Schiff: DOJ not prosecuting Meadows or Scavino is "deeply troubling" and "grave disappointment"

[867-5309.]

MARGARET BRENNAN: You wear a lot of hats, but I want to ask you about the January 6 committee that you serve on. The Justice Department, as you know, on Friday decided not to prosecute the former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, or social media director, Dan Scavino, for refusing to cooperate with your committee. We know the committee said that was puzzling. Is it your understanding that- that these men are immune from all prosecution?

REP. SCHIFF: No, they're not. And it is very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two that the Justice Department is prosecuting. There is no absolute immunity. These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it's a- I think, a grave disappointment, and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can, likewise, refuse to show up with impunity.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it because these two men had such close proximity to President Trump? Is the executive privilege argument actually applying here?

REP. SCHIFF: That- that shouldn't be the explanation here because of course there are great many things these witnesses can testify with no even plausible claim of executive privilege. They were both involved in campaign matters. They both have documents that they could offer. None of this is protected by privilege and the idea that you can simply refuse to show up rather than show up and say as to this question, I'm going to exert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country, in other courtrooms, and I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adam-schiff-face-the-nation-transcript-06-05-2022/

[Celerity]

1. The DOJ may well be prosecuting them on charges other than contempt. Also, they may be cooperating.

No one here on this board knows. It is likely that many in Congress, even on the Jan 6 Committee, do not know either.

[JohnSJ]

2. I hope that speculation is correct

[SoonerPride]

3. It is equally likely the DOJ is not prosecuting them on any other charges.

No one here on this boards knows. It is likely that many in Congress, even on the Jan 6 Committee, do not know either.

[867-5309.]

5. Then wouldn't Schiff acknowledge that possibility?

instead of simply saying it's deeply troubling?

[agingdem]

6. the DOJ is not tied to the J6 committee

and declining to prosecute a contempt referral from the committee is within the purview of the DOJ..Meadows is in a shit-ton of trouble, much more serious then a contempt of congress charge for not turning over additional documents..more than likely Garland's "got" Meadows on multiple felony counts..dismissing a much lesser charge is a no brainer..

as to Adam Schiff..I really like him but he sounding more and more like a concerned Susan Collins

[Alexander Of Assyria]

8. Yes, exactly. Both have given documents and some cooperation...DOJ needs these small fish later

when the Big Fish fry begins.

The crazy former economic advisor and that crazy former personal advisor did not cooperate and both begged to be indicted and so they were…that fish is rotten to the core.

All should remember there are two train tracks, one from the J6 station leading to Congressional Contempt, one from the DOJ station leading to all manner of criminal indictments.

[Ocelot II]

4. Glenn Kirschner offers an explanation - several, actually.

He suggests that the DoJ is holding off on this relatively minor offense because they are looking at charging them with something much more serious and want to roll all charges together. And maybe they didn't think the GJ would indict because they did initially turn over a lot of documents, so they could argue that they did cooperate. Another possibility, which he seems to think is pretty likely given the timing (the indictment of Navarro) is that they are cooperating as to the charges against TFG.

Guess we'll have to wait and see...

[getagrip_already]

7. A pattern has emerged and it is obvious....

The doj has decided to not charge any of tfg's admin on charges arising while he was in office.

It's not just Jan 6th. It goes all the way back to the inauguration.

They will charge them for crimes after Jan 20, but only if they have no choice. The first two indictments were of people who flat out refused to cooperate, and since a court had ruled the subpoenas were valid, the doj had no choice.

But these two came with an excuse, which the doj seized on.

Normally we don't hear about declination decisions on Republicans, but these were public subpoenas and they had to announce it.

There is no tarball of indictments coming. No cooperation to compromise.

They simply won't act unless they have no choice.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

9. DOJ needs these somewhat now cooperating fish to cooperate later as trial court rats.

[Novara]

10. Meadows is is a shit-ton of trouble already

If the DOJ indicted him at this time for contempt, it would be like nailing a murderer for a parking ticket.

I think the DOJ is going after a much bigger prize here.

[FoxNewsSucks]

11. Can't someone just let Schiff know

he needs to be patient?