president biden and house and senate democrats are close to an infrastructure bill. we have a town hall on thursday, 8:00 p.m. eastern time on cnn. i'm chris cuomo. bell come to "prime time." we have breaking news tonight. the january 6 committee unanimously agreeing to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress because he is denying his subpoena. he is following trump's efforts to delay, hiding under an imaginary cloak of executive privilege that provides him no cover whatsoever. the panel isn't having it.

>> it's a shame that mr. bannon has put us in this position, but we won't take no for an answer. if other witnesses defy this committee, if they fail to cooperate, we will be back in this room. >> it appears mr. bannon had substantial advance knowledge of the plans for january 6, and likely had an important role in formulating those plans. there is no conceivably applicable privilege that could shield mr. bannon from testimony on all of the many other topics identified in this committee's subpoena. >> cheney very aggressive on two points. first, this one about what she thinks bannon could offer. here's exhibit a for her. >> all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. just understand this. all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen, okay? it's going to be quite

extraordinarily different. and all i can say is strap in. the war room, a poposse, you ha made this happen, so strap in. >> cheney also dropped something that i have not heard offered up yet in this situation. listen to this. >> 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 6. and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> that means that trump and bannon -- because, remember, even if there were a privilege here, and there isn't, bannon can't exercise it, trump can exercise it. so cheney's argument is that trying to get the privilege is proof that you have

conversations about your knowledge that you want to hide. that's aggressive. we're going to test this assertion with a key member of the committee coming up as well as the timing for the next step. you're going to have a full vote now in the house. then pelosi would refer it, certify it to the doj. we understand that vote may come as soon as thursday, is that accurate? assuming the doj takes any referral from pelosi, how long before it goes in front of a grand jury, how long before any prosecutorial action? for now the pressing question is what these events mean today to other trumpers trying to duck justice. we'll take the case to dan scavino's attorney tonight. he's here on the show. he's the long-time trump loyalist, scavino, who evaded his subpoena until congress finally caught up with him. first let's bring in a key member of the committee, congresswoman stephanie murphy

of florida, january 6 select committee member. it's good to have you. welcome to "prime time." >> great to be with you, chris. >> first the idea of voting for bannon to be held in contempt. was it a close call for you? >> it was not a close call at all. after all, the mission of the january 6 select committee is to secure all of the facts around the january 6 insurrection and to move forward. clearly steve bannon is somebody who has information about the planning of and the day of january 6, and he was given an opportunity to present his side of the story to the january 6 committee, and he chose not to. so we are moving forward as we intended to, which is that this committee means business, and nobody is above the law. so we are going to use criminal contempt to respond to his lack of willingness to work with us. >> a quick step of conjecture on

bannon, then i want to ask you about what vice chair cheney said. why do you think bannon doesn't just come on and plead the fifth? >> one would think if he has nothing to hide, he would show up before this committee and share the perspectives that he has had. if he believes he's in the right, as it sounded like he did on the day before january 6, as he was rallying people up to bring the fight to washington, he sounded like he felt very confident in his positions, and so one would have thought that he would just come to the committee and present his perspectives if he was so in the right. the fact that he hasn't is really problematic, but we can't allow him or any other person that we seek to subpoena and get information out of to avoid appearing before the select committee. >> he could show contempt for the proceedings by showing up and skjust pleading the fifth. that's what i'm saying. he's taking another route, and it's an interesting one, especially given the level of

contempt for his position of contempt. vice chair cheney said something i haven't heard before, that playing at the privilege for bannon and for trump, representative cheney believes, is proof that they had knowledge of what happened before january 6. how so? how is trying to play at the privilege proof that former president trump and/or steve bannon knew what was going to happen? >> well, playing at the privilege in this case doesn't actually fully apply, but it does indicate that there is something that they're trying to hide. look, privilege only applies to elected officials' conversations with the president. it's unclear whether the president can even -- the former president, i should say, can even call on executive privilege in this case. and certainly steve bannon cannot as somebody who was not an official of the u.s.

