mere hours after he sat before the house judiciary committee last week, the full house passed a resolution finding steve bannon in contempt of congress. in other words,garland's appearance before senate judiciary tomorrow will be his first oversight hearing since it became his department's responsibility and among many democrats, expectation to enforce a congressional subpoena against steve bannon. he might not be able to dodge questions tomorrow, considering what we learned from the "washington post" this week about bannon's involvement about what is being called headquarters for the insurrection. joining us now, our friend neal katyal, former acting u.s. solicitor general, now a georgetown university professor. i was able to sleep after that vote because you assured me that doj would enforce that subpoena. do you believe that will be the case? >> i do. so, i think the justice department has a very cautious attitude in which they examine the stuff case by case but this is a case in which literally the subpoena is about a war on our democracy and a guy who's afraid to tell the truth under

hours before the vote attorney general merrick garland told the house judiciary committee he would handle bannon by quote applying the facts. watch. >> the department recognizes the oversight role this committee the house of representatives and the senate play rapt with respect to the consultive branch. the house of representatives votes for referral of a contempt charge that the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution. >> joining our coverage, neil cattial. take me inside that process in the department of justice. what will the attorney general, merrick garland do when he address applies the facts? >> i think what he will do is carefully review the facts, look at the law, and then make a decision. it is true that criminal contempt is not something that's ordinarily prosecuted from members -- you don't have congressional referrals. it is a very, very unusual thing, which is why the news today is such a big deal. but at the end of it he is going the ask is the

. >> stay with us, i want to bring into the conversation congressman member of the house judiciary committee. the reporting is fantastic, but i want to come back to the donahue notes themselves. they seem to illuminate a different issue entirely. and that is gop complicity in the efforts to overturn the election. we know that it was rooted in legal theory, it was rooted in a memo written by john eastman who presented to the president and vice president. and we know that he said to mr. donahue, i don't expect you -- so jeffrey rosen says understand that doj can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election. doesn't work that way. and trump says no, no, i don't expect you do that. just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressmen. at other points, trump names names, jim jordan republican of ohio who he describes as a fighter. he names other names, representative scott perry, republican of pennsylvania, who at the time promoted the idea that the election was stolen there trump. and he mentions senator ron johnson of wisconsin wh

joining our conversation is congressman eric swalwell of california, member of the house judiciary and intelligence committees. i don't want to amplify the threat but i want you to characterize how it was different. in the arena, we all see a lot of this. but this felt different. tell me why. >> it did, nicole. and we receive hundreds of threats. what was specific about this was the caller identified he had just been watching tucker carlson. now, we get a lot of threats that come in as tucker carlson attacks, but this person identified he had just heard from tucker carlson. he was then calling my office and then of course dropped a number of racist, sexist, homophobic epithets in the call, and then threatened to kill my entire family. and what is so frustrating about this, nicole, is that i have personally, eyeball to eyeball, asked tucker carlson not to lie about me on his show because of this effect. i have even in the last couple months sent a text message to him telling him when he lies about me on his show it results in death threats to me, my wife, and our family. and when we had

she's a member of the house judiciary and homeland security committees. also joining us, charlie sykes, it editor in chief. ari jones, you've done great reporting on districting. we need to deal with the other side of the holocaust. the right is sort of famous for making culture wars work. do you think, charlie, that the other side of the holocaust is a bridge too far or is this where we're heading? >> well, of course it's a bridge too far and it's easy to beat up on the administrator here and she's going to get dragged for all of that, but i think that the focus ought to be on the law and the fact that the teachers are terrified. they don't know what's going to happen. you know, conservative legislators used to talk a lot about the unintended consequences of legislation. what are the unintended consequences of this heavy-handed legislation? that teachers don't know what books they can assign. so, here we have the party of small government in the business of banning ideas, of banning books, and then of course, creating a situation where you go, hey, if yo

similar to what the judiciary committee and the select committee is in the process of doing. try to understand who did what and whether or not there were people in congress or in the white house who would have worked with the folks who ended up storming the capitol. if they coordinated it. if it was a planned attack or whether it was a spontaneous riot that broke out of a heated protest. i think the justice department has not weighed in definitively at this point on which scenario was -- which scenario they have found. we have seen nearly 700 people charged with a variety of crimes related to january 6th. but what we haven't seen is the justice department actually make the links between people in leadership and government and the people who attacked the capitol. there have actually only been small groups identified who coordinated in any way according to prosecutors to overturn -- to try to overturn the results of the election. >> katie, your reporting on the senate judiciary's work does make that link, though. you have the body of reporting, the notes that mr. donahue took f

joining me now, member of the house oversight and the intelligence committee. congressman, thank you for being with us. so many of these stories coming to a head between judiciary committee report and the january 6th work. i wonder if i can just get your views on what congressman kinsinger is saying, that they're willing to consider contempt. >> anyone who refuses to comply with a valid subpoena is subject to jail time and fines under a criminal statute called 2 usc 192. it is very clear that this particular statute authorizes the doj to go after any witness such as steve bannon, for instance, who refuses to come before the committee. and unlike during the trump years, when we couldn't use that statute because the trump administration wouldn't enforce it, i think this time around the biden administration, i'm hopeful, would be willing to enforce it. >> when you hear steve scalise refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of president joe biden in an election that returned him to congress, and you don't hear steve scalise suggest that every house republican who has r

so jeffrey rosen has already offered hours of testimony to the senate judiciary committee and is also to meet with the 1-6 committee. so they have reams of testimony already about these individuals and jeffrey clark is sort of the clutter within doj. i wonder if you can speak to his importance as a witness, david jolly. >> yeah, this is critically important and i think any issues of privilege will get litigated and likely will go against the witnesses who are trying to claim privilege or at least exert trump's brif ledge. this tells me the 1-6 commission is dialing in. they are circling around the president. this is clearly about what did the president know? when did he know it? what did donald trump's team do to help organize and orchestrate and perhaps even fund the events that led to the attack on the capitol? there's no other way to look at the witness list thus far than to say that the chairman and ranking member and the committee, they're circling the wagons around donald trump. they want to know what donald trump knew and when he knew it. >> a.b., to david's point, the committe

folks like jim jordan could become the head of the judiciary committee that oversees the justice department. and if he was engaged in talking to insurrectionists, that seems to be a massive conflict of interest, if not a security concern so that's why we're going after the folks on this list and we think it's important to take an all of the above approach on how to boot them from congress. >> i have two follow-up questions. one, they did it out loud. i mean, let me just play this. marjorie taylor greene's own words, her own face, her own voice on january 5th, basically previewing what she planned to do the next day. >> tomorrow, we're prepared to object to the stolen electoral college votes. president trump was re-elected for four more years. tomorrow is a very important day in america's history. we can't allow our integrity of our elections to be stolen. we must object to this vote, so let's get ready to fight for america tomorrow. >> i guess, i play that to say that republicans have seen this. and how do you fix the problem that that's no longer disqualifying in american political life? >