the group founded by former attorney general eric holder. thanks for joining me tonight. what the republicans are doing in terms of jergerrymandering is clearly wrong but the map is being proposed in illinois for example are among the most gerrymandering in the country, too. >> well, thanks for having me and covering this with such a comprehensive intro there. you're right to cover what is happening now with redistricting in the context for this larger fight for the democracy. what you have right now is one party, the republican party willing to go to extreme lengths to subvert our democracy, to redistrict themselves into power for the decade, which is their words of their goal for this redistricting process in order to protect their power artificially. what you see from democrats both in the states where we're redistricting and with the support of the freedom to vote act is a real belief in our democracy and how the system should work. we want the elections to be fair. we do want voters to be the ones who determine the outcome of these elections contrary to what thomas s

i think the white house knows first hand what we know and what our chairman attorney general eric holder knows you can't out organize gerrymandering. as you noted you can't out organize districts designed to work against the voter. by definition the gerrymandering we are seeing by the republicans in the state is intended to predetermine the outcome of the election. so that regardless of what the voters want the elections are predetermined by the lines and you see republicans hold on to power artificially regardless of what the voters want. i think the white house understands that. we certainly understand that. democrats in congress understand that. and democrats in the state understand that as well which is why you're seeing a really strong intent by democrats in the state to push for commissions, push for public hearings, public testimony so that we're hearing from the public during the process on what they want to see reflected in the map so they reflect and protect the communities of this country. >> and of course as you point out this is happening right now. this is not some future t

. >>> plus, eric holder is bringing a top priority of his time at the justice department to his rolenal democratic redistricting committee. he joins us next. you are watching "morning joe," we'll be right back. e watching we'll be right back. so, should all our it move to the cloud? the cloud would give us more flexibility, but we lose control. ♪ ♪ ♪ should i stay or should i go? ♪ and we need insights across our data silos, but how? ♪ if i go there will be trouble ♪ ♪ ♪ wait, we can stay and go. hpe greenlake is the platform that brings the cloud to us. ♪ should i stay or should i go now? ♪ ♪ ♪ bogeys on your six, limu. ♪ should i stay they need customizednow? ♪ car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ as i observe investors balance risk and reward, i see one element securing portfolios, time after time. gold. your strategic advantage. my nunormal? fewer asthma attacks with nucala. a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinop

i think you can look back at a lot of statements where the house held eric holder in contempt. it will be interesting to compare those speeches to today, and this is a direct assault on the u.s. democracy in the capitol. >> liz chen aye even suggested that bannon might have been, in her words, personally involved in planning the attack on the u.s. capitol on january 6th. is there any evidence that he was directly responsible? >> i don't want to get into the evidence we have or don't have. obviously we're going to continue to find out who we need to find out. but you played the sound bite, saying tomorrow will be wild. either he was clairvoyant, or he knew something. i predicted violence on january 6th, but i never expected it would be to this level, that they would sack the capitol. steve bannon seemed to know something, and we wanted to know what -- we have an opportunity for a nonpartisan commission made up of former members, he had an opportunity to seat republicans. he pulled them, so that's -- i think if they're whipping against, as i've heard they are, against this vote f

that did not lead to any charges against bush officials, against obama's first attorney general, eric holderscorched earth campaign by house republicans. but few thought there was a basis for contempt. the parties switched places when democrats hold trump attorney general barr in contempt. and again, no charges there. now, the point is not necessarily that, well, all congressional contempt cases are inherently partisan. but rather, the political heat does complicate whether doj decides to step in and tries to send someone to jail. the political energy around it makes it, if anything, a somewhat informally higher bar to go, take a contempt referral from congress, and enforce it. but that's exactly what the pressure is going to be on attorney general garland. he's going to have to decide, if congress does hold bannon in contempt tomorrow, whether to pursue it. whether it's partisan or ultimately about justice. 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

eric holder said said when they go low we hit them. hillary clinton. there's a list. cory booker, in the book, of democrats who told people to take action. to hurt people. to surround them. if we want to go down the list of all of that, i've got a long list, it's all in the book, democrats who have said some nasty things about what to do to trump official hours, to have their shoises heard through means that i don't condone in any way. so if we want to start holding people accountable to that, let's bring it. we got a whole list on both sides that can be held accountable for that. to turn it all on one side, i don't think it's the right way to go right now. host: listen to liz cheney who had this warning for republicans in looking at the events of january 6. here's what she had to say. ms. cheney: almost every one of my colleagues knows in your hearts that what happened on january 6 was profoundly wrong. you all know that there is no evidence of widespread election fraud sufficient to have changed the results of the election. owe all know that the -- you all know that

