Ryan Goodman, Author at Just Security

Trump Classified Docs Clearinghouse: All Key Documents in the Special Counsel Investigation

Ryan Goodman — Mon, 05 Jun 2023 13:03:43 +0000

This repository contains a collection of information for researchers, journalists, educators, scholars, and the public at large.

If you think the Clearinghouse is missing something, please send recommendations for additional content by email to lte@justsecurity.org.

In terms of Just Security’s own analytic content, readers may be interested in the “Model Prosecution Memo for Trump Classified Documents,” and an interview with some of the model prosecution memo’s co-authors, Andrew Weissmann, Joyce Vance, and Ryan Goodman, on the Just Security podcast.

We hope you find valuable the collection of material below. The Clearinghouse will be continually updated.

Expand all Collapse all

Chronological (all documents)

Presidential Records Act

Executive Order 13489 - Presidential Records (January 21, 2009)

Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information (December 29, 2009)

President Trump, Letter designating representatives to Archives (Donald F. McGahn II, Stefan C. Passantino, and Ann M. Donaldson) (February 16, 2017)

White House Counsel Don McGahn, Memorandum - Presidential Records Act Obligations (February 22, 2017)

National Archives, Letter to Deputy Why House Counsel Stefan Passantino (June 14, 2018)

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Devin Debacker, “Responsibility for Electronic Presidential Records on Hardware of the Executive Office of the President After a Presidential Transition” (January 15, 2021)

President Trump, Letter designating representatives to Archives (Mark R. Meadows, Pasquale A. Cipollone, John A. Eisenberg, Patrick F. Philbin, Scott F. Gast, Michael M. Purpura, and Steven A. Engel) (January 19, 2021)

Presidential Memorandum - Declassification of Certain Materials Related to the FBI Crossfire Hurricane Russia Investigation (January 19, 2021)

Mark Meadows, Memorandum - Privacy Act Review of Declassified Crossfire Hurricane Russia Materials (January 20, 2021)

U.S. General Services Administration, Correspondence on movement of FPOTUS property (2021) (FOIA release)

National Archives General Counsel Gary M. Stern, Email to Patrick Philbin, Mike Purpura, and Scott Gast “Need for Assistance re Presidential Records” (May 6, 2021)

Chairwoman Rep. Maloney, Letter to National Archives (February 9, 2022)

National Archives, Letter to Chairwoman Rep. Maloney (February 18, 2022)

Chairwoman Rep. Maloney, Letter to National Archives (February 24, 2022)

National Archives, Letter to Chairwoman Rep. Maloney (March 28, 2022)

Acting Archivist of the United States Debra Steidel Wall, Letter to Trump counsel Evan Corcoran (May 10, 2022)

Grand Jury subpoena (May 11, 2022)

Trump counsel Evan Corcoran, Letter to Justice Department (May 25, 2022)

Trump counsel Christina Bobb, Certification on Responsive Documents (June 3, 2022)

Former President Trump, Letter designating representatives to access Archives (Kash Patel and John Solomon ) (June 19, 2022)

FBI Affidavit (redacted) accompanying search warrant application (August 5, 2022)

FBI Affidavit (less redacted) accompany search warrant application, August 5, 2022 (less redacted version released Sept. 13, 2022)

FBI Search Warrant (August 5, 2022)

August 8, 2022 Search Results:

FBI sample photograph of files

Department of Justice, Detailed Inventory of August 8, 2022 search

Department of Justice, Revised Detailed Inventory (September 26, 2022)

Department of Justice, Privilege Review Team Inventory (filed August 30, 2022)

Magistrate Judge Reinhart, Order on Motions to Unseal Search Warrant and Affidavit (August 22, 2022)

Donald J. Trump, Motion for return of property and Special Master in federal district court (August 22, 2022)

United States Government, Reply to Trump motion for return of property and Special Master (August 30, 2022)

United States Government, Application to disclose subpoena with DC District Court (August. 29, 2022)

Donald J. Trump, Reply to Government’s Response to Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief (August 31, 2022)

Transcript of court hearing before federal district court Southern District of Florida (September 1, 2022)

Assistant Director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, Alan E Kohler Jr., Declaration (September 8, 2022)

Federal District Court of the Southern District of Florida, Order and opinion on special master and injunction (September 5, 2022)

United States Government, Motion for partial stay pending appeal, before U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida Circuit (September 8, 2022)

Donald J. Trump, Response in Opposition to Motion for partial stay pending appeal, before U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida Circuit (September 12, 2022)

United States Government, Reply in Support of Motion for partial stay pending appeal, before U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida Circuit (September 13, 2022)

Federal District Court of the Southern District of Florida, Order Denying Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal (September 15, 2022)

Department of Justice, Motion to Eleventh Circuit for partial stay pending appeal, before Eleventh Circuit (September 8, 2022)

Donald J. Trump, Response to Motion for partial stay pending appeal, before Eleventh Circuit (September 20, 2022)

Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit, Opinion Granting Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal (September 21, 2022)

Acting Archivist of the United States Debra Steidel Wall, Response Letter to September 13, 2022 Letter from U.S. Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (September 30, 2022)

Department of Justice, Brief of United States, Full Appeal to Eleventh Circuit (October 14, 2022)

Donald J. Trump, Principal Brief to Special Master on Global Issues (November 8, 2022)

Donald J. Trump, Brief in Response to U.S. Full Appeal to Eleventh Circuit (November 10, 2022)

Department of Justice, Response Brief to Special Master on Global Issues (November 14, 2022)

Donald J. Trump, Response to Government’s Brief on Global Issues (November 14 2022)

Department of Justice, Reply Brief on Full Appeal to the Eleventh Circuit (November 17, 2022)

U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Order for Appointment of John L. Smith as Special Counsel (November 18, 2022)

Donald J. Trump, Motion to Unseal Search Warrant Affidavit, before U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida Circuit (November 22, 2022)

Eleventh Circuit, Oral Argument (C-SPAN) (November 22, 2022)

News Media, Joint Motion for Access to Unredacted Search Warrant Affidavit, before U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida Circuit (November 30, 2022)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Opinion (December 1, 2022)

House Intelligence Committee, Briefing with National Archives officials (March 1, 2023)

Trump attorneys, Letter to House Intelligence Committee Chair (April 26, 2023)

Trump attorneys, Letter to Attorney General Garland (May 23, 2023)

National Archives Public Statements (occasionally updated)

Major Court Decisions

1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart, Order on Motions to Unseal Search Warrant and Affidavit (August 22, 2022)

2. Federal District Court of the Southern District of Florida, Order and opinion on special master and injunction (September 5, 2022)

3. Federal District Court of the Southern District of Florida, Order Denying Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal (September 15, 2022)

4. Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit, Opinion Granting Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal (September 21, 2022)

5. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Opinion (December 1, 2022)

U.S. Government - Former President Donald J. Trump Communications

U.S. General Services Administration, Correspondence on movement of FPOTUS property (2021) (FOIA release)

National Archives General Counsel Gary M. Stern, Email to Patrick Philbin, Mike Purpura, and Scott Gast “Need for Assistance re Presidential Records” (May 6, 2021)

Acting Archivist of the United States Debra Steidel Wall, Letter to Trump counsel Evan Corcoran (May 10, 2022)

Grand Jury subpoena (May 11, 2022)

Trump counsel Evan Corcoran, Letter to Justice Department (May 25, 2022)

Trump counsel Christina Bobb, Certification on Responsive Documents (June 3, 2022)

Former President Trump, Letter designating representatives to access Archives (Kash Patel and John Solomon ) (June 19, 2022)

The post Trump Classified Docs Clearinghouse: All Key Documents in the Special Counsel Investigation appeared first on Just Security.

Model Prosecution Memo for Trump Classified Documents

Ryan Goodman — Fri, 02 Jun 2023 12:57:59 +0000

This model prosecution memorandum assesses potential charges federal prosecutors may bring against former President Donald Trump. It focuses on those emanating from his handling of classified documents and other government records since leaving office on January 20, 2021. It includes crimes related to the removal and retention of national security information and obstruction of the investigation into his handling of these documents. The authors have decades of experience as federal prosecutors and defense lawyers, as well as other legal expertise. Based upon this experience and the analysis that follows, we conclude that Trump should–and likely will–be charged.

Before indicting a case, prosecutors prepare a prosecution memo (or “pros memo”) that lays out admissible evidence, possible charges, and legal issues. This document provides a basis for prosecutors and their supervisors to assess whether the case meets the standard set forth in the Federal Principles of Prosecution, which permit prosecution only when there is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. Before a decision is made about bringing charges against Trump (and co-conspirators, if any), prosecutors will prepare such a memo.

There is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction here, if the information gleaned from government filings and statements and voluminous public reporting is accurate. Indeed, the DOJ is likely now, or shortly will be, internally circulating a pros memo of its own saying so. That DOJ memo will, however, be highly confidential, in part because it will contain information derived through the grand jury and attorney work product. Since it will not be publicly available, we offer this analysis. Ours is likely more detailed than what DOJ will prepare internally for explanatory purposes. But, given the gravity of the issues here, our memo provides a sense of how prosecutors will assemble and evaluate the considerations that they must assess before making a prosecution decision.

Our memo analyzes six federal crimes in depth:

Mishandling of Government Documents
1. Retention of National Defense Information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
2. Concealing Government Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071)
3. Conversion of Government Property (18 U.S.C. § 641)

Obstruction, Contempt, False Information

1. Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1519)
2. Criminal Contempt (18 U.S.C. § 402)
3. False Statements to Federal Investigators (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

In the course of discussing these statutes, we also touch upon others that may have been violated but where the factual predicate for applicability is less clear. For instance, additional charges could be appropriate–under 18 U.S.C. §§ 798 and 793(e) (dissemination)–if the public reporting regarding Trump’s having intentionally disseminated classified material to aides and others is accurate. Additional charges could also potentially be brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1924 if there is sufficient evidence that Trump unlawfully removed classified documents from the White House (see our discussion of DOJ precedents for past prosecutions under § 1924 in Part IV and in the Appendix). Based on the publicly available information to date, a powerful case exists for charging Trump under several federal criminal statutes, which we discuss in detail.

Methodology

In considering prosecution of a former president, we begin with the standard articulated by Attorney General Merrick Garland: “upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor.”^[1] In other words, this case must be evaluated for prosecution like any other case with similar evidence would be, without regard to the fact that the case is focused on the conduct of a former president of the United States. This memo accordingly includes a balanced assessment of this particular case, and a thorough review of past DOJ precedents for charging similar cases. Those past cases show that to decline to bring charges against Trump would be treating him far more favorably than other defendants, including those who were charged for less egregious conduct than his. “All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law,”^[2] Garland has stated, and we are guided by the values underlying those words as well.

This model prosecution memo is, however, limited in an important sense. Throughout the memo, we draw as much as possible on the unusual amount of factual information provided by the Government in its court filings. We do not, however, have visibility into the full volume of information the Justice Department has assembled. That means we could be missing important facts, including exculpatory evidence, that may inform the DOJ’s decision-making process. We may be unaware of admissibility issues with some of the evidence. And equally true, the evidence could be better or more extensive than what is available in the public record.

What’s more, by necessity, we at times rely on news reports from investigative journalists whereas the actual prosecution memo would instead rely on direct evidence the federal investigators have collected. For that reason, we do not reach an unqualified charging decision. Instead, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction here, if the Government filings and statements and voluminous public reporting we detail below are accurate. We also note that, based on the reported facts, charges would be strongly warranted based on Department precedent in similar cases.^[3]

The model prosecution memorandum is available below as a SCRIBD file and also as a separate PDF.

Also, to hear more about the memo from some of its co-authors check out the Just Security podcast. A conversation with Andrew Weissmann, Joyce Vance, and Ryan Goodman.

Model Prosecution Memo – Trump Classified Documents Second Edition June 2023 by Just Security on Scribd

– – – – – – –

^[1] Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland Delivers Remarks (Aug. 11, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-garland-delivers-remarks.

^[2] Id.

^[3] Two of the authors of this model prosecution memo, Norman Eisen and Fred Wertheimer, were among the counsel for amici supporting DOJ’s position in litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, related to the criminal investigation mentioned in this report. For more information, see https://democracy21.org/category/news-press/press-releases.

Photo credit: Coolcaesar from Wikimedia Commons

The post Model Prosecution Memo for Trump Classified Documents appeared first on Just Security.

Assessing the Controversial Meeting of a U.N. Official and Russian Official Wanted for Arrest in the Hague

Ryan Goodman — Mon, 22 May 2023 14:33:26 +0000

Updated on 22 May 2023 at 11:03am ET.

To address the needs of victims of armed conflict, personnel who work for humanitarian organizations and offices often feel the need to meet directly with perpetrators of war crimes. But there are limits on when and under what conditions any face-to-face engagement is sound and proper, especially when it involves meeting an individual who is a fugitive under a warrant for arrest by an international criminal tribunal. Indeed, when it comes specifically to United Nations officials and the prospect of meeting a person subject to a warrant for arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC), codified guidelines issued by the UN Secretary-General state, “As a general rule, there should be no meetings between United Nations officials and persons who are the subject of warrants of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court.”

That’s what makes all the more remarkable a recent meeting of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict – Virginia Gamba – with the Russian Federation Commissioner on Children’s Rights – Maria Lvova-Belova – who, along with President Vladimir Putin, is the only known Russian official subject to an arrest warrant by the ICC.

The arrest warrant for Lvova-Belova was issued by a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC on March 17, 2023 upon application by the Prosecutor. The warrant alleges that she is responsible for the war crimes of unlawful deportation and transfer of children from Ukraine to the Russian Federation.

On Friday, the UN Secretary-General’s spokesperson would not confirm the meeting taking place – despite repeated questions by journalists during a press conference. On Sunday, however, Gamba acknowledged the meeting in a statement lauding achievements from her trip to Moscow. Lvova-Belova had earlier made her own statement lauding the outcome of her meeting with Gamba.

The Legal and Policy Framework

Over nearly two decades ago, the United Nations entered into a formal agreement of cooperation with the ICC, including its Office of the Prosecutor. The UN General Assembly approved the Relationship Agreement between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court in September 2004 (A/RES/58/318), and the agreement entered into force the following month.

In line with the general obligations of the Relationship Agreement, in 2013 the UN Secretary-General issued guidelines – known as the “essential contacts policy” – that govern any potential meeting with a member of the UN Secretariat and a person subject to a warrant for arrest by the ICC (see “Guidance on contacts with persons who are the subject of arrest warrants or summonses issued by the International Criminal Court“). The Secretary-General transmitted the guidance to the President of the General Assembly and to the President of the Security Council (A/67/828 and S/2013/210). The Guidance states that it applies “to all parts of the Secretariat” and includes the following terms:

(1) “As a general rule, there should be no meetings between United Nations officials and persons who are the subject of warrants of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court.”

(2) “Contacts between United Nations officials and persons who are the subject of warrants of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court should be limited to those which are strictly required for carrying out essential United Nations mandated activities.”

(3) “When contacts are absolutely necessary, an attempt should be made, where possible, to interact with individuals of the same group or party who are not the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant.”

The Guidance also explains that the contacts policy is pursuant to the obligations of the United Nations undertaken as part of the ICC Relationship Agreement. Specifically, the Guidance states: “It can be anticipated that persons who are the subject of arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court may deliberately seek to meet with United Nations officials in order to demonstrate their contempt for the Court and try to undermine its authority. … [T]he Relationship Agreement between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court requires the United Nations to refrain from any actions that would frustrate the activities of the Court and its various organs, including the Prosecutor, or undermine the authority of their decisions.”

Finally, the 2016 UN Manual on cooperation with the ICC explains: “A procedure has been established whereby OLA [the UN Office of Legal Affairs] informs the Prosecutor of the Court and the President of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute in advance of such meetings. The letter informs the Court of the meeting and explains why it is considered necessary.”

Assessment

On Friday, a reporter asked the UN Secretary-General spokesperson generally about “guidance given” to UN officials in terms of meeting with persons subject to an arrest warrant by the ICC. Here is that exchange:

Question: And what is the guidance given, I guess, to UN officials in terms of meeting with people who are wanted by the ICC?

Associate Spokesperson: Any guidance provided by the UN has been properly followed in the case of this visit. Yes. She did that according to all UN rules.

Just Security asked the Office of the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General whether the United Nations, including OLA, sent a letter to the ICC Prosecutor and President of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute in advance of Gamba’s meeting with Lvova-Belova (and if so what the letter stated in explaining the necessity of the meeting). No response was received at the time of publication.

[Update: Following publication, Spokesman for the Secretary-General, Mr. Stéphane Dujarric responded. “All procedures were followed for this visit, outlined in the cooperation agreement between the UN and the ICC,” he said. “She is indeed in Moscow and her activities there are part of the implementation of the mandate regarding children and armed conflict mandate that she is entrusted with, per relevant Security Council and also through the General Assembly,” Mr. Dujarric said.]

On Friday, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Beth Van Schaack said, in a tweet, that such a meeting would be “deeply concerning.” Human rights groups including Human Right Watch (see also statements by Amnesty International officials) sharply criticized the meeting, as did international criminal law and humanitarian law scholars (Kim Thuy Seelinger; Mark Kersten; Kevin Jon Heller).

When asked about the reported meeting, Larry D. Johnson, who served as Assistant UN Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, told Just Security, “If the report is true, it’s outrageous as a violation and disregard by the secretariat of the guidelines meant to implement and operationalize a bilateral agreement between the ICC and the UN approved by the governments running both organizations.”

Claus Kress, Professor of International Law and Criminal Law at Cologne University in Germany, told Just Security:

“On the basis of the limited information available, it is not possible to reach a firm conclusion as to whether the UN envoy’s course of action in Moscow was in conformity with the Guidance, but one certainly understands Human Rights Watch’s concern very well: The rather vague and evasive reaction by the U.N. spokesperson does not give one the reassurance that the strict criteria set out in the Guidance for a direct contact under exceptional circumstances had been rigorously considered. In fact, the spokesperson does not even appear to have specifically referred to the Guidance despite its obvious specific relevance in the case at hand.”

Todd Buchwald, who served as U.S. Ambassador and Special Coordinator for Global Criminal Justice, in an email, told Just Security:

“The Secretary General’s ‘no contacts’ guidance prohibits contacts by UN officials with persons subject to ICC arrest warrants unless ‘strictly required for carrying out essential United Nations mandated activities.’ And it goes even further than that, providing that – even when contacts are absolutely essential – an attempt should be made to interact with other persons who are not subject to such arrest warrants. So the standard is high. Were these meetings ‘strictly required’? Were the activities ‘essential’? Was there compliance with the UN’s Best Practices Manual for UN-ICC cooperation, under which the UN’s Office of Legal Affairs would be informed ‘at the earliest possible time’ that the meeting was scheduled to take place and the UN lawyers would inform the ICC Prosecutor in advance of why the meeting was considered necessary. In addressing questions about the meetings on Friday, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson asserted that ‘any guidance provided by the UN has been properly followed,’ but her explanation did not back that up. Indeed, the spokesperson’s statements — that the UN envoy ‘is there in Moscow, really in line with her mandate’ and that she is doing this ‘as per her mandate’ – suggest the absence of any special circumstances that might justify an exception and she gave no indication of any advance coordination. A clear explanation by the Secretary-General would be much appreciated.

Beyond the implications under the ‘no contacts’ guidance, the UN envoy may well have turned herself into a witness in the ICC proceedings against Russian Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova. What did the Commissioner say in these meetings? How did she defend the policy she is carrying out? There are any number of representations that the Commissioner may have made in the course of these meetings that would be relevant to the Prosecutor’s case or even to the Commissioner’s defense. Under the 2004 Relationship Agreement concluded with the ICC, the UN has committed itself to cooperating with the Court and the Prosecutor, including providing the Court ‘with such information or documents as the Court may request.’ The situation clamors for a straightforward affirmation that the UN remains committed to providing such cooperation.”

In April 2023, when Russia held the presidency of the UN Security Council, Lvova-Belova addressed the Council remotely by video. Junior diplomats represented the Council’s other fourteen members during the informal meeting held in a conference room, and when Lvova-Belova began her remarks, the representatives of Albania, Malta, the United Kingdom, and the United States walked out.

In an “extremely rare” move, the U.K. and U.S. missions blocked the meeting from being broadcast on the U.N.’s website.

“If she wants to give an account of her actions, she can do so in The Hague,” a U.K. spokesperson said at the time.

Photo image: Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova at the Kremlin in Moscow on March 9, 2022. (Photo by Mikhail Klimentyev / SPUTNIK / AFP)

The post Assessing the Controversial Meeting of a U.N. Official and Russian Official Wanted for Arrest in the Hague appeared first on Just Security.

Why the E. Jean Carroll Verdict Will Matter to Voters

Ryan Goodman — Tue, 09 May 2023 19:12:42 +0000

The unanimous jury verdict that has turned Donald Trump from an alleged sexual assaulter into a proven one may create political shockwaves if recent history is any guide. As numerous empirical studies have shown, the American public has come to view sexual assault as a form of abusing power that can disqualify a perpetrator from holding public office. Trump may suffer significant political damage from this new majoritarian understanding.

In November 2017, 61% of voters – including 56% of men and a nontrivial margin of white men (50-43) and white women (55-37) – said then-President Trump should be impeached and removed from office if he were proven to have engaged in “sexual harassment,” according to a Quinnipiac poll. That overall support – the eye popping number of 61% – was higher than any poll tracking public support for impeachment and removal from office for the scandalous conduct in Trump’s first and second impeachments (see Five Thirty-Eight’s complete collection of surveys for the first and second impeachment). What’s more, Quinnipiac asked only about sexual harassment not sexual assault in the case of Trump. The latter, which is also the core crime in the E. Jean Carroll verdict, would have presumably produced even greater levels of support for removal from office.

The Quinnipiac poll was not alone.

A December 2017 Public Policy Polling survey found 53% of voters thought Trump should resign because of the “allegations” of sexual harassment against him, and another Quinnipiac poll in December 2017 found that 50% of voters already thought Trump should resign because he had “been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault by multiple women.” (See appendix below for the exact wording and results of each of these surveys.)

These results are no surprise when taken in context of recent social science studies. Rigorous empirical research shows that Americans generally consider sexual assault incompatible with serving in elected office or positions of public trust (see e.g., Savani and Collignon, 2023; Stark and Collignon, 2022; Masuoka, Grose and Junn, 2021; Craig and Cossette, 2020). A 2020 study in the journal Political Behavior found that “(1) a significant electoral penalty is likely to be assessed against politicians accused of sexual harassment; (2) the size of that penalty (in terms of lost votes and lower favorability) … is concentrated among co-partisans and, to a lesser extent, Independents.” That study, like many others, concerned “accusations” and “allegations” of misbehavior; the results are likely to be even more pronounced in the event of allegations being proven – especially in a court and especially by a unanimous verdict.

A number of caveats and qualifications are worth mentioning however as we consider the potential damage to Trump.

First, Republicans are less likely to electorally punish their own party candidates who face sexual harassment or sexual assault allegations, according to research findings. For Trump, that may mean less of a political cost in the primary election season than in the general. That said, Republican women are more likely than Republican men to do so. What’s more, some Republican primary voters may also look over the horizon at how voters in the general election will react to his having been proven to have committed sexual assault and accordingly wish to select a more competitive nominee for their party.

Second, while there are many cases of Republican and Democratic elected officials being compelled to resign or being electorally defeated following public allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault, there are also counterexamples. One prominent counterexample is Trump himself in the 2016 campaign. What makes Trump’s victory even more complicated is that notable percentages of his supporters believed the allegations to be true, as William Saletan documented in 2017.

That being said, multiple factors seem to distinguish the allegations in Trump’s 2016 campaign from the Carroll verdict in 2024, and ultimately constitute bad news for the former president.

Factor one: There is a difference between a belief that something is true, and proven confirmation by a unanimous jury verdict that it is so. Indeed this was a jury verdict following a full-blown trial in which Trump’s attorneys had the opportunity to challenge the specific allegations. The Carroll case also involved jurors’ assessment not only of the evidence of her sexual assault, but also of two other witnesses who testified that Trump sexually assaulted them. In other words, the verdict is a reflection of the allegations of three women.

Factor two: The difference between sexual assault and sexual harassment, cuts against Trump. Several (but not all) of the surveys discussed by Saletan in 2017 asked respondents about allegations of “inappropriate behavior,” “unwanted sexual advances,” and “unwanted advances on different women.” The respondents were not asked about allegations of sexual assault, which presumably would have given them greater pause on whether to vote for Trump.

Factor three: There may be a difference in how voters assess Trump on these issues of sexual harrassment and sexual assault when comparing him to the alternative candidate for office – Hillary Clinton in the case of the 2016 election. Indeed, that may help explain why some Republicans were willing to vote him into office in 2016, but some of Trump’s 2016 voters supported his resigning from office on the basis of the mere allegation of sexual harassment (7% in one study, 12% in another) and a larger percentage of Republicans (28%) supported his impeachment and removal from office if allegations of sexual harassment were proven.

In deciding whether to vote for him in 2016, the alternative was a Hillary Clinton presidency. In the case of removal from office, the alternative was Mike Pence. If the alternative option helps explain the difference, it could spell a negative fate for Trump in the current presidential primary, where voters can choose a different Republican.

Factor four: A difference between 2016 and 2024 is the advent of the #MeToo movement following the women who stepped forward in 2017 to report on sexual assault by Harvey Weinstein. That movement has helped shape the public conscience over a short period of time, and demonstrated an ability to “limit motivated reasoning” and “temper partisan biases” when individuals’ assess politicians’ misconduct (Klar and McCoy, 2021).

The question of course is to what extent any of these voter preferences against the kind of behavior here at issue would translate into electoral outcomes. One need only look at voters’ overwhelming support for certain gun reforms — and the absence of any corresponding legislation — to understand the gap between voter preferences and political outcomes. There are many structural impediments to the expression of democratic choices in U.S. elections that go beyond the subject matter of this essay. It is notable, however, that a candidate’s having engaged in sexual assault has in many instances proven fatal to their holding public office.

* * *

With #MeToo translated into the political arena, many Americans have shown they are not willing to support a candidate for elected office who has committed sexual assault – with the understanding that such a severe abuse of power is simply disqualifying for holding a position of public trust. Time will tell if the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault verdict has the effect that a large majority of Americans said they wanted in 2017, namely, to deny the presidency to Trump if the allegation that he had engaged in such abominable conduct was proven. It now has been.

Cited Academic Works

Stephen C. Craig and Paulina S. Cossette. “Eye of the beholder: Partisanship, identity, and the politics of sexual harassment.” Political Behavior 44, no. 2 (2022): 749-777.

Samara Klar and Alexandra McCoy. “Partisan‐motivated evaluations of sexual misconduct and the mitigating role of the# MeToo movement.” American Journal of Political Science 65, no. 4 (2021): 777-789.

Natalie Masuoka, Christian Grose, and Jane Junn. “Sexual harassment and candidate evaluation: Gender and partisanship interact to affect voter responses to candidates accused of harassment.” Political Behavior (2021): 1-23.

Manu M. Savani and Sofia Collignon. “Values and candidate evaluation: How voters respond to allegations of sexual harassment.” Electoral Studies 83 (2023).

Stephanie Stark and Sofia Collignon. “Sexual Predators in Contest for Public Office: How the American Electorate Responds to News of Allegations of Candidates Committing Sexual Assault and Harassment.” Political Studies Review 20, no. 3 (2022): 329-352.

Jamillah B. Williams. “#MeToo and Public Officials: A post-election snapshot of allegations and consequences,” Georgetown University Law Center (2018).

Appendix: Polling Questions and Results

Photo image: Following verdict against Donald J. Trump on sexual assault and defamation, E. Jean Carroll exits Manhattan Federal Court on May 9, 2023 (Photo credit: Melissa Bender)

The post Why the E. Jean Carroll Verdict Will Matter to Voters appeared first on Just Security.

Tracker: Litigation and Legislation on the “Insurrection Bar” to Office – Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Ryan Goodman — Mon, 01 May 2023 12:51:05 +0000

Just Security is tracking the various efforts to use section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar individuals who engaged in the January 6th attack from serving in public office. The information below is also contained in our continually updated January 6th Clearinghouse.

I. Backgrounders

Mark A. Graber, Their Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 and Ours, Just Security (Feb. 16, 2021)
Project On Government Oversight, Quo Warranto Processes: States and Territories Survey (Jan. 26, 2023)
Congressional Research Service, The Insurrection Bar to Holding Office: Appeals Court Issues Decision on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (June 1, 2022)
Congressional Research Service, The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (September 7, 2022)
Free Speech for People, States Can Enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment without Any New Federal Legislation (Mar. 2023)
Liz Hempowicz, David Janovsky, Norman L. Eisen, The Constitution’s Disqualification Clause Can Be Enforced Today, Project On Government Oversight (Nov. 15, 2022)

II. Litigation

New Mexico Residents’ Lawsuit to Remove Couy Griffin from Office

New Mexico Commissioner Couy Griffin was indicted by the Department of Justice in February 2021, found guilty in March 2022, and sentenced in June 2022.

Complaint (Mar. 21, 2022)
Exhibits (Mar. 21, 2022)
Notice of Hearing (June 7, 2022)
Hearing Order (June 7, 2022)
Scheduling Order (June 14, 2022)
Notice of Struck Deposition (July 5, 2022)
Griffin Deposition Transcript (July 20, 2022)
Motion to Admit Prior Trial Testimony, Exhibits and Records (July 22, 2022)
Motion to Limit Scope of Defendant’s Cross Examination (July 22, 2022)
Griffin Motion to Quash and Dismiss (July 25, 2022)
Plaintiff Exhibit List (July 25, 2022)
Plaintiff Witness List (July 25, 2022)
Pretrial Order (July 27, 2022)
Struck Deposition Transcript (July 27, 2022)
Plaintiff Motion (July 28, 2022)
Plaintiff Opposition (July 29, 2022)
Pretrial Brief (July 29, 2022)
Griffin Response (July 30, 2022)
Emergency Motion (Aug. 2, 2022)
Griffin Response (Aug. 2, 2022)
Plaintiff Letter to Judge (Aug. 4, 2022)
Plaintiff Revised Trial Exhibit (Aug. 5, 2022)
Struck Deposition Transcript (Aug. 5, 2022)
Amended Hearing Notice (Aug. 8, 2022)
Griffin Reply (Aug. 8, 2022)
Plaintiff Second Revised Exhibit List (Aug. 10, 2022)
Plaintiff Motion for Surreply (Aug. 11, 2022)
Trial Transcript (Aug. 15, 2022)
Trial Transcript (Aug. 16, 2022)
Plaintiff Third Revised Exhibit List (Aug. 19, 2022)
Griffin Order (Aug. 23, 2022)
Griffin Closing Argument (Aug. 29, 2022)
Plaintiff Post Trial Brief (Aug. 29, 2022)
Court’s Decision (Sept. 6, 2022)

Griffin 122-cv-00284

Notice of Removal (Apr. 17, 2022)
Motion to Transfer (Apr. 17, 2022)
Griffin Opposition to Remand (Apr. 24, 2022)
Griffin Opposition to Plaintiff Request (Apr. 27, 2022)
Plaintiff Opposition to Griffin Motion (May 2, 2022)
Order to Grant Motion (May 4, 2022)
Reply of Motion (May 9, 2022)
Notice of Completion (May 9, 2022)
Stipulation (May 9, 2022)
Griffin Response (May 9, 2022)
Exhibit 1 (May 9, 2022)
Exhibit 2 (May 9, 2022)
Plaintiff Response to Notice (May 11, 2022)
Exhibit (May 11, 2022)
Griffin Reply (May 11, 2022)
Order Clarifying Pleadings (May 12, 2022)
Griffin Notice (May 12, 2022)
Griffin Notice (May 13, 2022)
Exhibit (May 13, 2022)
Griffin Reply (May 16, 2022)
Memorandum Opinion and Order (May 27, 2022)

Griffin 1983 Suit-222-cv-00362

Griffin Reply to Opposition (June 2, 2022)
Griffin Supplemental Brief (June 10, 2022)
Memorandum Opinion and Order (June 14, 2022)
Memorandum Opinion and Order (June 28, 2022)

Amicus Curiae Briefs

Scholar Brief (Aug. 1, 2022)
Abrams Brief (Aug. 1, 2022)
Amended Certificate (Aug. 1, 2022)
Griffin Motion to Strike (Aug. 9, 2022)
NAACP New Mexico State Conference Brief (Aug. 23, 2022)
Common Cause in Support of Plaintiff Complaint (Aug. 25, 2022)
Order Denying Motion for Consideration (Feb. 16, 2023)

Griffin Appeal to Supreme Court of New Mexico S-1-SC-39571

Notice of Appeal (Sept. 22, 2022)
Dismissing Order (Nov. 15, 2022)
Motion to Reconsider (Nov. 16, 2022)
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (Feb. 16, 2023)

Georgia Voters’ Challenge to Constitutional Qualifications of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

Complaint (Mar. 24, 2022)
Notice of Hearing (Mar. 25, 2022)
Motion to Take Party Deposition (Mar. 28, 2022)
Notice to Produce (Mar. 28, 2022)
Order Shortening Response Period (Mar. 30, 2022)
Prehearing Order (Mar. 31, 2022)
Motion to Stay Deposition (Apr. 3, 2022)
Objection to Notice to Produce (Apr. 3, 2022)
Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 3, 2022)
Order on Deposition (Apr. 4, 2022)
Subpoena to Rep. Greene (Apr. 5, 2022)
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 11, 2022)
Motion to Enforce Subpoena to Rep. Greene (Apr. 11, 2022)
Prehearing Order (Apr. 13, 2022)
Video Conference Before State Administrative Law Judge (Apr. 11, 2022)
Petitioners’ Motion to Supplement the Record (Apr. 26, 2022)
Greene’s Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion to Supplement the Record (Apr. 28, 2022)
Post-Hearing Brief in Support of Petitioners’ Candidacy Challenge (Apr. 29, 2022)
Rep. Greene’s Post-Hearing Brief (Apr. 29, 2022)
Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision (May 6, 2022)
- Transcript of the Proceeding
Letter to Secretary Raffensperger (May 6, 2022)
Secretary Raffensperger’s Final Decision (May 6, 2022)

Rowan v. Raffensperger

Petition for Judicial Review (May 16, 2022)
Greene’s Answer and Counterclaims to Petition for Judicial Review (June 13, 2022)
Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date (June 15, 2022)
Secretary’s Response to Petition for Judicial Review (June 24, 2022)
Greene’s Response to Petition for Judicial Review (June 24, 2022)
Secretary’s Response to Greene’s Counterclaims (July 11, 2022)
Reply Brief for Appeal of Secretary’s Decision (July 15, 2022)
Transcript in Hearing for Appeal of Secretary’s Decision (July 18, 2022)
Fulton County Superior Court Order (July 25, 2022)
Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal (July 28, 2022)
Appellants’ Motion to Expedite (Aug. 4, 2022)
Greene’s Motion to Renew Stay (Aug. 15, 2022)
Secretary Motion to Dismiss (Aug. 17, 2022)
Application for Discretionary Appeal (Aug. 19, 2022)
Intervenors’ Response in Opposition to Motion to Renew Stay (Aug. 23, 2022)
Intervenor-Respondent’s Response to Application for Discretionary Appeal (Aug. 26, 2022)
Secretary’s Response to Application for Discretionary Appeal (Aug. 29, 2022)

Greene v. Raffensperger (District Court)

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Apr. 1, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Apr. 1, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Apr. 1, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 1, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 1, 2022)
Rowan Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene (Apr. 4, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Intervene (Apr. 6, 2022)
State’s Opposition to Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 6, 2022)
Intervenor Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 7, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 7, 2022)
District Court Order (Apr. 7, 2022)
Order Denying Motion for Injunction (Apr. 18, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (June 1, 2022)
Intervenors’ Response in Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (June 2, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion to Stay (June 3, 2022)
Defendants Raffensperger and Beaudrot’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (June 3, 2022)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (August 17, 2022)
Intervenors’ Response in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Sept. 1, 2022)

Greene v. Raffensperger (11th Circuit)

Appellant Brief (Apr. 27, 2022)
Derek Muller’s Amicus Brief in Support of No Party (May 12, 2022)
Intervenors Appellees’ Brief (June 14, 2022)
Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief (June 14, 2022)
State Appellees Brief (June 14, 2022)
Appellant’s Reply Brief (June 21, 2022)
Motion to Take Judicial Notice of State Appellees (July 28, 2022)
Appellant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Aug. 2, 2022)
Oral Arguments (Aug. 11, 2022)
Georgia Supreme Court Order Denying Discretionary Appeal (Sept. 1, 2022)
Court Opinion (Nov. 3, 2022)

Arizona Voters’ Challenge to Constitutional Qualifications of Representatives Mark Finchem, Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs

Before Arizona Superior Court:

Gosar Complaint (Apr. 7, 2022)
Gosar Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Discovery (Apr. 7, 2022)
Biggs Complaint (Apr. 7, 2022)
Biggs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Discovery (Apr. 7, 2022)
Finchem Complaint (Apr. 7, 2022)
Finchem Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Discovery (Apr. 7, 2022)
Finchem Order to Appear for Trial (Apr. 7, 2022)
Court Order Dismissing Case (Apr. 22, 2022)

Appeal before Supreme Court of Arizona:

Opening Brief (Apr. 28, 2022)
Appellants’ Appendix Part I (Apr. 28, 2022)
Appellants’ Appendix Part II (Apr. 28, 2022)
Reply Brief (May 2, 2022)
Decision Order (May 9, 2022)

North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District’s Challenge to Constitutional Qualifications of Rep. Madison Cawthorn

Complaint (Jan. 10, 2022)
Challenge (Mar. 2, 2022)

Cawthorn v. Circosta et al.

Cawthorn Complaint (Jan. 31, 2022)
Cawthorn Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Jan. 31, 2022)
State’s Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Feb. 7, 2022)
Motion to Intervene as Defendants (Feb. 7, 2022)
Opposition to Cawthorn’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Feb. 7, 2022)
Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Intervene as Defendants (Feb. 17, 2022)
Order Denying Motion to Intervene (Feb. 21, 2022)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 22, 2022)
Memorandum of Law in Support of State Board Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 22, 2022)
- Backgrounder: Kyle Cheney, North Carolina officials reject Cawthorn claim that Constitution’s insurrectionist ban no longer applies, Politico (Feb. 23, 2022)
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate (Feb. 22, 2022)
Draft Transcript of U.S. District Court Hearing in Cawthorne v. Circosta (Mar. 4, 2022)
Emergency Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (Mar. 9, 2022)
Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Mar. 10, 2022)
- Backgrounder: Jonathan Weisman, Judge Blocks Effort to Disqualify Cawthorn from Ballot as ‘Insurrectionist’, New York Times (Mar. 4, 2022)
Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief (Mar. 11, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Stay (Mar. 14, 2022)
North Carolina GOP Amicus Brief (Mar. 14, 2022)
North Carolina State Board of Elections Amicus Brief (Mar. 14, 2022)
Challengers’ Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Stay (Mar. 15, 2022)
4th Circuit Order (Mar. 17, 2022)
Renewed Motion to Intervene (Mar. 17, 2022)
Order Denying Renewed Motion to Intervene (Mar. 30, 2022)
Emergency Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (Mar. 31, 2022)
Second Amended Notice of Appeal of Proposed Defendant-Intervenors (Mar. 31, 2022)
Motion to Expedite Appeal (Apr. 4, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Response to Renewed Motion to Stay (Apr. 5, 2022)
Appellant Opening Brief (Apr. 14, 2022)
Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief (Apr. 14, 2022)
Derek Muller’s Amicus Brief in Support of No Party (Apr. 21, 2022)
Cawthorn Brief as Appellee (Apr. 26, 2022)
Reply Brief of Appellants (Apr. 29, 2022)
Appeals Court Opinion Cawthorn v. Amalfi (May 24, 2022)
Stipulation of Dismissal (June 30, 2022)
Order of Dismissal (June 30, 2022)

III. Proposed State Legislation

New York State Assembly Bill A2389, Restrict Insurrections from Office Taking (RIOT) Act
New York State Senate Bill S888, Restrict Insurrectionists from Office Taking (RIOT) Act
Connecticut State Senate Bill 244, An Act Concerning Eligibility to Hold Public Office or be Employed by the State or any Municipality
Pennsylvania State Assembly Bill 2672, A Joint Resolution proposing integrated amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, further providing for ineligibility by criminal convictions and for removal of civil officers
Pennsylvania State Assembly Bill 2763, An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in obstructing governmental operations, providing for the offense of seditious conspiracy against the Commonwealth; and, in abuse of office, providing for the offense of seditious conspiracy against the Commonwealth while holding public office
Virginia State Assembly Bill 1562, A Bill to amend and reenact § 18.2-413 of the Code of Virginia, relating to insurrections; bar to serving in positions of public trust

The post Tracker: Litigation and Legislation on the “Insurrection Bar” to Office – Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment appeared first on Just Security.

January 6 Clearinghouse

Ryan Goodman — Mon, 01 May 2023 05:38:46 +0000

Welcome to this all-source repository of information for analysts, researchers, investigators, journalists, educators, and the public at large.

Check out our new addition below: A curated repository of deposition transcripts from the House Select Committee.

Readers may also be interested in Major Highlights of the January 6th Report.

If you think the January 6 Clearinghouse is missing something, please send recommendations for additional content by email to Jan6Clearinghouse@justsecurity.org.

Sign up for the January 6 Newsletter — an occasional notification of significant additions to the Clearinghouse. We will also provide an anonymous reader poll to learn more about what frequency and type of content people prefer to receive.

The editors are especially grateful for the extraordinary assistance of Clara Apt.

Expand all Collapse all

Timelines

1. Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, #StopTheSteal: Timeline of Social Media and Extremist Activities Leading to 1/6 Insurrection, Just Security (Feb. 10, 2021)

2. DC National Guard, Civil Unrest on 6 January 2021 Timeline of Events for National Guard Activation (Jan. 7, 2021)

3. Ryan Goodman, Mari Dugas and Nicholas Tonckens, Incitement Timeline: Year of Trump’s Actions Leading to the Attack on the Capitol, Just Security (Jan. 11, 2021)

4. Andrew Restuccia and Ted Mann, “Jan. 6, 2021: How It Unfolded - A Minute-by-Minute Look,” Wall Street Journal (Feb. 12, 2021)

5. Department of Defense, Planning and Execution Timeline (released on Jan. 8, 2021)

6. Kate Brannen and Ryan Goodman, The Official and Unofficial Timeline of Defense Department Actions on January 6, Just Security, (May 11, 2021)

7. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Fact Sheet and Timeline: Delayed National Guard Response to January 6 Insurrection (released on Jun. 16, 2021)

8. United States Secret Service, USSS Timeline of Jan. 6, 2021 (FOIA release on Jun. 29, 2021)

9. Ryan Goodman and Juilee Shivalkar, Mark Meadows Timeline: The Chief of Staff and Schemes to Overturn 2020 Election (Aug. 8, 2021)

10. Justin Hendrix, Nicholas Tonckens and Sruthi Venkatachalam, Timeline: Rep. Jim Jordan, a Systematic Disinformation Campaign, and January 6 (Aug. 23, 2021)

11. Justin Hendrix, Justin Cole, Margaret Shields and Nicholas Tonckens, Timeline: Rep. Mo Brooks, January 6, and the Effort to Overturn an Election, (Nov. 9, 2021)

12. Ryan Goodman and Antara Joardar, Timeline for Anniversary of January 5: DOJ Election Fraud Investigations and GA Senate Runoff (Jan. 5, 2022)

13. Erik Dahl, January 6 Intelligence and Warning Timeline (June 7, 2022)

14. Ryan Goodman, Timeline: False Alternate Slate of Electors Scheme, Donald Trump and His Close Associates (July 18, 2022) (see also Backgrounder and PolitiFact)

NEW: Expert Statements (on Democracy and Political Violence) submitted to House Select Committee

Read Introduction to the statements by Jacob Glick. He served as Investigative Counsel on the House Select Committee, where he was a lead counsel on the committee's investigations into domestic extremism and social media's role in the attempted insurrection.

Carol Anderson (Charles Howard Candler Professor, African American Studies, Emory University)
“The Role of White Rage and Voter Suppression in the Insurrection on January 6, 2021"
Expert Statement
Anti Defamation League
“Extremist Movements and the January 6, 2021 Insurrection”
Expert Statement
Heidi Beirich (Co-Founder and Executive Vice President, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism)
“The Role of the Proud Boys in the January 6th Capitol Attack and Beyond”
Expert Statement
Kathleen Belew (Associate Professor of History, University of Chicago)
Expert Statement
Ruth Ben-Ghiat (Professor of History, New York University)
“Strongmen Don’t Accept Defeat: The January 6th, 2021, Assault on the Capitol as an Outcome of Donald J. Trump’s Authoritarian Presidency”
Expert Statement
Bright Line Watch
John Carey (John Wentworth Professor in the Social Sciences, Dartmouth College), Gretchen Helmke (Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor, University of Rochester), Brendan Nyhan (James O. Freedman Presidential Professor, Dartmouth College) and Susan Stokes (Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago)
“The Destructive Effects of President Trump’s Effort to Overturn the 2020 Election”
Expert Statement
Anthea Butler (Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought, University of Pennsylvania)
“What is White Christian Nationalism?”
Expert Statement
Kellie Carter Jackson (Michael and Denise Kellen ‘68 Associate Professor of Africana Studies, Wellesley College)
“Understanding the Historical Context for White Supremacist Violence in America in Tandem with the Events of January 6, 2021”
Expert Statement
Katherine Clayton (Ph.D. Candidate, Stanford University), Nicholas T. Davis (Assistant Professor, The University of Alabama), Brendan Nyhan (James O. Freedman Presidential Professor, Dartmouth College), Ethan Porter (Assistant Professor, George Washington University), Timothy J. Ryan (Associate Professor, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and Thomas J. Wood (Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University)
“President Trump’s Rhetoric Undermined Confidence in Elections Among His Supporters”
Expert Statement
Michael German (Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law)
“Why the FBI Failed to Anticipate Violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, and How to Prevent it From Happening Again”
Expert Statement
Philip Gorski (Frederick and Laura Goff Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies, Yale University)
“White Christian Nationalism: The What, When, How and Where.”
Expert Statement
Jared Holt (Resident Fellow, Digital Forensic Research Lab, Atlantic Council)
Expert Statement
Aziz Huq (Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School) and Tom Ginsburg (Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School)
“Statement on the January 6, 2021 Attacks and the Threat to American Democracy”
Expert Statement
Michael Jensen (Associate Research Scientist, START), Elizabeth Yates (Assistant Research Scientist, START) and Sheehan Kane (Senior Researcher, START)
“Radicalization in the Ranks: An Assessment of the Scope and Nature of Criminal Extremism in the United States Military”
Expert Statement
Rachel Kleinfeld (Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
“The Rise in Political Violence in the United States and Damage to Our Democracy”
Expert Statement
Samantha Kutner (Proud Boys Research Lead, Khalifa Ihler Institute), Bjørn Ihler (Co-Founder, Khalifa Ihler Institute), and C.L. Murray (Khalifa Ihler Institute and Lecturer in Criminology, University of North Carolina Wilmington)
“Function Over Appearance; Examining the Role of the Proud Boys in American Politics Before and After January 6th”
Expert Statement
Liliana Mason (Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University), Nathan Kalmoe (Associate Professor of Political Communication, Louisiana State University), Julie Wronski (Associate Professor of American Politics, University of Mississippi) and John Kane (Clinical Assistant Professor, Center for Global Affairs, New York University)
Expert Statement
Kate Masur (Professor of History, Northwestern University) and Gregory Downs (Professor of History, University of California, Davis)
“Our Fragile Democracy: Political Violence, White Supremacy, and Disenfranchisement in American History”
Expert Statement
Mary McCord (Executive Director and Visiting Professor of Law, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown University Law Center)
Expert Statement
Jennifer Merceica (Professor, Department of Communication, Texas A&M University)
Expert Statement
Suzanne Mettler (John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions, Cornell University) and Robert C. Lieberman (Krieger-Eisenhower Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University)
“How Four Historic Threats to Democracy Fueled the January 6, 2021 Attack on the United States Capitol”
Expert Statement
Janai Nelson (President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.)
Expert Statement
Trevor Potter (Founder and President, Campaign Legal Center)
Expert Statement
Candace Rondeaux (Director, Future Frontlines, New America), Ben Dalton (Open Source Fellow, Future Frontlines, New America), Cuong Nguyen (Social Science and Data Analytics Fellow, Future Frontlines, New America), Michael Simeone (Associate Research Professor, School for Complex Adaptive Systems, Arizona State University), Thomas Taylor (Senior Fellow, New America) and Shawn Walker (Senior Research Fellow, Future Frontlines, New America)
“Investigating Alt-Tech Ties to January 6”
Expert Statement
Mike Rothschild (Journalist and Author)
"Regarding The Role of QAnon in the Events of January 6th and Beyond"
Expert Statement
Andrew Seidel (Constitutional Attorney, Freedom From Religion Foundation)
“Events, People, and Networks Leading Up to January 6” and “Attack on the Capitol: Evidence of the Role of White Christian Nationalism”
Expert Statement
Peter Simi (Professor of Sociology, Chapman University)
“Understanding Far-Right Extremism: The Roots of the January 6th Attack and Why More is Coming”
Expert Statement
Southern Poverty Law Center
Michael Edison Hayden (Senior Investigative Reporter and Spokesperson, Intelligence Project), Megan Squire (Senior Fellow, Intelligence Project) Hannah Gais (Senior Research Analyst, Intelligence Project) and Susan Corke (Director, Intelligence Project)
Expert Statement 1
Cassie Miller (Senior Research Analyst, Intelligence Project) and Susan Corke (Director, Intelligence Project)
Expert Statement 2
Michael Edison Hayden (Senior Investigative Reporter and Spokesperson, Intelligence Project) and Megan Squire (Deputy Director for Data Analytics and OSINT, Intelligence Project)
Expert Statement 3
Jason Stanley (Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy, Yale University) and Federico Finchelstein (Professor of History, The New School)
“The Fascist Danger to Democracy Represented by the Events of January 6, 2021”
Expert Statement
Amanda Tyler et al (Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and Leader, Christians Against Christian Nationalism Initiative)
“Christian Nationalism and the January 6, 2021 Insurrection” - Report
Expert Statement
Wendy Weiser (Vice President for Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law)
Expert Statement
Andrew Whitehead (Associate Professor of Sociology, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis) and Samuel Perry (Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Oklahoma)
“What is Christian Nationalism?”
Expert Statement
Christine Whitman (Former Governor, New Jersey), Steve Bullock (Former Governor, Montana), Jim Hood (Former Attorney General, Mississippi), Tom Rath (Former Attorney General, New Hampshire), Trey Grayson (Former Secretary of State, Kentucky) and Frankie Sue Del Papa (Former Secretary of State, Nevada)
Expert Statement

NEW: 14th Amendment Section 3 Disqualification from Office (litigation and legislation)

I. Backgrounders

Project On Government Oversight, Quo Warranto Processes: States and Territories Survey (Jan. 26, 2023)
Congressional Research Service, The Insurrection Bar to Holding Office: Appeals Court Issues Decision on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (June 1, 2022)
Congressional Research Service, The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (September 7, 2022)
Free Speech for People, States Can Enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment without Any New Federal Legislation (Mar. 2023)
Liz Hempowicz, David Janovsky, Norman L. Eisen, The Constitution’s Disqualification Clause Can Be Enforced Today, Project On Government Oversight (Nov. 15, 2022)

II. Litigation

New Mexico Residents’ Lawsuit to Remove Couy Griffin from Office

New Mexico Commissioner Couy Griffin was indicted by the Department of Justice in February 2021, found guilty in March 2022, and sentenced in June 2022.

