. >> i want to bring in my panel, everybody, barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney in michigan and an msnbc legal analyst back with us. david jolly, former member of congress, national chair of the serve america movement and an msnbc political analyst. kyle, i want to start with you on this one. i want you to give us really an update as to what's been happening so far on the january 6th committee. where are we right now? >> we're now at a point where the committee has to show us how serious they are about getting the information that donald trump and his close associates don't want them to get. so, as you pointed out, you know, the president is trying to invoke executive privilege. he's trying to get his aides to do the same despite some dubious legality there and the committee has to decide, are we going to hold these people in criminal contempt where we may have the justice department help us out here and are we going to, you know, go to court to fight to prevent donald trump from trying to tie us up in legal knots so we can't get what we need? the commit

attorney barbara mcquade. yasmin, what did the sheriff and d.a. have to say? >> nbc has obtained a copy of a search warrant. first and foremost are interviews with hannah gutierrez reed, the head armorer. she's only 24 years old, this is only the second job she's had as head armorer on set, her experience coming into question. the interview -- i'm reading directly from my phone on this, i'm just getting this in -- she checked the dummies and ensured they were not hot rounds. the affiant learned the firearms were taken back and secured inside a safe on a prop truck on set. during lunch she stated the ammo was left on a cart on the set, not secured. gutierrez also advised the ammo was also kept inside the prop truck. there's a search warrant out, by the way, for the prop truck. she stated the firearms were pulled out of the safe and handed to her. she advised there were only a few people who had access to the combination safe. hannah advised she handed the gun to alec baldwin a couple of times and also handed it to dave halls. dave halls was also interviewed and

and barbara mcquade, veteran former prosecutor, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan who worked with the doj during the biden transition. she is a professor at her alma mater, university of michigan law school. she and kimberly, by the way, make up 50% of the podcast "sisters in law," along with joyce vance and jill wine-banks. good evening and welcome to you all. and counselor, indeed i'd like to begin with you. barb, i didn't bring a bucket of cold water to this conversation intentionally. but i heard this business of a criminal contempt complaint explained today. last time it happened in the house was in 1983. it's got to be voted on by the house. then goes to doj, meaning the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. then maybe to a grand jury. then maybe to a jury trial. the house would select a trial lawyer to represent them at trial. then maybe to a series of appeals. and barb, it sure sounds like we're talking about years and not months. are we close to right on that? >> i agree with you, brian. in fact, it seems

attorney barbara mcquade, good to have you with us. ara, if the house votes to recommend charges to bannon, it goes to the u.s. attorney's office for a final decision on charges. how quickly could things move from there? >> frankly, geoff, it seems like it could move very quickly. ordinarily in investigations, a prosecutor has to make sure that all of the facts have been gathered, any supplement investigation has been done. here all of the facts are known. it's a very simple case factually. the subpoena was served. steve bannon has defied it. and the basis he's given is executive privilege. i imagine lawyers will review it, make a prosecutorial decision, and i also think there would be approval as high as the deputy attorney general and the attorney general himself. >> what do the democrats and the republicans on the committee, what are they getting out of this process? is this about steve bannon specifically or is it a larger point here? >> i think it's the latter point. there are better ways to order bannon to comply immediately. inst

. >> barbara mcquade, back to you, and the subject is now abortions. most conservative of the regional federal courts in our country. has ignored the last missive from the doj meaning, the texas law stands. barb, did this change anything materially beyond of course the immediate needs of women in the state of texas, did this materially put this on an evil fight even faster track for the full supreme court? >> well, this was kind of a necessary next step, i don't think it's surprising to anybody in light of the fact that the same court ruled administratively about a week ago. that said that they were going to stop the order by the district court, that was putting an injunction on the enforcement of the abortion ban in texas. and this is the same fifth circuit correct that back in september suited to that district court case and said we are going to enforce this law, let this stay in the books while all this lease litigated. so no surprise. keep in mind brian, how extraordinary it is that we are in this posture. we have got standing president, road versu

