[House Prints 117-1]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUSINESS MEETING ON A REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES CITE STEPHEN K. BANNON FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF
CONGRESS
=======================================================================
MEETING
of the
SELECT COMMITTEE TO
INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH
ATTACK ON THE
UNITED STATES CAPITOL
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 19, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack On the United States Capitol
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
50-114 WASHINGTON : 2022
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED
STATES CAPITOL
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Liz Cheney, Wyoming, Vice Chair
Zoe Lofgren, California
Adam B. Schiff, California
Pete Aguilar, California
Stephanie N. Murphy, Florida
Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Elaine G. Luria, Virginia
Adam Kinzinger, Illinois
COMMITTEE STAFF
David B. Buckley, Staff Director
Kristin L. Amerling, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Hope Goins, Senior Counsel to the Chairman
Joseph B. Maher, Senior Counsel to the Vice Chair
Timothy J. Heaphy, Chief Investigative Counsel
Jamie Fleet, Senior Advisor
Timothy R. Mulvey, Communications Director
Candyce Phoenix, Senior Counsel and Senior Advisor
John F. Wood, Senior Investigative Counsel and Of Counsel to the Vice
Chair
Katherine B. Abrams, Staff
Associate
Temidayo Aganga-Williams, Senior
Investigative Counsel
Alejandra Apecechea, Investigative
Counsel
Lisa A. Bianco, Director of Member
Services and Security Manager
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Investigator
Bryan Bonner, Investigative Counsel
Richard R. Bruno, Senior
Administrative Assistant
Marcus Childress, Investigative
Counsel
John Marcus Clark, Security
Director
Jacqueline N. Colvett, Digital
Director
Heather I. Connelly, Professional
Staff Member
Meghan E. Conroy, Investigator
Heather L. Crowell, Printer
Proofreader
William C. Danvers, Senior
Researcher
Soumyalatha Dayananda, Senior
Investigative Counsel
Stephen W. DeVine, Senior Counsel
Lawrence J. Eagleburger,
Professional Staff Member
Kevin S. Elliker, Investigative
Counsel
Margaret E. Emamzadeh, Staff
Associate
Sadallah A. Farah, Professional
Staff Member
Daniel A. George, Senior
Investigative Counsel
Jacob H. Glick, Investigative
Counsel
Aaron S. Greene, Clerk
Marc S. Harris, Senior
Investigative Counsel
Alice K. Hayes, Clerk
Quincy T. Henderson, Staff
Assistant
Jenna Hopkins, Professional Staff
Member
Camisha L. Johnson, Professional
Staff Member Thomas E. Joscelyn, Senior
Professional Staff Member
Rebecca L. Knooihuizen, Financial
Investigator
Casey E. Lucier, Investigative
Counsel
Damon M. Marx, Professional Staff
Member
Evan B. Mauldin, Chief Clerk
Yonatan L. Moskowitz, Senior
Counsel
Hannah G. Muldavin, Deputy
Communications Director
Jonathan D. Murray, Professional
Staff Member
Jacob A. Nelson, Professional
Staff Member
Elizabeth Obrand, Staff Associate
Raymond O'Mara, Director of
External Affairs
Elyes Ouechtati, Technology
Partner
Robin M. Peguero, Investigative
Counsel
Sandeep A. Prasanna, Investigative
Counsel
Barry Pump, Parliamentarian
Sean M. Quinn, Investigative
Counsel
Brittany M. J. Record, Senior
Counsel
Denver Riggleman, Senior Technical
Advisor
Joshua D. Roselman, Investigative
Counsel
James N. Sasso, Senior
Investigative Counsel
Grant H. Saunders, Professional
Staff Member
Samantha O. Stiles, Chief
Administrative Officer
Sean P. Tonolli, Senior
Investigative Counsel
David A. Weinberg, Senior
Professional Staff Member
Amanda S. Wick, Senior
Investigative Counsel
Darrin L. Williams, Jr., Staff
Assistant
Zachary S. Wood, Clerk
CONTRACTORS & CONSULTANTS
Rawaa Alobaidi
Melinda Arons
Steve Baker
Elizabeth Bisbee
David Canady
John Coughlin
Aaron Dietzen
Gina Ferrise
Angel Goldsborough
James Goldston
Polly Grube
L. Christine Healey
Danny Holladay
Percy Howard
Dean Jackson
Stephanie J. Jones
Hyatt Mamoun
Mary Marsh
Todd Mason
Ryan Mayers
Jeff McBride
Fred Muram
Alex Newhouse
John Norton
Orlando Pinder
Owen Pratt
Dan Pryzgoda
Brian Sasser
William Scherer
Driss Sekkat
Chris Stuart
Preston Sullivan
Brian Young
Innovative Driven
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements of Members of Congress
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Select Committee
to Investigate the January 6th Attack On the United States
Capitol........................................................ 1
The Honorable Liz Cheney, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Wyoming, and Vice Chair, Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack On the United States Capitol 3
Committee Business
Report........................................................... 4
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute.......................... 5
For the Record
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Select Committee
to Investigate the January 6th Attack On the United States
Capitol:
Letter, October 15, 2021, From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson..... 5
Letter, October 18, 2021, From Robert J. Costello.............. 7
Letter, October 19, 2021, From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson..... 8
Letter, October 18, 2021, From Johnathan C. Su................. 9
Appendix
Full text, Report................................................ 14
Full text, Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute............... 54
BUSINESS MEETING ON A REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES CITE STEPHEN K. BANNON FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF
CONGRESS
----------
Tuesday, October 19, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives,
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack On
the United States Capitol,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 7:37 p.m., in
room 390, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Thompson, Cheney, Lofgren, Schiff,
Aguilar, Murphy, Raskin, Luria, and Kinzinger.
Chairman Thompson. A quorum being present, the Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol will be in order.
The Select Committee is meeting this evening to consider a
report on a resolution recommending that the House of
Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon 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.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the
Committee in recess at any time.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Let me start by saying that it gives me no joy that I have
been forced to call this meeting. I think my colleagues feel
the same way.
The expectation of this Committee is that all witnesses
will cooperate with our investigation. Witnesses who have been
subpoenaed have a legal obligation to do so.
When you think about what we are investigating--a violent
attack on the seat of our democracy, perpetrated by fellow
citizens on our Constitution, an attempt to stop the
certification of an election--it is shocking to me, shocking
that anyone would not do anything in their power to assist our
investigation.
So it is a shame that Mr. Bannon has put us in this
position. But we won't take no for an answer. We believe Mr.
Bannon has information relevant to our probe, and we will use
the tools at our disposal to get that information.
I expect that the House will quickly adopt this referral to
the Justice Department and that the U.S. attorney will do his
duty and prosecute Mr. Bannon for criminal contempt of
Congress.
Our goal is simple. We want Mr. Bannon to answer our
questions. We want him to turn over whatever records he
possesses that are relevant to the Select Committee's
investigation.
The issue in front of us today is our ability to do our
job. It is about fulfilling our responsibilities according to
House Resolution 503 to provide the American people answers
about what happened on January 6th and help ensure nothing like
that day ever happens again.
We fulfill our responsibilities by discovering the facts
behind the January 6th attack so that Congress can consider
legislation with a full understanding of the activities that
led to an attack on Congress itself.
I want to make it clear just how isolated Mr. Bannon is in
his refusal to cooperate with the Select Committee. We have
reached out to dozens of witnesses. We are taking in thousands
of pages of records. We are conducting interviews on a steady
basis. This is the shoe leather work of conducting a serious,
focused investigation. It is not flashy, but it gets results.
It is essential that we get Mr. Bannon's factual and
complete testimony in order to get a full accounting of the
violence of January 6th and its causes.
