tv January 6 Committee on Contempt Charges for Fmr. Trump Advisers CSPAN March 29, 2022 12:08pm-1:11pm EDT
25th term in the house of representatives. he died last week at the age of 88. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no. it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with thousand community senters to enable wifi abled areas. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the house committee investigating the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol voted unanimously to recommend
>> a quorum being present the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol will be in order. the select committee's meeting this evening to consider a report on a resolution recommending the house of representatives and peter k. navarro and daniel scavino jr. in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. chair thompson: without objection, the chair is authorized to declare the committee in recess at any time.
i now recognize myself for an opening statement. this evening the select committee's required to consider two more citations for criminal contempt of congress for daniel scavino jr. and peter navarro. before i get started, i do want to comment quickly on the ruling today in john eastman's lawsuit to stop the select committee from obtaining certain records. as the vice chair and i said in our statement earlier today, this ruling is a clear victory for the rule of law. i encourage people at home to read what judge carter wrote and consider his words very carefully. his warnings about the ongoing threat to american democracy should alarm every person in this country. i want to read a short excerpt from judge carter's ruling. dr. eastman and president trump
launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election. an action unprecedented in american history. their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. it was a coup in search of a legal theory. the plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government led to the death of several law enforcement officers and deepened public distrust in our political process. more than a year after the attack on our capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. i'm proud to say that this committee is helping to lead that search for accountability. it is why we are here tonight. so let's turn to mr. scavino and mr. navarro. these aren't household names, and my colleagues will share some details about who they are and why they are so important to our investigation.
in short, these two men played a key role in the ex-president's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. the select committee subpoenaed them for records and testimony to learn more about their roles and what they knew. mr. scavino's case he strung us along for months before making it clear that he believes he's above the law. mr. navarro, despite sharing relevant details on tv and podcasts and in his own book, he also stonewalled us. the contempt report published last night gets into the wao*edz on this -- weeds on this. but broadly mr. scavino and mr. navarro are making similar excuses. they are claiming that the information we want from them is shielded by executive privilege.
to remind everyone, executive privilege is a power of the president to make sure official sensitive information and conversations stay private. it's a privilege used to protect the presidency in our national security. it's usually involves the president and that president's closest advisors, cabinet secretaries, top aides. in the leadup to january 6, mr. scavino and mr. navarro were both government employees. they worked in the white house. they drew salaries paid by the taxpayers. they had conversations with the ex-president. so now they are saying they won't answer any of our questions because of executive privilege. there are a couple of big problems with their argument. first, generally speaking, executive privilege doesn't belong to just any white house official. it belongs to the president.
here president biden has been clear that executive privilege does not prevent cooperation with the select committee by either mr. scavino or mr. navarro. and while the ex-president's reportedly raised concerns when it comes to mr. scavino and mr. navarro's case, nobody's even tried to invoke privilege except mr. navarro himself. that's just not the way it works. peter navarro isn't president. it's important to note that even if a president has formally invoked executive privilege regarding testimony of a witness, which is not the case here, that witness has the obligation to sit down under oath and assert the privilege question by question. these witnesses didn't even bother to show up. second, if the ex-president had a legitimate claim to executive privilege, this is a privilege
that applies to things that happened in an official capacity. so if mr. scavino or mr. navarro are claiming that they -- that all the information they have is protected by executive privilege, they are basically saying that everything they did they did in their official roles, paid by taxpayers. as i said before, we want to talk to mr. scavino and mr. navarro about their roles in the attempt to overturn an election. the american people didn't pay their salaries to do that. now there are a lot of laws that set out what government officials aren't allowed to do when they are on the clock. or using government resources. it's important that taxpayer dollars don't support political activity. and there are a few bright lines about every specific situation. i can't sit in my office on
capitol hill and make fundraising calls. every staff member has to take an ethics training every year to remind them that what's in and out of bounds. don't mean to make light of it, but it just for the record and those watching at home trying to overturn an election is out of bounds. way out of bounds. yet mr. scavino and mr. navarro say they won't talk about the causes of january 6 because they were white house officials at the time engaged in official business. so executive privilege stands in the way. they potentially played a part in an attack on american democracy, but they can't ignore our investigation because they worked for the government at the time. that's their argument. they are not fooling anybody. they are obligated to comply with our investigation.
