WEBVTT - Will Mark Meadows Be Indicted?

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law, with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.080 --> 0:00:11.719
<v Speaker 1>The House has voted to hold former White House Chief

0:00:11.720 --> 0:00:15.560
<v Speaker 1>of Staff Mark Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress for

0:00:15.680 --> 0:00:19.480
<v Speaker 1>defying a subpoena issued by the committee investigating the January

0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:23.360
<v Speaker 1>sixth Capital riot. Meadows had been cooperating with the committee,

0:00:23.520 --> 0:00:27.040
<v Speaker 1>turning over more than nine thousand pages of records, including

0:00:27.120 --> 0:00:30.720
<v Speaker 1>texts and emails, but in an about phase, he refused

0:00:30.720 --> 0:00:33.960
<v Speaker 1>to appear for a scheduled deposition or to turn over

0:00:34.000 --> 0:00:38.400
<v Speaker 1>any more documents. Republican Representative Liz Cheney read aloud some

0:00:38.479 --> 0:00:41.000
<v Speaker 1>of the tech sent to Meadows from his son and

0:00:41.120 --> 0:00:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Fox News host during the riot. He's got to condemn

0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:50.440
<v Speaker 1>this asap. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough. Donald

0:00:50.440 --> 0:00:55.240
<v Speaker 1>Trump Junior texted. Meadows responded, quote, I'm pushing it hard.

0:00:55.640 --> 0:01:00.360
<v Speaker 1>I agree. President needs to tell people in the Capital

0:01:00.480 --> 0:01:04.120
<v Speaker 1>to go home. This is hurting all of us. He

0:01:04.240 --> 0:01:09.399
<v Speaker 1>is destroying his legacy. Laura Ingram wrote, please get him

0:01:09.400 --> 0:01:15.560
<v Speaker 1>on TV, destroying everything you have accomplished. Brian Kilmead texted,

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:19.399
<v Speaker 1>joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner,

0:01:19.480 --> 0:01:23.120
<v Speaker 1>McCarter and English Bob. How significant is the vote to

0:01:23.160 --> 0:01:26.720
<v Speaker 1>home Meadows in criminal contempt? It was a near party

0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:29.399
<v Speaker 1>line vote. Well, it is a big deal because what

0:01:29.480 --> 0:01:32.680
<v Speaker 1>we have here is a majority of the House of Representatives,

0:01:32.959 --> 0:01:37.160
<v Speaker 1>albeit a democratically controlled House, found that one of their

0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:40.840
<v Speaker 1>own needs to be indicted for lack of cooperation. What

0:01:40.959 --> 0:01:43.760
<v Speaker 1>we have here is Mark Meadows, who is a former

0:01:44.240 --> 0:01:47.240
<v Speaker 1>congressman from North Carolina, and who is, by the way,

0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:52.280
<v Speaker 1>familiar with congressional oversight and who himself had argued for

0:01:52.480 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>congressional oversight when he was a member of Congress during

0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:58.720
<v Speaker 1>the Obama administration, but is refusing to testify before the

0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:02.240
<v Speaker 1>House in connection with the January six committee. So the

0:02:02.320 --> 0:02:05.000
<v Speaker 1>fact that the House Committee voted to hold him in

0:02:05.040 --> 0:02:08.560
<v Speaker 1>contempt on the full House later approved that really speaks

0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:12.040
<v Speaker 1>to how central they believe Meadows is to their understanding

0:02:12.280 --> 0:02:15.920
<v Speaker 1>of what happened on January six. Is the Justice Department

0:02:16.200 --> 0:02:20.040
<v Speaker 1>likely to charge Meadows, Well, that's really the great question here.

0:02:20.240 --> 0:02:23.239
<v Speaker 1>What we do know is that this is a giant headache,

0:02:23.240 --> 0:02:27.680
<v Speaker 1>both politically and legally for Attorney General Merrick Garland. This

0:02:27.760 --> 0:02:30.880
<v Speaker 1>is not a decision that he is likely happy to

0:02:31.000 --> 0:02:34.800
<v Speaker 1>be faced with, but ultimately this will rest at his feet.

0:02:34.840 --> 0:02:37.880
<v Speaker 1>It will be handled initially by the U. S. Attorney's

0:02:37.919 --> 0:02:42.080
<v Speaker 1>Office in the District of Columbia. But these decisions, certainly

0:02:42.080 --> 0:02:46.000
<v Speaker 1>something as significant as holding a former presidential chief of

0:02:46.080 --> 0:02:49.160
<v Speaker 1>staff in contempt of Congress, that's a decision that's going

0:02:49.200 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 1>to be made by Merrick Garland himself. So it's a

0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:54.520
<v Speaker 1>difficult decision here because, on the one hand, if you

0:02:54.680 --> 0:02:58.000
<v Speaker 1>charge him for failing to comply with the subpoena, he

0:02:58.080 --> 0:03:03.280
<v Speaker 1>does risk creating a president in which future House of Representatives,

0:03:03.320 --> 0:03:05.840
<v Speaker 1>which could be controlled by the Republicans as early as

0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:08.799
<v Speaker 1>next year, are in a situation where they could then

0:03:09.320 --> 0:03:12.880
<v Speaker 1>seek to get testimony from current or former aids to

0:03:12.919 --> 0:03:15.920
<v Speaker 1>the president, and that's something that Congress has on the

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:19.840
<v Speaker 1>Department of Justice has historically been fairly deferential to. They

0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:24.400
<v Speaker 1>have allowed sitting on former chiefs of staff to invoke

0:03:24.520 --> 0:03:27.760
<v Speaker 1>executive privilege with regard to the communications they had with

0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:30.360
<v Speaker 1>the president. On the other hand, if he declines to

0:03:30.400 --> 0:03:34.000
<v Speaker 1>pursue this case criminally, he is in some sense hamstringing

0:03:34.200 --> 0:03:38.520
<v Speaker 1>the committee's ability to investigate fully the attack on January six.

