Below is my column in The Hill on issuance of a subpoena for former President Donald J. Trump by the January 6th Select Committee. It brought together two obsessions: the Bears and the law. The final scheduled play in both the Bears game and the Committee hearings had one striking similarity. In both cases, the throw was solid but it came too late and the reception was much in doubt.
Here is the column:
Two events consumed Washington on Thursday. The hapless Commanders won a game against the Chicago Bears — and the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 issued a subpoena to former President Trump.
The attempted touchdown pass and the subpoena share one obvious feature: No matter how exciting the play, they came too late. The Bears threw what appeared to be a touchdown pass in the final seconds … only to lose due to a fall out of the endzone. The House Committee issued a subpoena after its last scheduled hearing and shortly before its likely cessation as a committee.
Yet, even for the long-suffering Bears fans, we knew when the game was over. The House committee and its supporters seemed unaware or unconcerned that its play came too late. Instead, they insisted that issuing a subpoena more than a year too late was all logical and strategic.
It is unclear if Trump will contest the subpoena, but he has contested virtually every previous subpoena in civil and criminal cases. The committee has, in my view, a solid case to compel him to testify. However, it had that case back at its creation on July 1, 2021; it simply waited until a subpoena may be impossible to enforce.
In football, they would be flagged for an “intentional grounding” for throwing a ball where there was no viable receiver or “a realistic chance of completion.”
Two points were immediately emphasized by the committee and its supporters in the media.
First, some of the coverage highlighted that this was “unanimous” without recognizing the irony of that distinction. House Democrats barred two Republican members originally selected by GOP leaders, who then boycotted the panel in response. There is no indication the committee, hand-picked by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), has ever had anything but unanimous votes. The only thing its members can cite for not being yes-men is that when there were demands for greater balance in witnesses or questioning, they all said “no.”
The second point is even more telling: The committee has precedent for former presidents being subpoenaed, such as Harry Truman — but that example is hardly helpful. Truman was subpoenaed by one of the most notorious panels in the history of Congress, the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was ridiculed for its lack of balance and due process.
While called “historic,” former presidents have been subpoenaed before, though it remains exceptionally rare. It is even more rare for them to testify. Truman never did; when Congress subpoenaed former presidents John Tyler and John Quincy Adams over the alleged misuse of funds, Tyler appeared but Adams submitted a deposition. Others, such as Bill Clinton, were subpoenaed to appear in civil cases or subpoenaed for documents, such as Richard Nixon.
The Jan. 6 committee had a noble mandate but failed to use it to offer a credible investigation for citizens across the political spectrum. From the first to the final hearing, it presented a one-sided narrative in a tightly scripted, packaged production. No defense or alternative explanations for key events or statements were allowed; witnesses were largely asked specific questions to get them to repeat what they said in previously recorded interviews, as members read from a teleprompter.
The committee could have been so much more. It could have followed the type of balanced inquiry that pursued allegations tied to the Pearl Harbor attack or Watergate. Even without Republican-appointed members, it could have insisted on balanced hearings with witnesses and dissenting views.
Nevertheless, the committee revealed important, often disturbing details. It was important for Americans to hear from figures like former attorney general Bill Barr and White House lawyers who struggled to counter unfounded advice given to Trump by outside lawyers on challenging the 2020 election. There were painful scenes of Capitol police overwhelmed at barricades and members of Congress hunkered down in offices.
Yet, the focus on a single approved narrative gave the hearings the feel of an infomercial selling a product that most of us bought two years earlier.
Subpoenaing Trump on the final scheduled hearing only reaffirmed how the committee was driven by political rather than investigative priorities. Indeed, the timing was embarrassingly transparent. While Trump could appear without a challenge or the Democrats could retain the House, few experts are predicting either outcome.
For more than a year, the committee said its investigation was focused on Trump’s intent and actions. Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) explained that the subpoena was essential because “he must be accountable. He is required to answer for his actions on Jan. 6. So we want to hear from him.” Why, then, wait until the last hearing, especially if the House may flip to GOP control in a matter of weeks?
