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

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

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

part of the reason that biden named merrick garland as attorney general is because he wanted someone there running the department, who would be totally apolitical and who hadn't ever been part of his political -- of biden's political ambitions. biden put garland in place at doj, specifically so that he would help the department reassert its independence from political institutions. and that -- the result of that is, the result of that project, moving forward, effectively, is this uncomfortable moment, where biden, at least in the justice department's view, overstepped by suggesting a particular prosecution should take place and the justice department succinctly, firmly, and politely pushed back and said, the president's allowed to say what he wants to say, to paraphrase doj, but we're not going to be deciding how to bring cases or who to bring cases against based on anything that the white house tells us. >> which given the last four years, five years, almost, is refreshing. betsy woodruff, thank you, my friend. >>> suing donald trump. he has been trying to dodge tomorrow's depositio

if you think back to when mitch mcconnell said that merrick garland couldn't be appointed to the supreme court because it wasn't fair to appoint him in the same year that the president was going to be leaving office, and then, of course, he turned around a few years later, after lecturing america and pointing his finger at us and lecturing on the virtues of when scotus's should be appointed and then turned around and put amy coney barrett in within 60 days. if we don't reform the filibuster, we need to do 50 votes just for this, because what's happening right now, redistricting across the country, how black and brown communities are being trampled over and how in states like texas, where they're debating redistricting right now, trying to tie these black and latino districts into yurl districts where there's been no growth. voting rights in this country are being set back right now and states where republican legislatures are dominating the redistricting process and you've already seen these egregious anti-voting bills that republicans keep throwing up and the american public's face and

. >> looking ahead to attorney general merrick garland who is set to appear before one of your committees, the house judiciary committee for the first time on thursday, with the topics ranging from january 6th to texas abortion law and the assaults on voting rights, what do you want to ask the attorney general? >> so that is a great question, alex. a lot also depends on what the people before me ask the attorney general. >> good point. >> so i do have a thousand questions i would like to ask merrick garland, so it will depends on what is asked before it gets to me. >> i would suggest, though, those topics are among those consideration, those three that i rattled off? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay, what about "politico," which is predicting a tense and contentious hearing especially with republicans likely to dig in on the hot button issues like the ones around vaccine mandates and crime in major cities. are you preparing for gop fireworks? something you've certainly seen before. >> i'm prepared that radical republicans are going to continue to be extreme and say dangerous things. for exampl

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