and barbara mcquade veteran federal prosecutor, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, worked with the doj during the biden transmission, professor at the university of michigan law school her alma mater, in her spare time shoot cohost of the podcast sisters and lip law, along with joyce vance and jill wine-banks. after that lined up, good evening, and welcome to you all. counselor, indeed you're the only lawyer we've got here, we begin with you. what did today uncork in terms of a timeline, you hear congressman raskin trying to settle the base, and say let's talk about eight months nine months ten months, don't believe it. but isn't it true, this could be protracted and bannon knows that? >> oh, i think so brian, i'm sure we could see charges if the doj decides to charge them, within weeks nominates. but if there is to be a trial, and perhaps even an appeal after the conviction, that it is likely to take months. that's why i think this vote to hold bannon in criminal contempt, is much more about punishment than about cours

joining me now msnbc legal analyst barbara mcquade, a former u.s. attorney and a good friend to us. . i'm curious, barbara, if this were your case, what would you be laser focused on right now? >> the facts matter in any investigation. but here in particular we know what happened which is called the actus reas of any crime, which is alec baldwin pulled the trigger and a gun was fired. what we don't know is what's referred to as the mens rea whether there was any intent by anybody to kill somebody or harm somebody. so i think i'd want to trace back what was told to alec baldwin. it appears that he was told cold gun. what was told to that person about what was in the gun and anyone else. and so i think there are potential crimes here, if not of kind of an involuntary manslaughter by alec baldwin, potentially by his production company for failing to take due care if it amounts to gross negligence. >> what do you think with regard to alec baldwin, though? i mean, it's potentially he could look at involuntary manslaughter. but you don't think that would be the case even though he's a very

attorney barbara mcquade and "new york times" chief white house correspondent peter baker. e law. can the justice department given the difference between this justice department and bill barr's justice department during impeachment, can the justice department pursue criminal contempt referrals against the trump officials who refused to cooperate with the process? especially bannon who wasn't even in the white house during the insurrection. >> it can, andrea. it would be a criminal violation to deliberately refuse to comply with a subpoena served by congress. that is one of the avenues to file criminal charges, but strategically i'm not sure it's the best choice because it could be time consuming. it might be better for the house to run into court and try to enforce this civilly, which could also cause bannon to be jailed as a method to sort of entice, if you will, his cooperation. >> but why would one not be as time consuming. both involve legal challenges that are going to go through the court system, and we know how the white house counsels appeal or fighting of the subpoe

nbc legal analyst barbara mcquade is joining us now to clear things up for us. there has been quite a game of ping-pong, i got to say, with all of this, waking up this morning, seeing this news breaking overnight, coming out of texas, there was 48 hours in which this texas law, to a certain extent, had been overruled for that time, and they had resumed abortion services in that state and now here we are once again with this texas law back in effect. where are we on this, barbara, and what happens next? >> yeah, so, what the court issued yesterday, the fifth circuit court of appeals, issued an administrative stay of judge robert pitman's order that had been issued on wednesday, so judge pitman had said he finds this law completely unconstitutional. and he is issuing an injunction so that it cannot have effect while this case proceeds in court. what the fifth circuit did is basically to reverse that and return it back to the point where the six-week ban will be in effect. now, that is not a final decision. what happens next is the court has given the justice depar

along with barbara mcquade a former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. harry let me start with you and clark in compliance here. it does seem to betsy's point, there is no real claim here of executive privilege, particularly when the president has already written a letter saying not so. and october 29, someone has to hear from him. >> yes. first i'm not sure that's right. i mean we have eight conversations document in with trump before the big showdown on january 3rd. they strike me actually unlike many of the other conversations, like steve bannon, as having a fairly good claim of executive privilege. it doesn't matter what trump said before, he will take it back. but clark has a lot more pressure on him than these other guys. he first of all, is being pillar now from all corners, he lost his job in the last couple of days. rosen testified for ten hours, and you can bet he absolutely crucified him, same with donahue, the acting deputy attorney general. everything will be pinned on him. he's not what he has potential liability for violating doj rules, as

