Meadows Contempt Vote Poses Thorny Questions for DOJ
21st December 2021
The House’s vote to hold Mark Meadows in contempt has presented the Department of Justice (DOJ) with the question of whether to prosecute the former White House chief of staff, forcing it to weigh the major legal and political consequences that could come with breaking from longstanding executive branch policy.
The DOJ’s stance for decades, throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations, has been to support testimonial immunity for the president’s close advisers when faced with congressional subpoenas — the very policy Meadows and his attorneys have pointed to as he refused to show up for a deposition.
Charging Meadows with contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the House Jan. 6 Select Committee would represent a departure from that historical trend and poses more complicated considerations for the department than its decision to prosecute Stephen Bannon, who was not a White House official when he helped Trump sow distrust in the 2020 election results.
“For several decades, DOJ has taken the view that close advisers to the president are absolutely immune from congressional subpoena — that Congress has no ability to force them to testify,” said Jonathan Shaub, a constitutional law professor at the University of Kentucky. “That’s the doctrine DOJ most has to grapple with in deciding whether to prosecute.”