0:03:38.720 --> 0:03:41.560
<v Speaker 1>So it's a difficult decision for Merrick Garland since the

0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:45.360
<v Speaker 1>Department of Justice is prosecuting Steve Bannon, does it follow

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:48.600
<v Speaker 1>that it should prosecute Meadows. I think this is a

0:03:48.720 --> 0:03:52.000
<v Speaker 1>very different analysis from the analysis that the Department of

0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:55.080
<v Speaker 1>Justice engaged in when it made a decision to indicte

0:03:55.120 --> 0:03:58.440
<v Speaker 1>Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress. For starters, Bannon was

0:03:58.480 --> 0:04:01.680
<v Speaker 1>not a White House official during the events surrounding the

0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:05.920
<v Speaker 1>January six insurrection. So that's a significant fact. You have

0:04:05.960 --> 0:04:08.880
<v Speaker 1>Mark Meadows, who not only was employed by the White House,

0:04:08.880 --> 0:04:12.279
<v Speaker 1>but he was President Trump's chief of staff during the insurrection.

0:04:12.360 --> 0:04:16.080
<v Speaker 1>He was intimately involved in providing information to the president,

0:04:16.279 --> 0:04:20.039
<v Speaker 1>providing him advice on receiving communications from the president. It

0:04:20.040 --> 0:04:22.599
<v Speaker 1>puts him in the eye of the storm, so to speak.

0:04:22.760 --> 0:04:25.000
<v Speaker 1>But it also puts him in a position to claim

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:29.320
<v Speaker 1>executive privilege in a much stronger way than Steve Bannon can.

0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:34.240
<v Speaker 1>So how does it cut Because Meadows could say, well,

0:04:34.279 --> 0:04:36.760
<v Speaker 1>I turned over as much as I could turn over.

0:04:37.240 --> 0:04:40.000
<v Speaker 1>I cooperated with the committee. But now we've reached a

0:04:40.000 --> 0:04:42.520
<v Speaker 1>point where I can't turn it over anymore and I

0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:45.640
<v Speaker 1>can't discuss any of this. I mean, is it in

0:04:45.680 --> 0:04:48.479
<v Speaker 1>his favor that he turned over nine thousand pages or

0:04:48.560 --> 0:04:52.279
<v Speaker 1>does it cut against him. Well, it does show some

0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 1>effort to cooperate with the committee, but he has not

0:04:55.480 --> 0:04:59.960
<v Speaker 1>yet testified and answered questions about these issues before the committee.

0:05:00.200 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 1>He's claiming that executive privilege prevents him from answering these questions,

0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:08.520
<v Speaker 1>and he's refusing to appear to answer even based the

0:05:08.680 --> 0:05:12.200
<v Speaker 1>questions that the Committee says still involve a claim of

0:05:12.279 --> 0:05:15.919
<v Speaker 1>executive privilege. And the Committee does point to a series

0:05:15.960 --> 0:05:19.720
<v Speaker 1>of examples of areas of inquiry which they say even

0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:23.200
<v Speaker 1>if executive privilege were to apply, which they dispute, it

0:05:23.200 --> 0:05:26.279
<v Speaker 1>would certainly not come into play if Meadows were asked

0:05:26.279 --> 0:05:29.359
<v Speaker 1>to talk about certain topics. For example, the Committee is

0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:33.040
<v Speaker 1>going to ask Meadows to talk about conversations he had

0:05:33.080 --> 0:05:36.240
<v Speaker 1>with the chief of staff to the acting Defense Secretary

0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:39.839
<v Speaker 1>during the January six insurrection. They want to ask him

0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:44.479
<v Speaker 1>about text messages he exchanged allegedly with the organizer of

0:05:44.520 --> 0:05:47.520
<v Speaker 1>the January six rally on the Ellipse that day that

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:51.320
<v Speaker 1>preceded the attack. They want to ask him about apparent

0:05:51.400 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 1>efforts to encourage Republican lawmakers in certain states to send

0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:58.800
<v Speaker 1>alternate slates of electors to Congress in an attempt to

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:02.320
<v Speaker 1>undo President Biden's win, and they also want to talk

0:06:02.360 --> 0:06:07.080
<v Speaker 1>about claims of election fraud that Meadows allegedly forwarded to

0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:11.480
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Justice for further investigations. The Committee's position is,

0:06:11.720 --> 0:06:14.479
<v Speaker 1>even if there is an executive privilege that attaches here

0:06:14.680 --> 0:06:17.440
<v Speaker 1>to some of the areas of inquiry, they certainly don't

0:06:17.480 --> 0:06:20.400
<v Speaker 1>apply to these topics, and therefore he needs to appear

0:06:20.400 --> 0:06:23.680
<v Speaker 1>before the committee to answer these questions. The committee claims

0:06:23.720 --> 0:06:27.640
<v Speaker 1>that Meadows waived executive privilege by turning over all the

0:06:27.720 --> 0:06:30.719
<v Speaker 1>documents and by writing a book, and are in his

0:06:30.839 --> 0:06:34.839
<v Speaker 1>claims of privilege further weakened by the DC Court of

0:06:34.839 --> 0:06:39.960
<v Speaker 1>Appeals ruling rejecting former President Trump's claim of executive privilege

0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:44.039
<v Speaker 1>with regard to White House documents held at the National Archives.