It seemed another case of planned obsolescence by the House leadership. In the first Trump impeachment, Speaker Pelosi imposed an arbitrary deadline for impeachment by Christmas. That deadline was then used as an excuse to hold only one hearing on the legal standard with only one Republican witness. (I was that sole witness.) This was reportedly ordered over the objections of House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) who raised the abandonment of both due process and precedent. Pelosi then delayed transmitting the impeachment articles to the Senate — destroying her own rationalization for the lack of hearings.
In the second Trump impeachment, Pelosi went one better: She ordered a “snap impeachment” that dispensed entirely with hearings and witnesses.
If Trump declines to appear before the committee on constitutional grounds, the House would likely run out of time for any challenge. Thus, the only way to enforce this subpoena in time would be a “snap contempt” vote that does not wait for negotiation or judicial review.
Attorney General Merrick Garland also would have to move at a record pace to prosecute Trump before Republicans can retake the House and rescind a contempt sanction. Garland could argue that he should be allowed to prosecute Trump based on the original vote, but the House is the putative victim in the case — and we could have the victim claiming not to be a victim as the Justice Department prosecutes its victimization.
That brings us back to what the House can learn from the Chicago Bears. This was only the latest game lost in the final seconds due to bungled plays. However, we do recognize when the game ends.
Not so with the House team. If the committee truly wanted to compel Trump’s testimony, it should have subpoenaed him in 2021. Yet liberals celebrated the committee’s belated move as a “bombshell ending” instead of asking why it had not been a bombshell beginning.
As Bears fans, we are often chided for being delusional in our hope for each new season — a blind faith that reaches almost pathological levels with each successive Cubs season. But we cannot hold a candle to fans of the Jan. 6 committee, who just wildly applauded a Hail Mary pass to an effectively empty field after the last hearing and before the team is likely to be disbanded. And those fans remain cheering a legal throw after the last hearing and just before the team is likely to be disbanded by new management.
Now that’s a fan base.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Jonathan: There is little to compare football with the 10 Jan.6 hearings–despite your attempts. The two points you raise have been debunked. First, you falsely claim the Committee was not “balanced” between Dems and the GOP. And who is responsible for that? Pelosi only nixed two of Keven McCarthy’s choices. McCarthy then decided to boycott the Committee. Even Donald Trump thought that was a strategic mistake. You neglect to mention there are two GOP members of the panel. And almost all the witnesses called to testify are Republicans. I call that fair and “balanced”. Second, there is ample precedent that presidents and former presidents can be compelled to testify before Congress. You neglected to mention the case of President Ford who testified before a Congressional sub-committee over his pardon of Richard Nixon. I doubt even the conservative majority on the SC would find, as you assert, that Trump has “constitutional grounds” to refuse the Committee’s subpoena. Steve Bannon has found out what happens when you defy a House subpoena.
Your big objection is that the Jan. 6 Committee waited until the last hearing to issue a subpoena for Trump to come and testify. In a normal criminal case the prosecution first puts on its case in chief–followed by the defense. It’s ludicrous to argue Trump should have been called first. That’s not how the process works and, as an experienced criminal lawyer, you know better. The Jan. 6 Committee put on a compelling case that Trump was the principal cause of the insurrection. He planned it even before the election. But the Committee has offered Trump an opportunity to present his side–any actual evidence the 2020 election was “stolen”. I call that also a “fair and balanced” attempt to give Trump an opportunity to present his side. It is unlikely Trump will voluntarily testify because he has no evidence–nothing, nada!
