The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
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:
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'';
To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power''; and
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 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:
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.''
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.
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.''
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.''
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?''
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.
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.
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 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.
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-- 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.
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:
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;
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
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 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 https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic.
\3\ Joe Walsh, ``Trump Chief of Staff Observes Georgia County's Ballot Audit Amid Ongoing Baseless Fraud Claims,'' Forbes, (Dec. 22, 2020), available at 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.
\4\ ``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html.
\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 https://
www.politico.com/news/2021/12/09/national-archives-meadows-
trump-524043.
\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 https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html.
\8\ Caitlin McFall, ``Trump, House Republicans held call to discuss Electoral College rejection: Brooks,'' Fox News,
(Jan. 2, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/gop-splits-electoral-college-certification; 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 https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic.
\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 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/embedding-with-
pentagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-week.
\31\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows production); Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox News,
(Feb. 11, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
transcript/biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-
call-with-xi; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Feb. 12, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-
yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-nursing-home-blasts-
disgrace-cuomo; Testimony of Hon. Christopher C. Miller, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform,
(May 12, 2021), available at https://oversight.house.gov/
sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
Miller%20Testimony.pdf.
\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 https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/members-of-congress-trump-electoral-college-
objections-on-jan-6; 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 https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/gop-splits-electoral-college-certification; 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! FIGHT!''); Paul Bedard, ``Exclusive: Trump urges state legislators to reject electoral votes, `You are the real power','' Washington Examiner, (Jan. 3, 2021), available at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/
exclusive-trump-urges-state-legislators-to-reject-electoral-
votes-you-are-the-real-power.
\40\ Linda So, ``Trump's chief of staff could face scrutiny in Georgia criminal probe,'' Reuters, (March 19, 2021), available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-
georgia-meadows-insight-idUSKBN2BB0XX.
\41\ Id.
\42\ ``AP FACT CHECK: Trump's made-up claims of fake Georgia votes,'' Associated Press, (Jan. 3, 2021), https://
apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-donald-trump-georgia-
elections-atlanta-c23d10e5299e14daee6109885f7dafa9; ``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-
transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-
322644d82356_story.html.
\43\ ``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html.
\44\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
\45\ Transcript of November 20, 2020, White House Press Conference, available at https://www.rev.com/blog/
transcripts/press-secretary-kayleigh-mcenany-white-house-
press-conference-transcript-november-20.
\46\ Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb. 2, 2021), available at https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html.
\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 https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-
voter-fraud.html.
\49\ Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb. 2, 2021), available at https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html.
\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 https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic.
\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 https://video.foxnews.com/
v/6285715473001#sp=show-clips; ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox News, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
media/mark-meadows-potential-contempt-charges-january-6-
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 https://www.foxnews.com/
transcript/biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-
call-with-xi; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Feb. 12, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-
yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-nursing-home-blasts-
disgrace-cuomo; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Dec. 7, 2021), available at https://video.foxnews.com/v/
6285715473001#sp=show-clips; Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox News, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at https://
www.foxnews.com/media/mark-meadows-potential-contempt-
charges-january-6-committee.
\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 https://news.yahoo.com/watch-
mark-meadows-slam-official-001107830.html (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 https://www.c-span.org/video/
?455872-1/profit-organizations-politics.
\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 https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/01/national/clinton-aides-
testify-they-opposed-rich-pardon.html. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.012
* * * *. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.051
* * * *. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.053
* * * *. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.061
* * * *. 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.]
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 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 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.]
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.087
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
____
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
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 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.
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 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 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 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.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 215
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up