2021: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Finding Mark Meadows In Contempt Of Congress. In December 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Finding Mark Meadows In Contempt Of Congress. In December 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted Against 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, Schweikert 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 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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]