but garland just following the lead of eric holder and using the department of justice to squash political dissent. maybe if the a.g. considered the ramifications of his memo, he would consider walking it back. >> did you consider. >> i do not. >> the chilling effect that this sort of threat of federal prosecution would have on parents exercise of their constitutional rights to be involved in their children's education? >> i don't believe it's reasonable to read this memorandum as chilling anyone's rights. >> lawrence: but it looks like this was the goal of the memo the whole time. the shutdown political dissent and silence parents. it seems we have another attorney general using the justice department for political gain. and this guy was almost a supreme court justice. joining me now dan bongino, host of "unfiltered" on saturdays. he is fired up. dan, first they told us that this was not happening. and then they have to confess and say well this is happening on colleges but really not in the classroom. then we found out in loudoun county when the parents discovered it was happening and st

and lois learner and eric holder. doj said we're not going to charge. that said, merrick garland has a really important decision here. that could be the most direct, quickest and really the only route to compel these people to testify. >> if they did testify or eventually they are compelled to testify, they could take the fifth amendment. tell us about that. . >> yeah. so they have a trump card of sorts here. no pun intended. the fifth amendment. any person has the right to take the fifth to remain silent. we've seen that done in congress before by oliver north in the '80s, founder of enron kenneth lay, mark mcwire in the steroids investigation. the only counter move is congress can immunize the witnesses meaning you have to testify now. we're not going to use it against you in the future but you have to testify now. the problem is it makes it essentially impossible to prosecute these people. that's what happened with oliver north. he was immunized. he testified. he was then convicted. but a federal court threw out the conviction because they said, hey,

eric holder did not show up for his hearing do. they matter at all,jonathan? >> i think they do.f it. >> in the meantime, cynthia, i wanted to get you to weigh in about the texas abortion law. what does this mean for clinics who brought back the abortion services in the past few days. could they actually be sued retroactively? >> yes, they absolutely could. the law is so mean and evil that it actually provided if ever there was a stay, a legal stay and the stay with us lifted, that it could be staid. there's no good news and will eventually be solved by the supreme court. probably the parameters of roe v. wade will be stricken or changed so much no one will recognize them by reducing women's rights in the mississippi case. that's the case that will be argued on december 1st where in mississippi they restricted rights at 15 weeks, and the supreme court has taken it up, and, by all accounts, it looks like they're going to strike down roe v. wade. there's no good news for women in texas or women in the other solve states, mostly southern, where they have trigger laws which means the

attorney general eric holder, who now heads the national democratic redistricting committee, said -- "we simply cannot allow governor abbott to deny texans a free and fair election through these undemocratic, gerrymandered maps that fail spectacularly to represent the state's growing communities of color." environmental and human rights lawyer steven donziger is spending his first full day behind bars at the federal prison in danbury, connecticut. donziger reported to prison wednesday after being denied bail pending his appeal over a six-month prison sentence for a misdemeanor. donziger had already spent over 800 days under house arrest. the charges are linked to a lawsuit he filed against chevron in which he successfully defended indigenous people in ecuador against the oil giant, which dumped billions of gallons of oil into the amazon. to see our interview with steven donziger hours before he reported to prison, go to democracynow.org. in london, as lawyers are presenting -- u.s. lawyers are pushing to extradite assange to the u.s. where he faces espionage charges for publishing cl

coming up, we'll hear from kate bedingfield and also eric holder.ked mornia few minutes away i order my groceries online now. shingles doesn't care. i keep my social distance. shingles doesn't care. i stay within my family bubble. shingles doesn't care. because if you've had chicken pox, you're already carrying the virus that causes shingles. in fact, about 1 in 3 people will develop shingles, and the risk only increases as you age. so what can protect you against shingles? shingrix protects. now you can protect yourself from shingles with a vaccine proven to be over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after vaccination with shingrix. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. talk to your pharmacist

we've seen a number of citations, former attorney general eric holder was cited. former attorney general bill barr was cited. what's really unusual here is to have a criminal referral that the justice department may seriously look at. it's been about 40-45 years since the justice department has brought a case under this particular criminal contempt of congress statute. >> woodruff: so remind us what, are the steps justice department goes through? i mean, what happens now that the house has taken this vote? what actually happens next?" >> so this will go to the u.s. attorney's office for the district of columbia, which is basically part of the justice department. and they will consider whether to file a case. the law here in question does say that they're supposed to-- that they have a duty to convene a grand jury or to consider bringing charges. in the past, thaoffice has declined in many, many cases to file charges. but those generally involved executive branch or former executive branch officials, where that administration was upholding the privilege assertion.

. >> we seen a number of citations, former attorney general eric holder was cited, what is really unusuale is to have a criminal referral that the justice department may seriously look at. it has been about 40-45 years since the justice department has brought a case under this particular criminal contempt of congress statute. judy: so remind us, what are the steps the justice department goes through? what happens now that the house has take -- take in this boat, what happens next? >> it will go to the attorney's office for the district of columbia and they will consider whether to file a case, the law here in question does say that they are supposed to, that they have a duty to convene a grand jury or to consider bringing charges. in the past, that office has declined in many cases to file charges, those generally involved executive branch or former executive branch officials where that administration was upholding the privilege assertion. what is unusual here is president joe biden does not think he says -- does not think executive privilege should be invoked. that's what the justice dep

jill wine-banks former assistant prosecutor and matt miller former spokesman for attorney general eric holder. i want to begin with this key question that i think has left a lot of us confused. why were you so effective in getting compliance to subpoenas against president nixon and his administration during the watergate investigation and the democrats in congress have been so ineffective in relative terms in pursuit of the same kind of subpoenas against team trump? >> it's really a very simple answer. because president nixon, despite his crimes and despite all the wrong that he did, actually believed in our system of laws and government. and when confronted with a supreme court decision, he agreed to comply. so he never tried to stop people. he did try to claim executive privilege, but the supreme court said, no, you have to balance it. and in this case, the needs for the criminal investigation far outweigh the need for executive privilege. and of course, it is clear that even in the case cited by bannon's lawyer, this is a privilege of the current incumbent. it goes with the office. it does

some people held in contempt, bill barr and eric holder were the attorney general, especially awkward to -- for doj to charge the attorney general and i think the second part of the answer is just timidity, it takes a lot of guts and backbone to charge somebody. you're buying into a potential trial there and it could get messy. merrick garland has to stand up here and do his job, even if it may be difficult. >> what do you think the chances are that happens, elie? >> i'm split on this. on the one happened, merrick garland has not shown a lot of appetite for anything that may be politically fraught during his time here. i think he's undercharged some of the january 6th defendants. i think he's not gone high up enough in the chain. he's shown no interest in investigating anything relating to donald trump. the steve bannon case in particular is so extraordinary, his claim of executive privilege is so utterly ridiculous that you can't just let it go with no consequence. >> here's the thing, yes, the politics are messy. this is not the first time that politics have been messy or sensitive

former attorney general eric holder who is the chair of national redistricting committee issued a statementtime that they don't want to risk fair elections. they know they are out of touch with the majority in the lone star state, and instead of adjusting their policies and politics for their constituents, they're trying to manipulate the structures of our democracy to artificially hold on to power. victor, alisyn, democrats in texas, voting rights and fair math advocates have all pointed out that federal legislation, including the watered down version that's being considered today would prevent a map like this from going into effect because it would not meet a federal standard set by that. >> that's really important context. dianne gallagher, thank you. >>> netflix employees walk out in protest of the dave chappelle's latest special and the ceo standing by chappelle says he screwed up. a live update ahead. i'm not getting through the pandemic just to end up with the flu. i asked for fluzone high-dose quadrivalent. it's the #1-used flu vaccine for people 65 and older. fluzone high-dose quad

>> when the gop controlled the house, it held irs figure lois learner contempt of congress and eric holder. nancy pelosi said the gop should hold bannon in contempt. >> the genius of our constitution and:0 our founders was the separation of power, checks and balances. if in fact you went to negate the ability of one check of another branch of government over another, your undermining the constitution. >> the vote on the bannon contempt of congress resolution has just started since we've been on the air here, martha. fox is told anywhere from 18 to 13 gop members my vote to hold bannon in contempt. congress has little power when it comes to enforcing a subpoena. martha? >> martha: chad, thank you very much. we're watching the developments on the hill this afternoon and the movements on reconciliation as well, whether or not the president will be able to get to a number and what is in that number. what is included in that number. what will americans get for the $2 trillion figure. breaking just a moment ago, the white house commented on the supply chain crisis that is causing sky rocketing i

certainly saw that with members of the trump administration during impeachment and even saw it with eric holder responding to the republican subpoenas on fast and furious during the obama administration. >> now, two questions. one, do you believe the doj would have anything here to really mine? and how concerned are you about what all this does in terms of undermining the next set of elections? >> i think doj always has powers to investigate crimes. so, if attorney general garland decides that what happened on january 6th is in fact criminal activity worthy of a br broader investigation and just the indictments against the insurrectionists, he certainly has the authority. but overall there is harm to our elections. it certainly denigrates the trust americans have in the results that take place. you've seen that the actions towards election officials that trump supporters have done is causing many election officials, experienced election officials, to retire. it's sort of like working the refs, chris. the onslaught of criticism of election officials is going to impact people who are trying to do