0:06:44.360 --> 0:06:47.799
<v Speaker 1>And that's basically resting on the fact that President Biden,

0:06:48.000 --> 0:06:50.880
<v Speaker 1>who currently is the chief executive and has the right

0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:54.120
<v Speaker 1>to invoke the privilege, has decided not to assert executive

0:06:54.160 --> 0:06:58.280
<v Speaker 1>privilege over these records in communications and testimonies sought from

0:06:58.520 --> 0:07:02.880
<v Speaker 1>former Trump administration officials in connection with the Select Committee's probe.

0:07:03.440 --> 0:07:06.520
<v Speaker 1>So that question has been answered to some extent, But

0:07:06.600 --> 0:07:09.520
<v Speaker 1>at the same time, there are some issues related to

0:07:09.600 --> 0:07:14.600
<v Speaker 1>executive privilege, which remain unresolved, and Mr Meadows lawyer in

0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:18.440
<v Speaker 1>a lastic effort to try to convince the Committee not

0:07:18.560 --> 0:07:21.560
<v Speaker 1>to refer Mr Meadows over to the Department of Justice

0:07:21.600 --> 0:07:25.720
<v Speaker 1>for criminal contempt charges. He has argued that Meadows is

0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:30.520
<v Speaker 1>invoking the executive privilege argument in good faith, and in

0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:33.480
<v Speaker 1>order to convict somebody of a criminal charge, they have

0:07:33.600 --> 0:07:36.600
<v Speaker 1>to be acting in bad faith. It's not Mark meadows role,

0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:40.560
<v Speaker 1>or frankly, his attorney's role. He argues to determine whether

0:07:40.680 --> 0:07:43.640
<v Speaker 1>or not that assertion of executive privilege is going to

0:07:43.840 --> 0:07:47.320
<v Speaker 1>be upheld or not. As long as he is arguing

0:07:47.640 --> 0:07:51.680
<v Speaker 1>in good faith that executive privilege is being invoked by

0:07:51.760 --> 0:07:55.040
<v Speaker 1>former President Trump, that is his defense, and that is

0:07:55.040 --> 0:07:58.160
<v Speaker 1>why the Committee is focusing on lots of areas where

0:07:58.160 --> 0:08:01.680
<v Speaker 1>they're arguing executive privilege would never apply, even if it

0:08:01.680 --> 0:08:04.600
<v Speaker 1>would ultimately be upheld by the court. But as you say,

0:08:04.680 --> 0:08:08.440
<v Speaker 1>so far, the courts have viewed it unfavorably and narrowly

0:08:08.560 --> 0:08:11.720
<v Speaker 1>construed executive privilege to say that it really belongs to

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:14.560
<v Speaker 1>the current occupant of the White House, and a former

0:08:14.640 --> 0:08:19.280
<v Speaker 1>president cannot invoke a sweeping exercise of executive privilege as

0:08:19.360 --> 0:08:22.280
<v Speaker 1>former President Trump is attempting to do here. It's less

0:08:22.280 --> 0:08:26.160
<v Speaker 1>than two weeks now that Trump hass to appeal that

0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:29.600
<v Speaker 1>DC Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. So if the

0:08:29.640 --> 0:08:32.600
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court takes the case, we'll have to wait for

0:08:32.640 --> 0:08:35.240
<v Speaker 1>that decision. If it doesn't take the case, then the

0:08:35.360 --> 0:08:39.640
<v Speaker 1>d C Circuits decision is the final word. Yeah, that's right,

0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:42.680
<v Speaker 1>and then I think, as you say, to invoke executive

0:08:42.720 --> 0:08:46.080
<v Speaker 1>privilege when that decision has essentially been final by the

0:08:46.160 --> 0:08:49.280
<v Speaker 1>d C Circuit will be a much tougher hill to climb.

0:08:49.679 --> 0:08:53.800
<v Speaker 1>Right now, it's still undecided because the Supreme Court may

0:08:53.880 --> 0:08:56.920
<v Speaker 1>take the case, and the Supreme Court may decide something

0:08:56.960 --> 0:08:59.360
<v Speaker 1>different than the d C Circuit. So that's why Mark

0:08:59.400 --> 0:09:02.040
<v Speaker 1>Meadows and a lawyers can continue to try to assert

0:09:02.120 --> 0:09:04.360
<v Speaker 1>that privilege. And that's why the Committee is trying to

0:09:04.440 --> 0:09:08.080
<v Speaker 1>circumvent that argument by focusing on all the text messages

0:09:08.120 --> 0:09:10.760
<v Speaker 1>and all the emails that they already have from Mr

0:09:10.840 --> 0:09:15.040
<v Speaker 1>Meadows and argue that these are issues, and these are conversations,

0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:18.040
<v Speaker 1>and these are meetings that don't involve the president, and

0:09:18.080 --> 0:09:22.200
<v Speaker 1>therefore any claim of executive privilege here would not be appropriate.

