A federal judge has ruled that former Vice President Mike Pence must testify before a Justice Department grand jury in an investigation examining efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Pence was subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith in February to testify on the plot to overturn the election and former President Donald Trump’s actions surrounding January 6, 2021 — the day a mob of his loyalists breached the Capitol building to disrupt the certification of President Joe Biden’s election win.
Two efforts to block Pence’s testimony were under consideration by U.S. District Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg. In one, lawyers for former President Donald Trump argued that Pence shouldn’t have to testify because doing so would violate Trump’s executive privilege — the legal doctrine stating that presidents retain the right to keep conversations with advisers from being made public or being accessed by the other branches of government.
In the other, Pence sought to block his own testimony, arguing that because he was vice president during the Trump campaign’s efforts to overturn the election, he was also, constitutionally, the president of the U.S. Senate — and therefore is protected from divulging information to the grand jury based on the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which stipulates that communications between lawmakers in Congress are privileged.
According to accounts of Boasberg’s rulings, which haven’t yet been made public, the federal judge rejected Trump’s argument outright. Boasberg also rejected most of Pence’s argument, saying that Pence can remain silent on some topics pertaining to his work as president of the Senate, but not others — including conversations related to alleged “illegality” on Trump’s part.
Pence has not said whether he will appeal the ruling from Boasberg, but he has previously indicated that he would take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court if allowed to do so.
In an interview with Newsmax’s Greta Van Susteren after the ruling, Pence said that he would make a decision about an appeal “in the coming days.”
“We’re currently speaking to our attorneys about the proper way forward,” he said.
Trump could also technically appeal Boasberg’s ruling against him, but other appeals based on Trump’s executive privilege claims have failed, as Los Angeles Times senior legal affairs columnist Harry Litman pointed out on Twitter.
“That argument by now is really a well worn loser,” Litman wrote, noting that an appeal by the former president “would delay things, but I think not for very long.”
Legal experts have speculated that Pence, who is likely to announce a run for president in 2024, is primarily trying to avoid testifying to appear strong against the Biden administration’s DOJ — a stance that would likely appeal to the Republican party’s increasingly far right base.
“This feels to me more like Pence trying to maintain political support by not cooperating with the 1/6 special counsel investigation than a strong legal position,” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) president Noah Bookbinder said in February.
Legal experts have expressed skepticism that a Pence appeal would be successful. In response to Boasberg’s orders on Tuesday, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance described Trump’s strategy of using executive privilege claims to block Pence from testifying as “thoroughly done.” Pence’s argument also appears to have been shot down, she said.
“Even if Pence and perhaps Trump pursue an appeal, it looks like the die is cast here and he will end up having to testify,” Vance said on MSNBC Tuesday night.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.