But you are probably right on one point. Kevin McCarthy and the GOP House leadership have made it clear that if they take back control of the House next month one of their first acts will be to disband the Jan. 6 Committee. Any chance that Trump could be compelled to testify will be strangled in the crib. To use your football metaphor Trump will be allowed to catch that “Hail Mary” pass in an empty end zone. But Trump will not escape the judgment of history. And that, at this point, will be good enough for me. Besides, AG Garland, I suspect, is focused on Trump’s criminal conspiracy, his obstruction in holding onto all those “top secrets” docs. That’s the more compelling case–and the one you don’t want to discuss.
Well done!
Seriously, McIntyre??
(a) “The Committee **IS** impartial because McCarthy refused to work with them!” How on earth does McCarthy’s actions in any way justify the zoo collection of hacks that the Committee ended up being? It is what it is, regardless of how it got that way. Your claim it is/was “impartial” is simply silly.
(b) “Leaving Trump to last is standard procedure, so the timing was fine. Good, in fact”. HUH? Let us for the sake of the argument take as if true Trump SHOULD have been left for last. OK. How on earth does that justify finally acting when the alleged plan can no longer be carried out – time has expired? The “Committee” COULD have both saved Trump for last AND acted when time remained; no one other than the “Committee” decided their timing. They chose to not do so. Again, your argument is simply silly.
(c) “Steve Bannon has found out …”. Oh, Sir, you have NO IDEA AT ALL how this will play out.
(d) “Trump caused … planned it before”. Sir. Please. You are not the arbiter of what Trump did or planned. Please be forthright and add, “In my humble opinion I found Trump was …. and I really, really do believe he planned this all …”. Stating your beliefs as if fact makes your beliefs sort of irrelevant, even if they, in the end, were proven to be correct. Anyway, that’s MY humble opinion.
Good!
Then they can look into this.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html
I like Turley. However, just a few of the elephants in the room need to be dealt with regarding the infamous J6:
1. Ray Epps
2. Doors being opened by the Capitol Police
3. Pelosi et al refusing National Guard help
4. The mistreatment and ridiculous over incarceration of J6 people indicted and convicted
I could go on and on. This whole thing is a sham and those in charge know it.
Notice the continued misdirection by Prof Turley.
Simple stuff like he made a big deal about Paul Manaport & Manaport went to jail, bur Turley didn’t go after John & Tony Podesta, Tony was Manaport’s Boss, Hillary C’s guy at the time.
Stuff like just the crowd sizes, at the Trump inauguration Turley kept posting the picture & saying small crowd size yet what he was really talking about was the crowd size of the event very early as people were just starting to fill in the area. I posted the real pictures of the crowd here at the time.
The there’s the One Million plus crowd that showed up January 6. I’ve never seen P Turley go there about the largest crowd of Americans ever in DC for a Peaceful Unarmed Rally ever.
A Peaceful Unarmed Rally in which some of us in the public now know from Pelosi, her J6 Film Crew/daughter, McConnell, FBI & other US intel agencies had been running an illegal Coup against the US Citizens.
This is why Pelosi/McConnell/other Coup Leaders against Trump couldn’t have the Nat. Guard there on J6 as the NG would have exposed their Coup, just as the release of the 14000 hours of surveillance video would.
I don’t have a short video but at 10:45 you can pickup a piece of one of the latest videos released.
More is coming out.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/tgp-daily-recap-10-17-22-pelosi-punched-donald-trump-j6-msm-doxxed-navy-veteran-skewed-leak/
QUOTE: “No defense or alternative explanations for key events or statements were allowed;”
That’s the common denominator for progressives: disparate outcome wrt POC is inevitably and always proof of racism and white supremacy; the only way to save ourselves and our planet from the disasterous effects Climate Change (as if the climate can ever stop changing . . .) is only by curtailing our (=the west’s) use of fossil fuels; etc.
Not a fan of the man, but a fan of his policies. With that said, if Trump is who he says he is to his unquestioning followers, he should show up and testify this week. Give them an Ollie North moment of some kind. But I believe he is a coward and a snake oil salesman as much as a liked his policies so I doubt he would have the guts.
