Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5748-H5769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE FIND STEPHEN K. BANNON IN CONTEMPT OF
CONGRESS

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-152) and
accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives
find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply
with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
The Clerk read the title of the report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 727, the report
is considered read.
The text of the report is as follows:
The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack
on the United States Capitol, having considered this Report,
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the Report be
approved.
The form of the Resolution that the Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol would recommend to the House of Representatives for
citing Stephen K. Bannon for contempt of Congress pursuant to
this Report is as follows:
Resolved, That Stephen K. Bannon shall be found to be in
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a
congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol, detailing the refusal of
Stephen K. Bannon to produce documents or appear for a
deposition before the Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as directed
by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District
of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bannon be proceeded against
in the manner and form provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.

purpose and summary

On January 6, 2021, a violent mob breached the security
perimeter of the United States Capitol, assaulted and injured
scores of police officers, engaged in hand-to-hand violence
with those officers over an extended period, and invaded and
occupied the Capitol building, all in an effort to halt the
lawful counting of electoral votes and reverse the results of
the 2020 election. In the words of many of those who
participated in the violence, the attack was a direct
response to false statements by then-President Donald J.
Trump--beginning on election night 2020 and continuing
through January 6, 2021--that the 2020 election had been
stolen by corrupted voting machines, widespread fraud, and
otherwise.
In response, the House adopted House Resolution 503 on June
30, 2021, establishing the Select Committee to Investigate
the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Select Committee'').
The Select Committee is investigating the facts,
circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attack and
issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power, in order
to identify how the events of January 6th were planned, what
actions and statements motivated and contributed to the
attack on the Capitol, how the violent riot that day was
coordinated with a political and public relations strategy to
reverse the election outcome, and why Capitol security was
insufficient to address what occurred. The Select Committee
will evaluate all facets of these issues, create a public
record of what occurred, and recommend to the House, and its
relevant committees, corrective laws, policies, procedures,
rules, or regulations.
According to many published reports, and his own public
statements, Stephen K. Bannon had specific knowledge about
the events planned for January 6th before they occurred. He
said on his January 5th podcasts, for example:

It's not going to happen like you think it's going to
happen. OK, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different.
All I can say is, strap in. [. . .] You made this happen and
tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready.
All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. [. . .] So many
people said, `Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in
Washington.' Well, this is your time in history.

Mr. Bannon appears to have had multiple roles relevant to
this investigation, including his role in constructing and
participating in the ``stop the steal'' public relations
effort that motivated the attack, his efforts to plan
political and other activity in advance of January 6th, and
his participation in the events of that day from a ``war
room'' organized at the Willard InterContinental Washington
D.C. Hotel (the ``Willard Hotel''). Although he was a private
citizen not employed by the White House at the time, he
reportedly spoke with Mr. Trump directly regarding the plans
for January 6th on at least one occasion. In short, Mr.
Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the
events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled
to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions. The
Select Committee expects that such testimony will be directly
relevant to its report and recommendations for legislative
and other action.
On September 23, 2021, Chairman Bennie G. Thompson signed a
subpoena for documents and testimony and transmitted it along
with a cover letter and schedule to counsel for Mr. Bannon,
who accepted service on Mr. Bannon's behalf on September 24,
2021. The subpoena required that Mr. Bannon produce
responsive documents not later than October 7, 2021, and that
Mr. Bannon appear for a deposition on October 14, 2021.
Subsequent communications between counsel for Mr. Bannon and
Chairman Thompson, however, failed to reach any accommodation
for Mr. Bannon's appearance for testimony or production of
documents. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Bannon on October 7, 2021,
flatly stated that Mr. Bannon would not produce any documents
or appear at the scheduled deposition, as ordered by the
lawful subpoena. Although Mr. Bannon's counsel referenced
vague claims of executive privilege purportedly relayed by
the former President, no such claims have been presented by
the former President to the Select Committee. And although
the Select Committee is confident that such claims could not
bar any of its requests, there is no conceivable executive
privilege claim that could bar all of the Select Committee's
requests or justify Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to appear for
the required deposition. The Chairman's October 8, 2021,
response addressed the legal arguments raised by Mr. Bannon's
counsel and made clear that the Select Committee expected--as
the law demands--that Mr. Bannon appear before the Select
Committee at his deposition and raise any privilege or other
concerns regarding specific questions on the record of that
proceeding.
The contempt of Congress statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192, makes
clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or
be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of
up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year. Further,
the Supreme Court in United States v. Bryan (1950) emphasized
that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every
person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to
perform when properly summoned.'' The Supreme Court recently
reinforced this clear obligation by stating that ``[w]hen
Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative
action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to
cooperate.''
Mr. Bannon did not produce documents by the subpoena's
October 7, 2021, deadline nor did he appear for a deposition
scheduled for October 14, 2021, as ordered by the subpoena
and in contravention of the clear instructions by the Select
Committee Chairman on October 8, 2021, to appear at the
deposition and raise any privilege concerns in response to
specific questions on the record. Mr. Bannon's refusal to
comply with the Select Committee's subpoena in any way
represents willful default under the law and warrants
contempt of Congress and referral to the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution as
prescribed by law. The denial of the information sought by
the subpoena impairs Congress's central powers under the
United States Constitution.

background on the select committee's investigation

House Resolution 503 sets out the specific purposes of the
Select Committee, including:
to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances,
and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic
terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex'';
to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances,
and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful
transfer of power''; and
to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances,
and causes relating to ``the

[[Page H5749]]

influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American
representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional
process.''
The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress's oversight
role. ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations
is inherent in the legislative process.'' Indeed, Congress's
ability to enforce its investigatory power ``is an essential
and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.''
``Absent such a power, a legislative body could not `wisely
or effectively' evaluate those conditions `which the
legislation is intended to affect or change.' ''
The oversight powers of House and Senate committees are
also codified in legislation. For example, the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 directed committees to ``exercise
continuous watchfulness'' over the executive branch's
implementation of programs within its jurisdictions, and the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 authorized committees
to ``review and study, on a continuing basis, the
application, administration, and execution'' of laws.
Pursuant to House rule XI and House Resolution 503, the
Select Committee is authorized ``to require, by subpoena or
otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and
the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda,
papers, and documents as it considers necessary.'' Further,
section 5(c)(4) of House Resolution 503 provides that the
Chairman of the Select Committee may ``authorize and issue
subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the
investigation and study'' conducted pursuant to the
enumerated purposes and functions of the Select Committee.
The Select Committee's authorizing resolution further states
that the Chairman ``may order the taking of depositions,
including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the
Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee
pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One
Hundred Seventeenth Congress.''
A. The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Bannon
central to its investigative purposes
Mr. Bannon's testimony and document production are critical
to the Select Committee's investigation. Among other topics,
the Select Committee seeks facts that explain why the events
of January 6th turned violent. Statements publicly made by
Mr. Bannon on January 5, 2021, suggest that he had some
foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur the next
day. Mr. Bannon noted on January 5th that the country was
facing a ``constitutional crisis'' and ``that crisis is about
to go up about five orders of magnitude tomorrow.'' He also
stated that, ``All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. [.
. .] It's not going to happen like you think it's going to
happen. OK, it's going to be quite extraordinarily
different.'' Congress, through the Select Committee, is
entitled to discover facts concerning the activities leading
up to the violence on January 6th. Under House Resolution
503, the Select Committee is directed to investigate those
facts, which include ``the influencing factors that fomented
such an attack.'' And after making public statements on
January 5th like those quoted above, Mr. Bannon is obliged by
law to comply with the reasonable requests of the Select
Committee through its subpoena. If any witness so close to
the events leading up to the January 6th attack could decline
to provide information to the Select Committee, Congress
would be severely hamstrung in its ability to exercise its
constitutional powers with highly relevant information
informing its choices. Information in Mr. Bannon's possession
is essential to putting other witnesses' testimony and
productions into appropriate context and to ensuring the
Select Committee can fully and expeditiously complete its
work.
Mr. Bannon was the Chief Executive Officer of Mr. Trump's
2016 presidential campaign and served as then-President
Trump's chief strategist, a White House position, for 8
months in 2017. Mr. Trump fired Mr. Bannon in August 2017,
and Mr. Bannon did not thereafter hold a position in the
executive branch.
After Mr. Bannon left government service, he remained
actively involved in media and politics. In October 2019, Mr.
Bannon began a radio show and podcast focused on rallying
supporters of Mr. Trump in support of various causes and
issues. According to one report, before the election even
occurred in 2020, Mr. Bannon made public efforts to explain
``his belief that the Democrats are plotting to steal the
2020 election.'' One account of conversations involving Mr.
Bannon (and Mr. Trump) prior to January 6th describes Mr.
Bannon as encouraging Mr. Trump to ``focus on January 6th''
and articulating a plan to have millions of Americans
consider Mr. Biden an illegitimate President. That same
reporting suggests that Mr. Bannon was in frequent contact
with the White House in late-December and early-January and
spoke directly with the President several times. Mr. Bannon
is reported to have urged then-President Trump to pressure
then-Vice President Michael R. Pence to assist in overturning
the results of the 2020 election.
Mr. Bannon was reportedly encouraging President Trump's
supporters to take dramatic action. According to one report,
immediately after the November 3rd election, Mr. Bannon began
promoting false conspiracy claims that the election had been
stolen and referred to the election as ``a mass fraud.''
The day before the January 6th attack on the Capitol, Mr.
Bannon predicted that ``All hell is going to break loose
tomorrow.'' He told the listeners of his radio show:

He added:

So many people said, ``Man, if I was in a revolution, I
would be in Washington.'' Well, this is your time in
history.\26\

And:

It's all converging, and now we're on the point of attack
tomorrow.\27\

Public reporting also suggests that Mr. Bannon was among
several prominent supporters of efforts to undermine the
election results who gathered at the Willard Hotel, two
blocks from the White House, on the days surrounding the
January 6th attack.\28\ The group that assembled at the
Willard Hotel is reported to have included members of the
Trump campaign's legal team (including Rudolph Giuliani and
John Eastman), several prominent proponents of false election
fraud claims that had been promoted by Mr. Trump (e.g.,
Russell Ramsland, Jr. and Boris Epshteyn), as well as Roger
Stone, who left the hotel with Oath Keeper bodyguards, and
campaign spokesman Jason Miller.\29\ It has been reported
that the participants in the meetings at the Willard Hotel
discussed plans to stop or delay the January 6th counting of
the election results and persuade Members of Congress to
block the electoral count.\30\
Mr. Bannon's statements the day before the January 6th
attack, and his association with both the Trump inner circle
and outside groups involved in the ``Stop the Steal'' \31\
events, make his testimony about the Willard Hotel meetings
essential to fully understanding and establishing
responsibility for the events of January 6th. In addition to
the indications noted above regarding Mr. Bannon's role in
various activities leading up to January 6th, he also
reportedly spoke directly to Mr. Trump on one or more
occasions regarding what could or should happen on January
6th.\32\
B. Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with the Select Committee's
subpoena for testimony and documents
On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and
transmitted a subpoena, cover letter, and schedule to Mr.
Bannon ordering the production of both documents and
testimony relevant to the Select Committee's investigation
into ``important activities that led to and informed the
events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.'' \33\ Chairman
Thompson's letter identified public reports describing Mr.
Bannon's activities and past statements, documenting some of
the public information that gave the Select Committee reason
to believe Mr. Bannon possesses information about matters
within the scope of the Select Committee's inquiry.
The specific documents requested are found in the schedule
in the Appendix, Exhibit 1, (pp. 4-5). The schedule included
with the subpoena addressed topics including but not limited
to Mr. Bannon's role in planning and promoting the January 6,
2021, rally and march in support of Mr. Trump; Mr. Trump's
participation in the rally and march; Mr. Bannon's podcast
and its use for promoting the rally and march; and Mr.
Bannon's strategic communications with a host of individuals
known to be involved with the former President's 2020
election campaign and subsequent efforts to undermine or cast
doubt on the results of that election.
The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the requested
documents to the Select Committee on October 7, 2021, at 10
a.m. and required Mr. Bannon's presence for the taking of
testimony on October 14, 2021, at 10 a.m.\34\ Mr. Bannon had
designated Robert J. Costello as his attorney for the
purposes of the Select Committee's inquiry, and Mr. Costello
accepted service of the subpoena on behalf of Mr. Bannon on
September 24, 2021.\35\
On October 7, 2021, at 10 a.m., at the designated location
identified in the subpoena, Mr. Bannon failed to appear and
produce documents. Instead, over 7 hours later, Mr. Costello
sent a letter to Chairman Thompson via email at 5:04 p.m.
reinforcing Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply.
Mr. Costello's letter cited an October 6, 2021, letter from
former President Trump's counsel Justin Clark to Mr. Costello
that purportedly instructed Mr. Bannon to ``invoke any
immunities and privileges he may have from compelled
testimony,'' ``not produce any documents concerning
privileged material,'' and ``not provide any testimony
concerning privileged material[.]'' \36\ Mr. Costello's
letter then asserted that Mr. Bannon was ``legally unable to
comply,'' with the subpoena for ``documents or testimony,''
claiming to rely on the instructions of Mr. Trump to not
disclose privileged information.\37\ The two-page letter
contained only conclusory statements, no legal analysis, and
approximately half of it purported to quote from the letter
of October 6, 2021, from the counsel to Mr. Trump.
On October 8, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to Mr.
Costello's October 7, 2021, letter.\38\ He said that Mr.
Trump had not communicated an invocation of privilege either
formally or informally to the Select Committee. He further
stated that, regardless,

[[Page H5750]]

the information the Select Committee seeks from Mr. Bannon
concerns his actions as a private citizen and involves a
range of subjects not even conceivably reached by any
executive privilege assertion. Chairman Thompson also noted
that--even assuming Mr. Bannon were correct that a privilege
applied to his documents and testimony and Mr. Trump had
formally invoked a privilege through the long-standing
practice of consultation with the current President (which is
not the case)--Mr. Bannon does not enjoy anything like the
type of absolute immunity his attorney suggested would
insulate Mr. Bannon from an obligation to comply with the
Select Committee's subpoena. Again, there is no conceivable
legal claim to support such an assertion.
The Chairman underscored that Mr. Bannon remained obligated
to produce documents and testimony about all non-privileged
material that was responsive to the subpoena, was expected to
produce a privilege log identifying any documents being
withheld based on any specific privilege claims, and that the
Select Committee expected Mr. Bannon to appear at the
deposition on October 14th and state on the record any
privilege concerns raised by specific questions. As made
clear by the deposition rules provided to Mr. Bannon by the
Select Committee, under House deposition regulation 3, Mr.
Bannon may be accompanied at the deposition by a personal,
nongovernmental counsel to advise him of his rights.\39\
The Chairman concluded by saying that Mr. Bannon was
therefore not in compliance with the Chairman's duly issued
subpoena for documents, and that the Select Committee would
view refusal to produce documents and refusal to appear at
the October 14th deposition as willful non-compliance with
the subpoena. The Chairman warned that this willful non-
compliance would put Mr. Bannon in jeopardy of a vote to
refer him to the House to consider a criminal contempt
referral to a U.S. Attorney pursuant to 2 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 192 and 194.\40\
On October 13, 2021, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Select
Committee staff emailed Mr. Costello to discuss logistics for
the deposition at which Mr. Bannon was compelled to appear on
October 14, 2021, at 10 a.m. Approximately an hour later,
Select Committee staff and Mr. Costello spoke on the
telephone, during which Mr. Costello informed the Select
Committee that Mr. Bannon would not appear the next day, and
that a letter to that effect was forthcoming. Mr. Costello
indicated that he was in contact with Mr. Trump's attorney,
and he had informed Mr. Trump's attorney of the Select
Committee's explanation of the deficiencies in Mr. Bannon's
and Mr. Trump's justifications for Mr. Bannon's defiance of
the subpoena.
On that call, Mr. Costello represented to the Select
Committee that he had asked Mr. Trump's counsel to identify,
with specificity, communications for which executive
privilege would apply. Later that day, Mr. Costello
transmitted a response to Chairman Thompson's October 8,
2021, letter. In that letter, Mr. Costello reiterated his
position that Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with the Select
Committee subpoena was based on the former President's
``executive and other privileges.'' \41\ Mr. Costello claimed
that President Trump's counsel had ``exercis[ed] his
executive privilege'' and ``directed Mr. Bannon not to
produce documents or testify until the issue of executive
privilege is resolved.'' \42\ He further stated that Mr.
Bannon would refuse to produce any documents or appear for
testimony until after a court had ruled on, or former
President Trump and the Select Committee reached an agreement
on, the matter of executive privilege that the former
President had never actually communicated to the Select
Committee. In defiance of the clear instructions by the
Select Committee to appear at the deposition and state any
privilege concerns as they applied to specific questions, Mr.
Bannon refused to appear to make any objections in person.
Further, he refused to engage at all with the specifics of
the document demands, including failing to provide a
privilege log identifying any privilege claims regarding
specific documents.
On October 14, 2021, at 10 a.m., Mr. Bannon failed to
appear at the designated location to provide testimony
relevant to the Select Committee's inquiry in response to
questions posed, as was required by the subpoena.\43\
At 2:05 p.m. on October 15, 2021, Chairman Thompson sent a
letter to Mr. Costello noting that Mr. Bannon had not even
attempted to provide the Select Committee any explanation for
refusing to comply with the Select Committee's demand for
documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not
involve communications with the former President. The
Chairman also reiterated that Mr. Bannon does not enjoy
absolute immunity from testifying before the Select
Committee. The Chairman reminded Mr. Costello that the Select
Committee views Mr. Bannon's conduct as willful non-
compliance with the subpoena. He notified Mr. Costello that,
accordingly, the Select Committee would meet on October 19,
2021, to consider a criminal contempt referral for Mr.
Bannon, and invited Mr. Costello to submit any written
materials he believed the Select Committee should consider in
its deliberations on this referral.
On October 18, 2021, Mr. Costello wrote Chairman Thompson
requesting a ``one-week adjournment of our response'' to the
Chairman's October 15th letter, citing the need to ``assess''
litigation Mr. Trump filed on October 18, 2021, concerning
the Select Committee's request for documents from the
National Archives.\44\ The Chairman replied on October 19,
2021, that Mr. Trump's lawsuit was immaterial to the Select
Committee's subpoena to Mr. Bannon, and accordingly, no
grounds existed for any further delay in Mr. Bannon's
compliance with the subpoena.\45\
C. Mr. Bannon's purported basis for non-compliance is wholly
without merit
Mr. Bannon has relied on no legal authority to support his
refusal to comply in any fashion with the subpoena. Mr.
Bannon's refusal to comply with the subpoena is ostensibly
based on his decision to ``honor [former President Trump's]
invocation of executive privilege'' and instruction that,
``to the fullest extent permitted by law,'' Mr. Bannon
``invoke any immunities and privileges he may have from
compelled testimony,'' ``not produce any documents concerning
privileged material,'' and ``not provide any testimony
concerning privileged material.'' \46\ Far from being
``permitted by law,'' Mr. Bannon's conduct in response to the
Select Committee's subpoena constitutes a violation of the
contempt of Congress statutory provisions.
1. Executive privilege has not been invoked
Mr. Trump has had no communication with the Select
Committee. In an October 7th letter to the Select Committee,
Mr. Bannon's attorney referred to purported correspondence
from Mr. Trump's attorney, Justin Clark, in which Mr. Clark
asserted that the Select Committee subpoena seeks information
that is ``potentially protected from disclosure by executive
and other privileges, including among others the presidential
communications, deliberative process, and attorney-client
privileges.'' \47\ According to Mr. Bannon's attorney, Mr.
Clark also stated that, ``President Trump is prepared to
defend these fundamental privileges in court.'' \48\
In United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953), the
Supreme Court held that executive privilege:

