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

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

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

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

., 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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. >> the pressure on merrick garland will be intense. and his decision on whether to prosecute will be consequential, not only for bannon and donald trump, but also the future ability of congressional power to call witnesses, demand information and documents, and enforce subpoenas for those who refuse to cooperate. now, if history is any indicator, the doj has historically been reluctant to use its power of prosecution against witnesses found in contempt of congress. and so far, the ag has stressed removing any hint of politics from the doj after the norms destroyed during the trump administration. but the circumstances surrounding the attack on the capitol could push garland to make a move. so will he or won't he? and if he does, how quickly could we see bannon charged? and is it all headed for a cliffhanger at the supreme court? joining us to talk about it are nbc news capitol hill correspondent ali vitali, "washington post" white house bureau chief ashley parker. you've got all the democrats voting for it, expected to, anyway, plus ch

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

merrick garland is not going to do an inspection. he was asked if he would and he said, it was noncommittal but it looked like a note to me. >> john: because it was a local issue. if you think on the subject of his son-in-law, and he said look i welcome a review of this in the department of justice, i got nothing to hide here. how about it. murray and i, good to talk to you and thanks for your perspective on things. >> sandra: thank you miranda. let's bring in colorado congressman ken buck just questioned -- the judiciary committee and as you know the house is set to vote on the ban and contempt of congress. we do expect hearing will reconvene in the next few moments but, you just had the chance to question him, and specifically you asked about a special counsel for hunter biden. he was the exchange, listen. >> will you appoint a special counsel to investigate hunter biden? >> for the same reason i'm not able to respond to investigations of the former president or of anywhere else, i'm not able to discuss any investigations pending o

garland is trying to restore which is one that makes prosecutorial decisions based upon the facts, not based on political influence or any other factors, and so they -- the prosecutors will look at the record in this case and the january 6th committee has produced a lengthy report, an over 25-page report that lays out the justification for their referral. >> we had a chance to catch up with a number of republican congress members who voted to impeach trump and even those members of congress are right now on the fence it seems on how they are going to vote regarding this subpoena for steve bannon, congressman depth. so i'm wondering is this really about the mid terms, is that why they are, you know, hemming and hawing about this? >> well, we'll see how they involvement i have the highest respect for those ten members. i'm very close with many of them. look, they will get -- they should -- if they asked my opinion i would tell them to vote for contempt because this -- trump is still going to attack them. you know, you might as well -- if you think you're going to go down, go down swingin

attorney general merrick garland testified today and giving to hint as to what he will decide to do. joining us now is joyce vance. if the house refers to bannon has is respected with all republicans going against, is the attorney general going to go ahead and charge him? what do you think the justice department will do? >> it is hard to predict what this justice department right now. what merrick garland has done is committed that doj will use the same principals of federal prosecution that they have used to decide in any other situation whether or not there should be an indictment. whether or not that is evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. if it the prost kus is a matter of national interest, and and i suppose it is possible that he could, the civil remedy is sufficient. in a case like this where there is just a raw effort for the oversight abilities, this would be the case. >>. >> what about the prosecution? is it contempt? >> thee ratically congress can file a lawsuit and we saw them do that with don mcgann and it was 750 days from the time he was subpoenaed to when he a

garland. he is testifying right now on capitol hill before the house judiciary committee. he just weighed in on the bannon decision. let's get over to cnn's jessica schneider who's following this for us. jessica, what is the attorney general saying? >> well, this has been a wide-ranging hearing, kate. the attorney general has very much tried to stay on message to talk about the moves that the justice department has made during his seven months at the top. in particular, he referenced the fact that they have doubled the staff of their voting rights section in the past year to be prepared to evaluate this influx of voting rights laws that have been enacted by mostly republican states. at the same time, the attorney general here, he is sticking to this message that he always focuses on. he repeatedly has said the justice department is not political and that its sole goal is to uphold and protect the rule of law. but of course today is that house vote on the steve bannon contempt referral. when th

