[House Prints 117-4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
 BUSINESS MEETING TO CONSIDER A REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES CITE PETER NAVARRO AND DANIEL SCAVINO, JR., 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

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 28, 2022

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-4

                               __________

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 
50-117PDF          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               Thomas E. Joscelyn, Senior 
    Associate                                 Professional Staff Member
Temidayo Aganga-Williams, Senior          Rebecca L. Knooihuizen, Financial 
    Investigative Counsel                         Investigator
Alejandra Apecechea, Investigative       Casey E. Lucier, Investigative 
    Counsel                                       Counsel
Lisa A. Bianco, Director of Member       Damon M. Marx, Professional Staff 
    Services and Security Manager                    Member
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Investigator        Evan B. Mauldin, Chief Clerk
Bryan Bonner, Investigative Counsel       Yonatan L. Moskowitz, Senior 
Richard R. Bruno, Senior                            Counsel
    Administrative Assistant                Hannah G. Muldavin, Deputy 
Marcus Childress, Investigative               Communications Director
    Counsel                              Jonathan D. Murray, Professional 
John Marcus Clark, Security                       Staff Member
    Director                             Jacob A. Nelson, Professional 
Jacqueline N. Colvett, Digital                   Staff Member
    Director                            Elizabeth Obrand, Staff Associate
Heather I. Connelly, Professional        Raymond O'Mara, Director of 
    Staff Member                          External Affairs
Meghan E. Conroy, Investigator          Elyes Ouechtati, Technology 
Heather L. Crowell, Printer                       Partner
                                         Robin M. Peguero, Investigative 
    Proofreader                                    Counsel
William C. Danvers, Senior               Sandeep A. Prasanna, Investigative 
    Researcher                                     Counsel
Soumyalatha Dayananda, Senior              Barry Pump, Parliamentarian
    Investigative Counsel                  Sean M. Quinn, Investigative 
Stephen W. DeVine, Senior Counsel                   Counsel
Lawrence J. Eagleburger,                   Brittany M. J. Record, Senior 
    Professional Staff Member                       Counsel
Kevin S. Elliker, Investigative           Denver Riggleman, Senior Technical 
    Counsel                                           Advisor
Margaret E. Emamzadeh, Staff               Joshua D. Roselman, Investigative 
    Associate                                        Counsel
Sadallah A. Farah, Professional           James N. Sasso, Senior 
    Staff Member                           Investigative Counsel
Daniel A. George, Senior                 Grant H. Saunders, Professional 
    Investigative Counsel                         Staff Member
Jacob H. Glick, Investigative             Samantha O. Stiles, Chief 
    Counsel                                 Administrative Officer
Aaron S. Greene, Clerk                      Sean P. Tonolli, Senior 
Marc S. Harris, Senior                     Investigative Counsel
    Investigative Counsel                 David A. Weinberg, Senior 
Alice K. Hayes, Clerk                     Professional Staff Member
Quincy T. Henderson, Staff                 Amanda S. Wick, Senior 
    Assistant                               Investigative Counsel
Jenna Hopkins, Professional Staff          Darrin L. Williams, Jr., Staff 
    Member                                      Assistant
Camisha L. Johnson, Professional            Zachary S. Wood, Clerk
    Staff Member                     
                                     

                       CONTRACTORS & CONSULTANTS

                             Rawaa Alobaidi
                             Melinda Arons
                              Steve Baker
                            Elizabeth Bisbee
                              David Canady
                             John Coughlin
                             Aaron Dietzen
                              Gina Ferrise
                           Angel Goldsborough
                             James Goldston
                              Polly Grube
                          L. Christine Healey
                             Danny Holladay
                              Percy Howard
                              Dean Jackson
                           Stephanie J. Jones
                              Hyatt Mamoun
                               Mary Marsh
                               Todd Mason
                              Ryan Mayers
                              Jeff McBride
                               Fred Muram
                             Alex Newhouse
                              John Norton
                             Orlando Pinder
                               Owen Pratt
                              Dan Pryzgoda
                              Brian Sasser
                            William Scherer
                              Driss Sekkat
                              Chris Stuart
                            Preston Sullivan
                              Brian Young

                           Innovative Driven
                           
                            C O N T E N T S
                            

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                   Statements of Members of Congress

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Select Committee 
  to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
  Capitol........................................................     1
The Honorable Liz Cheney, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Wyoming, and Vice Chair, Select Committee to 
  Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol     3
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of California............................................     6
The Honorable Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Illinois..........................................     7
The Honorable Adam Schiff, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of California............................................     8
The Honorable Pete Aguilar, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of California............................................     9
The Honorable Stephanie Murphy, a Representative in Congress From 
  the State of Florida...........................................    10
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Maryland..............................................    12
The Honorable Elaine Luria, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Virginia..............................................    15

                           Committee Business

Report...........................................................     6

                                Appendix

Full text, Report................................................    20


 BUSINESS MEETING TO CONSIDER A REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES CITE PETER NAVARRO AND DANIEL SCAVINO, JR., FOR 
                     CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

                              ----------                              


                         Monday, March 28, 2022

                     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 7:41 p.m., in 
room 390, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Thompson, Cheney, Lofgren, Schiff, 
Aguilar, Murphy, Raskin, Luria, and Kinzinger.
    Chairman Thompson. A quorum being present, the Select 
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United 
States Capitol will be in order.
    The Select Committee is meeting this evening to consider a 
report on a resolution recommending the House of 
Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., 
in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas 
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.
    This evening, the Select Committee is required to consider 
two more citations for criminal contempt of Congress for Daniel 
Scavino, Jr., and Peter Navarro.
    Before I get started, I do want to comment quickly on the 
ruling today in John Eastman's lawsuit to stop the Select 
Committee from obtaining certain records. As the Vice Chair and 
I said in our statement earlier today, this ruling is a clear 
victory for the rule of law. I encourage people at home to read 
what Judge Carter wrote and consider his words very carefully. 
His warnings about the ongoing threat to American democracy 
should alarm every person in this country.
    I want to read a short excerpt from Judge Carter's ruling:

Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a 
democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their 
campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. It was a coup in search 
of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our 
Nation's Government, led to the death of several law enforcement 
officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.

    More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the 
public is still searching for accountability. I am proud to say 
that this Committee is helping to lead that search for 
accountability. It is why we are here tonight.
    So let's turn to Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro. These aren't 
household names, and my colleagues will share some details 
about who they are and why they are so important to our 
investigation. In short, these two men played a key role in the 
ex-President's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 
election. The Select Committee subpoenaed them for records and 
testimony to learn more about their roles and what they knew.
    In Mr. Scavino's case, he strung us along for months before 
making it clear that he believes he is above the law. Mr. 
Navarro, despite sharing relevant details on TV and podcasts 
and in his own book, he also stonewalled us.
    The contempt report published last night gets into the 
weeds on this. But, broadly, Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro are 
making similar excuses. They are claiming that the information 
we want from them is shielded by executive privilege.
    To remind everyone, executive privilege is the power of the 
President to make sure official, sensitive information and 
conversations stay private. It is a privilege used to protect 
the Presidency and our national security. It usually involves a 
President and that President's closest advisors, Cabinet 
Secretaries, top aides.
    In the lead-up to January 6th, Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro 
were both Government employees. They worked in the White House. 
They drew salaries paid by the taxpayers. They had 
conversations with the ex-President. So now they are saying 
they won't answer any of our questions because of executive 
privilege.
    There are a couple of big problems with their argument. 
First, generally speaking, executive privilege doesn't belong 
to just any White House official. It belongs to the President. 
Here President Biden has been clear that executive privilege 
does not prevent cooperation with the Select Committee by 
either Mr. Scavino or Mr. Navarro. While the ex-President 
reportedly has raised privilege concerns when it comes to Mr. 
Scavino, in Mr. Navarro's case, nobody has even tried to invoke 
privilege except Mr. Navarro himself. That is just not the way 
it works. Peter Navarro isn't President.
    It is important to note that, even if a President has 
formally invoked executive privilege regarding testimony of a 
witness, which is not the case here, that witness has the 
obligation to sit down under oath and assert the privilege 
question by question. But these witnesses didn't even bother to 
show up.
    Second, if the ex-President had a legitimate claim to 
executive privilege, this is a privilege that applies to things 
that happen in an official capacity. So, if Mr. Scavino or Mr. 
Navarro are claiming that all the information they have is 
protected by executive privilege, they are basically saying 
that everything they did, they did in their official roles, 
paid by taxpayers.
    As I said before, we want to talk to Mr. Scavino and Mr. 
Navarro about their roles in an attempt to overturn an American 
election. The American people didn't pay their salaries to do 
that.
    Now, there are a lot of laws that set out what Government 
officials aren't allowed to do when they are on the clock or 
using Government resources. It is important that taxpayer 
dollars don't support political activity. There are a few 
bright lines about every specific situation.
    I can't sit in my office on Capitol Hill and make 
fundraising calls. Every staff member has to take an ethics 
training every year to remind them what is in and out of 
bounds. I don't mean to make light of it, but just for the 
record and for those watching at home, trying to overturn an 
election is out of bounds--way out of bounds. Yet Mr. Scavino 
and Mr. Navarro say they won't talk about the causes of January 
6th because they were White House officials at the time, 
engaged in official business, and so executive privilege stands 
in the way. They potentially played a part in an attack on 
American democracy, but they can ignore our investigation 
because they worked for the Government at the time. That is 
their argument.
    They are not fooling anybody. They are obligated to comply 
with our investigation. They have refused do so, and that is a 
crime.
    Our investigation aims to give the American people a lot of 
answers about a great many matters. But I think we will also 
leave you with some unanswered questions to consider for 
yourselves-- questions about the sort of people who deserve the 
power and responsibility of positions of public trust.
    For a great many of us, it means something profound when we 
raise our hands and swear an oath. We haven't finished the work 
of our investigation, but I can say confidently that to many 
involved in the run-up to January 6th, an oath, statement of 
fidelity to our democracy, was nothing more to them than 
meaningless words. I fear what happens if those people are 
again given the reins of power.
    These men, Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro, are in contempt of 
Congress. I encourage my colleagues to support adoption of this 
report. I am confident the House will adopt a resolution citing 
them for this crime. I hope the Justice Department will move 
swiftly to hold them accountable.
    I am pleased now to recognize my friend, the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for any remarks she cares to offer.
    Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    We are entering a critical stage of our investigation. We 
have now taken the testimony of hundreds of witnesses with 
knowledge of the events of January 6th, including more than a 
dozen former Trump White House staff members.
    We have learned that President Trump and his team were 
warned in advance and repeatedly that the efforts they 
undertook to overturn the 2020 election would violate the law 
and our Constitution. They were warned that January 6th could 
and likely would turn violent. They were told repeatedly by our 
State and Federal courts, by our Justice Department, and by 
agencies of our intelligence community that the allegations of 
wide-spread fraud sufficient to overturn the election were 
false and were unsupported by the evidence, and yet, despite 
all these specific warnings, President Trump and his team moved 
willfully through multiple means to attempt to halt the 
peaceful transfer of power, to halt our constitutional process 
for counting votes, and to shatter the constitutional bedrock 
of our great Nation. As a Federal judge concluded today, the 
illegality of President Trump's plan for January 6th was 
``obvious.''
    Today, as the Chairman noted, we address two specific 
witnesses who have refused to appear for testimony. Mr. Scavino 
worked directly with President Trump to spread President 
Trump's false message that the election was stolen and to 
recruit Americans to come to Washington with the false promise 
that January 6th would be an opportunity to ``take back their 
country.'' This effort to deceive was widely effective and 
widely destructive.
    The Committee has many questions for Mr. Scavino about his 
political social media work for President Trump, including his 
interactions with an online forum called TheDonald, and with 
QAnon, a bizarre and dangerous cult.
    President Trump, working with Mr. Scavino, successfully 
spread distrust for our courts, which had repeatedly found no 
basis to overturn the election. Trump's stolen election 
campaign succeeded in provoking the violence on January 6th. On 
this point, there is no doubt. The Committee has videos, 
interviews, and sworn statements from violent rioters 
demonstrating these facts.
    Mr. Navarro is also a key witness. He has written a book 
boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the 
activity of January 6th, and yet he does not have the courage 
to testify here. We have many questions for Mr. Navarro, 
including about his communications with Roger Stone and Steve 
Bannon regarding the planning for January 6th.
    As Judge Carter concluded today, ``Based on the evidence, 
the court finds it more likely than not that President Trump 
corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress 
on January 6th, 2021.''
    Our Committee will continue to litigate to obtain the 
testimony we need. We have already defeated President Trump's 
effort to hide certain White House records behind the shield of 
executive privilege. As the court said in that case, ``Under 
any of the tests advocated by former President Trump, the 
profound interests in disclosure advanced by President Biden 
and the January 6th Committee far exceed his generalized 
concerns for executive branch confidentiality.'' That same 
conclusion should apply to Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro.
    Let me pause for a moment on one specific legal point. Like 
Mr. Meadows, Mr. Navarro insists that he is above the law and 
is categorically and absolutely immune from any congressional 
subpoena regarding January 6th. We are aware of no court 
anywhere in America that has ever agreed with this proposition.
    To the extent that Mr. Navarro and Mr. Meadows are 
attempting to rely upon memoranda from the Justice Department's 
Office of Legal Counsel, those memoranda explicitly do not 
apply here. In this context, Mr. Navarro was not acting as a 
White House aide advising the President on official matters of 
policy. He was acting as a Trump Campaign operative planning a 
political effort to obstruct or impede Congress's 
Constitutional proceeding to count electoral votes.
    The Department of Justice is entrusted with the defense of 
our Constitution. Department leadership should not apply any 
doctrine of immunity that might block Congress from fully 
uncovering and addressing the causes of the January 6th attack. 
Congress is a separate and coequal branch of Government. It 
must have the authority and the ability to protect its 
independence and safeguard the constitutional separation of 
powers.
    In the coming months, our Committee will convene a series 
of hearings. The American people will hear from our fellow 
citizens who demonstrated fidelity to our Constitution and the 
rule of law and who refused to bow to President Trump's 
pressure.
    The Committee has heard from many of these individuals, 
including Republicans appointed by President Trump to posts in 
the Department of Justice, Republicans who stood firm, who 
threatened to resign, and refused to participate in efforts to 
corrupt the Department with the stolen election lies that led 
to January 6th.
    We have heard from leading Republicans serving in State 
legislatures and in State and local government who also stood 
firm, who resisted pressure from the former President, and did 
their constitutional duty.
    We have heard from Republicans who were serving in the 
Trump White House, including those who warned in advance that 
the President's plans were unlawful and those who tried to 
intervene with the President to get him to halt the violence 
when it erupted on January 6th.
    In a time when many Republican Members of Congress have 
abandoned their obligation to our Constitution and are putting 
politics above duty, each of the individuals I just mentioned 
has, by contrast, demonstrated a firm and unwavering commitment 
to this Nation and to our constitutional Republic. Each has 
done what is right, despite tremendous personal, political, and 
professional cost. Each is a model for the American people of 
the kind of public servants this Nation needs: Men and women 
who know our institutions don't defend themselves and who 
recognize the obligation that comes from holding positions of 
public trust.
    As we meet here today, Vladimir Putin continues his 
brutality against Ukraine, killing innocents, reminding us what 
happens when authoritarians rule. Each day we see footage of 
the unyielding courage of the Ukrainian people who are fighting 
and dying to defend their freedom. Their bravery reminds us 
that democracy is fragile. Democracy only survives if citizens 
are willing to defend it.
    We live in the greatest constitutional Republic in history. 
No citizen in our Republic can be a bystander. If we don't 
stand for our freedom and our Republic, we will lose them. In 
his ruling today, Judge Carter put it this way: ``If President 
Trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the 
peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy 
and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to 
investigating and pursuing accountability for those 
responsible, the court fears January 6th will repeat itself.''
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up the Report on Resolution 
Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Peter K. 
Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in Contempt of Congress for 
Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, it is a phrase we use all the time: No one is 
above the law. But it seems as if a few of the former 
President's closest aides and allies seem to think they are, 
including Daniel Scavino, Jr.
    Now who is he? Mr. Scavino met Mr. Trump around 1992 and 
worked for him for many years: First at the Trump National Golf 
Club; then as director of social media for his 2016 
Presidential campaign; then as White House deputy chief of 
staff for communications and on his 2020 campaign; and, later, 
on efforts to reverse the election results, which former Vice 
President, Mike Pence, has denounced as un-American.
    According to many published reports, Mr. Scavino worked 
closely with Mr. Trump to use social media to spread lies 
regarding nonexistent election fraud and to inflame a violent, 
angry mob. For example, Mr. Trump's Twitter account praised a 
false report alleging election fraud, tweeting, and here is a 
quote: ``A great report. Statistically impossible to have lost 
the 2020 election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be 
there. Will be wild.''
    Mr. Scavino also followed domestic violent extremist social 
media, and he did that on behalf of Mr. Trump. This Committee 
has reason to believe that doing so provided Mr. Scavino with 
explicit advanced warnings of the violence that was to occur on 
January 6th. Now, Mr. Scavino may have shared these warnings of 
violence with Mr. Trump before January 6th. He reportedly 
attended several meetings with Mr. Trump and others regarding 
reversing President Biden's legitimate victory.
    Mr. Scavino was also with Mr. Trump during the Capitol 
attack while Mr. Trump failed to immediately try to stop it, 
despite urgent bipartisan calls for him do so.
    Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly 
said that the public needs to know everything about what caused 
and occurred on January 6th. To inform both the American people 
and legislative reform proposals, this Committee needs to speak 
with Mr. Scavino. He has to fulfill his legal and his moral 
obligation to provide testimony and documents, or he should 
face the consequences. That is why we are taking this action 
today.
    In the United States of America, no one is above the law. 
This Committee is doing its job. The Department of Justice 
needs to do theirs.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Kinzinger.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As the Vice Chair mentioned with Ukraine, it reminds us 
that democracies aren't defined by bad days or bad things that 
happen, but how they defend it and how they come back from 
that. That is the importance of this Committee.
    So Dan Scavino met Donald Trump when he was 16 years old. 
He became a long-time Trump employee and remains a true Trump 
loyalist. In the Trump administration, Dan Scavino served as 
director of social media and, for its final 2 years, as deputy 
chief of staff of communications. As the Select Committee 
report notes, Dan Scavino was with then-President Trump on 
January 5th and 6th. He spoke with President Trump by phone 
several times on January 6th and was with the President when 
many urged him to help stop the violence at the Capitol. He was 
always, at all relevant times, a Trump and White House insider.
    Social media as a means of monitoring and shaping trends 
was Dan Scavino's core business. Reports tell us that Dan 
Scavino and his team monitored extremist social media sites, 
monitored trends on social media, and used extremist social 
media sites to shape public perceptions. There is, in short, a 
great deal of highly important information that Dan Scavino has 
that the Select Committee needs to know.
    I want to focus on one aspect of that: What Dan Scavino 
could tell us about what then-President Trump thought was 
likely to happen on January 6th. Did the President know that 
the rally could turn violent, that his rhetoric on the Ellipse 
could send an angry mob to storm the Capitol? When Trump noted 
on the evening of January 5th that he had a fired-up crowd, did 
he know that they might take it literally when the next morning 
he told them to ``fight hard''?
    Dan Scavino was there and could tell us a lot about that. 
We need to hear from him. In refusing to talk to us, he is 
stiff-arming the American people, and he is hiding the truth. 
It is unlawful, and there is no excuse.
    Then-President Trump asserted that he generally did his own 
tweets, but he acknowledged that, on occasion, Scavino helped 
to shape them. We know that he often composed social media 
posts and discussed their language with Trump.
    With that in mind, let's take a closer look.
    On December 19, 2020, Trump retweeted a video that ended by 
urging viewers to ``fight for Trump.'' And here it is.
    January 6th was then just 2\1/2\ weeks off. Dan Scavino can 
tell us something useful about why Donald Trump retweeted that 
particular message.
    President Trump also retweeted a video titled, ``How to 
Steal an Election.'' Among other things, it argued that COVID-
19 was created to ensure that Trump would lose the election. 
And here is that one.
    QAnon had already retweeted that one by the time Trump did. 
We would like to hear what President Trump's director of social 
media has to say about that.
    Now, what did Trump's extremist followers on TheDonald and 
other hard-right social media sites make of all that, of 
President Trump urging them to join in a wild protest on 
January 6th? Some of his followers on TheDonald fringe site 
took it as marching orders. Dan Scavino had every reason to 
know that they would be violent. Dan Scavino was well aware of 
what his boss wanted and to the extremist violent users that 
used the site like TheDonald.
    Dan Scavino himself sent out a video that a user on the 
same site understood to be ``literal war drums.''
    President Trump had by then been President for a full 4 
years with Dan Scavino at his side. He--they--knew that the 
January 6th crowd could turn violent. They knew exactly what 
they were doing. The Select Committee needs to hear directly 
from Dan Scavino about his and President Trump's role in 
inciting violence that day.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you to our Chairman and Vice Chair for 
convening us today.
    Our Committee has a singular purpose: To ensure that our 
Nation never again experiences the violence of January 6th, 
that there is never again an effort to overturn a Presidential 
election or to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power. 
That is our object. Every single witness called before this 
panel should cooperate. It is a patriotic duty to help Congress 
and the American people understand how the tragedy of January 
6th came about, and more than a duty, it is necessity when 
served with a lawful subpoena to appear, which is why we are 
here today.
    Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino have refused to comply with a 
duly authorized subpoena, offering up again and again spurious 
and unjustifiable excuses. In Mr. Scavino's case, he has 
clearly relevant testimony for our Committee. Scavino was 
intimately involved in former President Trump's social media 
content and strategy and served as deputy chief of staff for 
communications while also actively promoting Trump's campaign.
    The Select Committee believes that Scavino was with Trump 
on January 5th and 6th, including during a period when the 
Capitol was under attack; that he was party to conversations 
with Trump about challenging, disrupting, or impeding the 
congressional proceedings to certify the election results; and 
that he may have also had prior knowledge regarding the 
likelihood of violence on January 6th due to his monitoring of 
social media sites where such violence was discussed and 
predicted.
    Specifically, through press reporting, we are aware that, 
on January 6th, Mr. Scavino was advising Trump throughout the 
day, potentially even directly sending messages from the White 
House and potentially playing a role in the video message Trump 
released hours after rioters breached the Capitol.
    It has also been reported that Mr. Scavino was present 
during a January 5th strategy session with Trump as they 
schemed on how they could convince congressional Republicans to 
successfully object to the certification of the election and 
thus overturn it.
    This is why Mr. Scavino has an obligation to appear before 
us. Nevertheless, Mr. Scavino claims to be protected under 
executive privilege, but that claim isn't grounded in the law 
or reality. Executive privilege doesn't allow for a person to 
simply refuse to appear before a congressional committee. It 
doesn't apply to Scavino's campaign activities on behalf of the 
former President. It doesn't apply to a potentially unlawful 
scheme to obstruct Congress. It doesn't apply to his official 
duties when, as here, the current President of the United 
States asserts it is not in the public interest to do so.
    I have one more thing to add tonight. The Department of 
Justice has a duty to act on this referral and others we have 
sent. Without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is 
no oversight. Without oversight, no accountability, not for the 
former President or any other President, past, present, or 
future. Without enforcement of its lawful process, Congress 
ceases to be a coequal branch of Government, and the balance of 
power would be forever altered to the lasting detriment of the 
American people.
    Finally, I want to return to Judge Carter's remarkable 
opinion, finding that a former President of the United States 
may have committed a crime and fraud against the United States. 
The judge said that Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a 
campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action 
unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not 
confined to the ivory tower; it was a coup in search of a legal 
theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our 
Nation's Government, led to the deaths of several law 
enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our 
political process.
    As the Vice Chair pointed out, he also said: ``If the 
country does not commit to investigating and pursuing 
accountability for those responsible, the court fears January 
6th will repeat itself.''
    That responsibility to investigate and pursue 
accountability extends to those who hold the highest office in 
the land or those who hold no office at all. If no one is above 
the law, then no one must be above the law. We are upholding 
our responsibility; the Department of Justice must do the same.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Aguilar.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, and 
distinguished colleagues.
    Our Committee is dedicated to getting to the truth and to 
taking any steps necessary to do so. When material witnesses 
fail to comply with lawful subpoenas, we have no choice but to 
refer them for contempt of Congress.
    Peter Navarro's testimony is integral to our investigation. 
Despite the fact that he has given multiple television 
interviews regarding our subpoena, he has failed to comply with 
our investigation in any way. Mr. Navarro has publicly stated 
that he is protected by executive privilege but has never 
sought counsel, as others have. He has never filed any case 
seeking relief from his responsibilities to comply with our 
subpoena.
    An economist with a Ph.D. from Harvard, Mr. Navarro ran 
unsuccessfully for office in my home State of California 5 
times. He wrote several books on economics and trade, many of 
which focused on China. He was brought on by the Trump Campaign 
in 2016 to advise the former President on economic and trade 
issues. He was such an important advisor to the former 
President that an office in the White House was created just 
for him to oversee it: The White House National Trade Council. 
He was the architect of the President's trade policies, which, 
according to a study commissioned by the U.S.-China Business 
Council, ``hurt the U.S. economy and failed to achieve major 
policy goals.''
    Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the American people might be 
wondering why our Committee would need to speak with a trade 
official about the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. As 
the Vice Chair noted, that is because Mr. Navarro held that 
title as the director of the White House National Trade 
Council, but he devoted much of his time to White House 
political efforts outside the scope of his official duties.
    In fact, the American people are likely to know Mr. Navarro 
solely in his political capacity. He was so active in the 2020 
reelection campaign that the United States Special Counsel 
ruled in 2020 that Mr. Navarro repeatedly violated the Hatch 
Act. That is because the former President trusted Mr. Navarro 
as a spokesman and confidant. He was so intimately involved 
with these efforts that Mr. Navarro allegedly led a call on 
January 2nd with a group of State legislators about the effort 
to convince Vice President Pence to delay the election 
certification for 10 days. A text handed over to this Committee 
by Mr. Meadows from a member of the press read, and I quote: 
``Mark, I am reaching out because I have details on the call 
that Navarro helped convene yesterday with legislators as part 
of his efforts to get Pence to delay certification of the 
election for 10 days, including that the President 
participated. Were you on the call when the President spoke?''
    Among the many questions we have for Mr. Navarro, we need 
to hear from him about this conversation and about that phone 
call. We need to hear from him about his other calls with Steve 
Bannon, whom the House has already held in contempt, that took 
place both during and after the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
    We know that Mr. Navarro believes he and Mr. Bannon came up 
with the strategy for overturning the election because he 
details it in his book, which I know my colleague from Florida 
will discuss in greater detail. This is as clear a case for 
contempt as we are likely to see, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. 
Murphy.
    Mrs. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I will just pick up where my colleague, Mr. Aguilar, left 
off.
    Over a month and a half ago, Mr. Navarro was subpoenaed by 
this Committee. We sought documents and testimony regarding his 
efforts to discredit the election and to prevent the results 
from being certified. This information is central to our 
Committee's inquiry.
    Mr. Navarro refused to comply, making a cursory claim of 
executive privilege. There are many reasons why this blanket 
assertion of executive privilege lacks merit, as a matter of 
law and as a matter of common sense. Most fundamentally, 
neither the incumbent nor the former President has asserted 
privilege regarding Mr. Navarro's testimony or document 
production to the Committee. Mr. Navarro has no unilateral 
authority to assert privilege himself.
    Beyond that foundational flaw in Mr. Navarro's privilege 
claim, since the election, he has spoken and written widely 
about the precise subjects that are the focus of our subpoena. 
Clearly Mr. Navarro is eager tell his story as he sees it so 
long as he can do so on his own terms. For example, in 2020 and 
in 2021, Mr. Navarro published a three-part report on his 
website called ``The Navarro Report.'' In it he makes 
allegations about election fraud that have been debunked. 
Furthermore, in November 2021, Mr. Navarro published a book 
called ``In Trump Time.'' He describes in detail actions he 
took to change the outcome of the election. For instance, Mr. 
Navarro claims credit for working with Steve Bannon to concoct 
a scheme they called the ``Green Bay Sweep.'' The core of this 
plan was to encourage Vice President Pence to delay 
certification of the electoral college votes on January 6th and 
to send the election back to State legislators.
    In his book, Mr. Navarro also writes that he called 
Attorney General William Barr asking the Department of Justice 
to support President Trump's legal efforts to challenge the 
election results, which Barr declined to do. Notably, Mr. 
Navarro acknowledges that he kept a journal detailing this 
episode and other post-election actions that he took.
    Finally, earlier this year, at the same time he was 
refusing to comply with our subpoena, Mr. Navarro made multiple 
media appearances, during which he discussed his various roles 
in the events that culminated in the January 6th attack. I 
would like to play a video, a media clip, right now.
    Can you please cue the clip?

    Mr. Navarro. It's funny about this interview, which is kind-of 
interesting. It's like, I have so much knowledge to share with you 
about what I was involved in and what I know.
                                *  *  *
    Mr. Melber. Given that you have told me that you have a plan that 
you pushed to delay or deal with the certification . . . 
    Mr. Navarro. Yes.
    Mr. Melber [continuing] . . . You told me 100 Members back it, and 
you have said in public Trump was on board, if you say all those things 
out here, why risk a legal battle or going to jail to refuse to discuss 
them with the Committee under oath?
    Mr. Navarro. Because I have a loyalty to the Constitution and a 
loyalty to the President.
    The President has invoked executive privilege in this matter. It's 
not my authority to revoke that privilege.
                                *  *  *
    Mr. Melber. You say it's not your privilege to waive.
    Mr. Navarro. That's the law. No, it's the law.
    Mr. Melber [continuing]. But let's look at how often you have 
waived it. Let's look some of the news you have made on these topics.
    Take a look.
    [Begin video clip.]
    Ms. Reid. Former Trump advisor Peter Navarro is spilling the beans.
    Mr. Navarro. We had over 100 Congressmen and Senators on Capitol 
Hill ready to implement the sweep.
    Mr. Bannon. Peter Navarro.
    Mr. Navarro. Right? The boss tells Pence to take my friggin' call.
    Voice. Peter Navarro tells ``Rolling Stone'' . . . 
    Mr. Navarro. It was about sending the votes back.
    Mr. Navarro. Most or all of those States would decertify the 
election.
    [End video clip.]
    Mr. Melber. How do you expect people to take seriously your claim 
this is secret and privileged, when you have been out there talking 
about it?
    And when you and Bannon said the Committee's dog wouldn't bark--
they were afraid of you and the report--it seems now, Peter, like the 
dog has barked.

    Mrs. Murphy. Thank you.
    He has so much knowledge to share with the journalists, but 
he refuses to share that knowledge in response to a lawful 
subpoena. Evidently, Mr. Navarro is only concerned with 
executive privilege with keeping certain matters confidential 
when it is convenient for him.
    Unfortunately for him and fortunately for the American 
public, that is not how the law works. No President, incumbent 
or former, has claimed privilege regarding Mr. Navarro's 
testimony and documents. In any event, his claim of executive 
privilege is severely undermined, if not foreclosed altogether, 
by his extensive public disclosures on the same issues the 
Committee seeks to question him about under oath. As a result 
of his actions, Mr. Navarro 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.
    You know, my hero Tom Paine said: The cause of America is 
the cause of mankind.
    Today democracy is under siege all over the world, and just 
as we are working to defend and fortify democracy abroad in 
Ukraine and other places, we are working to defend and fortify 
democracy here at home.
    The assault on American democracy that exploded on January 
the 6th, Mr. Chairman, had two coordinated elements that we 
have been able to see. One was a violent insurrection from the 
outside, infused by propaganda and disinformation and led by 
domestic violent extremist groups, like the Oath Keepers, the 
Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the QAnon networks, the 
militia groups.
    But the other component was a secret campaign on the inside 
to replace our constitutional process governing Presidential 
elections with a tissue of lies and counterfeit processes that 
make a mockery of American democracy. This is what the 
political scientists call a self-coup. It is not a coup against 
a President, like most coups, but it is a coup organized by the 
President against the constitutional framework itself.
    The two contempt citations we vote on tonight will go to 
persons who have critical information about both components of 
this assault on America and the coordination between them.
    Peter Navarro worked to overthrow the election by 
nullifying 79 electoral college votes cast by tens of millions 
of Americans who live in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, 
Michigan, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.
    Had his so-called ``Green Bay Sweep,'' which by the way is 
an insult to Green Bay Packers all over the country, but had 
his so-called ``Green Bay Sweep'' not been blocked by the 
bravery of our police officers, 150 of whom were injured, 
wounded, or hospitalized by insurrectionary violence, and by 
Vice President Pence's refusal to abandon his constitutional 
duties, this attempted coup would have, ``permanently ended the 
peaceful transition of power in America,'' threatening the 
survival of democracy and the Constitution as United States 
District Judge David Carter put it so powerfully in his 
remarkable decision today rejecting the claims of Navarro's 
comrade in these efforts, John Eastman.
    We subpoenaed Navarro to produce documents by February the 
23rd, 2022, and to appear for a deposition on March 2nd. He has 
produced no documents and failed to appear for his scheduled 
deposition.
    Peter Navarro must be held in criminal contempt of Congress 
and the American people because he is acting with criminal 
contempt for the Congress and the American people. The American 
people want to know what sets him above the law. The Supreme 
Court said in 1950 in U.S. v. Bryant that a subpoena creates a 
public duty which every person within the jurisdiction of the 
Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.
    In 2020, the Supreme Court emphasized that it is the duty 
of all citizens to cooperate with a subpoena. But Navarro 
invokes the words ``executive privilege,'' repeats the phrase 
over and over again: It is not my privilege to waive.
    He thinks he has found a magic wand to nullify the powers 
of the U.S. Congress, just like he thinks he has found a magic 
wand to nullify the powers of the States to cast their own 
electoral college votes.
    Now, Navarro's statement that the executive privilege is, 
``not his to waive'' is in fact accurate, but if the executive 
privilege is not Navarro's to waive, then neither, for the 
exact same reason and by definition, is it his to assert in the 
first place.
    The Supreme Court has been clear that the executive 
privilege belongs to the President of the United States, and on 
February 28th, 2022, the White House counsel notified Mr. 
Navarro that President Biden determined that assertion of 
executive privilege is not justified with respect to Navarro's 
effort to cover up the evidence of his participation in this 
assault on America's constitutional democracy.
    So Navarro then appears to fall back on the vague assertion 
that the executive privilege here belongs to former President 
Trump, which is not only dubious but entirely irrelevant 
because our Committee has not been given any attempted 
invocation of executive privilege by Donald Trump, either 
formally or informally, indirectly by Peter Navarro or directly 
by Donald Trump. Nothing. There is plainly no assertion of 
executive privilege here either by the actual President or by 
any former President. Even if there were, even if President 
Biden tried to assert executive privilege for Peter Navarro, it 
would fail immediately because the privilege does not apply to 
private political business, much less to criminal activity, 
like conducting coups or insurrections against the Government. 
The privilege applies only to professional speech on Government 
policy by advisors rendering confidential advice on matters 
within their domain of professional responsibility.
    Now, Peter Navarro was the White House trade advisor. It 
was not within his job description to overthrow Presidential 
elections, coerce Vice Presidents into abandoning their 
constitutional responsibilities, or impose counterfeit regimes 
in place of the U.S. Constitution.
    When Navarro was plotting to overthrow the election by 
canceling out the electoral college votes of 49 million 
Americans in six States to seize the Presidency for his chosen 
candidate for 4 years, he was not rendering advice on trade 
policy.
    We are not seeking documents or testimony from Navarro 
related to his official duties as trade advisor. Indeed, on the 
press call to announce the release of his outlandish and 
cartoonish three-part report on outright fraud in the 2020 
election on his personal website, Navarro acknowledged publicly 
that he was writing as a private citizen and not as a Federal 
Government official.
    So please spare us the nonsense talk about executive 
privilege, rejected now by every court that has looked at it. 
This is America, and there is no executive privilege here for 
Presidents, much less trade advisors, to plot coups and 
organize insurrections against the people's Government and the 
people's Constitution and then to cover up the evidence of 
their crimes. The courts aren't buying it, and neither are we.
    Navarro insists only on adding insult to his contempt. More 
than a year after Biden beat Trump by more than 7 million 
votes, Navarro continues to spread the big lie that Trump won. 
He says, ``Beyond any shadow of a doubt, this election was 
stolen.'' He brags about his work with Steve Bannon to apply 
pressure on Vice President Pence to do the wrong thing. He 
tells the complete story in his book ``In Trump Time'' and in 
his three-part report, which was made up of titles like ``The 
Immaculate Deception'' and ``The Art of the Steal,'' of how 
they tried to get Pence to abandon his constitutional duties 
and force the contest into a contingent Presidential election 
under the 12th Amendment in the House of Representatives. He 
goes on Steve Bannon's podcast, and he makes noises about the 
next insurrection. A year after the election was over, he said: 
If they want an insurrection, they keep pushing this, they are 
going to push the American people over the freaking edge.
    Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, the American people opposed 
the January 6th insurrection, and the American people oppose 
future insurrections and coups against our Government. We are 
fighting to defend the institutions and values of democracy at 
home against coup plotters and insurrectionists, and we are 
supporting other democracies around the world under siege by 
autocrats and kleptocrats, bullies and despots. We are on the 
side of the people of Ukraine against Vladimir Putin, who is 
not a genius but a mass murderer. We stand strong on the side 
of democracy, freedom, the Constitution, and the rule of law 
against people who smashed our police officers in the face with 
Confederate battle flags and tried to cancel out the results of 
our Presidential election.
    These two men are in contempt of Congress, and we must cite 
them both for their brazen disregard for their duties and for 
our laws and institutions.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs. 
Luria.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee for their 
commitment to providing a full and factual accounting of 
everything that led to January 6th, the events of that day, and 
to ensure that such an attack on our Republic never happens 
again.
    Mr. Chair, I served in the Navy for 20 years, and when you 
talk to people in the military, that is what they say; they say 
they serve in the military, they serve the American people. 
Today, I continue to serve, as we all do on this Committee.
    When Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro entered the 
administration, they agreed to serve the American people. The 
President, who serves the American people, has a unique duty 
under the Constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed. Those that serve under the President, especially 
those closest to him in the administration, are integral to 
performing that duty to take care that the laws are faithfully 
executed, not to undermine those laws.
    Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate, and we 
have a duty to the American people to investigate the violent 
attack on our Capitol that attempted to prevent the peaceful 
transition of power.
    Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro have a duty to respond to the 
subpoenas of this Committee. However, they have decided 
apparently that they are above the law. Fifty years ago this 
year, a small group of people in the Nixon administration also 
decided they were above the law. They engineered a cover-up to 
hold on to political power. They were almost successful, but it 
took Congress, the Senate to get to the truth, a truth that the 
American people deserved.
    This Committee has conducted more than 800 voluntary 
depositions and interviews, with more scheduled, including 
witnesses who worked in the previous administration. The 
Committee has received nearly 90,000 documents pertaining to 
January 6th. We followed up on more than 435 tips received 
through the Committee's tip line. Hundreds of witnesses have 
voluntarily come forward and cooperated with our investigation. 
However, Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro refuse to answer this 
constitutional duty.
    Why are they special? Why is it, when we get closer and 
closer to the former President, his inner circle, those nearest 
to the President, why are those the ones who refuse to tell the 
American people what they know? What is it they are covering 
up?
    Now Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro have attempted to obstruct 
the pursuit of justice and to stonewall this Committee's work 
and conceal the truth, despite both publicly acknowledging 
their roles in promoting election fraud conspiracies and 
counseling the former President on changing the outcome of the 
election.
    What, Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro, are you covering up? Who 
are you covering for?
    We have been through this process before.
    What, Mr. Meadows, are you covering up? Who are you 
covering for?
    When given the opportunity to tell the truth about the 
attack on January 6th, both Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro 
continue to put loyalty to Donald Trump before the Constitution 
and the American people.
    Tonight, I will vote to hold Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro 
accountable for their actions and recommend that the House of 
Representatives cite both of them for contempt of Congress. The 
Department of Justice must act swiftly. I will echo what my 
colleagues have already said, but more bluntly: Attorney 
General Garland, do your job so that we can do ours.
    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 
Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in Contempt of 
Congress for Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas 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. 4
                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 agree 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 8:40 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

 Report on a Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives 
Find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in Contempt of Congress 
    for Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Select 
 Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
                                Capitol
                                
                                
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               APPENDIX I
                               
                               EXHIBIT 1
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 2
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               EXHIBIT 3
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                               EXHIBIT 4
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               EXHIBIT 5
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               EXHIBIT 6
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               EXHIBIT 7
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 8
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                              APPENDIX II
                              
                               EXHIBIT 1
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 2
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 3
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 4
<[RAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 5
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               EXHIBIT 6
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 7
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 8
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 9
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 10
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 11
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               EXHIBIT 12
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 13
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 14
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               EXHIBIT 15
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               EXHIBIT 16
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]