Mr. Bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our
subpoena. That is not acceptable. No one in this country, no
matter how wealthy or how powerful, is above the law. Left
unaddressed, this defiance may encourage others to follow Mr.
Bannon down the same path.
For folks watching at home this evening, I want you to
think about something. What would happen to you if you did what
Mr. Bannon is doing? If you were a material witness in a
criminal prosecution or some other lawsuit, what would happen
if you refused to show up? Do you think you would be able to
just go about your business? We all know the answer to that.
There isn't a different set of rules for Mr. Bannon. He
knows this. He knows that there are consequences for outright
defiance, and he has chosen the path toward criminal contempt
by taking this position.
There are bigger matters at stake. One of the major
questions the Select Committee is dealing with is whether the
rule of law will be able to endure as a pillar of American
democracy. After all, we have seen the rule of law put to the
test repeatedly in our recent past.
While we don't know all of the facts, we do know that there
was a powerful push to overturn the legitimate results of the
2020 election. Americans have been and continue to be lied to
about that. We know that ultimately there was a violent attack
that interfered with the peaceful transfer of power from one
President to another. We know that lies about the outcome of
that election haven't gone away.
Now we have a key witness who is flat-out refusing to
comply with a congressional subpoena and cooperate with our
investigation. The rule of law remains under attack right now.
If there is no accountability for these abuses, if there are
different sets of rules for different types of people, then our
democracy is in serious trouble.
As Chair of this Committee, I won't allow further harm to
the rule of law in the course of our work. Mr. Bannon will
comply with our investigation or he will face the consequences.
Maybe he is willing to be a martyr to a disgraceful cause
of whitewashing what happened on January 6th or demonstrating
his complete loyalty to the former President.
So I want our witnesses to understand something very
plainly: If you are thinking of following the path Mr. Bannon
has gone down, you are on notice that this is what you will
face.
The process we have begun tonight is a grave one. It seldom
happens, and we would rather avoid it altogether. But it is not
reserved just for Steve Bannon. If other witnesses defy this
Committee, if they fail to cooperate, we will be back in this
room with a new report with the names of whoever else
mistakenly believes that they are above the law.
We hope no other witnesses put themselves in the situation
Mr. Bannon has through his own conduct, but we cannot allow
anyone to stand in the way of the Select Committee as we work
to get to the facts. The stakes are just too high. We won't be
deterred, we won't be distracted, and we won't be delayed.
I urge my colleagues to support the favorable adoption of
this report.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the distinguished Vice
Chair, my friend, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any statement she
would care to offer.
Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
On January 6th, a mob breached the security perimeter of
our Capitol, assaulted and injured more than 140 police
officers, engaged in hand-to-hand violence over an extended
period, and invaded and occupied the United States Capitol
Building, all in an effort to halt the lawful counting of
electoral votes and reverse the results of the 2020 election.
The day before this all occurred, on January 5th, Mr.
Bannon publicly professed knowledge that, ``All hell is going
to break loose tomorrow.'' He forecast that the day would be,
``extraordinarily different than what most Americans
expected.'' He said to his listeners and his viewers, ``So many
people said, `If I was in a revolution, I would be in
Washington.' '' ``Well,'' he said, ``this is your time in
history.''
Based on the Committee's investigation, it appears that Mr.
Bannon had substantial advance knowledge of the plans for
January 6th and likely had an important role in formulating
those plans.
Mr. Bannon was in the ``war room'' at the Willard on
January 6th. He also appears to have detailed knowledge
regarding the President's efforts to sell millions of Americans
the fraud that the election was stolen.
In the words of many who participated in the January 6th
attack, the violence that day was in direct response to
President Trump's repeated claims, from election night through
January 6th, that he had won the election.
The American people are entitled to Mr. Bannon's first-hand
testimony about all of these relevant facts. But as the
Chairman noted, Mr. Bannon is refusing to provide it.