government at the time when he had this conversation. so if there's any conversation to protect, it must mean that the president and bannon are trying to hide -- they were having conversations related to january 6 and they were trying to hide behind these general statements that the former president is making around executive privilege so that they don't have to respond to the subpoena. but we're not going to let them do that. the reality is that nobody is above the law. if you are subpoenaed as an average citizen, you respond to that subpoena. if you don't, there are consequences. what you saw the select committee do tonight is to move forward in the next step to ensure that we move forward on criminal contempts so there are consequences to what steve bannon has done. >> consequences are in part a function of speed of process, especially if you're trying to send a message not just to bannon but to other people who have been subpoenaed. how quickly do you think a prosecution could happen? is it true there may be a vote

on thursday? let's start there. >> i believe there will be a vote on thursday. at least there will be a vote by the end of this week. the house will act on this and then refer it to the department of justice. i can't speak for the department of justice, but i believe this department of justice shares our values that nobody is above the law, and that they are there to evaluate the facts, the circumstances, the legislation and the constitution and to act accordingly. this is too important for them to sit on. >> is there any indication that the move on bannon by the committee has registered with meadows or scavino, et cetera? >> to be clear, of the 11 people we have subpoenaed, bannon is the only one who has taken this unusual step to defy the subpoena. the others are engaging with the select committee in different ways and have not yet tripped a wire, so to speak --

>> what are they engaging in? >> they are working with the committee -- >> are they offering documents? what does that mean? >> documents, some are coming in to do interviews. we are working with them to shape the context of the information that they are giving to the select committee. so, really, bannon stands alone at this moment of defying the subpoenas. >> what do you make of the argument that the reason to push back against these subpoenas is that they have no legitimate legislative purpose? >> we have legitimate legislative purpose based on the house resolution that was passed that gives the select committee its scope of work as well as the objectives that we are out to secure. we are trying to lay out a set of facts around the run-up to and the day of january 6 so that we can prevent this from ever happening again. our democracy is at stake in this moment. if people believe that it is okay to try to overturn a free

and fair election through the use of political violence, then our democracy is at real risk. so that is a very clear mission, and it has been passed by the house of representatives, so we do have the legislative cover for what it is that we're doing. >> bannon's biggest problem in terms of his argument, he's making a constructive argument of accommodation. he's saying the fomrmer presidet is going to -- although the former president's lawyer just keeps calling him president, which is a little bit of play on who gets to exercise the privilege. he says, because trump is going to exercise the privilege, i can't comply. of course, it doesn't work that way, but more importantly, is it true -- we know it's true. benny thompson, the chair, said in his lawyer to bannon's lawyer, trump has not asserted privilege. the lawsuit is only about going

after the archive and the documents. is it true, he has not tried to protect anybody? bannon is alone. >> donald trump believes what he says, if it is written, it is law. that is not true. he has not asserted privilege, so nobody can put random statements out there if they're not going to follow a real process. our country is a country of laws and rules, and if you want to do that, you have to do it in the right way. they haven't even taken that bare minimum step. so what this all comes down to is that they are trying to deter and delay and play games with the select committee. and we're not here to play games. we are going after the information that we need to lay out this case, and we will use every tool at our disposal to do so. >> congresswoman murphy, thank you very much for joining us on this important night. good luck doing the work of the

people. > >> none of the others subpoenaed in the trump crowd is putting up this kind of fight. you just heard that from the member of congress. in fact, we learned a little bit more, that they're offering documents, they're trying to create a context of the conversation with congress. but it did take congress more than two weeks to track down one of them, dan scavino. remember that whole thing of where is he, where did he go? what was that about? what is the legality and what is the practicality here? we're going to get fresh insight from somebody who knows exactly where he was, or should, and what it's all about, next. you cg and share updates in slack instead. it's where your whole team is in one place so everyone can stay up to date. slack. where the future works. what does it feel like to sell your car to carvana? it feels amazing. when you get a great offer in seconds... (all cheering) it feels too good to be true. it's kicking back and relaxing

as we pick up your car. and when you get paid on the spot, it feels like scoring big. you know the feeling. you just never imagined you could get it from selling your car. well, with carvana, you can. experience the new way to sell a car. as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? you got it. ♪ liberty, liberty - liberty, liberty ♪ uh, i'll settle for something i can dance to. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪ ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

your mission: stand up to moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and take. it. on... ...with rinvoq. rinvoq a once-daily pill can dramatically improve symptoms...

rinvoq helps tame pain, stiffness, swelling. and for some rinvoq can even significantly reduce ra fatigue. that's rinvoq relief. with ra, your overactive immune system attacks your joints. rinvoq regulates it to help stop the attack. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious infections and blood clots, sometimes fatal, have occurred... ...as have certain cancers, including lymphoma, and tears in the stomach or intestines, and changes in lab results. your doctor should monitor your bloodwork. tell your doctor about any infections... and if you are or may become pregnant while taking rinvoq. take on ra. talk to your rheumatologist about rinvoq relief. rinvoq. make it your mission. learn how abbvie could help you save on rinvoq.

♪darling, i, i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪girl, i don't know, i don't know,♪ ♪i don't know why i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪oh no, babe girl, if i could only make you see♪ ♪and make you understand♪ get a dozen double crunch shrimp for $1 with any steak entrée. only at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. all right, the bannon case isn't just about him. remember, there's almost a dozen other people who have been subpoenaed by the january 6 committee. lawyers for all of them are going to be watching to see how this contempt process plays out and how they advise their

clients going forward. that includes my next guest, stanley brand, who is now representing the deputy chief of staff for trump, dan scavino. stanley, welcome. one step back and then we'll get to the current state of play. what is your understanding of why your client was hiding from the subpoena? >> i don't have one. i was just hired in this case two days ago, so i don't know what went on with respect to service of process. >> really? you've had no conversations? i know it would be privileged, but just in terms of the universe of discussion, there was no talk about where he was all that time they were trying to find him? >> i wasn't involved, as i say, until two days ago. there's nothing magical about them having to serve process. this happens all the time, and i don't know what caused the delay. >> what caused the delay was that he was in hiding. they couldn't find him. you're absolutely right, service of process is pro forma.

ducking it is a little extraordinary. >> well, not really. he was wherever he was, and it's up to the marshal service to find him and serve him in an appropriate way. so i don't know why that's an issue. >> it's not an issue legally unless he was really extending the purpose -- >> that's what i'm here to talk about is the law. that's what i'm here for. >> i understand, but this is -- >> he was served, he accepted service, and now that process is complete. >> right. he didn't make it easy, though. and it does sound like he's -- >> there's no law requirement that says he has to make it easy any more than a person in a civil suit has to or anyone else. the congress has the capability to find people and serve them properly according to the rules, and that's what they finally did. >> well, here's the constructive argument. the constructive argument is those who have nothing to hide comply. they don't try to duck service,

and they don't try to -- >> no. >> -- not work with congress. so what is your understanding in terms of whether your client is going to offer up documents and testimony? >> well, the president has asserted privilege over the documents that were conveyed to the archives after the end of the administration. so he'll be guided by whatever happens there. in terms of his own legal position, we're evaluating that. and as you pointed out, there are several issues here, not the least of which is privilege and not the least of which is whether this exercise by the committee pursuant to the recently enunciated standards of the supreme court in the mazers case as a level of service for which these documents are

necessary. >> what do you get from mazer that outlines legislative purposes of january 6 to legislatively stop it from happening again, how does that not check the box? >> in the mazers case, they had checked the boxes on investigating money laundering or other crimes or other parts of the statute and subpoenaed the president's business records, and the court said they had not made a sufficient showing that they were entitled to those. and, in fact, the case is back in court where they're trying to establish that. >> right, there is a factual discrepancy. >> in the mazers case -- >> it's different. it's not apples to apples. here what they are looking for is information directly to the subject that they're investigating. in mazer, the issue of pushback was, what do these business records have to do with what you're looking at?

these are not directly related to that matter. that was the litigable issue. that's different than here, as you know. >> right, but the issue still has to be litigated under the presidential records with respect to whether these records have any aspects of privilege that they're entitled to, and that has to be determined. >> privilege is a separate issue. just for the audience, if you look up the case, it's ma-a-z-ur and it actually reaffirmed congress' oversight role in these matters. now, in terms of privilege, i don't see this as a very deep well. we've never had a former president exercise privilege. it has been established in law that this is a privilege that goes with the office for the benefit of the republic. >> that's not right, chris. you need to read gsa versus nixon -- >> oh, i've read it. >> -- which unequivocally says

that former presidents are entitled to claim the privilege. now, whether it applies or not is a separate issue. >> exactly. but you're being clever. >> they're entitled to claim it -- no, i'm not, i'm reading the supreme court case. >> but you're not reading it in context. does a sitting president have the privilege of executive immunity? yes. in all cases? no. which is why the primary holding of nixon versus gsa was seizing and examining records related to a former president that was still in control of the executive branch does not violate the separation of powers. the privilege is not with the president -- excuse me -- is not for the benefit of the president as an individual but for the benefit of the republic, which means it has to make sense in context. he's not even a president. he's a former president. so when have you ever heard a former president assert the privilege successfully?

