Former president Donald Trump is suing to block the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol from receiving records for its inquiry into the events of that day as well as Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump and his attorneys argue that the records requests are overly broad and have no legislative purpose, and they criticize President Biden for not asserting executive privilege to block the handover of those documents.
“The Committee’s request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration,” the lawsuit reads. “Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former president and his close advisors.”
Jan. 6 committee lays out legal arguments against Bannon’s subpoena defiance in private letter to his attorney
The suit against the committee and the National Archives was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
The committee has signaled in recent days that it plans to be aggressive in its effort to secure information from Trump and his top aides. On Tuesday evening, the panel is expected to approve a criminal complaint against former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon, who has declined to comply with a committee subpoena.
Trump’s office put out a statement saying that it’s legal arguments rest on three “pillars”: that the committee’s request serves no useful legislative purpose, such as informing the writing of a bill; undermines Trump’s executive privilege rights; and that the committee is not providing the former president’s team to review its records requests.
In florid terms, the 26-page complaint alleges that the committee seeks “to harass President Trump and senior members of his administration (among others) by sending an illegal, unfounded, and overbroad records request to the Archivist.”
Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
The suit claims that the records requested have “no reasonable connection to the events of that day” and accuses Biden of refusing to assert executive privilege as “a political ploy” intended to injure Trump.
The suit was filed by Jesse R. Binnall, who worked on Trump’s failed attempts to contest the 2020 election results and who along with attorney Sidney Powell represented former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was prosecuted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
The committee did not immediately comment on the suit.
It has subpoenaed several former Trump aides and has said some are “engaging” with its investigators so the panel has not yet sought to file complaints against them as it plans to with Bannon. Trump has urged those aides not to cooperate with the committee.
Story continues below advertisement
Some Trump aides have scrambled in recent days to find lawyers to represent them, expecting protracted battles with the committee, according to people familiar with matter who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Others have begun considering the option of testifying but not commenting on any interactions with Trump.
Advertisement
Several Trump advisers described the suit as an opening gambit in an effort they expected to last many months, if not years.
New York University law professor Stephen Gillers called Trump’s lawsuit “a naked effort to delay the work of the Jan. 6 committee until the 2022 election.”
He noted that if Republicans take control of the House, they will disband the committee.
Story continues below advertisement
“How much longer will the courts tolerate such abuse without serious sanctions against Trump and his lawyers?” Gillers asked. “The credibility of the federal judiciary is at stake.”
Norman Eisen, a former special counsel to President Barack Obama who advised managers of the first Trump impeachment and trial, called it “fatally flawed.”
Eisen argued that Trump was using arguments that may have had some merit if he were still in office, but have none now.
Advertisement
“This claim might work if Trump were still president but these arguments fall apart inasmuch as it is the current president who has the authority over these records and he has not interposed an objection,” he said. “The complaint relies heavily on the Mazars case but that was a separation of powers case that exclusively concerned what happens when the House seeks information from a sitting president.”
Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may pursue Trump’s financial records, denies Congress access for now
In the Mazars case, congressional Democrats were seeking personal financial information about Trump from his longtime accounting firm.
Story continues below advertisement
In July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the restrictions Trump proposed on congressional demands for private, nonprivileged information “risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities.”
Still, the court put a hold on the congressional subpoenas, suggesting overreach on the part of the lawmakers, and sent case back to a lower court.
Advertisement
In the Mazars decision, which was 7 to 2, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. lamented that it had to get involved in the first place, calling it “the first of its kind to reach this Court” and arguing the legislative and executive branches “managed for over two centuries to resolve such disputes among themselves without the benefit of guidance from us.”
The Supreme Court could soon find itself embroiled in a similarly unprecedented case of Congress seeking information from a former president.
Robert Barnes contributed to this article.