Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Committee investigating Capitol insurrection has a lot of power, but can it force Trump to testify?

House committee hearing on Capitol insurrection

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection includes (from left) Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney.

Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images
Carlson is an associate professor of law and adjunct associate professor of political science at Wayne State University.

In the intensely partisan atmosphere surrounding the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, will the committee be able to get the information it needs?

The American people, said Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, "deserve the full and open testimony of every person with knowledge of the planning and preparation for Jan. 6."

In opening statements at the first hearing held on July 27 by the House select committee investigating the attack, Cheney and other committee members said that an accurate record of the events on Jan. 6 — and in the time that led up to it — is essential to understanding the factors contributing to the attack so that future attacks may be prevented.

The committee has several tools for shedding light on the events of Jan. 6 and ensuring that the American people learn the truth about what happened.

Investigating 'darkest days'

On June 30, 2021, lawmakers passed House Resolution 503, which created the select committee. It charges the committee with investigating the activities of law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the armed forces relating to that day as well as uncovering the factors contributing to the attack, including technology, social media and malign foreign influences.

Ultimately, the committee aims to issue a report with detailed findings and suggestions for corrective measures.

The select committee has already used one of its main tools for investigating the attack on the Capitol: holding public hearings and inviting testimony from key players in the attack.

Four police officers who had defended the Capitol during the attack gave testimony during the committee's first hearing.

The committee will continue to interview witnesses and invite testimony by law enforcement officers, former White House staffers, rally organizers and members of Congress. It can also ask for and receive information from various government agencies and private organizations.

But if the committee cannot obtain information or testimony it deems vital to the investigation, it has the power to issue subpoenas.

Compelling requests

A subpoena is a legal order requiring a person to appear and testify or produce documents.

House Resolution 503 expressly authorizes the committee to issue and compel subpoenas for documents and testimony.

Historically, congressional committees have preferred to cooperate with the other branches of government to obtain information. But if a cooperative approach does not produce the information the select committee needs, it can subpoena information and testimony from members of Congress, former White House staffers, social media companies and even the former president.

Former presidents have willingly testified before congressional committees in the past, but it's unlikely that Trump would. While in office, he repeatedly claimed executive privilege, which allows a president to withhold certain information from Congress, the courts or the public, in response to congressional subpoenas.

And Trump continues to resist the subpoena the House Oversight and Reform Committee issued to his accounting company, Mazars, for his financial documents in 2019.

A congressional subpoena issued by the select committee to Trump or even former officials from the Trump White House will likely lead to similar, protracted litigation.

Such litigation threatens to delay the select committee's progress in investigating the events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The law is less than clear about whether a former president can successfully claim executive privilege in the face of a congressional subpoena. The executive and legislative branches have historically preferred to avoid such confrontations and to negotiate the sharing of information.

As a result, federal courts have yet to determine the extent of the executive privilege retained by former presidents and when they can assert it.

To enforce or not

In a 1977 decision, the Supreme Court held that former President Richard Nixon could claim executive privilege in challenging a federal law known as the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. That law ensured government agencies and, ultimately, the public, could have access to certain documents and tape recordings made during Nixon's presidency. Although the court allowed Nixon to make the executive privilege claim, it ultimately ruled against him and upheld the law, noting that the lack of support for Nixon's claim by other presidents weakened his arguments for executive privilege.

Trump would not have a stronger claim; it's unlikely President Biden would support his assertion of executive privilege in an attempt to prevent disclosure of testimony or documents relating to the Jan. 6 attack.

The Department of Justice has already informed Trump administration witnesses that it does not support any assertions of executive privilege on matters relating to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Trump administration witnesses could still challenge congressional subpoenas and delay the investigation. But the Department of Justice determination weakens arguments for executive privilege and may encourage witnesses to testify instead.

The select committee could avoid the legal uncertainty about how courts would resolve the executive privilege claim by deciding not to enforce the subpoena.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities, for example, chose not to enforce a subpoena against former President Harry Truman when it sought his testimony in 1953. Truman publicly protested that the subpoena impeded the separation of powers but did not assert an executive privilege claim. The committee avoided a legal confrontation by backing down, and Truman never testified.

The select committee may gain more from trying to obtain documents and testimony through informal channels than its subpoena power. It has considerable power to request information from a wide variety of sources and may discover that a protracted legal battle with the former administration would obscure more information than it reveals.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

The Conversation



Read More

‘I Can’t Keep Up’: Many Single Moms Were Struggling To Get By. Then Gas Prices Shot Up.

Luna Rosado, a single mom of three in Connecticut, said she is paying about $40 more a week on gas, cutting into her budget for groceries and other essentials.

Courtesy of Luna Rosado; Emily Scherer for The 19th

‘I Can’t Keep Up’: Many Single Moms Were Struggling To Get By. Then Gas Prices Shot Up.

The rise in gas prices happened so quickly, single mom Luna Rosado has barely had time to adjust.

Rosado fills her tank twice a week to commute to her two health care jobs and shuttle her three kids to school, basketball and soccer practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
African American elementary student and his friends studying over computers during a class in the classroom.

A 20-year education veteran examines the decline of student performance in America, highlighting the impact of screen time, overreliance on technology, weak fundamentals, and unequal school funding—and calls for urgent education reform.

Getty Images, StockPlanets

The Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste - What To Do

The motto of the United Negro College Fund can today be applied to all children in our school systems—not just the socially disadvantaged, or poor, or intellectually challenged, but all children regardless of SES characteristics or intelligence. I say this based on 20 years of working as a volunteer tutor or staff in elementary and middle schools in various parts of the country.

The problem has several components. The first is the pervasive negative impact on children's minds of their compulsive use of screens, social media, and the internet. There is no shortage of articles that have been written, both scientific and anecdotal, about the various aspects of this negative impact. Research shows that the compulsive use of screen devices leads to a variety of social interaction and psychological problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Canceled and Silenced: From Instagram Ban to Fears of Censorship

A civil rights attorney reflects on being banned from Instagram, rising censorship, and her parents’ escape from Cuba—drawing chilling parallels between past authoritarian regimes and growing threats to free speech in America.

Getty Images, filo

Canceled and Silenced: From Instagram Ban to Fears of Censorship

I have often discussed my parents' fleeing Cuba, in part, for free speech.

The Washington Post just purged one third of their team, including reporters who are stationed in Ukraine and the middle east, reporting on critical international affairs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Immigration Crackdowns Are Breaking the Food System

Man standing with "Law Enforcement" sign on his vest

Photo provided by WALatinoNews

Immigration Crackdowns Are Breaking the Food System

In using immigration to target Farm and food chain workers, as well as other essential industries like carework, cleaning, and food chains, our federal government is committing us to a food system in danger.

A food system where Farmworkers, meat packers, and other food chain workers are threatened with violence is not a system that will keep families healthy and fed. It is not a system that the soils and waterways of our planet can sustain, and it is not a system that will support us in surviving climate change. We each have a role to take in moving toward a food system free of exploitation.

The threat of immigration enforcement, which has always been hand in hand with racism, makes all workers vulnerable. This form of abuse from employers, landlords, and law enforcement is used to threaten and remove workers who organize against their exploitation. This is true even in places like Washington State, where laws like the Keep Washington Working Act which prohibits local law enforcement agencies from giving any non public information to Federal Immigration officers for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement , and the recently passed HB 2165 banning mask use by law enforcement offer some kind of protection.

Keep ReadingShow less