[B]elongs to the Government and must be asserted by it; it
can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is
not to be lightly invoked. There must be a formal claim of
privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has
control over the matter, after actual personal consideration
by that officer.\49\

Here, the Select Committee has not been provided with any
formal invocation of executive privilege by the President,
the former President,\50\ or any other employee of the
executive branch.
In fact, in an October 18, 2021, letter to Mr. Bannon's
attorney, the White House Counsel's Office specifically
stated that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis for
[Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' The
letter also informed Mr. Bannon's counsel that:

[P]resident Biden determined that an assertion of executive
privilege is not justified with respect to a set of documents
shedding light on events within the White House on and about
January 6, 2021, and with respect to documents and testimony
concerning the former President's efforts to use the
Department of Justice to advance a false narrative that the
2020 election was tainted by widespread fraud. President
Biden's determination that an assertion of privilege is not
justified with respect to these subjects applies to [Mr.
Bannon's] deposition testimony and to any documents [Mr.
Bannon] may possess concerning either subject.\51\

With respect to the former President, the Select Committee
has not received a formal invocation of executive privilege.
Mr. Costello's October 13th letter merely states that the
attorney for former President Trump had informed him that
``President Trump is exercising his executive privilege.''
This third-hand, non-specific assertion of privilege, without
any description of the documents or testimony over which
privilege is claimed, is insufficient to activate a claim of
executive privilege.
2. Even assuming an invocation of executive privilege
(which is not justified here), assertion of privilege
could not bar the Select Committee from lawfully
obtaining the documents and testimony it seeks from Mr.
Bannon
The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Bannon on a
wide range of subjects that it is inconceivable executive
privilege would reach. Mr. Bannon was a private citizen
during the relevant time period and the testimony and
documents the Select Committee is demanding do not concern
discussion of official government matters with the President
and his immediate advisors. The law is clear that executive
privilege does not extend to discussions between the
President and private citizens relating to non-governmental
business or among private citizens. In United States v.
Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708 (1974), the Supreme Court recognized
a qualified, presumptive privilege for presidential
communications. The scope of the so-called ``presidential
communications privilege'' was further defined by the Court
to apply only to ``communications in performance of [a
President's] responsibilities of his office and made in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions.'' \52\
In In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729, 752 (D.C. Cir.
1997), the DC Circuit extended the presidential
communications privilege to ``communications authored or
solicited and received by those members of an immediate

[[Page H5751]]

White House adviser's staff who have broad and significant
responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice
to be given the President on the particular matter to which
the communications relate.'' The court stressed that the
privilege only applies to communications intended to advise
the President ``on official government matters.'' \53\ In
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108,
1123 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the court reaffirmed that the
presidential communications privilege applies only to
documents ``solicited and received by the President or his
immediate advisers in the Office of the President.'' Relying
on In re Sealed Case and the principle that ``the
presidential communications privilege should be construed as
narrowly as is consistent with ensuring that the
confidentiality of the President's decision-making process is
adequately protected,'' \54\ the court refused to extend the
privilege even to executive branch employees whose sole
function was to provide advice to the President in the
performance of a ``quintessential and nondelegable
Presidential power.'' \55\
Here, neither Mr. Bannon nor former President Trump has
asserted that Mr. Bannon's testimony would reveal
communications involving the President or members of his
immediate White House staff regarding the performance of the
President's responsibilities of his office. At no point
during the time period under investigation by the Select
Committee was Mr. Bannon a government employee, much less a
key White House adviser in the Office of the President.
Moreover, the matters under review by the Select Committee
concern efforts to overturn legitimate election results and
an attack on our democratic institutions. Communications
regarding these subjects (or any other matter related to the
presidential campaign), by definition, would not
constitute advice on ``official government matters'' that
could be shielded by executive privilege. In any event,
any confidentiality interest in such communications would
be far outweighed by the oversight needs for this
information that are at stake in the Select Committee's
investigation.
In sum: In this instance, there is no reasonable argument
that Mr. Bannon's communications with the President regarding
January 6th are the type of matters on which privilege can be
asserted. Also, the Select Committee is confident that no
executive privilege assertion would bar Mr. Bannon's
testimony regarding his communications directly with the
President regarding January 6th--because the privilege is
qualified and could be overcome by an appropriate showing of
need. Again, there is no conceivable assertion that privilege
could apply to other information sought that does not
constitute communications with Mr. Trump during his
presidency. Beyond communications between Mr. Bannon and Mr.
Trump, the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony
from Mr. Bannon regarding his own actions and interactions
with other private citizens relating to the events of January
6th. For example, the subpoena to Mr. Bannon includes
requests for documents related to many other matters,
including:
His presence, purpose, statements, and activities at a
meeting with Members of Congress at the Willard Hotel on
January 5, 2021, or the presence, purpose, statements, or
activities of others in attendance related to that meeting.
Anyone with whom he communicated by any means with respect
to any aspect of the planning, objectives, conduct, or
participation in the January 6, 2021, rally, including but
not limited to Boris Epshteyn.
Anyone with whom he communicated with respect to efforts,
plans, or proposals to contest the 2020 presidential election
results or delay, influence, or impeded the electoral count,
including but not limited to communications with Boris
Epshteyn, Kashyap Patel, and Ezra Cohen-Watnick.
All public relations, advertising, or other communications
efforts to persuade Americans that the election was stolen.
The January 6, 2021, rally on The Mall and Capitol grounds
in Washington, DC, in support of President Donald J. Trump
and opposition to the counting of the results of the 2020
presidential election, including its permitting, planning,
objectives, financing, and conduct, as well as any
communications to or from any person or group involved in
organizing or planning for the January 6, 2021, rally.
The financing or fundraising to assist any individual's or
organization's travel to or accommodation in Washington, DC,
to attend or participate in the January 6, 2021, rally.
The ``War Room'' podcast, insofar as at any time he
communicated through it statements referring or relating to
the January 6, 2021, rally, including all statements
concerning its planning, objectives, purpose, organization,
message, or sponsorship.
The organization or group named ``March for Trump'' and its
activities relating to the January 6, 2021, rally, including
any communications Mr. Bannon had with any officer or member
of ``March for Trump'' relating in any way to the planning,
objectives, organization, message, sponsorship, and
participation in the January 6, 2021, rally.
No colorable claim of executive privilege could possibly be
made with respect to documents or testimony related to these
and other matters sought by the subpoena, or any other topics
that were not connected to official decisionmaking by the
President.
3. Mr. Bannon is not entitled to absolute immunity
Mr. Bannon has refused to provide any responsive documents
or appear for a deposition based on his asserted reliance on
Mr. Trump's purported invocation of executive privilege.
However, even if Mr. Trump had invoked executive privilege,
and even if certain testimony or documents would fall within
that privilege, Mr. Bannon would not be immune from compelled
testimony before the Select Committee.
The law is clear that even senior White House aides who
advise the President on official government business are not
immune from compelled congressional process. To the extent
there has been a formal invocation of executive privilege by
the Office of the President, and in the unlikely event that
testimony by Mr. Bannon relates to information covered by
that privilege, Mr. Bannon was nonetheless required to appear
before the Select Committee to provide testimony and invoke
executive privilege where appropriate. If there are
responsive documents that Mr. Bannon claims include
privileged information, he was required to provide the Select
Committee with a privilege log that ``identifies and
describes the material in a manner `sufficient to enable
resolution of any privilege claims.' '' Mr. Bannon did
neither. He should be held in contempt.
D. Precedent supports the Select Committee's position to
proceed with holding Mr. Bannon in contempt
An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House
subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress. Pursuant to 2
U.S.C. Sec. 192, the willful refusal to comply with a
congressional subpoena is punishable by a fine of up to
$100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year. A committee may
vote to seek a contempt citation against a recalcitrant
witness. This action is then reported to the House. If a
resolution to that end is adopted by the House, the matter is
referred to a U.S. Attorney, who has a duty to refer the
matter to a grand jury for an indictment.
In his October 8th letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel, the
Chairman of the Select Committee advised Mr. Bannon that his
claims of executive privilege were not well-founded and did
not absolve him of his obligation to produce documents and
testify in deposition. The Chairman made clear that the
Select Committee expected Mr. Bannon to appear for his
scheduled deposition on October 14th and produce the
requested documents at that time. The Chairman warned Mr.
Bannon that his continued non-compliance would put him in
jeopardy of a vote to refer him to the House to consider a
criminal contempt referral. Mr. Bannon's failure to appear
for deposition or produce responsive documents in the face of
this clear advisement and warning by the Chairman constitutes
a willful failure to comply with the subpoena.

select committee consideration

The Select Committee met on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, with
a quorum being present, to consider this Report and ordered
it and the Resolution contained herein to be favorably
reported to the House, with an amendment, by a recorded vote
of 9 ayes to 0 noes.

select committee votes

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Select Committee to
list the recorded votes during consideration of this Report:
1. A motion by Vice Chair Cheney to report the Select
Committee Report for a Resolution Recommending that the House
of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of
Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by
the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol favorably to the House, as amended,
was agreed to by a recorded vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes
(Rollcall No. 1).

Select Committee Rollcall No. 1
[Motion by Vice Chair Cheney to Favorably Report, as Amended]
[Agreed to: 9 ayes to 0 noes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Cheney, Vice Chair.................................. Aye
Ms. Lofgren............................................. Aye
Mr. Schiff.............................................. Aye
Mr. Aguilar............................................. Aye
Mrs. Murphy (FL)........................................ Aye
Mr. Raskin.............................................. Aye
Mrs. Luria.............................................. Aye
Mr. Kinzinger........................................... Aye
Mr. Thompson (MS), Chairman............................. Aye
------------------------------------------------------------------------

select committee oversight findings

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII, the Select
Committee advises that the oversight findings and
recommendations of the Select Committee are incorporated in
the descriptive portions of this Report.

congressional budget office estimate

The Select Committee finds the requirements of clause
3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, and the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, to be inapplicable to this Report. Accordingly, the
Select Committee did not request or receive a cost estimate
from the Congressional Budget Office and makes no findings as
to the budgetary impacts of this Report or costs incurred to
carry out the Report.

statement of general performance goals and objectives

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the objective of
this Report is to enforce the Select Committee's authority to
investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes of the

[[Page H5752]]

January 6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful
transfer of power, in order to identify and evaluate problems
and to recommend corrective laws, policies, procedures,
rules, or regulations; and to enforce the Select Committee's
subpoena authority found in section 5(c)(4) of House
Resolution 503.

ENDNOTES

1. Steve Bannon, ``War Room: Pandemic, `EP 634--Tuesday
Special (with Maggie VandenBerghe, Ben Berquam, and Peter
Navarro),' '' (Jan. 5, 2021), available at https://
rumble.com/vch0pu-ep-634-tuesday-special-w-maggie-
vandenberghe-ben-berquam-and-peter-navarro.html.
2. Aaron Blake, ``Who could have predicted the Capitol
riot? Plenty of people--including Trump allies,'' Washington
Post, (Jan. 28, 2021), available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/28/who-could-have-
predicted-capitol-siege-plenty-people/.
3. See Appendix, Exs. 1, 2 (Subpoena from Chairman Bennie
G. Thompson to Stephen K. Bannon and attachments (Sept. 23,
2021)).
4. See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from Robert J. Costello to
Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (Oct. 7, 2021)).
5. See Appendix, Ex. 4 (Letter from Chairman Bennie G.
Thompson to Robert J. Costello (Oct. 8, 2021)).
6. The prison term for this offense makes it a Class A
misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(6). By that classification,
the penalty for contempt of Congress specified in 2 U.S.C.
192 increased from $1,000 to $100,000. 18 U.S.C.
3571(b)(5).
7. United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
8. Trump v. Mazars USA LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2036 (2020)
(emphasis in original; internal quotation marks removed). See
also Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957)
(stating of citizens that ``It is their unremitting
obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of
the Congress and its committees, and to testify fully with
respect to matters within the province of proper
investigation.'').
9. Mazars, 140 S.Ct. at 2031 (2020) (citing Watkins, 354
U.S. at 187) (internal quotation marks removed).
10. Mazars, 140 S.Ct. at 2031 (2020) (citing McGrain v.
Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927)).
11. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 409 F.Supp. 297, 305 (D.D.C.
1976), aff'd, 548 F.2d 977 (D.C.Cir. 1976) (quoting McGrain,
273 U.S. at 175).
12. Pub. L. 79-601, 79th Cong. 136, (1946).
13. Pub. L. 91-510, 91st Cong. 118, (1970).
14. Steve Bannon, ``War Room: Pandemic, `EP 634--Tuesday
Special (with Maggie VandenBerghe, Ben Berquam, and Peter
Navarro),' '' (Jan. 5, 2021), available at https://
rumble.com/vch0pu-ep-634-tuesday-special-w-maggie-
vandenberghe-ben-berquam-and-peter-navarro.html.
15. Id.
16. Brian Bennett, `` `You Got to Be the Last Guy He Talks
To.' The Rise and Fall of Trump Adviser Steve Bannon,'' Time,
(Aug. 21, 2020), available at https://time.com/5882072/rise-
and-fall-of-steve-bannon/.
17. Jeff Mason and Steve Holland, ``Trump fired adviser
Bannon,'' Reuters, (Aug. 18, 2017), available at https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon/trump-fires-
adviser-bannon-idUSKCN1AY205.
18. Daniel Lippman, ``Steve Bannon launches radio show and
podcast on impeachment,'' Politico, (Oct. 24, 2019),
available at https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/22/steve-
bannon-radio-show-podcast-impeachment-055167.
19. E.g., KUSI Newsroom, ``Steve Bannon explains how the
Democrats are plotting to steal the 2020 election,'' KUSI,
(Oct. 1, 2020), available at https://www.kusi.com/steve-
bannon-explains-how-the-democrats-are-plotting-to-steal-the-
2020-election.
20. Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Peril, (New York: Simon
& Shuster, 2021), p. 207.
21. Id., pp. 207, 233-234.
22. Id., p. 207.
23. Rob Kuznia, et al., ``Stop the Steal's massive
disinformation campaign connected to Roger Stone,'' CNN (Nov.
14, 2020), available at https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/13/
business/stop-the-steal-disinformation-campaign-invs/
index.html.
24. Aaron Blake, ``Who could have predicted the Capitol
riot? Plenty of people--including Trump allies,'' Washington
Post, (Jan. 28, 2021), available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/28/who-could-have-
predicted-capitol-siege-plenty-people/.
25. Steve Bannon, ``War Room: Pandemic, `EP 634--Tuesday
Special (with Maggie VandenBerghe, Ben Berquam, and Peter
Navarro),' '' (Jan. 5, 2021), available at https://
rumble.com/vch0pu-ep-634-tuesday-special-w-maggie-
vandenberghe-ben-berquam-and-peter-navarro.html.
26. Aaron Blake, ``Who could have predicted the Capitol
riot? Plenty of people--including Trump allies,'' Washington
Post, (Jan. 28, 2021), available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/28/who-could-have-
predicted-capitol-siege-plenty-people/.
27. Id.
28. Woodward and Costa, pp. 233-234; Andre J. Ellington,
``Steve Bannon Confirms His Involvement in January 6
Insurrection on `War Room' Podcast,'' Newsweek, (Sept. 22,
2021), available at https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-
confirms-his-involvement-january-6-insurrection-war-room-
podcast-1631667.
29. Woodward and Costa, pp. 233-234; Michael Wolff,
``Donald Trump's January 6; The view from inside the Oval
Office,'' New York, (June 28, 2021), available at https://
nymag.com/intelligencer/article/michael-wolff-landslide-
final-days-trump-presidency-excerpt.html; Seth Abramson
(@SethAbramson), Twitter (June 12, 2021, 10:51 a.m.), https:/
/twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1403726643722547200/photo/3.
30. Woodward and Costa, p. 233.
31. There were a number of events organized to take place
on January 5th and January 6th at which supporters of
President Trump gathered, and made and heard speeches, in
support of the position that Congress should not affirm that
Joe Biden had won the 270 or more electoral college votes
necessary to be elected President.
32. See, e.g., Woodward and Costa, p. 207.
33. See Appendix, Exs. 1, 2.
34. See Appendix, Ex. 1.
35. See Appendix, Ex. 2 (Emails between Select Committee
staff and Robert J. Costello (Sept. 23-24, 2021)).
36. See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from Robert J. Costello to
Select Committee staff (Oct. 7, 2021)).
37. Id.
38. See Appendix, Ex. 4 (Letter from Chairman Bennie G.
Thompson to Robert J. Costello (Oct. 8, 2021)).
39. U.S. House of Representatives, ``117th Congress
Regulations for Use of Deposition Authority,'' 167 Cong.
Rec., (Jan. 4, 2021), p. H41.
40. See Appendix, Ex. 4 (Letter from Chairman Bennie G.
Thompson to Robert J. Costello (Oct. 8, 2021)).
41. See Appendix, Ex. 5 (Letter from Robert J. Costello to
Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (Oct. 13, 2021)).
42. Id.
43. See Appendix.
44. Letter from Robert J. Costello to Chairman Thompson,
(Oct. 18, 2021).
45. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Robert J. Costello,
(Oct. 19, 2021).
46. See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from Robert J. Costello to
Select Committee staff (Oct. 7, 2021)).
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. See also United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192
(CCD Va. 1807) (ruling that President Jefferson had to
personally identify the passages he deemed confidential and
could not leave this determination to the U.S. Attorney). In
Reynolds, the Court addressed the ``state secrets
privilege,'' which can be viewed as a subset of executive
privilege.
50. The Supreme Court has held that a former President may
assert executive privilege on his own, but his claim should
be given less weight than that of an incumbent President.
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 451
(1977) (the ``expectation of the confidentiality of executive
communications thus has always been limited and subject to
erosion over time after an administration leaves office'').
The Supreme Court in Nixon v. GSA made note of the fact that
neither President Ford nor President Carter supported former
President Nixon's assertion of privilege, which, the Court
said, ``detracts from the weight of his contention [that the
disclosure of the information at issue] impermissibly
intrudes into the executive function and the needs of the
Executive Branch.'' Id., p. 449.
51. Letter to Robert J. Costello from Jonathan C. Su,
Deputy Counsel to the President, (Oct. 18, 2021).
52. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at
449 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
53. Id. (Italics added.)
54. Id., p. 1116.
55. Id., p. 1111. See also Committee on the Judiciary v.
Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 100 (D.D.C. 2008) (privilege
claimants acknowledged that executive privilege applies only
to ``a very small cadre of senior advisors'').
56. See Appendix, Ex. 1.
57. See also Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 415
F.Supp.3d 148, 214 (D.D.C. 2019) (and subsequent history)
(``To make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to
this Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect
to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from
compelled congressional process simply does not exist.'');
Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 101
(D.D.C. 2008) (holding that White House counsel may not
refuse to testify based on direction from the President that
testimony will implicate executive privilege).
58. See Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform v. Holder, 2014
U.S. Dist. Lexis 200278 at *7 (D.D.C., Aug. 20, 2014)
(quoting Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 107).
59. Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S.
491, 505, 515 (1975).
60. See supra note 6. The prison term for this offense
makes it a Class A misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(6). By
that classification, the penalty for contempt of Congress
specified in 2 U.S.C. 192 increased from $1,000 to
$100,000. 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(5).
61. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192.

