garland >> we >> i have a pretty high level high level of confidence in merrick garland, it's his first opportunity perhaps in his legal career or at least in the last 25 years, to act in a way that is not judicial. meaning, he can take aside and go hard at it. as opposed to having to be this even-handed judicious figure on this court. and all of the years that he was auditioning for the supreme court, and the seat that was stolen from him, which would have probably been the crowning achievement of his career. well that lens has shifted, and now he exists in now a partisan fashion but a fashion in which he can take a clear position here. and there is a clear position on all things related to january six, be it congressional subpoenas, which we're dealing in an instant case. or the overall much larger umbrella attempt to thwart democracy, in the interest of one donald j trump. so i think mayor jay garland, his personal feelings about not being on the supreme court aside here, he's gonna do the right thing. and i think that, you know, it's fairly non controversial to be passionate and pur

., where was received at 5:30 pm today, at a house judiciary hearing, attorney general merrick garland said this. >> the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge, the department of justice will do it always doesn't such circumstances, will apply the facts and a lot to make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. joining our discussion now is congresswoman madeleine dean of pennsylvania, she is a member of the judiciary committee, and the second impeachment of donald trump. thank you very much for joining us, tonight, i want to begin with where we just ended, and that is the attorney general's comments today. it's difficult to imagine him saying anything else, under these circumstances, and yet there is more suspense tonight in washington about what this attorney general will decide, and there has been a long time. >> and yet, lawrence, thank you number one for having me tonight, it's a pleasure to be with you, i was in that hearing room today with attorney general merrick garland, and if you flashback to the last administration and how difficul

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

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

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

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

what is likely to happen when some or all of this lands at the doorstep of merrick garland's doj? >> when it finally gets there, it certainly moving at a snail's pace, they're going to vote, and i read a report -- they hope to have the report on contempt before thanksgiving. i don't know why they're waiting so long. and then it gets to mayor garland, and he's got to make the decision about what to do. let's today he decides to go forward, which is what he should do. but that means it's gotta go to the grand jury, doesn't take very long. but then there has to be an arrest, there has to mean arraignments. ends, there will be a long discovery process. you've got to get yourself on dockets in the bc courts, and the d.c. courts are moving quickly right now. so the idea that they could wrap up this investigation this ring like they say they're going to do, and have bannon's testimony by then's fantasy. they're not going to, he's going to stall, and they're going to succeed to stall until after the midterms. if the democrats lose the house, we might always throughout time. >> okay, that'

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

if that passes, it goes to the justice department, it will be out to the attorney general merrick garland to decide on prosecution. those are broad strokes of the process of course, it could be drawn out by legal challenges or other actions. could go to a four trial. appeals could dried out for years. and steve bannon knows that. house members have also subpoenaed other former trump officials for deposition. ex panic panic on official kash patel, mark meadows, his deputy dance to be no, they were set to do to appear today and tomorrow, they've all been given short postponements by the committee. former president has related, referring to what he calls the an select committee, and said quote, they should hold themselves in criminal content. tonight, committee chairman thompson said this about whether donald trump will be subpoenaed. >> a former president trump thinks he can get away with what happened on january six, by being cute with his press releases. then, he has another thing coming. nobody is off limits to a subpoena from this committee. >> trump is facing a more immediate legal iss

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

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

we do not know how quickly the merrick garland justice department will be able to move on this. and you know, in the past, these kinds of things have been able to be handled very quickly. what is your expectation on a timetable at the justice department for this? >> i'm expecting they can move pretty quickly. the justice department has a rule that they will not prosecute someone for contempt of congress if they are refusing to testify, because there's been a legitimate claim of executive privilege by the president of the united states. that will be pretty easy for the attorney general to pick up the phone, call the white house counsel and say, did the president, did president biden invoke executive privilege for geoff clark or steve bannon or any of these witnesses? and when the answer is no, as we know the answer. is it's a pretty straight up and down prosecution. i actually think the justice department can do more to send a signal to these witnesses, and all of the other witnesses we know, this committee and other committee want to talk to you from the trump administration, by

we don't know how quickly the merrick garland justice department will be able to move on this, and in, you know -- in the past these kinds of things have been able to be handled very, very quickly. what is your expectation of a timetable at the justice department for this? >> i would expect they could move pretty quickly. look, the justice department has a rule that they will not prosecute someone for contempt of congress if they are refusing to testify because there has been a legitimate claim of executive privilege by the president of the united states. it ought to be pretty easy for the attorney general to pick up the phone, call the white house counsel and say, dana, did president biden invoke executive privilege for jeff clark or steve bannon or any of these other within witnesses and when the answer is no, as we know the answer is, it's a pretty straightforward prosecution. i think the justice department could do more, by just making it clear that if you are not the subject of an executive privilege assertion by the sitting president of the united states, not donald trump but jo