Preserving our Constitution and the rule of law is a
central purpose of this investigation. The plain fact here is
that Mr. Bannon has no legal right to ignore the Committee's
lawful subpoena.
So far, Mr. Bannon's excuse is that former President Trump
wishes to invoke some form of executive privilege for a subset
of the relevant topics: President Trump's direct communications
with Mr. Bannon regarding the planning for January 6th.
This information should not be subject to any privilege at
all, and certainly there is no basis for absolute or
unqualified privilege for Presidential communications.
More important now, there is no conceivably applicable
privilege that could shield Mr. Bannon from testimony on all of
the many other topics identified in this Committee subpoena.
Because he has categorically refused to appear, we have no
choice but to seek consequences for Mr. Bannon's failure to
comply. Those consequences are not just important for this
investigation. They are important for all congressional
investigations.
Mr. Bannon's and Mr. Trump's privilege arguments do,
however, appear to reveal one thing. They suggest that
President Trump was personally involved in the planning and
execution of January 6th, and this Committee will get to the
bottom of that.
Let me add one further thought, principally for my
Republican colleagues.
We all agree that America is the greatest Nation on the
face of God's Earth. Truth, justice, and our Constitution have
made America great.
Almost every one of my colleagues knows in their hearts
that what happened on January 6th was profoundly wrong. You all
know that there is no evidence of widespread election fraud
sufficient to have changed the results of the election. You all
know that the Dominion voting machines were not corrupted by a
foreign power. You know these claims are false.
Yet former President Trump repeats them almost daily, and
he has now urged Republicans not to vote in 2022 and 2024. This
is a prescription for national self-destruction.
I ask my colleagues, please consider the fundamental
questions of right and wrong here. The American people must
know what happened. They must know the truth. All of us who are
elected officials must do our duty to prevent the dismantling
of the rule of law and to ensure that nothing like that dark
day in January ever happens again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the
Report on a Resolution Recommending that the House of
Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon 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 report was circulated in advance and printed copies are
available. The clerk shall designate the report.
[The clerk designated the report.]
Chairman Thompson. Without objection, the report will be
considered as read and open to amendment at any time.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For the text of the report, see Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Thompson. I recognize myself for the purpose of
offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute now at the
desk.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
[The clerk designated the amendment.]
Chairman Thompson. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read and considered base text for purposes of
further amendment.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** For the text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, see
Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Thompson. I will now recognize myself to explain
the amendment.
Yesterday evening, counsel to Mr. Bannon requested a 1-week
adjournment of our response to a letter I wrote on October 15th
which stated that Mr. Bannon's willful defiance of the Select
Committee's subpoena would lead to tonight's hearing.
Without objection, I include my October 15 letter in the
record, as well as yesterday's letter from Robert J. Costello,
Mr. Bannon's attorney.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson to Robert J. Costello
October 15, 2021.
Mr. Robert J. Costello,
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, [redacted].
Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack (``Select Committee'') is in receipt of your October 13,
2021 letter (the ``October 13 letter''), in which you reassert that
your client, Stephen Bannon, will not comply with the September 23,
2021 Subpoena to him for documents and deposition testimony (the
``Subpoena''). As you know, the Subpoena demanded that Mr. Bannon
produce documents by October 7, 2021 and appear on October 14, 2021
before the Select Committee to provide deposition testimony on a wide
range of issues relating to the January 6, 2021 attack on the United
States Capitol, as well as plans to interfere with the count of the
2020 Electoral College results. Mr. Bannon has now willfully failed to
both produce a single document and to appear for his scheduled
deposition. The Select Committee believes that this willful refusal to
comply with the Subpoena constitutes a violation of Federal law.
As justification for Mr. Bannon's complete failure to comply with
any portion of the Subpoena, you continue to rely on ex-President
Trump's stated intention to invoke executive privilege with respect to
Mr. Bannon, and Mr. Trump's purported request that Mr. Bannon not
produce documents to or testify before the Select Committee. As was
explained in the Select Committee's October 8, 2021 letter (attached),
the former President has not communicated any such assertion of
privilege, whether formally or informally, to the Select Committee.
