Recommending That the House Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, 3 months ago, for the first time in the history of Congress, Speaker Pelosi vetoed Jim Jordan and me from serving on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
Not all firsts are worth celebrating. It was a shameful and divisive decision with real consequences. Today, because of that decision, there is no committee conducting a legitimate investigation into January 6. Congress is prohibited from conducting criminal investigations, period.
But that is exactly what the select committee is doing, conducting an illicit, criminal investigation into American citizens. Steve Bannon was a private citizen before, after, and during January 6.
So why is the select committee interested in Steve Bannon?
It is simple. He is a Democratic Party bogeyman. The select committee despises Steve Bannon's politics, so they are abusing their power to put him in jail.
The committee explained it is seeking documents from Mr. Bannon because he helped ``construct and participated in'' the permitted and legal Stop the Steal rally.
To date, the select committee has subpoenaed 11 other private citizens for organizing the Stop the Steal rally.
Here, in the land of the free, 12 American citizens are under congressional investigation for the sole crime of planning a legal political protest. Never in the history of Congress has a committee or a political party stooped so low.
Congress has no authority to conduct criminal investigations. Congress can only issue subpoenas to serve a legislative purpose.
The question that the committee must answer is: Why are they seeking information about a permitted political rally?
What legislative purpose does that serve?
Is the committee considering laws to limit Americans' right to political protest?
It is clear that the select committee doesn't give a lick about Congress' subpoena authority.
Does the committee share the same disdain for the First Amendment?
I wouldn't put it past them. As we all know, the Department of Justice has a highly active criminal investigation into the January 6 attack. They have made something like 600 arrests--as I said, very active, even hyperactive, compared to the Biden Department of Justice's typical reaction to political violence. But the Department of Justice's investigation isn't comprehensive.
There are still questions that only Congress can answer. Congress still has a role to play, but the select committee has completely abandoned that role.
Why else does the select committee want to hear from Mr. Bannon?
Because on January 5, Mr. Bannon warned that ``all hell was going to break loose tomorrow.''
So according to the select committee, no person could have predicted that violence might occur that day. According to the committee, that because Mr. Bannon warned of violence on the 5th is proof that Mr. Bannon had ``foreknowledge'' of the attack on the 6th.
Never mind that the FBI found that the attack wasn't coordinated. Never mind that the Capitol Police received actionable intelligence about potential violence occurring weeks before the 6th. Never mind that every Member of Congress, every single D.C. resident, and every American with internet access knew that violence was a possibility on January 6.
The question the committee should be asking is this: How did the United States Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police, and the FBI all have no clue that ``all hell was going to break loose?''
Steve Bannon, a private citizen, knew.
So why didn't the Capitol Police have enough riot shields?
Why did it take multiple hours to deploy the National Guard?
These are worthwhile questions, and Congress has a duty to answer them because January 6 was an enormous intelligence failure. There was a breakdown in security, a breakdown that was repeated on Good Friday when Officer Billy Evans was brutally murdered.
The issues that plagued the Capitol Police on January 6 have not been fixed. In fact, according to a Capitol Police whistleblower, the officers most responsible for the intelligence failure on the 6th were promoted by Speaker Pelosi's team.
To be clear, the select committee is engaged in an unconstitutional, political investigation. It is a sham investigation conducted by a sham committee that refuses to answer real questions about what happened on January 6.
The Capitol was attacked, and instead of figuring out what went wrong, the committee launched its own attack on Congress' norms.
The Select Committee's politicization of January 6 cuts both ways. The committee's inaction has made the Capitol less secure, and the committee's actions have further separated Congress from its constitutional role.
The American people and the United States Capitol Police deserve a real investigation into the 6th, and the select committee has abandoned them.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to make the moral vote. Do the right thing. I urge Members to vote for the rule of law, for the institution of Congress, and against the select committee's dangerous abuse of Congress' oversight authority.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, no one has said that the select committee doesn't have a legislative purpose.
Let's be very clear. There is important work that, frankly, we wish they were doing; like answering, why was this campus left unprotected? And what are we doing to keep it from happening again? That hasn't happened yet.
What we are saying is that the subpoenas that have so far been issued do not ask for information that would meet any legitimate legislative purpose.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Indiana (Mr. Banks) for yielding.
I can tell you, when I got elected to serve in this body almost 9 years ago, I didn't expect to be standing here today to talk about such an important issue.
I spent 16 years as a congressional staffer working for a Member of Congress whom I looked up to and who respected this institution for what it was and what it meant to our country.
