[Pages H7667-H7794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE FIND MARK RANDALL MEADOWS IN CONTEMPT OF
CONGRESS
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, by direction of the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-216) and
accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives
find Mark Randall Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply
with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
The Clerk read the title of the report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). Pursuant to House Resolution
848, the report is considered read.
The text of the report is as follows:
The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack
on the United States Capitol, having considered this Report,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the Report be
approved.
The form of the Resolution that the Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol would recommend to the House of Representatives for
citing Mark Randall Meadows for contempt of Congress pursuant
to this Report is as follows:
Resolved, That Mark Randall Meadows shall be found to be in
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a
congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol, detailing the refusal of
Mark Randall Meadows to appear for a deposition before the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the
United States Capitol as directed by subpoena, to the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that
Mr. Meadows be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
purpose and summary
On January 6, 2021, a violent mob breached the security
perimeter of the United States Capitol, assaulted and injured
scores of police officers, engaged in hand-to-hand violence
with those officers over an extended period, terrorized
Members of Congress and staff, and invaded and occupied the
Capitol building, all in an effort to halt the lawful
counting of electoral votes and reverse the results of the
2020 election. In the words of many of those who participated
in the violence, the attack was a direct response to
statements by then-President Donald J. Trump--beginning on
election night 2020 and continuing through January 6, 2021--
that the 2020 election had been stolen by corrupted voting
machines, widespread fraud, and otherwise.
In response, the House adopted House Resolution 503 on June
30, 2021, establishing the Select Committee to Investigate
the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Select Committee'').
The Select Committee is investigating the facts,
circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attack and
issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power, in order
to identify how the events of January 6th were planned, what
actions and statements motivated and contributed to the
attack on the Capitol, how the violent riot that day was
coordinated with a political and public relations strategy to
reverse the election outcome, and why Capitol security was
insufficient to address what occurred. The Select Committee
will evaluate all facets of these issues, create a public
record of what occurred, and recommend to the House, and its
relevant committees, corrective laws, policies, procedures,
rules, or regulations.
According to documents and testimony obtained by the Select
Committee, Mark Randall Meadows is uniquely situated to
provide critical information about the events of January 6,
2021, as well as efforts taken by public officials and
private individuals to spread the message of widespread fraud
in the November 2020 election and to delay or prevent the
peaceful transfer of power. Mr. Meadows served as chief of
staff to President Trump during the final year of the Trump
administration. As detailed in public reporting, Mr. Meadows
was with or in the vicinity of then-President Trump on
January 6 as Mr. Trump learned about the attack on the U.S.
Capitol and decided whether to issue a statement that could
help to stop the rioters.
Mr. Meadows has refused to provide the Select Committee
with information and testimony that has no conceivable,
associated privilege claims. To complete its investigation,
the Select Committee needs access to testimony on this non-
privileged information. The Select Committee offers here just
several examples: Mr. Meadows has refused to provide
testimony on the documents he himself produced to the Select
Committee without any claim of privilege; Mr. Meadows has
refused to provide testimony about his reported
communications with organizers of various protest events
before January 6, 2021; Mr. Meadows personally travelled to
Georgia to inspect a county audit related to the presidential
election, but the Select Committee has not been able to
obtain testimony from Mr. Meadows about these events; and Mr.
Meadows has also denied the Select Committee the opportunity
to question him about a call with Georgia State officials in
which Mr. Trump insisted that he had won Georgia and told the
Georgia secretary of state that he wanted to ``find'' enough
votes to ensure his victory. Yet another topic on which Mr.
Meadows has frustrated the Select Committee's investigative
efforts relates to the Select Committee's attempt to locate
and discover highly relevant documents. Based on Mr.
Meadows's production of documents and recently reported
information, it appears that Mr. Meadows may not have
complied with legal requirements to retain or archive
documents under the Presidential Records Act. He has denied
the Select Committee the opportunity to question him about
these circumstances so that the Select Committee can fully
understand the location of highly relevant materials to its
investigation and which materials may now be lost to the
historical record.
To be clear, Mr. Meadows's failure to comply, and this
contempt recommendation, are not based on good-faith
disagreements over privilege assertions. Rather, Mr. Meadows
has failed to comply and warrants contempt findings because
he has wholly refused to appear to provide any testimony and
refused to answer questions regarding even clearly non-
privileged information--information that he himself has
identified as non-privileged through his own document
production.
[[Page H7668]]
Mr. Meadows's relevant documents and testimony are
necessary to the Select Committee's investigation for many
additional reasons. Mr. Meadows also reportedly participated
in meetings and communicated with senior Department of
Justice (DOJ) officials about unsupported election-fraud
claims and litigation aimed at disrupting or overturning the
election results. Mr. Meadows reportedly participated in a
contentious meeting at the White House with private
individuals and others linked to Mr. Trump's re-election
campaign during which Mr. Trump and others discussed seizing
voting machines and invoking certain laws including the
National Emergencies Act for election-related purposes
because of purported fraud in the election. Mr. Meadows
reportedly joined a January 2 call with Mr. Trump and State
and Federal officials to discuss overturning certain States'
electoral college results on January 6, and later sent the
former Vice President's staff a memo drafted by a Trump
campaign lawyer urging the Vice President to delay or decline
the counting of votes from certain States. Mr. Meadows was
also reportedly in contact with at least one of the
individuals who planned and organized a January 6 rally, one
of whom may have expressed safety concerns to Mr. Meadows
about the event. In short, Mr. Meadows appears to have
participated in, and been a witness to, critically important
communications and events that took place before and on
January 6, and the Congress is entitled to hear his first-
hand testimony regarding his actions and knowledge. The
Select Committee expects such testimony to be directly
relevant to its report and recommendations for legislative
and other action.
On September 23, 2021, the Select Committee issued a
subpoena to Mr. Meadows for documents and testimony, and
transmitted it along with a cover letter and schedule to Mr.
Meadows's then-counsel, who accepted service on Mr. Meadows's
behalf on that same day. The subpoena required that Mr.
Meadows produce responsive documents by October 7, 2021, and
that Mr. Meadows appear for a deposition on October 15, 2021.
After Mr. Meadows retained separate counsel, the Select
Committee agreed to postpone the subpoena deadlines to enable
his counsel to understand the requests associated with the
subpoena and work with Mr. Meadows. Ultimately, by letter
dated October 25, 2021, the Select Committee accommodated Mr.
Meadows's interest in moving back the date of his appearance
and document production and instructed Mr. Meadows to produce
documents by November 5, 2021, and appear for a deposition on
November 12, 2021.
Mr. Meadows's resistance came after the Select Committee
agreed to that postponement, after the Select Committee
identified specific subject matters for inquiry that did not
implicate any privilege, and after inviting Mr. Meadows to
explain with specificity his position as to whether any of
those areas would trigger any claims of executive privilege.
Mr. Meadows provided no such explanation. Instead, he
declined to produce a single document. He refused to carry
out the commonly accepted practice of producing a privilege
log in response to the Select Committee's subpoena. And he
failed to appear at the scheduled deposition, as ordered by
the lawful subpoena.
A week after Mr. Meadows failed to appear for his
deposition and 2 weeks after his deadline to produce
documents, Mr. Meadows reengaged with the Select Committee by
letter. The Select Committee gave Mr. Meadows an opportunity
to cure his previous non-compliance with the Select
Committee's subpoena by asking that he produce documents and
appear at a deposition that, ultimately, was scheduled for
December 8, 2021. Through counsel, Mr. Meadows agreed. Mr.
Meadows produced a large number of responsive documents that
were not subject to any claim of privilege, while withholding
many others. But the day before his deposition, Mr. Meadows
changed course once more and told the Select Committee that
he would not be attending his deposition after all, even to
answer questions about the documents that he agrees are
relevant and non-privileged that he had just produced. He did
this even though that very same day his book was released in
which he recounts specific conversations that he had with
former-President Trump, including conversations about whether
the former President planned to join a march to the United
States Capitol on January 6 after encouraging rally-goers to
do so. On December 8, 2021, Mr. Meadows failed to appear for
his deposition.
Although Mr. Meadows's counsel has referenced claims of
testimonial immunity and executive privilege purportedly
relayed by Mr. Trump's counsel, no such claims have been
presented by Mr. Trump to the Select Committee. Moreover, the
current White House has informed Mr. Meadows that the
incumbent President is not asserting claims of testimonial
immunity or executive privilege to prevent Mr. Meadows from
complying with the Select Committee's subpoena.
The Select Committee is confident that there is no
conceivable immunity or executive privilege claim that could
bar all of the Select Committee's requests or justify Mr.
Meadows's blanket refusal to appear for the required
deposition. Indeed, the Chairman's written responses on
October 25, 2021, November 5, 2021, and November 11, 2021,
addressed the legal arguments raised by Mr. Meadows's counsel
and made clear that the Select Committee expected--as the law
demands--that Mr. Meadows produce documents and appear before
the Select Committee at his deposition to raise any privilege
or other concerns regarding specific questions on the record
of that proceeding.
The contempt of Congress statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192,
provides that a witness summoned before Congress must appear
or be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine
of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year. Further,
the Supreme Court in United States v. Bryan (1950) emphasized
that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every
person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to
perform when properly summoned.'' The Supreme Court recently
reinforced this clear obligation by stating that ``[w]hen
Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative
action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to
cooperate.''
Mr. Meadows did not produce documents as required by the
subpoena's October 7, 2021, deadline or the extended deadline
of November 5, 2021. Similarly, Mr. Meadows did not appear
for a deposition scheduled for October 15, 2021, or the
extended deadline of November 12, 2021, as ordered by the
subpoena and in contravention of the clear instructions by
the Select Committee Chairman's letters dated October 25,
2021, November 5, 2021, November 9, 2021, and November 11,
2021, to appear at the deposition and raise any privilege
concerns in response to specific questions on the record.
Furthermore, Mr. Meadows chose not to appear before the
Select Committee on December 8, 2021, to cure his previous
non-compliance and after specifically agreeing to do so. Mr.
Meadows's refusal to comply with the Select Committee's
subpoena constitutes willful default under the law and
warrants contempt of Congress and referral to the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution
as prescribed by law. The denial of the information sought by
the subpoena impairs Congress's central powers under the
United States Constitution.
background on the select committee's investigation
House Resolution 503 sets out the specific purposes of the
Select Committee, including:
<bullet> To investigate and report upon the facts,
circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021,
domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol
Complex'';
<bullet> To investigate and report upon the facts,
circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with
the peaceful transfer of power''; and
<bullet> To investigate and report upon the facts,
circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing
factors that fomented such an attack on American
representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional
process.''
The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress's oversight
role. ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations
is inherent in the legislative process.'' Indeed, Congress's
ability to enforce its investigatory power ``is an essential
and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.''
``Absent such a power, a legislative body could not `wisely
or effectively' evaluate those conditions `which the
legislation is intended to affect or change.' ''
The oversight powers of House and Senate committees are
also codified in law. For example, the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 directed committees to ``exercise
continuous watchfulness'' over the executive branch's
implementation of programs within its jurisdictions, and the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 authorized committees
to ``review and study, on a continuing basis, the
application, administration, and execution'' of laws.
The Select Committee was properly constituted under section
2(a) of House Resolution 503, 117th Congress. As required by
that resolution, Members of the Select Committee were
selected by the Speaker, after ``consultation with the
minority leader.'' A bipartisan selection of Members was
appointed pursuant to House Resolution 503 on July 1, 2021,
and July 26, 2021.
Pursuant to House rule XI and House Resolution 503, the
Select Committee is authorized ``to require, by subpoena or
otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and
the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda,
papers, and documents as it considers necessary.'' That same
House rule expressly allows House committees to compel
information from the President and his aides. Further,
section 5(c)(4) of House Resolution 503 provides that the
Chairman of the Select Committee may ``authorize and issue
subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the
investigation and study'' conducted pursuant to the
enumerated purposes and functions of the Select Committee.
The Select Committee's authorizing resolution further states
that the Chairman ``may order the taking of depositions,
including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the
Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee
pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One
Hundred Seventeenth Congress.'' The subpoena to Mr. Meadows
was duly issued pursuant to section 5(c)(4) of House
Resolution 503 and clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives.
A. The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows
central to its investigative purposes.
The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows
central to its investigative responsibilities delegated to it
from the House of Representatives. This includes the
[[Page H7669]]
obligation to investigate and report on the facts,
circumstances, and causes of the attack on January 6, 2021,
and on the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the
interference with the peaceful transfer of power.''
The events of January 6, 2021, involved both a physical
assault on the Capitol building and law enforcement personnel
protecting it and an attack on the constitutional process
central to the peaceful transfer of power following a
presidential election. The counting of electoral college
votes by Congress is a component of that transfer of power
that occurs every January 6 following a presidential
election. This event is part of a complex process, mediated
through the free and fair elections held in jurisdictions
throughout the country, and through the statutory and
constitutional processes set up to confirm and validate the
results. In the case of the 2020 presidential election, the
January 6 electoral college vote count occurred following a
series of efforts in the preceding weeks by Mr. Trump and his
supporters to challenge the legitimacy of, disrupt, delay,
and overturn the election results.
According to eyewitness accounts as well as the statements
of participants in the attack on January 6, 2021, a purpose
of the assault was to stop the process of validating what
then-President Trump, his supporters, and his allies had
falsely characterized as a ``stolen'' or ``fraudulent''
election. The claims regarding the 2020 election results were
advanced and amplified in the weeks leading up to the January
6 assault, even after courts across the country had
resoundingly rejected Trump campaign lawsuits claiming
election fraud and misconduct, and after all States had
certified the election results. As part of this effort, Mr.
Trump and his associates spread false information about, and
cast doubts on, the elections in Arizona, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Georgia, among other states, and pressed
Federal, State, and local officials to use their authorities
to challenge the election results.
To fulfill its investigative responsibilities, the Select
Committee needs to understand the events and communications
in which Mr. Meadows reportedly participated or that he
observed.
Mr. Meadows was one of a relatively small group of people
who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House and
with then-President Trump. Mr. Meadows was with or in the
vicinity of then-President Trump on January 6 as he learned
about the attack on the U.S. Capitol and decided whether to
issue a statement that could stop the rioters. In fact, as
the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received
many messages encouraging him to have Mr. Trump issue a
statement that could end the violence, and one former White
House employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times
and told him, ``[y]ou guys have to say something. Even if the
president's not willing to put out a statement, you should go
to the [cameras] and say, `We condemn this. Please stand
down.' If you don't, people are going to die.''
Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel,
who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of
Defense Christopher Miller, ``nonstop'' throughout the day of
January 6. And, among other things, Mr. Meadows apparently
knows if and when Mr. Trump was engaged in discussions
regarding the National Guard's response to the Capitol riot,
a point that is contested but about which Mr. Meadows
provided documents to the Select Committee and spoke publicly
on national television after President Trump left office.
Beyond those matters, the Select Committee seeks
information from Mr. Meadows about issues including the
following:
<bullet> Mr. Meadows exchanged text messages with, and
provided guidance to, an organizer of the January 6th rally
on the Ellipse after the organizer told him that ``[t]hings
have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction.
Please.''
<bullet> Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about
the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard
would be present to ``protect pro Trump people'' and that
many more would be available on standby.
<bullet> Mr. Meadows received text messages and emails
regarding apparent efforts to encourage Republican
legislators in certain States to send alternate slates of
electors to Congress, a plan which one Member of Congress
acknowledged was ``highly controversial'' and to which Mr.
Meadows responded, ``I love it.'' Mr. Meadows responded to a
similar message by saying ``[w]e are'' and another such
message by saying ``Yes. Have a team on it.''
<bullet> Mr. Meadows forwarded claims of election fraud to
the acting leadership of DOJ for further investigation, some
of which he may have received using a private email account
and at least one of which he had received directly from
people associated with Mr. Trump's re-election campaign.
<bullet> He also reportedly introduced Mr. Trump to then-
DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. Mr. Clark went on to recommend to
Mr. Trump that he be installed as Acting Attorney General and
that DOJ should send a letter to State officials urging them
to take certain actions that could affect the outcome of the
November 2020 election by, among other things, appointing
alternate slates of electors to cast electoral votes for Mr.
Trump rather than now-President Biden.
<bullet> Mr. Meadows participated in meetings and calls
during which the participants reportedly discussed the need
to ``fight'' back against ``mounting evidence'' of purported
voter fraud after courts had considered and overwhelmingly
rejected Trump campaign claims of voter fraud and other
election irregularities. He participated in one such meeting
in the Oval Office with Mr. Trump and Members of Congress,
which he publicly tweeted about from his personal Twitter
account shortly after. He participated in another such call
just days before the January 6 attack with Mr. Trump, Members
of Congress, attorneys for the Trump re-election campaign,
and ``some 300'' State and local officials to discuss the
goal of overturning certain States' electoral college results
on January 6, 2021.
<bullet> Mr. Meadows traveled to Georgia to observe an
audit of the votes days after then-President Trump complained
that the audit had been moving too slowly and claimed that
the signature-match system was rife with fraud. That trip
precipitated Mr. Trump's calls to Georgia's deputy secretary
of state and, later, secretary of state. In the call with
Georgia's secretary of state, which Mr. Meadows and an
attorney working with the campaign also joined, Mr. Trump
pressed his unsupported claims of widespread election fraud,
including claims related to deceased people voting, forged
signatures, out-of-State voters, shredded ballots, triple-
counted ballots, Dominion voting machines, and suitcase
ballots, before telling the secretary of state that he wanted
to find enough votes to ensure his victory. At one point
during the call, Mr. Meadows asked ``in the spirit of
cooperation and compromise, is there something that we can at
least have a discussion to look at some of these allegations
to find a path forward that's less litigious?'' At that
point, Mr. Trump had filed two lawsuits in his personal
capacity and on behalf of the campaign in Georgia, but the
United States had not filed--and never did file--any. Mr.
Meadows used a personal account in his attempts to reach the
secretary of state before.
<bullet> Mr. Meadows was chief of staff during the post-
election period when other White House staff, including the
press secretary, advanced claims of election fraud. In one
press conference, the press secretary claimed that there were
``very real claims'' of fraud that the Trump re-election
campaign was pursuing and said that mail-in voting was one
that ``we have identified as being particularly prone to
fraud.''
<bullet> Mr. Meadows participated in a meeting that
reportedly occurred on December 18, 2020, with Mr. Trump, the
White House counsel, an attorney associated with the
campaign, White House staff, and private citizens, on
proposals relating to challenging the 2020 election results.
During the meeting, the participants reportedly discussed
purported foreign interference in the election, seizing
voting machines, invoking certain Federal laws like the
National Emergencies Act, and appointing one of the attendees
as a special counsel with a Top Secret security clearance to
investigate fraud in the election. White House officials,
including Mr. Meadows, may have resisted some of the
proposals, but, at one point, Mr. Trump reportedly said:
``You [White House] guys are offering me nothing. These guys
are at least offering me a chance. They're saying they have
the evidence. Why not try this?''
<bullet> Mr. Meadows reportedly sent an email--subject
line: ``Constitutional Analysis of the Vice President's
Authority for January 6, 2021, Vote Count''--to a member of
then-Vice President Pence's senior staff containing a memo
written by an attorney affiliated with Mr. Trump's re-
election campaign. The memo argued that the Vice President
could declare electoral votes in six States in dispute when
they came up for a vote during the Joint Session of Congress
on January 6, 2021, which would require those States'
legislatures to send a response to Congress by 7 p.m. EST on
January 15 or, if they did not, then congressional
delegations would vote for Mr. Trump's re-election.
