in the end, merrick garland has the final say on what happened . it seems like a defense of -- my politics are not interfering because somebody else's politics are interfering with it and it seems like he is trying to say it will not be run by a biden official because a trump official is running it and i know how that's takes the politics off of that and that's with the american people want to see. the american people are frustrated that they are seeing people of either party get away with certain crimes who are connected and they want to make sure these investigations whether they result in charges are above board. it's problematic to point to his politics. host: there were calls for a special counsel. guest: republicans have been calling for a special prosecutor into hunter biden. obviously, what the republicans want is hopefully that will touch on something embarrassing they can use against president biden especially if he runs for reelection. i don't know where that gets the republican party. the special counsel still has to report to the attor

professor tribe, i had two experiences with that merrick garland interview today. i washed up before the washington post reporting came out tonight, and then i watched it after the washington post reports that donald trump is under criminal investigation by the justice department. and when you watch it after the washington post reporting, the language merrick garland chooses seems even stronger. >> i agree. it seems to me very clear that when lester holt asked merrick garland are you worried about tearing the country apart, all these possible collateral consequences of criminal possibly cutting a former president, there are so many ways that merrick garland could've answered. he could've said, well we have to weigh everything, we take everything into account. it is the job of the attorney general to weigh all these factors. i'm glad he didn't. he very carefully said, almost said that's above my pay grade. that's not my job. i'm the chief prosecutor. i follow the evidence where it leads and when he said that of course he had to know he had to know when he was schedu

i always think this is important when we talk about merrick garland. he doesn't give a lot of interviews. as a member of congress, as someone who is involved and concerned it was sort of a direct target of the insurrection. how comforted were you by merrick dawar lapd's interview? did he say things that bolster your confidence in the doj? do you now feel safer? what was your general response to his interview today? >> very comforted. good to see you in the chair, jason >> thank you >> and hello, paul, but, first, let me just say that the concern has been, and perhaps this is why he did the interview, is that because donald trump was a former president that he may be afforded, you know, privileges that no other everyday suspect would receive, and what we want is for him to not be treated any better than any ordinary citizen and to not be treated, of course, any worse, but evidence is so overwhelming. it's a mountain of evidence now that the committee has put forward. all of the arrows point to donald trump inflaming, incopyright and then aiming that mob

i hope that merrick garland realizes that time is not on his side. and that waiting indefinitely will not be a good idea when the country is on a course that puts it in collision with the survival of democracy. and i think he is going to do with any good attorney general would do. he's a particularly powerful and brilliant one. and that is to organize an indictment that is airtight. he could either go with a rather simple course that barry berke suggested. charge the easier but quite serious crimes of trying to obstruct a congressional inquiry. or he could go a more dramatic course that neal katyal suggests. and that is, [inaudible] seditious conspiracy and inciting an attempt to foment and aid and abet a violent insurrection. he could do all of the above. it seems to me that there is no reason to leave anything on the field. >> i think the way we have all been talking about it publicly separates january 6th and the attack on the capitol from the phone call to georgia around january 1st, which is the subject of a criminal january investigation right

>> yeah, i agree with merrick garland in part. by also dissent in part. he is absolutely right to say that donald trump is a former president, or perhaps a future candidate, has no bearing, it does not put him beyond the reach of prosecutors, in particular, doj. however, here is where i disagree. we have to live in reality. prosecutors have to live in reality. and if donald trump declares his candidacy tomorrow, the fact of the matter is it becomes a much more difficult target for doj. why? because an indict -- look, we are an investigation now. we know that from the washington post reporting. it is a major, major step from investigation to an indictment and it is another massive leap from indictment to conviction. so, if we are talking about somebody who is a declared candidate, perhaps even the nominee, by the time this thing gets the trial, if this case gets indicted tomorrow it's not. but if it gets indicted tomorrow, we are not going to have a trial until it's 2024, realistically. good luck getting a jury unanimously, 12 zero, this is an election, th

