Happening now: Jay Bratt +DOJ prosecutors in a sealed hearing w Trump lawyers before Chief Judge Howell in DC. It’s about holding Donald Trump in contempt re: classified docs subpoena.
12+ reporters, our lawyer @CTobinJD waiting outside the courtroom, asking for public access
-Late last week, DOJ moved to compel more grand jury testimony from Pat Cipollone, Patrick Philbin in Jan 6 probe
-That comes after BOTH Greg Jacob, Marc Short from VP office were compelled after court fight
John Eastman is in court right now trying to challenge a House Jan 6 subpoena for ~19,000 of his emails, including ones related to Trump
So far:
-Chapman U, his employer, says he worked for Trump w/o permission
-His lawyer says he was working for Trump at MANY relevant moments
Judge David Carter nails down if he was doing work on behalf of client, when Eastman:
-briefed hundreds of state leg
-was at the Willard
-met w Trump & Pence Jan 3
Yes. The client was Trump, Eastman's lawyer answered.
Eight people have gone to court so far to try to block the House Select Committee's pursuit of information.
The latest: Michael Flynn
I dove into his complaint tonight, and how it fits among the other lawsuits/House subpoenas. cnn.com/2021/12/21/pol…
Flynn's lawsuit arrives 1 day after he was scheduled to testify to the House--and appears to be trying to hold off the consequence of his failure to appear
Flynn says he's challenging a subpoena to Verizon (that he assumes exists), and trying to assert his 5th
Amendment rights
One thing about all this talk of the Fifth Amendment in response to the House: You're only able to employ it during testimony or some sort of communicated response.
You can't plead the 5th to block the House getting info from, say, Verizon (as some of the these lawsuits try)
Trump has sued the Natl Archives and the House 1/6 Committee, seeking to block the release of documents that he believes could be privileged.
You can call Trump lawsuits frivolous all day long, but you'd also better be prepared for a grueling legal battle.
Here's why: Trump's go-to arguments for blocking House subpoenas rely on the Supreme Court decision in the Mazars case. He didn't outright win that case, but SCOTUS did lay out a test for Congress. And the case took a long time to resolve. It's still not over.
Also, separation of powers is thorny for the courts. They usually don't want to have to get in the middle of Congress and the executive. So there aren't a lot of precedents where appeals courts clearly and quickly say: Yep, House always gets access to X info from the presidency
Biden has determined he will NOT assert executive privilege to shield Trump-era records from being seen by the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection attempt
From @Kevinliptakcnn@maeganvaz: WH press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was taking an "eye toward not asserting executive privilege," but that requests would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
If we rewind the tape a bit, the Biden WH made pretty clear this would be their approach when former DOJ officials were getting ready to talk to Senate Judiciary.