Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, here we go again. For the first time in history, Democrats have complete control over a select committee. I hope the American people are paying close attention. I hope…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, here we go again. For the first time in history, Democrats have complete control over a select committee. I hope the American people are paying close attention. I hope they see what happens when Democrats get total power. They abuse it. They intimidate, they threaten, and they harass. And they try to put their political opponents in jail.
In a matter of weeks, the committee has passed three criminal contempt citations. Today, we vote on holding Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress.
On September 23, 2021, the select committee served former Congressman Meadows a subpoena for a sweeping set of documents and a deposition. In October, President Trump instructed Mr. Meadows to maintain his executive privilege in any response to that subpoena. Mr. Meadows then told the select committee that he would give them any information they requested that wasn't protected by executive privilege.
Mr. Meadows gave the select committee over 6,800 pages of information, including 1,100 documents and 2,300 text messages. Mr. Meadows agreed to sit for a deposition if it was limited to areas not protected by executive privilege. He tried to cooperate, but the select committee didn't care.
Mr. Meadows even sought an independent ruling on the question of executive privilege, but the select committee voted to hold him in contempt anyway, just like they did with Mr. Clark, who offered to participate pending the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Thompson.
Apparently, the select committee's rules go like this: Ignore the former President and don't wait for legal rulings. Immediately do everything that we say without objection, or we will refer you for criminal prosecution.
They don't care about fairness or due process. The point isn't cooperation or factfinding. They care about punishment. The point is prosecution. And, of course, the point is the headline that they are going for: Former Trump Chief of Staff found in contempt of Congress. But that headline omits the ugly and partisan truth about the select committee.
According to the committee's charter, H. Res. 503: ``The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the select committee, five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.'' But the committee has zero members appointed in consultation with Leader McCarthy. And it doesn't have 13 members; it has 9.
According to the committee's charter, if Mr. Meadows had come in for a deposition, the minority must have been allowed to question Mr. Meadows for the same length of time as the majority, except no members of the committee were named by the minority.
This isn't nitpicking. The Supreme Court has found that a select committee must follow its own rules to act with legal force.
So we have the select committee as it exists legally and on paper, and then we have something completely different. I don't know what to call it, but it doesn't resemble the select committee that Democrats voted to pass
on the House floor. It is just nine members picked by Speaker Pelosi.
The group is trampling on Americans' constitutional rights and the rights of Congress, like Mr. Meadows, and current Members of Congress. They even include Americans whose sole offense, according to Chairman Thompson, was planning a legal, permitted, and First Amendment- protected political rally.
Thanks to media reports, we know that Democrats have seized their enemies' call and text records, geolocation data, and personal contacts. We know of hundreds of instances. It could be more.
All we know for sure about this partisan investigation is that it is massive. It is happening without accountability, and it is happening in secret.
The select committee should serve as a warning to all Americans. This is what you get when Democrats get free rein: secret snooping, harassment, contempt for the rules of Congress, criminalization of dissent, and it all ends with their opponents in jail.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three articles.
First: ``J6 Committee Misleading Witnesses About Republican Staff Presence,'' by Mollie Hemingway, that was published in The Federalist.
Second: ``The Democratic Norm Breakers: The January 6 committee wants to subpoena GOP phone records,'' by The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Third: ``Civil Liberties Are Being Trampled by Exploiting `Insurrection' Fears. Congress's 1/6 Committee May Be the Worst Abuse Yet: The Unconstitutionality of the 1/6 Committee,'' by Glenn Greenwald, published by Substack.
[From the Federalist, Nov. 10, 2021]
J6 Committee Misleading Witnesses About Republican Staff Presence
Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney ran to CNN a few weeks ago to
accuse conservative stalwart Rep. Jim Banks of falsely
presenting himself as the Jan. 6 commission's ranking member.
Banks is, in fact, congressional Republicans' choice to be
their top investigator on the committee, but he has been
prevented from fulfilling his duties by Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi.
However, it's Cheney who appears to be misrepresenting
herself as the ranking member--that is, the top Republican--
on the committee.
January 6 Select Committee staff have been falsely telling
witnesses that Republican staff will be present for
interviews, according to multiple eyewitness sources and
documents. In fact, not a single Republican-appointed member
of Congress nor a single staff member representing the
Republican conference is part of the controversial committee.
Witnesses are being told that John Wood, a longtime friend
and ally of the Cheney family, will represent Republicans
when witnesses testify. But neither Cheney nor her friend is
representing the Republican conference. In fact, Cheney was
appointed to the committee in early July by Pelosi herself.
``John Wood works for the Democrat Party, just like Liz
Cheney, who was appointed by Pelosi and is not the Ranking
Member of the Select Committee. She is misleading witnesses,
before they testify under penalty of law, about the motives
and the position of the person questioning them,'' said
Banks, who has continued leading Republicans' investigation
of the federal government's handling of the Jan. 6 riot at
the Capitol. Cheney's work with CNN was designed to prevent
him from being able to gain answers to the questions the
select committee was ostensibly set up to answer.
Cheney was given six days to explain whether she considers
herself just the Democrat-appointed vice-chair of the
committee or also the Republican ranking member, as is being
represented to key witnesses. She has not responded to
multiple requests for comment.
The misrepresentation to witnesses is key because the
absence of any ranking member--meaning, in this case, any
Republican-appointed member--or minority party staff means
the committee appears to be failing to adhere to ironclad
rules for its work.
Pelosi ``blew up'' the Jan. 6 committee when she took what
she herself admitted was the ``unprecedented'' step of
refusing to seat multiple Republican-appointed members,
including the highly respected Navy officer and Indiana
Republican Banks, who was to be the committee's ranking
member. She also banned Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who
currently serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary
Committee.
Pelosi chose two of her key Republican allies and anti-
Trump obsessives to fill two of her slots for the committee.
As such, they do not represent the Republican conference,
which opposed their selection, but the Democrat conference,
which supported their selection.
Cheney was promoted to vice-chair in September in thanks
for her stalwart work on Pelosi's behalf. Cheney, who has
been censured by Wyoming Republicans for working against
Republican voters and their interests, and who lost her
position as House Conference chair for hijacking multiple
briefings for Republican policy initiatives to talk about her
personal vendetta against Trump, is facing precipitously low
poll numbers and a challenge from popular Republican Harriet
Hageman.
Cheney was joined by lame-duck Adam Kinzinger of Illinois,
who recently announced his retirement rather than facing
certain defeat from Illinois constituents who don't share his
anti-Trump obsession. Kinzinger was appointed by Pelosi in
late July to make the committee appear more bipartisan after
she'd vetoed Banks and Jordan. Cheney, her selection for
vice-chair, was brought in for the sole purpose of helping
Democrats with their tribunal.
The resolution establishing the committee, purportedly to
investigate the federal government's role in detecting,
preventing, preparing for, and responding to the Jan. 6 riot,
says depositions taken by the select committee must follow
House rules.
Those rules clearly state, ``Consultation with the ranking
minority member shall include three days' notice before any
deposition.'' Also, ``A deposition shall be conducted by any
member or committee counsel designated by the chair or
ranking minority member of the Committee that noticed the
deposition. When depositions are conducted by committee
counsel, there shall be no more than two committee counsel
permitted to question a witness per round. One of the
committee counsel shall be designated by the chair and the
other by the ranking minority member per round.''
Additionally, the rules say, ``Deposition questions shall
be propounded in rounds. The length of each round shall not
exceed 60 minutes per side and shall provide equal time to
the majority and the minority. In each round, the member(s)
or committee counsel designated by the chair shall ask
questions first, and the member(s) or committee counsel
designated by the ranking minority member shall ask questions
second.''
The point of these rules is to structure depositions so the
minority and the majority counsel have the same opportunity
to question witnesses and gather information for their
separate reports. That's why they rotate and why they're
allotted equal time. Having questions alternate from one
hostile lawyer to another hostile lawyer who is working with
the first makes a mockery of the provisions. It also means
that the hostile lawyers can coordinate and cherry-pick which
information to leak or publish, and which to conceal from the
public because it contradicts their preferred narrative.
The rules do not envision the circumstances that accompany
Pelosi's uni-party select committee. The House Rules ``become
nonsensical in a situation like this,'' said one
congressional aide, adding, ``This isn't just a partisan
investigation--it's a coverup.''
For the select committee to be in accordance with the rules
regarding consultation for depositions, Cheney must be
considered simultaneously the ranking member for the minority
party while also being the vice-chair for the majority party.
Hill lawyers say Pelosi's handling of the committee casts
doubt on its adherence to
the rules. Because she vetoed the ranking member from the
committee, it has no ranking member. But the committee rules
require consultation with the ranking member before taking
certain basic actions, such as taking depositions, including
those pursuant to subpoenas.
``So how can you consult with the ranking member when you
don't have one?'' asked one Hill attorney.
The multiple sources consulted for this article include a
document which confirmed January 6 Committee staff
represented to a witness that Wood would be the Republican
counsel during their interview.
``If this was a real investigation, that'd land you in jail
for prosecutorial misconduct,'' Banks said of the false
representation. ``Fortunately for Liz, this is a sham
investigation,'' he added.
Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, let's be very, very clear. The Democrats aren't interested in finding out how a disorganized horde of rioters managed to break into the United States Capitol on January 6. They don't want to learn more about
the security breakdown that occurred that day, and they don't care about protecting the Capitol from future attacks. They have proven it to us.
None of the 51 subpoenas that the committee has publicly touted have anything to do with Capitol security. As they have proven yet again today, over and over again, they only care about attacking their political enemies.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My Republican colleagues and I have repeatedly condemned political violence in all of its forms, including the violence on January 6.
But the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who was elected by Democrats to oversee Federal law enforcement, secured a Presidential pardon for Susan Rosenberg, a domestic terrorist who set off a bomb in the Senate Cloakroom in 1983. That is a fact.
Merrick Garland, appointed by Democrats to head the Justice Department, helped the Obama administration to dismiss an indictment against Elizabeth Ann Duke, a fugitive who was also arrested for setting off a bomb inside the United States Capitol.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, what you have heard today proves what we have said all along. This select committee is not at all interested in doing anything to prevent something like January 6 from ever happening again. It is all about burying their political opponents. That is what they are about to do today by holding Mr. Meadows in contempt. It is what they have already done two times before. It is an absolute shame. We shouldn't allow it to happen.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this resolution today.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.