movie before the last several years. trump administration was expert at playing the delay game, right? and it works. don mcgahn, we waited two years and we did, but it was after trump left office, right, and long after people really remembered why it was being brought in. couple of things there, number one, the parties, political and individual, are just different now. and when you have a republican congress and/or republican president, they re less likely, sadly, to pursue subpoenas. the other thing is that even though some of these legal and criminal proceedings may outlast this committee, at the end of the day, the criminal process, if it starts will still happen, he may not go to jail before the end of the next congress, but can still go it jail if the justice department is still prosecuting him. it is unfortunate that these things don t happen all in the timeline that either congress or frankly a very hungry american public want, but it is still a criminal charge. you re right
declaration by the committee in effect that we know how urgent this is. we know that if we don t move immediately we can lose all of the ground here that we have and the time can run out. we heard committee members today saying that they are in some negotiations with some other witnesses but if they get the feeling that those negotiations are just a delay game, they re going to hit them with the criminal contempt also. i think there are two pressures on them. one is the legislative clock as you point out and the other thing is the insurrection is still happening. i am in michigan right now. and two days ago there was a rally at the state capitol to call for forensic audits of the state. that is not a thing. donald trump put out a statement ahead of time encouraging all of his supporters to come rally at the michigan capitol, to not disappoint them. he referred to the election as a scam election.
this key role. as you pointed out, congress moves forward with criminal contempt. the doj would then be responsible for taking on the prosecution, and historically there really hasn t been much success in that, so what do you expect-maker garland to do? yeah. there s been no success in terms of charging criminal contempt by the justice department for the past half century. it s been over 50 years since we ve seen a justice department actually bring those charges. why is a good question. it s politically fraught. it s a risk thing to do. seen as dangerous but-maker garland has a job to do here, and when it comes to this delay, how do we avoid this delay game? there s only three parties here who can impact that. one, congress. they seem like they are poised to move quickly as gloria says. two, is-maker garland. he ll have a decision to make. he cannot sit on that for months on end and three is the courts. we don t ask questions a lot of the times but the way federal courts work, it s n
for purposes of january 6th investigations, the subject is of such tremendous importance that he will not exert executive privilege. trump can go to court and claim he still has some rights but you can understand how ridiculous that is, even if, for instance, people like steve bannon who wasn t working in the white house could theoretically be covered by executive privilege, which bannon can t be, the notion that every former living president could exert privilege, is unworkable. biden holds the privilege and says materials can be turned over and a court will order that. the question is how successful trump will be at playing the delay game he plays with the courts. thank you so much. good to talk with you. familiar symptoms in a different location, what we know about new cases of havana syndrome at the u.s. embassy in germany and what could be causing them. red house,
who who wins here? in court. i think trump loses, ultimately. as tim said, we don t have a definitive answer on this question from the courts. but if you look at the purpose of executive privilege, it s designed to protect the institution, not an individual. and there is precedent, by the way, for a current president exercising executive privilege over a prior president, right? i m sure tim knows 2001, george w. bush was the one who exercised executive privilege over a request for bill clinton, his predecessor s documents but clinton didn t object. but i think the real object here, erin, is get this into courts and gum up the works and to play the delay game. so it s going to be on congress and it s going to be on the courts to act very quickly here. all right. thank you, both, very much. and next, this happened today. the president s former chief strategist, steve bannon defied congress, ignoring a subpoena by the select committee. so, what will it take to get bannon to talk?