[House Report 117-284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress }                                          { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session    }                                          { 117-284

======================================================================
 
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

                                _______
                                

   March 29, 2022.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, from the Select Committee to Investigate 
  the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

    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.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
  Peter K. Navarro...............................................     2
  Daniel Scavino, Jr.............................................     5
Background on the Select Committee's Investigation...............     7
  Peter K. Navarro...............................................     8
  Daniel Scavino, Jr.............................................    19
Select Committee Consideration...................................    33
Select Committee Vote............................................    33
Select Committee Oversight Findings..............................    34
C.B.O. Estimate..................................................    34
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    34
Appendix I.......................................................    35
Appendix II......................................................    71

                          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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Appendix I, Ex. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. 
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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See Appendix I, Ex. 2.

        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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews), Twitter, Feb. 9, 2022 5:38 
p.m. ET, available at https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/
1491542034662019078.

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See Appendix I, Ex. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See Appendix I, Ex. 4.
    \10\Id.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Id.
    \13\Id.
    \14\Id.
    \15\See Appendix I, Ex. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\See Appendix I, Ex. 6.
    \17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See Appendix I, Ex. 7.
    \19\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\See Appendix I, Ex. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 its committees, and to testify 
fully with respect to matters within the province of proper 
investigation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\See Appendix II, Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Per Mr. Scavino's request for an extension, 
        the Chairman deferred the document production deadline 
        to November 5, 2021.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           The Chairman extended the document 
        production deadline to November 29, 2021, and the 
        deposition to December 1, 2021.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\See Appendix II, Ex. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\See Appendix II, Ex. 5.
    \36\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
    \38\See supra, at note 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.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\See supra, at note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\H. Res. 503, 117th Cong., Sec.  3(1) (2021)
    \41\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\Pub. L. 79-601, 79th Cong.  136, (1946).
    \46\Pub. L. 91-510, 91st Cong.  118, (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\H. Res. 503, 117th Cong.  3(1) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Documents on file with the Select Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\Navarro, In Trump Time (2021).
    \68\Id., at p. 225.
    \69\Id., at pp. 241-42.
    \70\See, e.g., id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\See Appendix I, Ex. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\See Appendix I, Ex. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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)).

        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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\See Appendix I, Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\See Appendix I, Ex. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\Trump v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. App. 36315 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 
2021).
    \100\See Appendix I, Ex. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975).
    \106\See 2 U.S.C. Sec.  194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\See Appendix I, Ex. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\Carol Leonnig and Phillip Rucker, I Alone Can Fix It, (New 
York: Penguin, 2021), at p. 377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

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

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

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           ``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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           ``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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\See Appendix II, Ex. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\See Appendix II, Ex. 1.
    \159\Id.
    \160\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\See Appendix II, Ex. 2.
    \162\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \163\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\See Appendix II, Ex. 7.
    \166\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\See Appendix II, Ex. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\See Appendix II, Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 15th, Mr. Woodward sent a letter refusing to 
provide the requested 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\See Appendix II, Ex. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\See Appendix II, Ex. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \171\See Appendix II, Ex. 11.
    \172\See Appendix II, Ex. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \173\See Appendix II, Ex. 12.
    \174\(D.C. Cir., No. 21-5254) (appeal from D.D.C. No. 21-cv-02769)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \175\See Appendix II, Ex. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\See Appendix II, Ex. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \177\See Appendix II, Ex. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \178\595 U.S._ (2022) (No. 21A272) (Jan. 19, 2022).
    \179\See Appendix II, Ex. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \180\See Appendix II, Ex. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \181\See supra, at note 80.
    \182\See supra, at note 81.

        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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \183\United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (GSA), 433 U.S. 
425, 449 (1977) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \185\See Appendix II, Ex. 5.
    \186\Id.
    \187\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\See Appendix II, Ex. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\See also supra, at note 88.

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, even with respect to any subjects of concern that 
arguably involve official Government business, executive 
privilege is a qualified privilege and 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\Trump v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36315, at *46 (D.C. 
Cir. Dec. 9, 2021).
    \197\See Appendix II, Ex. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \199\See supra, at notes 101-103.
    \200\Id.
    \201\Id.
    \202\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \203\Documents on file with the Select Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \204\Documents on file with the Select Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \205\Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 515 
(1975).
    \206\See 2 U.S.C. Sec.  194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \207\See Appendix II, Exs. 8, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     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.

                               Appendix I


        Exhibit 1 -- Subpoena to Peter K. Navarro (Feb. 9, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Exhibit 2 -- Email from Peter K. Navarro to Select Committee Staff 
                             (Feb. 9, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Exhibit 3 -- Email from Select Committee Staff to Peter K. Navarro 
                            (Feb. 24, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 4 -- Email Exchange between Select Committee Staff and Peter K. 
                        Navarro (Feb. 27, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Exhibit 5 -- Email from Peter K. Navarro to Select Committee Staff 
                            (Feb. 28, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 6 -- Letter from White House Counsel to Peter K. Navarro (Feb. 
                               28, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Exhibit 7 -- Email from Select Committee Staff to Peter K. Navarro 
                             (Mar. 1, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 8 -- Deposition that Memorialized Peter K. Navarro's Failure to 
           Appear before the Select Committee (Mar. 2, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Appendix II


      Exhibit 1 -- Subpoena to Daniel Scavino, Jr. (Oct. 6, 2021 )

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Exhibit 2 -- All Email Correspondence between Select Committee Staff 
                      and Counsel for Mr. Scavino

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Exhibit 3 -- Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel for Mr. Scavino 
                            (Nov. 23, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Exhibit 4 -- Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel for Mr. Scavino 
                             (Feb. 4, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 5 -- Letter from White House Counsel to Counsel for Mr. Scavino 
                            (Mar. 15, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Exhibit 6 -- Subpoena to Daniel Scavino, Jr. (Sept. 23, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Exhibit 7 -- Letter from Counsel for Mr. Scavino to Chairman Thompson 
                             (Nov. 5, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Exhibit 8 -- Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel for Mr. Scavino 
                             (Nov. 9, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Exhibit 9 -- Letter from Counsel for Mr. Scavino to Chairman Thompson 
                            (Nov. 15, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 10 -- Letter from Counsel for Mr. Scavino to Chairman Thompson 
                            (Nov. 18, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Exhibit 11 -- Subpoena to Daniel Scavino, Jr. (Nov. 23, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 12 -- Letter from Counsel for Mr. Scavino to Chairman Thompson 
                            (Nov. 26, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Exhibit 13 -- Deposition that Memorialized Daniel Scavino, Jr.'s 
      Failure to Appear before the Select Committee (Dec. 1, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 14 -- Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel for Mr. Scavino 
                             (Dec. 9, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 15 -- Letter from Counsel for Mr. Scavino to Chairman Thompson 
                            (Dec. 13, 2021)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 16 -- Letter from Counsel for Mr. Scavino to Chairman Thompson 
                             (Feb. 8, 2022)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                [all]