<bullet> Mr. Meadows was in contact with at least some of
the private individuals who planned and organized a January 6
rally, one of whom reportedly may have expressed safety
concerns to Mr. Meadows about January 6 events. Mr. Meadows
used his personal cell phone to discuss the rally in the days
leading up to January 6.
<bullet> Mr. Meadows described in his book, The Chief's
Chief, specific conversations that he had with Mr. Trump
while he was the President about, among other things, fraud
in the election and the January 6th attack on the United
States Capitol. In one passage about the election, Mr.
Meadows quotes Mr. Trump. In another passage about January 6,
Mr. Meadows describes a conversation he had with Mr. Trump
after Mr. Trump spoke to rally goers and, presumably, just
after the attack on the Capitol had started.
It is apparent that Mr. Meadows's testimony and document
production are of critical importance to the Select
Committee's investigation. Congress, through the Select
Committee, is entitled to discover facts concerning what led
to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, as well as
White House officials' actions and communications during and
after the attack. Mr. Meadows is uniquely situated to provide
key information, having straddled an official role in the
White House and unofficial role related to Mr. Trump's re-
election campaign since at least election day in 2020 through
January 6.
B. Mr. Meadows has refused to comply with the Select
Committee's subpoena.
On September 23, 2021, the Select Committee sent a subpoena
to Mr. Meadows ordering the production of both documents and
[[Page H7670]]
testimony relevant to the Select Committee's investigation.
The accompanying letter set forth a schedule specifying
categories of related documents sought by the Select
Committee on topics including, but not limited to, documents
and communications regarding the 2020 election results sent
or transmitted between White House officials and officials of
State or local governments; communications regarding
challenging, decertifying, overturning, or contesting the
results of the 2020 presidential election; communications
with Members of Congress on January 6 relating to or
referring to the attack on the Capitol; documents and
communications related to security of the Capitol or other
Federal facilities on January 5, 2021, and January 6, 2021;
and documents and communications regarding any plan for the
former President to march or walk to the Capitol.
The subpoena required Mr. Meadows to produce the requested
documents to the Select Committee on October 7, 2021, and to
provide testimony on October 15, 2021. As authorized by Mr.
Meadows, attorney Scott Gast accepted service of this
subpoena on behalf of Mr. Meadows on September 23, 2021. On
October 7, 2021, George J. Terwilliger, III, sent a letter to
the Select Committee advising that he had been retained to
serve as counsel to Mr. Meadows for purposes of the Select
Committee's inquiry.
On October 12, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger and staff for the
Select Committee had a telephone call to discuss the Select
Committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows. During that call, staff
for the Select Committee previewed certain topics of inquiry
they intended to develop during Mr. Meadows's deposition and
for which claims of executive privilege should not apply.
Chairman Thompson included that list of topics in a later
letter to Mr. Terwilliger dated October 25, 2021.
On October 13, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger emailed staff for the
Select Committee and referenced ``the potential for
conflicting directions from former-President Trump and
President Biden as to preservation of privileges concerning
senior presidential advisors and communication by the same in
that role.'' Mr. Terwilliger stated that he was scheduled to
discuss ``privilege issues'' with the White House [c]ounsel's
office on October 14 but indicated that it was ``not clear .
. . that, in whole or in part, relevant privileges would not
attach to Mr. Meadows['] testimony'' as to topics that staff
for the Select Committee outlined during the October 12
telephone call. Accordingly, he informed the Select Committee
that he ``could not advise'' Mr. Meadows to ``commit to
testifying'' on the subpoena designated date of October 15.
Mr. Terwilliger also emailed to staff for the Select
Committee an October 6, 2021, letter from former-President
Trump's counsel, Justin Clark, to Mr. Meadows's then-counsel,
Mr. Gast, expressing former-President Trump's apparent belief
that ``Mr. Meadows is immune from compelled congressional
testimony on matters related to his official
responsibilities.'' The letter also purports to
``instruct[]'' Mr. Meadows ``(a) where appropriate, invoke
any immunities and privilege he may have from compelled
testimony in response to the [s]ubpoena; (b) not produce any
documents concerning his official duties in response to the
[s]ubpoena; and (c) not provide any testimony concerning his
official duties in response to the [s]ubpoena.''
On October 25, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to Mr.
Terwilliger's October 7, 2021, letter and October 13, 2021,
email. He stated that even assuming that, as a former
President, Mr. Trump is permitted to formally invoke
executive privilege, Mr. Trump had not communicated an
invocation of privilege, either formally or informally, to
the Select Committee with respect to Mr. Meadows's production
of documents or appearance to provide testimony. The October
25 response from Chairman Thompson further stated that--even
assuming a privilege applied to Mr. Meadows's documents and
testimony and former-President Trump had formally invoked a
privilege (which was not the case)--Mr. Meadows does not
enjoy anything like the type of blanket testimonial immunity
former-President Trump and Mr. Terwilliger suggested would
insulate Mr. Meadows from an obligation to comply with the
Select Committee's subpoena. The letter also noted that,
regardless, the information the Select Committee seeks from
Mr. Meadows involves a range of subjects that cannot be
considered part of Mr. Meadows's ``official
responsibilities,'' including but not limited to
``communications and meetings involving people who did not
work for the United States government''; ``Mr. Meadows'[]
campaign-related activities''; and ``communications and
meetings about topics for which the Department of Justice and
the White House have expressly declined to assert executive
privilege.''
The Chairman's October 25 letter extended the subpoena's
document production deadline to November 5, 2021, and
extended Meadows's appearance for deposition testimony to
November 12, 2021. It also made clear that the Select
Committee would view failure to respond to the subpoena as
willful non-compliance, which would force the Select
Committee to consider invoking the contempt of Congress
procedures pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194, as
well as the possibility of civil enforcement proceedings.
On November 3, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger transmitted a letter
to the Select Committee, responding to Chairman Thompson's
October 25, 2021, letter with respect to the production of
documents. In it, Mr. Terwilliger stated that he was ``not
aware at this time of any documents that are responsive to
the Select Committee's subpoena and maintained in Mr.
Meadows's custody or control,'' and that he ``therefore ha[d]
no documents to produce to the Select Committee.''
That same day, Mr. Terwilliger transmitted to the Select
Committee a second letter. In it, Mr. Terwilliger suggested
that Mr. Meadows maintains a ``good faith'' belief that he
cannot comply with the subpoena and testify before Congress
and, instead, proposed unspecified accommodations. Notably,
Mr. Terwilliger acknowledged that courts had universally
rejected Mr. Meadows's position on absolute testimonial
immunity, but claimed that the executive branch had never
``retreated from that position'' and that the Supreme Court
had never weighed in.
On November 5, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to Mr.
Terwilliger's November 3 letters. Chairman Thompson noted
that although Mr. Terwilliger stated that Mr. Meadows had no
documents to produce to the Select Committee, Mr. Terwilliger
had previously indicated that he had gathered documents from
Mr. Meadows and was reviewing those documents for
responsiveness. The November 5 letter also reiterated Mr.
Meadows's obligation to provide a privilege log detailing
each document and each privilege that he believes applied for
any responsive documents so the Select Committee could
evaluate whether any additional actions are appropriate,
reminded Mr. Terwilliger that categorical claims of executive
privilege are improper and that Mr. Meadows must assert any
such claim made by former-President Trump narrowly and
specifically. Chairman Thompson further noted that the Select
Committee had received information suggesting that Mr.
Meadows used his personal cell phone for communications
relevant to the Select Committee's inquiry, some of which
potentially would fall under Presidential Records Act
requirements. Accordingly, Chairman Thompson requested that
Mr. Terwilliger identify for the Select Committee the current
location of Mr. Meadows's cell phone and whether Mr. Meadows
provided his texts and other relevant cell phone records to
the National Archives.
In an effort to reach an accommodation with respect to Mr.
Meadows's deposition, the November 5, 2021, letter provided
further information regarding the topics the Select Committee
intended to develop with Mr. Meadows during the deposition,
some of which the Chairman had previously identified in his
October 25, 2021, letter. These topics included but were not
limited to ``[m]essaging to or from the White House, Trump
reelection campaign, party officials, and others about
purported fraud, irregularities, or malfeasance in the
November 2020 election''; ``[e]fforts to pressure federal
agencies, including the Department of Justice, to take
actions to challenge the results of the presidential
election, advance allegations of voter fraud, interfere with
Congress's count of the Electoral College vote, or otherwise
overturn President Biden's certified victory''; ``[e]fforts
to pressure former Vice President Pence, members of his
staff, and Members of Congress to delay or prevent
certification of the Electoral College vote''; ``[c]ampaign
related activities'' including Mr. Meadows's ``travel to
Georgia'' and contacts with ``officials and employees in the
Georgia secretary of state's Office''; ``[m]eetings or other
communications involving people who did not work for the
United States government'' including ``Michael Flynn, Patrick
Byrne,'' and ``organizers of the January 6 rally like Amy
Kremer''; and ``[a]dvance knowledge of, and any preparations
for, the possibility of violence during election-related
rallies and/or protests in Washington, D.C.'' The letter made
clear that the Select Committee did not expect to seek
information from Mr. Meadows unrelated to the 2020 election
and what led to and occurred on January 6, and indicated a
willingness to discuss and negotiate any additional areas or
subjects about which the Select Committee would seek
information from Mr. Meadows as the Select Committee
continued its investigation. Chairman Thompson invited input
from Mr. Meadows on the delineated topics by November 8. As
in previous correspondence, Chairman Thompson stated that the
Select Committee would view failure to respond to the
subpoena as willful non-compliance, which would force the
Select Committee to consider invoking the contempt of
Congress procedures pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and
194, in addition to the possibility of civil enforcement
proceedings.
On November 8, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger responded, stating
that he was ``reiterate[ing]'' Mr. Meadows's position that he
``cannot be compelled to provide congressional testimony'' as
a former White House chief of staff. As a purported
``accommodation,'' Mr. Terwilliger proposed ``that the Select
Committee propound written interrogatories to Mr. Meadows on
any topics about which the Select Committee may wish to
inquire.'' Mr. Terwilliger also indicated that Mr. Meadows
had provided him with access to electronic images from his
personal accounts and devices, the review of which was
``ongoing.'' Regarding the list of topics outlined in the
November 5 letter, Mr. Terwilliger asserted, without
specifically and narrowly addressing on a topic-by-topic
basis, that the topics ``plainly implicate executive
privilege even under a narrow interpretation of it,'' and
expressed the belief that Mr. Meadows could not testify about
the topics without implicating executive privilege.
[[Page H7671]]
In a November 9, 2021, letter to Mr. Terwilliger, Chairman
Thompson stated that Mr. Terwilliger's November 8 letter
failed to respond with any specificity about the topics of
inquiry by the Select Committee, leading the Select Committee
to assume that Mr. Terwilliger believed that all of the
topics potentially implicated executive privilege. Chairman
Thompson further stated that without further input on those
topics, which the Select Committee had requested in its
November 5 letter, the Select Committee must insist that Mr.
Meadows appear for a deposition on November 12, as required
by the subpoena, and that written interrogatories were not an
acceptable substitute for live, in-person testimony. The
November 9 letter further stated that the Select Committee
had identified evidence regarding Mr. Meadows's use of
personal cellular phone and email accounts, and, because of
that, it would be a subject of inquiry during the November 12
deposition. The letter listed eight specific questions
concerning the information that the Select Committee would
seek to develop regarding this issue, none of which
implicated any executive or other privilege.
Meanwhile, on November 9, 2021, the Federal District Court
for the District of Columbia issued a ruling rejecting Donald
Trump's attempt to prohibit disclosure of White House
documents to the Select Committee by asserting the executive
privilege. The Federal court held ``that the public interest
lies in permitting--not enjoining--the combined will of the
legislative and executive branches to study the events that
led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation
to prevent such events from ever occurring again.'' The
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on December 9,
2021.
On November 10, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger acknowledged receipt
of Chairman Thompson's November 9, 2021, letter, but did not
address the eight specific questions Chairman Thompson
included in his letter, instead stating that ``Mr. Meadows
cannot agree to appear at 10 AM Friday'' and again claiming
that Mr. Meadows believed that ``senior aides to the
president cannot be compelled to provide congressional
testimony.''
On November 11, 2021, the White House Counsel's Office
issued a letter to Mr. Terwilliger regarding the Select
Committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows. That letter stated: ``in
recognition of these unique and extraordinary circumstances,
where Congress is investigating an effort to obstruct the
lawful transfer of power under our Constitution, President
Biden has already determined that an assertion of executive
privilege is not in the public interest, and is therefore not
justified, with respect to particular subjects within the
purview of the Select Committee.'' The letter further noted
that, consistent with this determination, President Biden
``will not assert executive privilege with respect to [Mr.
Meadows's] deposition testimony on these subjects, or any
documents your client may possess that may bear on them,''
and ``will not assert immunity to preclude [Mr. Meadows] from
testifying before the Select Committee.''
Later on November 11, 2021, Chairman Thompson sent another
letter to Mr. Terwilliger. This letter summarized the
correspondence between Mr. Terwilliger and the Select
Committee, and again noted that Mr. Meadows's reliance on
opinions regarding absolute immunity from the Department of
Justice Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') was misguided given
that their reasoning has been rejected by all Federal courts
to have considered the issue of absolute immunity. The
Chairman's letter emphasized that, in any event, the White
House Counsel's Office letter from earlier that day
``eviscerates any plausible claim of testimonial immunity or
executive privilege, and compels compliance with the Select
Committee's subpoena.''
On November 12, 2021, at 10 a.m., Mr. Meadows failed to
appear at the designated location to provide testimony
relevant to the Select Committee's inquiry in response to
questions posed, as was required by the subpoena. He also
failed to produce any responsive documents or a privilege log
identifying the specific basis for withholding any documents
believed to be protected by privilege.
On November 19, 2021, a full week after Mr. Meadows failed
to appear for a deposition and two weeks after the deadline
to produce documents, Mr. Terwilliger sent a letter to
Chairman Thompson purportedly seeking an accommodation and
suggesting, again, that the Select Committee send
interrogatories to Mr. Meadows as a first step in a longer
accommodation process that ``could,'' depending on certain
negotiations and parameters, result in a limited
``deposition'' ``outside of compulsion by subpoena.'' Mr.
Terwilliger made clear that Mr. Meadows would only answer
interrogatories on a narrow range of topics, and even on
those topics would not provide any information regarding
communications with the former President, former senior White
House aides, and other individuals with whom Mr. Meadows
spoke on behalf of the President unless the former President
explicitly authorized him to do so.
Chairman Thompson responded to Mr. Terwilliger on November
22, 2021. In his response, the Chairman rejected Mr.
Terwilliger's proposal to proceed by interrogatories instead
of lawfully-compelled testimony and production of documents.
In rejecting Mr. Terwilliger's proposal for a second time,
the Chairman noted that ``[w]hen Mr. Meadows first proposed
interrogatories, he asked that the Select Committee
`propound' them, but did not say that he would actually
provide any substantive information in response.'' The
Chairman further noted, ``[n]ow, after his failure to comply
with the Select Committee's subpoena, [Mr. Meadows] has added
conditions: (1) the interrogatories can only ask questions
about two days in January 2021 and Mr. Meadows's
communications with the Department of Justice; and (2) Mr.
Meadows will only respond to questions about his
communications `with or on behalf of the [former] President,
or with other senior White House aides' provided that he
first obtains the former President's approval.'' Chairman
Thompson then walked through the Select Committee's lengthy
correspondence with Mr. Terwilliger, and explained that
``[t]his history has led the Select Committee to suspect that
you are simply engaged in an effort to delay, and that Mr.
Meadows has no genuine intent to offer any testimony on any
relevant topic.'' Nevertheless, the Chairman extended Mr.
Meadows an opportunity to show that he was operating in good
faith by instructing Mr. Meadows to provide documents
responsive to the original subpoena by November 26, 2021, and
to appear for a deposition that the Chairman would convene on
November 29, 2021 (later moved to December 8, 2021). In doing
so, Chairman Thompson reiterated that Mr. Meadows may object
to specific questions that he believes raise privilege
concerns so that he and the Select Committee could engage in
further discussions about his privilege arguments. In
closing, Chairman Thompson indicated that the Select
Committee would ``defer consideration of enforcement steps
regarding Mr. Meadows's non-compliance with the Select
Committee's subpoena pending the November 26 production of
documents and November 29 deposition.''
Mr. Terwilliger responded to Chairman Thompson's letter by
two separate letters dated November 26, 2021. In his first
letter, Mr. Meadows, through counsel, specifically agreed to
appear for a ``deposition to answer questions on what you
believe to be non-privileged matters'' subject to certain
proposed conditions. In his separate letter, Mr. Michael
Francisco, another attorney representing Mr. Meadows,
explained that Mr. Meadows was making an ``initial'' document
production of 1,139 documents responsive to the Select
Committee's subpoena that were found in Mr. Meadows's
personal Gmail account and that counsel was reviewing
information from Mr. Meadows`s personal cell phone, which Mr.
Meadows ``did not retain . . . after January 2021.'' Mr.
Francisco also provided a privilege log with that document
production showing that Mr. Meadows was withholding hundreds
more documents found in his personal Gmail account due to
claims of executive, marital, and other protective
privileges.
On November 28, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to
counsel's letters and indicated that he was willing to
accommodate Mr. Meadows's request for a deposition during the
week of December 6 provided that he complete his production
of documents no later than Friday, December 3, 2021. Chairman
Thompson also explained that the Select Committee would ask
questions of Mr. Meadows relevant to the investigation and
consistent with Chairman Thompson's previous letters about
executive privilege. Chairman Thompson again explained his
hope that Mr. Meadows would answer the questions posed, but
also said that Mr. Meadows should assert any privileges that
he believed applied on a question-by-question basis on the
record to inform continued discussions. As an accommodation,
Chairman Thompson also agreed to provide in advance of the
depositions the documents that the Select Committee intended
to use in its questioning. Mr. Terwilliger agreed to the
deposition format as explained in the November 28 letter
during a call with Select Committee staff.
As requested by Chairman Thompson, on December 3, 2021, Mr.
Francisco produced approximately 2,300 text messages obtained
from data backed up from Mr. Meadows's personal cell phone.
In doing so, Mr. Francisco also produced a privilege log with
the document production showing that Mr. Meadows was
withholding over 1,000 more text messages from his personal
cell phone due to claims of executive, marital, and other
protective privileges.
Then, on December 7, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger send a letter
explaining that Mr. Meadows would not attend a deposition on
December 8, as he had previously agreed to do. During a call
with Select Committee staff that same day, Mr. Terwilliger
indicated that Mr. Meadows would not appear at all, even to
discuss the documents that he had already provided to the
Select Committee and that were not covered by any claim of
protective privilege.
To date, and despite the opportunity that the Select
Committee gave to Mr. Meadows to cure his previous non-
compliance with the Select Committee's subpoena, Mr. Meadows
has never appeared for a compelled or voluntary deposition to
answer any of the Select Committee's questions, even
questions about the documents that Mr. Meadows has produced
to the Select Committee.
C. Mr. Meadows's purported basis for non-compliance is wholly
without merit.
As explained above, as part of its legislative function,
Congress has the power to compel witnesses to testify and
produce documents. An individual--whether a member of the
public or an executive branch official--
[[Page H7672]]
has a legal (and patriotic) obligation to comply with a duly
issued and valid congressional subpoena, unless a valid and
overriding privilege or other legal justification permits
non-compliance. In United States v. Bryan, the Supreme Court
stated:
A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game
of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if
cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case,
then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so
necessary to the effective functioning of courts and
legislatures, would be a nullity. We have often iterated the
importance of this public duty, which every person within the
jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when
properly summoned.