they have refused to do so, and that's a crime. our investigation aims to give the american people a lot of answers about a great many matters. i think we'll also leave you with some unanswered questions to consider for yourselves. questions about the sort of people who deserve the power and responsibility of positions of public trust. for a great many of us, it means something profound when we raise our hand and swear and oath. we haven't finished the work of our investigation, but i can say confidently that the many involved in the run up to january 6, an oath, statement of fidelity to our democracy was nothing more to them than meaningless words. i fear what happens if those people are again given the rings of power. these men, mr. scavino and
mr. navarro, are in contempt of congress. i encourage my colleagues to support adoption of this report. i'm confident the house will adopt the resolution, citing them for this crime. and i hope the justice department will move swiftly to hold them accountable. i'm pleased now to recognize my friend, the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. cheney, for any remarks she cares to offer. ms. cheney: thank you very much, mr. chairman. we are entering a critical stage of our investigation. we have now taken the testimony of hundreds of witnesses with knowledge of the events of january 6, including more than a dozen former trump white house staff members. we have learned that president trump and his team were warned in advance and repeatedly that the efforts they undertook to overturn the 2020 election would violate the law and our
constitution. they were warned that january 6 could, and likely would, turn violent. they were told repeatedly by our state and federal courts, by our justice department, and by agencies of our intelligence community that the allegations of widespread fraud sufficient to overturn the election were false and were unsupported by the evidence. and yet despite all these specific warnings president trump and his team moved willfully through multiple means to attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power, to halt our constitutional process for counting votes, and to shatter the constitutional bedrock of our great nation. as a federal judge concluded today, the illegality of president trump's plan for january 6 was, quote, obvious. today as the chairman noted we address two specific witnesses
who have refused to appear for testimony. mr. scavino worked directly with president trump to spread president trump's false message that the election was stolen. and to recruit americans to come to washington with the false promise that january 6 would be an opportunity to, quote, take back their country. this effort to deceive was widely effective and widely destructive. the committee has many questions for mr. scavino about his political social media work for president trump. including his interactions with an online forum called, the donald. and with qanon, a bizarre and dangerous cult. president trump working with mrd distrust for our courts, which had repeatedly found no basis to overturn the election. and trump's stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking
the violence on january 6. on this point there is no doubt the committee has videos, interviews, and sworn statements from rioters demonstrating these facts. mr. navarro is also a key witness. he's written a book boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the activity of january 6. and yet he does not have the courage to testify here. we have many questions for mr. navarro, including about his communications with roger stone and steve bannon regarding the planning for january 6. as judge carter concluded today, quote, based on the evidence the court finds that more likely than not that president trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6, 2021. our committee will continue to litigate to obtain the testimony we need.
we have already defeated president trump's effort to hide certain white house records behind a shield of executive privilege. as the court said today -- not today, but the court said in that case under any of the tests advocated by former president trump, the profound interest in disclosure advanced by president biden and the january 6 committee far exceed his generalized concerns for executive branch confidentiality. that same conclusion should apply to mr. scavino and mr. navarro. let me pause for a moment on one specific legal point. like mr. meadows, mr. navarro insists that he's above the law. and is categorically and absolutely immune from any congressional subpoena regarding january 6. we are aware of no court
anywhere in america that has ever agreed to this proposition. to the excellent mr. navarro and mr. meadows are attempting to rely on memoranda from the justice department's office of legal counsel, those memoranda explicitly do not apply here. in this context mr. navarro was not acting as a white house aide advising the president on official matters of policy. he was acting as a trump campaign operative planning a political effort to obstruct or impede congress' constitutional proceeding to count electoral votes. the department of justice is entrusted with the defense of our constitution. the department leadership should not apply any doctrine of immunity that might block congress from fully uncovering and addressing the causes of the january 6 attack.