You refer to yourself as the sole Republican witness. You referred to yourself as a Democrat at the time of your testimony. It’s one thing to leave the Democrat Party or have the Party leave you, but to call yourself a Republican witness needs some explanation, please.
I’m pretty sure he’s referring to the party that called him as a witness, not to his own party affiliation.
He was called as a witness by Republicans.
The Republicans called him as a witness, he was not a witness who was a Republican.
We need a committee to investigate this riot.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html
Oh poor Republicans. You back a racist, liar who did an attempted coup and you get all feeling hurt because the Democrats are not making it easy for you to sweet your treason under the rug.
Oh and Trump stole highly classified documents. Don’t forget that one.
Which treason would that be?
Which side lied to a federal court to get a warrant to spy on a political campaign, again?
Sammy really is nothing but a bot. No evidence of any sentient thought. talking to bots not productive
He’s referring to the ‘sweet’ treason; the kind Biden likes.
you must be a Bear fan!
Says the brainwashed simpleton
Who accounts for the tens of millions of wasted tax dollars appropriated to the three impeachment debacles? Every man, woman and child in this nation is suffering economically from the dearth of leadership in this administration, yet these committees and their members are dedicated to political revenge. The little guys are being hosed. Why not dedicate yourselves to solving problems, real problems?
Instead they are drunk with self importance, trapped in a warped reality. They are tone deaf and blind to the needs of their constituents.
While the congressional investigation was needed it is abundantly clear that it has been used for political purposes which is evidenced by a “bombshell” ending 3-weeks before elections. It made itself irrelevant almost from the start by handpicking panel members, disallowing GOP nominated members, disallowing witnesses that might counter with entirely different interpretations of events and setting one clear objective and that is to kill any possible Trump resurgence. Unfortunately it isn’t credible to most Americans.
It’s just weird. When I’m filling up my car and buying groceries I don’t hear anyone talking about abortion or or J6.
On the other hand I hear continual complaints about the cost of everything.
It’s the economy stupid!
Apparently the evidence already available to the public, the most recent of which is Pelosi having that day *filmed by her daughter* AFTER refusing the national guard (the dems have and continue to goad and foment like nothing I’ve ever seen), has been evidence enough. Very few agree with them. Can we talk about covid, leftwing violence, the co-opting of our kids, and the economy now? For Pete’s sake. And I disagree with the Professor – this was never going to be anything but what it was – the dems are too malicious, notions of fairness and law fled the party long ago. I do not share the tiny, remaining burning ember he seems to still have for the American Democratic Party. It’ll never be ‘fixed’.
They didn’t refuse the national guard.
There is a signed letter. Feafull that a required request that never happen, might be missunderstood as a request, A letter was crafted, signed and delivered to the DoD, Affirming the refusal of any presence of the National Guard.
We have been over all the facts surrounding this. There is nothing left to debate.
The 117th congress was graveled into existence JAN 3, 2021. For this congressional term, it was the turn for the Speaker of the House, to assume fully responsibility for the security of the Capital Complex, The last congressional session, the 116th session, the The Senate Majority Leader exercised that power. That power rotates with each new congressional session.
Speaker Pelosi held the singular responsibility for the Security of the Capital.
Trump Pentagon first offered National Guard troops to the Capitol Police on Jan. 2, 2021, four full days before the event. The police turned down the offer but then began to have second thoughts. The Capitol Police then asked their political minders — the House sergeant at arms chief among them — for permission to accept the troops on Jan. 4 but were turned down on the ground that such a show of force would create bad “optics,” the records show.
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf
“Mr. Miller and GEN Milley met with the President at the White House at 5:30 p.m.,” the IG reported. “The primary topic they discussed was unrelated to the scheduled rally. GEN Milley told us that at the end of the meeting, the President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, ‘We’ve got a plan and we’ve got it covered.'”
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/DODIG-2022-039%20V2%20508.pdf
When dealing with Svelaz, no matter the icon, one is dealing with an idiot. This information was placed on the blog multiple times.
