2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Condemn Speaker Pelosi For Her
Decision Not To Nominate Minority Leader McCarthy's Republican Nominees
For The January 6th Capitol Attack Committee. In July 2021,
Fitzpatrick voted against tabling, thus killing, a resolution which
would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "condemn the refusal of
Speaker Pelosi, D-Calif., to seat all five Republican members nominated
by Minority Leader McCarthy, R-Calif., to the Jan. 6 select committee
and urge Pelosi to appoint the following members: Reps. Banks, R-Ind.,
Jordan, R-Ohio., Davis, R-Ill., Armstrong, R-N.D., and Nehls, R-Texas."
The vote was on a motion to table. The House agreed to the motion by a
vote of 218-197. [House Vote 219,
7/26/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/26/21;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
554]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Finding Mark Meadows In Contempt Of
Congress For His Refusal To Abide To A Congressional Subpoena To
Investigate January 6th Capitol Attack. In December 2021, Fitzpatrick
voted against the resolution which would, according to Congressional
Quarterly, "find Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff to
President Donald Trump, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply
with a subpoena issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It would direct the
speaker of the House to 'take all appropriate action to enforce the
subpoena' and certify the committee report (H Rept 117-216) accompanying
the contempt resolution to the U.S. attorney for the District of
Columbia for judicial action." The vote was on passage. The House passed
the resolution by a vote of 222-208. [House Vote 447,
12/14/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 12/14/21;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
851]
Meadows Initially Complied With The Select Committee Investigating
The January 6th Insurrection, In Which He Turned In Emails And Text
Messages, But Said He Would No Longer Cooperate The Day Before His
Deposition. According to NPR, "Meadows had initially cooperated
with the panel and turned over thousands of emails and text
messages, but he reversed course last week, saying a day before he
was due to appear for a deposition that he would no longer be
cooperating with the probe." [NPR,
12/13/21]
The Bipartisan Select Committee Investigating The January 6th
Capitol Attack Voter Unanimously To Hold Meadows In Contempt Of
Congress. According to NPR, "The Democratic-led House select
committee investigating the Capitol attack has voted to hold Mark
Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress, sending to the full House
a referral for the former Trump White House chief of staff to face a
criminal charge. [...] The nine-member committee, made up of seven
Democrats and two Republicans, voted unanimously in favor of the
referral." [NPR,
12/13/21]
Through His Attorney, Meadows Said "The Committee's Referral Was
Unwise, Unfair And Contrary To Law." According to NPR, "Earlier on
Monday, Meadows, a former U.S. House member for North Carolina for
more than seven years, said through his attorney that the
committee's referral was unwise, unfair and contrary to law." [NPR,
12/13/21]
Meadows And His Lawyer Argued That His "Criminal Referral" For
Refusing To Testify Would Be A Violation Of The Separation Of
Powers. According to NPR, "Meadows and his attorney went on to
argue that a criminal referral of a senior-most presidential adviser
declining to testify before Congress would violate separation of
powers principles." [NPR,
12/13/21]
In November 2021, Meadows Turned In The Documents And Agreed To
Testify On December 8, But Changed His Mind On December 7.
According to NPR, "Last month, Meadows turned over documents and
agreed to appear for the Dec. 8 deposition. But he reversed plans on
Dec. 7, the day before his scheduled deposition." [NPR,
12/13/21]
December 2021: Meadows Published His Book That Covered His Tenure
Serving As Former President Trump's Chief Of Staff, Despite Claiming
He Could Not Talk About Some Of His Conversation With Trump.
According to NPR, "Also last week, Meadows' book covering his time
in the White House, The Chief's Chief, was released, complicating
his claims he could not discuss certain conversations with the
former president." [NPR,
12/13/21]
Meadows Filed A Lawsuit Against The Select Committee To Try To
Block The Enforcement Of Subpoenas. According to NPR, "Meadows has
also sued the committee in an effort to block enforcement of
subpoenas it had issued." [NPR,
12/13/21]
Meadows Claimed That Executive Privilege Blocked Him From
Cooperating. According to NPR, "At the heart of the disagreement
is Meadows' claim that executive privilege, a legal shield that
protects presidential communications, blocks him from cooperating."