>> the privilege doesn't vanish because he's not in office any more than the attorney/client privilege vanishes when the client dies in the vince foster case or a member leaves congress under the speech of debate clause. the issue is weather the functions of seeking confidential advice from advisors applies in the president leaving office, and it does. whether these documents are part of the privilege is a separate issue. that's the issue that will get litigated in his lawsuit. >> i understand the argument but i don't see any basis of precedent for it, because it's not like the attorney/client privilege. with that the privilege goes with the client, . even if the client dies, it's always theirs. this goes with the office. so if you are no longer president, you don't have that. and the proof of that, counselor, the only time a former president has gotten the privilege protection is when a current president has offered it, which is why trump's guys

asked biden, and biden said no. >> that doesn't end the issue, because there is still the question of whether any of these records convey a record of confidential conversations about matters within the office of the president. and that has not been determined yet. >> but it doesn't -- it has been determined by the sitting president, who has the right to assert the privilege. not a former president. you have literally no precedent that this has ever been established under law. i get your argument. you can make it, but that doesn't mean it's there. also you have a factual problem. you haven't had an assertion of this imagined privilege by the former president on behalf of your client. >> yes, you have. you've had several. you've had the filing of the lawsuit and the letter to the archivists where he's formerly invoked it.

the president, if you let me finish, the president has directed a letter from his lawyer to the witnesses asserting privilege with respect to their communications in the oval office. that's as good as an assertion as you need. >> then why hasn't it been offered to the committee? >> it's public. the letter to the archivists is public. >> the committee said trump has not told them he will assert any privilege, that the only claim he's making is with respect to documents and vis-a-vis the archives. >> well, his lawyer has written to the witnesses and instructed them to respect his assertion of the privilege. >> you don't find it odd that a former president would try to exert -- assert a privilege and not tell the committee?

>> he's not privy with the committee yet because they have not subpoenaed him. as i said, mr. scavino was served. >> he doesn't have to be served. by your own argument, these other people would be covered by the privilege if he asserts it with respect to what they're being asked to do. it's not about privity. privity is not an issue here. >> i'm not sure how formal his assertion of the privilege has to be. >> he doesn't have any privilege. >> you say that, but we haven't really determined that in any court yet. >> but where have you ever heard it determined otherwise? when have you ever heard it determined that a former president has any privilege like this to assert? >> in the case of gsa versus nixon for one. >> he was president at the time, counselor, and you know that. >> no, he wasn't. go look it up, chris, it's 1977. >> i know, but that was the chain of litigation.

it's about what he did as president and what he could be protected from. >> it was after his records were sent under the presidential records act to the archives. it arose after his presidency. >> but it was about what he wanted to do during the presidency. and even then he lost. >> so is this. >> but he lost. >> so is this. >> but he lost, counselor. nixon -- >> no, no. he brought the claims and the court found that the statute provided a mechanism for him to challenge production of those records. and that case was litigated. and then he gave up. >> they got the records, and that's why in the holding, the court went out of its way to say this privilege is not about protecting you as an individual. it's about protecting what he's

allowed. >> he is not asserting as an individual. he is asserting his function in the office to communicate to those who worked for him. >> that's why it would be up to biden, an extension of the office, to assert the privilege. why would he ask biden? >> the statute has a mechanism for him to ask the former president, which had biden asserted it, it would have strengthened the claim but it doesn't eliminate it. >> that's your assertion. i hope it works out. does scavino want to cooperate? does he believe he is operating with high ground here and he has nothing to hide? >> well, i haven't discussed with him yet all the legal issues and questions that he may have with respect to this.

we haven't engaged with the committee, and we may do that. >> look, i appreciate you doing this. it's not the easiest conversation to have. i misspelled mazur. it's m-a-z-a-r-s. if you want to look up the case and see what's going on. not you, stan, i know you know it. the people at home. just google it and it's all laid out. thank you, stan. i appreciate having on you the show. i'll take silence as acceptance. the current president is back trying to fuse his party together around his stalled economic agenda to hammer out a deal. biden has worries about going abroad and showing america's face to the world with nothing in hand. we're going to ask one of the progressives who met with biden today what was said, what message was conveyed and what is the chance of getting something done before the g-20 or the big climate summit thereafter. next.