school of, law also joining our discussion is matt miller, a spokesperson for attorney general eric holdertributors. joyce, i just want to begin by saying, that i am sorry for your loss, i will never forget the news of that, day it was so shocking. that that could happen to a federal judge, and tonight, it's, seems as likely as ever, if not more so. >> you know, the distinction between just a very small number of federal judges who were tragically killed in the last century, and the attack this century on a judge's family, is that those stems primarily from people who were upset about their individual cases, or family members cases, what is so troubling about the air that we are in right now, and judge walton's comments, is that this is about people with the political agenda. and those are the sort of risks that judges face, in countries where cartels have influence, or in the philippines. or even in afghanistan were two women judges were killed earlier this year. the risk, and i'm not saying for instance that donald trump is directly responsible, but it's the rhetoric, and the level of po

holding steve bannon in contempt of congress, it really amazes me that they're going to do that when eric holdern fast and furious refused to give us what we needed to hear from him or answer any questions to congress, and steve bannon wasn't even there. host: what do you think ultimately happens? they've made this vote and are holding him in contempt. what do you think the justice department will do? caller: the justice department already has submitted their report on what happened on january 6 and they said there was not one charge of insurrection that was -- and people are sitting in jail since january not facing any charges. yet. i don't know what the justice department is up to. if you'd seen marek garland yesterday trying to answer question, you'd been disappointed in the justice department going after school board parents that were complaining to the school board about what their children were being taught. host: you can see some of that coverage, our coverage of that hearing yesterday, the judiciary on c-span now mobile app. this is the headline from "the washington post" about the presi

we think about former attorney general eric holder. 2012, a couple of years later and congress flexing its muscles, but they don't blink at the end result. what inherent contempt and this is something jamie raskin has pushed, congress actually goes and sends the sergeant of arms to arrest you. they hold you. this was a practice they used emerald times in the 1790s and early 1800s. they haven't use this on capitol hill since the 1930s here. house speaker nancy pelosi indicated there is a piece of legislation written by jamie raskin considered at some point. but a lot of people capitol hill doesn't think congress has teeth. they threaten these things all the time. they even have a vote which is what they will have this afternoon. they never get the end result. that is some people like jamie raskin, john talking about may be moving at some point to inherent contempt. >> sandra: 10 minutes left in the current vote. we will probably see that hearing reconvene in the next 1. your point about nancy pelosi earlier why contempt of inherent contempt. excellent audience on that, as always. we don

it's hard for others to imagine so i went yesterday to someone else who had experienced this, eric holderme how it felt to him as to people really understood this. you are under a microscope and you can't let that paralyze you. you have to do the job and have confidence in yourself and move forward. he certainly did that. he was just a remarkable, remarkable person and it was a guy that i had known he was so ill. it was a genuine shock yesterday to learn on "morning joe" that he had passed. he was such a person to so many people for so many years. it was a very sad day. >> as you say, jean, there is plausible -- he'll be the first black president if he does decide to run given his popularity at this time. there is the military side of general powell and the moral authority that we have been talking about. we showed a clip on general powell addressing the birthism conspiracy and calling it racist. this is not true, we have to say it's not true and we have to make the case for our policies and ideas and not get into this stuff which of course infected the party down the road. you think of r

it was eric holder who said, no, when they go low, we kick them, referring to republicans.hysical kinetic energy against your political opponents. host: liz cheney is a member of the january 6 select committee and on the front page of the hill. she becomes the gop trump foil. she spoke yesterday at the rules committee meeting. [video clip] >> let me address my republican colleagues specifically. i've heard from a number of my colleagues in the last several days who say that they "just don't want this target on their back." they are just trying to keep their heads down. they don't want to anger kevin mccarthy, the minority leader, who has been especially active in attempting to block the investigation evidence of january 6, despite the fact that he clearly called for such a commission the week after the attack. i asked each one of you to step back from the brink. i urge you to do what you know is right. to think of the long arc of history. we are told that it bends towards justice, but only because of the actions of men and women in positions of public trust. in many nations

when eric holder, the attorney general of the united states, came and knelt beside her and said, i stand on your shoulders, the she said, get off your shoulders. do your own work, that's what she said. i am here to say we, the members of the congressional black caucus, are doing our own work. we're standing firm, we're standing solid, we're standing united in our efforts to bring back the full protections of the voting rights act of 1965. we must do our own work. all of us. it's not enough to say that we stand on the shoulders of giants. we know these giants. our foremothers and forefathers. they were tacticians. they were strategists. they just didn't happen upon selma, alabama. they just didn't happen upon birmingham and memphis and atlanta. they went looking for good trouble. and good trouble they got in we must do the same. we must take a play from their playbook. we must stand firm. we must stand united. we must stand undeterred. in our efforts to beat down any barrier that stands in the way of protecting that sacred right to vote. it was john lewis who said that the vote is the mos