Moreover, we believe that any such assertion of privilege--should it be
made by the former President--will not prevent the Select Committee
from lawfully obtaining the information it seeks.
Further, your letter makes no attempt to justify Mr. Bannon's
failure to comply with the Subpoena's demand for documents and
testimony on a range of subjects that do not involve communications
with the former President. As is clear from the Subpoena and
accompanying letter, and as underscored in the Select Committee's
October 8, 2021 response letter, the Select Committee seeks documents
and testimony on numerous other matters, including Mr. Bannon's
communications with Members of Congress, Presidential campaign
representatives, and other private parties concerning the events of
January 6, 2021, that could not conceivably be barred by a privilege
claim.
Moreover, even if the Select Committee were inclined to accept the
unsupported premise that executive privilege reaches communications
that the Select Committee seeks to examine between President Trump and
Mr. Bannon,\1\ Mr. Bannon does not enjoy any form of absolute immunity
from testifying or producing documents in response to a congressional
subpoena. Your citation to Committee on Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 F.
Supp. 3d 148 (D.D.C. 2019) actually supports the Select Committee, not
your client. In McGahn, the district court unequivocally held that even
senior White House aides are not entitled to absolute immunity from
testifying in response to a congressional subpoena. Id. at 214 (``To
make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court . . .
that, with respect to senior-level Presidential aides, absolute
immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not
exist.'').\2\ Indeed, the footnote in McGahn that you selectively quote
makes clear that a President lacks legal authority to order an aide not
to appear before Congress based on a claim of executive privilege. See
Id. at 213, n. 34 (``But the invocation of the privilege by a
testifying aide is an order of magnitude different than DOJ's current
claim that the President essentially owns the entirety of a senior-
level aide's testimony such that the White House can order the
individual not to appear before Congress at all.'' (Emphasis in
original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notably, neither of the cases you cite supports the claim that
communications between the former President and a private citizen may
be shielded by either the Presidential communications or deliberative
process privilege. Indeed, the case you rely upon to support your
Presidential communications claim specifically held that the privilege
extends only to a President's closest advisors in the White House. In
re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1997). See also
Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 100 (D.D.C.
2008) (privilege claimants acknowledged that executive privilege
applies only to ``a very small cadre of senior advisors'').
\2\ The McGahn court followed Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers,
558 F. Supp.2d 53, 108 (D.D.C. 2008), which reached the same conclusion
13 years ago. McGahn, 415 F. Supp. 3d at 202-03 (``this Court finds
that the Miers court rightly determined not only that the principle of
absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level Presidential aides has
no foundation in law, but also that such a proposition conflicts with
key tenets of our constitutional order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Select Committee views Mr. Bannon's failure to
produce documents by the October 7, 2021 deadline as willful non-
compliance with the Subpoena. Mr. Bannon has persisted in his refusal
to produce any documents to the Select Committee, and he has failed to
provide a privilege log identifying specific, asserted privileges. Mr.
Bannon has now further compounded his non-compliance by refusing to
appear on October 14, 2021 at the Select Committee deposition to which
he was summoned to provide testimony. The Select Committee will
therefore be meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 2021 to consider invoking
the contempt of Congress procedures set forth in 2 U.S.C. 192, 194.
If Mr. Bannon believes that there are any additional issues
relating to his non-compliance with the Subpoena that have not been
addressed, please submit them in writing to the Select Committee by 6
o'clock p.m. E.S.T. on Monday, October 18, 2021 for the Select
Committee's consideration in its deliberations.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.
______
Chairman Thompson. Mr. Bannon's attorney said they needed
time to, ``assess the Select Committee's request in light of
litigation filed by former President Trump in the District of
Columbia District Court yesterday.'' However, the former
President's lawsuit is immaterial to Mr. Bannon's defiance of
our lawful subpoena. I made that clear in a letter to Mr.
