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

merrick garland when he testified before congress. he didn't know that congress had sent him a letter raising concerns about hunter biden's art sale. that was news to the a.g. >> i just received the letter today and we'll take it under advisement. i wasn't aware that you sent me a letter. >> tech: when you get a chip in your windshield... trust safelite. this couple was headed to the farmers market... when they got a chip. they drove to safelite for a same-day repair. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech: that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ hi i'm joe montana. when you get to be 65, you have little patience for nonsense and inefficiency. you know what works and you become a pro at pretty much everything. ♪ ♪ that's why when i qualified for medicare, i went with wellcare. ♪ ♪ with no cost or low monthly premium plans, and no primary care or prescription copays. they're pros at helping you keep more money in your pocket. ♪ ♪ yeah! o

merrick garland mentioned this in his statement yesterday. this is basically a way they deduce whether or not they're going to move forward with prosecution. there's four questions they need to answer. walk us through that and what you expect to happen here, what you expect the answers to be. >> sure. this is just the bible for prosecutors, different questions apply in different situations. but first prosecutors have to be sure that they have sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. that question looks like one that they can answer in the affirmative here. betsey references the executive privilege aspect of that question, and if bannon really wanted to assert that in a serious way he would have to appear in front of the committee and assert it question by question that he hasn't done that really influences the calculus here. along with the fact there's an old olc memo that addresses the fact executive privilege could extend to people outside the white house, in a situation like this where the president has already ma

now the ball is in merrick garland's court. what's your expectation for how quickly the doj will move on this? >> it's my hope and expectation they will move quickly. that they understand the urgency here. and i think there are good signs in what the justice department did with respect to some of the witnesses we wanted to talk to. a former top ranking justice officials. they did not assert executive privilege. they did not assert any kind of work product privilege. and made it clear that they view the public interest in getting all the facts out about that violent attack on our democracy to be paramount. i think that same logic ought to apply here. so it's our hope, it's our expectation, that they will move quickly. >> i want to play for our viewers something that congresswoman liz cheney, the top republican on the january 6th committee, something she said on the house floor yesterday as she explained why steve bannon's testimony in her view is so critical. look at this. >> mr. bannon's own public statements make clear he knew

garland unveiling a new program to combat discriminatory lending. i says red lining or refusal of loans based on location remains persistence. he says other investigations are on the way >>> actor alec baldwin expressing shock and sending condolences to the family of a cinematographer officials say he shot with a prop gun on a movie set. baldwin called it an accident and says he is cooperating with police on the investigation. >>> on the news, outrage over the death of halyna hutchins on the shooting that's tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern time kelly, back to you >> thank you >>> bad weather taking a toll on beyond meat. twisted tea wasn't enough to save boston beer third quarter we are back right after this (rhythmic electro rock music) (crowd cheering) - bito, bito, bito, bito! - [announcer] bito, the first u.s. bitcoin-linked etf. ♪ i see trees of green ♪ ♪ red roses too ♪ ♪ i see them bloom ♪ ♪ for me and you ♪ ♪ and i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ a rich life is about more than just money. that's why at vangua

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

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

it's important for folks to remember that no matter what ends up happening, if merrick garland makes the decision to go after steve bannon and we go through the process and he's found guilty, that doesn't mean that he is compelled to testify, right. they're still unlikely to get any information out of steve bannon, so this process is going to go through. and what the house wanted to make sure, especially, those republicans, some of the usual suspects that we've seen voting on bipartisan things, they want to make sure that congressional subpoenas hold weight and power. and that is something that democrats have talked about, like, they have concerns about. you have kevin mccarthy at some point, possibly the speaker of the house, whoever has voted against this, and what does that mean for when he wants an investigation and someone doesn't want to come and talk to some committee or panel that he's created? and that is where these folks are right now. >> eugene daniels and cal perry, thank you for being with me this morning. >>> coming up, we're following several developments in haiti rig

