federal district court for the district of columbia and the circuit court for the district of columbia, we have valid legislative purposes to get this information. and i think that with all due respect, my colleague fully understands that. you know, i i don t think that s an accurate assessment. i was aware of people talking amongst themselves at the capitol, the day of the swearing in and after the swearing in, are you worried about what will happen later in the week? do you know about the people that are that the proud boys are going to be here? i did not know. i did not can t say that i actually knew who the proud boys were, but these were topics of general discussion going on here. so if you know that, and, look, we ve had bad protests at the capitol before. i was here when the affordable care act went through the legislative process. you don t think we had some
defend himself in court, that s independent of our committee. our goal is to try to get to the facts and circumstances that brought about january 6th. to that point, let me ask you, are there other documents that you re pursuing to get to that end, to achieve that end? are you looking at correspondence, emails from the mayor of washington, d.c. for the decision not to have protection on the capitol? the mayor is scheduled to testify before our committee. we if you knew of someone that we ought to bring before the committee to testify, our process has been open. we get suggestions from a number of people. i will give you these two suggestions. the speaker of the house and the senate majority leader, mr.
cheney, have an office of former president? no. now, it is the case that there are some instances where a former president may assert privilege. but in those cases where the current president made the determination that he will not assert privilege, the former president does not have the power to stop the congress from investigating an attack on congress and to prevent people from testifying who have information about that attack simply because of some notion that he can what if it were to be embarrassing to him. those are no privileges that exist in the common law. there s no basis for that. you say that a former president can try to raise a claim of privilege, which is exactly what donald trump did in trump versus bennie thompson. now we have definitive rulings by the federal district court
defense. the court yesterday appointed a guardian to represent their son. they have seemingly abandoned him. have had no contact with him. have not seen him or spoken to him. obviously what lies ahead for their case, it s going to be a difficult one for prosecutors after they charge them with four counts of involuntary manslaughter arguing that they gave him the gun as a gift, but also saying that they did nothing to prevent him from unleashing this shooting, this attack. prosecutors saying they knew things were going on and they should have done stuff, that s why they charged them and we ll see them later in court this afternoon. four children are dead. sh shimon, thank you very much. very good tuesday morning to you. i m jim sciutto. i m erica hill. the fate of mark meadows will likely soon be in the hands of the justice department, this following the january 6th committee voting unanimously to recommend that meadows be
those documents are what we have. the question, mr. ranking member, for a lot of us is now that we are in receipt of those documents, we wanted to talk to mr. meadows about them. that s why we wanted to get him before the committee for a deposition. he s refused to come. on the subpoena in question, did the committee issue it for law enforcement purposes or legislative purposes or both? i would say for legislative purposes. that s what i assumed. during our hearing on the jeffrey clark contempt resolution, you and your colleagues repeatedly said clark could not raise executive privilege pursuant to trump versus thompson because clark was not the one in court. mr. meadows is in court, is that correct?