[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 215 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H7667-H7794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE FIND MARK RANDALL MEADOWS IN CONTEMPT OF 
                                CONGRESS

  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 report (H. Rept. 117-216) and 
accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives 
find Mark Randall Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply 
with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the 
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
  The Clerk read the title of the report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). Pursuant to House Resolution 
848, 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 Mark Randall Meadows for contempt of Congress pursuant 
     to this Report is as follows:
       Resolved, That Mark Randall Meadows 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 
     Mark Randall Meadows to 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. Meadows 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, terrorized 
     Members of Congress and staff, 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 
     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 documents and testimony obtained by the Select 
     Committee, Mark Randall Meadows is uniquely situated to 
     provide critical information about the events of January 6, 
     2021, as well as efforts taken by public officials and 
     private individuals to spread the message of widespread fraud 
     in the November 2020 election and to delay or prevent the 
     peaceful transfer of power. Mr. Meadows served as chief of 
     staff to President Trump during the final year of the Trump 
     administration. As detailed in public reporting, Mr. Meadows 
     was with or in the vicinity of then-President Trump on 
     January 6 as Mr. Trump learned about the attack on the U.S. 
     Capitol and decided whether to issue a statement that could 
     help to stop the rioters.
       Mr. Meadows has refused to provide the Select Committee 
     with information and testimony that has no conceivable, 
     associated privilege claims. To complete its investigation, 
     the Select Committee needs access to testimony on this non-
     privileged information. The Select Committee offers here just 
     several examples: Mr. Meadows has refused to provide 
     testimony on the documents he himself produced to the Select 
     Committee without any claim of privilege; Mr. Meadows has 
     refused to provide testimony about his reported 
     communications with organizers of various protest events 
     before January 6, 2021; Mr. Meadows personally travelled to 
     Georgia to inspect a county audit related to the presidential 
     election, but the Select Committee has not been able to 
     obtain testimony from Mr. Meadows about these events; and Mr. 
     Meadows has also denied the Select Committee the opportunity 
     to question him about a call with Georgia State officials in 
     which Mr. Trump insisted that he had won Georgia and told the 
     Georgia secretary of state that he wanted to ``find'' enough 
     votes to ensure his victory. Yet another topic on which Mr. 
     Meadows has frustrated the Select Committee's investigative 
     efforts relates to the Select Committee's attempt to locate 
     and discover highly relevant documents. Based on Mr. 
     Meadows's production of documents and recently reported 
     information, it appears that Mr. Meadows may not have 
     complied with legal requirements to retain or archive 
     documents under the Presidential Records Act. He has denied 
     the Select Committee the opportunity to question him about 
     these circumstances so that the Select Committee can fully 
     understand the location of highly relevant materials to its 
     investigation and which materials may now be lost to the 
     historical record.
       To be clear, Mr. Meadows's failure to comply, and this 
     contempt recommendation, are not based on good-faith 
     disagreements over privilege assertions. Rather, Mr. Meadows 
     has failed to comply and warrants contempt findings because 
     he has wholly refused to appear to provide any testimony and 
     refused to answer questions regarding even clearly non-
     privileged information--information that he himself has 
     identified as non-privileged through his own document 
     production.

[[Page H7668]]

       Mr. Meadows's relevant documents and testimony are 
     necessary to the Select Committee's investigation for many 
     additional reasons. Mr. Meadows also reportedly participated 
     in meetings and communicated with senior Department of 
     Justice (DOJ) officials about unsupported election-fraud 
     claims and litigation aimed at disrupting or overturning the 
     election results. Mr. Meadows reportedly participated in a 
     contentious meeting at the White House with private 
     individuals and others linked to Mr. Trump's re-election 
     campaign during which Mr. Trump and others discussed seizing 
     voting machines and invoking certain laws including the 
     National Emergencies Act for election-related purposes 
     because of purported fraud in the election. Mr. Meadows 
     reportedly joined a January 2 call with Mr. Trump and State 
     and Federal officials to discuss overturning certain States' 
     electoral college results on January 6, and later sent the 
     former Vice President's staff a memo drafted by a Trump 
     campaign lawyer urging the Vice President to delay or decline 
     the counting of votes from certain States. Mr. Meadows was 
     also reportedly in contact with at least one of the 
     individuals who planned and organized a January 6 rally, one 
     of whom may have expressed safety concerns to Mr. Meadows 
     about the event. In short, Mr. Meadows appears to have 
     participated in, and been a witness to, critically important 
     communications and events that took place before and on 
     January 6, and the Congress is entitled to hear his first-
     hand testimony regarding his actions and knowledge. The 
     Select Committee expects such testimony to be directly 
     relevant to its report and recommendations for legislative 
     and other action.
       On September 23, 2021, the Select Committee issued a 
     subpoena to Mr. Meadows for documents and testimony, and 
     transmitted it along with a cover letter and schedule to Mr. 
     Meadows's then-counsel, who accepted service on Mr. Meadows's 
     behalf on that same day. The subpoena required that Mr. 
     Meadows produce responsive documents by October 7, 2021, and 
     that Mr. Meadows appear for a deposition on October 15, 2021. 
     After Mr. Meadows retained separate counsel, the Select 
     Committee agreed to postpone the subpoena deadlines to enable 
     his counsel to understand the requests associated with the 
     subpoena and work with Mr. Meadows. Ultimately, by letter 
     dated October 25, 2021, the Select Committee accommodated Mr. 
     Meadows's interest in moving back the date of his appearance 
     and document production and instructed Mr. Meadows to produce 
     documents by November 5, 2021, and appear for a deposition on 
     November 12, 2021.
       Mr. Meadows's resistance came after the Select Committee 
     agreed to that postponement, after the Select Committee 
     identified specific subject matters for inquiry that did not 
     implicate any privilege, and after inviting Mr. Meadows to 
     explain with specificity his position as to whether any of 
     those areas would trigger any claims of executive privilege. 
     Mr. Meadows provided no such explanation. Instead, he 
     declined to produce a single document. He refused to carry 
     out the commonly accepted practice of producing a privilege 
     log in response to the Select Committee's subpoena. And he 
     failed to appear at the scheduled deposition, as ordered by 
     the lawful subpoena.
       A week after Mr. Meadows failed to appear for his 
     deposition and 2 weeks after his deadline to produce 
     documents, Mr. Meadows reengaged with the Select Committee by 
     letter. The Select Committee gave Mr. Meadows an opportunity 
     to cure his previous non-compliance with the Select 
     Committee's subpoena by asking that he produce documents and 
     appear at a deposition that, ultimately, was scheduled for 
     December 8, 2021. Through counsel, Mr. Meadows agreed. Mr. 
     Meadows produced a large number of responsive documents that 
     were not subject to any claim of privilege, while withholding 
     many others. But the day before his deposition, Mr. Meadows 
     changed course once more and told the Select Committee that 
     he would not be attending his deposition after all, even to 
     answer questions about the documents that he agrees are 
     relevant and non-privileged that he had just produced. He did 
     this even though that very same day his book was released in 
     which he recounts specific conversations that he had with 
     former-President Trump, including conversations about whether 
     the former President planned to join a march to the United 
     States Capitol on January 6 after encouraging rally-goers to 
     do so. On December 8, 2021, Mr. Meadows failed to appear for 
     his deposition.
       Although Mr. Meadows's counsel has referenced claims of 
     testimonial immunity and executive privilege purportedly 
     relayed by Mr. Trump's counsel, no such claims have been 
     presented by Mr. Trump to the Select Committee. Moreover, the 
     current White House has informed Mr. Meadows that the 
     incumbent President is not asserting claims of testimonial 
     immunity or executive privilege to prevent Mr. Meadows from 
     complying with the Select Committee's subpoena.
       The Select Committee is confident that there is no 
     conceivable immunity or executive privilege claim that could 
     bar all of the Select Committee's requests or justify Mr. 
     Meadows's blanket refusal to appear for the required 
     deposition. Indeed, the Chairman's written responses on 
     October 25, 2021, November 5, 2021, and November 11, 2021, 
     addressed the legal arguments raised by Mr. Meadows's counsel 
     and made clear that the Select Committee expected--as the law 
     demands--that Mr. Meadows produce documents and appear before 
     the Select Committee at his deposition to 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, 
     provides 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. Meadows did not produce documents as required by the 
     subpoena's October 7, 2021, deadline or the extended deadline 
     of November 5, 2021. Similarly, Mr. Meadows did not appear 
     for a deposition scheduled for October 15, 2021, or the 
     extended deadline of November 12, 2021, as ordered by the 
     subpoena and in contravention of the clear instructions by 
     the Select Committee Chairman's letters dated October 25, 
     2021, November 5, 2021, November 9, 2021, and November 11, 
     2021, to appear at the deposition and raise any privilege 
     concerns in response to specific questions on the record. 
     Furthermore, Mr. Meadows chose not to appear before the 
     Select Committee on December 8, 2021, to cure his previous 
     non-compliance and after specifically agreeing to do so. Mr. 
     Meadows's refusal to comply with the Select Committee's 
     subpoena constitutes 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 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 law. 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.
       The Select Committee was properly constituted under section 
     2(a) of House Resolution 503, 117th Congress. As required by 
     that resolution, Members of the Select Committee were 
     selected by the Speaker, after ``consultation with the 
     minority leader.'' A bipartisan selection of Members was 
     appointed pursuant to House Resolution 503 on July 1, 2021, 
     and July 26, 2021.
       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.'' That same 
     House rule expressly allows House committees to compel 
     information from the President and his aides. 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.'' The subpoena to Mr. Meadows 
     was duly issued pursuant to section 5(c)(4) of House 
     Resolution 503 and clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives.
     A. The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows 
         central to its investigative purposes.
       The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows 
     central to its investigative responsibilities delegated to it 
     from the House of Representatives. This includes the

[[Page H7669]]

     obligation to investigate and report on the facts, 
     circumstances, and causes of the attack on January 6, 2021, 
     and on the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the 
     interference with the peaceful transfer of power.''
       The events of January 6, 2021, involved both a physical 
     assault on the Capitol building and law enforcement personnel 
     protecting it and an attack on the constitutional process 
     central to the peaceful transfer of power following a 
     presidential election. The counting of electoral college 
     votes by Congress is a component of that transfer of power 
     that occurs every January 6 following a presidential 
     election. This event is part of a complex process, mediated 
     through the free and fair elections held in jurisdictions 
     throughout the country, and through the statutory and 
     constitutional processes set up to confirm and validate the 
     results. In the case of the 2020 presidential election, the 
     January 6 electoral college vote count occurred following a 
     series of efforts in the preceding weeks by Mr. Trump and his 
     supporters to challenge the legitimacy of, disrupt, delay, 
     and overturn the election results.
       According to eyewitness accounts as well as the statements 
     of participants in the attack on January 6, 2021, a purpose 
     of the assault was to stop the process of validating what 
     then-President Trump, his supporters, and his allies had 
     falsely characterized as a ``stolen'' or ``fraudulent'' 
     election. The claims regarding the 2020 election results were 
     advanced and amplified in the weeks leading up to the January 
     6 assault, even after courts across the country had 
     resoundingly rejected Trump campaign lawsuits claiming 
     election fraud and misconduct, and after all States had 
     certified the election results. As part of this effort, Mr. 
     Trump and his associates spread false information about, and 
     cast doubts on, the elections in Arizona, Pennsylvania, 
     Michigan, and Georgia, among other states, and pressed 
     Federal, State, and local officials to use their authorities 
     to challenge the election results.
       To fulfill its investigative responsibilities, the Select 
     Committee needs to understand the events and communications 
     in which Mr. Meadows reportedly participated or that he 
     observed.
       Mr. Meadows was one of a relatively small group of people 
     who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House and 
     with then-President Trump. Mr. Meadows was with or in the 
     vicinity of then-President Trump on January 6 as he learned 
     about the attack on the U.S. Capitol and decided whether to 
     issue a statement that could stop the rioters. In fact, as 
     the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received 
     many messages encouraging him to have Mr. Trump issue a 
     statement that could end the violence, and one former White 
     House employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times 
     and told him, ``[y]ou guys have to say something. Even if the 
     president's not willing to put out a statement, you should go 
     to the [cameras] and say, `We condemn this. Please stand 
     down.' If you don't, people are going to die.''
       Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, 
     who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of 
     Defense Christopher Miller, ``nonstop'' throughout the day of 
     January 6. And, among other things, Mr. Meadows apparently 
     knows if and when Mr. Trump was engaged in discussions 
     regarding the National Guard's response to the Capitol riot, 
     a point that is contested but about which Mr. Meadows 
     provided documents to the Select Committee and spoke publicly 
     on national television after President Trump left office.
       Beyond those matters, the Select Committee seeks 
     information from Mr. Meadows about issues including the 
     following:
        Mr. Meadows exchanged text messages with, and 
     provided guidance to, an organizer of the January 6th rally 
     on the Ellipse after the organizer told him that ``[t]hings 
     have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction. 
     Please.''
        Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about 
     the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard 
     would be present to ``protect pro Trump people'' and that 
     many more would be available on standby.
        Mr. Meadows received text messages and emails 
     regarding apparent efforts to encourage Republican 
     legislators in certain States to send alternate slates of 
     electors to Congress, a plan which one Member of Congress 
     acknowledged was ``highly controversial'' and to which Mr. 
     Meadows responded, ``I love it.'' Mr. Meadows responded to a 
     similar message by saying ``[w]e are'' and another such 
     message by saying ``Yes. Have a team on it.''
        Mr. Meadows forwarded claims of election fraud to 
     the acting leadership of DOJ for further investigation, some 
     of which he may have received using a private email account 
     and at least one of which he had received directly from 
     people associated with Mr. Trump's re-election campaign.
        He also reportedly introduced Mr. Trump to then-
     DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. Mr. Clark went on to recommend to 
     Mr. Trump that he be installed as Acting Attorney General and 
     that DOJ should send a letter to State officials urging them 
     to take certain actions that could affect the outcome of the 
     November 2020 election by, among other things, appointing 
     alternate slates of electors to cast electoral votes for Mr. 
     Trump rather than now-President Biden.
        Mr. Meadows participated in meetings and calls 
     during which the participants reportedly discussed the need 
     to ``fight'' back against ``mounting evidence'' of purported 
     voter fraud after courts had considered and overwhelmingly 
     rejected Trump campaign claims of voter fraud and other 
     election irregularities. He participated in one such meeting 
     in the Oval Office with Mr. Trump and Members of Congress, 
     which he publicly tweeted about from his personal Twitter 
     account shortly after. He participated in another such call 
     just days before the January 6 attack with Mr. Trump, Members 
     of Congress, attorneys for the Trump re-election campaign, 
     and ``some 300'' State and local officials to discuss the 
     goal of overturning certain States' electoral college results 
     on January 6, 2021.
        Mr. Meadows traveled to Georgia to observe an 
     audit of the votes days after then-President Trump complained 
     that the audit had been moving too slowly and claimed that 
     the signature-match system was rife with fraud. That trip 
     precipitated Mr. Trump's calls to Georgia's deputy secretary 
     of state and, later, secretary of state. In the call with 
     Georgia's secretary of state, which Mr. Meadows and an 
     attorney working with the campaign also joined, Mr. Trump 
     pressed his unsupported claims of widespread election fraud, 
     including claims related to deceased people voting, forged 
     signatures, out-of-State voters, shredded ballots, triple-
     counted ballots, Dominion voting machines, and suitcase 
     ballots, before telling the secretary of state that he wanted 
     to find enough votes to ensure his victory. At one point 
     during the call, Mr. Meadows asked ``in the spirit of 
     cooperation and compromise, is there something that we can at 
     least have a discussion to look at some of these allegations 
     to find a path forward that's less litigious?'' At that 
     point, Mr. Trump had filed two lawsuits in his personal 
     capacity and on behalf of the campaign in Georgia, but the 
     United States had not filed--and never did file--any. Mr. 
     Meadows used a personal account in his attempts to reach the 
     secretary of state before.
        Mr. Meadows was chief of staff during the post-
     election period when other White House staff, including the 
     press secretary, advanced claims of election fraud. In one 
     press conference, the press secretary claimed that there were 
     ``very real claims'' of fraud that the Trump re-election 
     campaign was pursuing and said that mail-in voting was one 
     that ``we have identified as being particularly prone to 
     fraud.''
        Mr. Meadows participated in a meeting that 
     reportedly occurred on December 18, 2020, with Mr. Trump, the 
     White House counsel, an attorney associated with the 
     campaign, White House staff, and private citizens, on 
     proposals relating to challenging the 2020 election results. 
     During the meeting, the participants reportedly discussed 
     purported foreign interference in the election, seizing 
     voting machines, invoking certain Federal laws like the 
     National Emergencies Act, and appointing one of the attendees 
     as a special counsel with a Top Secret security clearance to 
     investigate fraud in the election. White House officials, 
     including Mr. Meadows, may have resisted some of the 
     proposals, but, at one point, Mr. Trump reportedly said: 
     ``You [White House] guys are offering me nothing. These guys 
     are at least offering me a chance. They're saying they have 
     the evidence. Why not try this?''
        Mr. Meadows reportedly sent an email--subject 
     line: ``Constitutional Analysis of the Vice President's 
     Authority for January 6, 2021, Vote Count''--to a member of 
     then-Vice President Pence's senior staff containing a memo 
     written by an attorney affiliated with Mr. Trump's re-
     election campaign. The memo argued that the Vice President 
     could declare electoral votes in six States in dispute when 
     they came up for a vote during the Joint Session of Congress 
     on January 6, 2021, which would require those States' 
     legislatures to send a response to Congress by 7 p.m. EST on 
     January 15 or, if they did not, then congressional 
     delegations would vote for Mr. Trump's re-election.
        Mr. Meadows was in contact with at least some of 
     the private individuals who planned and organized a January 6 
     rally, one of whom reportedly may have expressed safety 
     concerns to Mr. Meadows about January 6 events. Mr. Meadows 
     used his personal cell phone to discuss the rally in the days 
     leading up to January 6.
        Mr. Meadows described in his book, The Chief's 
     Chief, specific conversations that he had with Mr. Trump 
     while he was the President about, among other things, fraud 
     in the election and the January 6th attack on the United 
     States Capitol. In one passage about the election, Mr. 
     Meadows quotes Mr. Trump. In another passage about January 6, 
     Mr. Meadows describes a conversation he had with Mr. Trump 
     after Mr. Trump spoke to rally goers and, presumably, just 
     after the attack on the Capitol had started.
       It is apparent that Mr. Meadows's testimony and document 
     production are of critical importance to the Select 
     Committee's investigation. Congress, through the Select 
     Committee, is entitled to discover facts concerning what led 
     to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, as well as 
     White House officials' actions and communications during and 
     after the attack. Mr. Meadows is uniquely situated to provide 
     key information, having straddled an official role in the 
     White House and unofficial role related to Mr. Trump's re-
     election campaign since at least election day in 2020 through 
     January 6.
     B. Mr. Meadows has refused to comply with the Select 
         Committee's subpoena.
       On September 23, 2021, the Select Committee sent a subpoena 
     to Mr. Meadows ordering the production of both documents and