[NPR,
12/13/21]
Former President Donald Trump Instructed Meadows To Not Share
Certain Documents Or Conversation With The Committee After September
23 Subpoena Due To A Privilege Claim. According to NPR, "Trump
directed Meadows after his Sept. 23 subpoena not to share certain
documents or conversations as a result of the privilege claim."
[NPR,
12/13/21]
President Joe Biden "Waived Executive Privilege In Meadow's
Case. " According to NPR, "However, President Biden waived
executive privilege in Meadows' case, which supersedes any other
claims, the committee argues." [NPR,
12/13/21]
Meadows Cooperated With The Select Committee By Turning In 6,600
Pages Of Records From His Personal Email And 2,000 Personal Text
Messages. According to NPR, "The report notes that during a short
window when Meadows was cooperating, he turned over to the committee
about 6,600 pages of records from his personal email accounts, plus
about 2,000 personal text messages." [NPR,
12/13/21]
According To The Select Committee, Meadows Missed His Three
Deposition Dates And Refused To Testify On The Documents And Other
Items Of Interest. According to NPR, "The committee said Meadows
refused to provide testimony on the documents and a long list of
interests for the panel. In all, the panel said Meadows missed three
scheduled deposition dates, in October, November and December."
[NPR,
12/13/21]
The Committee Wanted To Question Meadows Over A January 5, 2021
Email In Which He Claimed The National Guard Would "Protect
Pro-Trump People" The Following Day. According to NPR, "In a
transcript of Meadows' missed Dec. 8 deposition, a senior committee
staffer discusses topics of interest, previewing some of the
documents Meadows shared, including a Jan. 5 email from Meadows that
said the National Guard would 'protect pro-Trump people' the next
day." [NPR,
12/13/21]
The Committee Wanted To Question Meadows Over His Texts With
Congress Members, Including A Text Discussing Then-Vice President
Mike Pence's Power To Overturn Election Results. According to NPR,
"The staffer said they also wanted to ask Meadows about his texts
with congressional members starting in late 2020, including one
exchange involving an unnamed senator regarding then-Vice President
Mike Pence. In that instance, Meadows discussed Pence's power to
reject election results, saying Trump 'thinks the legislators have
the power, but the VP has power, too.'" [NPR,
12/13/21]
The Committee Wanted To Question Meadows Over Tests From December
12, 2020 With A Media Personality Over Trump's Negative Influence In
The Senatorial Races In Georgia, Trump's Prospects For Seeking
Election In 2024, And A Potential Job Opportunity For Meadows At A
News Network. According to NPR, "The panel said they also wanted
to ask Meadows about Dec. 12 text messages with a media personality
regarding the negative impact of Trump's election challenges on the
Senate runoff elections in Georgia and his prospects for reelection
in 2024, and Meadows' possible employment by an unnamed news
channel." [NPR,
12/13/21]
The Committee Wanted To Question Meadows Over His Trip To Georgia
To Supervise An Audit Of The 2020 Election Results, His Allegations
Of Election Fraud To Justice Department Officials, And Texts
"Encouraging Certain State Republicans To Send Alternate Slates Of
Electors." According to NPR, "The report also documents other
areas of interest for the committee, including Meadows' trip to
Georgia to observe an audit of presidential election results; claims
of election fraud Meadows forwarded to Justice Department leaders;
and text messages encouraging certain state Republicans to send
alternate slates of electors." [NPR,
12/13/21]
The Committee Wanted To Question Meadows Over A Text From A
January 6th Rally Organizer That Sought Help Because The Event Went
Out Of Control And Meadows' Involvement In A Meeting With Trump On
December 18 Seeking Ways To Challenge Election Results, Including
Confiscating Voting Machines. According to NPR, "The panel also
documents a text from a rally organizer on Jan. 6 saying they needed
direction because the event had turned 'crazy,' as well as Meadows'
participation in a Dec. 18 meeting with Trump and others looking for
ways to challenge the results, including seizing voting machines."