0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:27.000
<v Speaker 1>The Committee is also pointing to a new book by

0:09:27.080 --> 0:09:30.480
<v Speaker 1>Meadows called The Chiefs Chief about his role in the

0:09:30.520 --> 0:09:33.480
<v Speaker 1>White House, and the Committee says that's evidence that his

0:09:33.600 --> 0:09:37.640
<v Speaker 1>refusal to testify was untenable. How do you refuse to

0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:40.920
<v Speaker 1>testify when you have a book out? Well, that does

0:09:41.040 --> 0:09:43.440
<v Speaker 1>raise an interesting question, and it goes directly to that

0:09:43.640 --> 0:09:47.000
<v Speaker 1>good face defense that Mark Meadows is trying to raise.

0:09:47.240 --> 0:09:50.000
<v Speaker 1>He's trying to claim that he is relying in good

0:09:50.080 --> 0:09:53.840
<v Speaker 1>space on the assertion of executive privilege by former President Trump,

0:09:54.120 --> 0:09:56.480
<v Speaker 1>and if it is a good face assertion, it is

0:09:56.520 --> 0:10:00.000
<v Speaker 1>appropriate because just remember that privileges do exist that you try.

0:10:00.000 --> 0:10:02.600
<v Speaker 1>Any client privilege is something that people are most familiar

0:10:02.600 --> 0:10:05.800
<v Speaker 1>with conversations between a client and an attorney, and an

0:10:05.840 --> 0:10:08.240
<v Speaker 1>attorney and a client, and connect you with seeking legal

0:10:08.280 --> 0:10:12.080
<v Speaker 1>advices and valid reason not to answer questions in a

0:10:12.080 --> 0:10:17.199
<v Speaker 1>courtroom or during a deposition. So so privileges are frequently

0:10:17.320 --> 0:10:20.440
<v Speaker 1>raised in the course of committee hearings and in the

0:10:20.440 --> 0:10:24.319
<v Speaker 1>course of litigation. It's not unusual nor is it inappropriate.

0:10:24.520 --> 0:10:27.199
<v Speaker 1>But in this case, the committee suggesting that the executive

0:10:27.240 --> 0:10:31.560
<v Speaker 1>privilege assertion rings hollow because Mr Meadows is going out

0:10:31.640 --> 0:10:34.720
<v Speaker 1>and speaking to other media outlets he's promoting his book

0:10:34.880 --> 0:10:38.079
<v Speaker 1>and he's talking. They say about the very same topics

0:10:38.240 --> 0:10:40.800
<v Speaker 1>that he is now refusing to appear before the committee

0:10:40.800 --> 0:10:44.920
<v Speaker 1>and testify about. Is it a good faith effort even

0:10:44.960 --> 0:10:48.640
<v Speaker 1>though he didn't appear before the committee and did not

0:10:48.840 --> 0:10:53.679
<v Speaker 1>assert privilege on a question by question basis, As you know,

0:10:53.720 --> 0:10:57.080
<v Speaker 1>you've said, is the way this is normally done? Yeah, no,

0:10:57.160 --> 0:10:59.920
<v Speaker 1>that is is exactly right. You don't get to send,

0:11:00.120 --> 0:11:04.319
<v Speaker 1>least say that because there's an executive privilege looming out there,

0:11:04.520 --> 0:11:07.200
<v Speaker 1>or any privilege frankly out there, whether it's attorney client

0:11:07.240 --> 0:11:11.280
<v Speaker 1>privilege or any other potentially valid privilege, you simply can't

0:11:11.440 --> 0:11:15.400
<v Speaker 1>use that as a blanket refusal to appear for testimony,

0:11:15.400 --> 0:11:18.200
<v Speaker 1>whether it's in a deposition or before a committee or

0:11:18.280 --> 0:11:21.160
<v Speaker 1>during a trial. You have to exercise that privilege on

0:11:21.280 --> 0:11:25.360
<v Speaker 1>a question by question basis, because certain questions would not

0:11:25.400 --> 0:11:28.280
<v Speaker 1>fall within the privilege and others might, and in order

0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:30.640
<v Speaker 1>for some court to ultimately determine whether or not the

0:11:30.760 --> 0:11:33.440
<v Speaker 1>privilege the privilege is being asserted appropriately, it has to

0:11:33.480 --> 0:11:36.440
<v Speaker 1>be done on a question by question basis, and simply

0:11:36.440 --> 0:11:40.720
<v Speaker 1>refusing to appear altogether on the basis that executive privilege

0:11:41.120 --> 0:11:44.359
<v Speaker 1>may be implicated in some of the questioning is inappropriate,

0:11:44.520 --> 0:11:46.680
<v Speaker 1>and that's I think the weakness in the position that

0:11:46.720 --> 0:11:49.559
<v Speaker 1>Mark Meadows is taking. He really does have to show up,

0:11:49.720 --> 0:11:53.640
<v Speaker 1>appear before that committee and answer some questions that don't

0:11:53.679 --> 0:11:57.080
<v Speaker 1>invoke executive privilege in order for him to argue that

0:11:57.120 --> 0:11:59.880
<v Speaker 1>he is making a good faith effort to cooperate with

0:12:00.040 --> 0:12:03.840
<v Speaker 1>this committee, while at the same time honoring the invocation