It is important to note that the Select Committee sought
testimony from Mr. Meadows on information for which there can
be no conceivable privilege claim. Examples of that
information are provided in this report, and the non-
privileged nature of some key information has been recognized
by Mr. Meadows's own production documents. The Select
Committee has been entitled to Mr. Meadows's testimony on
that information, regardless of his claims of privilege over
other categories of information.
In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-16 (1974), the
Supreme Court recognized an implied constitutional privilege
protecting presidential communications. The Court held though
that the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and that it is
limited to communications made ``in performance of [a
President's] responsibilities of his office and made in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions.'' Executive
privilege is a recognized privilege that, under certain
circumstances, may be invoked to bar congressional inquiry
into communications covered by the privilege.
Mr. Meadows has refused to testify in response to the
subpoena ostensibly based on broad and undifferentiated
assertions of various privileges, including claims of
executive privilege purportedly asserted by former-President
Trump. As the Select Committee has repeatedly pointed out to
Mr. Meadows, his claims of testimonial immunity and executive
privilege do not justify Mr. Meadows's conduct with respect
to the Select Committee's subpoena. His legal position is
particularly untenable in light of the incumbent President's
decision to not assert testimonial immunity or executive
privilege with respect to subjects on which the Select
Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows. And it is
untenable in light of Mr. Meadows's public descriptions of
events in the book that he is trying to sell and during his
numerous television appearances.
Even if privileges were applicable to some aspects of Mr.
Meadows's testimony, he was required to appear before the
Select Committee for his deposition, answer any questions
concerning non-privileged information, and assert any such
privilege on a question-by-question basis. After promising to
appear, Mr. Meadows has now reversed course and resumed his
contemptuous behavior. Mr. Meadows's conduct in response to
the Select Committee's subpoena constitutes a violation of
the contempt of Congress statutory provisions.
1. The incumbent President has declined to assert claims of
executive privilege and testimonial immunity.
President Biden has declined to assert claims of executive
privilege or testimonial immunity regarding subjects about
which the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony from
Mr. Meadows. That fact matters because, even if a former
President attempts to prevent disclosure of certain
information through assertions of executive privilege, the
former President's privilege is subordinate to executive
privilege determinations made by the incumbent President.
``[I]t is the new President [not his predecessor] who has the
information and attendant duty of executing the laws in the
light of current facts and circumstances,'' and ``the
primary, if not the exclusive'' duty of deciding when the
need of maintaining confidentiality in communications
``outweighs whatever public interest or need may reside in
disclosure.'' Dellums v. Powell, 561 F.2d 242, 247 (D.C. Cir.
1977).
Indeed, in briefings in Trump v. Thompson, litigation
involving a lawsuit against the Select Committee and the
National Archives and Records Administration, DOJ has
explained, even more specifically, why President Biden's
decision controls whether information relevant to the Select
Committee's investigation should be disclosed. DOJ said,
among other things, that ``[a] former President has no
responsibility for the current execution of the law'' and
``[a]bsent unusual circumstances, allowing a former President
to override decisions by the incumbent President regarding
disclosure of Executive Branch information would be an
extraordinary intrusion'' into executive branch authority.
In other words, ``[a]llowing a former President to block
disclosure of Executive Branch information that the incumbent
President has determined is in the national interest to share
with Congress would be even more clearly contrary to well-
established principles governing the exercise of sovereign
authority.'' This is consistent with the District Court's
decision in the same litigation, in which it rejected Mr.
Trump's position and explained that Mr. Trump ``is no longer
situated to protect executive branch interests with the
information and attendant duty of executing the laws in the
light of current facts and circumstances'' and because ``he
no longer remains subject to political checks against
potential abuse of that power.''
In his November 3 letter, Mr. Terwilliger stated that ``it
would be untenable for Mr. Meadows to decide unilaterally
that he will waive privileges that not only protected his own
work as a senior White House official but also protect
current and future White House officials, who rely on
executive privilege in giving their best, most candid advice
to the President.'' Of course, Mr. Meadows appears to have
already done that by recounting in his book and on national
television specific conversations and deliberations he had
with Mr. Trump about events related to the January 6th attack
on the United States Capitol. But, even if he had not done
all of that, he still need not worry about making such
decisions ``unilaterally'' because the incumbent President
has already declined to assert executive privilege or
testimonial immunity regarding subjects about which the
Select Committee seeks information. Mr. Meadows has known
since he received the White House's letter on November 11,
2021, that President Biden determined that ``an assertion of
privilege is not justified with respect to testimony and
documents'' and that President Biden ``will not assert
executive privilege with respect to [Mr. Meadows'] deposition
testimony on these subjects, or any documents [Mr. Meadows]
may possess that bear on them relevant to the Select
Committee's investigation.'' President Biden came to this
conclusion ``in recognition of these unique and extraordinary
circumstances, where Congress is investigating an effort to
obstruct the lawful transfer of power under our
Constitution.'' Despite all of this, Mr. Meadows failed to
appear for his deposition on November 12. When given the
opportunity to cure his earlier contempt and appear for a
deposition well after the subpoena's deadlines, he, once
again, failed to do so.
2. Mr. Trump has not formally invoked executive privilege.
Former President Trump has had no communication with the
Select Committee. In an October 11 email to the Select
Committee, Mr. Meadows's attorney attached an October 6,
2021, letter from Mr. Trump's attorney, Justin Clark, in
which Mr. Clark claimed that the Select Committee subpoena
seeks information that is ``unquestionably protected from
disclosure by the executive and other privileges, including
among others the presidential communications, deliberative
process, and attorney-client privileges.'' Mr. Clark stated
that former-President Trump ``is prepared to defend these
fundamental privileges in court.'' Mr. Clark also relayed
that, ``to the fullest extent permitted by law, President
Trump instructs Mr. Meadows to: (a) where appropriate, invoke
any immunities and privileges he may have from compelled
testimony in response to the Subpoena; (b) not produce any
documents concerning his official duties in response to the
Subpoena; and (c) not provide any testimony concerning his
official duties in response to the Subpoena.'' But without a
formal assertion by Mr. Trump to the Select Committee, Mr.
Meadows cannot establish the foundational element of a claim
of executive privilege: an invocation of the privilege by the
executive.
In United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953), the
Supreme Court held that executive privilege:
[B]elongs to the Government and must be asserted by it; it
can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is
not to be lightly invoked. There must be a formal claim of
privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has
control over the matter, after actual personal consideration
by that officer.
Here, the Select Committee has not been provided by Mr.
Trump with any formal invocation of executive privilege.
There is no legal authority--and neither Mr. Meadows nor
former-President Trump nor his counsel have cited any--
holding that a vague statement by someone who is not a
government official that a former President has an intention
to assert a privilege absolves a subpoena recipient of his
duty to comply. Such indirect, non-specific assertion of
privilege, without any description of the documents or
testimony over which privilege is claimed, is insufficient to
activate a claim of executive privilege.
3. Mr. Meadows is not entitled to absolute immunity.
Mr. Meadows has refused to appear for a deposition based on
his purported reliance on alleged absolute testimonial
immunity. However, even if Mr. Trump had invoked executive
privilege, and even if executive privilege reached certain
testimony sought by the Select Committee, Mr. Meadows would
not be immune from compelled testimony before the Select
Committee, especially given the fact that he is no longer a
high-level White House official.
All courts that have reviewed this issue have been clear:
even senior White House aides who advise the President on
official government business are not immune from compelled
congressional process. Instead, Mr. Meadows acknowledges that
this theory of immunity is based entirely on internal
memoranda from OLC that courts, in relevant parts, have
uniformly rejected. Nevertheless, Mr. Meadows refused to
appear at his deposition.
[[Page H7673]]
Moreover, by their own terms, the OLC opinions on which Mr.
Meadows relies are limited, applying only to testimony
``about [a senior official's] official duties,'' not
testimony about unofficial duties. Many of the topics that
Chairman Thompson identified in his correspondence are
unrelated to Mr. Meadows's official duties and would neither
fall under the reach of the ``absolute immunity'' theory nor
any privilege whatsoever. For instance:
<bullet> Mr. Meadows was not conducting official and
privileged business when he participated in a January 2021
call with campaign lawyers and State officials in which the
participants urged State legislators to overturn the results
of the November 2020 election and guarantee a second term for
Mr. Trump;
<bullet> Mr. Meadows was not conducting official and
privileged business when he participated in another call with
campaign lawyers and the Georgia secretary of state in which
Mr. Trump urged the Georgia secretary of state to ``find''
enough votes to ensure his campaign's victory in Georgia; and
<bullet> Mr. Meadows was not engaged in official and
privileged business when he used his personal accounts and/or
devices to contact the Georgia secretary of state or speak
with private organizers of a rally on the Ellipse that
occurred just before the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The Select Committee specifically identified to Mr. Meadows
these and other topics as subjects for his deposition
testimony, and he had the legal obligation to appear before
the Select Committee and address them on the record.
Mr. Meadows's production of documents to the Select
Committee highlights that he has information relevant to the
Select Committee's inquiry that he himself acknowledges is
not subject to any privilege. His refusal to provide
testimony on such subjects further evidences willful non-
compliance with the Select Committee's deposition subpoena.
Mr. Meadows produced to the Select Committee certain
communications with campaign staff, Members of Congress, and
acquaintances that do not involve official business, while
withholding others that presumably do involve official
business because of ``executive privilege.'' In doing so, Mr.
Meadows has clearly acknowledged that he has relevant
information that is not related to his official conduct. And
because the relevant information that he has is not related
to his official conduct, Mr. Meadows cannot avoid a
deposition in which he would be asked questions about those
documents by invoking an OLC opinion that is limited to
testimony about ``official duties.''
4. Even if Mr. Trump had properly invoked executive
privilege and Mr. Meadows had properly asserted it, the
privilege would not bar the Select Committee from
obtaining evidence from Mr. Meadows.
The law is clear that executive privilege does not extend
to discussions relating to non-governmental business or among
private citizens. In In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729,
752 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the court explained that the
presidential communications privilege covers ``communications
authored or solicited and received by those members of an
immediate White House adviser's staff who have broad and
significant responsibility for investigating and formulating
the advice to be given the President on the particular matter
to which the communications relate.'' The court stressed that
the privilege only applies to communications intended to
advise the President ``on official government matters.''
As noted above, the Select Committee seeks information from
Mr. Meadows on a wide range of subjects that executive
privilege cannot conceivably reach. For example, the Select
Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows about his
interactions with private citizens, Members of Congress, or
others outside the White House related to the 2020 election
or efforts to overturn its results. Mr. Meadows has
repeatedly refused to answer any questions about these
matters. He has even refused to answer questions about the
documents that he himself produced to the Select Committee
without any assertions of privilege.
Even with respect to Select Committee inquiries that
involve Mr. Meadows's direct communications with Mr. Trump,
executive privilege does not bar Select Committee access to
that information. Only communications that relate to official
government business can be covered by the presidential
communications privilege. Here, Mr. Meadows's conduct
regarding several subjects of concern to the Select Committee
is not related to official government business, such as:
Meadows's participation in calls and meetings that clearly
concerned Mr. Trump's campaign rather that his official
duties; or, Mr. Meadows's participation in meetings with Mr.
Trump and private individuals about seizing voting machines
or taking other steps related to the election that could
reportedly, in Mr. Trump's words, ``offer[] me a chance'';
or, Mr. Meadows's contacts with organizers of the January 6th
rally on the Ellipse.
Moreover, even with respect to any subjects of concern that
arguably involve official government business, the Select
Committee's need for this information to investigate the
facts and circumstances surrounding the horrific January 6
assault on the U.S. Capitol and the Nation's democratic
institutions far outweighs any possible executive branch
interest at this point in maintaining confidentiality. As
noted by the executive, ``the constitutional protections of
executive privilege should not be used to shield information
reflecting an effort to subvert the Constitution itself, and
indeed [the President] believes that such an assertion in
this circumstance would be at odds with the principles that
underlie the privilege.''
Finally, when explaining his claim of privilege to the
Select Committee, Mr. Meadows has suggested that he has no
choice but to avoid testifying because, as White House chief
of staff, he had ``assumed responsibility to protect
Executive Privilege during and after his tenure,'' and that
he had ``assumed that responsibility not for his own benefit
but for the benefit of all those who will serve after him,
including future presidents.'' He included in a separate
letter a passage about the importance of executive branch
confidentiality to ``ensure that the President can obtain . .
. sound and candid advice.'' Those words are belied by Mr.
Meadows's conduct.
To be sure, the Supreme Court has made clear that executive
privilege is rooted in the need for confidentiality to ensure
that presidential decision-making is informed by honest
advice and full knowledge: ``[h]uman experience teaches that
those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may
well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for
their own interests to the detriment of the decision-making
process.'' In Nixon v. GSA, the Supreme Court again
considered issues related to executive privilege and balanced
the important interests served by the Presidential Records
Act against the intrusion into presidential confidentiality
caused by compliance with the Act. Thus, a valid claim of
executive privilege presumes that the information sought to
discovered is confidential and that the need to maintain that
confidentiality outweighs the interests promoted by
disclosure.
Here, however, executive privilege and the need to maintain
confidentiality is severely undermined, if not entirely
vitiated, by Mr. Meadows's own extensive public disclosure of
his communications with the former President, including on
issues directly implicated by the Select Committee's
subpoena. Mr. Meadows has appeared on national television
discussing the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and
related conversations with former-President Trump. And he has
written about what former-President Trump told him on January
6th in his newly released book. Mr. Meadows's conduct
relating to the very subjects of interest to the Select
Committee foreclose a claim of executive privilege with
respect to those disclosures. Moreover, Mr. Meadows's
statements to the Select Committee about his professed need
to protect presidential confidentiality rings hollow in the
face of his cavalier and repeated disclosure of presidential
communications in circumstances where doing so appears to
suit his personal or political interests. Mr. Meadows has
shown his willingness to talk about issues related to the
Select Committee's investigation across a variety of media
platforms--anywhere, it seems, except to the Select
Committee.
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Meadows's own conduct and
the determination by the current executive overrides any
claim by Mr. Trump (even assuming Mr. Trump had invoked
executive privilege with respect to Mr. Meadows).
Furthermore, Mr. Meadows has refused Chairman Thompson's
numerous invitations to assert executive privilege on a
question-by-question basis, making it impossible for the
Select Committee to consider any good-faith executive
privilege assertions. And, as discussed above, such concerns
are wholly inapplicable to the broad range of subjects about
which the Select Committee seeks Mr. Meadows's testimony that
Mr. Meadows has acknowledged involve non-privileged matters.
D. Precedent supports the Select Committee's position to
proceed with holding Mr. Meadows in contempt.
An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House
subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress. Pursuant to 2
U.S.C. Sec. 192, the willful refusal to comply with a
congressional subpoena is punishable by a fine of up to
$100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year. In Quinn v.
United States, the Supreme Court said that ``Section 192,
like the ordinary federal criminal statute, requires a
criminal intent--in this instance, a deliberate, intentional
refusal to answer.'' And proving criminal intent in this
context is no more than showing a ``deliberate'' ``refusal to
answer pertinent questions''; it does not require a showing
of ``moral turpitude.'' A committee may vote to seek a
contempt citation against a recalcitrant witness. This action
is then reported to the House. If a resolution to that end is
adopted by the House, the matter is referred to a U.S.
Attorney, who has a duty to refer the matter to a grand jury
for an indictment.
Mr. Meadows has previously recognized the importance of
congressional access to information from executive branch
officials to advance congressional investigations. As a
Representative in Congress, he served as ranking member of
the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In that
position, he expected that even senior executive branch
officials such as the Deputy Attorney General comply with
Congress's subpoenas. Indeed, such an expectation is
consistent with precedent spanning Republican and Democratic
administrations under which top White House aides have
provided testimony to Congress. Further, his recent assertion
to the Select Committee that he ``cannot be
[[Page H7674]]
compelled to provide congressional testimony'' as a former
White House chief of staff runs directly counter to precedent
under which top White House aides have provided testimony to
Congress under subpoena. For example, former White House
Chief of Staff John Podesta and former White House Counsel
Beth Nolan testified in 2001 under subpoena regarding
President Clinton's pardons before the House Committee on
Government Reform.
Mr. Meadows did not need to be informed of his
responsibility to comply with the Select Committee's
subpoena, but Chairman Thompson informed him anyway. In his
November 11, 2021, letter to Mr. Meadows's counsel, Chairman
Thompson advised Mr. Meadows that his claims of executive
privilege were not well-founded and did not absolve him of
his obligation to produce documents and appear for deposition
testimony. The Chairman made clear that the Select Committee
expected Mr. Meadows to appear for his scheduled deposition
on November 12th and produce the requested documents at that
time. The Chairman warned Mr. Meadows that his continued non-
compliance would put him in jeopardy of a vote to refer him
to the House to consider a criminal contempt referral. Mr.
Meadows did not produce documents and did not show up for his
deposition. And, when given the opportunity to cure his
earlier contempt, Mr. Meadows produced documents but still
chose to withhold testimony. Mr. Meadows's failure to appear
for deposition testimony in the face of this clear advisement
and warning by the Chairman, and after being given a second
chance to cooperate with the Select Committee, constitutes a
willful failure to comply with the subpoena.
select committee consideration
The Select Committee met on Monday, December 13, 2021, with
a quorum being present, to consider this Report and ordered
it and the Resolution contained herein to be favorably
reported to the House, without amendment, by a recorded vote
of 9 ayes to 0 noes.
select committee vote
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Select Committee to
list the recorded votes during consideration of this Report:
1. A motion by Ms. Cheney to report the Select Committee
Report for a Resolution Recommending that the House of
Representatives find Mark Randall Meadows in Contempt of
Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by
the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol favorably to the House was agreed
to by a recorded vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes (Rollcall No. 3).
Select Committee Rollcall No. 3
Motion by Ms. Cheney to Favorably Report
Agreed to: 9 ayes to 0 noes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Cheney, Vice Chair.................................... Aye
Ms. Lofgren............................................... Aye
Mr. Schiff................................................ Aye
Mr. Aguilar............................................... Aye
Mrs. Murphy (FL).......................................... Aye
Mr. Raskin................................................ Aye
Mrs. Luria................................................ Aye
Mr. Kinzinger............................................. Aye
Mr. Thompson (MS), Chairman............................... Aye
------------------------------------------------------------------------
select committee oversight findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII, the Select
Committee advises that the oversight findings and
recommendations of the Select Committee are incorporated in
the descriptive portions of this Report.
congressional budget office estimate
The Select Committee finds the requirements of clause
3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, and the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, to be inapplicable to this Report. Accordingly, the
Select Committee did not request or receive a cost estimate
from the Congressional Budget Office and makes no findings as
to the budgetary impacts of this Report or costs incurred to
carry out the Report.
statement of general performance goals and objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the objective of
this Report is to enforce the Select Committee's authority to
investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes of the
January 6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful
transfer of power, in order to identify and evaluate problems
and to recommend corrective laws, policies, procedures,
rules, or regulations; and to enforce the Select Committee's
subpoena authority found in section 5(c)(4) of House
Resolution 503.
ENDNOTES
\1\ Jonathan Karl, Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show,
(New York: Dutton, 2021), pp. 297-299.
\2\ Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua
Kaplan and Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump
Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica,
(June 25, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic'>https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic</a>.