[[Page H7670]]

     testimony relevant to the Select Committee's investigation. 
     The accompanying letter set forth a schedule specifying 
     categories of related documents sought by the Select 
     Committee on topics including, but not limited to, documents 
     and communications regarding the 2020 election results sent 
     or transmitted between White House officials and officials of 
     State or local governments; communications regarding 
     challenging, decertifying, overturning, or contesting the 
     results of the 2020 presidential election; communications 
     with Members of Congress on January 6 relating to or 
     referring to the attack on the Capitol; documents and 
     communications related to security of the Capitol or other 
     Federal facilities on January 5, 2021, and January 6, 2021; 
     and documents and communications regarding any plan for the 
     former President to march or walk to the Capitol.
       The subpoena required Mr. Meadows to produce the requested 
     documents to the Select Committee on October 7, 2021, and to 
     provide testimony on October 15, 2021. As authorized by Mr. 
     Meadows, attorney Scott Gast accepted service of this 
     subpoena on behalf of Mr. Meadows on September 23, 2021. On 
     October 7, 2021, George J. Terwilliger, III, sent a letter to 
     the Select Committee advising that he had been retained to 
     serve as counsel to Mr. Meadows for purposes of the Select 
     Committee's inquiry.
       On October 12, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger and staff for the 
     Select Committee had a telephone call to discuss the Select 
     Committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows. During that call, staff 
     for the Select Committee previewed certain topics of inquiry 
     they intended to develop during Mr. Meadows's deposition and 
     for which claims of executive privilege should not apply. 
     Chairman Thompson included that list of topics in a later 
     letter to Mr. Terwilliger dated October 25, 2021.
       On October 13, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger emailed staff for the 
     Select Committee and referenced ``the potential for 
     conflicting directions from former-President Trump and 
     President Biden as to preservation of privileges concerning 
     senior presidential advisors and communication by the same in 
     that role.'' Mr. Terwilliger stated that he was scheduled to 
     discuss ``privilege issues'' with the White House [c]ounsel's 
     office on October 14 but indicated that it was ``not clear . 
     . . that, in whole or in part, relevant privileges would not 
     attach to Mr. Meadows['] testimony'' as to topics that staff 
     for the Select Committee outlined during the October 12 
     telephone call. Accordingly, he informed the Select Committee 
     that he ``could not advise'' Mr. Meadows to ``commit to 
     testifying'' on the subpoena designated date of October 15. 
     Mr. Terwilliger also emailed to staff for the Select 
     Committee an October 6, 2021, letter from former-President 
     Trump's counsel, Justin Clark, to Mr. Meadows's then-counsel, 
     Mr. Gast, expressing former-President Trump's apparent belief 
     that ``Mr. Meadows is immune from compelled congressional 
     testimony on matters related to his official 
     responsibilities.'' The letter also purports to 
     ``instruct[]'' Mr. Meadows ``(a) where appropriate, invoke 
     any immunities and privilege he may have from compelled 
     testimony in response to the [s]ubpoena; (b) not produce any 
     documents concerning his official duties in response to the 
     [s]ubpoena; and (c) not provide any testimony concerning his 
     official duties in response to the [s]ubpoena.''
       On October 25, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to Mr. 
     Terwilliger's October 7, 2021, letter and October 13, 2021, 
     email. He stated that even assuming that, as a former 
     President, Mr. Trump is permitted to formally invoke 
     executive privilege, Mr. Trump had not communicated an 
     invocation of privilege, either formally or informally, to 
     the Select Committee with respect to Mr. Meadows's production 
     of documents or appearance to provide testimony. The October 
     25 response from Chairman Thompson further stated that--even 
     assuming a privilege applied to Mr. Meadows's documents and 
     testimony and former-President Trump had formally invoked a 
     privilege (which was not the case)--Mr. Meadows does not 
     enjoy anything like the type of blanket testimonial immunity 
     former-President Trump and Mr. Terwilliger suggested would 
     insulate Mr. Meadows from an obligation to comply with the 
     Select Committee's subpoena. The letter also noted that, 
     regardless, the information the Select Committee seeks from 
     Mr. Meadows involves a range of subjects that cannot be 
     considered part of Mr. Meadows's ``official 
     responsibilities,'' including but not limited to 
     ``communications and meetings involving people who did not 
     work for the United States government''; ``Mr. Meadows'[] 
     campaign-related activities''; and ``communications and 
     meetings about topics for which the Department of Justice and 
     the White House have expressly declined to assert executive 
     privilege.''
       The Chairman's October 25 letter extended the subpoena's 
     document production deadline to November 5, 2021, and 
     extended Meadows's appearance for deposition testimony to 
     November 12, 2021. It also made clear that the Select 
     Committee would view failure to respond to the subpoena as 
     willful non-compliance, which would force the Select 
     Committee to consider invoking the contempt of Congress 
     procedures pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  192 and 194, as 
     well as the possibility of civil enforcement proceedings.
       On November 3, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger transmitted a letter 
     to the Select Committee, responding to Chairman Thompson's 
     October 25, 2021, letter with respect to the production of 
     documents. In it, Mr. Terwilliger stated that he was ``not 
     aware at this time of any documents that are responsive to 
     the Select Committee's subpoena and maintained in Mr. 
     Meadows's custody or control,'' and that he ``therefore ha[d] 
     no documents to produce to the Select Committee.''
       That same day, Mr. Terwilliger transmitted to the Select 
     Committee a second letter. In it, Mr. Terwilliger suggested 
     that Mr. Meadows maintains a ``good faith'' belief that he 
     cannot comply with the subpoena and testify before Congress 
     and, instead, proposed unspecified accommodations. Notably, 
     Mr. Terwilliger acknowledged that courts had universally 
     rejected Mr. Meadows's position on absolute testimonial 
     immunity, but claimed that the executive branch had never 
     ``retreated from that position'' and that the Supreme Court 
     had never weighed in.
       On November 5, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to Mr. 
     Terwilliger's November 3 letters. Chairman Thompson noted 
     that although Mr. Terwilliger stated that Mr. Meadows had no 
     documents to produce to the Select Committee, Mr. Terwilliger 
     had previously indicated that he had gathered documents from 
     Mr. Meadows and was reviewing those documents for 
     responsiveness. The November 5 letter also reiterated Mr. 
     Meadows's obligation to provide a privilege log detailing 
     each document and each privilege that he believes applied for 
     any responsive documents so the Select Committee could 
     evaluate whether any additional actions are appropriate, 
     reminded Mr. Terwilliger that categorical claims of executive 
     privilege are improper and that Mr. Meadows must assert any 
     such claim made by former-President Trump narrowly and 
     specifically. Chairman Thompson further noted that the Select 
     Committee had received information suggesting that Mr. 
     Meadows used his personal cell phone for communications 
     relevant to the Select Committee's inquiry, some of which 
     potentially would fall under Presidential Records Act 
     requirements. Accordingly, Chairman Thompson requested that 
     Mr. Terwilliger identify for the Select Committee the current 
     location of Mr. Meadows's cell phone and whether Mr. Meadows 
     provided his texts and other relevant cell phone records to 
     the National Archives.
       In an effort to reach an accommodation with respect to Mr. 
     Meadows's deposition, the November 5, 2021, letter provided 
     further information regarding the topics the Select Committee 
     intended to develop with Mr. Meadows during the deposition, 
     some of which the Chairman had previously identified in his 
     October 25, 2021, letter. These topics included but were not 
     limited to ``[m]essaging to or from the White House, Trump 
     reelection campaign, party officials, and others about 
     purported fraud, irregularities, or malfeasance in the 
     November 2020 election''; ``[e]fforts to pressure federal 
     agencies, including the Department of Justice, to take 
     actions to challenge the results of the presidential 
     election, advance allegations of voter fraud, interfere with 
     Congress's count of the Electoral College vote, or otherwise 
     overturn President Biden's certified victory''; ``[e]fforts 
     to pressure former Vice President Pence, members of his 
     staff, and Members of Congress to delay or prevent 
     certification of the Electoral College vote''; ``[c]ampaign 
     related activities'' including Mr. Meadows's ``travel to 
     Georgia'' and contacts with ``officials and employees in the 
     Georgia secretary of state's Office''; ``[m]eetings or other 
     communications involving people who did not work for the 
     United States government'' including ``Michael Flynn, Patrick 
     Byrne,'' and ``organizers of the January 6 rally like Amy 
     Kremer''; and ``[a]dvance knowledge of, and any preparations 
     for, the possibility of violence during election-related 
     rallies and/or protests in Washington, D.C.'' The letter made 
     clear that the Select Committee did not expect to seek 
     information from Mr. Meadows unrelated to the 2020 election 
     and what led to and occurred on January 6, and indicated a 
     willingness to discuss and negotiate any additional areas or 
     subjects about which the Select Committee would seek 
     information from Mr. Meadows as the Select Committee 
     continued its investigation. Chairman Thompson invited input 
     from Mr. Meadows on the delineated topics by November 8. As 
     in previous correspondence, Chairman Thompson stated that the 
     Select Committee would view failure to respond to the 
     subpoena as willful non-compliance, which would force the 
     Select Committee to consider invoking the contempt of 
     Congress procedures pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  192 and 
     194, in addition to the possibility of civil enforcement 
     proceedings.
       On November 8, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger responded, stating 
     that he was ``reiterate[ing]'' Mr. Meadows's position that he 
     ``cannot be compelled to provide congressional testimony'' as 
     a former White House chief of staff. As a purported 
     ``accommodation,'' Mr. Terwilliger proposed ``that the Select 
     Committee propound written interrogatories to Mr. Meadows on 
     any topics about which the Select Committee may wish to 
     inquire.'' Mr. Terwilliger also indicated that Mr. Meadows 
     had provided him with access to electronic images from his 
     personal accounts and devices, the review of which was 
     ``ongoing.'' Regarding the list of topics outlined in the 
     November 5 letter, Mr. Terwilliger asserted, without 
     specifically and narrowly addressing on a topic-by-topic 
     basis, that the topics ``plainly implicate executive 
     privilege even under a narrow interpretation of it,'' and 
     expressed the belief that Mr. Meadows could not testify about 
     the topics without implicating executive privilege.

[[Page H7671]]

       In a November 9, 2021, letter to Mr. Terwilliger, Chairman 
     Thompson stated that Mr. Terwilliger's November 8 letter 
     failed to respond with any specificity about the topics of 
     inquiry by the Select Committee, leading the Select Committee 
     to assume that Mr. Terwilliger believed that all of the 
     topics potentially implicated executive privilege. Chairman 
     Thompson further stated that without further input on those 
     topics, which the Select Committee had requested in its 
     November 5 letter, the Select Committee must insist that Mr. 
     Meadows appear for a deposition on November 12, as required 
     by the subpoena, and that written interrogatories were not an 
     acceptable substitute for live, in-person testimony. The 
     November 9 letter further stated that the Select Committee 
     had identified evidence regarding Mr. Meadows's use of 
     personal cellular phone and email accounts, and, because of 
     that, it would be a subject of inquiry during the November 12 
     deposition. The letter listed eight specific questions 
     concerning the information that the Select Committee would 
     seek to develop regarding this issue, none of which 
     implicated any executive or other privilege.
       Meanwhile, on November 9, 2021, the Federal District Court 
     for the District of Columbia issued a ruling rejecting Donald 
     Trump's attempt to prohibit disclosure of White House 
     documents to the Select Committee by asserting the executive 
     privilege. The Federal court held ``that the public interest 
     lies in permitting--not enjoining--the combined will of the 
     legislative and executive branches to study the events that 
     led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation 
     to prevent such events from ever occurring again.'' The 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on December 9, 
     2021.
       On November 10, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger acknowledged receipt 
     of Chairman Thompson's November 9, 2021, letter, but did not 
     address the eight specific questions Chairman Thompson 
     included in his letter, instead stating that ``Mr. Meadows 
     cannot agree to appear at 10 AM Friday'' and again claiming 
     that Mr. Meadows believed that ``senior aides to the 
     president cannot be compelled to provide congressional 
     testimony.''
       On November 11, 2021, the White House Counsel's Office 
     issued a letter to Mr. Terwilliger regarding the Select 
     Committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows. That letter stated: ``in 
     recognition of these unique and extraordinary circumstances, 
     where Congress is investigating an effort to obstruct the 
     lawful transfer of power under our Constitution, President 
     Biden has already determined that an assertion of executive 
     privilege is not in the public interest, and is therefore not 
     justified, with respect to particular subjects within the 
     purview of the Select Committee.'' The letter further noted 
     that, consistent with this determination, President Biden 
     ``will not assert executive privilege with respect to [Mr. 
     Meadows's] deposition testimony on these subjects, or any 
     documents your client may possess that may bear on them,'' 
     and ``will not assert immunity to preclude [Mr. Meadows] from 
     testifying before the Select Committee.''
       Later on November 11, 2021, Chairman Thompson sent another 
     letter to Mr. Terwilliger. This letter summarized the 
     correspondence between Mr. Terwilliger and the Select 
     Committee, and again noted that Mr. Meadows's reliance on 
     opinions regarding absolute immunity from the Department of 
     Justice Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') was misguided given 
     that their reasoning has been rejected by all Federal courts 
     to have considered the issue of absolute immunity. The 
     Chairman's letter emphasized that, in any event, the White 
     House Counsel's Office letter from earlier that day 
     ``eviscerates any plausible claim of testimonial immunity or 
     executive privilege, and compels compliance with the Select 
     Committee's subpoena.''
       On November 12, 2021, at 10 a.m., Mr. Meadows 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. He also 
     failed to produce any responsive documents or a privilege log 
     identifying the specific basis for withholding any documents 
     believed to be protected by privilege.
       On November 19, 2021, a full week after Mr. Meadows failed 
     to appear for a deposition and two weeks after the deadline 
     to produce documents, Mr. Terwilliger sent a letter to 
     Chairman Thompson purportedly seeking an accommodation and 
     suggesting, again, that the Select Committee send 
     interrogatories to Mr. Meadows as a first step in a longer 
     accommodation process that ``could,'' depending on certain 
     negotiations and parameters, result in a limited 
     ``deposition'' ``outside of compulsion by subpoena.'' Mr. 
     Terwilliger made clear that Mr. Meadows would only answer 
     interrogatories on a narrow range of topics, and even on 
     those topics would not provide any information regarding 
     communications with the former President, former senior White 
     House aides, and other individuals with whom Mr. Meadows 
     spoke on behalf of the President unless the former President 
     explicitly authorized him to do so.
       Chairman Thompson responded to Mr. Terwilliger on November 
     22, 2021. In his response, the Chairman rejected Mr. 
     Terwilliger's proposal to proceed by interrogatories instead 
     of lawfully-compelled testimony and production of documents. 
     In rejecting Mr. Terwilliger's proposal for a second time, 
     the Chairman noted that ``[w]hen Mr. Meadows first proposed 
     interrogatories, he asked that the Select Committee 
     `propound' them, but did not say that he would actually 
     provide any substantive information in response.'' The 
     Chairman further noted, ``[n]ow, after his failure to comply 
     with the Select Committee's subpoena, [Mr. Meadows] has added 
     conditions: (1) the interrogatories can only ask questions 
     about two days in January 2021 and Mr. Meadows's 
     communications with the Department of Justice; and (2) Mr. 
     Meadows will only respond to questions about his 
     communications `with or on behalf of the [former] President, 
     or with other senior White House aides' provided that he 
     first obtains the former President's approval.'' Chairman 
     Thompson then walked through the Select Committee's lengthy 
     correspondence with Mr. Terwilliger, and explained that 
     ``[t]his history has led the Select Committee to suspect that 
     you are simply engaged in an effort to delay, and that Mr. 
     Meadows has no genuine intent to offer any testimony on any 
     relevant topic.'' Nevertheless, the Chairman extended Mr. 
     Meadows an opportunity to show that he was operating in good 
     faith by instructing Mr. Meadows to provide documents 
     responsive to the original subpoena by November 26, 2021, and 
     to appear for a deposition that the Chairman would convene on 
     November 29, 2021 (later moved to December 8, 2021). In doing 
     so, Chairman Thompson reiterated that Mr. Meadows may object 
     to specific questions that he believes raise privilege 
     concerns so that he and the Select Committee could engage in 
     further discussions about his privilege arguments. In 
     closing, Chairman Thompson indicated that the Select 
     Committee would ``defer consideration of enforcement steps 
     regarding Mr. Meadows's non-compliance with the Select 
     Committee's subpoena pending the November 26 production of 
     documents and November 29 deposition.''
       Mr. Terwilliger responded to Chairman Thompson's letter by 
     two separate letters dated November 26, 2021. In his first 
     letter, Mr. Meadows, through counsel, specifically agreed to 
     appear for a ``deposition to answer questions on what you 
     believe to be non-privileged matters'' subject to certain 
     proposed conditions. In his separate letter, Mr. Michael 
     Francisco, another attorney representing Mr. Meadows, 
     explained that Mr. Meadows was making an ``initial'' document 
     production of 1,139 documents responsive to the Select 
     Committee's subpoena that were found in Mr. Meadows's 
     personal Gmail account and that counsel was reviewing 
     information from Mr. Meadows`s personal cell phone, which Mr. 
     Meadows ``did not retain . . . after January 2021.'' Mr. 
     Francisco also provided a privilege log with that document 
     production showing that Mr. Meadows was withholding hundreds 
     more documents found in his personal Gmail account due to 
     claims of executive, marital, and other protective 
     privileges.
       On November 28, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to 
     counsel's letters and indicated that he was willing to 
     accommodate Mr. Meadows's request for a deposition during the 
     week of December 6 provided that he complete his production 
     of documents no later than Friday, December 3, 2021. Chairman 
     Thompson also explained that the Select Committee would ask 
     questions of Mr. Meadows relevant to the investigation and 
     consistent with Chairman Thompson's previous letters about 
     executive privilege. Chairman Thompson again explained his 
     hope that Mr. Meadows would answer the questions posed, but 
     also said that Mr. Meadows should assert any privileges that 
     he believed applied on a question-by-question basis on the 
     record to inform continued discussions. As an accommodation, 
     Chairman Thompson also agreed to provide in advance of the 
     depositions the documents that the Select Committee intended 
     to use in its questioning. Mr. Terwilliger agreed to the 
     deposition format as explained in the November 28 letter 
     during a call with Select Committee staff.
       As requested by Chairman Thompson, on December 3, 2021, Mr. 
     Francisco produced approximately 2,300 text messages obtained 
     from data backed up from Mr. Meadows's personal cell phone. 
     In doing so, Mr. Francisco also produced a privilege log with 
     the document production showing that Mr. Meadows was 
     withholding over 1,000 more text messages from his personal 
     cell phone due to claims of executive, marital, and other 
     protective privileges.
       Then, on December 7, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger send a letter 
     explaining that Mr. Meadows would not attend a deposition on 
     December 8, as he had previously agreed to do. During a call 
     with Select Committee staff that same day, Mr. Terwilliger 
     indicated that Mr. Meadows would not appear at all, even to 
     discuss the documents that he had already provided to the 
     Select Committee and that were not covered by any claim of 
     protective privilege.
       To date, and despite the opportunity that the Select 
     Committee gave to Mr. Meadows to cure his previous non-
     compliance with the Select Committee's subpoena, Mr. Meadows 
     has never appeared for a compelled or voluntary deposition to 
     answer any of the Select Committee's questions, even 
     questions about the documents that Mr. Meadows has produced 
     to the Select Committee.
     C. Mr. Meadows's purported basis for non-compliance is wholly 
         without merit.
       As explained above, as part of its legislative function, 
     Congress has the power to compel witnesses to testify and 
     produce documents. An individual--whether a member of the 
     public or an executive branch official--

[[Page H7672]]

     has a legal (and patriotic) obligation to comply with a duly 
     issued and valid congressional subpoena, unless a valid and 
     overriding privilege or other legal justification permits 
     non-compliance. In United States v. Bryan, the Supreme Court 
     stated:

     A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game 
     of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if 
     cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, 
     then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so 
     necessary to the effective functioning of courts and 
     legislatures, would be a nullity. We have often iterated the 
     importance of this public duty, which every person within the 
     jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when 
     properly summoned.