then it would be for merrick garland. is that what you are saying? >> that's exactly what i'm saying, chris. the president is a singularly unique defendant. merrick garland, the reality is, he has to take into account, especially as you just mentioned, the institutional considerations in terms of the public space in the justice departments impartiality. it has to be reinforced, not weekend by any persecution. i think that in this regard, i've been thinking about this a lot, there is a crime, usc 28 83, incitement for insurrection. that would be the charge that merrick garland would be right in bringing. for three reasons, first, it creates a bright line. if you send an armed lunatic mob to attack a equal branch of government, that is wrong. everybody knows, that merrick garland, shot kennedy, they all texan and that that day. second, the public can get their minds around, it that's what they saw unfolding on television. not something the science behind the scenes, and crazy legal theories. third, and this is really important, incitement to insurrecti

and merrick garland's next steps after this. revelation and merrick garland's next steps after this i wish that shaq was my real life big brother. what's up, little bro? turns out, some wishes do come true. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- go with the general. let's start off and talk about january six, we just wash weeks of some pretty horrific testimony that led up to january six and what happened that day. just, as an american, can you tell me what your impression was of what we heard? >> are you talking about the hearings? >> the hearings. >> i think it is a very important, it's important part of democracy. every american recognizes the truth of what happened on january 6th and in the times surrounding it. i think that this is an important part that we have not downgrade or suppress how important that day was. and i think that the hearings did an extremely good job of reminding us, fo

i believe merrick garland is not of that flavor of public official. i am quite comfortable waiting to see what he does. host: palm beach florida, democratic color. good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. how are you? host: doing well. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning. my question is just basically, i did like merrick garland said we need to do it honestly and ethically. i agree with that. my question is, how can we still get the answers on how trump incited the riot, how should set i say the people storming the capital how can we still get former president trump on him being responsible? and him people protecting him? what can we do to still get answers? guest: we will see a report from the january 6 committee. i assume it will be ready massive. there will be a lot of coverage of that. they had over 1000 witnesses, tens of thousands of documents. we are only seeing a tiny piece of it. if the justice department takes steps, the grand jury is secret. we will not see any information unless there are actually trials a

that is what merrick garland is sort of all about. about following the protocols, the doj, stephanie. >> but ryan, it is a big deal. i get that there is snow on the ground, and they reported that it is snowing. guess what, former president trump has been lying or pushing the big lie for months and months, and months with no consequences. so when there is definitive reporting around it, that is a big deal. >> oh yes, it's huge. again, all kudos to them. they nailed it. i think the hints were there, and they were the ones who were able to actually nail this down. so all credit goes to them for nailing this down. but there has been a lot of hints about this in the months leading up to it for sure. >> joyce, we do know that these two top aides of mike pence spoke to the grand jury, i'm not saying that's not a big deal. but we cannot assume that just because they testified, they are incriminating trump in any way? >> so i think that's right that we don't. no -- we don't know >> joyce. >> i think that is correct. we don't know what takes pl

how merrick garland is feeling the pressure, and how the republican party i

attorney general merrick garland, actually said on wednesday. listen. >> no person is above the law in this country. i can't say it any more clearly than that. there is nothing in the principles of prosecution in any other factors which prevent us from investigating anyone, anyone who is criminally responsible for -- for an attempt to undo a democratic election. >> i am joined now by the harvard law professor lawrence tribe who taught merrick garland as a law student at harvard. professor tribe, thank you very much for joining us. i know you are the co-author of the important book "to end the presidency. the power of impeachment" there's the cover right there. the last time we spoke you told me you do expect the attorney general merrick garland will eventually indict former president trump. do these latest comments from the attorney general merrick garland bolster that belief? >> they certainly do, wolf. thank you for having me. the attorney general made very clear yesterday that all of the speculation that if trump announces for the presidency,

i think that's because of merrick garland's background. this is an individual who is not this partisan hack. he's been in the court system a very long time, has a stellar reputation, had a bipartisan vote which is rare these days for his confirmation. he's not a partisan warrior. he's a kind of middle of the road guy. obviously that enrages a lot of people about the way he's handled this investigation because he isn't coming out and sort of just condemning donald trump. he's trying to stay within the bounds of doj. he cares very much about the justice department as an institution. he cares about the court system as an institution. i think that's he has his eyes on that sort of long-term reputation of doj and the federal court system. >> ryan, you mentioned all the cases out there against the people who attacked the capitol. there was a conviction yesterday of a washington, d.c. man who violently assaulted police officers at the capitol on january 6th. he was sentenced to more than five years in prison. five years to mark ponder, who pleade

