[House Prints 117-3]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUSINESS MEETING ON A REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES CITE MARK RANDALL MEADOWS 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
__________
DECEMBER 13, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-3
__________
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
50-116 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 10
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the
State of California............................................ 13
The Honorable Adam Schiff, a Representative in Congress From the
State of California............................................ 14
The Honorable Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Illinois.......................................... 14
The Honorable Pete Aguilar, a Representative in Congress From the
State of California............................................ 15
The Honorable Stephanie Murphy, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida........................................... 16
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Maryland.............................................. 17
The Honorable Elaine Luria, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Virginia.............................................. 19
Committee Business
Report........................................................... 12
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:
Correspondence................................................. 3
Appendix
Full text, Report................................................ 30
BUSINESS MEETING ON A REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES CITE MARK RANDALL MEADOWS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF
CONGRESS
----------
Monday, December 13, 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 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 the resolution recommending 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.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the
Committee in recess at any time.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Before I start my statement, let me, on behalf of the
Committee, add our condolences and prayers to the people of
Kentucky and surrounding States on the devastation they have
received during the tornados. Our hearts and prayers go out to
all those impacted.
This week, I expect that roughly a dozen key witnesses will
provide testimony on the record in our investigation. We will
hear from many more informally as we continue to gather facts
about the violence of January 6th and its causes.
That should put us way up north of the 300 mark, in terms
of witnesses who have given us information. Add to that more
than 30,000 records and nearly 250 substantive tips on our tip
line.
Anyone listening at home tonight, if you have any
information you want to share with us, you can find our tip
line on the Select Committee's website, january6.house.gov.
The court of appeals here in Washington has ruled quickly
in our favor regarding the Select Committee's work to uncover
relevant information. Day to day, we are getting a clearer
picture of what happened, who was involved and who paid for it,
and where the money went.
So I am pleased to report we are making swift progress, and
before too long our findings will be out in the open. We will
have public hearings. We will tell this story to the American
people. But we won't do it piecemeal. We will do it when we can
tell the story all at once from start to finish, not leaving
anyone guessing and not allowing it to fade into the memories
of last week's news.
This story is too important. The stakes are too high. We
have to do this job right. That means we have to address the
handful of outliers soberly and appropriately. That is why we
are here this evening.
The Select Committee's report referring Mr. Meadows for
criminal contempt charges is clear and compelling. As White
House chief of staff, Mr. Meadows played a role in, or was
witness to, key events leading up to and including the January
6th assault on the United States Capitol.
Don't let lawsuits or op-eds about executive privilege by
Mr. Meadows or his representatives confuse you.
It comes down to this: Mr. Meadows started by doing the
right thing, cooperating. He handed over records that he didn't
try to shield behind some excuse. But, in an investigation like
ours, that is just the first step. When the records raise
questions, as these most certainly do, you have to come in and
answer those questions. When it was time for him to follow the
law, come in and testify on those questions, he changed his
mind and told us to pound sand. He didn't even show up.
Now, this happened the same day his book was published, the
same book that goes into detail about matters the Select
Committee is reviewing. It also details conversations he had
with President Trump and others, conversations we want to hear
more about. He had also appeared on national television
discussing the events of January 6th.
He has no credible excuse for stonewalling the Select
Committee's investigation.
We did receive another letter today from Mr. Meadows's
attorney, asking that we not hold his client in criminal
contempt. Without objection, that letter will be made part of
the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Thompson. A small group of people have gotten a
lot of attention because of their defiance, but many others
have taken a different path and provided important information
about January 6th and the context in which the riot occurred.
Anyone who wants to cooperate with our investigation can do so.
Nearly everyone has.
Our democracy was inches from ruin. Our system of
government was stretched to the breaking point. Members and
staff were terrorized. Police officers fought hand-to-hand for
hours. People lost their lives.
The Select Committee recently toured the Capitol and saw
first-hand what our brave Capitol Police had to endure and
heard them say: Had it not been for the Metropolitan Police's
timely arrival, the rioters would have succeeded. God only
knows what the outcome would have been if that had occurred.
We want to figure out why and share that information with
the American people, and either you are on the side of helping
us figure out why or you are trying to stop us from getting
those answers. You can parade out whatever argument you want,
but really that is all there is to it. In real life, there
aren't a lot of bright-line moments. This is one of them.
If you are listening at home, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Bannon, Mr.
Clark, I want you to know this: History will be written about
these times, about the work this Committee has undertaken, and
history will not look upon any of you as martyrs. History will
not look upon you as a victim. History will not dwell on your
long list of privilege claims or your legal sleight of hand.
History will record that, in a critical moment in our
democracy, most people were on the side of finding the truth,
of providing accountability, of strengthening our system for
future generations. History will also record in this critical
moment that some people were not, that some people hid behind
excuses, went to great lengths to avoid answering questions and
explaining what they had done and what they knew. I predict
that history won't be kind to those people.
What is especially jarring about the referral we are
considering tonight is that Mr. Meadows was a Member of this
body for more than 7 years. He was a leading voice in certain
corners, even briefly the Ranking Member of the Oversight and
Reform Committee.
It is not hard to locate records of his time in the House
and find a Mr. Meadows full of indignation because, at the
time, a prior administration wasn't cooperating with a
congressional investigation to his satisfaction.
Whatever legacy he thought he left in the House, this is
his legacy now: His former colleagues singling him out for
criminal prosecution because he wouldn't answer questions about
what he knows about a brutal attack on our democracy. That is
his legacy. But he hasn't left us any choice. Mr. Meadows put
himself in this situation, and he must now accept the
consequences.
So I will support the Select Committee's adoption of this
report recommending the House cite Mark Randall Meadows for
contempt of Congress and refer him to the Department of Justice
for prosecution.
I will now recognize our distinguished leader of the Select
Committee, Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening remarks she
cares to make.
Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We are here to address a very serious matter: Contempt of
Congress by a former chief of staff to a former President of
the United States. We do not do this lightly, and, indeed, we
had hoped not to take this step at all.
For weeks, as the Chairman noted, we worked with Mr.
Meadows's counsel to reach an agreement on cooperation. But,
shortly before his scheduled deposition, Mr. Meadows walked
away from his commitment to appear and informed us he would no
longer cooperate.
We believe Mr. Meadows is improperly asserting executive
and other privileges, but this vote on contempt today relates
principally to Mr. Meadows's refusal to testify about text
messages and other communications that he admits are not
privileged. He has not claimed and does not have any privilege
basis to refuse entirely to testify regarding these topics.
Let me give just three examples.
First, President Trump's failure to stop the violence. On
January 6th, our Capitol Building was attacked and invaded. The
mob was summoned to Washington by President Trump, and, as many
of those involved have admitted on videotape, in social media,
and in Federal district court, they were provoked to violence
by President Trump's false claims that the election was stolen.
The violence was evident to all. It was covered in real
time by almost every news channel. But, for 187 minutes,
President Trump refused to act, when action by our President
was required, essential, and, indeed, 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 knew his duty required. These
text messages leave no doubt: The White House knew exactly what
was happening here at the Capitol.
Members of Congress, the press, and others wrote to Mark
Meadows as the attack was under way. One text Mr. Meadows
received said, ``We are under siege here at the Capitol.''
Another: ``They have breached the Capitol.'' In a third:
``Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol, breaking
windows on doors, rushing in. Is Trump going to say
something?'' A fourth: ``There is an armed standoff at the
House Chamber door.'' And another from someone inside the
Capitol: ``We are all helpless.''
Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration
officials, urged immediate action by the President: ``POTUS has
to come out firmly and tell the protesters to dissipate.
Someone is going to get killed.'' In another: ``Mark, he needs
to stop this now.'' A third, in all caps: ``TELL THEM TO GO
HOME.'' A fourth, and I quote: ``POTUS needs to calm this shit
down.''
Indeed, according to the records, multiple Fox News hosts
knew the President needed to act immediately. They texted Mr.
Meadows, and he has turned over those texts: ``Mark, the
President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This
is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy,'' Laura
Ingraham wrote. ``Please, get him on TV. Destroying everything
you have accomplished,'' Brian Kilmeade texted. ``Can he make a
statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol,'' Sean Hannity
urged.
As the violence continued, one of the President's sons
texted Mr. Meadows: ``He's got to condemn this shit ASAP. The
Capitol Police tweet is not enough,'' Donald Trump, Jr.,
texted. Meadows responded, ``I'm pushing it hard. I agree.''
Still, President Trump did not immediately act.
Donald Trump, Jr., texted again and again, urging action by
the President: ``We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead
now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.'' But hours
passed without necessary action by the President.
These nonprivileged texts are further evidence of President
Trump's supreme dereliction of duty during those 187 minutes.
