Meadows lawyer argues contempt referral would be contrary to law

A lawyer for former President Trump’s ex-chief of staff Mark Meadows on Monday sent a letter to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol arguing that a referral to hold his client in contempt would be “contrary to law.”

In a letter obtained by The Hill, Meadows attorney George J. Terwilliger argued that a “good-faith invocation of executive privilege and testimonial immunity” does not amount to contempt of Congress, as the committee prepares to vote to hold Meadows in contempt later on Monday.

Last week, Meadows changed course and said he would not sit for a deposition with the committee, despite his initial willingness to cooperate.

“The contemplated referral would be contrary to law because a good-faith invocation of executive privilege and testimonial immunity by a former senior executive official is not a violation of 2 U.S. Code § 192,” Terwilliger wrote.

“A referral to the Department of Justice based on such an invocation would ignore the statute’s legislative history and historical application, contravene well-established separation of powers principles, and improperly input a criminal intent to a good-faith actor,” the attorney added.

On Sunday, chairman of the committee Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) shot down suggestions that Meadows could avoid a subpoena through asserting executive privilege, writing in a report that even though he is a former White House staffer, he is not entitled to testimonial immunity.

Thompson wrote that even if Meadows were to have such an immunity, the actions that the committee is seeking information on would fall outside of his duties as a White House official.

The committee has alleged that Meadows communicated with state officials in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and told organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally, which preceded the Capitol attack, that the National Guard would be present on Jan. 6 to protect “pro-Trump” people.

In his letter, Terwilliger added that referring a “senior presidential aide” for contempt would be “unwise because it would do great damage to the institution of the Presidency, as restraint in the application of the statute over time attests.”

“Mr. Meadows’s choice to decline a deposition is an attempt to comply with his legal obligations as a former advisor to the president,” the attorney added.

If the select committee votes to hold Meadows in contempt, the measure would go to the full House to vote on whether to refer the case to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution. 

Updated at 5:27 p.m.