this thursday night, phillip ruckers, and carol leonig and robert costa and his book "peril" and barbara mcquade, works with the doj during the biden's transition, professor at the university of law school. she co-hosts the podcast "sisters in law." good evening and welcome to you all and counselors, indeed, you are the only lawyer we got here. we begin with you. what did today in terms of a timeline you hear congressman raskin trying to settle the base, this talks about eight months or nine or ten months, don't believe it. this could be protracted and bannon knows that. >> i think so, brian. i suppose we could see charges if doj decides to file them within weeks or not months. if there is a trial or an appeal, that's likely to take months. that's why i think this vote to hold bannon in criminal con testimony is much more about punishment than it's about coursing him to comply. i think they are sending a message to be aware of other witnesses who may be incline to define subpoenas and protect their own institution powers and the power they have to issue subpoenas. >> robert if you would cast coa

with joyce vance, and barbara mcquade. good evening and welcome to you all. sam it was your news organization, that broke this story. about trump influence on the one six committee. how if at all, does this bring us into new territory? given the players? >> well i, mean this is what we're building up to. right we knew that trump was has an urge to find participation from former aides in this committee investigation. we knew that he was going to pressure them not to cooperate, whether it was in respect for the committee or hand documents over to the committee. now we have it ordered, the question, is what you these four people do? with that request? do they honor, and defy the committee? defy the subpoena. and risk all the legal consequences that come with. do they fight it out? do they comply? and, everything that we know from the past, is that they will, confiscate, they will dig their heels in, and they will basically dare the committee to actually flex its muscles that it has. democrats seem to be talking much more aggressive game. we saw a couple clip say

. >> barbara mcquade, thank you.>> thanks, yasmin. >>> coming up, everybody, with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer so far unable to get president biden's agenda moving, is the democratic leadership losing its mojo? don't go anywhere. ic leaderships mojo don't go anywher e. before we talk about tax-smart investing, what's new? -audrey's expecting... -twins! ♪♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. (brad) apartments-dot-com has the my go to toothpaste most pet-friendly listings for pet loving renters. so you might say that we've brought more joy to more sweet, innocent and adorable little creatures than any other site. (employee) ow, stop it. (brad) apartments-dot-com. the most popular place to find a place. wondering what actually goes into

also one of the cohost of the podcast sisters in law, with joyce vance joe why banks and barbara mcquade. and we welcome to the broadcast, evan osnos, staff writer for the new yorker. his new's book is wild lands, the making of america's fury. and it's generating a lot of attention, will get into that in just a few minutes, good evening and welcome to you all. peter i like to begin with you. and your be, i'm told it's the first time this president, has paid an in-person visit to the democratic caucus, in the house, the majority caucus. presidential power is a funny thing. you have to spend it wisely. when and how will we know, if his trip down to the capital today, was worth it? >> it's a great question, obviously as you said in the, opening it was not what they would've liked. when nancy pelosi said there's gonna be a vote of money, there was not a vote on monday. then she said there be a vote on, thursday there was not a vote on thursday. they're supposed to be a vote on friday. there is not a vote on friday. because in fact they don't have the votes, and this is the fundamental tensio

reason she is one of the cohost of our podcast sisters in law with kimberly atkins store and barbara mcquade. good evening and welcome to you all. ashley, you get the tough one the white house is to put a charitably stalled. and democrats in the senate are to put it charitably, paralyzed. so why political impact is there if the democrat indeed do have the numbers for this vote against banning tomorrow? >> well, the key thing still i think is the stalled domestic agenda. with infrastructure and reconciliation. that is the key thing. but the vote against bannon does help for the democratic agendas in certain ways, after seeing what president biden came in to do which is sort of -- democracy in going after the january 6th the taxes incredibly important to this white house, and it is again, it doesn't detract from the sort of intractable problems they are nearing lean on a deal. but it is politically problematic for the republicans in that it reminds them of everything they dislike about the trump era, with of course culminated in a deadly insurrection on the u.s. capitol. that is not what repub

