this is what david cicilline, a member of the house judiciary committee told me. he said, with enormous economic power very often comes enormous political power. and they are spending millions and millions of dollars flooding this town with lobbyists and campaign contributions, doing everything they can to stop the reforms. this is the reason that battles against monopolies are hard. so, look, we'll see what happens here. but i will say that proponents of reining in big tech feel like the tides have finally turned in their favor. >> we'll see. there is some bipartisan support, but i'm sure the lobbying machines are churning into action now. melanie zanona on the hill, donie o'sullivan, thank you very much. >>> president biden rejected the latest executive privilege claim by former president trump. this over documents that trump is trying to keep out of the hands of the january 6th select committee. >> cnn white house correspondent jeremy diamond joining us now. jeremy, this is after the former president had filed a lawsuit to stop the national archives from turnin

think about this, the house judiciary committee subpoenaed don mcgahn, the white house counsel for president trump. the litigation over that subpoena too two years before there was a silts -- settlement. it wasn't even resolved after two years. obviously two years is out of the question. that's the pace at which the legal system operates. i think the trump people realize that tyke is on their side. >> what do you make of this latest statement calling the 2020 election the real insurrection. does this taunt show exactly why the committee needs to investigate the january 6th attack? >> you know, it's also part of a big process going on, led by the former president, which is the normalization of what went on on january 6th. yesterday we talked about former vice president pence saying, well, you know, this wasn't such a big deal. the entire republican party is falling into line with this really obscene idea that this was some sort of legitimate political protest on january 6th, instead of the criminal insurrection that it really was. the former president said is precisely that, it was merely a p

judiciary committee, but that left the law in a mess. the court of appeals, their three-judge panel, says the house has no statute to base a civil action on to enforce a subpoena, unlike the senate which does have such a law. the house has done nothing about correcting that. the house does have inherent powers. again, they've done nothing to exercise those inherent powers. there's a resolution that was introduced by ted lu, congressman from california in the last congress which could fix that where the house could, indeed, hold somebody in contempt and then fine them as long as they remained in contempt and it could get quite expensive for somebody who didn't comply. i'm not sure, pam, why the house isn't getting its act together and making these things very effective when they do subpoena them. >> that was cnn contributor and former nixon white house counsel john dean speaking with our pam brown. >>> u.s. health experts are cautiously optimistic that the country may be turning a corner on the pandemic. hospitalizations, cases and deaths

it's just amazing. >> don, you know, when the house judiciary committee subpoenaed don mcgahn, trump's white house counsel, it took two years to get through the court. two years. that's the kind of system that we're dealing with here. >> oh, boy. kirsten, let's talk about another tough thing that's happening in another tough week for the biden presidency. a disappointing jobs report. the country barely avoided a default. the debt ceiling remains, right? that mess remains. it's temporary that they -- you know, they're stopping it now, but they're going to have to deal with it in december. and his domestic agenda, if i can get my lips to work right on a friday, is in jeopardy. i mean biden ran as a candidate that could get things done. so how is he going to pull all this off? >> well, look, yes, i mean i think he's trying to get things done. but we also have to keep perspective on this which it's not like he has 60 democratic votes in the senate. he's working with a very narrow majority and with a couple senators who are -- you know, aren't going to go along with his agenda as he's laid

judiciary committee. republicans have been seizing on this memo ever since it was issued october 4, and they've been falsely saying it was meant to stifle free speech and portraying it as a directive to arrest parents when they speak out at board meetings. simply, this is a memo that tells the fbi and law enforcement to work with strategies to stop threats. merrick garland, thsince this hearing began at 10:00 this morning, has been defeating the memo, saying it doesn't target parents. in fact, parents have been encouraged to have debates. he told senator cotton this, as long as there are no threats of violence, they are fully protected. but the attorney general is also noting the rise in threats in recent months, not just against school board members but against many others. here's what he said. >> it's in a rising tide of threats of violence against judges, against prosecutors, against secretaries of state, against election administrators, against doctors, against protesters, against news reporters. that

the house judiciary committee passed a package of anti-trust bills earlier this summer with the support of several republicans, i should note. it has yet to receive a vote on the house floor. so, look, while there is bipartisan anger, it is still very unclear whether that's actually going to translate into action. part of the reason is because republicans and democrats, while they agree on the need to reign in silicon valley, they disagree on why and how to do it. the other bigbrianna, is money. big tech is one of the biggest political spenders in washington. this is what david cicilline told me about this. quote, with enormous economic power very often comes enormous political power. and they are spending millions and millions of dollars, flooding this town with lobbyists and campaign contributions, doing everything they can to stop these reforms. this is the reason that battles against monopolies are hard. so we'll see what happens here. i will note that proponents of cracking down on big tech feel like momentum is finally on their side. >> we'll see if it is enough. thank you. >> joi

the vice chair of the house judiciary committee. thanks so much for being with us. what's your reaction to those remarks we just heard from green? >> well, sadly, i've had to put up with marjorie taylor greene a bit this week. she came in and observed while we had merit garland in front of the judiciary committee. she's not based in the fact or the truth or any sense of the rule of law. any sense of the constinstituti congress. those who voted against the resolution to hold steve bannon in contempt are literally voting against their own interests. against the institution of congress. against our subpoena power as a co-equal branch of government. so miss greene is sadly very misled. does not understand literally her oath of office or what democracy is all about. >> and congresswoman, i don't want to spend too much time on her, but are you concerned about being around her? about your colleagues being around her? what do you make of this? she has this confrontation with congresswoman liz cheney and congressman jamie raskin. seems to happen so much. >> she frequently co

let's bring in legal analyst, ambassador norm eisen, special counsel for the house judiciary committee in president trump's first impeachment trial. good morning, ambassador. great to see you as always. so in that first round of subpoenas, there were a lot of familiar faces, steve bannon and mark meadows, but in this subpoena list, not quite household names. you say that shouldn't fool anyone. what's significant to you about these subpoenas? >> boris, thanks for having me back. always wonderful to see you. in building any investigation it's important to identify those who -- because every investigation is different -- played the central role. they're not always big names, but this round of 11 subpoenas includes some familiar ones like katrina pierson and some less familiar ones who occupied critical conduit roles, boris. these are folks who worked in the republican fundraising and political apparatus in the trump campaign and also who are listed as organizers on the papers for the january 6th rally which became inthe crime of insurrection -- incitement of insurrection. i think just as

judiciary committee but that left the law in a mess. the sort of -- the court of appeals, their three-judge panel, says the house has no statute to base a civil action on to enforce a subpoena, unlike the senate, which does have such a law. the house has done nothing about correcting that. the house does have inherent powers. again, they've done nothing to exercise those inherent powers. there's a resolution that was introduced by ted lieu, congressman from california, in the last congress, introduced it again in this congress, which could fix that, where the house could indeed hold somebody in contempt and then fine them as long as they remained in contempt. and it could get quite expensive for somebody who didn't comply. i'm not sure, pam, why the house isn't getting its act together and making these things very effective. when they do subpoena them. >> i'm curious, because they -- the committee, house committee, did speak to some of the trump former doj officials who were able to speak to his efforts to overturn the election results,

. >>> 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

judiciary committee and he was asked about this criminal contempt referral. this is what he had to say. >> there will be people who -- from the democratic party who disagree with my determinations, and you've already heard some of those, and there will be people from the republican party who will disagree with my determinations about our filings in civil cases. that comes with the territory. that's what happens to the attorney general. i'm doing my best to ensure that we make decisions on the facts and the law, and when i said i would protect our people from partisan influence with respect to investigations and prosecutions, i meant that. >> reporter: and so there is going to be enormous pressure on garland and the doj to move swiftly with the prosecution of steve bannon, referred to a grand jury, take it to court, and then ultimately find him guilty so that he -- they can begin the process of trying to get this information from bannon, and along this process, there's always the possibility that bannon and the committee could begin negotiations to get him to

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 the attorney general was asked what the doj will do when this referral is ultimatel

and the house judiciary committee actually passed a package of antitrust bills earlier this summer with the support of several republicans, but it has yet to receive a full vote in the house. now, look, there is bipartisan anger over facebook and big tech right now, but the big question is whether it can actually turn into action. and part of the problem is that even though republicans and democrats agree on the need to rein in silicon valley, they have different reasons to do so and different visions for how to do so. the other big piece of this, laura, is money. big tech is one of the biggest political spenders in washington. they have for a very long time up here, but incredibly powerful and have gone untouched. so we'll have to see whether this actually is different this time around. but proponents of cracking down feel like the tides are finally turning in their favor, laura. >> the lobbying aspect of this really key there. melanie, thank you for your reporting. appreciate it. >> reporter: thank you. >>> the chicago city council poised to vote this week on one of the nation's most