garland get pretty testy at times. everything from whether or not republicans could show and in particular congressman jim jordan could show a video supporting the questions that they are asking the a.g. about parents being targeted by the f.b.i. specifically about those things and they were denied based on what chairman nadler of the house judiciary committee said was a point of rule there. someone objected and they went on. the back and forth got chippy for a bit. and then just moments ago, we saw something else and they are taking a break now and while they do we'll step in with "the faulkner focus". i'm hair use -- harris "the faulkner focus". a moment ago you saw the a.g. pressed on what may seem to be naked eye a conflict of interest for him to talk at all about going after parents and leveraging the f.b.i. to do that over issues that parents may have on what is being taught inside their children's's classroom. critical race theory. i believe we have a little bit of that. i will ask my team for that. >> given the

live 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

attorney general merrick garland on capitol hill as we speak. lawmakers will grill him on everything from immigration and the border crisis to abortion laws, covid mandates and his threats against educators. i'm dana perino. bill hemmer is off today. good morning trace. >> trace: i'm trace gallagher. the nation's top law enforcement officer appearing for the first time before the house judiciary committee facing tough questions from both sides of the aisle on a long lils of hot button issues. committee member mike johnson told us earlier about some major concerns. watch this. >> millions of americans and all of us, all the republicans on this committee deeply concerned that president joe biden and attorney general merrick garland have weaponized the justice department. inserting the d.o.j. into culture war matters and using it to attack republican-led state initiatives. eroding constitutional norms along the way while they try to push these far left policies. >> trace: david spunt is live at the justice department with more. good morning. >> goo

garland will appoint a special counsel to look at this. because the evidence is so clear for a massive watergate style attempt to destroy the process of electing a president. >> a massive watergate style attempt to destroy the process of electing a president. how deep does it go? because one of the things liz cheney suggested yesterday was that the president's assertion of executive privilege in and of itself was some kind of an indication that he had either knowledge of or was involved in the planning of the insurrection itself. >> well, when you string it all out, and you just look at his tweets, i mean, he says, you know, in his tweet on december 30th, january 6th, see you in d.c. he is actually talking about january 6th. and then he tweets in a -- there is no ambiguity in this, he says in a tweet, just hours before. i mean, this is 1:00 a.m. on january 6th, the day of the insurrection, if vice president mike pence comes through for us, we will win the presidency. many states want to direct -- believe they want to decertify the mistake

on c-span3, merrick garland testifies. you can watch online at c-span.org, or with our new video app, c-span now. >> you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in the studentcam video competition. we are asking you to create a five to six minute documentary but answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? the documentary must show supporting and opposing points of view. use c-span video clips, which are easy to find and access at c-span.org. the competition awards $100,000 in total cash prizes with a grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman david price, represents the fourth district of north carolina for his 17 term. he joins us this morning from capitol hill. good morning and welcome back to "washington journal." guest: good to be back. host: the first item on the agenda, your announcement that you would not seek reelection in 2022. tell us why not. guest: i do not have any elaborate reason

attorney general merrick garland on the hot seat, we have a look at what to expect from today's hearing with house judiciary member jim jordan. he's coming up. it all start next hour right here on mornings with maria live on fox business. ♪ ♪ ♪ nuplazid is the only approved medicine prescribed to significantly reduce hallucinations and delusions related to parkinson's. don't take nuplazid if you are allergic to its ingredients. nuplazid can increase the risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis and is not for treating symptoms unrelated to parkinson's disease. nuplazid can cause changes in heart rhythm and should not be taken if you have certain abnormal heart rhythms or take other drugs that are known to cause changes in heart rhythm. tell your doctor about any changes in medicines you're taking. the common side effects are swelling of the arms and legs and confusion. now this is something we want to see. don't wait. ask your healthcare provider about nuplazid. an official message from medicare. did you try it yet? comparing plans? oh yeah. they sure can cha

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

. ♪ 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

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

., 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