Sure, Svelaz. If Pelosi were even the tiniest bit legitimately concerned, her family would not have been there. Likely neither would she. Spin all you like. She’s petty beyond belief or reproach, and she was hoping for an excuse, none of it was coincidental – but one thing Pelosi isn’t, is stupid. And it is documented that the guard was an option beforehand. Your sauce gets weaker by the day, and history will not look kindly back on the dem’s part in any of this.
As usual Turley leaves out pertinent facts. When there was discussion about forming the J6 committee there was a vote to form a bipartisan commission to investigate. Republicans voted NO. Pelosi then formed the j6 committee and offered republicans a seat on the table. The problem was they wanted members who clearly were not going to investigate, rather they were intent on obstruction and obfuscation. Pelosi rejected those members and asks McCarthy to appoint different members. McCarthy refused, but Liz Chaney and Kinzinger joined the committee thus making it bipartisan.
It is clear why McCarthy and republicans didn’t want this committee or the commission. A LOT of their members were complicit or enabled Trump’s botched takeover of the election count to forcefully stay in office despite losing the election. He did lose. It is obvious that republicans were not going to accept the fact that a lot of their members were in collusion with trump to illegally overturn the results of the election. That would have been seen as sedition. Which would have expelled them from office if found guilty.
Trump will never testify in person. However he did stupidly implicate himself further with his ranting letter to the J6 committee. He just can’t keep his mouth shut can he? He keeps blabbing out incriminating statements that will eventually be used against him in court when he is indicted.
Amnd yet, your side sopread the “Trump Colluded with Russia®™ and Stole the 2016 Election” myth.
In fact, you used federal law enforcement resources to give the illusion of credib ility to this propaganda campaign.
Your side excused Kevin Clinesmith.
if true, this would not be sedition, but payback.
” The problem was they wanted members who clearly were not going to investigate, rather they were intent on obstruction and obfuscation. “
They were intent on providing a different point of view. To an idiot that means obstruction.
From the inception, this ‘thing’ was never anything but, creating and pushing a narrative.
The last thing this administration or the Dems want is to remind people that a “snapish” call for Biden to appear before the GOP at a hearing might not go so well. Delay may be the better part of valor.
Is this clown show still going on?
Initially, I thought it would be foolhardy for Trump to submit to this band of zealots but the more I thought of it, the more inclined I am to think he would quickly expose their hypocrisy and dishonesty. Consider what the McCarthy hearings in the Senate are remembered for. Not great wisdom or oratory or fact-finding. No, they are remembered for the corrupt and dishonest behavior of the chairman, Joseph McCarthy who misused his power to destroy people he didn’t like. He was brought down and forced into exile and, eventually, alcoholic death by the simple retort of a witness that said, “Have you no sense of shame, sir?” when asked about communists in the U.S. Army. The McCarthy hearings came less than a decade after WWII when the sacrifices of our military were still fresh in the minds of the people. Could Trump produce a redux to this? Perhaps. It would be fun to watch and hear Trump ask Liz Chaney, “Madam representative, have you no sense of shame?” It would be a denouement to a smashed political career as she slithers off into the dustbin of history to join her mentor, Joseph McCarthy.
McCarthy was right.
A Democrat President, Harry Truman, has set precedent by rejecting a subpoena to testify before an investigating committee. Jan 6th Committee is nothing more than a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
How disabled can get free laptop can be learn from this web site that is sharing inforamtion about disabled grants and assistance
One way to summarize the J6 Committee’s results: Nancy Pelosi’s 3rd failed impeachment.
Agree what you have said other must also notice the same
The Genesis for the Democrat’s visceral hatred of Trump shows the depth of their concern for his threat to their power.
Call a spade a spade.
The 1/6 hearings were a partisan attempt to score political points.
Maybe some members sought the truth, but the partisans hijacked the effort and just brought contempt down on the House.
No glory accrued to anyone associated with the effort.