congress is a separate an co-equal branch of government. it must have the authority and the ability to protect its independence and safeguard the constitutional separation of powers. in the coming months, our committee will convene a series of hearings. the american people will hear from our fellow citizens who demonstrated fidelity to our constitution and the rule of law and who refused to bough -- bow to president trump's pressure. the committee has heard from many of these individuals, including republicans appointed by president trump to posts in the department of justice. republicans who stood firm who threatened to resign and refused to participate in effort to corrupt the department with the stolen election lies that led to january 6. we have heard from leading republicans serving in state legislatures and in state and local government who also stood
firm, who resisted pressure from the former president and did their constitutional duty. and we have heard from republicans who were serving in the trump white house, including those who warned in advance that the president's plans were unlawful and those who tried to intervene with the president to get him to halt the violence when it erupted on january 6. in a time when many republican members of congress have abandoned their obligation to our constitution, and are putting politics above duty, each of the individuals i just mentioned has by contrast demonstrated a firm and unwavering commitment to this nation and to our constitutional republic. each has done what is right despite tremendous personal, political, and professional cost. each is a model for the american
people of the kind of public servant this nation needs. men and women who know our institutions don't defend themselves and recognize the obligation that comes from holding positions of public trust. as we meet here tonight, vladimir putin continues his brutality against ukraine. killing innocent. remineing us what happens with authoritarians rule. and each day we see footage of the unyielding courage of the ukrainian people who are fighting and dying to defend their freedom. their bravery reminds us that democracy is fragile. democracy only survives if citizens are willing to defend it. we live in the greatest constitutional republic in history. no citizen in our republic can be a bystander.
if we don't stand for our freedom and our republic, we will lose them. in his ruling today judge carter put it this way, if president trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power. undermining american democracy and the constitution. if the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the court fears january 6 will repeat itself. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. chair thompson: the gentlelady yields back. pursuant to notice i now call up report on the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find peter k. navarro and daniel scavino jr. in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the
january 6 attack on the united states capitol. the report was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. the clerk shall designate the report. the clerk: report on a resolution recommending that the house of representatives find peter k. navarro and daniel scavino sr-rplt in -- jr. in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with teen subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. chair thompson: without objection, the report will be considered as read and opened to amendment at any point. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. chairman. it's a phrase we use all the time. no one is above the law. but it seems as if a few of the former president's closest aides and allies seem to think they are. including daniel scavino jr. who
is he? mr. scavino met mr. trump around 1992 and worked for him for many years. first at the trump national golf club, and then as director of social media for his 2016 presidential campaign. then as white house deputy chief of staff for communications. and on his 2020 campaign. and later on efforts to reverse the election results which former vice president mike pence has denounced as un-american. according to many published reports, mr. scavino worked closely with mr. trump to use social media to spread lies regarding nonexistent election fraud and to inflame a violent angry mob. for example, mr. trump's twitter account praised the false report
alleging election fraud tweeting, here's a quote, a great report. statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. big protests in d.c. on january 6. be there. will be wild. mr. scavino also followed domestic violence -- violent extremist social media and he did that on behalf of mr. trump. this committee has reason to believe that doing so provided mr. scavino with explicit advance warnings of the violence that was to occur on january 6. mr. scavino may have shared these warnings of violence with mr. trump before january 6. he reportedly attended several meetings with mr. trump and others regarding reversing president biden's legitimate victory. mr. scavino was also with
mr. trump during the capitol attack while mr. trump failed to immediately try to stop it, despite urgent bipartisan calls for him to do so. republican senate minority leader mitch mcconnell rightly said that the public needs to know everything about what caused and occurred on january 6. to inform both the american people and legislative reform proposals, this committee needs to speak with mr. scavino. he has to fulfill his legal and his moral obligation to provide testimony and documents, or he should face the consequences. that's why we are taking this action today. in the united states of america no one is above the law. this committee is doing its job. the department of justice needs to do theirs. i yield back, mr. chairman. chair thompson: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. chairman. and vice chair mentioned with ukraine it reminds us that democracies aren't defined by bad days or bad things that happen but how they defend it and how they come back from that. that's the importance of this committee. dan scavino met donald trump when he was 16 years old. he became a long-time trump employee and remains a true trump loyalist. the trump administration dan scavino served as director of social media and final two years as deputy chief of staff for communications. as the select committee report notes dan scavino was with then president trump on january 5 and 6. he spoke with president trump by phone several times on january 6 and was with the president when many urged him to help stop the violence at the capitol. he was always at all relevant times a trump and white house insider. social media is a means of
