you are now at the helm of doj. will you continue the use even after cdc stated there's no evidence that the use of title 42 will slow the spread of covid. >> the use of authority comes from the cdc itself. they are the ones that issued the orders with respect to title 42. this is a challenge in the courts. there's concern of covid because of what the grounds are. this doesn't have anything to do with my view or the government's view about the importance of asylum. it goes only to the cdc's authority under title 42 to issue this kind of order. >> it's my understanding that cdc says there is no evidence that the use of title 42 will slow the spread of and the worry about the spread of covid from those seeking asylum. i hope we can look into that and stop the use of title 42. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> thank you. >> a colleague asked many raskin take down his words. i think if folks would admit that president biden won the 2020 election and stop pushing the big lie, they wouldn't have to w

doj. thank you for the opportunity to testify. the voting rights act is, as president johnson said, one of the most monument laws in the entire history of american freedom. it is a law that has helped to truly transform american democracy. however, the progress we have made is fragile. recently, there has been a resurgence in attacks on voting rights, including cuts to early voting periods, burdensome restrictions to register or vote, racially gerrymandered redistricting plans, polling sites eliminated or consolidated in communities of color, eligible voters purged from the rolls and more. i am here to sound the alarm that restoring the voting rights act as a matter of great urgency. the 2013 shelby county versus holder ruling eliminated the justice department's single most powerful and effective tool for protecting the right to vote. before shelby, the preclearance process enabled the department to swiftly block the implementation of many discriminatory and unconstitutional voting practices. through section five, the department b

> according to the senate testimony from richard donahue, former acting attorney general trump cold doj officials something to the effect of people are trying to address this problem. scott perry and mastriano. the democrat-led committee said ties to january 6th are particularly notable. and warrant further investigation. in the days after trump's call with doj officials, mastriano wrote election fraud is real and prevalent in pennsylvania, laying out his evidence of fraud, which has been repeatedly debunked and adding, this election is an embarrassment to our nation.

nugget one doj and fbi to take that lead here. do they not hear what they are syncwords deal with the root cause. as good parents who have every right to be furious that their children are being absolutely misled or ignored and the parents are being desolated. i don't blame them one bit. the other thing is get this is going to the? is that what you want to see education become, a court case? but i have to say, come on, folks. this is just incredulous to me. at the end of the day, it is a local issue and these school boards have done nothing but gas like these periods and i cannot help but remember that, for the school board that was busted on is an. a top that they were not being recorded and they sat there and insulted the parents, insulted the teachers, and acted like they were just a bunch of overpaid babysitters, by the way did not want the children back in the classroom. >> emily, i want to piggyback on something cheryl is put into. we agreed that violence and threats and all of that from either side, kaley pointed out, right

trend that require overreach on behalf of the doj? >> what we looked at was letter from an organization that represents thousands of school board members and school boards and public reports of threats of violence. >> sandra: senator, did you get answers to your questions? >> no, i didn't. it was clearly motivated by the letter from the school board association and it was an overreach. the point i was trying to make is chilling effect on parents who should feel comfortable going to school board meet. no question people will think twice when they think they have the watchful eye of the f.b.i. overlooking everything they say. school board meetings can get heated. i've been pta president and i believe they should withtrau the memo and stand back. >> john: senators followed the same line of questioning asking whether or not they did research into the incidents cited in this letter. one of them say nothing virginia, an individual was arrested, citation that takes you to news report, the interview was scott smith who was upset the school bo

press secretary, has continued to make it very clear, if you want to talk about the doj, go to the doj and talk with them, making that clear distinction. that's something we're not really expecting. was the white house definitely concerned about it? it's bigger than the campaign that was against donald trump at the time and more about the focus on democracy, how this damages people's trust in elections and not the way donald trump talked about it because he created a lot of this election integrity concerns that his allies have now. >> eugene, a demonstration of just how far back the white house was is pretty terrific. thank you for that. you're certainly right. this is an administration that has really tried to depoliticize the department of justice, tried to restore the americans' faith of its independence and institution. i would agree. politico broke the news of the trump instruction for aides not to comply with these subpoenas. great work. any additional information that you guys have heard as to whether the recipients, these trump aides, plan do as trump told? if one breaks ranks,