[NPR,
12/13/21]
The Contempt Vote Sent The Referral To The U.S. Attorney's Office
To Choose Whether To Pursue Prosecution Against Meadows. According
to NPR, "The Tuesday evening vote, cast almost completely along
party lines, triggers a series of steps to send the referral to the
U.S. attorney's office, leaving the Justice Department to decide
whether it will pursue a prosecution in the case." [NPR,
12/14/21]
If The Justice Department Decides To Prosecute Meadows, He Could
Face Up To One Year In Prison For Each Contempt Charge, In Addition
To Fines. According to NPR, "If so, Meadows could face up a year
in jail for each contempt, plus fines." [NPR,
12/14/21]
Most Republicans Claimed The Referral Was A Partisan Attack
Towards Former President Donald Trump. According to NPR, "Most
Republicans who spoke on the House floor Tuesday rejected the
committee's claims, saying it was an illustration of a partisan
attack tied to former President Donald Trump." [NPR,
12/14/21]
Meadows Was The Second Trump Insider To Be Held Contempt In
Congress And Referred To The Justice Department. According to CNN,
"Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has now become the
second Trump insider to be referred to the Justice Department for
criminal contempt of Congress." [CNN,
12/14/21]
The Vote On Meadow's Referral Was Significant To The Investigation
Due To His Role As Former President Trump's Chief Of Staff And His
Awareness Of The Attempts To Reject The 2020 Election Results.
According to CNN, "The chamber's vote, despite being pushed through
by a Democratic majority, marks a significant moment in the Jan. 6
investigation given Meadows' role as Trump's chief of staff and his
intimate knowledge of efforts to overturn the 2020 election." [CNN,
12/14/21]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Finding Mark Meadows In
Contempt Of Congress. In December 2021, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res
848) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Meadows
contempt resolution (H Res 851). The rule would provide for up to one
hour of debate on the bill." The vote was on the adoption of the rule.
The House adopted the rule by a vote of 220-210. [House Vote 442,
12/14/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 12/14/21;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
851;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
848]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Finding Mark Meadows In
Contempt Of Congress. In December 2021, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against the "motion to order the previous
question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule
(H Res 848) that would provide for House floor consideration of the
Meadows contempt resolution (H Res 851). The rule would provide for up
to one hour of debate on the bill." The vote was on a motion to order
the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of
218-209. [House Vote 441,
12/14/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 12/14/21;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
851;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
848]
2022: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Finding Peter J. Navarro And Daniel
Scavino, Jr., Advisers To Former Presidents Trump, In Contempt Of
Congress For Refusing To Comply With Subpoenas Issued By The Select
Committee To Investigate The January 6th Attack. In April 2022,
according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against a
resolution that would "find two advisers to former President Donald
Trump -- Peter K. Navarro, former White House director of trade and
manufacturing policy, and Daniel Scavino, Jr., former White House deputy
chief of staff -- in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with
subpoenas issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol. It would direct the speaker of the
House to 'take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoenas' and
certify the committee report (H Rept 117-284) accompanying the contempt
resolution to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for
judicial action." The vote was on passage. The House passed the
resolution by a vote of 221-203. [House Vote 118,
4/6/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/6/22;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1037]
Dan Scavino Was Former President Trump's Social Media Manager And
Peter Navarro Was Former President Trump's Trade Adviser.
According to Politico, "On a 220-203 vote, with just two Republicans
joining all Democrats, the House voted to hold Dan Scavino, Trump's
longtime social media manager, and Peter Navarro, Trump's trade
adviser, in contempt of Congress, triggering a review by the U.S.
attorney's office in Washington." [Politico,
4/6/22]
Scavino Was With Former President Trump During Critical Moments On
January 6th, 2021, Was Involved In Trump's Social Media Strategy,
And May Have Insights Into The Decision To Encourage Supporters To
Protest Election Results On January6th. According to Politico,
"Scavino is the more significant of the two witnesses the House held
in contempt. A longtime Trump confidant, Scavino was with the
then-president during key moments on Jan. 6, and call records
suggest Trump reached out to him by phone that evening. Scavino was
also intimately involved in Trump's social media strategy and may
have insights into the December 2020 decision to call supporters to
a 'wild' protest in Washington on Jan. 6, a tweet that was seen
among extremists as a call to action." [Politico,
4/6/22]
Scavino Was Subpoenaed In September 2021, And His Attorney Engaged
With The Select Committee, But The Panel Accused Scavino Of
"Stringing Investigators Along." According to Politico, "The
select committee issued a subpoena to Scavino in September, along
with Bannon, as part of the first wave of demands for testimony and
documents from top figures in Trump's orbit. Scavino's attorney,
former House general counsel Stan Brand, engaged with the select
committee for months, but the panel has accused the Trump aide of
stringing investigators along. Brand has contended that Scavino
negotiated in good faith and was seeking legitimate clarity on the
requests the committee had been making, as well as the parameters of
its questioning." [Politico,
4/6/22]
Navarro Was Subpoenaed In February 2022, In Which He Rejected The
Requires By Contending He Was Prohibited From Cooperating Due To
Executive Privilege, But The Committee Emphasized Trump Did Not Make
A Formal Assertion Of Executive Privilege. According to Politico,
"The committee subpoenaed Navarro in February, prompting an
immediate response from him rejecting its request and contending he
was barred by executive privilege from cooperating. The committee
has pointed out that Trump made no formal assertion of executive
privilege in connection with his testimony --- and the panel has
rejected the notion that Trump, as a former president, has any
ability to assert privilege over his former advisers' testimony."
[Politico,
4/6/22]
Navarro Was One Of Trump's Backers That Supported The Effort To
Overturn The 2020 Election Results And Collaborated With Steve
Bannon To Strategize The Persuasion Of Republicans To Vote Against
Certifying Electors. According to Politico, "Navarro became one of
Trump's loudest backers in the effort to subvert the 2020 election
and worked closely with Bannon to develop a strategy to persuade
Republicans in Congress to vote against certifying dozens of Joe
Biden's electors." [Politico,
4/6/22]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Finding Peter J. Navarro
And Daniel Scavino, Jr., Advisers To Former Presidents Trump, In
Contempt Of Congress. In April 2022, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res
1023) that would provide for floor consideration of the resolution (H
Res 1037) accompanying the report (H Rept 117-284) that would find Peter
K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., advisers to former President Donald
Trump, in contempt of Congress. It would provide for up to one hour of
debate on the resolution." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The
House adopted the rule by a vote of 221-200. [House Vote 117,
4/6/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/6/22;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1037;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1023]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Finding Peter J. Navarro
And Daniel Scavino, Jr., Advisers To Former Presidents Trump, In
Contempt Of Congress. In April 2022, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against the "motion to order the previous
question (thus limiting debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule
(H Res 1023) that would provide for floor consideration of the
resolution (H Res 1037) accompanying the report (H Rept 117-284) that
would find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., advisers to former
President Donald Trump, in contempt of Congress. It would provide for up
to one hour of debate on the resolution." The vote was on a motion to
order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of
219-206. [House Vote 116,
4/6/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/6/22;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1037;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1023]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted For Finding Steve Bannon In Contempt Of
Congress For His Refusal To Comply With A Congressional Subpoena By The
Select Committee To Investigate The January 6th Insurrection. In
October 2021, Fitzpatrick voted for a resolution that would, according
to Congressional Quarterly, "find Stephen Bannon, adviser to former
President Donald Trump, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply
with a subpoena issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It would direct the
speaker of the House to 'take all appropriate action to enforce the
subpoena' and certify the committee report (H Rept 117-152) accompanying
the contempt resolution to the U.S. attorney for the District of
Columbia for judicial action." The vote was on passage. The House passed
the resolution by a vote of 229-202. [House Vote 329,
10/21/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 10/21/21;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
730]
While Bannon Briefly Served As A White House Adviser To Former
President Trump, The Resolution Vote On His Connection To The Select
Committee Would Be Based On His Actions After Left His Government
Position. According to Congressional Quarterly, "But the vote on
Stephen Bannon in connection with the House select committee
investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol extends that partisan
divide to those outside government as well. Although Bannon was a
one-time White House adviser to President Donald Trump, his actions
after leaving government service are at issue for the panel."
