prif lenl for my client and that s enough to keep talking about a criminal referral. let s be clear here. he is closer to claim executive privilege than steve bannon was. as close as it gets. as former chief of staff for the former president. the committee laid out the questions. right? that they would want to ask meadows. talk me through those. reporter: they re trying to make the case as meadows and the attorney are arguing this is a wrong way to use a criminal referral they show why they re using it. meadows provided thousands of documents and text messaging they have questions about them. among the questions, did meadows preserve cell phone records and provide them to the national archives. we know that he was using a
come out. to build a record and show the judge, to get involved in the questions between branches of government. we are showing we are at an impasse and directing the court. i they ll they ll prevail. do they have to make the determination that this is not political in order to say jerry nadler prevails. in other words, it is a political pursuit? yes. we ll see them reframe from getting involved in these political questions. you see this battle of constitutional powers. there is a battle between the united states and nixon saying the executive prif lenl is a qualified privilege. if that out weighs the need to keep the information confidential, then that needs to give. if this persists in this legal strategy then he will prevail. the judge in manafort s case
but let s talk about the chicken burger. the president s son, you came out of this eight-hour-long stretch of testimony with the president s eldest son today saying he claimed there was an attorney/client privilege between him and his dad and that s why he wouldn t testify about their conversations. i m quite sure i don t understand what he might have meant by that. well, that was the claim that he wouldn t reveal the conversations he had with his father after the e-mails about the meeting at trump tower became public because he and his attorney claim they were protected by the attorney/client prif lenl. i think the claim based on fact of other attorneys present but as i understand the prif lenl, the privilege exists between the attorney and their client to protect communications where you seek from your attorney counsel about your particular legal situation. they can t be used to shield conversations between two people who don t enjoy the privilege between themselves.