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

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

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

garland 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

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'

will merrick garland prosecute bannon? >>> and president joe biden about to face voters in cnn's town hall. anderson cooper is getting ready for that up to hall right now and will join me next. let's go outfront. >>> good evening, i'm erin burnett. we are less than one hour away from cnn's town hall with president biden. anderson cooper will join me in just a moment for a preview. you can see that live location there in baltimore, maryland. first, we have breaking news. the fbi just confirming the human remains found in that florida nature reserve are indeed those of 23-year-old brian laundrie. the news coming exactly one month after we learned that laundrie's fiancee, gabby petito, was murdered in wyoming by strangulation. tonight we're also learning about a crucial piece of evidence that could shed light on how petito died. a note booker discovered near laundrie's remains we're learning tonight is possibly salvageable, according to a source. leyla santiago is live. i know you had a chance to speak with an official from n

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

the nnon issue now goes to the justice department, headed by attorney general merrick garland. before today's vote, garland opted not to tip his hand to whether the department will ultimately prosecute him. >> the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances; it will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> woodruff: the department is already in the middle of prosecuting hundreds of defendants facing criminal charges of their own, stemming from january's riot. now, for a deeper look, i am joined by josh gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for "politico." josh gerstein, thank you so much for joining us. first of all, tell us again how ordinary is it for the congress to say that someone is in contempt of a committee? >> well, that's happened i think increasingly frequently in recent years, judy. we've seen a number of citations, former attorney general eric holder was cited. former attorney general bill barr was cited. what's really unusual here is to have a criminal referral that the justice

the bannon issue now goes to the justice department, headed by attorney general merrick garland. before today's vote, garland opted not to tip his hand to whether the department will ultimately prosecute him. >> we will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. judy: the department is already in the middle of prosecuting hundreds of defendants facing criminal charges of their own, stemming from january striate. -- stemming from january's riot. now, for a deeper look, i am joined by josh gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for politico. thank you so much for joining us. tell us, how ordinary is it for someone to say that -- for congress to say that someone is contempt of committee. >> we seen a number of citations, former attorney general eric holder was cited, what is really unusual here is to have a criminal referral that the justice department may seriously look at. it has been about 40-45 years since the justice department has brought a case under this particular criminal contempt of congress statute. judy: so remind us,

attorney general merrick garland said the focus will be on mortgage lending, and patterns of racist policies. it's the first such crackdown since the obama administration. and on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained 74 points to close at 35,677. the nasdaq fell 125 points. the s&p 500 slipped five. still to come on the newshour: on the border. crossings into the u.s. from mexico reach an all-time high, as an alarming new report details claims of abe by immigration officials. david brooks and jonathan capehart break down the state of play over president biden's spending bill. a cuban lens. one of the country's most celebrated avant-garde painters gets his due in the united states. and much more. >> nawaz: as we reported, beginning today, covid-19 booster shots for both moderna and johnson & johnson are available to eligible populations. the c.d.c. issued that guidance after an advisory committee unanimously approved it yesterday. the f.d.a. also authorized mixing and matching vaccines and boosters. to help viewers understand more about what they should consider, i'm join

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

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

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

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

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

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

when asked this morning by lawmakers attorney general merrick garland said the doj will, quote, do what it always does, apply the facts and the law and make a decision, unquote. right to cnn's ryan noebels he is live on capitol hill for us. we know that liz cheney and adam kinzinger the two members of congress who are republican who are on this committee, we know how they voted. will any other republicans, have any other republicans voted to refer this criminal contempt of congress charge? >> reporter: yes, jake. in fact, they have. even though the vote as you point out has really been largely along partisan lines there are now eight republicans that have voted to refer the criminal contempt of congress charge to steve bannon to the department of justice. you mentioned congresswoman liz cheney and adam kinzinger. also representatives meyer, gonzalez, simpson, upton, catco, and mace all voting in the affirmative. those eight votes along with the democratic majority assuring that this criminal contempt referral will pass. >> thank you very much. >> steve bannon, a long-time adviser of for

garland giving the decision as to whether he will try to prosecute banon. the house vote fell largely along party lines though nine house republicans voted with all 220 democrats to pass the resolution. tell us more about these nine republicans, not an easy vote, not easy to go against your party. >> not easy at all. as you noted the vote was largely along party lines but in addition committee members, representatives liz cheney and adam kinzinger, seven other republicans also voted to find bannon in contempt including representatives anthony gonzalez of ohio, peter meyer of michigan, fred upton also of michigan, john katko, nancy mace, brian fitzpatrick, jamie herrera butler of washington and the brother of former vice president mike pence did not vote. she said for her this is about being consistent, enforcing subpoena power and even signaled they might use it to investigate issues currently facing the biden administration. now, this bill gives speaker pelosi the authorization to ask the justice department to prosecute bannon. we are told she will sign it

attorney here in d.c., merrick garland, neither of them tipping their hand. they continue to say in statements. we saw merrick garland testifying yesterday that they will follow the facts and law to make an independent decision as to what they ultimately do. >> jessica schneider, thank you. >>> let's discuss this with congresswoman zoe lofgren. we just learned your committee is going to hear from jeffrey clark, the former trump justice department official. what do you want to hear from him? what is he going to testify about? >> well, our posture has been that we're not going to discuss publicly or with the press the witnesses, what we're going to ask and the like. but what we've said from the beginning that we want to find out what was planned, what was the intent, who paid for it, and i think mr. clark certainly has information about what was planned and what the intent was. so we will hopefully learn even more from his appearance and his discussion. we're very committed to getting to the bottom of everything about january 6th and leading up to it. not only

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