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

that was a letter they sent to merrick garland that caused him to refer to parents as domestic terrorists and then seek the fbi after these parents at school board meetings. the worst port of all of it is they covered up. they covered up because when they had a meeting to determine whether they would support this transgender policy, crt, vaccines, mask, the superintendent says there are no records of sexual assault that i know of in this school. meanwhile, there was one within a month before. and then he turns to a red herring and he says "time" magazine says this is all ridiculous anyway. the father at that point is like ballistic. his daughter has been forcibly raped and sodomized and he disagrees and the police come after him. you have got the right to assemble, the right to address grievances. first amendment. none of that is working in loudoun county or anywhere in the united states now. >> tucker: i have noticed. they are putting so much pressure on this country. something that is going to happen. really bad. judge jeanine, i appreciate your analysis. great to see you. john gruden w

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, the federal formal judge leading that process which what transparency looks like if we want government to uphold the rules of law. >> shannon: sound like they're trying to stay hands off and let it proceed. >> if we want to uphold the rule of law we need to start at the border where we have hundreds of thousands of illegals coming at the border but the reality -- hunter biden is the greatest example of liberal provision the history of america and this is just another example. >> shannon: leave it there. we appreciate your time. have to leave it there and we will watch that investigation and have faith that we will be handled independently. and tw mention this, the border crisis fox news has of exclusively obtained leaked border patrol documents that show the biden administration has leaked more than 70,000 immigrants into the u.s. in the last two months alone. that includes granting parole to nearly 32,000 migrants since august 6th. a move under federal law that is only to be granted for noncitizens on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant publi

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

police week continues into police weekend this weekend attorney general merrick garland will honor the fallen, president joe biden will do the same saturday at the u.s. capitol. bret. >> bret: david spunt at the doj. thanks. up next, the treacherous journey through central america on the way to the u.s. southern border. we will take you there and we will hear from some migrants who survived it. first, here's what some of our fox affiliates around the country are covering tonight. fox 2 in separate cisco, where it's the first day for the city's first responders to be fully vaccinated or risk losing their jobs. the san francisco police association says 120 officers there will be on paid administrative leave. the fire department confirms 41 firefighters are in the same situation. fox 46 in charlotte as south carolina attorney alex marlow is arrested in connection to insurance settlements obtained after the death of his housekeeper in 2018. he's charged with two felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. lawyers say the housekeeper's heirs never received money after the fatal

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

garland's domestic terrorism in the form of parents actually putting up protests to the way their kids are being taught in schools, classic example of changing the subject, and mark my words, you are going to see more of it. >> tucker: you blame the records for the failure of the potato harvest. white supremacist, no one has ever seen one, but they are everywhere. i think that is a pretty hard case to make, though in the face of increasing poverty. can you actually convince people they are getting poorer because qanon is bad? >> you have this battle on the left, tucker, not a lot of people on the right appreciate this distinction. the occupy wall street left mostly left in the stands for ten years, then you have the new woke left that has actually held the reins over power. as you begin to see economic recession and economic consequences of this country and you begin to see inflation -- gas prices go up, i think you are going to see the rise of the occupy wall street left come back, and we are on the left need to go back to arguing about economic inequality as a fault to talking about

. >> 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

garland, the attorney general targeting parents at school board meetings, some on the left calling them domestic terrorists, meanwhile, there were a real terrorist gathering in the wake of the fall of afghanistan so seeing is believing, what is the truth here? >> absolutely, those are all great points and it's important to remember as you know starting next year, every week that passes, we get closer to next year's elections so every week that we get closer, more and more democrats are going to wake up and start speaking acknowledging reality which is that there is a crisis and it does cross everything. for example, joe biden just now in his remarks talked about how he wants to lower child care costs for families. everybody wants people to have lower child care pair that's not the issue. the issue is how do you get there and the credibility problem comes in if you're going to lower the cost of child care the way you lowered gas prices and the price of meat at the grocery store, no thank you. americans don't want lower prices like that, they want actual lower prices. >> anita: i want to

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

you have the department of justice with merrick garland saying if you're a mom and you're irate about what they're teaching your kids at school -- it is awful. but you need to be aware that your government can listen to every phone call, can discover everything about you, yank you off a plane, prevent you from flying. that's not the america i want to live in and we have to push back. >> laura: senator paul, thanks for leading in this. we warned you the left would come for the founding fathers. now the radicals controlling new york city, they're coming off city councilman joe barelli. he has an answer. and disdain for our history has been embraced by walmart. chris rufo has the latest next. one of my favorite supplements is qunol turmeric. turmeric helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. unlike regular turmeric supplements qunol's superior absorption helps me get the full benefits of turmeric. the brand i trust is qunol. >> laura: the most extreme abolish america elements on the left are embolden. you can see it and feel it. they have cultural power, they have momentum. sta

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

garland saying if you are a mom, angry about what they are teaching your kids at school or mandating them to be vaccinated. of your irate and upset and raise your voice you might be a domestic terrorist. former president george bush comparing moms at these rallies and school board meetings to domestic terrorists. it is awful but you need to be aware your government can listen to every phone call, discover everything about you, yank you off a plane, prevent you flying and that is not the america i to live in and we need to push back. laura: thank you for leading on this again and we want you that the left was going to come for the founding fathers, now the radicals controlling new york city are coming after thomas jefferson. city councilman joe marelli has an answer to that plus disdain for our history has been embraced by walmart, details on the latest investigation next. .. it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the las

it is a memo that is signed by merrick garland. it is a memo that's gone to the criminal division of the justice department, the national security division, the civil rights division, the executive office of u.s. attorneys, the federal bureau of investigation, as if this is kind of in east german [inaudible]. parents in this country, they are going to spy on you, gather intelligence on you, they are going to track you, and the organizations you belong to, and a special phone number is set up so a teacher or a bureaucrat or union or whomever thinks if you're threatening or harassing them, they will set loose the fbi to come to your home and to interview you. among other things in this memo, loose language, like they are going to look at efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. they're going to be committing to using their authority and their resources. they have a dedicated line of communication for threat reporting. there's a problem here. the federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever in the classroom

merrick garland has done, the department leadership and fbi following through on this is un-american. this is tantamount to sedition. this is not the intended use of the muscle of the american public. you don't feel outrage. i tell you what, dimis is a loudon county parent ground sear of this issue. >> these people are part of the woke nation. they want bruni points from the people. they don't care about the parents or children at all. the fifth-grader just starting to learn how to multiply and divide, that is a bad sign that should be done in third grade. we spoke up. the entire nation is speaking up, tell it to the parents. do not give up. be involved in your parents curriculum. be involved in your school. do not give up. pete: they had an impact. a member of that school board had to resign. the superintendent is under fire for covering up a sexual assault happened because it was a gender bathroom policies. parents standing up, what they're meeting is, not equal justice to your point. you talked a lot about this what happens in countries when they lose the idea of equality under the

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

garland to issue a memo this past week asking for a task force over this. we'll get to that in a second. what's your reaction to what the administration is doing? >> i think that what they've done is a huge mistake. there is no evidence anywhere that state and local law enforcement have been overwhelmed because of threats of violence or violence against school board officials or educators. obviously, threats of violence and violence, those are already against the law, so there's absolutely no justification for them and they should be handled. the problem is when the department of justice involves itself at the behest of the biden administration, and uses terms like domestic terrorism to describe parents, it is going to have an impact, it's going to intimidate a lot of parents into silence because, again, most people are not hardwired to show up at a public meeting and speak about their concerns at a microphone. that is something that takes courage for a lot of people to do. if you're on the fence about doing it and now you're hearing that you may be labeled

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.