Mr. Meadows' testimony will bear on another key question before
this Committee: Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction,
corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress's official
proceedings to count electoral votes?
Mark Meadows's testimony is necessary to inform our
legislative judgments, yet he has refused to give any testimony
at all, even regarding nonprivileged topics.
He is in contempt of Congress.
Mr. Meadows also has knowledge regarding President Trump's
efforts to persuade State officials to alter their official
election results. In Georgia, for instance, Mr. Meadows
participated on a phone call between President Trump and
Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger. Meadows was 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.
We know from the texts Mr. Meadows has turned over that, at
the time of that call, he appears to have been texting other
participants on the call.
Again, 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 6th, 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 informed this Committee that he anticipates
potential criminal prosecution related to these matters and
intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination.
As Mr. Meadows's nonprivileged texts reveal, Meadows
communicated multiple times with a Member of Congress who was
working with Mr. Clark. Mr. Meadows has no basis to refuse to
testify regarding those communications. He is in contempt.
January 6th 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 investigation is not like other congressional
inquiries. Our Constitution, the structure of our institutions,
and the rule of law, which are at the heart of what makes
America great, are at stake.
We cannot be satisfied with incomplete answers or half-
truths, and we cannot surrender to President Trump's efforts to
hide what happened. We will be persistent, professional, and
nonpartisan, and we will get to the objective truth to ensure
that January 6th never happens again.
I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the Report on 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.
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 point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For the text of the report, see Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like all of us on this Committee, I knew and served with
Mark Meadows when he was in the House. We got along reasonably
well when he was here, although we certainly didn't agree on
many policy matters. I wished him well when he left Congress to
go serve as the chief of staff to then-President Donald Trump
in 2020.
But it is shocking that we now have to face the fact that
Mr. Meadows admits he played both an official and unofficial
role in trying to undermine the results of the 2020
Presidential election.
This Committee's job is to find out about that plot, the
plot which led up to the events on January 6th, and to propose
legislative changes to prevent something like that from ever
happening again.
Now, it has been reported that, during the lead-up to
January 6th, the White House was directing the Department of
Justice to investigate outrageous, really crazy conspiracy
theories to try and seed doubt about the election and as a
predicate for the overturning of the election and the
replacement of electors. This was to benefit Mr. Trump's effort
to overturn the election. We need to talk to Mark Meadows about
that.
As the Vice Chair has mentioned, Mr. Meadows made a
surprise visit to the State-run audit in Georgia which preceded
the infamous call that she recited where the then-President
asked the secretary of state to go find votes. We need to talk
to Mark Meadows about that.
Mr. Meadows interacted with a lot of people, allegedly
including some of our own colleagues, on the day of the violent
attack, and we have learned that many of those interactions
took place on a personal cell phone device. So we need to ask
Mark Meadows about that.
Mr. Meadows himself has acknowledged that he has responsive
and nonprivileged documents and communications. He sent some of
them to us; he filed others in court. It certainly appears that
Mr. Meadows played a key role in events that culminated in the
violent attack on the Capitol and on our democracy. He has
important information about those events, and he must follow
the law and cooperate with this Committee's lawful request or
face the consequences.
That is why, much as we might personally like Mr. Meadows,
we have to take this action today, because no one is above the
law.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Kinzinger.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a near-unique moment in history, as we vote on
whether to hold a former colleague in contempt of Congress. The
last time that happened was 1832.
Mark Meadows has committed a crime--in this case, a
premeditated one. He thought carefully about his actions and
actively chose to stonewall, which you can clearly see in his
back-and-forth with the Select Committee.
First, he produced over 9,000 pages of documents from his
time in the White House. Then, after his former boss made clear
his disappointment and displeasure, he did a 180 and he refused
to answer even a single question from his former colleagues or
even to show up at all.
This constitutes legal contempt but also personal contempt.
Mark Meadows's actions demonstrate his contempt for Congress,
for the Select Committee, for his former colleagues, and for
the integrity of the democratic process.
He has clearly rejected this Committee's investigation, so
now it is time to see whether the Department of Justice can be
more persuasive. No one is above the law, not even a former
President's chief of staff.
In a nation of laws, you cannot have it both ways. He can't
decline to tell his story to Congress and, on the very same
day, publish part of that story in a book to line his pockets.
He can't decline to answer any questions on the many
nonprivileged documents he produced to us. He can't unspeak
what he has said and call it privileged after the fact.
It is perfectly conceivable that portions of what a
President's chief of staff knows is subject to a Presidential
privilege, shielding it from disclosure. But it is also true
that not everything he knew or did during that period is
privileged. Mark Meadows knows that. It is why he sent us the
documents he did and what made his book possible.
That is why the law required him to show up for his
deposition and to specify in response to each question what the
answer was and whether or not that answer, in fact, was
privileged from disclosure.
His refusal to comply with the direction of Congress,
stated plainly on the face of the Select Committee's subpoena,
is a display of his contempt for Congress, which now forces us
to sadly have to take this action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pick up where Mr. Kinzinger left off. Nine
thousand pages of records--that is what Mr. Meadows has turned
over, records over which Mr. Meadows himself has asserted no
claim of privilege. None. These include thousands of text
messages spanning the months before election day--between
election day and the end of the former President's term in
office.
Of these documents, I am particularly struck by messages
that come from lawmakers who were sending them to Mr. Meadows
in the days around January 6th, a time period he is now saying
he won't discuss with the Committee. I want to display just a
few of the messages he received from people in Congress. The
Committee is not naming these lawmakers at this time, as our
investigation is ongoing.
If we could cue the first graphic.
This one reads, ``On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike
Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all
electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no
electoral votes at all.''
You can see why this is so critical to ask Mr. Meadows
about--about a lawmaker suggesting that the former Vice
President simply throw out votes that he unilaterally deems
unconstitutional in order to overturn a Presidential election
and subvert the will of the American people.
Here is another from January 6th as the riot was ongoing.
If we could cue the second graphic.
``The President needs to stop this ASAP.''
On the 6th, Mr. Meadows received dozens upon dozens of
panicked messages like this one from lawmakers and others
trapped on Capitol Hill, from people watching at home begging
that the White House--that the President of the United States--
do something to stop the violence.
How did Meadows react to these cries for help? Whom did he
tell? What did he do? Critically, what did the President of the
United States do, and what did he fail to do? Mr. Meadows
doesn't think he should have to answer those questions. He
wants the American people to be left in the dark.
Here is the last message I want to highlight, again from a
lawmaker in the aftermath of January 6th.
If we could cue graphic No. 3.
``Yesterday was a terrible day. We tried everything we
could in our objection to the six States. I'm sorry nothing
worked.''
The day after a failed attempt to stop the peaceful
transfer of power through violence, an elected lawmaker tells
the White House chief of staff, ``I'm sorry nothing worked.''
That is chilling. We would like to ask Mr. Meadows what he
thought about that.
Mr. Meadows's behavior and his refusal to do his moral duty
shows why we need stronger tools to enforce congressional
subpoenas. It is an issue I have worked on for years.
But, in the absence of those changes, we will use the tools
that we have. I expect the Justice Department to move as
swiftly in dealing with Mr. Meadows as it did with Mr. Bannon
and prosecute him for violating the law and his duty as a
citizen.
I support advancing this contempt referral, Mr. Chairman,
and I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last Tuesday, December 7th, the Select Committee received a
letter from Mr. Meadows's lawyer telling us that his client's
appearance for the deposition had become--and I am quoting--
``untenable.''
Something else happened last Tuesday: ``The Chief's Chief''
hit the bookstores, Mr. Meadows's memoir.
Remember, this is a witness who is refusing to comply with
the law and answer our questions in part because, he says, the
former President has instructed him to do so. He says he was
the chief of staff and he couldn't possibly disclose his
conversations with the former President.
But let's take a look at the book. This is from a section
dealing with the January 6th rally at the Ellipse. I am going
put this quote up here on the screens. I am not going to read
the whole thing, because we all know what the President said
publicly that day, but I want to read this part:
``When he got offstage, 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.''
This is interesting because the Select Committee has a lot
of questions about what the President said and did on January
6th. We have a lot of questions about the protests that day and
how they escalated into a riot. Mark Meadows says he can't
discuss those details with us. But, apparently, he can put them
in his book.
He can also discuss them on television. Just weeks after
January 6th, Mr. Meadows discussed his interactions with the
former President in an interview with Laura Ingraham. Ms.
Ingraham asked him, ``At any time, did the President of the
United States want to or seek to interfere with the vote
counting of legitimate votes of the election?'' He was happy to
answer her question.
Fast forward to last week: Mr. Meadows is back on TV, a
number of times, discussing conversations with the President
about security concerns on January 6th. We had questions about
that too. We had questions about his emails that focused on
protecting, ``pro-Trump people.''
He will share details about his interactions with the
former President with Laura Ingraham. He will share the details
with Sean Hannity. He will share details with anyone who will
shell out 25 bucks for his book. But, in the face of a lawful
subpoena from the Select Committee as we work to get answers
for the American people, the only thing Mr. Meadows will share
are his excuses.
We don't accept his excuses. He must be held accountable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs.
Murphy.
Mrs. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In a few moments, I will vote to recommend that the House
find former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in contempt
of Congress for failing to comply with our Committee's subpoena
for documents and testimony related to the January 6th attack.
Mr. Meadows was a central participant in the events that
culminated in this assault on our Capitol, our country, and our
core democratic values. To create the most accurate account of
what occurred, why it occurred, and what specific steps we can
take to prevent it from occurring again, our Committee needs to
hear from Mr. Meadows.
The Supreme Court once observed that a subpoena is not ``an
invitation to a game of Hare and Hounds in which the witness
must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase.'' Yet,
as detailed in the underlying report, it is clear to any
reasonable observer that Mr. Meadows has treated this
Committee's request for relevant information as if it were a
game.
To read the record of how Mr. Meadows has responded to our
subpoena issued in late September is to come away exhausted,
exasperated, and just enraged. Any regular citizen who flouted
a congressional or court subpoena like Mr. Meadows would have
faced serious legal consequences and rightly so.
This is not a witness who has acted in good faith,
generally willing to tell his side of the story while declining
to disclose certain information based on clear and colorable
assertions of legal privilege. To the contrary, Mr. Meadows
initially delayed, resisted, and made unreasonable legal
arguments, failed to produce documents in a timely fashion, and
refused to appear for a scheduled deposition.
Then he had an apparent change of heart and pledged his
cooperation, leading to the production of about 9,000 emails
and text messages. Then he reversed course yet again,
categorically refusing to be deposed about what those documents
reveal.
In summary, Mr. Meadows's tactics have wasted the
Committee's time and taxpayer-funded resources. He has left us
with incomplete and inadequate information about what he did
and what he knows and hindered our effort to find the truth.
It bears emphasis that the documents Mr. Meadows ultimately
turned over raise as many questions as they answer. For
example, the documents confirm that Mr. Meadows used personal
Gmail accounts and a personal cell phone to conduct official
business and to send communications related to January 6th and
that he also used Signal, the private messenger application.
Had Mr. Meadows been deposed under oath, the Committee
would have asked him about his handling of official Government
records, a topic that is not subject to any conceivable legal
privilege. This is a critical line of inquiry because we need
to know if Mr. Meadows did not properly preserve all of his
official emails, texts, and messages and provide them to the
National Archives, as required by law.
After all, our Committee has requested and will hopefully
soon receive a wide range of Trump administration records from
the National Archives. We need to know whether the universe of
records in the Archives' possession is complete and
comprehensive.
Understanding Mr. Meadows's compliance with Federal record-
keeping laws will help ensure that our Committee ultimately
receives all of the relevant documents we are entitled to
review as part of our fact-finding mission.
As a result of his actions and inactions, Mr. Meadows is
clearly in contempt of Congress and should be referred to the
Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows's sudden vanishing act is intolerable to the
rule of law and to the work of our Committee. Imagine how our
justice system would break down if any witness could decide to
stop cooperating midway through a proceeding.
The 9,000 pages that Mr. Meadows has produced in disclosed
documents, without asserting any kind of privilege, put him in
the thick of the action with Donald Trump as the Capitol was
overrun by violent insurrectionists and as Trump and others
tried to overthrow Joe Biden's majority in the electoral
college by exerting coercive pressure on Vice President Pence.
We are getting a comprehensive portrait of what took place
on January 6th, but Mr. Meadows's testimony is very significant
for us.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee has bent over backward to
accommodate Mr. Meadows's requests. It is now clear that he has
no intention of complying with this subpoena, even when his
testimony could have no theoretical connection to an executive
privilege claim.
For example, he is categorically refusing to show up to
testify about 9,000 pages of documents he has already turned
over to the Committee and for which he has, thus, nullified any
hypothetical assertions of executive privilege.
He is refusing to testify about statements he has made in
his book, published last week, and in the media about the
events of January 6th. This is again another category of
statements where any conceivable executive privilege claim that
could be invoked by President Biden or asserted by former
President Trump has already been deliberately abrogated and
waived by Mr. Meadows.
This witness must testify, like 300 other witnesses before
him have done, either voluntarily and proudly as a patriotic
citizen or at least under compulsion of subpoena by the
Congress of the United States. But he has no right anywhere in
our constitutional system to defy a subpoena from the House of
Representatives.
If anyone we have called as a witness knows in his bones
that he must testify before our Committee, it is Mr. Meadows
himself. Repeatedly through his career in Congress, he insisted
that even high-ranking executive branch officials must comply
with congressional subpoenas for documents, information, and
testimony.
In the last administration, multiple times, Mr. Meadows
found high-ranking officials hiding information from Congress,
withholding relevant documents, or, ``even outright ignoring
congressional subpoenas.''
He said this at one point: ``This level of conduct, paired
with the failure to even feign an interest in transparency, is
reprehensible. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, this
kind of obstruction is wrong, period. For 9 months we have
warned them consequences were coming, and for 9 months we have
heard the same excuses, backed up by the same unacceptable
conduct. Time is up, and the consequences are here.''
A subpoenaed witness cannot thwart Article I congressional
power and process simply by filing an Article III lawsuit. The
Meadows lawsuit against individual Members of this Committee is
extremely dubious in light of the Speech or Debate Clause and
other major constitutional roadblocks. Its substantive
allegations are clearly frivolous, such as his central absurd
claim that Congress has no legitimate purpose in investigating
and reporting on a violent attack on our Capitol, our
Presidential election, and the peaceful transfer of power.
If we have no legitimate legislative purpose in
investigating a violent insurrection against our own
Government, well, then, we simply have no legitimate
legislative purposes at all. If this investigation is not
necessary and proper to everything else we are doing in
Congress, then the Constitution has been hollowed out by
official lawlessness and a shocking collapse in critical-
thinking skills.
Meadows's last-minute suit is plainly a tactic to delay and
obstruct our investigation, and it need not detain us any
longer, Mr. Chairman. We have received overwhelming cooperation
and participation from Americans who can help us piece together
this shocking sequence of events, and we have a duty to collect
all of the evidence we need to report back to Congress and to
the American people on a matter of the utmost gravity and
importance to the future of American democracy.
I favor this resolution to proceed with criminal contempt.
I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs.
Luria.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair, and my
fellow Committee Members.
As many of us have echoed this evening, we do not take this
vote lightly, but this Committee and this Congress is left with
no other alternative when, in the midst of an investigation of
this magnitude, we are stonewalled at every turn by those who
played a central role in the planning and execution of the
January 6th attack.
We have a detailed picture of the attack and the events
leading up to it. Our Committee has heard from almost 300
people, we have received more than 30,000 pages of documents,
and we continue to follow up every day on the more than 250
tips received through our tip line.
Let's be very clear about Mr. Meadows's role and why his
testimony is so important.
In the course of our investigation, we have heard from
individuals involved in the planning of the rallies that
immediately preceded the violent attack on the Capitol, and we
know some of those people were in direct contact with Mr.
Meadows. We want to ask him about that.
We have heard from former White House staffers who are
helping us understand what was going on in the White House in
the time leading up to January 6th. Mr. Meadows was the chief
of staff in the White House, so we want to ask him about that.
We have heard from officials at the Justice Department who
were on the receiving end of instructions to amplify
unsupported claims about the outcome of the election. Mr.
Meadows was integral in those efforts, so we want to ask him
about that.
We have heard from State-level officials about the pressure
campaigns and the relentless public attacks on democracy in
Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia. But Mr. Meadows actually went
to Georgia in connection with the recount effort. The Committee
and the American people must hear from him about that.
We are investigating an attempt, as one rioter put it, to
overthrow the Government. The fate of our Republic has never
faced a threat as acute and as imminent as we face today and
that we are looking into through this investigation.
The extent of this effort reached the highest levels of our
Government, and it runs right through Mr. Meadows. Anything
less than his full cooperation further enables the erosion of
our Constitution, our democratic institutions, and the rule of
law.
I join my colleagues in urging an ``aye'' vote on this
resolution, and I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
If there is no further debate, I now recognize the
gentlewoman from Wyoming, 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
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.
Chairman Thompson. The question is on the motion to
favorably report to the House.
Those in favor, say ``aye''.
Those opposed, say ``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. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 7:47 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 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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]