appendix

The official transcript that memorialized Mr. Bannon's
failure to appear at his deposition as ordered by subpoena,
along with exhibits included in that record, is as follows:

[[Page H5753]]

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE
U.S. CAPITOL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON,
DC
DEPOSITION OF: STEPHEN K. BANNON (NO-SHOW)
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
The deposition in the above matter was held in * * * *
commencing at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Representative Schiff.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH
ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITOL:
* * * *, * * * *
Sean Tonolli, Senior Investigative Counsel
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
______

Mr. TONOLLI. So we are on the record. Today is October 14,
2021. The time is 10:00 a.m. We are convened in * * * * for
the deposition of Stephen K. Bannon to be conducted by the
House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack
on the United States Capitol.
My name is Sean Tonolli. I am the designated Select
Committee staff counsel for this proceeding. And I'd ask
everyone else to please go around the room and introduce
themselves.
* * * *. * * * *.
* * * *. * * * *.
* * * *. * * * *.
* * * *. * * * *.
* * * *. * * * *.
Mr. TONOLLI. For the record, it is 10:01 a.m., and Mr.
Bannon is not present. The person transcribing this
proceeding is the House stenographer and notary public
authorized to administer oaths.
On September 23, 2021, Chairman Bennie Thompson issued a
subpoena to Mr. Bannon both to produce documents by October
7, 2021, and to testify at a deposition today, October 14,
2021, at 10:00 a.m.
The subpoena is in connection with the Select Committee's
investigation into the facts, circumstances, and causes of
the January 6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful
transfer of power, in order to identify and evaluate lessons
learned and to recommend to the House and its relevant
committees corrective laws, policies, procedures, rules, or
regulations.
This inquiry includes examination of how various
individuals, to include Mr. Bannon, and entities coordinated
their activities leading up to the events of January 6, 2021.
Mr. Bannon has not produced any documents or appeared today
to testify.
I will mark as exhibit 1 and enter into the record the
Select Committee's subpoena to Mr. Bannon, included with
which are the materials that accompanied the subpoena,
namely, a letter from the chairman, a document scheduled with
accompanying production instructions, and a copy of the
deposition rules.

SUBPOENA

By Authority of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the
United States of America

Stephen K. Bannon
c/o Robert Costello, Esq., Davidson, Huthcher and Citron, LLP
To
You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol of the House of Representatives of the United
States at the place, date, and time specified below.
x to produce the things identified on the attached schedule
touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or
subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said
committee or subcommittee.
Place of production: * * *
Date: October 7, 2021 Time: 10:00 a.m.
x to testify at a deposition touching matters of inquiry
committed to said committee or subcommittee; and you are not
to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony: * * *
Date: October 14, 2021 Time: 10:00 a.m.
{time} to testify at a hearing touching matters of inquiry
committed to said committee or subcommittee; and you are not
to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony: ______
Date:____ Time:____
To any authorized staff member or the United States Marshals
Service _________ to serve and make return.
Witness my hand and the seal of the House of
Representatives of the United States, at the city of
Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of September, 2021.
Bennie G. Thompson
Chairman or Authorized Member.
Attest:
Cheryl L. Johnson
Clerk.

proof of service

Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon
c/o Robert Costello, Esq., Davidson, Huthcher and Citron,
LLP
Address * * *
* * *
before the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol
U.S. House of Representatives
117th Congress
______

Served by (print name) * * *
Title * * *
Manner of service * * *
* * *
Date 7/23/21
Signature of Server * * *
Address * * *
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol,
September 23. 2021.
Mr. Stephen K. Bannon
c/o Mr. Robert J. Costello
* * *
Dear Mr. Bannon: Pursuant to the authorities set forth in
House Resolution 503 and the rules of the House of
Representatives, the Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (``Select
Committee'') hereby transmits a subpoena compelling you to
produce the documents set forth in the accompanying schedule
by October 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition on October
14, 2021.
The Select Committee is investigating the facts,
circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attack and
issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power, in order
to identify and evaluate lessons learned and to recommend to
the House and its relevant committees corrective laws,
policies, procedures, rules, or regulations. This inquiry
includes examination of how various individuals and entities
coordinated their activities leading up to the events of
January 6, 2021,
The Select Committee has reason to believe that you have
information relevant to understanding important activities
that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January
6, 2021. For example, you have been identified as present at
the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, during an effort to
persuade Members of Congress to block the certification of
the election the next day, and in relation to other
activities on January 6.\1\ You are also described as
communicating with then-President Trump on December 30, 2020,
and potentially other occasions, urging him to plan for and
focus his efforts on January 6.\2\ Moreover, you are quoted
as stating, on January 5, 2021, that ``[a]ll hell is going to
break loose tomorrow.'' \3\ Accordingly, the Select Committee
seeks both documents and your deposition testimony regarding
these and multiple other matters that are within the scope of
the Select Committee's inquiry.
A copy of the rules governing Select Committee depositions,
and a copy of document production definitions and
instructions are attached. Please contact staff for the
Select Committee at 202-225-7800 to arrange for the
production of documents.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.
------

\1\ E.g., Bob Woodward & Robert Costa, Peril at 233 (2021).
\2\ Id. at 207.
Rub Kuznia, Curt Devine, & Drew Griffin, How Trump Allies
Stoked the Flames Ahead of Capitol Riot, CNN (Jan. 18, 2021),
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/politics/trump-bannon-stone-
giuliani-capitol-riot-invs-index.html.

schedule

In accordance with the attached Definitions and
Instructions, you, Stephen K. Bannon, are hereby required to
produce all documents and communications in your possession,
custody, and control--including any such documents or
communications stored or located on personal devices (e.g.,
personal computers, cellular phones, tablets, etc.), in
personal or campaign accounts, and/or on personal or campaign
applications (e.g., email accounts, contact lists, calendar
entries, etc.)--referring or relating to referring or
relating to the following items. If no date range is
specified below, the applicable dates are for the time period
April 1, 2020-present:
1. The January 6, 2021, rally on the mall and Capitol
grounds in Washington, D.C., in support of President Donald
J. Trump and opposition to certification of the results of
the 2020 presidential election, including any permitting,
planning, objectives, financing, and conduct, as well as any
communications to or from any person or group involved in
organizing or planning for the January 6, 2021, rally.
2. Then-President Trump's participation in the January 6,
2021, rally, including any communications with President
Trump or any paid or unpaid attorney, advisor, aide, or
assistant to President Trump relating to the nature, context,
or content of President Trump's intended or actual remarks to
those attending the January 6, 2021, rally.
3. Communications referring or relating to the nature,
planning, conduct, message, context, or participation in the
January 6, 2021, rally between or among any person who,
during the administration of President Donald J. Trump,
worked in the White House complex, including any employee or
detailee.
4. Documents or other materials referring or relating to
the financing or fundraising to assist any individual or
organization's travel to or accommodation in Washington,
D.C., to attend or participate in the January 6, 2021, rally.
5. ``The `War Room' podcast,'' insofar as at any time you
communicated through it statements referring or relating to
efforts to contest the election results, including planning
for the January 6, 2021, rally, including all statements
concerning its planning, objectives, purpose, organization,
message, or sponsorship.

[[Page H5754]]

6. The organization or group named ``March for Trump'' and
its activities relating to the January 6, 2021, rally,
including any communications you had with any officer or
member of ``March for Trump'' relating in any way to the
planning, objectives, organization, message, sponsorship, and
participation in the January 6, 2021, rally.
7. Your presence, purpose, statements, and activities at a
meeting at the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, or the
presence, purpose, statements, or activities of others in
attendance, related to that meeting.
8. Your communications with President Donald J. Trump
concerning events on January 6, 2021, including but not
limited to communications on December 30, 2020.
9. Your communications with President Donald J. Trump
between November 3 and January 20, 2021, concerning efforts
to contest the election results or delay or impede the
electoral count.
10. Anyone with whom you communicated by any means with
respect to any aspect of the planning, objectives, conduct,
or participation in the January 6, 2021, rally, including but
not limited to Boris Epshteyn, Kashyap Patel, and Ezra Cohen-
Watnick.
11. Anyone with whom you communicated by any means with
respect to efforts, plans, or proposals to contest the 2020
Presidential election results or delay, influence, or impede
the electoral count, including but not limited to
communications with Boris Epshteyn, Kashyap Patel, and Ezra
Cohen-Watnick.
12. All public relations, advertising, or other
communications efforts to persuade Americans that the
election was stolen or to attend the rally on January 6.
13. The role of the Vice President as the Presiding Officer
in the certification of the votes of the electoral college.
14. Any communication with any employees of President
Trump's 2020 presidential campaign, the Republican National
Committee, or any Trump Administration personnel including
appointees, employees, and interns, about any of the
foregoing topics.
15. Any communication regarding any of the foregoing topics
with Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and Alex
Jones.
16. Any communications with Representative Scott Perry and/
or other Members of Congress about any of the foregoing
topics.
17. Any communications with Rudolph Giuliani, John Eastman,
Michael Flynn, Jenna Ellis, or Sydney Powell about any of the
foregoing topics,

DOCUMENT PRODUCTION DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. In complying with this request, produce all responsive
documents, regardless of classification level, that are in
your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or
your past or present agents, employees, and representatives
acting on your behalf. Produce all documents that you have a
legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to
which you have access, as well as documents that you have
placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control of
any third party.
2. Requested documents, and all documents reasonably
related to the requested documents, should not be destroyed,
altered, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible
to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack
on the United States Capitol (``Committee').
3. In the event that any entity, organization, or
individual denoted in this request is or has been known by
any name other than that herein denoted, the request shall be
read also to include that alternative identification.
4. The Committee's preference is to receive documents in a
protected electronic form (i.e., password protected CD,
memory stick, thumb drive, or secure file transfer) in lieu
of paper productions. With specific reference to classified
material, you will coordinate with the Committee's Security
Officer to arrange for the appropriate transfer of such
information to the Committee. This includes, but is not
necessarily limited to: a) identifying the classification
level of the responsive document(s); and b) coordinating for
the appropriate transfer of any classified responsive
document(s).
5. Electronic document productions should be prepared
according to the following standards:
a. If the production is completed through a series of
multiple partial productions, field names and file order in
all load files should match.
b. All electronic documents produced to the Committee
should include the following fields of metadata specific to
each document, and no modifications should be made to the
original metadata:
BEGDOC, ENDDOC, TEXT, BEGATTACH, ENDATTACH, PAGECOUNT,
CUSTODIAN, RECORDTYPE, DATE, TIME, SENTDATE, SENTTIME,
BEGINDATE, BEGINTIME, ENDDATE, ENDTIME, AUTHOR, FROM, CC, TO,
BCC, SUBJECT, TITLE, FILENAME, FILEEXT, FILESIZE,
DATECREATED, TIMECREATED, DATELASTMOD, TIMELASTMOD, INTMSGID,
INTMSGHEADER, NATIVELINK, INTFILPATH, EXCEPTION, BEGATTACH.
6. Documents produced to the Committee should include an
index describing the contents of the production. To the
extent more than one CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb
drive, zip file, box, or folder is produced, each should
contain an index describing its contents.
7. Documents produced in response to this request shall be
produced together with copies of file labels, dividers, or
identifying markers with which they were associated when the
request was served.
8. When you produce documents, you should identify the
paragraph(s) or request(s) in the Committee's letter to which
the documents respond.
9. The fact that any other person or entity also possesses
non-identical or identical copies of the same documents shall
not be a basis to withhold any information.
10. The pendency of or potential for litigation shall not
be a basis to withhold any information.
11. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(d), the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and any statutory exemptions to FOIA
shall not be a basis for withholding any information.
12. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(9), the Privacy Act shall
not be a basis for withholding information.
13. If compliance with the request cannot be made in full
by the specified return date, compliance shall be made to the
extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full
compliance is not possible shall be provided along with any
partial production, as well as a date certain as to when full
production will be satisfied.
14. In the event that a document is withheld on any basis,
provide a log containing the following information concerning
any such document: (a) the reason it is being withheld,
including, if applicable, the privilege asserted; (b) the
type of document; (c) the general subject matter; (d) the
date, author, addressee, and any other recipient(s); (e) the
relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and
(f) the basis for the withholding.
15. If any document responsive to this request was, but no
longer is, in your possession, custody, or control, identify
the document (by date, author, subject, and recipients), and
explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to
be in your possession, custody, or control. Additionally,
identify where the responsive document can now be found
including name, location, and contact information of the
entity or entities now in possession of the responsive
document(s).
16. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this
request referring to a document is inaccurate, but the actual
date or other descriptive detail is known to you or is
otherwise apparent from the context of the request, produce
all documents that would be responsive as if the date or
other descriptive detail were correct.
17. This request is continuing in nature and applies to any
newly-discovered information. Any record, document,
compilation of data, or information not produced because it
has not been located or discovered by the return date shall
be produced immediately upon subsequent location or
discovery.
18. All documents shall be Bates-stamped sequentially and
produced sequentially.
19. Upon completion of the production, submit a written
certification, signed by you or your counsel, stating that:
(1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in
your possession, custody, or control that reasonably could
contain responsive documents; and (2) all documents located
during the search that are responsive have been produced to
the Committee.
Definitions
1. The term ``document'' means any written, recorded, or
graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless of
classification level, how recorded, or how stored/displayed
(e.g. on a social media platform) and whether original or
copy, including, but not limited to, the following:
memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals,
instructions, financial reports, data, working papers,
records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams,
receipts, appraisals, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers,
prospectuses, communications, electronic mail (email),
contracts, cables, notations of any type of conversation,
telephone call, meeting or other inter-office or intra-office
communication, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts,
computer or mobile device screenshots/screen captures,
teletypes, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns,
summaries, minutes, bills, accounts, estimates, projections,
comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases,
circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers,
studies and investigations, questionnaires and surveys, and
work sheets (and all drafts, preliminary versions,
alterations, modifications, revisions, changes, and
amendments of any of the foregoing, as well as any
attachments or appendices thereto), and graphic or oral
records or representations of any kind (including without
limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche,
microfilm, videotape, recordings and motion pictures), and
electronic, mechanical, and electric records or
representations of any kind (including, without limitation,
tapes, cassettes, disks, and recordings) and other written,
printed, typed, or other graphic or recorded matter of any
kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and whether
preserved in writing, film, tape, disk, videotape, or
otherwise. A document bearing any notation not a part of the
original text is to be considered a separate document. A
draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the
meaning of this term.
2. The term ``communication'' means each manner or means of
disclosure or exchange of information, regardless of means
utilized, whether oral, electronic, by document or otherwise,
and whether in a meeting, by telephone, facsimile, mail,
releases, electronic