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. ♪ ♪ you don't become a runner, who breaks eight world records... after age 65, without a serious support system. kathy martin has one in medicare from blue cross blue shield. she won't go a day without the right card. because she can't go a day without running. the medicare coverage trusted by more doctors. this is the benefit of blue. find your local blue cross and blue shield plan at benefitofblue.com >> tech: when you get a chip in your windshield... trust safelite. this couple was headed to the farmers market... when they got a chip. they drove to safelite for a same-day repair. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech: that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ this is wealth. ♪ ♪

this is worth. that takes wealth. but this is worth. and that - that's actually worth more than you think. don't open that. wealth is important, and we can help you build it. but it's what you do with it, that makes life worth living. principal. for all it's worth.

this halloween, xfinity rewards is offering up some spooky-good perks. like the chance to win a universal parks & resorts trip to hollywood or orlando to attend halloween horror nights. or xfinity rewards members, get the inside scoop on halloween kills. just say "watch with" into your voice remote for an exclusive live stream with jamie lee curtis.

a q&a with me! join for free on the xfinity app. our thanks your rewards. the president is open to dropping some of the key parts of the build back better plan. like what? tuition-free community college and adding limits to the child tax credit and elderly care. now, these are all very popular

things, but they don't have the consensus within his own party. so another day of meetings, lunches, phone calls just among democrats. i know this looks like how washington should work if you had two parties involved. but let's talk to a progressive who was in today's meetings, wisconsin representative mark pocon. thanks for being with me. >> chris, thank you for having me. >> am i right or wrong? what was the president's posture today? >> i think he's anxious to get this done. not frustrated, but anxious is the right word. this is his agenda. he wrote it, he's got every detail in his head on this, and most of the final negotiation is really with a couple people in the senate, but there are hundreds of democrats in the house and 48 in the senate who are ready to go with this as

soon as we can, and i think once we get the final few to join us, we're going to have two really big bills that will deliver for the american people. >> look, the good news is whatever you pass, if the number is even a fraction of what was originally suggested and the majority of the boxes are checked, it will be spending on meaningful programs by polls since the new deal. the problem is you guys keep fighting off success trying to figure out what's going to be in the bill. the balancing is it's all but two of you, as you suggested. how do you quell the frustration of people like you and other progressives who are like, don't talk to us, mr. president. love you, respect you. go talk to sinema and manchin, because they're killing us. >> first, the president is doing just that while he's meeting with us, and i think we're

having what i would call part celebratory strategy sessions on what this bill is going to get done. as you said, chris, this is going to be as big as the new deal, bigger than the new deal when we get this done. it's going to improve people's lives. 48 million americans will continue to see a tax cut through the child tax credit. you'll see reduced costs for americans through lower cost prescription drugs, being able to get their child care at 70% of their income through expanded child care. so many things the average person is going to benefit from finally in washington. it's going to create millions of jobs, many tackling climate change, and the best part is it's paid for? that's where people get lost. they say, what's the final number going to be? the cost is actually zero for the average person. >> i know inside washington, it was a big price tag, a big wow. you know from back home, people

get sticker shock. i think the more you guys sell the programs, and not the price tag, the better for you. one last quick question, congressman pocan, and i appreciate you being here. do you think you can get a framework done, whatever that means, before he goes -- biden goes, the president goes to the g-20 such that you can have a vote on the infrastructure bill and send him to face the rest of the g-20 with something in his pocket? >> i think the vast majority of us want to get this done as soon as possible. i think the next couple of days are going to be crucial with a few of those folks over in the senate we just talked about, but the president is working extremely hard. he and his administration are very committed to this, and in congress, our leadership and members in our progressive caucus, we're ready to celebrate this, what we've delivered for the american people, and we want to do it as soon as we possibly can. so we're hoping the few holdouts that are still out there, the

rest of us are rowing together, we just need them to pick out what kind of wood they want their oar made of, and we'll all be together. >> that's a good line. congressman pocan, thank you very much. good luck doing the work of the people. >> thank you. another right wing anti-vaxxer just announced he has docovid. i don't know if he really did, but kenneth prager is bragging that he got it on purpose so he can prove it's no big deal. why would somebody do this? and why would somebody want to send that kind of message? supposedly prager is a statistics guy. you haven't seen how many dead there are? why would you want to do anything to create more? we'll talk to somebody in his circles. how is this playing? next. repair and protect with deep 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...