When I came to Congress to serve with him, I had the utmost respect for this institution at the same time. That is why I wanted to be part of the House Administration Committee because I wanted to make this Congress and this House work better, act in a much more bipartisan manner, and make sure that we protect those who run this campus, but also at the same time protect those who protect us.
Madam Speaker, we are now months and months in, months and months post January 6. From my many conversations with U.S. Capitol Police officers and those who work on this campus, they have the same concerns I have.
The question they ask is: Why were we so unprotected on January 6? And what has changed since then?
Getting to the bottom of those questions should be the top priority for all of us in this House. There are serious security vulnerabilities that have not been addressed by this House in nearly 11 months after January 6. And this is what the majority has decided to spend its time on, holding a private citizen, who wasn't even part of the administration at the time, in contempt for refusing to comply with House Democrats' subpoenas. This is after more than 600 people have been arrested for their role in the tragedies we saw on January 6.
When I get the article, I will submit for the Record, Madam Speaker, a Reuters article that talks about senior officials stating at the FBI that there was no organized effort to overthrow the government on January 6. So I will submit it once I get a copy of that. I did not bring it with me.
But our job, again, is to secure this Capitol. We have never seen a breach like the one that we saw that day. And it is our responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again.
But that hasn't been done under the leadership of this House. We have had two independent reports regarding January 6, one bipartisan report in the Senate and another one commissioned by the Speaker herself, and that came out in March. These have never been acted on. But this is what the select committee has been working on?
The Capitol Police IG has released seven reports related to January 6, making recommendations on what is needed to secure this Capitol. To my disappointment, the majority has not acted in a meaningful way to ensure that all 103 IG findings are implemented.
These reports have all told us what the problems are and the recommendations on how to fix them. But Congress, us, have failed to even debate these changes, let alone act on them.
We know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection training, leadership structure, decisionmaking processes, and many, many more are needed, but neither the select committee, nor the Committee on House Administration, seem at all interested in ensuring these changes are made.
The Committee on House Administration, which has oversight of security, hasn't held a single hearing since August 5, with no upcoming hearings scheduled according to the majority's website.
The select committee, right now, as we see, is just purely focused on political subpoenas.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the articles I previously mentioned. [From Reuters, Aug. 20, 2021]
Exclusive: FBI Finds Scant Evidence U.S. Capitol Attack Was Coordinated--Sources (By Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch)
Washington, Aug 20 (Reuters).--The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supports of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
``Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,'' said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. ``Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.''
Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described ``dirty trickster'', and Jones, founder of a conspiracy- driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot.
FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said.
Prosecutors have filed conspiracy charges against 40 of those defendants, alleging that they engaged in some degree of planning before the attack.
They alleged that one Proud Boy leader recruited members and urged them to stockpile bulletproof vests and other military-style equipment in the weeks before the attack and on Jan. 6 sent members forward with a plan to split into groups and make multiple entries to the Capitol.
But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering.
The FBI's assessment could prove relevant for a congressional investigation that also aims to determine how that day's events were organized and by whom.
Senior lawmakers have been briefed in detail on the results of the FBI's investigation so far and find them credible, a Democratic congressional source said.
The chaos on Jan. 6 erupted as the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives met to certify Joe Biden's victory in November's presidential election.
It was the most violent attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812, forcing lawmakers and Trump's own vice president, Mike Pence, to scramble for safety.
Four people died and another died the following day, and more than 100 police officers were injured. TRUMP'S SPEECH
Trump made an incendiary speech at a nearby rally shortly before the riot, repeating false claims that the 2020 election was stolen and urging supporters to march on the Capitol to pressure lawmakers to reject Biden's victory.
In public comments last month to the Democratic-led congressional committee formed to investigate the violence, police officers injured in the mayhem urged lawmakers to determine whether Trump helped instigate it. Some Democrats have said they want him to testify.
But the FBI has so far found no evidence that he or people directly around him were involved in organizing the violence, according to the four current and former law enforcement officials.
More than 170 people have been charged so far with assaulting or impeding a police officer, according to the Justice Department. That carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.
But one source said there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as ``seditious conspiracy'' to accuse defendants of trying to overthrow the government. They have also opted not to bring racketeering charges, often used against organized criminal gangs.
Senior officials had discussed filing such charges in the weeks after the attack, the sources said.
Prosecutors have also not brought any charges alleging that any individual or group played a central role in organizing or leading the riot. Law-enforcement sources told Reuters no such charges appeared to be pending.
Conspiracy charges that have been filed allege that defendants discussed their plans in the weeks before the attack and worked together on the day itself. But prosecutors have not alleged that this activity was part of a broader plot.
Some federal judges and legal experts have questioned whether the Justice Department is letting defendants off too lightly.
Judge Beryl Howell in July asked prosecutors to explain why one defendant was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor charge carrying a maximum sentence of six months, rather than a more serious felony charge.
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, which is leading the Jan. 6 prosecutions, declined to comment.
The congressional committee investigating the attack will talk with the FBI and other agencies as part of its probe. ____ [From Business Insider, Aug. 20, 2021] FBI Finds No Evidence That Trump and His Allies Were Directly Involved With Organizing the Violence of the Capitol Riot: Report (By Bryan Metzger)
The FBI has found no evidence that Trump was directly involved in organizing Capitol-riot violence.
It also found little evidence of an organized plot to overturn the election results.
Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,'' said one former official.
See more stories on Insider's business page.
The FBI hasn't found any evidence that the January 6 assault on the US Capitol was part of an organized plot to overturn the election results, Reuters reported, citing law- enforcement officials.
The officials also said that the FBI has ``so far found no evidence'' that former President Donald Trump or ``people directly around him were involved in organizing the violence,'' Reuters reported.
``Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,'' a former law-enforcement official familiar with the investigation told Reuters. ``There was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.''
More than 570 participants have been arrested by federal officials. Investigators have found that groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys did plan ahead of time to break into the Capitol, but they didn't engage in much planning beyond that step. Reuters reported that 40 percent of the defendants are being prosecuted on conspiracy charges, implying a certain amount of planning and coordination.
But prosecutors have generally shied away from alleging a broader plot. Senior Department of Justice officials do not intend to bring forward seditious-conspiracy charges or even racketeering charges, which are commonly used against organized criminal gangs.
A Democratic congressional source told Reuters that senior lawmakers who have been briefed on the FBl's investigation find the results credible.
Though the FBI has not found an organized plot or direct involvement by Trump, that doesn't mean that Trump didn't play an important role in instigating the violence. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives impeached Trump on the charge of ``incitement of insurrection'' after he spent weeks promoting conspiracy theories about the results of the 2020 election. On January 6, Trump gave a speech on The Ellipse where he urged supporters to march on the Capitol.
Read the original article on Business Insider.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Additionally, a number of questions from that day still remain unanswered. I am still waiting for the Speaker of the House to answer a letter I sent her back in February that asked why the National Guard, requested by Police Chief Sund, were denied? And why was the Speaker's office and the Speaker involved in eventually approving the request? Why has the House Sergeant at Arms refused to comply with preservation and production requests from my office?
We have many, many more questions about why the Capitol was so unprepared that day. Our top priority should be ensuring our Capitol is never as vulnerable as it was on January 6, but this majority has done absolutely nothing to make the security changes needed to make this Capitol safer.
Madam Speaker, we must do better. We have not fixed the institutional problems with our security apparatus that led to the lack of preparation, the danger that our brave officers were put in on that day and any other possible day like that in the future. That is a failure of leadership in this institution.
We must fix the problems that led to the terrible security posture here--and I will tell you, after witnessing what we saw a few different days and security postures that this House was put into a couple of other days since January 6--and I urge you to talk to the brave officers that stand around these buildings and protect all of us every day; ask them the same question I do. Ask them if we have put them in a better position than they were in on January 6? And the answer out of every single officer I asked that question to is ``no.''
What is stopping this House from fixing the problems? It is a lack of will. It is a lack of focusing on the true issues that led for them to be put in a dangerous spot on January 6. Instead, we are talking politics. It is wrong, and we must do better.
I have said this time and time again, I stand willing to work with my Democrat colleagues to make this House, this Capitol, safer for everyone. Instead, it is all about political points like the one being scored today.
I am disappointed. You can tell. My frustration is going to continue to boil over until we are in a position to fix the problems that I have laid out and that we know exist.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, you don't have to look far to realize the absurdity of what is happening in Congress today. In fact, Politico just reported moments ago that the Capitol Police whistleblower is telling us-- telling Politico--that they have not been contacted by the January 6 select committee.
The Capitol Police whistleblower said that the United States Capitol Police deserves more scrutiny than it has gotten so far and that he would talk to investigators if they reach out to him. And the select committee has not reached out to the Capitol Police whistleblower.
Yet, here we are today focused on holding a private citizen in contempt, an unprecedented action by this sham committee and their sham investigation.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source