       It is important to note that the Select Committee sought 
     testimony from Mr. Meadows on information for which there can 
     be no conceivable privilege claim. Examples of that 
     information are provided in this report, and the non-
     privileged nature of some key information has been recognized 
     by Mr. Meadows's own production documents. The Select 
     Committee has been entitled to Mr. Meadows's testimony on 
     that information, regardless of his claims of privilege over 
     other categories of information.
       In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-16 (1974), the 
     Supreme Court recognized an implied constitutional privilege 
     protecting presidential communications. The Court held though 
     that the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and that it is 
     limited to communications made ``in performance of [a 
     President's] responsibilities of his office and made in the 
     process of shaping policies and making decisions.'' Executive 
     privilege is a recognized privilege that, under certain 
     circumstances, may be invoked to bar congressional inquiry 
     into communications covered by the privilege.
       Mr. Meadows has refused to testify in response to the 
     subpoena ostensibly based on broad and undifferentiated 
     assertions of various privileges, including claims of 
     executive privilege purportedly asserted by former-President 
     Trump. As the Select Committee has repeatedly pointed out to 
     Mr. Meadows, his claims of testimonial immunity and executive 
     privilege do not justify Mr. Meadows's conduct with respect 
     to the Select Committee's subpoena. His legal position is 
     particularly untenable in light of the incumbent President's 
     decision to not assert testimonial immunity or executive 
     privilege with respect to subjects on which the Select 
     Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows. And it is 
     untenable in light of Mr. Meadows's public descriptions of 
     events in the book that he is trying to sell and during his 
     numerous television appearances.
       Even if privileges were applicable to some aspects of Mr. 
     Meadows's testimony, he was required to appear before the 
     Select Committee for his deposition, answer any questions 
     concerning non-privileged information, and assert any such 
     privilege on a question-by-question basis. After promising to 
     appear, Mr. Meadows has now reversed course and resumed his 
     contemptuous behavior. Mr. Meadows's conduct in response to 
     the Select Committee's subpoena constitutes a violation of 
     the contempt of Congress statutory provisions.
       1. The incumbent President has declined to assert claims of 
           executive privilege and testimonial immunity.
       President Biden has declined to assert claims of executive 
     privilege or testimonial immunity regarding subjects about 
     which the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony from 
     Mr. Meadows. That fact matters because, even if a former 
     President attempts to prevent disclosure of certain 
     information through assertions of executive privilege, the 
     former President's privilege is subordinate to executive 
     privilege determinations made by the incumbent President. 
     ``[I]t is the new President [not his predecessor] who has the 
     information and attendant duty of executing the laws in the 
     light of current facts and circumstances,'' and ``the 
     primary, if not the exclusive'' duty of deciding when the 
     need of maintaining confidentiality in communications 
     ``outweighs whatever public interest or need may reside in 
     disclosure.'' Dellums v. Powell, 561 F.2d 242, 247 (D.C. Cir. 
     1977).
       Indeed, in briefings in Trump v. Thompson, litigation 
     involving a lawsuit against the Select Committee and the 
     National Archives and Records Administration, DOJ has 
     explained, even more specifically, why President Biden's 
     decision controls whether information relevant to the Select 
     Committee's investigation should be disclosed. DOJ said, 
     among other things, that ``[a] former President has no 
     responsibility for the current execution of the law'' and 
     ``[a]bsent unusual circumstances, allowing a former President 
     to override decisions by the incumbent President regarding 
     disclosure of Executive Branch information would be an 
     extraordinary intrusion'' into executive branch authority.
       In other words, ``[a]llowing a former President to block 
     disclosure of Executive Branch information that the incumbent 
     President has determined is in the national interest to share 
     with Congress would be even more clearly contrary to well-
     established principles governing the exercise of sovereign 
     authority.'' This is consistent with the District Court's 
     decision in the same litigation, in which it rejected Mr. 
     Trump's position and explained that Mr. Trump ``is no longer 
     situated to protect executive branch interests with the 
     information and attendant duty of executing the laws in the 
     light of current facts and circumstances'' and because ``he 
     no longer remains subject to political checks against 
     potential abuse of that power.''
       In his November 3 letter, Mr. Terwilliger stated that ``it 
     would be untenable for Mr. Meadows to decide unilaterally 
     that he will waive privileges that not only protected his own 
     work as a senior White House official but also protect 
     current and future White House officials, who rely on 
     executive privilege in giving their best, most candid advice 
     to the President.'' Of course, Mr. Meadows appears to have 
     already done that by recounting in his book and on national 
     television specific conversations and deliberations he had 
     with Mr. Trump about events related to the January 6th attack 
     on the United States Capitol. But, even if he had not done 
     all of that, he still need not worry about making such 
     decisions ``unilaterally'' because the incumbent President 
     has already declined to assert executive privilege or 
     testimonial immunity regarding subjects about which the 
     Select Committee seeks information. Mr. Meadows has known 
     since he received the White House's letter on November 11, 
     2021, that President Biden determined that ``an assertion of 
     privilege is not justified with respect to testimony and 
     documents'' and that President Biden ``will not assert 
     executive privilege with respect to [Mr. Meadows'] deposition 
     testimony on these subjects, or any documents [Mr. Meadows] 
     may possess that bear on them relevant to the Select 
     Committee's investigation.'' President Biden came to this 
     conclusion ``in recognition of these unique and extraordinary 
     circumstances, where Congress is investigating an effort to 
     obstruct the lawful transfer of power under our 
     Constitution.'' Despite all of this, Mr. Meadows failed to 
     appear for his deposition on November 12. When given the 
     opportunity to cure his earlier contempt and appear for a 
     deposition well after the subpoena's deadlines, he, once 
     again, failed to do so.
       2. Mr. Trump has not formally invoked executive privilege.
       Former President Trump has had no communication with the 
     Select Committee. In an October 11 email to the Select 
     Committee, Mr. Meadows's attorney attached an October 6, 
     2021, letter from Mr. Trump's attorney, Justin Clark, in 
     which Mr. Clark claimed that the Select Committee subpoena 
     seeks information that is ``unquestionably protected from 
     disclosure by the executive and other privileges, including 
     among others the presidential communications, deliberative 
     process, and attorney-client privileges.'' Mr. Clark stated 
     that former-President Trump ``is prepared to defend these 
     fundamental privileges in court.'' Mr. Clark also relayed 
     that, ``to the fullest extent permitted by law, President 
     Trump instructs Mr. Meadows 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 his official duties in response to the 
     Subpoena; and (c) not provide any testimony concerning his 
     official duties in response to the Subpoena.'' But without a 
     formal assertion by Mr. Trump to the Select Committee, Mr. 
     Meadows cannot establish the foundational element of a claim 
     of executive privilege: an invocation of the privilege by the 
     executive.
       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.

       Here, the Select Committee has not been provided by Mr. 
     Trump with any formal invocation of executive privilege. 
     There is no legal authority--and neither Mr. Meadows nor 
     former-President Trump nor his counsel have cited any--
     holding that a vague statement by someone who is not a 
     government official that a former President has an intention 
     to assert a privilege absolves a subpoena recipient of his 
     duty to comply. Such indirect, 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.
       3. Mr. Meadows is not entitled to absolute immunity.
       Mr. Meadows has refused to appear for a deposition based on 
     his purported reliance on alleged absolute testimonial 
     immunity. However, even if Mr. Trump had invoked executive 
     privilege, and even if executive privilege reached certain 
     testimony sought by the Select Committee, Mr. Meadows would 
     not be immune from compelled testimony before the Select 
     Committee, especially given the fact that he is no longer a 
     high-level White House official.
       All courts that have reviewed this issue have been clear: 
     even senior White House aides who advise the President on 
     official government business are not immune from compelled 
     congressional process. Instead, Mr. Meadows acknowledges that 
     this theory of immunity is based entirely on internal 
     memoranda from OLC that courts, in relevant parts, have 
     uniformly rejected. Nevertheless, Mr. Meadows refused to 
     appear at his deposition.

[[Page H7673]]

       Moreover, by their own terms, the OLC opinions on which Mr. 
     Meadows relies are limited, applying only to testimony 
     ``about [a senior official's] official duties,'' not 
     testimony about unofficial duties. Many of the topics that 
     Chairman Thompson identified in his correspondence are 
     unrelated to Mr. Meadows's official duties and would neither 
     fall under the reach of the ``absolute immunity'' theory nor 
     any privilege whatsoever. For instance:
        Mr. Meadows was not conducting official and 
     privileged business when he participated in a January 2021 
     call with campaign lawyers and State officials in which the 
     participants urged State legislators to overturn the results 
     of the November 2020 election and guarantee a second term for 
     Mr. Trump;
        Mr. Meadows was not conducting official and 
     privileged business when he participated in another call with 
     campaign lawyers and the Georgia secretary of state in which 
     Mr. Trump urged the Georgia secretary of state to ``find'' 
     enough votes to ensure his campaign's victory in Georgia; and
        Mr. Meadows was not engaged in official and 
     privileged business when he used his personal accounts and/or 
     devices to contact the Georgia secretary of state or speak 
     with private organizers of a rally on the Ellipse that 
     occurred just before the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
       The Select Committee specifically identified to Mr. Meadows 
     these and other topics as subjects for his deposition 
     testimony, and he had the legal obligation to appear before 
     the Select Committee and address them on the record.
       Mr. Meadows's production of documents to the Select 
     Committee highlights that he has information relevant to the 
     Select Committee's inquiry that he himself acknowledges is 
     not subject to any privilege. His refusal to provide 
     testimony on such subjects further evidences willful non-
     compliance with the Select Committee's deposition subpoena. 
     Mr. Meadows produced to the Select Committee certain 
     communications with campaign staff, Members of Congress, and 
     acquaintances that do not involve official business, while 
     withholding others that presumably do involve official 
     business because of ``executive privilege.'' In doing so, Mr. 
     Meadows has clearly acknowledged that he has relevant 
     information that is not related to his official conduct. And 
     because the relevant information that he has is not related 
     to his official conduct, Mr. Meadows cannot avoid a 
     deposition in which he would be asked questions about those 
     documents by invoking an OLC opinion that is limited to 
     testimony about ``official duties.''
       4. Even if Mr. Trump had properly invoked executive 
           privilege and Mr. Meadows had properly asserted it, the 
           privilege would not bar the Select Committee from 
           obtaining evidence from Mr. Meadows.
       The law is clear that executive privilege does not extend 
     to discussions relating to non-governmental business or among 
     private citizens. In In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729, 
     752 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the court explained that the 
     presidential communications privilege covers ``communications 
     authored or solicited and received by those members of an 
     immediate 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.''
       As noted above, the Select Committee seeks information from 
     Mr. Meadows on a wide range of subjects that executive 
     privilege cannot conceivably reach. For example, the Select 
     Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows about his 
     interactions with private citizens, Members of Congress, or 
     others outside the White House related to the 2020 election 
     or efforts to overturn its results. Mr. Meadows has 
     repeatedly refused to answer any questions about these 
     matters. He has even refused to answer questions about the 
     documents that he himself produced to the Select Committee 
     without any assertions of privilege.
       Even with respect to Select Committee inquiries that 
     involve Mr. Meadows's direct communications with Mr. Trump, 
     executive privilege does not bar Select Committee access to 
     that information. Only communications that relate to official 
     government business can be covered by the presidential 
     communications privilege. Here, Mr. Meadows's conduct 
     regarding several subjects of concern to the Select Committee 
     is not related to official government business, such as: 
     Meadows's participation in calls and meetings that clearly 
     concerned Mr. Trump's campaign rather that his official 
     duties; or, Mr. Meadows's participation in meetings with Mr. 
     Trump and private individuals about seizing voting machines 
     or taking other steps related to the election that could 
     reportedly, in Mr. Trump's words, ``offer[] me a chance''; 
     or, Mr. Meadows's contacts with organizers of the January 6th 
     rally on the Ellipse.
       Moreover, even with respect to any subjects of concern that 
     arguably involve official government business, the Select 
     Committee's need for this information to investigate the 
     facts and circumstances surrounding the horrific January 6 
     assault on the U.S. Capitol and the Nation's democratic 
     institutions far outweighs any possible executive branch 
     interest at this point in maintaining confidentiality. As 
     noted by the executive, ``the constitutional protections of 
     executive privilege should not be used to shield information 
     reflecting an effort to subvert the Constitution itself, and 
     indeed [the President] believes that such an assertion in 
     this circumstance would be at odds with the principles that 
     underlie the privilege.''
       Finally, when explaining his claim of privilege to the 
     Select Committee, Mr. Meadows has suggested that he has no 
     choice but to avoid testifying because, as White House chief 
     of staff, he had ``assumed responsibility to protect 
     Executive Privilege during and after his tenure,'' and that 
     he had ``assumed that responsibility not for his own benefit 
     but for the benefit of all those who will serve after him, 
     including future presidents.'' He included in a separate 
     letter a passage about the importance of executive branch 
     confidentiality to ``ensure that the President can obtain . . 
     . sound and candid advice.'' Those words are belied by Mr. 
     Meadows's conduct.
       To be sure, the Supreme Court has made clear that executive 
     privilege is rooted in the need for confidentiality to ensure 
     that presidential decision-making is informed by honest 
     advice and full knowledge: ``[h]uman experience teaches that 
     those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may 
     well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for 
     their own interests to the detriment of the decision-making 
     process.'' In Nixon v. GSA, the Supreme Court again 
     considered issues related to executive privilege and balanced 
     the important interests served by the Presidential Records 
     Act against the intrusion into presidential confidentiality 
     caused by compliance with the Act. Thus, a valid claim of 
     executive privilege presumes that the information sought to 
     discovered is confidential and that the need to maintain that 
     confidentiality outweighs the interests promoted by 
     disclosure.
       Here, however, executive privilege and the need to maintain 
     confidentiality is severely undermined, if not entirely 
     vitiated, by Mr. Meadows's own extensive public disclosure of 
     his communications with the former President, including on 
     issues directly implicated by the Select Committee's 
     subpoena. Mr. Meadows has appeared on national television 
     discussing the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and 
     related conversations with former-President Trump. And he has 
     written about what former-President Trump told him on January 
     6th in his newly released book. Mr. Meadows's conduct 
     relating to the very subjects of interest to the Select 
     Committee foreclose a claim of executive privilege with 
     respect to those disclosures. Moreover, Mr. Meadows's 
     statements to the Select Committee about his professed need 
     to protect presidential confidentiality rings hollow in the 
     face of his cavalier and repeated disclosure of presidential 
     communications in circumstances where doing so appears to 
     suit his personal or political interests. Mr. Meadows has 
     shown his willingness to talk about issues related to the 
     Select Committee's investigation across a variety of media 
     platforms--anywhere, it seems, except to the Select 
     Committee.
       For the reasons stated above, Mr. Meadows's own conduct and 
     the determination by the current executive overrides any 
     claim by Mr. Trump (even assuming Mr. Trump had invoked 
     executive privilege with respect to Mr. Meadows). 
     Furthermore, Mr. Meadows has refused Chairman Thompson's 
     numerous invitations to assert executive privilege on a 
     question-by-question basis, making it impossible for the 
     Select Committee to consider any good-faith executive 
     privilege assertions. And, as discussed above, such concerns 
     are wholly inapplicable to the broad range of subjects about 
     which the Select Committee seeks Mr. Meadows's testimony that 
     Mr. Meadows has acknowledged involve non-privileged matters.
     D. Precedent supports the Select Committee's position to 
         proceed with holding Mr. Meadows 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. In Quinn v. 
     United States, the Supreme Court said that ``Section 192, 
     like the ordinary federal criminal statute, requires a 
     criminal intent--in this instance, a deliberate, intentional 
     refusal to answer.'' And proving criminal intent in this 
     context is no more than showing a ``deliberate'' ``refusal to 
     answer pertinent questions''; it does not require a showing 
     of ``moral turpitude.'' 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.
       Mr. Meadows has previously recognized the importance of 
     congressional access to information from executive branch 
     officials to advance congressional investigations. As a 
     Representative in Congress, he served as ranking member of 
     the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In that 
     position, he expected that even senior executive branch 
     officials such as the Deputy Attorney General comply with 
     Congress's subpoenas. Indeed, such an expectation is 
     consistent with precedent spanning Republican and Democratic 
     administrations under which top White House aides have 
     provided testimony to Congress. Further, his recent assertion 
     to the Select Committee that he ``cannot be

[[Page H7674]]

     compelled to provide congressional testimony'' as a former 
     White House chief of staff runs directly counter to precedent 
     under which top White House aides have provided testimony to 
     Congress under subpoena. For example, former White House 
     Chief of Staff John Podesta and former White House Counsel 
     Beth Nolan testified in 2001 under subpoena regarding 
     President Clinton's pardons before the House Committee on 
     Government Reform.
       Mr. Meadows did not need to be informed of his 
     responsibility to comply with the Select Committee's 
     subpoena, but Chairman Thompson informed him anyway. In his 
     November 11, 2021, letter to Mr. Meadows's counsel, Chairman 
     Thompson advised Mr. Meadows that his claims of executive 
     privilege were not well-founded and did not absolve him of 
     his obligation to produce documents and appear for deposition 
     testimony. The Chairman made clear that the Select Committee 
     expected Mr. Meadows to appear for his scheduled deposition 
     on November 12th and produce the requested documents at that 
     time. The Chairman warned Mr. Meadows 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. 
     Meadows did not produce documents and did not show up for his 
     deposition. And, when given the opportunity to cure his 
     earlier contempt, Mr. Meadows produced documents but still 
     chose to withhold testimony. Mr. Meadows's failure to appear 
     for deposition testimony in the face of this clear advisement 
     and warning by the Chairman, and after being given a second 
     chance to cooperate with the Select Committee, constitutes a 
     willful failure to comply with the subpoena.


                     select committee consideration

       The Select Committee met on Monday, December 13, 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, without amendment, by a recorded vote 
     of 9 ayes to 0 noes.


