Just Shut Up and Testify Already, Mark Meadows

If you can write a book about your White House years, you can cooperate with Congress too.

Pool/Abaca via Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Wednesday, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, announced that his committee would move to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt. The committee had first subpoenaed Meadows last month, asking him to provide documents and testify under oath about then-President Donald Trump’s attempt to seize power. Meadows at first claimed that the doctrine of executive privilege barred him from cooperating with the committee. Then he reversed himself and agreed to be deposed. In the end, according to Thompson, Meadows provided some documents but withheld hundreds of others—and offered to answer investigators’ questions only in writing, rather than submit to an interview under oath. In the wake of Thompson’s threat, Meadows responded with legal action of his own—he’s now suing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

That Meadows would clam up and babble about executive privilege rather than talk about his work for Trump might come as a surprise to anyone who’s been to a Barnes & Noble recently. Meadows’ tell-all book, The Chief’s Chief, hit stores on Tuesday and has been driving political news coverage for days. It is a classic White House memoir, full of dishy and self-serving tidbits. In the most significant revelation of the book, Meadows claims that Trump had actually tested positive for COVID-19 prior to participating in the first debate with Joe Biden—and before the event with Gold Star families that the president blamed for making him sick.

I don’t want to downplay the significance of a president of the United States turning himself into a bioweapon, but it’s worth considering the manner in which all of this came out—not under oath, or via a resignation letter or a whistle-blowing interview in the press, but a full year after the fact, in a transparent effort to snag a quick paycheck. (Before, presumably, Meadows lands an even bigger paycheck on the political-influence circuit.) Meadows is perfectly happy to tell people about his former boss, executive privilege be damned, as long as it’s lucrative.

Meadows is treading a familiar path. Throughout the Trump era, the people claiming to be the adults in the room never acted like adults when they were in the room. For years, former Trump officials and aides have been spilling the beans in their own books, and in those of Washington journalists. Just this summer we learned that Trump once said he thought “Hitler did a lot of good things” (John Kelly, via Michael Bender’s Frankly, We Did Win This Election), and that a White House staffer would play show tunes to calm Trump down (former press secretary Stephanie Grisham’s I’ll Take Your Questions Now). Some of this stuff might be illuminating, but it’s hardly the same thing as accountability; Grisham—who resigned two months after Trump began publicly plotting a coup—refused to hold a single press briefing during her entire stint at the White House. 

The clearest precedent for Meadows’ current dance is John Bolton, who as the president’s former national security adviser was a witness to Trump’s attempts to extort the Ukrainian government into smearing Biden. As with Meadows, there were congressional investigators eager to hear Bolton’s testimony and collect a bulletproof accounting for the contemporary and historical record. In Bolton’s case, the first Trump impeachment proceedings were underway. But Bolton declined to appear in person and tell his side of the story under oath—he had a book to sell, after all.

While I would prefer that publishing houses simply not pay large sums of money to the worst people in Washington all of the time, I’ll admit that there’s some value for posterity in getting these accounts out into the public record, if only for hacks like myself to page through and fact-check. And the splashy journalistic accounts of the Trump years are a reputable, if sometimes repetitive, genre; they have helped to fill in the gaps of what we knew before—the existence of John Eastman’s coup memo, for instance, was first reported in Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s Peril.

But saying something in a book is not the same thing as saying something under oath in a deposition—there’s a reason journalists like quoting from them so much! One is not a substitute for the other—especially when unreliable and self-serving narrators like these Trump officials are concerned. You don’t really get to control the narrative when you’re being deposed. (Although Lil Wayne tried.) There are formal functions that only Congress can serve, and cooperating with such official investigations is the minimum threshold of credibility for people who are happy to talk to everyone else; otherwise it’s all just reputation laundering and grift.

Unlike previous congressional expeditions that were stymied by Trump allies’ refusal to cooperate with subpoenas and by the crunch of time, the January 6 committee seems intent on protecting its constitutional powers, even if it means referring prospective witnesses for prosecution. (See: Bannon, Steve.) So there’s still time for Meadows to change his mind. Who knows—maybe he’ll end up with some good material for the paperback edition.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate