[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]