congressman jim jordan grilled attorney general merrick garland over his memo that ask the fbi to investigate parent protesters as domestic terrorists. >> attorney general of the united states, americans aren't going to tolerate it. the excelerator march to communism we now see. america will fight the good fight and finish the course and keep the faith because americans value freedom. stuart: i suggested your very much on board with what is going on in the schools in loudoun county, parents objecting to crt. where do you stand on this? >> i think congressman jordan is right. i think he said in his speech this was the tipping point for parents. when they saw possibly a domestic terrorist label that the applied to them if they wanted to find out more what was happening the child's school it is a frightening thing that someone would allow a memo like this in america to be send out and parents feel this is a deterrent for them and part of the reason they are so upset, we have a responsibility to find out what our kids to find out, the school board meetings have gotten very hot. it is because pare

and yet -- and i know that and merrick garland knows the constitution, at least he has at one time, and he knows there is no mention in the constitution of a federal role in education and yet he sends out a memo saying basically, it's pretty intimidating, that we are going to start digging into these school board meetings and weaponnizing or using the justice department to go after people who have differences of agreement that happen to degree with dr. king that people should be judged on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. so who would have believed that 40, 50 years after it seemed we were so close to dr. king's dream being realized, that you would have an administration totally committed to undoing drk to judging people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character. it's just shocking. but then -- and of course the saying in washington is and has been for many years, no matter how cynical your it's never enough to catch up. well, then we find out after attorney general garland sends out the letter that he is going to go after thes

merrick garland is a very effective lawyer. and he and his team and the u.s. attorney and the district of columbia will make their own decisions. we will not try to push them, lobby them, sway them. we saw enough of that during the trump administration. we will continue to use other tools in our tool belt here to try to get the testimony of everybody that we have subpoenaed. the vast majority of people we have approached have come in voluntarily or have accepted the subpoena or in good faith negotiation right now about rendering their testimony. we're not fooling around. this is a responsibility everyone has. with he don't have a special class of people who happen to know donald trump who are somehow above the law. >> have trump's attorneys been in touch with the committee about any concerns they may have about executive privilege? >> well, they have sued as, as you know, but they have not tried to intervene in steve bannon's case specifically. and they brought a suit against the committee. and that might be a great forum for different subpoenas that are in th

it's a sign of how deeply and troubled our democracy is. >>> attorney merrick garland helps to contain protesters violent. republicans criticized garland for an october 4th em memo issued. they're asking the biden administration to make action. >> the sometimes over school rules surrounding the pandemic and sometimes over what conservative charged are history that's two lessons -- >> the charge the attorney general repeatedly denied adding of any effect on the curriculum talking or the ability of parents to complain. what we have seen is undeniable and we have seen aggressive behavior by some parent and that goes down to mandates and about masks and critical race theory and the question that comes up to the governor's race that's disposed a lot on education, there is no denying that's ham ng the school board, what about this memo from the justice department set off republicans? >> yeah, it's the republican feeling clearly as we have seen around the country that the parents have the right to protect these man days and have much more influence, why is education has become the number one

attorney general merrick garland was noncommital when testifying before the house judiciary committee yesterday. >> the department recognizes the important oversight role that this committee, the house of representatives, and the senate play with respect to the executive branch. the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge. the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principals of prosecution. >>> joining us now, reporter. what sort of backlash will they face within the gop? >> i mean, absolutely these republicans knew when they took that vote, they're facing possibly becoming political pariah in their party. they voted against the majority whip, the majority party. they've seen this before. congresswoman liz cheney was on the select committee when she voted against -- i'm sorry. when she voted for the impeachment of the january 6 select committee and continued to speak out against donald trump, she was stripped of her leadership position with the blessing

merrick garland in his opening statement said this was an intolerable assault on the capitol, the capitol police, and the transfer of power, of fundamental premise of our democracy. so given that, given that bannon was not an employee, therefore, there is no executive privilege, therefore, and because there is a valid legislative purpose here -- remember, after 9/11 it passed the usa patriot act after january 6th. they're most likely looking at other legislative corrections. so everything here indicates an indictment is warranted because congress must assert its power under these circumstances. >> all right. we'll see how quickly the acting u.s. attorney acts and how much we hear out of him. michael zelden, former federal prosecutor, nice to see you. >> thanks. >> thank you. >>> planned testimony in the first trial of the capitol riot defendant could highlight the per it including official mike pence faced during the insurrection. vice president had to be whisked away as rioters chanted, "hang mike pence" outside the capitol. the justice department plans to call a secret service official