\3\ Joe Walsh, ``Trump Chief of Staff Observes Georgia
County's Ballot Audit Amid Ongoing Baseless Fraud Claims,''
Forbes, (Dec. 22, 2020), available at <a href='https://www.forbes.com/
sites/joewalsh/2020/12/22/trump-chief-of-staff-observes-
georgia-countys-ballot-audit-amid-ongoing-baseless-fraud-
claims/?sh=379f2627b411'>https://www.forbes.com/
sites/joewalsh/2020/12/22/trump-chief-of-staff-observes-
georgia-countys-ballot-audit-amid-ongoing-baseless-fraud-
claims/?sh=379f2627b411</a>.
\4\ ``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call
between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2,
2021), available at <a href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html'>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html</a>.
\5\ Nicholas Wu, Kyle Cheney, and Josh Gerstein, ``National
Archives: Meadows may not have stored all Trump-era records
`properly','' Politico, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at <a href='https://
www.politico.com/news/2021/12/09/national-archives-meadows-
trump-524043'>https://
www.politico.com/news/2021/12/09/national-archives-meadows-
trump-524043</a>.
\6\ U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, ``Subverting
Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured
DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election,'' (Oct. 7, 2021) (``Senate
Report''), at pp. 4, 5, 14, 29-39; Documents on file with the
Select Committee.
\7\ Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside
the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb.
2, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html'>https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html</a>.
\8\ Caitlin McFall, ``Trump, House Republicans held call to
discuss Electoral College rejection: Brooks,'' Fox News,
(Jan. 2, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/gop-splits-electoral-college-certification'>https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/gop-splits-electoral-college-certification</a>;
Documents on file with the Select Committee.
\9\ Karl, Betrayal, pp. 259-260.
\10\ Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua
Kaplan and Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump
Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica,
(June 25, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic'>https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic</a>.
\11\ Mark Meadows, The Chief's Chief, (All Seasons Press,
2021), p. 259.
\12\ See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from White House Counsel to
Counsel for Mr. Meadows, Nov. 11, 2021).
\13\ The prison term for this offense makes it a Class A
misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(6). By that classification,
the penalty for contempt of Congress specified in 2 U.S.C.
192 increased from $1,000 to $100,000. 18 U.S.C.
3571(b)(5).
\14\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
\15\ Trump v. Mazars USA LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2036 (2020)
(emphasis in original; internal quotation marks removed). See
also Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957)
(stating of citizens that ``It is their unremitting
obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of
the Congress and its committees, and to testify fully with
respect to matters within the province of proper
investigation.'').
\16\ Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). See
also Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020).
\17\ McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).
\18\ Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 409 F.Supp. 297, 305 (D.D.C.
1976), aff'd, 548 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (quoting McGrain,
273 U.S. at 175).
\19\ Pub. L. 79-601, 79th Cong. 136, (1946).
\20\ Pub. L. 91-510, 91st Cong. 118, (1970).
\21\ Speaker Pelosi detailed such consultation and her
selection decisions in a July 21, 2021, press release,
available at https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/72121-2.
\22\ 167 Cong. Rec. 115 (July 1, 2021), at p. H3597 and 167
Cong. Rec. 130 (July 26, 2021), at p. H3885. The January 4,
2021, order of the House provides that the Speaker is
authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments
authorized by law or by the House. See 167 Cong. Rec. 2 (Jan.
4, 2021), at p. H37.
\23\ House rule XI, cl. 2(m)(1)(B), 117th Cong., (2021); H.
Res. 503, 117th Cong. 5(c)(4), (2021).
\24\ See clause 2(m)(3)(D) of rule XI (``Subpoenas for
documents or testimony may be issued to . . . the President,
and the Vice President, whether current or former, in a
personal or official capacity, as well as the White House,
the Office of the President, the Executive Office of the
President, and any individual currently or formerly employed
in the White House, Office of the President, or Executive
Office of the President.'').
\25\ H. Res. 503, 117th Cong. 5(c)(6), (2021).
\26\ Section 5(c)(4) of H. Res. 503 invokes clause
2(m)(3)(A)(i) of rule XI, which states in pertinent part:
``The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under
subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chair of the
committee under such rules and under such limitations as the
committee may prescribe.''
\27\ H. Res. 503, 117th Cong. 3(1) (2021).
\28\ Karl, Betrayal, pp. 297-299.
\29\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows
production); Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, I Alone Can Fix
It, (New York: Penguin, 2021), p. 476.
\30\ Adam Ciralsky, `` `The President Threw Us Under the
Bus': Embedding with Pentagon Leadership in Trump's Chaotic
Last Week,'' Vanity Fair, (Jan. 22, 2021), available at
<a href='https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/embedding-with-
pentagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-week'>https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/embedding-with-
pentagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-week</a>.
\31\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows
production); Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox News,
(Feb. 11, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/
transcript/biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-
call-with-xi'>https://www.foxnews.com/
transcript/biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-
call-with-xi</a>; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Feb. 12,
2021), available at <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-
yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-nursing-home-blasts-
disgrace-cuomo'>https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-
yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-nursing-home-blasts-
disgrace-cuomo</a>; Testimony of Hon. Christopher C. Miller, U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform,
(May 12, 2021), available at <a href='https://oversight.house.gov/
sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
Miller%20Testimony.pdf'>https://oversight.house.gov/
sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
Miller%20Testimony.pdf</a>.
\32\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows
production).
\33\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows
production).
\34\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows
production).
\35\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
\36\ Michael Bender, Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The
Inside Story of How Trump Lost, (New York: Grand Central
Publishing, 2021), p. 369.
\37\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
\38\ Marissa Schultz, ``Trump meets with members of Congress
plotting Electoral College objections on Jan. 6,'' Fox News,
(Dec. 21, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/members-of-congress-trump-electoral-college-
objections-on-jan-6'>https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/members-of-congress-trump-electoral-college-
objections-on-jan-6</a>; Tweet, @MarkMeadows, (Dec. 21, 2020 at
6:03 p.m.) (``Several members of Congress just finished a
meeting in the Oval Office with President @realDonaldTrump,
preparing to fight back against mounting evidence of voter
fraud. Stay tuned.'').
\39\ Caitlin McFall, ``Trump, House Republicans held call to
discuss Electoral College rejection: Brooks,'' Fox News,
(Jan. 2, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/gop-splits-electoral-college-certification'>https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/gop-splits-electoral-college-certification</a>; Tweet,
@RepMoBrooks, (Jan. 2, 2021 at 7:17 p.m.) (``Our fight for
honest & accurate elections gains momentum! @Jim_Jordan & I
co-lead conference call w 50+ Congressmen who join & fight
for America's Republic! . . . President Trump & CoS Mark
Meadows speaking. Morale is HIGH!
[[Page H7675]]
FIGHT!''); Paul Bedard, ``Exclusive: Trump urges state
legislators to reject electoral votes, `You are the real
power','' Washington Examiner, (Jan. 3, 2021), available at
<a href='https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/
exclusive-trump-urges-state-legislators-to-reject-electoral-
votes-you-are-the-real-power'>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/
exclusive-trump-urges-state-legislators-to-reject-electoral-
votes-you-are-the-real-power</a>.
\40\ Linda So, ``Trump's chief of staff could face scrutiny
in Georgia criminal probe,'' Reuters, (March 19, 2021),
available at <a href='https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-
georgia-meadows-insight-idUSKBN2BB0XX'>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-
georgia-meadows-insight-idUSKBN2BB0XX</a>.
\41\ Id.
\42\ ``AP FACT CHECK: Trump's made-up claims of fake Georgia
votes,'' Associated Press, (Jan. 3, 2021), <a href='https://
apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-donald-trump-georgia-
elections-atlanta-c23d10e5299e14daee6109885f7dafa9'>https://
apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-donald-trump-georgia-
elections-atlanta-c23d10e5299e14daee6109885f7dafa9</a>; ``Here's
the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and
Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021), <a href='https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-
transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-
322644d82356_story.html'>https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-
transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-
322644d82356_story.html</a>.
\43\ ``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call
between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2,
2021), <a href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html'>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html</a>.
\44\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
\45\ Transcript of November 20, 2020, White House Press
Conference, available at <a href='https://www.rev.com/blog/
transcripts/press-secretary-kayleigh-mcenany-white-house-
press-conference-transcript-november-20'>https://www.rev.com/blog/
transcripts/press-secretary-kayleigh-mcenany-white-house-
press-conference-transcript-november-20</a>.
\46\ Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside
the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb.
2, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html'>https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html</a>.
\47\ Id.
\48\ Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, ``Trump Weighed
Naming Election Conspiracy Theorist as Special Counsel,'' New
York Times, (Dec. 19, 2020), available at <a href='https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-
voter-fraud.html'>https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-
voter-fraud.html</a>.
\49\ Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside
the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb.
2, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html'>https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html</a>.
\50\ Karl, Betrayal, pp. 259-60.
\51\ Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua
Kaplan and Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump
Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica,
(June 25, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic'>https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic</a>.
\52\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
\53\ Meadows, The Chief's Chief, p. 261.
\54\ Meadows, The Chief's Chief, p. 259.
\55\ See Appendix, Ex. 1 (Subpoena to Mark Meadows).
\56\ Id.
\57\ See Appendix, Ex. 2 (Various Correspondence).
\58\ Id.
\59\ Id.
\60\ Id.
\61\ Id.
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id.
\64\ Id.
\65\ Id.
\66\ Id.
\67\ Id.
\68\ Id.
\69\ Id.
\70\ Id.
\71\ Id.
\72\ Id.
\73\ Id.
\74\ Id.
\75\ Id.
\76\ Id.
\77\ Id.
\78\ Id.
\79\ Id.
\80\ Id.
\81\ Id.
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
\84\ Id.
\85\ Id.
\86\ Id.
\87\ Id.
\88\ Trump v. Thompson, Case No. 1:21-cv-02769-TSC, Doc. 35
(D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2021) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
\89\ Id., at p. 39.
\90\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
\91\ Id.
\92\ Id.
\93\ Id.
\94\ Id.
\95\ See Appendix, Ex. 5 (Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows
to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 19, 2021), at p. 2.
\96\ Id., at pp. 1-2.
\97\ See Appendix, Ex. 6 (Letter from Chairman Thompson to
Counsel to Mark Meadows, Nov. 22, 2021).
\98\ Id., at p. 1.
\99\ Id.
\100\ Id., at p. 2.
\101\ Id., at pp. 2-3.
\102\ Id., at p. 3.
\103\ Id.
\104\ See Appendix, Ex. 7 (Letter from Counsel to Mark
Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021), at p. 2.
\105\ See Appendix, Ex. 8 (Letter from Counsel to Mark
Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021), at p. 2.
\106\ See Appendix, Ex. 9 (Letter from Chairman Thompson to
Counsel to Mark Meadows, Nov. 28, 2021), at p. 1.
\107\ Id., at p. 2.
\108\ Id.
\109\ See Appendix, Ex. 10 (Letter from Counsel to Mark
Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Dec. 3, 2021).
\110\ See Appendix, Ex. 11 (Letter from Counsel to Mark
Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Dec. 7, 2021)
\111\ McGrain, 273 U.S. at 174 (``We are of opinion that the
power of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an essential
and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.'');
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959) (``The
scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating
and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and
appropriate under the Constitution.'').
\112\ Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187-88 (``It is unquestionably the
duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its
efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent
legislative action.''); see also Committee on the Judiciary
v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 99 (D.D.C. 2008) (``The Supreme
Court has made it abundantly clear that compliance with a
congressional subpoena is a legal requirement.'') (citing
United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950)).
\113\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
\114\ Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (GSA), 433
U.S. 425, 449 (1977) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
\115\ See, e.g., Meadows, The Chief's Chief; ``Hannity,'' Fox
News, (Dec. 7, 2021), available at <a href='https://video.foxnews.com/
v/6285715473001#sp=show-clips'>https://video.foxnews.com/
v/6285715473001#sp=show-clips</a>; ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox
News, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/
media/mark-meadows-potential-contempt-charges-january-6-
'>https://www.foxnews.com/
media/mark-meadows-potential-contempt-charges-january-6-
</a> committee.
\116\ Brief for Executive Branch Defendants, Trump v.
Thompson, Case No. 21-5254, Doc. No. 1923461, at p. 28 (D.C.
Cir. Nov. 22, 2021) (emphasis added).
\117\ Id., at p. 29 (emphasis in original).
\118\ Trump v. Thompson, Case No. 1:21-cv-02769-TSC, Doc. No.
35, at p. 19 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2021) (citations and quotation
marks omitted).
\119\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
\120\ See Appendix, Ex. 3, at p. 2. White House Deputy
Counsel has also made clear that the White House's position
has remained unchanged as of December 8, 2021.
\121\ Id., at p. 1.
\122\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
\123\ See Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 F.
Supp.3d 148, 214 (D.D.C. 2019) (and subsequent history) (``To
make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this
Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect to
senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from
compelled congressional process simply does not exist.'');
Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 101
(D.D.C. 2008) (holding that White House counsel may not
refuse to testify based on direction from the President that
testimony will implicate executive privilege).
\124\ Id.; see also Appendix, Ex. 2 (``I recognize, as your
letter points out, that to date, the lower courts have not
shared [OLC's] view.'').
\125\ Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President,
Office of Legal Counsel, Testimonial Immunity Before Congress
of the Former Counsel to the President, 43 O.L.C. 1 at 1 (May
20, 2019); see also Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the
President, Office of Legal Counsel, Immunity of the Former
Counsel to the President from Compelled Congressional
Testimony, 31 O.L.C. 191 at 193 (July 10, 2007) (``we
conclude that Ms. Miers is immune from compelled
congressional testimony about matters . . . that arose during
her tenure as Counsel to the President and that relate to her
official duties in that capacity'' (emphasis added)).
\126\ Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 449.
\127\ ID.
\128\ See Espy, 121 F.3d at 752 (``the privilege only applies
to communications . . . in the course of performing their
function of advising the President on official government
matters''); cf. In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir.
1998) (Deputy White House Counsel's ``advice [to the
President] on political, strategic, or policy issues,
valuable as it may have been, would not be shielded from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege'').
\129\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
\130\ See Appendix, Ex. 11, at p. 2.
\131\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
\132\ U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705-06 (1974).
\133\ Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 455 (``But given the
safeguards built into the Act to prevent disclosure of such
materials and the minimal nature of the intrusion into the
confidentiality of the Presidency, we believe that the claims
of Presidential privilege clearly must yield to the important
congressional purposes of preserving the materials and
maintaining access to them for lawful governmental and
historical purposes.'').
\134\ See, e.g., Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox
News, (Feb. 11, 2021), available at <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/
transcript/biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-
call-with-xi'>https://www.foxnews.com/
transcript/biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-
call-with-xi</a>; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Feb. 12,
2021), available at <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-
yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-nursing-home-blasts-
disgrace-cuomo'>https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-
yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-nursing-home-blasts-
disgrace-cuomo</a>; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Dec. 7,
2021), available at <a href='https://video.foxnews.com/v/
6285715473001#sp=show-clips'>https://video.foxnews.com/v/
6285715473001#sp=show-clips</a>; Transcript, ``The Ingraham
Angle,'' Fox News, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at <a href='https://
www.foxnews.com/media/mark-meadows-potential-contempt-
charges-january-6-committee'>https://
www.foxnews.com/media/mark-meadows-potential-contempt-
charges-january-6-committee</a>.
\135\ Meadows, The Chief's Chief, at p. 259.
\136\ See, e.g., Espy, 121 F.3d at 741-42 (discussing waiver
and concluding that ``the White House has waived its claims
of [executive] privilege in regard to the specific documents
that it voluntarily revealed to third parties outside the
White House'').
\137\ Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S.
491, 505, 515 (1975).
\138\ See supra. The prison term for this offense makes it a
Class A misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(6). By that
classification, the penalty for contempt of Congress
specified in 2 U.S.C. 192 increased from $1,000 to
$100,000. 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(5).
\139\ Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 165 (1955).
\140\ Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 299 (1929);
see also In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 672 (1897)
(``deliberately refusing to answer questions pertinent [to a
matter properly under consideration by Congress] shall be a
misdemeanor against the United States''); Licavoli v. United
States, 294 F.2d 207, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1961) (`` `[W]illfully'
means merely a deliberate intention; an evil motive is not a
necessary part of the intent thus required.'')
\141\ See 2 U.S.C. 192.
\142\ Mary Papenfuss, ``Watch Mark Meadows Slam Official Who
`Stonewalled' Subpoenas from GOP Congress,'' Yahoo News,
(Nov. 14, 2021), available at <a href='https://news.yahoo.com/watch-
mark-meadows-slam-official-001107830.html'>https://news.yahoo.com/watch-
mark-meadows-slam-official-001107830.html</a> (containing video
clip of then-Rep. Mark Meadows criticizing the Deputy
Attorney General for ignoring a subpoena); Tweet,
@MarkMeadows (July 25, 2018 at 7:01 p.m.) (``I just filed a
resolution with @Jim_Jordan and several colleagues to impeach
Rod Rosenstein. The DOJ has continued to hide information
from Congress and repeatedly obstructed oversight--even
defying multiple Congressional subpoenas.''); ``Non-Profit
Organizations and Politics,'' Hearing of the Subcommittee on
Government Operations, U.S. House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, (December 13, 2018), (at which then-
Chairman Meadows chided the Department of Justice for
declining to make available as a witness the prosecutor
appointed to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the Clinton
Foundation), available at <a href='https://www.c-span.org/video/
?455872-1/profit-organizations-politics'>https://www.c-span.org/video/
?455872-1/profit-organizations-politics</a>.
\143\ See, e.g., ``White House Office of Political Affairs:
Is Supporting Candidates and Campaign Fund-Raising an
Appropriate Use of a Government Office?'' Hearing of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of
Representatives, (July 16, 2014), (at which Chairman Darrell
Issa noted the House Oversight Committee in 2007 had obtained
testimony of 18 Bush administration political appointees
included White House political directors; and at which Rep.
Meadows was present); see also ``Presidential Advisers'
Testimony before Congressional Committees: An Overview,''
Congressional Research Service, (RL31351, Apr. 10, 2007).
\144\ ``Clinton Aides Testify They Opposed Rich Pardon,'' New
York Times, (Mar. 1, 2001), available at
[[Page H7676]]
<a href='https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/01/national/clinton-aides-
testify-they-opposed-rich-pardon.html'>https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/01/national/clinton-aides-
testify-they-opposed-rich-pardon.html</a>.
[[Page H7677]]
appendix
The official transcript that memorialized Mr. Meadows's
failure to appear at his November 12, 2021, deposition as
ordered by subpoena, along with exhibits included in that
record, is as follows:
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE U.S.
CAPITOL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC
DEPOSITION OF: MARK MEADOWS (NO-SHOW)
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
The deposition in the above matter was held in * * * * commencing at
10:00 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE
U.S. CAPITOL:
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
__________
* * * *. Good morning. We are on the record.
Today is November 12th, 2021, the time is 10 a.m., and we are
convened in * * * * for the deposition of Mark Meadows to be conducted
by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol.
My name is * * * *. I am the designated select committee staff
counsel for this proceeding. I'm accompanied by * * * *, deputy staff
director and chief counsel to the select committee; * * * *, select
committee staff counsel; * * * *, select committee staff counsel; * * *
*, select committee parliamentarian.
And joining us virtually is * * * * and * * * *, who are select
committee staff, as well as chief clerk to the select committee, * * *
*.
For the record, it is now 10:01 a.m., and Mr. Meadows is not present.
The person transcribing this proceeding is the House stenographer and
notary public authorized to administer oaths.
On September 23rd, 2021, Chairman Bennie Thompson issued a subpoena
to Mr. Meadows, both to produce documents by October 7th, 2021, and to
testify at a deposition on October 15th of 2021 at 10 a.m.
The subpoena is in connection with the select committees
investigation into the facts, circumstances, and causes of the January
6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power in
order to identify and evaluate lessons learned and to recommend to the
House and its relevant committees corrective laws, policies,
procedures, rules, or regulations.
