. >> 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

part of the reason that biden named merrick garland as attorney general is because he wanted someone there running the department, who would be totally apolitical and who hadn't ever been part of his political -- of biden's political ambitions. biden put garland in place at doj, specifically so that he would help the department reassert its independence from political institutions. and that -- the result of that is, the result of that project, moving forward, effectively, is this uncomfortable moment, where biden, at least in the justice department's view, overstepped by suggesting a particular prosecution should take place and the justice department succinctly, firmly, and politely pushed back and said, the president's allowed to say what he wants to say, to paraphrase doj, but we're not going to be deciding how to bring cases or who to bring cases against based on anything that the white house tells us. >> which given the last four years, five years, almost, is refreshing. betsy woodruff, thank you, my friend. >>> suing donald trump. he has been trying to dodge tomorrow's depositio

the question for merrick garland is, is that what the rule of law means to him? and i don't think it is. >> you're the lawyer. i have to say allegedly, allegedly defrauding his supporters. steve bannon, you know -- >> allegedly. >> yeah. he is a real mench. i can't see him doing that. look, the law -- part of what is so maddening, right, this has been true from, the you know, the earliest days, like, this is a guy who skated his whole life. he wriggled out of stuff. "the new york times" ran a 10,000 word piece accusing him of criminal tax fraud, you know, in black and white. there is multiple criminal investigations. one in fulton county. there is one in the manhattan district attorney's office. what's been impeached twice. he whipped up a violent insurrection in front all of us which we all saw. bannon has been pardoned saying i am going to get away with it. the law isn't that super clear, or is it? what controls here? that is the worry, too? what a court does with this and whether the house has the power that they want tro have and believe they should have here

they have proven time and again, that they are getting away with, it in the question for merrick garland, is is that with the rule of law, means to him, and i don't think it is. >> you're the lawyer that allegedly defrauding his supporters. steve bannon, he's a real -- we've got a situation to, where, look part of what's so maddening here, is. it's been true since early's stays, this is a guy skated as well. life is wiggle out of stuff. the new york times ran a 10,000 word piece basically accused him of criminal tax fraud. in black and way, another thing the new york times says lately, there's multiple criminal investigations in there's one in fulton, county there's one in the manhattan district attorney's office. he's been impeached twice. he whipped up a violent insurrection, in front of all of. us which we also. here's bannon who's been part, and saying i'm going to get away with. it the lie here is that it's super clearer is? it won't controls? you that is really the worry, two-way's report does with all, this is whether the house is essentially the power that they want to have and b

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

merrick garland immediately put the brakes on that and said, no, the department would actually work independently and review evidence. what does that say to you between what the biden administration may want to happen versus what we're seeing with an independent department of justice? >> it will be really, really fascinating to see how the doj handles this contempt referral which we think will happen. the white house has positions on things. they did make a very, very strong point both in nominating attorney general garland, a very solid, non-partisan reputation. and after the trump administration making a point they'll be independent. at the same time he also talked about how it's getting to the bottom of january 6th is critical for our democracy. it is going to be an interesting tension in terms of how these issues are handled. >> susan, last question here on this, do you believe that the commission will subpoena trump? and what are the fault lines if they do or don't? >> i don't believe they'll subpoena donald trump. i think that would just be too much of a circus. and if they can't get to the

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

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

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

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

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

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

coincidentally, attorney general merrick garland was on the hill today for a routine oversight hearing and he was asked about how the justice department will handle this referral. he just would not tip his hand. he said what the justice department has said overall which is, look. we'll make a decision based on the facts and the law. it is expected this referral will go to the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. it is expected it would go before a grand jury. but ultimately the decision on whether to prosecute in this manner and how to proceed lies with the boss, the attorney general, and at this point it is not clear how he will proceed but we know he is under a lot of political pressure. almost every day we hear lawmakers saying that they really need him to prosecute this. again, because they need the deterrent effect on other witnesses and even president biden came out late last week and says he, too, believes bannon should be prosecuted. the justice department is pushing back on that and insists it is independent and will make this decision independently. >> we're getting the

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

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.

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

. >> 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

this is congressman adam schiff on merrick garland's reluctance to look back yards. obviously f the d.o.j. chooses no the prosecute, bennie thompson's commitments may not hold. let me show you that. >> look, i think there is a real desire on the part of the attorney general for the most part not to look backward. do i disagree with that? i do disagree with that. and i disagree with it most vehemently when it comes to what i consider even more serious offenses. for example, a taped conversation of donald trump on the phone with brad raffensperger, the secretary of state from georgia, trying to coerce him into fraudulently finding 11,780 votes. because i think so if you or i did that, we would be under indictment by now. >> so, claire, the question is, do you believe that under merrick garland, d.o.j. will enforce these contempt votes in the house? >> it will be interesting to see, first, how quickly d.o.j. acts, and what they do, whether they pursue civil contempt or criminal contempt. if they quickly pursue criminal contempt, we have another problem. that is, there w

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

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

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 of 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 level 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 accountab

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

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

this is what attorney general merrick garland said about the decision of whether to prosecute. >> the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts in the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of the constitution. >> what do you think will happen? zblipt to say a couple of things. when he made those comments, that was maybe six or eight hours before this case even existed. so, it would have been inappropriate for him to go further than that. i think they're going to take a close look at it and there's a basis for charging him with a crime. the committee put out a pretty long detailed report indicating all the ways in which steve bannon sort of didn't respond to communications and was blowing off the committee. there's a basis for a charge to say he willfully violated a subpoena. we shall see. >> how long do you expect it's going to take ag garland to ultimately make a decision? >> i hesitate to impose timing on anybody. i think anybody is aware of how politically sensitive and how much public interest there is in this. i

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

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

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

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

here's what merrick garland had to say when he was asked about this by the judiciary committee earlier today. >> the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge, the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances. we'll apply the facts in the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> so, pete, how will they make that decision? because as you've been reporting, it's not exactly straightforward. >> no, it's not. i think there are factors to weigh on both sides. on the one hand the committee has a clearly demonstrable need for this. the administration has endorsed that need, saying this was the worst attack on the u.s. since the civil war. the president's claim of executive privilege here is relatively weak because biden has said it should be waived for documents and testimony, specifically on steve bannon as well. this executive privilege anyway applies only to official comp communications. and that presumably what the committee wants to know about was not the president's official business. those are reasons we

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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