For Rugger9 at 6:50 am 07-JUN-2022:
It took me a while to see the problem but the 2018 Bannon contempt charge subpoena offers the best example and explainer as to DOJ’s resistance to indicting Meadows for 2 USC 192 Contempt of Congress. Here’s an excerpt from an AP article from Jan 6, 2018 about the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaing Bannon.

The members grilled Bannon as part of the committee’s investigation into Russian election inference. Lawmakers also wanted answers from him about Trump’s thinking when he fired FBI Director James Comey.

But Bannon refused to answer questions about that crucial period, prompting the committee’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, to issue the subpoena, said Nunes spokesman Jack Langer.

Late Tuesday, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the committee, said Bannon’s refusal to answer those questions came at the instruction of the White House.

“This was effectively a gag order by the White House,” Schiff said shortly after Bannon’s interview concluded. Schiff said the committee plans to call Bannon back for a second interview.

Note the words “executive privilege” don’t appear here. Is Bannon doing the same thing now that he did in 2018, complying with a request by Trump for any former advisers not to comply with subpoenas? In 2018 Trump could have immediately claimed executive privilege over a conversation with an adviser but he didn’t appear to do so. Further down in the same article:

A White House official said the president did not seek to formally exert executive privilege over Bannon — a move that would have barred him from answering certain questions. The official said the administration believes it doesn’t have to invoke the privilege to keep Bannon from answering questions about his time in the White House. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The question is why would any discussions between Bannon and Trump about Comey or Trump with others about Comey in Bannon’s presence not immediately been claimed as privileged? If privilege had been claimed and the situation played out in the courts the way Nixon’s refusal to give up his tapes played out, there’s a good chance a more liberal SCOTUS would find for the House Intel Committee.

But now there’s a far more conservative court in place with ACB on board — a court which has been willing to spit on precedents — and the current SCOTUS might not rule for the House J6 Committee if they leaned into Nixon v. General Services Administration, 433 U.S 425 (1977) and focus on the thin argument past presidents have some limited claim to privilege. Meadows would let this drag out well past the mid-terms.

Meadows has partially complied with the subpoena by providing some records, which would also limit the charge to contempt on testimony not on documents (Navarro’s indictment was one count each testimony and documents). Would it be worth gambling on this particular SCOTUS to prosecute a single misdemeanor charge with fuzzy executive privilege claims only to end up with SCOTUS completely fucking over past precedent on executive privilege?

Especially if the documents Meadows released AND other evidence make it clear to the public that whatever Meadows has refused to testify about before the House J6 committee are criminal acts which are not protected by executive privilege (U.S. v Nixon (1974))?

It’s not worth completely fucking over the entire criminal case against Meadows and other key figures in the conspiracies to defraud the U.S. and seditious conspiracy, let alone future cases against members of the executive branch engaged in criminal acts.

The contempt charges against Navarro are far more clear cut than Meadows because Navarro punctured executive privilege and has no claim to attorney-client privilege.