After Mr. Meadows retained counsel, who is George Terwilliger, III,
the select committee agreed to postpone the subpoena deadlines to
enable his counsel to understand the requests associated with the
subpoena and work with Mr. Meadows.
Ultimately, by letter dated October 25th, 2021, the select committee
set new deadlines to produce documents and appear for testimony. Mr.
Meadows was required to produce documents by November 5th, 2021, and
appear for testimony on November 12th, 2021.
By letters dated between October 25th and November 11th, the select
committee engaged with counsel for Mr. Meadows. In the letters, the
select committee addressed Mr. Meadows' claims of, among other things,
absolute testimonial immunity and executive privilege.
In the letters, the select committee also instructed Mr. Meadows to
assert his privilege claims in a privilege log for responsive documents
and on a question by question basis at the deposition.
On November 10th, 2021, Mr. Meadows, through counsel, informed the
select committee that he would not appear at today's deposition citing
testimonial immunity and privileges. Specifically, counsel said that,
quote, ``Mr. Meadows cannot agree to appear at 10 a.m. Friday,'' end
quote.
Following that letter, the White House Counsel's Office sent counsel
for Mr. Meadows a letter dated November 11th, indicating that the White
House would not assert claims of testimonial immunity or executive
privilege to prevent Mr. Meadows' testimony before the select
committee.
Specifically, the letter states that President Biden, quote, ``will
not assert executive privilege with respect to your client's deposition
testimony on these subjects, or any documents your client may possess
that bear on them. For the same reasons underlying his decision on
executive privilege, President Biden has determined that he will not
assert immunity to preclude your client from testifying before the
Select Committee,'' end quote.
The select committee then sent counsel for Mr. Meadows a final letter
in light of the White House Counsel's Office's stated position. To
date, the select committee has not received a response.
In the letters, the select committee informed Mr. Meadows, quote,
``the Select Committee will view Mr. Meadows' failure to respond to the
subpoena as willful non compliance. Such willful non compliance with
the subpoena would force the Select Committee to consider invoking the
contempt of Congress procedures in 2 U.S.C., sections 192 and section
194--which could result in a referral from the House to the Department
of Justice for criminal charges--as well as the possibility of having a
civil action to enforce the subpoena brought against Mr. Meadows in his
personal capacity,'' end quote.
Mr. Meadows has not provided any documents or a privilege log, and
Mr. Meadows has not appeared today to answer questions or assert
privilege objections.
I will mark as exhibit 1 and enter into the record the select
committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows, included with which are the
materials that accompanied the subpoena; namely, a letter from the
chairman, a document schedule with accompanying production
instructions, and a copy of the deposition rules.
[[Page H7678]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.001
[[Page H7679]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.001
[[Page H7680]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.002
[[Page H7681]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.003
[[Page H7682]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.004
[[Page H7683]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.005
[[Page H7684]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.006
[[Page H7685]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.007
[[Page H7686]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.008
[[Page H7687]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.009
[[Page H7688]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.010
[[Page H7689]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.011
[[Page H7690]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.012
[[Page H7691]]
* * * *. I will mark as exhibit 2 and enter into the record a series
of letters and emails exchanged between the select committee and
counsel for Mr. Meadows. The records include email service of the
subpoena by * * * *, which Mr. Scott Gast accepted on Mr. Meadows'
behalf on September 23rd, 2021.
The records in exhibit 2 also include the letters and emails between
counsel for the select committee and Mr. George Terwilliger, which I
described moments ago. And, specifically, they are a letter from George
Terwilliger to the select committee on October 7th; an email from
George Terwilliger to the select committee on October 13th; letters
provided by George Terwilliger to the select committee, one of which is
a letter from him to the White House Counsel's Office dated October
11th, 2021, and the other is a letter to George Terwilliger dated
October 6th from Mr. Justin Clark, as counsel to former President
Trump; a letter from the select committee to George Terwilliger on
October 25th; two letters from George Terwilliger to the select
committee on November 3rd; a letter from the select committee to George
Terwilliger on November 5th; a letter from George Terwilliger to the
select committee on November 8th; a letter from the select committee to
George Terwilliger on November 9th; a letter from George Terwilliger to
the select committee on November 10th; and a letter from the select
committee to George Terwilliger on November 11th.
[[Page H7692]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.002
[[Page H7693]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.013
[[Page H7694]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.014
[[Page H7695]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.015
[[Page H7696]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.016
[[Page H7697]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.017
[[Page H7698]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.018
[[Page H7699]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.019
[[Page H7700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.020
[[Page H7701]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.021
[[Page H7702]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.022
[[Page H7703]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.023
[[Page H7704]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.024
[[Page H7705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.025
[[Page H7706]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.026
[[Page H7707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.027
[[Page H7708]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.028
[[Page H7709]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.029
[[Page H7710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.030
[[Page H7711]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.031
[[Page H7712]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.032
[[Page H7713]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.033
[[Page H7714]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.034
[[Page H7715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.035
[[Page H7716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.036
[[Page H7717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.037
[[Page H7718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.038
[[Page H7719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.039
[[Page H7720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.040
[[Page H7721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.041
[[Page H7722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.042
[[Page H7723]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.043
[[Page H7724]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.044
[[Page H7725]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.045
[[Page H7726]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.046
[[Page H7727]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.047
[[Page H7728]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.048
[[Page H7729]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.049
[[Page H7730]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.050
[[Page H7731]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.051
[[Page H7732]]
* * * *. I will mark as exhibit 3 and enter into the record a letter
dated November 11th, 2021, from the White House Counsel's Office to Mr.
George Terwilliger as counsel for Mr. Meadows.
[[Page H7733]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.003
[[Page H7734]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.052
[[Page H7735]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.053
[[Page H7736]]
* * * *. I will mark as exhibit 4 and enter into the record an email
dated November 9th, 2021, and corresponding attachments from * * * *,
chief investigative counsel to the select committee, to George
Terwilliger, with subject line, ``Deposition Rules.'' The attachments
consist of, one, a document called ``Document Production Definitions
and Instructions''; two, ``Deposition Rules,'' which is a copy of the
House Congressional Record page H41 from January 4th, 2021; third,
which is a copy of section 3(b) of House Resolution 8 dated January
4th, 2021.
[[Page H7737]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.004
[[Page H7738]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.054
[[Page H7739]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.055
[[Page H7740]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.056
[[Page H7741]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.057
[[Page H7742]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.058
[[Page H7743]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.059
[[Page H7744]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.060
[[Page H7745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.061
[[Page H7746]]
* * * *. And, with that, I will note for the record that it is 10:07
a.m., and Mr. Meadows still has not appeared or communicated to the
select committee that he will appear today as required by the subpoena.
Accordingly, the record is now closed as of 10:07 a.m.
[Whereupon, at 10:07 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[[Page H7747]]
The official transcript for Mr. Meadows's voluntary
deposition on December 8, 2021, is as follows:
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE U.S.
CAPITOL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC
DEPOSITION OF: MARK MEADOWS (NO-SHOW)
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
The deposition in the above matter was held in * * * * commencing at
10:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Representatives Schiff and Lofgren.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE
U.S. CAPITOL:
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
__________
* * * *. All right. It's 10 a.m. So we'll go ahead and get started
going on the record.
This is a deposition of Mark Meadows, conducted by the House Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol, pursuant to House Resolution 503.
My name is * * * *. That's * * * *, and I'm the chief investigative
counsel to the select committee. With me today are * * * *, who is a
senior investigative counsel, and Ms. Zoe Lofgren, who is a member of
the select committee, is also participating remotely.
Based on an agreement with counsel to Mr. Meadows, this deposition
was to begin at 10 a.m. It is now 10 a.m., and Mr. Meadows has not
appeared.
Mr. Meadows received a subpoena, dated September 23rd, 2021,
requiring him to produce documents to the select committee and appear
for a deposition. Staff engaged in several discussions with Mr.
Meadows' counsel regarding the scope of his production and the subject
matters to be developed at his deposition.
Staff provided Mr. Meadows' counsel with specific areas in which it
is interested and asked Mr. Meadows to identify those that would
trigger a privilege assertion. Rather than engage with the select
committee, Mr. Meadows asserted that, as a former White House chief of
staff, he cannot be compelled to provide information to Congress. He
communicated his blanket assertion of immunity, in addition to claims
of executive privilege, in writing to Chairman Thompson.
On November 12th, 2021, the select committee convened the scheduled
deposition of Mr. Meadows after the current White House indicated, in
writing, that President Biden would not assert any immunity or
privilege that would prevent Mr. Meadows from appearing and answering
the committee's questions.
Mr. Meadows did not appear for that deposition on November 12th, as
indicated in his prior correspondence.
He also failed to produce any documents responsive to the select
committee's subpoena or a privilege log asserting claims of privilege
for specific documents.
After Mr. Meadows failed to appear for his deposition or produce
documents, select committee staff engaged in further discussions with
Mr. Meadows' counsel regarding the status of his noncooperation.
Mr. Meadows ultimately agreed to produce some documents and to appear
for a deposition today, December 8th, 2021, at 10 a.m., an offer which
the chairman extended to him as a good faith effort to enable Mr.
Meadows to cure his failure to comply with the September 23rd subpoena
and provide information relevant to the select committee's
investigation.
Mr. Meadows has now produced documents. Counsel made clear that Mr.
Meadows intended to withhold some responsive information due to a claim
of executive privilege. He agreed to produce documents he believes are
not covered by that or any other privilege and to produce a privilege
log identifying responsive documents withheld due to such privilege
assertions.
He also agreed to appear for a deposition, at which he would be asked
questions on subject matters relevant to the select committee's
inquiry, as identified in our prior correspondence, and either answer
the questions or articulate a claimed privilege.
We agreed with Mr. Meadows' counsel that this production and
deposition would clarify Mr. Meadows' position on the application of
various privileges and create a record for further discussion and
consideration of possible enforcement by the select committee.
Consistent with that agreement, Mr. Meadows did produce documents and
privilege logs. More specifically, he produced approximately 6,600
pages of records taken from personal email accounts he used to conduct
official business, as well as a privilege log describing other emails
over which he claims privilege protection. He also produced
approximately 2,000 text messages, which Mr. Meadows sent or received
using a personal device which he used for official business, in
addition to a privilege log, in which he describes privilege claims
over other withheld text messages.
Mr. Meadows was scheduled to appear today, December 8th, 2021, for a
deposition. However, he has not appeared and is not present today. We
received correspondence from Mr. Meadows' attorney yesterday indicating
that, despite his prior agreement to appear today, his position has
changed and he would not appear.
We are disappointed in Mr. Meadows' failure to appear as planned, as
it deprives the select committee of an opportunity to develop relevant
information in Mr. Meadows' possession and to, more specifically,
understand the contours of his executive privilege claim.
Again, the purpose of today's proceeding was to ask Mr. Meadows
questions that we believe would be outside of any cognizable claim of
executive, attorney client, Fifth Amendment, or other potentially
applicable privilege.
Our hope is that he would answer those questions, which would
materially advance the select committee's investigation, given Mr.
Meadows' service as White House chief of staff. We expected that he
would assert privileges in response to various questions, articulating
the specific privilege he believes is implicated and how it applies to
the question asked. We planned to evaluate Mr. Meadows' privilege
assertions after today's proceeding, engage in further discussions with
Mr. Meadows' counsel, and consider whether enforcement steps were
appropriate and necessary.
Mr. Meadows' failure to appear for today's deposition deprives us of
the opportunity to engage in that process. Instead, we are left with
Mr. Meadows' complete refusal to appear for his deposition or cure his
willful noncompliance with the select committee's subpoena.
Had Mr. Meadows appeared for his deposition today, we would have
asked him a series of questions about subjects that we believe are well
outside of any claim of executive privilege. More specifically, we
would have asked Mr. Meadows questions about his use of personal email
and cellular phones.
Mr. Meadows' document production includes documents taken from two
Gmail accounts. We would've asked him how and for what purpose he used
those Gmail accounts and when he used one of them as opposed to his
official White House email account. We would've similarly asked him
about his use of a personal cellular telephone.
We would have sought to develop information about when Mr. Meadows
used his personal cell phone for calls and text messages and when he
used his official White House cell phone for those purposes.
Mr. Meadows' production of documents shows that he used the Gmail
accounts and his personal cellular phone for official business related
to his service as White House chief of staff. Given that fact, we would
ask Mr. Meadows about his efforts to preserve those documents and
provide them to the National Archives, as required by the Presidential
Records Act. Finally, we would have asked Mr. Meadows about his use of
a signal account, which is reflected in the text messages he produced.
In addition, we would have asked Mr. Meadows about particular emails
that he produced to the select committee. We do not believe these
emails implicate any valid claim of executive or other privilege, given
that Mr. Meadows has produced the emails to the select committee.
Specifically, we would've asked Mr. Meadows about emails about the
Electoral Count Act and the prospect of State legislators sending
alternate slates of electors to Congress, including a November 7th,
2020, email with
[[Page H7748]]
attachments. We would've asked him about emails reflecting the Trump
campaign's effort to challenge election results, including a December
23rd email from Mr. Meadows indicating that, quote, ``Rudy was put in
charge. That was the President's decision,'' end quote, that reflects a
direct communication between Mr. Meadows and the President.
We would've asked him about emails from Mr. Meadows to leadership at
the Department of Justice on December 29th and 30th, 2020, and January
1st, 2021, encouraging investigations of suspected voter fraud,
including claims that had been previously rebutted by State and Federal
investigators and rejected by Federal courts.
We would have asked Mr. Meadows about emails regarding the deployment
of the National Guard on January 6th, including a January 5th email
from Mr. Meadows in which he indicates that the Guard would be present
at the Capitol to, quote, ``protect pro Trump people,'' end quote.
In addition, we would have asked Mr. Meadows about specific text
messages he sent or received that he has produced to the select
committee. Given Mr. Meadows' production of these text messages to the
select committee, they do not, in our view, implicate any valid claim
of executive or other privilege.
We would've specifically asked Mr. Meadows about text messages
regarding efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain States
to send alternate slates of electors to Congress, including a message
sent by Mr. Meadows on December 8th, 2020, in which Mr. Meadows said,
quote, ``We are,'' end quote, and another text from Mr. Meadows to
someone else in which he said that, quote, ``We have a team on it,''
end quote.
We would have asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and from
Members of Congress, including text messages received from a Member of
Congress in November of 2020 regarding efforts to contact State
legislators because, as Mr. Meadows indicates in his text messages,
quote, ``POTUS wants to chat with them,'' end quote, which reflects a
direct communication with the President, as well as texts in December
of 2020 regarding the prospect of the President's appointment of
Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General.
We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and from
another Member of Congress in November of 2020, in which the member
indicates that, quote, the President asked him to call Governor Ducey,
end quote, and in which Mr. Meadows asks for contact information for
the attorney general of Arizona to discuss allegations of election
fraud.
We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and
received from Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate
about objections to the certification of electors in certain States on
January 6th. We would have asked him about text messages sent to and
received from a Senator regarding the Vice President's power to reject
electors, including a text in which Mr. Meadows recounts a direct
communication with President Trump who, according to Mr. Meadows in his
text messages, quote, ``thinks the legislators have the power, but the
VP has power too,'' end quote.
We would have asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and
received from a media personality on December 12th, 2021, regarding the
negative impact of President Trump's election challenges on the Senate
runoff elections in Georgia, President Trump's prospects for election
in 2024, and Mr. Meadows possible employment by a news channel.
We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and
received from an organizer of the January 6th events on the Ellipse
about planning the event, including details about who would speak at
the event and where certain individuals would be located.
We'd ask Mr. Meadows about text messages regarding President Trump's
January 2nd, 2021, phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad
Raffensperger, including texts to and from participants in the call as
it took place, as well as text messages to and received from Members of
Congress after the call took place regarding strategy for dealing with
criticism of the call.
We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages exchanged with
various individuals, including Members of Congress, on January 6th,
both before, during, and after the attack on the United States Capitol,
including text messages encouraging Mr. Meadows to facilitate a
statement by President Trump discouraging violence at the Capitol on
January 6th, including a text exchange with a media personality who had
encouraged the presidential statement asking people to, quote,
``peacefully leave the Capitol,'' end quote, as well as a text sent to
one of--by one of the President's family members indicating that Mr.
Meadows is, quote, ``pushing hard,'' end quote, for a statement from
President Trump to, quote, ``condemn this shit,'' end quote, happening
at the Capitol.
Text messages: We would ask Mr. Meadows questions about text messages
reflecting Mr. Meadows' skepticism about public statements regarding
allegations of election fraud put forth by Sidney Powell and his
skepticism about the veracity of claims of tampering with Dominion
voting machines.
In addition, we would've asked Mr. Meadows questions about specific
representations in a book he has authored, The Chief's Chief, in which
he recounts various facts relevant to the select committee's
investigation and directly describes communications with the President,
including on page 259, quote, ``A few sentences later, President Trump
ad libbed a line that no one had seen before, saying, `Now it is up to
Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After
this, we're going to walk down--and I'll be there with you--we're going
to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave
Senators and Congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be
cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our
country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be
strong.' When he got off stage, President Trump let me know that he had
been speaking metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol. He knew as
well as anyone that we wouldn't organize a trip like that on such short
notice,'' end quote.
We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage in his book that
appears on page 261. Quote, ``In the aftermath of the attack, President
Trump was mortified. He knew the media would take this terrible
incident and twist it around. He also knew his days on Twitter were
probably numbered,'' end quote.
We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage on page 261 in
his book. Quote, `` `Mark,' Trump would say to me, `Look, if I lost,
I'd have no problem admitting it. I would sit back and retire and
probably have a much easier life, but I didn't lose. People need me to
get back to work. We're not done yet,' '' end quote.
We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage in his book on
page 264 that reflects, quote, ``On January 20th, with less than 5
hours left in his historic Presidency, at a time when most outgoing
Presidents would be quietly making notes for their memoirs and taking
stock of their time in the White House, President Trump was being
forced to defend his legacy yet again. `How do we look in Congress?'
President Trump asked. `I've heard that there are some Republicans who
might be turning against us. That would be a very unwise thing for them
to do,' '' end quote.
We would've asked him about another passage on page 265 of his book.
Quote, ``But I assured President Trump, once again, that all would be
well with the impeachment trial, and we discussed what my role in the
proceedings would be after we left the White House,'' end quote.
We would've asked him about the passage on page 266 in his book where
he recounts, quote, ``On the phone on January 20th, President Trump
spoke as if he wasn't planning to go anywhere. He mentioned the long
list of pardons we hadn't been able to complete largely due to the
slowness on the part of various attorneys in the Federal Government. He
wondered again about the precise details of the impeachment trial,
including how much money the new lawyers would charge and how we could
best defend him against the Democrats' attacks,'' end quote.
These passages reflect direct communications between Mr. Meadows and
[[Page H7749]]
President Trump directly impacting his claims of executive privilege.
Finally, we would ask Mr. Meadows questions about statements in his
book about his interactions with the Department of Justice.
Specifically, he addresses such interactions with the Department of
Justice on pages 257 and 258 of his book, in which he says, quote, ``It
didn't surprise me that our many referrals to the Department of Justice
were not seriously investigated. I never believed they would, given the
track record of that Department in President Trump's first term,'' end
quote.
Again, statements in Mr. Meadows' book directly reflect subject
matters that the select committee seeks to develop, and his public
statements directly impact his claims of executive privilege.
