One of the most controversial legal figures during the George W. Bush administration has weighed in on the efforts of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to avoid testifying before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Before refusing to cooperate, Jordan had claimed he had “nothing to hide” from the select committee, but has since announced he will refuse to cooperate.
In Tuesday’s Washington Post morning political newsletter, Jacqueline Alemany and Theodoric Meyer report that Congress is grappling with whether Jordan may have immunity from a subpoena due to the Speech and Debate Clause.
Attorney John Yoo, who faced calls for investigation over torture, analyzed Jordan’s situation.
RELATED: Jamie Raskin throws Jim Jordan’s words from Benghazi back in his face for Jan. 6 investigation
“But Former Justice Department official John Yoo told The Early that the clause clearly does not extend immunity to lawmakers in this case,” the newspaper reported. “The clause was designed to protect the independence of the legislature but ‘not to protect the legislature from itself,’ said Yoo. The work of lawmakers in Congress ‘can be questioned in Congress…It’s a pretty easy answer and there’s a lot of practice,’ Yoo added.”
Read the full report.