sustainability is essential to creating a better tomorrow. that's why cisco is committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2040. and we believe our smart buildings solutions can help.

providing power to reduce emissions, intelligence to eliminate waste, and collaboration tools that help the workplace and the planet. between meeting human needs and a sustainable future, there's a bridge. cisco, the bridge to possible. the x-rays from your urgent care visit look good. just stay off that leg, okay? what about my rec team? i'm all they got. next season. thanks doc. wow, he already scheduled my pt. i love doctors who work with athletes. does he know you tripped over a basketball? that's a sports injury. at kaiser permanente,

we make getting care easy so you can get back the latest right winger downplaying covid is really trying to make a name for

himself. >> it is infinitely preferable to have immunity than vaccination immunity. knowing i was making myself very susceptible to getting covid which is, indeed, as bizarre as it sounds, what i wanted in the hopes i would acquire immunity and be taken care of by therapeutics. >> what he really wanted is what i'm giving him right now, which is attention. 73-year-old conservative radio host dennis prager, he says that's what he did to intentionally get it. he said he tested positive for covid last week. at no point, he says, was he in danger of being hospitalized.

that's the way a majn overwhelm majority of cases go, but why take the risk? what message do you want to send to people? get sick, it's great? over the last month, at least five radio show hosts like him encouraged listeners to get the vaccine have died of covid. of course, if you could have natural immunity, that would be great. by the way, often the task is for your body to help you create immunity. but if you don't have it, what are you supposed to do? let's bring on mike berman from kntv radio. what he did was not a good thing to do and really dangerous, mike. even if he said he was licking poles and doing whatever he needed to get sick, hugging and kissing and coughing, whatever he was doing, why?

>> i don't know the answer to why. 73 years old, statistically arizona is no different than wisconsin or any other state where it's older people over the age of 65 that are the most in danger of serious illness or death. i don't know the answer to that. he did say he's being treated with monoclonal antibodies and hydroxychloroquine. maybe he's proving he can do it. >> i know hydroxychloroquine is in the later stages of covid. i appreciate you coming on, by the way. why is this salable in conservative circles that the vaccine is a joke, and you don't need it, and everything is being overhyped? >> what i would say to you is i disagree it's just conservatives. black lives matter came out and

said they're not in favor of vaxxing mandates, either. we're looking at a lot of people who are balking the vaccine. i don't understand that a conservative who is 73 -- and i can't second-guess him, he's a brilliant man. i don't know why he's doing this -- >> this is not a brilliant move, mike. >> it may not be. but, again, i don't think this is conservative versus liberal. i don't think it's republican versus democrat. black lives matter has come out and said they're not in favor of the vaccine. >> i don't know, i haven't been researching it, but it's not a coincidence that you had these conservative radio hosts go down and all these representatives on the right make this case. you didn't see black lives meter anyone on the liberal circles going after colin powell right after he died saying, this is proof the vaccine doesn't work. >> you know, just a side note, i know that's not the topic. let me say this about general

powell. he served his country honorably under multiple presidents, including president obama. he just was one of those guys that politics be damned, if my country needs me, i'll serve my country. and he was suffering from a disorder, that myeloma that compromising your immune system. i don't think there is an argument there about the vaccine, because his immune system was compromised at 84 years old. it's more proof that someone who is older is more susceptible to serious illness or death. >> 100%. look, neither of us are doctors, but i believe the value of having you on with the audience is to remind people that there are real conservatives out there dealing with science, dealing with facts, and you may have a different opinion dealing with society, but you're coming from the heart, and i respect that and i appreciate you. >> i respect you also. by the way, i'm fully vaccinated. i got fully vaccinated as soon as i could, so i'm not an

anti-vaxxer, but i am against mandates. >> understood. but what do you do when society won't take it? what are you left with? we'll keep talking. mike broomhead, be well. >> you, too, sir. >> be right back. there's a different way to treat hiv. it's once-monthly injectable cabenuva. cabenuva is the only once-a-month, complete hiv treatment for adults who are undetectable. cabenuva helps keep me undetectable. it's two injections, given by a healthcare provider once a month. hiv pills aren't on my mind. i love being able to pick up and go.

don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions post-injection reactions, liver problems,...and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver problems or mental health concerns, and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection site reactions, fever, and tiredness. if you switch to cabenuva, attend all treatment appointments. with once-a-month cabenuva, i'm good to go. ask your doctor about once-monthly cabenuva.

