Watergate prosecutor pans DOJ’s refusal to charge Mark Meadows for contempt of Congress
The Department of Justice not charging two top former key Trump aides with contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
In December, the House of Representatives referred former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino to the Department of Justice.
“The Select Committee is investigating an attack on our democracy, and it’s essential that witnesses cooperate with our investigation to get answers. The law requires them to do so. And when a witness defies the law, that amounts to more than obstructing our investigation. It’s an attack on the rule of law," Chairman Benny Johnson (D-MS) said before the vote.
But Attorney General Merrick Garland apparently disagreed.
Friday evening, Thompson and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) said in a statement that the DOJ's decision was "puzzling."
RELATED: Meet the little-known Trump aide who could ‘be the next John Dean’ in the Jan. 6 hearings
"Mr. Meadows and Mr. Scavino unquestionably have relevant knowledge about President Trump’s role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events of January 6th. We hope the Department provides greater clarity on this matter. If the Department’s position is that either or both of these men have absolute immunity from appearing before Congress because of their former positions in the Trump Administration, that question is the focus of pending litigation," they said. "As the Select Committee has argued in District Court, Mark Meadows’s claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity is not correct or justified based on the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda. No one is above the law.”
MSNBC anchor Ayman Mohyeldin interviewed former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks and former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade for analysis of the situation.
Wine-Banks said, "I don't agree with that decision."
"I think there is an exception that should be applied, which is crime/fraud to these discussions. these have nothing to do with the job of the chief of staff to help in an insurrection. And so think that it should have been applied and his indictment should have been seen as valid as much as the Bannon's," she said.
McQade agreed.
"I think it is disappointing for anybody that wants to hear the truth and I think most of us do," McQuade said.
"I think with Meadows and Scavino is that there is still hope that they might get information out of them," she said. "Or, it is possible for them to be perceived not as witnesses but potential defendants in a larger criminal conspiracy case."
Watch the clip below or at this link.
Leave a Comment
Related Post