[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)
____________________