putting pressure on merrick garland. he said on our air here on cnn multiple times the reason we couldn't do this in the past is because we had bill barr in the trump doj. on the one hand, how could he not bring charges? it is a federal crime to commit contempt of congress. on the other hand, the history here is actually against charging these cases. nobody's been charged with this criminally in over 50 years and even over the last decade, doj, under both parties, has declined to bring these criminal prosecutions. the question is will merrick garland recognize that we're now in unprecedented territory and do what he has to do to impose some accountability here? >> appreciate it. thanks. >>> coming up next. william shatner's flight. more of his moving thoughts on it and some thoughts from neil degrasse tyson as well. >>> and later, new research on a different kind of booster showing the benefits of getting a covid booster if you initially got the johnson & johnson shot. why mix and match could be better ahead on "360." ab

garland to approve it and again, how does that work? >> look, at our par peril, if look who is in power and so on. the way it would work is congress will just approve making a referral to congress -- to the justice department for prosecution for criminal contempt and again, they can also file a civil suit in the federal court in washington d.c. and then it's up to the justice department to decide whether to pursue it. look, i'm certain that even if they're not talking, which they probably wouldn't be now, the justice department is at least thinking about how to proceed on this questionment. this is a huge public interest to at least not consider what will happen if tomorrow at 12:01 a.m. steve bannon does not show up, the justice department ought to be prepared. >> the select committee subpoenaed jeffly clark. there's been a lot of reporting about his role in trump's attempts to overturn the election. tell us about him. >> jeffrey clark is the trump studge number three position wrote a letter attempting to get the justice department to

how long likely is it that merrick garland with approve it? >> he said the reason we don't this before in the past because we had a trump person in there. how could he not charge these cases? nobody's been charged with this criminally this over 50 years and even over the last decade, d.o.j. under both parties has declined to bring these criminal prosecutions. the question is will merrick garland do what he has do to have some responsibility here? >> coming up, william shatner and his thoughts on flights and a new kind of booster. why mix and match could be better. ahead on 360. ♪ look for the bare necessities ♪ ♪ the simple bare necessities ♪ ♪ forget about your worries and your strife ♪ ♪ the bare necessities of life will come to you ♪ all the delivery, no delivery fees. dashpass. imagine having someone else do your books for you. as your quickbooks live bookkeeper, i'll categorize expenses, reconcile accounts, and close your books. cool. - yep. know where your business stands. intuit quickbooks live bookkeeping. talking about

garland didn't even get a hearing for his nomination to the court. and they want a more balanced approach on the court with a bench not dominated by conservatives right now. the white house has said that the commission's purpose goes beyond just the number of justices, but also examines term limits and altering the court's case selections, rules and practices. cnn's joan busasked justice bre about this yesterday. >> i've seen the court over 27 years to try to explain a little bit of its history so that people understand it's always been controversial. and how difficult it is to get people to accept rules, the decisions that they are really wrong, and yet if they don't, we won't have a rule of law and it will be harder to hold us together. before people make major changes in the court, i would like them to read or otherwise understand what i've written and to think about it pretty deeply. and it is an institution. i'll just repeat this. it's an institution that, fallible though it is, over time has served this country pretty well. >> supreme court jus

if they do that, the big decision will come down to merrick garland. adam schiff, by the way, has been putting pressure on merrick garland. a lot of pressure on him. now, if you look at the history, will merrick garland charge, on the one hand. yes, it is a federal crime, punishing by up to one year. minimum of one month. however, if we look at the history, it's been over 50 years since doj has criminally charged anyone for this. in the last decade or so, we have seen both parties get contempt referrals. barr and wilbur ross under the trump administration. learner and holder under the obama then station. we will see if merrick garland recognizes we are in new territory here >> there is also a civil track. >> absolutely. they could go to court and try to compel the witnesses to testify and compel documents. we will have a battle in the courts over executive privilege. joe biden has said, i'm not asserting executive privilege. meaning those documents can go over to the committee. unless donald trump objects, he has made noises that he will object, but no

the current attorney general may soon have a key decision to make, merrick garland. if there is a criminal contempt referral, if these guys are 6th to show up, comply with subpoenas and congress there's a criminal referral, if you were attorney general, would you pursue charges? . >> well, i'd have to know a lot of information. a lot of things to weigh here, john, quite frankly. obviously, it's important to ensure that criminal statutes are enforced. that's the job of the department of justice. and there is a criminal statute that makes it a crime not to comply with a congressional subpoena. my sense is that general garland is fairly measured in his approach to the job. he may look to see whether or not congress would exercise other options. for example, there is a practice that hasn't been done since in modern times. civil judgment route where you go to court and obtain a civil judgment against someone who defies a subpoena. he may look to see have all other options been exercised. on the other hand, what is weighing here i think will be equally important is the rea