                         select committee vote

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

                     Select Committee Rollcall No. 3
                Motion by Ms. Cheney to Favorably Report
                       Agreed to: 9 ayes to 0 noes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Members                               Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Cheney, Vice Chair....................................          Aye
Ms. Lofgren...............................................          Aye
Mr. Schiff................................................          Aye
Mr. Aguilar...............................................          Aye
Mrs. Murphy (FL)..........................................          Aye
Mr. Raskin................................................          Aye
Mrs. Luria................................................          Aye
Mr. Kinzinger.............................................          Aye
Mr. Thompson (MS), Chairman...............................          Aye
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  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 
     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\ Jonathan Karl, Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show, 
     (New York: Dutton, 2021), pp. 297-299.
     \2\ Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua 
     Kaplan and Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump 
     Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica, 
     (June 25, 2021), available at https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic.
     \3\ Joe Walsh, ``Trump Chief of Staff Observes Georgia 
     County's Ballot Audit Amid Ongoing Baseless Fraud Claims,'' 
     Forbes, (Dec. 22, 2020), available at https://www.forbes.com/
sites/joewalsh/2020/12/22/trump-chief-of-staff-observes-
georgia-countys-ballot-audit-amid-ongoing-baseless-fraud-
claims/?sh=379f2627b411.
     \4\ ``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call 
     between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 
     2021), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html.
     \5\ Nicholas Wu, Kyle Cheney, and Josh Gerstein, ``National 
     Archives: Meadows may not have stored all Trump-era records 
     `properly','' Politico, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at https://
www.politico.com/news/2021/12/09/national-archives-meadows-
trump-524043.
     \6\ U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, ``Subverting 
     Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured 
     DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election,'' (Oct. 7, 2021) (``Senate 
     Report''), at pp. 4, 5, 14, 29-39; Documents on file with the 
     Select Committee.
     \7\ Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside 
     the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb. 
     2, 2021), available at https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html.
     \8\ Caitlin McFall, ``Trump, House Republicans held call to 
     discuss Electoral College rejection: Brooks,'' Fox News, 
     (Jan. 2, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/gop-splits-electoral-college-certification; 
     Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \9\ Karl, Betrayal, pp. 259-260.
     \10\ Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua 
     Kaplan and Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump 
     Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica, 
     (June 25, 2021), available at https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic.
     \11\ Mark Meadows, The Chief's Chief, (All Seasons Press, 
     2021), p. 259.
     \12\ See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from White House Counsel to 
     Counsel for Mr. Meadows, Nov. 11, 2021).
     \13\ 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).
     \14\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
     \15\ 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.'').
     \16\ Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). See 
     also Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020).
     \17\ McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).
     \18\ 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).
     \19\ Pub. L. 79-601, 79th Cong.  136, (1946).
     \20\ Pub. L. 91-510, 91st Cong.  118, (1970).
     \21\ Speaker Pelosi detailed such consultation and her 
     selection decisions in a July 21, 2021, press release, 
     available at https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/72121-2.
     \22\ 167 Cong. Rec. 115 (July 1, 2021), at p. H3597 and 167 
     Cong. Rec. 130 (July 26, 2021), at p. H3885. The January 4, 
     2021, order of the House provides that the Speaker is 
     authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments 
     authorized by law or by the House. See 167 Cong. Rec. 2 (Jan. 
     4, 2021), at p. H37.
     \23\ House rule XI, cl. 2(m)(1)(B), 117th Cong., (2021); H. 
     Res. 503, 117th Cong.  5(c)(4), (2021).
     \24\ See clause 2(m)(3)(D) of rule XI (``Subpoenas for 
     documents or testimony may be issued to . . . the President, 
     and the Vice President, whether current or former, in a 
     personal or official capacity, as well as the White House, 
     the Office of the President, the Executive Office of the 
     President, and any individual currently or formerly employed 
     in the White House, Office of the President, or Executive 
     Office of the President.'').
     \25\ H. Res. 503, 117th Cong.  5(c)(6), (2021).
     \26\ Section 5(c)(4) of H. Res. 503 invokes clause 
     2(m)(3)(A)(i) of rule XI, which states in pertinent part: 
     ``The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under 
     subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chair of the 
     committee under such rules and under such limitations as the 
     committee may prescribe.''
     \27\ H. Res. 503, 117th Cong.  3(1) (2021).
     \28\ Karl, Betrayal, pp. 297-299.
     \29\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
     production); Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, I Alone Can Fix 
     It, (New York: Penguin, 2021), p. 476.
     \30\ Adam Ciralsky, `` `The President Threw Us Under the 
     Bus': Embedding with Pentagon Leadership in Trump's Chaotic 
     Last Week,'' Vanity Fair, (Jan. 22, 2021), available at 
     https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/embedding-with-
pentagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-week.
     \31\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
     production); Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox News, 
     (Feb. 11, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
transcript/biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-
call-with-xi; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Feb. 12, 
     2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-
yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-nursing-home-blasts-
disgrace-cuomo; Testimony of Hon. Christopher C. Miller, U.S. 
     House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform, 
     (May 12, 2021), available at https://oversight.house.gov/
sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
Miller%20Testimony.pdf.
     \32\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
     production).
     \33\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
     production).
     \34\ Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
     production).
     \35\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \36\ Michael Bender, Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The 
     Inside Story of How Trump Lost, (New York: Grand Central 
     Publishing, 2021), p. 369.
     \37\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \38\ Marissa Schultz, ``Trump meets with members of Congress 
     plotting Electoral College objections on Jan. 6,'' Fox News, 
     (Dec. 21, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/members-of-congress-trump-electoral-college-
objections-on-jan-6; Tweet, @MarkMeadows, (Dec. 21, 2020 at 
     6:03 p.m.) (``Several members of Congress just finished a 
     meeting in the Oval Office with President @realDonaldTrump, 
     preparing to fight back against mounting evidence of voter 
     fraud. Stay tuned.'').
     \39\ Caitlin McFall, ``Trump, House Republicans held call to 
     discuss Electoral College rejection: Brooks,'' Fox News, 
     (Jan. 2, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/gop-splits-electoral-college-certification; Tweet, 
     @RepMoBrooks, (Jan. 2, 2021 at 7:17 p.m.) (``Our fight for 
     honest & accurate elections gains momentum! @Jim_Jordan & I 
     co-lead conference call w 50+ Congressmen who join & fight 
     for America's Republic! . . . President Trump & CoS Mark 
     Meadows speaking. Morale is HIGH!

[[Page H7675]]

     FIGHT!''); Paul Bedard, ``Exclusive: Trump urges state 
     legislators to reject electoral votes, `You are the real 
     power','' Washington Examiner, (Jan. 3, 2021), available at 
     https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/
exclusive-trump-urges-state-legislators-to-reject-electoral-
votes-you-are-the-real-power.
     \40\ Linda So, ``Trump's chief of staff could face scrutiny 
     in Georgia criminal probe,'' Reuters, (March 19, 2021), 
     available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-
georgia-meadows-insight-idUSKBN2BB0XX.
     \41\ Id.
     \42\ ``AP FACT CHECK: Trump's made-up claims of fake Georgia 
     votes,'' Associated Press, (Jan. 3, 2021), https://
apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-donald-trump-georgia-
elections-atlanta-c23d10e5299e14daee6109885f7dafa9; ``Here's 
     the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and 
     Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-
transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-
322644d82356_story.html.
     \43\ ``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call 
     between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 
     2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html.
     \44\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \45\ Transcript of November 20, 2020, White House Press 
     Conference, available at https://www.rev.com/blog/
transcripts/press-secretary-kayleigh-mcenany-white-house-
press-conference-transcript-november-20.
     \46\ Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside 
     the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb. 
     2, 2021), available at https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html.
     \47\ Id.
     \48\ Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, ``Trump Weighed 
     Naming Election Conspiracy Theorist as Special Counsel,'' New 
     York Times, (Dec. 19, 2020), available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-
voter-fraud.html.
     \49\ Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside 
     the craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb. 
     2, 2021), available at https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-
office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-
26eb267f8723.html.
     \50\ Karl, Betrayal, pp. 259-60.
     \51\ Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua 
     Kaplan and Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump 
     Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica, 
     (June 25, 2021), available at https://www.propublica.org/
article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-aides-knew-jan-6-
rally-could-get-chaotic.
     \52\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \53\ Meadows, The Chief's Chief, p. 261.
     \54\ Meadows, The Chief's Chief, p. 259.
     \55\ See Appendix, Ex. 1 (Subpoena to Mark Meadows).
     \56\ Id.
     \57\ See Appendix, Ex. 2 (Various Correspondence).
     \58\ Id.
     \59\ Id.
     \60\ Id.
     \61\ Id.
     \62\ Id.
     \63\ Id.
     \64\ Id.
     \65\ Id.
     \66\ Id.
     \67\ Id.
     \68\ Id.
     \69\ Id.
     \70\ Id.
     \71\ Id.
     \72\ Id.
     \73\ Id.
     \74\ Id.
     \75\ Id.
     \76\ Id.
     \77\ Id.
     \78\ Id.
     \79\ Id.
     \80\ Id.
     \81\ Id.
     \82\ Id.
     \83\ Id.
     \84\ Id.
     \85\ Id.
     \86\ Id.
     \87\ Id.
     \88\ Trump v. Thompson, Case No. 1:21-cv-02769-TSC, Doc. 35 
     (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2021) (citations and quotation marks 
     omitted).
     \89\ Id., at p. 39.
     \90\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
     \91\ Id.
     \92\ Id.
     \93\ Id.
     \94\ Id.
     \95\ See Appendix, Ex. 5 (Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows 
     to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 19, 2021), at p. 2.
     \96\ Id., at pp. 1-2.
     \97\ See Appendix, Ex. 6 (Letter from Chairman Thompson to 
     Counsel to Mark Meadows, Nov. 22, 2021).
     \98\ Id., at p. 1.
     \99\ Id.
     \100\ Id., at p. 2.
     \101\ Id., at pp. 2-3.
     \102\ Id., at p. 3.
     \103\ Id.
     \104\ See Appendix, Ex. 7 (Letter from Counsel to Mark 
     Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021), at p. 2.
     \105\ See Appendix, Ex. 8 (Letter from Counsel to Mark 
     Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021), at p. 2.
     \106\ See Appendix, Ex. 9 (Letter from Chairman Thompson to 
     Counsel to Mark Meadows, Nov. 28, 2021), at p. 1.
     \107\ Id., at p. 2.
     \108\ Id.
     \109\ See Appendix, Ex. 10 (Letter from Counsel to Mark 
     Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Dec. 3, 2021).
     \110\ See Appendix, Ex. 11 (Letter from Counsel to Mark 
     Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Dec. 7, 2021)
     \111\ McGrain, 273 U.S. at 174 (``We are of opinion that the 
     power of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an essential 
     and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.''); 
     Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959) (``The 
     scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating 
     and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and 
     appropriate under the Constitution.'').
     \112\ Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187-88 (``It is unquestionably the 
     duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its 
     efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent 
     legislative action.''); see also Committee on the Judiciary 
     v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 99 (D.D.C. 2008) (``The Supreme 
     Court has made it abundantly clear that compliance with a 
     congressional subpoena is a legal requirement.'') (citing 
     United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950)).
     \113\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
     \114\ Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (GSA), 433 
     U.S. 425, 449 (1977) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
     \115\ See, e.g., Meadows, The Chief's Chief; ``Hannity,'' Fox 
     News, (Dec. 7, 2021), available at https://video.foxnews.com/
v/6285715473001#sp=show-clips; ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox 
     News, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
media/mark-meadows-potential-contempt-charges-january-6-
 committee.
     \116\ Brief for Executive Branch Defendants, Trump v. 
     Thompson, Case No. 21-5254, Doc. No. 1923461, at p. 28 (D.C. 
     Cir. Nov. 22, 2021) (emphasis added).
     \117\ Id., at p. 29 (emphasis in original).
     \118\ Trump v. Thompson, Case No. 1:21-cv-02769-TSC, Doc. No. 
     35, at p. 19 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2021) (citations and quotation 
     marks omitted).
     \119\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
     \120\ See Appendix, Ex. 3, at p. 2. White House Deputy 
     Counsel has also made clear that the White House's position 
     has remained unchanged as of December 8, 2021.
     \121\ Id., at p. 1.
     \122\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
     \123\ See 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).
     \124\ Id.; see also Appendix, Ex. 2 (``I recognize, as your 
     letter points out, that to date, the lower courts have not 
     shared [OLC's] view.'').
     \125\ Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President, 
     Office of Legal Counsel, Testimonial Immunity Before Congress 
     of the Former Counsel to the President, 43 O.L.C. 1 at 1 (May 
     20, 2019); see also Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the 
     President, Office of Legal Counsel, Immunity of the Former 
     Counsel to the President from Compelled Congressional 
     Testimony, 31 O.L.C. 191 at 193 (July 10, 2007) (``we 
     conclude that Ms. Miers is immune from compelled 
     congressional testimony about matters . . . that arose during 
     her tenure as Counsel to the President and that relate to her 
     official duties in that capacity'' (emphasis added)).
     \126\ Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 449.
     \127\ ID.
     \128\ See Espy, 121 F.3d at 752 (``the privilege only applies 
     to communications . . . in the course of performing their 
     function of advising the President on official government 
     matters''); cf. In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 
     1998) (Deputy White House Counsel's ``advice [to the 
     President] on political, strategic, or policy issues, 
     valuable as it may have been, would not be shielded from 
     disclosure by the attorney-client privilege'').
     \129\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
     \130\ See Appendix, Ex. 11, at p. 2.
     \131\ See Appendix, Ex. 2.
     \132\ U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705-06 (1974).
     \133\ Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 455 (``But given the 
     safeguards built into the Act to prevent disclosure of such 
     materials and the minimal nature of the intrusion into the 
     confidentiality of the Presidency, we believe that the claims 
     of Presidential privilege clearly must yield to the important 
     congressional purposes of preserving the materials and 
     maintaining access to them for lawful governmental and 
     historical purposes.'').
     \134\ See, e.g., Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox 
     News, (Feb. 11, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/
transcript/biden-warns-china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-
call-with-xi; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Feb. 12, 
     2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-
yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-nursing-home-blasts-
disgrace-cuomo; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Dec. 7, 
     2021), available at https://video.foxnews.com/v/
6285715473001#sp=show-clips; Transcript, ``The Ingraham 
     Angle,'' Fox News, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at https://
www.foxnews.com/media/mark-meadows-potential-contempt-
charges-january-6-committee.
     \135\ Meadows, The Chief's Chief, at p. 259.
     \136\ See, e.g., Espy, 121 F.3d at 741-42 (discussing waiver 
     and concluding that ``the White House has waived its claims 
     of [executive] privilege in regard to the specific documents 
     that it voluntarily revealed to third parties outside the 
     White House'').
     \137\ Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 
     491, 505, 515 (1975).
     \138\ See supra. 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).
     \139\ Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 165 (1955).
     \140\ Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 299 (1929); 
     see also In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 672 (1897) 
     (``deliberately refusing to answer questions pertinent [to a 
     matter properly under consideration by Congress] shall be a 
     misdemeanor against the United States''); Licavoli v. United 
     States, 294 F.2d 207, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1961) (`` `[W]illfully' 
     means merely a deliberate intention; an evil motive is not a 
     necessary part of the intent thus required.'')
     \141\ See 2 U.S.C.  192.
     \142\ Mary Papenfuss, ``Watch Mark Meadows Slam Official Who 
     `Stonewalled' Subpoenas from GOP Congress,'' Yahoo News, 
     (Nov. 14, 2021), available at https://news.yahoo.com/watch-
mark-meadows-slam-official-001107830.html (containing video 
     clip of then-Rep. Mark Meadows criticizing the Deputy 
     Attorney General for ignoring a subpoena); Tweet, 
     @MarkMeadows (July 25, 2018 at 7:01 p.m.) (``I just filed a 
     resolution with @Jim_Jordan and several colleagues to impeach 
     Rod Rosenstein. The DOJ has continued to hide information 
     from Congress and repeatedly obstructed oversight--even 
     defying multiple Congressional subpoenas.''); ``Non-Profit 
     Organizations and Politics,'' Hearing of the Subcommittee on 
     Government Operations, U.S. House Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, (December 13, 2018), (at which then-
     Chairman Meadows chided the Department of Justice for 
     declining to make available as a witness the prosecutor 
     appointed to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the Clinton 
     Foundation), available at https://www.c-span.org/video/
?455872-1/profit-organizations-politics.
     \143\ See, e.g., ``White House Office of Political Affairs: 
     Is Supporting Candidates and Campaign Fund-Raising an 
     Appropriate Use of a Government Office?'' Hearing of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of 
     Representatives, (July 16, 2014), (at which Chairman Darrell 
     Issa noted the House Oversight Committee in 2007 had obtained 
     testimony of 18 Bush administration political appointees 
     included White House political directors; and at which Rep. 
     Meadows was present); see also ``Presidential Advisers' 
     Testimony before Congressional Committees: An Overview,'' 
     Congressional Research Service, (RL31351, Apr. 10, 2007).
     \144\ ``Clinton Aides Testify They Opposed Rich Pardon,'' New 
     York Times, (Mar. 1, 2001), available at

[[Page H7676]]

     https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/01/national/clinton-aides-
testify-they-opposed-rich-pardon.html.

[[Page H7677]]

  



                                appendix

       The official transcript that memorialized Mr. Meadows's 
     failure to appear at his November 12, 2021, deposition as 
     ordered by subpoena, along with exhibits included in that 
     record, is as follows:
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE U.S. 
      CAPITOL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC
DEPOSITION OF: MARK MEADOWS (NO-SHOW)
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
The deposition in the above matter was held in * * * * commencing at 
      10:00 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE 
      U.S. CAPITOL:
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
                               __________
                               
  * * * *. Good morning. We are on the record.
  Today is November 12th, 2021, the time is 10 a.m., and we are 
convened in * * * * for the deposition of Mark Meadows to be conducted 
by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on 
the United States Capitol.
  My name is * * * *. I am the designated select committee staff 
counsel for this proceeding. I'm accompanied by * * * *, deputy staff 
director and chief counsel to the select committee; * * * *, select 
committee staff counsel; * * * *, select committee staff counsel; * * * 
*, select committee parliamentarian.
  And joining us virtually is * * * * and * * * *, who are select 
committee staff, as well as chief clerk to the select committee, * * * 
*.
  For the record, it is now 10:01 a.m., and Mr. Meadows is not present. 
The person transcribing this proceeding is the House stenographer and 
notary public authorized to administer oaths.
  On September 23rd, 2021, Chairman Bennie Thompson issued a subpoena 
to Mr. Meadows, both to produce documents by October 7th, 2021, and to 
testify at a deposition on October 15th of 2021 at 10 a.m.
  The subpoena is in connection with the select committees 
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.
  After Mr. Meadows retained counsel, who is George Terwilliger, III, 
the select committee agreed to postpone the subpoena deadlines to 
enable his counsel to understand the requests associated with the 
subpoena and work with Mr. Meadows.
  Ultimately, by letter dated October 25th, 2021, the select committee 
set new deadlines to produce documents and appear for testimony. Mr. 
Meadows was required to produce documents by November 5th, 2021, and 
appear for testimony on November 12th, 2021.
  By letters dated between October 25th and November 11th, the select 
committee engaged with counsel for Mr. Meadows. In the letters, the 
select committee addressed Mr. Meadows' claims of, among other things, 
absolute testimonial immunity and executive privilege.
  In the letters, the select committee also instructed Mr. Meadows to 
assert his privilege claims in a privilege log for responsive documents 
and on a question by question basis at the deposition.
  On November 10th, 2021, Mr. Meadows, through counsel, informed the 
select committee that he would not appear at today's deposition citing 
testimonial immunity and privileges. Specifically, counsel said that, 
quote, ``Mr. Meadows cannot agree to appear at 10 a.m. Friday,'' end 
quote.
  Following that letter, the White House Counsel's Office sent counsel 
for Mr. Meadows a letter dated November 11th, indicating that the White 
House would not assert claims of testimonial immunity or executive 
privilege to prevent Mr. Meadows' testimony before the select 
committee.
  Specifically, the letter states that President Biden, quote, ``will 
not assert executive privilege with respect to your client's deposition 
testimony on these subjects, or any documents your client may possess 
that bear on them. For the same reasons underlying his decision on 
executive privilege, President Biden has determined that he will not 
assert immunity to preclude your client from testifying before the 
Select Committee,'' end quote.
  The select committee then sent counsel for Mr. Meadows a final letter 
in light of the White House Counsel's Office's stated position. To 
date, the select committee has not received a response.
  In the letters, the select committee informed Mr. Meadows, quote, 
``the Select Committee will view Mr. Meadows' failure to respond to the 
subpoena as willful non compliance. Such willful non compliance with 
the subpoena would force the Select Committee to consider invoking the 
contempt of Congress procedures in 2 U.S.C., sections 192 and section 
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. Meadows in his 
personal capacity,'' end quote.
  Mr. Meadows has not provided any documents or a privilege log, and 
Mr. Meadows has not appeared today to answer questions or assert 
privilege objections.
  I will mark as exhibit 1 and enter into the record the select 
committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows, included with which are the 
materials that accompanied the subpoena; namely, a letter from the 
chairman, a document schedule with accompanying production 
instructions, and a copy of the deposition rules.

[[Page H7678]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.001



[[Page H7679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.001



[[Page H7680]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.002



[[Page H7681]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.003



[[Page H7682]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.004



[[Page H7683]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.005



[[Page H7684]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.006



[[Page H7685]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.007



[[Page H7686]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.008



[[Page H7687]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.009



[[Page H7688]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.010



[[Page H7689]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.011



[[Page H7690]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.012



[[Page H7691]]

  * * * *. I will mark as exhibit 2 and enter into the record a series 
of letters and emails exchanged between the select committee and 
counsel for Mr. Meadows. The records include email service of the 
subpoena by * * * *, which Mr. Scott Gast accepted on Mr. Meadows' 
behalf on September 23rd, 2021.
  The records in exhibit 2 also include the letters and emails between 
counsel for the select committee and Mr. George Terwilliger, which I 
described moments ago. And, specifically, they are a letter from George 
Terwilliger to the select committee on October 7th; an email from 
George Terwilliger to the select committee on October 13th; letters 
provided by George Terwilliger to the select committee, one of which is 
a letter from him to the White House Counsel's Office dated October 
11th, 2021, and the other is a letter to George Terwilliger dated 
October 6th from Mr. Justin Clark, as counsel to former President 
Trump; a letter from the select committee to George Terwilliger on 
October 25th; two letters from George Terwilliger to the select 
committee on November 3rd; a letter from the select committee to George 
Terwilliger on November 5th; a letter from George Terwilliger to the 
select committee on November 8th; a letter from the select committee to 
George Terwilliger on November 9th; a letter from George Terwilliger to 
the select committee on November 10th; and a letter from the select 
committee to George Terwilliger on November 11th.

[[Page H7692]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.002



[[Page H7693]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.013



[[Page H7694]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.014



[[Page H7695]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.015



[[Page H7696]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.016



[[Page H7697]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.017



[[Page H7698]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.018



[[Page H7699]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.019



[[Page H7700]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.020



[[Page H7701]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.021



[[Page H7702]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.022



[[Page H7703]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.023



[[Page H7704]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.024



[[Page H7705]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.025



[[Page H7706]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.026



[[Page H7707]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.027



[[Page H7708]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.028



[[Page H7709]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.029



[[Page H7710]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.030



[[Page H7711]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.031



[[Page H7712]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.032



[[Page H7713]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.033



[[Page H7714]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.034



[[Page H7715]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.035



[[Page H7716]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.036



[[Page H7717]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.037



[[Page H7718]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.038



[[Page H7719]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.039



[[Page H7720]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.040



[[Page H7721]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.041



[[Page H7722]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.042



[[Page H7723]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.043



[[Page H7724]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.044



[[Page H7725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.045



[[Page H7726]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.046



[[Page H7727]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.047



[[Page H7728]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.048



[[Page H7729]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.049



[[Page H7730]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.050



[[Page H7731]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.051



[[Page H7732]]

  * * * *. I will mark as exhibit 3 and enter into the record a letter 
dated November 11th, 2021, from the White House Counsel's Office to Mr. 
George Terwilliger as counsel for Mr. Meadows.

[[Page H7733]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.003



[[Page H7734]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.052



[[Page H7735]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.053



[[Page H7736]]

  * * * *. I will mark as exhibit 4 and enter into the record an email 
dated November 9th, 2021, and corresponding attachments from * * * *, 
chief investigative counsel to the select committee, to George 
Terwilliger, with subject line, ``Deposition Rules.'' The attachments 
consist of, one, a document called ``Document Production Definitions 
and Instructions''; two, ``Deposition Rules,'' which is a copy of the 
House Congressional Record page H41 from January 4th, 2021; third, 
which is a copy of section 3(b) of House Resolution 8 dated January 
4th, 2021.

[[Page H7737]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.004



[[Page H7738]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.054



[[Page H7739]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.055



[[Page H7740]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.056



[[Page H7741]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.057



[[Page H7742]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.058



[[Page H7743]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.059



[[Page H7744]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.060



[[Page H7745]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.061



[[Page H7746]]

  * * * *. And, with that, I will note for the record that it is 10:07 
a.m., and Mr. Meadows 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 10:07 a.m.
  [Whereupon, at 10:07 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]

[[Page H7747]]

  

       The official transcript for Mr. Meadows's voluntary 
     deposition on December 8, 2021, is as follows:
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE U.S. 
      CAPITOL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC
DEPOSITION OF: MARK MEADOWS (NO-SHOW)
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
The deposition in the above matter was held in * * * * commencing at 
      10:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Representatives Schiff and Lofgren.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE 
      U.S. CAPITOL:
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
  * * * *, * * * *
                               __________
                               
  * * * *. All right. It's 10 a.m. So we'll go ahead and get started 
going on the record.
  This is a deposition of Mark Meadows, conducted by the House Select 
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
Capitol, pursuant to House Resolution 503.
  My name is * * * *. That's * * * *, and I'm the chief investigative 
counsel to the select committee. With me today are * * * *, who is a 
senior investigative counsel, and Ms. Zoe Lofgren, who is a member of 
the select committee, is also participating remotely.
  Based on an agreement with counsel to Mr. Meadows, this deposition 
was to begin at 10 a.m. It is now 10 a.m., and Mr. Meadows has not 
appeared.
  Mr. Meadows received a subpoena, dated September 23rd, 2021, 
requiring him to produce documents to the select committee and appear 
for a deposition. Staff engaged in several discussions with Mr. 
Meadows' counsel regarding the scope of his production and the subject 
matters to be developed at his deposition.
  Staff provided Mr. Meadows' counsel with specific areas in which it 
is interested and asked Mr. Meadows to identify those that would 
trigger a privilege assertion. Rather than engage with the select 
committee, Mr. Meadows asserted that, as a former White House chief of 
staff, he cannot be compelled to provide information to Congress. He 
communicated his blanket assertion of immunity, in addition to claims 
of executive privilege, in writing to Chairman Thompson.
  On November 12th, 2021, the select committee convened the scheduled 
deposition of Mr. Meadows after the current White House indicated, in 
writing, that President Biden would not assert any immunity or 
privilege that would prevent Mr. Meadows from appearing and answering 
the committee's questions.
  Mr. Meadows did not appear for that deposition on November 12th, as 
indicated in his prior correspondence.
  He also failed to produce any documents responsive to the select 
committee's subpoena or a privilege log asserting claims of privilege 
for specific documents.
  After Mr. Meadows failed to appear for his deposition or produce 
documents, select committee staff engaged in further discussions with 
Mr. Meadows' counsel regarding the status of his noncooperation.
  Mr. Meadows ultimately agreed to produce some documents and to appear 
for a deposition today, December 8th, 2021, at 10 a.m., an offer which 
the chairman extended to him as a good faith effort to enable Mr. 
Meadows to cure his failure to comply with the September 23rd subpoena 
and provide information relevant to the select committee's 
investigation.
  Mr. Meadows has now produced documents. Counsel made clear that Mr. 
Meadows intended to withhold some responsive information due to a claim 
of executive privilege. He agreed to produce documents he believes are 
not covered by that or any other privilege and to produce a privilege 
log identifying responsive documents withheld due to such privilege 
assertions.
  He also agreed to appear for a deposition, at which he would be asked 
questions on subject matters relevant to the select committee's 
inquiry, as identified in our prior correspondence, and either answer 
the questions or articulate a claimed privilege.
  We agreed with Mr. Meadows' counsel that this production and 
deposition would clarify Mr. Meadows' position on the application of 
various privileges and create a record for further discussion and 
consideration of possible enforcement by the select committee.
  Consistent with that agreement, Mr. Meadows did produce documents and 
privilege logs. More specifically, he produced approximately 6,600 
pages of records taken from personal email accounts he used to conduct 
official business, as well as a privilege log describing other emails 
over which he claims privilege protection. He also produced 
approximately 2,000 text messages, which Mr. Meadows sent or received 
using a personal device which he used for official business, in 
addition to a privilege log, in which he describes privilege claims 
over other withheld text messages.
  Mr. Meadows was scheduled to appear today, December 8th, 2021, for a 
deposition. However, he has not appeared and is not present today. We 
received correspondence from Mr. Meadows' attorney yesterday indicating 
that, despite his prior agreement to appear today, his position has 
changed and he would not appear.
  We are disappointed in Mr. Meadows' failure to appear as planned, as 
it deprives the select committee of an opportunity to develop relevant 
information in Mr. Meadows' possession and to, more specifically, 
understand the contours of his executive privilege claim.
  Again, the purpose of today's proceeding was to ask Mr. Meadows 
questions that we believe would be outside of any cognizable claim of 
executive, attorney client, Fifth Amendment, or other potentially 
applicable privilege.
  Our hope is that he would answer those questions, which would 
materially advance the select committee's investigation, given Mr. 
Meadows' service as White House chief of staff. We expected that he 
would assert privileges in response to various questions, articulating 
the specific privilege he believes is implicated and how it applies to 
the question asked. We planned to evaluate Mr. Meadows' privilege 
assertions after today's proceeding, engage in further discussions with 
Mr. Meadows' counsel, and consider whether enforcement steps were 
appropriate and necessary.
  Mr. Meadows' failure to appear for today's deposition deprives us of 
the opportunity to engage in that process. Instead, we are left with 
Mr. Meadows' complete refusal to appear for his deposition or cure his 
willful noncompliance with the select committee's subpoena.
  Had Mr. Meadows appeared for his deposition today, we would have 
asked him a series of questions about subjects that we believe are well 
outside of any claim of executive privilege. More specifically, we 
would have asked Mr. Meadows questions about his use of personal email 
and cellular phones.
  Mr. Meadows' document production includes documents taken from two 
Gmail accounts. We would've asked him how and for what purpose he used 
those Gmail accounts and when he used one of them as opposed to his 
official White House email account. We would've similarly asked him 
about his use of a personal cellular telephone.
  We would have sought to develop information about when Mr. Meadows 
used his personal cell phone for calls and text messages and when he 
used his official White House cell phone for those purposes.
  Mr. Meadows' production of documents shows that he used the Gmail 
accounts and his personal cellular phone for official business related 
to his service as White House chief of staff. Given that fact, we would 
ask Mr. Meadows about his efforts to preserve those documents and 
provide them to the National Archives, as required by the Presidential 
Records Act. Finally, we would have asked Mr. Meadows about his use of 
a signal account, which is reflected in the text messages he produced.
  In addition, we would have asked Mr. Meadows about particular emails 
that he produced to the select committee. We do not believe these 
emails implicate any valid claim of executive or other privilege, given 
that Mr. Meadows has produced the emails to the select committee.
  Specifically, we would've asked Mr. Meadows about emails about the 
Electoral Count Act and the prospect of State legislators sending 
alternate slates of electors to Congress, including a November 7th, 
2020, email with

[[Page H7748]]

attachments. We would've asked him about emails reflecting the Trump 
campaign's effort to challenge election results, including a December 
23rd email from Mr. Meadows indicating that, quote, ``Rudy was put in 
charge. That was the President's decision,'' end quote, that reflects a 
direct communication between Mr. Meadows and the President.
  We would've asked him about emails from Mr. Meadows to leadership at 
the Department of Justice on December 29th and 30th, 2020, and January 
1st, 2021, encouraging investigations of suspected voter fraud, 
including claims that had been previously rebutted by State and Federal 
investigators and rejected by Federal courts.
  We would have asked Mr. Meadows about emails regarding the deployment 
of the National Guard on January 6th, including a January 5th email 
from Mr. Meadows in which he indicates that the Guard would be present 
at the Capitol to, quote, ``protect pro Trump people,'' end quote.
  In addition, we would have asked Mr. Meadows about specific text 
messages he sent or received that he has produced to the select 
committee. Given Mr. Meadows' production of these text messages to the 
select committee, they do not, in our view, implicate any valid claim 
of executive or other privilege.
  We would've specifically asked Mr. Meadows about text messages 
regarding efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain States 
to send alternate slates of electors to Congress, including a message 
sent by Mr. Meadows on December 8th, 2020, in which Mr. Meadows said, 
quote, ``We are,'' end quote, and another text from Mr. Meadows to 
someone else in which he said that, quote, ``We have a team on it,'' 
end quote.
  We would have asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and from 
Members of Congress, including text messages received from a Member of 
Congress in November of 2020 regarding efforts to contact State 
legislators because, as Mr. Meadows indicates in his text messages, 
quote, ``POTUS wants to chat with them,'' end quote, which reflects a 
direct communication with the President, as well as texts in December 
of 2020 regarding the prospect of the President's appointment of 
Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General.
  We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and from 
another Member of Congress in November of 2020, in which the member 
indicates that, quote, the President asked him to call Governor Ducey, 
end quote, and in which Mr. Meadows asks for contact information for 
the attorney general of Arizona to discuss allegations of election 
fraud.
  We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and 
received from Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
about objections to the certification of electors in certain States on 
January 6th. We would have asked him about text messages sent to and 
received from a Senator regarding the Vice President's power to reject 
electors, including a text in which Mr. Meadows recounts a direct 
communication with President Trump who, according to Mr. Meadows in his 
text messages, quote, ``thinks the legislators have the power, but the 
VP has power too,'' end quote.
  We would have asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and 
received from a media personality on December 12th, 2021, regarding the 
negative impact of President Trump's election challenges on the Senate 
runoff elections in Georgia, President Trump's prospects for election 
in 2024, and Mr. Meadows possible employment by a news channel.
  We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to and 
received from an organizer of the January 6th events on the Ellipse 
about planning the event, including details about who would speak at 
the event and where certain individuals would be located.
  We'd ask Mr. Meadows about text messages regarding President Trump's 
January 2nd, 2021, phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad 
Raffensperger, including texts to and from participants in the call as 
it took place, as well as text messages to and received from Members of 
Congress after the call took place regarding strategy for dealing with 
criticism of the call.
  We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages exchanged with 
various individuals, including Members of Congress, on January 6th, 
both before, during, and after the attack on the United States Capitol, 
including text messages encouraging Mr. Meadows to facilitate a 
statement by President Trump discouraging violence at the Capitol on 
January 6th, including a text exchange with a media personality who had 
encouraged the presidential statement asking people to, quote, 
``peacefully leave the Capitol,'' end quote, as well as a text sent to 
one of--by one of the President's family members indicating that Mr. 
Meadows is, quote, ``pushing hard,'' end quote, for a statement from 
President Trump to, quote, ``condemn this shit,'' end quote, happening 
at the Capitol.
  Text messages: We would ask Mr. Meadows questions about text messages 
reflecting Mr. Meadows' skepticism about public statements regarding 
allegations of election fraud put forth by Sidney Powell and his 
skepticism about the veracity of claims of tampering with Dominion 
voting machines.
  In addition, we would've asked Mr. Meadows questions about specific 
representations in a book he has authored, The Chief's Chief, in which 
he recounts various facts relevant to the select committee's 
investigation and directly describes communications with the President, 
including on page 259, quote, ``A few sentences later, President Trump 
ad libbed a line that no one had seen before, saying, `Now it is up to 
Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After 
this, we're going to walk down--and I'll be there with you--we're going 
to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave 
Senators and Congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be 
cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our 
country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be 
strong.' When he got off stage, President Trump let me know that he had 
been speaking metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol. He knew as 
well as anyone that we wouldn't organize a trip like that on such short 
notice,'' end quote.
  We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage in his book that 
appears on page 261. Quote, ``In the aftermath of the attack, President 
Trump was mortified. He knew the media would take this terrible 
incident and twist it around. He also knew his days on Twitter were 
probably numbered,'' end quote.
  We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage on page 261 in 
his book. Quote, `` `Mark,' Trump would say to me, `Look, if I lost, 
I'd have no problem admitting it. I would sit back and retire and 
probably have a much easier life, but I didn't lose. People need me to 
get back to work. We're not done yet,' '' end quote.
  We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage in his book on 
page 264 that reflects, quote, ``On January 20th, with less than 5 
hours left in his historic Presidency, at a time when most outgoing 
Presidents would be quietly making notes for their memoirs and taking 
stock of their time in the White House, President Trump was being 
forced to defend his legacy yet again. `How do we look in Congress?' 
President Trump asked. `I've heard that there are some Republicans who 
might be turning against us. That would be a very unwise thing for them 
to do,' '' end quote.
  We would've asked him about another passage on page 265 of his book. 
Quote, ``But I assured President Trump, once again, that all would be 
well with the impeachment trial, and we discussed what my role in the 
proceedings would be after we left the White House,'' end quote.
  We would've asked him about the passage on page 266 in his book where 
he recounts, quote, ``On the phone on January 20th, President Trump 
spoke as if he wasn't planning to go anywhere. He mentioned the long 
list of pardons we hadn't been able to complete largely due to the 
slowness on the part of various attorneys in the Federal Government. He 
wondered again about the precise details of the impeachment trial, 
including how much money the new lawyers would charge and how we could 
best defend him against the Democrats' attacks,'' end quote.
  These passages reflect direct communications between Mr. Meadows and

[[Page H7749]]

President Trump directly impacting his claims of executive privilege.
  Finally, we would ask Mr. Meadows questions about statements in his 
book about his interactions with the Department of Justice. 
Specifically, he addresses such interactions with the Department of 
Justice on pages 257 and 258 of his book, in which he says, quote, ``It 
didn't surprise me that our many referrals to the Department of Justice 
were not seriously investigated. I never believed they would, given the 
track record of that Department in President Trump's first term,'' end 
quote.
  Again, statements in Mr. Meadows' book directly reflect subject 
matters that the select committee seeks to develop, and his public 
statements directly impact his claims of executive privilege.
  But, as of the current time, which is now 10:17, Mr. Meadows still 
has not appeared to cure his earlier noncompliance with the select 
committee's September 23rd, 2021, subpoena. So we will not be able to 
ask any of those questions about the documents and messages that he 
apparently agrees are relevant to the select committee and not 
protected by any protective privilege.
  I'd also note for the record that Congressman Adam Schiff, a member 
of the select committee, has joined and, again, that member of the 
committee, Representative Lofgren, has joined.
  Before we close the record, Mr. Schiff or Ms. Lofgren, do either of 
you have any comments to make for the record?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I do not. Thank you.
  * * * *. Ms. Lofgren, anything?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I'm good.
  * * * *. Okay. Thank you.
  Accordingly, the record of this deposition of Mark Meadows, now at 
10:18 a.m., is closed.
  [Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]

[[Page H7750]]

  

       Additional correspondence between the Select Committee and 
     counsel for Mr. Meadows is as follows (continuing the exhibit 
     numbering from above):
       5. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
     Thompson, Nov. 19, 2021.
       6. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark 
     Meadows, Nov. 22, 2021.
       7. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
     Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021.
       8. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
     Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021.
       9. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark 
     Meadows, Nov. 28, 2021.
       10. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
     Thompson, Dec. 3, 2021.
       11. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
     Thompson, Dec. 7, 2021.
       12. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark 
     Meadows, Dec. 7, 2021.

[[Page H7751]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.005
     


[[Page H7752]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.062
     


[[Page H7753]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.063
     


[[Page H7754]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.064
     


[[Page H7755]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.006
     


[[Page H7756]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.065
     


[[Page H7757]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.066
     


[[Page H7758]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.067
     


[[Page H7759]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.007
     


[[Page H7760]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.068
     


[[Page H7761]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.069
     


[[Page H7762]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.070
     


[[Page H7763]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.008
     


[[Page H7764]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.071
     


[[Page H7765]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.072
     


[[Page H7766]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.073
     


[[Page H7767]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.009
     


[[Page H7768]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.074
     


[[Page H7769]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.075
     


[[Page H7770]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.076
     


[[Page H7771]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.077
     


[[Page H7772]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.078
     


[[Page H7773]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.079
     


[[Page H7774]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.010
     


[[Page H7775]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.080
     


[[Page H7776]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.081
     


[[Page H7777]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.082
     


[[Page H7778]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.011
     


[[Page H7779]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.083
     


[[Page H7780]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.084
     


[[Page H7781]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.012
     


[[Page H7782]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.085
     


[[Page H7783]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.086
     


[[Page H7784]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.087
     


[[Page H7785]]

  

  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. 851) recommending 
that the House of Representatives find Mark Randall Meadows in contempt 
of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the 
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United 
States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 848, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 851

       Resolved, That Mark Randall Meadows 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 
     Mark Randall Meadows to 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. Meadows 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 among and controlled by the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson) and 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.

