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

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

garland. garland was on capitol hill today promising lawmakers that he would make that decision based solely on the law. cnn's ryan nobles is on capitol hill, so ryan, explain what we will see this afternoon. >> reporter: well, what we're going to see, victor and alisyn, is a pretty standard legislative process here. this particular resolution offering up a criminal contempt referral of steve bannon has already made it through two different house committees and today it will come to the floor of the house of representatives. they will have about 20 minutes of debate around this -- i'm sorry, an hour's worth of debate around this particular issue, and then the members will vote, and we expect that vote to really fall along partisan lines. all the deputies expected to vote for it and maybe just a couple of republicans voting for it while the vast majority of republicans will vote against it. from there, the criminal contempt referral will then head to the u.s. attorney's office here in washingto

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

this is going to be a legacy-defining decision for merrick garland. look, he's under political pressure, adam schiff and other members of the committee have been out there essentially saying we're counting on you, mr. attorney general. joe biden was asked by our kaitlan collins do you think bannon should be charged with criminal contempt and he said straight up yes, i do. doj pushed back on that, but ultimately it will be merrick garland's decision. >> so remind us about how criminal contempt stacks up in the committee's legal toolbox because it is rarely used and what kinds of consequences are there if convicted? >> yeah. so there is a federal crime for contempt of congress. if a person receives a subpoena and defies it without a good legal reason, that is a crime. now, it's a misdemean are o. misdemeanors are the less serious variety of crimes or the more serious crimes so the maximum penalty is one yore or 12 months behind bars and a $1,000 fine. however, an interesting wrinkle here is there is a mandatory minimum of one month in prison, so if stev

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.

merrick garland has to stand up here and do his job, even if it may be difficult. >> what do you think the chances are that happens, elie? >> i'm split on this. on the one happened, merrick garland has not shown a lot of appetite for anything that may be politically fraught during his time here. i think he's undercharged some of the january 6th defendants. i think he's not gone high up enough in the chain. he's shown no interest in investigating anything relating to donald trump. the steve bannon case in particular is so extraordinary, his claim of executive privilege is so utterly ridiculous that you can't just let it go with no consequence. >> here's the thing, yes, the politics are messy. this is not the first time that politics have been messy or sensitive with an issue like this. but january 6th, and what happened prior and afterwards, a sitting president trying to overturn the results of an election, using multiple levers of government is inherently political. it is weaponizing politics, so is this a case, right, where you have to pursue the criminal path because otherwise there

garland? >> quite possibly. you would normally give the witness an opportunity to at least show up. common sense dictates, and every indication we have is that steve bannon is not going to, but it benefits congress when they go too court eventually to say they called this witness in, he chose not to comply and he is acting in violation of the subpoena. they have a few options. two big ones are, one, they can go to the justice department and seek a criminal penalty. that doesn't get you the testimony. that just punishes him for breaking the law. that's leverage they could have. they could sue him to enforce the validity of the subpoena. they're free to take those steps. you punish him in one sense but compel him to testify in another sense. we'll have to see what happens as this plays out. >> i'm curious about where this ultimately leads, right, because beyond those support players, the question is what did the former president attempt to do and can congress prove it, right? they had eight hour

>> well, that's part of the decision merrick garland has to make. it if a criminal contempt case is brought, that in and of itself won't force steve bannon to testify. though it could land him in jail when he refuses to do so. but that's really the question here. will a judge quickly enough for the house to act make a determination on executive privilege and have that wind its way through the court on appeals? i don't think so. there are too many layers of court review, too many possible appeals. the other interesting wrinkle here is that trump needs an injunction. those records are going over from the national archives in november. unless there is an injunction. so kind of a flip side to what we saw on the trump administration where the stone walling actually served to not have things go to congress. this i think is going to end up being the opposite. a judge is not going to give him an injunction. it is not going t ining to wind through on time. i think it is pretty likely that those documents go over, rendering some of this moot in terms of what

attorney general merrick garland at the center of a legal and political firestorm. we'll have live team coverage next. [coins clinking in jar] ♪ you can get it if you really want it, by jimmy cliff ♪ [suitcase closing] [gusts of wind] [ding] the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now. it helps keep you effortlessly comfortable by sensing your movements and automatically responding to both of you. and, it's temperature balancing to help you stay comfortable all night. it even tracks your circadian rhythm, so you know when you're at your best. in other words, it's the most energy-building, wellness-boosting, parent-powering, proven quality night's sleep we've ever made. and now, save up to $1,000 on select sleep number 360 smart beds and adjustable bases. only for a limited time. to learn more, go to sleepnumber.com. some things are good to know. like where to find the cheapest gas in town, and which supermarket gives you the most bang for your buck. something else that's good to know? if you have medicare and medicaid, you may be able to get more healthcare be