. >> so, you mentioned merrick garland. that is the big question. where is merrick garland? your fellow committee member adam schiff has repeatedly gone on camera to say, we've given enough in material. there is more than enough there to start a case, to start a criminal investigation of the president himself. the new york times reported earlier this week that doj's been playing catch-up. they were shocked by the cassidy hutchinson testimony. they don't really talk about donald trump in their internal readings. what do you make of the doj's performance so far, if i can put it that way there? the slowness that a lot of people in your party's team upset with? >> but i would say is that we don't, as a committee, have a lot of insight into where the department of justice is in their card investigations. i will tell, you it's ratcheting up in the sense of going after these domestic violent extremists who are charged now, with seditious conspiracy. and we know that they are listening. we know that they are watching. and as america, and have faith in the fact they're gonna take it

attorney general merrick garland satp down for an exclusive interview with nbc's lester holt. >> you said in no uncertain terms the other dayin that no o is above the law. >> atyeah. >> that said, the indictment of a former president or perhaps candidate for president would arguably tear the country apart. is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here, do you have to think about things like that? >> look, we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold everyone, anyone, who is criminally responsiblene for the then surrounding january 6th for any attemptrr to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable. that's what wera do. we don't pay any attention to other issues with respect to that. >> well, on the t heels of thos comments from the attorney general, we have brand new reporting tonight that suggests the justice department investigation may indeed be heating s up.ve this is just out tonight "the washington post," quote, justice department investigating trump's actions in january 6th criminal probe. quote,

first what merrick garland told lester holt when asked when indicting a former president and possible presidential candidate again might tear the country apart. >> we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold everyone, anyone who is criminally responsible for the events surrounding january 6th or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable. that's what we do. we don't pay any attention to other issues with respect to that. >> reporter: so if donald trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don't move forward? >> i'll say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting with the legitimate transfer of power from one administration to the next. >> the attorney general vowed twice to hold responsible anyone trying to interfere with the transfer of power. cnn had similar roaring earlier today, josh. your article goes a little deeper with details about specific questions being asked by grand jury invest

and merrick garland next epps after this. and merrick garlan nice try. really? this leon's paying for his paint job on the spot... and this leon, as a chase private client, he's in the south of france, taking out cash with no atm fees. that's because this family of leons has chase. actually, it's león. ooh la la! one bank for now. for later. for life. chase. make more of what's yours. after this my active psoriatic arthritis can slow me down. now, skyrizi helps me get going by treating my skin and joints. along with significantly clearer skin, skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year after two starter doses. skyrizi attaches to and reduces a source of excess inflammation that can lead to skin and joint symptoms. with skyrizi, 90% clearer skin and less joint pain is possible. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. with skyrizi, there's nothing

that is what merrick garland is sort of all about. about following the protocols, the doj stephanie. >> but ryan, it is a big deal. i get that there is snow on the ground, and they reported that it is snowing. guess what, former president trump has been lying or pushing the big lie for months and months, and months with no consequences. so when there is definitive reporting around it, that is a big deal. >> oh yes, it's cute. again, all kudos to them. they nailed it. i think the hints where there, and they were the ones who were able to actually nail this down. so all credit goes to them for nailing this down. but there has been a lot of hints about this in the months leading up to it for sure. >> joyce, we do know that these two top aides of mike pence spoke to the grand jury, i'm not saying that's not a big deal. but we cannot assume that just because they testified, they are incriminating trump in any way? >> so i think that's right that we don't. no -- we don't know >> what's joy's,. >> i think that is correct. we don't know what