monitoring the shaping trends was dan scavino's core business. reports tell us that dan scavino and his team monitored extremist social media sites, monitored trends on social media, and used extremist social media sites to shape public perceptions. there is, in short, a great deal of highly important information that dan scavino has that the select committee needs to know. i want to focus on one aspect of that. what dan scavino could tell us about what then president trump thought was likely to happen on january 6. did the president know a rally could turn violent? that his rhetoric on the ellipse could skepbd an angry mob to storm the capitol? when trump noted on january 5 that he had a fired up crowd, did he know they might take it literally when the next morning he told them to, quote, fight hard. dan scavino was there and could tell us a lot about that. we need to hear from him. refusing to talk to us he is
stiff arming the american people and hiding the truth. it's unlawful and there is no excuse. then president trump asserted he generally did his own tweets, but he acknowledged on on occasion scavino helped to shape them. we know he often composed social media posts and discussed them with trump. with that in mind let's take a closer look. on december 19, 2020, trump retweeted a video thaepbded by urging viewers to, quote, fight for trump. here it is. january 6 was then just 2 1/2 weeks off. dan scavino could tell us something useful about why donald trump retweeted that particular message. president trump also retweet add video tateled, quote -- tighted, quote, how to steal an election. among other things it argued that covid-19 was created to ensure that trump would lose the election. here's that one. qanon already repeat twao*eted
that one by the time trump d we would like to hear what president trump's director of social media has to say about that. one of trump's extremist volumers on the donald and hard right media sites of president trump urging them to join in a wild protest on january 6. some of his followers on the donald fringe site took it as marching orders. dan scavino had every reason to know that they would be violent. dan scavino was well aware of what his boss wanted. and to the extremists, violent users that use the site like the donald. dan scavino himself sent out a video that a user on the same site under stood to be, quote, literal war drums. president trump had by then been president for a full four years. with dan scavino at his side, they, knew that january 6 that the january 6 crowd could turn
violent. they knew exactly what they were doing and the select committee needs to hear directly from dan scavino about his or president trump's role in inciting violence that day. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. chair thompson: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: thank you to our chairman and vice chair for china srao*epbing this today. for convenienting this taeufpltd our committee has a singular purpose. to ensure our nation never again experiences the violence of january 6. that there is never again an effort to overturn a presidential leaks or interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. that is our object. every single witness called before this panel should cooperate. it is a patriotic duty to help congress and the american people understand how the tragedy of january 6 came about. and more than a duty, it is a necessity when served with a lawful subpoena to appear.
which is why we are here today. peter navarro and dan scavino have refused to comply with the duel authorized subpoena offering up again and again spurious and unjustifiable excuses. in mr. scavino's case he has clearly relevant testimony for our committee. scavino was inpheumatically involved in former president trump's social media content anti-strategy and served as deputy chief of staff for communications while also actively promoting trump's campaign. the committee believes scavino was with trump on january 5 and 6, including during a period when the capitol was under attack. that he was party to conversations with trump about challenging, disrupting, or impeding the congressional proceedings to certify the election results. and that he may have also had prior knowledge regarding the likelihood of violence on january 6. due to his monitoring of social media sites with such violence was discussed and predicted. specifically through press
reporting we are aware that on january 6 mr. scavino was advising trump throughout the day, potentially even directing -- directly sending messages from the white house and potentially playing a role in the video message trump released hours after rioters breached the capitol. it's also been reported that mra january 5 strategy session with trump as they schemed on how they could convenience congressional republicans to successfully object to the certification of the election and thus overturn it. this is why mr. scavino has an obligation to appear before us. nevertheless, mr. scavino claims to be protected under executive privilege. but that claim isn't grounded in the law or reality. executive privilege doesn't allow for a person to simply refuse to appear before a congressional committee. it doesn't apply to scavino's campaign activities on behalf of the former president t doesn't apply to potentially unlawful scheme to obstruct congress. it doesn't apply to his official duties when as here the current
