we are talking not just about a political party, but a specific group of republicans who signature is owning the lid s. none of us can sit down and get an interview, an honest interview, with any of those sitting republicans right now. they wouldn t. it is not in their agenda. so, are democrats being naive with this idea, they think that they are going to do the right thing, we are anxious to hear from them, we are not going to hear from them. i noticed every single member of the committee today at the same talking point, which is that they did not want to talk about what is the logical next step if the members of congress refused to speak. and that is a contempt referral, which does carry jail time monday heavy fine. and they have used against for different potential witnesses, including a former member of the house, mark meadows. so, they have been very reluctant to say that this is where this could potentially go, and maybe they won t ever take that step, but that is the threat th
i want to play a clip of white committee member said earlier to our colleague. has the committee ruled out criminal referrals for members of congress? well, we have not discussed any of that. right now we want to hear from them. luke, let s get real. they are not going to hear from them. we are talking not just about a political party, but a specific group of republicans who signature is owning the lid s. none of us can sit down and get an interview, an honest interview, with any of those sitting republicans right now. they wouldn t. it is not in their agenda. so, are democrats being naive with this idea, they think that they are going to do the right thing, we are anxious to hear from them, we are not going to hear from them. i noticed every single member of the committee today at the same talking point, which is that they did not want to talk about what is the logical next step if the members of congress refused to speak. and that is a contempt
do, it he goes ahead. that report is really harrowing. why not? well, some have positive that there is a memo that makes it seem that maybe there is a claim that he doesn t have to show, because it s so close to trump. there is this local testimony immunity. the courts have rejected that, alicia. but the idea might be that it s giving the department off before charging with a crime. but, when i suggest that they ought to do is re-subpoena him tomorrow, and have it only apply to things that have nothing to do with his official duties. for instance, a campaign and everything about the 16 rally, because the argument, if it exists back there, it s that it s only for official duty. so then i think they could slap an immediate new contempt referral, and i think that might be an easier road for the climate of judges. short answer we don t know and it s a real issue, because there s so much that he is up to his elbows in. he eric holder, suggesting a tp
after is repeatedly told don t do, it he goes ahead. that report is really harrowing. why not? well, some have positive that there is a memo that makes it seem that maybe there is a claim that he doesn t have to show, because it s so close to trump. there is this local testimony immunity. the courts have rejected that, alicia. but the idea might be that it s giving the department off before charging with a crime. but, when i suggest that they ought to do is re-subpoena him tomorrow, and have it only apply to things that have nothing to do with his official duties. for instance, a campaign and everything about the 1/6 rally, because the argument, if it exists back there, it s that it s only for official duty. so then i think they could slap an immediate new contempt referral, and i think that might be an easier road for the climate of judges. short answer we don t know and it s a real issue, because there s so much that he is up to his elbows in.
contempt referral with the way he s handled this negotiation. the fact that they ve gone on for as long as they have. the committee, by all appearances, seems to have try to accommodate some of his requests, including agreeing not to ask questions or demand answers on certain topics. that strikes me as a meaningful accommodation. giuliani is demanding that he be able to make a recording of the interview, someone that no witness has been a lot to do in this investigation. witnesses in general are never allowed to do an investigation, which rudy giuliani knows. that is something that would definitely weigh against him, if a criminal contempt referral were made to the justice department. now the committee just has to decide, do they try to play ball with this guy any longer or do they say, you know wet? we are done. giuliani is the doj s problem. moving along to many other legal problems, a special graham jury a investigating trump in georgia. could it be the best chance of holding a