. >>> right now attorney general merrick garland is about to answer questions from the house judiciary committee for the first time. it is expected to be a contentious hearing as lawmakers will likely press him on the enforcement of subpoenas from the january 6 committee as well as the capital riot, voting rights, migrants at the southern border and the ongoing abortion ban in texas. >> cnn justice correspondent jessica schneider is joining us live from washington. as jim pointed out, expected to get contentious. i think we're all waiting for a little bit of that. we also have a sense of what merrick garland is going to say going into this. >> the interesting thing about this, this is a standard oversight hearing. this is a chance for committee members on the judiciary committee to question the attorney general about what's happening at the department of justice. you can bet that the attorney general will do everything he can to steer it to a conversation about what the department of justice has done in his seven months at the top and what it will continue to do. in his opening stateme

visit indeed.com/hire >>> all eyes now on attorney general merrick garland after the house voted to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress. nine republicans voting with all 220 democrats to pass the resolution. so now it's up to the justice department to decide whether to prosecute the trump aide. >> the vast majority of republicans deciding not to enforce a subpoena from their own chamber. members of the january 6th committee believe he had significant knowledge around the planning of the capitol attack. whitney wild joins us. you look at this. there are a lot of steps here waiting for a decision from the justice department, but how about in the investigation itself? >> well, they're still moving forward. this, as i have said before, this message to bannon was also meant to be a message for anyone planning to defy the subpoenas. there's an expectation people are supposed to be handing over documents this week and next week. the assumption is those documents are rolling in. several people know many of the people who have been subpoenaed are cooperating, and by cooperating we mean actu

. >> 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

. >>> another legal issue, merrick garland is the attorney general. he's going to have a big decision to make. it may be a slam dunk for the democrats in congress to say that bannon should be prosecuted for contempt but what will the attorney general do? is it a different decision for him than it is for the politicians on the january 6th committee? and did president biden make things tougher for garland? how? we'll explain. and then we'll take up the question with a former attorney general under a republican president. what would he do? inside the exposed dentin to help repair sensitive teeth. my patients are able to have that quality of life back. i recommend sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair. trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high you know how i feel ♪ ♪ breeze drifting on by you know how i feel ♪ [man: coughing] ♪ it's a new dawn, it's a new day... ♪ no matter how you got copd it's time to make a stand. ♪ ...and i'm feelin' good ♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as

. >>> another legal issue, merrick garland is the attorney general. he's going to have a big decision to make. it may be a slam dunk for the democrats in congress to say that bannon should be prosecuted for contempt but what will the attorney general do? is it a different decision for him than it is for the politicians on the january 6th committee? and did president biden make things tougher for garland? how? we'll explain. and then we'll take up the question with a former attorney general under a republican president. what would he do? next. we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. tonight, i'll be eating a buffalo chicken panini. fire! nas... spare a pound? what? you know, bones, shillings, lolly? lolly? i don't have any money. you don't look broke... ♪ i'm a reporter for the new york times. if you just hold it like this. yeah. ♪ i love finding out things that other peopl

. >> so merrick garland was keeping it close to the vest. i will apply the law and the facts. no kidding. what will the outcome be? do you think he'll bring charges himself, go to a grand jury or neither? >> well, a federal law says that upon certification by the speaker and after we pass this successful bipartisan vote the speaker will certify and it will go to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia where they have a duty, and the federal law specifically mentions that, a duty to bring it before a grand jury. and so that's our expectation is that they will do just that, and this was a victory for the rule of law. and if we follow the law, then that will be the end result. >> it will be quicker if he just does a felony warrant on his own or just does his own charges, which you can do in other matters. is he not allowed to do that? is the duty a must, or is it a must to do something? >> well, they always maintain their prosecutorial discretion but the law specifically says duty. so our expectation they'll do that and bring it before a grand jury. what people need to und

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

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

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

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

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

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

. >>> attorney general merrick garland testifies before the house judiciary committee today. they are wrestling with several contentious issues including enforcement of the january 6 committee's subpoenas, voting rights, and texas new abortion law. >>> seating a jury city proving to be a trial against three white men who killed black jogger ahmaud arbery in georgia. he was shot after the men chased him down in their pickup truck. the judge asked 19 potential jurors if they wanted to serve on the case. none raised their hands. >>> the nfl agreed to stop using race as a factor in dementia testing. it excluded black players in concussion claims. retired black players can now be reevaluated for concussion awards. >>> smoke from wildfires may prove more harmful to people in the eastern u.s. than the west. a study shows about 75% of visits to the e.r. for asthma cases and deaths in recent years occurred east of the rockies. >>> today the team from nyu langone health will discuss a historic transplant. for the first time ever, a pig kidney has been transplanted into a human and not

merrick garland in his opening statement said this was an intolerable assault on the capitol, the capitol police, and the transfer of power, of fundamental premise of our democracy. so given that, given that bannon was not an employee, therefore, there is no executive privilege, therefore, and because there is a valid legislative purpose here -- remember, after 9/11 it passed the usa patriot act after january 6th. they're most likely looking at other legislative corrections. so everything here indicates an indictment is warranted because congress must assert its power under these circumstances. >> all right. we'll see how quickly the acting u.s. attorney acts and how much we hear out of him. michael zelden, former federal prosecutor, nice to see you. >> thanks. >> thank you. >>> planned testimony in the first trial of the capitol riot defendant could highlight the per it including official mike pence faced during the insurrection. vice president had to be whisked away as rioters chanted, "hang mike pence" outside the capitol. the justice department plans to call a secret service official

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

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

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