. >> looking ahead to attorney general merrick garland who is set to appear before one of your committees, the house judiciary committee for the first time on thursday, with the topics ranging from january 6th to texas abortion law and the assaults on voting rights, what do you want to ask the attorney general? >> so that is a great question, alex. a lot also depends on what the people before me ask the attorney general. >> good point. >> so i do have a thousand questions i would like to ask merrick garland, so it will depends on what is asked before it gets to me. >> i would suggest, though, those topics are among those consideration, those three that i rattled off? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay, what about "politico," which is predicting a tense and contentious hearing especially with republicans likely to dig in on the hot button issues like the ones around vaccine mandates and crime in major cities. are you preparing for gop fireworks? something you've certainly seen before. >> i'm prepared that radical republicans are going to continue to be extreme and say dangerous things. for exampl

part of the reason that biden named merrick garland as attorney general is because he wanted someone there running the department, who would be totally apolitical and who hadn't ever been part of his political -- of biden's political ambitions. biden put garland in place at doj, specifically so that he would help the department reassert its independence from political institutions. and that -- the result of that is, the result of that project, moving forward, effectively, is this uncomfortable moment, where biden, at least in the justice department's view, overstepped by suggesting a particular prosecution should take place and the justice department succinctly, firmly, and politely pushed back and said, the president's allowed to say what he wants to say, to paraphrase doj, but we're not going to be deciding how to bring cases or who to bring cases against based on anything that the white house tells us. >> which given the last four years, five years, almost, is refreshing. betsy woodruff, thank you, my friend. >>> suing donald trump. he has been trying to dodge tomorrow's depositio

garland, the attorney general targeting parents at school board meetings, some on the left calling them domestic terrorists, meanwhile, there were a real terrorist gathering in the wake of the fall of afghanistan so seeing is believing, what is the truth here? >> absolutely, those are all great points and it's important to remember as you know starting next year, every week that passes, we get closer to next year's elections so every week that we get closer, more and more democrats are going to wake up and start speaking acknowledging reality which is that there is a crisis and it does cross everything. for example, joe biden just now in his remarks talked about how he wants to lower child care costs for families. everybody wants people to have lower child care pair that's not the issue. the issue is how do you get there and the credibility problem comes in if you're going to lower the cost of child care the way you lowered gas prices and the price of meat at the grocery store, no thank you. americans don't want lower prices like that, they want actual lower prices. >> anita: i want to

"mcauliffe was also asked about merrick garland's october 4th memo addressing recent school board protest that virginia has been ground zero four. mcauliffe responded "listen, i believe the attorney general of the night states to make their decisions. i had no knowledge of it, they will make their own decisions, we want to keep our schools say." today republican candidate glenn duncan said this. >> he's losing it, he knows his race is slipping away from him. >> mcauliffe walked off after 10 minutes of an interview. >> john: a new monmouth poll came out today. 46-46. as an old colleague of mine once said, this is kick tight. >> sandra: thanks, john. this controversy has spread far beyond virginia. many other places in the nine states are dealing with this. our next guest has been looking at the study of critical race theory in her kids classrooms. as well as math mandates at her children's colorado schools. molly lamarr has three children in the cherry creek school district in denver. molly, i know you have four kids. three in school. i know you have been actively involved in the school bo

merrick garland is not going to do an inspection. he was asked if he would and he said, it was noncommittal but it looked like a note to me. >> john: because it was a local issue. if you think on the subject of his son-in-law, and he said look i welcome a review of this in the department of justice, i got nothing to hide here. how about it. murray and i, good to talk to you and thanks for your perspective on things. >> sandra: thank you miranda. let's bring in colorado congressman ken buck just questioned -- the judiciary committee and as you know the house is set to vote on the ban and contempt of congress. we do expect hearing will reconvene in the next few moments but, you just had the chance to question him, and specifically you asked about a special counsel for hunter biden. he was the exchange, listen. >> will you appoint a special counsel to investigate hunter biden? >> for the same reason i'm not able to respond to investigations of the former president or of anywhere else, i'm not able to discuss any investigations pending o

