[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H4236-H4380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1645
 RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND PETER K. NAVARRO 
            AND DANIEL SCAVINO, JR., IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. 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. 117-284) and accompanying 
resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Peter K. 
Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in contempt of Congress for refusal to 
comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Select Committee to 
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1023, 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 Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., for contempt 
     of Congress pursuant to this Report is as follows:
       Resolved, That Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., 
     shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to 
     comply with congressional subpoenas.
       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 
     Peter K. Navarro to produce documents or appear for a 
     deposition before the Select Committee to Investigate the 
     January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as directed 
     by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District 
     of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Navarro be proceeded against 
     in the manner and form provided by law.
       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 
     Daniel Scavino, Jr., to produce documents or appear for a 
     deposition before the Select Committee to Investigate the 
     January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as directed 
     by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District 
     of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Scavino 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 subpoenas.


                          Purpose and Summary

       On January 6, 2021, a violent mob attempted to impede 
     Congress's constitutional and statutory mandate to count the 
     electoral votes in the 2020 Presidential election and 
     launched an assault on the United States Capitol Complex that 
     resulted in multiple deaths, physical harm to more than 140 
     members of law enforcement, and terror and trauma among 
     staff, institutional employees, and press. 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 interference with the peaceful 
     transfer of power, in order to identify and evaluate problems 
     and to recommend to the House and its relevant committees 
     corrective laws, policies, procedures, rules, or regulations. 
     This inquiry includes examination of the factors that 
     influenced, instigated, or contributed to the attack and how 
     various individuals and entities coordinated their activities 
     leading up to the attack.

                            Peter K. Navarro

       According to published reports, Peter K. Navarro, a White 
     House trade advisor, worked with Stephen K. Bannon and others 
     to develop and implement a plan to delay Congress's 
     certification, and ultimately change the outcome, of the 
     November 2020 Presidential election. In November 2021, Mr. 
     Navarro published In Trump Time, a book in which he described 
     this plan as the ``Green Bay Sweep'' and stated that it was 
     designed as the ``last, best chance to snatch a stolen 
     election from the Democrats' jaws of deceit.''\1\ In a later 
     interview about his book, Mr. Navarro added that former-
     President Trump was ``on board with the strategy,'' as were 
     more than 100 Members of Congress.\2\ Previously, Mr. Navarro 
     had publicly released on his website a three-part report, 
     dubbed ``The Navarro Report,'' repeating many claims of 
     purported fraud in the election that have been discredited in 
     public reporting, by State officials, and by courts.\3\
       On February 9, 2022, Chairman Bennie G. Thompson signed a 
     subpoena for documents and testimony and transmitted it along 
     with a cover letter and schedule to Mr. Navarro.\4\ The 
     subpoena required that Mr. Navarro produce responsive 
     documents not later than February 23, 2022, and that Mr. 
     Navarro appear for a deposition on March 2, 2022.
       When Select Committee staff emailed Mr. Navarro on February 
     9, 2022, asking whether he would accept service and had an 
     attorney, Mr. Navarro replied only: ``yes. no counsel.

[[Page H4237]]

     Executive privilege[.]''\5\ Select Committee staff then 
     emailed the subpoena to Mr. Navarro. Within hours of 
     receiving the subpoena, Mr. Navarro released a public 
     statement that clearly indicated he had no intention of 
     complying with the Select Committee's subpoena while also 
     acknowledging that he had already publicly released 
     information that is relevant to the Select Committee's 
     investigation in his book:
       President Trump has invoked Executive Privilege; and it is 
     not my privilege to waive. [The Select Committee] should 
     negotiate any waiver of the privilege with the president and 
     his attorneys directly, not through me. I refer this tribunal 
     to Chapter 21 of In Trump Time for what is in the public 
     record about the Green Bay Sweep plan to insure [sic] 
     election integrity[.]\6\
       Mr. Navarro also appeared on national television on 
     February 10, 2022, discussing subjects that were the focus of 
     the Select Committee's subpoena to him.\7\
       On February 24, 2022, Select Committee staff contacted Mr. 
     Navarro via email about his failure to produce documents by 
     the February 23rd deadline in the subpoena. In the same 
     email, staff reminded Mr. Navarro about the date for his 
     deposition and notified him of its location within the U.S. 
     Capitol campus. Staff also requested that Mr. Navarro contact 
     the Select Committee for further details about the deposition 
     or, alternatively, to notify the Select Committee if he did 
     not plan to appear for deposition testimony.\8\
       On February 27, 2022, Mr. Navarro contacted Select 
     Committee staff and said that ``President Trump has invoked 
     [e]xecutive [p]rivilege in this matter; and it is neither my 
     privilege to waive or Joseph Biden's privilege to waive.''\9\ 
     Mr. Navarro did not provide any evidence that former-
     President Trump had ever invoked executive privilege with 
     respect to any documents in Mr. Navarro's personal possession 
     or any testimony that Mr. Navarro could provide. Select 
     Committee staff responded the same day and explained that 
     there are areas of inquiry that do not implicate ``any 
     executive privilege concerns at all.''\10\ Select Committee 
     staff further informed Mr. Navarro that he could make 
     executive privilege objections during his deposition and that 
     he must do so on a ``question-by-question basis'' to ``enable 
     the Select Committee to better understand [his] objections 
     and, if necessary, take any additional steps to address 
     them.''\11\ Select Committee staff then asked Mr. Navarro 
     again whether he intended to appear for his deposition on 
     March 2, 2022, as required by the subpoena.
       Later the same day, Mr. Navarro responded to the Select 
     Committee's email correspondence. Instead of saying whether 
     he intended to appear for his deposition, Mr. Navarro asked: 
     ``Will this event be open to the public and press?''\12\ 
     Select Committee staff responded that it would not be open to 
     the press, that it would be a ``staff-led deposition, which 
     members of the Select Committee may also join and in which 
     they may participate.''\13\ Select Committee staff asked 
     about Mr. Navarro's document production and offered to find a 
     new date for the deposition ``within a reasonable time'' if 
     Mr. Navarro had a scheduling conflict on March 2d.\14\ Mr. 
     Navarro did not respond to that offer but, the next day, sent 
     the Select Committee an email saying that he had ``been clear 
     in my communications on this matter'' and that ``it is 
     incumbent on the Committee to directly negotiate with 
     President Trump and his attorneys regarding any and all 
     things related to this matter.''\15\
       On February 28, 2022, the White House Counsel's Office 
     issued a letter to Mr. Navarro regarding the Select 
     Committee's subpoena. That letter stated: ``[I]n light of the 
     unique and extraordinary nature of the matters under 
     investigation, President Biden has determined that an 
     assertion of executive privilege is not in the national 
     interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to 
     particular subjects within the purview of the Select 
     Committee.''\16\ The letter further noted that ``President 
     Biden accordingly has decided not to assert executive 
     privilege'' with respect to the testimony of Mr. Navarro 
     ``regarding those subjects,'' or with respect to ``any 
     documents [he] may possess that bear on them.'' Further, the 
     letter stated: ``For the same reasons underlying his decision 
     on executive privilege, President Biden has determined that 
     he will not assert immunity to preclude [Mr. Navarro] from 
     testifying before the Select Committee.''\17\
       On March 1, 2022, Select Committee staff sent another email 
     to Mr. Navarro about his appearance for testimony as required 
     by the subpoena. Once again, Select Committee staff reminded 
     Mr. Navarro that ``there are topics that the Select Committee 
     believes it can discuss with [him] without raising any 
     executive privilege concerns at all, including, but not 
     limited to, questions related to [his] public three-part 
     report about purported fraud in the November 2020 election 
     and the plan [he] described in [his] book called the `Green 
     Bay Sweep.' ''\18\ Select Committee staff told Mr. Navarro, 
     again, that if there were any ``specific questions that 
     raise[d] executive privilege concerns, [he could] assert 
     [his] objections on the record and on a question-by-question 
     basis.''\19\ Select Committee staff also provided Mr. Navarro 
     with information regarding the time and location of his 
     deposition.
       Mr. Navarro did not respond to the March 1st email from 
     Select Committee staff. He has failed to produce documents or 
     appear for his scheduled deposition by the deadlines in the 
     February 9, 2022, subpoena.\20\
       Rather than appear for his deposition or respond directly 
     to the Select Committee, Mr. Navarro issued a public 
     statement regarding his deposition.\21\ Mr. Navarro predicted 
     that his interactions with the Select Committee would be 
     judged by the ``Supreme Court, where this case is 
     headed[.]''\22\ Mr. Navarro, however, never filed any case 
     seeking relief from his responsibilities to comply with the 
     Select Committee's subpoena.
       In United States v. Bryan (1950), the Supreme Court 
     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.''\23\ The 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.''\24\
       The contempt of Congress statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec.  192, makes 
     clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or 
     be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of 
     up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year.\25\ Mr. 
     Navarro's refusal to comply with the Select Committee's 
     subpoena in any way represents willful default under the law 
     and warrants referral to the United States Attorney for the 
     District of Columbia for prosecution for contempt of Congress 
     as prescribed by law.

                          Daniel Scavino, Jr.

       According to many published reports, Daniel Scavino, Jr., a 
     long-time employee of former-President Trump, was responsible 
     for social media and communications strategy for the former 
     President, including with respect to the Trump Campaign's 
     post-election efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. 
     Mr. Scavino worked with Mr. Trump as part of the then-
     President's campaign to reverse the election results. This 
     campaign included, among other things, spreading false 
     information via social media regarding alleged election fraud 
     and recruiting a crowd to Washington for the events of 
     January 6th. Mr. Scavino reportedly attended several meetings 
     with then-President Trump in which challenges to the election 
     were discussed. Mr. Scavino also tracked social media on 
     behalf of former-President Trump, and he did so at a time 
     when sites reportedly frequented by Mr. Scavino suggested the 
     possibility of violence on January 6th. The Select Committee 
     therefore has reason to believe that Mr. Scavino may have had 
     advance warning about the potential for violence on January 
     6th.
       Mr. Scavino did not only work as a White House official. He 
     separately promoted activities designed to advance Mr. 
     Trump's success as a Presidential candidate. He continued to 
     do so after the 2020 election, promoting activities designed 
     to reverse the outcome of a lost election.
       Mr. Scavino's public statements and reported conduct make 
     clear the relevance of his testimony and documents for the 
     Select Committee's investigation.
       On October 6, 2021,\26\ Chairman Thompson signed a subpoena 
     for documents and testimony and transmitted it along with a 
     cover letter and schedule to Mr. Scavino.\27\ On October 8, 
     2021, U.S. Marshals served this subpoena at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. 
     Scavino's reported place of employment, to Ms. Susan Wiles, 
     who represented herself as chief of staff to former-President 
     Trump and as authorized to accept service on Mr. Scavino's 
     behalf.\28\ The subpoena required that Mr. Scavino produce 
     responsive documents not later than October 21, 2021, and 
     that Mr. Scavino appear for a deposition on October 28, 2021. 
     Subsequent communications between counsel for Mr. Scavino and 
     Chairman Thompson, however, did not result in Mr. Scavino's 
     agreement to appear for testimony or produce documents.
       Attempting to reach an accommodation with Mr. Scavino, 
     Chairman Thompson granted multiple extensions for the 
     deposition and production of documents:

        Per Mr. Scavino's request for an extension, the 
     Chairman deferred the document production deadline to October 
     28, 2021, and the deposition to November 4, 2021.\29\
        Per Mr. Scavino's request for an extension, the 
     Chairman again deferred the document production deadline to 
     November 4, 2021, and the deposition to November 12, 
     2021.\30\
        Per Mr. Scavino's request for an extension, the 
     Chairman deferred the document production deadline to 
     November 5, 2021.\31\
        Per Mr. Scavino's request for an extension, the 
     Chairman deferred the document production deadline to 
     November 15, 2021, and the deposition to November 19, 
     2021.\32\
        The Chairman extended the document production 
     deadline to November 29, 2021, and the deposition to December 
     1, 2021.\33\
        Following the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of a 
     stay in Trump v. Thompson, the Chairman offered Mr. Scavino 
     an additional opportunity to indicate his intent to cooperate 
     with the investigation and comply with the subpoena by 
     February 8, 2022.\34\

       Despite all these extensions, to date, Mr. Scavino has not 
     produced a single document, nor has he appeared for 
     testimony.
       On March 15, 2022, the White House Counsel's Office issued 
     a letter to Mr. Scavino's attorney regarding the Select 
     Committee's subpoena. That letter stated, ``President Biden 
     has determined that an assertion of

[[Page H4238]]

     executive privilege is not in the national interest, and 
     therefore is not justified, with respect to particular 
     subjects within the purview of the Select Committee.''\35\ 
     Further, ``President Biden accordingly has decided not to 
     assert executive privilege as to Mr. Scavino's testimony 
     regarding those subjects, or any documents he 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 [Mr. 
     Scavino] from testifying before the Select Committee.''\36\
       In United States v. Bryan (1950), the Supreme Court 
     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.''\37\ The 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.''\38\
       The contempt of Congress statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec.  192, makes 
     clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or 
     be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of 
     up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year.\39\ Mr. 
     Scavino's refusal to comply with the Select Committee's 
     subpoena in any way represents willful default under the law 
     and warrants referral to the United States Attorney for the 
     District of Columbia for prosecution for contempt of Congress 
     as prescribed by law.


           Background on the Select Committee's Investigation

       House Resolution 503 provides that the enumerated purposes 
     of the Select Committee include investigating and reporting 
     upon the ``facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the 
     January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United 
     States Capitol Complex . . . and relating to the interference 
     with the peaceful transfer of power.''\40\ As part of this 
     charge, the Select Committee is examining the ``influencing 
     factors that fomented such an attack on American 
     representative democracy.''\41\
       The Supreme Court has long held that Congress has a 
     constitutional duty to conduct oversight. ``The power of the 
     Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the 
     legislative process,''\42\ and the capacity to enforce said 
     investigatory power ``is an essential and appropriate 
     auxiliary to the legislative function.''\43\ ``Absent such a 
     power, a legislative body could not `wisely or effectively' 
     evaluate those conditions `which the legislation is intended 
     to affect or change.' ''\44\
       The oversight powers of House and Senate committees are 
     also codified in legislation. For example, the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1946 directed committees to ``exercise 
     continuous watchfulness'' over the executive branch's 
     implementation of programs within its jurisdictions,\45\ and 
     the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 authorized 
     committees to ``review and study, on a continuing basis, the 
     application, administration, and execution'' of laws.\46\
        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.''\47\ A bipartisan selection of Members was 
     appointed pursuant to House Resolution 503 on July 1, 2021, 
     and July 26, 2021.\48\
       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.''\49\ 
     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.''\50\

                            Peter K. Navarro

     A. The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Navarro 
         central to its investigative purposes.
       The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Navarro 
     central to its investigative responsibilities delegated to it 
     by the House of Representatives. This includes the 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.''\51\
       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 6th 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 6th 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 
     6th assault, even after courts across the country had 
     resoundingly rejected 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. Navarro reportedly participated or that he 
     observed. He has publicly acknowledged playing a role in 
     devising a post-election strategy to change the outcome of 
     the election and promoting claims of election fraud intended 
     to further that strategy. These actions were outside his 
     official governmental duties at the time.
       As Assistant to the President and Director of Trade and 
     Manufacturing Policy, Mr. Navarro's role in government was to 
     assist the President in formulating and implementing trade 
     policy. Former-President Trump created Mr. Navarro's position 
     by Presidential Executive Order No. 13797 in 2017.\52\ The 
     mission of the office that Mr. Navarro led was to ``defend 
     and serve American workers and domestic manufacturers while 
     advising the President on policies to increase economic 
     growth, decrease the trade deficit, and strengthen the United 
     States manufacturing and defense industrial bases.''\53\ 
     Additionally, the office's responsibilities included: ``(a) 
     advis[ing] the President on innovative strategies and 
     promot[ing] trade policies consistent with the President's 
     stated goals; (b) serv[ing] as a liaison between the White 
     House and the Department of Commerce and undertak[ing] trade-
     related special projects as requested by the President; and 
     (c) help[ing to] improve the performance of the executive 
     branch's domestic procurement and hiring policies, including 
     through the implementation of the policies described in 
     Executive Order 13788 of April 18, 2017 (Buy American and 
     Hire American).''\54\ In March 2020, President Trump also 
     signed Executive Order No. 13911, which named Mr. Navarro as 
     the National Defense Production Act Policy Coordinator, which 
     gave the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy authority 
     to address potential shortfalls in pandemic-related resources 
     such as ventilators and personal protective equipment.\55\
       The Select Committee does not seek documents or testimony 
     from Mr. Navarro related to his official duties as a Federal 
     official. None of the official responsibilities of Mr. 
     Navarro's positions included advising President Trump about 
     the 2020 Presidential election or the roles and 
     responsibilities of Congress and the Vice President during 
     the January 6, 2021, joint session of Congress. Nor did those 
     official duties involve researching or promoting claims of 
     election fraud. Nevertheless, after the 2020 Presidential 
     election, Mr. Navarro became involved in efforts to convince 
     the public that widespread fraud had affected the election. 
     Federal law did not allow Mr. Navarro to use his official 
     office to attempt to affect the outcome of an election.\56\ 
     When Mr. Navarro engaged in these activities, and other 
     activities described below, he was acting outside the scope 
     of his official duties.
       In December 2020, Mr. Navarro released a three-part report 
     on purported fraud in the election on his personal website. 
     The chapters of the report, titled ``Volume One: The 
     Immaculate Deception,'' ``Volume Two: The Art of the Steal,'' 
     and ``Volume Three: Yes, President Trump Won'' (collectively, 
     ``The Navarro Report''), discuss, among other things, 
     disproven claims of alleged voter fraud and cite to sources 
     such as Stephen Bannon's ``War Room: Pandemic'' podcasts and 
     unsupported allegations from cases around the country that 
     courts dismissed.\57\ In a press call on December 17, 2020, 
     to announce his report, Mr. Navarro acknowledged that he 
     wrote the report ``as a private citizen'' and, in doing so, 
     wanted to address what he called ``outright fraud'' in the 
     2020 Presidential election.\58\
       The Select Committee's investigation has revealed that 
     ``The Navarro Report'' was shared, in whole or in part, by 
     individuals who made public claims about purported fraud in 
     the election, including Professor John Eastman and then-White 
     House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.\59\ Notably, then-
     President Trump included a link to volume one of ``The 
     Navarro Report'' in the same tweet in which he first 
     announced that he would speak at a rally in Washington on 
     January 6, 2021.\60\ Mr. Navarro has claimed that Mr. Trump 
     ``himself had distributed

[[Page H4239]]

     Volume One of the report to every member of the House and 
     Senate'' before January 6, 2021.\61\ Specific allegations 
     contained in ``The Navarro Report'' were also used as 
     justification in attempts to convince State legislators to 
     de-certify their State's popular vote and appoint Trump-Pence 
     electoral college electors.\62\ And, the report was cited in 
     litigation that, if successful, would have resulted in a 
     declaration that the Vice President alone could decide which 
     electoral college votes to count during the January 6, 2021, 
     joint session of Congress.\63\
       Mr. Navarro also reportedly worked with members of the 
     Trump Campaign's legal team to directly encourage State 
     legislators to overturn the results of the 2020 election. On 
     January 2, 2021, Mr. Navarro joined a call with Phill Kline, 
     Rudy Giuliani, Professor John Eastman, John Lott, Jr., then-
     President Trump, and hundreds of State legislators. During 
     the call, Mr. Navarro discussed his report on voter fraud and 
     told the State legislators: ``Your job, I believe, is to take 
     action, action, action . . . The situation is dire.''\64\ In 
     that same call, Mr. Trump told the State legislators that 
     they were the best chance to change the certified results of 
     the Presidential election in certain States because ``[y]ou 
     are the real power . . . [y]ou're more important than the 
     courts. You're more important than anything because the 
     courts keep referring to you, and you're the ones that are 
     going to make the decision.''\65\
       In the days leading up to January 6, 2021, according to 
     evidence obtained by the Select Committee, Mr. Navarro also 
     encouraged Mark Meadows (and possibly others) to call Roger 
     Stone to discuss January 6th.\66\ When Roger Stone appeared 
     to testify before the Select Committee and was asked 
     questions about the events of January 6th, he repeatedly 
     invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
       Mr. Navarro wrote about ``The Navarro Report'' and his 
     efforts to change the outcome of the 2020 election in his 
     recently published book, In Trump Time.\67\ In his book, Mr. 
     Navarro described actions he took to affect the outcome of 
     the election, including encouraging President Trump in early-
     November 2020 not to announce that he would seek election in 
     2024 because doing so would acknowledge that he had actually 
     lost the 2020 Presidential election.\68\ Mr. Navarro also 
     wrote that he called Attorney General William P. Barr to ask 
     that the Department of Justice intervene and support 
     President Trump's legal efforts to challenge the results of 
     the 2020 election, which Attorney General Barr refused to 
     do.\69\ Mr. Navarro also wrote in his book that he kept a 
     journal of post-election activities like those described 
     above.\70\
       Mr. Navarro also claimed credit for concocting a plan with 
     Stephen Bannon to overturn the election results in various 
     States dubbed the ``Green Bay Sweep.''\71\ In his book, Mr. 
     Navarro described the ``Green Bay Sweep'' as ``our last, best 
     chance to snatch a stolen election,'' and ``keep President 
     Trump in the White House for a second term.''\72\ The plan 
     was to encourage Vice President Michael R. Pence, as 
     President of the Senate, to delay certification of the 
     electoral college votes during the January 6th joint session 
     of Congress and send the election back to the State 
     legislatures.\73\ Mr. Navarro's theory is similar to the 
     theory that Professor John Eastman advocated before January 
     6th, and that President Trump explicitly encouraged during 
     his speech on the Ellipse on January 6th.\74\ On January 6th, 
     the day to implement the ``Green Bay Sweep,'' Mr. Navarro had 
     multiple calls with Mr. Bannon, including during and after 
     the attack on the U.S. Capitol.\75\ Mr. Navarro has stated 
     that he believed his strategy ``started flawlessly'' but was 
     thwarted when ``two things went awry: [Vice President] 
     Pence's betrayal, and, of course, the violence that erupted 
     on Capitol Hill, which provided [Vice President] Pence, [and 
     Congressional leaders] an excuse to abort the Green Bay 
     sweep.''\76\
       This information demonstrates Mr. Navarro's clear relevance 
     to the Select Committee's investigation and provides the 
     foundation for its subpoena for Mr. Navarro's testimony and 
     document production. Congress, through the Select Committee, 
     is entitled to discover facts concerning what led to the 
     attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, as well as White 
     House officials' actions and communications during and after 
     the attack.
     B. Mr. Navarro has refused to comply with the Select 
         Committee's subpoena for testimony and documents.
       On February 9, 2022, Chairman Thompson signed and issued a 
     subpoena, cover letter, and schedule to Mr. Navarro ordering 
     the production of both documents and testimony relevant to 
     the Select Committee's investigation into ``important 
     activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol 
     on January 6, 2021.''\77\ Chairman Thompson's letter 
     identified public reports describing Mr. Navarro's activities 
     and past statements, documenting some of the public 
     information that gave the Select Committee reason to believe 
     Mr. Navarro possesses information about matters within the 
     scope of the Select Committee's inquiry.
       The accompanying letter set forth a schedule specifying 
     categories of related documents sought by the Select 
     Committee on topics including, but not limited to:

        communications, documents, and information that 
     are evidence of the claims of purported fraud in the three-
     volume ``Navarro Report'';
        documents and communications related to plans, 
     efforts, or discussions regarding challenging, decertifying, 
     delaying the certification of, overturning, or contesting the 
     results of the 2020 election; and
        communications with Stephen Bannon, Members of 
     Congress, State and local officials, other White House 
     employees, or representatives of the Trump reelection 
     campaign about election fraud and delaying or preventing the 
     certification of 2020 Presidential election.

       The subpoena required Mr. Navarro to produce the requested 
     documents to the Select Committee on February 23, 2022, at 10 
     a.m. and required Mr. Navarro's presence for the taking of 
     testimony on March 2, 2022, at 10 a.m.\78\
       As described above, Mr. Navarro had a brief exchange with 
     Select Committee staff after accepting service of the 
     subpoena and also made public comments indicating that he 
     would not appear or provide documents as required by the 
     subpoena. Indeed, Mr. Navarro failed to produce any documents 
     by the February 23, 2022, deadline, and did not appear for 
     his deposition on March 2, 2022.\79\ In his public and non-
     public communications with the Select Committee, Mr. Navarro 
     vaguely referred to ``[e]xecutive [p]rivilege,'' with no 
     further explanation, as his only reason for failing to comply 
     with the Select Committee's subpoena.
     C. Mr. Navarro's purported basis for non-compliance is wholly 
         without merit.
       Congress has the power to compel witnesses to testify and 
     produce documents.\80\ An individual--whether a member of the 
     public or an executive branch official--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.\81\ 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.\82\
       As more fully described below, the Select Committee sought 
     testimony from Mr. Navarro on topics and interactions as to 
     which there can be no conceivable privilege claim. Mr. 
     Navarro has refused to testify in response to the subpoena 
     ostensibly based on a blanket assertion of executive 
     privilege purportedly asserted by former-President Trump. The 
     Supreme Court has recognized an implied constitutional 
     privilege protecting Presidential communications.\83\ Under 
     certain circumstances, executive privilege may be invoked to 
     bar congressional inquiry into communications covered by the 
     privilege. However, the Court has held 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.''\84\ The U.S. Court 
     of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has already assessed 
     generalized privilege assertions by Mr. Trump in relation to 
     information sought by the Select Committee and purportedly 
     protected by executive privilege. That court concluded that 
     ``the profound interests in disclosure advanced by President 
     Biden and the January 6th Committee far exceed [Donald 
     Trump's] generalized concerns for Executive Branch 
     confidentiality.''\85\ Executive privilege has not been 
     properly invoked with respect to Mr. Navarro, is not 
     applicable to the testimony and documents sought by the 
     Select Committee, and does not justify Mr. Navarro's refusal 
     to appear in any event.
       1. President Biden decided not to invoke executive 
           privilege to prevent testimony by Mr. Navarro, and Mr. 
           Trump has not invoked executive privilege with respect 
           to Mr. Navarro.
       In his February 9, 2022, email to the Select Committee 
     before receiving the subpoena and reviewing the documents 
     sought by the Select Committee, Mr. Navarro cryptically 
     claimed, ``[e]xecutive [p]rivilege,'' but offered no reason 
     why executive privilege would shield from disclosure to the 
     Select Committee all of Mr. Navarro's testimony or the 
     documents in Mr. Navarro's personal custody and control.\86\ 
     Moreover, Mr. Navarro has put forward no evidence to support 
     a valid assertion of executive privilege.
       President Biden provided his considered determination that 
     invoking executive privilege, and asserting immunity, to 
     prevent Mr. Navarro's testimony and document production would 
     not be ``in the national interest, and therefore is not 
     justified, with respect to particular subjects within the 
     purview of the Select Committee.''\87\ Mr. Navarro has also 
     offered no evidence that former-President Trump has asserted 
     executive privilege, and the Select Committee has had no 
     communications with the former President regarding Mr. 
     Navarro. Without an assertion of executive privilege by Mr. 
     Trump to the Select Committee, and with the considered 
     determination of the current President not to assert any 
     immunity or executive privilege, Mr. Navarro 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:

[[Page H4240]]

       [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 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.\88\
       Here, President Biden has decided not to assert executive 
     privilege. But even if this formal determination by the 
     President as the head of the executive branch was not enough 
     to stop the valid assertion of executive privilege (and it 
     was with respect to Mr. Navarro), Mr. Navarro's assertion 
     cannot be valid because the Select Committee has not been 
     provided with any invocation of executive privilege--whether 
     formal or informal--by the former President.\89\ In any 
     event, Mr. Navarro's second-hand, categorical assertion of 
     privilege, without any description of the specific documents 
     or specific testimony over which privilege is claimed, is 
     insufficient to activate a claim of executive privilege.
       2. Even if Mr. Trump had actually invoked executive 
           privilege, the privilege would not bar the Select 
           Committee from lawfully obtaining the documents and 
           testimony it seeks from Mr. Navarro.
       The law is clear that executive privilege does not extend 
     to discussions relating to non-governmental business or among 
     private citizens.\90\ 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.''\91\
       The Select Committee does not seek information from Mr. 
     Navarro on trade policy or other official decision-making 
     within his sphere of official responsibility. Rather, as 
     noted above, the Select Committee seeks information from Mr. 
     Navarro on a range of subjects unrelated to his or the 
     President's official duties or related to his communications 
     with people outside government about matters outside the 
     scope of Mr. Navarro's official duties. These include the 
     following topics:

        Mr. Navarro's interactions with private citizens, 
     Members of Congress, or others outside the White House 
     related to the 2020 election or efforts to overturn its 
     results, including matters related to the ``Green Bay Sweep'' 
     strategy for changing the election results that Mr. Navarro 
     developed with Stephen Bannon, who was not a White House 
     employee during the relevant period;
        the reports, and purported factual support for the 
     reports, that Mr. Navarro himself acknowledged he prepared in 
     his capacity ``as a private citizen'';
        the connections, involvement, and planning for 
     January 6th events by Mr. Navarro, Roger Stone, and other 
     individuals who have refused to provide testimony to the 
     Select Committee; and
        subjects covered by the book that he wrote and 
     publicly released, such as private calls he made to Attorney 
     General Barr to ``plead [the] case'' for the Department of 
     Justice to take action related to purported election 
     fraud,\92\ his calls and meetings with Rudy Giuliani and 
     others associated with the Trump reelection campaign,\93\ and 
     his experience in Washington, DC, and around The National 
     Mall on January 6, 2021.\94\

       There is no conceivable claim of executive privilege over 
     documents and testimony related to those topics.
       Moreover, any claim of executive privilege and the need to 
     maintain confidentiality is severely undermined, if not 
     entirely vitiated, by Mr. Navarro's extensive public 
     disclosure of his communications with the former President, 
     including on issues directly implicated by the Select 
     Committee's subpoena. Mr. Navarro's recently published book 
     described his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and 
     several meetings with then-President Trump about those 
     efforts. The day after he was served with the Select 
     Committee subpoena, Mr. Navarro appeared on national 
     television to discuss the subpoena and his efforts to 
     overturn the 2020 election. Mr. Navarro's public disclosures 
     relating to the very subjects of interest to the Select 
     Committee foreclose a claim of executive privilege with 
     respect to those disclosures.\95\
       Even with respect to Select Committee inquiries that 
     involve Mr. Navarro'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.\96\ Based on his role as Director 
     of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, Mr. Navarro may have had 
     ``broad and significant responsibility for investigating and 
     formulating . . . advice to be given the President'' on 
     manufacturing or trade matters, in which case communications 
     with the President related to those ``particular matters'' 
     might be within executive privilege.\97\ However, 
     communications on matters unrelated to official Government 
     business--and outside the scope of Mr. Navarro's official 
     duties--would not be privileged.\98\ Indeed, the Select 
     Committee did not intend to seek any information related to 
     Mr. Navarro's role as Director of Trade and Manufacturing 
     Policy, and instead was concerned exclusively with obtaining 
     information about events in which Mr. Navarro participated or 
     witnessed in his private, unofficial capacity.
       Moreover, even with respect to any subjects of concern that 
     arguably involve official Presidential communications about 
     official Government business, the Select Committee's need for 
     this information to investigate the facts and circumstances 
     surrounding the January 6th assault on the U.S. Capitol and 
     the Nation's democratic institutions far outweighs any 
     generalized executive branch interest in maintaining 
     confidentiality at this point. The U.S. Court of Appeals has 
     recognized this in circumstances when Mr. Trump has formally 
     asserted executive privilege (unlike with Mr. Navarro),\99\ 
     and the incumbent President has concluded that ``an assertion 
     of executive privilege is not in the national interest, and 
     therefore is not justified, with respect to particular 
     subjects within the purview of the Select Committee . . . 
     [including] efforts to alter election results or obstruct the 
     transfer of power.''\100\
       3. Mr. Navarro is not immune from testifying or producing 
           documents in response to the subpoena.
       Finally, even if executive privilege may apply to some 
     aspect of Mr. Navarro's testimony, he, like other witnesses, 
     was required to produce a privilege log with respect to any 
     withheld documents noting any applicable privileges with 
     specificity, and to appear before the Select Committee for 
     his deposition to answer any questions concerning non-
     privileged information and assert any applicable privileges 
     on a question-by-question basis. He did none of those things. 
     Although he has not actually claimed that he is immune from 
     testifying or producing documents to Congress, such a claim 
     would not prevent Mr. Navarro's cooperation with the Select 
     Committee on the subjects described in this Report.
       As explained, President Biden has determined that it is not 
     in the national interest to assert immunity that Mr. Navarro 
     could claim would prevent testimony before the Select 
     Committee. And neither former-President Trump nor Mr. Navarro 
     have asserted any claim of testimonial immunity to prevent 
     Mr. Navarro from testifying in a deposition with the Select 
     Committee. President Biden, on the other hand, affirmatively 
     decided not to assert such immunity. In any event, all courts 
     that have reviewed purported immunity have been clear: even 
     senior White House aides who advise the President on official 
     Government business are not immune from compelled 
     congressional process.\101\
       The general theory that a current or former White House 
     senior advisor may be immune from testifying before Congress 
     is based entirely on internal memoranda from the Department 
     of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') that courts, 
     in relevant parts, have uniformly rejected.\102\ But even 
     those internal memoranda do not claim such immunity from 
     testimony for circumstances like those now facing Mr. 
     Navarro. Those internal memoranda do not address a situation 
     in which the incumbent President has decided to not assert 
     immunity. And by their own terms, the OLC opinions apply only 
     to testimony ``about [a senior official's] official duties,'' 
     not testimony about unofficial actions or private 
     conduct.\103\ Indeed, in OLC opinions dating back to, at 
     least, the 1970s, OLC has qualified its own position by 
     advocating for the testimonial immunity of certain White 
     House advisors before Congress ``unless [Congress's] inquiry 
     is related to their private conduct.''\104\ As described in 
     this Report, the Select Committee seeks testimony from Mr. 
     Navarro about, among other things, the ``Green Bay Sweep'' 
     plan he developed to overturn the election and his creation 
     and publication of ``The Navarro Report,'' conduct that was 
     not part of his official duties and that he admittedly 
     engaged in ``as a private citizen.'' Mr. Navarro is not 
     immune from testifying before the Select Committee.
       Moreover, there is not, nor has there ever been, any 
     purported immunity for senior White House advisors from 
     producing non-privileged documents to Congress when required 
     by subpoena to do so. Mr. Navarro did not produce any 
     documents, and there is no theory of immunity that justifies 
     his wholesale non-compliance with the Select Committee's 
     demand.
       For the reasons stated above, Mr. Navarro's own conduct and 
     the determination by the current executive would override any 
     claim of privilege or immunity (even assuming Mr. Trump had 
     invoked executive privilege with respect to Mr. Navarro). 
     Furthermore, Mr. Navarro has refused to appear and 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, claims of testimonial immunity and executive privilege 
     are wholly inapplicable to the range of subjects about which 
     the Select Committee seeks Mr. Navarro's testimony and that 
     Mr. Navarro has seemingly acknowledged involve non-privileged 
     matters.
     D. Mr. Navarro's failure to appear or produce documents in 
         response to the subpoena warrants holding Mr. Navarro in 
         contempt.
       An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House 
     subpoena may be cited for

[[Page H4241]]

     contempt of Congress.\105\ Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec.  192, 
     the willful refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena 
     is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment 
     for up to 1 year. A committee may vote to seek a contempt 
     citation against a recalcitrant witness. This action is then 
     reported to the House. If a contempt resolution 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.\106\
       In a series of email correspondence, Select Committee staff 
     advised Mr. Navarro that his blanket and general claim of 
     ``[e]xecutive [p]rivilege'' did not absolve him of his 
     obligation to produce documents and testify in a deposition. 
     Select Committee staff made clear that it wished to obtain 
     information from Mr. Navarro about topics that would not 
     raise ``any executive privilege concerns at all'' and that 
     Mr. Navarro could assert any ``objections on the record and 
     on a question-by-question basis.''\107\ Mr. Navarro's failure 
     to appear for deposition or produce responsive documents 
     constitutes a willful failure to comply with the subpoena.

