JUDY WOODRUFF: As we reported
earlier, the U.S. House of
Representatives today took up

a contempt of Congress charge
against Mark Meadows, the former
White House chief of staff.

This comes after Meadows defied a
subpoena from the select committee

in the Senate investigating the
January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Lisa Desjardins begins our coverage.

LISA DESJARDINS: On the House
floor today yet another rarity.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD):
There's just a handful of people

like Mr. Bannon, like Mr. Meadows who
somehow think that they're above the law.

LISA DESJARDINS: Democratic
Congressman Jamie Raskin and other
select committee investigators

argued for a contempt of
Congress charge for a second very
high-profile Trump advisory,

Mark Meadows, the former chief
of staff to President Trump,

who just two years ago was
himself a House member.

On January 6, as attackers smashed and
punched their way into the Capitol,

Meadows was at the White House
with Trump making him a pivotal
hub of information from both

ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Now he is a flash point over
the push for his testimony

and Trump allies' insistence
that it's political.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Mark Meadows
has to testify. He has to come in,

like 300 American citizens have
patriotically and lawfully done.
What makes him special? The

fact that he knows a former president
of the United States? I'm afraid not.

REP. MARY MILLER (R-IL): The
members of the January 6 commission
have turned this body into

a Star Chamber, using the powers
of Congress to persecute and
bankrupt their political opponents.

LISA DESJARDINS: The back-and-forth
is complicated. Meadows did
turn over 6, 600 pages of

e-mails and around 2,000 text
messages. Notably, he also sent
so-called privilege logs, enumerating

hundreds more documents which
he claimed could not be shared
because of separation of power.

Then he did not show up
for a deposition last week.

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): Whatever
legacy he thought he left in the House,

this is his legacy now.

LISA DESJARDINS: Last night, as
it recommended contempt charges,

the select committee also read some
of the Meadows texts it has out loud.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): Donald
Trump Jr. 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.

LISA DESJARDINS: The committee
also wants to ask Meadows about
an e-mail in which Meadows

wrote that on January 6 the
National Guard would -- quote
-- "protect pro-Trump people."

Meadows responded last night
to all of this on FOX News.

MARK MEADOWS, Former White House
Chief of Staff: Let's be clear
about this, Sean. This is not about

me, holding me in contempt. It's not
even about making the Capitol safer.

This is about Donald Trump and about
actually going after him once again.

LISA DESJARDINS: Meadows and
Trump are both suing the select
committee over its requests.

Judges have so far ruled against Trump.

And, today, Senate Republican
Leader Mitch McConnell, who
blocked a bipartisan commission,

but has blasted Trump for
January 6, had notably open words
about the committee's work.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY):
I do think we're all watching,
as you are, what's unfolding on

the House side, and it will be
interesting to reveal all the
participants who were involved.

LISA DESJARDINS: All this as the attorney
general for the District of Columbia

announced a first-of-its-kind
lawsuit, seeking civil finds
for individuals and two groups,

the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers,
for their role in the Capitol attack.

For the "PBS NewsHour,"
I'm Lisa Desjardins.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Meadows' refusal
to cooperate and the committee's

recommendation to hold him
in contempt of Congress

raise questions about executive
privilege and about what
information the committee is owed.

For some answers, we turn to
Jonathan Shaub. He is a professor

at the University of Kentucky College
of Law and a contributing editor

at Lawfare. He previously served
in the Office of Legal Counsel
at the Department of Justice.

And before I come to you,
Jonathan Shaub, I want to clarify.

I said the issue was taken
up in the Senate. It was

in the House, the House select
committee, of course, where
this investigation is under way.

But let me just ask you about
Mr. Meadows. He is yet another
witness who won't testify

before this House select committee. But
they have received documents. They have

received some information. So
is the committee being stymied,
or are they making progress?

JONATHAN SHAUB, University of
Kentucky: Well, I think they're
being stymied with respect to

the information that Meadows
has that maybe nobody else has,

what was going on that day in the White
House, what was President Trump doing.