                              {time}  1615


                             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, it is regrettable that we are back on the floor 
considering another criminal contempt referral, but our former 
colleague, Mr. Meadows, has left us no choice.
  The select committee is investigating an attack on our democracy, and 
it is essential that witnesses cooperate with our investigation to get 
answers. The law requires them to do so. And when a witness defies the 
law, that amounts to more than obstructing our investigation, it is an 
attack on the rule of law.
  In September, the select committee subpoenaed Mr. Meadows for records 
and testimony because we believed he had information relevant to our 
investigation.
  For weeks, we went back and forth with Mr. Meadows, through his 
lawyer, to try to get cooperation. We extended his initial deposition 
date to November 12. When the date came, he hadn't produced any 
documents, and he didn't show up. Throughout this time, Mr. Meadows and 
his representatives made a lot of noise about executive privilege and 
so-called absolute immunity; the idea that people who serve or served 
in certain senior roles are completely exempt from testifying before 
Congress.
  Now, let's be clear. Courts have rejected absolute immunity at every 
opportunity, and the Justice Department has never authored an opinion 
that would support the sort of claim Mr. Meadows had made about his 
unofficial conduct. And we have lots of questions for Mr. Meadows about 
the unofficial conduct. And as for executive privilege, President Biden 
has chosen not to invoke it as far as Mr. Meadows is concerned.
  So Mr. Meadows was obligated to comply with our subpoena and appear 
at a deposition. When he didn't, we were prepared at that point to move 
ahead with contempt proceedings. But at the same time, Madam Speaker, 
out of an abundance of fairness, we gave Mr. Meadows a final chance to 
cooperate.
  When he faced the possibility of contempt a few weeks ago, he finally 
decided, in part, to do the right thing and start providing 
information. He turned over roughly 9,000 pages of records that he 
himself said couldn't be covered by any claim of privilege. He also 
said he would appear at a deposition with the select committee, which 
we scheduled for December 8.
  This is key. In an investigation like ours, when you produce records, 
you are expected to come in and answer questions about those records. 
And because not even Mr. Meadows was asserting any privilege claim over 
these records, there is no possible justification for wholesale 
refusing to answer questions about them.
  But that is what he did. He told us the day before his deposition--
the same day his book was published--that he would no longer cooperate 
with our investigation, and that he wasn't coming in to be interviewed.
  Put all the other arguments aside. This isn't about any sort of 
privilege or immunity. This is about Mr. Meadows refusing to comply 
with a subpoena to discuss the records he himself turned over. Now he 
is hiding behind excuses.
  And at the end of the day, it is a simple proposition: If you are 
making excuses to avoid cooperating with our investigations, you are 
making excuses to hide the truth from the American people about what 
happened on January 6. You are making excuses as part of a coverup. And 
if you echo these excuses, if you base your arguments on these excuses, 
if you adopt these excuses as your own to explain why you will not take 
action, then you are part of that coverup, too.
  I want my colleagues to think long and hard about that; because as 
the select committee has made clear in the last day and will continue 
to make clear, there was a steady stream of communication between 
certain Members of Congress and Mr. Meadows about matters central to 
our investigation.
  We have questions about those communications. We will pursue those 
questions. And we won't let the facts be buried by a coverup.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as Chairman Thompson noted, we are here with great 
sadness. We are here recognizing and understanding the serious nature 
of this situation. And, Madam Speaker, we wish we had another 
alternative. We wish that we did not have to meet today to urge our 
colleagues to vote criminal contempt for one of our former colleagues 
and the former chief of staff to President Trump.
  We don't take this step lightly.
  As my colleagues have noted, and will no doubt say again today, for 
weeks the committee has worked with Mr. Meadows, with his counsel to 
reach an agreement on cooperation, to reach an agreement and 
accommodation.
  Now, the reality, Madam Speaker, is the accommodations process is a 
process that takes place between the legislative branch and the 
executive branch. Mr. Meadows is a member of neither, and yet, the 
committee has taken the extra step of working to try to make sure that 
we do everything we can to secure Mr. Meadows' testimony.
  He is improperly asserting executive and other privileges, but the 
vote on contempt today relates principally to his refusal to testify 
about messages and other communications that he admits are not 
privileged. He has not claimed, and he does not have, privilege to 
refuse entirely to testify regarding these topics.
  There are just three examples I will give you this afternoon of 
issues which we need to speak to Mr. Meadows about and on which his 
testimony is required, indeed compelled by our subpoena.
  First, is President Trump's failure to stop the violence when this 
Chamber, and indeed, the entire Capitol building was attacked and 
invaded. The mob that attacked this Chamber was summoned to Washington 
by President Trump. And as many of those involved have admitted on 
videotape and social

[[Page H7786]]

media and in Federal District Court, they were provoked to violence by 
President Trump's false claims that the election was stolen.
  As the violence unfolded that afternoon, nearly 1 year ago, it was 
evident to all, not only to those of us who were in the Chamber at that 
time. It was covered in real time by almost every news channel. But for 
187 minutes, President Trump refused to act. Let's let that sink in, 
Madam Speaker. He refused to act. When action by our President was 
required, it was essential, and it was compelled by his oath to our 
Constitution.
  Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages which he has produced 
without any privilege claim imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific 
action we all know his duty required. Indeed, some of those text 
messages, Madam Speaker, came from Members in the Chamber right now, 
Members who understood that a violent assault was underway at the 
Capitol, Members who pleaded with the chief of staff to get the 
President to take action. Dozens of texts, including from Trump 
administration officials and Members of Congress urged that the 
President take immediate action.
  I read a number of these last night at our hearing. I won't read them 
all today, but I will read a few of them. ``Mark,'' one Member said: 
``he needs to stop this. Now.'' In all caps: ``TELL THEM TO GO HOME.'' 
``POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protestors to dissipate. 
Someone is going to get killed.''
  Indeed, a number of members of the press, a number of Members of this 
body, a member of the President's own family, all urged the President 
to take action because they understood that the President of the United 
States had a responsibility to call off the mob.
  Hours passed despite this without any action by the President. All of 
these texts are nonprivileged. They are texts that Mr. Meadows has 
turned over. And they are evidence of President Trump's supreme 
dereliction of duty for 187 minutes. And Mr. Meadows' testimony will 
bear on another fundamental question before this committee, and that is 
whether Donald J. Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly sought 
to obstruct or impede Congress' official proceeding to count electoral 
votes.
  This committee is entitled to Mr. Meadows' testimony, and it will 
inform our legislative judgments. But Mr. Meadows has refused to give 
any testimony at all, even regarding nonprivileged topics. He is in 
contempt of Congress.
  Second, Mr. Meadows has knowledge regarding President Trump's efforts 
to persuade State officials to alter official election results.
  In Georgia, for instance, Mr. Meadows participated in a phone call 
between President Trump and the Georgia secretary of state. Mr. Meadows 
was actually on the phone when President Trump asked the secretary of 
state to ``find 11,780 votes'' to change the results of the 
Presidential election in Georgia. That is the President of the United 
States telling a State official to ``find 11,780 votes.''
  While this was happening, Mr. Meadows appears to have been texting 
with another participant on this call. Mr. Meadows has no conceivable 
privilege basis to refuse to testify on this topic. He is in contempt 
of Congress.
  Third, in the weeks before January 6, President Trump's appointees at 
the Justice Department informed him repeatedly that the President's 
claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence and that 
the election was not, in fact, stolen.
  President Trump intended to appoint Jeffrey Clark as attorney general 
in part so that Mr. Clark could alter the Department of Justice's 
conclusions regarding the election. Mr. Clark has now informed this 
committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to 
these matters and, therefore, intends in upcoming testimony to invoke 
his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
  As Mr. Meadows' nonprivileged texts reveal, Mr. Meadows communicated 
multiple times with another Member of this body who was working with 
Mr. Clark. Mr. Meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding 
those communications. He is in contempt.
  January 6 was without precedent. There has been no stronger case in 
our Nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions 
of a former President. This body must investigate the facts in detail, 
and we are entitled to ask Mr. Meadows about the nonprivileged 
materials he has produced to us.
  Madam Speaker, I am sure you will hear my colleagues this afternoon 
say that there are privilege issues here that must be resolved before 
we can move forward. Any argument that the courts need to resolve 
privilege issues first is a pretext. We will question Mr. Meadows about 
emails and texts he gave us without any privilege claim.
  Mr. Meadows' role in the Raffensperger call cannot be privileged, nor 
can his dealings with a Member of this body regarding Jeff Clark. This 
committee must get to the objective truth and ensure that January 6 
never happens again.
  Madam Speaker, Mr. Meadows is in contempt. He must testify. And I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, here we go again. For the first time in history, 
Democrats have complete control over a select committee. I hope the 
American people are paying close attention. I hope they see what 
happens when Democrats get total power. They abuse it. They intimidate, 
they threaten, and they harass. And they try to put their political 
opponents in jail.

                              {time}  1630

  In a matter of weeks, the committee has passed three criminal 
contempt citations. Today, we vote on holding Mark Meadows in contempt 
of Congress.
  On September 23, 2021, the select committee served former Congressman 
Meadows a subpoena for a sweeping set of documents and a deposition. In 
October, President Trump instructed Mr. Meadows to maintain his 
executive privilege in any response to that subpoena. Mr. Meadows then 
told the select committee that he would give them any information they 
requested that wasn't protected by executive privilege.
  Mr. Meadows gave the select committee over 6,800 pages of 
information, including 1,100 documents and 2,300 text messages. Mr. 
Meadows agreed to sit for a deposition if it was limited to areas not 
protected by executive privilege. He tried to cooperate, but the select 
committee didn't care.
  Mr. Meadows even sought an independent ruling on the question of 
executive privilege, but the select committee voted to hold him in 
contempt anyway, just like they did with Mr. Clark, who offered to 
participate pending the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Thompson.
  Apparently, the select committee's rules go like this: Ignore the 
former President and don't wait for legal rulings. Immediately do 
everything that we say without objection, or we will refer you for 
criminal prosecution.
  They don't care about fairness or due process. The point isn't 
cooperation or factfinding. They care about punishment. The point is 
prosecution. And, of course, the point is the headline that they are 
going for: Former Trump Chief of Staff found in contempt of Congress. 
But that headline omits the ugly and partisan truth about the select 
committee.
  According to the committee's charter, H. Res. 503: ``The Speaker 
shall appoint 13 Members to the select committee, five of whom shall be 
appointed after consultation with the minority leader.'' But the 
committee has zero members appointed in consultation with Leader 
McCarthy. And it doesn't have 13 members; it has 9.
  According to the committee's charter, if Mr. Meadows had come in for 
a deposition, the minority must have been allowed to question Mr. 
Meadows for the same length of time as the majority, except no members 
of the committee were named by the minority.
  This isn't nitpicking. The Supreme Court has found that a select 
committee must follow its own rules to act with legal force.
  So we have the select committee as it exists legally and on paper, 
and then we have something completely different. I don't know what to 
call it, but it doesn't resemble the select committee that Democrats 
voted to pass

[[Page H7787]]

on the House floor. It is just nine members picked by Speaker Pelosi.
  The group is trampling on Americans' constitutional rights and the 
rights of Congress, like Mr. Meadows, and current Members of Congress. 
They even include Americans whose sole offense, according to Chairman 
Thompson, was planning a legal, permitted, and First Amendment-
protected political rally.
  Thanks to media reports, we know that Democrats have seized their 
enemies' call and text records, geolocation data, and personal 
contacts. We know of hundreds of instances. It could be more.
  All we know for sure about this partisan investigation is that it is 
massive. It is happening without accountability, and it is happening in 
secret.
  The select committee should serve as a warning to all Americans. This 
is what you get when Democrats get free rein: secret snooping, 
harassment, contempt for the rules of Congress, criminalization of 
dissent, and it all ends with their opponents in jail.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader 
of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, every Member of the House ought to vote for this 
resolution--every one of you. I see one shaking their head vigorously 
``no.''
  For those of us who have been here for some time, we have seen 
extraordinary energy exercised by the other side of the aisle in 
conducting oversight. Mr. Burton from Indiana summoned tens and tens 
more and ten thereafter, on and on and on, to hold accountable an 
administration with whom he did not agree and thought was not doing the 
right thing. And he issued subpoena after subpoena after subpoena.
  The reason I say every one of us ought to vote for this is because 
this institution needs this power. This institution is charged under 
the Constitution with protecting the welfare of the American people and 
expanding the opportunities of our people.
  To do so, as the gentlewoman from Wyoming has observed, we need to 
gather information, and in the conduct of gathering that information, 
it must be our ability to compel people to testify, to come before the 
Congress of the United States and tell us facts that we need.
  Now, my Republican friends, when they were in charge, thought there 
was some type of wrongdoing, which resulted in the loss of four lives, 
tragically, in Benghazi, Libya. They had eight separate hearings on 
that issue, the last of which was the select committee led by Trey 
Gowdy of South Carolina. Every one of those committees reached the same 
conclusion, but there were eight of them.
  Madam Speaker, perhaps some of my Republican friends will recall that 
Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State during that time, appeared for 
11 hours before one of these committees, the select committee.
  Madam Speaker, I have a speech here that deals with what the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, has done. I have chosen not 
to give this speech because the issue, in my view, is not what Meadows 
has done, but clearly in contempt, as the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
pointed out so factually, but it is about this institution, about 
whether or not a President or anybody else can simply say, ``I will not 
testify,'' and then take months and months and months.

  Now, the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Indiana, 
laments the fact that we have this committee. But the gentleman from 
Indiana voted against forming an equally numbered committee to be set 
up to adjudge this issue. He voted against that, as did his Republican 
colleagues, save a few. And now he comes and says, Oh, my goodness, 
this is not what I wanted. But like so many of his colleagues, he voted 
against what he says he wanted.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana who just spoke voted 
against holding in contempt Steve Bannon not because of any executive 
privilege. He was a private citizen, not a member of the President's 
Cabinet. And the gentleman from Indiana voted against having him honor 
a subpoena of the Congress of the United States.
  Yes, it ought to be noted that, at the time of the insurrection, we 
had a vote on whether to confirm what court after court after court had 
said was a legitimate election. He voted against certifying the 
election of the President of the United States. So I am not surprised 
that the gentleman from Indiana does not want to see this subpoena 
honored because, Madam Speaker, I believe that he fears the information 
that would be brought forward. Fearing the truth is not an excuse for 
not honoring a subpoena of this Congress.
  So, again, it is not just simply the actions of Mr. Meadows that are 
at issue here. What is at issue here is what power does the Congress 
have to get the information it needs--in this case, the most important 
information it needs to achieve one of its most important objectives, 
which the gentlewoman from Wyoming has not only talked about but has 
shown extraordinary courage in standing up to her party. She is, after 
all, the former chair of the Republican Conference, the daughter of a 
Vice President of the United States and former Secretary of Defense and 
former minority whip of this House, who has shown extraordinary courage 
in the face of almost united opposition on her side of the aisle, 
leading to her removal from the position she held.
  Would that all of us all the time have the courage of our convictions 
that the gentlewoman from Wyoming has shown.
  So I say to my colleagues, all 434 or 433 of us here----
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, parliamentary privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Maryland yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I do not yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PERRY. It seems to me that my friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland, disparaged the gentleman from Indiana here personally and 
should have his words taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman making a demand that words 
be taken down?
  Mr. PERRY. Yes, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will be seated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       So I am not surprised that the gentleman from Indiana does 
     not want to see this subpoena honored. Because, Madam 
     Speaker, I believe that he fears the information that would 
     be brought forward. Fearing the truth is not an excuse for 
     not honoring a subpoena of this Congress.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The words of the gentleman from Maryland contain an allegation that 
the gentleman from Indiana fears the truth. Comparing the remarks to 
the precedents memorialized in Deschler-Brown Precedents, chapter 29, 
section 63, as well as section 370 of the House Rules and Manual, the 
Chair finds that the words are not accompanied by an allegation of 
personal mendacity and, therefore, are not unparliamentary.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. PERRY. Accusing a decorated naval officer in the United States 
military is never in good form and should be out of order in this 
Chamber.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized for his 1 
minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, first let me say that I respect the 
gentleman's service in the United States Navy as I respect all of our 
men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States.
  Let me end as I began. All of us ought to vote for this motion to 
hold somebody in contempt who refuses to come forth, who is clearly 
and, obviously, in contempt of the Congress of the United States. I 
urge every Member on behalf of this institution, not on behalf of any 
political party; on behalf of our democracy, not on behalf of 
Democrats; on behalf of the Constitution of

[[Page H7788]]

the United States to vote ``yea'' on this resolution.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, Mark Meadows, a former colleague for many 
of us, left Congress in 2020 to serve as chief of staff to then-
President Donald Trump.
  Sadly and shockingly, Mr. Meadows has admitted he played both an 
official and unofficial role in trying to overturn the results of the 
2020 Presidential election.
  He has also admitted that he has responsive and nonprivileged 
documents and communications relating to January 6. In fact, he already 
sent some of those materials to our select committee charged with 
preventing a future attack on our Capitol. Now, the select committee 
needs to speak with him about the full plot leading up to January 6.
  For example, it has been reported that the White House was directing 
the Department of Justice to investigate outrageous and really crazy 
conspiracy theories to benefit Mr. Trump politically, as well as to 
orchestrate the dissemination of election misinformation. We need to 
talk to Mr. Meadows about this.
  We have learned that Mr. Meadows made a surprise visit to a State-run 
audit in Georgia, which led to the now-infamous call in which Mr. Trump 
improperly asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find votes. We need 
to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.
  We also need to ask him about text messages which he provided to our 
committee that show an official in Georgia texting Mr. Meadows during 
the Trump-Raffensperger call saying that they ``need to end this 
call,'' and emphasizing: ``I don't think this will be productive much 
longer.'' We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.
  We also know that during that same week in early January, Mr. Meadows 
was in direct contact with campaign staff and organizers of the rally 
at the Ellipse where his boss, the President, urged supporters to 
fight. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.
  While domestic terrorists invaded the Halls where he used to work, 
Mr. Meadows interacted with many people, including some of our 
colleagues who were here in this Chamber. We have learned many of those 
interactions took place on his personal device. We need to talk to Mr. 
Meadows about that.
  Clearly, Mr. Meadows has important information about events that 
culminated in the violent attack on the Capitol and on our democracy. 
He must follow the law. He must cooperate with the select committee's 
lawful requests. No one is above the law. He must be held accountable 
for his violation of the law.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three articles.
  First: ``J6 Committee Misleading Witnesses About Republican Staff 
Presence,'' by Mollie Hemingway, that was published in The Federalist.
  Second: ``The Democratic Norm Breakers: The January 6 committee wants 
to subpoena GOP phone records,'' by The Wall Street Journal editorial 
page.
  Third: ``Civil Liberties Are Being Trampled by Exploiting 
`Insurrection' Fears. Congress's 1/6 Committee May Be the Worst Abuse 
Yet: The Unconstitutionality of the 1/6 Committee,'' by Glenn 
Greenwald, published by Substack.