But, as of the current time, which is now 10:17, Mr. Meadows still
has not appeared to cure his earlier noncompliance with the select
committee's September 23rd, 2021, subpoena. So we will not be able to
ask any of those questions about the documents and messages that he
apparently agrees are relevant to the select committee and not
protected by any protective privilege.
I'd also note for the record that Congressman Adam Schiff, a member
of the select committee, has joined and, again, that member of the
committee, Representative Lofgren, has joined.
Before we close the record, Mr. Schiff or Ms. Lofgren, do either of
you have any comments to make for the record?
Mr. SCHIFF. I do not. Thank you.
* * * *. Ms. Lofgren, anything?
Ms. LOFGREN. I'm good.
* * * *. Okay. Thank you.
Accordingly, the record of this deposition of Mark Meadows, now at
10:18 a.m., is closed.
[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[[Page H7750]]
Additional correspondence between the Select Committee and
counsel for Mr. Meadows is as follows (continuing the exhibit
numbering from above):
5. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman
Thompson, Nov. 19, 2021.
6. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark
Meadows, Nov. 22, 2021.
7. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman
Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021.
8. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman
Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021.
9. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark
Meadows, Nov. 28, 2021.
10. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman
Thompson, Dec. 3, 2021.
11. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman
Thompson, Dec. 7, 2021.
12. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark
Meadows, Dec. 7, 2021.
[[Page H7751]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.005
[[Page H7752]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.062
[[Page H7753]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.063
[[Page H7754]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.064
[[Page H7755]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.006
[[Page H7756]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.065
[[Page H7757]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.066
[[Page H7758]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.067
[[Page H7759]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.007
[[Page H7760]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.068
[[Page H7761]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.069
[[Page H7762]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.070
[[Page H7763]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.008
[[Page H7764]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.071
[[Page H7765]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.072
[[Page H7766]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.073
[[Page H7767]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.009
[[Page H7768]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.074
[[Page H7769]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.075
[[Page H7770]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.076
[[Page H7771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.077
[[Page H7772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.078
[[Page H7773]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.079
[[Page H7774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.010
[[Page H7775]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.080
[[Page H7776]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.081
[[Page H7777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.082
[[Page H7778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.011
[[Page H7779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.083
[[Page H7780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.084
[[Page H7781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.012
[[Page H7782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.085
[[Page H7783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.086
[[Page H7784]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.087
[[Page H7785]]
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, by direction of the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 851) recommending
that the House of Representatives find Mark Randall Meadows in contempt
of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 848, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 851
Resolved, That Mark Randall Meadows shall be found to be in
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a
congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol, detailing the refusal of
Mark Randall Meadows to appear for a deposition before the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the
United States Capitol as directed by subpoena, to the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that
Mr. Meadows be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided among and controlled by the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Thompson) and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), and an
opponent, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
{time} 1615
General Leave
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, it is regrettable that we are back on the floor
considering another criminal contempt referral, but our former
colleague, Mr. Meadows, has left us no choice.
The select committee is investigating an attack on our democracy, and
it is essential that witnesses cooperate with our investigation to get
answers. The law requires them to do so. And when a witness defies the
law, that amounts to more than obstructing our investigation, it is an
attack on the rule of law.
In September, the select committee subpoenaed Mr. Meadows for records
and testimony because we believed he had information relevant to our
investigation.
For weeks, we went back and forth with Mr. Meadows, through his
lawyer, to try to get cooperation. We extended his initial deposition
date to November 12. When the date came, he hadn't produced any
documents, and he didn't show up. Throughout this time, Mr. Meadows and
his representatives made a lot of noise about executive privilege and
so-called absolute immunity; the idea that people who serve or served
in certain senior roles are completely exempt from testifying before
Congress.
Now, let's be clear. Courts have rejected absolute immunity at every
opportunity, and the Justice Department has never authored an opinion
that would support the sort of claim Mr. Meadows had made about his
unofficial conduct. And we have lots of questions for Mr. Meadows about
the unofficial conduct. And as for executive privilege, President Biden
has chosen not to invoke it as far as Mr. Meadows is concerned.
So Mr. Meadows was obligated to comply with our subpoena and appear
at a deposition. When he didn't, we were prepared at that point to move
ahead with contempt proceedings. But at the same time, Madam Speaker,
out of an abundance of fairness, we gave Mr. Meadows a final chance to
cooperate.
When he faced the possibility of contempt a few weeks ago, he finally
decided, in part, to do the right thing and start providing
information. He turned over roughly 9,000 pages of records that he
himself said couldn't be covered by any claim of privilege. He also
said he would appear at a deposition with the select committee, which
we scheduled for December 8.
This is key. In an investigation like ours, when you produce records,
you are expected to come in and answer questions about those records.
And because not even Mr. Meadows was asserting any privilege claim over
these records, there is no possible justification for wholesale
refusing to answer questions about them.
But that is what he did. He told us the day before his deposition--
the same day his book was published--that he would no longer cooperate
with our investigation, and that he wasn't coming in to be interviewed.
Put all the other arguments aside. This isn't about any sort of
privilege or immunity. This is about Mr. Meadows refusing to comply
with a subpoena to discuss the records he himself turned over. Now he
is hiding behind excuses.
And at the end of the day, it is a simple proposition: If you are
making excuses to avoid cooperating with our investigations, you are
making excuses to hide the truth from the American people about what
happened on January 6. You are making excuses as part of a coverup. And
if you echo these excuses, if you base your arguments on these excuses,
if you adopt these excuses as your own to explain why you will not take
action, then you are part of that coverup, too.
I want my colleagues to think long and hard about that; because as
the select committee has made clear in the last day and will continue
to make clear, there was a steady stream of communication between
certain Members of Congress and Mr. Meadows about matters central to
our investigation.
We have questions about those communications. We will pursue those
questions. And we won't let the facts be buried by a coverup.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, as Chairman Thompson noted, we are here with great
sadness. We are here recognizing and understanding the serious nature
of this situation. And, Madam Speaker, we wish we had another
alternative. We wish that we did not have to meet today to urge our
colleagues to vote criminal contempt for one of our former colleagues
and the former chief of staff to President Trump.
We don't take this step lightly.
As my colleagues have noted, and will no doubt say again today, for
weeks the committee has worked with Mr. Meadows, with his counsel to
reach an agreement on cooperation, to reach an agreement and
accommodation.
Now, the reality, Madam Speaker, is the accommodations process is a
process that takes place between the legislative branch and the
executive branch. Mr. Meadows is a member of neither, and yet, the
committee has taken the extra step of working to try to make sure that
we do everything we can to secure Mr. Meadows' testimony.
He is improperly asserting executive and other privileges, but the
vote on contempt today relates principally to his refusal to testify
about messages and other communications that he admits are not
privileged. He has not claimed, and he does not have, privilege to
refuse entirely to testify regarding these topics.
There are just three examples I will give you this afternoon of
issues which we need to speak to Mr. Meadows about and on which his
testimony is required, indeed compelled by our subpoena.
First, is President Trump's failure to stop the violence when this
Chamber, and indeed, the entire Capitol building was attacked and
invaded. The mob that attacked this Chamber was summoned to Washington
by President Trump. And as many of those involved have admitted on
videotape and social
[[Page H7786]]
media and in Federal District Court, they were provoked to violence by
President Trump's false claims that the election was stolen.
As the violence unfolded that afternoon, nearly 1 year ago, it was
evident to all, not only to those of us who were in the Chamber at that
time. It was covered in real time by almost every news channel. But for
187 minutes, President Trump refused to act. Let's let that sink in,
Madam Speaker. He refused to act. When action by our President was
required, it was essential, and it was compelled by his oath to our
Constitution.
Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages which he has produced
without any privilege claim imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific
action we all know his duty required. Indeed, some of those text
messages, Madam Speaker, came from Members in the Chamber right now,
Members who understood that a violent assault was underway at the
Capitol, Members who pleaded with the chief of staff to get the
President to take action. Dozens of texts, including from Trump
administration officials and Members of Congress urged that the
President take immediate action.
I read a number of these last night at our hearing. I won't read them
all today, but I will read a few of them. ``Mark,'' one Member said:
``he needs to stop this. Now.'' In all caps: ``TELL THEM TO GO HOME.''
``POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protestors to dissipate.
Someone is going to get killed.''
Indeed, a number of members of the press, a number of Members of this
body, a member of the President's own family, all urged the President
to take action because they understood that the President of the United
States had a responsibility to call off the mob.
Hours passed despite this without any action by the President. All of
these texts are nonprivileged. They are texts that Mr. Meadows has
turned over. And they are evidence of President Trump's supreme
dereliction of duty for 187 minutes. And Mr. Meadows' testimony will
bear on another fundamental question before this committee, and that is
whether Donald J. Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly sought
to obstruct or impede Congress' official proceeding to count electoral
votes.
This committee is entitled to Mr. Meadows' testimony, and it will
inform our legislative judgments. But Mr. Meadows has refused to give
any testimony at all, even regarding nonprivileged topics. He is in
contempt of Congress.
Second, Mr. Meadows has knowledge regarding President Trump's efforts
to persuade State officials to alter official election results.
In Georgia, for instance, Mr. Meadows participated in a phone call
between President Trump and the Georgia secretary of state. Mr. Meadows
was actually on the phone when President Trump asked the secretary of
state to ``find 11,780 votes'' to change the results of the
Presidential election in Georgia. That is the President of the United
States telling a State official to ``find 11,780 votes.''
While this was happening, Mr. Meadows appears to have been texting
with another participant on this call. Mr. Meadows has no conceivable
privilege basis to refuse to testify on this topic. He is in contempt
of Congress.
Third, in the weeks before January 6, President Trump's appointees at
the Justice Department informed him repeatedly that the President's
claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence and that
the election was not, in fact, stolen.
President Trump intended to appoint Jeffrey Clark as attorney general
in part so that Mr. Clark could alter the Department of Justice's
conclusions regarding the election. Mr. Clark has now informed this
committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to
these matters and, therefore, intends in upcoming testimony to invoke
his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
As Mr. Meadows' nonprivileged texts reveal, Mr. Meadows communicated
multiple times with another Member of this body who was working with
Mr. Clark. Mr. Meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding
those communications. He is in contempt.
January 6 was without precedent. There has been no stronger case in
our Nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions
of a former President. This body must investigate the facts in detail,
and we are entitled to ask Mr. Meadows about the nonprivileged
materials he has produced to us.
Madam Speaker, I am sure you will hear my colleagues this afternoon
say that there are privilege issues here that must be resolved before
we can move forward. Any argument that the courts need to resolve
privilege issues first is a pretext. We will question Mr. Meadows about
emails and texts he gave us without any privilege claim.
Mr. Meadows' role in the Raffensperger call cannot be privileged, nor
can his dealings with a Member of this body regarding Jeff Clark. This
committee must get to the objective truth and ensure that January 6
never happens again.
Madam Speaker, Mr. Meadows is in contempt. He must testify. And I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, here we go again. For the first time in history,
Democrats have complete control over a select committee. I hope the
American people are paying close attention. I hope they see what
happens when Democrats get total power. They abuse it. They intimidate,
they threaten, and they harass. And they try to put their political
opponents in jail.
{time} 1630
In a matter of weeks, the committee has passed three criminal
contempt citations. Today, we vote on holding Mark Meadows in contempt
of Congress.
On September 23, 2021, the select committee served former Congressman
Meadows a subpoena for a sweeping set of documents and a deposition. In
October, President Trump instructed Mr. Meadows to maintain his
executive privilege in any response to that subpoena. Mr. Meadows then
told the select committee that he would give them any information they
requested that wasn't protected by executive privilege.
Mr. Meadows gave the select committee over 6,800 pages of
information, including 1,100 documents and 2,300 text messages. Mr.
Meadows agreed to sit for a deposition if it was limited to areas not
protected by executive privilege. He tried to cooperate, but the select
committee didn't care.
Mr. Meadows even sought an independent ruling on the question of
executive privilege, but the select committee voted to hold him in
contempt anyway, just like they did with Mr. Clark, who offered to
participate pending the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Thompson.
Apparently, the select committee's rules go like this: Ignore the
former President and don't wait for legal rulings. Immediately do
everything that we say without objection, or we will refer you for
criminal prosecution.
They don't care about fairness or due process. The point isn't
cooperation or factfinding. They care about punishment. The point is
prosecution. And, of course, the point is the headline that they are
going for: Former Trump Chief of Staff found in contempt of Congress.
But that headline omits the ugly and partisan truth about the select
committee.
According to the committee's charter, H. Res. 503: ``The Speaker
shall appoint 13 Members to the select committee, five of whom shall be
appointed after consultation with the minority leader.'' But the
committee has zero members appointed in consultation with Leader
McCarthy. And it doesn't have 13 members; it has 9.
According to the committee's charter, if Mr. Meadows had come in for
a deposition, the minority must have been allowed to question Mr.
Meadows for the same length of time as the majority, except no members
of the committee were named by the minority.
This isn't nitpicking. The Supreme Court has found that a select
committee must follow its own rules to act with legal force.
So we have the select committee as it exists legally and on paper,
and then we have something completely different. I don't know what to
call it, but it doesn't resemble the select committee that Democrats
voted to pass
[[Page H7787]]
on the House floor. It is just nine members picked by Speaker Pelosi.
The group is trampling on Americans' constitutional rights and the
rights of Congress, like Mr. Meadows, and current Members of Congress.
They even include Americans whose sole offense, according to Chairman
Thompson, was planning a legal, permitted, and First Amendment-
protected political rally.
Thanks to media reports, we know that Democrats have seized their
enemies' call and text records, geolocation data, and personal
contacts. We know of hundreds of instances. It could be more.
All we know for sure about this partisan investigation is that it is
massive. It is happening without accountability, and it is happening in
secret.
The select committee should serve as a warning to all Americans. This
is what you get when Democrats get free rein: secret snooping,
harassment, contempt for the rules of Congress, criminalization of
dissent, and it all ends with their opponents in jail.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader
of the House.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, every Member of the House ought to vote for this
resolution--every one of you. I see one shaking their head vigorously
``no.''
For those of us who have been here for some time, we have seen
extraordinary energy exercised by the other side of the aisle in
conducting oversight. Mr. Burton from Indiana summoned tens and tens
more and ten thereafter, on and on and on, to hold accountable an
administration with whom he did not agree and thought was not doing the
right thing. And he issued subpoena after subpoena after subpoena.
The reason I say every one of us ought to vote for this is because
this institution needs this power. This institution is charged under
the Constitution with protecting the welfare of the American people and
expanding the opportunities of our people.
To do so, as the gentlewoman from Wyoming has observed, we need to
gather information, and in the conduct of gathering that information,
it must be our ability to compel people to testify, to come before the
Congress of the United States and tell us facts that we need.
Now, my Republican friends, when they were in charge, thought there
was some type of wrongdoing, which resulted in the loss of four lives,
tragically, in Benghazi, Libya. They had eight separate hearings on
that issue, the last of which was the select committee led by Trey
Gowdy of South Carolina. Every one of those committees reached the same
conclusion, but there were eight of them.
Madam Speaker, perhaps some of my Republican friends will recall that
Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State during that time, appeared for
11 hours before one of these committees, the select committee.
Madam Speaker, I have a speech here that deals with what the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, has done. I have chosen not
to give this speech because the issue, in my view, is not what Meadows
has done, but clearly in contempt, as the gentlewoman from Wyoming
pointed out so factually, but it is about this institution, about
whether or not a President or anybody else can simply say, ``I will not
testify,'' and then take months and months and months.
Now, the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Indiana,
laments the fact that we have this committee. But the gentleman from
Indiana voted against forming an equally numbered committee to be set
up to adjudge this issue. He voted against that, as did his Republican
colleagues, save a few. And now he comes and says, Oh, my goodness,
this is not what I wanted. But like so many of his colleagues, he voted
against what he says he wanted.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana who just spoke voted
against holding in contempt Steve Bannon not because of any executive
privilege. He was a private citizen, not a member of the President's
Cabinet. And the gentleman from Indiana voted against having him honor
a subpoena of the Congress of the United States.
Yes, it ought to be noted that, at the time of the insurrection, we
had a vote on whether to confirm what court after court after court had
said was a legitimate election. He voted against certifying the
election of the President of the United States. So I am not surprised
that the gentleman from Indiana does not want to see this subpoena
honored because, Madam Speaker, I believe that he fears the information
that would be brought forward. Fearing the truth is not an excuse for
not honoring a subpoena of this Congress.
So, again, it is not just simply the actions of Mr. Meadows that are
at issue here. What is at issue here is what power does the Congress
have to get the information it needs--in this case, the most important
information it needs to achieve one of its most important objectives,
which the gentlewoman from Wyoming has not only talked about but has
shown extraordinary courage in standing up to her party. She is, after
all, the former chair of the Republican Conference, the daughter of a
Vice President of the United States and former Secretary of Defense and
former minority whip of this House, who has shown extraordinary courage
in the face of almost united opposition on her side of the aisle,
leading to her removal from the position she held.
Would that all of us all the time have the courage of our convictions
that the gentlewoman from Wyoming has shown.
So I say to my colleagues, all 434 or 433 of us here----
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, parliamentary privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Maryland yield?
Mr. HOYER. I do not yield.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Point of Order
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PERRY. It seems to me that my friend, the gentleman from
Maryland, disparaged the gentleman from Indiana here personally and
should have his words taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman making a demand that words
be taken down?
Mr. PERRY. Yes, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will be seated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
So I am not surprised that the gentleman from Indiana does
not want to see this subpoena honored. Because, Madam
Speaker, I believe that he fears the information that would
be brought forward. Fearing the truth is not an excuse for
not honoring a subpoena of this Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The words of the gentleman from Maryland contain an allegation that
the gentleman from Indiana fears the truth. Comparing the remarks to
the precedents memorialized in Deschler-Brown Precedents, chapter 29,
section 63, as well as section 370 of the House Rules and Manual, the
Chair finds that the words are not accompanied by an allegation of
personal mendacity and, therefore, are not unparliamentary.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PERRY. Accusing a decorated naval officer in the United States
military is never in good form and should be out of order in this
Chamber.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized for his 1
minute.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, first let me say that I respect the
gentleman's service in the United States Navy as I respect all of our
men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States.
Let me end as I began. All of us ought to vote for this motion to
hold somebody in contempt who refuses to come forth, who is clearly
and, obviously, in contempt of the Congress of the United States. I
urge every Member on behalf of this institution, not on behalf of any
political party; on behalf of our democracy, not on behalf of
Democrats; on behalf of the Constitution of
[[Page H7788]]
the United States to vote ``yea'' on this resolution.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
{time} 1730
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, Mark Meadows, a former colleague for many
of us, left Congress in 2020 to serve as chief of staff to then-
President Donald Trump.
Sadly and shockingly, Mr. Meadows has admitted he played both an
official and unofficial role in trying to overturn the results of the
2020 Presidential election.
He has also admitted that he has responsive and nonprivileged
documents and communications relating to January 6. In fact, he already
sent some of those materials to our select committee charged with
preventing a future attack on our Capitol. Now, the select committee
needs to speak with him about the full plot leading up to January 6.
For example, it has been reported that the White House was directing
the Department of Justice to investigate outrageous and really crazy
conspiracy theories to benefit Mr. Trump politically, as well as to
orchestrate the dissemination of election misinformation. We need to
talk to Mr. Meadows about this.
We have learned that Mr. Meadows made a surprise visit to a State-run
audit in Georgia, which led to the now-infamous call in which Mr. Trump
improperly asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find votes. We need
to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.
We also need to ask him about text messages which he provided to our
committee that show an official in Georgia texting Mr. Meadows during
the Trump-Raffensperger call saying that they ``need to end this
call,'' and emphasizing: ``I don't think this will be productive much
longer.'' We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.