so, i mean, look if the referral makes its way to doj, how likely is it that doj would then act in a timely manner? >> i don't think it will take a long time for dodthe doj to mak decision. it's not trafficking, it's not terrorism. it's a simple flouting of a subpoena based on no legal ground at all. as you pointed out, steve bannon was not in the employ of the government. not the executive branch. at the time of the insurrection. he has no basis for asserting the privilege. that kind of prosecution is very, very rare. it hasn't happened in a very, very, very long time. i don't think it will take a long period for the justice department to decide. i think they could do that in a matter of days or weeks. >> and there's this olc memo at doj that refuses to bring contempt of charges congress to executive branch officials if they defy congressional subpoenas. but, of course, with steve bannon, it's a little bit of a different case, right? he wasn't in the white house during the time in question, even though he's trying to play the executive privilege card. >> yeah. it doesn't make sense

you're now the helm of the doj. will you continue the use of the authority as the cdc has said that the use of title 42 this doesn't have anything to do with my view or the government's view about the importance of asylum. it goes only to the cdc's authority under title 42 to issue this kind of order. >> it's my understanding and maybe we can look at it more closely that the cdc says there's no evidence that the use of title 42 will slow the spread of -- and the worry about the spread of covid from those seeking asylum. i hope we can look into that and stop the use of title 42. thank you. i yield back. >> mrs. escobar? >> a colleague asked that mr. raskin take down his words when talking about being a member of a cult. i wish he would stop pushing the big lie and they wouldn't have to worry about being in a cult. attorney general garland, i represent congressional district 16 in el paso, texas. we're coming into in hearing fresh off of the heels of a gravely unjust session in the texas state legislature where republ

does the doj see parents asking questions as a threat? because we have seen reports from teachers, parents, and other members of a private facebook group in virginia that have been accused of compiling a list of names of district parents who oppose critical race theory in order to track back -- track, hack, and dox them to prohibit censorship. will they be seen as domestic terrorists by the fbi as well? it is free-speech to track parents, but it is not free-speech for parents that want to show up at a school board meeting and make their displeasure known and engage in public discourse because those parents taxpayers are paying the bill for that? let me ask you this. attorney general garland. i have seen reports of his family connection to panorama over data harvesting and holding data on students and having contracts with school boards. we have had quite a bit of discussion about facebook and the way they market and data mine children as young as eight years old. are you aware that? ms. clarke: this is not an issue that the civil rights d

they've made a referral to doj. doj will have to decide whether to prosecute bannon for criminal contempt. it's not a sure thing, but i think the equities lean strongly in favor of prosecution, because this isn't the first instance of an effort to obstruct congress by someone in trump's camp, and this congress made its referral in light of many, many years of people in the trump administration refusing to engage in the accommodation process with congress and comply with legitimate oversight. so, doj will have to look at whether there's sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction here. they'll also have to consider whether this serves the national interest and also whether there's significant noncriminal venues for dealing with the problem, for addressing accountability. ultimately, if congress is going to have the power to continue to engage in oversight, it's incumbent upon doj to go ahead here and prosecute. >> with the crystal ball, joyce vance, will doj move forward? >> you know, it's never a sure thi

if, of course, that statement you read from doj that came out last night was important, doj basically pumping the brakes saying, hey, guys, we're going to look at this, we're not going to be told what to do, that said, based on what we know about the law and the facts as it relates to steve bannon, it would certainly be a surprise if the justice department chose not to prosecute him. >> frank, as we talk about all of this, i think there are so many of us who want this to be in our rear view, yet it's all very much still in front of us. new reporting from "the washington post" on trump's stronghold on the republican party, "the post" writing in a private speech thursday, trump cast himself as the gop savior saying he brought the party back from the brink of disaster and helped republicans hold seats on capitol hill, failing to mention that the party lost the white house and control of both the house and senate under his presidency. "the post" then writes, trump reiterated his claims that the 2020 vote was tainted be fraud, praising gop-controlled states that have passed laws since then

he directly asked the doj to overturn the election. and yet today, congresswoman, the ranking gop member of the senate judiciary committee, chuck grassley released a rebuttal report, and it includes an entire section with the title, and i quote, the available evidence shows that president trump did not use the justice department to overturn the election." >> it's like saying i took out my gun, i shot at you. i missed. and therefore there is no crime. >> i mean, what do you even say to that? these are your colleagues, for whom i'm sure over years in many cases you have had great respect. >> well, i've certainly had times when i worked with senator grassley and times when i disagreed on policy issues. but here's the problem. i can disagree with somebody on policy. but to say that the reality doesn't exist is very problematic. you know, one of my colleagues said in debating the commission idea, you know, the old phrase i'll believe it when i see it has been replaced by somewhere i'll see it when i believe it. we have to look at what's act

