December 19, 2022
On December 19, 2022, the House Select Committee voted unanimously to refer Donald Trump to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution on four counts — obstruction, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and aiding an insurrection.
The committee voted unanimously on December 19, 2022 to refer Trump on four criminal charges
Criminal referrals from Congress carry no legal force — DOJ can ignore them entirely
The four charges were: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to make false statements, and aiding an insurrection
John Eastman was also referred for two criminal statutes related to the fake electors scheme
The committee also recommended DOJ investigate Meadows, Giuliani, and Clark
Four House Republicans were referred for defying subpoenas: McCarthy, Jordan, Perry, and Biggs
Subject of referrals
Trump attorney referred for prosecution
Former DOJ official recommended for investigation
White House Chief of Staff recommended for investigation
House Minority Leader referred for subpoena defiance
DOJ Special Counsel
research
Track congressional criminal referrals versus actual DOJ charges at Congress.gov
Congressional referrals and criminal indictments are fundamentally different legal instruments. Understanding the gap between them is essential civic literacy for evaluating how accountability actually works.
Congressional criminal referrals are political tools, not legal ones — the DOJ is free to ignore them entirely. This is why tracking whether prosecutors file independent charges matters more than tracking whether Congress makes referrals. Go to congress.gov and read the January 6 Committee's final report and referral letters. Then go to justice.gov and compare the committee's referrals with the charges Jack Smith actually filed in August 2023. The overlap and differences reveal how an independent prosecutor translated political findings into criminal law — and what the committee thought was criminal conduct but that a prosecutor chose not to charge.
research
Research the false electors scheme by reading the actual state-level submissions
The false electors scheme produced physical documents that are part of the public record. Reading those documents, not just news coverage about them, lets citizens evaluate the specific conduct involved.
The fake electors scheme involved submitting forged Electoral College certificates to the National Archives in seven states Biden won — submitting forged federal documents is itself a federal crime separate from the election interference charges. The National Archives maintains public records of Electoral College submissions. Search the NARA website at archives.gov for the 2020 Electoral College documents to see both the official and unofficial certificates that were submitted. Then read the January 6 Committee's detailed findings on the scheme in Chapter 3 of their final report at govinfo.gov.
civic action
Contact your representatives to demand Congress fund and use its inherent contempt power
The distinction between criminal contempt (requires DOJ) and inherent contempt (Congress acts alone) determines whether congressional oversight has any real enforcement mechanism. Citizens pressing this question force representatives to take a position on congressional independence.
Congressional criminal contempt is only enforceable if the DOJ agrees to prosecute — giving the sitting executive an effective veto over congressional investigations of his own administration. Congress has an alternative tool: inherent contempt, which does not require DOJ cooperation. Under inherent contempt, Congress can fine and detain individuals directly. Contact your House representative through house.gov and ask: Do you support Congress funding and using its inherent contempt power to enforce subpoenas without relying on the DOJ? Ask for a specific written response.