We also know that during that same week in early January, Mr. Meadows
was in direct contact with campaign staff and organizers of the rally
at the Ellipse where his boss, the President, urged supporters to
fight. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.
While domestic terrorists invaded the Halls where he used to work,
Mr. Meadows interacted with many people, including some of our
colleagues who were here in this Chamber. We have learned many of those
interactions took place on his personal device. We need to talk to Mr.
Meadows about that.
Clearly, Mr. Meadows has important information about events that
culminated in the violent attack on the Capitol and on our democracy.
He must follow the law. He must cooperate with the select committee's
lawful requests. No one is above the law. He must be held accountable
for his violation of the law.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three articles.
First: ``J6 Committee Misleading Witnesses About Republican Staff
Presence,'' by Mollie Hemingway, that was published in The Federalist.
Second: ``The Democratic Norm Breakers: The January 6 committee wants
to subpoena GOP phone records,'' by The Wall Street Journal editorial
page.
Third: ``Civil Liberties Are Being Trampled by Exploiting
`Insurrection' Fears. Congress's 1/6 Committee May Be the Worst Abuse
Yet: The Unconstitutionality of the 1/6 Committee,'' by Glenn
Greenwald, published by Substack.
[From the Federalist, Nov. 10, 2021]
J6 Committee Misleading Witnesses About Republican Staff Presence
Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney ran to CNN a few weeks ago to
accuse conservative stalwart Rep. Jim Banks of falsely
presenting himself as the Jan. 6 commission's ranking member.
Banks is, in fact, congressional Republicans' choice to be
their top investigator on the committee, but he has been
prevented from fulfilling his duties by Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi.
However, it's Cheney who appears to be misrepresenting
herself as the ranking member--that is, the top Republican--
on the committee.
January 6 Select Committee staff have been falsely telling
witnesses that Republican staff will be present for
interviews, according to multiple eyewitness sources and
documents. In fact, not a single Republican-appointed member
of Congress nor a single staff member representing the
Republican conference is part of the controversial committee.
Witnesses are being told that John Wood, a longtime friend
and ally of the Cheney family, will represent Republicans
when witnesses testify. But neither Cheney nor her friend is
representing the Republican conference. In fact, Cheney was
appointed to the committee in early July by Pelosi herself.
``John Wood works for the Democrat Party, just like Liz
Cheney, who was appointed by Pelosi and is not the Ranking
Member of the Select Committee. She is misleading witnesses,
before they testify under penalty of law, about the motives
and the position of the person questioning them,'' said
Banks, who has continued leading Republicans' investigation
of the federal government's handling of the Jan. 6 riot at
the Capitol. Cheney's work with CNN was designed to prevent
him from being able to gain answers to the questions the
select committee was ostensibly set up to answer.
Cheney was given six days to explain whether she considers
herself just the Democrat-appointed vice-chair of the
committee or also the Republican ranking member, as is being
represented to key witnesses. She has not responded to
multiple requests for comment.
The misrepresentation to witnesses is key because the
absence of any ranking member--meaning, in this case, any
Republican-appointed member--or minority party staff means
the committee appears to be failing to adhere to ironclad
rules for its work.
Pelosi ``blew up'' the Jan. 6 committee when she took what
she herself admitted was the ``unprecedented'' step of
refusing to seat multiple Republican-appointed members,
including the highly respected Navy officer and Indiana
Republican Banks, who was to be the committee's ranking
member. She also banned Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who
currently serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary
Committee.
Pelosi chose two of her key Republican allies and anti-
Trump obsessives to fill two of her slots for the committee.
As such, they do not represent the Republican conference,
which opposed their selection, but the Democrat conference,
which supported their selection.
Cheney was promoted to vice-chair in September in thanks
for her stalwart work on Pelosi's behalf. Cheney, who has
been censured by Wyoming Republicans for working against
Republican voters and their interests, and who lost her
position as House Conference chair for hijacking multiple
briefings for Republican policy initiatives to talk about her
personal vendetta against Trump, is facing precipitously low
poll numbers and a challenge from popular Republican Harriet
Hageman.
Cheney was joined by lame-duck Adam Kinzinger of Illinois,
who recently announced his retirement rather than facing
certain defeat from Illinois constituents who don't share his
anti-Trump obsession. Kinzinger was appointed by Pelosi in
late July to make the committee appear more bipartisan after
she'd vetoed Banks and Jordan. Cheney, her selection for
vice-chair, was brought in for the sole purpose of helping
Democrats with their tribunal.
The resolution establishing the committee, purportedly to
investigate the federal government's role in detecting,
preventing, preparing for, and responding to the Jan. 6 riot,
says depositions taken by the select committee must follow
House rules.
Those rules clearly state, ``Consultation with the ranking
minority member shall include three days' notice before any
deposition.'' Also, ``A deposition shall be conducted by any
member or committee counsel designated by the chair or
ranking minority member of the Committee that noticed the
deposition. When depositions are conducted by committee
counsel, there shall be no more than two committee counsel
permitted to question a witness per round. One of the
committee counsel shall be designated by the chair and the
other by the ranking minority member per round.''
Additionally, the rules say, ``Deposition questions shall
be propounded in rounds. The length of each round shall not
exceed 60 minutes per side and shall provide equal time to
the majority and the minority. In each round, the member(s)
or committee counsel designated by the chair shall ask
questions first, and the member(s) or committee counsel
designated by the ranking minority member shall ask questions
second.''
The point of these rules is to structure depositions so the
minority and the majority counsel have the same opportunity
to question witnesses and gather information for their
separate reports. That's why they rotate and why they're
allotted equal time. Having questions alternate from one
hostile lawyer to another hostile lawyer who is working with
the first makes a mockery of the provisions. It also means
that the hostile lawyers can coordinate and cherry-pick which
information to leak or publish, and which to conceal from the
public because it contradicts their preferred narrative.
The rules do not envision the circumstances that accompany
Pelosi's uni-party select committee. The House Rules ``become
nonsensical in a situation like this,'' said one
congressional aide, adding, ``This isn't just a partisan
investigation--it's a coverup.''
For the select committee to be in accordance with the rules
regarding consultation for depositions, Cheney must be
considered simultaneously the ranking member for the minority
party while also being the vice-chair for the majority party.
Hill lawyers say Pelosi's handling of the committee casts
doubt on its adherence to
[[Page H7789]]
the rules. Because she vetoed the ranking member from the
committee, it has no ranking member. But the committee rules
require consultation with the ranking member before taking
certain basic actions, such as taking depositions, including
those pursuant to subpoenas.
``So how can you consult with the ranking member when you
don't have one?'' asked one Hill attorney.
The multiple sources consulted for this article include a
document which confirmed January 6 Committee staff
represented to a witness that Wood would be the Republican
counsel during their interview.
``If this was a real investigation, that'd land you in jail
for prosecutorial misconduct,'' Banks said of the false
representation. ``Fortunately for Liz, this is a sham
investigation,'' he added.
____
[From The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 1, 2021]
The Democratic Norm Breakers
(By The Editorial Board)
Critics feared that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's probe of the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot would be partisan, and the latest proof
are subpoenas for the private phone records of House
Republicans. This is a violation of political norms that
Democrats will come to regret.
Bennie Thompson (D., Miss.), chair of the House special
committee, sent letters Monday to 35 companies, from At&T to
Facebook to Parler, asking them to preserve information about
account holders charged with crimes related to, or
``potentially involved with discussions'' in planning, the
Jan. 6 riot. The companies are requested to preserve emails,
and voice, text and direct messages in preparation for
subpoenas to come.
The letters contained a list of individuals whose names
haven't leaked. But CNN reports that nearly a dozen House
Republicans are on the committee's ``evolving'' radar,
including Jim Jordan, ranking Member of the House Judiciary
Committee.
Republicans are furious, and rightly so. Indiana Rep. Jim
Banks noted in a letter to Mr. Thompson that this
``authoritarian undertaking'' would depart ``from more than
230 years of Congressional oversight.'' The move recalls
California Democrat Adam Schiff's public release of the call
logs of Republican Rep. Devin Nunes in 2019.
At least Democrats claimed the collection of Mr. Nunes's
information was incidental to other records it targeted. The
special committee is using its oversight power to snoop on
political opponents. They'd gain access to information far
beyond the events of Jan. 6.
Democrats say they need the call lists to see if Members of
Congress fomented the assault on the Capitol. They hope to
confirm their narrative that the riot was a planned
``insurrection,'' though Reuters reports that the FBI has
found no such evidence in six months of looking. Conspiracy
is a crime and matter for the Justice Department, not
Congress.
The subpoenas are also legally dubious, coming after recent
judicial warnings about the limits of Congressional fishing.
The Supreme Court last year in Trump v. Mazars reminded
Congress that subpoenas must have a ``valid legislative
purpose.'' The Jan. 6 committee has offered no such
rationale. Our legal sources say the subpoenas may violate
the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause because Congress
can't pass a law that would limit Members' speech.
The private companies may want to think twice about
complying. In the Schiff affair, the telcos handed over call
logs without even notifying the targets. Mr. Thompson's
letter is demanding the same, telling companies that if they
``are not able or willing to respond to this request without
alerting the subscribers or the accounts'' to ``please
contact the Select Committee prior to proceeding.'' The
``please'' part is an admission that the committee knows it
lacks authority to make such a demand.
Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr says
``federal law requires telecommunications carriers to protect
the privacy and confidentiality of Americans' call records.''
He says his agency ``has brought enforcement actions against
carriers to ensure their compliance,'' and Congress isn't
automatically entitled to anyone's private records.
Even if the companies don't want to fight the subpoenas in
court, they have an obligation to alert targets so they can
contest the subpoenas. Mr. Banks's Friday letter reminded
corporate general counsels of their ``legal obligation not to
hand over individuals' private records unless the subject of
the subpoena consents to the information being shared or the
company has a court order to turn over the records.''
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy also warned companies
against rolling over to Democratic pressure, noting they
could forfeit their ``ability to operate in the United
States.'' Democrats and the media spun this as pressuring
companies to ignore ``duly'' issued subpoenas. But Mr.
McCarthy was pointing out that federal privacy law protects
information, and that Democrats haven't proved in court that
their committee is entitled to these records.
If Democrats follow through and use their power to
investigate GOP opponents, there will be no end to it.
Republicans are likely to take the majority as early as 2022,
and two can play at Adam Schiff's nasty game.
____
The Unconstitutionality of the 1/6 Committee
Civil liberties abuses of this type are common when the
U.S. security state scares enough people into believing that
the threat they face is so acute that normal constitutional
safeguards must be disregarded. What is most definitely not
common, and is arguably the greatest 1/6-related civil
liberties abuse of them all, is the House of Representatives
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the
United States Capitol.
To say that the investigative acts of the 1/6 Committee are
radical is a wild understatement. Along with serving
subpoenas on four former Trump officials, they have also
served subpoenas on eleven Private citizens: people selected
for interrogation precisely because they exercised their
Constitutional right of free assembly by applying for and
receiving a permit to hold a protest on January 6 opposing
certification of the 2020 election.
When the Select 1/6 Committee recently boasted of these
subpoenas in its press release, it made clear what
methodology it used for selecting who it was targeting: ``The
committee used permit paperwork for the Jan. 6 rally to
identify other individuals involved in organizing.'' In other
words, any citizen whose name appeared on permit applications
to protest was targeted for that reason alone. The
committee's stated goal is ``to collect information from them
and their associated entities on the planning, organization,
and funding of those events'': to haul citizens before
Congress to interrogate them on their constitutionally
protected right to assemble and protest and probe their
political beliefs and associations:
Press Release
Select Committee Subpoenas Organizers of Rallies and Events Preceding
January 6th Insurrection
[Sep 29, 2021]
Washington--Today, Chairman Bennie G. Thompson announced
that the Select Committee has issued subpoenas for deposition
testimony and records to individuals tied to the events and
rallies leading up to the January 6th insurrection, including
the January 6th rally at the Ellipse that immediately
preceded the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. The
subpoenas were sent to 11 individuals as part of the Select
Committee's efforts to collect information from them and
their associated entities on the planning, organization, and
funding of those events. In letters to rally organizers,
Chairman Thompson instructed witnesses to testify at
depositions and to produce a sweeping range of records.
The subpoenas seek a range of records that include
materials dealing with the planning, funding, and
participation in the events and bus tours; social media
activity of associated entities; and communications with or
involvement of Trump Administration officials and lawmakers.
The Select Committee issued subpoenas for records from the
following individuals and their associated entities, and has
instructed the individuals to testify at depositions:
Amy Kremer, founder and Chair of WFAF.
Kylie Kremer, founder and Executive Director of WFAF.
Cynthia Chafian, submitted the first permit application on
behalf of WFAF for the January 6th rally, and founder of the
Eighty Percent Coalition.
Caroline Wren, listed on permit paperwork for the January
6th rally as ``VIP Advisor.''
Maggie Mulvaney, listed on permit paperwork for the January
6th rally as ``VIP Lead.''
Justin Caporale, of Event Strategies, Inc., listed on
permit paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``Project
Manager.''
Tim Unes, of Event Strategies, Inc., listed on permit
paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``Stage Manager.''
Megan Powers, of MPowers Consulting LLC, Listed on permit
paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``Operations Manager
for Scheduling and Guidance.''
Hannah Salem, of Salem Strategies LLC, listed on permit
paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``Operations Manager
for Logistics and Communications.''
Lyndon Brentnall, of RMS Protective Services, listed on
permit paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``On-Site
supervisor.''
Katrina Pierson, former Trump campaign official, reportedly
involved in the organization of the January 5th and 6th
rallies and was in direct communication with the former
President about the rallies.
Even worse are the so-called ``preservation notices'' which
the committee secretly issued to dozens if not hundreds of
telecoms, email and cell phone providers, and other social
media platforms (including Twitter and Parler), ordering
those companies to retain extremely invasive data regarding
the communications and physical activities of more than 100
citizens, with the obvious intent to allow the committee to
subpoena those documents. The communications and physical
movement data sought by the committee begins in April, 2020--
nine months before the 1/6 riot. The committee refuses to
make public the list of individuals it is targeting with
these sweeping third-party subpoenas, but on the list are
what CNN calls ``many members of Congress,'' along with
dozens of private citizens involved in obtaining the permit
to protest and then promoting and planning the gathering on
social media.
What makes these secret notices especially pernicious is
that the committee requested that these companies not notify
their customers that the committee has demanded the
preservation of their data. The committee knows it lacks the
power to impose a ``gag order'' on these companies to prevent
[[Page H7790]]
them from notifying their users that they received the
precursor to a subpoena: a power the FBI in conjunction with
courts does have. So they are relying instead on ``voluntary
compliance'' with the gag order request, accompanied by the
thuggish threat that any companies refusing to voluntarily
comply risk the public relations harm of appearing to be
obstructing the committee's investigation and, worse,
protecting the 1/6 ``insurrectionists.''
Worse still, the committee in its preservation notices to
these communications companies requested that ``you do not
disable, suspend, lock, cancel, or interrupt service to these
subscribers or accounts solely due to this request,'' and
that they should first contact the committee ``if you are not
able or willing to respond to this request without alerting
the subscribers.'' The motive here is obvious: if any of
these companies risk the PR hit by refusing to conceal from
their customers the fact that Congress is seeking to obtain
their private data, they are instructed to contact the
committee instead, so that the committee can withdraw the
request. That way, none of the customers will ever be aware
that the committee targeted their private data and will thus
never be able to challenge the legality of the committee's
acts in a court of law.
In other words, even the committee knows that its power to
seek this information about private citizens lacks any
convincing legal justification and, for that reason, wants to
ensure that nobody has the ability to seek a judicial ruling
on the legality of their actions. All of these behaviors
raise serious civil liberties concerns, so much so that even
left-liberal legal scholars and at least one civil liberties
group (obviously not the ACLU)--petrified until now of
creating any appearance that they are defending 1/6
protesters by objecting to civil liberties abuses--have begun
very delicately to raise doubts and concerns about the
committee's actions.
But the most serious constitutional problem is not the
specific investigative acts of the committee but the very
existence of the committee itself. There is ample reason to
doubt the constitutionality of this committee's existence.
When crimes are committed in the United States, there are
two branches of government--and only two--vested by the
Constitution with the power to investigate criminal suspects
and adjudicate guilt: the executive branch (through the FBI
and DOJ) and the judiciary. Congress has no role to play in
any of that, and for good and important reasons. The
Constitution places limits on what the executive branch and
judiciary can do when investigating suspects . . . . .
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, Democrats prevent Republicans from serving
on the select committee. Democrats kick Republicans off standing
committees. Democrats try to make D.C. a State. Democrats try to end
the filibuster. They try to pack the court. They do secret impeachment
hearings in the bunker of the basement of the Capitol. And they just
said a naval veteran is afraid of the truth. Now, today, they are
destroying executive privilege.
The United States Supreme Court held those who assist the President
must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies
and making decisions and to do so in a way that many would be unwilling
to do, except privately. The Court further stated Presidential
administrations of both parties have asserted that the President's
close advisers are an extension of the President.
Who are these close advisers? Who are these individuals who are an
extension of the President of the United States? Well, there are
actually a bunch, but certainly, the three most important are the
National Security Advisor, the White House counsel, and the chief of
staff to the President. I would argue the chief of staff is the closest
of the close. He is the one who spends more time with the Commander in
Chief than anyone else.
Now, why do we have this privilege? Why do we have it? Why is the
decisionmaking process between the President and his closest advisers a
private matter? Why is that?
Well, guess what, the Supreme Court told us the answer to that one,
too. Executive privilege serves ``the necessity for protection of the
public interest in candid, objective, and even . . . harsh opinions in
Presidential decisionmaking.''
Let me just say that again: Executive privilege serves the public
interest. It is for us. It is for we the people. It is not for
President Trump. It is not for Mark Meadows. It is not for any
President. It is not for any chief of staff. It is for the country.
But the Democrats are not going to worry about that. They are going
to forget about that because they think this is good politics. They
think this is all about politics.
They used to care. They used to care about executive privilege. When
Republicans wanted information during the Fast and Furious scandal,
President Obama asserted executive privilege for bureaucrats at the ATF
and DOJ. Think about it. A bureaucrat in a Federal agency gets
privilege but not the chief of staff to the President? Because Mark
Meadows worked for President Trump, and Democrats have been out to get
President Trump before he ever took office when they first tried to spy
on him, and actually did spy on him, in 2016.
They are going to destroy this precedent even though this very
question is in front of the courts as we speak. They are going to
destroy this precedent that has been around since 1794 when our first
President first asserted it. And for what?
What did Mark Meadows do? He gave the committee thousands of emails;
he gave the committee thousands of text messages; and he agreed to come
in front of the committee and answer any question as long as it didn't
violate executive privilege; the privilege that is not his to waive but
belongs to the President; the privilege that the Court said is critical
to executive decisionmaking; the privilege that exists for the benefit
of we the people; and the privilege that has been around since George
Washington asserted it.
But Democrats say: No, not good enough, Mr. Meadows. You have to come
in and answer any and every question we ask you, or we are going to try
to put you in prison.
It is so disgusting. Think about it. We weren't allowed to know who
the so-called anonymous whistleblower was when they tried to impeach
President Trump, did impeach President Trump, but Democrats can destroy
executive privilege? The country wasn't allowed to know what took place
in that bunker in the basement of the Capitol during impeachment, but
they get to know any and everything they want about conversations
between the President and his top adviser.
This is so wrong. Democrats on the select committee also can't make
up their minds. With Steve Bannon, they said: You have to appear in
person to assert any privilege. And because he didn't come, they held
him in contempt.