"it's not unusual for doj's public integrity section to work with a u.s. attorney's office on a case involving a politician but it suggests that,". >> the public integrity section is not large. they have to be selective of the cases they are going to join and devote those resources to. they get a lot of requests and referrals all over the country. they have the specialists who have the expertise to come in and assist the prosecutors. prosecutors in florida know near courts and judges and the process and their community but having those specialists from washington who have focused on these kinds of cases in the past can be very helpful but i agree with joyce in that because of the scarcity of those lawyers, they're only going to go where they are needed when there appears to be something that's about to happen. they're looking seriously about filing charges in this case and staying in for the long hall. >> how long is bannon's allegiance to trump and vice versa? >> bannon is doing what trump wants. he's back in the trump's circle. it's clear he was talking

the doj discusses a despicable surge of threats. one florida school member has had it making waves for calling out harassment she has faced for supporting science. >> i don't reject people coming here and speaking their voice all the time. i don't reject them standing outside my home. i reject them following me around in my car and saying that they are coming for me and i need to beg for mercy. i reject that when they are using their first amendment rights on public policy, they are going behind my home and bran dishing weapons to my neighbors. i have to take a dcf investigator to her play date and check for burn marks. that's what i'm against, which is a credible threat. >> jennifer, thank you for being with us. what was the moment you were like, enough, i can't stand by and let these people to continue to harass me, i have to say something? >> i decided on that school board meeting where i spoke out in that video that went viral. not on my own free will. i felt backed into a corner. my fellow board members proposed a motion to den

that is a doj problem. that is a crime in our communities problem, and it's actually making the hispanic communities, the majority of which are coming over are hispanic, those communities less safe. i would really encourage you to go back to the border and look at it from the perspective of your role as attorney general. and the hundreds and the thousands of illegals who are coming across our border every day, many of them drifting in and evading detection and making our communities less safe. i do have a number -- i have intellectual property, a number of implementation issues i'm going to submit for the record, but mr. garland, we have a problem at the border. and the doj has to engage and recognize that part of the problem, you're going to have to fix. we have to stop the $13 million a day that the cartels are getting for human trafficking. that's a documented number. we have to stop the tons of fentanyl and drugs poisoning americans because we have an out of control border situation. this is a law enfor

and for the fbi, the doj, and congress. the real question is where did lines intertwined if they did. >> phil rucker, let's move forward to tonight's events in baltimore, the cnn town hall, with a president who is indeed made news, a bunch of rhetoric reporters on twitter were saying that all the reporting over the last few days went down the drain when biden went ahead and verbally superseded everything they've been told. he opened the door towards filling around with the filibuster, but still fill up, the question comes down to, what do you do about sinema and manchin, who remain amazingly democrats? >> you know, it is a real problem for the biden presidency and has been for months now. the fact that there are our divides on multiple issues among the democrats and there's not any room for division when you look at a 50 plus one senate majority, that they currently have. this issue of the filibuster, biden has resisted coming out for the filibuster for months now despite pressure from the liberal flank of the democratic pa

imagine if donald trump doj designated, say, cnn anchors as domestic terrorists. put it in writing and then told men with guns to enforce the law. how would that go over? we, for one, would be outraged by that. all decent americans would. a lot of cnn anchors made excuses for violence during the riots of last year, but the media aren't upset about this. when powerless suburban parents resist having nihilistic rulingt class ideologies imposed by force on their children, our media seem to believe it is perfectlye fine to designate tm terrorists and threaten them with firearms. >> and a version of america where school board meetings have become the new culture were battlegrounds with children caught in the cross hairs. sometimes literally and sometimes figuratively. >> right now everyone from the proud boys to qanon influencers are trying to encourage their members, their followers, their maniacs to show up at school board meetings. >> some behaviors so bad it is being compared to domestic terrorism. >> this becomes a nationoa all security crisis. >> pretending schoo