0:12:03.880 --> 0:12:07.640
<v Speaker 1>of executive privilege by former President Trump. What does recent

0:12:07.760 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 1>history tell us about this? There was also a recent

0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:16.120
<v Speaker 1>history where criminal contempt charges were referred over by the

0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:19.480
<v Speaker 1>Department of Justice and the Department of Justice declined to

0:12:19.600 --> 0:12:22.720
<v Speaker 1>pursue them. So it's certainly not automatic because this has

0:12:22.760 --> 0:12:25.040
<v Speaker 1>been referred to the d o J, that there will

0:12:25.080 --> 0:12:29.720
<v Speaker 1>be a criminal contempt charge brought against Mark Meadows. For example,

0:12:29.720 --> 0:12:32.760
<v Speaker 1>in two thousand and eight, the Department declined to bring

0:12:32.840 --> 0:12:36.920
<v Speaker 1>charges against President George W. Bush's chief of staff Joshua

0:12:37.000 --> 0:12:40.839
<v Speaker 1>Bolton and former White House counsel Harriet Myers, who resisted

0:12:40.880 --> 0:12:45.680
<v Speaker 1>subpoenas concerning the controversial forced resignation of U S attorneys.

0:12:45.720 --> 0:12:49.400
<v Speaker 1>In two thousand and twelve, the Department likewise declined to

0:12:49.480 --> 0:12:53.480
<v Speaker 1>pursue a criminal contempt prosecution against Attorney General Eric Holder

0:12:53.640 --> 0:12:56.600
<v Speaker 1>who refused to turn over some documents that were related

0:12:56.640 --> 0:12:59.280
<v Speaker 1>to the Fast and Furious scandal, which was a gun

0:12:59.400 --> 0:13:03.080
<v Speaker 1>running staging that had gone badly wrong. So there is

0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:06.760
<v Speaker 1>precedent here where the executive branch takes an expansive view

0:13:06.760 --> 0:13:09.920
<v Speaker 1>of executive privilege. And that's what really the Department of

0:13:09.960 --> 0:13:12.480
<v Speaker 1>Justice has to be thinking about here, because it's not

0:13:12.679 --> 0:13:14.880
<v Speaker 1>just the case of Mark Meadows that's an issue here.

0:13:15.160 --> 0:13:17.360
<v Speaker 1>It's also a question of what kind of precedent they

0:13:17.400 --> 0:13:20.800
<v Speaker 1>are setting and what kind of precedent will then fall

0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:24.880
<v Speaker 1>to future House of Representatives when they pursue subpoenas and

0:13:24.920 --> 0:13:28.800
<v Speaker 1>perhaps criminal contempt charges against other current or former close

0:13:28.840 --> 0:13:31.640
<v Speaker 1>aids of the president. Is this basically a show of

0:13:31.720 --> 0:13:34.200
<v Speaker 1>force by the committee that's not going to get them

0:13:34.240 --> 0:13:37.880
<v Speaker 1>the information they're looking for. Even if Mark Meadows is

0:13:38.000 --> 0:13:41.840
<v Speaker 1>prosecuted and is convicted, that in and of itself will

0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:45.600
<v Speaker 1>not get Congress the information as seeking to accomplish that,

0:13:45.640 --> 0:13:48.240
<v Speaker 1>Congress would have to sue Meadows and have a judge

0:13:48.280 --> 0:13:51.360
<v Speaker 1>hold him in civil contempt rather than criminal, then throw

0:13:51.400 --> 0:13:55.160
<v Speaker 1>him in jail for refusing to cooperate with the committee.

0:13:55.360 --> 0:13:59.000
<v Speaker 1>And then the judge might order him to provide testimony.

0:13:59.240 --> 0:14:02.559
<v Speaker 1>A criminal execution is only going to serve as punishment

0:14:02.800 --> 0:14:05.440
<v Speaker 1>if he is charged, and if he's ultimately convicted, he

0:14:05.600 --> 0:14:08.079
<v Speaker 1>may spend some time in jail, but part of that

0:14:08.120 --> 0:14:11.480
<v Speaker 1>process will not be to order him to testify before Congress.

0:14:11.520 --> 0:14:16.200
<v Speaker 1>Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints of McCarter and English. It's

0:14:16.240 --> 0:14:19.800
<v Speaker 1>the first effort by a government agency to hold individuals

0:14:19.800 --> 0:14:23.720
<v Speaker 1>and organizations civilly responsible for the violence at the capital.

0:14:23.760 --> 0:14:27.320
<v Speaker 1>On January six, Washington d C is suing the far

0:14:27.480 --> 0:14:30.480
<v Speaker 1>Ride groups, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers over

0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:32.960
<v Speaker 1>their role in the rioting to try to recover the

0:14:33.000 --> 0:14:36.640
<v Speaker 1>millions of dollars DC spent in defending the capital. The

0:14:36.720 --> 0:14:40.080
<v Speaker 1>d C Attorney General, Karl Rassin says they're trying to

0:14:40.120 --> 0:14:43.720
<v Speaker 1>cause the groups as much financial pain as possible using

0:14:43.720 --> 0:14:47.760
<v Speaker 1>the ku Klux Klan Act. History will show that when

0:14:47.840 --> 0:14:50.680
<v Speaker 1>these acts like the klu Klux Klan Act and other

0:14:50.800 --> 0:14:55.240
<v Speaker 1>laws were used against hate groups, what did they do?