[[Page H5755]]

message including email (desktop or mobile device), text
message, instant message, MMS or SMS message, message
application, through a social media or online platform, or
otherwise.
3. The terms ``and'' and ``or'' shall be construed broadly
and either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the
scope of this request any information that might otherwise be
construed to be outside its scope. The singular includes
plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the
feminine and neutral genders.
4. The term ``including'' shall be construed broadly to
mean ``including, but not limited to.''
5. The term ``Company'' means the named legal entity as
well as any units, firms, partnerships, associations,
corporations, limited liability companies, trusts,
subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches,
joint ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal,
business or government entities over which the named legal
entity exercises control or in which the named entity has any
ownership whatsoever.
6. The term ``identify,'' when used in a question about
individuals, means to provide the following information: (a)
the individual's complete name and title; (b) the
individual's business or personal address and phone number;
and (c) any and all known aliases.
7. The term ``related to'' or ``referring or relating to,''
with respect to any given subject, means anything that
constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies,
states, refers to, deals with, or is pertinent to that
subject in any manner whatsoever.
8. The term ``employee'' means any past or present agent,
borrowed employee, casual employee, consultant, contractor,
de facto employee, detailee, assignee, fellow, independent
contractor, intern, joint adventurer, loaned employee,
officer, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional
employee, special government employee, subcontractor, or any
other type of service provider.
9. The term ``individual'' means all natural persons and
all persons or entities acting on their behalf.

[From the Congressional Record--House, Page H41, Jan. 4, 2021]

* * * health, safety, and well-being of others present in the
Chamber and surrounding areas. Members and staff will not be
permitted to enter the Hall of the House without wearing a
mask. Masks will be available at the entry points for any
Member who forgets to bring one. The Chair views the failure
to wear a mask as a serious breach of decorum. The Sergeant-
at-Arms is directed to enforce this policy. Based upon the
health and safety guidance from the attending physician and
the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Chair would further advise that all
Members should leave the Chamber promptly after casting their
votes. Furthermore, Members should avoid congregating in the
rooms leading to the Chamber, including the Speaker's lobby.
The Chair will continue the practice of providing small
groups of Members with a minimum of 5 minutes within which to
cast their votes. Members are encouraged to vote with their
previously assigned group. After voting, Members must clear
the Chamber to allow the next group a safe and sufficient
opportunity to vote. It is essential for the health and
safety of Members, staff, and the U.S. Capitol Police to
consistently practice social distancing and to ensure that a
safe capacity be maintained in the Chamber at all times. To
that end, the Chair appreciates the cooperation of Members
and staff in preserving order and decorum in the Chamber and
in displaying respect and safety for one another by wearing a
mask and practicing social distancing. All announced
policies, including those addressing decorum in debate and
the conduct of votes by electronic device, shall be carried
out in harmony with this policy during the pendency of a
covered period.
______

117TH CONGRESS REGULATIONS FOR USE OF DEPOSITION AUTHORITY

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 4, 2021.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Madam Speaker: Pursuant to section 3(b) of House Resolution
8, 117th Congress, I hereby submit the following regulations
regarding the conduct of depositions by committee and select
committee counsel for printing in the Congressional Record.
Sincerely,
James P. McGovern,
Chairman, Committee on Rules.

Regulations for the Use of Deposition Authority

1. Notices for the taking of depositions shall specify the
date, time, and place of examination. Depositions shall be
taken under oath administered by a member or a person
otherwise authorized to administer oaths. Depositions may
continue from day to day.
2. Consultation with the ranking minority member shall
include three days' notice before any deposition is taken.
All members of the committee shall also receive three days
written notice that a deposition will be taken, except in
exigent circumstances. For purposes of these procedures, a
day shall not include Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays
except when the House is in session on such a day.
3. Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by
personal, nongovernmental counsel to advise them of their
rights. Only members, committee staff designated by the chair
or ranking minority member, an official reporter, the
witness, and the witness's counsel are permitted to attend.
Observers or counsel for other persons, including counsel for
government agencies, may not attend.
4. The chair of the committee noticing the deposition may
designate that deposition as part of a joint investigation
between committees, and in that case, provide notice to the
members of the committees. If such a designation is made, the
chair and ranking minority member of the additional
committee(s) may designate committee staff to attend pursuant
to regulation 3. Members and designated staff of the
committees may attend and ask questions as set forth below.
5. A deposition shall be conducted by any member or
committee counsel designated by the chair or ranking minority
member of the Committee that noticed the deposition. When
depositions are conducted by committee counsel, there shall
be no more than two committee counsel permitted to question a
witness per round. One of the committee counsel shall be
designated by the chair and the other by the ranking minority
member per round.
6. Deposition questions shall be propounded in rounds. The
length of each round shall not exceed 60 minutes per side,
and shall provide equal time to the majority and the
minority. In each round, the member(s) or committee counsel
designated by the chair shall ask questions first, and the
member(s) or committee counsel designated by the ranking
minority member shall ask questions second.
7. Objections must be stated concisely and in a non-
argumentative and non-suggestive manner. A witness's counsel
may not instruct a witness to refuse to answer a question,
except to preserve a privilege. In the event of professional,
ethical, or other misconduct by the witness's counsel during
the deposition, the Committee may take any appropriate
disciplinary action. The witness may refuse to answer a
question only to preserve a privilege. When the witness has
refused to answer a question to preserve a privilege, members
or staff may (i) proceed with the deposition, or (ii) either
at that time or at a subsequent time, seek a ruling from the
Chair either by telephone or otherwise. If the Chair
overrules any such objection and thereby orders a witness to
answer any question to which an objection was lodged, the
witness shall be ordered to answer. If a member of the
committee chooses to appeal the ruling of the chair, such
appeal must be made within three days, in writing, and shall
be preserved for committee consideration. The Committee's
ruling on appeal shall be filed with the clerk of the
Committee and shall be provided to the members and witness no
less than three days before the reconvened deposition. A
deponent who refuses to answer a question after being
directed to answer by the chair may be subject to sanction,
except that no sanctions may be imposed if the ruling of the
chair is reversed by the committee on appeal.
8. The Committee chair shall ensure that the testimony is
either transcribed or electronically recorded or both. If a
witness's testimony is transcribed, the witness or the
witness's counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to review
a copy. No later than five days after the witness has been
notified of the opportunity to review the transcript, the
witness may submit suggested changes to the chair. Committee
staff may make any typographical and technical changes.
Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or
amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the
witness must be accompanied by a letter signed by the witness
requesting the changes and a statement of the witness's
reasons for each proposed change. Any substantive changes,
modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall be
included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon
the witness signing the transcript.
9. The individual administering the oath, if other than a
member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was
duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript
is a true record of the testimony, and the transcript shall
be filed, together with any electronic recording, with the
clerk of the committee in Washington, DC. Depositions shall
be considered to have been taken in Washington, DC, as well
as the location actually taken once filed there with the
clerk of the committee for the committee's use. The chair and
the ranking minority member shall be provided with a copy of
the transcripts of the deposition at the same time.
10. The chair and ranking minority member shall consult
regarding the release of deposition testimony, transcripts,
or recordings, and portions thereof. If either objects in
writing to a proposed release of a deposition testimony,
transcript, or recording, or a portion thereof, the matter
shall be promptly referred to the committee for resolution.
11. A witness shall not be required to testify unless the
witness has been provided with a copy of section 3(b) of H.
Res. 8, 117th Congress, and these regulations.

[[Page H5756]]

______

REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
8, 117TH CONGRESS

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 4, 2021.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Madam Speaker: Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, 117th Congress, I hereby submit the following regulations
regarding remote committee proceedings for printing in the
Congressional Record.
Sincerely,

James P. McGovern,

Chairman,
Committee on Rules.

Remote Committee Proceedings Regulations Pursuant to House Resolution 8

a. presence and voting

l. Members participating remotely in a committee proceeding
must be visible on the software platform's video function to
be considered in attendance and to participate unless
connectivity issues or other technical problems render the
member unable to fully participate on camera (except as
provided in regulations A.2 and A.3).
2. The exception in regulation A.1 for connectivity issues
or other technical problems does not apply if a point of
order has been made that a quorum is not present. Members
participating remotely must be visible on the software
platform's video function in order to be counted for the
purpose of establishing a quorum.
3. The exception in regulation A.1 for connectivity issues
or other technical problems does not apply during a vote.
Members participating remotely must be visible on the
software platform's video function in order to vote.
4. Members participating remotely off-camera due to
connectivity issues or other technical problems pursuant to
regulation A.1 must inform committee majority and minority
staff either directly or through staff.
5. The chair shall make a good faith effort to provide
every member experiencing connectivity issues an opportunity
to participate fully in the proceedings, subject to
regulations A.2 and A.3.

Mr. TONOLLI. I will mark as exhibit 2 and enter into the
record an email exchange between * * * * and Robert Costello,
Mr. Bannon's attorney.

From: Costello, Robert J. * * *
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 1:24 PM
To: * * *
Subject: Re: subpoena to Mr. Bannon
In response to your email of yesterday, this will advise
you that I have been authorized by Steve Bannon to accept
service of the subpoena from the House Select Committee on
his behalf.
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Costello.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 23, 2021, at 6:38 PM, * * * wrote:

CAUTION: EXTERNAL MAIL. DO NOT CLICK ON LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS YOU
DO NOT TRUST

Dear Mr. Costello,
I am following up on our conversation today in which you
confirmed that you represent Stephen Bannon. I understand
that you are checking with Mr. Bannon regarding whether he
will authorize you to accept service of a subpoena on his
behalf. The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol is today issuing the
attached subpoena to Mr. Bannon for his testimony and the
production of documents to the Committee. In the event that
you will accept service, I am attaching to this email the
subpoena, along with a letter from Chairman Bennie Thompson,
a document schedule with accompanying production
instructions, and a copy of the deposition rules.
Please confirm whether you will accept service of this
subpoena on Mr. Bannon's behalf.
Thank you,
* * *

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Beware of Cyber Fraud. You should never
wire money to any bank account that our office provides to
you via email without first speaking with our office.
Further, do not accept emailed wiring instructions from
anyone else without voice verification from a known employee
of our office. Even if an email looks like it has come from
this office or someone involved in your transaction. Please
call us first at a number you know to be correct for this
office to verify the information before wiring any money. Be
particularly wary of any request to change wiring
instructions you already received.

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY

The information contained in this electronic message and
any attachments to this message are intended for the
exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify us immediately by email
reply to sender or by telephone to Davidoff Hutcher & Citron
LLP at (800) 793-2843, ext. 3284, and destroy all copies of
this message and any attachments.

IRS DISCLOSURE NOTICE

In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230,
we inform you that any discussion of a federal tax issue
contained in this communication (including any attachments)
is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used,
by any recipient for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the recipient under United States
federal tax laws, or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any tax-related matters
addressed herein.
____

Mr. TONOLLI. On September 23, 2021, * * * * emailed Mr.
Costello the subpoena to Mr. Bannon and the accompanying
materials included in exhibit 1 and asked whether Mr.
Costello was authorized to accept service of the subpoena on
Mr. Bannon's behalf.
Mr. Costello replied to * * * * on September 24, 2021, that
he was authorized to accept service of the subpoena on Mr.
Bannon's behalf.
I will mark as exhibit 3 and enter into the record a letter
Mr. Costello sent to * * * * on October 7, 2021.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

Attorneys at Law, * * *

Washington, DC, October 7, 2021.
* * *
Re: The Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon dated September 23,
2021.

Dear * * *
I write today on behalf of Stephen K. Bannon with respect
to the above referenced subpoena, which I accepted on behalf
of Mr. Bannon. On the afternoon of October 6, 2021, I
received a letter from Justin Clark, as counsel for then
President of the United States Donald J. Trump. That letter
references the subpoena that your Committee served upon Mr.
Bannon, and notes that the subpoena:

``seeks records and testimony purportedly related to the
events of January 6th, 2021, including but not limited to
information which is potentially protected from disclosure by
executive and other privileges, including among others the
presidential communications, deliberative process, and
attorney-client privileges. President Trump is prepared to
defend these fundamental privileges in court.
Therefore, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
President Trump instructs Mr. Bannon to: (a) where
appropriate, invoke any immunities and privileges he may have
from compelled testimony in response to the Subpoena; (b) not
produce any documents concerning privileged material in
response to the Subpoena; and (c) not provide any testimony
concerning privileged material in response to the Subpoena.''

It is therefore clear to us that since the executive
privileges belong to President Trump, and he has, through his
counsel, announced his intention to assert those executive
privileges enumerated above, we must accept his direction and
honor his invocation of executive privilege. As such, until
these issues are resolved, we are unable to respond to your
request for documents and testimony.
We will comply with the directions of the courts, when and
if they rule on these claims of both executive and attorney
client privileges. Since these privileges belong to President
Trump and not to Mr. Bannon, until these issues are resolved,
Mr Bannon is legally unable to comply with your subpoena
requests for documents and testimony.
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Costello.
____

Mr. TONOLLI. In sum and substance, the letter states that
Mr. Bannon is, ``legally unable to comply with your subpoena
requests for documents and testimony,'' because President
Trump's attorney informed Mr. Costello by letter, dated
October 6, 2021, that President Trump is invoking executive
privilege, ``to the fullest extent permitted by law,'' and
instructing Mr. Bannon not to provide documents or testimony,
``concerning privileged material,'' in response to the Select
Committee's subpoena.
I will mark as exhibit 4 and enter into the record a letter
that Chairman Thompson sent to Mr. Costello in response on
October 8, 2021.

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United Staes Capitol,
October 8, 2021.
Mr. Robert J. Costello,
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP
* * *
Dear Mr. Costello, I write in response to your October 7,
2021 letter which states that your client, Stephen Bannon, is
``legally unable to comply'' with the September 23, 2021
subpoena (the ``Subpoena'') issued by the Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol (the ``Select Committee''). Your letter relies on an
apparent instruction from former President Donald Trump that
appears limited to requesting that Mr. Bannon not disclose
privileged information. Despite this limited instruction,
your letter takes the inappropriate position that Mr. Bannon
will not comply with any request for information or testimony
sought by the Select Committee. Moreover, Mr. Trump's stated
``intention to assert those executive privileges'' that may
or may not belong to him, does not provide a legal basis for
Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with the Subpoena.
You accepted service of the Subpoena for documents and
testimony on Mr. Bannon's behalf on September 24, 2021. The
Subpoena required that, by October 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., Mr.
Bannon produce certain documents and

[[Page H5757]]

other records referring or relating to the matters described
in the Subpoena's schedule. All the requested documents
relate directly to the inquiry being conducted by the Select
Committee, serve a legitimate legislative purpose, and are
within the scope of the authority expressly delegated to the
Select Committee pursuant to House Resolution 503. In the
letter accompanying the Subpoena, the Select Committee set
forth the basis for its determination that the documents and
records sought by the Subpoena and Mr. Bannon's deposition
testimony are of critical importance to the issues being
investigated by the Select Committee.
Your letter indicates that the sole basis for defiance of
the Subpoena is Mr. Trump's ``direction'' to your client and
his decision to ``honor [Mr. Trump's] invocation of executive
privilege.'' That position has no basis in law, and your
letter does not cite any statute, case law, or other legal
precedent for support.
First, virtually all the documents and testimony sought by
the Subpoena concern Mr. Bannon's actions as a private
citizen and involve a broad range of subjects that are not
covered by executive privilege. You have provided no basis
for Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with those portions of the
Subpoena not covered by any privilege. Furthermore, blanket
assertions of the deliberative process and attorney-client
privileges, such as those apparently requested by Mr. Trump,
have been rejected by courts as ``unsustainable'' even when--
unlike the situation with Mr. Bannon--the subpoena recipient
is an Executive Branch agency. See Comm. on Oversight and
Gov't Reform v. Holder, 2014 WL 2662665, at *2 (D.D.C. 2014)
(rejecting DOJ's assertion of deliberative process privilege
on all documents after a particular date and noting that the
``Attorney General has not cited any authority that would
justify this sort of blanket approach'').

