a place they've been promised to be. and the people of old dominion never turn away a promise. or over promise. or make an empty promise. we keep them. a promise is everything to old dominion, because it means everything to you. >> bret: welcome back to the port

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

garland testified on the justice department mission and policies before the house judiciary committee, recovering it live at 10 am eastern on cc round three. and life his ground dropped org or in a new video app c-span now. during the covid-19 pandemic at the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee hearing. senators from both sides of the aisle questioned the secretaries on several issues, including mask mandates in schools as well as the availability and affordability of rapid covid 19 tests. this hearing runs two hours and 20 minutes. >>

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

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

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

. >>> on thursday attorney general merrick garland testifies on the justice department's mission and policies before the house judiciary committee. we're covering it live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3, online at c-span.org or on our new video app, c-span now. c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan. and every purchase helps support our non-profit operations. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> oh, you think this is just a community center. no, it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1,000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled lift zones. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >>> next, health experts testify about the impact of covid-19 on children during a house subcommittee hearing. they took qu

"mcauliffe was also asked about merrick garland's october 4th memo addressing recent school board protest that virginia has been ground zero four. mcauliffe responded "listen, i believe the attorney general of the night states to make their decisions. i had no knowledge of it, they will make their own decisions, we want to keep our schools say." today republican candidate glenn duncan said this. >> he's losing it, he knows his race is slipping away from him. >> mcauliffe walked off after 10 minutes of an interview. >> john: a new monmouth poll came out today. 46-46. as an old colleague of mine once said, this is kick tight. >> sandra: thanks, john. this controversy has spread far beyond virginia. many other places in the nine states are dealing with this. our next guest has been looking at the study of critical race theory in her kids classrooms. as well as math mandates at her children's colorado schools. molly lamarr has three children in the cherry creek school district in denver. molly, i know you have four kids. three in school. i know you have been actively involved in the school bo

attorney general merrick garland to investigate facebook. as the border crisis grows by the day there is look for transparency. david: maybe face saving book, who knows. kelly, thank you very much. attorney general from arizona, mark brnovich. always a pleasure to see you. one of the most entertaining ags in the nation. we'll get into that. >> busiest too. david: busiest too. what about the issue of smugglers or at least the people that use smugglers, i'm sure the smugglers are looking in there too to see how they can get more clientele. they are making 100, i think $400 million a month, one of the border experts told us yesterday just with the human snuggling. they're making more from human smuggling than from drugs. isn't what facebook is doing, aiding and abetting those cartel members? >> absolutely, david. thank you for having me on. and it is absolutely heartbreaking. we see in arizona the surge of hard drugs, things like fentanyl coming across our border. i know as a former gang prosecutor that the cartels are enriching themselves. the

merrick garland is unlikely to kick that rock over? >> i think the attorney general is in a difficult position, because on one hand, what he's really trying to do with his willingness to serve at this time is to restore the norms of the justice department, to return to regular order, to insulate the department from political influence. on the other hand, we had an insurrection at the u.s. capitol on january 6, as everyone here knows. and so the justice department is conducting a robust investigation of hundreds of pe people who have been prosecuted in that case who participated in that event. the piece that is missing and the piece that the january 6 committee is trying to address is the planning of it. critical advisors were involved in conspireing and potentially planning and involved in that. i don't think we know the answer yet as to whether the justice department is pursuing those types of investigations and charges. >> it's also an important question for the future, right, because those same advisors and trump himself as well are

they are accusing attorney general merrick garland of using the f.b.i. to intimidate parents and demand the d.o.j. immediately stop targeting so-called threats to school officials. indiana attorney general is leading the effort. he says the federal government must back off. >> this is crazy. parents will win the day. they are trying to divide the family, brian, so the state can come in and run our lives and grow our kids. you can talk at a school board meeting. you cannot commit violence or trespass but there are laws for that, brian. you don't need the d.o.j. involved in this matter at all. we'll stand up for the parents of this country. >> harris: so why would the federal government want to step in so heavy handedly when we have law enforcement, at least for a while. the vaccine mandates are complicated. we'll get to that later in the show. >> it is intimidation pure and simple. the heavy hand of federal government. they don't want to hear from parents. you see this playing out in virginia. terry mccauliffe says it out loud. parents have no say. they b

merrick garland directed the f.b.i. to investigate parents over school policies and vaccine mandates and critical race theory and vaccine mandates. 17 attorneys general blasted the feds for stepping on parents rights. >> the attorneys general across the country, some of us, we're the first line of defense and maybe the last line of defense against this creeping and running socialism that we have. >> this is extreme overreach by the biden administration and i'm proud of these parents for standing up for their young people. for caring about their children enough to have their voices heard. >> dana: jonathan hunt has more on this. hi, jonathan. >> good morning. a scene being repeated across the country in the past few months. parents on both sides of the vaccine mandates issues and both sides of the argument over teaching what some call ethnic studies, others critical race theory passionately arguing their cause and some sometimes crossing a line. >> we know who you are. we know who you are. we know who you are. we can fin