0:14:56.000 --> 0:14:59.520
<v Speaker 1>What did cowards do? They go running, they go hiding,

0:15:00.200 --> 0:15:06.280
<v Speaker 1>they get decentralized, and frankly, they're less dangerous. Joining me

0:15:06.320 --> 0:15:10.000
<v Speaker 1>as former federal prosecutor Jimmy Grule, a professor at Notre

0:15:10.040 --> 0:15:13.480
<v Speaker 1>Dame Law School. Jimmy, is this lawsuit for real or

0:15:13.560 --> 0:15:17.160
<v Speaker 1>more for show? In this sense? Does DC think it's

0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:20.480
<v Speaker 1>actually going to be able to recover damages or is

0:15:20.520 --> 0:15:23.640
<v Speaker 1>this just d C wanting to send a message. I

0:15:23.680 --> 0:15:27.520
<v Speaker 1>think it's it's certainly more for show. There's a serious

0:15:27.920 --> 0:15:33.200
<v Speaker 1>question or issue with respect to the defendants in the

0:15:33.280 --> 0:15:39.720
<v Speaker 1>civil lawsuit and any money and property and resources that

0:15:39.800 --> 0:15:45.520
<v Speaker 1>they maintained that could be attached to satisfy a judgment

0:15:45.640 --> 0:15:48.320
<v Speaker 1>against them. But I do think that there are likely

0:15:48.520 --> 0:15:51.640
<v Speaker 1>some resources collectively that could make a difference. I mean,

0:15:51.720 --> 0:15:55.080
<v Speaker 1>keep in mind that we have two organizations, the Proud

0:15:55.120 --> 0:15:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Boys and the Oath Keepers, that are defendants in this lawsuit,

0:15:58.400 --> 0:16:03.280
<v Speaker 1>in addition to already one members individuals that are members

0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:07.200
<v Speaker 1>of these organizations, and so collectively, I think there could

0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:12.520
<v Speaker 1>be some significant, substantial funds and property that could be

0:16:12.560 --> 0:16:15.960
<v Speaker 1>attached to enforce a judgment. But I think equally important

0:16:16.080 --> 0:16:19.280
<v Speaker 1>is the message that is being sent here by the

0:16:19.720 --> 0:16:23.240
<v Speaker 1>DC Attorney General, and that is that if you engage

0:16:23.280 --> 0:16:27.680
<v Speaker 1>in this type of conduct, then you face a risk,

0:16:28.120 --> 0:16:32.040
<v Speaker 1>in fact, a serious risk of bankruptcy. Because ultimately that

0:16:32.080 --> 0:16:35.640
<v Speaker 1>could be the end result of these organizations and individuals

0:16:35.800 --> 0:16:39.440
<v Speaker 1>could be brought to their knees financially, and that's that's

0:16:39.480 --> 0:16:43.960
<v Speaker 1>not an insignificant action or message descent. It seems as

0:16:44.000 --> 0:16:48.600
<v Speaker 1>if this lawsuit is taking information that the Justice Department

0:16:49.000 --> 0:16:53.600
<v Speaker 1>has unearthed in its January six investigations and sort of

0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:57.800
<v Speaker 1>repurposing it. So what would a defense be. It's going

0:16:57.880 --> 0:17:01.200
<v Speaker 1>to be difficult because a couple of things with respect

0:17:01.280 --> 0:17:04.679
<v Speaker 1>to the individual defendants, I think all of them but

0:17:04.760 --> 0:17:10.240
<v Speaker 1>perhaps one, have actually been criminally charged for their individual

0:17:10.400 --> 0:17:13.440
<v Speaker 1>roles that they assumed that they engaged in with respect

0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:17.040
<v Speaker 1>to the insurrection that occurred on January six, and so

0:17:17.119 --> 0:17:20.080
<v Speaker 1>they've been indicted, they've been criminal charges. That means that

0:17:20.119 --> 0:17:23.120
<v Speaker 1>there's a basis, there's probable cause to believe that these

0:17:23.200 --> 0:17:26.640
<v Speaker 1>individuals have committed a crime. And so the civil lawsuit

0:17:26.720 --> 0:17:30.440
<v Speaker 1>is really piggybacking on top of that and using that

0:17:30.520 --> 0:17:34.199
<v Speaker 1>information to support the civil action. And of course, as

0:17:34.240 --> 0:17:36.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, the civil lawsuits, the standard of proof of

0:17:36.720 --> 0:17:40.399
<v Speaker 1>substantially less. It's only by a preponderance of the evidence.

0:17:40.440 --> 0:17:44.960
<v Speaker 1>So they're taking information that's been generated collected in the

0:17:45.000 --> 0:17:47.240
<v Speaker 1>criminal lawsuit and they're going to be using that to

0:17:47.359 --> 0:17:51.240
<v Speaker 1>satisfy a civil cause of action based on a much

0:17:51.359 --> 0:17:54.560
<v Speaker 1>lower standard of proof. So I think it's gonna make

0:17:54.600 --> 0:17:58.359
<v Speaker 1>it much easier for the plaintiffs to prevail in the

0:17:58.480 --> 0:18:01.359
<v Speaker 1>civil lawsuit. And if you look at the civil complaint,

0:18:01.400 --> 0:18:04.520
<v Speaker 1>and it's about an eighty four page document, it is

0:18:04.560 --> 0:18:09.960
<v Speaker 1>really loaded with photographs of the individual defendants named in

0:18:10.040 --> 0:18:15.360
<v Speaker 1>the civil lawsuit, showing them engaged in violent combat with

0:18:15.480 --> 0:18:18.679
<v Speaker 1>the DC Police and the U. S. Capitol Police, showing

0:18:18.760 --> 0:18:25.120
<v Speaker 1>them destroying property, specifically by forceful entry destruction of the U. S. Capital.