Second, the Select Committee has not received any
assertion, formal or otherwise, of any privilege from the Mr.
Trump. Even assuming that, as a former President, Mr. Trump
is permitted to formally invoke executive privilege, he has
not done so. At most, Mr. Trump has ``announced his intention
to assert those executive privileges.'' The Select Committee
is not aware of any legal authority, and your letter cites
none, holding that the mere intention to assert a privilege
absolves a subpoena recipient of his duty to comply.

Third, your letter indicates that Mr. Trump has requested
that your client ``to the fullest extent permitted by law . .
. not provide any testimony concerning privileged material in
response to the Subpoena.'' Even if your client had been a
senior aide to the President during the time period covered
by the contemplated testimony, which he was most assuredly
not, he is not permitted by law to the type of immunity you
suggest that Mr. Trump has requested he assert. To the
contrary, every court that has considered the absolute
immunity Mr. Trump alludes to has rejected it. See, e.g.,
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Comm. on the
Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 106 (D.D.C. 2008)
(rejecting former White House counsel's assertion of absolute
immunity from compelled congressional process). Miers made
clear that even the most senior Presidential advisors may not
resist a congressional subpoena ``based solely on their
proximity to the President. `` Id. at 101 (citing Harlow, 457
U.S. at 810).' If there is no absolute immunity for senior
Presidential advisors, then there certainly can be no such
immunity for private citizens, such as Mr. Bannon, who
occasionally communicate with the President on nonofficial,
non-governmental, or campaign-related matters.
Regardless of any purported privilege assertion by Mr.
Trump, Mr. Bannon has an ongoing obligation to produce
documents to the Select Committee. Accordingly, please
produce all responsive documents and records identified in
the Subpoena. Should Mr. Bannon seek to withhold specific
responsive documents, consistent with the Subpoena
instructions, he must provide the Select Committee with a
privilege log that ``identifies and describes the material in
a manner `sufficient to enable resolution of any privilege
claims.''' See Comm. on Oversight, 2014 WL 12662665 at *2
(quoting Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 107). Such a privilege log
should, at a minimum, provide the author(s) and recipient(s),
indicate the general subject matter of each document being
withheld, and the specific basis for withholding it.
Finally, the Select Committee expects Mr. Bannon's
appearance at the time and place designated in the Subpoena
for a deposition and respond fully to questions by the Select
Committee. If there are specific questions at that deposition
that you believe raise privilege issues, Mr. Bannon should
state them at that time for the deposition record for the
Select Committee's consideration and possible judicial
review.
Please be advised that the Select Committee will view Mr.
Bannon's failure to respond to the Subpoena as willful non-
compliance with the Subpoena. His willful non-compliance with
the Subpoena would force the Select Committee to consider
invoking the contempt of Congress procedures in 2 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 192, 194--which could result in a referral from the
House to the Department of Justice for criminal charges--as
well as the possibility of having a civil action to enforce
the Subpoena brought against Mr. Bannon in his personal
capacity.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.
------
\1\ It is also worth noting that the court in Miers rejected
the former White House Counsel's claim of absolute immunity
from congressional testimony even though the sitting
President had formally invoked executive privilege. Id. at
62.
____

Mr. TONOLLI. And I'll take a brief pause to recognize that
Mr. Schiff has joined us.
Turning back to the letter that Chairman Thompson sent on
October 8th, in sum and substance, the response states that
Mr. Costello's, ``letter relies on an apparent instruction
from former President Donald Trump that appears limited to
requesting that Mr. Bannon not disclose privileged
information. Despite this limited instruction, your letter
takes the inappropriate position that Mr. Bannon will not
comply with any request for information or testimony sought
by the Select Committee. Moreover, Mr. Trump's stated
`intention to assert those executive privileges' that may or
may not belong to him does not provide a legal basis for Mr.
Bannon's refusal to comply with the subpoena.''
The letter states the Select Committee's expectation that
Mr. Bannon would appear today for the deposition and respond
fully to the Select Committee's questions and to state for
the record any objections to particular questions for the
Select Committee's consideration and possible judicial
review.
The letter concludes by advising that the Select Committee
will view Mr. Bannon's failure to respond to the subpoena as,
``willful noncompliance,'' that would force the Select
Committee to consider invoking the contempt of Congress
procedures entitled to United States Code, sections 192 and
194, which could result in a referral from the House to the
Department of Justice for criminal charges as well as the
possibility of a civil action against Mr. Bannon personally
to enforce the subpoena.
I will mark as a final exhibit, exhibit 5, and enter into
the record a reply letter that Mr. Costello sent to Chairman
Thompson, the evening of October 13, 2021.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

Attorneys at Law, * * *

Washington, DC, October 13, 2021.
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, House Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack
* * *
Re: The Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon dated September 23,
2021

Dear Congressman Thompson: I write on behalf of Stephen K.
Bannon to respond to some of the inaccurate statements made
in your letter to me dated October 8, 2021, which purports to
address the positions taken by Mr. Bannon with respect to the
above-referenced subpoena.
As an initial matter, your use of the word ``defiance'' is
inappropriate. Mr. Bannon's position is not in defiance of
your Committee's subpoena; rather, Mr. Bannon noted that
President Trump's counsel stated that they were invoking
executive and other privileges and therefore directed us not
to produce documents or give testimony that might reveal
information President Trump's counsel seeks to legally
protect. Mr. Bannon has testified on three prior occasions,
before the Mueller Investigation, the House Intelligence
Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. In each of
those instances, when President Trump waived his invocation
of the executive privileges, Mr. Bannon testified.
As recently as today, counsel for President Trump, Justin
Clark Esq., informed us that President Trump is exercising
his executive privilege; therefore, he has directed Mr.
Bannon not to produce documents or testify until the issue of
executive privilege is resolved. Your Committee will have the
right to challenge that exercise or its scope. That is an
issue between the Committee and President Trump's counsel and
Mr. Bannon is not required to respond at this time. See Comm.
on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 F. Supp. 3d 148, FN 34
(D.D.C. 2019) (``The President can certainly identify
sensitive information that he deems subject to executive
privilege, and his doing so gives rise to a legal duty on the
part of the aide to invoke the privilege on the President's
behalf when, in the course of his testimony, he is asked a
question that would require disclosure of that
information.'')
Until such time as you reach an agreement with President
Trump or receive a court ruling as to the extent, scope and
application of the executive privilege, in order to preserve
the claim of executive and other privileges, Mr. Bannon will
not be producing documents or testifying. As noted
previously, Mr. Bannon will revisit his position if President
Trump's position changes or if a court rules on this matter.
Mr. Bannon's communications with President Trump on the
matters at issue in the Subpoena are well within the scope of
both the presidential communications and deliberative process
executive privileges. See In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d
729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (holding that the presidential
communications privilege covers communications made or
received by presidential advisors in the course of preparing
advice for the President even if those communications are not
made directly to the President); Coastal States Gas Corp. V.
U.S. Dep't of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 868 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
(finding that deliberative process privilege applies to
``recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions,
and other subjective documents

[[Page H5758]]

which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than
the policy of the agency.'')
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Costello.
____

Mr. TONOLLI. In sum and substance, the letter reiterates
that Mr. Bannon is abiding by President Trump's invocation of
executive privilege and direction to Mr. Bannon not to
produce documents or testify.
In support of Mr. Bannon's position, the letter cites
several judicial opinions on executive privilege, including a
2019 decision of the United States District Court in
Washington in the case of Committee on the Judiciary v.
McGahn.
In particular, the letter cites the following sentence from
the court's opinion: ``The President can certainly identify
sensitive information that he deems subject to executive
privilege, and his doing so gives rise to a legal duty on the
part of the aide to invoke the privilege on the President's
behalf when, in the course of his testimony, he is asked a
question that would require disclosure of that information.''
However, Mr. Bannon is not here today to assert executive
privilege on a question-by-question basis. He chose instead
not to appear at all, just as he chose not to produce any
documents at all or even a log of responsive documents that
he is withholding based on the claim of executive privilege.
With that, I will note for the record that it is 10:06
a.m., and Mr. Bannon still has not appeared or communicated
to the Select Committee that he will appear today as required
by the subpoena.
Accordingly, the record is now closed as of 10:06 a.m.
[Whereupon, at 10:06 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, by direction of the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 730) recommending
that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of
Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 727, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 730

Resolved, That Stephen K. Bannon shall be found to be in
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a
congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol, detailing the refusal of
Stephen K. Bannon to produce documents or appear for a
deposition before the Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as directed
by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District
of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bannon be proceeded against
in the manner and form provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), and an opponent,
or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.

General Leave

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, since Speaker Pelosi asked me to chair the January 6th
Select Committee, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the
importance of what we are doing, the weight of it, the urgency. We need
to give the American people answers about what happened. There needs to
be swift accountability. But there are longer-term considerations, too.
Madam Speaker, I am a grandfather, and when I talk to my grandkids
about that horrific attack on our democracy on January 6, my mind jumps
ahead to the future in store for them--questions about whether American
democracy, as we know it now, will remain strong, whether it will
withstand future tests.
That has to be the legacy of this committee's work. To be sure, we
are going to answer questions about what happened on that day. But we
also need to draw a roadmap for making sure our democracy remains
strong tomorrow.
We will look backward at what happened and try to explain how and why
the insurrection came about. But we will also look forward and generate
recommendations for legislative policy and process changes that will
help ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.
When we get to the end of this process and look back, we are going to
ask ourselves: Did we do everything in our power to uncover every fact?
Did we use the tools at our disposal to get a full accounting, or did
we let someone stand in our way without facing consequences? Did we
learn what we needed to know for Congress to forge legislation to help
ensure we never experience another January 6 again?
That is why we are taking up this resolution today, citing Steve
Bannon with criminal contempt and referring him for prosecution by the
Justice Department.
We didn't choose to be here. This isn't about punishing Steve Bannon.
The select committee would prefer and, frankly, expect all witnesses to
fully cooperate. But Steve Bannon has led us down this path by refusing
to cooperate in any way with our investigation.
We believe Mr. Bannon has information valuable to our probe. He was
deeply involved in the so-called stop the steal campaign. He was
reportedly in a war room meeting the day before the riot and had been
pressuring the former President to try to stop the counting of the
electoral college ballots.
He himself warned that ``all hell'' would break loose on January 6.
We believe he can help inform our inquiry as to how the riot came
together and what it was intended to achieve. He is clearly an
important witness.
We subpoenaed him. And unlike other witnesses who have engaged and
worked with our team to find a way to cooperate, Mr. Bannon told us he
wouldn't comply because the former President told him not to. He hid
behind vague and baseless claims of privilege. That is just not
acceptable.
The select committee told Mr. Bannon several times that he would face
the consequences if he didn't change course. Well, he didn't change
course, and his actions have brought us to this point.
Madam Speaker, we need to make it clear that no person is above the
law. We need to take a stand for the integrity of the select
committee's investigation and for the integrity of this body.
What sort of precedent would it set for the House of Representatives
if we allow a witness to ignore us flat out without facing any kind of
consequences? What message would it send to other witnesses in our
investigation?
I am not willing to find out. I am not willing to get to the end of
the select committee's work and look back wishing we had done more to
uncover all the facts, not when we know what is on the line, when we
know that our democracy isn't yet out of danger, when we know that the
forces that tried to overturn the election persist in their assault on
the rule of law.
Our investigation is going forward. We are hearing from witnesses,
reviewing documents, and analyzing data. Mr. Bannon stands alone in his
defiance, and we will not stand for it. We will not allow anyone to
derail our work because our work is too important: helping ensure that
the future of American democracy is strong and secure.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, a year ago today, the election was still a couple of
weeks off. We knew it would be a tight race. Most of us did not
anticipate that President Trump, or any President, frankly, would ever
simply reject the outcome of the vote.

[[Page H5759]]

President Trump had the right to challenge the outcome in our State
and Federal courts, which have an appropriate and constitutional role
in resolving election claims. But what he did thereafter has no
precedent in our history. He rejected the courts' rulings in dozens of
cases, including the rulings of judges President Trump himself
appointed.
He rejected what his own Department of Justice officials told him
over and over again, that they found no evidence of widespread fraud
sufficient to overcome the election. He rejected the conclusions of
both the Department of Justice and the intelligence community that the
Dominion Voting machines had not secretly changed the election outcome.

President Trump had no factual or constitutional basis for his
claims. And the lawyers he found who would carry his false claims
forward have paid the consequences. Rudy Giuliani's license to practice
law has been suspended, and Sidney Powell has been sanctioned by a
Federal judge.
But Donald Trump persisted, attempting through every manner he could
imagine to try to overturn the outcome of the election. We all saw what
happened. The people who attacked this building have told us on video,
on social media, and now before the Federal courts exactly what
motivated them. They believed what Donald Trump told them, that the
election was stolen and that they needed to take action.
Today, Madam Speaker, we are here to address one witness, Mr. Steve
Bannon. I urge all Americans to watch what Mr. Bannon said on his
podcast on January 5 and 6. It is shocking and indefensible. He said,
``All hell is going to break loose.'' He said, ``We are coming in right
over the target. This is the point of attack we have always wanted.''
Madam Speaker, there are people in this Chamber right now who were
evacuated with me and with the rest of us on that day during that
attack; people who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment,
the assault on the Constitution, the assault on our Congress; people
who you will hear argue that there is simply no legislative purpose for
this committee, for this investigation, or for this subpoena.
In fact, there is no doubt that Mr. Bannon knows far more than what
he said on the video. There is no doubt that all hell did break loose.
Just ask the scores of brave police officers who were injured that day
protecting all of us. The American people deserve to hear his
testimony.
Let me give you just four examples of the legislative purpose of this
investigation.
First, the plot we are investigating, involving Mr. Eastman, Mr.
Giuliani, Mr. Bannon, President Trump, and many others, their plot
attempted to halt or delay our count of electoral votes and reverse the
outcome of the 2020 election. The 1887 Electoral Count Act is directly
at issue, and our investigation will lead to recommendations to amend
or reform that act.

{time} 1445

Second, while the attack was underway, President Trump knew it was
happening; indeed, he may have been watching it all unfold on
television, and yet he took no immediate action to stop it. This
appears to be a supreme dereliction of duty by President Trump, and we
are evaluating whether our criminal laws should be enhanced to supply
additional and more severe consequences for this type of behavior.
Third, we know from our investigation to date that President Trump
was pressuring the Department of Justice in late December 2020 to
support his false claims that the election was stolen. Several brave
and honorable Trump appointees at the department flatly refused to go
along with this fraud and threatened to resign. We are evaluating what,
if any, additional laws may be required to prevent a future President
from succeeding in such an effort.
Fourth, we know that President Trump made efforts to persuade State
election officials to ``find votes'' to change the election outcome in
his favor. We are evaluating whether the criminal laws of the United
States should be enhanced to make the penalty for this type of behavior
even more severe, and, if so, in what manner.
Mr. Bannon's own public statements made clear he knew what was going
to happen before it did, and thus he must have been aware of and may
well have been involved in the planning of everything that played out
on that day.
The American people deserve to know what he knew and what he did.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, 3 months ago, for the first time in the history of
Congress, Speaker Pelosi vetoed Jim Jordan and me from serving on the
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United
States Capitol.
Not all firsts are worth celebrating. It was a shameful and divisive
decision with real consequences. Today, because of that decision, there
is no committee conducting a legitimate investigation into January 6.
Congress is prohibited from conducting criminal investigations, period.
But that is exactly what the select committee is doing, conducting an
illicit, criminal investigation into American citizens. Steve Bannon
was a private citizen before, after, and during January 6.
So why is the select committee interested in Steve Bannon?
It is simple. He is a Democratic Party bogeyman. The select committee
despises Steve Bannon's politics, so they are abusing their power to
put him in jail.
The committee explained it is seeking documents from Mr. Bannon
because he helped ``construct and participated in'' the permitted and
legal Stop the Steal rally.
To date, the select committee has subpoenaed 11 other private
citizens for organizing the Stop the Steal rally.
Here, in the land of the free, 12 American citizens are under
congressional investigation for the sole crime of planning a legal
political protest. Never in the history of Congress has a committee or
a political party stooped so low.
Congress has no authority to conduct criminal investigations.
Congress can only issue subpoenas to serve a legislative purpose.
The question that the committee must answer is: Why are they seeking
information about a permitted political rally?
What legislative purpose does that serve?
Is the committee considering laws to limit Americans' right to
political protest?
It is clear that the select committee doesn't give a lick about
Congress' subpoena authority.
Does the committee share the same disdain for the First Amendment?
I wouldn't put it past them. As we all know, the Department of
Justice has a highly active criminal investigation into the January 6
attack. They have made something like 600 arrests--as I said, very
active, even hyperactive, compared to the Biden Department of Justice's
typical reaction to political violence. But the Department of Justice's
investigation isn't comprehensive.
There are still questions that only Congress can answer. Congress
still has a role to play, but the select committee has completely
abandoned that role.
Why else does the select committee want to hear from Mr. Bannon?
Because on January 5, Mr. Bannon warned that ``all hell was going to
break loose tomorrow.''
So according to the select committee, no person could have predicted
that violence might occur that day. According to the committee, that
because Mr. Bannon warned of violence on the 5th is proof that Mr.
Bannon had ``foreknowledge'' of the attack on the 6th.
Never mind that the FBI found that the attack wasn't coordinated.
Never mind that the Capitol Police received actionable intelligence
about potential violence occurring weeks before the 6th. Never mind
that every Member of Congress, every single D.C. resident, and every
American with internet access knew that violence was a possibility on
January 6.
The question the committee should be asking is this: How did the
United States Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police, and the FBI
all have no

[[Page H5760]]

clue that ``all hell was going to break loose?''
Steve Bannon, a private citizen, knew.
So why didn't the Capitol Police have enough riot shields?
Why did it take multiple hours to deploy the National Guard?
These are worthwhile questions, and Congress has a duty to answer
them because January 6 was an enormous intelligence failure. There was
a breakdown in security, a breakdown that was repeated on Good Friday
when Officer Billy Evans was brutally murdered.
The issues that plagued the Capitol Police on January 6 have not been
fixed. In fact, according to a Capitol Police whistleblower, the
officers most responsible for the intelligence failure on the 6th were
promoted by Speaker Pelosi's team.