president of the united states asserts it is not in the public interest to do so. i have one more thing to add tonight. the department of justice has a duty to act on this referral and others we have sent. without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is no oversight. without oversight, no accountability, not for the former president or any other president, past, present, or future. without enforcement of its lawful process, congress ceases to be a co-equal branch of government and the balance of power would be forever a*ltered to the last -- a*ltered to the lasting detriment of the american people. finally, i want to return to judge carter's remarkable opinion. finding that a former president of the united states may have commit add crime -- committed a crime and fraud against the united states. the judge said that dr. eastman and president trump launch add campaign to overturn a
democratic election. an action unprecedented in american history. their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. it was a coup in search of a legal theory. the plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process. and as the vice chair pointed out, he also said, if the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the court fears january 6 will repeat itself. that responsibility to investigate and pursue accountability extends to those who hold the highest office in the land or those who hold no office at all. if no one is above the law, then no one must be above the law. we are upholding our responsibility, the department
of justice must do the same. i yield back. chair thompson: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar. mr. aguilar: thank you, mr. chairman, madam vice chair, distinguished colleagues. our committee is dedicated to getting to the truth. and taking any steps necessary to do so. when material witnesses fail to comply with lawful subpoenas, we have no choice but to refer them for contempt of congress. peter navarro's testimony is integral to our investigation and despite the fact that he's given multiple television interviews regarding our subpoena, he's failed to comply with our investigation in any way. mr. navarro has publicly stated that he is protected by executive privilege, but never sought counsel, as others have. has never filed any case seeking relief from his responsibilities to comply with our subpoena. an economist with a ph.d. from harvard, mr. navarro ran
unsuccessfully for office in my home state of california five times. he wrote several books on economics and trade. many of which stpoe focused on china. he was brought on by buy the trump campaign in 2016 to advise the former president on economic and trade issues. he was such an important advisor to the former president that in office in the white house was created just for him to oversee. the white house national trade council. he was the architect of the president's trade policies, which, according to a study commissioned by the u.s.-china business council, quote, hurt the u.s. economy and failed to achieve major policy goals. mr. chairman, i think the american people might be wondering why our committee would need to speak with a trade official about the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. as the vice chair noted that's because mr. navarro held that title as the director of white house national trade council,
but he devoted much of his time to white house political efforts outside the scope of his official duties. in fact, the american people are likely to know mr. navarro solely in his political capacity. he was so active in the 2020 re-election campaign that the united states special counsel ruled in 2020 that mr. navarro repeatedly violated the hatch act. that's because the former president trusted mr. navarro as a spokesman and confidant. he was so intimately involved with these efforts that mr. navarro allegedly led a call on january 2 with a group of state legislators about the effort to convince vice president pence to delay the election certification for 10 days. a text handed over to this committee by mr. meadows from a member of the press read, i quote, mark, i'm reaching out because i have details on the call that navarro helped convene yesterday with legislators as part of his effort to get pence
to delay certification of the election for 20 days. including -- 10 days. including that the president participated. were you on the call when the president spoke? end quote. among the many questions we have for mr. navarro, we need to hear from him about this conversation. and about that phone call. and we need to hear from him about his other calls with steve bannon, whom the house has already held in contempt that took place both during and after the attack on the u.s. capitol. we know that mr. navarro believes he and mr. bannon came up with the strategy for overturning the election because he details it in his book. which i know my colleague from florida will discuss in greater detail. this is as clear a case for contempt as we are likely to see, mr. chairman. i yield back. chair thompson: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, mrs. murphy. mrs. murphy tkhra*pbg you, mr. chairman -- mrs. murphy: thank you,
mr. chairman. over a month and a half ago mr. navarro was skpaoepb kwrad by this committee. we sought documents and testimony on his efforts to discredit the election and prevent the results from being certified this information is central to our committee's inquiry. mr. navarro refused to comply making a cursory claim of executive privilege. there are many reasons why this blanket assertion of executive privilege lacks merit. as a matter of law and as a matter of common sense. most fundamentally, neither the incumbent nor the former president has asserted privilege regarding mr. navarro's testimony or document production to the committee. mr. navarro has no unilateral authority to assert privilege himself. beyond that foundational flaw in mr. navarro's privileged claim since the election, he has spoken and written widely about the precise subjects that are the subject of our subpoena. clearly mr. navarro's eagletory tell his story as he sees --
eager to tell his story as he sees it soefrs he can do so on his own terms. for example in 2020 and 2021 he published a three part report on his website. he made allegation abouts election fraud that have been debunked. furthermore, in november 2021 mr. navarro published a book called, in trump time. he described in detail actions he took to change the outcome of the election. for instance, mr. navarro claims credit for working with steve bannon to concongress a scheme they called, the green bay suite. the core of this plan was to encourage vice president pence to delay certification of electoral college votes on january 6 and to send election back to state legislators. in his book, mr. navarro also writes what he called, attorney william barr, he writes he called attorney general william barr asking the tkefpt justice sew property president trump's
legal efforts to challenge the election results which barr declined to do. notably mr. navarro acknowledges he kept a journal detailing this episode and other post leaks actions he took. and finally, earlier this year at the same time he was refusing to comply with our subpoena, mra appearances during which he discussed his various roles in the events that culminated in the january 6 attack. i'd like to play a media clip right now. can you please cue the clip. >> it was about this interview which is interesting, it's like i have so much knowledge to share with you about what when i was involved in and what i know. given that you told me that you have a plan, that you pushed, to delay or deal with the certification, you told me 100 members backed it and said in public trump was onboard. did you say all those things out here, why risk a legal battle or going to jail to refuse to
discuss them with the committee under oath? >> because i have the loyalty to the constitution and loyalty to the president. the president has invoked executive privilege in this matter. it's not my authority to revoke that privilege. >> you say it's not your privilege to wave it. how often you waived t look at some of the news you have made on these topics. take a look. >> peter navarro spilling the beans >> we had over 100 congressmen and senators on capitol hill ready to implement -- >> peter navarro >> the boss tells pence to take my tpreuging call >> navarro tells rolling stone was about sending the votes back. >> most or all of those states would decertify the election. >> how do you expect people to take seriously your claim that this is secret and privileged
when you went out there talking about it? and when you and bannon said the committee's dog wouldn't bark, they were afraid of you and the report t seems now, peter, like the doc has barked. dog has barked. mrs. murphy: had he so much knowledge to share with the journalist, but he refuses to share that knowledge in response to a lawful subpoena. evidently mr. navarro is only concerned with executive privilege with keeping certain matters confidential when it's convenient for him. unfortunately for him, and fortunately for the american public, that's not how the law works. no president, incumbent or former, has claimed privilege regarding mr. navarro's testimony and documents. and in any event, his claim of executive privilege is severely undermined if not foreclosed all together by his extensive public disclosures on the same issues the committee seeks to question him about under oath. as a result of his actions, mr. navarro is clearly in contempt of congress and should be referred to the department of
justice for criminal prosecution. i yield back. chair thompson: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. chairman. my hero, tom payne, said the cause of america is the cause of mankind. and today democracy's under siege all over the world. and just as we are working to defend and fortify democracy abroad, in ukraine, and other places we are working to defend and fortify democracy here at home. the assault on american democracy that exploded on january 6, mr. chairman, had two coordinated elements that we have been able to see. one was a violent insurrection from the outside infused by propaganda and disinformation. and led by domestic violent extremist groups like the oath keepers, proud boys, three
percenters, qanon networks, but the other component was a secret campaign on the inside to replace our constitutional process governing presidential elections with a tissue of lies and counterfeit process that is make a mockery of american democracy. this is what the political scientists call a self-coup. it's not a coup against a president like most. it's a coup organized by the president against the constitutional framework itself. the two contempt citations we vote on tonight will go to persons who have critical information about both components of this assault on america and the coordination between them. peter navarro worked to overthrow the election by nullifying 79 electoral college votes cast by tens of millions
of americans who live in arizona, georgia, pennsylvania, michigan, new mexico, and wisconsin. had his so-called green bay sweep, which by the way is an insult to green bay packers all over the country, had his so-called green bay sweep not been blocked by the gravery of our police officers, 150 of whom were injured, wounded or hospitalized, by insurrection or violence, and by vice president pence's refusal to abandon his constitutional duties, this attempted coup would have, quote, permanently ended the peaceful transition of power. threatening the survival of democracy and the constitution as united states district judge david carter put it so powerfully in his remarkable decision today rejecting the claims of navarro's comrade in
these efforts, john eastman. we seenianed navarro to produce documents by february 23, 2022. and appear for depp soeugs march 2. he has produced no documents and failed to appear for his scheduled deposition. peter navarro must be held in criminal contempt of congress and the american people because he is acting with criminal contempt for the congress and the american people. the american people want to know what set him above the law. the supreme court said in 1950 in u.s. vs. brian the subpoena creates a public duty which every person within the jurisdiction of the government is bound to perform when properly summoned. in 2020, the supreme court emphasized that it is the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the subpoena.
