garland to approve it and again, how does that work? >> look, at our par peril, if look who is in power and so on. the way it would work is congress will just approve making a referral to congress -- to the justice department for prosecution for criminal contempt and again, they can also file a civil suit in the federal court in washington d.c. and then it's up to the justice department to decide whether to pursue it. look, i'm certain that even if they're not talking, which they probably wouldn't be now, the justice department is at least thinking about how to proceed on this questionment. this is a huge public interest to at least not consider what will happen if tomorrow at 12:01 a.m. steve bannon does not show up, the justice department ought to be prepared. >> the select committee subpoenaed jeffly clark. there's been a lot of reporting about his role in trump's attempts to overturn the election. tell us about him. >> jeffrey clark is the trump studge number three position wrote a letter attempting to get the justice department to

>> that will be up to merrick garland. if the committee follows through, and they've made very clear they intend to, then it will shift over to merrick garland to make the decision, does he charge the federal crime of contempt of congress. and a lot of people are asking that question. my question is, how can he not? when you look at the fact here, steve bannon has zero legitimate basis. he's saying executive privilege, he's saying attorney/client privilege. those things have no application to someone who is not an attorney and was not part of the executive branch. if merrick garland chooses not to charge this, where does that leave the committee, where does that leave congress, where does that leave our balance of powers, where does this leave the justice department? this is a moment of truth for merrick garland. >> we know the strategy of trump world is to delay at all costs, usually that's extending litigation. the m.o. was to sue people until they run out of resources or run out of time, they would run the clock out. is

if merrick garland chooses not to charge this, where does that leave the committee? where does that leave congress? where does that leave our balance of powers? where does that leave the justice department? this is a really moment of truth for merrick garland coming up right here. >> elie, we know the strategy in trump world, right, is to try to delay at all costs. usually that's through, you know, extending litigation. the m.o. was to sue people and take them to court long enough so i guess they would run out of resources or run out of time, run the clock out. is there anything more that the committee can do? >> so the committee, all they can do is get this over to doj quickly on the criminal side, get it into the courts quickly on the civil side. they can do both of those things. they should. why not? they're both available. at that point the people we need to be looking at are merrick garland on the criminal side and whatever judge in the district of columbia gets this case. look, judges can move as quickly as they want. i've had judges thoput what i thought were

which means that attorney general merrick garland will have to weigh in. what do you think he will do? >> i think they'll go forward with a criminal contempt charge. that it's what i expect to happen. but i suspect some things will happen in between. first of all, bannon may try to say he's taking the fifth as a way to get out of this. he may have an attorney who ends up charting a different course. he may ultimately comply. i think for a lot of folks, just the mere fact that they may get indicted is a very good inducement to testify. so i think there is definitely some chapters yet to go. >> how long will this take, because we know the strategy in trump world is delay at all costs, and to use the legal system to do it. litigation, and so forth. >> yeah. i think it's going to take time. first of all, once the committee votes, the full house has to vote. then it goes to the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. they're going to consider carefully whether to indict. let's say they do convene a grand jury, he's indicted. i have clients where there's a backlog of yea

and, you know, merrick garland and the attorney general does have a decision to make once this referral is brought to the department of justice as to exactly how they plan to prosecute it. do they take him into a court of law? do they arrest steve bannon? could he face jail time at some point? this isn't just a cut and dried, black and white issue, so there is some decision-making that has to take place on behalf of the department of justice. and critics -- this is not me saying it, don. critics could say perhaps the president is putting his thumb on the scale in terms of the decision-making process of the department of justice. he clearly wants to see the subpoena answered. it's just a matter of how they go about forcing that compliance. >> so what is ahead, then, this week for the select committee's investigation? should we expect more subpoenas? >> reporter: so subpoenas are always on the table. the select committee has said they're interested in people getting information from certain individuals, and they feel like they're not getting compliance, they will issue subpoenas. we don't

if merrick garland doesn't prosecute this he is completely kneecapping the committee. and our balance of powers itself, our balance of powers is strong but it is delicate. if congress shows they're just ineffectual to get information about such a key event as january 6th, then where does that really leave congress with respect to the executive branch and a former president? >> listen, elie, bannon tried to claim, you know, executive privilege even though he hasn't worked in the white house since 2017. this is -- i want you to listen to what congresswoman liz cheney has to say about that. >> mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> they've got to prove that. how do they do it? >> yeah, it is a good and logical point by representative cheney here. i mean we know steve bannon the day before, we heard the clip earlier in your show, don, was essentially predicting and he

merrick garland is looking at a very important, very difficult decision. will he bring charges? on the one hand, it hasn't been done in 38 years. on the other hand, how can he not? steve bannon is sort of the extreme example of defying a subpoena with no excuse. if merrick garland doesn't prosecute this, he's just completely knee-capping the committee and our balance of powers itself. our balance of powers is strong, but it is delicate. if congress shows they are ineffectual to get information about such a key event as january 6th, then where does that really leave congress with respect to the executive branch and a former president? >> listen, elie, bannon tried to claim, you know, executive privilege even though he hasn't worked in the white house since 2017. this is -- i want you to listen to what congresswoman liz cheney has to say about that. >> mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th, and this committee will get to the bot

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

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

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

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

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