Should Mark Meadows Be Held in Contempt of Congress for Refusing to Comply With the January 6th Committee’s Subpoena? (H. Res. 851)

What is H. Res. 851?

(Updated March 5, 2022)

This resolution would hold Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. It would also allow House leadership to pursue the enforcement of the subpoena in federal court; and to criminally refer Meadows to the Dept. of Justice for the agency to consider his prosecution under criminal contempt statutes (although the DOJ historically declines to prosecute criminal contempt referrals). Meadows has provided the select committee with some of the materials requested by the subpoena, but has asserted executive privilege over other materials and declined to appear for a deposition.

As a simple resolution, this legislation wouldn’t advance beyond the House if adopted.

Argument in favor

Mark Meadows has refused to comply with a legally valid subpoena issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol. He should be held in contempt of Congress so that House leadership can pursue enforcement of the subpoena in federal court, and referred to the Dept. of Justice for potential prosecution under criminal contempt statutes.

Argument opposed

It’s unclear whether the subpoena is lawful and this is nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to score political points. It wastes valuable floor time in the House of Representatives and precious taxpayer dollars by pursuing what will be a lengthy battle in federal court where an outcome in favor of House Democrats’ is far from certain.

Impact

Mark Meadows; the House of Representatives; and the Dept. of Justice.

Cost of H. Res. 851

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) told the House Rules Committee that this referral is necessary because claims of executive privilege or absolute immunity by Meadows aren’t accurate:

“Now, throughout this process, Mr. Meadows’s attorney has raised claims of executive privilege and so-called absolute immunity—the idea that individuals who hold or held certain positions have no obligation whatsoever to appear before Congress when called. We don’t accept those claims. President Biden hasn’t asserted executive privilege or absolute immunity regarding Mr. Meadows’s testimony. And all the courts that have considered claims of absolute immunity have rejected them. But all that discussion about different privileges is a distraction. That’s not what this contempt referral is primarily about. This referral centers on the information that even Mr. Meadows and his attorney say is outside all those claims of privilege. He provided roughly 9,000 pages of records that he and his attorney freely admit cannot be held back by any sort of privilege claim. They gave us a lot of information. His participation in a January phone call aimed at pressuring state legislators to overturn election results. That’s not protected by executive privilege. His communications with the Georgia Secretary of State regarding efforts to disrupt the election. That’s not protected. The list goes on and on. And while the records he handed over gave us valuable information, they also raised a lot of questions. And then, the day before he was scheduled to appear for his deposition, he changed his mind. He said he was through cooperating with our probe. He refused to come in and answer questions about the non-privileged material. He has no basis to refuse to cooperate on those matters. That alone is sufficient to advance this referral.”

Meadows has provided the select committee with non-privileged communications, including text messages he sent and received the day of the January 6th attack, when he was serving as White House Chief of Staff to then-President Donald Trump. January 6th Select Committee Ranking Member Liz Cheney (R-WY) read several of those texts during hearings by the select committee and the House Rules Committee, which she said “are further evidence of President Trump’s supreme dereliction of duty” during the attack on the Capitol. She concluded:

“As Mr. Meadows’s non-privileged texts reveal, Meadows communicated multiple times with a member of Congress who was working with Mr. Clark. Mr. Meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. He is in contempt. January 6th was without precedent. There has been no stronger case in our nation’s history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president. This investigation is not like other congressional inquiries. Our Constitution, the structure of our institutions and the rule of law, which are at the heart of what makes America great, are at stake. We cannot be satisfied with incomplete answers, or half-truths, and we cannot surrender to President Trump’s efforts to hide what happened. We will be persistent, professional, and non-partisan. And we will get to the objective truth to ensure that January 6th never happens again.”

An attorney for Mark Meadows released the following statement on the contempt proceedings against his client:

“Mr. Meadows never ‘stopped cooperating’ as is widely reported. Rather, he has maintained consistently that as a former Chief of Staff he cannot be compelled to appear for questioning and that he as a witness is not licensed to waive Executive Privilege claimed by the former president. At the same time, he has fully cooperated as to documents in his possession that are not privileged and has sought various means to provide other information while continuing to honor the former president’s privilege claims. As the House prepares to act on the Select Committee’s recommendation, perhaps Members will consider how the Select Committee’s true intentions in dealing with Mr. Meadows have been revealed when it accuses him of contempt citing the very documents his cooperation has produced. What message does that duplicity send to him as well as to others who might be inclined to consider cooperating in good faith to the extent possible?”

The select committee advanced this resolution on a unanimous vote, with all seven Democrats plus Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) voting in favor.

Of Note: On October 21, 2021, the House voted to hold Stephen Bannon in contempt and refer him to the DOJ for prosecution for his failure to comply with a subpoena issued by the January 6th select committee.

Media:

• January 6th Select Committee Leaders Testimony Before the House Rules Committee

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr / Creative Commons)