Hey folks, another busy, weaker, politically charged legal news making the headlines. Texas is restrict abortion law is back in court as a federal judge considers the Department of Justice is emergency request to block the law in other Here's the House Select Committee investigating the insurrection of the capital issued new supply, As for a number of trump allies who helped Org as the rally on January Sixth, the committee all the recently subpoenaed former Trump AIDS, including, why has chief of staff mark meadows and campaign Seo Steve Ban it Joyce Vance. Ninety all this and more and the catholic insider podcast today were sharing a clip from the episode with listeners, stay tuned to hear our full conversation and access all other Cathy insider content. Try the membership free for two weeks. You can do that: a cafe dot com, slash insider, that's capita!

slash insider. We look forward to having you as part of the insider community, so difficult to question. Everyone is waiting for us to get too is. Do these folks have to comply with the subpoenas on what basis, have to knock applied? So if you take the two groups separately from moment, so you have those ban in cash, Battelle Scooby, no three of those four we're in governmental positions. At the time of the conduct, that's being enquired about in the communications took place one of them see Ben! I dont know what basis at all seabed and who is a private citizen of time. Way, was under indictment of southern district of New York later pardoned inexcusably, to my mind, but by the print former president. I know what arguments secular, privileged anything else to banning to make now the other three, it's more like a criminal conspiracy than a dislike executive privilege of her

Trump had a conversation and he doesn't have to tie, grew that I'm guessing what what straight faced argument or lawyers for these people gotta make in we can today in two weeks talk about executive privilege and how that works, and what the back and forth is and what the negotiation is over. That but certainly meadows cash, casino and ban into lesser degree. will not want to cooperate, will not want to come in will throw up the road block of executive privilege, even if it does not sit well within understood parameters of executive privilege, because the reason you right and others. But then you have these other eleven folks who were on the permit paperwork you're one or more, of whom work in the government like Maggie Mulvaney, who I think was the niece of Mc Mulvaney you'll get into a weird back and forth and litigation over whether or not the house can subpoena one of its own people. Some of those works in the house with remember a staff member, but these other private said,

and who are engaging in preparation for the rally before we get to how this appears to be enforced. What's the basis on which some of these folks going to say now rather not come in said this will, if they challenge the subpoenas, be like so much of what we saw during the Trump Administration there's, some sort of specious privilege or immunity asserted and the purposes delay. Ultimately, the legal theory is flawed, but they know that they can get into civil courts and delay their obligation to testify. By doing that, one would hope- and we can talk about this as we get into enforcement- one would hope the courts would be savvy to that by now. Here I guess it's right, I mean. Do you see anything legitimate that they can assert? I just don't:

Man. Another assert and by the way, with respect to some of these folks included the Trump advisers is a political cause to be paid for doing this, but its legally protected to assert the fifth amendment right again: self Incrimination pre only the guilty. Only the guilty take the fifth Trump himself has said that I know you're according trap. You heard her actual with people who believe that he has said that, with respect to other folks corn position to incriminate him that, if you invoke the fifth amendment, you're doing that because you must be guilty, didn't spend our time. putting any law but somebody's folks. My wanna come in right because I didn't want hanging over their heads and some of them are in a position to get testimony about red flags and some of them maybe are appalled by what happened again. Research that I don't know enough about these. Eleven people learn more about them as time goes by and what their lawyers assert

But some of them may come in. I think the people closer to Trump we'll never want to come in here. There may be a Steve Bannon, who really seems intent on burning the whole house down, might want to come in and answer some questions and say why you gonna do about it now. You must use our north moment. I mean he seems in a very unusual, aggressive and openly talking about it posture. So I wonder if he might not be the one he had arranged his good eye. rule out the possibility, although I don't think it's a high percentage chance that he might show up with whatever his crazy agenda is so now we're going to be questioned that I get ass. You get asked that everyone gets acids because we say we're a nation of laws, not men and women. One is above the law and we say Congress has power and there's a judiciary that has power and a properly should subpoena cannot just be two hundred and fifty two has to be some consequence for that

and an introductory point I will say you're right to feel irritation and frustration about how sometimes it doesn't play out. There is a big difference between subpoenas that you and I issued or authorized when we were you as attorneys, where you have a lot of power and force an authority in the courts, and you have a cadre of agents, whether its police officers, rugby identity agents, who can help to enforce these things and has a long tradition, every day, in federal courts around the country and take what you run, the country with a spectre, DA's subpoenas, there's litigation over the scope of subpoenas and whether or not they can be enforced and contempt to something that happens. Not uncommonly and people go to prison for defying criminal subpoenas grand jury subpoenas. These opinions are not dangerous happiness and there a bit you know. Frankly,

weaker and they have less of a track record and there's a lot more negotiation about that. Because, especially when there's a fight between co, equal branches of government, you have one branch of government. The Congress try and get information from another branch of government, the executive. It's not as easy as with you, and I should subpoenas for bank records in connection with the money laundering. Asian, and so I commend to folks attention you- and I were talking about this Ellie honing, our colleague wrote a great piece for CAFE He basely lays out in some detail and entertaining lay the possibilities of how you can enforces opinion so that the possible ways to enforce and then join them. You know you think about one is Congress itself using its inherent power, could try to enforce a subpoenas. Second, they could go to the courts, the federal courts to enforce the subpoenas. Third, they can make a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.

By Merrick, Ireland, and they can bring a criminal case for the purpose of enforcing the subpoenas any those gonna fly Will Elliot Genius like he always as this is one of my favorite reasons that I'm a cafe subscriber and have been since long before we did the podcast together, because I like to read the notes. An Ellie here, I think, is just accurate and dead on the money about the enforcement options for these subpoenas. He is very quick to dismiss this notion that Congress can use its own in inherent enforcement authority that something that people talked a lot about during the two Trump impeachment, while the forget what the argument As the marshal of the house can just go out and arrest the sordid arms discharges arm in arm, thank you can go out. No jail, arrest, put him in this nonexistent jail in the capital right. The point that Ellie makes in its correct does that Congress has left this path. or dormant for more than a hundred years. It may have had forced at some point it

No longer does an effort to use this to resurrect this power would be tied up in endless litigation and nobody benefits from delay here right. The whole goal is to elicit evidence. Well, it's and relevant, concrete criticism from as we said that that a of times and a spell out, why delay it's a problem with the mother investigation? My view always was the Bob Mahler keeps his head down, and some people are not happy with what the outcome was, but he keeps his head down. He doing needed to do. Didn't have to end his role when he did. I think he wanted to do was what do the investigation get out and not come in, were close to the election will be done in an elite. The work behind for other people, some of which got scuttled by Bill bar and other and here there's no law or statute. That says it needs to conclude by some particular moment right. There's no zoning satchel

patients here, because there is doing an inquiry that doesn't have criminal force behind it. It's the pragmatic clock of the net election and how will look for the committee to be inquiring into the stuff as we approach the mid term, so did you agreed visible, Nickel clock there is, but I'm not sure it's. It's necessarily bad for people who want to learn the truth about January. Six, because remember Republicans, walked away from a deal that would have included a bipartisan committee whose work would have had to have concluded by the end of this calendar year. They bypass that deal and if this committee's work goes close to the election season, because Republicans delay and don't comply with subpoenas and won't turn over documents, then I think the committee has a good argument for continuing its work without regard to the next election, because the truth matters but, as you say, there is a

political cost for doing that, and Republicans will cry Witch hunt again right so designer up that uses. The first method of enforcement is a sort of their arms carver, says anyhow, not opening that happened to the next as the courts. What's wrong with that, so civil enforcement is a grey mechanism. But we all remember that it too failed during impeachment. For one thing, it took Congress a long time to get into court with those subpoenas. I dont think that will see that happen again. I think that if the committee realise, as it has to go the civil enforcement route, it will be quick to get into court and it will hope that courts will rule expeditiously but expeditiously in a legal system where you have to deal with important issues of executive privilege and other types immunity, doesn't mean in a couple of

is or in a week, and even if district courts rule quickly, there is appeal to the court of appeals and perhaps ultimately, to the Supreme Court. So this is a strategy that means we're looking at answers that could take. You know a long time. Many many many months I mean, maybe even more than months, because Don Mcgann who gets subpoenaed. We don't have a resolution of that issue and testimony by Mcgann until after the Trump Administration has ended. I mean that's the potential sort of delay we're looking at so civil enforcement is a possibility, but it Ray all of the privilege issues for litigation and it could take too long. Do you agree that they have to give that a shot? You can't just let it go Heron Authority surgeon at arms we know taking cuffs to the intransigent. Witness is not a possibility now setting the flaws and delays you gotta get in a court

You got that Iraq's authority, we're gonna, see that whether or not it it results in anything tangible on a quick timeframe, that's a separate question and then finally, his angering to folks, if you have legitimate and it relates to an inquiry. That's really room really important to the sort of stability of democracy in America or instability of it. They should come and testify just like any. The people who we should subpoenas too in our prior jobs had to testify. Otherwise, there's a concert, and here there happens to be a law that criminalize defiance of the congressional subpoena. Syria is a crime Joyce if it was a carry like a life and life imprisonment twenty years? What is it misdemeanor what's a misdemeanor, but it's a very unusual misdemeanor right. Most misdemeanours don't involve, the imposition of jail time. This mistake there has a mandatory minimum of thirty days now, I'm sure Steve Ban and can do thirty days,

standing on the landing on his head, yeah absolutely fit. Nonetheless, there are some teeth to this criminal contempt. The big question is whether d o j would bring criminal contempt cases to enforce these subpoenas. Well, they have in the past. They have not. They have never. With the situation involving an insurrection and the possible interference with the smooth transfer of political power in this country, but that, of course, is that, in our differences, animated all of deer Jays process with These cases and dear J still seems to show a real lack of appetite to engage in a process that could be deemed political. I think that that's regrettable and here's. My point of view when I issued subpoenas to people who really didn't want to come and testify in front of my grand jury

Often they were worried that that people who were involved in in the matter might you know exact some form of retribution against them. They were worried about their safety or the safety of their family. They had to come in testify, as you said, we always had the possibility that the United States, Marshall would go out and put break it's on them and bring an end to testify involuntarily. They wouldn't show up pursuant to that subpoena. I dont understand why we can expect just average citizens to be more compliant with the justice system. Then we expect of these people who had taken oath to uphold the constitution these first, for they had all been political appointees. At some point, they had all taken that oath. Why they don't have to live up to it

is both beyond me and ultimately will have a really strong negative impact on the rule of law and this country. If their aim is to avoid testifying donor, we state a principle that doesn't necessarily apply in this case. However, I think it does, and it's a motive argumentation that I find silly point of the moment thanks for listening to hear the full episodes at the capitol. calm, slash insider and try out the membership free for two weeks. That's cafe: dot com, slow

insider to the many of you have chosen to join the insider community. Thank you for supporting our work.