looking carefully. as you know, hr halderman ended up going to prison after watergate for obstruction of justice, for perjury. so just because you were chief of staff doesn t get you off the hook. and just because you were once president of the united states doesn t get you off the hook if there were crimes being committed. so i think we re getting into very serious terrain here, and i don t think it s possible to unring this bell now that this information is coming flooding out. quick final question. you ve already told us that you don t think that meadows has a strong claim here for executive privilege. whatever that claim is, it s stronger than the claim that bannon had, right? absolutely. steve bannon put over to the side because he wasn t even a ent federal employee. mark meadows, although he was, i think it s pretty weak. i think he s playing with fire here. he could end up just like hr
$2,000 in fines. the contempt law actually allows a fine of $100,000 for each count. that could mean having to sell a lot of those new books. in the doj indicts meadows, he would be the first white house chief of staff charged with a crime since hr halderman. other members of the january 6th committee are revealing even more text messages from meadows phone. for a report on that, we go to paula reid on capitol hill. paula, we re waiting for the critical vote. it occurs to me that we saw nine republicans join democrats to vote to hold steve bannon in contempt. i m wondering what s the over/under for tonight. that s the big question. that s something we re really watching. we have to remember that the meadows situation is different than that of steve bannon because steve bannon, he really tied up that contempt case with a bow for lawmakers, made it a lot easier for them to cross the
that are pushing patently fraudulent claims and government officials who have the responsibility to make decisions about these matters. so i think some of the worst possible conduct we ve seen since white house chief of staff for richard nixon, h.r.halderman. we all know what happened to him. ambassador, congressman adam schiff, who s one of the nine members of the january 6 comm committee, said if meadows discussed the events of january 6 in his book, he waives any claims of privilege. is that right? is that true? that is true. you know, we talk about these legal theories executive privilege, attorney/client privilege. privilege simply means the legal right not to talk about something. but anderson, once you ve talked about it publicly for profit to get a book advance and sell copies of that volume, you ve
responsibility to make decisions about these matters. so i think some of the worst possible conduct we ve seen since white house chief of staff for richard nixon, h h.r.halderman. we all know what happened to him. schiff who s one of the nine member of the committee, said if meadows discussed the events in his book, he waives any claims of privilege. is that right? is that true? that is true. you know, we talk about these legal theories executive privilege, attorney/client privilege. privilege simply means the legal right not to talk about something. but anderson, once you ve talked about it publicly for profit to get a book advance and sell copies of that volume, you ve waived those legal protections. so meadows is in a very perilous
i m very concerned about hr halderman standby. never mind. on that note. i want to bring in republican congressman tom mcclintock of california, sointsz the judiciary committee. we re ago a laugh over here over some names. that s life in the fast lane. let s talk about what s going on. first of all, what are you going to be looking for this morning? well, most importantly is the question of the fact that the republicans have requested a number of witnesses that have been rejected by the democrat majority. republicans requested nine witnesses, schiff vetoed six of those. we requested a minority day, which is a right that the minority has. one of a few rights the minority has in the house is to ask for a day of hearings with their witnesses. that s not open to debate, it s not open to approval. that is a right in the rules. that s so far been rejected by