Costello this morning.
Without objection, I include my full letter in the record.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson to Robert J. Costello
October 19, 2021.
Mr. Robert J. Costello,
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, [redacted].
Dear Mr. Costello: I write yet again to urge your client Stephen K.
Bannon to change course and comply with the September 23, 2021,
subpoena from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol (``Select Committee'').
As explained in our prior correspondence, your stated reasons for
Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide documents and appear at a
deposition have no legal basis or support. Because of Mr. Bannon's
continued refusal to comply with the subpoena, the Select Committee has
unanimously voted to recommend that the House of Representatives find
Mr. Bannon to be in contempt of Congress. The detailed basis for that
recommendation is contained in the Select Committee's report, a copy of
which is available at the following link: https://docs.house.gov/
Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114156. Should the House of
Representatives agree with that recommendation, the Speaker of the
House will certify the relevant statement of facts to the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia, ``whose duty it shall be to
bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.'' See 2 U.S.C.
Sec. 194.
Additionally, President Biden's recently communicated views
relating to your client's reliance on executive privilege as a basis
for his non-compliance provide further support for the Select
Committee's position. As you know, in its October 18, 2021, letter, the
Office of the White House Counsel concluded that ``at this point we are
not aware of any basis for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a
deposition.'' The letter further noted that President Biden has
``already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in
the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to
certain subjects within the purview of the Select Committee.'' In
short, the current President's statements should remove any doubt
regarding the inappropriateness of Mr. Bannon's reliance on assertions
of executive privilege as grounds for his noncompliance with the
subpoena. Mr. Bannon has no basis in law to continue to defy the
appropriate use of congressional subpoena authority.
These developments underscore the folly of any continuing defiance
of the Select Committee subpoena by Mr. Bannon. The Select Committee
remains focused on expeditiously obtaining the testimony and documents
necessary to meet our responsibilities and we continue to expect
immediate compliance by Mr. Bannon. Should Mr. Bannon choose to change
his posture, please notify Select Committee staff [redacted].
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Furthermore, the White House yesterday
issued a letter to Mr. Bannon's attorney stating, ``We are not
aware of any basis for your client's refusal to appear for a
deposition,'' before the Select Committee, and further said
that, ``President Biden has already determined that an
assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest
and, therefore, is not justified with respect to certain
subjects within the purview of the Select Committee.''
Without objection, I include the full White House letter in
the record.
[The information follows:]
Chairman Thompson. This amendment in the nature of a
substitute updates the report to reflect these developments,
and it is now even clearer that Mr. Bannon has no lawful
grounds not to comply with our subpoena.
If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Those in favor, say ``aye''.
Those opposed, say ``no''.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
I now recognize the Vice Chair, Ms. Cheney, for a motion.
Vice Chair Cheney. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
favorably report to the House the Committee's Report on a
Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find
Stephen K. Bannon 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, as amended.
Chairman Thompson. The question is on the motion to
favorably report to the House.
Those in favor, say ``aye''.
Those opposed, ``no''.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Vice Chair Cheney. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Thompson. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk
will call the roll.
[The clerk called the roll, and the result was announced as
follows:]
Select Committee Rollcall No. 1
Motion by Vice Chair Cheney to Favorably Report, as Amended
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Thompson. The motion is agreed to.
The Vice Chair is recognized.
Vice Chair Cheney. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to clause 2(l) of
rule XI, I request that Members have 2 calendar days in which
to file with the clerk of the Committee supplemental or
additional views on the measure ordered reported by the
Committee tonight.
Chairman Thompson. So ordered.
Without objection, staff is authorized to make any
necessary technical or conforming changes to the report to
reflect the actions of the Committee.
There being no further business, without objection, the
Select Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 7:57 p.m., the Select Committee was
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Report on a Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives
Find Stephen K. Bannon 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
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]