To be clear, the select committee is engaged in an unconstitutional,
political investigation. It is a sham investigation conducted by a sham
committee that refuses to answer real questions about what happened on
January 6.
The Capitol was attacked, and instead of figuring out what went
wrong, the committee launched its own attack on Congress' norms.
The Select Committee's politicization of January 6 cuts both ways.
The committee's inaction has made the Capitol less secure, and the
committee's actions have further separated Congress from its
constitutional role.
The American people and the United States Capitol Police deserve a
real investigation into the 6th, and the select committee has abandoned
them.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to make the moral vote. Do
the right thing. I urge Members to vote for the rule of law, for the
institution of Congress, and against the select committee's dangerous
abuse of Congress' oversight authority.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I heard the gentleman
opposing this resolution. We are not actually seeking information from
Mr. Bannon because of his opinions. We issued the subpoena because we
believe he has knowledge of relevant facts that we need to discover. We
are not violating anything and, certainly, not Mr. Bannon's First
Amendment rights. The only violation we can talk about is the violation
of this building on January 6, and Mr. Bannon's claim that the election
was stolen helped foment that attack. Investigating that is also part
of our charter.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to correct the Record. The gentleman from
Indiana asserted that the FBI has found there was no coordination. That
is just simply not true.
The gentleman also said that he is not on the committee. He noted
that the Speaker had determined that he wouldn't be on the committee.
Madam Speaker, I have a number of letters the gentleman from Indiana
has been sending to Federal agencies, and I include in the Record one
dated September 16, 2021, for example, signing his name as the ranking
member of the committee he has just informed the House he is not on and
that, in fact, he is not on.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2021.
Hon. Deb Haaland,
Secretary, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Haaland: You are receiving this letter
because the House of Representatives Select Committee to
Investigate the events of January 6th may have sent you a
request for information. The House Republican Leader Kevin
McCarthy appointed me to serve as the Ranking Member of the
Select Committee. Yet, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to
allow me to fulfill my duties as Ranking Member.
Pursuant to the rules of the House of Representatives, the
minority party in Congress retains rights to the same
information that is provided to the majority party. For those
reasons, I ask that you provide me any information that is
submitted to the Select Committee. Additionally, please
include me on any update or briefing that you provide. If you
have questions, please do not hesitate to contact my staff.
Sincerely,
Jim Banks,
Ranking Member.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would note that the gentleman from
Indiana is incorrect. We are not pursuing a law enforcement
investigation. Only the DOJ can do that.
What we are doing is taking the steps that are provided for under the
congressional contempt statute that has existed for many decades
because the select committee's charge is to get to the bottom of what
happened on January 6, who planned it, who paid for it, what was the
intent, and what legislative steps can we recommend to remove future
threats to our Constitution.
To do that, we need information, both documents and testimony; and to
get that we issue subpoenas.
Now what is a subpoena?
Is it just a suggestion, a mere request, an encouragement to testify?
No. A subpoena is a writ issued by a government agency, in this case
the Congress, to compel testimony or production of evidence. When you
get a subpoena, Madam Speaker, the law requires you to comply. If you
think there may be some valid reason that excuses you from telling the
truth under oath, then you have to come in and make your case to the
committee.
Steve Bannon is the only person who has outright refused to engage
with the committee. He thinks that if he simply obstructs Congress by
not showing up he will escape the consequences. But as Theodore
Roosevelt said, ``No man is above the law and no man is below the
law.''
If you get a subpoena, you cannot hide behind vague and immaterial
claims of privilege.
The cases make it clear--Judicial Watch, Nixon v. GSA, and the McGahn
case--executive privilege is limited to immediate White House advisers
on government policy. Bannon is a private citizen. His extravagant
claims can't shield his conversations and plotting with other private
citizens. His status, according to the cases, doesn't get executive
privilege protection. He has no absolute immunity.
Madam Speaker, what would happen if an American received a subpoena
from Congress or a court?
Do you think they could get away with just saying: Go fly a kite?
They would be held accountable.
And so should Mr. Bannon be held to account for defying the law
regarding this subpoena.
Madam Speaker, to defend the rule of law, we must vote ``yes'' on
this resolution.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, no one has said that the select committee doesn't have
a legislative purpose.
Let's be very clear. There is important work that, frankly, we wish
they were doing; like answering, why was this campus left unprotected?
And what are we doing to keep it from happening again? That hasn't
happened yet.
What we are saying is that the subpoenas that have so far been issued
do not ask for information that would meet any legitimate legislative
purpose.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and
colleague from Indiana (Mr. Banks) for yielding.
I can tell you, when I got elected to serve in this body almost 9
years ago, I didn't expect to be standing here today to talk about such
an important issue.
I spent 16 years as a congressional staffer working for a Member of
Congress whom I looked up to and who respected this institution for
what it was and what it meant to our country.
When I came to Congress to serve with him, I had the utmost respect
for this institution at the same time. That is why I wanted to be part
of the House Administration Committee because I wanted to make this
Congress and this House work better, act in a much more bipartisan
manner, and make sure that we protect those who run this campus, but
also at the same time protect those who protect us.
Madam Speaker, we are now months and months in, months and months

[[Page H5761]]

post January 6. From my many conversations with U.S. Capitol Police
officers and those who work on this campus, they have the same concerns
I have.
The question they ask is: Why were we so unprotected on January 6?
And what has changed since then?

{time} 1500

Getting to the bottom of those questions should be the top priority
for all of us in this House. There are serious security vulnerabilities
that have not been addressed by this House in nearly 11 months after
January 6. And this is what the majority has decided to spend its time
on, holding a private citizen, who wasn't even part of the
administration at the time, in contempt for refusing to comply with
House Democrats' subpoenas. This is after more than 600 people have
been arrested for their role in the tragedies we saw on January 6.
When I get the article, I will submit for the Record, Madam Speaker,
a Reuters article that talks about senior officials stating at the FBI
that there was no organized effort to overthrow the government on
January 6. So I will submit it once I get a copy of that. I did not
bring it with me.
But our job, again, is to secure this Capitol. We have never seen a
breach like the one that we saw that day. And it is our responsibility
to make sure it doesn't happen again.
But that hasn't been done under the leadership of this House. We have
had two independent reports regarding January 6, one bipartisan report
in the Senate and another one commissioned by the Speaker herself, and
that came out in March. These have never been acted on. But this is
what the select committee has been working on?
The Capitol Police IG has released seven reports related to January
6, making recommendations on what is needed to secure this Capitol. To
my disappointment, the majority has not acted in a meaningful way to
ensure that all 103 IG findings are implemented.
These reports have all told us what the problems are and the
recommendations on how to fix them. But Congress, us, have failed to
even debate these changes, let alone act on them.
We know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection training,
leadership structure, decisionmaking processes, and many, many more are
needed, but neither the select committee, nor the Committee on House
Administration, seem at all interested in ensuring these changes are
made.
The Committee on House Administration, which has oversight of
security, hasn't held a single hearing since August 5, with no upcoming
hearings scheduled according to the majority's website.
The select committee, right now, as we see, is just purely focused on
political subpoenas.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the articles I previously
mentioned.

[From Reuters, Aug. 20, 2021]

Exclusive: FBI Finds Scant Evidence U.S. Capitol Attack Was
Coordinated--Sources

(By Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch)

Washington, Aug 20 (Reuters).--The FBI has found scant
evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the
result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential
election result, according to four current and former law
enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570
alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the
violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or
prominent supports of then-President Donald Trump, according
to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or
briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
``Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off
cases,'' said a former senior law enforcement official with
knowledge of the investigation. ``Then you have five percent,
maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely
organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and
Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and
take hostages.''
Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described
``dirty trickster'', and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-
driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and
had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan.
5, the day before the riot.
FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters,
including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud
Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they
found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about
what to do if they made it inside, the sources said.
Prosecutors have filed conspiracy charges against 40 of
those defendants, alleging that they engaged in some degree
of planning before the attack.
They alleged that one Proud Boy leader recruited members
and urged them to stockpile bulletproof vests and other
military-style equipment in the weeks before the attack and
on Jan. 6 sent members forward with a plan to split into
groups and make multiple entries to the Capitol.
But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious,
politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been
initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious
conspiracy or racketeering.
The FBI's assessment could prove relevant for a
congressional investigation that also aims to determine how
that day's events were organized and by whom.
Senior lawmakers have been briefed in detail on the results
of the FBI's investigation so far and find them credible, a
Democratic congressional source said.
The chaos on Jan. 6 erupted as the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives met to certify Joe Biden's victory in
November's presidential election.
It was the most violent attack on the Capitol since the War
of 1812, forcing lawmakers and Trump's own vice president,
Mike Pence, to scramble for safety.
Four people died and another died the following day, and
more than 100 police officers were injured.

TRUMP'S SPEECH

Trump made an incendiary speech at a nearby rally shortly
before the riot, repeating false claims that the 2020
election was stolen and urging supporters to march on the
Capitol to pressure lawmakers to reject Biden's victory.
In public comments last month to the Democratic-led
congressional committee formed to investigate the violence,
police officers injured in the mayhem urged lawmakers to
determine whether Trump helped instigate it. Some Democrats
have said they want him to testify.
But the FBI has so far found no evidence that he or people
directly around him were involved in organizing the violence,
according to the four current and former law enforcement
officials.
More than 170 people have been charged so far with
assaulting or impeding a police officer, according to the
Justice Department. That carries a maximum sentence of 20
years.
But one source said there has been little, if any, recent
discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing
charges such as ``seditious conspiracy'' to accuse defendants
of trying to overthrow the government. They have also opted
not to bring racketeering charges, often used against
organized criminal gangs.
Senior officials had discussed filing such charges in the
weeks after the attack, the sources said.
Prosecutors have also not brought any charges alleging that
any individual or group played a central role in organizing
or leading the riot. Law-enforcement sources told Reuters no
such charges appeared to be pending.
Conspiracy charges that have been filed allege that
defendants discussed their plans in the weeks before the
attack and worked together on the day itself. But prosecutors
have not alleged that this activity was part of a broader
plot.
Some federal judges and legal experts have questioned
whether the Justice Department is letting defendants off too
lightly.
Judge Beryl Howell in July asked prosecutors to explain why
one defendant was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor charge
carrying a maximum sentence of six months, rather than a more
serious felony charge.
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney's
office in Washington, which is leading the Jan. 6
prosecutions, declined to comment.
The congressional committee investigating the attack will
talk with the FBI and other agencies as part of its probe.
____

[From Business Insider, Aug. 20, 2021]

FBI Finds No Evidence That Trump and His Allies Were Directly Involved
With Organizing the Violence of the Capitol Riot: Report

(By Bryan Metzger)

The FBI has found no evidence that Trump was directly
involved in organizing Capitol-riot violence.
It also found little evidence of an organized plot to
overturn the election results.
Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,''
said one former official.
See more stories on Insider's business page.
The FBI hasn't found any evidence that the January 6
assault on the US Capitol was part of an organized plot to
overturn the election results, Reuters reported, citing law-
enforcement officials.
The officials also said that the FBI has ``so far found no
evidence'' that former President Donald Trump or ``people
directly around him were involved in organizing the
violence,'' Reuters reported.
``Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off
cases,'' a former law-enforcement official familiar with the
investigation told Reuters. ``There was no grand scheme with
Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm
the Capitol and take hostages.''
More than 570 participants have been arrested by federal
officials. Investigators have found that groups such as the
Oath Keepers

[[Page H5762]]

and Proud Boys did plan ahead of time to break into the
Capitol, but they didn't engage in much planning beyond that
step. Reuters reported that 40 percent of the defendants are
being prosecuted on conspiracy charges, implying a certain
amount of planning and coordination.
But prosecutors have generally shied away from alleging a
broader plot. Senior Department of Justice officials do not
intend to bring forward seditious-conspiracy charges or even
racketeering charges, which are commonly used against
organized criminal gangs.
A Democratic congressional source told Reuters that senior
lawmakers who have been briefed on the FBl's investigation
find the results credible.
Though the FBI has not found an organized plot or direct
involvement by Trump, that doesn't mean that Trump didn't
play an important role in instigating the violence. Earlier
this year, the House of Representatives impeached Trump on
the charge of ``incitement of insurrection'' after he spent
weeks promoting conspiracy theories about the results of the
2020 election. On January 6, Trump gave a speech on The
Ellipse where he urged supporters to march on the Capitol.
Read the original article on Business Insider.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Additionally, a number of questions
from that day still remain unanswered. I am still waiting for the
Speaker of the House to answer a letter I sent her back in February
that asked why the National Guard, requested by Police Chief Sund, were
denied? And why was the Speaker's office and the Speaker involved in
eventually approving the request? Why has the House Sergeant at Arms
refused to comply with preservation and production requests from my
office?
We have many, many more questions about why the Capitol was so
unprepared that day. Our top priority should be ensuring our Capitol is
never as vulnerable as it was on January 6, but this majority has done
absolutely nothing to make the security changes needed to make this
Capitol safer.
Madam Speaker, we must do better. We have not fixed the institutional
problems with our security apparatus that led to the lack of
preparation, the danger that our brave officers were put in on that day
and any other possible day like that in the future. That is a failure
of leadership in this institution.
We must fix the problems that led to the terrible security posture
here--and I will tell you, after witnessing what we saw a few different
days and security postures that this House was put into a couple of
other days since January 6--and I urge you to talk to the brave
officers that stand around these buildings and protect all of us every
day; ask them the same question I do. Ask them if we have put them in a
better position than they were in on January 6? And the answer out of
every single officer I asked that question to is ``no.''
What is stopping this House from fixing the problems? It is a lack of
will. It is a lack of focusing on the true issues that led for them to
be put in a dangerous spot on January 6. Instead, we are talking
politics. It is wrong, and we must do better.
I have said this time and time again, I stand willing to work with my
Democrat colleagues to make this House, this Capitol, safer for
everyone. Instead, it is all about political points like the one being
scored today.
I am disappointed. You can tell. My frustration is going to continue
to boil over until we are in a position to fix the problems that I have
laid out and that we know exist.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois' statement,
the first hearing of the select committee that we actually held
interviewed four officers who put their lives on the line defending all
of us who work here in this body. So I assure you, my directions to the
committee have always been, we will look at all of the facts and
circumstances surrounding what occurred.
We are genuinely interested in getting to the facts. We are working
to get the answers. And that is why we are on the floor today, to get
answers from Steve Bannon about what he knew, what he did leading up to
January 6.
Also, to the gentleman from Indiana, I am glad he finally agrees that
the select committee has a legitimate legislative purpose and that is
why we are here today, pursuing that legislative purpose. So I am happy
that the Record will reflect his comments.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Mrs. Murphy), a valiant member of the select committee.
Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this
resolution to refer Stephen Bannon to the Department of Justice for
prosecution for contempt of Congress.
It didn't have to be this way. Mr. Bannon, a self-professed patriot,
could have done the patriotic thing and cooperated with our bipartisan
committee.
If Mr. Bannon was proud of the role he played in connection with
January 6, he should be eager to tell his side of the story. Instead,
he is acting like a man who has something to hide. Our committee seeks
only the truth. That is our legal charge and our moral obligation. We
cannot let any individual impede our inquiry, and we will not tolerate
Mr. Bannon's evasion.
Why must we be so unrelenting in our pursuit of truth? Because on
January 6, the greatest Nation on Earth came under attack. And this
attack wasn't carried out by officials in Beijing, Moscow, or Tehran,
or by foreign terrorists even. It was an attack conducted by our fellow
citizens, regular Americans who were radicalized because they believed
outrageous lies fed to them by other Americans in positions of power
and influence.
The attack was launched against the seat and symbol of our Republic.
It was designed to disrupt the certification of the Presidential
election results, to defy the will of the voters. This was no peaceful
protest in a proud American tradition. It was violent and vicious.
Members of the mob wielded weapons. They called for the death of the
Vice President. They hunted Members of Congress. They caused severe
harm to law enforcement officers. And the real disservice to the police
comes from those who want to whitewash the violence of January 6 and
pretend that the riot of that day was anything short of the violent
attack it was, aimed at derailing the peaceful transfer of power.
America is not just a place; it is an idea. And on January 6, there
was an attack on the very idea of America. I believe that patriots of
all political stripes should want to protect our Capitol, this country,
and her Constitution. Our committee will make a full accounting of what
happened, and we will make recommendations to ensure it never happens
again.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Aguilar).
Mr. AGUILAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chair for yielding.
Like many of my colleagues, I was right here on the House floor when
the violent mob attacked our Capitol. I saw those doors shaking, nearly
overrun with rioters attempting to enter. I saw my colleagues shed
their jackets and roll up their sleeves preparing for the eventuality.
And I saw Capitol Police acting quickly and thoughtfully to conduct a
successful evacuation of Members from this Chamber. Their actions,
undoubtedly, saved lives.