0:18:25.560 --> 0:18:28.520
<v Speaker 1>And so it's the old adage. I think that actions

0:18:28.520 --> 0:18:31.480
<v Speaker 1>speak louder than words, and these individuals are actually caught

0:18:31.520 --> 0:18:34.440
<v Speaker 1>on tape engaging in this conduct, and I think it's

0:18:34.440 --> 0:18:38.040
<v Speaker 1>going to be difficult to talk that away through mere words.

0:18:38.520 --> 0:18:42.080
<v Speaker 1>This lawsuit follows a jury verdict against white nationalists in

0:18:42.200 --> 0:18:46.120
<v Speaker 1>Virginia just last month, and I don't think that the

0:18:46.160 --> 0:18:49.840
<v Speaker 1>timing of this is just coincidental. The civil suit against

0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:54.240
<v Speaker 1>the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers follows twenty six million

0:18:54.240 --> 0:18:58.760
<v Speaker 1>dollar verdict where the jury found against the white supremacists

0:18:58.800 --> 0:19:01.080
<v Speaker 1>and other hate groups that were possible for the two

0:19:01.119 --> 0:19:05.480
<v Speaker 1>thousand and seventeen Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and

0:19:05.560 --> 0:19:09.080
<v Speaker 1>so now there's a very compelling precedent here for this

0:19:09.160 --> 0:19:12.480
<v Speaker 1>type of lawsuit. The New York Times has reported that

0:19:12.640 --> 0:19:16.440
<v Speaker 1>members of the Proud Boys have been increasingly appearing at

0:19:16.560 --> 0:19:21.000
<v Speaker 1>local events in small communities, town council and school board meetings,

0:19:21.000 --> 0:19:24.600
<v Speaker 1>for example, to bring their brand of politics. Is this

0:19:24.680 --> 0:19:28.600
<v Speaker 1>a change in strategy that might work? Well? It certainly could.

0:19:29.000 --> 0:19:31.840
<v Speaker 1>And there's no question that these groups, the Proud Boys

0:19:31.880 --> 0:19:35.000
<v Speaker 1>and the Oath Keepers, have received a lot of support

0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:39.119
<v Speaker 1>from foreign President Trump's base and kind of running to

0:19:39.200 --> 0:19:42.640
<v Speaker 1>their defense. And so I think what's happening is there

0:19:42.640 --> 0:19:46.879
<v Speaker 1>just changing their strategy. I mean, this confrontation, combative strategy

0:19:47.280 --> 0:19:49.320
<v Speaker 1>is what caught them in trouble with the Department of

0:19:49.400 --> 0:19:51.879
<v Speaker 1>Justice and now the d C Attorney General. And so

0:19:51.960 --> 0:19:55.359
<v Speaker 1>now the strategy is, well, let's try to infiltrate school

0:19:55.359 --> 0:19:58.960
<v Speaker 1>boards and city councils and have an influence at that level.

0:19:59.240 --> 0:20:03.680
<v Speaker 1>And that's probably amatic, but it raises legitimate First Amendment issues,

0:20:03.960 --> 0:20:07.960
<v Speaker 1>and certainly they have a right to advance their ideology,

0:20:08.119 --> 0:20:11.080
<v Speaker 1>and whether you agree with it or not, it's protective,

0:20:11.119 --> 0:20:16.199
<v Speaker 1>free speech. We've been learning a lot from the January

0:20:16.240 --> 0:20:21.960
<v Speaker 1>six Committee, and the conclusion that some of the members

0:20:21.960 --> 0:20:24.600
<v Speaker 1>have drawn is that the White House played a more

0:20:24.680 --> 0:20:29.639
<v Speaker 1>substantial role in trying to overturn the election then was

0:20:29.720 --> 0:20:34.560
<v Speaker 1>previously known. But I haven't heard anything about prosecutions of

0:20:34.640 --> 0:20:37.639
<v Speaker 1>some of the people. For example, Mark Meadows, is you

0:20:37.680 --> 0:20:40.280
<v Speaker 1>know that's a criminal contempt of Congress. Yeah, I think

0:20:40.280 --> 0:20:43.520
<v Speaker 1>we have to we have to step back the the

0:20:43.640 --> 0:20:47.400
<v Speaker 1>January six Committee, the Bipartisan Committee. I think it's still

0:20:47.440 --> 0:20:52.000
<v Speaker 1>in the fairly early stages of their investigation, even though

0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:56.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean they've interviewed and taken depositions of of dozens,

0:20:56.640 --> 0:21:00.199
<v Speaker 1>perhaps maybe even hundreds of witnesses at this point. But

0:21:00.240 --> 0:21:03.679
<v Speaker 1>they're still sifting through a lot of information evidence that

0:21:03.760 --> 0:21:06.960
<v Speaker 1>they have they've accumulated. But I do think it's telling

0:21:07.200 --> 0:21:13.840
<v Speaker 1>when we start hearing on on national news programs members