. >> barbara mcquade, seems like so much of these processes in washington and in congress have to do with sending a message versus actual action. when it comes to holding steve bannon in criminal contempt as we watch the vote come tuesday evening, what would happen next? we heard from julie this thing could make months if not years. >> i think that's right, yasmin. in fact, i think the fact that they are proceeding down the criminal path says to me that they're less interested in compliance because there might be better strategies for compliance and more interested in protecting theinstitutional mission of congress. that might be the best call. we've seen the trump administration constantly stall and run out the clock. now we have steve bannon defying a subpoena and not showing up for his deposition because his conversations with president trump are privileged, he says. that fails for at least three reasons. number one, he was not an advisory of the president. and so his political advice to the president is not privileged by definition. number two, even if it is, joe biden, the curre

editorial board, also one of the co-hosts of the podcast "sisters in law" with joyce vance and barbara mcquade. and we welcome evan osnos, his new book "wildland." and it's generating a lot of attention. welcome to you all. peter, i'd like to begin with you and your beat. i'm told it's the first time this president has paid an in-person visit to the democratic caucus in the house, the majority caucus. presidential power is a funny thing. you have to spend it wisely. when and how will we know if his trip down to the capitol today was worth it? >> yeah, that's a great question. obviously as you said in the opening it's not the victory lap they would have liked. there wasn't a vote on monday. she said there was going to be vote on thursday, there's not a vote on friday. because in fact they don't have the votes. and this is, you know, the fundamental tension here between the great aspirations of the democratic party and the constrained majorities they actually have to work with, right? president biden was quoted today as telling the democrats in that meeting that they have fdr and lbj-like ambiti

what's really going on and bring in msnbc's jewel ra engly who covers the justice department and barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney. julia, this is a big headline. for women in texas waking up today, what does it mean? >> well, it means for the time being, that that law, that practically banned all abortions in the state of texas, is on hold temporarily. judge robert pittman issued a temporary stay blocking the law, as you said, stephanie, immediately appealed up to the circuit court. arguably the most conservative in the country. right now that law may only be lifted for a very short period of time. a lot of whiplash if you're a woman in texas trying to make such a big decision as this. right now the judge said the law was flagrantly unconstitutional. the court didn't get into the constitutionality of this law that they wouldn't weigh in to stop it's merely said procedural questions coming from a bench that shifted more conservative over the past few years. a few questions they wanted answered that now we finally have a federal judge weighing in on the constitutionality of the law, and we'll

attorney barbara mcquade. the first time the justices will reconvene in person in over a year. walk us through what the next few months are going to look like. >> roe v. wade is definitely on the chopping block for the first time in 30 years, and of course we'll have cases on gun rights, religion, public money in religious schools, possibly affirmative action. in terms of the atmospherics, this will be the first time the justices are all together in the courtroom since march of 2020 when the court was effectively shut down by covid, and the restrictions are pretty tight. only the supreme court, the justices themselves, essential staff, the arguing counsel and a small number of journalists will be in the room. no public, those who normally can come in and watch the proceedings, but you can listen, so that will be different. one other change, brett kavanaugh will not be joining his colleagues on the bench today. he tested positive on thursday for covid, so he'll listen and probably come back when he tests negati

what's really going on and bring in msnbc's jewel ra engly who covers the justice department and barbara mcquade

professor at the university of michigan law school, former attorney and msnbc legal analyst, barb mcquade. barbaranks for being with us. this back-and-forth has been tough to follow. walk us through exactly what will happen to stay, and what comes next after doj response? >> we know that robert portland, who's a district court judge in texas, entered an order on wednesday that said this law is unconstitutional, blatantly so. , he prevented it from being enforce in. in those today some abortion providers began resuming their services. but then on friday, the intermediate appellate court, the fifth circuit court of appeals, granted a motion from the texas attorney general to reinstate the law. two temporary block of robert pittman's order. the court has granted the justice department until tuesday to file its response. so they enter the order without even hearing anything from the justice department on its position. it has until tuesday. so, the justice department can argue its case, and then if the court in the fifth circuit court of appeals wants to, it can continue this state while this appeal is