, where oh, where is merrick garland. adam schiff has repeatedly gone on camera to say we have given enough material to start a criminal investigation of the president himself. "the new york times" reported earlier this week that the d.o.j. is playing catch-up, they were shocked by the cassidy hutchinson testimony. they don't really talk about donald trump in their internal meetings. what do you make of the d.o.j.'s performance so far, if i can put it that way, the slowness that a lot of people in your party seem upset with? >> what i would say is that we don't, as a kms committee, have a lot of insight into where the department of justice is in the current investigation. it seems like it is ratcheting up in terms of going after these people, the domestic violence extremists who are charged now with seditious conspiracy, and we flow that they're listening, we know that they're watching and as an american i will have faith in the fact that they will take the information that we are putting out there as a committee and act

what is merrick garland going to do. is he going too slow. he's been out in public saying many things before, but nothing as detailed as he said just thousand. previously it was we'll follow the law, we have a process. americans are wondering whether or not anybody will be held accountable at a high level including trump and below. i think that they look at what merrick garland is saying in this wide ranging investigation and see that maybe some progress is being made and people will be held accountable. >> and history tells you because of the sensitivity these things take time. go back to watergate, iran contra, even the investigation of bill clinton, it took a long time to get bill clinton before the grand jury who bill clinton admitted that his story had to change. specifics don't matter. which gets me to this. this is from the "new york times" story. the documentary evidence. an email from an arizona lawyer to boris epstein, a close aide to donald trump who in one email says that the president liked what was going on. but in this one, we

how much do we know about merrick garland's involvement in? this is something that he's personally overseeing, green-lighting and honest we think the 16 committee as wrap this up? >> my understanding though i don't know all of the specifics here, my understanding is that he is briefed regularly on this. he has said over and over again that no one is above the law, they're gonna follow the facts where the lead, but there are a lot of people quite concerned about whether or not merrick garland is as keen to prosecute what appears to be a crime and worried about the prospect right? it is not a small thing to consider prosecuting a former president. it's not okay ever to prosecute a sitting president according to several legal memorandum. to prosecute a former president is still a very serious matter, one that is never ever been taken before, so there are people worried about whether or not merrick garland wants to be the first person to take that step in history. >> these are historic times. carol leonnig, investigative reporter for the washingto

>> well, you know, don, for a long time there has been at least some criticism of merrick garland and the attorney generals office that they have not done enough to specifically linked the events of january six to donald trump. but their actions over the past two weeks or so show that garland's investigation is getting increasingly closer to trump itself. and the post reporting tonight, coupled with what we have reported about the grand jury testimony and the different people who have come before and answered questions about this investigation showed that garland and his team are not just satisfied with this band of advisers around trump, who were influencing him and basically telling him what he wanted to hear as related to the election and the role mike pence could play. but that they are specifically interested in trump's conduct himself. that includes the conversations he may have had with john eastman, rudy giuliani, and others. so, this is something that the critics of the attorney generals office have said for sometime. garland has always said that nobody is above the law and t

i take merrick garland at his word, there is no reason not to. since the speech he gave on he's repeatedly emphasize that he will follow the facts wherever they take him. that is a really heartening return to doj's principles. frustrating for those of us in the public who have to wait and see, but we don't want to become a country that routinely goes after its former leaders. although donald trump is richly deserving of the scrutiny that he's getting, we need to make sure we adhere to the principles of the rule of law, it's a good sign that merrick garland is doing just by. >> all right, we're gonna keep this particular part of the conversation going when we come back after a quick break. coming up later on the sunday show, she is back, sunday show favorites, and gloria comes by to show us how she sees a. don't go anywhere. show us how she just $30? (mom) it's their best unlimited price ever. (cool guy) $30...that's awesome. (dad) yeah, and it's from the most reliable 5g network in america. (geek) wow... i've got to let my buddies know. (geek fri

