coincidentally, attorney general merrick garland was on the hill today for a routine oversight hearing and he was asked about how the justice department will handle this referral. he just would not tip his hand. he said what the justice department has said overall which is, look. we'll make a decision based on the facts and the law. it is expected this referral will go to the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. it is expected it would go before a grand jury. but ultimately the decision on whether to prosecute in this manner and how to proceed lies with the boss, the attorney general, and at this point it is not clear how he will proceed but we know he is under a lot of political pressure. almost every day we hear lawmakers saying that they really need him to prosecute this. again, because they need the deterrent effect on other witnesses and even president biden came out late last week and says he, too, believes bannon should be prosecuted. the justice department is pushing back on that and insists it is independent and will make this decision independently. >> we're getting the

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

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

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

garland pursues this case. if even steve bannon is convicted, that still does not guarantee that the committee will get the deposition, will get the documents that they're looking for, does it? >> no. and the way that would be enforced is steve bannon would have to decide whether to defy the court. because it's essentially getting a court order, a criminal contempt order, he would go to jail and sit in jail until he decided to testify. we saw this in the white water investigation with susan mcdougal and she wouldn't respond to ken starr's subpoena, and she served, i think, 18 months in prison for noncompliance. but the u.s. attorney would probably impanel a grand jury to make, i think, a pretty short investigation as to whether steve bannon was actually in defiance of a lawful subpoena out of the committee, and then would charge him and then there would have to be a trial. so yes, this takes some time, and as i said, i think this is -- this is a ploy to run out the clock so that it just -- there isn't any time