disobedience here? another really good question, chuck. i think you re referring to the president s records act you find in title 44 of the united states code. my read of it is that there s no enforcement mechanism. when it was passed by congress in 1978 in the wake of watergate and concerns over the destruction of records by richard nixon, and those around him, what congress did is believe, rely, that presidents would act in good faith. in other words, presidents would make determinations what records needed to go to the archives for historical purposes. and they would preserve and protect their records and members of their senior staff would do the same thing. so it s possible theoretically if someone is destroying records it could, they could incur some other charge. maybe obstruction of justice, if there s an ongoing investigation, but the presidential records act itself doesn t contain an enforcement
well, i hope i have three apss for you, chuck, if you have three questions. you got it. first, i think it s a much more difficult case than the contempt case against steve bannon. let me explain why. bannon just refused to cooperate at all. he just snubbed the committee and walked away. meadows not only negotiated with the committee but provided thousands of documents to the committee. where he refused to cooperate, it was based on his invocation of whatever residual executive privilege remains in former president trump. now, based on my reading of the law, i don t think there is any valid residual executive privilege that trump possesses, but the courts have not fully resolved that issue. so it strikes me meadows can do two things. he can cooperate to some extent. provide documents and there are certain questions he can answer
booster problem? chuck, there are multiple reasons. you named some of them. it s colder weather. people socializing more indoors. had thanksgiving, upcoming holidays is one reason, and also know there s waning immunity against infection in four to six months. people are going to need to get boosters. we only have i think about 10% of the u.s. population is boosted. obviously we need to get the numbers up especially with omicron here and having the ability to evade immunity, but it s multiple reasons and, again, we have the tools to counteract that, but essentially, you know, everyone is sort of kind of living their lives like we re not in a pandemic and we re very much still in a pandemic. we have 1,200 people dieing a day and unfortunately that doesn t have to be the case. why, why are, why is the definition of fully vaccinated been so difficult? and the reason i say that is, why can t we just have a
standard, and i ve noticed this at my own company. a vague definition what fully vaccinated is. isn t it pretty clear fully vaccinated is either two doses and if you re six months from your second dose, booster? and that s the definition of fully vaccinated? period? like, why do we have other sort of vague definitions running around? chuck, i think we ll see the cdc change that definition of fully vaccinated very soon, because they re going to have to. i mean, you know, we have the data out there that boosters are needed, and i would say we boost we ares a misnomer. probably the primary series should be three doses. two initially and then one six months out from that. that is going to be the standard, but i do think that you know, for political reasons communications reasons the cdc is reticent coming out with changing that definition. they need to do so immediately, because i think people are getting more confused as a result. and, not only that, aren t
last hour. the district attorney in washington, d.c., excuse me. attorney general in washington, d.c. announce add civil lawsuit against the proud boys and oathkeepers and several mens of both groups individually accusing them of planning the attack on the capitol. d.c. is suing for damping consulting the groups actions a coordinated act of domestic terrorism this at the house votes later today to hold former chief of staff mark meadows in contempt. referring to the justice department for eventual legal prosecution. for more joined by former u.s. attorney and current msnbc legal analyst. chuck, basically three sort of legal questions for you here. and i want to start with meadows and this contempt charge, and what you think the conversation s going to be like at justice about whether to do this one and how different it is, in your mind, from the decision to charge steve bannon?