                  [From the Federalist, Nov. 10, 2021]

   J6 Committee Misleading Witnesses About Republican Staff Presence

       Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney ran to CNN a few weeks ago to 
     accuse conservative stalwart Rep. Jim Banks of falsely 
     presenting himself as the Jan. 6 commission's ranking member. 
     Banks is, in fact, congressional Republicans' choice to be 
     their top investigator on the committee, but he has been 
     prevented from fulfilling his duties by Speaker of the House 
     Nancy Pelosi.
       However, it's Cheney who appears to be misrepresenting 
     herself as the ranking member--that is, the top Republican--
     on the committee.
       January 6 Select Committee staff have been falsely telling 
     witnesses that Republican staff will be present for 
     interviews, according to multiple eyewitness sources and 
     documents. In fact, not a single Republican-appointed member 
     of Congress nor a single staff member representing the 
     Republican conference is part of the controversial committee.
       Witnesses are being told that John Wood, a longtime friend 
     and ally of the Cheney family, will represent Republicans 
     when witnesses testify. But neither Cheney nor her friend is 
     representing the Republican conference. In fact, Cheney was 
     appointed to the committee in early July by Pelosi herself.
       ``John Wood works for the Democrat Party, just like Liz 
     Cheney, who was appointed by Pelosi and is not the Ranking 
     Member of the Select Committee. She is misleading witnesses, 
     before they testify under penalty of law, about the motives 
     and the position of the person questioning them,'' said 
     Banks, who has continued leading Republicans' investigation 
     of the federal government's handling of the Jan. 6 riot at 
     the Capitol. Cheney's work with CNN was designed to prevent 
     him from being able to gain answers to the questions the 
     select committee was ostensibly set up to answer.
       Cheney was given six days to explain whether she considers 
     herself just the Democrat-appointed vice-chair of the 
     committee or also the Republican ranking member, as is being 
     represented to key witnesses. She has not responded to 
     multiple requests for comment.
       The misrepresentation to witnesses is key because the 
     absence of any ranking member--meaning, in this case, any 
     Republican-appointed member--or minority party staff means 
     the committee appears to be failing to adhere to ironclad 
     rules for its work.
       Pelosi ``blew up'' the Jan. 6 committee when she took what 
     she herself admitted was the ``unprecedented'' step of 
     refusing to seat multiple Republican-appointed members, 
     including the highly respected Navy officer and Indiana 
     Republican Banks, who was to be the committee's ranking 
     member. She also banned Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who 
     currently serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary 
     Committee.
       Pelosi chose two of her key Republican allies and anti-
     Trump obsessives to fill two of her slots for the committee. 
     As such, they do not represent the Republican conference, 
     which opposed their selection, but the Democrat conference, 
     which supported their selection.
       Cheney was promoted to vice-chair in September in thanks 
     for her stalwart work on Pelosi's behalf. Cheney, who has 
     been censured by Wyoming Republicans for working against 
     Republican voters and their interests, and who lost her 
     position as House Conference chair for hijacking multiple 
     briefings for Republican policy initiatives to talk about her 
     personal vendetta against Trump, is facing precipitously low 
     poll numbers and a challenge from popular Republican Harriet 
     Hageman.
       Cheney was joined by lame-duck Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, 
     who recently announced his retirement rather than facing 
     certain defeat from Illinois constituents who don't share his 
     anti-Trump obsession. Kinzinger was appointed by Pelosi in 
     late July to make the committee appear more bipartisan after 
     she'd vetoed Banks and Jordan. Cheney, her selection for 
     vice-chair, was brought in for the sole purpose of helping 
     Democrats with their tribunal.
       The resolution establishing the committee, purportedly to 
     investigate the federal government's role in detecting, 
     preventing, preparing for, and responding to the Jan. 6 riot, 
     says depositions taken by the select committee must follow 
     House rules.
       Those rules clearly state, ``Consultation with the ranking 
     minority member shall include three days' notice before any 
     deposition.'' Also, ``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.''
       Additionally, the rules say, ``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.''
       The point of these rules is to structure depositions so the 
     minority and the majority counsel have the same opportunity 
     to question witnesses and gather information for their 
     separate reports. That's why they rotate and why they're 
     allotted equal time. Having questions alternate from one 
     hostile lawyer to another hostile lawyer who is working with 
     the first makes a mockery of the provisions. It also means 
     that the hostile lawyers can coordinate and cherry-pick which 
     information to leak or publish, and which to conceal from the 
     public because it contradicts their preferred narrative.
       The rules do not envision the circumstances that accompany 
     Pelosi's uni-party select committee. The House Rules ``become 
     nonsensical in a situation like this,'' said one 
     congressional aide, adding, ``This isn't just a partisan 
     investigation--it's a coverup.''
       For the select committee to be in accordance with the rules 
     regarding consultation for depositions, Cheney must be 
     considered simultaneously the ranking member for the minority 
     party while also being the vice-chair for the majority party.
       Hill lawyers say Pelosi's handling of the committee casts 
     doubt on its adherence to

[[Page H7789]]

     the rules. Because she vetoed the ranking member from the 
     committee, it has no ranking member. But the committee rules 
     require consultation with the ranking member before taking 
     certain basic actions, such as taking depositions, including 
     those pursuant to subpoenas.
       ``So how can you consult with the ranking member when you 
     don't have one?'' asked one Hill attorney.
       The multiple sources consulted for this article include a 
     document which confirmed January 6 Committee staff 
     represented to a witness that Wood would be the Republican 
     counsel during their interview.
       ``If this was a real investigation, that'd land you in jail 
     for prosecutorial misconduct,'' Banks said of the false 
     representation. ``Fortunately for Liz, this is a sham 
     investigation,'' he added.
                                  ____


             [From The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 1, 2021]

                      The Democratic Norm Breakers

                        (By The Editorial Board)

       Critics feared that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's probe of the 
     Jan. 6 Capitol riot would be partisan, and the latest proof 
     are subpoenas for the private phone records of House 
     Republicans. This is a violation of political norms that 
     Democrats will come to regret.
       Bennie Thompson (D., Miss.), chair of the House special 
     committee, sent letters Monday to 35 companies, from At&T to 
     Facebook to Parler, asking them to preserve information about 
     account holders charged with crimes related to, or 
     ``potentially involved with discussions'' in planning, the 
     Jan. 6 riot. The companies are requested to preserve emails, 
     and voice, text and direct messages in preparation for 
     subpoenas to come.
       The letters contained a list of individuals whose names 
     haven't leaked. But CNN reports that nearly a dozen House 
     Republicans are on the committee's ``evolving'' radar, 
     including Jim Jordan, ranking Member of the House Judiciary 
     Committee.
       Republicans are furious, and rightly so. Indiana Rep. Jim 
     Banks noted in a letter to Mr. Thompson that this 
     ``authoritarian undertaking'' would depart ``from more than 
     230 years of Congressional oversight.'' The move recalls 
     California Democrat Adam Schiff's public release of the call 
     logs of Republican Rep. Devin Nunes in 2019.
       At least Democrats claimed the collection of Mr. Nunes's 
     information was incidental to other records it targeted. The 
     special committee is using its oversight power to snoop on 
     political opponents. They'd gain access to information far 
     beyond the events of Jan. 6.
       Democrats say they need the call lists to see if Members of 
     Congress fomented the assault on the Capitol. They hope to 
     confirm their narrative that the riot was a planned 
     ``insurrection,'' though Reuters reports that the FBI has 
     found no such evidence in six months of looking. Conspiracy 
     is a crime and matter for the Justice Department, not 
     Congress.
       The subpoenas are also legally dubious, coming after recent 
     judicial warnings about the limits of Congressional fishing. 
     The Supreme Court last year in Trump v. Mazars reminded 
     Congress that subpoenas must have a ``valid legislative 
     purpose.'' The Jan. 6 committee has offered no such 
     rationale. Our legal sources say the subpoenas may violate 
     the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause because Congress 
     can't pass a law that would limit Members' speech.
       The private companies may want to think twice about 
     complying. In the Schiff affair, the telcos handed over call 
     logs without even notifying the targets. Mr. Thompson's 
     letter is demanding the same, telling companies that if they 
     ``are not able or willing to respond to this request without 
     alerting the subscribers or the accounts'' to ``please 
     contact the Select Committee prior to proceeding.'' The 
     ``please'' part is an admission that the committee knows it 
     lacks authority to make such a demand.
       Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr says 
     ``federal law requires telecommunications carriers to protect 
     the privacy and confidentiality of Americans' call records.'' 
     He says his agency ``has brought enforcement actions against 
     carriers to ensure their compliance,'' and Congress isn't 
     automatically entitled to anyone's private records.
       Even if the companies don't want to fight the subpoenas in 
     court, they have an obligation to alert targets so they can 
     contest the subpoenas. Mr. Banks's Friday letter reminded 
     corporate general counsels of their ``legal obligation not to 
     hand over individuals' private records unless the subject of 
     the subpoena consents to the information being shared or the 
     company has a court order to turn over the records.''
       House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy also warned companies 
     against rolling over to Democratic pressure, noting they 
     could forfeit their ``ability to operate in the United 
     States.'' Democrats and the media spun this as pressuring 
     companies to ignore ``duly'' issued subpoenas. But Mr. 
     McCarthy was pointing out that federal privacy law protects 
     information, and that Democrats haven't proved in court that 
     their committee is entitled to these records.
       If Democrats follow through and use their power to 
     investigate GOP opponents, there will be no end to it. 
     Republicans are likely to take the majority as early as 2022, 
     and two can play at Adam Schiff's nasty game.
                                  ____


              The Unconstitutionality of the 1/6 Committee

       Civil liberties abuses of this type are common when the 
     U.S. security state scares enough people into believing that 
     the threat they face is so acute that normal constitutional 
     safeguards must be disregarded. What is most definitely not 
     common, and is arguably the greatest 1/6-related civil 
     liberties abuse of them all, is the House of Representatives 
     Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the 
     United States Capitol.
       To say that the investigative acts of the 1/6 Committee are 
     radical is a wild understatement. Along with serving 
     subpoenas on four former Trump officials, they have also 
     served subpoenas on eleven Private citizens: people selected 
     for interrogation precisely because they exercised their 
     Constitutional right of free assembly by applying for and 
     receiving a permit to hold a protest on January 6 opposing 
     certification of the 2020 election.
       When the Select 1/6 Committee recently boasted of these 
     subpoenas in its press release, it made clear what 
     methodology it used for selecting who it was targeting: ``The 
     committee used permit paperwork for the Jan. 6 rally to 
     identify other individuals involved in organizing.'' In other 
     words, any citizen whose name appeared on permit applications 
     to protest was targeted for that reason alone. The 
     committee's stated goal is ``to collect information from them 
     and their associated entities on the planning, organization, 
     and funding of those events'': to haul citizens before 
     Congress to interrogate them on their constitutionally 
     protected right to assemble and protest and probe their 
     political beliefs and associations:

                             Press Release

 Select Committee Subpoenas Organizers of Rallies and Events Preceding 
                        January 6th Insurrection

                             [Sep 29, 2021]

       Washington--Today, Chairman Bennie G. Thompson announced 
     that the Select Committee has issued subpoenas for deposition 
     testimony and records to individuals tied to the events and 
     rallies leading up to the January 6th insurrection, including 
     the January 6th rally at the Ellipse that immediately 
     preceded the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. The 
     subpoenas were sent to 11 individuals as part of the Select 
     Committee's efforts to collect information from them and 
     their associated entities on the planning, organization, and 
     funding of those events. In letters to rally organizers, 
     Chairman Thompson instructed witnesses to testify at 
     depositions and to produce a sweeping range of records.
       The subpoenas seek a range of records that include 
     materials dealing with the planning, funding, and 
     participation in the events and bus tours; social media 
     activity of associated entities; and communications with or 
     involvement of Trump Administration officials and lawmakers. 
     The Select Committee issued subpoenas for records from the 
     following individuals and their associated entities, and has 
     instructed the individuals to testify at depositions:
       Amy Kremer, founder and Chair of WFAF.
       Kylie Kremer, founder and Executive Director of WFAF.
       Cynthia Chafian, submitted the first permit application on 
     behalf of WFAF for the January 6th rally, and founder of the 
     Eighty Percent Coalition.
       Caroline Wren, listed on permit paperwork for the January 
     6th rally as ``VIP Advisor.''
       Maggie Mulvaney, listed on permit paperwork for the January 
     6th rally as ``VIP Lead.''
       Justin Caporale, of Event Strategies, Inc., listed on 
     permit paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``Project 
     Manager.''
       Tim Unes, of Event Strategies, Inc., listed on permit 
     paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``Stage Manager.''
       Megan Powers, of MPowers Consulting LLC, Listed on permit 
     paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``Operations Manager 
     for Scheduling and Guidance.''
       Hannah Salem, of Salem Strategies LLC, listed on permit 
     paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``Operations Manager 
     for Logistics and Communications.''
       Lyndon Brentnall, of RMS Protective Services, listed on 
     permit paperwork for the January 6th rally as ``On-Site 
     supervisor.''
       Katrina Pierson, former Trump campaign official, reportedly 
     involved in the organization of the January 5th and 6th 
     rallies and was in direct communication with the former 
     President about the rallies.
       Even worse are the so-called ``preservation notices'' which 
     the committee secretly issued to dozens if not hundreds of 
     telecoms, email and cell phone providers, and other social 
     media platforms (including Twitter and Parler), ordering 
     those companies to retain extremely invasive data regarding 
     the communications and physical activities of more than 100 
     citizens, with the obvious intent to allow the committee to 
     subpoena those documents. The communications and physical 
     movement data sought by the committee begins in April, 2020--
     nine months before the 1/6 riot. The committee refuses to 
     make public the list of individuals it is targeting with 
     these sweeping third-party subpoenas, but on the list are 
     what CNN calls ``many members of Congress,'' along with 
     dozens of private citizens involved in obtaining the permit 
     to protest and then promoting and planning the gathering on 
     social media.
       What makes these secret notices especially pernicious is 
     that the committee requested that these companies not notify 
     their customers that the committee has demanded the 
     preservation of their data. The committee knows it lacks the 
     power to impose a ``gag order'' on these companies to prevent

[[Page H7790]]

     them from notifying their users that they received the 
     precursor to a subpoena: a power the FBI in conjunction with 
     courts does have. So they are relying instead on ``voluntary 
     compliance'' with the gag order request, accompanied by the 
     thuggish threat that any companies refusing to voluntarily 
     comply risk the public relations harm of appearing to be 
     obstructing the committee's investigation and, worse, 
     protecting the 1/6 ``insurrectionists.''
       Worse still, the committee in its preservation notices to 
     these communications companies requested that ``you do not 
     disable, suspend, lock, cancel, or interrupt service to these 
     subscribers or accounts solely due to this request,'' and 
     that they should first contact the committee ``if you are not 
     able or willing to respond to this request without alerting 
     the subscribers.'' The motive here is obvious: if any of 
     these companies risk the PR hit by refusing to conceal from 
     their customers the fact that Congress is seeking to obtain 
     their private data, they are instructed to contact the 
     committee instead, so that the committee can withdraw the 
     request. That way, none of the customers will ever be aware 
     that the committee targeted their private data and will thus 
     never be able to challenge the legality of the committee's 
     acts in a court of law.
       In other words, even the committee knows that its power to 
     seek this information about private citizens lacks any 
     convincing legal justification and, for that reason, wants to 
     ensure that nobody has the ability to seek a judicial ruling 
     on the legality of their actions. All of these behaviors 
     raise serious civil liberties concerns, so much so that even 
     left-liberal legal scholars and at least one civil liberties 
     group (obviously not the ACLU)--petrified until now of 
     creating any appearance that they are defending 1/6 
     protesters by objecting to civil liberties abuses--have begun 
     very delicately to raise doubts and concerns about the 
     committee's actions.
       But the most serious constitutional problem is not the 
     specific investigative acts of the committee but the very 
     existence of the committee itself. There is ample reason to 
     doubt the constitutionality of this committee's existence.
       When crimes are committed in the United States, there are 
     two branches of government--and only two--vested by the 
     Constitution with the power to investigate criminal suspects 
     and adjudicate guilt: the executive branch (through the FBI 
     and DOJ) and the judiciary. Congress has no role to play in 
     any of that, and for good and important reasons. The 
     Constitution places limits on what the executive branch and 
     judiciary can do when investigating suspects . . . . .

  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, Democrats prevent Republicans from serving 
on the select committee. Democrats kick Republicans off standing 
committees. Democrats try to make D.C. a State. Democrats try to end 
the filibuster. They try to pack the court. They do secret impeachment 
hearings in the bunker of the basement of the Capitol. And they just 
said a naval veteran is afraid of the truth. Now, today, they are 
destroying executive privilege.
  The United States Supreme Court held those who assist the President 
must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies 
and making decisions and to do so in a way that many would be unwilling 
to do, except privately. The Court further stated Presidential 
administrations of both parties have asserted that the President's 
close advisers are an extension of the President.
  Who are these close advisers? Who are these individuals who are an 
extension of the President of the United States? Well, there are 
actually a bunch, but certainly, the three most important are the 
National Security Advisor, the White House counsel, and the chief of 
staff to the President. I would argue the chief of staff is the closest 
of the close. He is the one who spends more time with the Commander in 
Chief than anyone else.
  Now, why do we have this privilege? Why do we have it? Why is the 
decisionmaking process between the President and his closest advisers a 
private matter? Why is that?
  Well, guess what, the Supreme Court told us the answer to that one, 
too. Executive privilege serves ``the necessity for protection of the 
public interest in candid, objective, and even . . . harsh opinions in 
Presidential decisionmaking.''
  Let me just say that again: Executive privilege serves the public 
interest. It is for us. It is for we the people. It is not for 
President Trump. It is not for Mark Meadows. It is not for any 
President. It is not for any chief of staff. It is for the country.
  But the Democrats are not going to worry about that. They are going 
to forget about that because they think this is good politics. They 
think this is all about politics.
  They used to care. They used to care about executive privilege. When 
Republicans wanted information during the Fast and Furious scandal, 
President Obama asserted executive privilege for bureaucrats at the ATF 
and DOJ. Think about it. A bureaucrat in a Federal agency gets 
privilege but not the chief of staff to the President? Because Mark 
Meadows worked for President Trump, and Democrats have been out to get 
President Trump before he ever took office when they first tried to spy 
on him, and actually did spy on him, in 2016.
  They are going to destroy this precedent even though this very 
question is in front of the courts as we speak. They are going to 
destroy this precedent that has been around since 1794 when our first 
President first asserted it. And for what?
  What did Mark Meadows do? He gave the committee thousands of emails; 
he gave the committee thousands of text messages; and he agreed to come 
in front of the committee and answer any question as long as it didn't 
violate executive privilege; the privilege that is not his to waive but 
belongs to the President; the privilege that the Court said is critical 
to executive decisionmaking; the privilege that exists for the benefit 
of we the people; and the privilege that has been around since George 
Washington asserted it.
  But Democrats say: No, not good enough, Mr. Meadows. You have to come 
in and answer any and every question we ask you, or we are going to try 
to put you in prison.
  It is so disgusting. Think about it. We weren't allowed to know who 
the so-called anonymous whistleblower was when they tried to impeach 
President Trump, did impeach President Trump, but Democrats can destroy 
executive privilege? The country wasn't allowed to know what took place 
in that bunker in the basement of the Capitol during impeachment, but 
they get to know any and everything they want about conversations 
between the President and his top adviser.
  This is so wrong. Democrats on the select committee also can't make 
up their minds. With Steve Bannon, they said: You have to appear in 
person to assert any privilege. And because he didn't come, they held 
him in contempt.
  With Jeff Clark, they said to come in person, assert privilege, which 
he did, and they said, no, that is not good enough. And they held him 
in contempt.
  Now, with Mark Meadows, he gave them thousands of documents and 
agreed to come, and they still said not good enough. What a charade.
  Make no mistake, when Democrats vote in favor of this resolution, it 
is a vote to put a good man in prison. Don't pretend to argue, either. 
Don't even attempt the argument: No, no, no, this is just the House 
acting; the Justice Department will make a decision whether to 
prosecute or not. Come on. Is there anyone who believes that?
  It took the Attorney General all of 5 days to treat parents as 
terrorists, all of 5 days. If a leftwing political group can write the 
White House asking the Department of Justice to use the PATRIOT Act 
against moms and dads and 5 days later the Attorney General of the 
United States does just that, then what do you think he is going to do 
when 225 Democrats in the House of Representatives ask him to put 
President Trump's chief of staff in prison?
  I have been in Congress for a while, 15 years. I have seen Democrats 
weaponize the government to attack their political opponents. Ten years 
ago, they used the IRS to target good people around this country, good, 
conservative people. Five years ago, they abused the FISA process and 
used the FBI to spy on President Trump's campaign. Two months ago, the 
Department of Justice used the Counterterrorism Division at the FBI to 
put a threat tag, a label, a designation, on parents who had the 
gall to go speak up at school board meetings and defend their kids, 
speak out against some crazy curriculum.