how much do we know about merrick garland's involvement in? this is something that he's personally overseeing, green-lighting and honest we think the 16 committee as wrap this up? >> my understanding, though i don't know all of the specifics here, my understanding is that he is briefed regularly on this. he has said over and over again that no one is above the law, they're gonna follow the facts where they lead, but there are a lot of people quite concerned about whether or not merrick garland is as keen to prosecute what appears to be a crime and worried about the precedent, right? it is not a small thing to consider prosecuting a former president. it's not okay ever to prosecute a sitting president according to several legal memorandum. to prosecute a former president is still a very serious matter, one that is never ever been taken before, so there are people worried about whether or not merrick garland wants to be the first person to take that step in history. >> these are historic times. carol leonnig, investigative reporter for the washi

so it doesn't actually stop merrick garland for pursuing an investigation. i think in his case, as a good faith after, it would unnecessarily politicize a step depending on when he takes it. and i think that's my concern. >> okay. two things. i find this fascinating. i think it strikes the heart of an existential question about what the department of justice is. and how the law and executive function. but to your first point, the counterfactual, or future possibility of sydney powell as a jew, you would not want that to be the case. my feeling about that is, if sydney powell is the ag, no memorandum's going to save us. at some level, which is adjacent to the deeper point here. which is about whether the people at the department of justice are acting in good faith or not, whatever memos are being probably gated, that is the fundamental question. and the worry is that in creating this extra step, garland is saying it's on me, when he is the political appointee. >> right. i think that, ideally, in a case involving either, the sitting president, a former preside

you've been listening to the interview and lester holt and merrick garland. the excerpts we've been playing this morning and what's your impression from justice. we haven't heard a lot and there's been frustration that justice may not be moving as forcefully as some people think it should be. garland essentially telling lester, don't worry, america. we're on this. >> i know very little about the justice field and that's appropriate. i'm a member of the judiciary committee of the senate and a close friend and supporter of the president's. i will say about the january 6th committee and their eight hearings that when i first tuned in to the first hearing, i honestly did not expect to hear that much new. i sat through the entire second impeachment trial of former president trump. i was in the building for january 6th, and i did not expect to hear a lot of new information, but hearing after hearing i was struck at how much detail they had uncovered and how many former inner circle trump administration and trump campaign members came forward and testified and how c

all due respect to merrick garland, that is not true. donald trump today where we sit right now is above the law. donald trump has been charged with nothing. one legal watchdog has said that there are at least 48 potential crimes committed by donald trump over the course of his presidency or while he was campaigning. he has not been charged for any allegations of sexual assault, using the government to punish his opponents, anything in connection with january 6, meddling in elections, and, look, i will be super, super, hyper, uber fair, nor has bill clinton. he is not alone as being a powerful man who has been thus far above the law. i'm not a legal analyst, nor a scholar of the law, i'm a normal person and i think if you are a normal person with, you know, some reason you think, well, donald trump has been above the law, it's been 18 months since the insurrection. >> i mean, what garland was addressing is this idea that had been pointing out that somehow the opinion that a president is beyond prosecution could be extended. i know it's u

this is ath memo that is from attorney general merrick garland. it has his signature on the top of it in blue ink. and then it says this. under the heating statements, investigations and charging near an election. quote, the department of justice has a strong interest in the prosecution of election-related crimes such as those involving federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage laws, corruption of the election process. as department employees, however, we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the department's reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship. simply put, partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of p federal investigators ore prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. law enforcement officers andig prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements, attributed or not, meaning on background or not. investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any c matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election or giving an advantage or disadvantage

this is from attorney general merrick garland. it has his signature on top of it in blue ink. and then it says this, statements, investigations and charging near an election. quote, the department of justice has a strong interest in the prosecution of election-related crimes such as those involving federal and state campaign lines, we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the department's reputation for fairness, neutrality and nonpartisan ship. simply put partisan politics must play no role regarding any investigations or criminal charges. law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select th timing of public statements, attributed or not, or background or not. and criminal charges or any other action, in any matter or case, for the purpose of effecting any election over the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. suchag a purpose or the appearae of such a purpose is inconsistentof with the department's mission and the principles of federal prosecution. if you facehe an issue or the appearance of an issue regarding t

