Yesterday, in what is likely to be its last session before the 2022 elections, the Special House January 6th Committee tried to hype its first hearing in months by announcing its intent to subpoena President Donald Trump to testify before it. — However, that same committee continued to fail in its attempt to produce any evidence tying Trump to anybody engaged in the alleged "insurrection" or any of the so-called "rioters" at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021
Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, Committee Members Jay Raskin and Liz Chaney, and others all tried to demonstrate and to explain that Trump was at the “center” of events surrounding the alleged Capitol riot on January, 6th, 2021, and that the need for Trump to testify “goes beyond [the Committee's] fact-finding” but advanced the “accountability” of President Trump to the American people as a whole concerning the events of 1/6/2021.
The ommittee's vote to approve the subpoena for President Trump and a subpeona for Trump documents was unanimous, with the resolution to compel Trump’s testimony proposed by outgoing Rep. Liz Cheney, a staunch Republican opponent of Trump, whose strong positions against Trump had caused her to lose her GOP primary to retain her Wyomingcongressional seat.
During yesterday's session, members of the committee repeatedly cited Trump’s allegedly “personal and substantial role” in the insurrection and/or riot, but produced no evidence whatsoever connecting him to those who had been active on Capitol Hill on January 6th. The Committee Members were obviously reading prepared remarks in the very highly-scripted “hearing” --- that more resembled a Stalinesque Soviet-style show trial than it did an ordinarily adversary congressional inquiry.
Most experts agreed that the January 6th Committee would be very unlikely to be able to compel Trump’s testimony, given his likely assertion of "Executive Privilege." However, the Committee has pursued at least two prosecutions for contempt of Congress against other witnesses that refused to testify, and who also gave a variety of legal reasons for not cooperating.
3 comments:
The Jan 6th panel is bipartisan. It has men and woman.
Harry Truman refused a subpoena from HUAC.
VERY IMPORTANT BACKFILL: THE "JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE IS JUDICIALLY INSIGNIFICANT --- IT IS ONLY POLITICAL LEGERDEMAIN --- IT WAS IMPROPERLY AND UNLAWFULLY CREATED -- AND IT IS NOT PROPERLY CONSTITUTED EVEN IN ITS OWN TERMS" EDITION
ONE CIRCUIT COURT HAS NOTED THAT THE J6 COMMITTEE'S CREATION, ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES HAVE "PRESENTED... IMPORTANT AND UNSETTELED CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS" THAT NEEDED JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AND REVIEW --- EVEN TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS
At least one federal court has suggested that the January 6th Committee's formation and genesis is legally problematic. The in the case -- Republican National Committee v. Nancy Pelosi -- the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was reviewing a lower court ruling that the January 6th Committee was carrying out a legitimate legislative function. In an unusual opinion, following the withdrawal of the J6 Committee's subpoena rendering the case moot, the DC Circuit had noted that, by withdrawing its subpoena to the RNC, which was subject to the appeals jusrisdiction of the DC Circuit Court, the January 6th Committee had “deprived [a US Cirduit Court] of the ability to review” the case. The DC Circuit highlighted that the appeal “would have presented” what they saw as “important and unsettled constitutional questions.” The court made no finding on the motives of the January 6th Committee in retreating in the face of the RNC appeal, but it certainly looked like Pelosi and the January 6th Committee were worried about the outcome of the appeal, and the fundamental validity of the J6 Committee.
Part of the RNC's argument had been that Speaker Pelosi defied the letter of the law when she chose the panel members. The enabling resolution passed by the House called for her to “appoint 13 Members” to the January 6th Committee, “5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.” Yet after rejecting seveal GOP picks, Ms. Pelosi “chose to assemble a nine-member body” instead, without any “consultation,” something that the RNC maintained is “a wholesale judicial abdication” of the Speaker's duty under the enabling resolution.
These matters will likely be included when Steve Bannon begins his appeal of his conviction after proceedings in his case in the District Court have been completed.
Post a Comment