as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? you got it. ♪ liberty, liberty - liberty, liberty ♪ uh, i'll settle for something i can dance to. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪ ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

tv: mount everest, the tallest mountain on the face of the earth. keep dreaming. [coins clinking in jar] ♪ you can get it if you really want it, by jimmy cliff ♪ ♪ [suitcase closing] [gusts of wind]

[gusts of wind] [ding] race was a theme on day two of the jury selection in the ahmaud arbery case. remember, these three white men have been accused of chasing down and killing ahmaud arbery, a 25-year-old black man who was out for a jog in their neighborhood. while attorneys for at least two of the accused killers have denied race was a factor, they were keen to question would-be jurors on that topic for views on the confederate flag and on black lives matter. let's bring in top legal man joey jackson. so we're looking at these questions. what stood out to you? >> i mean, everything stands out to me with respect with what people's feelings are, their

beliefs are, what they believe about black lives matter, what they believe about confederate flags, what they believe about race relations in the country. so you want to be able to vet jurors. chris, i'm one that believes when you select a jury, i don't believe in stereotypes. there are so many stereotypes we lawyers have with respect to who should be impanelled. i'm not one to believe if you ask jurors what their views of life are you get a sense for their fairness, their sense of justice, their family, them as individuals, what they like, what they don't like, and you select someone you think is appropriate and evaluate a case based on the merits and based on nothing else. >> what are the chances you think you can do that in this case? >> you know, i think the chances are very good. our system depends upon that. let's remember and remind everyone, chris, that a thousand members of the public have been called to jury duty for this case. that's ten times more than the average case. and why do you do that? because you know people have opinions. you know people have thought about this, have discussed it, have formulated some pretty

significant thoughts. but the hope is out of those thousand people that you don't get -- not people who have never heard of that who don't have an opinion, but people who can leave that aside, look at the facts, look at the evidence and make a determination based on that and not anything that they heard in the press at some prior time. so yes, it's a challenge. to be clear, we'd be naive to state that it wasn't, but it certainly can be done. our system depends upon it, and we have a pretty good system at that. >> help the audience get up to speed on the defense relying in part on this now defunct civil war era law. what is the law, and why would they do this? >> so what happens is that the defense is going to be relying upon self-defense. in order to do that, they're going to predicate that defense on we were making a citizen's arrest. why were you? because the law would provide. if you see that a crime was committed in your presence, that crime happened to be a felony, what it would allow you to do is otherwise detain someone for purposes of them violating the

law. >> what's the civil war aspect. >> what's that? >> what's the civil war aspect? >> well, the civil war aspect is that's when the law was formulated. that's when the law came about. it was a citizen's arrest law that was really, you know, of long-standing. and that's the aspect of it. and it was not thought of highly, and that's why it has since been repealed because it could lead to things like this, these types of behavior where you have someone dead and they did not need to be. they'll be relying on that, even though the law has since been repealed, they'll be arguing that indeed a crime was committed, that crime being trespass. they believe that he was committing that crime, chased him down as a result of that and were acting lawfully and had to defend themselves. that's what the defense will be. i'm not suggesting that defense will be successful under the facts and circumstances of this case. >> they may not even let it in. joey jackson, thank you very much. appreciate you. >> always. >> let's take a break, and then the handoff. l to be rescheduled for the third time.

orrr... you could use slack. and work faster with everyone you work with, together in one place. slack. where the future works.

this is wealth. ♪ ♪ this is worth. that takes wealth. but this is worth. and that - that's actually worth more than you think. don't open that. wealth is important, and we can help you build it. but it's what you do with it, that makes life worth living. principal. for all it's worth. >> tech: when you get a chip in your windshield... trust safelite. this couple was headed to the farmers market... when they got a chip. they drove to safelite for a same-day repair. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech: that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

all right. thank you for watching. it is now time for "don lemon tonight" with its big star, d-lemon. >> okay, the expectation of this committee is that all witnesses will cooperate with our investigation. witnesses who have been subpoenaed have a legal obligation to do so, and then it goes on to say our goal is simple. we want mr. bannon to answer our questions. we want him to turn over whatever records he possesses that are relevant to the select committee's investigation. the issue in front of us today is our ability to do our job. finally there seems to be some urgency in washington regarding the subversion of justice. people trying to flout the law and subpoenas. and we need that urgency when it comes to getting something done, a deal on infrastructure, and especially v