doj, both parties subject, but doj has not been willing to bring these charges. it is on the books. it is a crime for a reason. and it is inexplicable to me how doj has not charged these. >> what does the congressional subpoena mean? if you or i or they can refuse and reliably under democratic or republican leadership not be referred for criminal charges, does that make it a worthless piece of paper? >> you hit on the existential question here. what does a congressional subpoena mean? this is a question of how serious is congress about enforcing its own enforcement power? we have seen congress take the slow route, we have seen doj standing on the sidelines doing nothing. we have seen our judiciary, our judges taking way too long on these cases. until those things change, you're right, a congressional subpoena is just a piece of paper. >> wow. >> yeah. >> interesting to see. >> we will keep asking you to see as this moves through the system as it does. thanks so much for coming on. >>> well, gas prices you may have noticed at the pump are soaring. supply chains di

he has potential liability for violating doj rules. as you said, there's an inspector general investigation, bar rules, he could lose his license, which he's too young to do, and criminal. so if he lets everyone else do the talking and stays quiet, he's in the soup. on the other hand, if he comes forward, he's in all kinds of trouble, too. it's obviously not going to be a friendly committee. you can see that from sheldon whitehouse, i think the pressure on him is greater though the initial claim of executive privilege is stronger. >> there's a lot of moving parts on this, too. you've got the white house reiterating again, barbara mcquaid, and to be clear, the white house has upheld executive privilege in a whole bunch of areas that essentially protect trump. there's some stuff having to do with the mueller report that they have upheld executive privilege but they are very stairway, dana referee -- remus, the president maintains his conclusion of executive privilege. seems like those are going to be moving on their way soon as well barr

what the doj is supposed to do. that's how the doj is supposed to work. we complained for five years that the department of justice was a patsy for president donald trump. it was donald trump's attorney general. it was donald trump's justice department. they were doing donald trump's bidding. we did agree we didn't like that. we preferred department of justice that looks at the facts and determines itself what it's going to prosecute or not. >> that's right. biden selected merrick garland as attorney general specifically because he's the kind of person who would want to issue statements like this. he selected garland with the specific goal of bringing in someone who was not a long-time political ally and who would be committed to restoring this gap of separation between the white house and the justice department so that americans can be confident that the criminal justice system is not operating as an arm of the republican national committee or the democratic national committee, which was a concern that people had u

imagine if donald trump doj designated, say, cnn anchors as domestic terrorists. put it in writing and then told men with guns to enforce the law. how would that go over? we, for one, would be outraged by that. all decent americans would. a lot of cnn anchors made excuses for violence during the riots of last year, but the media aren't upset about this. when powerless suburban parents resist having nihilistic ruling class ideologies imposed by force on their children, our media seem to believe it is perfectly fine to designate them terrorists and threaten them with firearms. >> and a version of america where school board meetings have become the new culture were battlegrounds with children caught in the cross hairs. sometimes literally and sometimes figuratively. >> right now everyone from the proud boys to cue in on influencers are trying to encourage their members, their followers, their maniacs to show up at school board meet. >> some behaviors so bad it is being compared to domestic terrorism. >> this becomes a nation all security crisis. >> pretending school

>>> so our next speaker has a little bit of insight to doj. i was fascinated by reid's comments -- i overlap with reid at doj and also when i was working for secretary devos. we worked on a lot of stuff together. matt, i've decided to change the title of this program, prerogative this to doj has its challenges. but in any event, it was fascinating to hear reid's perspective. i'm going to take it -- i had the opportunity to work with matt closely when he was chief of staff and acting ag, and tremendously honored that he elected to come and speak to us kind of in his new role in working on a lot of issues. but in particular to address immigration. i will hand the introduction over to craig burkhart who has kind of done everything for the national lawyers association top to bottom, one of the first guys i talked to when i joined the rnla, not to say you're older than me. he is a partner at barnes and thornberg. with that, craig. >> i'm craig burkhart and i'm one of the several past presidents of the republican national association, and for those

it is time for doj it take a look? from a legal perspective, does this open any of these folks up in terms of criminal charges if the doj doesn't step in? what is the next move here? >> i think it absolutely should. so, first of all, it is a federal crime to try to interfere with an election, to try to get somebody to count ballots that were not cast, to discard ballots that were cast ar or to falsely certify an election winner. jeffrey clark this guy committed a fraud. he drafted a letter inside doj, he tried to get the attorney general to send, saying we identified serious election concerns in the state of georgia, serious enough that you, georgia, need to convene a special session and potentially appoint a new set of electors. that's nonsense. that did not happen. that's a fraud, trying to get the attorney general to sign on to a fraud and use it to challenge an election, that's a crime too. >> elie, we have so many investigations here at the state, and the national level, but no charges, right? and i just wonder do

