around the country. these are influential people and facing a really legally messy and complicated issue. it is interesting listening to betsy talk. i think that what people sometimes gloss over and the focus on bannon, jackie, mark short, the vice president s chief of staff complained about the 1/6 committee and has as far as our understanding cooperated fully with requests for documents and testimony. kayleigh mcenany has also cooperated fullsomely with the 1/6 committee. the example set by some most senior advisers is being set by some of the most public and visible faces around both men. right. i think what s been so interesting in recent weeks is
issuing invalid subpoena weakens their power, not if somebody votes against it. he has the right to go to the court, to see if he has executive privilege or not. i don t know if he does or not, but neither does the committee. so, they re weakening the power of congress itself by issuing invalid subpoena. just because you say the word invalid subpoena three times, does that make it invalid? why, yes, it s a little known legal rule. no, of course not, alisyn, and you know, the validity of it could not be more in question. the focus on bannon, by the way, and also next scavino shows that the committee is really interested in knowing just what trump knew and when he knew it because bannon famously is not only predicting or knowing what s happening the next day, he s in continual conversation with the then-president of the united states. so it s an obvious topic for the committee to pursue, and by the way, bannon s executive privilege claim is all wet. he wasn t even in the executive
house aides to communicate with news organizations even if they involve a former client. bannon was the head of breitbart, a far right website and before the white house issued the waiver bannon was subject to the ethics pledge barring him from communicating with breitbart and this waiver could get him off the hook because the white house made the waiver retroactive back to day one of the trump administration. that mans bannon could have violated the original pledge and this waiver covers prior conversations. now, the head of the office of government ethics flatly told mow said there s no such thing as a retroactive waiver. if you engage in prohibited conduct without the waiver you ve violated the rule and issuing a waiver after the fact won t change that. look, the focus on bannon, as you pointed out, is key here because ethics experts are worried he s using breitbart as