- The
January 6 committee is recommending thatMark Meadows be held in contempt ofCongress . - A resolution said he sent an email saying the
National Guard was ready to protect Trump supporters.
Mark Meadows said in an email on January 5, while serving as White House chief of staff, that the National Guard was on standby to "protect pro Trump people," according to the House select committee investigating the
The email was described in a document released by the
Before Meadows stopped cooperating, he shared some documents with the committee. The document released Sunday describes some of the documents and exchanges Meadows provided, including the one about the National Guard.
"Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual about the events on January 6 and said that the National Guard would be present to 'protect pro Trump people' and that many more would be available on standby," the document said.
The context of the January 5 email is unclear, and no additional details about it have been given. But the National Guard has come under scrutiny for its slow response to the attack on the Capitol and the conflicting timelines that have been given.
The committee's document also describes other exchanges Meadows had leading up to and on January 6, as well as questions the committee would have asked him if he had sat down for a deposition.
In addition to asking about the National Guard email, the committee said it would have asked about exchanges in which Meadows reached out to members of Congress asking them to help President Donald Trump get in touch with state lawmakers.
The committee said it also would've asked about an exchange between Meadows and an unnamed "media personality" who was urging Trump to release a statement asking people at the Capitol to leave peacefully.
A lawyer for Meadows and the National Guard did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Insider.
Meadows filed a lawsuit Wednesday against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the January 6 committee, asking the court to invalidate what the lawsuit called "two overly broad and unduly burdensome subpoenas" issued by the panel.