WASHINGTON, D. C. -- U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Champaign County on Wednesday responded to a subpoena he received from the Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by decrying it as a “dangerous escalation” of a political vendetta. But he didn’t say whether he’ll comply with its demand that he appear for a May 27 deposition.
“The Select Committee has not articulated how the information it seeks is necessary to advance a legitimate legislative purpose, or why such information cannot be obtained through other means,” Jordan said in a Wednesday letter to the committee’s chairman, Mississippi Democrat Bennie Thompson.” Instead, public statements by members of the Select Committee indicate that it seeks to use its subpoena authority for improper motives and for the self-aggrandizement of its members.”
The Jan. 6, 2021 riot by former President Donald Trump supporters disrupted Congress’ tally of electoral votes that declared Democrat Joe Biden winner of the 2020 presidential election. A House of Representatives committee probing the incident initially sent Jordan a letter seeking a voluntary interview about his role in Trump’s efforts to dispute the election results and issued the subpoena after he refused its request.
The committee has said it wants to ask Jordan about his communications with Trump on Jan. 6, his communications with other Trump supporters who organized or planned Jan. 6 actions and strategies, his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and “any discussions involving the possibility of presidential pardons for individuals involved in any aspect of January 6th or the planning for January 6th.”
Jordan’s Wednesday letter questioned the subpoena’s validity on several grounds. It said U.S. Supreme Court precedents say congressional committees have “no general power to inquire into private affairs and compel disclosures, and there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated are indefensible.”
He said he has no “relevant information that would advance any legitimate legislative purpose, had no responsibility for the security of the Capitol complex that and had “no role in or advance knowledge that violence would occur that day,”
His letter said the Select Committee hadn’t explained “the Constitutional basis for the extraordinary claim that a congressional committee may compel the testimony of other Members of Congress” and how that would mesh with the Speech or Debate clause of the Constitution, which are both designed “to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators.” He questioned the validity of comparing it to subpoenas the House Ethics Committee sends Congress members.
“The Select Committee purports to seek “information relevant to [its] investigation” of January 6 and not to adjudicate any allegations of unethical conduct under House rules,” says the letter from Jordan, who serves as top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “There is no apparent legal justification for so dangerous an implied power, which could readily be weaponized by the majority against the minority.”
Jordan’s letter also faults the Jan. 6 committee for failing to respond to questions Jordan raised after his initial refusal to testify and asks it to provide him with more material “so that I may adequately further respond to your subpoena.” The letter seeks all documents, videos and other material the committee might use or rely on when it questions him and to provide him with “all legal authorities and legal analyses in the possession of the Select Committee or the office of the House of Representatives General Counsel pertaining to the constitutionality of a non-ethics congressional subpoena to a Member of Congress.
“Because members of the Select Committee have altered and publicly misrepresented nonpublic information concerning my actions, I ask that you provide all documents, communications, testimony, and other material in the possession of the Select Committee in which my name appears or in which I am referenced,” his letter says.
The committee plans to begin public hearings on June 9, where witnesses, exhibits, and staff testimony will describe efforts by Trump and his supporters to overturn the election. Information that’s come out so far shows Jordan played a prominent role in Trump’s unsuccessful drive to stay in power. Jordan strategized about election protests with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and repeatedly communicated with Trump himself on the day of the riot.
Transcripts of the committee’s interviews with a former White House aide to Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson, indicate Jordan played a role in advancing a fringe legal theory advanced by attorney John Eastman, which hypothesized Trump could remain in the White House if former Vice President Mike Pence refused to recognize electors from states disputed by Trump as Pence presided over Congress’ official tally of electoral votes. Pence refused to do so despite heavy pressure from Trump. Material revealed by the committee indicates Jordan was deeply enmeshed in White House discussions of how Pence could overturn the election.
Text messages from Meadows that the January 6 committee inserted in legal filings show that Jordan texted Meadows at 11:27 p.m. on Jan. 5 to describe how Pence, as president of the Senate, “should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all -- in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.”
Jordan’s text to Meadows also quotes Hamilton saying, “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid.”
“Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all,” the text continued.
Jordan’s spokesman said the text was sent to Jordan by a former Defense Department inspector general, Joseph Schmitz, and that Meadows knew Jordan was forwarding it.
Meadows responded to Jordan’s text at 7:30 a.m. Jan. 6.
“I have pushed for this,” Meadows wrote. “Not sure it is going to happen.”
Meadows also spoke to Jordan before Jan. 6 to discuss what Jordan would say on the House of Representatives floor about the election and the speech’s timing, Hutchinson testified. She said Meadows wanted Jordan to give his floor speech after the rally ended, so Trump and his staff could watch it when they returned to the White House.
In addition to speaking with Meadows, Jordan has said he spoke to Trump multiple times on the day of the riot. Last year, he told the House Rules Committee he didn’t recall how often they spoke but said they had a conversation after the riot occurred.
“I talked to him after the attack happened, and we were moved to the chamber,” Jordan said. “I may have talked to him before, I don’t know.”
When the chairman of that committee, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, asked Jordan if he discussed a “coordinated effort to overturn the results of the election” with Trump, Jordan said: “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Read more:
The many things we know about U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan’s role in trying to overturn the 2020 election
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, four other GOP lawmakers subpoenaed by Jan. 6 committee
Jim Jordan tells January 6 investigative committee to get lost