President Trump’s Subpoena by January 6 Committee Sets Up Legal Showdown
The committee seeks testimony from the former president to prove its conjecture that ‘there was a multi-part plan led by President Trump to overturn the election.’
The January 6 committee’s 9-0 vote to subpoena President Trump sets up a legal confrontation between the one-time chief executive and the congressional body that has spent months arguing that he sought to overturn the 2020 election — and is running out of time to make its case before the midterms.
The decision, first reported by NBC, was telegraphed in the opening minutes of Thursday’s hearing, which the chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, classified as a “business meeting” in order to allow the panel to pursue “further investigative action,” including issuing subpoenas.
The decision to subpoena Mr. Trump means that the committee will skip the customary invitation. If Mr. Trump declines to testify, the committee will vote on contempt charges, which would have to be ratified by the full House. If that were to happen, the matter would be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
One of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers, Stephen Bannon, has been convicted of contempt for refusing the summons of the committee. Another adviser, Peter Navarro, has been indicted on similar charges. Mr. Trump can fight the subpoena in court. He also can invoke the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.
Before the expected vote, Representative Elizabeth “Liz” Cheney noted that “our role is not to make criminal decisions regarding prosecution.” She did add the contention that “one man” — Mr. Trump — was responsible for the events of January 6. Now, the committee seeks testimony from Mr. Trump himself to prove its conjecture that “there was a multi-part plan led by President Trump to overturn the election.”
In a simultaneous development at another one of Mr. Trump’s multiplying legal fronts, the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The riders ruled against Mr. Trump and held that a special master does not have purview over more than 100 classified documents recovered from his Mar-a-Lago estate. There were no noted dissents to the high court’s decision to abstain.