garland in a very difficult position because merrick garland made re clear he does in the want to get -- wade into politics and this is an extremely political moment for the justice department, an extremely political moment for someone who say former appellate judge, methodical, thoughtful. so it is a difficult question, but there is a procedure in place, and we'll see how -- to what degree merrick garland is willing to follow the procedure and that's a question mark, but it is a very real possibility. >> one thing to not get involved, but at a certain point there is a nexus of not doing your job, right, where we're going to see where that line certainly is. norm, whitney, thank you so much to both of you. >>> so today and tomorrow a panel of fda adviser will look again at covid-19 booster shots. a new study shows some people might be better off getting another vaccine than their original shot. cnn's senior medical correspondent elizabeth cohen joins us now with that. elizabeth? >> john, good morning. so these fda advisers, these are external advisers, mostly folks who are scientists

merrick garland has to stand up here and do his job, even if it may be difficult. >> what do you think the chances are that happens, elie? >> i'm split on this. on the one happened, merrick garland has not shown a lot of appetite for anything that may be politically fraught during his time here. i think he's undercharged some of the january 6th defendants. i think he's not gone high up enough in the chain. he's shown no interest in investigating anything relating to donald trump. the steve bannon case in particular is so extraordinary, his claim of executive privilege is so utterly ridiculous that you can't just let it go with no consequence. >> here's the thing, yes, the politics are messy. this is not the first time that politics have been messy or sensitive with an issue like this. but january 6th, and what happened prior and afterwards, a sitting president trying to overturn the results of an election, using multiple levers of government is inherently political. it is weaponizing politics, so is this a case, right, where you have to pursue the criminal path because otherwise there

garland? >> quite possibly. you would normally give the witness an opportunity to at least show up. common sense dictates, and every indication we have is that steve bannon is not going to, but it benefits congress when they go too court eventually to say they called this witness in, he chose not to comply and he is acting in violation of the subpoena. they have a few options. two big ones are, one, they can go to the justice department and seek a criminal penalty. that doesn't get you the testimony. that just punishes him for breaking the law. that's leverage they could have. they could sue him to enforce the validity of the subpoena. they're free to take those steps. you punish him in one sense but compel him to testify in another sense. we'll have to see what happens as this plays out. >> i'm curious about where this ultimately leads, right, because beyond those support players, the question is what did the former president attempt to do and can congress prove it, right? they had eight hour

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

it will be up to merrick garland. paula reid, how is this process going to work? >> on tuesday they say they are going to get to work. they are going to have a meeting where they will adopt a report detailing how they tried to get bannon to comply with the subpoena and how he refused. they adopt that report, it will move to the house for a vote. if that succeeds, it will be referred to the justice department. so ultimately it's up to attorney general merrick garland if he wants to move forward with a prosecution. it's unclear how he will handle it. bannon has said he is not going to comply unless he is ordered to do so by a court and he notes the fact that the former president has directed him not to comply because he wants to raise issues of privilege. today the committee said we reject that argument in its entirety. now, if he is prosecuted and found guilty, he could be looking at a fine and even jail time. look, jake, this is not a common kind of proceeding. it rarely results in jail time p but i spoke to the lawyers, even in the trump orbit, who say jail could

merrick garland, the attorney general, has said he wants the justice department under his leadership to not be political, and i guess one of the questions i have here is how much do you perceive this as a political matter? i get that republicans, some republicans think that this committee, which is bipartisan, and it has liz cheney and adam kinzinger on it, is out on a witch hunt or whatever, but there was an insurrection. there was a violent attack on the capitol. so what are the political considerations that garland has to think about? >> well, there are, as you say, jake, there are very serious legal issues at play here. let's not kid ourselves. anything with respect to -- any decision with respect to a possible prosecution is going to become politicized. there is just no way around it. and merrick garland, i think, is going to be very careful in the decisions he makes because he doesn't want embroiled at the department of justice into a political food fight. i think he is probably going to be careful, be measured, he wants to be able to stand up to the american people at some poi

