The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair.

That's patreon.com slash LawFair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath.

That, you know, one conversation or conversations shouldn't hinder the committee's investigation

into what's really important, which is the attack on the Capitol.

So the committee could write the subpoena in a way that says, we are demanding testimony

and documents relating to whatever it's asking banning about, but with the president's

conversation specifically, it can say we are demanding testimony and documents about

your conversations and interactions with the president that relates solely to his political

and personal capacity and that do not relate to his official duties.

And if it did that, then there is by definition no problem of executive privilege.

I'm Benjamin Widis and this is the LawFair podcast October 20, 2021.

Jonathan David Shobb is an assistant professor of law at the University of Kentucky.

He is a former OLC attorney and the author of a series of recent LawFair posts on executive

privilege, witnesses, documents and the one-sixth committee.

He joined me in the virtual jungle studio to talk about Steve Bannon, to talk about the

former president's suit against the National Archive, to talk about all the privilege

claims that are floating around the misinformation about them that's proliferating on Twitter

and how the Justice Department will think about actually handling the cases that are now

presenting themselves to it.

...