merrick garland directed the f.b.i. to investigate parents over school policies and vaccine mandates and critical race theory and vaccine mandates. 17 attorneys general blasted the feds for stepping on parents rights. >> the attorneys general across the country, some of us, we're the first line of defense and maybe the last line of defense against this creeping and running socialism that we have. >> this is extreme overreach by the biden administration and i'm proud of these parents for standing up for their young people. for caring about their children enough to have their voices heard. >> dana: jonathan hunt has more on this. hi, jonathan. >> good morning. a scene being repeated across the country in the past few months. parents on both sides of the vaccine mandates issues and both sides of the argument over teaching what some call ethnic studies, others critical race theory passionately arguing their cause and some sometimes crossing a line. >> we know who you are. we know who you are. we know who you are. we can fin

attorney general merrick garland on capitol hill as we speak. lawmakers will grill him on everything from immigration and the border crisis to abortion laws, covid mandates and his threats against educators. i'm dana perino. bill hemmer is off today. good morning trace. >> trace: i'm trace gallagher. the nation's top law enforcement officer appearing for the first time before the house judiciary committee facing tough questions from both sides of the aisle on a long lils of hot button issues. committee member mike johnson told us earlier about some major concerns. watch this. >> millions of americans and all of us, all the republicans on this committee deeply concerned that president joe biden and attorney general merrick garland have weaponized the justice department. inserting the d.o.j. into culture war matters and using it to attack republican-led state initiatives. eroding constitutional norms along the way while they try to push these far left policies. >> trace: david spunt is live at the justice department with more. good morning. >> goo

trace. >> trace: attorney general merrick garland faced tough questions on capitol hill on the growing list of issues the justice department is facing including the crisis at the southern border and controversial memo directing the feds to help address threats against educators. he also faced questions on hunter biden's art sales which led to this exchange with congressman ken buck. watch. >> will you appoint a special counsel to investigate hunter biden? >> i'm not able to respond to questions about investigations of the former president or of anyone else. i'm not able to discuss any investigations pending or. >> you work for the department of justice for 15 years and are you allowed to tell us whether you will appoint a special counsel. you may not tell us whether you are investigating or not investigating a particular matter but you are allowed to tell us whether you will appoint a special counsel and that's my question. >> we'll be taking it under advisement. >> trace: congressman buck joins us now. good morning. i saw your art show yesterday and found it very compelling. i talked

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

garland to delay. >> it is my wishes for the attorney general to decide to expedite the process. we hope that the attorney general sees the importance of moving ahead with this indictment, moving ahead with locking steve bannon up. you can't conduct an insurrection on the government of the united states of america and nothing happen. he has to do his job. >> joining me now, leigh ann caldwell. and also susan page and kimberly atkins. bring us up-to-date. apparently the committee is united behind that. >> the committee is united behind this and they will meet on tuesday where they will vote and likely refer that steve ban nongets criminal contempt charges. that would then go to the house of representatives for a full vote where once again it is expected to pass. and if it does pass, then it would go to the department of justice where the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia would take up the case. now, most people expect the u.s. attorney to in fact move forward with that prosecution. that is when steve ban noncould either be acquitted, he could be found guilty. if he is acq

attorney general merrick garland testified today and giving to hint as to what he will decide to do. joining us now is joyce vance. if the house refers to bannon has is respected with all republicans going against, is the attorney general going to go ahead and charge him? what do you think the justice department will do? >> it is hard to predict what this justice department right now. what merrick garland has done is committed that doj will use the same principals of federal prosecution that they have used to decide in any other situation whether or not there should be an indictment. whether or not that is evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. if it the prost kus is a matter of national interest, and and i suppose it is possible that he could, the civil remedy is sufficient. in a case like this where there is just a raw effort for the oversight abilities, this would be the case. >>. >> what about the prosecution? is it contempt? >> thee ratically congress can file a lawsuit and we saw them do that with don mcgann and it was 750 days from the time he was subpoenaed to when he a

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

live now to the house judiciary committee for testimony by attorney general merrick garland. this is live coverage here on c-span3. >> i'm going to countdown to start, four, three, two, one. you can begin. >>> house committee on judiciary will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. welcome everyone to this morning's hearing and oversight of the department of justice. before we begin i would like to remind members we have established an e-mail address and distribution list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions or other materials members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. fuld like to submit materials please distribute them and we'll circulate them to members and staff as quickly as we can.if y materials please distribute them and we'll circulate them to members and staff as quickly as we can. also face conversation are required for all meetings in enclosed space such as committee hearings except when you are recognized to speak. i will now recognize myself in opening statement. good morning

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

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

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.