one thing we know about merrick garland, he's a laumw man. he's not going to turn his back on this and in a clear case like this, it can move quickly and i have to ask what does bannon have to hide? why not come in and cooperate? why is trump covering all this up? why are we having this sto stonewalling that we had in the white house when he was there? they're hiding and it's not going to work. >> will any of this actually scare bannon or get them to comply? >> it's hard to know. i mean -- this is something that appeals to his demographic, his fans. >> fair. >> that he's fighting the democrats in congress and he's standing up for donald trump. this thing is going to play itself out. he does not have a president who's likely to pardon him for anything. that's a potential problem for him. i think right now he wants to run the string out on this as well. to a certain group of people he's a hero and a martyr as a result of this. you can say in a way this is fine with him. i think he knew, steve bannon knew what he was doing. >> well -- he may be

. >> proof in the pudding is going to be whether merrick garland and the justice department get off the bench and get in the game. >> right, that's right. >> i totally agree with that. >> it will be up to doj, 100%. >> it is, which is why congress couldn't wait to get it to them. that's why they're going to have their vote. jimmy, the only reason this doesn't go bad is because the optics are bad. when you started mentioning biden, i thought you were going to say, does biden really want to make bannon a martyr? does he want to have this guy sitting out there as someone who seems he was unfairly punished? although i don't think that's true under the facts. i've got to jump. i appreciate it. ben, thank you very much. jimmy, appreciate you, thank you for not running away when your picture went out, i know you had second thoughts. no, i'm kidding. thank you very much to both. >>> we're going to keep an eye on tonight's breaking news at the top of the show. we have learned former president bill clinton was hospitalized tuesday. he's still in the hospital now. not about his heart. does not sou

>> that will be up to merrick garland. if the committee follows through, and they've made very clear they intend to, then it will shift over to merrick garland to make the decision, does he charge the federal crime of contempt of congress. and a lot of people are asking that question. my question is, how can he not? when you look at the fact here, steve bannon has zero legitimate basis. he's saying executive privilege, he's saying attorney/client privilege. those things have no application to someone who is not an attorney and was not part of the executive branch. if merrick garland chooses not to charge this, where does that leave the committee, where does that leave congress, where does that leave our balance of powers, where does this leave the justice department? this is a moment of truth for merrick garland. >> we know the strategy of trump world is to delay at all costs, usually that's extending litigation. the m.o. was to sue people until they run out of resources or run out of time, they would run the clock out. is

if merrick garland chooses not to charge this, where does that leave the committee? where does that leave congress? where does that leave our balance of powers? where does that leave the justice department? this is a really moment of truth for merrick garland coming up right here. >> elie, we know the strategy in trump world, right, is to try to delay at all costs. usually that's through, you know, extending litigation. the m.o. was to sue people and take them to court long enough so i guess they would run out of resources or run out of time, run the clock out. is there anything more that the committee can do? >> so the committee, all they can do is get this over to doj quickly on the criminal side, get it into the courts quickly on the civil side. they can do both of those things. they should. why not? they're both available. at that point the people we need to be looking at are merrick garland on the criminal side and whatever judge in the district of columbia gets this case. look, judges can move as quickly as they want. i've had judges thoput what i thought were

ultimately the decision lies with the attorney general, merrick garland, if he wants to move forward with this. bannon has argued he will not cooperate unless ordered to do so by a judge. he says he's been directed by trump not to participate because he wants to raise issues of privilege, though it's not clear he will do that. if he is prosecuted, there is a trial, if he is found guilty, a lot of ifs, if that happens he could face a fine or jail time. this is incredibly rare, but i'm told by lawyers within the trump orbit, jail is a potential possibility here. >> the ifs, jennifer, is where i'm stuck as paula lays out really well. i have questions of how much teeth a congressional subpoena and criminal contempt has. how do you see this moving next? >> well, you know, it's interesting because bannon is the one to try this with because he has the least effective claim of executive privilege. so they're counting on the fact that doj is going to be first of all willing to proceed, period, when we really haven't seen any indication that merrick garland wants to move forward with these kin

but the decision is ultimately up to attorney general merrick garland. as for who else could be a target? lawmakers are not ruling out anyone, including vice president mike pence or former president donald trump. >> nobody is off limits to a subpoena from this committee. >> reporter: the committee has agreed to postpone depositions with other trump advisers, kash patel, mark meadows and dan scavino to give them more time for negotiations. but the committee says their patience is limited. jake, lawmakers have a long list of witnesses lined up. next week they expect documents or depositions that they have subpoenaed from several people involved in organizing the stop the steal rally on january 6th. the following week they have subpoenaed former justice official jeffrey clark who tried to help trump overturn the 2020 laexs results. a source tells cnn at this point clark's options are really limited and he may testify now that he's under subpoena after months of talking with lawmakers. >> and i have to say, just to take a moment, this capitol police officer

