mr. thompson: a quorum being present, select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol will be in order. the select committee is meeting this evening to consider a report on a resolution recommending 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. without objection, the chair's authorized to declare the committee in recess at any time. i'll now recognize myself for an opening statement this evening the select committee is required to consider two more citations for criminal con test 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 george carter's ruling. dr. eastman and president trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election. an act unprecedented in american history. their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower, it was a koup in search of a legal theory -- coup in certain of a legal theory. the plan spurred violent attack 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 equities president's efforts to overturn 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 a and what they knew. in in in mr. scavino's, he strung us along for months before making it clear that he believes he is 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 weeds on this. but broadly, mr. scavino and mrr excuses. khaer claiming the information we want from them is shielded by executive privilege. executive privilege is the power of the fat make sure official, sensitive information and conversations stay private. it's a privilege used to protect the presidency and our national security. it 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 equities president so now they're say -- equitiespresident so now they're 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 eith mother scavino or mr. navarro. and while the ex-president reportedly has raised privilege concerns when it comes to mr. ska sreupo and mr. -- mr. scavino, in mr. navarro's case, nobody's even tried to provoke privilege, except mr. navarro himself. that's not the way it works. pete tphar sraro isn't the -- navarro isn't the 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. but 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 all the information they have is protected by executive privilege, they're 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're on the clock. using government resources. it's important that taxpayer dollars don't support political activities 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 what's in and out of bound. i don't mean to make light of it, but it's just for the record and for 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. and 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're not fooling anybody. they're 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. but 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 hands and swear an 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 old 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 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've 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 and 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 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 plans 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 q anone, a bizarre and dangerous consult. president trump, working with mr. scavino, successfully spread distrust for our courts which have 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 violent 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 conclude today, quote, based on the evidence, the court finds it 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've already defeated president trump's efforts to hide certain white house records behind his shield of executive privilege. as the court said today, or not today, but as 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 exceeds 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 is 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 with this proposition. to the extent that mr. navarro and mr. meadows are attempting to rely upon 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. 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 and 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 bow to president trump's pressure. the committee has heard from many of these individuals,

including republicans appointed by president trump to post to the department of justice, republicans who stood firm who threatened to resign and refused to participate in efforts to corrupt the department with the stolen election lie that led to january 6. we have heard from leading republicans serving in state legislatures and in state and local governments 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 only tkpwaeugs to our -- their obligation to

our constitution and are putting politics above duty, each of the individuals i've just mentioned have 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 servants this nation needs. men and women who know our institutions don't defend themselves and who recognize the obligation that comes from holding positions of public trust. as we meet here tonight, vladimir putin continues his brutality against ukraine, killing tph-pblts -- innocents, reminding us what happens when 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.>> the gentlelady . i now call the report on the resolution, recommending the house of representatives and peter k. navarro and daniels covina be held under contempt of congress for not complying under the subpoenas care with report was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. the clerk shall designate the report. >> report on the resolution recommending the house of representatives find peter k navarro and daniels covina junior in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoena duly issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capital. >> without objection, the report will be considered and read and

open to amendment at any point. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's a phrase we use all the time, no one is above the law. but it seems as if the president's closest aides and allies seem to think they are, including daniel scavino junior. who is he? he met mr. trump around 1992. he works 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 of communications, and on his 20 campaign. and later on efforts to reverse the election results, which former vice president mike pence has denounced as an american --

as unamerican. he worked closely with mr. trump. he used 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, leading, -- tweeting, "a great report, statistically impossible to have less than 2020 election, big protest in d.d. on january -- in d.c. on january 6, be there, it will be while." he also followed violent extreme 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

advanced warnings of the violence that was to occur january 6. and he 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 biden's legitimate victory. mr. scavino was also with mr. trump during the capital attack -- capitol attack while trump failed to immediately 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 there's. i yields back, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. king's and. -- mr. kinsinger. >> thank you, mr. chairman. democracies are not defined by that days are bad things that happen but by how they defend it and come back from that. that is the importance of this committee. mr. scavino met donald trump when he was 16 years old. he became a longtime trump employee and remains a true trump loyalist. he served as director of social media and for his final two

years as deputy chief of staff of communications. dan scavino was within president trump on january 5 and january 6. he spoke with president trump by phone several times on january 6. he was with the president when many urged him to help stop the violence at the capitol. he was always a donald trump white house insider. social media was mr. scavino's core business. his team monitored extremist social media sites, trends on social media, and use extremist social media sites to check -- to shape public perceptions. there's a great deal of information mr. scavino has the select committee needs to know. i want to focus on one aspect of that. what he could tell us about within president trump thought was likely to happen on january

6. did the president know the readily could turn violent -- the rally could turn violent? sending an angry mob to storm the capital? when trump noted on the evening of january 5 he had a fighter of crowd, did he know that they might take it literally one the next morning he told them to "fight hard>" mr. scavino was there and can tell us a lot about that. refusing to talk is hiding the truth. it is unlawful. there no excuse. than president trump -- then president trump acknowledged on occasion mr. scavino helped shape his tweets. a discussed language withdrawal. let's take a closer look. on, december 19, 2020, trump urged viewers to fight for trump.

january 6 was 2.5 cents -- 2.5 weeks off. president trump retweeted a video titled "how to steal an election," among other things, it argued covid-19 was created to ensure that trump would lose the election. here's that one. qanon had retweeted that one by the time that trumped it. we would like to hear what president trump's director of social media has to say about that. trump's extremist followers on the donald, what do they make of that? to join in a wild protest on january 6? some of his followers took it as marching orders. mr. scavino's camino had every reason to know that they would be violent. mr. scavino was well aware of what his boss wanted. to the extent that the users

fight like donald trump. he sent out a video himself that a user of the same site understood to be "literal war drums." president trump had been president for a full four years with dan scavino and his side. they knew exactly what they were doing. the select committee needs to hear directly from dan scavino about his and president trump's role on inciting violence at the. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff. >> thank you for convening us today. our committee has a singular purpose. . to ensure our nation never again experience of the violence of 6. januarythat there is never an

effort to overturn a presidential election or to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power. that is our object. and 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. 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 failed to comply with the duly authorized subpoena, offering unjustifiable excuses. mr. scavino has clearly relevant testimony for our committee. he was intimately involved in former president trump's social media content, strategy, served as deputy chief of communications, while also actively promoting trump's campaign. the committee believes mr. scavino was with trump on january 5 and january 6

including while the capitol was under attack. he may have also prior knowledge regarding the likelihood of violence january 6. due to his monitoring of social media sites where such violence was discussed and predicted. specifically through press reporting, we are aware mr. scavino was advising from throughout the day on january 6 and potentially sending messages from the white house, potentially playing a role in the video message trump released hours after rioters reached the capitol. mr. scavino was present during a january 5 strategy session with trump, as they schemed on how they would convince congressional republicans to successfully object to the certification of the election, and this will return it. -- thus overturn it. this is why mr. scavino has an

obligation to appear before us. a glimpse to be protected under -- executive he claims to be -- he claims to be protected under executive privilege. it doesn't allow for a person to refuse to appear before a congressional committee. it doesn't apply to mr. scavino 's campaign activities on behalf of the former president. it doesn't apply to potentially unlawful schemes to obstruct congress and to his official duties when night in the public interest to do so. have one more thing to add tonight. the department of justice has a duty to act on this referral and others who have sent. without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is no oversight. without oversight, no countability. not for the former or any other president, past, present, or future. congress ceases to be a coequal branch of government, and the balance of power would be forever altered to the lasting

detriment to the american people. i want to return to judge carter's remarkable opinion -- finding that a former president of the united states may have committed a crime and fraud against the u.s. the judge said that dr. eastman and president trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election. in action unprecedented in american history. the campaign was not confined to the ivory tower. it was a coup, in searchable legal theory. the planned spread violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government, led to the death of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distress in our political process. 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. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >>, thank you mr. chairman -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. our committee is dedicated to getting to the truth and taking any steps necessary to do so. when material witnesses failed 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 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. he has never sought counsel, as others have. has not complied with the subpoena. an economist with a phd 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 focused on china. he was brought on by the drunken -- drunk campaign in 2016. -- by the trump campaign in 2016. wa -- he was the architect the president's trade

policies that hurt the u.s. economy and failed to achieve major policy goals. i think the american people might be wondering why our committee would need to speak with the trade official about the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. the vice chair noted it is because mr. navarro held that title, as a director of white house national trade council. he devoted much of his time to white house political efforts outside the scope of his official duties. the american people are likely to know that mr. navarro solely and his political capacity was so active in the 2020 reelection campaign, that the u.s. special counsel ruled in 2020 mr. navarro repeatedly violated the hatch act. because a former president trusted mr. navarro as a spokesman and confident. he was so intimately involved with these efforts, mr. navarro allegedly led a call on january

2 with a group of state legislators about the effort to convince vice president from -- vice president pence to delay the election certification for 10 days. the text handed over to this committee by mr. meadows, from a member of the press, read, "ma rl, i'm reaching out because i had details on the call that navarro helped convene yesterday with legislators is part of his effort to get pence to delay certification of the election for 10 days. including that the president participated. were you on the call when the president spoke?" among the many questions you have for mr. navarro, we need to hear from him about this conversation. and about that phone call. we need to hear from him about his other calls. with steve bannon, whom the house has already held in contempt. we know 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. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. >> i would just pick up where my colleague, mr. aguilar, left off. over a month and a half ago, mr. navarro was subpoenaed by this committee. 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 or the

former president has asserted privilege regarding mr. navarro's testimony or document production to the committee. he has no unilateral authority to assert privilege himself. beyond that foundational fawn, he has spoken and written widely about the process subjects that are the focus of the subpoena. mr. navarro's eager to tell his story, as he sees it. so long as he can do so on his own terms. for example -- in 2020 and 2021, he published a three-part report on his website called the navarro report. he makes allegations about election fraud and have been debunked. furthermore, in november, 2021, he published a book called "in drum time -- trump time," he describes in detail actions he took to change the outcome of the election. he takes credit for working with steve bannon to concoct the

-- concoct a scheme to encourage vice president pens to delay certification of the electoral college vote on january 6, to send the election back to sleep legislators. in his book, mr. navarro also writes when he called attorney general william barr -- he also writes that he called attorney general william barr asking the department of justice to support president trump's legal efforts to challenge the election results. which barr declined to do. mr. navarro acknowledges he kept a journal detailing this episode and other postelection actions he took. earlier this year, he was refusing to comply with our subpoena. mr. navarro made multiple media appearances during which he discussed his various roles in the event that culminated in the attack. i would like to play a media clip right now. can you please q the clip? -- cue the clip? >> i have so much knowledge

to share with you about what i was involved in. what i know. given what you told me. that you have a plan that you pushed to deal with the certification. you told me 100 members back. he said trump was on board. you say all those things out here, why risk a legal battle or going to jail to refuse to discuss with the committee under oath? >> because i have a loyalty to the president. the president has invoked executive privilege in this matter. is not my authority to revoke that privilege. >> you say it's not your privilege. but how often you have waived it. looks like a some of the news you have made on these topics. take a look. >> peter navarro is filling to be. > had over 100 congressmen

and senators on capitol hill ready to implement the sleep. -- the sweep. >> navarro tells rolling stone it was about sending the boats back. >> most or all of the states would decertify the election. >> how do you expect people to take this seriously when you have been talking about it? it seems now like the dog has barred. -- has barked. >> he has so much knowledge to share with the journalist, but he refuses to share that knowledge in response to a lawful subpoena. , evidently, he is only concerned with executive privilege, with keeping certain matters confidential, when it is convenient for him. fortunately for him, for the american public, that is on how

the law works. no president, incumbent or former, has claimed privilege regarding mr. navarro's testimony and documents. 's claim of executive privilege is severely undermined, if not foreclosed altogether by his extensive public disclosures on the same issues subcommittee six to question him about under oath. mr. navarro's clearly in contempt of congress, he should be referred to the department of justice for criminal prosecution. i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. -- >> the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlemen, mr. raskin. >> today democracy is under siege all over the world. just as we are working to defend democracy abroad, we are defending and fortifying democracy here at home.

the assault on the american democracy that exploded on january 6 had two coordinated elements we have been able to see. one was a violent insurrection from the outside, infused by propaganda and disinformation. led my domestic violent extremist groups like the oath keepers, the proud boys, the 3%er. the q1 on networks. the militia groups. 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 processes that make a mockery of american democracy. this is with the political scientists call a self coup. it's not a coup against the president like most. it is one organized by the president, against the

constitutional framework itself. but to contempt citations 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 it is an insult to green bay packers, all over the country, but had his sweep not been blocked by the bravery of our police officers, 150 of whom were injured, wounded, or hospitalized paints and every -- by

insurrectionary violence, this coup would've "permanently ended the peaceful transition of power in america," threatening the survival of democracy and the constitution. as judge david carter put so powerfully in his remarkable decision today, rejecting the claims of navarro's conrad in these efforts -- comrade in these efforts, john eastman. we subpoenaed navarro to produce documents by february 3, 2022, to appear for deposition on march 2. is produced no documents and failed to appear for his scheduled deposition. oeter navarro -- peter navarro must be held in criminal contempt of congress. and the american people. because he's acting with criminal contempt for the congress and the american people. the american people want to know

what sets him above the law. the supreme court said in 1950 in u.s. versus brian a subpoena creates a public duty, which every person is bound to perform, when properly summoned. in 2020, the supreme court emphasized that it is the duty of all citizens to cooperate with a subpoena. but navarro invokes the words executive privilege. repeats the phrase over and over again. it's not my privilege to waive. he thinks he has found a magic wand to to nullify the u.s. congress, just like he thinks he has found a magic wand to nullify the powers of the states, to cast their own electoral college votes.

if the executive privilege is not navarro's to waive, then neither for the exact same reason, and by definition, is it is to assert in the first place. the supreme court has been clear, the executive privilege belongs to to president of the united states. feb. 28, 2022, president biden determined 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 appears to fall back on the big assertion -- vague assertion that the 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 formerly or informally, and directly by peter navarro or

directly by donald trump. nothing. there's plainly no assertion of executive privilege year. and thereby the actual president or by any former president. even if there were, even if president biden tried to assert executive privilege for peter navarro, it would feel immediately -- fail immediately because the privilege does not apply to private political business. much less to criminal activity, like conducting coups or insurrection against the government. it applies only to professional speech on government policy, by and advisor rendering confidential advice within their domain of professional response ability. peter navarro was the white house trade advisor. he was within his job description to overthrow presidential elections, coerced vice presidents into abandoning

the constitutional response abilities, 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 holds a 49 million americans in six states to seize the presidency for his chosen candidate, he was not trying advice on trade policy. we are not seeking documents or testimony from navarro related to his official duties as trade advisor. on his personal website, navarro acknowledged publicly 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's looked at it. mrs. america. there's no asked -- this is america. there is no executive privilege here for presidents and trade advisor subplot cou and organizeps insurrections against the people's government and the people's constitution and cover up the evidence of their crimes. the courts are not buying it and neither are we. he insists only on adding insult to his contempt. more than a year after biden beat trump by more than 7 million votes, navarro continues to spread the big lie that trump won, and he says, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the selection was stolen. he brags about his work with steve bannon to apply pressure on vice president to do the wrong thing. he tells a story in his book. in his report report, made up of titles like "the immaculate deception," "the art of the steel," how they tried to get

pence to abandon his constitutional duties and force the contest into a presidential election and the house of representative sam goes on steve bannon podcast to make noises about the next insurrection, a year after the election was over, he said it is a want in a direction, they are going to push the american people over the edge. the american people opposed to january 6 and's direction -- insurrection and coups against our government. we are fighting to defend the institutions and values of democracy at home against coup plotters and insurrectionists and supporting other democracies around the world under siege by autocrats, bullies and des pots. vladimir putin is not a genius,

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 received through the 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, without objection, the select committee stands or turned. -- stands adjourned.

♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications.

>> broadband is a source of empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions, building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. announcer: charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ announcer: left tuesday on c-span, lawmakers remember the late congressman, don young, lying in state at the u.s. capitol. the longest-serving republican and u.s. has history. that ceremony begins at 11 a.m. eastern. then at 3 p.m., the house returns from work on a bill named after congressman young to reauthorize funding for the u.s. coast guard. on c-span2, the senate is back to consider executive nominations. at 10 a.m. on c-span3, the white house budget director is in

front of the house budget committee to outline the president's newly released 2023 budget proposal. you will also find everything streaming live on c-span.org or on c-span now, our free video app. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. there's something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. ♪ announcer: president biden held a news conference at the white house to outline his 2023 budget request. he's also asked about the situation in ukraine. including whether he regrets a statement he made over the weekend, suggesting russian president vladimir putin cannot remain in power.