. >>> 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

here to discuss democratic congresswoman madeline dean, vice chair of the house judiciary committee. the house is voting right now we are told that the -- there are eight republicans who have voted along with the democrats to refer the matter of criminal contempt of congress to the department of justice. they include not surprisingly liz cheney, adam kinzinger, but also congressman upton of michigan, meyer of minnesota, gonzalez of ohio, katko of new york, mace of south carolina, and your fellow suburban philadelphian congressman fitzpatrick of pennsylvania. what is your reaction to the vote so far? >> i am not surprised it is along party lines and i am pleased we have at least eight republicans who see the truth, who recognize the essential oversight role that congress plays, and that we should not be fooled with by the likes of steve bannon. so we will refer this matter by way of this vote to the attorney general, to the department of justice, to hold mr. bannon accountable to his subpoena and to make sure that we continue our oversight role into a heinous set of crimes that took p

judiciary, the house select committee, the january 6th select commit and the failure to secure new voting rights legislation, so in your view is democracy as we know it in danger? >> i think ambassador eisen stated it very eloquently. it's under assault, and we're looking at a moment when we need to decide as a society and culture if we're going to fight back. american democracy has reached a critical juncture. the shadow of january 6th looms large when we talk about white supremacy and voting right. we know this is a major problem in communities of color and we have to see these issues as inextricably tied and we need to see action and leadership from the president on this issue. you're hearing some of that this week and i hope there's follow through because i don't think our democracy can survive more big lies or even the pretense to another january 6th. >> ambassador, how do you see it in the big lie has not gone away. if anything, it seems to be -- the momentum seems to be gaining? >> fredericka, it represents a terrible threat, and one of the things that the freedom to vote act and t

he's the ranking member on the senate judiciary committee. take a listen. >> there trump had everybody in the white house to discuss it and unanimously, except for one, they said you shouldn't do what the one lawyer said he thought the president ought to do. the president rejected it. the president did the right thing. how does that create any sort of problem? in fact, if he had made another decision, you would have had a problem. >> so, you know, you listen to that and you hear we're just getting totally different takeaways from this report. again, worth noting the republicans putting out their own report. and we talked to senator tillis about wmaybe they were so different in their takeaways. he said when he was sitting in on one of the hearings people were talking over each other. he thinks those are reflected in the two different reports. >> yes, indeed. thank you for your reporting. >> joining us now washington correspondent for the "new york times", maggie haberman and cnn legal analyst and former person counsel for president trump's fir

the senate judiciary committee had wanted to sit down and talk, he didn't go and talk to them. now the house january 6th committee now hit him with a subpoena, and we are learning from sources, they're telling us clark and the committee are both preparing for him to come in to testify. clark is not a household name among people in the justice department, but he is a very important figure in this investigation because he was from what we know central to donald trump using the justice department to try to overturn the election of 2020. now, after the election, clark was leading the civil division of the justice department. and so he was proposing to officials, his bosses at justice to send a letter to georgia and to other states to use their legislature to potentially throw out votes and allow -- he wanted the justice department to give those states cover. he also was the person trump wanted to install as the attorney general because he was sympathetic to these election fraud claimsch and so what that does if he does come into the committee and he does speak freely about what he

the senate judiciary committee is making clear recommendations as to how to avoid getting to this kind of cries at some point in the future and that's number one clarifying the ways in which the president, the white house can mun kate with the justice department addings that kind of communication at state level because the guidelines don't currently have that so number one clarifying what constitutes a threat to officials and also here the jt modifying its own policy of not interfering in standing elections so that's very important. you know, i think we grouse a lot in washington about why did this happen? what stops it from happening george bush, and i think it's very important that congress, the body that oversees this make clear recommendations. you know, notably they have not made any criminal referrals here and practically i think they should not, it's early and they should wait until the end of their investigation if possible. >> that's a recommendation when it comes to accountability, that's an important piece of all of this and yet, gloria, republicans are still sticking by for

several former trump aides are now facing a deadline to answer subpoenas from the january 6th house committee. the group expected to defy the request for documents tied to their communications on the day of the insurrection. >> and also just within the last hour, the senate judiciary committee releasing a damning report detailing how trump and a top doj lawyer attempted to overturn the 2020 election. cnn's senior justice correspondent evan perez joining us now. what more are we learning, what else is new in this senate report? >> well, erica, this report paints a picture of the white house and people at the justice department, trying to fight over what to do with president trump's demands that the justice department weigh in on the election after, of course, after he had lost. we learned from this report that mark meadows, then the chief of staff, repeatedly was calling top officials at the time at the justice department asking them to try to investigate things including the bizarre italygate conspiracy. this is something that essentially says that there was an italian contractor working with

committee committee report, you went through things that are true, donald trump nine times reached out to the justice department trying to get them to overterm the results of the election, that's the fraud. it is true he's trying to take out secretaries of state and get governors elects in key battleground so if you have an election and things on the ground turn out differently than 2020. if the electoral college comes to the house and it's run by republicans, people like steve scalise will have a decision to make, people like that. >> i hope it gets back to what the constitution says but clearly in a number of states they didn't follow the election protocols. >> you think the election was stolen? >> they didn't follow legislatively set rules. >> do you think the election was stolen or not? i understand there were irregularities and things that need to be fixed. >> and it's not just irregularities. it's states that did not follow the laws set which the constitution says they are supposed to follow. >> thank chris wallace for trying, repeatedly trying. b, that's not just about 2020. eve

where ultimately, the white house counsel was required to testify to the judiciary committee that there was no privilege that had overcome the need of the congress to get the information. so, we'll get it. i -- i think the former president's bag of tricks has always included da delay and obfuscation. we are aware of that and we're not planning to let him win in that way either. >> so i wanted ask you because the original document that went out, just a request, right, for documents. there were, i mean, thousands of pages, documents that would come back from that, right? now, specifically, president trump. they didn't want any of it to go out, right? but then they rejected specifically to 45 documents on that list that would come from the national archives. they -- they said 45 of those, they did not want to be shared with your committee. that they believe are protected by executive privilege. what is in those documents? why do you think he doesn't want you to have them? >> well, i don't -- i would never speculate as to the former president's state of mind. but i will say this. the curren

a tactic that led to this warning from the chairman of the senate judiciary committee dick durbin. >> i would suggest modestly, follow the law instead of the ravings of had former president. he doesn't have the power to pardon you any more. probably i hope never will again. and be careful. follow the law even if the president is begging you to stay away because of the evidence that you might present. >> which get more this morning from cnn's jessica schneider. >> reporter: laura and christine, the former president and his legal team are starting to set up major roadblocks for the january 6th select committee that could eventually lead to lengthy litigation. the "washington post" is reporting that an attorney for the former president is instructing four former aides who have been subpoenaed by the committee not to comply. thursday night was the deadline and it's not clear how the committee will move forward, especially because they want four of those key members of the trump administration to come in for depositions next wieeek. the four trump allies seemingly -- documents, former chie

the fealty shown by republicans on the senate judiciary committee today ranking member chuck grassley who in the past has stood up for moral causes and been one of the biggest boosters of whistle-blowers in the history of congress out there saying, you know, yes he basically, i'm paraphrasing, yes, president trump talked about committing a coup but he didn't really actually do it. you have something you call the side show bob defense. >> the side show bob defense drawn from the animated series "the simpsons." one of the villains is imprisoned for trying to kill bart simpson and in one scene is shown on the phone angrily deploring his fate saying attempted murder? what is that? do they give out a nobel prize for attempted chemistry? the idea being if he was thwarted in his efforts to kill bart therefore he is innocent. obviously the two aren't the same. what i will say about this argument from republicans is it is not new. you've been seeing it from conservatives on social media for months and months. the idea that because ultimately donald trump did not trigger this replacement of the

i asked the attorney general when he was before the judiciary committee yesterday whether in his view that was still good law. and he said it is. it's still good law. we don't have absolute immunity. if you have a privilege that you want to claim, you have to come into the committee and claim it. let's take it out of the executive privilege area and say that you have a fifth amendment right not to incriminate yourself. you have to go in and assert that claim for each question and for all you know, the congress may grant you immunity from prosecution. then you'd have to answer the question. you can't just say to the congress, no thank you. that's not what a subpoena is all about. >> you just heard our reporter note that it is extremely rare for a prosecution of somebody who defied a subpoena. what will you do if attorney general garland decides to take a pass on prosecuting bannon? >> i'll just say it's extremely rare for a violent mob of 10,000 people to attack the capitol and try and overturn the constitution and the counting of the votes of the electoral college. so i think the atto