What the Jan. 6 panel hopes to learn from Meadows, and how executive privilege affects it

Judy Woodruff:

As we reported earlier, the U.S. House of Representatives today took up a contempt of Congress charge against Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff.

This comes after Meadows defied a subpoena from the select committee in the Senate investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Lisa Desjardins begins our coverage.

Lisa Desjardins:

On the House floor today yet another rarity.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD):

There's just a handful of people like Mr. Bannon, like Mr. Meadows who somehow think that they're above the law.

Lisa Desjardins:

Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin and other select committee investigators argued for a contempt of Congress charge for a second very high-profile Trump advisory, Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff to President Trump, who just two years ago was himself a House member.

On January 6, as attackers smashed and punched their way into the Capitol, Meadows was at the White House with Trump making him a pivotal hub of information from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Now he is a flash point over the push for his testimony and Trump allies' insistence that it's political.

Rep. Jamie Raskin:

Mark Meadows has to testify. He has to come in, like 300 American citizens have patriotically and lawfully done. What makes him special? The fact that he knows a former president of the United States? I'm afraid not.

Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL):

The members of the January 6 commission have turned this body into a Star Chamber, using the powers of Congress to persecute and bankrupt their political opponents.

Lisa Desjardins:

The back-and-forth is complicated. Meadows did turn over 6, 600 pages of e-mails and around 2,000 text messages. Notably, he also sent so-called privilege logs, enumerating hundreds more documents which he claimed could not be shared because of separation of power.

Then he did not show up for a deposition last week.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS):

Whatever legacy he thought he left in the House, this is his legacy now.

Lisa Desjardins:

Last night, as it recommended contempt charges, the select committee also read some of the Meadows texts it has out loud.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY):

Donald Trump Jr. texted again and again, urging action by the president — quote — "We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand" — end quote.

Lisa Desjardins:

The committee also wants to ask Meadows about an e-mail in which Meadows wrote that on January 6 the National Guard would — quote — "protect pro-Trump people."

Meadows responded last night to all of this on FOX News.

Mark Meadows, Former White House Chief of Staff: Let's be clear about this, Sean. This is not about me, holding me in contempt. It's not even about making the Capitol safer. This is about Donald Trump and about actually going after him once again.

Lisa Desjardins:

Meadows and Trump are both suing the select committee over its requests. Judges have so far ruled against Trump.

And, today, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who blocked a bipartisan commission, but has blasted Trump for January 6, had notably open words about the committee's work.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

I do think we're all watching, as you are, what's unfolding on the House side, and it will be interesting to reveal all the participants who were involved.

Lisa Desjardins:

All this as the attorney general for the District of Columbia announced a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, seeking civil finds for individuals and two groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, for their role in the Capitol attack.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Lisa Desjardins.

Judy Woodruff:

Meadows' refusal to cooperate and the committee's recommendation to hold him in contempt of Congress raise questions about executive privilege and about what information the committee is owed.

For some answers, we turn to Jonathan Shaub. He is a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law and a contributing editor at Lawfare. He previously served in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.

And before I come to you, Jonathan Shaub, I want to clarify.

I said the issue was taken up in the Senate. It was in the House, the House select committee, of course, where this investigation is under way.

But let me just ask you about Mr. Meadows. He is yet another witness who won't testify before this House select committee. But they have received documents. They have received some information. So is the committee being stymied, or are they making progress?

Jonathan Shaub, University of Kentucky: Well, I think they're being stymied with respect to the information that Meadows has that maybe nobody else has, what was going on that day in the White House, what was President Trump doing.

And Meadows is probably one of the only sources from whom they could get that information. But they have a ton of other information. They revealed yesterday they had interviewed, I think, over 300 witnesses. They have a ton of documents, including some from Meadows himself.

So it seems like they will be able to piece together what happened and what was going on for the most part. But I do think there's probably certain pieces of information relating specifically to what was happening in the White House that they may not be able to get as long as Meadows and others who may have that information continue to refuse to provide it.

Judy Woodruff:

So, when Mark Meadows' attorney talks about executive privilege, referring to President Trump, what exactly does that mean, and how and where would it apply in a situation like this?

Jonathan Shaub:

So, executive privilege has a long history.

And it's generally the doctrine that the president has the authority to withhold information if the disclosure of that information would harm the public interest, if the president determines that.

And so it's a power belonging to the president. It's typically invoked for private conversations of the president, for national security information, attorney-client information. So, here, we have a former president who's been — who is asserting it, President Trump.

And the Biden White House has said very clearly there's no privilege claim here. The events of January 6 are extraordinary. The committee has a need for them, and so we're not going to assert privilege or related doctrines like immunity.

And President Trump has sued to contest that determination. And, so far, he's lost with the D.C. Circuit, and he has a chance to appeal to the Supreme Court. But, generally, it's a presidential authority, and so it's very hard to see why a former president would get to make a determination about what's in the public interest, as opposed to the president who is currently serving in that office.

Judy Woodruff:

And that's what we're trying to understand, whether this claim or invoking of executive privilege is going to hold up in court.

Jonathan Shaub:

Well, so, once you go to contempt, Meadows is going to defend himself — and his lawyer has already done this — by saying, even if I'm incorrect about privilege, I was operating in good faith.

And the committee is really no longer going to be able to get information from Meadows. He's subject to criminal prosecution, but that won't take place for potentially a year or several months. So it's very unlikely that, at this point, they will get Meadows to cooperate once they have held him in contempt.

And I think they basically said we have got as much information as we can from him, he's now adopted this total defiance stance, and so we're going to refer him for contempt to Congress and use him as an example to other witnesses who we do want to comply.

Judy Woodruff:

So, Jonathan Shaub, as you look at the big picture of what this select committee is trying to get, they're trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January the 6th.

What is standing in their way, mainly, and what do you think is working in their favor?

Jonathan Shaub:

Well, I think the fact that the Department of Justice moved forward with the prosecution of Steve Bannon shows that there are serious consequences to defying the committee's subpoenas.

If they indict Mark Meadows, then that will be even further evidence, because Mark Meadow was, of course, in the government. So, even — if he can be prosecuted, that will serve as a example to other government officials.

So I think they're probably going to be able to get a lot of information about the day and reconstruct what was happening going up to January 6 and on the day itself. And — but I do think, though, they probably won't be able to force people who remain very loyal to President Trump to comply.

Judy Woodruff:

Meaning that they will be able to claim executive privilege and hold out for courts to rule in their favor?

Jonathan Shaub:

Yes, I mean, they will cite executive privilege, and they will defend themselves in a criminal prosecution.

But the court actions, even if the committee decided to pursue a civil action, it just takes time. And from what I have understood, the chairman has said they want to be completed by spring, or, at the very latest, the end of 2022, when there's another election.

So I can't imagine that court resolution of issues involving executive privilege would occur before that time frame.

Judy Woodruff:

Still a lot of questions, a lot of questions out there about what the committee will be able to get.

Jonathan Shaub, University of Kentucky Law School, thank you very much.

Jonathan Shaub:

Well, thanks for having me.