0:21:13.920 --> 0:21:19.200
<v Speaker 1>of the of the Congressional Committee making comments about violations

0:21:19.240 --> 0:21:23.200
<v Speaker 1>of federal law, that that that's why they that's why

0:21:23.240 --> 0:21:27.640
<v Speaker 1>it's important that these individuals that they've subpoenaed for deposition

0:21:28.359 --> 0:21:33.600
<v Speaker 1>appear before the committee because they have evidence, firsthand evidence

0:21:33.640 --> 0:21:39.320
<v Speaker 1>that could support criminal violations, including obstruction of a congressional proceeding,

0:21:39.400 --> 0:21:42.760
<v Speaker 1>and so I think that's very telling that they're moving

0:21:42.760 --> 0:21:48.160
<v Speaker 1>in that direction and collecting evidences could support a criminal

0:21:48.200 --> 0:21:51.480
<v Speaker 1>prosecution all White House officials. And I want to ask

0:21:51.480 --> 0:21:54.960
<v Speaker 1>you a question about Mark Meadows. As you know, the

0:21:55.000 --> 0:21:57.800
<v Speaker 1>House is voted to hold the former White House Chief

0:21:57.800 --> 0:22:01.119
<v Speaker 1>of Staff Meadows in contempt of car Congress after he

0:22:01.280 --> 0:22:04.879
<v Speaker 1>stopped cooperating with the January sixth Committee. So this is

0:22:04.880 --> 0:22:07.800
<v Speaker 1>the second time the Special Committee has sought to punish

0:22:07.800 --> 0:22:11.240
<v Speaker 1>a witness for defying a subpoena. The last witness who

0:22:11.280 --> 0:22:15.360
<v Speaker 1>did so, Steve Bannon, was charged by the Justice Department

0:22:15.359 --> 0:22:18.800
<v Speaker 1>and is facing trial in July. Is it likely that

0:22:18.880 --> 0:22:24.680
<v Speaker 1>the Justice Department will also prosecute Meadows? Well, I think

0:22:24.760 --> 0:22:30.879
<v Speaker 1>so again, because the alleged reason for not appearing before

0:22:31.080 --> 0:22:36.320
<v Speaker 1>the Congressional Committee, the January six Committee, uh Meadows is claiming,

0:22:36.440 --> 0:22:40.280
<v Speaker 1>is because he has an executive privilege, or he's claiming

0:22:40.640 --> 0:22:43.160
<v Speaker 1>that's one one argument. The other is that it would

0:22:43.240 --> 0:22:46.720
<v Speaker 1>violate his right against self incrimination. But but both of

0:22:46.760 --> 0:22:53.320
<v Speaker 1>those arguments are severely undermined by the fact that Mark

0:22:53.400 --> 0:22:58.560
<v Speaker 1>Meadows has already disclosed thousands of pages of documents to

0:22:58.840 --> 0:23:02.399
<v Speaker 1>the to the Committe. And he's also written a book,

0:23:03.160 --> 0:23:09.800
<v Speaker 1>and in the book he discloses information personal information, what

0:23:09.880 --> 0:23:13.480
<v Speaker 1>he observed, what happened on January six. So it appears

0:23:13.480 --> 0:23:19.040
<v Speaker 1>to me that that he's waved certainly his claim of

0:23:19.040 --> 0:23:22.560
<v Speaker 1>of a Fifth Amendment privilege by the documents that he's

0:23:22.600 --> 0:23:26.560
<v Speaker 1>disclosed in the book that that he's published. And uh,

0:23:26.640 --> 0:23:28.439
<v Speaker 1>and so it's kind of hard to it's, on the

0:23:28.480 --> 0:23:31.879
<v Speaker 1>one hand, disclose, disclose this, but then say, well, I

0:23:31.880 --> 0:23:35.200
<v Speaker 1>can't talk about it, because again, I would be incriminating

0:23:35.200 --> 0:23:39.840
<v Speaker 1>myself if I did. It's just a very inconsistent legal

0:23:39.920 --> 0:23:43.000
<v Speaker 1>theory that they're advancing, and so therefore I don't think

0:23:43.000 --> 0:23:45.359
<v Speaker 1>it's going to prevail. And I do think that there's

0:23:45.400 --> 0:23:47.600
<v Speaker 1>a very high likelihood that he is going to be

0:23:47.640 --> 0:23:51.280
<v Speaker 1>held in criminal content by the Department of Justice. Thanks

0:23:51.280 --> 0:23:53.240
<v Speaker 1>so much for being in the Boomberg Laws Show. Jimmy.

0:23:53.480 --> 0:23:57.080
<v Speaker 1>That's former federal prosecutor Jimmy Garula, a professor at Notre

0:23:57.160 --> 0:24:00.680
<v Speaker 1>Dame Law School. And that's different sedition of the Bloomberg

0:24:00.720 --> 0:24:03.359
<v Speaker 1>Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal

0:24:03.400 --> 0:24:06.360
<v Speaker 1>news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them

0:24:06.359 --> 0:24:10.880
<v Speaker 1>on Apple Podcasts. Spotify and at www dot bloomberg dot com.

0:24:10.920 --> 0:24:15.440
<v Speaker 1>Slash podcast Slash Law, and please join us every weeknight

0:24:15.520 --> 0:24:18.440
<v Speaker 1>at ten pm Wall Street Time for the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:24:18.720 --> 0:24:21.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg