[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]