for whom is doesn't matter if there's a viable or plausible legal basis to make an argument whether it's a privilege or anything else related to the election. that said, i think the main baseoise which steve bannon and others have said they don't want to testify is executive privilege. this individual john eastman was not part of the executive branch, not in the government at the time. i don't think that flies. i suppose he can try and would make an argument of attorney/client privilege but there's a powerful argument that that's been waived depending who else was in the room. the memo is widely disseminated. we're talking about it on television. that probably fails. and there also happens to be -- it also happens to be the case that even if you have a lawyer who is getting some portion of his communications qualifies attorney/client privilege, there's a whole hell of a lot of other stuff including logistics on the day, things that don't relate to legal advice that would be illuminating and he should be compelled to testify