  Now, they are destroying executive privilege. Now, they are attacking 
that. This might be the worst, destroying a precedent that has been 
around since George Washington and treating Mark Meadows as a criminal.

[[Page H7791]]

  Mark Meadows is our former colleague. He is a good man, and he is my 
friend. This is as wrong as it gets. I think, deep down, everyone knows 
it. I think they know it as well. They know this is wrong. We have all 
served with this guy. He has done more work with Democrats than 
probably any Republican. We all know what a good man he is. This is as 
wrong as it gets.
  Madam Speaker, they all know it, but their lust for power, their lust 
to get their opponents, is so intense, they don't care. I hope they 
reconsider. I hope we don't take this action.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, just for the record, the 
gentleman from Ohio is aware of congressional oversight prerogatives. 
When Mr. Meadows was a member and later chairman of the House Committee 
on Oversight and Reform, he himself demanded testimony from senior 
executive branch officials and chided those who failed to cooperate 
with congressional oversight.
  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, Mark Meadows was served with a subpoena 
for testimony and documents 3 months ago. Since that time, he has done 
TV interviews, published a book, and produced over 9,000 documents 
about January 6, which he concedes are not covered by any form of 
privilege.
  These documents include chilling text messages from the President's 
son, Don, Jr., urging Meadows to get his father to do something to stop 
the violence; from Members of Congress, urging that the Vice President 
simply ignore electoral votes he personally deems unconstitutional; 
and, even after the violence of January 6, bemoaning the fact that the 
effort to overturn the counting of the electors was a failure.
  One of the texts to Meadows, on January 3, came from an unknown 
caller and referred to efforts to replace the leadership of the 
Department of Justice and said the following: ``I heard Jeff Clark is 
getting put in on Monday. That's amazing. It will make a lot of 
patriots happy, and I'm personally so proud that you are at the tip of 
the spear and I can call you a friend.''
  But notwithstanding his texts, his emails, his interviews, and his 
book, Mr. Meadows refused to appear for his deposition, claiming that 
to discuss the same issues, documents, and book is somehow privileged. 
The inconsistency, the hypocrisy, grabs you by the neck, and so does 
his utter contempt of Congress.
  Mr. Meadows is a central participant and witness to the events of 
January 6. He is at the tip of the spear. If he can get away with 
ignoring the law, if witnesses summoned before Congress can merely pick 
and choose when they comply, our power of oversight will be gone and 
along with it our cherished system of checks and balances.
  Take away Congress' power to compel evidence and you take away 
Congress' power to protect the public from a dangerous and malign 
executive. People died on January 6. A Congress that cannot enforce its 
subpoenas in such an investigation is no more effective than a court in 
a homicide case which cannot compel witnesses to appear. We would cease 
to be a Congress and become a mere plaything in the hands of a despot.
  Mark Meadows has demonstrated contempt for Congress and for the 
public. Now, he must be held in contempt. He should be prosecuted like 
anyone else who ignores the law because no one is above the law.

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just make sure people understand some facts in 
light of some of the charges that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) 
just made, which are flat false.
  Number one, Mr. Meadows refused to show up for his deposition. The 
committee scheduled a deposition after extensive coordination with Mr. 
Meadows on a day that he chose, that he selected, and then he refused 
to show up.
  He refused to show up to testify about nonprivileged questions. My 
colleague from Ohio can talk as much as he would like about executive 
privilege and about George Washington and about the extent to which it 
is crucial for the survival of the Republic, with which I agree, but we 
are talking here about testimony about nonprivileged materials.
  Secondly, Madam Speaker, I would say that we all on this side of the 
aisle used to be in agreement about what had happened on January 6. 
There was a brief period of time, days perhaps, when we were in 
agreement.
  Standing--perhaps at this microphone--the minority leader, Kevin 
McCarthy, said this on January 13: ``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. These 
facts require immediate action by President Trump. . . .''
  Unfortunately, Mr. McCarthy's position changed on this issue. Mr. 
McCarthy then worked against, voted against the resolution that would 
have created a bipartisan commission to investigate these matters, and 
he withdrew his nominees to this committee. Let me say that again. He 
withdrew his nominees to this committee.
  This committee is engaged in critical investigative and legislative 
activity for which there is no greater purpose in terms of Congress' 
responsibility, no matter what my colleague on the other side may claim 
in terms of Mr. Meadows.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Aguilar).
  Mr. AGUILAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chair for yielding.
  Last Tuesday, December 7, the select committee received a letter from 
Mr. Meadows' lawyer telling us that his client's appearance for a 
deposition had become, and I quote, ``untenable''.
  Something else happened last Tuesday. Mr. Meadows' book, ``The 
Chief's Chief,'' hit bookstores.
  This is a witness who is refusing to comply with the law and answer 
our questions, in part because the former President has instructed him 
to do so, he says. He says that as chief of staff he couldn't possibly 
disclose the conversations with the former President.
  But look at his book, and you get more information about his 
confidential conversations with the former President than our committee 
did.
  This is from a section dealing with the January 6 rally at the 
Ellipse. ``When he got off stage, President Trump let me know that he 
had been speaking metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol. He knew 
as well as anyone that we couldn't organize a trip like that on such 
short notice.''
  That part is interesting because the select committee has a lot of 
questions about what the President said and did on January 6. We have a 
lot of questions about how protests that day escalated into a riot. And 
Mark Meadows says he can't discuss these details with us. But 
apparently, he can put them in his book.
  We have also learned from those very documents Mr. Meadows turned 
over that he was willing to discuss what the President was thinking 
with Members of Congress.
  On January 3, Mr. Meadows was exchanging text messages with a 
lawmaker about the pressure campaign to get State legislatures to 
overturn the results of the election. In one text message to a 
lawmaker, Mr. Meadows wrote, ``He,'' he presumably being President 
Trump, ``He thinks the legislatures have the power, but the VP has 
power, too.''
  The power to do what? We could guess the power to overturn the 
election results, the power to reject the will of the voters. And days 
later a violent mob tried to get Vice President Pence to do just that. 
We would like to ask Mr. Meadows about that, about what the former 
President thought.
  Days before the violent attack, Mr. Meadows was willing to share what 
he, President Trump, thinks, but he won't tell us.
  That is why Mr. Meadows' testimony is so important. That is why his 
privilege claims are so outrageous, and that is why we need to adopt 
this resolution.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let's be very, very clear. The Democrats aren't 
interested in finding out how a disorganized horde of rioters managed 
to break into the United States Capitol on January 6. They don't want 
to learn more about

[[Page H7792]]

the security breakdown that occurred that day, and they don't care 
about protecting the Capitol from future attacks. They have proven it 
to us.
  None of the 51 subpoenas that the committee has publicly touted have 
anything to do with Capitol security. As they have proven yet again 
today, over and over again, they only care about attacking their 
political enemies.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, here we are again, 
considering another politically motivated contempt resolution. This 
time the contempt resolution is for someone who actually provided this 
select committee with nearly 7,000 pages of nonprivileged e-mails and 
other documents in response to a subpoena. More than 1,100 documents 
and more than 2,300 text messages were also provided. But that doesn't 
seem to be enough for this select committee. It really has turned out 
to be nothing more than a partisan committee just to investigate the 
former President.
  Subpoenas are not open-ended. They are required to be narrowly 
tailored. Unfortunately, this committee doesn't seem to care about the 
rules.

  I also have some serious concerns with the way whistleblowers and 
other witnesses are being treated by this select committee.
  I asked this question the last time we were here voting on a 
politically motivated contempt resolution, and it still hasn't been 
answered by the majority, so I will ask it again: Why was the Capitol 
so unprotected on January 6?
  There are serious security vulnerabilities that have not been 
addressed and won't be addressed nearly a year after January 6. There 
has been little real action taken in response to the Senate report on 
January 6 and the Honore task force findings. The Capitol Police 
inspector general has released 7 reports and 103 findings, yet the 
majority has failed to ensure these findings are implemented in a 
meaningful way.
  We know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection, training, 
leadership structure, decision-making processes, and many, many more 
are needed, but neither this select committee nor the Committee on 
House Administration seem at all interested in ensuring that these 
changes are made.
  Additionally, a number of questions, Madam Speaker, from that day 
still remain unanswered. I am still waiting on the Speaker of the House 
to answer a letter I sent her back in February that asks why the 
National Guard request by then Police Chief Steven Sund were denied? 
Why the Speaker was involved in eventually approving the request? And 
why the House Sergeant at Arms has refused to comply with preservation 
and production requests from my office? I am the ranking member of the 
oversight committee for the Sergeant at Arms. They will not comply with 
the preservation request from the committee of jurisdiction.
  We have many other unanswered questions, too, Madam Speaker. With 
these questions still unanswered and another purely political contempt 
resolution on the floor today, it makes you ask yourself, what is the 
majority hiding? And why are their priorities not the men and women 
serving in the Capitol Police and making this Capitol more secure for 
everyone? We need these reforms. They should have been done months ago.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, like 300 other witnesses called to meet 
with the January 6 committee and our staff, Mark Meadows was, indeed, 
cooperating with our committee and voluntarily released thousands of 
pages of admittedly unprivileged documents, and then something changed. 
His book came out and apparently embarrassed Donald Trump.
  After ex-President Trump exploded and called the book fake news, 
Meadows performed a U-turn and suddenly refused to appear at the 
December 8 deposition that he had previously agreed to. He called his 
own book fake news, which is a pretty devastating review to render on 
your own book, and he brought a lawsuit against the committee 
alleging--check this out--that we have no legislative purpose.
  Meadows' sudden vanishing act cannot vaporize the Article I 
legislative power of our committee to investigate the massive assault 
on American democracy that took place on January 6. If the January 6 
committee has no legislative purpose, then none of our committees do, 
for the first rule of democratic government is self-preservation.
  Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives us the power to suppress 
insurrections and repel invasions against the Union, and this we will 
do by investigating and reporting on the most dangerous political 
violence ever unleashed against the Capitol by a domestic enemy.
  We have hundreds of questions. Yes, we do. The fact that Donald 
Trump, who gave Mr. Meadows a positive blurb for his book, apparently 
changed his mind about the book doesn't mean that Mr. Meadows can now 
violate a congressional subpoena, something that Meadows frequently 
insisted upon himself as a leading member of the House Oversight 
Committee, and he knows it. And we have pages and pages of his 
insisting upon the central importance of honoring the subpoenas of 
Congress.
  We have hundreds of questions for Mr. Meadows about information he 
has already admitted is not privileged in any way at all by the 
executive privilege, the Fifth Amendment, or anything else.
  Here is one of them: How did the following text from a House lawmaker 
influence Trump's plans to overthrow Joe Biden's electoral college 
majority of 306 to 232 after Joe Biden beat Donald Trump?
  Here is what that lawmaker wrote him. On November 4, a Member of this 
body wrote to Meadows: Here is an aggressive strategy--one day after 
the election--why can't the States of Georgia, North 
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and other Republican-controlled State houses 
declare this is BS where conflicts in election not called that night 
and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the SCOTUS, 
the Supreme Court of the United States.

  How did this text influence the planning of Mark Meadows and Donald 
Trump to try to destroy the lawful electoral college majority that had 
been established by the people of the United States and the States for 
Joe Biden?
  Those are the kind of questions that we have a right to ask Mark 
Meadows. He does not have any special privilege above any other citizen 
to get out of his civic responsibility.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), a distinguished member of the 
select committee, as well as the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland 
Security, and Veterans' Affairs.
  Mrs. LURIA. Madam Speaker, this is not a vote that I ever thought I 
would be asked to take. The idea that this body would find a former 
chief of staff to the President of the United States, a former Member 
of Congress, in contempt was unthinkable prior to today.
  We must approve this resolution, Madam Speaker, because of one simple 
fact: 187 minutes. For 187 minutes, Mark Meadows was besieged by cries 
for help from citizens, from members of the press, from members of the 
President's own family, and from our colleagues in this Chamber, 
pleading for Mr. Meadows to intervene and stop the attack.
  The American people need to understand exactly what happened during 
that 187 minutes. Mr. Meadows knows, which is why he must come forward. 
It is increasingly clear that for 187 minutes the Commander in Chief 
was derelict of his duty. We know this because Mr. Meadows provided the 
evidence to the committee without any assertions of privilege.
  And while the records he has handed over are helpful, there are many 
questions that we need to ask him.
  Mr. Meadows received a text, one of several, from one lawmaker in the 
days leading up to the attack saying, ``Check your signal.'' The signal 
messages are encrypted. Only Mr. Meadows can tell us what they said, so 
we would like to ask him about that.

                              {time}  1800

  In the course of our investigation, we have heard from individuals 
involved

[[Page H7793]]

in planning the rallies that immediately preceded the violent attack on 
the Capitol.
  Those people talked with Mr. Meadows.
  We want to ask him about that.
  We have heard from former White House staffers who ultimately 
reported to Mr. Meadows as the chief of staff.
  We want to ask him about that.
  We have heard from Justice Department officials who received 
instructions to amplify false claims about the election which Mr. 
Meadows knew about.
  We want to ask him about that.
  And we have heard from State officials about the pressure campaigns 
and the relentless attacks on democracy in Arizona, Michigan, and 
Georgia.
  Mr. Meadows actually went to Georgia in connection with the recount 
effort.
  The American people must hear from him about that.
  We are investigating an attempt, as one rioter simply put it, and 
accurately, ``to overthrow the government.''
  Our republic--which I myself served in uniform for 20 years--has 
never faced a threat as acute and imminent as what we face today.
  Think back to the day of the violent attack. If you believed that 
Mark Meadows could help stop that attack, if you were one of the 
Members of this body who texted him to stop that attack, you must vote 
``yes'' today.
  If, for 187 minutes, you knew the former President could call off the 
rioters, you must vote ``yes'' today.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My Republican colleagues and I have repeatedly condemned political 
violence in all of its forms, including the violence on January 6.
  But the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who was elected by 
Democrats to oversee Federal law enforcement, secured a Presidential 
pardon for Susan Rosenberg, a domestic terrorist who set off a bomb in 
the Senate Cloakroom in 1983. That is a fact.
  Merrick Garland, appointed by Democrats to head the Justice 
Department, helped the Obama administration to dismiss an indictment 
against Elizabeth Ann Duke, a fugitive who was also arrested for 
setting off a bomb inside the United States Capitol.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding.
  A year ago in January I spoke on this floor in defense of the rule of 
law and my view that it was incumbent upon Congress to count the 
electors sent to us from their respective States.
  In doing so, I reminded the Chamber that we are deeply divided.
  Now we are a Nation perilously divided further. And a divided Nation 
must return to first principles. Those first principles include 
separation of powers; and in so doing, the judicious use of the 
congressional subpoena power as requiring, per the United States 
Supreme Court, ``a valid legislative purpose.''
  That power is not, per the court, limitless, it is not, per the 
court, a power to expose for the sake of exposure, it is not, per the 
court, a power to punish, as such would be ``indefensible.''
  The January 6th Committee was born in politics. After all, we have 
standing committees like Judiciary, which have had precisely zero 
hearings about the 500 Americans who have been charged, arrested, and 
are jailed regarding January 6.
  And then the natural pursuit of any conspiracy associated with such 
crimes--no, the select committee continually moves the goalpost far 
from a core legislative purpose. Indeed, one target seeking to claim 
privilege was told to take specific tests to claim that privilege, then 
did so, and then was told, sorry, this was not sufficient en route to 
contempt.
  Now we have the targeting of our friend, Mark Meadows. Congressman 
Meadows sought accommodation. While, yes, it is between branches, the 
question in privilege regarding the former President continues to be 
litigated for good reason.
  The gentlewoman from Wyoming outlined text messages from some of us 
imploring action by the President. The text messages from which she 
read were, in fact, turned over by Mr. Meadows. He produced more than 
1,100 documents totaling 9,000 pages and over 2,300 text messages.
  Mr. Meadows offered to appear before the committee to address the 
agreed-upon nonprivileged documents.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, Mr. Meadows agrees to continue to work 
through questions of privilege. But again, here we are facing a vote to 
hold Mr. Meadows in contempt.
  Anger over January 6 and the events leading to it is not reason for a 
committee formed from that anger and in partisanship to exercise 
unlimited power to command attendance of production while moving the 
goalpost. This itself is an assault on liberty and our republic.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close 
after the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, in spite of the protestations of the 
gentleman from Maryland that we heard earlier that this bogus, 
fraudulently organized committee has a legislative purpose that is 
legitimate, and he said it was self-preservation, but everything every 
Democrat has said today is meant to attack one person, and that is 
Donald Trump.

  And so I am reminded of the case that gave us the long progeny of all 
these cases that deal with legislative purpose in committees and 
subpoenas, the Kilbourn case. In that case, the Court ruled the 
congressional investigation unconstitutional because its real purpose 
was not to consider legislative reforms, as the House has claimed, but 
rather to investigate possible crimes by this citizen, a power only the 
executive and judicial branches have the right to exercise.
  That is what we see happening here today.
  This committee is illegitimate. It has violated its own rules of 
creation. It has violated its own rules of creation and it says they 
want to find out this massive truth here about what happened on January 
6. You can't have a committee to find out what happened because you are 
interested. You can't do that. And that is what they are doing today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 
45 seconds, if you are prepared to close.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, what you have heard today proves what we have said all along. 
This select committee is not at all interested in doing anything to 
prevent something like January 6 from ever happening again. It is all 
about burying their political opponents. That is what they are about to 
do today by holding Mr. Meadows in contempt. It is what they have 
already done two times before. It is an absolute shame. We shouldn't 
allow it to happen.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this resolution today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, President Trump is hiding behind executive privilege. 
All of my colleagues, all of them knew that what happened on January 6 
was an assault on our Constitution. They knew it at the time, yet now 
they are defending the indefensible.
  Whether we tell the truth, get to the truth and defend ourselves 
against it ever happening again is the moral test of our time. How we 
address January 6 is the moral test of our generation.
  It is very sad to see how my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are addressing this issue. Mr. Meadows

[[Page H7794]]

has refused to testify about nonprivileged material. He is in contempt.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I thank my colleague from Wyoming for supporting this effort of the 
committee. She has been a wonderful member of the committee, and I look 
forward to continuing the relationship.
  I thank my colleagues who presented on the majority side today who 
made a clear case of why Mr. Meadows' defiance is unacceptable.
  I take no joy in having to ask this House to make this referral. Mr. 
Meadows served here with us for 7 years, but that doesn't excuse his 
conduct. If anything, he should know better.
  It is disappointing that he put himself in this category with a small 
handful of uncooperative witnesses who are drawing out a lot of 
attention hiding behind every privilege you can think of trying to slow 
down and slow-walk this process. We want to hear from them all.
  But we have heard from more than 300 witnesses. Just this week, three 
significant individuals have already come in and spoken with us on the 
record. As you have heard, last night and today, we have made some 
significant findings. This investigation is moving ahead swiftly, but 
even with all that cooperation, we need to send a clear message that 
this sort of defiance of the rule of law cannot stand.
  We need to hear from Mr. Meadows, and his refusal to appear is plain 
and simple contempt.
  I ask all Members to support this resolution, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  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 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.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________