Mark Meadows is About to Go Through Some Things
The select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot recommended on Monday that former President Donald Trump’s White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows be held in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena. The bipartisan, nine-member panel voted unanimously yesterday in favor of sending a 51-page report on the issue to the House floor, a move that includes a resolution recommending a vote to find Meadows in contempt.
Despite refusing to appear in person before the committee, Meadows did turn over some documents to the House investigatory committee. One of these evidentiary disclosures included a PowerPoint presentation that detailed how then-President Trump could and should declare a national security emergency in order to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election results.
The PowerPoint, titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan,” makes several recommendations for how Trump should pursue various strategies, based on debunked conspiracies about election fraud, in order to retain the presidency for a second term.
The fact that Meadows was in possession of a PowerPoint the day before the Capitol attack that detailed ways to stage a coup, suggests he was at least aware of efforts by Trump and his allies to stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January. Anyone else who reviewed this PowerPoint presentation could be culpable in failing to stop the insurrection. It is also not clear why Meadows decided to disclose this information, but has claimed Executive Privilege with regard to other aspects of his testimony.
While this latest action recommending contempt charges from the special investigatory committee was quite foreseeable, some of the details contained in the report — including transcripts of messages Meadows received on Jan. 6 — are perhaps more alarming.
The committee confirmed that Meadows had handed over thousands of records before reversing course by refusing to testify in person. The panel also revealed a series of text messages that Meadows had received on Jan. 6, that included panicked messages from Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Brian Kilmeade, and Donald Trump, Jr., who were urgently demanding that the then-Chief of Staff take action by persuading Trump to take action and stop his supporters.
Both Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) read out a series of panicked messages that were sent to Meadows during the insurgency (you can watch Cheney’s full statement in the video embedded in the tweet above). “Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy,” Cheney said, quoting a text from Fox News Host Laura Ingraham.
Brian Kilmeade of Fox & Friends texted: “Please get [President Trump] on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.” Sean Hannity urged Meadows to do the following: “Can [the president] make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.”
Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s oldest son, who texted Meadows “again and again,” said: “We need an Oval Office address…He’s got to condemn this shit ASAP.” In another text to Meadows Trump Jr., wrote: “The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.” According to Rep. Cheney, Meadows responded, “I’m pushing it hard. I agree.” Cheney also made a point to note that Donald Trump did not take any action for 187 minutes after the attack on the US Capitol began.
With regard to the legal ramifications of a contempt charge, the following excerpt from a previous SHERO article entitled Trump’s Cronies Won’t Get Away with Defying Subpoenas This Time, explains what will happen to Meadows in the court system now:
The authority of Congress to cite an individual with Criminal Contempt is found in Title 2, Section 192 of the US Code. It states that anyone summoned by either house of Congress "to give testimony or to produce papers" regarding any matter of inquiry who "willfully makes default" or "refuses to answer any questions pertinent to the question under inquiry" has committed contempt of Congress.
Although considered a misdemeanor, a person found guilty of committing criminal Contempt of Congress, after being charged by the Department of Justice or the US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, could face the following penalties: a fine of up to $1,000 and a jail term of one to 12 months.
Ultimately, a contempt citation is a purely symbolic gesture, unless the DOJ or US Attorney decides to prosecute. It’s is important to note that if Merrick Garland declines to use the Justice Department to pursue the case, the US Attorney in DC can also pursue charges against Meadows and any others who are in contemp.
While Meadows might have had one of the stronger cases for invoking Executive Privilege, excerpts from his new book have given the House Investigatory Committee more reason to question him. Moreover, by divulging so many details in his book and subsequently conducting several press interviews in which he discussed events in more detail, Meadows has damaged his claims to keep certain events a secret.
Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the investigatory panel’s nine members, has said the following: “It's…very possible that by discussing the events of Jan. 6 in his book, if he does that, he's waiving any claim of privilege.” Schiff continued, ”So, it'd be very difficult for him to maintain ‘I can't speak about events to you, but I can speak about them in my book.’”
George J. Terwilliger III, who was deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration and who currently represents Meadows, has sent a response letter to the committee arguing that a contempt referral would be contrary to law. Terwilliger claims that Meadows is not in violation of the contempt statute “because a good-faith invocation of executive privilege and testimonial immunity by a former senior executive official is not a violation," especially when the person in question is relying on the advice of counsel.
The letter makes a series of arguments for why executive privilege should shield close advisors to the president from having to testify before Congress, but it does not address the new issue of how Meadows’ book and publicity tour affect his Executive Privilege claims. Terwilliger also does not specify why executive privilege should apply to a former official when the current president is not invoking it, a legal premise that the DC Circuit Court has just found is settled law.
Another aspect of difficulty for Meadows will be the ire he draws from Trump and his team of Republican supporters for turning over so many documents to the House Committee, while still trying to claim privilege. Meadows has already been scrutinized for seeking to make a profit with a book deal rather than fully cooperating with the investigatory committee to reveal what happened publicly for free.
These recent transcripts show how adept Mark Meadows has been at maintaining inaction and walking the fence to appease Trump and his supporters. But, given the likelihood that his privilege will not extend to cover the events leading up to Jan. 6th — and his Machiavellian need to turn a profit over one of the greatest tragedies in American history — Meadows has now backed himself into a corner.
My concern is that these guys are stupid but not that stupid. Why did he disclose these documents? Why that PowerPoint? Why those texts? He was never going to testify, so there was a reason he provided those specific docs. We know multiple of this crime syndicate have lied to Congress and the FBI. Why wouldn't they produce docs that had flaws or were in some way able to later be discredited, which plants a hole in the investigation? I just have trouble believing anything will come of any of it, and will until I see them in orange jumpsuits flipping on each other.
Their likely game plan seems to me to be to stall until prior to the '22 elections and then petition SCOTUS, fully expecting the highly biased court to absolve them. If I'm correct and that does happen plan on a serious repercussion from the Dems as well as the populous in general.