0 swing. be vigilant and informed about your own health. that does it for us. "the reidout" with joe reid is -- joy reid is up next. hi, joy. >> have a wonderful evening. much appreciated. good evening. you're looking at the room where members of the house select committee on january 6th will soon be gathering for a special meeting. in this hour they will vote in a measure to refer criminal charges for donald trump's former chief of staff. mark meadows who defied their subpoena. they'll also be discussing the damming new evidence they gathered that sheds light on trump's attempted coup and meadow's personal involvement. you won't want to miss this. this comes after meadows abruptly halted his cooperation last week and twice refused to show up for scheduled depositions and suing the committee in an effort to shield trump and avoid accountability. as the committee detailed in the report they're voting on tonight, it's clear that there is a lot that he is still hiding. for one, the committee has learned that meadows intended for the national guard to deploy to the capitol on january 6th, not to protect meadow's former colleagues in congress or their staff from bodily harm or to assist capitol police in defending the seat of american democracy, oh, no. rather to protect trump's supporters. the very people who were in the process of storming the capitol. in short, he wanted the u.s. military to take the side of the insurrectionists. we are hoping to get more on that developing story during tonight's meeting set to get underway shortly. joining me now is joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and mccaskill. in the letters between the committee chair and meadow's attorney, one thing is very clear and very confusing. meadows turned over a lot of stuff. he's disclosed a lot of information in his book. upon what basis could one suddenly decide the information is privileged when you've begun cooperating and turns things over. >> it's such a good question, joy because meadows turns over documents including the power point we've been talking about explicitly saying they're not privileged. >> i'm going to interrupt you. i'm so sorry, joyce. i'm going to interrupt you because bennie thompson is starting. let's listen in. >> to declare the committee in recess at any time. i recognize myself for an opening statement. before i start. my statement let me on behalf of the committee offer condolences in kentucky and surrounding states for the devastation they received during the tornados. our hearts and prayers go out to those impacted. i expect many will go on the record. we'll hear from many more informally as we continue to gather facts about the violence of january 6th and its causes. that should put us well north of the 300 mark in terms of witnesses who have given us information. add to that more than 30,000 records and nearly 250 sustaintive tips on our tip line and anyone listening at home tonight, if you have any information you want to share with us, you can find our tip line on the select committee's website. january 6th.house.gov. the court of appeals here in washington ruled quickly in our favor regarding the select committee's work to uncover relevant information and day to day we are getting a clearer picture of what happened, who was involved and who paid for it and where the money went. so i'm pleased to report we're making some progress and before too long, our findings will be out in the open. we'll have public hearings. we'll tell this story to american people but we won't do it piecemeal. we'll do it when we can tell all at once start to finish, not leaving anyone guessing and not allowing it to fade in the memories of last week's news. this is too important. the stakes are too high. we have to do this job right, and that means we have to address the hand full of outliers soberly and appropriately. that's why we're here this evening. the select committee's report referring mr. meadows for criminal contempt charges is clear and compelling. as white house chief of staff, mr. meadows played a role and witness to key events leading up to and including the january 6 th assault on the united states capitol. don't let lawsuits or of eds about executive privilege by mr. meadows or his representatives confuse you. it comes down to this, mr. meadows started by doing the right thing. cooperating. he handed over records he didn't try to shield behind an excuse but in an investigation like ours, that's the first step. when the records raise questions, you have to come in and answer the questions and when it's time for him to follow the law, come in and firefighter on those questions. he changed his mind and told us to pound sand. he didn't even show up. now this happened the same day his book was published. the same book that goes into detail about matters the select committee is reviewing. it also details conversations he had with president trump and others, conversations we want to hear more about. he also appeared on national television discussing the events of january 6th. he has no credible excuse for stone walling a select committee's investigation. we did receive another letter today from mr. meadow's attorney asking that we not hold his client in criminal contempt without objection that letter will be made part of the record. a small group of people got a lot of attention because of their defiance but a lot of others took a different path and provided important information about january 6th and the context in which the riot occurred. anyone who wants to cooperate with our investigation can do so. nearly everyone has. our democracy was inches from ruin. our system of government was stretched to the breaking point. members and staff were terrorized. officers fought hand to hand for hours. people lost their lives. the select committee recently toured the capitol and saw firsthand what our brave capitol police had to endure and heard them say had it not been for the metropolitan police timely arrival, the rioters would have succeeded. god only knows what the outcome would have been if that had occurred. we want to find out why and help the american people. you're on the side of us trying to figure out why or stop us from getting answers. you can parade whatever argument you want. in life there aren't a lot of bright line moments. this is one of them. if you're listening at home, mr. meadows, mr. bannon, mr. clark, i want you to know this. history will be written about these times about the work this committee has under taken and history will not look upon any of you as martyrs. history will look upon you as a victim. history will not dwell on your long list of privilege claims or legal slight of hand. history will record that in a critical moment in our democracy, most people are on the side of finding the truth, of providing accountability, of strengthening our system for future generations and history will also record in this critical moment some people would not, that some people hid behind excuses, went to great lengths to avoid answering questions and explaining what they had done and what they knew. i predict that history won't be kind to those people. what's especially jarring about the referral we are considering tonight is that mr. meadows was a member of this body for more than seven years. he was a leading voice in certain corners even briefly the ranking member of the oversight and reform committee. it's not hard to locate records of his time in the house and find a mr. meadows full of indignation because at the time a prior administration wasn't cooperating with the congressional investigation to his satisfaction. whatever legacy he thought he left in the house, this is his legacy now. his former colleagues singing him out for criminal prosecution because he wouldn't answer questions about what he knows about a brutal attack on our democracy. that is his legacy. but he's hasn't left us any choice. mr. meadows put himself in this situation and he must now accept the consequences recommending the house cite mark meadows for contempt of congress and refer him to the department of justice for prosecution. i'll yield to a distinguished leader of the select committee. ms. cheney of wyoming for any opening remark she care to make. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. we're here to address a very serious matter, contempt of congress by a former chief of staff to a former president of the united states. we do not do this lightly. and indeed, we had hoped not to take this step at all. for weeks as the chairman noted, we worked with mr. meadow's counsel to reach an agreement on cooperation. but shortly before his scheduled deposition, mr. meadows walked away from his commitment to appear and informed us he would no longer cooperate. we believe mr. meadows is improperly asserting executive and other privileges but this vote on contempt today relates principally to mr. meadows' refusal to testify about text messages and communications he admits is not privileged. he's not claimed and does not have any privilege basis to refuse entirely to testify regarding these topics. let me give just three examples. first, president trump's failure to stop the violence. on january 6th, our capitol building was attacked and invaded. the mob was summoned to washington by president trump, and as many of those involved have admitted on videotape and social media and in federal district court, they were provoked to violence by president trump's false claims that the election was stolen. the violence was evident to all. it was covered in realtime by almost every news channel. for 187 minutes, president trump refused to act. when action by our president was required, essential and indeed compelled in his oath to our constitution, mr. meadows received numerous text messages, which he has produced without any privilege claim imploring that mr. trump take the specific action we all knew his duty required. these text messages leave no doubt the white house knew what was happening here at the capitol. the press and others wrote to mark meadows as the attack was underway. one text mr. meadows received said quote we are under siege here at the capitol. in a third, mark, protesters are literally storming the capitol breaking windows on doors rushing in. is trump going to say something? a fourth, there is an armed standoff at the house chamber door. and another from someone inside the capitol, we are all helpless. dozens of texts including from trump administration officials urged immediate action by the president. quote he has to come out firmly and tell the protesters to dissipate. someone is going to get killed. in another, mark, he needs to stop this now. a third in all caps tell them to go home. a fourth and i quote potis needs to calm this shit down. indeed, according to the records multiple fox news hosts knew the president needed to act immediately. they texted mr. meadows and he's 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 tv, destroying everything you have accomplished ryan 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 junior texted. meadows responded quote i'm pushing it hard, i agree. still, president trump did not immediately act. donald trump junior 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. but hours passed without necessary action by the president. these non-privileged texts are further evidence of president trump's supreme duty during those 107 minutes and donald trump's testimony will bear on another key question before this committee. did donald trump through action or inaction corruptly seek to obstruct or impede congress' official proceedings to count electoral votes. mark meadows testimony is necessary to inform our legislative judgments yet he's refused to give any testimony at all. even regarding non-privileged topics. he's in contempt of congress. mr. meadows also has knowledge regarding president trump's efforts to persuade state officials to alter their official election results. in georgia for instance, mr. meadows participated on a phone call between president trump and georgia secretary of state raffensperger. meadows was on the phone when president trump asked the secretary of state to quote find 11,780 votes to change the result of the presidential election in georgia. we know from the texts mr. meadows turned over at the time of that call, he appears to have been texting other participants on the call. again, mr. meadows has no conceivable privilege basis to refuse to testify on this topic. he's in contempt of congress. third, in the weeks of january 6th trump's appointees at the justice department informed him repeatedly that the president's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence and that the election was not in fact stolen. in part so that mr. clark could alter the conclusions regarding the election. mr. clark has informed this committee he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters and intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. as mr. meadows' none privileged texts reveal, meadows communicated multiple times with a member of congress 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 precedent. there has been no stronger case in our nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former president. this investigation is not like other congressional inquiries. our constitution, the structure of our institutions and the rule of law, which are at the heart of what makes america great are at stake. we cannot be satisfied with incomplete answers or half truths and we cannot surrender to president trump's efforts to hide what happened. we will be persistent, professional and non-partisan. and we will get to the objective truth to ensure that january 6th never happens again. i yield back. >> chair lady yields back. i now call up the report on a reolution recommending the house of representatives find mark randall meadows in contempt of congress for refusal to compile with the subpoena duly issued by the seect committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. the report was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. the clerk should designate the report. >> report on a resolution recommending that the house of representatives find mark randall meadows in contempt of congress for refusal to compile with the subpoena dually issued by the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. >> without objection, the report will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. the chair recognizes the joint woman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like all of us on this committee, i knew and everything -- served with mark meadows. we got along well when he was here but didn't agree on policy matters. i wished him well when he went to serve for donald trump in 2020. it's shocking that we have to face the fact mr. meadows admits he played an official and unofficial role in trying to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election. this committee's job is find out about the plot, the plot that led to the events of january 6th and propose legislative changes to prevent something like that from ever happening again. it's been reporting during the leadup to january 6th, the white house was directing the department of justice to ichb vest gate outrageous conspiracy theories to seed doubt about the election and as a predicate for overturning of the election and the replacement of electors. this was to benefit mr. trump's effort to overturn the election. we need to talk to mark meadows about that as the vice chair has mentioned mr. meadows made a surprise visit to the state run audit in georgia which preceded the infamous call she recited where the then president asked the secretary of state to go find votes. we need to talk to mark meadows about that. mr. meadows interacted with a lot of people allegedly including some of our own colleagues on the day of the violent attack and we've learned that many of those interactions took place on a personal cell phone device so we need to ask mark meadows about that. mr. meadows himself has acknowledged that he has responsive and non-privileged documents and communications. he sent some of them to us. he filed others in court. it certainly appears that mr. meadows played a key role in events that cull -- resulted on the attack of our democracy. he must physical low the lay and cooperate with the lawful requests of this committee or face the consequences and that's why as much as we might personally like mr. meadows, we have to take this action today because no one is above the law. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair lady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois mr. kinzinger. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a rare unique moment in history as we vote whether to hold a former colleague in contempt of congress. the last time that happened was 1832. mark meadows committed a crime, in this case a premeditated one. he thought carefully about his actions and actively chose to stone wall which you can clearly see in his back and forth with the select committee. first, he produced over 9,000 pages of documents from his time in the white house then after his former boss made it clear his disappointment and displeasure, he did a 180 and he refused to answer a single question from his former colleagues or even to show up at all. this constitutes legal contempt but also person contempt. mark meadows' actions demonstrate his contempt for congress for the select committee for his colleagues and the integrity of the democratic process. he's clearly disregarded this investigation so it's time to see if the department of justice can be more persuasive. nobody is above the law, not even a former president's chief of staff. in a nation of laws, you cannot have it both ways. he can't decline to tell the story to congress and on the very same day, publish part of that story in a book to line his pockets. he can't decline to answer any questions on the many non-privileged documents he produced to us. he can't unspeak what he has said and call it privileged after the fact. it is perfectly conceivable portions of what a president's chief of staff knows is subject to a presidential privilege shielding it from disclosure. but it is also true that not everything he knew or did during that period is privileged. mark meadows knows that. it's why he sent us the documents he did and what made his book possible. that's why the law required him to show up for his deposition and specify in response to each question what the answer was and whether or not that answer in fact was privileged from disclosure. his refusal to compile with the direction of congress stated plainly on the face of the select committee subpoena as a display of contempt for congress which now forces us to sadly have to take this action. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. schiff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to pick up where mr. kinzinger left off. 9,000 pages of records is which meadows turned over and meadows himself asserted no claim of privilege. none. these include thousands of text messages spanning the months before election day between electio