Catching Up with the Jan. 6 Contempt of Congress Cases

The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Institute

Diplomacy, International Relations, Current Events, Government, Politics, Intelligence, Law, Rule Of Law, Military, Constitutional Law, History, National Security, News, International Law, Foreign Policy, Terrorism

4.7 • 6.2K Ratings

🗓️ 17 August 2022

⏱️ 52 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In the course of the Jan. 6 investigation, Congress has voted to hold four Trump associates in contempt and refer them to the Justice Department for prosecution over their failure to comply with subpoenas from the Jan. 6 committee. Steve Bannon was recently found guilty of contempt. One case, that of Peter Navarro, is still moving forward in criminal court. But the Justice Department declined to charge former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and aide Dan Scavino. Why? A recent filing by the Justice Department in civil litigation brought by Meadows may have some answers.

To discuss, Quinta Jurecic sat down with Jonathan David Shaub, a contributing editor to Lawfare and an assistant professor of law at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law, and Mike Stern, former senior counsel to the House of Representatives. They talked about where the various cases stand and why, and what to make of the Justice Department’s filing spelling out its understanding of the doctrine of testimonial immunity for close presidential advisors.

You can read Jonathan’s take on the filing (with Rohini Kurup) here, and Mike’s here.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair
0:07.2	podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair.
0:14.7	That's patreon.com slash LawFair.
0:18.2	Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair
0:25.6	no bull and the aftermath.
0:32.6	Hello, I'm Beshak Cummings.
0:34.6	I'm Alexi Monstrous.
0:35.8	I'm Caroline Criado-Peras.
0:38.2	At Tortoise, we think there's never been a more important time to slow down and make sense
0:42.8	of the world.
0:44.2	Whether it's our slow newscast, our daily sense maker, or a compelling series like Sweet
0:48.8	Bobby, London Grad or Visible Women, you'll always get great stories, considered reporting
0:54.5	and clear analysis.
0:56.3	To listen, just search for Tortoise Media wherever you get your podcasts.
1:01.5	There's no presidential judicial opinion on the immunity doctor, but it's been asserted
1:15.7	by the executive branch very robustly, at least in the present form, since for at least
1:22.4	30 years and arguably longer.
1:25.4	And so it takes for OLC to sort of change what it views as the constitutional paragogues
1:32.6	of the executive branch.
1:33.9	It takes a lot more than a district court opinion or even two.
1:37.7	I'm Quintet Jurassic, senior editor at LawFair, and this is the LawFair podcast, August 17,
1:44.6	2022.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Lawfare Institute, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Lawfare Institute and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.