garland. >> he's right. he's not making a controversial statement. he's saying people who break the law should be prosecuted. don, i don't like it. he stepped up to the line and look, you and i sat here for the greater part of four years talking about a president who sort mettled in the affairs of the justice department and you tiptoe to the line. look i don't want to equate this to the conflict over the past four years. it's not the same. the president stays out and i can tell you from time when i was there, look, when you're in a joint meeting with the white house and justice department and you need to talk to the case, send the white house folks out. that's how it works. there is a we'll of separation between the two and this got close to it so they are pushing back. >> a comment, i get your point. comment and actual behavior, two different things considering the -- >> nope, nope, nope. >> the last administration. yeah. steve bannon is the poster child for this. how important is it he is held accountable,

which means that attorney general merrick garland will have to weigh in. what do you think he will do? >> i think they'll go forward with a criminal contempt charge. that it's what i expect to happen. but i suspect some things will happen in between. first of all, bannon may try to say he's taking the fifth as a way to get out of this. he may have an attorney who ends up charting a different course. he may ultimately comply. i think for a lot of folks, just the mere fact that they may get indicted is a very good inducement to testify. so i think there is definitely some chapters yet to go. >> how long will this take, because we know the strategy in trump world is delay at all costs, and to use the legal system to do it. litigation, and so forth. >> yeah. i think it's going to take time. first of all, once the committee votes, the full house has to vote. then it goes to the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. they're going to consider carefully whether to indict. let's say they do convene a grand jury, he's indicted. i have clients where there's a backlog of yea

and, you know, merrick garland and the attorney general does have a decision to make once this referral is brought to the department of justice as to exactly how they plan to prosecute it. do they take him into a court of law? do they arrest steve bannon? could he face jail time at some point? this isn't just a cut and dried, black and white issue, so there is some decision-making that has to take place on behalf of the department of justice. and critics -- this is not me saying it, don. critics could say perhaps the president is putting his thumb on the scale in terms of the decision-making process of the department of justice. he clearly wants to see the subpoena answered. it's just a matter of how they go about forcing that compliance. >> so what is ahead, then, this week for the select committee's investigation? should we expect more subpoenas? >> reporter: so subpoenas are always on the table. the select committee has said they're interested in people getting information from certain individuals, and they feel like they're not getting compliance, they will issue subpoenas. we don't

so congress doesn't actually have a ton of power, and we don't know what merrick garland is going to do. he wants to aid the investigation. but at the same time the administration wants to show that the doj is independent. so we don't know, and even if they do decide to pursue criminal charges, it's going to wind up in a lengthy court battle. so it could take years to resolve. the truth is the committee doesn't have that type of time. the house could flip to republicans next year, and then this whole select committee would go away. >> having lived through the two impeachment investigations, specifically the first investigation where i feel like the former president's lawyers figured out that you could basically destroy the investigation by just saying no to absolutely everything. is this going to be the same situation where everybody's waiting for three years to see anything about anything? and by that point everybody's moved on. >> i think it very well could be, which is not only, it's a shame mostly because the american people deserve to sfaknow what happened on january 6th, the fu

and doj, again, merrick garland, there's a lot of pressure on merrick garland. joe biden has said he thinks this case should be charged. so all three of those actors need to stiffen up and show some spine here. >> we saw the justice department say that they'll be making the decision, not the president. the chair of the january 6th committee congressman bennie thompson told cnn earlier this week that the committee has not ruled out subpoenaing the former president donald trump in that, quote, nobody is off limits. adam kinzinger was asked about this earlier this morning. here's what he said. >> if we subpoena all of a sudden the former president, we know that's going to become kind of a circus so that's not necessarily something we want to do up front. but if we need a piece of information, we certainly will. >> some hesitancy to bring him in here and create a spectacle, which is what would happen. >> i'm spectacle they will subpoena the former president. it would be a circus. let's be clear here, the focus of all of this, the central focus here is donald trump.