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

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

. >> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this is what attorney general merrick garland said about the decision of whether to prosecute. >> the department of justice will do what it always does in such circumstances, will apply the facts in the law and make a decision consistent with the principles of the constitution. >> what do you think will happen? zblipt to say a couple of things. when he made those comments, that was maybe six or eight hours before this case even existed. so, it would have been inappropriate for him to go further than that. i think they're going to take a close look at it and there's a basis for charging him with a crime. the committee put out a pretty long detailed report indicating all the ways in which steve bannon sort of didn't respond to communications and was blowing off the committee. there's a basis for a charge to say he willfully violated a subpoena. we shall see. >> how long do you expect it's going to take ag garland to ultimately make a decision? >> i hesitate to impose timing on anybody. i think anybody is aware of how politically sensitive and how much public interest there is in this. i

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

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

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

todd: attorney general merrick garland getting push back after calling for federal intervention against parents protesting school policies. four members of the commission say he provided no examples of threats to justify federal action, saying we're concerned with what the school board calls threats and they could be classified as political speech. they say the parents are making them proud to be americans and they asked garland to provide evidence of widespread threats against school boards. carley: stacy abrams hitting the campaign trail for terry mcauliffe in virginia, two churches in black communities were among the failed georgia's gubernatorial stop. she says voting is an act of faith. meanwhile, former president barack obama will also stump for mcauliffe in the closing weeks of the state's consistent tested -- contested race. he will join mcauliffe on saturday. todd: santa monica pier, going to be a lovely day, highs in the mid-60s. carley: senior meteorologist janice dean is here with our fox weather forecast. apparently it's going to be a lovely day in santa monica. >> what do

todd: i was promised merrick garland was a moderate. what happened? >> this is nothing -- this is like something you might read about that i read about when i was in school in germany or russia. you know, we had all these riots in 2020 with looting and burning and threats and no investigation. actual violence. here we have parents that just care about what's being taught in their schools whether it's critical race theory or whether it's these mandates that are forcing kids to wear masks. and they are being threatened with if they are angry or want to express their concern. i don't know. i'm shocked. i don't think -- i haven't seen anything like this ever. carley: yeah, that's the main point. i think that the biden administration really made an unforced political error. i mean, attorney general, how many political ads do you think are going to run in the midterm elections where they are about concerned parents being called domestic terrorists? >> look, i have heard so much about this from parents all over my state. they are concerned about this threat

carley: merrick garland grilled by republicans on capitol hill over his call for the fbi to investigate parents. ashley: jackie ibanez joins us as an email shows the white house know about a letter calling parents to mystic terrorists weeks before it was sent to the president. >> reporter: those emails show the white house in communication with the national school board association for weeks before the liberal organization sent a letter calling parents opposed to critical race theory domestic terrorists and asking for patriot act surveillance and yesterday ag garland faced a barrage of questions from republicans on that bombshell memo. >> the national school board association says these kind of threats. >> any connection with the school board letter and 5 days later your memo regarding school board issues? >> the letter was brought to our attention, a relevant factor. >> he denied agree with the substance of the school board letter. >> i can't imagine any circumstance in which the patriot act would be used in circumstances of parents complaining about their children nor can i imagine a

garland would be so silly as to write the memo that merrick garland did indeed write. that i think seem to be on board with the national school board's association. and that really dismayed us. so we thought it was important to write a letter that would point out that these parents are doing what parents are supposed to do. they are caring about their children's education. ainsley: peter, isn't it well within a parent's first amendment right. >> absolutely h this fund mental right to address the government for the redress of grievances it has a chilling effect on the right of these parents to do it. when you have the attorney general inadvocate justice department and including the fbi's national security division to investigate individuals simply expressing concern about ideology and campuses and academia today. some of the violence occurred in loudoun county this is some of the stuff that the progressives understood they touched a third wral critical race theory and some of the other lunacies pervading education. they wanted to suppress that. this is something have yo