And Meadows is probably one of
the only sources from whom they
could get that information. But

they have a ton of other information. They
revealed yesterday they had interviewed,

I think, over 300 witnesses.
They have a ton of documents,
including some from Meadows himself.

So it seems like they will be able to
piece together what happened and what

was going on for the most part.
But I do think there's probably
certain pieces of information

relating specifically to what
was happening in the White House
that they may not be able to get

as long as Meadows and others
who may have that information
continue to refuse to provide it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, when Mark Meadows'
attorney talks about executive privilege,

referring to President Trump, what exactly

does that mean, and how and where would
it apply in a situation like this?

JONATHAN SHAUB: So, executive
privilege has a long history.

And it's generally the doctrine
that the president has the authority
to withhold information if the

disclosure of that information
would harm the public interest,
if the president determines that.

And so it's a power belonging
to the president. It's typically
invoked for private conversations

of the president, for
national security information,
attorney-client information. So,

here, we have a former
president who's been - - who is
asserting it, President Trump.

And the Biden White House
has said very clearly

there's no privilege claim here.
The events of January 6 are
extraordinary. The committee has a

need for them, and so we're not
going to assert privilege or
related doctrines like immunity.

And President Trump has sued to contest
that determination. And, so far, he's lost

with the D.C. Circuit, and he has a
chance to appeal to the Supreme Court.

But, generally, it's a presidential
authority, and so it's very hard
to see why a former president

would get to make a determination
about what's in the public interest,

as opposed to the president who is
currently serving in that office.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And that's what
we're trying to understand,

whether this claim or invoking
of executive privilege is
going to hold up in court.

JONATHAN SHAUB: Well, so,
once you go to contempt,

Meadows is going to defend
himself -- and his lawyer has
already done this -- by saying,

even if I'm incorrect about privilege,
I was operating in good faith.

And the committee is really
no longer going to be able to
get information from Meadows.

He's subject to criminal prosecution,
but that won't take place for

potentially a year or several months. So
it's very unlikely that, at this point,

they will get Meadows to cooperate
once they have held him in contempt.

And I think they basically
said we have got as much
information as we can from him,

he's now adopted this total
defiance stance, and so we're
going to refer him for contempt

to Congress and use him as an example to
other witnesses who we do want to comply.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Jonathan Shaub,
as you look at the big picture
of what this select committee is

trying to get, they're trying
to get to the bottom of what
happened on January the 6th.

What is standing in their way,
mainly, and what do you think
is working in their favor?

JONATHAN SHAUB: Well, I
think the fact that the

Department of Justice moved forward with
the prosecution of Steve Bannon shows that

there are serious consequences to
defying the committee's subpoenas.

If they indict Mark Meadows, then
that will be even further evidence,

because Mark Meadow was, of
course, in the government.

So, even -- if he can be prosecuted,
that will serve as a example
to other government officials.

So I think they're probably
going to be able to get a lot
of information about the day

and reconstruct what was
happening going up to

January 6 and on the day itself.
And -- but I do think, though,

they probably won't be able to
force people who remain very loyal
to President Trump to comply.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Meaning that they
will be able to claim executive
privilege and hold out for

courts to rule in their favor?

JONATHAN SHAUB: Yes, I mean, they
will cite executive privilege,

and they will defend themselves
in a criminal prosecution.

But the court actions, even if
the committee decided to pursue
a civil action, it just takes

time. And from what I have
understood, the chairman has
said they want to be completed

by spring, or, at the very latest, the end
of 2022, when there's another election.

So I can't imagine that court
resolution of issues involving
executive privilege would

occur before that time frame.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Still a lot of questions,

a lot of questions out there about
what the committee will be able to get.

Jonathan Shaub, University of Kentucky
Law School, thank you very much.

JONATHAN SHAUB: Well,
thanks for having me.