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

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

., merrick garland, to agree to proceed. then they have to go to the courts, get a grand jury convened, and it is a process. >> yes, and the d.o.j. said we're handling it by the book and no political pressure. so even though they say they want to see action here, the doj made it very clear that it is by the book. >> kristin, talk about your view. the president put his finger on the scale on a way that he said he wouldn't. and the justice department quickly came out with a statement saying, you know, we'll do our thing on our own. so we don't know what what he is going to do, but the president, do he did indicate he thinks it should be approved. >> it is great to be back, so great to be with you. he was asked if those that defy asked if he show be subpoenaed and he said yes. jen was pressed on that repeatedly yesterday and she dug in, she swiped away and said yes, he still believes it should belied up to. that it is independent from the executive branch. she said he is not backing away from the very tough comments and it come

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

merrick garland was unaware of it. how is he unaware of it? they pushed through, they injured a police officer, nobody gives a damn. when the portland courthouse, a federal courthouse was attacked night after night with fire and all kinds of stuff, when the police were under attack, who nancy pelosi called stormtroopers, merrick garland says "well, that is not domestic terrorism because nobody there, it was happening at night." meanwhile, they got your parents. liz cheney concerned about that? not in the least. now we have a big problem in this country, ladies and gentlemen, we have a rogue presidency, we have a rogue department of justice, we have an out-of-control democrat-controlled house. by three votes. the democrat-controlled senate. 50/50. by the luck of the constitution, the vice president breaks the tie, and what do they want to do? what do they say they want to do? fundamentally transform our economic system. well, you have a choice. free-market economic system that you have in free countries, that respects individuals, creates growt

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

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

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

expect lawmakers to ask attorney general merrick garland if he will prosecute bannon at a hearing tomorrow. fox has told some gop members will vote yes for bannon because they don't like people ignoring congressional subpoenas. bret? >> bret: chat -- chad pergram. up next, how russia is dealing with afghanistan now that the u.s. gone. >> the american people lost, the afghan people lost. the winners are russia, china and iran. ♪♪ we believe everyone deserves to live better. and just being sustainable isn't enough. our future depends on regeneration. that's why we're working to not only protect our planet, but restore, renew, and replenish it. so we can all live better tomorrow. ♪♪ this isn't just freight. these aren't just shipments. they're promises. big promises. small promises. cuddly shaped promises. each with a time and a place they've been promised to be. and the people of old dominion never turn away a promise. or over promise. or make an empty promise. we keep them. a promise is everything to old dominion, because it means everything to you. >> bret: welcome back to the port

attorney general merrick garland in the hot seat answering multiple questions from republicans about his october 4th memo that directs the federal bureau of investigation working with each united states attorney to convene meetings in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. >> i think your memo was the last straw. i think it was the catalyst for a great awakening that is just getting started. >> the memo issued five days after the national school board association wrote to president biden about the rise of threats by parents to school board officials writing these heinous actions could be the equivalent of a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes. >> not in a million years did we dream that one day we would see the justice department treat american parents as domestic terrorists. >> but garland said his memo doesn't use the words domestic terrorism or patriot act. >> i can't imagine any circumstance in which the patriot act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can i imagine a circumstance whe

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

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

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

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. >

., where was received at 5:30 pm today, at a house judiciary hearing, attorney general merrick garland said this. >> the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge, the department of justice will do it always doesn't such circumstances, will apply the facts and a lot to make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. joining our discussion now is congresswoman madeleine dean of pennsylvania, she is a member of the judiciary committee, and the second impeachment of donald trump. thank you very much for joining us, tonight, i want to begin with where we just ended, and that is the attorney general's comments today. it's difficult to imagine him saying anything else, under these circumstances, and yet there is more suspense tonight in washington about what this attorney general will decide, and there has been a long time. >> and yet, lawrence, thank you number one for having me tonight, it's a pleasure to be with you, i was in that hearing room today with attorney general merrick garland, and if you flashback to the last administration and how difficul

i was in that hearing room today with attorney general merrick garland, and if you flash back, sadly, to the last administration and how difficult it was to have then attorney general barr come before us, it was refreshing that we had merrick garland there and that he so thoughtfully said they will follow the evidence and the law and where it guides us. a very refreshing, it shouldn't need to be refreshing but a very refreshing moment today. i was proud of that moment. >> is there any response from the justice department that you could accept that was something other than the prosecution of steve bannon? >> oh, i'm -- number one, i'm so pleased with our committee and moving so swiftly, and making sure that we brought the vote to the floor of the house tonight and made sure that the referral was made to the department of justice. so yes, we saw in the last administration -- under the last administration a dragging of feet, a department of justice that was wetted to the trump administration in a very perverse way. we are still going to learn more about. so today was a really good day, i

and attorney general merrick garland, the leader of the justice department, he today was tight-lipped about what to expect about that process. he told a congressional committee where he was testifying today basically that the department will handle this, like he says they handle everything. they will handle this by the book, no fear, no favor. >> i will say what the spokesperson for the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia said yesterday or the day before. the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge. the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> we will apply the facts and the law, make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. in other words, i'm not going to tell what you we're doing. we are just going to do it on our own times, we don't take advice from anybody, so you can leave me alone about it. which is, honestly, the right way to answer those kinds of questions. and you know, stepping back fr

attorney general merrick garland, the leader of the justice department today was tightlipped about what to expect about that process he said the department will handle this like he says they handle everything. they will handle this by the, book no fear in our favor. >> i will say what's spokesperson for the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia said, yesterday, the day before, house of representatives votes for a referral of a contempt charge the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, we'll apply the facts and law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> we will apply the facts and law, make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. in other words, are not going to tell you what we are doing. we are going to do it on our own terms, we don't take advice from anybody. you could leave me alone about it. which is, honestly, the right way to answer those kinds of questions. you know, stepping back from this, in terms of the news worthiness of what is going on here and all this drama in washington. ste

garland testifies before the house judiciary committee or the routine hearing on the oversight department of justice. he'll very likely be asked how he's going to handle some of these cases. you know, he might actually get some greater insight into how this could all pay out. >> it's certainly a busy time right now over on capitol hill. you're also following, of course, all negotiations within the democratic party with the bipartisan sfrur deal and an attempt to get a deal on the larger reconciliation package. it seems like there's been a sense of optimism the last couple of days, but also there's a lot of stuff that needs to get sorted outst. tell us where we stand? >> on tuesday there were meetings. and in these meetings, according to sources in our room, he delivered these assessments of what could go and what could stay necessarily in their social spending package, and this is leading to a bit of heartburn among democrats about things they have to let go. you have the longer extension of the child tax credit or free community college, but emerging from all this and after meetings the

attorney general merrick garland was noncommital when testifying before the house judiciary committee yesterday. >> the department recognizes the important oversight role that this committee, the house of representatives, and the senate play with respect to the executive branch. the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge. the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principals of prosecution. >>> joining us now, reporter. what sort of backlash will they face within the gop? >> i mean, absolutely these republicans knew when they took that vote, they're facing possibly becoming political pariah in their party. they voted against the majority whip, the majority party. they've seen this before. congresswoman liz cheney was on the select committee when she voted against -- i'm sorry. when she voted for the impeachment of the january 6 select committee and continued to speak out against donald trump, she was stripped of her leadership position with the blessing