>> we are in a dead heat in virginia and education because people like merrick garland and the biden administration have come after and put a target on the backs of the parents and said we and of course terry mcauliffe said we don't have a place in our children's education and i think parents across the virginia, not just fairfax or loudoun county have had enough. we want a say in our children's education. we are the primary stakeholders and our children's education unlike u.s. secretary said we are just important, no, we are not important, we are the primary and it's not the place of the government to put themselves between us and our children. reporter: we have been hearing that from parents all over the state. i want to talk to william who used to be in public school and your mom took you out. what is the climate like on campus? >> we wore masks for longtime. we were out of school and i had some teachers showing me woke videos and it was horrible. reporter: what were those videos like? >> it was degrading to watch. reporter: did you feel attacked and those videos? >> in some sense

i pulled a merrick garland. >> yeah. that's a good -- i'm just going to do that from now on, that's a merrick garland. >> no one is holding a gun to your head, if you don't want to audition for a beauty pageant buried >> greg: there's another idea for a show! gun to your head beauty pageant! so they got to walk in and you have a gun and they've got to do all the stuff, answer the questions, there's got to be a bikini thing, but they have to have a gun to their head! >> and the ones who lose get their internal organs looked at. >> greg: this is already better than that ""squid game"." >> this is so much better than shark tank. >> greg: it is. having said that, i don't think this will work and i'm out. >> those people don't even spend their own money. don't go away, we will be right back. ♪ ♪ battling sensitive skin, we switched to tide hygienic clean free. it's gentle on her skin, and out cleans our old free detergent. tide hygienic clean free. hypoallergenic and safe for sensitive skin. at t-mobile for business, unco

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

it's important for folks to remember that no matter what ends up happening, if merrick garland makes the decision to go after steve bannon and we go through the process and he's found guilty, that doesn't mean that he is compelled to testify, right. they're still unlikely to get any information out of steve bannon, so this process is going to go through. and what the house wanted to make sure, especially, those republicans, some of the usual suspects that we've seen voting on bipartisan things, they want to make sure that congressional subpoenas hold weight and power. and that is something that democrats have talked about, like, they have concerns about. you have kevin mccarthy at some point, possibly the speaker of the house, whoever has voted against this, and what does that mean for when he wants an investigation and someone doesn't want to come and talk to some committee or panel that he's created? and that is where these folks are right now. >> eugene daniels and cal perry, thank you for being with me this morning. >>> coming up, we're following several developments in haiti rig

merrick garland mentioned this in his statement yesterday. this is basically a way they deduce whether or not they're going to move forward with prosecution. there's four questions they need to answer. walk us through that and what you expect to happen here, what you expect the answers to be. >> sure. this is just the bible for prosecutors, different questions apply in different situations. but first prosecutors have to be sure that they have sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. that question looks like one that they can answer in the affirmative here. betsey references the executive privilege aspect of that question, and if bannon really wanted to assert that in a serious way he would have to appear in front of the committee and assert it question by question that he hasn't done that really influences the calculus here. along with the fact there's an old olc memo that addresses the fact executive privilege could extend to people outside the white house, in a situation like this where the president has already ma

now the ball is in merrick garland's court. what's your expectation for how quickly the doj will move on this? >> it's my hope and expectation they will move quickly. that they understand the urgency here. and i think there are good signs in what the justice department did with respect to some of the witnesses we wanted to talk to. a former top ranking justice officials. they did not assert executive privilege. they did not assert any kind of work product privilege. and made it clear that they view the public interest in getting all the facts out about that violent attack on our democracy to be paramount. i think that same logic ought to apply here. so it's our hope, it's our expectation, that they will move quickly. >> i want to play for our viewers something that congresswoman liz cheney, the top republican on the january 6th committee, something she said on the house floor yesterday as she explained why steve bannon's testimony in her view is so critical. look at this. >> mr. bannon's own public statements make clear he knew