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

and attorney general merrick garland, the leader of the justice department, he today was tight-lipped about what to expect about that process. he told a congressional committee where he was testifying today basically that the department will handle this, like he says they handle everything. they will handle this by the book, no fear, no favor. >> i will say what the spokesperson for the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia said yesterday or the day before. the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge. the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> we will apply the facts and the law, make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. in other words, i'm not going to tell what you we're doing. we are just going to do it on our own times, we don't take advice from anybody, so you can leave me alone about it. which is, honestly, the right way to answer those kinds of questions. and, you know, stepping back f

garland's department to decide what's next for stephen. congressman gerry me raskin who's a democratic artisan in maryland, who issued that subpoena to steve bannon last month. today's vote came down, roughly where i thought it was. the way if i had to give over under, probably a few more republican votes than i would've guessed. what did you think? >> yeah, there are definitely more republican votes than i was expecting. given that kevin mccarthy was whipping the vote very hard, to try to get everybody on the side of not issuing the criminal contempt referral from bannon. so, i was pleased that there are both a number of people on the republican side who had voted to impeach donald trump, also in this group, but there are also some new ones like nancy maze from south carolina who is my counterpart on the oversight subcommittee on civil rights and several liberties. she just said she believes in the rule of law, and how can congress, with a straight face, go forward in ever issue is subpoenas again, if we're not gonna see anybody else subp

this is what merrick garland said about the decision about whether to 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. >> what do you think will happen? >> yeah, look, i want to say a couple things. first, when he made those comments, don, that was maybe six or eight hours before this case even existed, right? so it would have been irresponsible and inappropriate for him to go further than that. look, i think they're going to take a close look at it, and there's a basis for charging him with a crime. the committee put out a pretty long, detailed report indicating all the ways in which steve bannon, you know, sort of didn't respond to communications and sort of was blowing off the committee. so there's a basis for a charge to say that he willfully violated a subpoena. so we shall see. >> how long do you expect it's going to take the a.g. -- a.g. garland to ultimately make a decision? >> you know, look, i hesitate to impose timing on anybody

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

merrick garland was unaware of it. how is he unaware of it? they pushed through, they injured a police officer, nobody gives a damn. when the portland courthouse, a federal courthouse was attacked night after night with fire and all kinds of stuff, when the police were under attack, who nancy pelosi called stormtroopers, merrick garland says "well, that is not domestic terrorism because nobody there, it was happening at night." meanwhile, they got your parents. liz cheney concerned about that? not in the least. now we have a big problem in this country, ladies and gentlemen, we have a rogue presidency, we have a rogue department of justice, we have an out-of-control democrat-controlled house. by three votes. the democrat-controlled senate. 50/50. by the luck of the constitution, the vice president breaks the tie, and what do they want to do? what do they say they want to do? fundamentally transform our economic system. well, you have a choice. free-market economic system that you have in free countries, that respects individuals, creates growt

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

. >> so merrick garland was keeping it close to the vest. i will apply the law and the facts. no kidding. 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 und

., 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

attorney general merrick garland, the leader of the justice department today was tightlipped about what to expect about that process he said the department will handle this like he says they handle everything. they will handle this by the, book no fear in our favor. >> i will say what's spokesperson for the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia said, yesterday, the day before, house of representatives votes for a referral of a contempt charge the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, we'll apply the facts and law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> we will apply the facts and law, make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. in other words, are not going to tell you what we are doing. we are going to do it on our own terms, we don't take advice from anybody. you could leave me alone about it. which is, honestly, the right way to answer those kinds of questions. you know, stepping back from this, in terms of the news worthiness of what is going on here and all this drama in washington. ste