With Jeff Clark, they said to come in person, assert privilege, which
he did, and they said, no, that is not good enough. And they held him
in contempt.
Now, with Mark Meadows, he gave them thousands of documents and
agreed to come, and they still said not good enough. What a charade.
Make no mistake, when Democrats vote in favor of this resolution, it
is a vote to put a good man in prison. Don't pretend to argue, either.
Don't even attempt the argument: No, no, no, this is just the House
acting; the Justice Department will make a decision whether to
prosecute or not. Come on. Is there anyone who believes that?
It took the Attorney General all of 5 days to treat parents as
terrorists, all of 5 days. If a leftwing political group can write the
White House asking the Department of Justice to use the PATRIOT Act
against moms and dads and 5 days later the Attorney General of the
United States does just that, then what do you think he is going to do
when 225 Democrats in the House of Representatives ask him to put
President Trump's chief of staff in prison?
I have been in Congress for a while, 15 years. I have seen Democrats
weaponize the government to attack their political opponents. Ten years
ago, they used the IRS to target good people around this country, good,
conservative people. Five years ago, they abused the FISA process and
used the FBI to spy on President Trump's campaign. Two months ago, the
Department of Justice used the Counterterrorism Division at the FBI to
put a threat tag, a label, a designation, on parents who had the
gall to go speak up at school board meetings and defend their kids,
speak out against some crazy curriculum.
Now, they are destroying executive privilege. Now, they are attacking
that. This might be the worst, destroying a precedent that has been
around since George Washington and treating Mark Meadows as a criminal.
[[Page H7791]]
Mark Meadows is our former colleague. He is a good man, and he is my
friend. This is as wrong as it gets. I think, deep down, everyone knows
it. I think they know it as well. They know this is wrong. We have all
served with this guy. He has done more work with Democrats than
probably any Republican. We all know what a good man he is. This is as
wrong as it gets.
Madam Speaker, they all know it, but their lust for power, their lust
to get their opponents, is so intense, they don't care. I hope they
reconsider. I hope we don't take this action.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, just for the record, the
gentleman from Ohio is aware of congressional oversight prerogatives.
When Mr. Meadows was a member and later chairman of the House Committee
on Oversight and Reform, he himself demanded testimony from senior
executive branch officials and chided those who failed to cooperate
with congressional oversight.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, Mark Meadows was served with a subpoena
for testimony and documents 3 months ago. Since that time, he has done
TV interviews, published a book, and produced over 9,000 documents
about January 6, which he concedes are not covered by any form of
privilege.
These documents include chilling text messages from the President's
son, Don, Jr., urging Meadows to get his father to do something to stop
the violence; from Members of Congress, urging that the Vice President
simply ignore electoral votes he personally deems unconstitutional;
and, even after the violence of January 6, bemoaning the fact that the
effort to overturn the counting of the electors was a failure.
One of the texts to Meadows, on January 3, came from an unknown
caller and referred to efforts to replace the leadership of the
Department of Justice and said the following: ``I heard Jeff Clark is
getting put in on Monday. That's amazing. It will make a lot of
patriots happy, and I'm personally so proud that you are at the tip of
the spear and I can call you a friend.''
But notwithstanding his texts, his emails, his interviews, and his
book, Mr. Meadows refused to appear for his deposition, claiming that
to discuss the same issues, documents, and book is somehow privileged.
The inconsistency, the hypocrisy, grabs you by the neck, and so does
his utter contempt of Congress.
Mr. Meadows is a central participant and witness to the events of
January 6. He is at the tip of the spear. If he can get away with
ignoring the law, if witnesses summoned before Congress can merely pick
and choose when they comply, our power of oversight will be gone and
along with it our cherished system of checks and balances.
Take away Congress' power to compel evidence and you take away
Congress' power to protect the public from a dangerous and malign
executive. People died on January 6. A Congress that cannot enforce its
subpoenas in such an investigation is no more effective than a court in
a homicide case which cannot compel witnesses to appear. We would cease
to be a Congress and become a mere plaything in the hands of a despot.
Mark Meadows has demonstrated contempt for Congress and for the
public. Now, he must be held in contempt. He should be prosecuted like
anyone else who ignores the law because no one is above the law.
{time} 1745
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, let me just make sure people understand some facts in
light of some of the charges that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan)
just made, which are flat false.
Number one, Mr. Meadows refused to show up for his deposition. The
committee scheduled a deposition after extensive coordination with Mr.
Meadows on a day that he chose, that he selected, and then he refused
to show up.
He refused to show up to testify about nonprivileged questions. My
colleague from Ohio can talk as much as he would like about executive
privilege and about George Washington and about the extent to which it
is crucial for the survival of the Republic, with which I agree, but we
are talking here about testimony about nonprivileged materials.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, I would say that we all on this side of the
aisle used to be in agreement about what had happened on January 6.
There was a brief period of time, days perhaps, when we were in
agreement.
Standing--perhaps at this microphone--the minority leader, Kevin
McCarthy, said this on January 13: ``The President bears responsibility
for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have
immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These
facts require immediate action by President Trump. . . .''
Unfortunately, Mr. McCarthy's position changed on this issue. Mr.
McCarthy then worked against, voted against the resolution that would
have created a bipartisan commission to investigate these matters, and
he withdrew his nominees to this committee. Let me say that again. He
withdrew his nominees to this committee.
This committee is engaged in critical investigative and legislative
activity for which there is no greater purpose in terms of Congress'
responsibility, no matter what my colleague on the other side may claim
in terms of Mr. Meadows.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Aguilar).
Mr. AGUILAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chair for yielding.
Last Tuesday, December 7, the select committee received a letter from
Mr. Meadows' lawyer telling us that his client's appearance for a
deposition had become, and I quote, ``untenable''.
Something else happened last Tuesday. Mr. Meadows' book, ``The
Chief's Chief,'' hit bookstores.
This is a witness who is refusing to comply with the law and answer
our questions, in part because the former President has instructed him
to do so, he says. He says that as chief of staff he couldn't possibly
disclose the conversations with the former President.
But look at his book, and you get more information about his
confidential conversations with the former President than our committee
did.
This is from a section dealing with the January 6 rally at the
Ellipse. ``When he got off stage, President Trump let me know that he
had been speaking metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol. He knew
as well as anyone that we couldn't organize a trip like that on such
short notice.''
That part is interesting because the select committee has a lot of
questions about what the President said and did on January 6. We have a
lot of questions about how protests that day escalated into a riot. And
Mark Meadows says he can't discuss these details with us. But
apparently, he can put them in his book.
We have also learned from those very documents Mr. Meadows turned
over that he was willing to discuss what the President was thinking
with Members of Congress.
On January 3, Mr. Meadows was exchanging text messages with a
lawmaker about the pressure campaign to get State legislatures to
overturn the results of the election. In one text message to a
lawmaker, Mr. Meadows wrote, ``He,'' he presumably being President
Trump, ``He thinks the legislatures have the power, but the VP has
power, too.''
The power to do what? We could guess the power to overturn the
election results, the power to reject the will of the voters. And days
later a violent mob tried to get Vice President Pence to do just that.
We would like to ask Mr. Meadows about that, about what the former
President thought.
Days before the violent attack, Mr. Meadows was willing to share what
he, President Trump, thinks, but he won't tell us.
That is why Mr. Meadows' testimony is so important. That is why his
privilege claims are so outrageous, and that is why we need to adopt
this resolution.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, let's be very, very clear. The Democrats aren't
interested in finding out how a disorganized horde of rioters managed
to break into the United States Capitol on January 6. They don't want
to learn more about
[[Page H7792]]
the security breakdown that occurred that day, and they don't care
about protecting the Capitol from future attacks. They have proven it
to us.
None of the 51 subpoenas that the committee has publicly touted have
anything to do with Capitol security. As they have proven yet again
today, over and over again, they only care about attacking their
political enemies.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, here we are again,
considering another politically motivated contempt resolution. This
time the contempt resolution is for someone who actually provided this
select committee with nearly 7,000 pages of nonprivileged e-mails and
other documents in response to a subpoena. More than 1,100 documents
and more than 2,300 text messages were also provided. But that doesn't
seem to be enough for this select committee. It really has turned out
to be nothing more than a partisan committee just to investigate the
former President.
Subpoenas are not open-ended. They are required to be narrowly
tailored. Unfortunately, this committee doesn't seem to care about the
rules.
I also have some serious concerns with the way whistleblowers and
other witnesses are being treated by this select committee.
I asked this question the last time we were here voting on a
politically motivated contempt resolution, and it still hasn't been
answered by the majority, so I will ask it again: Why was the Capitol
so unprotected on January 6?
There are serious security vulnerabilities that have not been
addressed and won't be addressed nearly a year after January 6. There
has been little real action taken in response to the Senate report on
January 6 and the Honore task force findings. The Capitol Police
inspector general has released 7 reports and 103 findings, yet the
majority has failed to ensure these findings are implemented in a
meaningful way.
We know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection, training,
leadership structure, decision-making processes, and many, many more
are needed, but neither this select committee nor the Committee on
House Administration seem at all interested in ensuring that these
changes are made.
Additionally, a number of questions, Madam Speaker, from that day
still remain unanswered. I am still waiting on the Speaker of the House
to answer a letter I sent her back in February that asks why the
National Guard request by then Police Chief Steven Sund were denied?
Why the Speaker was involved in eventually approving the request? And
why the House Sergeant at Arms has refused to comply with preservation
and production requests from my office? I am the ranking member of the
oversight committee for the Sergeant at Arms. They will not comply with
the preservation request from the committee of jurisdiction.
We have many other unanswered questions, too, Madam Speaker. With
these questions still unanswered and another purely political contempt
resolution on the floor today, it makes you ask yourself, what is the
majority hiding? And why are their priorities not the men and women
serving in the Capitol Police and making this Capitol more secure for
everyone? We need these reforms. They should have been done months ago.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, like 300 other witnesses called to meet
with the January 6 committee and our staff, Mark Meadows was, indeed,
cooperating with our committee and voluntarily released thousands of
pages of admittedly unprivileged documents, and then something changed.
His book came out and apparently embarrassed Donald Trump.
After ex-President Trump exploded and called the book fake news,
Meadows performed a U-turn and suddenly refused to appear at the
December 8 deposition that he had previously agreed to. He called his
own book fake news, which is a pretty devastating review to render on
your own book, and he brought a lawsuit against the committee
alleging--check this out--that we have no legislative purpose.
Meadows' sudden vanishing act cannot vaporize the Article I
legislative power of our committee to investigate the massive assault
on American democracy that took place on January 6. If the January 6
committee has no legislative purpose, then none of our committees do,
for the first rule of democratic government is self-preservation.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives us the power to suppress
insurrections and repel invasions against the Union, and this we will
do by investigating and reporting on the most dangerous political
violence ever unleashed against the Capitol by a domestic enemy.
We have hundreds of questions. Yes, we do. The fact that Donald
Trump, who gave Mr. Meadows a positive blurb for his book, apparently
changed his mind about the book doesn't mean that Mr. Meadows can now
violate a congressional subpoena, something that Meadows frequently
insisted upon himself as a leading member of the House Oversight
Committee, and he knows it. And we have pages and pages of his
insisting upon the central importance of honoring the subpoenas of
Congress.
We have hundreds of questions for Mr. Meadows about information he
has already admitted is not privileged in any way at all by the
executive privilege, the Fifth Amendment, or anything else.
Here is one of them: How did the following text from a House lawmaker
influence Trump's plans to overthrow Joe Biden's electoral college
majority of 306 to 232 after Joe Biden beat Donald Trump?
Here is what that lawmaker wrote him. On November 4, a Member of this
body wrote to Meadows: Here is an aggressive strategy--one day after
the election--why can't the States of Georgia, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and other Republican-controlled State houses
declare this is BS where conflicts in election not called that night
and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the SCOTUS,
the Supreme Court of the United States.
How did this text influence the planning of Mark Meadows and Donald
Trump to try to destroy the lawful electoral college majority that had
been established by the people of the United States and the States for
Joe Biden?
Those are the kind of questions that we have a right to ask Mark
Meadows. He does not have any special privilege above any other citizen
to get out of his civic responsibility.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), a distinguished member of the
select committee, as well as the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland
Security, and Veterans' Affairs.
Mrs. LURIA. Madam Speaker, this is not a vote that I ever thought I
would be asked to take. The idea that this body would find a former
chief of staff to the President of the United States, a former Member
of Congress, in contempt was unthinkable prior to today.
We must approve this resolution, Madam Speaker, because of one simple
fact: 187 minutes. For 187 minutes, Mark Meadows was besieged by cries
for help from citizens, from members of the press, from members of the
President's own family, and from our colleagues in this Chamber,
pleading for Mr. Meadows to intervene and stop the attack.
The American people need to understand exactly what happened during
that 187 minutes. Mr. Meadows knows, which is why he must come forward.
It is increasingly clear that for 187 minutes the Commander in Chief
was derelict of his duty. We know this because Mr. Meadows provided the
evidence to the committee without any assertions of privilege.
And while the records he has handed over are helpful, there are many
questions that we need to ask him.
Mr. Meadows received a text, one of several, from one lawmaker in the
days leading up to the attack saying, ``Check your signal.'' The signal
messages are encrypted. Only Mr. Meadows can tell us what they said, so
we would like to ask him about that.
{time} 1800
In the course of our investigation, we have heard from individuals
involved
[[Page H7793]]
in planning the rallies that immediately preceded the violent attack on
the Capitol.
Those people talked with Mr. Meadows.
We want to ask him about that.
We have heard from former White House staffers who ultimately
reported to Mr. Meadows as the chief of staff.
We want to ask him about that.
We have heard from Justice Department officials who received
instructions to amplify false claims about the election which Mr.
Meadows knew about.
We want to ask him about that.
And we have heard from State officials about the pressure campaigns
and the relentless attacks on democracy in Arizona, Michigan, and
Georgia.
Mr. Meadows actually went to Georgia in connection with the recount
effort.
The American people must hear from him about that.
We are investigating an attempt, as one rioter simply put it, and
accurately, ``to overthrow the government.''
Our republic--which I myself served in uniform for 20 years--has
never faced a threat as acute and imminent as what we face today.
Think back to the day of the violent attack. If you believed that
Mark Meadows could help stop that attack, if you were one of the
Members of this body who texted him to stop that attack, you must vote
``yes'' today.
If, for 187 minutes, you knew the former President could call off the
rioters, you must vote ``yes'' today.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My Republican colleagues and I have repeatedly condemned political
violence in all of its forms, including the violence on January 6.
But the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who was elected by
Democrats to oversee Federal law enforcement, secured a Presidential
pardon for Susan Rosenberg, a domestic terrorist who set off a bomb in
the Senate Cloakroom in 1983. That is a fact.
Merrick Garland, appointed by Democrats to head the Justice
Department, helped the Obama administration to dismiss an indictment
against Elizabeth Ann Duke, a fugitive who was also arrested for
setting off a bomb inside the United States Capitol.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding.
A year ago in January I spoke on this floor in defense of the rule of
law and my view that it was incumbent upon Congress to count the
electors sent to us from their respective States.
In doing so, I reminded the Chamber that we are deeply divided.
Now we are a Nation perilously divided further. And a divided Nation
must return to first principles. Those first principles include
separation of powers; and in so doing, the judicious use of the
congressional subpoena power as requiring, per the United States
Supreme Court, ``a valid legislative purpose.''
That power is not, per the court, limitless, it is not, per the
court, a power to expose for the sake of exposure, it is not, per the
court, a power to punish, as such would be ``indefensible.''
The January 6th Committee was born in politics. After all, we have
standing committees like Judiciary, which have had precisely zero
hearings about the 500 Americans who have been charged, arrested, and
are jailed regarding January 6.
And then the natural pursuit of any conspiracy associated with such
crimes--no, the select committee continually moves the goalpost far
from a core legislative purpose. Indeed, one target seeking to claim
privilege was told to take specific tests to claim that privilege, then
did so, and then was told, sorry, this was not sufficient en route to
contempt.
Now we have the targeting of our friend, Mark Meadows. Congressman
Meadows sought accommodation. While, yes, it is between branches, the
question in privilege regarding the former President continues to be
litigated for good reason.
The gentlewoman from Wyoming outlined text messages from some of us
imploring action by the President. The text messages from which she
read were, in fact, turned over by Mr. Meadows. He produced more than
1,100 documents totaling 9,000 pages and over 2,300 text messages.
Mr. Meadows offered to appear before the committee to address the
agreed-upon nonprivileged documents.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, Mr. Meadows agrees to continue to work
through questions of privilege. But again, here we are facing a vote to
hold Mr. Meadows in contempt.
Anger over January 6 and the events leading to it is not reason for a
committee formed from that anger and in partisanship to exercise
unlimited power to command attendance of production while moving the
goalpost. This itself is an assault on liberty and our republic.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close
after the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) and the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Banks).
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, in spite of the protestations of the
gentleman from Maryland that we heard earlier that this bogus,
fraudulently organized committee has a legislative purpose that is
legitimate, and he said it was self-preservation, but everything every
Democrat has said today is meant to attack one person, and that is
Donald Trump.
And so I am reminded of the case that gave us the long progeny of all
these cases that deal with legislative purpose in committees and
subpoenas, the Kilbourn case. In that case, the Court ruled the
congressional investigation unconstitutional because its real purpose
was not to consider legislative reforms, as the House has claimed, but
rather to investigate possible crimes by this citizen, a power only the
executive and judicial branches have the right to exercise.
That is what we see happening here today.
This committee is illegitimate. It has violated its own rules of
creation. It has violated its own rules of creation and it says they
want to find out this massive truth here about what happened on January
6. You can't have a committee to find out what happened because you are
interested. You can't do that. And that is what they are doing today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for
45 seconds, if you are prepared to close.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, what you have heard today proves what we have said all along.
This select committee is not at all interested in doing anything to
prevent something like January 6 from ever happening again. It is all
about burying their political opponents. That is what they are about to
do today by holding Mr. Meadows in contempt. It is what they have
already done two times before. It is an absolute shame. We shouldn't
allow it to happen.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this resolution today.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, President Trump is hiding behind executive privilege.
All of my colleagues, all of them knew that what happened on January 6
was an assault on our Constitution. They knew it at the time, yet now
they are defending the indefensible.
Whether we tell the truth, get to the truth and defend ourselves
against it ever happening again is the moral test of our time. How we
address January 6 is the moral test of our generation.
It is very sad to see how my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are addressing this issue. Mr. Meadows
[[Page H7794]]
has refused to testify about nonprivileged material. He is in contempt.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
I thank my colleague from Wyoming for supporting this effort of the
committee. She has been a wonderful member of the committee, and I look
forward to continuing the relationship.
I thank my colleagues who presented on the majority side today who
made a clear case of why Mr. Meadows' defiance is unacceptable.
I take no joy in having to ask this House to make this referral. Mr.
Meadows served here with us for 7 years, but that doesn't excuse his
conduct. If anything, he should know better.
It is disappointing that he put himself in this category with a small
handful of uncooperative witnesses who are drawing out a lot of
attention hiding behind every privilege you can think of trying to slow
down and slow-walk this process. We want to hear from them all.
But we have heard from more than 300 witnesses. Just this week, three
significant individuals have already come in and spoken with us on the
record. As you have heard, last night and today, we have made some
significant findings. This investigation is moving ahead swiftly, but
even with all that cooperation, we need to send a clear message that
this sort of defiance of the rule of law cannot stand.
We need to hear from Mr. Meadows, and his refusal to appear is plain
and simple contempt.
I ask all Members to support this resolution, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the
resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.
____________________