The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress. The vote went mostly along party lines, with just two Republicans — Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both on the Jan. 6 select committee — voting with the Democrats. Here are a few key takeaways:
- First, this is a big deal. Meadows may or may not wind up being convicted, but he’ll probably join Steve Bannon in being indicted. Depending on how we count them, there have been about 34 White House chiefs of staff, and I think Meadows would be the second to be indicted after H.R. Haldeman, who served 18 months in prison for crimes committed during the Watergate scandal. To be sure: As crimes go, refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena isn’t all that big a deal. But we already know that Meadows was involved in former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn an election, and it’s quite possible that his legal jeopardy extends beyond the contempt situation.
- The select committee finally struck a better balance between fighting to compel cooperation and telling a public story about what Trump and his allies did to subvert the election and why it was important. That story is still incomplete, but some of the hints contained in documents Meadows made available before he stopped cooperating were sufficient to spark plenty of media attention.
- We shouldn’t expect too much from the committee’s storytelling function. There are no magic words that can suddenly change everything. Many voters won’t be bothered by what they’re told, however well it’s organized and presented; others have chosen to passively acquiesce with an attack on democracy and won’t change their position just because of a dramatic explanation of what they’ve already chosen to forgive. Nonetheless, even the possibility of persuading a few Republicans isn’t nothing. Nor is the opportunity to convince the neutral media that Trumpism really is a threat to the Constitution and to democracy.
- And of course that’s not the only function of the committee. Any further evidence uncovered could yield criminal referrals to the Justice Department. Revelations can, in some situations, lead to further revelations; in the best-case scenario for investigating committees, the targets may race to be the first to tell their stories. Granted, we don’t know whether there’s more to tell. But the contempt referrals help.
- I’m impressed with the quality of the select committee. One thing that helps: It’s small. Those watching the upcoming hearings, which with any luck will start early in the new year, won’t have to endure endless repetition of the same points from member after member. Nor will the nine committee members have to resort to gimmicks and theatrics to win attention.
- At the end of the day, what will really matter is what Trump, Meadows, Bannon and everyone else did or didn’t do to overturn a presidential election. It’s in the country’s interest to bring that truth out and to prevent such an attack from happening again. And it’s obviously a job for lawmakers; after all, it was their workplace that was attacked, and they are the ones who will have to pass any changes in the law to protect future elections. So far, the investigators have been moving slowly, but there’s a real chance that they’re going to wind up doing their job well.
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy.
