The MeidasTouch Podcast - January 6 Committee FIRES BACK at Trump NO SHOW at Deposition

Starting point is 00:00:00 I'm Ben Micellis from the Midas Touch Network. The January 6th committee has fired back with a scathing statement about Donald Trump after Donald Trump refused to appear at his scheduled deposition before the January 6th committee pursuant to a lawful subpoena issued by the January 6th committee for Trump's appearance and for Trump's documents leading up to the date of Donald Trump's deposition. His lawyers, including Alina Haba, said that she thought that Donald Trump should show up and testify before the January Sixth Committee because she said he has nothing to hide. But of course, we here at the Midas Touch Network and you who have watched this network, we all knew that Donald Trump was not going to show up before the January 6th committee. Donald Trump's entire life has trying to duck and dodge depositions and subpoenas and accountability.

Starting point is 00:00:57 And he appeals that all the way up to the Supreme Court to try to delay, delay, delay. And so there was no chance in in my view, that Trump was ever going to show up before the January 6th committee. So on Friday, Donald Trump's lawyers, a new set of lawyers, filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. Unfortunately, it was appointed to a Trump appointee, Judge Rudolfo A. Ruiz II, and Judge Ruiz was appointed by Trump, who will now be overseeing this case for declaratory relief, where Trump argues that based on the separation of powers, a past president should have no obligation and can't be compelled to testify before a congressional committee.

Starting point is 00:01:48 Now, there's no law at all supporting that. I'll go and explain to you what Trump put in his lawsuit, what the arguments are that he's making. I think those arguments are invalid and lack legal merit, and that's what the January 6th committee said in their statement as well. But I don't know what Judge Ruiz is going to do. And if Judge Ruiz is anything like Judge Eileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida, that could be problematic. But just because Trump appointees are overseeing Trump cases hasn't always mean that they've ruled in Trump's favor. But let me read for you the statement by the January 6th committee. The

Starting point is 00:02:31 January 6th committee states, former President Trump has refused to comply with the select committee's subpoena requiring him to appear for a deposition. His attorneys have made no attempts to negotiate an appearance and his lawsuit parades out many of the same arguments that courts have rejected repeatedly. Donald Trump orchestrated a scheme to overturn a presidential election and block the transfer of power. He is obligated to provide answers to the American people. The committee will evaluate next steps in the litigation and regarding the former president's noncompliance. And I think it bears repeating here what the January 6th committee repeated in the statement multiple times. Former President Trump, former president's noncompliance, because a former president is not above the law at all.

Starting point is 00:03:28 Despite the fact that Donald Trump's lawyers and his MAGA extremist cult followers still call him president, he is not. And fortunately, the voters in the midterm elections, by and large large repudiated the MAGA extremist, dangerous, weird echo chamber. I want to read for you the statement that was released by Trump's lawyer, David Warrington of the Dillon Law Group, concurrently with the filing of the lawsuit that Trump brought on Friday. And I want to then explain to you why the statement is completely wrong. Warrington, Trump's lawyer, writes, long-held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a president to testify before it. After the January

Starting point is 00:04:16 6th committee has undertaken the unprecedented act of demanding President Trump appear for a deposition on Monday, November 14th, he engaged with the committee in a good faith effort to resolve these concerns, consistent with executive branch prerogatives and separation of powers. But this partisan committee insists on pursuing a political path, leaving President Trump with no choice but to involve the third branch, the judicial branch in this dispute between the executive and legislative branches. President Trump joins presidents of both parties in insisting that the legislative branch honor the boundaries set forth in the Constitution instead of catering to base partisan impulses. Should I rip this statement apart here? Okay, instead of catering to base partisan impulses, Donald Trump led an insurrection

Starting point is 00:05:07 against our country, and the January 6th committee is bipartisan. We have Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, and Liz Cheney's the co-chair. And so the last time I thought about it, that is a bipartisan committee, and Liz Cheney is a Republican. She's not a MAGA extremist cult leader. Then you go on to say that President Trump, first off, he's not the president, joins president of both parties. Who are you referring to there? Who are the presidents of both parties? That is an inaccurate statement, and I will then explain to you why that's a

Starting point is 00:05:39 completely inaccurate statement there. You next say he engaged with the committee in a good faith effort to resolve these concerns. No, he didn't. The committee completely said you completely ignored them and blew them off and didn't do anything. I will take the committee's statement of facts here of what took place over yours. And then it being an unprecedented act of demanding a former president, there's nothing unprecedented about that. There have been many former presidents who have testified before congressional committees. So when the January 6th committee sent the subpoena to Trump, they very smartly realized that Trump's lawyers were going to put forth these frivolous arguments because we know Trump's playbook. Trump has like three moves or four moves.

Starting point is 00:06:24 And so the January 6th committee, when they sent the subpoena several weeks back, they attached a letter to the subpoena and the letter set forth what the actual precedent was. And this is what they say in the letter that they sent to Trump. We recognize that a subpoena to a former president is a significant and historic action. We do not take this action lightly, but as you likely know, you would not be the first former president to testify before Congress or to receive a congressional subpoena. Former Presidents John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, and Gerald Ford each testified before Congress after they left office. President Roosevelt explained during his congressional testimony, quote, an ex-president is merely a citizen of the United States, like any other citizen, and it is his plain duty to try to help this committee or respond to its invitation. The letter goes on to say,

Starting point is 00:07:27 even sitting presidents, including Abraham Lincoln and Gerald Ford, also testified before Congress. Further, both former and sitting presidents, including President Nixon, Tyler, and Quincy Adams, have provided evidence in response to congressional subpoenas. So when Trump says presidents from both parties in making this, in insisting this, it's just completely false. And again, it shouldn't surprise you that Trump would lie about literally everything, but he does.

Starting point is 00:07:57 Hi, I'm Harry Litman, host of Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent figures from government law and journalism for a dynamic discussion of the most important topics of the day. Each Monday, I'm joined by a slate of Fed's favorites and new voices to break down the headlines and give the insiders view of what's going on in Washington and beyond. Plus, sidebars explaining important legal concepts read by your favorite celebrities. Find Talking Feds wherever you get your podcasts. Playoff hockey. Overtime playoff hockey. Get more from the game with live overtime markets. Download FanDuel today and get more playoff action with North America's number one sports book. Please play responsibly.

Starting point is 00:08:48 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. When you go to the Trump's lawsuit that he filed in federal court in Southern District of Florida, and you're trying to search for what precedent is he referring to? Like, what are the lawyers referring to there? And if you go to paragraph five on page three, he refers to this letter that was sent by President Truman when he was no longer the president in response to a subpoena from the

Starting point is 00:09:22 United States House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities. And this is what Truman wrote. Truman wrote, It must be obvious to you that if the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired, when he is sought to be examined with respect to any acts occurring while he was president. The doctrine would be shattered and the president, contrary to our fundamental theory of constitutional government, would become a mere arm of the legislative branch of the government if he

Starting point is 00:09:58 would feel during his term of office that his every act might be subject to official inquiry and possible distortion for political purposes. And this was a letter from Harry S. Truman to the Honorable Harold H. Velde, November 11th, 1953, from the Truman Library. Now, this 1953 letter is not a judicial precedent at all. Harry Truman did not try to overthrow the United States government. Harry Truman did not lead an insurrection against the United States government. social or Twitter or social media or right-wing extremist media that he would go on and brag about trying to overthrow the United States government. And this is not a judicial opinion. What the judicial opinions have actually said is that there is a legislative prerogative and the legislative prerogative in conducting these investigations would permit the legislative branch to ask questions even of a former president. tried to assert executive privilege to block his testimony before the January 6th committee, after he was supposed to be deposed back in December, last December.

Starting point is 00:11:31 What Carl Nichols said is that based on the speech and debate clause immunity in the Constitution, that Mark Meadows was not even entitled to sue the January 6th committee. And repeatedly, we've seen people try to assert executive privilege to avoid testifying, and they have not prevailed in that at all. And so I don't think a executive privilege claim of a former president here, especially here where Trump's conduct was not in furtherance of his duties as a president. I mean, his conduct was part of a political effort to overthrow a free and fair election. So I don't think Trump wins the lawsuit if the judge is being fair and impartial. And again, I don't know how this judge is going to side on a Trump lawsuit before him.

Starting point is 00:12:33 Is he going to be like Judge Eileen Cannon or is he going to be like Judge Nichols? Judge Nichols, who I just mentioned, was a Trump or is a Trump appointed judge who made those rulings about Mark Meadows. So you have different types of rulings from Trump appointed judges, but we'll see what Judge Ruiz ends up doing here. But the January 6th committee, their mandate is set to expire at the end of the year. So one of the questions also becomes, if the January 6th committee is no longer here, what's going to happen with this subpoena, with this lawsuit, with their efforts? One thing that's been floated, which I find very interesting, which is why I think the Georgia runoffs are so important is that if Democrats can gain a 51 Senate control over the Senate,

Starting point is 00:13:29 if Raphael Warnock can defeat Herschel Walker and there's 51 Democrats, then Democrats can get subpoena power in the Senate, which they don't have right now. And I think that the investigation, this is an interesting point, could potentially be transferred from the January 6th committee to a Senate committee, which could continue the work. We have to look into that a little more to see what the Senate's view of it is, because the senators may view investigations like that differently than the House. But that is a possibility that we should be aware of. But I think what we're going to find here is the January 6th committee very aggressively responding to the litigation initiated by Trump, compelling him. And I think one of their last acts that will probably happen soon, because they don't even have to wait for the court to do this

Starting point is 00:14:25 is issue and make a vote of contempt of Congress for Trump not appearing and to find Trump in contempt. And it'll be interesting to see too if they can get any additional bipartisan support of it, especially as Trump has been repudiated in the midterm election. So we will follow all of that up here on the Midas Touch Network. So I'm Ben Myselis from the Midas Touch Network. Hit the subscribe button right now. And in addition, consider becoming a patron of the Midas Touch Network by going to patreon.com slash Midas Touch, P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com slash Midas Touch. We are not funded by any outside investor, so we're purely accountable to you.

Starting point is 00:15:09 So wherever you are in the world, if you go to patreon.com slash Midas Touch, join one of those subscriptions. No pressure if you can't do it, but if you can, it goes a long way to build this independent network so we could keep growing bigger than that both sides media and the pro-fascist media. I think independent media is needed more now than ever. And there's nothing more I love than being only accountable to the people out there and not these big investors who have their own interests and prerogatives. I'm Ben Maiselis from the Midas Touch Network. Thanks so much. Hit subscribe.

Your Ad Here

The MeidasTouch Podcast - January 6 Committee FIRES BACK at Trump NO SHOW at Deposition

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.