Washington (AP) The House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol says the Supreme Court should let stand an appeals court ruling that the National Archives turn over documents from former President Donald Trump that might shed light on the events leading up to and including that day. In a filing Thursday with the court, lawyers for the committee argued that it is within its jurisdiction to seek the information.
“Although the facts are unprecedented, this case is not a difficult one,” the lawyers said in the filing, adding, This Court’s review is unwarranted, and the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. The nine-member congressional committee is investigating not just Trump’s conduct on January 6 — when he told a rally crowd to fight like hell shortly before rioters overran law enforcement officers — but also his efforts in the months before to challenge election results or obstruct a peaceful transfer of power.
Trump has attacked the committee’s work and continued to promote unfounded conspiracy theories about widespread fraud in the election, even though Joe Biden’s victory was certified by all 50 states. His claims have been rebuked by courts across the country. In suing to block the National Archives from turning over documents, Trump’s lawyers have said the committee has “no legitimate legislative purpose for seeking them and granting access to the records would damage executive privilege for future presidents.
Last week Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to hear arguments on his claim that executive privilege prevents the release of the documents, describing the committee as engaged in meandering fishing expeditions. The committee says the documents, including presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts and handwritten notes, are vital to its investigation into the deadly riot at the Capitol aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The Supreme Court could decline to hear the appeal. Such action would mean the ruling December 9 by the federal appeals court is the final word on the matter. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tossed aside Trump’s various arguments asserting executive privilege, saying Congress has a uniquely vital interest in studying the events of January 6. That panel also placed emphasis on Biden’s determination that the documents were in the public interest and that executive privilege should therefore not be invoked. The question now is whether at least four justices agree to hear the case. The court has six conservative jurists, including three appointed by Trump, and several issues have arisen since Trump’s lawyers filed their original petition that might be of interest.
On Tuesday, The Associated Press reported that the House committee had agreed to defer its attempt to get some documents, at the request of the Biden administration. The White House was concerned that releasing all of the Trump administration documents sought by the committee could compromise national security and executive privilege. The agreement to keep some Trump records away from the committee is memorialized in a December 16 letter from the White House counsel’s office. It mostly shields records that do not involve the events of January 6 but were covered by the committee’s sweeping request for documents from the Trump White House about the events of that day. While the agreement focused on specific concerns, the potential narrowing of the documents requests is an acknowledgement that it was broad. That point forms a foundation of the court filing to the Supreme Court by Trump’s lawyers, where the words broad, overly broad, strikingly broad and hopelessly broad are sprinkled throughout. It is a point that Trump noticed as well. In a statement following the disclosure of the agreement, the former president said the committee had just dropped a large portion of their request for my records and documents — a very big story and the action also changes the entire complexion of their request. (AP) .
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor