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

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

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

. >> that will likely be a topic for attorney general merrick garland when he testifies next week. meanwhile, the white house focused on trying to head off an economic crisis caused by supply chain disruptions. empty shelves and increased prices are a reality for so many americans. meanwhile, we may soon know more about boosters for people who received the moderna and johnson & johnson vaccines. an fda advisory committee will meet tomorrow on whether to recommend additional shots. one new study is getting attention, and deservedly so. showing j&j vaccine recipients may fare better with a second shot from a different brand. we have a doctor, a leading expert standing by to take our questions on this in a few minutes' time. but first, let's bring in our starting line on this wednesday night. yamiche alcindor, claire mccaskill, and robert costa. his latest book, "peril," is currently at the top of "the new york times" best-seller list. claire, to channel your prior experience as a prosecutor and member of congress, tell us the scope of what this committee is likely looking for from a

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

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

. >> that will more than likely be a topic for attorney general merrick garland, when he testifies before the house judiciary committee next week. meanwhile the white house focused on trying to head off an economic crisis, caused by supply chain disruptions. empty shelves escalating prices for goods, or now realities for so many americans. just ahead, we will have more on what the administration is planning to do about that. meanwhile, we may soon know more about boosters for people who received the moderna and johnson & johnson vaccines, and fda advisory committee will meet tomorrow and friday to decide whether to recommend additional shots. one new study on boosters is now getting a lot of attention, and deservedly so. research from the nih shows the j&j vaccine recipients may fare better, with a second shot of another brand. either moderna or pfizer. we have a doctor, a leading expert in fact standing by to take our questions on all of this. in just a few minutes time. but first, let's bring in our starting line show we. on this wednesday night. the white house correspondent for the pb

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

host: what do you want merrick garland to do? caller: i want him to investigate trump's actions after november 3. he called election officials in the states and told them to commit perjury. where was merrick garland? what is this man doing? absolutely nothing. how useless is this guy? guest: i am coming to a similar opinion, if the opinion is, listen, we need him to step up. i agree these are serious, potentially criminal allegations or problems. keep in mind, we have seen hundreds of regular americans who showed up on january 6 and physically stormed the capital. they are being held accountable. they are being criminally investigated. some of them are being sentenced. they are having to hire lawyers or get public defenders that are overworked. they are having to pull into their own pockets and take from their family budgets to provide criminal defenses. that is on the backend, the people that showed up. what about the people inside government? that is what the judiciary committee is looking at. i agree merrick garland should be

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

take us inside merrick garland's head, if you can. he would have to sign off on a prosecution. so what's the likelihood of that? >> so i think they could move very quickly. this is pretty open and shut here. there's not much to investigate. the question is whether steve bannon has defied a lawful subpoena. it is pretty clear they had. there is no lawful assertion of privilege from the president. i would expect the u.s. attorney in dc, a long time career doj official named channing phillips, very well-respected by both parties. i expect it would have to be approved by the attorney general himself. the only complicating factor is if the president has gone to court somehow and tried to assert executive privilege to try to either quash the subpoena or in some other way pursue a civil action to block the committee. that might delay the department of justice if it wanted to see how that played out. but i don't think it would have to. if they wanted to move quickly and indict bannon and force the president to try to block that or force bannon to try to block that, they would be well w

garland and rick saying what will it take to get biden to replace merrick garland at the doj and trump this group are going to get through this unscathed. and few other comments and calling and and carolina pretty. >> good morning and thought i would like to make a suggestion for questions and comments because i was an election judge and no with the laws are needed about so i want to express. and give you suggestions on c-span but anyways about the laws that the republicans are making, you don't need these laws, the trying to secure it with id, we run so many laws just for id and if there was all this voter fraud, how come nobody has been charged of. if i saw you rob a store, board million 20 other people so you never gets arrested, nobody has been arrested so people said they seem fraud are doing it so if you know it did not happen so nobody is locked up and trump was the president at the time the doj to go after anybody and they never reported there never was an first of all, in order to i say make voting we should all have paper ballots but this is my suggestion, you should go to wh

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

i just see, as you noted, merrick garland is a centrist. he has a very moderate reputation. he was very centrist as a judge. he seems to be pretty centrist as an attorney general. i just don't have a lot of confidence that garland and the justice department are going to go throw the book at trump or anybody else. >> i appreciate the point you're making, and as mentioned, you have a lot of experience in the upper echelons at least in the older version of the republican party and pushing back on the trump era. eli, max, also points to the political blowback out there. prosecutors claim not to do it. some do it. james comey gave a lot of thought as to what the political perception of him would be, and as you know, that's why he's such a hero. i wanted to get the joke in. i have to get libby in. libby is a straight political reporter, so i didn't want to get the joke in on her. james comey said he thought a lot about things and how he would be perceived. i bring that up as a subject to you, libby, because we just got told by one guest what should happen, by another what will hap

host: what do you want merrick garland to do? caller: i want him to investigate trump's actions after november 3. he called election officials in the states and told them to commit perjury. where was merrick garland? what is this man doing? absolutely nothing. how useless is this guy? guest: i am coming to a similar opinion, if the opinion is, listen, we need him to step up. i agree these are serious, potentially criminal allegations or problems. keep in mind, we have seen hundreds of regular americans who showed up on january 6 and physically stormed the capital. they are being held accountable. they are being criminally investigated. some of them are being sentenced. they are having to hire lawyers or get public defenders that are overworked. they are having to pull into their own pockets and take from their family budgets to provide criminal defenses. that is on the backend, the people that showed up. what about the people inside government? that is what the judiciary committee is looking at. i agree merrick garland should be

do something, merrick garland. i would like to be wrong. i would like to be wrong this time, but i'm worried. daniel goldman, thank you very much. >>> up next on "the reidout," the gospel of donald trump is built around one grievance that he cannot accept that he lost and his feelings are hurt. >>> plus, a reidout, joining me in his first national television interview since launching his campaign for governor. >>> plus, the high price that a black maryland school superintendent paid for simply stating that racism exists and black lives matter. that superintendent dr. andrea cane joins me. and tonight's absolute worst, taking a stand for something isn't courageous, it's indulgent, and probably deadly for some of the people who look up to you. "the reidout" after this. ♪darling, i, i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪girl, i don't know, i don't know,♪ ♪i don't know why i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪oh no, babe girl, if i could only make you see♪ ♪and make you understand♪ get a dozen double crunch shrimp for $1

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

the question is, will merrick garland put him in jail? steve bannon's refusing to testify about his interactions with trump in the lead-up to the deadly capitol insurrection. >>> and an fda advisory panel voted unanimously today to recommend an extra half dose of moderna's covid vaccine for americans 65 and older and adults at high risk. and now you know the news. this thursday, october 14th, 2021 i'm shepard smith. follow us on twitter and ig at the news on cnbc or lines for family members, you'll get great value on america's most reliable 5g network. like 2 lines of unlimited for just $27.50 a line. only at t-mobile. you could wait... all night... for an email response from steve, who will sign back in at 9 am tomorrow morning. orrrr... you could find the answer right now in slack. and give steve a break. slack. where the future works. it's another day. and anything could happen. it could be the day you welcome 1,200 guests and all their devices. or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutio

. >> 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

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

>> 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

it will be up to the attorney general merrick garland to decide on prosecution. those are broad strokes of the process, of course. it could be drawn out by legal challenges or other actions. could go to a full trial. appeals could draw it out for years. and steve bannon knows that. house members have also subpoenaed other former trump officials for depositions. ex-pentagon official kash patel, former chief of staff mark meadows, his deputy dan scavino, they were set to appear today and tomorrow. they've all been given short postponements by the committee. former president has weighed in, referring to what he called the unselect committee and said, "they should hold themselves in criminal contempt." tonight committee chairman thompson said this about whether donald trump would be subpoenaed. >> if former president trump thinks he can get away with what happened on january 6th by being cute with his press releases, then he has another thing coming. nobody's off limits to a subpoena from this committee. >> trump is facing a more immediate legal issue, however, in hi

the question is, will merrick garland put him in jail? steve bannon's refusing to testify about his interactions with trump in the lead-up to the deadly capitol insurrection. >>> and an fda advisory panel voted unanimously today to recommend an extra half dose of moderna's covid vaccine for americans 65 and older and adults at high risk. and now you know the news. this thursday, october 14th, 2021 i'm shepard smith. follow us on twitter a welcome to allstate. ( phone notification ) where you can pay a little less and enjoy the ride a little more. now, get new lower auto rates. you're in good hands with allstate. click or call for a lower rate today. it's another day. you're in good hands and anything could happen. it could be the day you welcome 1,200 guests and all their devices. or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutions give you the power of sd-wan and advanced security integrated on our activecore platform so you can control your network from anywhere, anytime. it's network management

when i see -- in every single reply, he says merrick garland, he says the attorney general. it seems to me, that the public strategy of the committee today, publicly became, it's merrick garland time. we need the justice department to enforce, this subpoena. >> in the previous administration, this white house and this president, i have to stay out of this. this is the kind of decision the attorney general makes his own. lawrence, merrick garland is concerned about the independence of the department, he doesn't want to look like you're bringing political prosecutions, against the former administration. but he also has to be concerned about the message it would send if he does not bring a case, unless steve bannon get away with giving congress the finger. nobody likes to be pulled in front of the congress of the united states. and forced to turn over documents and it's submit to a deposition. why would anyone else show up if there are no consequences? >> and, jennifer, when we see the committee moving to this stage of criminal contempt, as quickly as they have. it's another pu

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

the question is, will merrick garland put him in jail? steve bannon's refusing to testify about his interactions with trump in the lead-up to the deadly capitol insurrection. >>> and an fda advisory panel voted unanimously today to recommend an extra half dose of moderna's covid vaccine for americans 65 and older and adults at high risk. and now you know the news. this thursday, october 14th, 2021 i'm shepard smith. follow us on twitter and ig at the news on cnbc you're an owner with access to financial advice, tools and a personalized plan that helps you build a future for those you love. vanguard. become an owner. >>> it is 5:00 a.m. in new york and here's your top five at 5:00 call it an earning rallies stocks coming off the best day since march. futures they are popping. >>> a big green light for moderna, the fda clearing the way for the second booster shot. >>> falling back to earth, trouble, richard branson and his plan to get tourists to space as early as next year. >>> busted at boeing, a former employee at the center of the 737 m

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 to delay. >> it is my wishes for the attorney general to decide to expedite the process. we hope that the attorney general sees the importance of moving ahead with this indictment, moving ahead with locking steve bannon up. you can't conduct an insurrection on the government of the united states of america and nothing happen. he has to do his job. >> joining me now, leigh ann caldwell. and also susan page and kimberly atkins. bring us up-to-date. apparently the committee is united behind that. >> the committee is united behind this and they will meet on tuesday where they will vote and likely refer that steve ban nongets criminal contempt charges. that would then go to the house of representatives for a full vote where once again it is expected to pass. and if it does pass, then it would go to the department of justice where the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia would take up the case. now, most people expect the u.s. attorney to in fact move forward with that prosecution. that is when steve ban noncould either be acquitted, he could be found guilty. if he is acq

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 then it gets to merrick garland and he's got to make a decision about what to do. let's say he decides to go forward. that means he's got to go to the grand jury. then there has to be an arrest. there has to be an arraignment. and there will be a long discovery process. you've got to get yourself on dockets in d.c. courts. d.c. courts are really busy right now. nothing is moving very quickly. so, the idea they could rap up this investigation in the spring like they say they're going to do and have bannon's testimony by then is fantasy. they are not going to have it. he is going to stall and he is going to succeed to stall until after the midterms. if the democrats lose the house, the subpoena could be withdrawn and the whole thing is moot. we've all wasted our time. >> okay. that's a lot. doctor, some nights it feels preferable to discuss the pandemic over politics. let's go there. today the recommendation on j&j boosters was expected. it was also expected they would say or do something on brand mixing, which we kind of know anecdotally people are already doing on

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

and, 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

merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the justice department. at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and the new c-span that -- now at. an appearance before the senate judiciary committee. watch next week on the c-span network, or watch on c-span now, our new video app. head on over to c-span.org for scheduling information or stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> a new mobile video app -- c-span now. download today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and we want to know what your top new story of the week was. are there particular topics that were in the mainstream media that you want to talk about or is there something else going on that you think americans need to know about? call in and let us know what your top new story of the week wise. here are some stories that did come out this week that you may want to talk about. first of all, there is a supply chain disruption that happened and will happen in the future around the united states. the inflation concern

eastern on c-span3, the attorney general merrick garland will make his first appearance before the house judiciary committee on issues facing the justice department. 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and on the new c-span now app, homeland security secretary appearing before the senate judiciary committee. watch next week on the c-span network. or you can watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> a new mobile video app from c-span. c-span now, download today. >> washington journal continues. back and we want to know what your top new story of the week was. are there particular topics that were in the mainstream media that you want to talk about or is there something else going on that you think americans need to know about? call in and let us know what your top new story of the week wise. here are some stories that did come out this week that you may want to talk about. first of all, there is a supply chain disruption that happened a

. >> looking ahead to attorney general merrick garland who is set to appear before one of your committees, the house judiciary committee for the first time on thursday, with the topics ranging from january 6th to texas abortion law and the assaults on voting rights, what do you want to ask the attorney general? >> so that is a great question, alex. a lot also depends on what the people before me ask the attorney general. >> good point. >> so i do have a thousand questions i would like to ask merrick garland, so it will depends on what is asked before it gets to me. >> i would suggest, though, those topics are among those consideration, those three that i rattled off? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay, what about "politico," which is predicting a tense and contentious hearing especially with republicans likely to dig in on the hot button issues like the ones around vaccine mandates and crime in major cities. are you preparing for gop fireworks? something you've certainly seen before. >> i'm prepared that radical republicans are going to continue to be extreme and say dangerous things. for exampl

if you think back to when mitch mcconnell said that merrick garland couldn't be appointed to the supreme court because it wasn't fair to appoint him in the same year that the president was going to be leaving office, and then, of course, he turned around a few years later, after lecturing america and pointing his finger at us and lecturing on the virtues of when scotus's should be appointed and then turned around and put amy coney barrett in within 60 days. if we don't reform the filibuster, we need to do 50 votes just for this, because what's happening right now, redistricting across the country, how black and brown communities are being trampled over and how in states like texas, where they're debating redistricting right now, trying to tie these black and latino districts into yurl districts where there's been no growth. voting rights in this country are being set back right now and states where republican legislatures are dominating the redistricting process and you've already seen these egregious anti-voting bills that republicans keep throwing up and the american public's face and