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

merrick garland faces his first testimony before the house judiciary committee. that will be next thursday. i guess that is coming up this thursday, coming up this week, correct? guest: that is correct. host: what do you hope to hear or ask the attorney general? guest: i want to hear about the two-tiered justice system that we are seeing in america. that is what i hear from my constituents regularly. why do people get away with what they do, taking a server and wrecking it and that not being accountable. why the president's son has -- we find information that would be chargeable offenses by the average citizens in america. why aren't those things being investigated. why are parents, who attend a school board meeting them and there is vigorous debate commanding we have the attorney general saying, these people, we have to treat them as terrorists. they are not terrorists. they are just people who are seeking to be heard before unelected board. people want to know why there is a two-tiered justice system. why are some of us inferior in this democracy? host: we will

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

todd: i was promised merrick garland was a moderate. what happened? >> this is nothing -- this is like something you might read about that i read about when i was in school in germany or russia. you know, we had all these riots in 2020 with looting and burning and threats and no investigation. actual violence. here we have parents that just care about what's being taught in their schools whether it's critical race theory or whether it's these mandates that are forcing kids to wear masks. and they are being threatened with if they are angry or want to express their concern. i don't know. i'm shocked. i don't think -- i haven't seen anything like this ever. carley: yeah, that's the main point. i think that the biden administration really made an unforced political error. i mean, attorney general, how many political ads do you think are going to run in the midterm elections where they are about concerned parents being called domestic terrorists? >> look, i have heard so much about this from parents all over my state. they are concerned about this threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

merrick garland agreeing to have the fbi investigate. so that's the context that is coming in. you know what is hurting in this tight race, you know, terry mcauliffe has a lead in most of the polls i've seen. it's very small. it's within the margin of error. but less not behaving like a person in the lead. he's behaving like a person that knows he's taken a big hit that might prove fatal. >> martha: he was asked about the budget deal and the sort of larger, you know, net, social net that it represents. he said oh, we have to get this deal passed. and then he looked who is coming in. you have jill biden and former president obama coming in. it's going to be an interesting thing to see the suburban voters that voted for former president trump and joe biden how they vote in two weeks. >> you put your finger on the issue. what makes this schools issues so interesting is that democrats typically have an advantage own education among the public, especially among suburban voters. a lot of the suburbanites showing up are democrats or at least they're not the typical trump supporters. t

. >>> on thursday attorney general merrick garland testifies on the justice department's mission and policies before the house judiciary committee. we're covering it live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. online at c-span.org. or on our new video app, c-span now. >> keith richburg has been a print journalist almost his entire adult life. originally from detroit, michigan, he worked for "the washington post" for 30 years. his assignments included four years in southeast asia from 1986 to 1990. africa for three years. then five years in hong kong. a time as new york city bureau chief from 2007 to 2010. richburg also is based for "the washington post" in paris. later as china correspondent. in addition, he had his time in afghanistan and iraq. keith richburg is currently the director of the university of hong kong journalism and media studies center. we asked him to talk about his work. >> keith richburg, on this week's episode of book notes plus. you can listen to book notes plus and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> a senate commerce science and transportatio

. >> on thursday attorney general merrick garland testifies on the justice department's mission and policies before the house judiciary committee. we're covering it live at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, online at c-span.org or new video app, c-span now. >>> get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest events on our new mobile video app, access top highlights, listen to c-span radio and discover new pad casts all for free. download c-span now today. >>> joining us now patrick penfield, of syracuse university. a supply chain practice professor here to talk about the delays in the supply chain. professor, thanks for giving us your time this morning. >> good morning. glad to be on the show. >> what's the best way to think about the supply chain particularly with the issues that are currently at play? >> yes, so supply chains are pretty simplistic. input transformation output. unfortunately, it's gotten very complicated over the years. and a lot due to cost reductions and trying to get the lowest cost, the best quality. now we have a global supply chain crisis. problems and issues throughout the variou

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

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

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

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

attorney general merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the justice department. at 10:00 a.m. eastern live on c-span.org and on the new c-span now app, homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas will appear before the senate judiciary committee. watch this week on the c-span networks or watch our full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live on or demand, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you'll find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it's television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. >> brad smith is with us, the former chair of the federal election commission. he is also founder and chair of the institute for free speech. here with us to talk about his organization and their

a memorandum by the attorney general merrick garland that senator mcconnell referred to earlier. he suggested that we are going after parents, that we want to somehow harass, intimidate and harass parents appearing before school boards. i went back to read the memorandum. it is explicit. those who engage in violent conduct at school board meetings are going to be stopped. they are violating the law and they are violating the spirit of those meetings where communities come together to decide the fate and future of public education. i think the attorney general is right, we should have safety in that environment just as we expect on the floor of the united states senate. nothing more and nothing less. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. thune: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. thune: okay. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: as i begin this morning, let me start by reacting to a couple of things said on the floor already by my democratic colleagues. you know, the republican leader when he was down here earlier talked about the impa

>> 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