and again, this is a memo this from attorney general merrick garland. it has his signature on the top of it in blue ink. and then it says this, on the behalf of statements, investigations, and charging or an election, quote, the department of justice has a strong interest in the prosecution of election related crimes, such as those involving federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage laws, corruption of the election process, as department employees, however, we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the departments reputation for fairness, neutrality, and not partisanship. simply put, partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators are prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements, attributed or not, criminal background or not. investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action, in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or d

so it doesn't actually stop merrick garland for pursuing an investigation. i think in his case, as a good faith after, it would unnecessarily politicize a step depending on when he takes it. and i think that's my concern. >> okay. two things. i find this fascinating. i think it strikes the heart of an existential question about what the department of justice is. and how the law and executive function. but to your first point, the counterfactual, or future possibility of sydney powell as a jew, you would not want that to be the case. my feeling about that is, if sydney powell is the ag, no memorandum's going to save us. at some level, which is adjacent to the deeper point here. which is about whether the people at the department of justice are acting in good faith or not, whatever memos are being probably gated, that is the fundamental question. and the worry is that in creating this extra step, garland is saying it's on me, when he is the political appointee. right. i think that, ideally, in a case involving either, the sitting president, a former president,

new comments from attorney general merrick garland on the january 6th investigation. what he's telling our own lester holt about holding those responsible accountable and whether it matters if they happen to be a former president or running for president. also this hour we're set to hear from one of president biden's top economic advisers as the fed kicks off a two-day meeting as we speak with interest rates probably heading up again. plus my exclusive interview. one on one with trevor reed. the marine now back in the u.s. after being imprisoned in russia for nearly three years. his advice to brittney griner, who's in court today, and what he says the white house should be doing. i'm hallie jackson in washington with a jam-packed show for you today. i want to bring in nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard, who is posted up in the location where mr. trump is set to give that speech. nbc news capitol hill correspondent ali vitali is with us. justice reporter ryan riley joins us along with "washington post" political investigative reporter josh dausee and former republi

you have merrick garland. he says, the only pressure the justice department prosecutors feel is right or wrong. yes, right, come on, surely, anyone working on this case understands that it is unprecedented. this is not just about right and wrong. there are some politics here. >> i do not know if there is politics in the sense of partisan politics. obviously, the attorney general and everyone at the department feels the pressure of public demands to be aggressive in this case, and hold on right now. the best evidence is looking at the way merrick garland talks about this case now versus the way they talked about it last year. he is much more forward -leaning. he is still learning the attorney generals art of saying nothing, and sounding like you are saying something, which is a little bit of a change from last year one who would say nothing in sound like he was saying nothing. i do think he made one thing very clear in the interview this week. he was talking about who the department was targeting and names and

. >>> on the heels of our nbc news exclusive with attorney general merrick garland in which he vowed to pursue anyone responsible for january 6th, we're learning the doj is probing donald trump's actions as part of its criminal investigation. the questions they're asking >>> president biden testing negative for covid, leaving isolation after six days how he's feeling. >>> just in, the major reversal by senator joe manchin, weeks after he appeared to dash the democrats' agenda. the breakthrough deal just announced >>> the record breaking heat in the pacific northwest. and remembering one of the most beloved big brothers in sitcom history.

so merrick garland is touching this with kid gloves. very nervous about this. and i'm glad he said what he did. but if he decides not to file charges because he doesn't want to be seen as political, that in itself is a political decision. >> and the january 6 committee seemingly trying to make it impossible for merrick garland not to press charges against the former president. and we'll see what else they bring up tonight in this primetime hearing. dave, thank you so much for waking up early with us. >> thanks for having me. >>> so tonight's hearing about what president biden was doing during the capitol attack as we were talking about those critical 187 minutes, it is in primetime, tune into cnn's live special coverage tonight at 7:00 p.m. >>> form eshlg trump adviser steve bannon back in court later this morning, prosecutors rested their case on wednesday after calling two witnesses who showed the paper trail of the deadlines that were set for documents and testimony that the january 6 committee wanted from bannon but he ignored. today the defense theam will