[Congressional Quarterly,
10/21/21]
The Resolution Would Recommend That The Department Of Justice
Purse Indictment Of Bannon That Could Lead Up To A Year In Prison
And A Fine. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans are
expected to overwhelmingly oppose the panel's move to utilize one of
Congress' most powerful tools --- a recommendation that the Justice
Department seek an indictment of Bannon on a charge that brings the
possibility of up to a year in prison and a fine." [Congressional
Quarterly, 10/21/21]
Bannon Previously Claimed He Would Be Unable To Comply With The
Committee's Orders Until Courts Resolve Matters Of Executive
Privilege. According to CNN, "Bannon has previously argued that he
is unable to cooperate with the committee until matters of executive
privilege are resolved by the courts." [CNN,
10/21/21]
Bannon's Lawyer Argued That The Executive Privileges Only Belong
To Former President Trump. According to CNN, "His attorney has
told the committee that 'the executive privileges belong to
President Trump' and 'we must accept his direction and honor his
invocation of executive privilege.'" [CNN,
10/21/21]
Republicans Referred To The Attempt To Contempt Bannon As A Witch
Hunt. According to AP News, "Republicans call it a 'witch hunt,'
say it is a waste of time and argue that Congress should be focusing
on more important matters." [AP News,
10/21/21]
The Select Committee Unanimously Voted To Recommend That Bannon Be
In Contempt With Congress After He Did Not Show Up To His Scheduled
Interview And Cited A Letter By Trump's Attorney That Instructed Him
Not To Answer Questions. According to AP News, "The Jan. 6
committee voted 9-0 Tuesday to recommend the contempt charges after
Bannon missed a scheduled interview with the panel last week, citing
a letter from Trump's lawyer that directed him not to answer
questions." [AP News,
10/21/21]
While The Committee Admitted That Bannon Was Not A White House
Official During The Insurrection, He Consulted With Trump, Promoted
The Protests And Predicted Unrest. According to AP News, "The
committee noted that Bannon did not work at the White House at the
time of the attack, and that he not only spoke with Trump before it
but also promoted the protests on his podcast and predicted there
would be unrest. On Jan. 5, Bannon said that 'all hell is going to
break loose.'" [AP News,
10/21/21]
While Other Subpoenaed Witnesses Were At Least Negotiating With
The Committee, The Members Noted Bannon Was The Only One Defying The
Orders. According to AP News, "Lawmakers on the panel said Bannon
was alone in completely defying its subpoena, while more than a
dozen other subpoenaed witnesses were at least negotiating with
them." [AP News,
10/21/21]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Finding Steve Bannon In
Contempt Of Congress For His Refusal To Comply With A Congressional
Subpoena. In October 2021, when considering the adoption of the rule,
Fitzpatrick effectively voted against a resolution that would, according
to Congressional Quarterly, "find Stephen Bannon, adviser to former
President Donald Trump, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply
with a congressional subpoena. The rule would provide up to one hour of
debate on the resolution." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The
House adopted the rule by a vote of 221-205. [House Vote 328,
10/21/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 10/21/21;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
730;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
727]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Finding Steve Bannon In
Contempt Of Congress For His Refusal To Comply With A Congressional
Subpoena. In October 2021, when considering a motion to order the
previous question on the rule, Fitzpatrick effectively voted against a
resolution that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "find
Stephen Bannon, adviser to former President Donald Trump, in contempt of
Congress for refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena. The rule
would provide up to one hour of debate on the resolution." The vote was
on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the
motion by a vote of 221-206. [House Vote 327,
10/21/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 10/21/21;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
730;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
727]