                          Daniel Scavino, Jr.

     A. The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Scavino 
         central to its investigative purposes.
       Mr. Scavino's testimony and document production are 
     critical to the Select Committee's investigation. Mr. Scavino 
     is uniquely positioned to illuminate the extent of knowledge 
     and involvement of the former President, Members of Congress, 
     and other individuals and organizations in the planning and 
     instigation of the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, 
     including whether and how these various parties were 
     collaborating. Information in Mr. Scavino's possession is 
     essential to putting other witnesses' testimony and 
     productions into appropriate context and to ensuring the 
     Select Committee can fully and expeditiously complete its 
     work.
       Mr. Scavino served the former President in various roles 
     related to social media accounts and strategy, from the 2016 
     Presidential campaign through his service across the tenure 
     of the Trump administration, including as Deputy Chief of 
     Staff for Communications during the time most critical to the 
     Select Committee's investigation. Mr. Scavino's activities on 
     Mr. Trump's behalf went beyond the official duties of a 
     member of the White House staff. Mr. Scavino actively 
     promoted Mr. Trump's political campaign through social media. 
     Scavino was also reportedly present for meetings in November 
     2020 where then-President Trump consulted with outside 
     advisors about ways to challenge the results of the 2020 
     election.\108\
       Further, the Select Committee has reason to believe that 
     Mr. Scavino was with then-President Trump on January 5th and 
     January 6th and was party to conversations regarding plans to 
     challenge, disrupt, or impede the official congressional 
     proceedings.\109\ Mr. Scavino spoke with Mr. Trump multiple 
     times by phone on January 6th,\110\ and was present with Mr. 
     Trump during the period when Americans inside the Capitol 
     building and across the country were urgently calling on Mr. 
     Trump for help to halt the violence at the Capitol, but Mr. 
     Trump failed to immediately take actions to stop it.\111\
       The Select Committee also has reason to believe that Mr. 
     Scavino may have had advance warning of the possibility of 
     violence on January 6th. Public reporting notes that Mr. 
     Scavino had a history of monitoring websites where, in the 
     weeks leading up to January 6th, users discussed potential 
     acts of violence.\112\ Whether and when the President and 
     other senior officials knew of impending violence is highly 
     relevant to the Select Committee's investigation and 
     consideration of legislative recommendations.
       And again, aside from official duties--in which close aides 
     to the President should assist him in fulfilling his oath--
     Mr. Scavino also engaged in activities promoting the Trump 
     Campaign.\113\ Evidence acquired by the Select Committee 
     confirms the widely known fact that Mr. Scavino worked 
     closely with former-President Trump on his social media 
     messaging and likely had access to the credentials necessary 
     to post on the President's accounts.\114\ Indeed, Mr. Scavino 
     frequently composed specific social media posts and discussed 
     specific language with the former President.\115\ During the 
     time leading up to the January 6th attack, public messages 
     issued from President Trump's social media account that the 
     Select Committee believes had the effect of providing false 
     information and enflaming passions about a core tenet of our 
     constitutional democracy. Specifically:

        On December 19, 2020, 1:42 a.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election 
     fraud `more than sufficient' to swing victory to Trump 
     https://washex.am/3nwaBCe. A great report by Peter. 
     Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big 
     protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!\116\

        On December 19, 2020, 9:41 a.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       [Joe Biden] didn't win the Election. He lost all 6 Swing 
     States, by a lot. They then dumped hundreds of thousands of 
     votes in each one, and got caught. Now Republican politicians 
     have to fight so that their great victory is not stolen. 
     Don't be weak fools! https://t.co/d9Bgu8XPIj\117\

        On December 19, 2020, 2:59 p.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       The lie of the year is that Joe Biden won! Christina Bobb 
     @OANN.\118\

        On December 20, 2020, 12:26 a.m. ET, from Donald 
     J. Trump:

       GREATEST ELECTION FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF OUR 
     COUNTRY!!!\119\

        On December 22, 2020, 10:29 a.m. ET, from Donald 
     J. Trump:

       THE DEMOCRATS DUMPED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BALLOTS IN 
     THE SWING STATES LATE IN THE EVENING. IT WAS A RIGGED 
     ELECTION!!!\120\

        On December 26, 2020, 9:00 a.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       A young military man working in Afghanistan told me that 
     elections in Afghanistan are far more secure and much better 
     run than the USA's 2020 Election. Ours, with its millions and 
     millions of corrupt Mail-In Ballots, was the election of a 
     third world country. Fake President!\121\

        On December 26, 2020, 8:14 a.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       The ``Justice'' Department and the FBI have done nothing 
     about the 2020 Presidential Election Voter Fraud, the biggest 
     SCAM in our nation's history, despite overwhelming evidence. 
     They should be ashamed. History will remember. Never give up. 
     See everyone in D.C. on January 6th.\122\

        On December 28, 2020, 4:00 p.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       ``Breaking News: In Pennsylvania there were 205,000 more 
     votes than there were voters. This alone flips the state to 
     President Trump.''\123\

        On December 30, 2020, 2:38 p.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       The United States had more votes than it had people voting, 
     by a lot. This travesty cannot be allowed to stand. It was a 
     Rigged Election, one not even fit for third world 
     countries!\124\

        On January 4, 2021, 10:07 a.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       How can you certify an election when the numbers being 
     certified are verifiably WRONG. You will see the real numbers 
     tonight during my speech, but especially on JANUARY 6th. 
     @SenTomCotton Republicans have pluses & minuses, but one 
     thing is sure, THEY NEVER FORGET!\125\

        On January 6, 2021, 1:00 a.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will 
     win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake 
     they made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers 
     in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which 
     it must be). Mike can send it back!\126\

        On January 6, 2021, 8:17 a.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       States want to correct their votes, which they now know 
     were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process 
     never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do 
     is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this 
     is a time for extreme courage!\127\

        On January 6, 2021, 2:24 p.m. ET, from Donald J. 
     Trump:

       Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have 
     been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving 
     States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the 
     fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to 
     previously certify. USA demands the truth!\128\
       The Select Committee seeks to question Mr. Scavino, in his 
     capacity as social media manager, about these and other 
     similar communications.
       Public reporting also notes that Mr. Scavino and his social 
     media team had a history of monitoring websites including 
     ``TheDonald.win,'' an online forum frequented by individuals 
     who openly advocated and planned violence in the weeks 
     leading up to January 6th.\129\ In the summer of 2016, 
     former-President Trump himself engaged in a written question-
     and-answer session on a precursor to TheDonald.win called ``/
     r/The_Donald,'' which was a subreddit (a forum on the website 
     Reddit.com) at the time.\130\ The online Reddit community, 
     which had upward of 790,000 users, was banned by Reddit in 
     mid-2020,\131\ after which it migrated to another online 
     forum located at TheDonald.win.\132\
       Mr. Scavino reportedly amplified content from this 
     community, while his social media team also interacted with 
     the site's users. During the 2016 Presidential campaign, ``a 
     team in the war room at Trump Tower was monitoring social 
     media trends, including 
     [/r/The_Donald] subreddit . . . and privately communicating 
     with the most active users to seed new trends.''\133\ Trump 
     ``campaign staffers monitored Twitter and [/r/The_Donald] 
     subreddit, and pushed any promising trends up to social media 
     director Dan Scavino, who might give them a boost with a 
     tweet.''\134\ In 2017, former-President Trump tweeted a video 
     of himself attacking CNN.\135\ The video had appeared on /r/
     The_Donald 4 days earlier.\136\ In 2019, Politico reported 
     that Mr. Scavino ``regularly monitors Reddit, with a 
     particular focus on the pro-Trump /r/The_Donald 
     channel.''\137\

[[Page H4242]]

       On December 19, 2020, the same day Mr. Trump tweeted ``Big 
     protest in D.C. on January 6th . . . Be there, will be 
     wild!,'' users on posts on TheDonald.win, began sharing 
     ``specific techniques, tactics, and procedures for the 
     assault on the Capitol.''\138\ The ``ensuing weeks of 
     communications on the site included information on how to use 
     a flagpole as a weapon, how to smuggle firearms into DC, 
     measurements for a guillotine, and maps of the tunnel systems 
     under the Capitol building.''\139\ On January 5, 2021, a user 
     on TheDonald.win encouraged Mr. Trump's supporters to ``be 
     prepared to secure the capitol building,'' claiming that 
     ``there will be plenty of ex military to guide you.''\140\
       Multiple other posts on TheDonald.win made it clear that 
     the U.S. Capitol was a target, with one poster writing that 
     people should bring ``handcuffs and zip ties to DC'' so they 
     could enact ``citizen's arrests'' of those officials who 
     certified the election's results.\141\ Another post on 
     TheDonald.win was headlined ``most important map for January 
     6th. Form a TRUE LINE around the Capitol and the 
     tunnels.''\142\ That ``post included a detailed schematic of 
     Capitol Hill with the tunnels surrounding the complex 
     highlighted.''\143\ One thread posted on TheDonald.win, and 
     pertaining to Mr. Trump's December 19, 2020, tweet, 
     reportedly received more than ``5,900 replies and over 24,000 
     upvotes.''\144\ The ``general consensus among the users'' on 
     these threads ``was that Trump had essentially tweeted 
     permission to disregard the law in support of him.''\145\ For 
     example, one user wrote, ``[Trump] can't exactly openly tell 
     you to revolt. This is the closest he'll ever get.''\146\
       Just weeks before the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. 
     Capitol, former-President Trump shared content on Twitter 
     that apparently originated on TheDonald.win. On December 19, 
     2020, former-President Trump tweeted a video titled, ``FIGHT 
     FOR TRUMP!- SAVE AMERICA- SAVE THE WORLD.''\147\ The video 
     had reportedly appeared on TheDonald.win 2 days earlier.\148\
       Mr. Scavino also promoted the candidacy of Donald Trump and 
     other political candidates on his own social media account. 
     For example, he produced these public messages on Twitter:

        On October 16, 2020, 8:26 p.m. ET, from Dan 
     Scavino Jr.[American flag][Eagle]:

       [Alert]HAPPENING NOW!! 10/16/20-Macon, GA! MAGA[American 
     flag][Eagle] [Globe with meridians]Vote.DonaldJTrump.com'' 
     [Four pictures of a presidential campaign rally]\149\

        On November 6, 2020, 12:04 a.m. ET, from Dan 
     Scavino Jr.[American flag][Eagle]:

       [Tweeting a Fox News segment, ``Charges of Mail-In Ballot 
     Fraud are Rampant'']\150\

        On December 6, 2020, 12:34 a.m. ET, from Dan 
     Scavino Jr.[American flag][Eagle]:

       ``I am thrilled to be back in Georgia, w/1,000's of proud, 
     hardworking American Patriots! We are gathered together to 
     ensure that @sendavidperdue & @KLoeffler WIN the most 
     important Congressional runoff in American History. At stake 
     in this election is control of the Senate!'' -DJT [Video; 
     https://twitter.com/i/status/1335457640072310784]\151\

        On January 2, 2021, 9:04 p.m. ET, from Dan Scavino 
     Jr.[American flag][Eagle]:

       [Tweeting out a video encouraging people to ``Be a Part of 
     History'' and ``Join the March'' on January 6th.]\152\
       The Select Committee has a legitimate interest in seeking 
     information from Mr. Scavino about his activities that were 
     outside the scope of his responsibilities as a Federal 
     Government official. It is beyond reasonable dispute that the 
     ``stolen election'' narrative played a major role in 
     motivating the violent attack on the Capitol. Violent 
     rioters' social media posts, contemporaneous statements on 
     video, and filings in Federal court provide overwhelming 
     evidence of this. To take just a few examples--though there 
     are many others--statements from individuals charged with 
     crimes associated with the January 6th attack include:

        ``I'm going to be there to show support for our 
     president and to do my part to stop the steal and stand 
     behind Trump when he decides to cross the rubicon.''\153\
        ``Trump is literally calling people to DC in a 
     show of force. Militias will be there and if there's enough 
     people they may fucking storm the buildings and take out the 
     trash right there.''\154\
        ``Trump said It's gonna be wild!!!!!!! It's gonna 
     be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that's what he's 
     saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make 
     it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack 
     your shit!!''\155\

       Mr. Scavino's promotion of the January 6th events, his 
     reported participation in multiple conversations about 
     challenging the election, and his reported presence with 
     then-President Trump as the attack unfolded and in its 
     aftermath make his testimony essential to fully understanding 
     the events of January 6th, including Presidential activities 
     and responses that day. His two distinct roles--as White 
     House official in the days leading up to and during the 
     attack, and as a campaign social media promoter of the Trump 
     ``stolen election'' narrative--provide independent reasons to 
     seek his testimony and documents.
     B. Mr. Scavino has refused to comply with the Select 
         Committee's subpoena for testimony and documents.
       On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and issued 
     a subpoena, cover letter, and schedule to Mr. Scavino 
     ordering the production of both documents and testimony 
     relevant to the Select Committee's investigation into 
     ``important activities that led to and informed the events at 
     the Capitol on January 6, 2021.''\156\ Chairman Thompson's 
     letter identified public reports describing Mr. Scavino's 
     activities and past statements, and documented some of the 
     public information that gave the Select Committee reason to 
     believe Mr. Scavino possesses information about matters 
     within the scope of the Select Committee's inquiry.
       The specific documents the Chairman ordered produced are 
     found in the schedule in Appendix II, Ex. 6. The schedule 
     identified documents including but not limited to those 
     reflecting Mr. Scavino's role in planning and promoting the 
     January 6, 2021, rally and march in support of Mr. Trump; Mr. 
     Trump's participation in the rally and march; Mr. Scavino's 
     communications with Members of Congress or their staff about 
     plans for January 6th; and communications with others known 
     to be involved with the former President's 2020 election 
     campaign and subsequent efforts to undermine or cast doubt on 
     the results of that election.
       The subpoena required Mr. Scavino to produce the requested 
     documents to the Select Committee on October 7, 2021, at 10 
     a.m. ET and required Mr. Scavino's presence for the taking of 
     testimony on October 15, 2021, at 10 a.m.\157\
       The Select Committee was unable to locate Mr. Scavino for 
     service and therefore issued a new subpoena on October 6, 
     2021.\158\ On October 8, 2021, U.S. Marshals served this new 
     subpoena at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Scavino's reported place of 
     employment, to Ms. Susan Wiles, who represented herself as 
     chief of staff to former-President Trump and as authorized to 
     accept service on Mr. Scavino's behalf.\159\ The subpoena 
     required that Mr. Scavino produce responsive documents not 
     later than October 21, 2021, and that Mr. Scavino appear for 
     a deposition on October 28, 2021.\160\
       On October 20, 2021, Stanley E. Woodward, Jr., of Brand 
     Woodward Law notified the Select Committee that his firm had 
     been retained to represent Mr. Scavino.\161\ Per a telephone 
     conversation later that day, Mr. Woodward notified the Select 
     Committee that he was still in the process of ascertaining 
     whether Mr. Scavino had responsive documents and requested an 
     extension of the deadlines in the October 6, 2021, subpoena. 
     The Select Committee granted an extension of 1 week, delaying 
     the production deadline to October 28th and the deposition to 
     November 4th.\162\
       On October 27, 2021, Mr. Woodward emailed to request an 
     additional extension, and the Select Committee granted that 
     request, postponing the production deadline to November 4th 
     and the deposition to November 12th.\163\
       On November 2, 2021, Mr. Woodward emailed to express 
     difficulty in meeting the document production deadline. The 
     following day, the Select Committee agreed to an additional 
     production postponement to November 5th.\164\
       On November 5, 2021, rather than produce any responsive 
     documents in his client's possession, Mr. Woodward 
     communicated by letter that his client would not be producing 
     any documents. Instead, he asserted vague claims of executive 
     privilege that were purportedly relayed by the former 
     President, but which have never been presented by the former 
     President to the Select Committee.\165\ Mr. Woodward's letter 
     cited an attached October 6, 2021, letter from former-
     President Trump's counsel Justin Clark to Mr. Scavino that 
     instructed him to ``invoke any immunities and privileges you 
     may have from compelled testimony,'' ``not produce any 
     documents concerning your official duties,'' and ``not 
     provide any testimony concerning your official duties.''\166\
       On November 9, 2021, the Select Committee Chairman 
     responded to Mr. Woodward requesting that Mr. Scavino provide 
     a ``privilege log that specifically identifies each document 
     and each privilege that he believes applies,'' and explained 
     to Mr. Scavino that ``categorical claims of executive 
     privilege are improper, and any claim of executive privilege 
     must be asserted narrowly and specifically.'' The Chairman 
     also reminded Mr. Woodward that the subpoena demanded ``all 
     communications including those conducted on Mr. Scavino's 
     personal social media or other accounts and with outside 
     parties whose inclusion in a communication with Mr. Scavino 
     would mean that no executive privilege claim can be 
     applicable.''\167\
       The November 9th letter also detailed, at Mr. Woodward's 
     request, the various specific topics the Select Committee 
     wished to discuss with Mr. Scavino at his deposition 
     scheduled for November 12, 2021, and requested that Mr. 
     Woodward identify topics that he agreed did not implicate any 
     privileges and identify with specificity any privileges that 
     did apply to each specific topic.
       On November 10, 2021, following correspondence with Mr. 
     Woodward, the Select Committee agreed to an additional 
     extension to November 15, 2021, for document production and 
     November 19, 2021, for the deposition, to allow Mr. Woodward 
     additional time to discuss the November 9th letter with his 
     client.\168\
       On November 15th, Mr. Woodward sent a letter refusing to 
     provide the requested