todd: attorney general merrick garland getting push back after calling for federal intervention against parents protesting school policies. four members of the commission say he provided no examples of threats to justify federal action, saying we're concerned with what the school board calls threats and they could be classified as political speech. they say the parents are making them proud to be americans and they asked garland to provide evidence of widespread threats against school boards. carley: stacy abrams hitting the campaign trail for terry mcauliffe in virginia, two churches in black communities were among the failed georgia's gubernatorial stop. she says voting is an act of faith. meanwhile, former president barack obama will also stump for mcauliffe in the closing weeks of the state's consistent tested -- contested race. he will join mcauliffe on saturday. todd: santa monica pier, going to be a lovely day, highs in the mid-60s. carley: senior meteorologist janice dean is here with our fox weather forecast. apparently it's going to be a lovely day in santa monica. >> what do

garland would be so silly as to write the memo that merrick garland did indeed write. that i think seem to be on board with the national school board's association. and that really dismayed us. so we thought it was important to write a letter that would point out that these parents are doing what parents are supposed to do. they are caring about their children's education. ainsley: peter, isn't it well within a parent's first amendment right. >> absolutely h this fund mental right to address the government for the redress of grievances it has a chilling effect on the right of these parents to do it. when you have the attorney general inadvocate justice department and including the fbi's national security division to investigate individuals simply expressing concern about ideology and campuses and academia today. some of the violence occurred in loudoun county this is some of the stuff that the progressives understood they touched a third wral critical race theory and some of the other lunacies pervading education. they wanted to suppress that. this is something have yo

on the doj aspect peter brought up, i cover the department of justice and a spokesman for merrick garland after president biden said he believes defying subpoenas should be prosecuted, anthony coley said the department of justice will make its own independent decisions based on facts and law, period, full stop, end of quotation. >> sandra: all right, david live at the white house for us. >> john: keith kellogg, former national security advisor to president trump and vice president pence. you served alongside colin powell. panama was a deployment you had a lot of contact with him, your thoughts on his passing? >> he was an american icon. two great stories. i was assault brigade commander. we were taking out targets and that night after i had come back from taking targets, i was called by the general and said, your dad died. it was pretty emotional moment. we had gone through a lot. 10 days later colin powell came down as chairman of the joint chiefs and started questioning intelligence officers and talking about the invasion. colin powell stopped him and looked at me and said, tell me abou

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

garland, he has launched this partisan lawsuit against georgia and its voting rights. he has this letter out about parents going to school boards. now up the president making this comment. all it does is undermine what little bit of trust had been rebuilt but perhaps this department is going to operate separate and above politics and with its eye, instead, on justice and the law. >> bret: yeah. brit, a little bit of an audible here just in the past few minutes a meeting on capitol hill between senators sanders and manchin and over the weekend. senator sanders wrote an op-ed in west virginia newspaper going after senator manchin for failing to support what he called the human infrastructure bill. what was originally billed as 3.5 trillion and now obviously is getting scaled back. they had a good talk. both of the gentlemen say. but it doesn't seem like this is moving forward, brit. >> it does not. so far, but one has to believe that in the end after all manchin has said he would favor a spending bill a social spending bill just not one as big as the staggering 3.5 trill

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

. >> laura: merrick garland is focusing on the january 6th grandma and grandpa's commode to make sure they stay in whatever type of confinement they are in. they gave you in the explicit instructions on how churchgoers could actually vote. watch this. >> early voting has only started. the first year that you can vote on sunday. please, vote after today's surface. if you cannot vote today, please make a plan to go vote. go to iwillvote.com. >> laura: professor, this is called pushing folks to a specific website? that brings more problems to them if we had a justice department or the irs arm that was going to do something. >> it's an extraordinary video because the white house can argue that we just made the video. the violators are the churchgoers who decided to play them. but that doesn't work when the video is referencing churches and their services. those directly from church to vote. the question here, did the white house knowingly create a video to violate federal law? clearly, they are not the ones who have a tax-exempt status. but there is a serious problem if you're encouraging

. >> merrick garland is focusing on january 6th, making sure they stay in confinement. they give explicit instructions on how churchgoers could vote. watch this. >> early voting has started, this is the first year you can vote on sunday so please vote after today's service and if you cannot vote today make a plan to go vote. goes whywillvote.com. will: this is called the soul for the polls, pushing folks with specific website. does that bring more problems to them if we had a justice department or an irs prosecutorial arm that was going to do something? >> an extraordinary video. the white house could argue we made the video, the violators are the churches who decided to play them but that doesn't work when the video is referencing churches and their services, directory from church to vote so the question is did the white house knowingly create a video to violate federal law? they are not the ones that will lose their tax-exempt status. it the the churches if this was a fully enforced but there's a serious problem if you are encouraging violation. what is interesting is

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