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