but the big question is what will merrick garland do. it is unusual for a.g.'s to bring this charge but we've seen something interesting over the last several days which is high-profile politicians and the president saying they believe merrick garland ought to charge. they pushed back and they said they will make their own decision but i think he understands the gravity of the decision coming up. >> as i'm here you heard this weekend congressman adam schiff reity ear ated that no one is off the table in terms who have they might subpoena so it is realistic they could subpoena former president trump? >> i don't think that is realistic. i don't see that happening. first of all, as another member, adam kinzinger said, it is going to be a circus and i think the committee wanted to avoid that. should they subpoena trump? of course. the main thrust is what did donald trump know and do leading up to january 6. but they're going for people around trump that would have had access and that is why they chose meadow and cash patel and others for a subpoena. and the committ

but ultimately, this is going to be a defining moment for merrick garland. there's political pressure on him. the committee is publicly applying pressure to him. the president of the united states said he wants to see this charge. doj pushed back and said we are going to make this decision independently. however, if mairk garland takes on this fight and he should, it is going to be a tough fight but sometimes as a prosecutor, that's what you have to do. but if he does not, if he says i am he not charging this, he will knee cap this committee. he will prevent them from compelling testimony -- >> thank you very much. so, you know, tonight, we did hear from donald trump and under oath -- well, not we but somebody did. the former president just leaving trump tower because he gave a videotaped deposition for four and a half hours and the purpose of this was to see if he could be held responsible for an alleged assault of protestors outside of the building in 2015. the demonstrators were protesting trump's anti-immigration rhetoric during the campaign. they claim

brings us right back to merrick garland. he'll have a big decision to make. >> there's a lot going on. thank you for explaining all of it. every hour today could bring new developments in this. >> absolutely. >>> on capitol hill, a critical day for the fate of the biden agenda. seems to be some movement, some progress in the standoff between liberals and progressives and moderates in the democratic party. senators joe manchin and bernie sanders, complete opposites on how much to spend and for what, they're finally meeting, talking, they say. the same goes for manchin and the leader of the progressives in the house. congresswoman pramila jayapal. biden is set to hold two in-person meetings today with both factions as negotiations heat up over infrastructure and social structure bills. let's talk about with this former ohio state senator and co-chair of the bernie sanders' 2020 presidential campaign. nina turner with us. and political commentator and former adviser to president bill clinton. nina, we see this moment playing ou

garland could intervene if he wants to. historically, most people don't actually go to trial after their cases are referred to doj. even if steve bannon is ultimately charged here, any prosecution could take a while and he could obviously appeal. so there is a long road ahead here. >> laura, separate from this, very connected, former president trump sued the january 6th committee and national archives to try to keep the records from his presidency a secret. these records that they have specifically requested. what is going on here? >> right. this fight is all about what the former president was doing and saying leading up to the riot on january 6th. the problem for him is he isn't president anymore and doesn't have the records he wants to keep secret. they live in the national archives. the man who is president, president biden, is standing by his decision not to assert executive privilege over these materials. in a new statement late last night, more forceful in tone, trump's actions are called a unique and existential thr

garland, the attorney general, still has prosecutorial discretion here. so there are a few open questions. but let's drill down on what bannon is essentially arguing. so basically what he's saying is that because the former president has said that he is trying to assert executive privilege over these records and over these communications, steve bannon is saying, i don't know what the options are because there is this outstanding question about executive privilege and hasn't been decided yet, so i don't know what my authority is. however, the committee says that that is just not a defensible argument, basically what they're saying is that he knows that his communications with the former president are not covered by executive privilege. here is a quote from the resolution that came out last night. >> the law is clear that executive privilege does not extend to discussions between the president and private citizens relating to nongovernmental business or among private citizens. the observation we made several times on this air is that steve bannon wasn't a m

>> well, that's part of the decision merrick garland has to make. it if a criminal contempt case is brought, that in and of itself won't force steve bannon to testify. though it could land him in jail when he refuses to do so. but that's really the question here. will a judge quickly enough for the house to act make a determination on executive privilege and have that wind its way through the court on appeals? i don't think so. there are too many layers of court review, too many possible appeals. the other interesting wrinkle here is that trump needs an injunction. those records are going over from the national archives in november. unless there is an injunction. so kind of a flip side to what we saw on the trump administration where the stone walling actually served to not have things go to congress. this i think is going to end up being the opposite. a judge is not going to give him an injunction. it is not going t ining to wind through on time. i think it is pretty likely that those documents go over, rendering some of this moot in terms of what

garland is very methodical. so the question is just because this is biden's white house, biden's doj, does doj move very fast on this and the democrats don't know the answer. >> this is the question of a power of a person who was president versus the power of the presidency and that's ultimately what's at stake here. the privilege is meant to protect the institution so there can be democratic governance, not to protect individuals so that they can, you know, work around government. >> and the question do both the political and legal systems get the urgency of this, the urgency that have day and the urgency of the truth, the don mcgawn subpoena in the impeachment inquiry, the case ultimately settled in may 2021 so in the past, rear view mirror, this can take too long. the question is what is it like out the windshield. meetings, signs of progress. lawmaker meetings and key players in the biden agenda. they are all getting together, too, but are they cole vinagre anything? oh! are you using liberty mutual's covera

this is going to be a legacy-defining decision for merrick garland. look, he's under political pressure, adam schiff and other members of the committee have been out there essentially saying we're counting on you, mr. attorney general. joe biden was asked by our kaitlan collins do you think bannon should be charged with criminal contempt and he said straight up yes, i do. doj pushed back on that, but ultimately it will be merrick garland's decision. >> so remind us about how criminal contempt stacks up in the committee's legal toolbox because it is rarely used and what kinds of consequences are there if convicted? >> yeah. so there is a federal crime for contempt of congress. if a person receives a subpoena and defies it without a good legal reason, that is a crime. now, it's a misdemean are o. misdemeanors are the less serious variety of crimes or the more serious crimes so the maximum penalty is one yore or 12 months behind bars and a $1,000 fine. however, an interesting wrinkle here is there is a mandatory minimum of one month in prison, so if stev

garland. at this point, it's unclear what the attorney general will do, but we know two things. one is that the attorney general is facing a lot of political pressure, and according to experts i've spoken with, bannon has made the decision a little bit easier for him. in terms of the political pressure, late last week, president biden said that he believes, yes, bannon should be prosecuted for contempt. that is notable because the justice department is, of course, supposed to be independent, but other democratic lawmakers have also come out and said they want this prosecution because they believe if there are no consequences for refusing to comply with the subpoena, they won't be able to do their job. but the justice department has come out and said they will make an independent decision based on the facts and the law, full stop. now, in terms of the case before the attorney general, potentially, if this continues to move forward, i'm told by legal experts on both sides of the aisle that banno

attorney in d.c., not to merrick garland himself. take us inside the room per se. does the u.s. attorney pick up the phone and call garland, tell him i just got this referral? how does it work with a prominent and potentially thorny case? >> so technically the case goes to the relevant u.s. attorney, in this case, the u.s. d.c. attorney. i led a famously independent u.s. attorney's office, the southern district of new york, often called the sovereign district of new york. each u.s. attorney's office operates with some degree of independence from the rest of the justice department and from the attorney general. my office more maybe stridently than others. given the weight of the matter, the focus of the nation on it, i can't imagine the u.s. attorney in d.c. who i know who is an honorable prosecutor would be doing that without consulting with merrick garland. whether garland picks up the phone or the u.s. attorney picks up the phone, someone will and there will be a discussion about it. >> preet bharara, thank you. >>> president biden holding talks with both sides of the split. a

but the decision on whether to proceed would lie with the loss, attorney general merrick garland and at this point it's not clear exactly what he will do. he is facing considerable political pressure, even though the white house and justice department are supposed to be completely separate, president biden weighed in late last week saying, yes, he believes bannon should be prosecuted. and, of course, we've seen democratic lawmakers also calling on the justice department to proceed with this arguing that if they don't, then trump associates won't have any incentive or need to cooperate. it's interesting, jake, in speaking with legal experts on both sides of this, including people who used to work for the former president they suggested that bannon could have made this a lot more difficult for the attorney general. he could have shown up and invoked privilege on some questions. could have taken the fifth. would have been harder to argue he wasn't complying. but instead he and his attorneys snts sent this attorney citing privilege, even though many of the items are not related to conver

so if merrick garland says no on bannon, forget it. game over. all these guys are going to defy and have no fear of meaningful prosecution and meaningful consequences: >> and another legal issue, what sort of legal fight do you actually expect for the select committee to get its hands on the documents from the trump white house? >> well, biden has already, you know, asserted that he's -- or not asserted executive privilege over these documents. so i think, you know, they are going to get the documents they want one way or the other. i don't think that they are going to be stopped from conducting their own investigation. the key here with bannon is that he has specific firsthand knowledge about certain things. possible foreknowledge of the january 6th attacks, which he talked about. the fact that he was in the war room with john eastman and rudy giuliani on the day of the attack. so that's like additional information that could be helpful to them. what could also be helpful is locking in his testimony because department of justice is undoubtedly a

merrick garland needs to make his own decision. he has lots of good reasons to rule as norm eisen says. but it's got to be the ruling of the department of justice without any undue pressure from the president of the united states. >> so, laura, steve ban's lawyer has asked the committee to delay tonight's vote for at least a week because of trump's lawsuit, right? which was filed last night. right? when trump is -- is suing to prevent, you know, 45 unknown documents from coming out from the national archives to the committee and bannon's lawyer's saying, okay, we got to wait to see how that goes. and the committee needs to wait on that before, you know, talking to bannon. the committee denied their request. so, does that -- does that change this at all in terms of do you think they'll be successful at getting more delays because of trump's lawsuit? >> the -- the committee should have denied his request because remember when you get a subpoena, you have an assertion of privilege if it's valid, you have got to prove it. but it doesn'

garland. and the department of justice to begin the process of prosecuting this case. it will likely go before a grand jury. and then, the process will begin from a criminal prosecution standpoint. and all of this, with the goal of trying to get steve bannon to cooperate with this committee not just to offer up his testimony but also to provide the documents and communications and information that he knows about what happened on that day. >> yeah. i mean, to see how many republicans in the house actually have the courage of liz cheney, of adam kinzinger, um, that is one thing we will be watching very closely. ryan nobles, thank you. joining us is cnn senior political commentator and former senior adviser to president obama, david axelrod. cnn chief political correspondent, dana bash. so, dana, just on a political level, how significant is this move by the committee tonight? i mean, if the former president and his allies are able to stall the investigation, obviously, in the months ahead while

what does the attorney general merrick garland do now? >> mr. bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena. that's not acceptable. no one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful is above the law. - legitimate and genuine - can be transformational. daddy! for the best audio entertainment and storytelling. audible. (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 yodeling high. [yodeling] yo-de-le-he... (man 2) hey, no. uh-uh, don't do that. (man 1) we should go even higher! (man 2) yeah, let's do it. (both) woah! (man 2) i'm good. (man 1) me, too. (man 2) mm-hm. (vo) adventure has a new look. (man 1) let's go lower. (man 2) lower, that sounds good. (vo) discover more in the all-new subaru outback wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru. ♪ when you have nausea, ♪ ♪ heartburn, ingestion, upset stomach... ♪ ♪ diarrheaaaa. ♪ pepto bismol coats your stomach with fast and soothing relief. and try

if merrick garland doesn't prosecute this he is completely kneecapping the committee. and our balance of powers itself, our balance of powers is strong but it is delicate. if congress shows they're just ineffectual to get information about such a key event as january 6th, then where does that really leave congress with respect to the executive branch and a former president? >> listen, elie, bannon tried to claim, you know, executive privilege even though he hasn't worked in the white house since 2017. this is -- i want you to listen to what congresswoman liz cheney has to say about that. >> mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> they've got to prove that. how do they do it? >> yeah, it is a good and logical point by representative cheney here. i mean we know steve bannon the day before, we heard the clip earlier in your show, don, was essentially predicting and he

what does the attorney general merrick garland do now? >> mr. bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena. that's not acceptable. no one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful is above the law. nnectg to the environment. seeing yourself as an artist - legitimate and genuine - can be transformational. daddy! for the best audio entertainment and storytelling. audible. ♪ your new pharmacy is here. to help you compare prices, and save on your medication. amazon prime members get select meds as low as $1 a month. who knew it could be this easy? your new pharmacy is amazon pharmacy. you could spend half an hour preparing for the half hour status meeting. orrr... you could cancel the meeting and share updates in slack instead. it's where your whole team is in one place so everyone can stay up to date. slack. where the future works. ♪ ♪ peerless design, cutting-edge tech, and a world-class interior. the exhilarating mercedes-benz glc. extraordinary runs in the family. >>> we're back now with our breaking news. the

