Trump news: House legal team urges court to release Jan 6 documents as Steele source charged
Ex-president’s attorneys appear in federal court to convince skeptical judge to block release of White House documents in Capitol riot probe
Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox
Get our free Inside Washington email
Donald Trump’s legal team has argued in US District Court that records from his presidency demanded by a congressional panel investigating the attacks on the US Capitol by his supporters should not be released.
The former president’s attorneys claimed in federal court on 4 November that the documents, which have been requested by the select committee investigating the insurrection, are covered by executive privilege, a claim the Biden administration has dismissed.
Mr Trump’s attorneys have argued the request from lawmakers is “alarmingly broad” – but a judge appears skeptical.
US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan told his legal team to “dial down the rhetoric” after they characterised the requests from House lawmakers as “unbelievably broad” and a “dump” as she questioned what harm their release would bring to Mr Trump, and why they believe his lawsuit doesn’t undermine President Joe Biden’s own executive function.
Douglas Letter, counsel for the House of Representatives, said the committee’s probe into the events surrounding the 6 January attack on the US Capitol by Mr Trump’s supporters in an attempt to overturn election results marks “one of the most important congressional investigations in the history of our nation that has ever occurred.”
The court hearing arrived on the “anniversary” of the 2020 presidential election, which Mr Trump marked with a bizarre video amplifying his baseless narrative that the results were fraudulent and thanking those involved in a spurious election “audit” in Arizona.
Meanwhile, a key figure in the saga of the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russian government counterparts in 2016 has been arrested by federal authorities for allegedly lying to the FBI.
Igor Danchenko was a core researcher in the production of Christopher Steele’s notorious dossier on Mr Trump’s Russian ties, much of which turned out to be based on unproven rumours and unsubstantiated claims.
He is set to appear in federal court on Thursday afternoon.
Catch up: Kinzinger’s resignation
Congressman Adam Kinzinger is one of only two GOP members of the 6 January committee, sitting alongside vice chair Liz Cheney. The Illinois representative has been an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump for some years and was one of only a handful to vote for his impeachment after the riot – and now, as he is effectively ostracised from the party mainstream, he is not running for re-election.
Mr Kinzinger, who arrived in Congress in 2010, is facing the scorn of his colleagues but also a redistricting that would effectively force him to run in an intra-party primary featuring other sitting Congressmen. Clearly, the prospect was unappealing.
Adam Kinzinger: Who is he and why is he not seeking re-election
Kinzinger’s relationship with the broader GOP began to show signs of strain in 2016
White supremacists and other extremists a major threat to US, says law enforcement
At a House subcommittee hearing yesterday, officials from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security warned that small groups and lone actors with extreme right-wing beliefs pose as big a threat to the US homeland as terrorists identifying with the so-called Islamic State.
According to the FBI’s Timothy Langan, the bureau is investigating some 2,700 cases tied to domestic violent extremism. The threats in question, he said, are driven by an array of overlapping right-wing grievances, among them “biases against minorities, perceived government overreach, conspiracy theories promoting violence, and false narratives often spread online.”
Read more below.
White supremacist threat to US as great as Islamic State, FBI tells Congress
Federal law enforcement testimony is latest warning in series of reports about potential threats from online-driven violence
Mike Lindell wants voted machines “melted down”
Trump devotee and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has propagated some of the most unhinged theories about the 2020 election, yesterday predicted that a lawsuit will soon be filed that will result in the Supreme Court outlawing all voting machines and overturning Donald Trump’s defeat.
As with his three-day “cyber symposium” that yielded precisely zero evidence to back up Mr Lindell’s extravagant claims, there is no basis for this.
Steve Schmidt: ‘you have to appreciate the awesome efficiency of the right-wing propaganda machine'
Former GOP campaign adviser and Lincoln Project member Steve Schmidt has warned of the Republicans’ embrace of cultural grievance – and said that “Democrats have to understand and I think be able to confront the racial animus that is teeming with the dog-whistle messaging that you saw Youngkin engage in in the course of the campaign without alienating the majority of white working-class voters, and the way I think that you do that I think is by offering something better.”
Insurrection anniversary week promises legal bonanza
NBC’s Scott MacFarlane, who has reported extensively on the cases brought against alleged rioters since the 6 January attack, says that as federal dockets remain slammed with criminal charges stemming from the riot, several of the most important cases are set to be heard just as the anniversary of the riot rolls around.
Catch up: what the 6 January committee has said about Trump’s lawsuit
When Donald Trump filed his action to stop the select committee from obtaining key records from his administration, chair Bennie Thompson and vice chair Liz Cheney issued a joint statement dismissing his rationale as spurious.
Here’s what they said:
“The former President’s clear objective is to stop the Select Committee from getting to the facts about January 6th and his lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to delay and obstruct our probe. Precedent and law are on our side. Executive privilege is not absolute and President Biden has so far declined to invoke that privilege. Additionally, there’s a long history of the White House accommodating congressional investigative requests when the public interest outweighs other concerns. It’s hard to imagine a more compelling public interest than trying to get answers about an attack on our democracy and an attempt to overturn the results of an election.
“The Select Committee’s authority to seek these records is clear. We’ll fight the former President’s attempt to obstruct our investigation while we continue to push ahead successfully with our probe on a number of other fronts.”
Live audio: Trump’s hearing on executive privilege
The hearing on Donald Trump’s attempt to block the 6 January committee from accessing key documents is shortly to begin. You can listen to live audio from the courtroom here.
Judge and Trump lawyer get down to business
As the court struggles with audio difficulties, Judge Chutkan bluntly questions Trump attorney Justin R. Clark about the fundamentals of the case.
“Would you agree that the fact that the plaintiff is no longer sitting president did somewhat diminishes the the applicability of the privilege issues you’re, you’re, you’re arguing?” she asks.
Clark answers: “No.”
Private versus public information
One of the key precedents cited by Trump’s team is that presidents’ private records should not be Congress’s to request, but the judge seems unimpressed with the argument. “How do I square that with the fact that Congress here has not requested private information?” she asks.
Trump team: select committee is overstepping its authority
Trump’s attorney is arguing that because the select committee investigating the riot cannot mark up legislation, there is no “legislative purpose” for its request. which he says means it cannot reasonably request documents without the president asserting executive privilege.
Again, the judge seems unimpressed. “Are you saying the president’s notes, talking points, telephone conversation on 6 January for example, have no relation to the matter which Congress is considering legislation?” she asks. “The 6 January riot happened in the Capitol. That is literally Congress’s house.”
“Is it really my role to require Congress to specify the legislation that they are intending?”
Mr Clark insists that Congress’s requests for presidential documents should be linked to legislation, rather than a broader inquiry.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies