Rep. Jim Jordan Delivers Impassioned Defense of Mark Meadows as House Votes to Hold Former Chief of Staff in Contempt

On 12/14/2021, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 222-208 to hold former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the January 6th select committee. GOP Reps. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Liz Cheney of Wyoming voted with all Democrats. Meadows became the first former lawmaker ever held in criminal contempt by Congress and the first person held in contempt since 1832. Rep. Jim Jordan, Meadows’s close friend and House Freedom Caucus co-founder, delivered an impassioned defense on the floor.

”This Is as Wrong as It Gets”

Jordan’s speech centered on the principle of executive privilege and what he called a partisan assault on a good man. “Mark Meadows is our former colleague. He is a good man. And he is my friend,” Jordan said. “And this is as wrong as it gets. And I think deep down, everyone knows it.”

Jordan argued the vote was effectively a vote to imprison Meadows. “Make no mistake — when Democrats vote in favor of this resolution, it is a vote to put a good man in prison,” he said.

Executive Privilege Belongs to “We the People”

Jordan argued that executive privilege was not about protecting any individual president or staff member, but about protecting the public interest. He quoted the Supreme Court: “Executive privilege serves the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even harsh opinions in presidential decision making.”

“Executive privilege serves the public interest. It’s for us. It’s for we the people,” Jordan said. “It’s not for President Trump. It’s not for Mark Meadows. It’s not for any president. It’s not for any chief of staff. It’s for the country.”

He argued the chief of staff was “the closest of the close” among presidential advisors. “He’s the one who spends more time with the commander-in-chief than anyone else,” Jordan said.

The Double Standard

Jordan drew a sharp contrast between Democrats’ treatment of Meadows and their past invocations of executive privilege. “During the Fast and Furious scandal, President Obama asserted executive privilege for bureaucrats at ATF and DOJ,” Jordan noted. “And think about it — a bureaucrat in a federal agency gets privilege, but not the chief of staff to the president, because Mark Meadows worked for President Trump.”

He also highlighted what he called a pattern of inconsistency from the select committee itself. With Steve Bannon, they demanded he appear in person to assert privilege — and held him in contempt when he did not come. With Jeff Clark, they allowed him to come and assert privilege in person — then held him in contempt anyway. With Meadows, who gave the committee thousands of documents and agreed to testify on non-privileged matters, they still said “not good enough.”

“What a charade,” Jordan said.

Meadows Cooperated Extensively

Jordan emphasized that Meadows had provided significant cooperation. “What did Mark Meadows do? He gave the committee thousands of emails. He gave the committee thousands of text messages,” Jordan said. “And he agreed to come in front of the committee and answer any question as long as it didn’t violate executive privilege — the privilege that’s not his to waive; it belongs to the president.”

Democrats “Weaponizing Government”

Jordan placed the contempt vote in a broader pattern of what he called Democrats weaponizing government against political opponents. “I’ve been in Congress a while, 15 years. I’ve seen Democrats weaponize the government to attack their political opponents,” he said.

He listed examples: “Ten years ago, they used the IRS to target good people around this country, good conservative people. Five years ago, they used the FBI to spy on — abuse the FISA process, use the FBI to spy on President Trump’s campaign. Two months ago, it was the Department of Justice using the counterterrorism division at the FBI to put a threat tag, a label, a designation on parents who had the gall to go speak up at school board meetings and defend their kids.”

Will Garland Prosecute?

Jordan dismissed any suggestion that the House vote was merely procedural. “Don’t even attempt the argument — ‘No, no, no, this is just a House acting. The Justice Department will make a decision whether to prosecute or not.’ Come on. Is there anyone who believes that?” Jordan said.

“It took the Attorney General all of five days to treat parents as terrorists,” Jordan said. “If a left-wing political group can write the White House asking the Department of Justice to use the Patriot Act against moms and dads, and five days later the Attorney General of the United States does just that, then what do you think he’s going to do when 225 Democrats in the House of Representatives ask him to put President Trump’s chief of staff in prison?”

Key Takeaways

• The House voted 222-208 to hold Mark Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress, with only Reps. Kinzinger and Cheney joining Democrats.
• Meadows became the first former lawmaker ever held in criminal contempt and the first person since 1832.
• Rep. Jordan argued executive privilege is “for we the people” and that the committee’s inconsistent treatment of Bannon, Clark, and Meadows was “a charade.”
• Jordan said Meadows had cooperated extensively, providing thousands of emails and texts and agreeing to testify on non-privileged matters.
• Jordan placed the vote in a pattern of Democrats “weaponizing government,” citing the IRS targeting scandal, FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign, and DOJ threat tags against parents.

Transcript Highlights

The following is transcribed from the video audio (unverified — AI-generated from audio).

• Mark Meadows is our former colleague. He is a good man. And he is my friend. And this is as wrong as it gets.
• Make no mistake. When Democrats vote in favor of this resolution, it is a vote to put a good man in prison.
• Executive privilege serves the public interest. It’s for us. It’s for we the people. It’s not for President Trump. It’s not for Mark Meadows.
• A bureaucrat in a federal agency gets privilege, but not the chief of staff to the president because Mark Meadows worked for President Trump.
• He gave the committee thousands of emails. He gave the committee thousands of text messages. And he agreed to come in front of the committee and answer any question as long as it didn’t violate executive privilege.
• It took the Attorney General all of five days to treat parents as terrorists. Then what do you think he’s going to do when 225 Democrats ask him to put President Trump’s chief of staff in prison?
• Your lust for power, your lust to get your opponents is so intense, you don’t care.

Full transcript: 1621 words transcribed via Whisper AI.