you said it's time to tell attorney general merrick garland he has no choice but to indict the former president. not indicting trump you say amounts to giving him an unearned pardon. garland was actually a student of yours at harvard law school. is it dangerous in your view for him not to indict the former president trump? >> i think there is no excuse at this point for not going ahead with a criminal prosecution of donald trump. as i said in that tweet, not prosecuting him based on everything we know about the pressure campaign aimed at his vice president and everything we know about his attempts to abinst obstruct the investigation not prosecuting him would be giving him an unearned pardon. if it was earned, if trump and this is unthinkable were to be contripe and to admit his guilt, the pardon power doesn't belong to the attorney general. it's not part of his job description. so all of this talk about he has to, you know, he has to worry about the harm to the country of indicting a former president is beside the point. those issues, the issues of whether it would bring harmony or d

for a year now, we have basically heard merrick garland say we have got to be careful. we are not political. then we got a prosecutor saying watch this. we are going. watch this. we are going straight after the sky. why is a local prosecutor so much more aggressive and open about holding the former president of the united states accountable than the department of justice? i heard more fire and bravery and commitment to the democratic project in this short interview with blayne alexander than i've ever heard from the doj in the last 18 months. >> that was bracing. that was refreshing. she said if you commit a crime in my jurisdiction, lady justice is blind. she doesn't care about your race or gender. she will prosecute crime. what an idea. wouldn't it be amazing if we appointed attorney general's who believe the same thing? look, just to be clear, it's not that she is blind to all of the stuff going on. she said in the same interview she might as well defend her investigation after voting starts in the midterm and pick it back up after the midterm elections to create a z

attorney general merrick garland says he feels no pressure. some say he's in a pressure cooker taking aim from both sides of the aisle. democrats want him to pursue a prosecution against former president donald trump. republicans want him to charge and indict president biden's son, hunter. we know the hunter biden investigation has been going on since 2018 at least. but first to the former president. "the washington post" is reporting he's under criminal investigation by the doj for his alleged role in a fake elector scheme following the 2020 election. listen here. >> the indictment of a former president or candidate for president would tear the country apart. is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here? do you have to think about things like that? >> we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold everyone, anyone who is criminally responsible for events surrounding january 6 for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power accountable. that's what we do. >> a source familiar with the hunter bide

we knew that we were not going to confirm merrick garland. so we didn't hold a hearing. >> do you think republicans bear any responsibility for the politicalization of the court? >> no. >> i don't. >> none? >> sure. you can always identify some republicans who have politicized some issues. so i won't say republicans never have any blame on any subject. there is a stark difference between the two parties. i can tell you what i as a republican advocate and what i stand for and what i stand for. i make this point in the book. even with regard to opinions that i regard as wrong, i go out of my way to couch the criticisms of those decisions in such a way i make clear. this is not a bad court that sometimes gs it right. this is a good court. it's the best of its kind anywhere in the world. a good court that sometimes gets it wrong because it's run by fallible mortal human beings. i can't say that every republican speaks that way. i can tell you, it's the way i always speak. and by and large, most republican office holders speak of the supreme court

you know, merrick garland is a constituent of mine. i was never into the idea of people brow beating him and pressuring him. he's perfectly capable of doing his job. we need to restore the tradition of respect for the independence of law enforcement. i've got confidence that they're going to find their way to render justice for the american people. they've got very specific guidelines at the doj about when to bring a case. it depends on if they've got probable cause. they know how to do it. >> what we understand is that the doj was focussed on the fact elector scheme. there were developments on that front today. that scheme we're learning more and more how broad it was, as, of course, you have revealed as part of your committee. has the focus of the doj, such that you understand it, gone beyond the fact elector scheme criminally or not? >> i don't know anything more than you do, but, of course, it has. they charged people with lots of offenses in terms of the insurrection, interference with a federal proceeding and a -- >> as far as th

