Judging Freedom - House votes to hold Mark Meadows in contempt

Episode Date: December 15, 2021

Judge Napolitano goes in-depth on the recent news that the House voted to recommend criminal contempt charges against the Trump ex-chief of staff, detailing the mistake Mark Meadows made. #MarkMeadows #Trump #CriminalContemptSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Good morning, my friends. Judge Napolitano here on Judging Freedom with another pop-up and what's on my mind. It's early in the morning of Wednesday, December 15, and I'm looking at the fate of my friend Mark Meadows, the curious case of former congressman and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Mark Meadows was, of course, a congressman from North Carolina when he resigned his seat to become the Chief of Staff for then President Donald Trump. Since Trump left office, Meadows has been subpoenaed by the House Committee investigating the riots in the Capitol on January 6th of this year. Meadows' mistake, of course, was to begin cooperating with the committee. So he received a subpoena asking for documents

and his testimony. The testimony is given in a deposition. That's a private examination. Lawyers for the committee, the witness, in this case, Mark Meadows, and lawyers for Mark Meadows in a small non-public room. The committee lawyers will ask him questions under oath and a stenographer will take down the questions and the answers. Halfway through that process, Meadows decided to stop it. And that, of course, was his mistake. Because once you begin cooperating with a subpoena, you waive, you give up your rights to object to the subpoena. So former Congressman, former Chief of Staff Meadows could have asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege. I refuse to answer any of these questions and assert my right to silence protected by the Fifth Amendment.

You've probably heard variants of that many times on television and in the movies. It's for real. It really works. When you assert the Fifth Amendment, the government cannot go after you. Because while the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the government cannot go after you. Because while the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to silence. Mark Meadows made the mistake of not doing that. Roger Stone, for example, who also had documents subpoenaed by the committee, and whose testimony was also subpoenaed by the committee, had his lawyers send a letter to the lawyers for the committee simply saying,

Mr. Stone will assert the Fifth Amendment. Do you still want him to show up? Sometimes you don't even have to show up if they know you're going to assert the Fifth Amendment. And sometimes they make you show up and you assert the Fifth Amendment and then you leave. But because Mark Meadows began the cooperation with the committee, he waived his Fifth Amendment right, and he waived the right of executive privilege. The right of executive privilege is what is now being litigated in the courts, because even though Donald Trump is the former President of the United States,

because he was the President of the United States on January 6th. He is arguing today that whatever happened in the White House and whatever documents are being subpoenaed from the White House were protected then by executive privilege, and he can assert that now. Now, he has lost that argument at the trial court, and he has lost that argument at the appellate court, And he will probably soon ask the Supreme Court to rule on that. My own opinion is that he will lose because executive privilege pertains to the current occupant of the office, in this case, Joseph R. Biden Jr., who obviously is not asserting executive privilege. Steve Bannon, who was not an official of the government, has asserted executive privilege,

and he's been indicted for contempt of Congress. Had he been an official of the government and taken the Fifth Amendment privilege, he couldn't be indicted. Roger Stone was not an official of the government. He's taking the Fifth Amendment, and he can't be indicted. He's asserting a fundamental constitutional right. Why can't Mark Meadows do that? Because it's too late. Because once you start cooperating with the issuer of the subpoena, once you begin delivering documents or begin giving testimony, you have given up your rights to resist the subpoena. I don't know how this will end. Last night, the House of Representatives voted to hold Mark Meadows, a former member of the House, in contempt. This has never happened before. That holding will now go to the Justice Department and they will decide whether or not to prosecute Mark Meadows. If they do, he'll be indicted and prosecuted just as Steve Bannon will. But the case against him is strong and his defenses are weak.

Judge the Palatano with what's on my mind. Oh, wow. By the way, when I do these what's on my mind segments, which I love doing and which I know are popular with many of you, there's a spot where you can comment. Judge, what did you mean by that? Or what if, what if, what do you think about this? Send me your comments. The Judging Freedom team loves to read them.

They send the best ones on to me, and you know I will answer them on air. Thank you. Have a great day.