is unprecedented. no vice president has ever been subpoenaed to testify against the president he served with. well, that is because the situation has never occurred in the history of the united states. so, of course it is unprecedented. but, there is really no reason to think that mike pence is not having an obligation like everyone else to appear before a grand jury, and a grand jury is entitled to every man s evidence, every persons evidence. and you can t use privileges designed to protect one branch of government as a shield to protect yourself. you know, he has asserted executive privilege, and now when it suits him, he s now asserting speech or debate clause, which is a legislative privilege when it suits him. i think these privileges safeguard some aspects of his communications. but it s not gonna safeguard all of it. he s gonna need to show up. you re talking about the speech or debate clause, which technically would protect some of the experiences and
book, so anything he wrote in the book would be fair game, i think. and also, alex, there has been an exception when there is a conversation about future activity to acts of crime. and that s as prosecutors investigate rivalry cases. if a member of congress could always say, if you can t ask me anything about my vote because unprotected by my speech or debate clause, he would never be able to prosecute a member of congress for bribes, and that s done all the time. and i think there s a number of ways for jackson to get around this. it seems he is being aggressive in asking the court to rule in his favor, and command mike pence to come in before a grand jury. you know you are in trouble when your former lawyer is saying jack smith has the marbauch wade, thank you for your time tonight. always good to see you. thank, you alex. more to come on this busy friday night, including outrage after republican lawmaker publicly question the loyalty of the first chinese american woman elect
of the luttig op-ed, the courts quickly disposed of senator lindsey graham s speech or debate clause, claim requiring him to testify before the grand jury empaneled and fulton county, georgia. and his claim, lindsey graham s claim, was far stronger than mike pence s. in the unlikely event that mr. pence s claim were to make it to the supreme court, it, too could be expected to take swift action. he sounds like it s not even a question that the supreme court would rule in jack smith s favor. do you agree with that? yes, i think that s right. it seems like such a stretch. you know, mike pence says, this is unprecedented. no vice president has ever been subpoenaed to testify against the president he served with. well, that is because the situation has never occurred in the history of the united states. so, of course it is unprecedented. but, there is really no reason to think that mike pence is not having an obligation like everyone else to appear before a grand jury, and a grand jury i
commentary and conversations while he was president at the senate that day. but luttig goes on to make the point that, you know, mr. smith, jackson at the special counsel, wants to know about pence s communications and interactions with the president, trump, before, during, and perhaps during the vote count, which are entirely fair game for a grand jury investigating possible crimes against the united states. there s plenty of it happening outside of his role as president of the senate, that the special counsel would be interested in, if not more interested in. and so, you agree with luttig here that pence, if he wants to invoke the speech and debate clause, he s going to have to do that question by question, and can t act as a blanket to prevent him from testifying. yes, that s right. and i think there may even be a waiver here. for one, he s talking with a member of the executive branch. so, if he wants protection as a legislator, he seems to have lifted by talking to donald trump,
the special counsel would be interested in, if not more interested in. and so, you agree with luttig here that pence, if he wants to invoke the speech and debate clause, he s going to have to do that question by question, and can t act as a blanket to prevent him from testifying. yes, that s right. and i think there may even be a waiver here. for one, he s talking with a member of the executive branch. so, if he wants protection as a legislator, he seems to have lifted by talking to donald trump, who was a member of the executive branch. he also may have waved it by writing all about it in the book, so anything he wrote in the book would be fair game, i think. and also, alex, there has is an exception when there is a conversation about future activity to advance a crime. and that s told prosecutors who investigate bribery cases. if a member of congress could always say, if you can t ask me anything about my vote because unprotected by my speech or debate clause, he you would never be