what merrick garland says there is absolutely true. federal prosecutors do not conduct their investigations in public, nor should they. but the inevitable part of those investigations do become public. and subpoenas are issued. witnesses are called to testify. reporters get scoops about where investigations stand. and where they are head. what leads they are following. what we don't know for sure what is happening inside the justice department we do have enough fragments to try to piece together a picture and right now that picture is starting to look like one of a justice department that meticulously tried to avoid politics and as a result of that, it appears to be frantically playing catch-up on mao what merrick garland today himself described as the most important investigation of our time. joining us now are a reporter forin "the wall street journal" covering the justice department, and david road, executive director for the news for the new ecyorker.com. thanks for joining us. sadie, i want to start with you. you cover the justice

today attorney general merrick garland says the criminal investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 election is now the largest in the history of the justice department and all signs are increasingly pointing to donald trump. at the very same time the former president is stepping back into the d.c. spotlight. reporting from the "washington post" based on four people familiar with the matter shows for the first time just how focused the investigation has been on trump himself. the doj itself is not commenting, but one of the reporters who broke the story was on "morning joe" discussing how recent grand jury testimony led to these new revelations. >> the questions that individuals are receiving are overwhelmingly again and again about what did donald trump say, what did donald trump do, then what did donald trump say to the vice president, then what did donald trump ask his lawyers to do for him. >> and administration official familiar with the investigation tells nbc that while it's correct the doj is looking into trump's actions, there's no criminal investigation of him specifi

i have never seen that side of merrick garland, looked like he was about to cut a bitch, did you see what he did. there he turned into samuel l. jackson for a second. no person is above the-- what about the-- what part of no person don't you understand, mother [bleep] i said no person. now what is interesting about the story, is that some democrats actually are mad at merrick garland because they think he doesn't really want to prosecute trump. right? they say is he slow rolling, trying to hide behind thingsk i will be honest, i get it i think the man is in a tough spot here. think about it. even if trump is definitely guilty, can you imagine what would happen if he gets sent to prison? the country would explode. you thought january 6th was bad? huh? trump supporters would be storming everything he got arrested for capital, the white house, the supreme court, the only place that would be safe from them is libraries. be like don't go in there they got history books. (applause) but it turns out merrick garland isn't even trump's only problem because right now he's being investigated by

unless this person is named merrick garland, but i digress. let's consider for a moment, the two senators to confirm from each state or not confirm each day from -- the percentage of the u.s. population they represented, using census data prior to each justices appointed to the court. hamilton college professor philip thinking a, political scientist, he did just that. and when he found, and you give us the data is rather shocking. senators who backed clarence thomas, for example, presented just about 48.6% of the population. those behind amy coney barrett, 46.8%, how about the kavanaugh stands? 43.3% of the american populists. about -- only chief justice john roberts got over 50%. now, let's compare those figures for the rest of the court there. the three liberals. 66.5% for kagan, 73.7% of the population for sotomayor, and 90% for breyer. to be clear, based on this data we can say definitively that none of the five conservative justices who voted to overturn roe were approved by senators representing a majority of the u.s. population. now, so

we knew that we were not going to confirm merrick garland. so we didn't hold a hearing. >> do you think republicans bear any responsibility for the politicalization of the court? >> no. >> i don't. >> none? >> sure. you can always identify some republicans who have politicized some issues. so i won't say republicans never have any blame on any subject. there is a stark difference between the two parties. i can tell you what i as a republican advocate and what i stand for and what i stand for. i make this point in the book. even with regard to opinions that i regard as wrong, i go out of my way to couch the criticisms of those decisions in such a way i make clear. this is not a bad court that sometimes gets it right. this is a good court. it's the best of its kind anywhere in the world. a good court that sometimes gets it wrong because it's run by fallible mortal human beings. i can't say that every republican speaks that way. i can tell you, it's the way i always speak. and by and large, most republican office holders speak of the supreme cou

find new roads. >> todd: a fox news alert, republicans demanding that attorney general merrick garland launch an investigation into whistleblower allegations of a scheme to suppress negative information about hunter biden inside the fbi. you're watching "fox and friends first," i'm todd piro. >> carley: i'm carley shimkus. credible sources came together to shut down the probe into the president's son. the information involves concerns about the fbi receipt and united states00 of