[[Page H4243]]

     privilege log and asserted that a such log would undermine 
     the former President's assertions of privilege. Instead, Mr. 
     Woodward identified categories of documents he believed to be 
     privileged, including communications between Mr. Scavino and 
     Members of Congress, and between Mr. Scavino and ``non-
     Government third-parties.''\169\
       On November 18, 2021, Mr. Woodward sent another letter 
     wherein he, for the first time, and following weeks of 
     discussions about the items listed in the October 6th 
     subpoena, challenged the service of that subpoena as 
     deficient. He also challenged the Select Committee's 
     legislative purpose and demanded that the Select Committee 
     provide a detailed explanation of the pertinence of every 
     line of inquiry it intended to pursue at the scheduled 
     deposition.\170\
       On November 23, 2021, the Select Committee issued yet 
     another subpoena to Mr. Scavino, whose counsel agreed to 
     accept service.\171\ The November 23rd subpoena granted a 
     final extension of the document production deadline to 
     November 29, 2021, and the deposition to December 1, 2021. 
     The same day, the Select Committee transmitted a letter 
     explaining the relevance of Mr. Scavino's testimony to the 
     Select Committee's authorizing resolution and responding to 
     the numerous specious objections in the November 18th 
     letter.\172\
       On November 26, 2021, Mr. Woodward again wrote to the 
     Select Committee and declined to comply with the subpoena for 
     documents and testimony unless the Select Committee provided 
     a detailed explanation of the pertinence of each of its 
     expected questions and lines of inquiry for Mr. Scavino.\173\ 
     He also reasserted Mr. Scavino's refusal to testify in light 
     of Trump v. Thompson,\174\ the since-resolved litigation 
     regarding Mr. Trump's ability to assert executive privilege 
     over documents the incumbent President has already approved 
     for release.
       Mr. Scavino failed to produce any documents by the November 
     29, 2021, deadline, and did not appear for his deposition on 
     December 1, 2021.\175\
       On December 9, 2021, the Select Committee sent a letter to 
     Mr. Woodward documenting Mr. Scavino's failure to comply with 
     the subpoena and informing him that the Select Committee 
     would proceed to enforcement.\176\
       On December 13, 2021, Mr. Woodward responded in a letter 
     disputing that Mr. Scavino had failed to cooperate with the 
     investigation and reiterating many of his previous 
     objections.\177\
       On February 4, 2022, in light of the Supreme Court's denial 
     of a stay and injunction sought by former-President Trump in 
     Trump v. Thompson\178\ to prevent the National Archives from 
     providing documents to the Select Committee on the basis of 
     executive privilege, the Select Committee again contacted Mr. 
     Scavino and gave him an additional opportunity to 
     comply.\179\
       On February 8, 2022, Mr. Woodward responded, asserting that 
     Mr. Scavino still intended to withhold information at Mr. 
     Trump's direction until the ultimate resolution of Mr. 
     Trump's claims.\180\
     C. Mr. Scavino's purported basis for non-compliance is wholly 
         without merit.
       Congress has the power to compel witnesses to testify and 
     produce documents.\181\ An individual--whether a member of 
     the public or an executive branch official--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.\182\ 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.\183\
       It is important to note that the Select Committee sought 
     testimony from Mr. Scavino on topics and interactions as to 
     which there can be no conceivable privilege claim. Examples 
     of those are provided below. The Select Committee is entitled 
     to Mr. Scavino's testimony on each of them, regardless of his 
     claims of privilege over other categories of information and 
     communications. 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.''\184\
       Executive privilege is a recognized privilege that, under 
     certain circumstances, may be invoked to bar congressional 
     inquiry into communications covered by the privilege. Mr. 
     Scavino has refused to testify in response to the subpoena 
     ostensibly based on broad assertions of executive privilege 
     purportedly asserted by former-President Trump. Even if any 
     such privilege may have been applicable to some aspect of Mr. 
     Scavino's testimony, he was required to produce a privilege 
     log noting any applicable privileges with specificity and 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.
       1. President Biden decided not to invoke executive 
           privilege to prevent testimony by Mr. Scavino, and Mr. 
           Trump has not invoked executive privilege with respect 
           to Mr. Scavino.
       As described above, President Biden considered whether to 
     invoke executive privilege and whether to assert immunity 
     with regard to the subpoena for Mr. Scavino.\185\ He declined 
     to do so with respect to particular subjects within the 
     purview of the Select Committee, and the White House informed 
     Mr. Scavino's counsel of that decision in a letter on March 
     15, 2022.\186\ President Biden made this determination based 
     on his assessment of the ``unique and extraordinary nature of 
     the matters under investigation.''\187\
       Former-President Trump has had no communication with the 
     Select Committee. In a November 5th letter to the Select 
     Committee, Mr. Scavino's attorney referred to correspondence 
     from former-President Trump's attorney, Justin Clark, in 
     which Mr. Clark asserted that the Select Committee subpoena 
     seeks information that is ``protected from disclosure by the 
     executive and other privileges, including among others the 
     presidential communications, deliberative process, and 
     attorney-client privileges.''\188\ The Committee has received 
     no such correspondence from or on behalf of former-President 
     Trump. Without a formal assertion of executive privilege by 
     Mr. Trump to the Select Committee, Mr. Scavino 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 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.\189\
       Here, the Select Committee has not been provided with any 
     formal invocation of executive privilege by the President or 
     the former President or any other employee of the executive 
     branch. Mr. Scavino's third-hand, categorical assertion of 
     privilege, without any description of the specific documents 
     or specific testimony over which privilege is claimed, is 
     insufficient to activate a claim of executive privilege.
       2. Even if Mr. Trump had actually invoked executive 
           privilege, the privilege would not bar the Select 
           Committee from lawfully obtaining the documents and 
           testimony it seeks from Mr. Scavino.
       Executive privilege does not extend to discussions relating 
     to non-governmental business or among private citizens.\190\ 
     In In re Sealed Case (Espy), the D.C. Circuit explained that 
     the Presidential communications privilege ``only applies to 
     communications [with close Presidential advisers] in the 
     course of performing their function of advising the President 
     on official government matters.''\191\ The court stressed: 
     ``The Presidential communications privilege should never 
     serve as a means of shielding information regarding 
     governmental operations that do not call ultimately for 
     direct decision-making by the President.''\192\ As noted by 
     the Supreme Court, the privilege is ``limited to 
     communications `in performance of [a President's] 
     responsibilities,' `of his office,' and made `in the process 
     of shaping policies and making decisions.' ''\193\ And the 
     D.C. Circuit recently considered and rejected former-
     President Trump's executive privilege assertions over 
     information sought by the Select Committee. That court 
     concluded that ``the profound interests in disclosure 
     advanced by President Biden and the January 6th Committee far 
     exceed his generalized concerns for Executive Branch 
     confidentiality.''\194\
       The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Scavino on 
     a wide range of subjects that it is inconceivable executive 
     privilege would reach. For example, the Select Committee 
     seeks information from Mr. Scavino 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. And, among other things, the Select 
     Committee also seeks information from Mr. Scavino about his 
     use of personal communications accounts and devices.
       Even with respect to Select Committee inquiries that 
     involve Mr. Scavino's direct communications with Mr. Trump, 
     it is well-established that executive privilege does not bar 
     Select Committee access to that information. Only 
     communications that relate to official Government business 
     and Presidential decision-making on those official matters 
     can be covered by the Presidential communications 
     privilege.\195\ Here, Mr. Scavino's conduct regarding several 
     subjects of concern to the Select Committee is not related to 
     official Government business. These include Mr. Scavino's 
     participation in calls and meetings that clearly concerned 
     Mr. Trump's campaign rather than his official Government 
     business; participation in meetings with Mr. Trump and others 
     about a strategy for reversing the outcome of the 2020 
     election; or efforts to promote the January 6th rally on the 
     Ellipse.
       Moreover, even with respect to any subjects of concern that 
     arguably involve official Government business, executive 
     privilege is a qualified privilege and the Select

[[Page H4244]]

     Committee's need for this information to investigate the 
     facts and circumstances surrounding the January 6th assault 
     on the U.S. Capitol and the Nation's democratic institutions 
     far outweighs any executive branch interest in maintaining 
     confidentiality.\196\ As noted by the White House, ``an 
     assertion of executive privilege is not in the national 
     interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to 
     particular subjects within the purview of the Select 
     Committee.''\197\
       3. Mr. Scavino is not immune from testifying or producing 
           documents in response to the subpoena.
       Even if some aspect of Mr. Scavino's testimony was shielded 
     by executive privilege, he was required to appear for his 
     deposition and assert executive privilege on a question-by-
     question basis.\198\ Mr. Scavino's refusal to do so made it 
     impossible for the Select Committee to consider any good-
     faith executive privilege assertions.
       Mr. Scavino has refused to appear for a deposition based on 
     his purported reliance on alleged ``absolute testimonial 
     immunity.'' No court has recognized any such immunity, and 
     Mr. Scavino has not provided any rationale for applying any 
     form of immunity to his unofficial actions assisting Mr. 
     Trump's campaign to overturn the election. President Biden--
     who now serves as the President--has declined to assert 
     immunity in response to the subpoena to Mr. Scavino.
       As noted above,\199\ the general theory that a current or 
     former White House senior advisor may be immune from 
     testifying before Congress is based entirely on internal 
     memoranda from OLC, and courts have uniformly rejected this 
     theory.\200\ But, as was also noted above,\201\ those 
     internal OLC memoranda do not address a situation in which 
     the incumbent President has decided to not assert privilege, 
     and by their own terms they apply only to testimony ``about 
     [a senior official's] official duties,'' not testimony about 
     unofficial actions or private conduct.\202\
       Many of the topics Chairman Thompson identified in his 
     correspondence with Mr. Scavino's counsel are unrelated to 
     Mr. Scavino's official duties and would neither fall under 
     the reach of any ``absolute immunity'' theory nor any 
     privilege whatsoever. For instance:

        Mr. Scavino was not conducting official and 
     privileged business to the extent he attended discussions 
     regarding efforts to urge State legislators to overturn the 
     results of the November 2020 election and guarantee a second 
     term for Mr. Trump.
        Mr. Scavino was not conducting official and 
     privileged business to the extent he assisted Mr. Trump with 
     campaign-related social media communications, including 
     communications recruiting a violent crowd to Washington, 
     spreading false information regarding the 2020 election, and 
     any other communications provoking violence on January 6th.
        Mr. Scavino was not conducting official and 
     privileged business to the extent he communicated with 
     organizers of the January 6, 2021, rally, including Kylie 
     Kremer and Katrina Pierson, regarding messaging, speakers, 
     and even his own appearance and scheduled remarks at the 
     event, which was not an official White House event but rather 
     a campaign appearance.\203\
        Mr. Scavino was not engaged in official and 
     privileged business to the extent he used his personal social 
     media accounts and devices to coordinate with Trump campaign 
     officials, including Jason Miller, throughout the fall and 
     winter of 2020 regarding messaging, campaign events, 
     purported election fraud, and attempts to overturn the 2020 
     election results.\204\
        Mr. Scavino was not engaged in official and 
     privileged business to the extent he counseled Mr. Trump 
     regarding whether, how, and when to challenge or concede the 
     2020 election.

       The Select Committee specifically identified to Mr. Scavino 
     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.
     D. Mr. Scavino's failure to appear or produce documents in 
         response to the subpoena warrants holding Mr. Scavino in 
         contempt.
       An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House 
     subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress.\205\ Pursuant 
     to 2 U.S.C. Sec.  192, the willful refusal to comply with a 
     congressional subpoena is punishable by a fine of up to 
     $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year. A committee may 
     vote to seek a contempt citation against a recalcitrant 
     witness. This action is then reported to the House. If a 
     contempt resolution 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.\206\
       In his November 9th and November 23rd letters to Mr. 
     Scavino's counsel, the Chairman of the Select Committee 
     advised Mr. Scavino that his claims of executive privilege 
     were not well-founded and did not absolve him of his 
     obligation to produce documents and testify in 
     deposition.\207\ The Chairman made clear that the Select 
     Committee expected Mr. Scavino to produce documents and to 
     appear for his deposition, which was ultimately scheduled for 
     December 1st. And on February 4, 2022, the Chairman again 
     invited Mr. Scavino to appear before the Select Committee in 
     light of the resolution of Trump v. Thompson. The Chairman 
     again warned Mr. Scavino 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. Scavino's 
     failure to appear for deposition or produce responsive 
     documents in the face of this clear advisement and warning by 
     the Chairman constitutes a willful failure to comply with the 
     subpoena.


                     Select Committee Consideration

       The Select Committee met on Monday, March 28, 2022, 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 of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives 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 on a Resolution Recommending that the House of 
     Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, 
     Jr., in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with 
     Subpoenas Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate 
     the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol favorably 
     to the House was agreed to by a recorded vote of 9 ayes to 0 
     noes (Rollcall No. 4).

                     Select Committee Rollcall No. 4
                Motion by Ms. Cheney to Favorably Report
                       Agreed to: 9 ayes to 0 noes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Members                               Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Cheney, Vice Chair....................................          Aye
Ms. Lofgren...............................................          Aye
Mr. Schiff................................................          Aye
Mr. Aguilar...............................................          Aye
Mrs. Murphy (FL)..........................................          Aye
Mr. Raskin................................................          Aye
Mrs. Luria................................................          Aye
Mr. Kinzinger.............................................          Aye
Mr. Thompson (MS), Chairman...............................          Aye
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  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 clause3(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 interference 
     with the peaceful transfer of power, in order to identify and 
     evaluate problems and to recommend corrective laws, policies, 
     procedures, rules, or regulations; and to Cenforce the Select 
     Committee's subpoena authority found in section 5(c)(4) of 
     House Resolution 503.


                                ENDNOTES

     \1\ Peter Navarro, In Trump Time: My Journal of America's 
     Plague Year, (All Seasons Press, 2021), at pp. 251-52.
     \2\ Jose Pagliery, ``Trump Adviser Peter Navarro Lays Out How 
     He and Bannon Planned to Overturn Biden's Electoral Win,'' 
     The Daily Beast, (December 27, 2021), available at https://
www.thedailybeast.com/trump-advisor-peter-navarro-lays-out-
how-he-and-steve-bannon-planned-to-overturn-bidens-electoral-
 win.
     \3\ Peter Navarro, ``The Navarro Report,'' (2020, updated 
     2021), available at https://peternavarro.com/the-navarro-
 report/.
     \4\ See Appendix I, Ex. 1.
     \5\ See Appendix I, Ex. 2.
     \6\ Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews), Twitter, Feb. 9, 2022 
     5:38 p.m. ET, available at https://twitter.com/
 MacFarlaneNews/status/1491542034662019078.
     \7\ ``Transcript: The Beat with Ari Melber, 2/10/22,'' MSNBC, 
     (Feb. 10, 2022), available at https://www.msnbc.com/
transcripts/the-beat-with-ari-melber/transcript-beat-ari-
melber-2-10-22-n1289032.
     \8\ See Appendix I, Ex. 3.
     \9\ See Appendix I, Ex. 4.
     \10\ Id.
     \11\ Id.
     \12\ Id.
     \13\ Id.
     \14\ Id.
     \15\ See Appendix I, Ex. 5.
     \16\ See Appendix I, Ex. 6.
     \17\ Id.
     \18\ See Appendix I, Ex. 7.
     \19\ Id.
     \20\ See Appendix I, Ex. 8.
     \21\ Ryan Nobles, Paula Reid, and Annie Grayer, ``Trump 
     adviser Peter Navarro skips scheduled deposition with January 
     6 committee,'' CNN, (March 2, 2022), available at https://
www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/politics/peter-navarro-january-6/
index.html.
     \22\ Id.
     \23\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
     \24\ 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

[[Page H4245]]

     its committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters 
     within the province of proper investigation.'').
     \25\ 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).
     \26\ As explained below, the Chairman issued three subpoenas 
     to Mr. Scavino. The first was dated September 23, 2021, but 
     could not be served because Mr. Scavino could not be located. 
     The second was dated October 6, 2021, and was served on 
     October 8, 2021. After Mr. Scavino challenged service of the 
     second subpoena, the Chairman issued a third on November 23, 
     2021, and electronically served it on Mr. Scavino's attorney.
     \27\ See Appendix II, Ex. 1.
     \28\ Id.
     \29\ See Appendix II, Ex. 2.
     \30\ Id.
     \31\ Id.
     \32\ Id.
     \33\ See Appendix II, Ex. 3.
     \34\ See Appendix II, Ex. 4. See also Trump v. Thompson, 2021 
     U.S. App. LEXIS 36315, at *46 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 2021), cert. 
     denied, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 796 (U.S., Feb. 22, 2022).
     \35\ See Appendix II, Ex. 5.
     \36\ Id.
     \37\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
     \38\ See supra, at note 24.
     \39\ See supra, at note 25.
     \40\ H. Res. 503, 117th Cong., Sec.  3(1) (2021)
     \41\ Id.
     \42\ Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). See 
     also Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020).
     \43\ McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).
     \44\ 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).
     \45\ Pub. L. 79-601, 79th Cong.  136, (1946).
     \46\ Pub. L. 91-510, 91st Cong.  118, (1970).
     \47\ 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.
     \48\ 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.
     \49\ House rule XI, cl. 2(m)(1)(B), 117th Cong., (2021); H. 
     Res. 503, 117th Cong.  5(c)(4), (2021).
     \50\ H. Res. 503, 117th Cong.  5(c)(6), (2021).
     \51\ H. Res. 503, 117th Cong.  3(1) (2021).
     \52\ Exec. Order No. 13797, 82 Fed. Reg. 20821 (April 29, 
     2017).
     \53\ Id., at Sec.  2.
     \54\ Id., at Sec.  3.
     \55\ Exec. Order No. 13911, 85 Fed. Reg. 18403 (Mar. 27, 
     2020), at Sec. Sec.  1, 6.
     \56\ Federal law requires a separation of duties for Federal 
     officials who decide to engage in campaign activities. The 
     Hatch Act generally prohibits officials, such as Mr. Navarro, 
     from using their official authority or influence to affect 
     the outcome of an election. See 5 U.S.C. Sec.  7323(a); 5 
     C.F.R. Sec.  734.101 (defining ``political activity''); 5 
     C.F.R. Sec.  734.302 (prohibiting use of official title while 
     engaged in political activity). This would have prevented Mr. 
     Navarro from acting as both a White House official and as a 
     campaign official on certain matters or communications. See 
     also ``Investigation of Political Activities by Senior Trump 
     Administration Officials During the 2020 Presidential 
     election,'' Report of the Office of Special Counsel, (Nov. 9, 
     2021), at pp. 17, 22-23.
     \57\ Peter Navarro, ``The Navarro Report,'' (2020, updated 
     2021), available at https://peternavarro.com/the-navarro-
 report/.
     \58\ ``Peter Navarro `The Immaculate Deception' Report News 
     Conference Transcript,'' (Dec. 17, 2020), available at 
     https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/peter-navarro-the-
immaculate-deception-report-news-conference-transcript.
     \59\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \60\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 19, 2020 
     1:42 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201225035520mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1340185773220515840 (archived).
     \61\ Tom Dickinson, ``Peter Navarro: Trump Distributed Bogus 
     Election Fraud Research to `Every' congressional 
     Republican,'' Rolling Stone, (Jan. 3, 2022) available at 
     https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/peter-
navarro-interview-jan-6-electoral-college-1277938/.
     \62\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \63\ Documents on file with the Select Committee. See also 
     Gohmert, et al. v. Pence, 510 F. Supp. 3d 435 (E.D. Tex. 
     2021).
     \64\ 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.
     \65\ Id.
     \66\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \67\ Navarro, In Trump Time (2021).
     \68\ Id., at p. 225.
     \69\ Id., at pp. 241-42.
     \70\ See, e.g., id.
     \71\ Id.
     \72\ Id., at pp. 251-52.
     \73\ Id., at p. 252.
     \74\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \75\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \76\ Tom Dickinson, ``Peter Navarro: Trump Distributed Bogus 
     Election Fraud Research to `Every' Congressional 
     Republican,'' Rolling Stone, (Jan. 3, 2022) available at 
     https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/peter-
navarro-interview-jan-6-electoral-college-1277938/.
     \77\ See Appendix I, Ex. 1.
     \78\ Id.
     \79\ See Appendix I, Ex. 8.
     \80\ 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.'').
     \81\ 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)).
     \82\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
     \83\ United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-16 (1974)
     \84\ Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (GSA), 433 
     U.S. 425, 449 (1977) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
     \85\ Trump v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36315, at *46 
     (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 2021), cert. denied, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 796 
     (U.S., Feb. 22, 2022).
     \86\ See Appendix I, Ex. 2.
     \87\ See Appendix I, Ex. 6.
     \88\ See also United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (CCD 
     Va. 1807) (ruling that President Jefferson had to personally 
     identify the passages he deemed confidential and could not 
     leave this determination to the U.S. Attorney).
     \89\ Indeed, as noted above, President Biden has determined 
     that no assertion of executive privilege is warranted by Mr. 
     Navarro with respect to the areas of inquiry by the Select 
     Committee. See Appendix I, Ex. 6.
     \90\ See Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 449.
     \91\ In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 
     1997).
     \92\ Navarro, In Trump Time, at pp. 241-42.
     \93\ See, e.g., id., at p. 222.
     \94\ See, e.g., id., at p. 266-72.
     \95\ 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'').
     \96\ 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'').
     \97\ Espy, 121 F.3d at 752.
     \98\ See supra, at note 56.
     \99\ Trump v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. App. 36315 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 
     9, 2021).
     \100\ See Appendix I, Ex. 6.
     \101\ 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).
     \102\ Id.
     \103\ See, e.g., 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. at 1 (May 20, 2019) (Slip Opinion); Letter Opinion for 
     the Counsel to the President, Testimonial Immunity Before 
     Congress of the Assistant to the President and Senior 
     Counselor to the President, 43 O.L.C. 1 at 1 (July 12, 2019) 
     (Slip Opinion).
     \104\ See, e.g., Memorandum for the Honorable John W. Dean 
     III, Counsel to the President, from Ralph E. Erickson, 
     Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: 
     Appearance of Presidential Assistant Peter M. Flanigan Before 
     a Congressional Committee at 1 (Mar. 15, 1972) (emphasis 
     added).
     \105\ Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 
     (1975).
     \106\ See 2 U.S.C. Sec.  194.
     \107\ See Appendix I, Ex. 4.
     \108\ Carol Leonnig and Phillip Rucker, I Alone Can Fix It, 
     (New York: Penguin, 2021), at p. 377.
     \109\ Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Peril, (New York: Simon 
     & Schuster, 2021), at p. 231; Michael C. Bender, ``Frankly, 
     We Did Win This Election'': The Inside Story of How Trump 
     Lost, (New York: Twelve Books, 2021), at p. 373.
     \110\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \111\ See Leonnig and Rucker, I Alone Can Fix It, at p. 465.
     \112\ Justin Hendrix, ``TheDonald.win and President Trump's 
     Foreknowledge of the Attack on the Capitol,'' Just Security, 
     (Jan. 12, 2022), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/
79813/thedonald-win-and-president-trumps-foreknowledge-of-
the-attack-on-the-capitol/ (discussing Mr. Scavino's social 
     media practices for the President and noting that ``[t]he 
     sharing of specific techniques, tactics, and procedures for 
     the assault on the Capitol started on The Donald in earnest 
     on December 19, 2020 . . .'').
     \113\ See supra, at note 56. Mr. Scavino was subject to the 
     same restrictions on campaign activities as Mr. Navarro.
     \114\ Andrew Restuccia, Daniel Lippman, and Eliana Johnson, 
     `` `Get Scavino in here': Trump's Twitter guru is the 
     ultimate insider,'' Politico, (May 16, 2019), available at 
     https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/16/trump-scavino-
 1327921; Justin Hendrix, ``TheDonald.win and President 
     Trump's Foreknowledge of the Attack on the Capitol,'' Just 
     Security (Jan. 12, 2022), available at https://
www.justsecurity.org/79813/thedonald-win-and-president-
trumps-foreknowledge-of-the-attack-on-the-capitol/; Woodward 
     and Costa, Peril, at p. 231; Documents on file with the 
     Select Committee.
     \115\ Andrew Restuccia, Daniel Lippman, and Eliana Johnson, 
     `` `Get Scavino in here': Trump's Twitter guru is the 
     ultimate insider,'' Politico, (May 16, 2019), available at 
     https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/16/trump-scavino-
 1327921; Woodward and Costa, Peril, at p. 231; Documents on 
     file with the Select Committee.
     \116\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 19, 2020 
     1:42 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201225035520mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1340185773220515840 (archived).
     \117\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 19, 2020 
     9:41 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201225035301mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1340306154031857665 (archived).
     \118\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 19, 2020 
     2:59 p.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201225035142mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1340386251866828802 (archived).
     \119\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 20, 2020 
     12:26 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201225035219mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1340529063799246848 (archived).
     \120\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 22, 2020 
     10:29 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201227202442mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1341405487057821698 (archived).
     \121\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 26, 2020 
     9:00 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20210101075201mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1342832582606598144 (archived).
     \122\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 26, 2020 
     8:14 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201230193535mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1342821189077622792 (archived).

[[Page H4246]]

     \123\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 28, 2020 
     4:00 p.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201230195203mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1343663159085834248 (archived).
     \124\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 30, 2020 
     2:38 p.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20201230212259mp_/https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
     1344367336715857921 (archived).
     \125\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Jan. 4, 2021 
     10:07 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20210106204726mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1346110956078817280 (archived).
     \126\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Jan. 6, 2021 
     1:00 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20210106204711mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1346698217304584192 (archived).
     \127\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Jan. 6, 2021 
     8:17 a.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20210106204708mp_/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
     1346808075626426371 (archived).
     \128\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Jan. 6, 2021 
     2:24 p.m. ET, available at http://web.archive.org/web/
20210106204701mp_/http://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/
 status/1346900434540240897 (archived).
     \129\ Justin Hendrix, ``TheDonald.win and President Trump's 
     Foreknowledge of the Attack on the Capitol,'' Just Security, 
     (Jan. 12, 2022), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/
79813/thedonald-win-and-president-trumps-foreknowledge-of-
the-attack-on-the-capitol/; Ryan Goodman and Justin Hendrix, 
     ``The Absence of `The Donald','' Just Security, (Dec. 6, 
     2021), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/79446/the-
absence-of-the-donald/ (noting that a post discussing 
     President Trump's December 19, 2020 ``Wild Protest'' tweet as 
     a call to come to Washington, DC, for January 6th was 
     ``pinned'' to the top of the website).
     \130\ Amrita Khalid, ``Donald Trump participated in a Reddit 
     AMA, but not much of anything was revealed,'' daily dot, 
     (July 27, 2016, updated May 26, 2021), available at https://
www.dailydot.com/debug/donald-trump-reddit-ama-fail/.
     \131\ Mike Isaac, ``Reddit, Acting Against Hate Speech, Bans 
     `The_Donald' Subreddit,'' New York Times, (June 29, 2020, 
     updated Jan. 27, 2021), available at https://www.nytimes.com/
2020/06/29/technology/reddit-hate-speech.html.
     \132\ Craig Timberg and Drew Harwell, ``TheDonald's owner 
     speaks out on why he finally pulled plug on hate-filled 
     site,'' Washington Post, (Feb. 5, 2021), available at https:/
     /www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/05/why-thedonald-
moderator-left/.
     \133\ Ben Schreckinger, ``World War Meme,'' Politico 
     Magazine, (March/April 2017), available at https://
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/memes-4chan-trump-
supporters-trolls-internet-214856/.
     \134\ Id.
     \135\ Daniella Silva, ``President Trump Tweets Wrestling 
     Video of Himself Attacking `CNN','' NBC News, (July 2, 2017), 
     available at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/
president-trump-tweets-wwe-video-himself-attacking-cnn-
 n779031.
     \136\ Id.
     \137\ Andrew Restuccia, Daniel Lippman, and Eliana Johnson, 
     `` `Get Scavino in here': Trump's Twitter guru is the 
     ultimate insider,'' Politico, (May 16, 2019), available at 
     https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/16/trump-scavino-
 1327921.
     \138\ Justin Hendrix, ``TheDonald.win and President Trump's 
     Foreknowledge of the Attack on the Capitol,'' Just Security, 
     (Jan. 12, 2022), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/
79813/thedonald-win-and-president-trumps-foreknowledge-of-
the-attack-on-the-capitol/.
     \139\ Id.
     \140\ SITE Intelligence Group, ``How a Trump Tweet Sparked 
     Plots, Strategizing to `Storm and Occupy' Capitol with 
     `Handcuffs and Zip Ties','' (Jan. 9, 2021), available at 
     https://ent.siteintelgroup.com/Far-Right-/-Far-Left-Threat/
     how-a-trump-tweet-sparked-plots-strategizing-to-storm-and-
     occupy-capitol-with-handcuffs-and-zip-ties.html.
     \141\ Id.
     \142\ Alex Thomas, ``Team Trump was in bed with online 
     insurrectionists before he was even elected,'' daily dot, 
     (Jan. 15, 2021, updated Feb. 15, 2021), available at https://
www.dailydot.com/debug/dan-scavino-reddit-donald-trump-
 disinformation/.
     \143\ Id.
     \144\ SITE Intelligence Group, ``How a Trump Tweet Sparked 
     Plots, Strategizing to `Storm and Occupy' Capitol with 
     `Handcuffs and Zip Ties','' (Jan. 9, 2021), available at 
     https://ent.siteintelgroup.com/Far-Right-/-Far-Left-Threat/
     how-a-trump-tweet-sparked-plots-strategizing-to-storm-and-
     occupy-capitol-with-handcuffs-and-zip-ties.html.
     \145\ Id.
     \146\ Id.
     \147\ Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Dec. 19, 2020 
     10:24 a.m. ET, available at https://web.archive.org/web/
 20201219182441/https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
     1340362336390004737 (archived).
     \148\ Justin Hendrix, ``TheDonald.win and President Trump's 
     Foreknowledge of the Attack on the Capitol,'' Just Security 
     (Jan. 12, 2022), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/
79813/thedonald-win-and-president-trumps-foreknowledge-of-
the-attack-on-the-capitol/.
     \149\ Dan Scavino Jr.[American flag][Eagle] (@DanScavino), 
     Twitter, Oct. 16, 2020, 8:26 p.m. ET, available at https://
twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1317260632308224000.
     \150\ Dan Scavino Jr.[American flag][Eagle] (@DanScavino), 
     ``[Video; https://twitter.com/i/status/1324578313420111872]'' 
     Twitter, Nov. 6, 2020, 12:04 a.m. ET, available at https://
twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1324578313420111872.
     \151\ Dan Scavino Jr.[American flag][Eagle] (@DanScavino), 
     Twitter, Dec. 6, 2020, 12:34 a.m. ET, available at https://
twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1335457640072310784.
     \152\ Dan Scavino Jr.[American flag][Eagle] (@DanScavino), 
     ``[Video; https://twitter.com/i/status/1345551501440245762], 
     Twitter, Jan. 2, 2021, 9:04 p.m. ET, available at https://
twitter.com/danscavino/status/1345551501440245762.
     \153\ Criminal Complaint, United States of America v. Ronald 
     L. Sandlin, (D.D.C.) (No. 21-cr-00088) (Jan. 20, 2020), 
     available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1362396/
 download.
     \154\ Indictment, United States of America v. Marshall Neefe 
     and Charles Bradford Smith, (D.D.C.) (No. 21-cr-567) (Sept. 
     8, 2021), ECF 1, at p. 6, available at https://
www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1432686/
 download.
     \155\ First Superseding Indictment, United States of America 
     v. Caldwell et al., (D.D.C.) (No. 21-cr-28) (Feb. 19, 2021) 
     ECF 27, at p. 9, available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-
dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1369071/download.
     \156\ See Appendix II, Ex. 6.
     \157\ Id.
     \158\ See Appendix II, Ex. 1.
     \159\ Id.
     \160\ Id.
     \161\ See Appendix II, Ex. 2.
     \162\ Id.
     \163\ Id.
     \164\ Id.
     \165\ See Appendix II, Ex. 7.
     \166\ Id.
     \167\ See Appendix II, Ex. 8.
     \168\ See Appendix II, Ex. 2.
     \169\ See Appendix II, Ex. 9.
     \170\ See Appendix II, Ex. 10.
     \171\ See Appendix II, Ex. 11.
     \172\ See Appendix II, Ex. 3.
     \173\ See Appendix II, Ex. 12.
     \174\ (D.C. Cir., No. 21-5254) (appeal from D.D.C. No. 21-cv-
     02769)
     \175\ See Appendix II, Ex. 13.
     \176\ See Appendix II, Ex. 14.
     \177\ See Appendix II, Ex. 15.
     \178\ 595 U.S._ (2022) (No. 21A272) (Jan. 19, 2022).
     \179\ See Appendix II, Ex. 4.
     \180\ See Appendix II, Ex. 16.
     \181\ See supra, at note 80.
     \182\ See supra, at note 81.
     \183\ United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
     \184\ Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (GSA), 433 
     U.S. 425, 449 (1977) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
     \185\ See Appendix II, Ex. 5.
     \186\ Id.
     \187\ Id.
     \188\ See Appendix II, Ex. 7.
     \189\ See also supra, at note 88.
     \190\ Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 449.
     \191\ Espy, 121 F.3d 729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
     \192\ Id.
     \193\ Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 449 (quoting U.S. v. Nixon, 
     418 U.S. 683 (1974) (internal citations omitted)).
     \194\ Trump v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36315, at *46 
     (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 2021).
     \195\ Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 449; 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'').
     \196\ Trump v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36315, at *46 
     (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 2021).
     \197\ See Appendix II, Ex. 5.
     \198\ Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 
     106 (D.D.C. 2008) (``Ms. Miers may assert executive privilege 
     in response to any specific questions posed by the 
     Committee'' and ``she must appear before the Committee to 
     provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where 
     appropriate'').
     \199\ See supra, at notes 101-103.
     \200\ Id.
     \201\ Id.
     \202\ Id.
     \203\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \204\ Documents on file with the Select Committee.
     \205\ Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 
     491, 515 (1975).
     \206\ See 2 U.S.C. Sec.  194.
     \207\ See Appendix II, Exs. 8, 11. 

[[Page H4247]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.001



[[Page H4248]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.002



[[Page H4249]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.003



[[Page H4250]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.004



[[Page H4251]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.005



[[Page H4252]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.006



[[Page H4253]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.007



[[Page H4254]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.008



[[Page H4255]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.009



[[Page H4256]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.010



[[Page H4257]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.011



[[Page H4258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.012



[[Page H4259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.013



[[Page H4260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.014



[[Page H4261]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.015



[[Page H4262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.016



[[Page H4263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.017



[[Page H4264]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.018



[[Page H4265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.019



[[Page H4266]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.020



[[Page H4267]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.021



[[Page H4268]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.022



[[Page H4269]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.023



[[Page H4270]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.024



[[Page H4271]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.025



[[Page H4272]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.026



[[Page H4273]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.027



[[Page H4274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.028



[[Page H4275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.029



[[Page H4276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.030



[[Page H4277]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.031



[[Page H4278]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.032



[[Page H4279]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.033



[[Page H4280]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.034



[[Page H4281]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.035



[[Page H4282]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.036



[[Page H4283]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.037



[[Page H4284]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.038



[[Page H4285]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.039



[[Page H4286]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.040



[[Page H4287]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.041



[[Page H4288]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.042



[[Page H4289]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.043



[[Page H4290]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.044



[[Page H4291]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.045



[[Page H4292]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.046



[[Page H4293]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.047



[[Page H4294]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.048



[[Page H4295]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.049



[[Page H4296]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.050



[[Page H4297]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.051



[[Page H4298]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.052



[[Page H4299]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.053



[[Page H4300]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.054



[[Page H4301]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.055



[[Page H4302]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.056



[[Page H4303]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.057



[[Page H4304]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.058



[[Page H4305]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.059



[[Page H4306]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.060



[[Page H4307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.061



[[Page H4308]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.062



[[Page H4309]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.063



[[Page H4310]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.064



[[Page H4311]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.065



[[Page H4312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.066



[[Page H4313]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.067



[[Page H4314]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.068



[[Page H4315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.069



[[Page H4316]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.070



[[Page H4317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.071



[[Page H4318]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.072



[[Page H4319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.073



[[Page H4320]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.074



[[Page H4321]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.075



[[Page H4322]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.076



[[Page H4323]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.077



[[Page H4324]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.078



[[Page H4325]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.079



[[Page H4326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.080



[[Page H4327]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.081



[[Page H4328]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.082



[[Page H4329]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.083



[[Page H4330]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.084



[[Page H4331]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.085



[[Page H4332]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.086



[[Page H4333]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.087



[[Page H4334]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.088



[[Page H4335]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.089



[[Page H4336]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.090



[[Page H4337]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.091



[[Page H4338]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.092



[[Page H4339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.093



[[Page H4340]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.094



[[Page H4341]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.095



[[Page H4342]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.096



[[Page H4343]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.097



[[Page H4344]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.098



[[Page H4345]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.099



[[Page H4346]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.100



[[Page H4347]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.101



[[Page H4348]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.102



[[Page H4349]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.103



[[Page H4350]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.104



[[Page H4351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.105



[[Page H4352]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.106



[[Page H4353]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.107



[[Page H4354]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.108



[[Page H4355]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.109



[[Page H4356]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.110



[[Page H4357]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.111



[[Page H4358]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.112



[[Page H4359]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.113



[[Page H4360]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.114



[[Page H4361]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.115



[[Page H4362]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.116



[[Page H4363]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.117



[[Page H4364]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.118



[[Page H4365]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.119



[[Page H4366]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.120



[[Page H4367]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.121



[[Page H4368]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.122



[[Page H4369]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.123



[[Page H4370]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH461501.124



[[Page H4371]]

  

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. 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. 1037) recommending that the 
House of Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., 
in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly 
issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on 
the United States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1023, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 1037

       Resolved, That Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., 
     shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to 
     comply with congressional subpoenas.
       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 
     Peter K. Navarro to produce documents or appear for a 
     deposition before the Select Committee to Investigate the 
     January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as directed 
     by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District 
     of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Navarro be proceeded against 
     in the manner and form provided by law.
       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 
     Daniel Scavino, Jr., to produce documents or appear for a 
     deposition before the Select Committee to Investigate the 
     January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as directed 
     by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District 
     of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Scavino 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 subpoenas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided among and controlled by the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson), the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), and an 
opponent, or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.


                             General Leave

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include any 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start our debate by talking a little bit about 
what the American people ought to expect of their leaders, of those who 
hold positions of public trust and the responsibilities that come with 
it.
  I have been thinking about those responsibilities for more than 50 
years, in all the time I have been fortunate enough to hold a position 
of public trust. It doesn't matter if you are an alderman, a mayor, 
Member of Congress, President of the United States, or a staff member 
working as a civil servant, or a political appointee. When you work for 
the public, when the people's taxes pay your salary, those jobs come 
with serious rules and serious obligations.
  Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro both held positions of public trust. 
Mr. Scavino was a top communications official in the Trump White House. 
Mr. Navarro was a trade adviser. They each drew salaries paid by the 
American people to the tune of over $180,000 per year. They both were 
to abide by certain rules and obligations. They both swore oaths of 
allegiance to the Constitution.
  The select committee wants to talk to both of them, but about a lot 
more than their White House jobs. We want to talk to them about their 
roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election. We subpoenaed them for 
their records and testimony. They told us to buzz off. Not a single 
record. No-shows for their deposition.
  Their excuse was: As former White House employees, the information we 
wanted--again, information about overturning an election--was shielded 
by executive privilege, a protection for the President to make sure 
sensitive, official conversations stay private.
  In other words, they are arguing that their roles in trying to 
overturn an election had to stay secret because they had official roles 
as advisers to the ex-President.
  If they want to make those claims, ridiculous as they sound, here is 
what the law requires: They need to show up and make those claims on 
the record, under oath. They refused to do that. That alone means they 
are in contempt of Congress. But I want to dig a little deeper into the 
argument these men are making.
  As I mentioned before, these are rules and obligations that bind 
public servants. One of the most important rule is that you can't do 
campaign work on government time or using taxpayer money. Pretty 
straightforward. Plenty you can do on your own time, but not when you 
are on the clock. That is the law.
  If you have heard of the Hatch Act, it has probably been when a 
Cabinet Secretary or White House official had crossed the line from 
their official duties into political matters. In fact, in 2020, Mr. 
Navarro was dinged by a government watchdog for violating the Hatch Act 
by using his official role to attack President Joe Biden. That law 
prohibits, among other things, someone from using ``official authority 
or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the 
results of an election.''
  Sounds familiar? In the case of Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino, trying 
to affect the result of an election wasn't knocking on doors or putting 
signs in people's front yards. They were trying to help a defeated 
President stay in power. It is not conceivable that their involvement 
in that effort could have legally overlapped with their official 
duties.
  But beyond that, it was a betrayal of the oath these men took. It was 
a betrayal of the public trust. Even if you do it on your own time, 
trying to overturn an election is still trying to overturn an election. 
We know that the people who stormed this building on January 6 had the 
same goal: trying to overturn an election. That is what the select 
committee is investigating. That is why we need to hear from Mr. 
Scavino and Mr. Navarro.
  But as the select committee works to provide answers to the American 
people, these two are saying: ``I worked at the White House when all 
this took place. Even if I was plotting to overturn the government, I 
was collecting a government salary at the time, so I don't have to talk 
about it.''
  Can you imagine? I have served my community and my country most of my 
life. Like my colleagues in this body, I have labored to uphold my oath 
and do right by the people I serve. I know my constituents expect that 
of me.
  To run into this kind of obstruction, this kind of cynical behavior, 
as we investigate a violent insurrection, is just despicable. It can't 
stand.
  Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro must be held accountable for their 
abuses of the public trust. They must be held accountable for their 
defiance of the law. They are in contempt of Congress, which is a 
crime, and I call on my colleagues to do their duty to defend this 
institution and the rule of law and to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the select committee has now conducted over 800 
interviews and depositions of witnesses who have knowledge of the 
events of January 6. This includes more than a dozen former Trump White 
House staff members.
  Mr. Speaker, when you hear my colleagues make political, partisan 
attacks on the select committee, I hope that all of us can remember 
some basic facts: Through these interviews, we have learned that 
President Trump and his team were warned in advance, and repeatedly, 
that the efforts they undertook to overturn the 2020 election

[[Page H4372]]

would violate the law and our Constitution; they were warned that 
January 6 could, and likely would, turn violent; and they were told 
repeatedly by our State and Federal courts, by our Justice Department, 
and by agencies of our intelligence community, that the allegations of 
widespread fraud, sufficient to overturn an election, were false and 
were unsupported by the evidence.

  Yet, despite all of these specific warnings, President Trump and his 
team moved willfully through multiple means to attempt to halt the 
peaceful transfer of power, to halt the constitutional process for 
counting votes, and to shatter the constitutional bedrock of our great 
Nation.
  As a Federal judge has recently concluded, the illegality of 
President Trump's plan for January 6 was ``obvious.''
  We are here today to address two specific witnesses who have refused 
to appear for testimony before the committee.
  The committee has many questions for Mr. Scavino about his political 
social media work for President Trump, including his interactions with 
an online forum called ``theDonald.win'' and with QAnon, a bizarre and 
dangerous cult.
  Mr. Scavino worked directly with President Trump to spread President 
Trump's false message that the election was stolen and to recruit 
Americans to come to Washington on January 6 to ``take back their 
country.'' This effort to deceive was widely effective and widely 
destructive, and Donald Trump's stolen election campaign succeeded in 
provoking the violence on January 6.
  On this point, there is no doubt. The committee has videos, 
interviews, and sworn statements from violent rioters demonstrating 
these facts.
  Mr. Navarro will also be a key witness. He has written a book 
boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the activity of 
January 6. We have many questions for Mr. Navarro, including about his 
communications with Roger Stone and Steve Bannon regarding the planning 
for January 6.
  As Judge Carter recently concluded: ``Based on the evidence, the 
Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly 
attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 
2021.''
  In the case of both of these witnesses, Mr. Speaker, the committee 
would rather have their testimony than have to move this contempt 
citation. When you hear my colleagues attack the select committee, 
remember Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro have chosen not to appear. They 
did not have to make this choice, but they did.
  In America, no one is above the law. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. 
Scavino nor Mr. Navarro is some form of royalty. There is no such thing 
in America as the privileges of the crown. Every citizen has a duty to 
comply with a subpoena.
  Mr. Speaker, when you hear my colleagues challenge the committee's 
legislative purpose, remember the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court of 
the United States have affirmed our legislative purpose. Too many 
Republicans are, once again, ignoring the rulings of the courts, as 
many of them did in the run-up to January 6.
  Mr. Speaker, the tale of what happened following the 2020 election, 
resulting in the violence of January 6, is a tale of stunning deceit. 
It is a tale of lies about our election and contempt for the rulings of 
our courts.
  The election claims made by Donald Trump were so frivolous and so 
unfounded that the President's lead lawyer did not just lose these 
cases; he lost his license to practice law. The New York Supreme Court 
found: ``There is uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Giuliani 
communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, 
lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former 
President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with 
Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020.''

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Speaker, those in this Chamber who continue to embrace the former 
President and his dangerous and destructive lies ought to take a good, 
hard look at themselves. At a moment of real danger to our Republic, 
when the need for fidelity to our Constitution is paramount, they have 
abandoned their oaths in order to perform for Donald Trump. That will 
be their legacy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a close call. Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino 
have chosen not to comply with a congressional subpoena. They are in 
contempt. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this is the last time that we do this. Just last 
week, we watched members of the January 6th Select Committee criticize 
the DOJ for not jailing their political opponents fast enough.
  Now the committee is trying to refer two more of President Trump's 
advisers to the DOJ for criminal prosecution. The same DOJ, by the way, 
that has slandered concerned parents as domestic terrorists; a DOJ 
overseen by a President who said President Trump should be prosecuted.
  So let's be clear, we aren't voting today to rename a post office. 
So, please, let's be honest with ourselves. A vote to hold Dan Scavino 
and Peter Navarro in contempt of Congress is a vote to put them in jail 
for a year. Neither of these men deserve this. The party line isn't a 
good enough excuse today. Disliking their politics isn't an excuse.
  Mr. Scavino has two boys. He is a good dad. He doesn't deserve this. 
His boys definitely don't deserve this. So before we vote today, I have 
got to ask, could anyone here explain to those boys why their dad 
deserves to be behind bars for a year?
  Mr. Scavino grew up in a working-class family in New York City. He is 
a former caddy who worked his way up to the White House through hard 
work and determination. Mr. Scavino lived the American Dream. Now, 
thanks to the select committee, he is living an authoritarian 
nightmare.
  The select committee will say that it is Mr. Scavino's fault for 
refusing to cooperate. That is simply not true. Mr. Scavino asked time 
and again for the committee to follow the rule of law and provide him 
with a narrow and specific legislative purpose for the information that 
they were seeking. He asked, ``How is what you want from me pertinent 
to your investigation?'' And they refused to explain.
  But remember what they said last week. The January 6th Committee must 
enforce its subpoenas. But contempt is not enforcement; it is 
punishment. Contempt won't get the committee any information. Only the 
court can do that. But they don't want to go to the judiciary. They 
don't want neutral arbitration. They want political punishment.
  The select committee has never been interested in factfinding. In 
fact,   Jim Jordan and I were both blocked from sitting on the 
committee because we promised to fully investigate the security failure 
at the Capitol. The Democrat leaders don't want that. They claim they 
blocked us for being too partisan.
  Meanwhile, the committee's lead staffer signed his name to a false 
letter calling the Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation. 
Apparently, lying to undermine democracy is a key qualification for 
employment of this committee.
  If the January 6th Committee gets its way, Congress will have 
referred four former Trump officials for prosecution in under 6 months, 
another record for the 117th Congress.
  The select committee aims to do two things: silence legitimate 
questions about the breakdown of security at the Capitol and punish 
their political opponents. It is that simple.
  Dan Scavino is accused of listening to his boss, the former Commander 
in Chief, who told him to ``invoke all applicable privileges and 
immunities.'' Today's vote is not about wrongdoing, and it isn't about 
anybody's character, no matter what they say.
  Today's vote is about the character of this House. It is about 
abusing the seat of our democracy to attack American democracy. The 
question is, do we live in a country where you can go to jail for 
working for the wrong politician? Would you want to live in that 
country? The question is, will you help create that country? Because I 
think we have had a pretty good thing going for the last 240 years, and 
that is exactly why I urge all of my colleagues

[[Page H4373]]

to vote ``no'' on this resolution today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, just for the record, let 
me say that we are here for this contempt process today, but the 
President's own daughter complied with the wishes of the committee. I 
would think that if his daughter complied with the wishes of the 
committee, everyone else should, even the people who worked for him.
  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 from Mississippi for 
yielding. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her courage in 
standing for the truth.
  I disagree with many things that the previous speaker said. I 
disagree with his premises and with his conclusion in many respects. 
But I do agree with him on one thing: This vote is about the character 
of the House--I agree with him on that--which is why 435 of us ought to 
vote for this resolution, so that the House can do its duty.
  Madam Speaker, once again we are forced to take this step, asking the 
Justice Department to charge individuals with criminal contempt for 
refusing to answer subpoenas as issued by the committee investigating 
the attack on our Capitol and our democracy on January 6, 2021.
  The two gentlemen of which the previous speaker spoke I don't know. I 
have no quarrel with them individually. But we are a Nation of laws, 
not of men, and if we are to be a Nation of laws, then we need to 
respond to legal process; and if we think the assertions are wrong, we 
need to make our case.

  On the merits of this resolution there should be no doubt, and it is 
about the character of this House, the courage of this House to seek 
honesty, to seek truth. The individuals in question had intimate 
knowledge of the former President's actions and decisions on that day. 
No matter who their children are, no matter what their life has been, 
they have knowledge that it is important for the American people to 
have through their Representatives in Congress.
  Americans must have a full accounting of what transpired on January 6 
and in the weeks leading up to it and perhaps subsequent. That is what 
the bipartisan select committee has been tasked with undertaking, by a 
vote of this House. Sadly, I expect maybe most of my colleagues across 
the aisle will vote against this resolution. It is about the character 
of this House.
  Perhaps they agree with the Republican National Committee, which has 
said that the violent Trump-led insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the 
deaths and injury of U.S. Capitol police officers, and an effort to 
prevent the certification of an election was, and I quote the 
Republican National Committee, ``legitimate political discourse.''
  How can anybody make that assertion? How can anybody in the 
Republican National Committee vote for it? Why doesn't everybody on the 
Republican Party side of the aisle say, ``That is not what we 
believe''? Silence prevails.
  There is no doubt that the insurrection on January 6 itself was a 
danger to our democracy, but I agree with The Washington Post columnist 
and former White House speech writer for Republican President George W. 
Bush, Michael Gerson, who wrote on December 16, ``It is Republican 
tolerance for the intolerable that threatens American democracy.''
  Very frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle ought to be 
celebrating those in their ranks who have the courage to stand up for 
the truth. I have told Liz Cheney, if John Kennedy were writing his 
book on Profiles in Courage today, I would urge him to include her and 
Adam Kinzinger in that book.
  January 6 was a day of peril for America, but the greater crisis is 
when one of our two main political parties has become so hijacked by 
extremism and so enthralled to a dangerous demagogue that it condones, 
even celebrates insurrection and violence.
  Madam Speaker, how can the same party that claims it honors law 
enforcement simultaneously declare that violent attacks against police 
officers are legitimate? How can one of our two political parties be so 
craven for short-term partisan gain that it is willing to encourage and 
condone insurrection? How can its Members use their sacred votes in the 
House, the people's House, in an effort to impede the investigation of 
this dark and dangerous day in the history of our democracy?
  That is what this vote is about. Not only the character of this 
House, but the character of this country, the character of the people 
who demand, hopefully, truth, because that is what will set us all 
free.
  Because that is what this vote is about: Whether you believe that the 
violent attack on January 6, one in which a mob threatened the life of 
the Republican Vice President and threatened the life of the Speaker of 
this House--the Speaker of all the House--in an attempt to overthrow 
our democracy, does that constitute legitimate political discourse? 
Madam Speaker, I can't believe Americans believe that.
  We must reject that theory, that the violence that we saw on January 
6, the hate that we saw on January 6, is somehow legitimate political 
discourse, because if people believe that, then our democracy is in 
grave danger. This vote is about whether you believe a certain 
individual can be held above the law in our country. It is about 
whether you believe the American people deserve to know all the facts 
about January 6 and whether those responsible for the attack ought to 
be held responsible. And most fundamentally, Madam Speaker, it is about 
whether the Congress can fulfill its constitutional responsibility and 
ability to determine the truth.
  Madam Speaker, this vote will reveal to us who was willing to show 
tolerance for the intolerable. It will reveal to us who is willing to 
stand up and defend our democracy and the rule of law, irrespective of 
party, irrespective of personality. That is a call to patriotism, to 
love of country and to love of Constitution.
  My fellow colleagues, let us do our duty to the Constitution, to the 
Declaration, to our democracy, and to the people we represent. Vote 
``yes.''
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I think it is very important, as our 
colleagues consider their vote on this resolution, to keep in mind the 
facts.
  Number one, neither Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro has appeared in front 
of this committee. As I mentioned earlier, we have interviewed over 800 
witnesses. The vast majority of them have cooperated fully and answered 
our questions. Some of the witnesses have taken the Fifth. Some of the 
witnesses have answered some questions and asserted a privilege on 
other questions.
  But the notion that somehow the former President can instruct someone 
not to appear, that is not sustainable, that is not found anywhere in 
the law. If Mr. Scavino or Mr. Navarro wants to assert some kind of a 
privilege--and again, our questions for them have to do with their 
activities that are political activities that are not covered by 
executive privilege, but if they wish to assert that privilege, they 
can appear and do so.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I would also note that in Trump v. 
Thompson, the D.C. Circuit held, and then we were upheld in the Supreme 
Court, that the committee's need for this information outweighs the 
former President's rights to any kind of confidentiality.
  I think it is important for those facts to be clear and to be on the 
Record.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, gas prices are rising; the border has 
become a turnstile; inflation is crushing our fellow Americans; and 
here we are, back on the floor of the House, reliving January 6.
  Some of the members of the January 6th Committee come from the swamps 
of Washington, D.C. I come from the swamps of Florida, and I know 
alligator tears when I see them. Yet, we are lectured about performing 
for the former President.
  The reason Scavino and Navarro shouldn't be held in contempt is that 
the January 6th Committee itself is so

[[Page H4374]]

performative, illegitimate, and unconstitutional, kicking off the 
Republicans that Leader McCarthy sent to serve on the committee.
  We were accused by the majority leader of having our party hijacked. 
Our party is ascendant, and time is on our side because when we take 
the majority back, this nonsense will come to an end.
  It is baffling to me that Democrats are so eager to conduct oversight 
over the last administration that is out of power, but it is hear no 
evil, see no evil, speak no evil when it comes to the Biden 
administration.
  They are more worried about Trump's trade adviser than Joe Biden's 
son trading influence for foreign money.
  They are more worried about Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff than 
deputizing the right folks to secure America's border.
  The January 6th Committee is a sham. If you took the position of the 
committee, legally, no President would ever have privilege that would 
extend beyond the life of that Presidency. No President would have the 
ability to have candid conversations with staff and advisers that might 
not immediately come back to bite them the moment they left the Oval 
Office.
  The American people see this for the partisan exercise that it is. 
Probably some folks at the Justice Department even see that it is a 
partisan exercise because not all of these contempt citations are well-
received at the Justice Department right now.
  This contempt referral should similarly be ignored and rejected, and 
certainly, it is a stain on this House.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a distinguished veteran of the 
Air Force and a member of the select committee.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, for all practical purposes, Dan Scavino's career is 
Donald Trump. Scavino was 16 when they met, and he is, to this day, a 
Trump stalwart.
  Scavino was central to the Trump administration's social media 
program. He was, for 2 years, President Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff 
for Communications. Using social media to monitor trends and shape 
political views was Dan Scavino's core business.
  He did that for Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, and he kept 
doing it right on through the ``stop the steal'' and the fraudulent 
challenge to the 2020 election. He also monitored extremist social 
media sites for the President.
  Dan Scavino was with the President on January 5 and 6. He spoke with 
Trump by phone several times on January 6 and was with the President as 
many urged him to help stop the violence at the Capitol. So, Dan 
Scavino could shed light on what then-President Trump thought would 
happen on January 6, especially the potential for violence.
  Did the President know that the rally could turn violent; that his 
rhetoric on the Ellipse could send an angry mob to storm the Capitol; 
that what on the evening of January 5 President Trump called a fired-up 
crowd might take it literally when, the next morning, he told them to 
``fight hard''; that he was pouring fuel on the flames?
  Dan Scavino was there, so if he were willing to do his duty as a 
citizen, he could tell us a lot about that. But instead, he has chosen 
to stiff-arm the American people.
  President Trump acknowledged that Scavino sometimes helped shape his 
tweets. On December 19, Trump retweeted a video that urged viewers to 
``fight for Trump.'' The January 6 attack was then just 2\1/2\ weeks 
away.
  Why did Donald Trump retweet that particular message? Dan Scavino 
could give us the inside scoop.
  While Trump and his stop the steal gaggle were working hard to 
subvert the Constitution and steal the election for themselves, 
President Trump retweeted, after QAnon already had, a video called, 
``How to Steal an Election.''
  What would Dan Scavino say about why Trump retweeted a QAnon-blessed 
video on how to steal an election? He won't risk telling us.
  What did President Trump's extremist followers on ``The Donald'' and 
other hard-right sites make of Trump urging them to join a wild protest 
on January 6? Polls show that some took it as marching orders, in fact. 
Dan Scavino had to know they would.
  Dan Scavino knew very well what his boss wanted. He knew that sites 
like ``The Donald'' attracted violent extremists. Scavino himself sent 
out a video that a user on that site understood as literal marching 
orders and literal war drums.
  President Trump and Dan Scavino had been in the White House for 4 
years by then. They knew the January 6 crowd could turn violent. They 
knew exactly what they were doing.
  We are here today because Dan Scavino, a key witness, is unwilling to 
speak with us. He failed to produce a single document in response to 
the subpoena, and he has clearly demonstrated his complete and utter 
contempt for Congress.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time.
  Dan Scavino's blatant disregard for our subpoena is his effort to 
ensure that Congress and the American people never get the firsthand 
story that he has to tell.
  None of us should find that acceptable. It is contempt for the law 
and contempt for Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
resolution.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Aguilar).
  Mr. AGUILAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chair for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, we have been entrusted by the American people to 
investigate the attempt to overturn a free and fair election. That 
attempt to subvert the will of the American people resulted in a deadly 
attack on the people in this building. But it was bigger than just 1 
day of violence and destruction that resulted in the deaths of U.S. 
Capitol Police officers.
  For weeks, various schemes were hatched by individuals, ranging from 
State legislators to the former President's senior aides to Members of 
Congress, with a singular objective: Keep Donald Trump in office.
  These are the facts, Madam Speaker, facts that were backed up last 
week by a Federal judge, who, after reviewing some of the evidence our 
committee has in its possession, said, in part, ``The illegality of the 
plan was obvious.''
  We are here today to hold two individuals involved, Peter Navarro and 
Dan Scavino, in contempt of Congress.
  Peter Navarro has failed to comply with our investigation in any way 
despite the fact that he has given multiple TV interviews. In fact, Mr. 
Navarro appeared on television in support of the former President's 
failed reelection efforts, so much so that he was found to have 
repeatedly violated the Hatch Act.
  But his political work did not stop when the election was over. We 
know Mr. Navarro led a call with State legislators about the efforts to 
convince Vice President Pence to delay election certification for 10 
days. We know Mr. Navarro spoke to Steve Bannon, both during and after 
the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
  Mr. Navarro has publicly stated that he is protected by executive 
privilege, but he has never sought counsel, as others have, and he has 
not filed any case seeking relief from his responsibilities to comply 
with our lawful subpoena.
  This is a textbook case for contempt, Madam Speaker. While I am not 
surprised by some of my colleagues who refuse to pull their heads out 
of the sand and face the facts of what really happened and continues to 
happen, I remain deeply concerned about what this country looks like if 
the perpetrators aren't held accountable.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1037.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, the fact is, President Trump has 
exerted executive privilege, and Mr. Scavino has raised the issue of 
executive privilege at President Trump's request.

[[Page H4375]]

  No matter how much my colleagues on the other side want to say 
differently, it is a legitimate assertion, considering the D.C. Circuit 
Court, in Nixon v. Administrator, held that the executive privilege can 
be raised by a former President, a determination recently reinforced by 
Justice Kavanaugh in Trump v. Thompson by stating that the right of a 
former President to assert executive privilege exists, even if the 
sitting President does not support that privilege. Concluding otherwise 
would, in fact, actually eviscerate the privilege in total.
  Keep in mind that the ruling on executive privilege in Trump v. 
Thompson deals with a narrow set of documents from the National 
Archives. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Scavino testifies. The 
ruling does not apply to documents at issue in this case, nor does it 
apply to the testimony sought by the committee or whether the committee 
has a legitimate purpose for conversations between President Trump and 
his aide.
  The select committee has refused to acknowledge President Trump's 
assertion of privilege as it applies to Mr. Scavino, and the committee 
takes an overexpansive view of what Trump v. Thompson actually says and 
fails to even acknowledge that the Supreme Court case of Nixon v. 
Administrator exists.
  This is not a settled question, and it is not nearly as clear-cut as 
some would have you believe.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chairperson of the 
Committee on House Administration and a member of the select committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, no one is above the law.
  We have all heard that phrase. It is a bedrock principle, and we know 
it is what distinguishes democracies like ours from autocracies such as 
Russia.
  Sadly, a few of the former President's closest aides and allies seem 
to think they are special, that they are above the law, including 
senior communications official Daniel Scavino, Jr.
  Now, who is he? According to many reports, Mr. Scavino worked with 
the former President to use social media to spread lies regarding 
nonexistent election fraud and to recruit a violent, angry mob to D.C.
  Mr. Scavino also followed violent, extremist social media on behalf 
of Mr. Trump. We have reason to believe that doing so provided Mr. 
Scavino with explicit advance warnings of the violence that was to 
occur on January 6. He may have shared these warnings of violence with 
Mr. Trump before the 6th, and we need to ask him about that.
  He reportedly attended several meetings with Mr. Trump and others 
regarding reversing the legitimate victory of President Biden and was 
also with the former President during the Capitol attack when Mr. Trump 
failed to immediately try to stop it, despite urgent bipartisan calls 
for him to do so.
  Madam Speaker, a Federal court recently concluded that Mr. Trump 
likely committed a Federal felony and that he and his allies ``launched 
a campaign to overturn a democratic election'' that ``spurred violent 
attacks on the seat of our Nation's government, led to the deaths of 
several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our 
political process.''
  The court said that his effort was ``a coup in search of a legal 
theory.'' The court found that if President Trump's ``plan had worked, 
it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, 
undermining American democracy and the Constitution.''
  Democrats and Republicans have agreed that the very foundation of our 
constitutional republic was threatened. We must prevent that from ever 
happening again.
  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly explained that the 
public needs to know everything about what caused and occurred on 
January 6. To inform both the American people and legislative reform 
proposals, the select committee needs to speak with Mr. Scavino. He has 
to fulfill his legal and moral obligation to provide testimony and 
documents. Otherwise, he should face consequences.
  We must vote ``yes'' on this resolution to find him in contempt of 
Congress. In the United States of America, no one, including Mr. 
Scavino, is above the law.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know my colleague and friend, Mr. Armstrong, knows very well that, 
first of all, executive privilege is a qualified privilege.
  Secondly, former President Trump has not asserted executive 
privilege.
  Third, I have tremendous respect, obviously, for Justice Kavanaugh, 
but my colleagues continue to quote Justice Kavanaugh without noting 
that the opinion in the D.C. circuit, which was upheld by the Supreme 
Court, in that opinion the judge found a number of things, including 
``to allow the privilege of a no-longer sitting President to prevail 
over Congress' need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its 
constitutional operations would gravely impair the basic function of 
the legislature.''
  The Court also held that under any of the tests advocated by former 
President Trump, the profound interests in disclosure advanced by 
President Biden and the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
Attack on the United States Capitol far exceed his generalized concerns 
for executive branch confidentiality.
  And I would just repeat again, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Scavino and 
Mr. Navarro both have chosen not to appear in front of the committee to 
answer questions that are clearly outside of any potential claim of 
privilege they may have, and even if they believe there is a claim of 
privilege, they are obligated to appear and make that assertion. They 
cannot simply refuse to respond to the committee's subpoena.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Murphy).
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee charged with 
investigating the attack on our Capitol, our Constitution, and our 
country, I support this resolution to refer Peter Navarro and Daniel 
Scavino to the Department of Justice for contempt of Congress.
  I will focus my remarks on Mr. Navarro.
  There is clear evidence that Mr. Navarro was involved in efforts to 
keep President Trump in power after he lost the election.
  We subpoenaed Mr. Navarro seeking testimony and documents regarding 
the actions he took to discredit the election and prevent the results 
from being certified. Mr. Navarro made a blanket claim of executive 
privilege. This claim lacks merit as a matter of law and common sense.
  No President, either sitting or former, has claimed privilege 
regarding Mr. Navarro's testimony or documents. And Mr. Navarro has no 
authority to assert privilege himself.
  Beyond that fundamental flaw, since the election, Mr. Navarro has 
written and spoken widely about the subjects that are the focus of our 
subpoena. He is eager to tell his story, if he can do so on his terms 
in a way that serves his interests.
  He published a book where he details the actions he took to change 
the outcome of the election. He writes that he worked with Steve Bannon 
on a scheme called the ``Green Bay Sweep.'' Its purpose was to 
encourage Vice President Pence to delay certification of the votes and 
send the election back to State legislatures.
  Mr. Navarro writes that he called Attorney General Barr, urging the 
Department of Justice to support President Trump's efforts to challenge 
the election in court, which Barr declined to do.
  Mr. Navarro notes that he kept a journal detailing this episode and 
other actions he took.
  And finally, while he was refusing to comply with our subpoena, Mr. 
Navarro made numerous media appearances discussing his role in the 
events culminating on January 6.
  Mr. Navarro has significant relevant knowledge. He is happy to share 
it on television and in podcasts, but he won't provide this information 
in response to a lawful subpoena.
  Mr. Navarro is in contempt of Congress and should be referred for 
prosecution.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis.)

[[Page H4376]]

  

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, 15 months have passed 
since January 6 of 2021, yet I have seen little evidence over that time 
to indicate the necessary progress has been made to ensure the Capitol 
complex is more secure.
  And I have seen no evidence that the politicized select committee is 
serious about identifying or addressing the issues that led to our 
Capitol being so unprepared on that day, which should be its top 
priority.
  On February 17 of this year, the GAO released a report detailing the 
lack of security preparedness by Capitol Police leadership and the 
Capitol Police Board on and in the lead-up to January 6. The rank-and-
file men and women who serve Congress as members of the Capitol Police 
put their lives on the line every day. Yet, the Capitol Police Board, 
controlled by Speaker Pelosi, failed them. They deserve better.
  Instead of working to ensure our Capitol Police officers have the 
tools and the training they need to prevent another event like January 
6 or taking long-overdue steps to reform the Capitol Police Board, the 
House is once again voting on a contempt resolution because two 
individuals are not complying with another sham subpoena issued by 
House Democrats.
  I have a newsflash for members of the Select Committee: You do not 
have limitless power. You cannot demand testimony, documents, or even 
view the information of your political opponents without their consent 
or without the law on your side. You have neither.
  Specifically, Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro are unable to testify on 
specific topics that are related to their work in the White House, nor 
can they testify on communications between President Trump and the 
President's closest advisers, as those communications are protected 
under President Trump's claim of executive privilege.

  As a reminder, the American taxpayer is spending millions of dollars 
on this select committee. According to The Washington Post, the select 
committee is on pace to spend $9.3 million by the end of December.
  To put that into perspective, that amount exceeds the current budgets 
for the Committees on the Judiciary; Agriculture; Budget; Ethics; the 
Committee on House Administration; Rules; Science, Space, and 
Technology; Small Business; Natural Resources; Homeland Security; 
Veterans' Affairs; and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  That is right, this select committee is using more taxpayer resources 
on their partisan investigation than Democrats have devoted to serving 
veterans, addressing rising prices in inflation, or helping our farmers 
during a massive supply chain crisis.
  This is nothing more than a sham investigation full of misuses of 
congressional authority, including Speaker Pelosi violating 230 years 
of precedent by refusing to allow the minority party to select its own 
committee members, failing to investigate pursuant to a valid 
legislative purpose, altering evidence to fit a certain narrative, 
lying to witnesses, falsely accusing witnesses, violating deponents' 
right to challenge subpoenas, and perhaps above all, refusing to 
investigate why Speaker Pelosi and the Capitol Police Board left the 
Capitol so unprotected that day.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), a veteran of the 
United States Navy.
  Mrs. LURIA. Madam Speaker, I have come to the floor many times over 
the last 3 years and discussed the oath of office. The oath to protect 
and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
  Every Member of this body swore that oath, and it is the same oath 
that our President and military officers, including those like Mr. 
Banks, swear in service to our Nation.
  That is service.
  When an American enlists or commissions in our Armed Forces, or when 
someone takes elected office, or even a senior position in the 
executive branch, they do so to serve the American people.
  Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro had the duty to serve the American 
people. Unfortunately, they instead chose to serve the interests of one 
man, who sought to advance his own agenda at the peril of American 
democracy.
  They now have the duty to respond to the subpoenas of this committee, 
but they have apparently decided that they are above the law.
  The American people deserve the truth about the attack that attempted 
to prevent the peaceful transition of power, and the committee is 
united in our duty to investigate.
  This committee has conducted over 800 voluntary depositions and 
interviews, with more scheduled, including witnesses who worked in the 
previous administration and even close family members of the former 
President.
  The committee has received nearly 90,000 documents pertaining to 
January 6, and we followed up over 435 tips received through the 
committee's tip line.
  Hundreds of witnesses have voluntarily come forward and cooperated 
with our investigation, but Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro have refused to 
do their part.
  They have been given every opportunity to come forward, yet they have 
attempted to obstruct the pursuit of justice and to stonewall the 
committee's work and conceal the truth, despite both publicly 
acknowledging their roles in promoting election fraud conspiracies and 
counseling the former President on changing the outcome of the 
election.
  Mr. Meadows, and today Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro, my question 
remains: What are you covering up, and who are you covering for?
  Their failure to answer that question about January 6 is disregarding 
the law, and they should be held accountable. That is why I will vote, 
and I will urge my colleagues to vote to hold Mr. Navarro and Mr. 
Scavino in contempt of Congress.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is again very important as our colleagues are 
contemplating their vote on this resolution that they keep in mind the 
facts. And we are hearing a number of things that are not consistent 
with the facts.
  First of all, with respect to the establishment of the committee, Mr. 
Davis knows, and my colleagues know that we initially attempted to have 
a bipartisan commission, which, in fact, Leader McCarthy instructed Mr. 
Katko to negotiate with Chairman Thompson. Mr. Katko did that, secured 
everything the Republicans asked for, at which point, Mr. McCarthy 
walked away from the bipartisan commission, and then went over to the 
Senate side and lobbied against the establishment of a bipartisan 
commission.
  The establishment of the select committee, again, is not what we 
would have hoped. The 35 Republicans who voted for the bipartisan 
commission wanted a bipartisan outside commission, but we cannot let 
this attack go uninvestigated.
  Mr. Davis also knows that with respect to the membership of the 
committee, Speaker Pelosi said that she would not name two Members who 
had been identified by Mr. McCarthy; that is completely consistent with 
the resolution. And Mr. McCarthy then himself withdrew the other three 
and determined that he would not participate.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I continue to hear this allegation that the 
committee is not investigating what happened at the Capitol, not 
investigating what happened with respect to the Capitol Police, not 
investigating what happened with respect to security that day. That is 
just not true. The committee has an entire team that is very focused on 
and investigating what happened with respect to security at the 
Capitol.
  And it is also the case, though, Madam Speaker, we must all remember 
that the former President provoked a violent assault on this body, and 
the extent to which there were security lapses, the extent to which 
people did not anticipate that there would be a violent assault on the 
Capitol, provoked by the former President, is not the fault of the 
Capitol Police. That is the responsibility of the former President.

  And I would also note, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Davis voted ``yes'' on 
the bipartisan commission when it came up.

[[Page H4377]]

  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I want to underscore first the point that 
was just made by Ms. Cheney. The distinguished ranking member of the 
House Administration Committee was appointed to this committee, or the 
appointment was accepted by Speaker Pelosi, but it was withdrawn by the 
minority leader. It was not rejected by the majority; it was rejected 
by the minority.
  Madam Speaker, we are here in the broadest sense to defend American 
democratic institutions and the rule of law. And our colleague said 
before that if this investigation were valid, then we would be talking 
to officials from the Sergeant at Arms Office and the National Guard.
  Well, I have got good news for my friends. First, every court that 
has looked at their claim that this is an invalid investigation either 
because of its composition or because it was intrinsically flawed in 
its pursuit of the facts about January 6, has rejected those arguments. 
Every court that looked at it has rejected the precise arguments our 
colleagues are floating on the floor today.
  But I will go even further than that. We have, in fact, interviewed 
precisely the people that they set up as a test for the validity of our 
investigation from the Sergeant at Arms and the National Guard. And as 
patriotic public officials living out their oaths of office and not 
bowing down to the humiliating cult of Donald Trump, they didn't need a 
subpoena from this committee; they came voluntarily. They not only 
understood their legal duty to testify, a duty our colleagues, like my 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio, clearly understands when they wield 
the gavel, but they have come forward and said that it is a patriotic 
honor for them. It is not just a legal duty, it is a patriotic honor 
for them to render truthful testimony on this horrific attack against 
America, which interrupted the counting of electoral college votes for 
the first time in American history.

                              {time}  1745

  This is mandated in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which 
says that the House and the Senate must meet in joint session in order 
to count electoral college votes the first week of January, on the 
Wednesday following a Presidential election.
  What is remarkable to me is that the caucus that is now so drenched 
in the Trump-Putin propaganda is not just trying to denounce the 
Democrats for searching the truth right now. Today, they have begun the 
utterly cannibalistic process of vilifying and castigating Republicans 
just because they disagree with the orthodoxy, the dogma handed down by 
Donald Trump.
  Ms. Cheney is the former chair of the House Republican Conference, 
and it is left to Democrats to defend her against the vilification and 
the castigating that we hear.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CHENEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RASKIN. It is up to us to defend Mr. Kinzinger and to defend Ms. 
Cheney, because if you don't go along with what Donald Trump says, if 
you don't act like you are a robot, or a member of a religious cult, 
they will attack you, they will vilify you, they will denounce you.
  These people, Mr. Kinzinger and Ms. Cheney, are constitutional 
heroes, and they don't deserve your contempt. The insurrectionists and 
the lawbreakers deserve your contempt because they are acting in 
contempt of the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Indiana for the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about two great patriots who I 
am proud to call my friends, Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro. These two 
men have served our country honorably. Sadly, they are now targets of 
the political witch hunt simply because they served our country and 
they are loyal to our great former President, Donald J. Trump.
  The illegitimate January 6th Committee's ruthless crusade against 
President Trump and his close allies is yet another smear on this great 
body. It will go down in history as another failed attempt by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring down good people 
simply because they disagree with their political beliefs.
  As someone who has been a target of the left and their ruthless 
tactics in the past, I know firsthand how damaging this can be. The 
American people are tired of this partisan January 6 circus. It is time 
to stop this nonsense now.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up against this charade and oppose this 
baseless resolution.
  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 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The majority leader, just a few minutes ago said--used the term 
``danger to our democracy.'' Danger to our democracy.
  Think about this. Democrats have closed the Capitol, allowed proxy 
voting, kicked Republicans off committees, won't let Republicans serve 
on this select committee--the first time in the history of the Congress 
the minority leader was not allowed to put on a select committee the 
individuals he or she selected; first time in the history of our 
Nation.
  The Democrats are trying to end the electoral college; trying to end 
the filibuster; trying to pack the Court.
  This committee, the January 6th Committee, altered evidence and 
presented it to the American people as if it were true. And they accuse 
us of being a danger to our democracy?
  Mr. Gaetz was right. We have got a border that is complete chaos. We 
have $6 gas in California, $4 gas everywhere else in the country. We 
have crime at record levels in every major urban area in this Nation. 
And we have an inflation problem that is at a 40-year high.
  And this committee has more contempt resolutions for a purely 
political reason. I think the whole committee is pure political, 
designed to do one thing; keep President Trump off the ballot in 2024.
  The gentlewoman from Wyoming, in her opening comments, used the term, 
``false message.'' False message. She used to say big lie. Now I guess 
it is false message. When she said it, I started jotting things down.
  Think about all the false messages we have got from them in the last 
few years. They told us the protests in the summer of 2020 were 
peaceful. We got a billion dollars' worth of damage around our cities 
that says it wasn't.
  They told us the dossier was real. They told us it was Republicans, 
Republicans who wanted to defund the police. That one is almost 
laughable, if it wasn't so serious for our law enforcement and for the 
families who live in those areas where mayors and city councils did 
defund the police.
  They told us the FBI didn't spy on the Trump campaign. We know that 
wasn't true. We have got inspectors general reports that tell us all 
kinds of things of what they did in front of the FISA Court.
  They said Trump colluded with Russia. We have got a Mueller report, 
19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 30 million hard-earned American tax dollars 
in that report that said that false message was just that, false.
  They told us COVID didn't start in the lab; sure looks like it did.
  They told us the lab wasn't doing gain-of-function research; sure 
looks like it was.
  They told us the vaccinated can't get it. We know that is wrong. 
Every day there is a new announcement: Member of Congress is getting 
it; fully vaccinated, boosted, and everything else.

  They told us those who are vaccinated can't transmit it. They told us 
that was wrong.
  And you talk about the biggest false message, the biggest false 
message that has just been confirmed in the last week, how false it 
was? The Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. The Hunter 
Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
  October 22, 2020, 2 weeks before the election, Candidate Biden, in a 
debate,

[[Page H4378]]

is asked about his son's business dealings with foreign companies. He 
says: ``Nothing was unethical.'' He said: My son has not made money 
with business interests--with companies with an interest in China.
  And we all know there are 4.8 million reasons why that statement was 
not accurate. And how do we know? Washington Post told us. Not me, not 
President Trump, not Republicans, The Washington Post told us last 
week, two stories last week, a week ago today, one at 11 a.m., one at 
11:04 a.m.; two eight-page articles, 4 minutes apart, confirming what 
we knew, but what big media, big tech, Democrats colluded to keep from 
the American people just days before, just days before the most 
important election we have, the Presidential election, who is going to 
be our next Commander in Chief.
  The laptop was real. The eyewitness was real. The emails were real. 
The only thing fake was that collusion from those individuals, those 
entities to keep important information from we, the people, in the run-
up to the most important election we have.
  And oh, by the way, they were joined by 51 former intel officials, 
joined in the collusion.
  You know what is also interesting? It is funny how that story has 
changed. Eighteen months ago, it started off, it wasn't his laptop. It 
quickly switched to well, it was his laptop, but it was Russian 
disinformation.
  And now it is, well, it wasn't Russian disinformation, but Joe Biden 
had nothing to do with it. Now it was, well, Joe knew what was going 
on, but he wasn't really involved in anything wrong. Ron Klain told us 
that, the Chief of Staff told us that Sunday.
  We need to be focusing on the issues that the American people want us 
to focus on. You want to talk about danger to our democracy and the 
biggest false message. I would say what happened--one of the biggest 
dangers to our democracy and one of the biggest false messages is what 
happened 18 months ago, where that story was kept from the American 
people. We could dig into that, find out what went on there, why that 
happened.
  And we could also focus on the record crime, record inflation, record 
price of gas, and the chaos on our southern border that is about to get 
worse.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Panetta). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. BANKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. JORDAN. It is about to get worse as the Democrats look to--as the 
Biden administration looks to repeal title 42. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, 
and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to 
close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it might feel really good today for my opponents on the 
other side of the aisle. It might feel really good in a vindictive sort 
of way, to vote to put their political opponents behind bars. That 
might feel really good for my opponents across the aisle.
  But I guarantee you, the history will not look back kindly on those 
actions in the years to come. I guarantee it. It couldn't be anymore 
un-American what they want to do today, to vote to put two men behind 
bars purely because they disagree with their politics and the man that 
they worked for.
  I can't think of a bigger reason for my opponents to vote ``no'' on 
such an un-American resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it does not feel really good today. It feels sad, and it 
feels tragic that so many in my own party are refusing to address the 
constitutional crisis and the challenge that we face.
  The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee went to law school. I 
am not sure if he passed the bar. But he knows that we all have an 
obligation to abide by the rulings of the courts.
  So, yes, it was a false story. Yes, it was a big lie. In fact, former 
Vice President Pence has said that what President Trump wanted him to 
do was ``un-American.'' It was also unconstitutional, and it was 
illegal.
  Mr. Speaker, what gives me tremendous hope though is although so many 
in my party in this body have put loyalty to Donald Trump ahead of 
their oath to the Constitution, the committee has interviewed scores of 
Republicans from around the country who, in fact, have shown the kind 
of tremendous bravery and dedication to public service that every 
American can be proud of: Republicans who were appointed by President 
Trump to posts in the Department of Justice; Republicans who stood 
firm; Republicans who threatened to resign and who refused to 
participate in President Trump's efforts to corrupt the Department of 
Justice with the stolen election lies--yes, lies--that led to January 
6.
  We have heard from Republicans serving in State legislatures, in 
State and local governments who also stood firm.
  Mr. Speaker, it is crucially important that this body hold these 
gentlemen in contempt. It is crucially important that they have to 
abide by their subpoena.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record, if there is any Member on the 
other side who feels the strength to come and testify before our 
committee, I invite them, right now, to let us know and we will gladly 
entertain whatever information they have as to what happened on January 
6. Some of them ran out of this building fearing for their lives, so 
there is no question that something happened.
  And H. Res. 503 says, absolutely, we have to find the facts and 
circumstances as to what happened and why and make recommendations; and 
that is what we have to do.
  We have the constitutional power to issue subpoenas. If people do not 
follow subpoenas, we have the right to bring them before this body and 
recommend contempt citations; and that is what we are doing today.
  So it doesn't matter if they were a father, a mother, a sister, or a 
brother, had children; if they break the law, they break the law. No 
one is above the law, and that is the point we are trying to make.
  We asked the individuals, subpoenaed them to come before the 
committee, and they chose not to come and, therefore, they broke the 
law, and that is why we are here today.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, when I testified before the 
Rules Committee, it is absurd that there should be any disagreement at 
all about why we are here for this contempt resolution.
  If you listen to the arguments from some of my friends on the other 
side, they have very little to say of substance of this matter. We hear 
excuses. We hear attacks about process. We hear scare-mongering about 
the select committee.
  Let me remind my colleagues, we have conducted over 830 interviews 
and depositions. And again, I invite any of them to come talk to us if 
they want to. Now, if, for some reason, they are reluctant or afraid, 
then I feel sorry for them.
  Our constitutional democracy was challenged on January 6. We have to 
fix this. Over 200 years, we have operated in complete freedom, and all 
of a sudden, this institution was attacked; and we have to fix that.

                              {time}  1800

  We are the number one democracy in the world, but we lead by example. 
Democrats are leading by example. The select committee is leading by 
example by bringing these two gentlemen who broke the law, who decided 
that it is better to deal with the law of Donald Trump rather than the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, especially my friend from Wyoming 
(Ms. Cheney).
  Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support adoption of this 
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a simple, but 
sacred principle: No one is above the law.
  Peter Navarro was one of the former president's closest allies. And, 
by his own admission, played a direct role in planning and coordinating 
the events of January 6. He speaks

[[Page H4379]]

to that role on television, on podcasts, and even in his own book--yet 
he refuses to do so before Congress, even when compelled by a lawful 
subpoena. That is unjustifiable, and in light of the subpoena, a 
criminal form of contempt.
  Dan Scavino was similarly close to the former president--and 
similarly involved in the events leading up to and on January 6. Mr. 
Scavino played an intimate role in crafting former President Trump's 
social media strategy and served as his Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Communications. And, like Mr. Navarro, he was called before our 
committee because our evidence and public reporting, suggests he 
possesses direct, personal knowledge of the events leading up to 
January 6, and while the Capitol was under siege.
  Unfortunately, both Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino have chosen at every 
turn to obstruct, to conceal their knowledge, forgoing their legal duty 
to comply with a congressional subpoena and attempting instead to hide 
behind spurious claims of privilege.
  But let me be clear: There is no privilege that allows a witness to 
simply refuse to appear. President Biden has declined to assert any 
privilege and properly concluded that the national interests in hearing 
the testimony of Navarro and Scavino clearly outweigh any other 
consideration. And there is certainly no privilege that allows a 
witness to refuse to appear before Congress while sitting for press 
interviews or discussing the matter in a book.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. To 
do otherwise would set a dangerous precedent: That Congress is not a 
body that is capable of, or willing to, carry out meaningful oversight. 
That our subpoenas can be shrugged off or ignored. And that the 
American people can no longer have faith in our ability to investigate 
potential abuses of power by any president--past, present, or future.
  As Judge Carter said last week in his ruling, `If the country does 
not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those 
responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.' He is 
right. We must commit to the pursuit of accountability and justice. Not 
as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans who love and cherish our 
democracy.
  And I will take just one more moment to urge the Department of 
Justice to act with all due haste when they receive the criminal 
contempt referrals for Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro. And not just with 
respect to these referrals, but on any evidence of criminality 
connected to efforts to overturn the election. The rule of law must 
apply equally to all Americans, including former presidents. To do 
otherwise, risks another repetition of January 6th--or worse.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on:
  Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1033;
  Adoption of House Resolution 1033, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7276.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 203, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                               YEAS--220

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

                               NAYS--203

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Allen
     Bost
     Dunn
     Guest
     Johnson (GA)
     Kilmer

                              {time}  1837

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Bass (Beyer)
     Bilirakis (Fleischmann)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bowman (Evans)
     Cardenas (Soto)
     Castro (TX) (Correa)
     Cawthorn (Gaetz)
     Clark (MA) (Blunt Rochester)
     Connolly (Wexton)
     Cooper (Correa)
     Crawford (Fleischmann)
     Crist (Soto)
     Cuellar (Correa)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Evans)
     Gohmert (Weber (TX))
     Gomez (Soto)
     Gottheimer (Pallone)
     Grijalva (Stanton)
     Harder (CA) (Correa)
     Huffman (Stanton)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Joyce (OH) (Garbarino)
     Kahele (Mrvan)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Long (Fleischmann)
     McCaul (Kim (CA))
     Meeks (Jeffries)
     Mfume (Evans)
     Newman (Garcia (IL))

[[Page H4380]]


     Owens (Tenney)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Peters (Jeffries)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Roybal-Allard (Pallone)
     Rush (Evans)
     Schiff (Beyer)
     Scott, David (Jeffries)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Steube (Donalds)
     Suozzi (Beyer)
     Taylor (Jackson)
     Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)

                          ____________________