>> 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

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,

attorney general merrick garland wouldn't say today what he is going to do, saying only the doj, quote, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. david? >> jon karl following this all day long for us. jon, thank you. >>> and overseas tonight and we're following a developing headline at this hour involving queen elizabeth. we have learned that she spent the night in the hospital. she's now back home at windsor castle, but of course, a trip to the hospital always gets attentio so, let's bring in our foreign correspondent james longman live in london tonight. and james, what do we know about the queen's visit to the hospital? the queen is back at windsor l,- castle tonight. we don't know exactly why she went into the hospital. buckingham palace is always very tight-lipped about her majesty's health. but we do know it was a very short stay. she went in yesterday, she came out at lunchtime today. she was last seen hosting a reception on tuesday night at windsor castle after which she was told by her doctors that she could get some re

earlier today attorney general merrick garland pledged to apply the facts and the law when making his decision. >>> frantic work is under way in washington tonight with just ten days until democrats' self-imposed deadline to pass two giant spending bills. as nbc's alice barr shows us, negotiations between progressives and moderates have kicked into high gear. >> to state the obvious -- >> reporter: president biden today marking the tenth anniversary of the martin luther king jr. memorial and issuing an urgent call to continue the civil rights icon's legacy with policies that lift up struggling americans. >> for the first time in a couple generations we're going to be investing in working families, putting them first and helping them get ahead rather than the wealthy and most powerful people. >> reporter: but it's divisions within the president's own party holding up his top priorities. a trillion dollar bipartisan infrastructure bill and a longerer social policy and climate package. moderate democrats have forced the larger bill's price tag down from $3.5 to below $2 trillion. >> we'v

will merrick garland prosecute bannon? >>> and president joe biden about to face voters in cnn's town hall. anderson cooper is getting ready for that up to hall right now and will join me next. let's go outfront. >>> good evening, i'm erin burnett. we are less than one hour away from cnn's town hall with president biden. anderson cooper will join me in just a moment for a preview. you can see that live location there in baltimore, maryland. first, we have breaking news. the fbi just confirming the human remains found in that florida nature reserve are indeed those of 23-year-old brian laundrie. the news coming exactly one month after we learned that laundrie's fiancee, gabby petito, was murdered in wyoming by strangulation. tonight we're also learning about a crucial piece of evidence that could shed light on how petito died. a note booker discovered near laundrie's remains we're learning tonight is possibly salvageable, according to a source. leyla santiago is live. i know you had a chance to speak with an official from n

and for his part, attorney general merrick garland is not showing his hand. in hearing today, he gave no indication of whether the justice department would bring charges against bannon, saying they will make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. joining me now is congressman bennie thompson of mississippi, the chairman of the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. mr. chairman, thank you for coming back. i really appreciate you being here again. and i want to get your reaction to the claim by the house minority leader kevin mccarthy that the subpoenas issued by your bipartisan committee are invalid. >> well, he is dead wrong. but that's not consistent with the law. clearly, we have, as you know, the authority as a duly constituted committee to issue subpoenas. we're doing that. we're doing our work. and he knows it, but, you know, he has to do the talking points. we are clear. we're on firm ground, and we look forward to the attorney general doing his job. >> there were two members of the republican side

attorney general merrick garland in the hot seat answering multiple questions from republicans about his october 4th memo that directs the federal bureau of investigation working with each united states attorney to convene meetings in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. >> i think your memo was the last straw. i think it was the catalyst for a great awakening that is just getting started. >> the memo issued five days after the national school board association wrote to president biden about the rise of threats by parents to school board officials writing these heinous actions could be the equivalent of a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes. >> not in a million years did we dream that one day we would see the justice department treat american parents as domestic terrorists. >> but garland said his memo doesn't use the words domestic terrorism or patriot act. >> i can't imagine any circumstance in which the patriot act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can i imagine a circumstance whe

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

will merrick garland prosecute bannon? >>> and president joe biden about to face voters in cnn's town hall. anderson cooper is getting ready for that up to hall right now and will join me next. let's go outfront. >>> good evening, i'm erin burnett. we are less than o

