WATCH: Former federal prosecutor explains why she thinks the DOJ will indict Mark Meadows

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was voted in contempt of Congress in the Jan. 6 select committee Monday evening, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Justice Department will indict him.

According to former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance, however, the DOJ is likely to move forward with the indictment.

"It's hard to get into Mark Meadows' mind, and I'm sure we jump into speculation. What is the impact that he stopped cooperation?" asked Vance. "I think this is Liz Cheney's analysis from last night where she was clearly making an argument not just to hurt fellow members of Congress, but also to the Justice Department about why they should ultimately indict Mark Meadows."

It all hinges on the fact that Meadows stopped cooperating. Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) said Tuesday that Meadows turned over thousands of documents and that the Jan. 6 committee is "quibbling" over a few things. Vance explained that Cheney's analysis is more sophisticated, saying Meadows only turned over documents he conceded weren't privileged. Now he's refusing to testify about those documents.

READ MORE: Congressman suggests Trump officials will take Fifth Amendment to avoid being hanged for treason

MSNBC host Katy Tur noted that the Meadows case isn't the same as Steve Bannon. In Meadows' case, he was a White House staffer at the time, where Bannon was not. Meadows has documents that likely do fall under executive privilege, however, President Joe Biden has waived that privilege.

"You'll recall that DOJ and the Bannon indictment references repeatedly the fact that Bannon did absolutely nothing to comply with the subpoena," Vance continued. "Ultimately I think that Meadows does end up getting indicted and here's the reason. I think even if DOJ concedes that in all the cases where Meadows asserts a privilege that they won't look at those any further, you know, Katy, in many of those instances, the way he suggests that the documents are privileged is very speculative and he's probably wrong in many cases, especially about executive privilege."

She explained that in this universe, where Meadows has agreed no privilege exists, there is no reason he should refuse to testify.

"And, in fact, you can't just say I have executive privilege and not show up," she told Tur. "You have to appear when you're asked to testify. You have to listen to each question, and for each question consider whether you can answer it or whether it's privileged. It's Meadows' failure to participate and play by the rules that ultimately means, at least in my judgment, that DOJ will perhaps, after a great deal more time than with Bannon and a lot more angst, decide he should be prosecuted."

See the discussion below:

Why Mark Meadows will probably be indictedwww.youtube.com