The oral argument took hours. The result is not hard to predict.
Jonathan Shaub is a contributing editor to Lawfare and an assistant professor of Law at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law. He formerly served in the U.S. Department of Justice as an attorney-adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel and as a Bristow Fellow in the Solicitor General's Office.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The contempt case against Bannon is actually more complicated than it looks.
The Jan. 6 committee should not rush to hold Mark Meadows in contempt. It should instead take the time to develop a record that leaves him no wiggle room to hide behind the ambiguities inherent in executive privilege.
After my post went live on Oct. 18, two significant developments occurred in the prospects of a contempt prosecution of Steve Bannon.
If the Jan. 6 Committee eliminates any potential claim of executive privilege, the challenges of prosecuting Bannon and other former executive branch officials may be facilitated.
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is intent on seeking any and all information. However, the amount of information the committee receives depends on a battle between four distinct groups with different legal obligations and authorities.
The agreement is a lost opportunity that may not represent itself again for quite some time.