- The DOJ declined to hold former Trump advisers Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino in defiance of Congress.
- Meadows and Scavino refused to cooperate with a Jan. 6 subpoena from the House Committee.
- Rep. Adam Schiff said the Justice Department’s decision could set a dangerous precedent.
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said it was “deeply disturbing” that the Justice Department had refused to prosecute former President Donald Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino.
Schiff told CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday that Meadows and Scavino are not immune from prosecution.
“And it is very puzzling why these two witnesses are being treated differently than the two the Justice Department is pursuing. There is no absolute immunity. spreading the big lie and the idea that witnesses just couldn’t show up,” Schiff told host Margaret Brennan.
He added: “And when the Justice Department is required by law to present these cases to the grand jury, that is deeply troubling. We’re hoping to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it’s a – I think a grave disappointment and could hamper our work if other witnesses think they can also refuse to appear with impunity.”
On Friday, the DOJ declined to hold Meadows and Scavino on contempt of Congress charges for failing to cooperate with subpoenas from the House Committee of Inquiry into the Jan. 6 riots. The DOJ has indicted former Trump adviser Peter Navarro and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
Schiff said there was no executive privilege preventing Meadows and Scavino from testifying, adding that they have important information about what happened before the riot.
“That should not be the explanation here, for of course there are a great many things these witnesses can testify without even having a plausible claim to executive privilege. They were both involved in election campaign matters. They both have documents they could offer,” Schiff said.
“None of that is protected by privilege and the idea that you can just refuse to show up, instead of showing up and saying on that issue I’ll exercise a privilege that only invites others to despise Congress or judges at large country and in other courtrooms, and I think it sets a very dangerous precedent.”