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

garland giving the decision as to whether he will try to prosecute banon. the house vote fell largely along party lines though nine house republicans voted with all 220 democrats to pass the resolution. tell us more about these nine republicans, not an easy vote, not easy to go against your party. >> not easy at all. as you noted the vote was largely along party lines but in addition committee members, representatives liz cheney and adam kinzinger, seven other republicans also voted to find bannon in contempt including representatives anthony gonzalez of ohio, peter meyer of michigan, fred upton also of michigan, john katko, nancy mace, brian fitzpatrick, jamie herrera butler of washington and the brother of former vice president mike pence did not vote. she said for her this is about being consistent, enforcing subpoena power and even signaled they might use it to investigate issues currently facing the biden administration. now, this bill gives speaker pelosi the authorization to ask the justice department to prosecute bannon. we are told she will sign it

so i just don't see anything else for merrick garland to do. i am not sure -- i think he doesn't relish being in this position. i am sure he much rather bannon would go and tell the truth under oath. when someone doesn't do that there has to be consequences. >> i want to -- you referenced attorney general garland's predecessor, bill barr. i want to show you something adam schiff. >> we can't look at this enforcement action against steve bannon in isolation. it is part of a broad assault on our democratic institutions where you can ignore subpoenas, use the justice department in ways that bill barr did to go after the president's enemies. you can ignore the prohibition on using the white house grounds for political conventions. you can enrich yourself as president. the list goes on and on. at some point you have to say enough, we have to put back the guardrails of our democracy in he is making an argument that i feel like we have discussed. the stakes for the department of justice in doing what bill barr would do seem catastrophe cattic, not jus

attorney general merrick garland is in the hot seat today in washington. lawmakers going after the multiple controversies the doj is facing. let's say they have plenty of sparks and they were flying. >> this memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence. >> i understand you're talking point. you're not answering my question. with all due respect, will you submit to an ethics review of this matter? yes or no. i wonder how the firm's doing without its fearless leader. you sure you want to leave that all behind? yeah. stay restless with the rx. crafted by lexus. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. i've spent centuries evolving with the world. crafted by lexus. that's the nature of being the economy. observing investors choose assets to balance risk and reward. with one element securing portfolios, time after time. gold. agile and liquid. a proven protector. an ever-evolving enabler of bold decisions. an asset more relevant than ever before. gold. your strategic advantage. thanks for coming. now when it comes to a financial plan this broker is y

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

it will be up to the attorney general merrick garland to make the final decision on whether to prosecute him. contempt of congress can be punished by up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. lots to get into, tonight with ron christie, former adviser to george w bush and amanda renteria, former adviser to hilary clinton's 2016 campaign. welcome to you both. big decision coming up for the attorney general, but the justice department doesn't tend to uphold these cases when there is a contempt of congress case. what about this time? good evenin: case. what about this time? good evening to — case. what about this time? good evening to you. — case. what about this time? good evening to you, christian - case. what about this time? (2222 evening to you, christian and amanda. i think this might be different. this is a situation where mr bannon has exerted a privilege he does not have. it is only held by the president of the united states. mr trump doesn't have it, mr bannon doesn't have it and it to try to evade question in up inquiry, put him in a situation where the general might sayjus

merrick garland says he will apply facts. chad pergram is watching that and all of the movement going on to try to get towards a reconciliation bill on the hill as well. update us, chad. >> good afternoon, martha. steve bannon rejected a subpoena by the 1-6 committee. he claimed executive privilege even though he was long gone from the white house. house gop leaders oppose wheeling in bannon. >> they're issuing an invalid subpoena. issuing that weakens our power. he has a right to go to the court to see if he has executive privilege or not. i don't know if he does or not, but neither does the committee. >> when the gop controlled the house, it held irs figure lois learner contempt of congress and eric holder. nancy pelosi said the gop should hold bannon in contempt. >> the genius of our constitution and:0 our founders was the separation of power, checks and balances. if in fact you went to negate the ability of one check of another branch of government over another, your undermining the constitution. >> the vote on the bannon

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