there may be questions where it doesn t apply. they have to produce documents. the fifth amendment has much narrower application to documents. and then if the committee determines that it s a legitimate invocation of the constitutional privilege, committee can go to court and can get an immunity order to force testimony if the testimony is important, or if the committee thinks it s illegitimate for whatever reason like you wrote a book, roger stone has talked a lot about these episodes. others invoking the fifth have gone on steve bannon s podcast to talk about what happened. if the committee determines that it was illegitimate, it can proceed with contempt. so the committee has tools to probe what s happening and to respond. norm, great to have you here. thank you so much. we are following new developments now in two major trials. right now closing arguments are under way in the jussie smollett
to think that he needs to mandate which first of all doesn t apply to anyone because of mandate is not a law. he thinks he can mandate a rule especially on parents with children. so imagine, you have a child and we know that children, the way they develop, social interaction. you are going to stop the development of children because of what? children aren t spiders. now you re going to force vaccination on children that they can t be a part of society, as a young child, how does that affect them? how is that going to improve their social development. laura: we have become one of the unwashed. you ve become one of the unwashed. even if you have no problem with vaccines, if you re against these mandates, you become part of the unwashed. your message to people across
mayor and to think that he needs to mandate which doesn t apply to anyone because a mandate is not a law but thinks he can mandate or force a rule especially on parents with children so imagine you have a child and children the way they develop, social interaction, you are going to stop the development of children because of fear of what? children aren t sprinters. you want to force vaccination in children, the bank and be society, as a young child how does that affect them? how is that going to improve their social development - one of the unwashed, you become one of the unwashed even if you have no problem with vaccines, if you are against these mandates you become part of the unwashed, your message to
most powerful appointed job in the white house, the type of person merrick garland has been professionally would suggest that he would have more pause about that than indicting bannon. i think ultimately both are equally culpable. i think that meadows has a better claim for executive privilege because he actually worked in the white house. but the privilege falls when it s not related to the job of the president. and i don t think there s anyone who will argue with a straight face that planning a coup, planning to undermine congress from doing its duty as required by law is part of the president s job. so if the conversations that we would be asking about of meadows pertain to that, then executive privilege doesn t apply. if there s no executive privilege, he has no grounds for
and they ve shown us that they re not here just to be played. they ve learned the lessons of how congress was slow-walked in the past. what they re doing here is less being conciliatory to these witnesses than setting these witnesses up to be accountable. bannon was easy, he had utter contempt for the subpoena, did nothing, and that s what doj relates in the criminal indictment. so now congress is being careful when they engage with these witnesses. jake is right, they re playing toward compliance, and tey do that, that s great, but if they come into the room and offer a blanket privilege that s frivolous, because joe biden has said executive privilege doesn t apply, it s important to get to the bottom of january 6th, then the committee is well-situated to perhaps seek criminal contempt or also to seek civil contempt proceedings that would force the witnesses ultimately