Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

January 6 Panel Votes to Hold Meadows in Contempt, Reveals Texts From Trump Allies Begging Him to Get Trump to Call Off Rioters; Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Addresses Meadows Contempt Resolution Ahead of House Vote; Rules Committee Considers Mark Meadows Contempt of Congress Resolution. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 14, 2021 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:03]

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: They have seemingly abandoned him, have had no contact with him, have not seen him or spoken to him. Obviously, what lies ahead for their case, it's going to be a difficult one for prosecutors after they charge them with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, arguing that they gave him the gun as a gift, but also saying that they did nothing to prevent him from unleashing this shooting, this attack. Prosecutors saying they knew things were going on and they should have done stuff, that's why they charged them and we'll see them later in court this afternoon.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: Four children are dead. Shimon Prokupecz, thanks very much.

A very good Tuesday morning to you. I'm jim sciutto.

ERICA HILL, CNN NEWSROOM: And I'm Erica Hill.

The fate of former President Trumps' chief of staff, Mark Meadows, will likely soon be in the hands of the Justice Department, this follows the January 6th committee voting unanimously to recommend that Meadows be charged with criminal contempt of Congress for defying its subpoena. The full House is expected to vote in just hours from now.

SCIUTTO: The select committee released stunning new details and communications last night, including text messages to Meadows from Fox News, personalities unnamed as of yet lawmakers and Donald Trump Jr. panicked, desperate, pleading with Meadows to get Trump to tell his supporters to stand down as the insurrection unfolded.

Here's Committee Vice Chairman Liz Cheney, Republican, reading some of those messages. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): According to the records, multiple Fox News hosts knew the president needed to act immediately. They texted Mr. Meadows and he has turned over those texts. Quote, Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy, Laura Ingraham wrote. Please get him on T.V., destroying everything you have accomplished, Brian Kilmeade texted. Quote, can he make a statement, ask people to leave the Capitol, Sean Hannity urged.

As the violence continued, one of the president's sons texted Mr. Meadows, quote, he's got to condemn this shit ASAP. The Capitol police tweet is not enough, Donald Trump Jr. texted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: CNN Law Enforcement Correspondent Whitney Wild joining us now. There was a lot that came out last night. A lot of folks doing what they (INAUDIBLE) this morning, not the end of what we're going to hear either, Whitney.

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Certainly not. I mean, this is just a snapshot of more than 6,000 documents that Meadows has turned over to the committee. So, last night was extremely revelatory, but we also hoped to learn a lot more about the context of a lot of these text messages. Because what the committee laid out were these urgent pleas from multiple people within the Capitol complex, within that Capitol building, as the riot unfolded, but also within Trump's inner circle. And what shows is that there were just a list of people who really believed that Mark Meadows was the one who could sway the president, who could get him to condemn the violence.

Here's a little bit more from this extremely important hearing last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: 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 VIDEO CLIP)

WILD: I mean, even the former president's own son had to go by proxy to get his message to the president. And that's the point here. The point is that the committee thinks that Mark Meadows was really the access point around which a lot of this was spinning. And they think that he knows a lot about the former president's state of mind, his decision-making and those are critical facts to this investigation, Erica and Jim.

SCIUTTO: The central one. Whitney Wild, thanks very much.

Joining us now is CNN Political Commentator S.E. Cupp, Senior Political Correspondent for the New Republic Daniel Strauss and Defense Attorney and former Federal Prosecutor Shan Wu. Thanks to all of you.

S.E., I wonder if I could begin with you, because one thread through this is that the president was being pushed but not acting, right, that the president, the commander-in-chief, people pleading with him, even his son, to call it off, he at least dragged his feet. We remember the statement he made that day, which was not exactly clear. I mean, it gets to the president's lack of action here, does it not?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, it's remarkable that all of these people were concerned. It shouldn't be remarkable, but this certainly contradicts what their public statements about January 6th have been.

[10:05:00]

But the fact that they were all prodding him and pushing him and telling him in the way that they believed he would receive it, by talking about his legacy, right? I mean, you heard that from both Laura Ingraham and Brian Kilmeade that his legacy was at stake. This wasn't so much about, Mr. President, democracy is dying now. It was protect your legacy, and he wasn't budging. And I think that's because, to all reporters, he was really enjoying what he was watching because he's a deranged narcissist.

And so I think there was no --

HILL: S.E., I'm going to interrupt you, sorry, my friend, interrupt. We are watching the House meeting now, and we are hearing from Chairman Bennie Thompson. Let's listen in.

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): -- has been made worst by the amount of dust that's been kicked up to try to distract us from the facts. So, let me spell out those facts.

The select committee sought records and testimony from Mr. Meadows because we believed that he had information relevant to our investigation. He reportedly participated in or witnessed events that are the focus of our work.

So, on September 23rd, we issued a subpoena for documents and his testimony after weeks of back and forth with his lawyer, evidenced in the letters we made public with our report. We set a November 12th date for his appearance at a deposition. At that point, he had not produced any records, and when the time came, he didn't even show up.

We signaled at that time that we were prepared to move forward with contempt proceedings, but we also gave Mr. Meadows a final opportunity to reverse course. We set another deposition for December 8th, and Mr. Meadows initially agreed to provide testimony. Now, throughout this process, Mr. Meadows' attorney has raised claims of executive privilege and so-called absolute immunity, the idea that individuals who hold or held certain positions have no obligation whatsoever to appear before Congress when called.

We don't accept those claims. President Biden has not asserted executive privilege or absolute immunity regarding Mr. Meadows' testimony. And all the courts that have considered claims of absolute immunity have rejected them. But all that discussion about different privileges is a distraction.

That's not what this contempt referral is primarily about. This referral centers on the information that even Mr. Meadows and his attorney says is outside all those claims of privilege. He provided roughly 9,000 pages of records that he and his attorney freely admit cannot be held back by any sort of privilege claim. They gave us a lot of this information.

His participation in a January phone call aimed at pressuring state legislators to overturn election results, that's not protected by executive privilege. His communications with Georgia secretary of state regarding efforts to disrupt elections, that's not protected.

The list goes on and on. And while the records he handed over gave us valuable information, they also raised a lot of questions. And then the day before he was scheduled to appear for his deposition, he changed his mind. He said he was through cooperating with our probe. He refused to come in and answer questions about the non-privileged material. He has no basis to refuse to cooperate on those matters. That alone is sufficient to advance the referral.

But for the sake of argument, let's talk about Mr. Meadows' privilege assertions. The select committee is not able to assess whether Mr. Meadows is making those assertions in good faith because he won't even come in and address them on a question-by-question basis, as he is required. I have my view of whether he's made these claims in good faith because I've seen him on television talking about his conversations with the president and promoting his book.

I understand that this is a difficult matter. I have no great desire to be here seeking consideration of this contempt referral. Mr. Meadows was a colleague for more than seven years but that doesn't excuse his behavior. If anything, his time as a member of the House should make him more aware of the potential consequences of defying a Congressional subpoena.

We have given Mr. Meadows every opportunity to cooperate with our investigation.

[10:10:04]

We have been more than fair. He's brought this situation on himself. But there's no doubt in my mind that he is in contempt of Congress and has to be held accountable.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to open with these comments and I look forward to your questions and yield back.

REP. JIM MCGOVERN (D-MA): Thank you very much. I now recognize Vice Chair Cheney.

CHENEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Cole and all the members of the committee. As the chairman said, it gives us no pleasure to be here again, to be here dealing with recommended referral of criminal contempt of a former colleague of ours. We understand it's a serious matter and it's a step we wouldn't be taking if it were not necessary.

We don't take it lightly and we hoped we would not have to be here at all. As the chairman noted, we've engaged in weeks and weeks of discussions with Mr. Meadows' counsel. We've worked diligently to reach an agreement on cooperation. We've scheduled a deposition at a time and day of Mr. Meadows' choosing. But shortly before the deposition was to occur, Mr. Meadows walked away from his commitment to appear and he informed us he would no longer cooperate.

As the chairman noted, we think Mr. Meadows is improperly asserting executive and other privileges, but this contempt proceeding relates principally to Mr. Meadows' refusal to testify about the text messages and other communications he admits are not privileged. He has not claimed and he doesn't have any privilege basis to refuse to answer our questions about these texts and about these topics.

I'm just going to talk about three areas that are critically important to our investigation about which Mr. Meadows has turned over materials that are non-privileged and about which he's compelled to answer our questions.

As the violence was underway on the 6th, it was evident to all. But we know that for 187 minutes, President Trump refused to act. And he refused to act when his action was required, it was essential, and it was compelled by his duty, compelled by his oath of office.

Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages that he has produced without any privilege claim urging President Trump to take action. I read a number of those last night to the nation. Here are a few others from Republican members. Quote, it's really bad up here on the Hill. Another one, the president needs to stop this ASAP. Another one, fix this now.

And as we saw last night, dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, from members of the press, from Donald Trump Jr., urged immediate action by the president. But we know hours passed with no action by the president to defend the Congress of the United States from an assault while we were trying to count electoral votes, which was an official proceeding.

This brings up another point. Mr. Meadows' testimony will bear on a key question in front of this committee, did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress' official proceeding to count electoral votes? Mr. Meadows testimony will inform our legislative judgments on those issues.

But Mr. Meadows has refused to give any testimony at all, even regarding non-privileged topics. That puts him in contempt of Congress.

And let me pause and just note that we as Republicans used to be unified on this point in terms of what happened on January 6th, and the responsibility the president had to stop it. We all remember, every one of us, what Republican Leader McCarthy said on the floor of the house the following week, quote, the president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump. That was Republican Leader McCarthy. Mr. Meadows has also got knowledge regarding President Trump's efforts to persuade state officials to alter their official election results. In Georgia, Mr. Meadows participated in a phone call between President Trump and Georgia's Secretary of State Raffensperger.

[10:15:04]

He was on the phone when President Trump asked the secretary of state to, quote, find 11,780 votes, to change the results of the election in Georgia.

At the time of the call, Mr. Meadows, according to texts he has turned over, appears to have been texting at least one other participant on the call. Again, Mr. Meadows has no conceivable privilege basis to refuse to testify on that topic, and doing so puts him in contempt of Congress.

Finally, in the weeks before January 6th, we know that President Trump's appointees at the Justice Department told him repeatedly that his claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence. They told him the election was not, in fact, stolen. President Trump intended to appoint Jeffrey Clark as attorney general, in part, so that Mr. Clark could alter the Department of Justice's conclusions regarding the election.

Mr. Clark has now informed the committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters, and he intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As Mr. Meadows non-privileged texts reveal, he was communicating multiple times with a member of Congress, a currently serving colleague of ours, who was working with Mr. Clark. Mr. Meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. He is in contempt.

January 6th was without precedence. There has been no stronger case in our nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president. We must investigate the facts in detail and we are entitled to ask Mr. Meadows about the non-privileged materials he has produced to us.

Any argument that the courts need to resolve privilege issues first is a pretext. We need to question him about emails and texts he has given us without any privilege claim. His role in the Raffensperger call cannot be privileged nor can his dealings with a member of this body regarding Jeff Clark. We must get to the objective truth and ensure that January 6th never happens again.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and I yield back.

MCGOVERN: Well, thank you very much and thank you both for your testimony and for the work you are doing.

Maybe former chief of staff Meadows should talk to former Congressman Meadows. When he was serving here, he complained about subpoenas being ignored, information being hidden and Congress being stonewalled. When it came to other people facing a Congressional subpoena, he said, and I quote, they may be able to ignore Congress, but they won't be able to ignore the American people, end quote.

So, I don't know what changed when he moved in working from one branch of the government to the next. Maybe he's just afraid of Donald Trump. But there are not two systems of justice in this country. No one is above the law. And I -- again, the more and more we reflect on what happened on that terrible day, the more and more I am stunned by the stonewalling of people close to Donald Trump. The American people deserve to know what happened and who was responsible.

Again, a lot of time went by before the president finally intervened. And, you know, lots and lots -- I mean, we are seeing some of the texts that were released from Republican lawmakers and others, texting to Mr. Meadows, we're under siege up here at the Capitol. They breached the Capitol. Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol, breaking windows and doors, rushing in. Is Trump going to say something? There's an armed standoff at the House chamber door. We're all helpless.

And, you know, even some Trump administration officials, POTUS has to come out firmly and tell protesters to dissipate, someone is going to get killed up here. Mark, he needs to stop this now. Tell them to go home. POTUS needs to calm this -- I can't repeat it here -- down.

I mean, even people -- and you released this yesterday in the very conservative news media, were begging that there be an intervention that the president put an end to this.

[10:20:11]

And he didn't. It took hours.

And I -- I really believe that -- you know, they say that sometimes, you know, coups don't succeed the first time but there could be a second or a third time. I mean, what happened that day is so wrong and the president and some around him behaved in such a way that, quite frankly, everybody's life was in danger here in the Capitol campus, staff, people who worked in our cafeterias, people who -- the Capitol police who were injured and some died.

And I -- at some point, you know, enough is enough. There needs to be a full accounting. And we all need to come together around this. And I get it. I mean, politics it involved in everything we do up here. But this was just so wrong. And if the goal by some is to wait out the clock, to try to invoke stalling tactics so we don't ever, ever get to the finish line, that's a terrible tragedy for this country.

And we were there. Many of us were there on the floor that day. I was in the chair that day. And when I walked out into the speaker's gallery, I came face-to-face with this angry mob smashing the doors to get into the speaker's lobby. I couldn't believe it was happening here. I never thought such a thing would happen up here.

And for people to try to minimize that, or that try to invoke delaying tactics, or try to characterize it as something that it was not, this was not a group of people interested in protecting our democracy, this was a group of people trying to destroy our democracy. And so I regret that we have to be here and invoke the measures we're about to do, but this is serious business. And I commend you both for your efforts here. But, again, I think that we need a full accounting of what happened and we need to understand why the president waited so long, hours, hours went by before he finally decided to say anything.

So, I thank you. I have no questions. Mr. Cole?

REP. TOM COLE (R-OK): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to introduce a letter sent to the counsel -- by the counsel, from Mr. Meadows to Mr. Thompson, Chairman Thompson, the other members of the select committee on December 13th and just asked for unanimous consent and put that into the record. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, did Meadows write you on October the 6th to request the select committee identify topics which he might be able to provide useful, non-privileged information?

THOMPSON: I'm certain he did, if you're referring to a letter.

COLE: Yes, I'm sure you're right. Did you engage in accommodations process to narrow the scope of the subpoena? Was there a serious back and forth discussion?

THOMPSON: Well, we've been back and forth with Mr. Meadows' counsel since September on various issues. At no point did we refuse to engage.

COLE: Did you ever seriously consider -- I mean, was your subpoena absolute or were you willing to say, yes, there are some privileged areas here that are perhaps beyond what we should be inquiring?

THOMPSON: Well, the subpoena spoke for itself, Mr. Ranking Member. What we tried to do was to accommodate his counsel on any questions to the extent practical. That was what we did

COLE: On November 3rd, did Mr. Meadows write again stating he was, quote, willing to explore with the select committee whether outside the confines of the subpoena an accommodation that could be reached by which he might be able to answer under agreed upon appropriate circumstances a limited set of questions that would further validate legislative purpose within the scope of the select committee?

[10:25:07]

THOMPSON: Well, you know, the subpoena required a deposition. And we have, as a committee, sought to depose him pursuant to that. Now, we can negotiate around some other issues but he has to sit for the deposition.

COLE: And that deposition could be limited in any way before you sit down? Isn't that the purpose of the negotiation to say, okay, there's non-privileged matters and certainly -- and as you suggested in your testimony, and he clearly thought there were areas that were non- privileged that were appropriate for the committee to be asking about. THOMPSON: Well, if he felt areas that were that would be outside, then he could put them forth at that proper time. But we felt that he needed to do it at the deposition.

COLE: Okay. After additional exchanges of letter, you wrote to Mr. Meadows on November 9th unilaterally stating that, quote, it appears the accommodation process has reached its natural conclusion, yet Mr. Meadows was still seeking to define the contours and accommodation, is that correct?

THOMPSON: That's correct.

COLE: Okay. What legal standard did you use as the basis for your decision despite ongoing correspondence that the accommodations process was over?

THOMPSON: Well, the legal standard was the fact that every person that has offered testimony to the committee, we've tried to work with them. But it's the committee's standards we adhere to, not the other individual.

COLE: Okay. On November 19th, did Mr. Meadows send you a letter to clearly communicating a list of topics on which he was willing to provide responses to written interrogations?

THOMPSON: Well, in our deference to Mr. Meadows' counsel, then he can say it, but it's left up to us to accept it as a committee.

CHENEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make sure that we enter into the record all of the committee, all of the chairman's responses to Mr. Meadows' attorney, because in addition to what the ranking member is referring to, the committee has engaged with Mr. Meadows' counsel multiple times, providing with him lists of topics about which we would like to question him which are clearly non-privileged. And if he has a privileged claim he needs to make, he needs to appear and assert it on the record.

But his refusal to appear at the deposition that was scheduled when he requested that it be scheduled at the end of multiple exchanges back and forth made his assertion of that privilege on the record impossible. And he has never indicated to us any justification for his refusal to appear to discuss non-privileged materials, and that's because he has no basis for which to refuse to appear for those discussions.

THOMPSON: Without objection.

COLE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, has Mr. Meadows provided you with 1,139 documents, 6,836 total pages and a privileged log for any documents withheld?

THOMPSON: He has provided the committee with a number of documents.

COLE: Okay. Did Mr. Meadows also provide the 2,319 text messages and a metadata from his personal cell, 20 documents from his personal computer and a privileged log for any withheld text messages? THOMPSON: Well, to the extent that the numbers you quoted are correct, those documents are what we have. The question, Mr. Ranking Member, for a lot of us is now that we are in receipt of those documents, we wanted to talk to Mr. Meadows about them. And that's why we wanted to get him before the committee for a deposition, and he's refused to come.

COLE: On the subpoena in question, did the committee issue it for law enforcement purposes or legislative purposes or both?

THOMPSON: I would say for legislative purposes.

COLE: Okay. That's what I assumed. During our hearing on the Jeffrey Clark contempt resolution, you and your colleagues repeatedly said that Clark could not raise executive privilege pursuant to Trump versus Thompson because Clark was not the one in court but Mr. Meadows is in court, is that correct?

THOMPSON: That's correct.

COLE: Okay. And just during the same hearing, you and your colleagues repeatedly referred to the need for document production in order to continue your investigation --