What we didn't know at the time was that on the steps of the Capitol,
the Capitol Police and the Metro PD officers were engaged in brutal
hand-to-hand combat. Officer Michael Fanone told us he was grabbed,
beaten, and tased, all while being called a traitor to this country.
This is what officers dealt with to defend our democracy. Some lost
their lives; many are still living with both the physical wounds and
the trauma that they suffered that day. This is what our officers dealt
with to defend democracy.
Officer Harry Dunn told us more than 6 months later, January 6 still
isn't over for me. These officers are heroes. I want to thank the chair
and the vice chair for their leadership in making our first order of
business hearing directly from those heroes in their own words.
We wanted to hear and make sure that all of our colleagues and this
country heard firsthand what we experienced on the ground that day. We
asked them to explain the violence they had to endure to protect our
democratic process, and in return, they made one simple request: to get
to the bottom of this.
They want answers, and, quite frankly, they deserve answers. So far,
both the Metro PD and the Capitol Police

[[Page H5763]]

have been excellent allies in this investigation. They have cooperated,
shared their stories and expertise, and provided us with key evidence
and accounts of the violence they endured that day. And we owe it to
them to see this investigation through.
The vote we take today is a crucial step toward removing a roadblock
in our investigation. We owe it to every officer who put their life on
the line that day and every day to protect us here in the Capitol. We
owe them answers. And this committee intends to get to those answers by
all means necessary.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
resolution.
Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), an Iraq and Afghanistan Air
Force veteran and a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard.
Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Let
me just say first, Madam Speaker, as a Republican, don't let my side
use the security posture as the straw-man argument in this. The reality
is that that is the equivalent of blaming the victim of a crime for the
crime. And while it is important, that is not what we are here to talk
about today.
Madam Speaker, voting on a criminal contempt resolution is not the
position we had hoped to be in, but Steve Bannon went out of his way to
earn this resolution before us and now we must approve it.
Mr. Bannon's willful disregard for the select committee's subpoena
demonstrates his utter contempt for the American people's right to know
how the attacks on January 6 came about. He has advanced a ludicrous
legal argument in support of his decision not to corroborate or comply,
a decision that defies the rule of law and rejects the will of the
American people.
Mr. Bannon's reported actions put him near the center of the
investigation into the events surrounding January 6. His own words
strongly suggest that the actions of the mob that stormed the Capitol
and invaded this very Chamber came as no surprise to him. He and a few
others were, by all accounts, involved in planning that day's events,
and encouraged those who attacked the Capitol, our officers, and our
democracy.
I have no doubt that Mr. Bannon's scorn for our subpoena is real. But
no one--and I repeat, no one--is above the law, and we need to hear
from him.
As the select committee's contempt report states, it was Mr. Bannon
who on January 5 predicted with chilling accuracy: ``All hell is going
to break loose tomorrow.''
On his radio show that day he stated: ``It's not going to happen like
you think it's going to happen. Okay. It's going to be quite
extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in. You made this
happen and tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready.''
And it was Mr. Bannon, who was recorded as saying: ``It's all
converging, and now we're on the point of attack tomorrow.''

{time} 1515

Mr. Bannon said these things publicly, as a private citizen, someone
deeply involved with the Stop the Steal movement, and he said them
nearly 3 years after leaving his job at the White House.
Mr. Bannon was also reportedly among the small group of Trump
confidants assembled at the Willard Hotel to discuss plans to stop or
delay the January 6 count.
Is it any wonder that the select committee needs to hear from him;
that we want to see related materials that he has?
Furthermore, does anyone really believe Mr. Bannon's actions are
covered by a blanket, no-questions-asked claim of executive privilege?
One the former President has never actually made.
Madam Speaker, Steve Bannon is a key witness to the select
committee's probe. He has yet to say or produce anything in response to
the subpoena. His assertion of executive privilege is farfetched in the
extreme and not his to make.
I urge my colleagues to join me to support the contempt resolution.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, today, Donald Trump said the insurrection
took place on November 3. No, Mr. Trump. I am sorry. That is what we
call an election in America; an election that was validated by more
than 60 Federal or State courts, including before eight judges
nominated to the bench by President Trump himself, and all the way up
to the United States Supreme Court, all of them rejecting every claim
of electoral fraud and corruption that was advanced.
We know an insurrection when we see one in this body, because we
lived through one. Under the banner of this continuing and deranged big
lie, the Stop the Steal movement brought down a violent insurrection
against this Congress in an attempted coup against Vice President Mike
Pence. They interrupted the counting of electoral college votes for the
first time in American history. They caused the worst attack on
Congress since the War of 1812; and they injured and wounded more than
140 police officers, Capitol Police officers, Metropolitan Police
Department officers, and others, breaking their noses, breaking their
necks, breaking their vertebrae, breaking their arms, breaking their
legs, breaking their hearts and their spirits.
We are investigating the attack on American democracy because we are
Americans. We are investigating the attack on Congress by domestic
enemies of our Constitution because we are sworn to do so by our oaths
of office.
But now, the big lie has become a big coverup. After being impeached
twice by the House, after losing in 61 different courts, after seeing a
57-43 vote against him in the U.S. Senate, in the most sweeping
bipartisan Senate Presidential conviction vote in American history,
Trump now tries to get his followers, like Steve Bannon, not to testify
here and not to turn over evidence that they have about this vicious
assault on American democracy.
In America, when you are subpoenaed to testify in court or in
Congress, you show up, period. You can invoke your Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination to specific questions if you think
you committed a crime. You can claim executive privilege to specific
questions if you think you are President of the United States. But you
cannot blow off a subpoena in America. You cannot sit on your couch and
defy the people's representatives in Congress.
So we must enforce the rule of law here, my colleagues. We must do
it. If you act deliberately, with sneering, cavalier contempt for the
American people and their representatives, we will hold you in
contempt. We will get to the truth of the violent assault on America.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, you don't have to look far to realize the absurdity of
what is happening in Congress today. In fact, Politico just reported
moments ago that the Capitol Police whistleblower is telling us--
telling Politico--that they have not been contacted by the January 6
select committee.
The Capitol Police whistleblower said that the United States Capitol
Police deserves more scrutiny than it has gotten so far and that he
would talk to investigators if they reach out to him. And the select
committee has not reached out to the Capitol Police whistleblower.
Yet, here we are today focused on holding a private citizen in
contempt, an unprecedented action by this sham committee and their sham
investigation.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr.
Gaetz).
Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, why are we here on the floor of the House
of Representatives listening to the Democrats and socialists and their
Republican puppets reviewing Steve Bannon's podcast?
I can't imagine that that would be the case if they actually had a
bill, a reconciliation deal, legislation to help the American people.
We are not here because of democracy. Save me the alligator tears on
that. These are the folks who assaulted our democracy for 2 years under
the specter of the Russia hoax. It is sure not about violence, because
they didn't seem to give a damn

[[Page H5764]]

when our country was being engulfed in flames during the riots of the
summer of 2020.
It is not about Congressional process. If it was about Congressional
process, Democrats would be doing what they have done in other cases;
they would go to court. But the reason they haven't gone to court, like
they did for Trump's taxes, in the Deutsche Bank subpoenas, in the
Mazars matter, or in the Don McGahn matter, is because in each of those
circumstances, they did not prevail in court. The courts realized that
their subpoenas were overly broad.
So instead of using the real process, here we are just enduring this
politics. And because they can't build back better, they have just
decided to build back meaner.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, just for the record,
again, the gentleman from Indiana referenced the whistleblower. We have
not talked to the whistleblower, but we have talked to the
whistleblower's lawyer. We are doing our work. So, clearly, since he is
quoting Politico, I want him to just get the record straight.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Luria), who served two decades in the Navy and was among
the first women to serve in the Navy's nuclear power program.
Mrs. LURIA. Madam Speaker, to ``support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.''
We reaffirmed that oath on January 3. Yet only 3 days later in this
very Chamber, this body was assaulted while carrying out the peaceful
transfer of power, the very hallmark of our democracy.
I first took that oath when I was 17 years old and entered the Naval
Academy. I was willing to put my life on the line to serve my country
and protect the foundation of this republic, a foundation that was
shaken but not broken on January 6.
Mr. Bannon, a former naval officer like me, at one point understood
this oath. He took it multiple times. He served his country honorably
in the Navy.
I don't know what happened between the time Lieutenant Bannon left
the Navy and today. What forces corrupted his understanding of this
oath?
Mr. Bannon has been given the opportunity to voluntarily provide
information relevant to the work of our committee, but he has not
complied.
Truly, this is larger than Mr. Bannon, this is larger than this
investigation, and this is larger than the tragic and horrific events
of January 6.
This vote is a test of that oath. To my colleagues who chose to vote
against enforcing the subpoena, you are saying to all future men and
women who are called before this body that they can ignore a subpoena
from Congress without consequence.
You can make that choice today. But that will be a vote to abdicate
the power of the legislative branch in which you are elected to serve.
That will be a vote to undermine the government and the Constitution
which you took an oath to support and defend.
The consequences of that vote won't be limited to this investigation
and this subpoena alone. Your vote will do serious, long-lasting damage
to Congress as an institution. That, in turn, will do serious damage to
our country, which we all love so dearly.
We ask our young men and women in uniform to go forth every day and
protect us, to protect this republic, to protect our form of
government. I am asking you to do the same, to protect our democracy
from those forces seeking to destroy it from within.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Look, we have seen the worst 10 months of any administration in
history. We went from a secure border to chaos. We went from safe
streets to violent crime. We have seen stable prices turn into
inflation and empty shelves. The respect around the world we had has
now turned into the debacle that was the exit from Afghanistan. And we
went from peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords to
thousands of rockets being fired on our friend and ally, Israel; not to
mention, energy independence to now the spectacle of the President of
the United States begging OPEC to increase production.
But what scares me most is what this administration and Democrats are
doing to freedom. Every right we enjoy under the First Amendment has
been assaulted over the last year.
Your right to practice faith. There are still places today in the
country where a full congregation can't meet on Sunday morning.
Your right to petition your government, your right to assemble,
freedom of the press, freedom of speech--every single one has been
attacked.
We just learned in the Judiciary Committee from the Attorney General
that the National School Boards Association last month, September 29,
sends a letter to the President of the United States asking the FBI to
get involved in local school board matters. Five days later, the
Attorney General issues a memo to do just that.
The first sentence of the Attorney General's memo says this: In
recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment,
intimidation, and threats at school board meetings.
We asked him a simple question: What is the evidence for a spike in
threats? What is the data? What did you review?
Guess what his answer was. His only evidence, the only thing he
reviewed, was the letter from the school boards association, from a
political organization. Now, they are going to target parents at school
board meetings.
And we have the January 6 committee issuing subpoena after subpoena.
Eleven of the people they have issued subpoenas to were names on an
application asking the government for permission to hold a rally.
Individuals exercising their First Amendment right to assemble, asked
the government for permission, the government granted them permission,
and now these 20- and 30-year-olds, whose names are on that
application, they are going to be deposed by these guys for simply
exercising their First Amendment right.
Here is what they are asking them, we want to know who the speakers
were and how were they selected. We want to know any communications
these people--who put their names on a permit, got permission from the
government--we want to know any Member of Congress you talked to.
Wow. Your right to petition your government, that is why they are
subpoenaing these people? This is scary, where they want to go.
These questions--coordination of speakers, discussions of contents--
this sounds like what the IRS did to people 10 years ago when they were
asking 501(c) groups applying for tax-exempt status, do you pray at the
start of your meeting?
First, it is school boards, then it is people applying for a permit.
We saw what the IRS did to people just a few years ago; not to mention
what else the committee is doing; preservation letters to all of the
carriers, all of the companies; preserve every call, every email, every
text. Think about that. Every call someone made to--hundreds and
hundreds, supposedly, according to news reports. They have done this
for texts to your spouse, calls to your mom. Preserve it all. And this
is just what we know about. This is just what has been reported.
And now Steve Bannon. Now Steve Bannon. Mr. Bannon is a target of the
investigation, for the investigation, because--and this is the select
committee's own report--``His efforts to plan political activity.''
That is the standard. If you are involved in political activity, they
are going to investigate you.
We know what this is really about. This is about getting at President
Trump. They tried to stop President Trump before he was even elected
with the Russia investigation; tried to remove President Trump from
office twice while he was in office. And now they are trying to get him
after the fact, after he has left, all because this guy cut taxes,
reduced regulation, gave us the greatest economy in 50 years, lowest
unemployment, all because he built the wall, got us out of the Iran
deal, put the embassy in Jerusalem. When President Trump was President,
Americans got their Christmas presents on time. But they are coming
after him.

[[Page H5765]]

The Reuters story said this: The FBI has found no evidence that
President Trump, or people directly around him, were involved in
organizing the violence.
They don't care. They don't care that the FBI has no evidence. The
Senate report said no evidence of a coordinated plan. They don't care.
They are going to drag these 11 people in for depositions with
subpoenas, because they are so determined to get their political
enemies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has
expired.

{time} 1530

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chair, the vice chair of the
committee put in the Record the fact that the FBI and Department of
Justice declared no such thing in terms of January 6, so the assertion
that somehow they have conducted an investigation is just not true.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, we are here this afternoon to test a
proposition as old as the country's founding: Are we a nation of laws?
We are here because one man has decided that we are now only a nation
of men and that rich and powerful men need not follow the law. And the
question we must confront is nothing less than this: Is he right?
Are some people now truly above the law, beholden to nothing and no
one, free to ignore the law and without consequence?
Congress is investigating the worst attack on our Capitol in over a
century, made worse still by the fact that it was carried out by our
own people, people who had been misled to believe that their election
had been stolen and that violence was now justified, people who are
still being misled by a dangerous lie that may lead to even more
bloodshed.
This is not some theoretical matter. We were here. We heard the doors
breaking, the glass shattering, the cries from outside the Chamber. And
we saw the bloody results, the officers injured, and those who died.
And in the wake of the horrors of that day, a day in which the
Capitol Police put their lives on the line to defend our democracy, it
falls on us to defend that same democracy, albeit at far less risk to
ourselves.
The Founders intended that ambition should be made to check ambition.
If we fail to uphold Congress' power to compel information, then we
cease to be a coequal branch of government, unable to perform our
oversight or check any abuses of executive power.
Take away a court's power to subpoena witnesses, and it fails to be a
court. Take away the Congress' ability to do the same, and it fails to
be a Congress, becoming instead a mere plaything for a corrupt
executive.
Do not believe for one moment that if we fail to hold Steve Bannon
accountable that he will be the exception. He will become the rule--not
a rule of law, but the misrule of men.
Either we are all equal before the law or none of us is. This is the
essence of our democracy.
As Lincoln said, ``Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the
difference, is no democracy.''
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Mississippi has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has no time remaining.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Madam Speaker, just outside this Chamber, over the north door in
Statuary Hall, which was the old House Chamber, stands a statue of
Clio, the muse of history. She is one of the oldest works of art in our
Capitol. She stands in a winged chariot, the chariot of time, and she
takes notes in her book, reminding all of us that our words and our
actions will be judged by history. History will particularly judge
those of us in positions of public trust for what we are doing today.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Madam Speaker, we all
recognized how profoundly wrong January 6 was. The gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan), who just suggested that we were here because we opposed
President Trump's policies, seems to have forgotten that actually on
January 6 he, himself, said, ``What happened today is wrong and is not
what America is about.''
The next day Mr. Jordan said, ``What happened Wednesday is a tragedy.
Everyone knows that. It is as wrong as wrong can be.''
And today, Madam Speaker, the former President suggested that the
violence was justified.
My colleagues in the Republican Party, the Republican Members of this
body, have to understand, have to recognize, that there is a moment
when politics must stop if we want to defend and protect our
institutions.
A violent assault on the Capitol to stop the constitutional process
of counting electoral votes is that moment. They all knew that on that
day.
In fact, the minority leader himself stood in this Chamber and said,
``The President bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress
by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he
saw what was unfolding.''
Mr. McCarthy was right then. The President bears responsibility.
We need to know what happened. This body must have the ability to
understand what caused the attack, to understand who was responsible,
and to take legislative action to ensure that it never happens again.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion for
contempt for Mr. Steve Bannon. I urge them to do so because it is
right; it is morally right; it is constitutionally right; and it is all
of our duty.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time to close.
Over the last hour, we have heard a lot about what we are not
debating today. The select committee is charged with investigating a
deadly attack on the seat of our democracy and making recommendations
to ensure it never happens again. I can't think of anything more
serious, but many of our colleagues would rather talk about anything
else.
I think I know why. I think they are performing for an audience of
one.
I do, however, want to commend my colleagues on the select committee
for laying out clearly why the House must cite Mr. Bannon for contempt.
If our investigation is to succeed, if the House's constitutional
authority to investigate and legislate is to remain robust, then we
cannot let this man flout the laws with impunity.
The select committee is made up of people of character, of profound
commitment to public service and our Constitution. They all elevate the
committee's work.
I especially want to thank and acknowledge our vice chair, the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), for her leadership and
partnership. There is no doubt in my mind that history will record her
courage in stark relief.
History will record all of what we do here today. We can be on the
right side or the wrong side. I urge all my colleagues to remember that
as we cast this vote.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, today the House has been
deliberating on the criminal contempt of Congress citation of Steven K.
Bannon reported from the Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack on the United States Capitol on Tuesday, October 19, 2021.
This is a grave matter and not one the House takes lightly.
As I have said on many occasions, the Select Committee would prefer
not to be in this position. We expect--and the law (2 U.S.C. Sec. 192)
demands--witnesses comply with duly issued, lawful subpoenas of
Congress. We lay out the factual record of Mr. Bannon's willful
defiance of the Select Committee's September 23, 2021, subpoena in
House Report 117-152.
There have been developments since the Report was written and
adopted, and I memorialized some of those at the Select Committee's
business meeting. To perfect the factual record in this case, I now
include in the Congressional Record correspondence between myself and
Mr. Bannon's attorney, Robert J. Costello, and further correspondence
between the Office of White House Counsel and Mr. Costello, which
states President Biden's position on issues relating to the subpoena to
Mr. Bannon.

[[Page H5766]]

First, on Friday, October 15, 2021, I wrote Mr. Costello to reiterate
to him and his client that the Select Committee would view Mr. Bannon's
decision not to appear for his deposition as willful defiance that
would lead to a business meeting of the Select Committee to consider a
contempt report. I include that letter in the Record.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol,
October 15, 2021.
Mr. Robert J. Costello,
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,
* * *
Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack (``Select Committee'') is in receipt of
your October 13, 2021 letter (the ``October 13 letter''), in
which you reassert that your client, Stephen Bannon, will not
comply with the September 23, 2021 Subpoena to him for
documents and deposition testimony (the ``Subpoena''). As you
know, the Subpoena demanded that Mr. Bannon produce documents
by October 7, 2021 and appear on October 14, 2021 before the
Select Committee to provide deposition testimony on a wide
range of issues relating to the January 6, 2021 attack on the
United States Capitol, as well as plans to interfere with the
count of the 2020 Electoral College results. Mr. Bannon has
now willfully failed to both produce a single document and to
appear for his scheduled deposition. The Select Committee
believes that this willful refusal to comply with the
Subpoena constitutes a violation of federal law.
As justification for Mr. Bannon's complete failure to
comply with any portion of the Subpoena, you continue to rely
on ex-President Trump's stated intention to invoke executive
privilege with respect to Mr. Bannon, and Mr. Trump's
purported request that Mr. Bannon not produce documents to or
testify before the Select Committee. As was explained in the
Select Committee's October 8, 2021 letter (attached), the
former President has not communicated any such assertion of
privilege, whether formally or informally, to the Select
Committee. Moreover, we believe that any such assertion of
privilege--should it be made by the former President--will
not prevent the Select Committee from lawfully obtaining the
information it seeks.
Further, your letter makes no attempt to justify Mr.
Bannon's failure to comply with the Subpoena's demand for
documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not
involve communications with the former President. As is clear
from the Subpoena and accompanying letter, and as underscored
in the Select Committee's October 8, 2021 response letter,
the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony on
numerous other matters, including Mr. Bannon's communications
with Members of Congress, presidential campaign
representatives, and other private parties concerning the
events of January 6, 2021, that could not conceivably be
barred by a privilege claim.
Moreover, even if the Select Committee were inclined to
accept the unsupported premise that executive privilege
reaches communications that the Select Committee seeks to
examine between President Trump and Mr. Bannon, Mr. Bannon
does not enjoy any form of absolute immunity from testifying
or producing documents in response to a Congressional
subpoena. Your citation to Committee on Judiciary v. McGahn,
415 F. Supp. 3d 148 (D.D.C. 2019) actually supports the
Select Committee, not your client. In McGahn, the district
court unequivocally held that even senior White House aides
are not entitled to absolute immunity from testifying in
response to a Congressional subpoena. Id. at 214 (``To make
the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court . .
. that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides,
absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply
does not exist.''). Indeed, the footnote in McGahn that you
selectively quote makes clear that a President lacks legal
authority to order an aide not to appear before Congress
based on a claim of executive privilege. See Id. at 213, n.
34 (``But the invocation of the privilege by a testifying
aide is an order of magnitude different than DOJ's current
claim that the President essentially owns the entirety of a
senior-level aide's testimony such that the White House can
order the individual not to appear before Congress at all.''
(Emphasis in original)).
Accordingly, the Select Committee views Mr. Bannon's
failure to produce documents by the October 7, 2021 deadline
as willful non-compliance with the Subpoena. Mr. Bannon has
persisted in his refusal to produce any documents to the
Select Committee, and he has failed to provide a privilege
log identifying specific, asserted privileges. Mr. Bannon has
now further compounded his non-compliance by refusing to
appear on October 14, 2021 at the Select Committee deposition
to which he was summoned to provide testimony. The Select
Committee will therefore be meeting on Tuesday, October 19,
2021 to consider invoking the contempt of Congress procedures
set forth in 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192, 194.
If Mr. Bannon believes that there are any additional issues
relating to his non-compliance with the Subpoena that have
not been addressed, please submit them in writing to the
Select Committee by 6:00 p.m. E.S.T. on Monday, October 18,
2021 for the Select Committee's consideration in its
deliberations.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, at 6 p.m. on Monday,
October 18, 2021, Mr. Costello replied to that letter and requested a
1-week ``adjournment'' to respond. Mr. Bannon's attorney said they
needed time to ``assess'' the Select Committee's requests for documents
and testimony in light of litigation filed by former President Trump in
DC District Court. I include Mr. Costello's letter in the Record.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

Attorneys at Law, * * *,

October 18, 2021.
Re: The Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon dated September 23,
2021.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, House Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack,
Dear Congressman Thompson: We write on behalf of Stephen
Bannon. We have just been advised of the filing of a lawsuit
in federal court for the District of Columbia entitled Donald
J. Trump v. Bennie Thompson, et al., 21-Civ-02769 (D.D.C.
2021). In light of this late filing, we respectfully request
a one-week adjournment of our response to your latest letter
so that we might thoughtfully assess the impact of this
pending litigation.
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Costello.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the former President's
lawsuit, however, is immaterial to Mr. Bannon's defiance of our lawful
subpoena. As House Report 117-152 makes clear, Mr. Bannon had a duty to
produce documents and appear before the Select Committee. His flat
refusal to comply with the subpoena is unacceptable. I made that clear
in a letter to Mr. Costello before the Select Committee's business
meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. I include in the Record my
response to Mr. Costello's October 18th letter.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol,
October 19, 2021.
Mr. Robert J. Costello,
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,
Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (``Select
Committee'') is in receipt of your October 18, 2021, letter
requesting a one-week ``adjournment'' of your response to my
October 15, 2021, letter. The only basis for your request is
yesterday's filing of litigation by former President Trump
against the Chairman, Select Committee, Archivist of the
United States, and the National Archives and Records
Administration. That litigation relates to the Select
Committee's requests for documents in the possession of the
National Archives and is immaterial to the Select Committee's
demand for documents and testimony from Mr. Bannon. The
investigation of the Select Committee is extremely important
and urgent for the nation, and further delay in compliance by
Mr. Bannon undermines the ability of the Committee to timely
complete its essential responsibilities. Accordingly, no
grounds exist for any ``adjournment'' or other delay and your
request is denied.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, meanwhile, with regard to
Mr. Bannon's claims that executive privileges somehow precluded his
production or appearance pursuant to the Select Committee's subpoena,
on Monday, October 18, 2021, the Office of White House Counsel wrote a
letter to Mr. Costello and specifically stated that ``at this point we
are not aware of any basis for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a
deposition.'' It further stated that President Biden ``has already
determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the
public interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to
certain subjects within the purview of the Select Committee.'' I
include the full White House letter in the Record.

The White House,

Washington, DC, October 18, 2021.
Robert J. Costello,
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,
* * *.
Dear Mr. Costello: I write regarding the subpoena for
documents and deposition testimony issued on September 23,
2021, by the House Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (the ``Select
Committee'') to your client, Stephen K. Bannon.
As you are aware, Mr. Bannon's tenure as a White House
employee ended in 2017. To the extent any privileges could
apply to Mr. Bannon's conversations with the former President
or White House staff after the conclusion of his tenure,
President Biden has already determined that an assertion of
executive privilege is not in the public interest, and
therefore is not justified, with respect to certain subjects
within the purview of the Select Committee. Specifically,
President Biden determined that an assertion of executive
privilege is not justified with respect to a set of documents
shedding light on events within the White House on and about
January 6, 2021, and with respect to documents

[[Page H5767]]

and testimony concerning the former President's efforts to
use the Department of Justice to advance a false narrative
that the 2020 election was tainted by widespread fraud.
President Biden's determination that an assertion of
privilege is not justified with respect to these subjects
applies to your client's deposition testimony and to any
documents your client may possess concerning either subject.
Please contact me if you have questions about the matters
described herein. Please note, however, that at this point we
are not aware of any basis for your client's refusal to
appear for a deposition.
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Su,
Deputy Counsel to the President.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, after the Select
Committee's October 19th business meeting, I wrote to Mr. Costello yet
again to urge Mr. Bannon to change course and comply with the Select
Committee's subpoena of September 23, 2021. I reiterated that Mr.
Costello's stated reasons for Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide
documents and appear at a deposition have no legal basis or support. I
provided him with a link to the Select Committee's adopted report on a
contempt citation to review the detailed basis for our recommendation
to the House. I include my October 19th letter in the Record.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol,
October 19, 2021.
Mr. Robert J. Costello,
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,
* * *.
Dear Mr. Costello: I write yet again to urge your client
Stephen K. Bannon to change course and comply with the
September 23, 2021, subpoena from the Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol (``Select Committee'').
As explained in our prior correspondence, your stated
reasons for Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide documents
and appear at a deposition have no legal basis or support.
Because of Mr. Bannon's continued refusal to comply with the
subpoena, the Select Committee has unanimously voted to
recommend that the House of Representatives find Mr. Bannon
to be in contempt of Congress. The detailed basis for that
recommendation is contained in the Select Committee's report,
a copy of which is available at the following link: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114156. Should the House of
Representatives agree with that recommendation, the Speaker
of the House will certify the relevant statement of facts to
the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
``whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand
jury for its action.'' See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194.
Additionally, President Biden's recently communicated views
relating to your client's reliance on executive privilege as
a basis for his non-compliance provide further support for
the Select Committee's position. As you know, in its October
18, 2021, letter, the Office of the White House Counsel
concluded that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis
for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' The
letter further noted that President Biden has ``already
determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in
the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with
respect to certain subjects within the purview of the Select
Committee.'' In short, the current President's statements
should remove any doubt regarding the inappropriateness of
Mr. Bannon's reliance on assertions of executive privilege as
grounds for his noncompliance with the subpoena. Mr. Bannon
has no basis in law to continue to defy the appropriate use
of congressional subpoena authority.
These developments underscore the folly of any continuing
defiance of the Select Committee subpoena by Mr. Bannon. The
Select Committee remains focused on expeditiously obtaining
the testimony and documents necessary to meet our
responsibilities and we continue to expect immediate
compliance by Mr. Bannon. Should Mr. Bannon choose to change
his posture, please notify Select Committee staff * * *.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the importance of our
investigation, and the recommendations we make for legislative and
other policy changes that result from our investigation, require the
participation of witnesses who have clear knowledge of the events
leading up to and during the January 6th attack. Mr. Bannon's own
actions in defiance of our lawful subpoena for a valid legislative
purpose demand the consequences reflected in the House resolution
citing him with contempt and referring his case to the Department of
Justice.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, Congress has a long-
recognized and essential role in conducting oversight. The Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol has the solemn responsibility to investigate and report upon
the facts, circumstances, and causes related to the attack on January
6, 2021. This domestic terrorist attack sought to interfere with the
peaceful transfer of power and undermine American representative
democracy during the exercise of a constitutional process.
Mr. Bannon reportedly held multiple roles and had specific knowledge
relevant to the investigation of the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
Mr. Bannon has defied a lawful Congressional subpoena. The
investigation by the Select Committee is fundamental to our democracy,
and I will vote today to hold Mr. Bannon in contempt of Congress for
his failure to comply with a Congressional Subpoena. Mr. Bannon has a
duty to cooperate with the Congressional investigation into the
fundamental attack on our democracy on January 6th. Therefore, I will
vote in support of finding Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress
for failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees
on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in
support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution
Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon
in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly
Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on
the United States Capitol.''
On January 6th the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement
officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States
wore insignias of White Supremacist groups, waved confederate flags,
hung a noose on the lawn, and they were shouting racial epithets.
According to published reports and his own public statements, Mr.
Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th
before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon
told his listeners:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow . . . It's not
going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's
going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say
is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's
game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said,
`Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'
Well this is your time in history.

At 12:15 p.m. on January 6th he said to the assembled multitude on
the Ellipse: ``You will never take back our country with weakness.''
Less than an hour later, at 1:10 p.m., he admonished the crowd: ``We
fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a
country anymore.''
Madam Speaker, the assault on the U.S. Capitol by domestic terrorists
and insurrectionists rightly takes its place as one of the darkest
moments in our nation's history since the Civil War.
Madam Speaker, the January 6 insurrection caused tragic loss of life
and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to
the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, Congressional
employees, and the Capitol Police.
It bears repeating often that the Congress and the nation owe undying
gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional
duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon.
Madam Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked
the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their
ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely,
on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the
Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who
love their country.
And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United
States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists
desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous
Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their
insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme
sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured.
Madam Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives
during that day, but to all Americans to figure out exactly what
happened and how that day came to be.
We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose
of the January 6 insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress
to tally the votes of presidential electors and announce the results to
the nation and the world--from every occurring again, because it was
the greatest threat to the American Experiment since the Civil War when
the pro-slavery forces decided to make war rather than let the nation
survive. and the pro-freedom forces would accept war rather than let
the nation perish.
The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to
determine the causes and events that transpired during the
insurrectionist attack.
Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include:
To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes
``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the
United States Capitol Complex;''

[[Page H5768]]

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes
``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power;''
and
To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes
relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on
American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional
process.''
In line with these purposes, the Select Committee requested
information from Mr. Bannon central to its legislative purpose:
On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and transmitted a
subpoena to Mr. Bannon, ordering the production of both documents and
testimony relevant to the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the documents on October
7 and required his presence for deposition testimony on October 14.
Mr. Bannon simply defied the subpoena--failing to produce the
documents on October 7 and failing to show up for the deposition on
October 14.
In a letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel on October 15, Chairman Thompson
noted that Mr. Bannon had not even attempted to provide the Select
Committee any explanation for refusing to comply with the Select
Committee's demand for documents and testimony on a range of subjects
that do not involve communications with the former President.
An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena
may be cited for contempt of Congress, and in his October 8th letter to
Mr. Bannon's counsel, Chairman Thompson warned Mr. Bannon that his
continued non-compliance would put him in jeopardy of a vote to refer
him to the House to consider a criminal contempt referral.
Mr. Bannon's failure to appear for deposition or produce responsive
documents in the face of this clear advisement and warning by the
Chairman constitutes willful failure to comply with the subpoena.
The purpose behind seeking this information is because Mr. Bannon
played a central role in organizing January 6th attack on the Capitol,
and understanding this role is essential to understanding the context
in which the January 6th attack occurred.
Mr. Bannon constructed and participated in the ``stop the steal''
public relations effort that motivated the January 6th attack.
Mr. Bannon planned political and other activities in advance of
January 6th.
Mr. Bannon participated in a ``war room'' of promoters and prominent
supporters of the ``stop the steal'' movement that met on January 5th.
Mr. Bannon communicated with President Trump several times in advance
of the January 6th attack, urging him to take measures to interfere
with the count of electoral votes and to make January 6th a day of
reckoning.
In fact, according to published reports and his own public
statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned
for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the
attack, Mr. Bannon urged his listeners:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not
going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's
going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say
is, strap in. You made this happen and tomorrow it's game
day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man,
if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well
this is your time in history.

In sum, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the
events of the January 6th attack and the American people are entitled
to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions.
As recognized by the Supreme Court, ``The power of the Congress to
conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,'' and
that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within
the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly
summoned.''
Rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the
trauma this nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Bannon has simply
refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena.
Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very
power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake.
For this reason, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for
H. Res. 370, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of
Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for
Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee
to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol,''
and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the
resolution.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 202, not voting 1, as follows:

[Roll No. 329]

YEAS--229

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Mace
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--202

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)

[[Page H5769]]

Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--1

Pence

{time} 1609

Messrs. SIMPSON and FULCHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. GOMEZ changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Adams (Brown)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
DeFazio (Brown)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
Huffman (Stanton)
Khanna (Bowman)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lynch (Trahan)
Meng (Jeffries)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
Payne (Pallone)
Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
Rush (Underwood)
Salazar (Cammack)
Sires (Pallone)
Stewart (Crawford)
Tlaib (Omar)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

____________________