but navarro invokes the words executive privilege. repeats the phrase over and over again. it is not my privilege to waive. he thinks he has found a magic wand to nullify the powers of the u.s. congress just like he thinks he's found a magic wand to nullify the powers of the states to cast their own electoral college votes. navarro's statement of executive privilege is, quote, not his to waive, is in fact accurate. but if executive privilege is not navarro's to waive, then neither for the exact same reason and by definition is it his to assert in the first place. the supreme court has been clear that the executive privilege belongs to the president of the united states. and on february 28, 2022, the white house council notified mrn determined that assertion of
executive privilege is not justified with respect to navarro's effort to cover up the evidence of his participation in this assault on american constitutional democracy. so, navarro then appears to fall back on the vague assertion that the executive privilege here belongs to former president trump which is not only dubious but entirely irrelevant because our committee has not been given any attempted invocation of executive privilege by donald trump. either formally or informally, indirectly by peter navarro or directly by donald trump. nothing. there is plainly no assertion of executive privilege here either by the actual president or by any former president. and even if there were, even if president biden tried to assert executive privilege for peter navarro, it would fail immediately because the privilege does not apply to private political business. much less to criminal activity
like conducting coups or insurrections against the government. the privilege applies only to professional speech on government policy by advisors rendering confidential advice on matters within their domain of professional responsibility. peter navarro was the white house trade advisor. it was not within his job description to overthrow presidential elections, could he verse vice presidents into abandoning their constitutional responsibilities, or impose counterfeit regimes in place of the u.s. constitution. when navarro was plotting to overthrow the election by canceling out the electoral college votes of 49 million americans in six states to seize the presidency for his chosen candidate for four years, he was not rendering advice on trade
policy. we are not seeking documents or testimony from navarro related to his official duties as trade advisor. indeed, on the press call to announce release of his outlandish and cartoonish three-part report on outright fraud in the 2020 election on his personal website, navarro acknowledged publicly that he was writing as a private citizen and not as a federal government official. so please spare us the nonsense talk about executive privilege rejected now by every court that has looked at it. this is america. and there is no executive privilege here for presidents much less trade advisors to kphrot coups and organize insurrections against the people's government and the people's constitution and then to cover up the evidence of their crimes of the the courts aren't buying it and neither are we. navarro insists only on adding insult to his contempt more than a year after biden beat trump by
more than seven million votes, navarro continues to spread the big lie that trump won. he says, quote, beyond any shadow of a doubt this election was stolen. he brags pwa his work with steve bannon to apply pressure on vice president pence to do the wrong thing. he tells the complete story in his book in trump time and his three-part report which was made up of titles like, the immack immaculate deception and art of the steal. of how they tried to get pence to abandon his constitutional duties and force the contest into a contingent presidential election under the 12th amendment in the house of representatives. and it goes on steve bannon's podcast and makes noises about the next insurrection. a year after the election was over he said, if they want an insurrection, they keep pushing this, they are going to push the american people over the freaking edge. mr. chairman, madam vice chair, the american people opposed the
january 6 insurrection and the american people opposed future -- oppose future insurrections and coups against our government. we are fighting to defend the institutions and values of democracy at home against coup plotters and insurrectionists and we are supporting other democracies around the world under siege by autocontracts and khrep toe contracts, bullies and despots. we are on the side of the vladim, but a mass murderer. we stand strong on the side of democracy, freedom, the constitution and rule of law, against people who smashed our police officers in the face with confederate battle flags and tried to cancel out the results of our presidential election. these two men are in contempt of congress. we must fight them both for their brazen disregard of their duties and for our laws and our
institutions. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their commitment to providing a full and factual accounting of everything that led to january 6. the events of that day, to ensure such an attack on a republic never happens again. i served in the navy for 20 years. when you talk to people in the military, that's what they say. they say they served in the military. they served the american. -- the american people. i continued to serve, as we all do, on this committee. when mr. scavino and mr. navarro entered the administration, the agreed to serve the american people. the president has a unique duty
under the constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. those that serve under the president, especially those closest to him in the administration, are integral to performing that duty, to take care that the laws are executed. not to undermine those laws. congress has a constitutional duty to investigate. we have a duty to the american people to investigate the violent attack on our capitol, that attempted to prevent a peaceful transition of power. they have a duty to respond to the subpoenas of this committee. however they have decided apparently that they are above the law. 50 years ago this year, a small group of people in the next administration also decided they were above the law. they engineered a cover-up to
hold onto political power. they were almost successful. but it took congress, the senate to get to the truth. the truth that the american people deserve. this committee has conducted more than 800 voluntary depositions and interviews with more schedules. including witnesses who worked in the previous administration, the committee has received nearly 90,000 documents pertaining to january 6. we followed up on more than 435 tips recve committee's top line. hundreds of witnesses have voluntarily come forward and cooperated with our investigation. however mr. savino and mr. navarro refused to answer the constitutional duty. why are they special? why is it when we get closer and closer to the former president,'s inner circle, those nearest to the president -- why are those the ones who refuse to
tell the american people what they know? what is that they are covering up? now they have attempted to obstruct the pursuit of justice. the stone wall this committee's work and concealed the truth despite both publicly acknowledging their roles and promoting election fraud conspiracies and counseling to former president on changing the outcome of election -- of the election. what are you covering up? who are you covering for? we have been through this process before. mr. meadows, what are you covering up? and who are you covering for? when given the opportunity to tell the truth about the attack on jan 6, they both continued to put loyalty to donald trump before the constitution and the american people. tonight, i will vote to hold mr. scavino and navarro
accountable for their actions and that they are both cited for contempt of congress. and the department of justice must act swiftly. i will echo what my colleagues have already said. more bluntly what attorney general garland said, to her job so you -- do your job so we can do ours. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. i now recognize a gentlewoman from wyoming for a motion. >> i move that the committee favorably report to the house the committee's report on a resolution recommending that the house of representatives find peter k. navarro and daniel scavino junior in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol.
>> the question is on the motion of favorably report to the house. those in favor say aye. those opposing say no. an opinion of the chair, the aye's have it. >> i request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote as requested. the clerk will call the rule. >> ms. cheney votes aye. >> ayr. -- >>a ye -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> is the chair recorded?
>> the chair votes aye. >> aye. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> mr. chairman, on this book, there are nine ayes and zero no 's. >> the motion is agreed to. the vice chair is recognized. >> pursuant to clause 2l of rule 11, i request members have two calendar days in which to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental or additional views on the measure order reported by the committee tonight. >> so ordered. without objection, staff is authorized to make any necessary technical or conforming changes to the report, to reflect the actions of the committee. there being no further business,
recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast "presidential recordings." >> season within focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you'll hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonken incident, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transkriebing many -- transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you'll also hear some blunt talk.
>> "presidential recordings", find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and radio, plus compelling podcasts. it is at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere.
>> and the u.s. house is coming in at 3:00 p.m. eastern today to debate two bills. one named after the late alaska congressman don young, who died last week, and is lying in state in the u.s. capitol today. the measure would continue funding for the coast guard and federal maritime commission. congressman young was a former chair of the transportation committee and longtime member of its coast guard panel. we'll have the house live at 3:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and right now, a live look inside statuary hall in the u.s. capitol where the body of congressman don young is lying in state.