merrick garland is looking at a very important, very difficult decision. will he bring charges? on the one hand, it hasn't been done in 38 years. on the other hand, how can he not? steve bannon is sort of the extreme example of defying a subpoena with no excuse. if merrick garland doesn't prosecute this, he's just completely knee-capping the committee and our balance of powers itself. our balance of powers is strong, but it is delicate. if congress shows they are ineffectual to get information about such a key event as january 6th, then where does that really leave congress with respect to the executive branch and a former president? >> listen, elie, bannon tried to claim, you know, executive privilege even though he hasn't worked in the white house since 2017. this is -- i want you to listen to what congresswoman liz cheney has to say about that. >> mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th, and this committee will get to the bot

it will then be in the hands of the attorney general merrick garland to begin the prosecution phase of this. at the end of this, it is all about the committee trying to get this information from steve bannon. they also are hoping to send a message to the other individuals they would like to cooperate with the committee. they aren't messing around. they will do whatever it takes to get that information. ryan nobles, cnn, on capitol hill. >>> well, of the 11 people the committee has subpoenaed, bannon is the only one to defy the call to testify. members of the committee explain the importance of hearing from him to reconstruct the days leading up to january the 6 and to send the message the committee intends to enforce the rule of law. take a listen to this. >> we have to hear from the people who were closest to the former president at the time of january 6th and we're familiar with his thinking and can understand as liz cheney said, things we know publicly from public statements that the president, the former president was aware of these things going on around him. and, you know, made c

if the recommendation charge willing bannon is approved, merrick garland will have to decide whether to prosecute him. joining me now is maggie haberman. good morning, maggie. >> reporter: good morning. >> i want to start with what liz cheney said. the indicates he certainly had knowledge, she said, before january 6th and was likely involved in the planning. how significant is that? >> reporter: it is certainly a significant statement. it is hard to assess. it's coming at a time obviously when they are trying to add weight to their argument as to why they should have access to records and why bannon should be held in context for defying this congressional subpoena he is refusing to comply with. it's hard to separate these things out. i think they are related. they clearly have a massed some information. >> things steve bannon has said out loud, we know he was talking about this stuff. what is your reporting on what he was doing in the days at the end of december and the beginning of january or how close he was to the president, for instance? >> reporter: we know he was speaking to th

this is going to be pressure on merrick garland, the question of supporting criminal contempt charges which was done successfully during watergate, less successfully during the 1980s. but this is a -- you want an issue of precedent, precedent is an attempt by a sitting president of the united states to overturn an election and execute a coup. if we don't enforce the laws in this circumstance, to ensure maximum transparency, that is setting up the next insurrection attempt. >> all i'm saying is watch the supreme court. because once -- if the -- they may want to grant an injunction temporarily while they decide this. >> they may. but they have to act really quickly. it has to go up through this judge and then the court of appeals and then the supreme court. it can take a while. >> john, laura, thank you very much. >>> amazing, miraculous, both would apply after a plane ran off a runway in texas, struck a fence and went up in flames. 21 people, everyone on board survived and most did so without even so much as a scratch. cnn's rosa flores live for us at the houston executive airport. ros

merrick garland is unlikely to kick that rock over? >> i think the attorney general is in a difficult position, because on one hand, what he's really trying to do with his willingness to serve at this time is to restore the norms of the justice department, to return to regular order, to insulate the department from political influence. on the other hand, we had an insurrection at the u.s. capitol on january 6, as everyone here knows. and so the justice department is conducting a robust investigation of hundreds of pe people who have been prosecuted in that case who participated in that event. the piece that is missing and the piece that the january 6 committee is trying to address is the planning of it. critical advisors were involved in conspireing and potentially planning and involved in that. i don't think we know the answer yet as to whether the justice department is pursuing those types of investigations and charges. >> it's also an important question for the future, right, because those same advisors and trump himself as well are

. >> reporter: and it's still unclear what attorney general merrick garland will do, if he receives that bannon contempt referral. the committee chairman says three other trump associates, kash patel, mark meadows and dan scavino are being somewhat cooperative. scavino's lawyer tells cnn he's not entered into negotiations with the committee and at this point, jake, he is not ready to cooperate. >> paula reid, thank you. >>> we're following breaking news out of florida right now. any moment the fbi is set to give an update on the search for brian laundrie after items belonging to him were found when cadaver dogs were called in. stay with us. ♪ you pour your heart into everything you do, which is a lot. so take care of that heart with lipton. because sippin' on unsweetened lipton can help support a healthy heart. lipton. stop chuggin'. start sippin'. sharing smiles together is a gift. at aspen dental, it's easy to gift yourself the smile you deserve. new patients, get started with a comprehensive exam and full set of x-rays with no obligation. and if you don't have insurance, it's free.