Recommending That the House Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-152) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
The Clerk read the title of the report.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 730) recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, since Speaker Pelosi asked me to chair the January 6th Select Committee, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the importance of what we are doing, the weight of it, the urgency. We need to give the American people answers about what happened. There needs to be swift accountability. But there are longer-term considerations, too.
Madam Speaker, I am a grandfather, and when I talk to my grandkids about that horrific attack on our democracy on January 6, my mind jumps ahead to the future in store for them--questions about whether American democracy, as we know it now, will remain strong, whether it will withstand future tests.
That has to be the legacy of this committee's work. To be sure, we are going to answer questions about what happened on that day. But we also need to draw a roadmap for making sure our democracy remains strong tomorrow.
We will look backward at what happened and try to explain how and why the insurrection came about. But we will also look forward and generate recommendations for legislative policy and process changes that will help ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.
When we get to the end of this process and look back, we are going to ask ourselves: Did we do everything in our power to uncover every fact? Did we use the tools at our disposal to get a full accounting, or did we let someone stand in our way without facing consequences? Did we learn what we needed to know for Congress to forge legislation to help ensure we never experience another January 6 again?
That is why we are taking up this resolution today, citing Steve Bannon with criminal contempt and referring him for prosecution by the Justice Department.
We didn't choose to be here. This isn't about punishing Steve Bannon. The select committee would prefer and, frankly, expect all witnesses to fully cooperate. But Steve Bannon has led us down this path by refusing to cooperate in any way with our investigation.
We believe Mr. Bannon has information valuable to our probe. He was deeply involved in the so-called stop the steal campaign. He was reportedly in a war room meeting the day before the riot and had been pressuring the former President to try to stop the counting of the electoral college ballots.
He himself warned that ``all hell'' would break loose on January 6. We believe he can help inform our inquiry as to how the riot came together and what it was intended to achieve. He is clearly an important witness.
We subpoenaed him. And unlike other witnesses who have engaged and worked with our team to find a way to cooperate, Mr. Bannon told us he wouldn't comply because the former President told him not to. He hid behind vague and baseless claims of privilege. That is just not acceptable.
The select committee told Mr. Bannon several times that he would face the consequences if he didn't change course. Well, he didn't change course, and his actions have brought us to this point.
Madam Speaker, we need to make it clear that no person is above the law. We need to take a stand for the integrity of the select committee's investigation and for the integrity of this body.
What sort of precedent would it set for the House of Representatives if we allow a witness to ignore us flat out without facing any kind of consequences? What message would it send to other witnesses in our investigation?
I am not willing to find out. I am not willing to get to the end of the select committee's work and look back wishing we had done more to uncover all the facts, not when we know what is on the line, when we know that our democracy isn't yet out of danger, when we know that the forces that tried to overturn the election persist in their assault on the rule of law.
Our investigation is going forward. We are hearing from witnesses, reviewing documents, and analyzing data. Mr. Bannon stands alone in his defiance, and we will not stand for it. We will not allow anyone to derail our work because our work is too important: helping ensure that the future of American democracy is strong and secure.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I heard the gentleman opposing this resolution. We are not actually seeking information from Mr. Bannon because of his opinions. We issued the subpoena because we believe he has knowledge of relevant facts that we need to discover. We are not violating anything and, certainly, not Mr. Bannon's First Amendment rights. The only violation we can talk about is the violation of this building on January 6, and Mr. Bannon's claim that the election was stolen helped foment that attack. Investigating that is also part of our charter.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois' statement, the first hearing of the select committee that we actually held interviewed four officers who put their lives on the line defending all of us who work here in this body. So I assure you, my directions to the committee have always been, we will look at all of the facts and circumstances surrounding what occurred.
We are genuinely interested in getting to the facts. We are working to get the answers. And that is why we are on the floor today, to get answers from Steve Bannon about what he knew, what he did leading up to January 6.
Also, to the gentleman from Indiana, I am glad he finally agrees that the select committee has a legitimate legislative purpose and that is why we are here today, pursuing that legislative purpose. So I am happy that the Record will reflect his comments.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), a valiant member of the select committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), an Iraq and Afghanistan Air Force veteran and a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, just for the record, again, the gentleman from Indiana referenced the whistleblower. We have not talked to the whistleblower, but we have talked to the whistleblower's lawyer. We are doing our work. So, clearly, since he is quoting Politico, I want him to just get the record straight.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), who served two decades in the Navy and was among the first women to serve in the Navy's nuclear power program.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chair, the vice chair of the committee put in the Record the fact that the FBI and Department of Justice declared no such thing in terms of January 6, so the assertion that somehow they have conducted an investigation is just not true.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Over the last hour, we have heard a lot about what we are not debating today. The select committee is charged with investigating a deadly attack on the seat of our democracy and making recommendations to ensure it never happens again. I can't think of anything more serious, but many of our colleagues would rather talk about anything else.
I think I know why. I think they are performing for an audience of one.
I do, however, want to commend my colleagues on the select committee for laying out clearly why the House must cite Mr. Bannon for contempt. If our investigation is to succeed, if the House's constitutional authority to investigate and legislate is to remain robust, then we cannot let this man flout the laws with impunity.
The select committee is made up of people of character, of profound commitment to public service and our Constitution. They all elevate the committee's work.
I especially want to thank and acknowledge our vice chair, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), for her leadership and partnership. There is no doubt in my mind that history will record her courage in stark relief.
History will record all of what we do here today. We can be on the right side or the wrong side. I urge all my colleagues to remember that as we cast this vote.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, today the House has been deliberating on the criminal contempt of Congress citation of Steven K. Bannon reported from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. This is a grave matter and not one the House takes lightly.
As I have said on many occasions, the Select Committee would prefer not to be in this position. We expect--and the law (2 U.S.C. Sec. 192) demands--witnesses comply with duly issued, lawful subpoenas of Congress. We lay out the factual record of Mr. Bannon's willful defiance of the Select Committee's September 23, 2021, subpoena in House Report 117-152.
There have been developments since the Report was written and adopted, and I memorialized some of those at the Select Committee's business meeting. To perfect the factual record in this case, I now include in the Congressional Record correspondence between myself and Mr. Bannon's attorney, Robert J. Costello, and further correspondence between the Office of White House Counsel and Mr. Costello, which states President Biden's position on issues relating to the subpoena to Mr. Bannon.
First, on Friday, October 15, 2021, I wrote Mr. Costello to reiterate to him and his client that the Select Committee would view Mr. Bannon's decision not to appear for his deposition as willful defiance that would lead to a business meeting of the Select Committee to consider a contempt report. I include that letter in the Record. Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, October 15, 2021. Mr. Robert J. Costello, Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, * * *
Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack (``Select Committee'') is in receipt of your October 13, 2021 letter (the ``October 13 letter''), in which you reassert that your client, Stephen Bannon, will not comply with the September 23, 2021 Subpoena to him for documents and deposition testimony (the ``Subpoena''). As you know, the Subpoena demanded that Mr. Bannon produce documents by October 7, 2021 and appear on October 14, 2021 before the Select Committee to provide deposition testimony on a wide range of issues relating to the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, as well as plans to interfere with the count of the 2020 Electoral College results. Mr. Bannon has now willfully failed to both produce a single document and to appear for his scheduled deposition. The Select Committee believes that this willful refusal to comply with the Subpoena constitutes a violation of federal law.
As justification for Mr. Bannon's complete failure to comply with any portion of the Subpoena, you continue to rely on ex-President Trump's stated intention to invoke executive privilege with respect to Mr. Bannon, and Mr. Trump's purported request that Mr. Bannon not produce documents to or testify before the Select Committee. As was explained in the Select Committee's October 8, 2021 letter (attached), the former President has not communicated any such assertion of privilege, whether formally or informally, to the Select Committee. Moreover, we believe that any such assertion of privilege--should it be made by the former President--will not prevent the Select Committee from lawfully obtaining the information it seeks.
Further, your letter makes no attempt to justify Mr. Bannon's failure to comply with the Subpoena's demand for documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not involve communications with the former President. As is clear from the Subpoena and accompanying letter, and as underscored in the Select Committee's October 8, 2021 response letter, the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony on numerous other matters, including Mr. Bannon's communications with Members of Congress, presidential campaign representatives, and other private parties concerning the events of January 6, 2021, that could not conceivably be barred by a privilege claim.
Moreover, even if the Select Committee were inclined to accept the unsupported premise that executive privilege reaches communications that the Select Committee seeks to examine between President Trump and Mr. Bannon, Mr. Bannon does not enjoy any form of absolute immunity from testifying or producing documents in response to a Congressional subpoena. Your citation to Committee on Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 F. Supp. 3d 148 (D.D.C. 2019) actually supports the Select Committee, not your client. In McGahn, the district court unequivocally held that even senior White House aides are not entitled to absolute immunity from testifying in response to a Congressional subpoena. Id. at 214 (``To make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court . . . that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist.''). Indeed, the footnote in McGahn that you selectively quote makes clear that a President lacks legal authority to order an aide not to appear before Congress based on a claim of executive privilege. See Id. at 213, n. 34 (``But the invocation of the privilege by a testifying aide is an order of magnitude different than DOJ's current claim that the President essentially owns the entirety of a senior-level aide's testimony such that the White House can order the individual not to appear before Congress at all.'' (Emphasis in original)).
Accordingly, the Select Committee views Mr. Bannon's failure to produce documents by the October 7, 2021 deadline as willful non-compliance with the Subpoena. Mr. Bannon has persisted in his refusal to produce any documents to the Select Committee, and he has failed to provide a privilege log identifying specific, asserted privileges. Mr. Bannon has now further compounded his non-compliance by refusing to appear on October 14, 2021 at the Select Committee deposition to which he was summoned to provide testimony. The Select Committee will therefore be meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 2021 to consider invoking the contempt of Congress procedures set forth in 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192, 194.
If Mr. Bannon believes that there are any additional issues relating to his non-compliance with the Subpoena that have not been addressed, please submit them in writing to the Select Committee by 6:00 p.m. E.S.T. on Monday, October 18, 2021 for the Select Committee's consideration in its deliberations. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, at 6 p.m. on Monday, October 18, 2021, Mr. Costello replied to that letter and requested a 1-week ``adjournment'' to respond. Mr. Bannon's attorney said they needed time to ``assess'' the Select Committee's requests for documents and testimony in light of litigation filed by former President Trump in DC District Court. I include Mr. Costello's letter in the Record. Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, Attorneys at Law, * * *, October 18, 2021. Re: The Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon dated September 23, 2021. Hon. Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack,
Dear Congressman Thompson: We write on behalf of Stephen Bannon. We have just been advised of the filing of a lawsuit in federal court for the District of Columbia entitled Donald J. Trump v. Bennie Thompson, et al., 21-Civ-02769 (D.D.C. 2021). In light of this late filing, we respectfully request a one-week adjournment of our response to your latest letter so that we might thoughtfully assess the impact of this pending litigation. Very truly yours, Robert J. Costello.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the former President's lawsuit, however, is immaterial to Mr. Bannon's defiance of our lawful subpoena. As House Report 117-152 makes clear, Mr. Bannon had a duty to produce documents and appear before the Select Committee. His flat refusal to comply with the subpoena is unacceptable. I made that clear in a letter to Mr. Costello before the Select Committee's business meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. I include in the Record my response to Mr. Costello's October 18th letter. Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, October 19, 2021. Mr. Robert J. Costello, Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,
Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (``Select Committee'') is in receipt of your October 18, 2021, letter requesting a one-week ``adjournment'' of your response to my October 15, 2021, letter. The only basis for your request is yesterday's filing of litigation by former President Trump against the Chairman, Select Committee, Archivist of the United States, and the National Archives and Records Administration. That litigation relates to the Select Committee's requests for documents in the possession of the National Archives and is immaterial to the Select Committee's demand for documents and testimony from Mr. Bannon. The investigation of the Select Committee is extremely important and urgent for the nation, and further delay in compliance by Mr. Bannon undermines the ability of the Committee to timely complete its essential responsibilities. Accordingly, no grounds exist for any ``adjournment'' or other delay and your request is denied. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, meanwhile, with regard to Mr. Bannon's claims that executive privileges somehow precluded his production or appearance pursuant to the Select Committee's subpoena, on Monday, October 18, 2021, the Office of White House Counsel wrote a letter to Mr. Costello and specifically stated that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' It further stated that President Biden ``has already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to certain subjects within the purview of the Select Committee.'' I include the full White House letter in the Record. The White House, Washington, DC, October 18, 2021. Robert J. Costello, Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, * * *.
Dear Mr. Costello: I write regarding the subpoena for documents and deposition testimony issued on September 23, 2021, by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (the ``Select Committee'') to your client, Stephen K. Bannon.
As you are aware, Mr. Bannon's tenure as a White House employee ended in 2017. To the extent any privileges could apply to Mr. Bannon's conversations with the former President or White House staff after the conclusion of his tenure, President Biden has already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to certain subjects within the purview of the Select Committee. Specifically, President Biden determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not justified with respect to a set of documents shedding light on events within the White House on and about January 6, 2021, and with respect to documents and testimony concerning the former President's efforts to use the Department of Justice to advance a false narrative that the 2020 election was tainted by widespread fraud. President Biden's determination that an assertion of privilege is not justified with respect to these subjects applies to your client's deposition testimony and to any documents your client may possess concerning either subject.
Please contact me if you have questions about the matters described herein. Please note, however, that at this point we are not aware of any basis for your client's refusal to appear for a deposition. Sincerely, Jonathan C. Su, Deputy Counsel to the President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, after the Select Committee's October 19th business meeting, I wrote to Mr. Costello yet again to urge Mr. Bannon to change course and comply with the Select Committee's subpoena of September 23, 2021. I reiterated that Mr. Costello's stated reasons for Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide documents and appear at a deposition have no legal basis or support. I provided him with a link to the Select Committee's adopted report on a contempt citation to review the detailed basis for our recommendation to the House. I include my October 19th letter in the Record. Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, October 19, 2021. Mr. Robert J. Costello, Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, * * *.
Dear Mr. Costello: I write yet again to urge your client Stephen K. Bannon to change course and comply with the September 23, 2021, subpoena from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (``Select Committee'').
As explained in our prior correspondence, your stated reasons for Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide documents and appear at a deposition have no legal basis or support. Because of Mr. Bannon's continued refusal to comply with the subpoena, the Select Committee has unanimously voted to recommend that the House of Representatives find Mr. Bannon to be in contempt of Congress. The detailed basis for that recommendation is contained in the Select Committee's report, a copy of which is available at the following link: https:// docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114156. Should the House of Representatives agree with that recommendation, the Speaker of the House will certify the relevant statement of facts to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, ``whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.'' See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194.
Additionally, President Biden's recently communicated views relating to your client's reliance on executive privilege as a basis for his non-compliance provide further support for the Select Committee's position. As you know, in its October 18, 2021, letter, the Office of the White House Counsel concluded that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' The letter further noted that President Biden has ``already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to certain subjects within the purview of the Select Committee.'' In short, the current President's statements should remove any doubt regarding the inappropriateness of Mr. Bannon's reliance on assertions of executive privilege as grounds for his noncompliance with the subpoena. Mr. Bannon has no basis in law to continue to defy the appropriate use of congressional subpoena authority.
These developments underscore the folly of any continuing defiance of the Select Committee subpoena by Mr. Bannon. The Select Committee remains focused on expeditiously obtaining the testimony and documents necessary to meet our responsibilities and we continue to expect immediate compliance by Mr. Bannon. Should Mr. Bannon choose to change his posture, please notify Select Committee staff * * *. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the importance of our investigation, and the recommendations we make for legislative and other policy changes that result from our investigation, require the participation of witnesses who have clear knowledge of the events leading up to and during the January 6th attack. Mr. Bannon's own actions in defiance of our lawful subpoena for a valid legislative purpose demand the consequences reflected in the House resolution citing him with contempt and referring his case to the Department of Justice.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, Congress has a long- recognized and essential role in conducting oversight. The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol has the solemn responsibility to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes related to the attack on January 6, 2021. This domestic terrorist attack sought to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power and undermine American representative democracy during the exercise of a constitutional process.
Mr. Bannon reportedly held multiple roles and had specific knowledge relevant to the investigation of the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Mr. Bannon has defied a lawful Congressional subpoena. The investigation by the Select Committee is fundamental to our democracy, and I will vote today to hold Mr. Bannon in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with a Congressional Subpoena. Mr. Bannon has a duty to cooperate with the Congressional investigation into the fundamental attack on our democracy on January 6th. Therefore, I will vote in support of finding Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.''
On January 6th the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States wore insignias of White Supremacist groups, waved confederate flags, hung a noose on the lawn, and they were shouting racial epithets.
According to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon told his listeners:
All hell is going to break loose tomorrow . . . It's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well this is your time in history.
At 12:15 p.m. on January 6th he said to the assembled multitude on the Ellipse: ``You will never take back our country with weakness.''
Less than an hour later, at 1:10 p.m., he admonished the crowd: ``We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore.''
Madam Speaker, the assault on the U.S. Capitol by domestic terrorists and insurrectionists rightly takes its place as one of the darkest moments in our nation's history since the Civil War.
Madam Speaker, the January 6 insurrection caused tragic loss of life and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, Congressional employees, and the Capitol Police.
It bears repeating often that the Congress and the nation owe undying gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon.
Madam Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely, on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who love their country.
And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured.
Madam Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives during that day, but to all Americans to figure out exactly what happened and how that day came to be.
We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose of the January 6 insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress to tally the votes of presidential electors and announce the results to the nation and the world--from every occurring again, because it was the greatest threat to the American Experiment since the Civil War when the pro-slavery forces decided to make war rather than let the nation survive. and the pro-freedom forces would accept war rather than let the nation perish.
The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to determine the causes and events that transpired during the insurrectionist attack.
Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include:
To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex;''
To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power;'' and
To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.''
In line with these purposes, the Select Committee requested information from Mr. Bannon central to its legislative purpose:
On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and transmitted a subpoena to Mr. Bannon, ordering the production of both documents and testimony relevant to the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the documents on October 7 and required his presence for deposition testimony on October 14.
Mr. Bannon simply defied the subpoena--failing to produce the documents on October 7 and failing to show up for the deposition on October 14.
In a letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel on October 15, Chairman Thompson noted that Mr. Bannon had not even attempted to provide the Select Committee any explanation for refusing to comply with the Select Committee's demand for documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not involve communications with the former President.
An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress, and in his October 8th letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel, Chairman Thompson warned Mr. Bannon that his continued non-compliance would put him in jeopardy of a vote to refer him to the House to consider a criminal contempt referral.
Mr. Bannon's failure to appear for deposition or produce responsive documents in the face of this clear advisement and warning by the Chairman constitutes willful failure to comply with the subpoena.
The purpose behind seeking this information is because Mr. Bannon played a central role in organizing January 6th attack on the Capitol, and understanding this role is essential to understanding the context in which the January 6th attack occurred.
Mr. Bannon constructed and participated in the ``stop the steal'' public relations effort that motivated the January 6th attack.
Mr. Bannon planned political and other activities in advance of January 6th.
Mr. Bannon participated in a ``war room'' of promoters and prominent supporters of the ``stop the steal'' movement that met on January 5th.
Mr. Bannon communicated with President Trump several times in advance of the January 6th attack, urging him to take measures to interfere with the count of electoral votes and to make January 6th a day of reckoning.
In fact, according to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon urged his listeners:
All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in. You made this happen and tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well this is your time in history.
In sum, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of the January 6th attack and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions.
As recognized by the Supreme Court, ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,'' and that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.''
Rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the trauma this nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Bannon has simply refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena.
Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake.
For this reason, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 370, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source