they have -- the doj has asked google to send them the people who searched for certain phrases and is google participating in this? tell me about that. this was very concerning when i understood what this was all about, that google was actually going to provide phrases that we put in that search bar. >> you don't have -- you have to be concerned at home what we're doing. you know how google tries to control our thoughts and what we read on basis that 90% of any search inside the internet goes through google. now the biden administration's government is asking google to tell them whoever searches certain phrases. i read about this this week, this is a real concern. a big problem that we have is what nancy pelosi has done in congress. she desecrated this i think -- this institution. she made it almost impossible for the minority to get documents from the biden administration so we can hold them accountable, not just on this, but afghanistan as well. she has proxy voting. there are democrats that have not shown up for work for months but they still get their paycheck. she fines members u

you are now at the helm of doj. will you continue the use even after cdc stated there's no evidence that the use of title 42 will slow the spread of covid. >> the use of authority comes from the cdc itself. they are the ones that issued the orders with respect to title 42. this is a challenge in the courts. there's concern of covid because of what the grounds are. this doesn't have anything to do with my view or the government's view about the importance of asylum. it goes only to the cdc's authority under title 42 to issue this kind of order. >> it's my understanding that cdc says there is no evidence that the use of title 42 will slow the spread of and the worry about the spread of covid from those seeking asylum. i hope we can look into that and stop the use of title 42. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> thank you. >> a colleague asked many raskin take down his words. i think if folks would admit that president biden won the 2020 election and stop pushing the big lie, they wouldn't have to w

now, there is going to be a process here if doj decides to charge. first of all, case needs to go to a grand jury who can indict steve bannon. because it is a misdemeanor, it doesn't technically have to go to a grand jury. in all likelihood, doj will want to do that. defense will bring motions. we'll hear steve bannon say executive privilege, attorney-client privilege. he'll get a chance to make the arguments. i think there is no merit. then there will be a jury, and they'll decide whether he is guilty or not guilty. then there is an appeal. this is going to take a bit. >> so the history here has been decades since this has been used. >> there is a bizarre history le here. the last time anyone was charged criminally with contempt of congress was 1983. i was 8 years old, long time ago. rita lavelle, epa administrator. thing is, rita lavelle went to trial and was found not guilty. she was acquitted. she said she was too sick, couldn't afford the plane ticket out. the jury sympathized with her. since then, this has not been charged criminally. we've see

keep it civilized in the doj will have nothing to do. take you much. >> thank you. >> shannon: breaking tonight. texas appealing a preliminary injunction issued earlier wednesday by federal judge that is barring the enforcement of the states month-old law banning abortions after cardiac activity is about six weeks into pregnancy. for now, that law is on hold. but the state is petitioning the fifth circuit court of appeals and it is known as one of the nation's most conservative appellate courts. i should on raising the debt ceiling. what we know about democrats accepting senate minority mitch mcconnell's offer to push the fight into december. we will get to do this all again. why has corresponding kevin corke is tracking the details for us tonight. >> good evening shannon. as is often the case here in this nation's capital, lawmakers have once again agreed to kick the can down the proverbial road. this time, it is the stalemate over the nation's borrowing limit. swept aside now for the next couple of months. democrats voting as soon as t

but how did the doj reach that conclusion? did they do some type of in-depth research? did they conduct a nationwide investigation, did they have specific threats? congressman jim jordan wanted to find out. >> wanted you first review the data showing this so-called disturbing uptick? >> i read the letter and we have been seeing over time -- >> i didn't ask you, you read the letter, that is your source? >> let me be clear, this is not a prosecution -- >> some study, some investigation someone did that said there was a disturbing uptick or you take the word of the national school board association? >> will: nothing more than a letter, garland wouldn't give a straight answer but he would give nothing more than a letter as the predicate to this investigation. congressman jordan was cut off before he could press any more. it's obvious that the white house was following the ns bas lead and the doj was following the white house's lead. that is not the only concern congress had with the attorney general, louisiana congressman mike johnson took the attack for his family's busine

now, why did the doj issue this letter? because they received a complaint from the national school boards association, huge donors, of course, to the democratic party in the complaint cited citizens who were upset over the teachings of "critical race theory and masking of children," which is medically unnecessary. the group wrote to the biden administration and said some of the actions against the school board "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes." oh, so school administrators are now a protected group. if you disagree with them you're committing a hate crime, not voicing an opinion, which is constitutionally protected. no, it's an act of violence to disagree with them, let's get specific. according to national school boards association it is things like this, "earlier this month a student in tennessee was mocked during a board meeting for advocating masks and schools after testifying to his grandmother, who was an educator, died because of covid-19. the association went on to say that th

in the past, the doj has declined to prosecute. why is this time different? >> there's one very important difference. in the past when these criminal contempt referrals have come, they have been for officials in the executive branch for whom the sitting president has made an assertion of executive privilege. and doj's long time policy is, if the president, the sitting president, asserts executive privilege and an official declines to testify because of that, which a sitting official almost always will, the department of justice will respect the president's wishes and not try to pursue that individual in court with an indictment. now, the difference here is the sitting president, joe biden, has not asserted executive president for steve bannon or for mark meadows or any of the other witnesses the january 6 committee is attempting to interview. the president has vaguely made these claims apparently to bannon and other witnesses. he and his attorneys have not sent a formal letter to the committee, they've not gone through the processes you would typically except

now, why did the doj issue this letter? because they received a complaint from the national school boards association, huge donors, of course, the democratic party in the complaint cited citizens who were upset over the teachings of "critical race theory and masking of children," which is medically unnecessary. the group wrote to the biden administration and said some of the actions against the school board "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes." oh, so school administrators are now a protected group. if you disagree with them you're committing a hate crime, not voicing an opinion, which is constitutionally protected. no, it's an act of violence to disagree with them, let's get specific. according to national school boards association it is things like this, earlier this month a student in tennessee was mocked during a board meeting for advocating masks and schools after testifying to his grandmother, who was an educator, died because of covid-19. the association went on to say that the fe

other leaders at doj stood up and said no. and it's significant that he testified for eight hours. that is a long time for one witness. jeffrey clark has some serious problems now. one, the committee is trying to compel him to testify as they should because jeffrey clark tried to commit a fraud. he drafted a letter saying doj has identified concerns about election fraud in georgia. that's just false. and so, jeffrey clark needs to think about potential criminal exposure here, too. committing a fraud is a -- is a crime. conspiracy a crime. election interference a crime. he has the right to take the fifth. he might be well advised to do that here. >> gary, you have watched the rise and fall of steve bannon. his attorney said he will not cooperate, arguing that he is bound by, quote, executive privileges belonging to president trump. it's obvious, you know, it's dubious because the former president is not the sitting president. bannon was not a white house official in january. what -- he was actually, you know, already -- he was

matt, i've decided to change the title of this program, to "doj has its challenges." in any event, it was fascinating to here reed's perspective. i had the opportunity to work with matt closely both when he was chief of staff and when he was acting ag, and tremendously honored that he elected to come and speak to us kind of in his new role in working on a lot of issues but in particular immigration. with that, i'm going to hand the introduction over to craig burkhart who has kind of done everything for the republican national lawyers association top to bottom. he's one of the first guys i talked to when i joined, not to say you're older than me, but when i joined r&la. we were partners at thornburg. with that, craig? >> i'm craig burkhart and i'm one of the several past presidents of the republican national association. and for those of you who might be watching us, we invite you to join us. the republican national lawyers association is the national entity around which republican lawyers gather to promote the rule of law and republican principles. and you can learn m

we know that he battled trump's efforts to co-op the doj. >> he did. when i was the house impeachment manager in the second impeachment trial, i presented to the senate and i talked about mr. rosen, and he actually did stand up, and he actually did help hold our democracy together, so i'm sure he had a lot to tell the january 6th committee. >> let's talk about another trump official from the doj, jeffrey clark. he's been subpoenaed. now, he was a trump loyalist who, according to rosen told rosen that trump was going to oust him from the top job and replace him with clark. why would donald trump have wanted to do that? >> so yeah, so jeffrey clark is exactly the opposite of mr. rosen. he wanted to burn down our democracy. he was going to do everything he could to keep the former president in office, even though trump lost. and i think jeffrey clark has a lot to answer for. i hope that he does cooperate and he tells the january 6th commission what the commission wants to know. >> okay. committee chair penny thompson is giving new insight into how former

[applause] >>> so our next speaker has a little bit of insight to doj. i was fascinated by reed's comments. i overlapped with reed at doj and also when i was working for secretary devos so we worked on a lot of stuff together. matt, i've decided to change the title of this program, to "doj has its challenges." in any event, it was fascinating to here reed's perspective. i had the opportunity to work with matt closely both when he was chief of staff and when he was acting ag, and tremendously honored that he elected to come and speak to us kind of in his new role in working on a lot of issues but in particular immigration. with that, i'm going to hand the introduction over to craig burkhart who has kind of done everything for the republican national lawyers association top to bottom. he's one of the first guys i talked to when i joined, not to say you're older than me, but when i joined r&la. we were partners at thornburg. with that, craig? >> i'm craig burkhart and i'm one of the several past presidents of the republican national association. and for tho

the doj can now appeal the ruling to the u.s. supreme court. the "washington post" reports the order follows a temporary decision last week by the same panel of is judges to reinstate the ban less than 48 hours after it was suspended by the lower court jump. the decision was based on previous rulings in a separate challenge which said that because the ban is enforced by private individuals and not government officials, it's not clear how and when the law can be challenged in federal court. >>> more than 10,000 union members at john deere walked off the job yesterday. it's the latest move with workers frustrated with long hours during the pandemic and what it sees as soaring corporate profits that are not tricking down. that along with a supply shortage and worker shortage and the u.s. economy. nbc correspondent gabe gutierrez has more. >> reporter: in iowa, members of the united autoworkers walked the picket line, kicking off the nation's largest private sector strike in two years. >> it's a resurgence of the labor movement. the cheap labor mov

congress hands the call over to doj, and then as i'm emphasizing, doj separately and independently decides whether to pursue, in this instance, a criminal case against bannon. if they do, it's a biggie. you got huge fines, and up to a year in jail. this is about criminal contempt. then there's another one that is a bit more self-enforcing. this is something congress can do itself. one of our legal guests recently brought it up. >> congress should use its other power. we need inherent contempt. if you or i ignored a subpoena from a court, we would be in jail. we would not pass go, we would not collect $200. we would go to jail. because courts have an inherent contempt power, they can jail you until you follow their rules. >> that's true. but congress has not gone near that power since 1934. when mccracken spent ten days in jail for defying a senate probe. it was upheld by the supreme court, that found that congress has the power to coerce documents by means of an arrest. this congress has not suggested it can go near inherent contempt, but that's part of its powers. that process of oversigh

>> i'm heartened by the response the doj came out with in its letter. the idea they could make examples of a few parent somewhere in this country, intimidate others to stay home, the school board could say no one opposes our policies or come to complain. that is the goal here to silence you through intimidation. i'm heartened that they can pull it off, and more choices in public education the elected officials that run the schools -- todd: gotcha. >> to listen more to the taxpayers. todd: we have you back in time to thank you both for being here. jillian: country music star judd is sitting down with john rich to discuss life lessons during her legendary career. when nona had this to say when asked how the right to pursue happiness is changed her life. >> i can tell you i will never forget this. just because you can't doesn't mean you should. that is my biggest lesson. i have a hard time. everybody thinks it is not a privilege. it is like that entitlement word. jillian: has the interview tonight at 9:00 pm eastern on fox. congressman tim birch. >> texas

if doj seeks to enforce it. the other question is, does the brace want to curtail their own executive powers that they may want to exercise down the road, a big question that doj and white house counsel are going to have to take into consideration. >> hold on a second. colorable claim, how? no former president has ever exercised -- >> it's never happened, no, never happened. >> not only has it never happened, it's never happened because it can't happen. the privilege goes with the office, not the person. and that's why past presidents ask current presidents to exercise the privilege. >> that's only happened in terms of documents, it hasn't happened as relates to testimony. i agree -- >> it doesn't mean you have a colorable claim just because -- >> it's something new. >> let's let ben get in. >> they're going to have an ability to make an argument. >> that doesn't mean you get a case. >> it does not mean it's a colorable claim. besides, let's remember what we're talking about here. the trump argument is going to