Complaint (Mar. 21, 2022)
Exhibits (Mar. 21, 2022)
Notice of Hearing (June 7, 2022)
Hearing Order (June 7, 2022)
Scheduling Order (June 14, 2022)
Notice of Struck Deposition (July 5, 2022)
Griffin Deposition Transcript (July 20, 2022)
Motion to Admit Prior Trial Testimony, Exhibits and Records (July 22, 2022)
Motion to Limit Scope of Defendant’s Cross Examination (July 22, 2022)
Griffin Motion to Quash and Dismiss (July 25, 2022)
Plaintiff Exhibit List (July 25, 2022)
Plaintiff Witness List (July 25, 2022)
Pretrial Order (July 27, 2022)
Struck Deposition Transcript (July 27, 2022)
Plaintiff Motion (July 28, 2022)
Plaintiff Opposition (July 29, 2022)
Pretrial Brief (July 29, 2022)
Griffin Response (July 30, 2022)
Emergency Motion (Aug. 2, 2022)
Griffin Response (Aug. 2, 2022)
Plaintiff Letter to Judge (Aug. 4, 2022)
Plaintiff Revised Trial Exhibit (Aug. 5, 2022)
Struck Deposition Transcript (Aug. 5, 2022)
Amended Hearing Notice (Aug. 8, 2022)
Griffin Reply (Aug. 8, 2022)
Plaintiff Second Revised Exhibit List (Aug. 10, 2022)
Plaintiff Motion for Surreply (Aug. 11, 2022)
Trial Transcript (Aug. 15, 2022)
Trial Transcript (Aug. 16, 2022)
Plaintiff Third Revised Exhibit List (Aug. 19, 2022)
Griffin Order (Aug. 23, 2022)
Griffin Closing Argument (Aug. 29, 2022)
Plaintiff Post Trial Brief (Aug. 29, 2022)
Court’s Decision (Sept. 6, 2022)

Griffin 122-cv-00284

Notice of Removal (Apr. 17, 2022)
Motion to Transfer (Apr. 17, 2022)
Griffin Opposition to Remand (Apr. 24, 2022)
Griffin Opposition to Plaintiff Request (Apr. 27, 2022)
Plaintiff Opposition to Griffin Motion (May 2, 2022)
Order to Grant Motion (May 4, 2022)
Reply of Motion (May 9, 2022)
Notice of Completion (May 9, 2022)
Stipulation (May 9, 2022)
Griffin Response (May 9, 2022)
Exhibit 1 (May 9, 2022)
Exhibit 2 (May 9, 2022)
Plaintiff Response to Notice (May 11, 2022)
Exhibit (May 11, 2022)
Griffin Reply (May 11, 2022)
Order Clarifying Pleadings (May 12, 2022)
Griffin Notice (May 12, 2022)
Griffin Notice (May 13, 2022)
Exhibit (May 13, 2022)
Griffin Reply (May 16, 2022)
Memorandum Opinion and Order (May 27, 2022)

Griffin 1983 Suit-222-cv-00362

Griffin Reply to Opposition (June 2, 2022)
Griffin Supplemental Brief (June 10, 2022)
Memorandum Opinion and Order (June 14, 2022)
Memorandum Opinion and Order (June 28, 2022)

Amicus Curiae Briefs

Scholar Brief (Aug. 1, 2022)
Abrams Brief (Aug. 1, 2022)
Amended Certificate (Aug. 1, 2022)
Griffin Motion to Strike (Aug. 9, 2022)
NAACP New Mexico State Conference Brief (Aug. 23, 2022)
Common Cause in Support of Plaintiff Complaint (Aug. 25, 2022)
Order Denying Motion for Consideration (Feb. 16, 2023)

Griffin Appeal to Supreme Court of New Mexico S-1-SC-39571

Notice of Appeal (Sept. 22, 2022)
Dismissing Order (Nov. 15, 2022)
Motion to Reconsider (Nov. 16, 2022)
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (Feb. 16, 2023)

Georgia Voters’ Challenge to Constitutional Qualifications of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

Complaint (Mar. 24, 2022)
Notice of Hearing (Mar. 25, 2022)
Motion to Take Party Deposition (Mar. 28, 2022)
Notice to Produce (Mar. 28, 2022)
Order Shortening Response Period (Mar. 30, 2022)
Prehearing Order (Mar. 31, 2022)
Motion to Stay Deposition (Apr. 3, 2022)
Objection to Notice to Produce (Apr. 3, 2022)
Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 3, 2022)
Order on Deposition (Apr. 4, 2022)
Subpoena to Rep. Greene (Apr. 5, 2022)
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 11, 2022)
Motion to Enforce Subpoena to Rep. Greene (Apr. 11, 2022)
Prehearing Order (Apr. 13, 2022)
Video Conference Before State Administrative Law Judge (Apr. 11, 2022)
Petitioners’ Motion to Supplement the Record (Apr. 26, 2022)
Greene’s Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion to Supplement the Record (Apr. 28, 2022)
Post-Hearing Brief in Support of Petitioners’ Candidacy Challenge (Apr. 29, 2022)
Rep. Greene’s Post-Hearing Brief (Apr. 29, 2022)
Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision (May 6, 2022)
- Transcript of the Proceeding
Letter to Secretary Raffensperger (May 6, 2022)
Secretary Raffensperger’s Final Decision (May 6, 2022)

Rowan v. Raffensperger

Petition for Judicial Review (May 16, 2022)
Greene’s Answer and Counterclaims to Petition for Judicial Review (June 13, 2022)
Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date (June 15, 2022)
Secretary’s Response to Petition for Judicial Review (June 24, 2022)
Greene’s Response to Petition for Judicial Review (June 24, 2022)
Secretary’s Response to Greene’s Counterclaims (July 11, 2022)
Reply Brief for Appeal of Secretary’s Decision (July 15, 2022)
Transcript in Hearing for Appeal of Secretary’s Decision (July 18, 2022)
Fulton County Superior Court Order (July 25, 2022)
Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal (July 28, 2022)
Appellants’ Motion to Expedite (Aug. 4, 2022)
Greene’s Motion to Renew Stay (Aug. 15, 2022)
Secretary Motion to Dismiss (Aug. 17, 2022)
Application for Discretionary Appeal (Aug. 19, 2022)
Intervenors’ Response in Opposition to Motion to Renew Stay (Aug. 23, 2022)
Intervenor-Respondent’s Response to Application for Discretionary Appeal (Aug. 26, 2022)
Secretary’s Response to Application for Discretionary Appeal (Aug. 29, 2022)

Greene v. Raffensperger (District Court)

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Apr. 1, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Apr. 1, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Apr. 1, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 1, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 1, 2022)
Rowan Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene (Apr. 4, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Intervene (Apr. 6, 2022)
State’s Opposition to Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 6, 2022)
Intervenor Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 7, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Apr. 7, 2022)
District Court Order (Apr. 7, 2022)
Order Denying Motion for Injunction (Apr. 18, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (June 1, 2022)
Intervenors’ Response in Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (June 2, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion to Stay (June 3, 2022)
Defendants Raffensperger and Beaudrot’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (June 3, 2022)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (August 17, 2022)
Intervenors’ Response in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Sept. 1, 2022)

Greene v. Raffensperger (11th Circuit)

Appellant Brief (Apr. 27, 2022)
Derek Muller’s Amicus Brief in Support of No Party (May 12, 2022)
Intervenors Appellees’ Brief (June 14, 2022)
Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief (June 14, 2022)
State Appellees Brief (June 14, 2022)
Appellant’s Reply Brief (June 21, 2022)
Motion to Take Judicial Notice of State Appellees (July 28, 2022)
Appellant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Aug. 2, 2022)
Oral Arguments (Aug. 11, 2022)
Georgia Supreme Court Order Denying Discretionary Appeal (Sept. 1, 2022)
Court Opinion (Nov. 3, 2022)

Arizona Voters’ Challenge to Constitutional Qualifications of Representatives Mark Finchem, Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs

Before Arizona Superior Court:

Gosar Complaint (Apr. 7, 2022)
Gosar Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Discovery (Apr. 7, 2022)
Biggs Complaint (Apr. 7, 2022)
Biggs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Discovery (Apr. 7, 2022)
Finchem Complaint (Apr. 7, 2022)
Finchem Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Discovery (Apr. 7, 2022)
Finchem Order to Appear for Trial (Apr. 7, 2022)
Court Order Dismissing Case (Apr. 22, 2022)

Appeal before Supreme Court of Arizona:

Opening Brief (Apr. 28, 2022)
Appellants’ Appendix Part I (Apr. 28, 2022)
Appellants’ Appendix Part II (Apr. 28, 2022)
Reply Brief (May 2, 2022)
Decision Order (May 9, 2022)

North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District’s Challenge to Constitutional Qualifications of Rep. Madison Cawthorn

Complaint (Jan. 10, 2022)
Challenge (Mar. 2, 2022)

Cawthorn v. Circosta et al.

Cawthorn Complaint (Jan. 31, 2022)
Cawthorn Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Jan. 31, 2022)
State’s Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Feb. 7, 2022)
Motion to Intervene as Defendants (Feb. 7, 2022)
Opposition to Cawthorn’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Feb. 7, 2022)
Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Intervene as Defendants (Feb. 17, 2022)
Order Denying Motion to Intervene (Feb. 21, 2022)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 22, 2022)
Memorandum of Law in Support of State Board Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 22, 2022)
- Backgrounder: Kyle Cheney, North Carolina officials reject Cawthorn claim that Constitution’s insurrectionist ban no longer applies, Politico (Feb. 23, 2022)
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate (Feb. 22, 2022)
Draft Transcript of U.S. District Court Hearing in Cawthorne v. Circosta (Mar. 4, 2022)
Emergency Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (Mar. 9, 2022)
Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Mar. 10, 2022)
- Backgrounder: Jonathan Weisman, Judge Blocks Effort to Disqualify Cawthorn from Ballot as ‘Insurrectionist’, New York Times (Mar. 4, 2022)
Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief (Mar. 11, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Stay (Mar. 14, 2022)
North Carolina GOP Amicus Brief (Mar. 14, 2022)
North Carolina State Board of Elections Amicus Brief (Mar. 14, 2022)
Challengers’ Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Stay (Mar. 15, 2022)
4th Circuit Order (Mar. 17, 2022)
Renewed Motion to Intervene (Mar. 17, 2022)
Order Denying Renewed Motion to Intervene (Mar. 30, 2022)
Emergency Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (Mar. 31, 2022)
Second Amended Notice of Appeal of Proposed Defendant-Intervenors (Mar. 31, 2022)
Motion to Expedite Appeal (Apr. 4, 2022)
Plaintiff’s Response to Renewed Motion to Stay (Apr. 5, 2022)
Appellant Opening Brief (Apr. 14, 2022)
Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief (Apr. 14, 2022)
Derek Muller’s Amicus Brief in Support of No Party (Apr. 21, 2022)
Cawthorn Brief as Appellee (Apr. 26, 2022)
Reply Brief of Appellants (Apr. 29, 2022)
Appeals Court Opinion Cawthorn v. Amalfi (May 24, 2022)
Stipulation of Dismissal (June 30, 2022)
Order of Dismissal (June 30, 2022)

III. Proposed State Legislation

New York State Assembly Bill A2389, Restrict Insurrections from Office Taking (RIOT) Act
New York State Senate Bill S888, Restrict Insurrectionists from Office Taking (RIOT) Act
Connecticut State Senate Bill 244, An Act Concerning Eligibility to Hold Public Office or be Employed by the State or any Municipality
Pennsylvania State Assembly Bill 2672, A Joint Resolution proposing integrated amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, further providing for ineligibility by criminal convictions and for removal of civil officers
Pennsylvania State Assembly Bill 2763, An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in obstructing governmental operations, providing for the offense of seditious conspiracy against the Commonwealth; and, in abuse of office, providing for the offense of seditious conspiracy against the Commonwealth while holding public office
Virginia State Assembly Bill 1562, A Bill to amend and reenact § 18.2-413 of the Code of Virginia, relating to insurrections; bar to serving in positions of public trust

Deposition Transcripts of House Select Committee (sorted by affiliation, position, date of deposition)

These files contain the full repository of transcripts released by the Select Committee. We identify and sort by every witness's affiliation. We created permanent links (via Perma.cc) for each of these documents. The linked material accordingly cannot be deleted, even if a future Congress were to eliminate the content on the congressional websites, and it is also protected against "link rot." These documents are text searchable (OCR format). If you think we are missing anything, please send recommendations by email to Jan6Clearinghouse@justsecurity.org.

All: Alphabetical by witness

Michael Ahrens - RNC Communications Director (Sept. 1, 2022)
Ali Alexander - Stop the Steal organizer (Dec. 9, 2021)
Hanna Allred - RNC Chief Copywriter (Mar. 30, 2022)
Benjamin Angle - Chief Media Officer at National Media (Mar. 29, 2022)
Samuel Armes - Alleged author of “1776 Returns” document (Jul. 18, 2022)
Stephen Ayres - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jun. 17, 2022)
Stephen Ayres - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jun. 22, 2022)
Stephen K. Bannon - Donald Trump associate and adviser (Oct. 14, 2021) (did not appear before Committee)
Eric Barber - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 16, 2022)
Christopher Barcenas* - Proud Boy and Miami-Dade Republican Executive Committee member (Mar. 10, 2022)
William Barr - Attorney General (Jun. 2, 2022)
Austin Ferrer Piran Basualdo - White House Associate Director of Special Projects in the Correspondence Office (Apr. 8, 2022)
Jocelyn Benson - Michigan Secretary of State (Jun. 2, 2022)
Landon Bentley - Oath Keeper (May 12, 2022)
Kathy Berden* - Chairperson, Michigan false electors (Mar. 11, 2022)
Jeremy Bertino - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 26, 2022)
Christina Bobb - Attorney for the Trump Campaign (Apr. 21, 2022)
William Bock, IV - Director of Research for the White House Office of Speechwriting (Apr 15, 2022)
Austin Boedigheimer - RNC Digital Deputy Director (Apr. 20, 2022)
David Bowdich - FBI Deputy Director (Dec. 16, 2021)
Rusty Bowers - Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives (Jun. 19, 2022)
Charles Bowman - Women for America First volunteer (May 20, 2022)
Muriel Bowser - Washington D.C. Mayor (Jan. 12, 2022)
Alexander Bruesewitz* - Stop the Steal organizer (Mar. 8, 2022)
Taylor Budowich - Spokesperson for Donald Trump (Dec. 22, 2022)
Janet West Buhler - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Feb. 28, 2022)
Patrick Byrne - Donald Trump associate (Jul. 15, 2022)
Alex Cannon - Deputy General Counsel for the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign (deposition 1: Apr. 13, 2022)
Alex Cannon - Deputy General Counsel for the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign (deposition 2: Aug. 18, 2022)
Lewis Easton Cantwell - Rioter; January 6 defendant(Apr. 26, 2022)
Justin Caporale - Former Trump staffer who helped produce Ellipse rally (Mar. 1, 2022)
Patrick Casey* - White nationalist Groyper and “America First” leader (Mar. 2, 2022)
Cindy Chafian - Spokesperson of the Eighty Percent Coalition (Oct. 28, 2021)
Elaine Chao - Secretary of Transportation (Aug. 4, 2022)
Kenneth Chesebro - Attorney and legal advisor for the Trump Campaign (Oct. 25, 2022)
Dion Cini* - Conservative/far-right activist (May 19, 2022)
Pat Cipollone - White House Counsel (Jul. 8, 2022)
Jeffrey Clark* - Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (Nov. 5, 2021)
Jeffrey Clark* - Former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division (Feb. 2, 2022)
Justin Clark - Deputy Campaign Manager for the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign (May 17, 2022)
Matthew Clarke - Strategic Business Solutions Founder (Aug. 4, 2022)
Gary Coby - RNC Digital Director (Feb. 23, 2022)
Francis Connor - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jul. 7, 2022)
Thomas Paul Conover, Jr. - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 8, 2022)
Robert Contee - Chief of D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (Jan. 11, 2022)
Kellyanne Conway - Former Counselor to President Trump (Nov. 28, 2022)
Laura Cox - Michigan State Representative and GOP Chair (May 3, 2022)
Rachel Craddock - Special Assistant to the President (May 24, 2022)
Shealah Craighead - White House Photographer (Jun. 8, 2022)
Shealah Craighead - White House Photographer (Jun. 29, 2022)
Ken Cuccinelli - Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security (Dec. 7, 2021)
Bryan Cutler - Pennsylvania State Representative and Speaker of the House (May 31, 2022)
Kristin Davis - Roger Stone associate (August 2, 2022)
Nicholas DeCarlo - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Oct. 4, 2022)
Judson P. Deere - Deputy Assistant to the President and White House Deputy Press Secretary (Mar. 3, 2022)
Enrique De La Torre* - Stop the Steal supporter (May 11, 2022)
Jim DeGraffenreid* - Secretary, Nevada false electors (Feb. 24, 2022)
Stephanie Dobitsch - Acting Deputy Under Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at DHS (May 5, 2022)
Richard Dockery - Oath Keeper (Feb. 2, 2022)
Cassie Docksey - Deputy Communications Director of the Republican National Committee (Aug. 25, 2022)
J. Doe - Employee for Salesforce, TMAGAC’s original email service provider (May 20, 2022)
Sean Dollman - Deputy Director of Operations for Trump Campaign (Jun. 29, 2022)
Richard Peter Donoghue - Acting Deputy Attorney General (Oct. 1, 2021)
John K. Donohue - Director of the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division for the Capitol Police
Edward Durfee - Oath Keeper (Mar. 23, 2022)
John Eastman* - Personal attorney for Donald Trump (Dec. 9, 2021)
Caroline Elizabeth Edwards - U.S. Capitol Police Officer (Apr. 18, 2022)
Jenna Ellis* - Attorney working for Trump Campaign (Mar. 8, 2022)
Josh Ellis - Owner of the MyMilitia website (May 19, 2022)
Steven Engel - Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (Jan. 13, 2022)
Ray Epps - Oath Keepers Member (Jan. 21, 2022)
Mark Esper - Secretary of Defense (Apr.1, 2022)
Julie Fancelli* - Billionaire funder of Ellipse rally and donor to Infowars (Feb. 18, 2022)
Julie Farnam - Assistant Director of US Capitol Police Intelligence Unit (Dec. 15, 2021)
Mark Finchem - Arizona State Representative (Apr. 22, 2022)
Joshua Findlay - Associate General Counsel for Trump Campaign (May 25, 2022)
Brian Fishman - Employee for the Civic Integrity Team at Facebook (Apr. 26, 2022)
Jamie Fleet - Senior Advisor to the Speaker of the House (Mar. 10, 2022)
Kimberly Fletcher* - President and founder of Moms for America (Jan. 14, 2022)
Charles Anthony Flynn - Chief Operating Officer for the Active Guard and Reserve (Oct. 28, 2022)
Michael Flynn* - Former National Security Advisor and Trump associate (Mar. 10, 2022)
Albert Foley - Rioter; January 6th defendant (May 10, 2022)
Ruby Freeman - Georgia election worker (May 31, 2022)
Nick Fuentes* - White nationalist Groyper leader and “America First” (Feb. 16, 2022)
Jason Funes - Special Assistant for Intergovernmental and External Affairs at the Department of the Interior (Feb. 23, 2022)
Robert Gabriel - Stephen Miller’s Assistant (Apr. 6, 2022)
Sean Gallagher - US Capitol Police Deputy Chief (Jan. 11, 2022)
Rudy Giuliani - Personal attorney to Donald Trump (May 20, 2022)
Robert Glover - Head of the Metropolitan Police Department Special Operations Division (May 2, 2022)
Bianca Gracia* - Latinos for Trump leader (Apr. 7, 2022)
Sal Greco - New York Police Department Officer and Roger Stone associate (May 16, 2022)
Stephanie Grisham - White House Press Secretary (May 18, 2022)
Alyssa Farah Griffin - White House Director of Strategic Communications (Apr. 15, 2022)
Arina Grossu - Senior Communications Advisor for the Department of Health and Human Services (Apr. 29, 2022)
Kimberly Guilfoyle - Adviser to Donald Trump and significant other of Donald Trump Jr. (Apr. 18, 2022)
Vincent Haley - Deputy Assistant to President for Policy, Strategy, and Speechwriting (Apr. 12, 2022)
Trevor Hallgren - Rioter; January 6 Defendant (Apr. 7, 2022)
William B. Harrison - Deputy Assistant to the President for Operations (Apr. 7, 2022)
William B. Harrison - Deputy Assistant to the President for Operations (Aug. 18, 2022)
Donnell Harvin - Chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence for the District of Columbia; executive director of the National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Center (Jan. 24, 2022)
Valerie Hasberry - Head of security for Architect of the Capitol (Apr. 14, 2022)
Frances Haugen - Former employee for the Misinformation Team at Facebook (Nov. 22, 2021)
Frances Haugen - Former employee for the Misinformation Team at Facebook (Dec. 17, 2021)
Daniel J. Herendeen - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 16, 2022)
Eric Herschmann - White House lawyer and Senior Advisor to President (Apr. 6, 2022)
Hope Hicks - Counselor to the President (Oct. 25, 2022)
Andrew Hitt - Chairperson, Wisconsin false electors and Wisconsin Republican Party Chair (Feb. 28, 2022)
Chris Hodgson - Director of Legislative Affairs for Mike Pence (Mar. 30, 2022)
Alex Holder - Filmmaker and documentarian (Jun. 23, 2022)
Annie Christine Howell - Rioter; January 6th Defendant (Jan. 14, 2022)
Craig Hunter - Task Force Commander for the Task Force Guardian of the District of Columbia National Guard (Jan. 20, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (Feb. 23, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (Mar. 7, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (May 17, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (June 20, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the Trump Administration (Sept. 14, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the Trump Administration (Sept. 15, 2022)

Special addition: Single file containing all six Hutchinson interviews and public hearing.

Paul Irving - House Sergeant-at-Arms (Mar. 4, 2022)
John A. Isakson - Georgia Republican Elector in 2020 Presidential Election - non-participant in false electors (Apr. 25, 2022)
Brian Jack - Director of Political Affairs for President (Feb. 11, 2022)
Greg Jacob - Chief Counsel to Vice President Pence (Feb. 1, 2022)
J. Johnson - Employee for the Safety Policy Team at Facebook (Sept. 7, 2022)
Scott Johnston -Organizer with the group Women for America First of Ellipse rally (Apr. 5, 2022)
Alex Jones* - InfoWars and Trump associate (Jan. 24, 2022)
Ryan Kelley* - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 21, 2022)
Keith Kellogg, Jr. - National Security Advisor to Vice President Pence (Dec. 14, 2022)
Bernard Kerik - Lead Investigator of Rudolph Giuliani’s Legal Team (Jan. 13, 2022)
Charlie Kirk* - Executive director of Turning Point USA (May 24, 2022)
Kenneth Klukowski - Senior counsel under Jeffrey Clark in Civil Division of Department of Justice (Dec. 15, 2021)
Kenneth Klukowski - Senior counsel under Jeffrey Clark in Civil Division of Department of Justice (Jun. 10, 2022)
Jacqueline Shay Kotkiewicz - Research Analyst for the Trump Campaign (Jun. 2, 2022)
Chris Krebs - Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) at Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (Dec. 9, 2021)
Amy Kremer - Women for America First founder (Feb. 18, 2022)
Kylie Kremer - Women for America First Founder (Jan. 12, 2022)
Carla Krzywicki - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 2, 2022)
David Scott Kuntz* - Three Percenter (Apr. 11, 2022)
Jared Kushner - Senior Advisor to President (Mar. 31, 2022)
Antonio LaMotta* - Rioter; January 6 defendant (May 26, 2022)
Jean Lavin - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 6, 2022)
Audra Joy Lemons-Johnson - Michigan Liberty Militia member (Apr. 20, 2022)
Robert Patrick Lewis* - 1st Amendment Praetorian leader (Apr. 15, 2022)
Jeremy Liggett - Three Percenters leader (May 17, 2022)
Philip Luelsdorff* - 1st Amendment Praetorian (Apr. 18, 2022)
Nicholas Luna - Personal Aide to President (Mar. 21, 2022)
Anton Lunyk - Rioter; January 6th defendant (Oct. 6, 2022)
Derek Lyons - White House Staff Secretary and Counselor to the President (Mar. 17, 2022)
Patrick MacDonnell - Member of the White House Office of Speechwriting (April 4, 2022)
Douglas Macgregor - Advisor to the Secretary of Defense (Jun. 7, 2022)
Joshua Macias* - Vets for Trump (May 2, 2022)
Frank Marchisella - Oath Keeper (Apr. 29, 2022)
Ed Martin - Missouri Republican Party Chair (Feb. 23, 2022) (did not appear before Committee)
Shawna Martin* - Alleged QAnon supporter, Panhandle Patriots of Idaho member (Apr. 19, 2022)
Zac Martin - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 9, 2022
Doug Mastriano - Pennsylvania State Senator (Aug. 9, 2022)
Sarah Matthews - Deputy Press Secretary in the Trump White House (Feb. 8, 2022)
John Matze* - Parler CEO (May 25, 2022)
Angela McCallum - Intern for the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs (Dec. 8, 2021)
Ryan McCarthy - Secretary of the Army (Feb. 4, 2022)
James Charles McConville - Chief of Staff of the Army (Nov. 4, 2021)
Ronna Romney McDaniel - Republican National Committee Chair (Jun. 1, 2022)
Michael McDonald* - Chairperson, Nevada false electors (Feb. 24, 2022)
Kayleigh McEnany - White House Press Secretary (Jan. 12, 2022)
John McEntee - Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office (Mar. 28, 2022)
Mark Meadows - White House Chief of Staff (Nov. 12, 2021) (did not appear before Committee)
Mark Meadows - White House Chief of Staff (Dec. 8, 2021) (did not appear before Committee)
George Meza - Proud Boy (Mar. 16, 2022)
Molly Michael - Deputy Assistant and Executive Assistant to the President (Mar. 24, 2022)
David Millard - United States Capitol Police Officer (Apr. 18, 2022)
Christopher Miller - Acting Secretary of Defense (Jan. 14, 2022)
Jason Miller - Senior Advisor to the Trump Campaign (Feb. 3, 2022)
Max Miller - Senior Advisor to the President (Jan. 20, 2022)
Stephen Miller - Senior Advisor to President (Ap. 14, 2022)
Mark A. Milley - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Nov. 17, 2021)
Cleta Mitchell - Attorney for the Trump Campaign (May 18, 2022)
Steven Mnuchin - Secretary of the Treasury (Jul. 18, 2022)
Jennifer Moore - FBI Special Agent of the intelligence division at the Washington Field Office (Jul. 26, 2022)
Jeffrey Lawrence Morelock - Oath Keeper (Jan. 26, 2022)
Matthew Morgan - General Counsel of the Trump Campaign (Apr. 25, 2022)
Wandrea Arshaye Moss - Georgia election worker (Jun. 1, 2022)
Mick Mulvaney - Former Acting White House Chief of Staff and and Special Envoy for Northern Ireland (Jul. 28, 2022)
Timothy Murtaugh - Director of Communications for the Trump Campaign (May 19, 2022)
Anika Collier Navaroli - Former Twitter Employee (Sept. 1, 2022)
Peter K. Navarro - Director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy (Mar. 2, 2022) (did not appear before Committee)
Ian Northon - Lawyer working with Michigan false electors (Apr. 27, 2022)
Robert O’Brien - National Security Advisor (Aug. 23, 2022)
Anthony Ornato - White House Deputy Chief of Operations (Nov. 29, 2022)
BJ Pak - U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia (May 19, 2022)
Andrew Zachary Parkinson - Deputy Director of Communications and Director of Research for the Trump Campaign (May 18, 2022)
Kashyap Patel - Chief of Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense (Dec. 9, 2021)
Robert Peede - White House Director of Presidential Advance (Jan. 19, 2022)
Walter Piatt - Director of the Army Staff (Nov. 3, 2021)
Katrina Pierson - Liaison for the White House and “Save America” rally organizer (Mar. 25, 2022)
Yogananda Pittman - Capitol Police Assistant Chief for Intelligence (Jan. 13, 2022)
Michael Pompeo - Secretary of State (Aug. 9, 2022)
Madison Fox Porter - Associate Staff Secretary and Special Assistant to President (May 5, 2022)
Matthew Pottinger - Deputy National Security Advisor (Apr. 7, 2022)
Jewll Powdrell - Chairperson, New Mexico false electors (Feb. 23, 2022) (did not appear before Committee)
Sidney Powell - Attorney and advisor to Donald Trump (May 7, 2022)
Alexandra Preate - Capital HQ Founder and Bannon associate (Apr. 5, 2022)
Alondra Propes - Oath Keeper (Jan. 31, 2022)
Nick Quested - Filmmaker and documentarian (Apr. 5, 2022)
Julie Radford - Chief of Staff to Ivanka Trump (May 24, 2022)
Brad Raffensperger - Georgia Secretary of State (Nov. 30, 2021)
James Rahm, III - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 4, 2022)
Michael Reed - Republican National Committee Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications (Jul. 20, 2022)
Stewart Rhodes* - Oath Keepers leader (Feb. 2, 2022)
Mark Robinson - D.C. Metropolitan Police Department; Presidential motorcade (Jul. 7, 2022)
Christopher Rodriguez - Director of the District of Columbia’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (Jan. 25, 2022)
Mayra Rodriguez* - Secretary, Michigan false electors (Feb. 22, 2022)
Michael Roman* - Trump Campaign operative; involved in false electors (Aug. 10, 2022)
Jeffrey A. Rosen - Acting Attorney General (Oct. 13, 2021)
Greg Rubenacker - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 6, 2022)
Kelly Ruh - Secretary, Wisconsin false electors (Feb. 28, 2022)
Eugene Scalia - Secretary of Labor (Jun. 30, 2022)
Daniel J. Scavino, Jr. - White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Director of Social Media (Dec. 1, 2021) (did not appear before Committee)
Frank J. Scavo III - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jun. 1, 2022)
Robert Schornak - Rioter; January 6th Defendant (Feb. 1, 2022)
Arthur Schwartz - Founder of Axium Advisors and Donald Trump, Jr. Associate (Feb. 14, 2022)
Douglas C. Sellers, Jr. - White House Assistant Staff Secretary (Jun. 3, 2022)
Mike Sena - Director of the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (Feb. 24, 2022)
David Shafer - Chairperson, Georgia false electors; State Representative; and Georgia GOP Chair (Feb. 25, 2022)
Michael Sherwin - Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia (Apr. 19, 2022)
Michael Shirkey - Majority Leader of the Michigan State Senate (Jun. 8, 2022)
Marc Short - Chief of Counsel to Vice President Pence (Jan. 26, 2022)
Michael Simmons - Oath Keeper (Feb. 10, 2022)
Robert Sinners - Georgia State Director of Election Day Operations for the Trump Campaign (Jun. 15, 2022)
George Smith - Oath Keepers member (Apr. 28, 2022)
J. Smith - Senior Policy Domain Specialist at Twitter (May 9, 2022)
Kelly SoRelle - Oath Keepers attorney (deposition 1: Apr. 13, 2022)
Kelly SoRelle - Oath Keepers attorney (deposition 2: Apr. 19, 20220)
Thomas Speciale - National Spokesperson for Veterans For America First (Feb. 24, 2022)
Lawrence Stackhouse - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 22, 2022)
William (Bill) Stepien - Campaign Manager for the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign and was the White House Director of Political Affairs in the Trump Administration from 2017 to 2018 (Feb. 10, 2022)
Shawn Still - Secretary, Georgia false electors (Feb. 25, 2022)
Heidi Stirrup - White House Liaison at the Department of Justice (Apr. 25, 2022)
Dustin Stockton - January 6 Rally Organizer (Dec. 14, 2021)
Roger Stone* - Trump associate (Dec. 17, 2021)
Brandon Straka - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Feb. 24, 2022)
Marcia Strickler - Oath Keepers member (May 10, 2022)
Jason Sullivan - Roger Stone associate (Aug. 17, 2022)
Steven Sund - Capitol Police Chief (Apr. 20, 2022)
Andrew Surabian - Senior Advisor for the Great America Alliance (Feb. 8, 2022)
Amy H. Swonger - White House’s Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs (Oct. 28, 2022)
Enrique Tarrio* - Proud Boys leader (Feb. 4, 2022)
Jason Van Tatenhove - Former Spokesman for the Oath Keepers (Mar. 9, 2022) Jason Van Tatenhove - Former Spokesman for the Oath Keepers (Jul. 7, 2022)
George Amos Tenney - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jul. 13, 2022)
Jay Thaxton - Proud Boy (Mar. 11, 2022)
Virginia Thomas - Board member of CNP Action and conservative activist (Sep. 29, 2022)
Duston Thompson - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Nov. 16, 2022)
Christopher J. Tomney - Director of DHS Special Operations (Apr. 14, 2022)
Donald Trump, Jr . - Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization and eldest son of President Trump (May 3, 2022)
Ivanka Trump - Senior Advisor to President Trump (Apr. 5, 2022)
Robin Vos - Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly (Nov. 30, 2022)
Phil Waldron* - Former U.S. Army colonel involved in disinformation about election fraud (Feb. 18, 2022)
William Walker - United States Army major general; then-Commander of DC National Guard (Dec. 13, 2021)
William Walker - United States Army major general; then-Commander of DC National Guard (April 21, 2022)
Matthew Thomas Walter - Proud Boy chairman (Mar. 9, 2022)
Richard Walters - Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee (May 25, 2022)
Kelli Ward* - Arizona GOP chairwoman; false elector (Mar. 16, 2022)
James Watkins - Operator of 8chan/8kun and QAnon conspiracy theorist (Jun. 6, 2022)
Larry Weitzner - Lead Ad Maker for the Trump Campaign (Mar. 23, 2022)
Michael Lee Wells - Militia Leader in North Carolina (Apr. 14, 2022)
Jody Williams - TheDonald[.]win Site Owner (Jun. 7, 2022)
Benjamin Williamson - Senior Advisor to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (Jan. 25, 2022)
Chad Wolf - Acting Secretary of Homeland Security (Jan. 21, 2022)
Ross Worthington - Former White House speechwriter (Feb. 15, 2022)
Caroline Wren - Republican fundraiser and Rally organizer (Dec. 17, 2021)
John D. Wright - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 31, 2022)
Kevin Zambrano - Chief Digital Officer at the RNC (Apr. 27, 2022)
Garrett Ziegler* - White House aide (Jul. 19, 2022)

* Witness pleaded the Fifth Amendment

White House

Austin Ferrer Piran Basualdo - White House Associate Director of Special Projects in the Correspondence Office (Apr. 8, 2022)
William Bock, IV - Director of Research for the White House Office of Speechwriting (Apr 15, 2022)
Justin Caporale - Former Trump staffer who helped produce Ellipse rally (Mar. 1, 2022)
Pat Cipollone - White House Counsel (Jul. 8, 2022)
Kellyanne Conway - Former Counselor to President Trump (Nov. 28, 2022)
Rachel Craddock - Special Assistant to the President (May 24, 2022)
Shealah Craighead - White House Photographer (June 8, 2022)
Shealah Craighead - White House Photographer (June 29, 2022)
Judson P. Deere - Deputy Assistant to the President and White House Deputy Press Secretary (Mar. 3, 2022)
Robert Gabriel - Stephen Miller’s Assistant (Apr. 6, 2022)
Alyssa Farah Griffin - White House Director of Strategic Communications (Apr. 15, 2022)
Stephanie Grisham - White House Press Secretary (May 18, 2022)
Kimberly Guilfoyle - Adviser to Donald Trump and significant other of Donald Trump Jr. (Apr. 18, 2022)
Vincent Haley - Deputy Assistant to President for Policy, Strategy, and Speechwriting (Apr. 12, 2022)
William B. Harrison - Deputy Assistant to the President for Operations (Apr. 7, 2022)
William B. Harrison - Deputy Assistant to the President for Operations (Aug. 18, 2022)
Eric Herschmann - White House lawyer and Senior Advisor to President (Apr. 6, 2022)
Hope Hicks - Counselor to the President (Oct. 25, 2022)
Chris Hodgson - Director of Legislative Affairs for Mike Pence (Mar. 30, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (Feb. 23, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (Mar. 7, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (May 17, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (June 20, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (Sept. 14, 2022)
Cassidy Hutchinson - Assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (Sept. 15, 2022)

Special addition: Single file containing all six Hutchinson interviews and public hearing.

Brian Jack - Director of Political Affairs for President (Feb. 11, 2022)
Greg Jacob - Chief Counsel to Vice President Pence (Feb. 1, 2022)
Keith Kellogg, Jr. - National Security Advisor to Vice President Pence (Dec. 14, 2022)
Jared Kushner - Senior Advisor to President (Mar. 31, 2022)
Nicholas Luna - Personal Aide to President (Mar. 21, 2022)
Derek Lyons - White House Staff Secretary and Counselor to the President (Mar. 17, 2022)
Patrick MacDonnell - Member of the White House Office of Speechwriting (April 4, 2022)
Sarah Matthews - Deputy Press Secretary in the Trump White House (Feb. 8, 2022)
Angela McCallum - Intern for the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs (Dec. 8, 2021)
Kayleigh McEnany - White House Press Secretary (Jan. 12, 2022)
John McEntee - Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office (Mar. 28, 2022)
Mark Meadows - White House Chief of Staff (Nov. 12, 2021) (did not appear before Committee)
Mark Meadows - White House Chief of Staff (Dec. 8, 2021) (did not appear before Committee)
Molly Michael - Deputy Assistant and Executive Assistant to the President (Mar. 24, 2022)
Max Miller - Senior Advisor to the President (Jan. 20, 2022)
Stephen Miller - Senior Advisor to President (Ap. 14, 2022)
Mick Mulvaney - Former Acting White House Chief of Staff and and Special Envoy for Northern Ireland (Jul. 28, 2022)
Peter K. Navarro - Director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy (Mar. 2, 2022) (did not appear before Committee)
Robert O’Brien - National Security Advisor (Aug. 23, 2022)
Anthony Ornato - White House Deputy Chief of Operations (Nov. 29, 2022)
Robert Peede - White House Director of Presidential Advance (Jan. 19, 2022)
Madison Fox Porter - Associate Staff Secretary and Special Assistant to President (May 5, 2022)
Matthew Pottinger - Deputy National Security Advisor (Apr. 7, 2022)
Julie Radford - Chief of Staff to Ivanka Trump (May 24, 2022)
Daniel J. Scavino, Jr. - White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Director of Social Media (Dec. 1, 2021) (did not appear before Committee)
Douglas C. Sellers, Jr. - White House Assistant Staff Secretary (June 3, 2022)
Marc Short - Chief of Counsel to Vice President Pence (Jan. 26, 2022)
Amy H. Swonger - White House’s Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs (Oct. 28, 2022)
Ivanka Trump - Senior Advisor to President Trump (Apr. 5, 2022)
Benjamin Williamson - Senior Advisor to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (Jan. 25, 2022)
Ross Worthington - Former White House speechwriter (Feb. 15, 2022)
Garrett Ziegler* - White House aide (July 19, 2022)

* Witness pleaded the Fifth Amendment

Department of Justice

William Barr - Attorney General (Jun. 2, 2022)
David Bowdich - FBI Deputy Director (Dec. 16, 2021)
Jeffrey Clark* - Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (Nov. 5, 2021)
Jeffrey Clark - Former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division (Feb. 2, 2022)
Richard Peter Donoghue - Acting Deputy Attorney General (Oct. 1, 2021)
Steven Engel - Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (Jan. 13, 2022)
Kenneth Klukowski - Senior counsel under Jeffrey Clark in Civil Division of Department of Justice (Dec. 15, 2021)
Kenneth Klukowski - Senior counsel under Jeffrey Clark in Civil Division of Department of Justice (Jun. 10, 2022)
Jennifer Moore - FBI Special Agent of the intelligence division at the Washington Field Office (Jul. 26, 2022)
BJ Pak - U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia (May 19, 2022)
Jeffrey A. Rosen - Acting Attorney General (Oct. 13, 2021)
Michael Sherwin - Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia (Apr. 19, 2022)
Heidi Stirrup - White House Liaison at the Department of Justice (Apr. 25, 2022)

* Witness pleaded the Fifth Amendment

Department of Defense

Mark Esper - Secretary of Defense (Apr.1, 2022)
Charles Anthony Flynn - Chief Operating Officer for the Active Guard and Reserve (Oct. 28, 2022)
Craig Hunter - Task Force Commander for the Task Force Guardian of the DC National Guard (Jan. 20, 2022)
Douglas Macgregor - Advisor to the Secretary of Defense (Jun. 7, 2022)
James Charles McConville - Chief of Staff of the Army (Nov. 4, 2021)
Christopher Miller - Acting Secretary of Defense (Jan. 14, 2022)
Mark A. Milley - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Nov. 17, 2021)
Kashyap Patel - Chief of Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense (Dec. 9, 2021)
Walter Piatt - Director of the Army Staff (Nov. 3, 2021)
William Walker - United States Army major general; then-Commander of DC National Guard (Part 1: Dec. 13, 2021)
William Walker - United States Army major general; then-Commander of DC National Guard (Part 2: April 21, 2022)

Department of Homeland Security (includes U.S. Secret Service)

Ken Cuccinelli - Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security (Dec. 7, 2021)
Stephanie Dobitsch - Acting Deputy Under Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at DHS (May 5, 2022)
Chris Krebs - Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) at Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (Dec. 9, 2021)
Christopher J. Tomney - Director of DHS Special Operations (Apr. 14, 2022)
Chad Wolf - Acting Secretary of Homeland Security (Jan. 21, 2022)

Note also relevant:

Anthony Ornato - White House Deputy Chief of Operations (Nov. 29, 2022)
Mark Robinson - D.C. Metropolitan Police Department; Presidential motorcade (July 7, 2022)

Other Trump Administration Officials

Elaine Chao - Secretary of Transportation (Aug. 4, 2022)
Jason Funes - Special Assistant for Intergovernmental and External Affairs at the Department of the Interior (Feb. 23, 2022)
Arina Grossu - Senior Communications Advisor for the Department of Health and Human Services (Apr. 29, 2022)
Ryan McCarthy - Secretary of the Army (Feb. 4, 2022)
Steven Mnuchin - Secretary of the Treasury (Jul. 18, 2022)
Michael Pompeo - Secretary of State (Aug. 9, 2022)
Eugene Scalia - Secretary of Labor (June 30, 2022)

Congress

John K. Donohue - Director of the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division for the U.S. Capitol Police
Caroline Elizabeth Edwards - U.S. Capitol Police Officer (Apr. 18, 2022)
Julie Farnam - Assistant Director of U.S. Capitol Police Intelligence Unit (Dec. 15, 2021)
Jamie Fleet - Senior Advisor to the Speaker of the House (Mar. 10, 2022)
Sean Gallagher - U.S. Capitol Police Deputy Chief (Jan. 11, 2022)
Valerie Hasberry - Head of security for Architect of the Capitol (Apr. 14, 2022)
Paul Irving - House Sergeant-at-Arms (Mar. 4, 2022)
David Millard - U.S. Capitol Police Officer (Apr. 18, 2022)
Yogananda Pittman - U.S. Capitol Police Assistant Chief for Intelligence (Jan. 13, 2022)
Steven Sund - U.S. Capitol Police Chief (Apr. 20, 2022)

Washington DC Officials/Officers

Muriel Bowser - Washington D.C. Mayor (Jan. 12, 2022)
Robert Contee - Chief of D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (Jan. 11, 2022)
Robert Glover - Head of the Metropolitan Police Department Special Operations Division (May 2, 2022)
Donnell Harvin - Chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence for the District of Columbia; executive director of the National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Center (Jan. 24, 2022)
Mark Robinson - D.C. Metropolitan Police Department; Presidential motorcade (July 7, 2022)
Christopher Rodriguez - Director of the District of Columbia’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (Jan. 25, 2022)

False Electors

Kathy Berden* - Chairperson, Michigan false electors (Mar. 11, 2022)
Jim DeGraffenreid* - Secretary, Nevada false electors (Feb. 24, 2022)
Andrew Hitt - Chairperson, Wisconsin false electors (Feb. 28, 2022)
John A. Isakson - Georgia Republican Elector in 2020 Presidential Election - non-participant in false electors (Apr. 25, 2022)
Michael McDonald* - Chairperson, Nevada false electors (Feb. 24, 2022)
Jewll Powdrell - Chairperson, New Mexico false electors (Feb. 23, 2022) (did not appear before Committee)
Mayra Rodriguez* - Secretary, Michigan false electors (Feb. 22, 2022)
Kelly Ruh - Secretary, Wisconsin false electors (Feb. 28, 2022)
David Shafer - Chairperson, Georgia false electors; State Representative; and Georgia GOP Chair (Feb. 25, 2022)
Shawn Still - Secretary, Georgia false electors (Feb. 25, 2022)
Kelli Ward* - Arizona GOP chairwoman; false elector (Mar. 16, 2022)

Note also relevant:

Laura Cox - Michigan State Representative and GOP Chair (May 3, 2022)
Mark Finchem - Arizona State Representative (Apr. 22, 2022)
Ian Northon - Lawyer working with Michigan false electors (Apr. 27, 2022)
Michael Roman* - Trump Campaign operative; involved in false electors (Aug. 10, 2022)

State Officials/Officers

Jocelyn Benson - Michigan Secretary of State (June 2, 2022)
Rusty Bowers - Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives (June 19, 2022)
Laura Cox - Michigan State Representative and GOP Chair (May 3, 2022)
Bryan Cutler - Pennsylvania State Representative and Speaker of the House (May 31, 2022)
Mark Finchem - Arizona State Representative (Apr. 22, 2022)
Ruby Freeman - Georgia election worker (May 31, 2022)
Doug Mastriano - Pennsylvania State Senator (Aug. 9, 2022)
Wandrea Arshaye Moss - Georgia election worker (Jun. 1, 2022)
Brad Raffensperger - Georgia Secretary of State (Nov. 30, 2021)
Mike Sena - Director of the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (Feb. 24, 2022)
Michael Shirkey - Majority Leader of the Michigan State Senate (June 8, 2022)
Robin Vos - Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly (Nov. 30, 2022)

Far-Right Political Operatives / Big Lie / Trump Campaign / Trump Associates

Michael Ahrens - Communications Director of the Republican National Committee (Sept. 1, 2022)
Ali Alexander - Stop the Steal Organizer (Dec. 9, 2021)
Hanna Allred - Republican National Committee Chief Copywriter (Mar. 30, 2022)
Benjamin Angle - Chief Media Officer at National Media (Mar. 29, 2022)
Stephen K. Bannon - Donald Trump associate and adviser (Oct. 14, 2021) (did not appear before Committee)
Christina Bobb - Attorney for the Trump Campaign (Apr. 21, 2022)
Austin Boedigheimer - Republican National Committee Digital Deputy Director (Apr. 20, 2022)
Charles Bowman - Women for America First volunteer (May 20, 2022)
Alexander Bruesewitz* - Stop the Steal organizer (Mar. 8, 2022)
Taylor Budowich - Spokesperson for Donald Trump (Dec. 22, 2022)
Patrick Byrne - Donald Trump associate (July 15, 2022)
Alex Cannon - Deputy General Counsel for the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign (deposition 1: Apr. 13, 2022)
Alex Cannon - Deputy General Counsel for the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign (deposition 2: Aug. 18, 2022)
Patrick Casey* - White nationalist Groyper and “America First” leader (Mar. 2, 2022)
Cindy Chafian - Spokesperson of the Eighty Percent Coalition (Oct. 28, 2021)
Kenneth Chesebro - Attorney and legal advisor for the Trump Campaign (Oct. 25, 2022)
Dion Cini* - Conservative/far-right activist (May 19, 2022)
Justin Clark - Deputy Campaign Manager for the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign (May 17, 2022)
Matthew Clarke - Strategic Business Solutions Founder (Aug. 4, 2022)
Gary Coby - RNC Digital Director (Feb. 23, 2022)
Kristin Davis - Roger Stone associate (August 2, 2022)
Enrique De La Torre* - Stop the Steal supporter (May 11, 2022)
Cassie Docksey - Deputy Communications Director of the Republican National Committee (Aug. 25, 2022)
J. Doe - Employee for Salesforce, TMAGAC’s original email service provider (May 20, 2022)
Sean Dollman - Deputy Director of Operations for Trump Campaign (June 29, 2022)
John Eastman* - Personal attorney for Donald Trump (Dec. 9, 2021)
Jenna Ellis* - Attorney working for Trump Campaign (Mar. 8, 2022)
Julie Fancelli* - Billionaire funder of Ellipse rally and donor to Infowars (Feb. 18, 2022)
Joshua Findlay - Associate General Counsel for Trump Campaign (May 25, 2022)
Kimberly Fletcher* - President and founder of Moms for America (Jan. 14, 2022)
Michael Flynn* - Former National Security Advisor and Trump associate (Mar. 10, 2022)
Jacqueline Shay Kotkiewicz - Research Analyst for the Trump Campaign (June 2, 2022)
Nick Fuentes* - White nationalist Groyper leader and “America First” (Feb. 16, 2022)
Rudy Giuliani - Personal attorney to Donald Trump (May 20, 2022)
Bianca Gracia* - Latinos for Trump leader (Apr. 7, 2022)
Sal Greco - New York Police Department Officer and Roger Stone associate (May 16, 2022)
Scott Johnston -Organizer with the group Women for America First of Ellipse rally (Apr. 5, 2022)
Alex Jones* - InfoWars and Trump associate (Jan. 24, 2022)
Bernard Kerik - Lead Investigator of Rudolph Giuliani’s Legal Team (Jan. 13, 2022)
Charlie Kirk* - Executive director of Turning Point USA (May 24, 2022)
Amy Kremer - Women for America First founder (Feb. 18, 2022)
Kylie Kremer - Women for America First Founder (Jan. 12, 2022)
Joshua Macias* - Vets for Trump (May 2, 2022)
Ronna Romney McDaniel - Republican National Committee Chair (Jun. 1, 2022)
Ed Martin - Organizer of Stop the Steal and Phyllis Schafley Eagles (Feb. 23, 2022) (did not appear before Committee)
Jason Miller - Senior Advisor to the Trump Campaign (Feb. 3, 2022)
Cleta Mitchell - Attorney for the Trump Campaign (May 18, 2022)
Matthew Morgan - General Counsel of the Trump Campaign (Apr. 25, 2022)
Timothy Murtaugh - Director of Communications for the Trump Campaign (May 19, 2022)
Ian Northon - Lawyer working with Michigan false electors (Apr. 27, 2022)
Andrew Zachary Parkinson - Deputy Director of Communications and Director of Research for the Trump Campaign (May 18, 2022)
Katrina Pierson - Liaison for the White House and “Save America” rally organizer (Mar. 25, 2022)
Sidney Powell - Attorney and advisor to Donald Trump (May 7, 2022)
Alexandra Preate - Capital HQ Founder and Bannon associate (Apr. 5, 2022)
Michael Reed - Republican National Committee Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications (July 20, 2022)
Michael Roman* - Trump Campaign operative; involved in false electors (Aug. 10, 2022)
Arthur Schwartz - Founder of Axium Advisors and Donald Trump, Jr. Associate (Feb. 14, 2022)
Robert Sinners - Georgia State Director of Election Day Operations for the Trump Campaign (Jun. 15, 2022)
Thomas Speciale - National Spokesperson for Veterans For America First (Feb. 24, 2022)
William (Bill) Stepien - Campaign Manager for the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign and was the White House Director of Political Affairs in the Trump Administration from 2017 to 2018 (Feb. 10, 2022)
Dustin Stockton - January 6 Rally Organizer (Dec. 14, 2021)
Roger Stone* - Trump associate (Dec. 17, 2021)
Jason Sullivan - Roger Stone associate (Aug. 17, 2022)
Andrew Surabian - Senior Advisor for the Great America Alliance (Feb. 8, 2022)
V irginia Thomas - Board member of CNP Action and conservative activist (Sept. 29, 2022)
Donald Trump, Jr. - Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization and eldest son of President Trump (May 3, 2022)
Phil Waldron* - Former U.S. Army colonel involved in disinformation about election fraud (Feb. 18, 2022)
Richard Walters - Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee (May 25, 2022)
Larry Weitzner - Lead Ad Maker for the Trump Campaign (Mar. 23, 2022)
Caroline Wren - Republican fundraiser and Rally organizer (Dec. 17, 2021)
Kevin Zambrano - Chief Digital Officer at the RNC (Apr. 27, 2022)

Note also relevant: Jody Williams - TheDonald.win Site Owner (June 7, 2022)

* Witness pleaded the Fifth Amendment

Militia

Samuel Armes - Alleged author of “1776 Returns” document (Jul. 18, 2022)
Christopher Barcenas* - Proud Boy and Miami-Dade Republican Executive Committee member (Mar. 10, 2022)
Landon Bentley - Oath Keeper (May 12, 2022)
Richard Dockery - Oath Keeper (Feb. 2, 2022)
Edward Durfee - Oath Keeper (Mar. 23, 2022)
Josh Ellis - Owner of the MyMilitia website (May 19, 2022)
Ray Epps - Oath Keeper (Jan. 21, 2022)
David Scott Kuntz* - Three Percenter (Apr. 11, 2022)
Audra Joy Lemons-Johnson - Michigan Liberty Militia member (Apr. 20, 2022)
Robert Patrick Lewis* - 1st Amendment Praetorian leader (Apr. 15, 2022)
Jeremy Liggett - Three Percenters leader (May 17, 2022)
Philip Luelsdorff* - 1st Amendment Praetorian (Apr. 18, 2022)
Frank Marchisella - Oath Keeper (Apr. 29, 2022)
Shawna Martin* - Alleged QAnon supporter, Panhandle Patriots of Idaho member (Apr. 19, 2022)
George Meza - Proud Boy (Mar. 16, 2022)
Jeffrey Lawrence Morelock - Oath Keeper (Jan. 26, 2022)
Alondra Propes - Oath Keeper (Jan. 31, 2022)
Stewart Rhodes* - Oath Keepers leader (Feb. 2, 2022)
Michael Simmons - Oath Keeper (Feb. 10, 2022)
George Smith - Oath Keeper (Apr. 28, 2022)
Kelly SoRelle - Oath Keepers attorney (deposition 1: Apr. 13, 2022)
Kelly SoRelle - Oath Keepers attorney (deposition 2: Apr. 19, 20220)
Marcia Strickler - Oath Keeper (May 10, 2022)
Enrique Tarrio* - Proud Boys leader (Feb. 4, 2022)
Jason Van Tatenhove - Former Spokesman for the Oath Keepers (Mar. 9, 2022)
Jason Van Tatenhove - Former Spokesman for the Oath Keepers (Jul. 7, 2022)
Jay Thaxton - Proud Boy (Mar. 11, 2022)
Matthew Thomas Walter - Proud Boy chairman (Mar. 9, 2022)
Michael Lee Wells - Militia Leader in North Carolina (Apr. 14, 2022)

* Witness pleaded the Fifth Amendment

Rioters / January 6th Defendants

Stephen Ayres - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jun. 17, 2022)
Stephen Ayres - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jun. 22, 2022)
Eric Barber - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 16, 2022)
Jeremy Bertino - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 26, 2022)
Janet West Buhler - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Feb. 28, 2022)
Lewis Easton Cantwell - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 26, 2022)
Francis Connor - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jul. 7, 2022)
Thomas Paul Conover, Jr. - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 8, 2022)
Nicholas DeCarlo - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Oct. 4, 2022)
Albert Foley - Rioter; January 6 defendant (May 10, 2022)
Trevor Hallgren - Rioter; January 6 Defendant (Apr. 7, 2022)
Daniel J. Herendeen - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 16, 2022)
Annie Christine Howell - Rioter; January 6th Defendant (Jan. 14, 2022)
Ryan Kelley* - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 21, 2022)
Carla Krzywicki - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 2, 2022)
Antonio LaMotta* - Rioter; January 6 defendant (May 26, 2022)
Jean Lavin - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 6, 2022)
Anton Lunyk - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Oct. 6, 2022)
Zac Martin - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 9, 2022)
James Rahm, III - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 4, 2022)
Greg Rubenacker - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Apr. 6, 2022)
Frank J. Scavo III - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jun. 1, 2022)
Robert Schornak - Rioter; January 6 Defendant (Feb. 1, 2022)
Lawrence Stackhouse - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 22, 2022)
Brandon Straka - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Feb. 24, 2022)
George Amos Tenney - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Jul. 13, 2022)
Duston Thompson - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Nov. 16, 2022)
John D. Wright - Rioter; January 6 defendant (Mar. 31, 2022)

* Witness pleaded the Fifth Amendment

Social Media

Brian Fishman - Employee for the Civic Integrity Team at Facebook (Apr. 26, 2022)
Frances Haugen - Former employee for the Misinformation Team at Facebook (Nov. 22, 2021)
Frances Haugen - Former employee for the Misinformation Team at Facebook (Dec. 17, 2021)
J. Johnson - Employee for the Safety Policy Team at Facebook (Sept. 7, 2022)
John Matze* - Parler CEO (May 25, 2022)
Anika Collier Navaroli - Former Twitter Employee (Sept. 1, 2022)
J. Smith - Senior Policy Domain Specialist at Twitter (May 9, 2022)
James Watkins - Operator of 8chan/8kun and QAnon conspiracy theorist (June 6, 2022)
Jody Williams - TheDonald[.]win Site Owner (June 7, 2022)

* Witness pleaded the Fifth Amendment

Other Witnesses

Alex Holder - Filmmaker and documentarian (Jun. 23, 2022)
Nick Quested - Filmmaker and documentarian (Apr. 5, 2022)

Congressional Hearings

House Homeland Security Committee (February 4, 2021)

House Homeland Security Committee
Title: “Examining the Domestic Terrorism Threat in the Wake of the Attack on the U.S. Capitol”
February 4, 2021
YouTube CSPAN

Witnesses:

Christopher Rodriguez, PhD (Testimony)
Director
Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA)
District of Columbia

Ms. Elizabeth Neumann (Testimony)
Founder and Managing Director, New Summit Strategies
Former Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Mr. Jonathan Greenblatt (Testimony)
Chief Executive Officer
Anti-Defamation League

Mr. Brian Michael Jenkins (Testimony)
Senior Advisor to the RAND President
The RAND Corporation

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Rules and Administration Committee (February 23, 2021)

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Rules and Administration Committee
Title: “A Joint Hearing to Examine the January 6, 2021 Attack on the Capitol”
February 23, 2021
CSPAN

Witnesses:

Robert J. Contee III (Testimony)
Acting Chief of Police
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)
Washington, D.C.

Steven A. Sund (Testimony)
Former Chief of Police (2019-2021)
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

Michael C. Stenger (Testimony)
Former Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper (2018-2021)
U.S. Senate

Paul D. Irving (Testimony)
Former Sergeant at Arms (2012-2021)
U.S. House of Representatives

Captain Carneysha Mendoza (Testimony)
Field Commander
Special Operations Division
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

House Energy & Commerce Committee (February 24, 2021)

House Energy & Commerce Committee
Title: “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media”
February 24, 2021
CSPAN Youtube

Witnesses:

Soledad O’Brien (Testimony)
Anchor, Matter of Fact
CEO, Soledad O’Brien Productions

Emily Bell (Testimony)
Director
Tow Center for Digital Media
Columbia University

Kristin Danielle Urquiza (Testimony)
Co-Founder
Marked by COVID

Jonathan Turley (Testimony)
Professor
The George Washington University Law School

House Appropriations Committee (Feb. 25, 2021)

House Appropriations Committee - Feb. 25, 2021
"U.S. Capitol Police and House Sergeant at Arms, Security Failures on January 6”

CSPAN

Witnesses:

The Honorable Timothy Blodgett (Testimony)
Acting Sergeant at Arms, House of Representatives

Yogananda D. Pittman (Testimony)
Acting Chief of Police
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

Senate Judiciary Committee (March 2, 2021)

Senate Judiciary Committee
Title: “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: the January 6 Insurrection, Domestic Terrorism, and Other Threats”
March 2, 2021
CSPAN

Witness:

Hon. Chistopher Wray (Testimony)
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

House Committee on Appropriations (March 3, 2021)

House Committee on Appropriations
Title: “U.S. Capitol Police FY 2022 Hearing”
March 3, 2021
C-Span

Witnesses:

Yogananda D. Pittman (Testimony)
Acting Chief
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Rules and Administration Committee (March 3, 2021)

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Rules and Administration Committee
Title: “Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Part II”
March 3, 2021
YouTube CSPAN Part 1 CSPAN Part 2

Witnesses:

Melissa Smislova (Testimony)
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary
Office of Intelligence and Analysis
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Jill Sanborn (Testimony)
Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

Robert G. Salesses (Testimony)
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

Major General William J. Walker (Testimony)
Commanding General
District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG)

House Homeland Security Committee; Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism (March 24, 2021)

House Homeland Security Committee; Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Title: “State and Local Responses to Domestic Terrorism: The Attack on the U.S. Capitol and Beyond”
March 24, 2021
YouTube CSPAN

Witnesses:

Hon. Dana Nessel (Testimony)
Attorney General
State of Michigan

Hon. Aaron Ford (Testimony)
Attorney General
State of Nevada

Hon. John Chisholm (Testimony)
District Attorney
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

House Energy & Commerce Committee (March 25, 2021)

House Energy & Commerce Committee
Title: “Disinformation Nation: Social Media’s Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation”
March 25, 2021
CSPAN Youtube

Witnesses:

Mark Zuckerberg (Testimony)
Chairman and CEO
Facebook

Sundar Pichai (Testimony)
CEO
Google

Jack Dorsey (Testimony)
CEO
Twitter

Committee on House Administration (April 15, 2021)

Committee on House Administration
Title: “Oversight of the United States Capitol Police and Preparations for and Response to the Attack of January 6th”
April 15, 2021
YouTube Part 1 Youtube Part 2 CSPAN

Witness:

Mr. Michael Bolton (Testimony)
Inspector General
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

Senate Committee on Appropriations (April 21, 2021)

Senate Committee on Appropriations
Title: “Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Requests”
April 21, 2021
C-Span

Witnesses:

Yogananda Pittman (Testimony)
Acting Chief
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

The Honorable J. Brett Blanton (Testimony)
Architect of the Capitol

The Honorable Karen Gibson (Testimony)
Senate Sergeant at Arms

Senate Judiciary Committee; Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law (April 27, 2021)

Senate Judiciary Committee; Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law
Title: “Algorithms and Amplification: How Social Media Platforms’ Design Choices Shape Our Discourse and Our Minds”
April 27, 2021
CSPAN Youtube

Witnesses:

Ms. Monika Bickert (Testimony)
Vice President for Content Policy
Facebook

Ms. Lauren Culbertson (Testimony)
Head of U.S. Public Policy
Twitter

Ms. Alexandra Veitch (Testimony)
Director of Government Affairs and Public Policy for the Americas and Emerging Markets
Youtube

Mr. Tristan Harris (Testimony)
Co-Founder and President
Center for Humane Technology

Dr. Joan Donovan (Testimony)
Research Director
Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy
Lecturer in Public Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University

Committee on House Administration (May 10, 2021)

Committee on House Administration
Title: “Oversight of the January 6th Attack: United States Capitol Police Threat Assessment and Counter-Surveillance Before and During the Attack”
May 10, 2021
YouTube CSPAN

Witness:

Mr. Michael Bolton (Testimony)
Inspector General
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

House Committee on Oversight and Reform (May 12, 2021)

House Committee on Oversight and Reform (May 12, 2021)
“The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions
CSPAN | Transcript

Witnesses:

The Honorable Christopher C. Miller (Testimony)
Former Acting Secretary
Department of Defense (DOD)

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rosen (Testimony)
Former Acting Attorney General
Department of Justice (DOJ)

Mr. Robert J. Contee III (Testimony)
Chief
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)

Committee on House Administration (May 12, 2021)

Committee on House Administration
Title: “Oversight of the January 6th Attack: Review of the Architect of the Capitol’s Emergency Preparedness”
May 12, 2021
YouTube CSPAN

Witness:

Mr. Christopher Failla (Testimony)
Inspector General
Architect of the Capitol

House Rules Committee (May 18, 2021)

House Rules Committee
Title: “H.R. 3237—Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January 6th Appropriations Act, 2021; H.R. 3233—National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act”
May 18, 2021
YouTube

Witnesses: None

Committee on House Administration (May 19, 2021)

Committee on House Administration
Title: “Reforming the Capitol Police and Improving Accountability for the Capitol Police Board”
May 19, 2021
YouTube CSPAN

Witnesses:

Major General William J. Walker (Testimony)
Sergeant at Arms
U.S. House of Representatives

Mr. J. Brett Blanton (Testimony)
Architect of the Capitol
U.S. Capitol

Dr. Linda Singh (Testimony)
CEO
Kaleidoscope, LLC

Ms. Lynda R. Williams (Testimony)
President
NOBLE

Lieutenant General Jeffrey Buchanan (Ret.) (Testimony)

House Judiciary Committee (June 10, 2021)

House Judiciary Committee
Title: Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
June 10, 2021
Youtube CSPAN

Witness:

Hon. Christopher Wray (Testimony )
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Committee on House Administration (June 15, 2021)

Committee on House Administration
Title: “Oversight of the January 6th Attack: United States Capitol Police Containment Emergency Response Team and First Responders Unit”
June 15, 2021
YouTube CSPAN

Witnesses:

Mr. Michael Bolton (Testimony)
Inspector General
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

Dr. Gretta Goodwin (Testimony)
Director
Justice and Law Enforcement Issues
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)

House Committee on Oversight and Reform (June 15, 2021)

House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Title: “The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions”
June 15, 2021
YouTube CSPAN | Transcript

Witnesses:

General Charles E. Flynn (Testimony)
Commanding General
United States Army Pacific

Lieutenant General Walter E. Piatt (Testimony)
Director of Army Staff
United States Army

Hon. Christopher Wray (Testimony)
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Senate Rules and Administration Committee (June 16, 2021)

Senate Rules and Administration Committee
Title: “An oversight hearing to examine the U.S. Capitol Police following the January 6th attack on the Capitol.”
June 16, 2021
CSPAN

Witness:

Mr. Michael Bolton (Testimony)
Inspector General
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (July 27, 2021)

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
Title: "The Law Enforcement Experience on January 6th"
July 27, 2021
CSPAN

Witnesses:

Officer Harry Dunn (Testimony)
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

Officer Michael Fanone (Testimony)
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)

Sergeant Aquilino Gonell (Testimony)
United States Capitol Police (USCP)

Officer Daniel Hodges (Testimony)
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (June 9, 2022)

First Open Hearing of June Series
CSPAN Youtube
Transcript

Witnesses:

Caroline Edwards
US Capitol Police Officer

Nick Quested
Filmmaker and Documentarian

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (June 13, 2022)

Second Open Hearing of June Series
CSPAN YouTube
Transcript

Witnesses:

Panel 1

Mr. William Stepien (canceled due to family emergency)
Former Trump Campaign Manager

Mr. Chris Stirewalt
Former Fox News Political Editor

Panel 2

Mr. Benjamin Ginsberg
Election Attorney

BJay Pak
Former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia

Al Schmidt
Former City Commissioner of Philadelphia

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (June 16, 2022)

Third Open Hearing of June Series
CSPAN YouTube
Transcript

Witnesses:

Michael Luttig (Statement)
Former US Circuit Judge

Mr. Greg Jacob (Statement)
Former Counsel to Vice President Pence

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (June 21, 2022)

Fourth Open Hearing of June Series
CSPAN YouTube
Transcript

Witnesses:

Panel 1

Hon. Rusty Bowers
Arizona House Speaker

Hon. Brad Raffensperger
Georgia Secretary of State

Mr. Gabriel Sterling
Georgia Secretary of State Chief Operating Officer

Panel 2

Ms. Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss
Former Georgia election worker

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (June 23, 2022)

Fifth Open Hearing of June Series
CSPAN YouTube
Transcript

Witnesses:

Hon. Jeffrey A. Rosen
Former Acting Attorney General

Hon. Richard Donoghue
Former Acting Deputy Attorney General

Hon. Steven Engel
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (June 28, 2022)

Sixth Open Hearing of June Series
CSPAN YouTube
Transcript (NPR) (Rev)

Witness:

Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson
Former Aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows

Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (July 12, 2022)

First Open Hearing of July Series

CSPAN YouTube

Transcript (NPR)

Witnesses:

Mr. Stephen Ayres
Former Supporter of President Trump

Mr. Jason Van Tatenhove
Former Spokesman of the Oath Keepers

Congressional Documents (including House Select Committee)

Background: Annie Grayer and Paul LeBlanc, A running list of who the January 6 committee has subpoenaed or requested to appear, CNN

1. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), incoming Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee, Urges Wireless Carriers and Technology Companies to Preserve Evidence Related to the Attack on the U.S. Capitol (Jan. 9. 2021)
Letters sent to AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Apple, Facebook, Gab, Google, Parler, Signal, Telegram, and Twitter.

2. Trump Second Impeachment Trial
Core Documents and Other Documents via Union College Schaffer Library
Video Evidence Presented at Trial via Washington Post
Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Statement Confirming Conversation with Rep. Kevin McCarthy, entered into evidence in Senate impeachment trial (Feb. 12, 2021)

3. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Letter to Parler Requesting Documents (Feb. 8, 2021)

4. Chairs of Six House Committees, Document Requests to Agencies (Mar. 25, 2021)

5. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; Senate Rules and Administration Committee Joint Report (released on Jun. 8, 2021)

Related reading: FactCheck.Org, Facebook Post Misleads on Bipartisan Capitol Attack Report and Interview (Jun. 10, 2021)

6. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Fact Sheet and Timeline: Delayed National Guard Response to January 6 Insurrection (released on Jun. 16, 2021)

7. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, "President Trump Pressure Campaign on the Department of Justice" (released on Jun. 15, 2021)
(Press Release) (Selected Documents) (see also Committee’s initial letter of request to DOJ)

8. House Resolution 503 - Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (introduced Jun. 28, 2021)

9. Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard P. Donoghue, Handwritten notes of phone call with President Trump on Dec. 27, 2020 and phone call with White House on Dec. 29, 2020 (transcription of positions of handwritten notes, by House Committee on Oversight and Reform)

10. GAO, Capitol Attack: Special Event Designations Could Have Been Requested for January 6, 2021, But Not All DHS Guidance Is Clear(Aug. 9, 2021)

11. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Demands to the Executive Branch for Records (a single PDF with all demand letters) (press release) (Aug. 25, 2021):

12. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Demands Records from Social Media Companies (a single PDF with all demand letters) (press release) (Aug. 26-27, 2021):

13. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Telecom and Social Media Companies Preservation Requests (a single PDF with all demand letters) (Aug. 30, 2021).

14. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Subpoenas to individuals connected to President Trump (press release) (Sept. 23, 2021)

Subpoena letters to four witnesses:

Mark Meadows
Daniel Scavino
Kashyap Patel
Stephen Bannon

15. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Subpoenas to organizers of rallies and events preceding January 6th insurrection (press release) (Sept. 29, 2021)

Subpoena letters to 11 organizers:

Amy Kremer
Kylie Kremer
Cynthia Chafian
Caroline Wren
Maggie Mulvaney
Justin Caporale
Tim Unes
Megan Powers
Hannah Salem
Lyndon Brentnall
Katrina Pierson

16. Senate Judiciary Report on White House efforts toward Department of Justice (Oct. 7, 2021)

Majority Report: Subverting Justice: How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election

Minority Report: In Their Own Words: A Factual Summary of Testimony from Senior Justice Department Officials Relating to Events from December 14, 2020 to January 3, 2021

Transcript of interview with former Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen
Transcript of interview with former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue
Transcript of interview with former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak

17. Conflict over Stephen Bannon testimony

Stephen Bannon letter to House Select Committee in response to subpoena (Oct. 7, 2021)
News report of House Select Committee letter to Bannon rejecting privilege claims (Oct. 15, 2021) & White House Counsel letter to Bannon on executive privilege claims (Oct. 18, 2021)
House Select Committee, Resolution Recommending Stephen Bannon Found in Contempt of Congress and accompanying Report (available on Oct. 18, 2021)
Department of Justice, Criminal Indictment of Stephen Bannon for Contempt of Congress (Nov. 12, 2021)

18. House Select Committee, Subpoenas to Former Officials with Close Ties to the Former President (Nov. 8, 2021)

William Stepien
Jason Miller
Angela McCallum
John Eastman
Michael Flynn
Bernard Kerik (Kerik lawyers’ letter and “privilege log” submitted to Committee on Dec. 31, 2021)

19. House Select Committee, Subpoenas to Additional Witnesses Tied to Efforts to Overturn Election Results (Nov. 9, 2021)

20. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Subpoenas to Individuals Involved in Planning and Organizing the Rallies and March Preceding January 6th Attack (Nov. 22, 2021) (press release):

21. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Subpoenas to Groups and Individuals Linked to Violent Attack on the Capitol on January 6th (Nov. 23, 2021) (press release)

22. Conflict over Jeffrey Clark testimony

House Select Committee, Subpoena to former Justice Department Official Jeffrey Clark (press release) (Oct. 13, 2021)
Jeffrey Clark’s attorney, Letter to House Select Committee (Nov. 5, 2021) (includes President Trump's attorney Doug Collins' letter to Jeff Clark (Aug. 2, 2021))
Jeffrey Clark’s attorney, Letter to House Select Committee (Nov. 29, 2021)
House Select Committee, Resolution and Report recommending House find Jeffrey Bossert Clark In Contempt of Congress ; H.R. 6119 (Dec. 1, 2021)

23. Conflict over John Eastman testimony

House Select Committee, Subpoena (Nov. 8, 2021)
John Eastman attorney, Letter to House Select Committee (Dec. 1, 2021) (invoking, inter alia, Fifth Amendment)
John Eastman v. Select Committee, Verizon, Complaint, Case 1:21-cv-03273 (filed Dec. 14, 2021)

24. Conflict over Mark Meadows testimony

House Select Committee, Letter to Mark Meadows’ attorney (Nov. 11, 2021)
Mark Meadows’ attorney, statement (Nov. 12, 2021)
Mark Meadows’ attorney, Washington Post op-ed (Nov. 13, 2021)
Mark Meadows’ attorney, Letter to Select Committee (Dec. 7, 2021)
House Select Committee, Letter to Mark Meadows’s attorney (Dec. 7, 2021)
Mark Meadows, Complaint v. Pelosi, Select Committee, Case 1:21-cv-03217 (Dec. 8, 2021) (see also “Civil Cases” section below)
House Select Committee, Report accompanying Resolution to hold Mark Meadows in Contempt of Congress (released Dec. 12, 2021)

25. Ali Alexander, Prepared opening statement (released Dec. 8, 2021

26. House Select Committee, Subpoena of James. P. (“Phil”) Waldron (Dec. 16, 2021)

27. House Select Committee, Letter to Rep. Scott Perry (Dec. 20, 2021)

28. House Select Committee, Letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (Dec. 22, 2021)

29. House Select Committee, Letter to Sean Hannity (Jan. 4, 2022)

30. House Select Committee Subpoenas Individuals Involved in Events Immediately Preceding Violent Attack on the Capitol (Jan. 11, 2022) (press release)

31. House Select Committee, Letter to Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Jan. 12, 2022)

32. House Select Committee, Subpoenas to social media companies (Jan. 13, 2022) (press release)

33. House Select Committee, Subpoenas to Trump associates involved in attempt to challenge or overturn the 2020 election results (Jan. 18, 2021) (press release)

34. House Select Committee, Subpoenas Nicholas J. Fuentes & Patrick Casey (Jan. 19, 2022) (press release)

35. House Select Committee, Letter to Ivanka Trump (Jan. 20, 2022)

36. House Select Committee, Subpoenas to “alternate electors” from seven states (Jan. 28, 2022) (press release)

Nancy Cottle, Chairperson, Arizona
Loraine B. Pellegrino, Secretary, Arizona
David Shafer, Chairperson, Georgia
Shawn Still, Secretary, Georgia
Kathy Berden, Chairperson, Michigan
Mayra Rodriguez, Secretary, Michigan
Jewll Powdrell, Chairperson, New Mexico
Deborah W. Maestas, Secretary, New Mexico
Michael J. McDonald, Chairperson, Nevada
James DeGraffenreid, Secretary, Nevada
Bill Bachenberg, Chairperson, Pennsylvania
Lisa Patton, Secretary, Pennsylvania
Andrew Hitt, Chairperson, Wisconsin
Kelly Ruh, Secretary, Wisconsin

37. House Select Committee, Subpoena to Peter Navarro (Feb. 9, 2022)

38. House Select Committee, Subpoenas to individuals involved in "alternate electors" scheme (press release) (Feb. 15, 2022)

39. House Select Committee, Subpoenas to witnesses who promoted unsupported claims of election fraud (press release) (Mar. 1, 2022)

40. House Select Committee, Subpoena to Kimberly Guilfoyle (Mar. 3, 2022) (press release)

41. House Select Committee, Contempt Referral for Peter Navarro and Daniel Scavino for failure to comply with subpoenas (Mar. 2022)

Department of Justice, Criminal Indictment of Peter Navarro for Contempt of Congress (June 2, 2022)

42. Mary B. McCord, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Expert Statement for House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Mar. 31, 2022)

43. GAO Report, Federal Agencies’ Use of Open Source Data and Related Threat Products Prior to January 6, 2021 (May 2022)

44. House Select Committee, Subpoena to Pasquale “Pat” Cipollone (June 29, 2022)

45. House Select Committee, Subpoena to Secret Service Records (July 15, 2022) (press release)

46. House Select Committee, Statement on United States Secret Service’s Response to Select Committee Subpoena (July 20, 2022) (press release)

47. House Select Committee, Statement on Bannon Conviction (July 22, 2022) (press release)

48. House Select Committee, Letter to Newt Gingrich (Sept. 1, 2022) (press release)

49. Donald J. Trump, Letter to January 6th Select Committee (Oct. 13, 2022)

50. House Select Committee, Subpoena to Donald Trump (Oct. 21, 2022) (press release)

51. House Select Committee, Introductory Material and Executive Summary (Dec. 19, 2022)

52. Report of Investigation: Security Failures at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Prepared at the direction of Reps. Jim Banks (R-IN), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), Troy Nehls (R-TX) (released Dec. 21, 2022)

53. House Select Committee, Final Report on the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Dec. 22, 2022) [pdf] [html original and via Perma-link]

54. Chair Thompson and Vice-Chair Cheney, Letter to White House Special Counsel Richard Sauber (Dec. 30, 2022)

55. House Select Committee, Social Media & the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Summary of Investigative Findings (via Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2023)

Major Votes in Congress

Certification of Presidential Election in House of Representatives (Jan. 6, 2021)

Official source: Clerk's Office House of Representatives

Objecting:

Aderholt
Allen
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Banks
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Crawford
Davidson
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Estes
Fallon
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Guest
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Malliotakis
Mann
Mast
McCarthy
McClain
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Moore (AL)
Mullin
Nehls
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Rutherford
Scalise
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Steube
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wright
Zeldin

Not Objecting:

* Those listed in italics are Republicans

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Balderson
Barr
Barragán
Bass
Beatty
Bentz
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cárdenas
Carson
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Comer
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Emmer
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel, Lois
Fudge
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
García (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Graves (LA)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Grothman
Guthrie
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Keller
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Kustoff
LaHood
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Mace
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rodgers (WA)
Ross
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sánchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Duyne
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velázquez
Wagner
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
Young

Not Voting:

Bilirakis
Brady
Granger
Hastings
Kim (CA)
Steel
Tlaib

Certification of the Presidential Election in Senate (Jan. 6, 2021)

Those supporting the objection:

Cruz
Hawley
Hyde-Smith
Kennedy
Marshall
Tuberville

Second Impeachment of Donald J. Trump in House (Jan. 13, 2021)

Official Source: Clerk's Office House of Representatives

All Democrats voted Yea

All Republicans voted Nay except:

Cheney
Gonzalez (OH)
Herrera Beutler
Katko
Kinzinger
Meijer
Newhouse
Rice (SC)
Upton
Valadao

Second Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump in Senate (Feb. 13, 2021)

Official source: U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote

Guilty:

ALL DEMOCRATS
Burr (R-NC)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
King (I-ME)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Romney (R-UT)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sasse (R-NE)
Toomey (R-PA)

Not Guilty:

ALL OTHER REPUBLICANS

Additional Reading: Ryan Goodman and Josh Asabor, “In Their Own Words: The 43 Republicans’ Explanations of Their Votes Not to Convict Trump in Impeachment Trial,” Just Security, Feb. 15, 2021

Legislation To Award Three Congressional Gold Medals to U.S. Capitol Police (House vote on March 17, 2021)

Official Source: Congress.gov (H.R. 1085)

12 Republicans who voted Nay:

Biggs
Cloud
Clyde
Gaetz
Gohmert
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Greene (GA)
Harris
Massie
Rose
Steube

January 6 Commission Thompson-Katko Bill - House (May 19, 2021)

Official Source: Clerk's Office House of Representatives

Yea:

ALL DEMOCRATS EXCEPT GOLDEN AND KELLY (IL) (NOT VOTING)

Bacon
Bentz
Bice (OK)
Cheney
Curtis
Davis, Rodney
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Garbarino
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Guest
Herrera Beutler
Hill
Hollingsworth
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (SD)
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kinzinger
McKinley
Meijer
Miller-Meeks
Moore (UT)
Newhouse
Reed
Rice (SC)
Salazar
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Taylor
Upton
Valadao
Womack

Nay:

All other Republican Members of the House (except Webster (FL) not voting)

January 6 Commission Thompson-Katko Bill - Senate (May 28, 2021)

Official Source: U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote

Yea:

ALL DEMOCRATS EXCEPT MURRAY & SINEMA (NOT VOTING)

Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
King (I-ME)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Portman (R-OH)
Romney (R-UT)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sasse (R-NE)

*Note: Senator Toomey said he would have voted in favor of the legislation if he were present.

Nay:

Barrasso (R-WY)
Boozman (R-AR)
Capito (R-WV)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagerty (R-TN)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Marshall (R-KS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)

Not Voting:

Blackburn (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Braun (R-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Murray (D-WA)
Risch (R-ID)
Rounds (R-SD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sinema (D-AZ)
Toomey (R-PA)*

*Note: Senator Toomey said he would have voted in favor of the legislation if he were present.

Legislation To Award Congressional Gold Medals to U.S. Capitol Police (House vote on June 16, 2021)

Official Source: Clerk's Office House of Representatives (H.R. 3325)

21 Republicans who voted Nay:

Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.)
Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.)
Rep. Lauren Boebert (Colo.)
Rep. Michael Cloud (Tex.)
Rep. Andrew Clyde (Ga.)
Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio)
Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (Tex.)
Rep. Bob Good (Va.)
Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.)
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.)
Rep. Andy Harris (Md.)
Rep. Jody Hice (Ga.)
Rep. Mary Miller (Ill.)
Rep. Barry Moore (Ala.)
Rep. Ralph Norman (S.C.)
Rep. Scott Perry (Pa.)
Rep. John Rose (Tenn.)
Rep. Matt Rosendale (Mont.)
Rep. Chip Roy (Texas)
Rep. Greg Steube (Fla.)

Prior Bills Introduced to Create a Jan. 6 Independent Commission

Republicans: HR 275 (introduced January 12, 2021)

HR 275 To establish the National Commission on the Domestic Terrorist Attack Upon the United States Capitol

Cosponsors:

Banks
Bice (OK)
Budd
Cammack
Comer
Davis
Garbarino
Gimenez
Guest
Harshbarger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Jacobs (NY)
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kinzinger
LaMalfa
LaTurner
McCaul
Meijer
Miller-Meeks
Norman
Pfluger
Smith (NJ)
Steel
Stivers
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Walorski

Democrats: HR 410 (introduced January 21, 2021)

H.R.410 - To establish the National Commission on the Insurrectionist Attack Upon the United States Capitol

Cosponsors:

Bustos
Carson
Garamendi
Jackson Lee
Lowenthal
Lynch
Maloney
Norton
Moulton
Payne
San Nicolas
Thompson (CA)
Tonko
Watson Coleman

Additional Reading: Margaret Shields and Heather Szilagyi, “Comparison of (Similar) Republican and Democratic Draft Legislation on Jan. 6 Commission,” Just Security, Feb. 17, 2021

Bill to Establish House Select Committee

H.R. 503 Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

The Resolution passed 222-190.

All Democrats voted in favor.

Two Republicans voted in favor:

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Il)

All other Republicans voted against, except the following 19 who did not vote:

Arrington
Banks
Carter (GA)
Cloud
Fulcher
Gohmert
Good (VA)
Herrell
Higgins (LA)
Issa
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Miller (IL)
Pfluger
Rose
Roy
Tiffany
Weber (TX)
Williams (TX)

Source: House Office of the Clerk.

Resolution Holding Stephen Bannon in Criminal Contempt (Oct. 21, 2021)

Official Source: Clerk's Office House of Representatives

All Democrats voted Yea

All Republicans voted Nay except:

Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyoming)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania)
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio)
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Washington)
Rep. John Katko (New York)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Illinois)
Rep. Nancy Mace (South Carolina)
Rep. Peter Meijer (Michigan)
Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan)

Table Comparing House Republican votes

House Republicans Who Supported an Independent Commission
Italics = Member voted NOT to certify the 2020 presidential election

Cosponsored HR-275 to establish Commission	Voted for 1/6 Thompson-Katko Commission
Banks, Jim (IN)	Bacon, Don (NE)
Bice, Stephanie (OK)	Bentz, Cliff (OR)
Budd, Ted (NC)	Bice, Stephanie (OK)
Cammack, Kat (FL)	Cheney, Liz (WY)
Comer, James (KY)	Curtis, John (UT)
Garbarino, Andrew (NY)	Davis, Rodney (IL)
Giménez, Carlos (FL)	Fitzpatrick, Brian (PA)
Guest, Michael (MS)	Fortenberry, Jeff (NE)
Harshbarger, Diana (TN)	Garbarino, Andwer (NY)
Herrera Buetler, Jaime (WA)	Giménez, Carlos (FL)
Higgins, Clay (LA)	Gonzales, Tony (TX)
Hill, French (AR)	Gonzalez, Anthony (OH)
Hinson, Ashley (IA)	Guest, Michael (MS)
Jacobs, Chris (NY)	Herrera Buetler, Jaime (WA)
Joyce, David (OH)	Hill, French (AR)
Katko, John (NY)	Hollingsworth, Trey (IN)
Kinzinger, Adam (IL)	Jacobs, Chris (NY)
LaMalfa, Doug (CA)	Johnson, Dusty (SD)
LaTurner, Jake (KS)	Joyce, David (OH)
McCaul, Michael (TX)	Katko, John (NY)
Meijer, Peter (MI)	Kinzinger, Adam (IL)
Miller-Meeks, Mariannette (IA)	McKinley, David (WV)
Norman, Ralph (SC)	Meijer, Peter (MI)
Pfluger, August (TX)	Miller-Meeks, Mariannette (IA)
Smith, Christopher (NJ)	Moore, Blake (UT)
Steel, Michelle (CA)	Newhouse, Dan (WA)
Stivers, Steve (OH)	Reed, Tom (NY)
Van Drew, Jeff (NJ)	Rice, Tom (SC)
Van Duyne, Beth (TX)	Salazar, Maria Elvira (FL)
Walorski, Jackie (IN)	Simpson, Mike (ID)
	Smith, Chris (NJ)
	Taylor, Van (TX)
	Upton, Fred (MI)
	Valadao, David (CA)
	Womack, Steve (AR)

Criminal Cases

1. January 6 Hearings Criminal Evidence Tracker

2. Chart Tracking Trump’s Knowledge and Intent in Efforts to Overturn the Election

3. Seditious conspiracy cases

Oath Keepers: Indictment
Proud Boys: Indictment (June 6, 2022 superseding indictment)
Oath Keeper William Todd Wilson: Statement of Offense

4. Department of Justice, Capitol Breach Cases (DOJ six-month summary of Jun. 6, 2021, one-year summary of Dec. 30, 2021)

5. Attorney General Garland, Election Year Sensitivities Memorandum (May 25, 2022)

6. George Washington University, Program on Extremism

7. The Prosecution Project’s Spreadsheet of federal and non-federal Capitol prosecutions

8. Marcy Wheeler’s analysis of conspiracy cases (Mar. 19, 2021, June 11, 2021, and Jun. 14, 2021)

9. Dinah Voyles Pulver and Bart Jansen, Who invaded the US Capitol on Jan. 6? Criminal cases shed light on offenses, USA Today (Jan. 6, 2022) (see earlier version of Jun. 22, 2021)

10. NPR's Searchable Database: "The Capitol Siege: The Arrested And Their Stories."

Image of NPR's search interface:

11. Attorney General for the State of Michigan Dana Nessel, Petition for Appointment of Special Prosecutor to consider filing criminal charges against nine individuals for attempting to gain improper access to voting machines (Aug. 5, 2022)

Civil Cases

1. Karen Bass et al. Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack

Bass v. Trump, No. 21-cv-00400 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 16, 2021)

Plaintiff: Rep. Karen R. Bass, Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, Rep. Veronica Escobar, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Rep. Henry C. Johnson, Jr., Rep. Marcia C. Kaptur, Rep. Barbara J. Lee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Maxine Waters, and Rep. Bonnie M. Watson Coleman, represented by the NAACP.

Case Summary: On Feb. 16, 2021, Mississippi Congressman Bennie Thompson sued former President Trump and Rudy Giuliani along with two right-wing militia groups known as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, for violating the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1). In the complaint, Thompson alleges that Trump violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by inciting the rioters with the intent to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties of the timely approval of the Electoral College vote. He argues that after Trump’s loss in the Nov. 2020 election, the then-President set out on a campaign to mobilize his supporters, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. It portrays Trump’s rhetoric on the morning of Jan. 6 as a call to arms and as intended to prevent the certification of the election.

The Act was passed in 1871 in response to violence and intimidation by the KKK intended to stop Black people from voting. The legislation allows Members of Congress to sue individuals who conspire to violently “molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede” the discharge of a public official’s duties.

Thompson seeks compensatory damages for his emotional distress suffered during the attack in addition to punitive damages.

Case Status: On Apr. 7, 2021, ten additional members of Congress joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. The defendants moved to dismiss on May 26. In Trump’s motion, he argued (i) that he has absolute immunity because he was acting as president; (ii) that even if he did not have absolute immunity, the Westfall Act shields him from any personal liability; (iii) that members of Congress cannot sue under the KKK Act; and (iv) that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. As of September 2021, the court has not yet ruled on the motions.

Update: On July 21, 2021, Rep. Thompson announced that he would withdraw from the lawsuit to avoid any conflict with the Jan. 6 House Select Committee, which Thompson is chairing. The other plaintiffs--all members of Congress who are not on the Committee--confirmed that they would continue the lawsuit.

Update: Judge Mehta–who is also presiding over the Bass, Swalwell and Blassingame 1/6 suits–scheduled a combined oral argument for Jan. 10, 2022, for all three cases.

Update: On Feb. 18, 2022, the district court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the § 1985 claim against him.

2. Eric Swalwell Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

Swalwell v. Trump, No 21-cv-00586 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 5, 2021)

Plaintiff: Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA)

Case Summary: On Mar. 5, 2021, Representative Eric Swalwell sued Donald Trump and several associates in DC federal court over the Jan. 6 riots. Much like Representative Bennie Thompson’s related suit, Swalwell alleges that Trump and his co-defendants–Donald Trump Jr., Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL), and Rudy Giuliani–violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by conspiring to interfere with the Electoral College count on Jan. 6.

Swalwell’s suit also goes one step further: it claims that the defendants should be held civilly liable for negligence because they committed criminal incitement under DC’s local code, which establishes the standard of care. Notably, Swalwell says that Trump violated the same DC code–§22-1321(a)(2)–that DC AG Karl Racine is apparently focusing on in his own criminal investigation into Trump’s conduct.

Beyond the civil rights and incitement counts, Swalwell also claims that the defendants are liable for encouraging (aiding and abetting) the rioters’ violent conduct and for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on members of Congress in connection with the attack on the Capitol.

Case Status: Swalwell filed his complaint on Mar. 5, 2021. Trump’s answer is due by May 23, 2021.

Update: On May 17, 2021, Giuliani filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him. He argued that his speech did not qualify as incitement, that he never formed a conspiracy with the other defendants or the rioters, and that his speech was ultimately protected by the First Amendment.

Update: On May 24, 2021, Donald Trump and his son Donald Jr. filed their own motion to dismiss. Most notably, former President Trump argued that he had absolute immunity against Swalwell’s claims because Trump’s alleged misconduct was within the scope of his official duties as president. Both Trump and Trump Jr. also contended that their speech was protected under the First Amendment and the canonical Brandenburg test. The Trumps also advanced various other arguments ranging from standing to the political question doctrine to even a claim that Swalwell was barred from suing Trump over the same conduct for which Trump was acquitted at his impeachment trial.

Update: On July 27, 2021: The Justice Department submitted a brief stating that Brooks was not acting within the scope of his employment and thus not shielded by the Westfall Act. The House of Representatives filed a response taking a “non-participation approach” (silence) on the question whether Brooks acted within his scope of employment. The Chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration submitted a brief stating that Rep. Brooks was not acting within his scope of employment.

Update: Judge Mehta–who is also presiding over the Bass, Swalwell and Blassingame 1/6 suits–scheduled a combined oral argument for Jan. 10, 2022, for all three cases.

Update: On Feb. 18, 2022, the district court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the § 1985 claim against him.

3. Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots

Blassingame v. Trump, No. 21-cv-00858 (D.D.C. filed Mar 30, 2021)

Plaintiff: James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, two Capitol police officers

Case Summary: On Mar. 30, 2021, two Capitol Police Officers sued Donald Trump for injuries they sustained during the Jan. 6 riots in DC. The officers–James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby–say they were maced with bear spray, attacked with fists and flagpoles, and even crushed against a door as they tried to protect the Capitol from pro-Trump intruders.

Much like the other Jan. 6 suits against Trump, the officers pin their injuries on Trump’s incendiary rhetoric before and during violence. Both allege that Trump directed the rioters to assault them, aided the rioters in committing those assaults, and negligently incited the riot in violation of DC’s public safety codes. Blassingame also accuses Trump of directing intentional infliction of emotional distress, pointing to the racial slurs and taunts that the intruders allegedly hurled at him during the violence.

Case Status: The officers filed their suit in DC federal court on Mar. 30, 2021.

Update: On Apr. 28, 2021, the plaintiffs added two new conspiracy claims against Trump, one based on the KKK Act and the other on common law conspiracy. They allege that Trump illegally conspired with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers to storm the Capitol, which in turn caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

Update: Judge Mehta–who is also presiding over the Bass, Swalwell and Blassingame 1/6 suits–scheduled a combined oral argument for Jan. 10, 2022, for all three cases.

Update: On Feb. 18, 2022, the district court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the § 1985 claim against him.

4. Second Capitol Police Suit over the Jan. 6 Riots

Smith v. Trump, No. 21-cv-02265 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 26, 2021)

Plaintiff: Seven Capitol Police officers

Case Summary: On Aug. 26, 2021, a second group of Capitol Police officers filed suit over injuries they suffered while defending the Capitol on Jan. 6. The officers allege that Trump and his co-defendants--including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers--conspired to incite a riot and attack the Capitol, leaving the officers physically and emotionally injured.

Like the other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump, the complaint asserts that Trump violated the KKK Act by conspiring to instigate the riots. The complaint also alleges that unnamed defendants--listed as “John Does” who carried out the attack--physically assaulted the officers at Trump’s provocation, which could make Trump liable for the officers’ injuries.

The plaintiffs also add in a unique claim not found in other Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump: that the defendants violated the DC Bias-Related Crimes Act, a local hate crime statute. According to the complaint, the defendants were motivated by political bias against the Democratic Party when they instigated and executed the Capitol attack.

Case Status: The officers filed their suit in DC federal court on Aug 26, 2021.

Update: Donald Trump filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 12, 2021. Much like in the other Jan. 6 suits, Trump argued that his speech was constitutionally protected by presidential immunity, the First Amendment, and preclusion as a result of the impeachment acquittal.

Update: On Dec. 5, 2021, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an eighth officer as a plaintiff and to add a pro-Trump PAC as an additional defendant. The court ruled that the defendants could file new motions to dismiss against this amended complaint, due by Dec. 23, 2021.

5. Third Capitol Police Suit over the Jan. 6 Riots

Moore v. Trump, No. 22-cv-00010 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 4, 2022)

Plaintiff: Marcus J. Moore, US Capitol Police Officer

Case Summary: On Jan. 4, 2022, a third suit was filed by a Capitol Police officer alleging that physical and emotional injuries he suffered were caused by Trump’s inciting the Jan. 6 riot. The complaint alleges that Trump directed, aided and abetted, and conspired to incite the riot. The officer seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

The officer claims that the actions, tweets, and comments made by Trump prior, during, and after the insurrection resulted in actual physical injuries as rioters struck him and attacked him with physical objects and chemical agents. Like other Jan. 6 lawsuits, the officer claims Trump violated the KKK Act as Trump conspired to attack the Capitol with his followers. The officer, like earlier lawsuits, further cited violations of the D.C. Code for inciting a riot and disorderly conduct.

Case Status: The officer filed his suit in DC District Court on January 4, 2022.

6. Metropolitan Police Suits over the Jan. 6. Riots

Tabron v. Trump, No. 22-cv-00011 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 4, 2022)

Plaintiff: Bobby Tabron and DeDivine K. Carter, Metropolitan Police Officers

Case Summary: On Jan. 4, 2022, two Metropolitan Police Officers filed suit alleging that physical and emotional injuries they suffered were caused by Trump’s inciting the Jan. 6 riot. The complaint alleges that Trump directed, aided and abetted, and conspired to incite the riot. The officers seek compensatory and punitive damages.

The officers claim that the actions, tweets, and comments made by Trump prior, during, and after the insurrection resulted in actual physical injuries as rioters struck them and attacked them with physical objects and chemical agents. Like other Ja. 6 lawsuits, the officers claim Trump violated the KKK Act as Trump conspired to attack the Capitol with his followers. The officers, like earlier lawsuits, further cited violations of the D.C. Code for inciting a riot and disorderly conduct.

Case Status: The officers filed their suit on January 4, 2022.

7. Former President Trump suit to block release of White House documents to Select Committee

Federal District Court

Briefs:

Donald J. Trump, Complaint (Oct. 18, 2021)
House Select Committee, Response (Oct. 29, 2021)
Former members of Congress, Amicus Brief (Oct. 29, 2021)
National Archives, Response-Memorandum (Oct. 30, 2021) (including Declaration by B. John Laster)
Non-profit gov't transparency and accountability organizations and scholars, Amicus Brief (Oct 30, 2021)
Donald J. Trump, Reply brief (Nov. 2, 2021)

District court hearing: Transcript (Nov. 4, 2021)
District court judgment: Opinion rejecting President Trump’s motion (Nov. 9, 2021)

Court of Appeals

Briefs:

Donald J. Trump, Brief (Nov. 16, 2021)
Executive Branch Defendants, Brief (Nov. 22, 2021)
House Select Committee, Brief (Nov. 22, 2021)
CREW and Former White House Attorneys, Amicus Brief (Nov. 22, 2021)
Former Members of Congress, Amicus Brief (Nov. 22, 2021)
Government Accountability Project, Government Information Watch, National Security Counselors, Amicus Brief (Nov. 24, 2021)
Donald J. Trump, Reply Brief (Nov. 24, 2021)

Court of Appeals hearing: Oral argument (Nov. 30, 2021)
Court of Appeals Order and Opinion (Dec. 9, 2021)

U.S. Supreme Court

Donald Trump, Petition for certiorari (Dec. 23, 2021)

Supreme Court opinion rejecting President Trump’s appeal (Jan. 19, 2022)

8. Witnesses lawsuits to block Select Committee subpoenas against selves and/or Verizon/carries

Mark Meadows v. Pelosi, Select Committee, Complaint, Case 1:21-cv-03217 (filed Dec. 8, 2021) (subpoena and letter from Verizon to Meadows)
Justin Caporale, Tim Unes, Maggie Mulvaney, and Megan Powers v. Verizon, Complaint, Case 3:21-cv-20484 (filed Dec. 13, 2021)
John Eastman v. Select Committee, Verizon, Complaint, Case 1:21-cv-03273 (filed Dec. 14, 2021)
- House Select Committee motion for summary judgment (April 22, 2022) (with excerpted interviews)
- Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Privilege Assertions (regarding Eastman's attempt to enjoin Chapman University) (Mar. 2, 2022)
  - Related reporting: Kyle Cheney and Nicholas Wu, Jan. 6 Committee Says Trump Violated Multiple Laws in Effort to Overturn Election, Politico (Mar. 2, 2022)
- Order (regarding privilege of Eastman documents dated Jan. 4-7, 2021 produced by Chapman University) (Mar. 28, 2022)
- Order (release of additional documents including alternate slate of electors) (June 7, 2022)
Amy Harris v. Select Committee, Complaint, Case 1:21-cv-03290 (filed Dec. 15, 2021)
Ali Alexander v. Pelosi, Select Committee, Verizon, Complaint, Case 1:21-cv-03308 (filed Dec. 17, 2021)
Alex Jones v. Select Committee, Complaint, Case 1:21-cv-03316 (filed Dec. 20, 2021)
Michael Flynn v. Pelosi, Select Committee, Case 8:21-cv-02956-kkm-spf

Complaint (filed Dec. 21, 2021)
Court Order (rejecting complaint) (Dec. 22, 2021)

Taylor Budowich v. Pelosi, Select Committee, JP Morgan Chase, Complaint, Case 1:21-cv-03366 (filed Dec. 24, 2021)
Kelly and Connie Meggs v. Pelosi, Select Committee, Verizon, Complaint, Case 1:22-cv-00005 Verizon (filed Jan. 3, 2022)
Sebastian Gorka v. Select Committee, Verizon, Complaint, Case 1:22-cv-00017 (filed Jan. 04, 2022)
Mike Lindell v. Select Committee, Verizon, Complaint, Case 0:22-cv-00028 (filed Jan. 05, 2022)
Anonymous Plaintiff v. Select Committee, Verizon, Complaint, Case 1:22-cv-00018 (filed Jan. 05, 2022)

9. District of Columbia v. Militia Groups

District of Columbia v. Proud Boys, ,Oath Keepers et al, Case 1:21-cv-03267 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 14, 2021)

Complaint
District Court Opinion (March 31 2023)

Government Documents

White House and National Archives

1. John Eastman memos:

7-page memo (entitled “The Constitutional Authority of State Legislatures to Choose Electors”) emailed to White House on Nov. 28, 2020)

2-page memo (written soon after Dec. 25)

6-page memo (Jan. 3, 2021)

Related reporting: Jamie Gangel and Jeremy Herb, Memo shows Trump lawyer's six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election, CNN (Sept. 21, 2021)

2. John Eastman’s email correspondence (documents via Colorado Ethics Institute via public information request)

Related reporting: Denver Post and Politico reporting

3. Gregory Jacob, Vice President Pence’s Counsel Memo to Vice President Pence, January 6 Process for Electoral Vote Count (Dec. 8, 2020)

4. Ken Blackwell email (Dec. 28, 2020) (Blackwell recommends briefing for Vice President Mike Pence from John Eastman and Kenneth Klukowski) (exhibit of House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol)

5. Office of the Vice President, Legal, “Unlawful Election Conduct in Six States,” (Jan. 1, 2021)

6. Call Between President Donald Trump and Georgia State Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (Jan. 2, 2021) (audio and transcript released on Jan. 3, 2021)

Related reporting: Betsy Woodruff Swan, Pence team couldn't verify Trump campaign's election fraud claims, new memo shows, Politico (Jun. 10, 2002)

7. Greg Jacob, Vice President Pence’s Chief Counsel Memo to Vice President Pence, Memorandum: Analysis of Professor Eastman’s Proposals (Jan. 5, 2021)

Related reporting: Betsy Woodruff Swan and Kyle Cheney, Pence-world’s final takedown of Trump’s Jan. 6 bid to remain in power revealed in his lawyer's memo, Politico (Jun. 11, 2002)

8. President Trump, Memorandum on Inadmissibility of Persons Affiliated with Antifa Based on Organized Criminal Activity (Jan. 5, 2021)

9. Trump interview with journalist Jonathan Karl (November 12, 2021) (defending January 6 chants to “hang Mike Pence”)

10. Cassidy Hutchinson, transcribed interview with House Select Committee (March 7, 2022)

11. Mark Meadows text messages (CNN's obtained samples: here and here; and January 5-6 texts here)

12. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Subpoena to the United States Secret Service (press release) (Jul 15, 2022)

Subpoena letter
James M. Murray, Director of the United States Secret Service

Department of Homeland Security

1. Background: DHS Whistleblower Brian Murphy Complaint (Sept. 8, 2020) (alleging suppression of intelligence threat assessments of white supremacist violence)

2. DHS Homeland Threat Assessment identifying US-based violent extremists as primary terrorist threat inside US (Oct. 2020)

3. DHS, Temporary Procedures for Review of Civil Unrest and Certain Election-Related Raw Intelligence (Oct. 30, 2020)

4. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service, Information Bulletin: First Amendment Protected Activities Within the National Capital Region (Jan. 5, 2021)

5. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service, Investigations Branch, Demonstration Report (Jan. 6 2021)

6. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service, Emails between Regional Director and Physical Security Officer, “Re: Question” (on crowd size) (Jan. 6, 2021)

7. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service, Full FOIA Release of Emails, Photographs, and Intelligence Bulletins

Related news reports: Washington Post, Buzzfeed, and CREW

8. Department of Homeland Security, National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin: NTAS Bulletin due to a heightened threat environment across the United States (Jan. 27, 2021)

9. DHS, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Tactics and Coordination Observed During Civil Unrest on 6 Jan 2021 (April 8, 2021)

Associated reading: Kelly Weill, DHS Memo: Capitol Attackers Plotted in Advance, Daily Beast (Aug. 20, 2021)

10. Department of Homeland Security, National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin: NTAS Bulletin regarding the current heightened threat environment across the United States (May 14, 2021)

11. Relevant document: GAO, Capitol Attack: Special Event Designations Could Have Been Requested for January 6, 2021, But Not All DHS Guidance Is Clear (Aug. 9, 2021)

12. DHS, Office of Intelligence & Analysis - intelligence reports distribution (FOIA release on Aug. 31, 2021)

13. DHS, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Some Domestic Violent Extremists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations Exploiting TikTok (Apr. 19, 2021)

Related news report: Betsy Woodruff Swan and Mark Scott, DHS: Extremists Used TikTok to Promote Jan. 6 Violence, Politico (Sept. 16, 2021)

14. DHS National Operations Center to Department of Defense on Jan. 6 (FOIA release on Sept. 20, 2021)

Related news report: Betsy Woodruff Swan and Lara Seligman, “No major incidents of illegal activity”: DHS told Pentagon as pro-Trump mob breached Capitol, Politico (Sept. 28, 2021)

15. DHS Office of Inspector General Report, I&A Identified Threats prior to January 6, 2021, but Did Not Issue Any Intelligence Products before the U.S. Capitol Breach (REDACTED) (Mar. 4, 2022)

Related news report: Geneva Sands, Watchdog finds DHS identified threats prior to January 6 but did not widely share intelligence until after attack, CNN (Mar. 8, 2022)

16. Letter from Carolyn B. Maloney and Bennie G. Thompson to Inspector General Cuffari, Request for documents regarding domestic abuse and sexual harrassment by DHS employees, missing January 6, 2021 insurrections records, and failure to work with objectivity (Aug. 16, 2022)

U.S. Secret Service

1. Secret Service FOIA Documents Release Before and On Jan. 6

Related reading: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Secret Service dismissed warning signs of violence at Capitol before January 6th (Jul. 15, 2021)

2. Secret Service Warnings of Violence to Capitol Police and Parler posts (FOIA)

Related reading: Betsy Woodruff Swan and Nicholas Wu, Secret Service warned Capitol Police about violent threats 1 day before Jan. 6, Politico (Aug. 25, 2021)

3. Secret Service Statement: “Then-White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Anthony Ornato had absolutely no involvement in Vice Presidential movements or operations on January 6, 2021” (Apr. 26, 2022)

Related reporting: Aaron Blake, A top Democrat ties Pence’s ‘I’m not getting in the car’ to Jan. 6 ‘coup’, Washington Post (Apr. 26, 2022)

4. Jordan Libowitz and Lauren White, Secret Service held onto Pelosi threat until after insurrection, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Aug. 17, 2022)

Department of Justice (DOJ)/Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Editors’ note from Goodman and Hendrix:

“Neither the FBI nor DHS issued a threat assessment or intelligence bulletin warning law enforcement entities in the National Capital Region of the potential for violence,” the bipartisan Senate Report of June 2021 explained.

Members of Congress asked FBI Director Christopher Wray about the absence of an Intelligence Bulletin warning of threats to the Capitol. In response, he pointed to other intelligence reports the department issued before Jan. 6, 2021. In his prepared remarks, Wray referred to “approximately 12 intelligence products” throughout 2020, including two joint intelligence bulletins with DHS in June 2020, an analytical report in late August 2020, and a DHS Intelligence In-Depth product that the FBI contributed to in December 2020.

NBC News, however, subsequently reported:

“The FBI reports Wray mentioned were sent to state and local law enforcement agencies but have not been made public, and the FBI declined an NBC News request for them. But officials who have seen them say they were broad and generic and did not lead anyone to believe the Capitol could be a target Jan. 6.”

1. Background: The Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations

2. Background: FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG)

3. Background: FBI Intelligence Assessment, White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement (Oct. 17 2006) (UNREDACTED version) (FBI REDACTED version)

4. Background: FBI Intelligence Bulletin, Conspiracy Theories and Domestic Violent Extremism (May 30, 2019) (background reading – here and here)

5. Background: Deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen “Seditious Conspiracy” Memo (Sept. 17, 2020)

6. Background: FBI External Intelligence Note, Boogaloo Adherents Likely Increasing Anti-Government Violent Rhetoric and Activities, Increasing Domestic Violent Extremist Threat in the FBI Dallas Area of Responsibility (Sept. 29. 2020)

Related reporting: Ken Klippenstein, As Trump Equivocates on White Supremacy, the FBI Warns of Right-Wing Terror, The Nation (Sept. 30, 2020)

7. Attorney General William Barr, Memorandum: Post-Voting Election Irregularity Inquiries (Nov. 9, 2020)

8. Richard Pilger, Director, Election Crimes Branch, Public Integrity Section, DOJ, Email to colleagues on stepping down in protest (Nov. 9, 2020)

9. FBI Email, “Far-Right Chatter re Election Results” (Nov. 9, 2020)

10. Letter from DEO Election Prosecutors to Attorney General Barr (Nov. 13, 2020) (objecting and requesting rescission of Nov. 9 Memorandum)

11. DOJ-FBI Email Correspondence on opening election fraud investigations (Dec. 7, 2020)

Associated reading: Emails: Senior DOJ officials wrangled over baseless Trump voter fraud allegations, Politico

12. White House/DOJ Emails involving Trump-Meadows’ communications with Department of Justice on election fraud claims

Background: House Committee on Oversight and Reform Press Release on Jun. 15, 2021 (see also Committee’s initial letter of request to DOJ on May 21, 2021)

13. DOJ communications and directives about events at Capitol during Congressional certification of 2020 election results (Dec. 21, 2020 - Jan. 7 2021) (via American Oversight FOIA request)

14. DOJ and FBI internal email correspondence planning and response to January 6th events (via Buzzfeed FOIA Request)

Related reporting: Zoe Tillman and Jason Leopold, Top Justice Department Officials Were Told There Were ‘No Credible Threats” Hours Before the Capitol Riot, BuzzFeed News (Nov. 19, 2021).

15. Ken Blackwell email (Dec. 28, 2020) (Blackwell recommends briefing for Vice President Mike Pence from John Eastman and Kenneth Klukowski) (exhibit of House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol)

16. FBI Minneapolis Field Office, Situational Information Report, (Dec. 29, 2020) (warning of militant anti-government threat at Jan. 17 events at state capitols)

Related reporting: Caitlin Dickson, Exclusive: FBI Warns of Potential Boogaloo Violence During Jan. 17 Rallies, Yahoo News (Jan. 11, 2021).

17. Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard P. Donoghue, Handwritten notes of phone call with President Trump (Dec. 27, 2020) and phone call with White House (Dec. 29, 2020) (transcription of positions of handwritten notes, by House Committee on Oversight and Reform)

18. Jeffrey Clark, Rejected draft letter to stop Georgia certification and Rosen-Donoghue emails (Dec. 28, 2020) (associated ABC News report)

19. Patrick Hovakimian, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Draft Resignation Email (Jan. 3, 2021) (associated Politico report)

20. FBI Seattle Field Office, Internal Email re Jan. 6 (Jan. 5, 2021)

21. FBI Norfolk Division, Situational Information Report: Potential for Violence in Washington DC Area in Connection with Planned 'StopTheSteal' Protest on 6 January 2021 (Jan. 5, 2021)

22. Department of Justice, Officials’ call logs on January 6 (including Jeffrey Rosen’s handwritten log of calls) (obtained via American Oversight FOIA requests)

Background: CREW, Trump DOJ chose not to brief Congress on “expected” Jan. 6 “unrest”- document obtained by CREW

23. FBI, Infographic - FBI's Ability to Legally Access Secure Messaging App Content and Metadata (Jan. 7, 2021)

Related analysis: Riana Pfefferkorn, We Now Know What Information the FBI Can Obtain from Encrypted Messaging Apps, Just Security (Dec. 14, 2021)

24. FBI Awareness Bulletin re Weapons Stockpile at Capitol Breach Subject's Residence (Jan. 10, 2021)

25. Press Conference: Acting USA Sherwin and FBI Assistant Director in Charge of Washington Field Office Steven D’Antuono, Update on Criminal Charges on Events at Capitol (Jan. 12, 2021)
Transcript CSPAN YouTube

26. Press Call: Acting USA Sherwin, FBI Assistant Director in Charge of Washington Field Office Steven D’Antuono and Special Agent in Charge of ATF Office in Washington Ashan Benedict (Jan. 15, 2021)
Transcript

27. Department of Justice, Capitol Breach Criminal Cases

28. Department of Justice, letters to former U.S. officials authorizing testimony to Congress without executive privilege (July 26, 2021)

29. Department of Justice, Brief in Swalwell v. Mo Brooks No 21-cv-00586 (July 27, 2021) (Note: See also section on “Civil Cases”)

30. Department of Justice, Criminal Indictment of Stephen Bannon for Contempt of Congress (Nov. 12, 2021)

31. Department of Justice, Memorandum in Support of Motion for Detention of Enrique Tarrio (Mar. 14, 2022)

32. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Board on Professional Responsibility, Specification of Charges Against Jeffrey B. Clark (July 19, 2022) (specification of ethics charges for attempting to engage in conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice)

Intelligence Community/Joint Agencies

1. Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & The Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees (Nov. 12, 2020)

2. Joint Intelligence Bulletin, Domestic Violent Extremists Emboldened in Aftermath of Capitol Breach, Elevated Domestic Terrorism Threat of Violence Likely Amid Political Transitions and Beyond (Jan. 13 2021)

3. Joint Intelligence Bulletin, National Capital Region Remains Attractive Target for Domestic Violent Extremists (reported by NBC News) (Mar. 2, 2021)

Department of Defense

1. DC National Guard communications and directives for January 6 (Dec. 31, 2020) (via American Oversight FOIA request)

2. Department of Defense internal communications related to January 6 (Jan. 1-7, 2021 via American Oversight FOIA request)

3. Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, Memorandum for the Secretary of the Army: Employment Guidance for the DC National Guard (Jan. 4, 2021)

The Broad Scope of “Intent to Defraud” in the New York Crime of Falsifying Business Records

Ryan Goodman — Mon, 03 Apr 2023 12:45:05 +0000

Part of Just Security’s coverage of the Manhattan DA investigation and work on accountability and corruption.

As many greet the Manhattan District Attorney’s indictment of a former president as a step toward accountability and the equal application of the rule of law, that thesis will be tested by the strength of the case itself. It is accordingly proper, indeed necessary, to evaluate whether the criminal statute at issue is a close match for the alleged conduct in the case. In that regard, an important question is whether maintaining false business records to conceal hush money payments in a political campaign meets the “intent to defraud” element of the Falsifying Business Records statute, New York Penal Law § 175.05 and 175.10.

As we explain in this essay, the law is firmly on the side of the DA, and we do not think this question will give the DA’s office or Justice Juan Merchan much pause. Indeed, the jurisdiction in which this case will be brought – the First Department of New York – has settled law on the issue that defines “intent to defraud” in broad terms that cover the allegations in the Trump case. The most important expression of a contrary view was issued by a lower court in a different jurisdiction and on a basis that is demonstrably flawed.

We should note at the outset that some legal experts might assume “intent to defraud” has a narrow construction – limited to deprivation of money or property, or other pecuniary loss – given U.S. Supreme Court decisions to that effect in recent years. But that is a category mistake. The U.S. Supreme Court was interpreting federal fraud statutes, and this case is about New York courts interpreting New York state statutes.

What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court has not only expressly noted the distinction between the federal and state level, but also recognized states’ prerogative to fill in the gap. In a 2020 opinion, the Justices explained that due to their narrow construction of the federal criminal statutes, “federal fraud law leaves much public corruption to the States (or their electorates) to rectify.” Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565, 1571-73 (2020).

So, how does New York State law define the “intent to defraud” for the criminal offense of falsifying business records? A long line of New York state court cases supports an expansive conception with respect to § 175.00 crimes – namely, that intent can be established when a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the State’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d 532, 537–538, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531, 534 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 1980), aff’d, 53 N.Y.2d 989, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558 (1981).

On this standard, the law does not require prosecutors to show “pecuniary or potential pecuniary loss” to the government or otherwise. Id. Indeed, New York Jurisprudence (Second Edition 2023) in a section titled, “Indictment or information charging falsification of business records,” states: “In an indictment for first degree falsification of business records, the grand jury presentation is not required to establish commercial or property loss.”

Applying this broad concept of “intent to defraud” in false business records cases, New York state courts have found such intent in a wide range of cases including when a defendant: made covert contributions to a political campaign, covered up an alleged rape, misled the relatives of a patient about the individual’s treatment, operated a motor vehicle without a license, obtained credit cards through false documents but with no proof of intention to miss payments, frustrated the regulatory authorities of the New York City Transit Authority, and much more. We detail all these judicial opinions below.

If as expected the DA charges former President Donald Trump with falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments as campaign finance or election law violations, that will fit the test, with government authorities being frustrated in their ability to regulate elections. Nor is the harm limited to them.

Falsifying hush money payments as legal services frustrated New York State authorities’ more broadly. New York firms are required to “keep correct and complete books and records of account” for the purposes of state regulators and tax authorities, N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 624 (McKinney). Indeed, New York Tax Law allows for tax commissioners “to examine or to cause to have examined…any books, papers, records or memoranda” of a corporation “bearing upon the matters to be required in the return.” N.Y. Tax Law § 1096(b)(1) (McKinney). Thus any book or record kept by a private corporation is subject to public exposure, and New York law requires these books to be accurate.

In short, the Manhattan DA’s case rests on firm legal footing.

I. “Intent to Defraud”

“Intent to defraud” is an element of both the misdemeanor (second degree) and felony (first degree) violations of Falsifying Business Records in New York.

Under New York Penal Law § 175.05 (the misdemeanor offense),

“A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:

1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

1. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

1. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position; or

1. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.

New York Penal Law § 175.10 (the felony offense), adds to the language of an “intent to defraud” the following requirement:

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

As noted by McKinney’s Penal Law §175.05, “there is no Penal Law definition of ‘intent to defraud.’” Instead, McKinney’s refers to McKinney’s Penal Law § 15.00 for further practice commentary on “intent to defraud,” which, in so far is relevant, states:

Although a significant number of penal statutes require an “intent to defraud,” there is no Penal Law definition of that culpable mental state. It has been suggested that an intent to defraud should be “for the purpose of leading another into error or to disadvantage.” People v. Briggins, 50 N.Y.2d 302, 309, 428 N.Y.S.2d 909, 406 N.E.2d 766 (1980) (concurring opinion) (Jones, J.). See also Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) (“Intent to defraud means an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter or terminate a right, obligation or power …”); Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 27, 108 S.Ct. 316, 321, 98 L.Ed.2d 275 (1987) (finding that the words “to defraud” meant “wronging one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes, and usually signifying the deprivation of something of value by trick, deceit, chicane or overreacting”).

While an “intent to defraud” is often directed at gaining property or a pecuniary benefit, it need not be so limited. See People v. Kase, 53 N.Y.2d 989, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558 (1981), affirming for reasons stated at 76 A.D.2d 532. In Kase, a prosecution for the filing of a false instrument, an intent to defraud was found where a person intentionally filed a false statement with a public office for the purpose of frustrating the State’s power to fulfill its responsibility to faithfully carry out its own law.

(emphasis added; unless otherwise indicated, bolded text throughout this essay signifies the same).

Absent a definition of “intent to defraud” in the New York penal code, case law has developed to define its parameters.

II. The Case Law

The First Department decision in Kase established the broad conception of “intent to defraud” – that it does not require an intent to deprive another person of money, property rights or a pecuniary interest – in a matter concerning the crime of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree (§ 175.35). The defendant was charged with filing a false statement in an application for a liquor license. According to the court, an intent to “frustrat[e] the State’s power to fulfill [its obligation to carry out the law] violates the statute.” 76 A.D.2d at 537–538, 431 N.Y.S.2d at 534. The decision was affirmed by the highest New York court, the New York Court of Appeals.

There is no need to guess how Justice Merchan would rule as to whether that standard applies in the falsification of business records statutes. The First Department has long said the Kase test applies to §§ 175.05 and 175.10, most recently in 2018 in People v. Sosa-Campana, 167 A.D.3d 464, 89 N.Y.S.3d 75, (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 2018), leave to appeal denied, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 97967, 33 N.Y.3d 981, 101 N.Y.S.3d 257, 124 N.E.3d 746 (N.Y. 2019); see also Morgenthau v. Khalil, 73 A.D.3d 509, 902 N.Y.S.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 2010).

In Sosa-Campana, the First Department reaffirmed that “intent to defraud” under §175.05-10 is much broader than deprivation of money or property — or indeed causing any financial harm. The defendant in the case had provided a fraudulent driver’s license, in the name of another real person, when stopped for a traffic violation. His intent was to deceive the state authorities to escape government sanctions. He was charged with falsifying business records in the first and second degree, identity theft in the second degree, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree. The court found:

The evidence was legally sufficient to establish the element of intent to defraud, as required for the convictions of identity theft and falsifying business records. When defendant was stopped for a traffic violation and presented a fraudulent driver’s license in the name of another actual person, defendant acted with at least two forms of fraudulent intent, each falling within the plain meaning of “defraud.” Defendant intended to escape responsibility for the violation by causing the officer to issue a summons to the wrong person, and also intended to conceal his additional offense of unlicensed driving. In order to prove intent to defraud, the People did not need to make a showing of an intent to cause financial harm (see People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d 532, 537–38, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531 [1st Dept. 1980] (construing intent-to-defraud element of analogous statute), affd 53 N.Y.2d 989, 991, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558[1981]; see also Morgenthau v. Khalil, 73 A.D.3d 509, 510, 902 N.Y.S.2d 501 [1st Dept. 2010]).

The First Department in another decision, People v. Reyes, demonstrated that an intent to conceal a crime could be a sufficient basis to establish the requisite “generalized ‘intent to defraud.’” Reyes involved a corrections officer charged with first- and second-degree falsifying business records, both based on the same conduct. The court held that, given the “exclusive theory” of prosecutors that the defendant had “falsely indicated in the logbook that he was off-post during the inmates’ mealtime, in order to hide the fact that he had raped the complainant during that time frame,”

[T]here would be no way for the jury to acquit defendant of first-degree falsifying business records—entailing a rejection of an intent to conceal a rape—but still convict him of the second-degree count. The People simply did not afford the jury any basis, other than intent to conceal the alleged rape, to support any finding of the generalized “intent to defraud.”

Under the facts, either defendant’s intent was to conceal the alleged rape, or he had no fraudulent intent at all. As such, only the higher count of first-degree falsifying business records should have been submitted to the jury.

69 A.D.3d 537, 538–539, 894 N.Y.S.2d 43, 44–45 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 2010).

In a similar case also decided by the First Department, a nurse was charged with falsifying business records by omitting information in her nursing notes recording mistreatment which preceded the death of her patient. People v. Coe, 131 Misc.2d 807, 812, 501 N.Y.S.2d 997 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986). The court explained that the target of the intent to defraud need not be the geriatric center, but “might just as well have been [the patient’s] relatives, defendant’s supervisors or others. Intent to defraud anyone is sufficient.” The opinion was affirmed on appeal, with the the Court of Appeals simply stating that the “remaining contention pertaining to her conviction for falsifying business records (see, Penal Law § 175.05) is without merit.” 126 A.D.2d 436, 510 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 1987), aff’d, 71 N.Y.2d 852, 522 N.E.2d 1039 (1988).

The 2010 First Department decision in Morgenthau v. Khalil, 73 A.D.3d at 510, 902 N.Y.S.2d at 502, is also consistent with this line of cases. In that instance, the defendant challenged a civil forfeiture action in an underlying criminal action arising out of an illegal check scheme, arguing that the prosecutors could not prove there was a substantial likelihood of securing a conviction for falsifying business records in the first degree because the indictment did not allege the intent to defraud a particular person or business entity out of money, property, or pecuniary value. The First Department rejected the defendant’s claim. Citing Ramirez (from the Fourth Department) and Elliassen (a lower court in the Second Department), the court in Morgenthau v. Khalil ruled:

Defendant argues that because the underlying indictment does not allege, and the People cannot prove, that he acted with intent to defraud a particular person or business entity—as opposed to the government or the public at large—out of money, property, or something of pecuniary value, plaintiff fails to demonstrate the requisite substantial likelihood of securing a conviction for falsifying business records in the first degree (see Morgenthau v. Citisource, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 211, 222, 508 N.Y.S.2d 152, 500 N.E.2d 850 [1986] ). We do not view the meaning of “intent to defraud” in Penal Law § 175.10 to be so limited (see People v. Ramirez, 168 A.D.2d 908, 909, 565 N.Y.S.2d 659 [1990], lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 965, 570 N.Y.S.2d 499, 573 N.E.2d 587 [1991]; People v. Elliassen, 20 Misc.3d 1143[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51841[U], *2–3, 2008 WL 4193166 [2008]).

Morgenthau v. Khalil dismissed the argument that intent under §175.10 required either (1) a person or business as the intended victim, or (2) that the intent must be to defraud someone or something out of money or something else of pecuniary value.

This understanding of the law – from Kase through to false business records jurisprudence – has also been adopted elsewhere throughout the state in cases arising under §§ 175.05 and 175.10. People v. Ramirez, 168 A.D.2d 908, 909, 565 N.Y.S.2d 659, 660 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 4th Dept. 1990), leave to appeal denied, 77 N.Y.2d 965, 573 N.E.2d 587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991); People v. Schrag, 147 Misc.2d 517, 558 N.Y.S.2d 451 (Rockland County Ct. 1990); People v. Elliassen, 20 Misc.3d 1143(A), 873 N.Y.S.2d 236 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond County 2008); People v. Headley, 37 Misc. 3d 815, 951 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County 2012), opinion adhered to on reargument, 36 Misc. 3d 1240(A), 960 N.Y.S.2d 51 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County 2012). See also, McKinney’s on §175.05; N.Y. Penal Law § 15.00 (McKinney).

The 1990 Fourth Department case of People v. Ramirez, for example, also approved the trial court’s jury direction on this definition of “intent to defraud.” The defendant allegedly used false information to apply for credit cards to purchase store merchandise. The court held that the defendant could not be prosecuted for petit larceny because there was no proof that she did not intend to pay. Despite there being no proof that the defendant caused or intended to cause any financial loss, the court upheld her conviction for falsifying business records. The Fourth Department held:

We reject defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of the crimes of falsifying business records and issuing a false financial statement. Citing People v. Saporita (132 A.D.2d 713, 715, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 937), defendant contends that an element of those crimes, “intent to defraud”, requires that a person “be deprived of property or a thing of value or a right” and no person was deprived of property or a thing of value or right. In People v. Saporita (supra), the court charged a definition of “intent to defraud” which was not met by the evidence offered by the People. Here, however, the court, in its charge, gave a different definition of intent to defraud, which was met by the evidence produced. The evidence shows that defendant intended to defraud various store owners by applying for and obtaining credit cards in the name of another person when she could not get credit in her own name and that she intended to deceive those stores and induce them to extend credit to her, which, but for her misrepresentation, they would not have done. That evidence proved defendant’s “intent to defraud” as defined by the court’s charge.

168 A.D.2d at 909, 565 N.Y.S.2d at 660 (NY. App. Div., 4th Dept. 1990). The defendant tried to appeal the Fourth Department decision, but leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals.

In the 2008 decision People v Elliassen, the Richmond County Supreme Court (within the Second Department) held that the intent to defraud required no pecuniary loss, and that interference with the legitimate public administration of the NYPD sufficed. The court stated:

Counts Two through Thirteen, Falsifying Business Records in the First and Second Degrees, charge the defendants with not preparing and filing the juvenile log report or the UF 250 stop and frisk report relating to their interaction with Rayshawn Moreno. These statutes require defendants to have an “intent to defraud”. It is not necessary to show a property or pecuniary loss from the fraud, and, in this case, it is sufficient to show that the NYPD’s legitimate official actions and purposes were impeded. See, People v Schrag, 147 Misc 2d 517 (County Court, Rockland County, 1990); People v Coe, 131 Misc 2d 807, 812 (Supreme Court, New York County, 1986) (“…. the target of the intent to defraud could have been defendant’s supervisors, defendant’s employer or the victim ….”).
…
Defendants contend that Counts Fourteen through Twenty-Five, Falsifying Business Records in the First and Second Degrees (involving defendants’ failure to properly follow NYPD Communications Division radio procedures), likewise are legally insufficient because there is no evidence of defendants’ “intent to defraud”.
…
The inaccuracy of the records has ramifications beyond general business practices. Likewise, the failure of police personnel to promptly notify the Communications Division dispatcher of their whereabouts and current status vis a vis handcuffed prisoners, adversely affects the agency’s ability to carry out its mission. It meets the standard of “intent to defraud”, since defendants’ actions “intentionally defrauded” or deprived the Police Department of valuable information and knowledge that were critical to its public safety mission.

20 Misc. 3d 1143(A), 873 N.Y.S.2d 236 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond County 2008). The Kings County Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in People v. Headley provides a useful account of the broad intent to defraud standard under the falsifying business records statute. 37 Misc. 3d 815, 951 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County 2012). Headley was a case about ambulance chasing. The defendant, who served as outside counsel for the New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA] in pursuit of personal injury lawsuits, used a fictitious name for his company in order to fraudulently obtain paid assignments from NYCTA to procure independent medical examinations of personal injury claimants who had sued NYCTA. He was charged with first-degree falsifying business records and first-degree offering a false instrument for filing, among other crimes.

The court reviewed relevant precedent–including Kase, Schrag, and Elliassen–and held that “the term ‘intent to defraud’ does not require an intent to deprive the state of money or property, but rather intent to frustrate legitimate state interests and processes. Maintaining a fair vendor selection process free of any potential conflicts of interest is a legitimate function of the NYCTA.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

The court in Headley usefully outlined the law in New York regarding the intent to defraud:

The lesser included charge of Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree requires simply “intent to defraud.” The term “intent to defraud” in article 175.00 crimes has been held to be broader than an intent to deprive another of property or money. See Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 39, PL § 175.05, pp.408-409. In People v. Schrag, 147 Misc.2d 517, 558 N.Y.S.2d 451 (Rockland Co.1990), defendant was a police officer charged with Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree for filing a false police report. He argued that no intent to defraud was proved before the grand jury. The court found that Penal Law article 175 did not limit the term “intent to defraud” to property or pecuniary loss, and noted that the interests of an entity in keeping accurate business records goes beyond economic concerns and extends to rights of others which may be infringed by false records. The court in Schrag cited People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d 532, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531 (1st Dept. 1980), in which the defendant was charged with Offering a False Instrument in the First Degree, in support of its conclusion that it was sufficient to show that the Government’s legitimate official action and purpose were impeded.

In Kase, the defendant argued that there was no intent to defraud because the instrument in question, an application to transfer a liquor license in connection with the sale of a tavern, did not have the potential to cause pecuniary loss to the State or political subdivisions thereof. The Appellate Division disagreed. “Whoever intentionally files a false statement with a public offense or public servant for the purpose of frustrating the State’s power to fulfill [its obligation to carry out the law] violates the statute.” Kase at 537-538, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531.

In People v. Elliassen, 20 Misc.3d 1143(A), 2008 WL 4193166 (Sup. Ct. Richmond Co. 2008), the defendants, police officers, were charged with falsifying business records in the first and second degrees for failing to prepare and fill required reports and for failing to follow NYPD procedures. The defendants argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish an “intent to defraud.” The court held that, “[I]t is not necessary to show a property or pecuniary loss from the fraud, and, in this case, it is sufficient to show that the NYPD’s legitimate official actions and purposes were impeded.” The defendants’ conduct inhibited the Police Department’s ability to perform its duties and carry out its mission. The court noted that the inaccuracy of the records had ramifications beyond general business practices.

Given this precedent, this court does not agree with the view that defendant was not proved to have an “intent to defraud” sufficient to justify trial on the lesser second degree offense under Counts 13 and 14.

37 Misc. 3d at 829–830, 951 N.Y.S.2d at 329. The 1990 Rockland County Court decision in Schrag also noted, “When the Legislature intended to limit the scope of a fraud statute it has done so (i.e., Penal Law §§ 195.20, 190.60). While several Penal Law fraud statutes are directed specifically to preventing property or pecuniary loss, the fraud crimes in article 175 of the Penal Law are not so delimited and therefore the ‘intent to defraud’ terminology must be interpreted so as to effectuate their object, spirit and intent.” 147 Misc. 2d 517, 518, 558 N.Y.S.2d 451 (Rockland County Ct. 1990).

A case of election law violations and false business records is also instructive here. In People v. Norman, 6 Misc. 3d 1035(A), 800 N.Y.S.2d 353 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County 2004), the Supreme Court of Kings County held that a defendant causing false information to be entered by a campaign committee and the Board of elections was sufficient to satisfy intent for falsifying business records. The court explained:

Since it is a crime indeed a felony for a person ‘acting on behalf of a candidate or political committee [to] knowingly and willfully … solicit any person to make [expenditures in connection with the nomination for election or election of any candidate] for the purpose of evading the contribution limitations of [article 14 of the Election Law],’ Election Law § 14-126(4), this evidence is also sufficient to establish that the defendant concealed these solicitations and contributions from the treasurer and thus prevented the making of a true entry, and caused the omission of a true entry in the records of both the [campaign] Committee and the Board of elections with ‘intent to defraud includ[ing] an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.’ Penal Law § 175.10.

Our discussion here focuses on the jurisprudence interpreting the scope of the falsification of business records statute. We should note the practice of district attorneys prosecuting cases under these statutes may also be instructive. See, for example, the 2017 indictment of Richard Brega for falsification of business records in creating a scheme of covert payments to benefit a political campaign.

Of course, the intent to defraud must involve an intent to deceive that is material to another’s interest. In People v. Keller, the trial court held that the creation of false documentation did not amount to deception because it was immaterial. Defendants who ran an escort service did not intend to defraud a credit card company by falsely billing clients for “limousine service” instead of escort services on charge slips. 176 Misc. 2d 466, 673 N.Y.S.2d 563 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998). The judge explained: “The defendants did not intend for American Express to be deceived by the writing. They knew and expected that the particular falsity of this writing would be of no moment to American Express.” Id. at 469; see also id. at 469 (“Their intention was for American Express to obtain their usual remuneration for a credit card transaction, and there is no evidence that they did not.”). While the recipient of the false document suffered no financial loss, that fact was incidental.

Contrary cases

Two cases have been cited for the proposition that the intent to defraud is limited to depriving a person of money or property, but there are significant flaws in relying on these cases. The two cases are: a Second Department decision in People v. Saporita (1987) and a Kings County Criminal Court one in People v. Hankin (1997). In Saporita, the court explained that the prosecutors had not objected to a jury instruction on this element of the crime and – whether that instruction was flawed or not – the government was stuck with it on appeal. 132 A.D.2d 713, 715, 518 N.Y.S.2d 625, 627 (N.Y. App. Div., 2nd Dept. 1987) (“No objection was taken by the People to this part of the court’s charge and they became bound by it.”). Notably, Saporita was focused on the element of depriving “another person,” not necessarily on the issue of deprivation of money or property. Indeed, the jury instruction read: “The term defraud means to cheat or deprive another person of property or a thing of value or a right.” 132 A.D.2d at 715; id. (“in the instant record, there is no evidence that ‘another person’ was deprived of any property or right as a result of the defendants’ conduct regarding the public records”).

The Hankin trial court misconstrued Saporita, citing it for the proposition of law described in the jury instruction, thus failing to recognize the highly limited reason for the Second Department’s decision.

Other courts in the Second Department have not misconstrued Saporita. For example, in the 1990 decision of People v. Schrag, the Rockland County Court emphasized the peculiarity of the Saporita decision having been predicated on the government’s failure to oppose the jury instructions and explained that those jury instructions were, in fact, erroneous. The Schrag court emphasized the broad definition of “intent to defraud” set forth by Kase and others. It is worth quoting the Schrag court’s analysis at length:

The court found that conduct [in Saporita] to be insufficient to establish an “intent to defraud” as charged since there was no evidence that “another person” was deprived of any property or right as a result of the defendant’s actions. A review of the Article 175 crimes illustrates that the use of the term “intent to defraud” is not qualified by any language which limits their applicability to property or pecuniary loss.
…
Although CJI [Criminal Jury Instructions] refers to the object of the intent to defraud as being “another person,” there seems to be no basis in law to require the defrauded entity to be a person. In fact, because the crime involves the false entry or omission of information from business records, the defrauded party is most likely to be a business entity rather than a person. (See, Penal Law § 175.00 [1].) The decision in People v Saporita (supra) appears to rely heavily upon the fact that the trial court gave the CJI instruction without objective by the People, so that the People were then limited to showing that another person was intended to be defrauded. Since the instant matter has not yet proceeded to trial, and this court does not believe the CJI instruction at issue correctly defines the statutory language, a dismissal of count 1 on this ground is not warranted.

Similarly, the language in the CJI instruction which refers to depriving another of “property or a thing of value or a right” is language which should be given more than just a commercial meaning. The enterprises which can be the victims of the falsification of business records include “any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.” Penal Law § 175.00(1). The interest of these various entities in keeping accurate business records goes far beyond their economic concerns and certainly extends to the rights of the entities and others which may be infringed by false records. In People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d532, 537, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531 (1st Dept., 198); aff’d 53 N.Y.2d 989, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558, the Court favorably cited the federal rule that, in a prosecution for filing a false instrument, it is not necessary to show that the government suffered a property or pecuniary loss from the fraud citing Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188, 44 S.Ct. 511, 512, 68 L.Ed. 968. It was sufficient to show that the government’s legitimate official action and purpose were impeded. Accordingly, this Court will impose no requirement that the Grand Jury presentation establish a commercial or property loss.

147 Misc. 2d at 518–519, 558 N.Y.S.2d at 452–453 (Rockland County Ct. 1990). Subsequent case law in the Second Department has adopted the broad definition of intent to defraud in line with the Kase test and Schrag. See People v. Elliassen (Richmond County Sup. Ct. 2008), which we discussed at length above. See also People v. D. H. Blair & Co., Inc. (New York County Sup. Ct. 2002) (rejecting Hankin and stating that “prior cases which have defined the statutory scope of a falsifying business records charge have not limited the statute to encompass only the intention to defraud the entity, whose business records were falsified. Rather, the reach of the statute includes the falsification of records, which are designed to thwart possible regulatory scrutiny”).

Conclusion

In sum, the New York case law offers clear guidance on the broad scope of the “intent to defraud” for the offense of falsifying business records. While there are other legal hurdles for the Manhattan DA to cross in the indictment of the former president, this element of the relevant offenses poses no obstacle based on the known facts in the case.

IMAGE: Manhattan Criminal Courthouse with increased presence of NYPD officers and media crew on March 31, 2023, the day after former President Donald Trump was indicted. Photo credit: Melissa Bender

The post The Broad Scope of “Intent to Defraud” in the New York Crime of Falsifying Business Records appeared first on Just Security.

Survey of Past New York Felony Prosecutions for Falsifying Business Records

Ryan Goodman — Tue, 21 Mar 2023 08:22:08 +0000

A core crime that the Manhattan District Attorney will likely include in an indictment of former President Donald Trump is “falsifying business records in the first degree,” a felony under New York State law (N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10). Prosecutors and indeed all of us are compelled by the rule of law to consider how such a charge compares to past prosecutions. Are like cases being treated alike?

Here it appears they are. Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized. We reach this conclusion after surveying the past decade and a half of criminal cases across all the New York district attorneys’ offices.

The Table below provides full details of many examples of cases we identified in the survey. A sample of representative precedents includes:

The People of the State of New York v. Josue Aguilar Dubon, AKA Saady Dubon, AKA Alejandro Ortiz (October 2022) — Bronx business owner indicted for failing to report over $1 million in income, avoiding paying $60,000 in taxes.

The People of the State of New York v. Scott Kirtland (February 2022) — Insurance broker indicted for allegedly creating/filing fraudulent certificates of liability insurance to further scheme to defraud.

The People of the State of New York v. James Garner (November 2021) — Mental health therapy aide indicted for allegedly defrauding over $35,000 in workers’ compensation benefits.

The People of the State of New York v. Jose Palmer (November 2016) — Pleaded guilty to petit larceny for unemployment benefits fraud of over $3,000, having initially been indicted for grand larceny and falsifying business records in the first degree.

The People of the State of New York v. Jason Holley (November 2016) — Convicted by jury of falsifying business records in the first degree but acquitted of the predicate crime, insurance fraud.

The People of the State of New York v. Christina Murray (May 2015) & People v. Terrel Murray (May 2014) — Married couple convicted of house fire insurance claim, attempting to recover the cash value of various items of property that were ostensibly lost in the fire.

The People of the State of New York v. Barbara A. Freeland (June 2013) — Convicted for falsely claiming on a food stamps application that a young adult lived with her.

The People of the State of New York v. Maria F. Ramirez (August 2010) — Convicted for returning unpurchased items to a store in exchange for store credit, thus causing a false entry in a business record of an enterprise, and using the store credit to purchase additional items one day.

Before turning to the full Table listing these and many other cases, we offer a brief description of the applicable law. In New York, the criminal law on falsifying business records is found at Article 175 of New York’s penal code. The crime of falsifying business records can be committed in the second degree, which is a class A misdemeanor (N.Y. Penal Code § 175.05), or in the first degree, which is a class E felony (N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10).

An individual is “guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:

makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position; or
prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.” N.Y. Penal Code § 175.05

An individual “is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10.

For Trump to be prosecuted for felony violation of falsifying business records, the statute requires the DA to prove not only that Trump is guilty of falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), but that he did so with the intent to commit “another crime,” or aiding or concealing the commission of “another crime.”

The Table of dozens of cases is provided in the 24-page Scribd file below as well as a separate online PDF.

Survey of New York Prosecutions for Felony Falsification of Business Records on Scribd

The post Survey of Past New York Felony Prosecutions for Falsifying Business Records appeared first on Just Security.

Welcoming to Just Security’s Board of Editors: Justin Hendrix, Jelena Pejic, and Andrew Weissmann

Ryan Goodman — Tue, 07 Mar 2023 15:33:27 +0000

Just Security is thrilled to welcome three new members to our Editorial Board: Justin Hendrix, Jelena Pejic, and Andrew Weissmann.

Their work will be familiar to many of our readers (see recent Just Security content by Justin Hendrix here, works by Jelena Pejic here, and Andrew Weissmann’s works here). They bring an array of expertise from technology policy, to the law of armed conflict, to U.S. national security law and criminal law and procedure. Join us please in welcoming all three of these phenomenal experts to the Just Security Editorial Board.

	Justin Hendrix (@justinhendrix) is cofounder and CEO of Tech Policy Press and associate research scientist and adjunct professor at NYU Tandon School of Engineering. Opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or institution.
	Jelena Pejic is currently the Lieber Scholar for 2023 at the Lieber Institute at West Point. She is a former Senior Legal Adviser in the Legal Division of the ICRC in Geneva.
	Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_) is Professor of Practice and Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security and at the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU School of Law. He served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (2017-2019), as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015-2019), and as General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011-2013).

The post Welcoming to Just Security’s Board of Editors: Justin Hendrix, Jelena Pejic, and Andrew Weissmann appeared first on Just Security.

The Limited Scope of Vice President Pence’s Speech or Debate Clause Immunity

Ryan Goodman — Tue, 21 Feb 2023 14:41:13 +0000

The U.S. Constitution provides members of Congress immunity from testifying before a grand jury about their “legislative activities.” In a landmark Supreme Court decision, the Court made clear that the Speech or Debate Clause is not limited literally to Representatives and Senators and that individuals who are covered by the Clause cannot resist testifying before a grand jury about communications and activity not covered by the Clause. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972).

Summary of our findings: Vice President Mike Pence may have a reasonable basis to claim that the Speech or Debate Clause includes a Vice President when acting as President of the Senate. However, that is largely to no avail here. First, the Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does not provide sufficient legal basis to resist wholesale a subpoena to testify before the grand jury in the January 6th investigation. Second, there are several lines of questions – which we describe below with specific examples – that would not be precluded by the Speech or Debate Clause.

Whether Special Counsel Jack Smith wants Pence’s testimony to fill gaps in the ongoing investigation or instead wants to lock in Pence’s testimony now in anticipation of a trial – either way Pence’s claim that he is covered by the Speech or Debate Clause is, on its own, a highly incomplete and inadequate answer. Even if the Clause applies to the vice president, several “categories [of questions] … could not qualify as legislative activities under any understanding of Supreme Court precedent,” Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury vs. Lindsey Graham, Case 22-12696 (11th Cir. 2022), denial of application for stay and an injunction pending appeal by Supreme Court (Nov. 1, 2022).

In sum, the Special Counsel need not end up in protracted litigation over whether the Speech or Debate Clause applies to Pence. The Special Counsel (and the courts) can assume that it does, and swiftly reject Pence’s effort to resist showing up at the courthouse or answering the lines of questions we outline below.

I. Assume for the sake of analysis that Vice President Pence’s counting of the ballots on January 6th is covered by the Speech or Debate Clause

The main focus of our attention is on the scope of the privilege if it applies to the vice president. However, we first briefly discuss the threshold question whether the Clause applies to Pence given its reference only to “Senators and Representatives.” Article I, section 6, Clause 1 reads:

“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” (emphasis added)

For starters, contemporary sensibilities may associate the Office of the Vice President solely with the Executive Branch, but it is worth noting a few facts that illustrate the office’s historic and continuing connections to the Legislature. The president cannot fire the vice president. The vice president’s salary is paid from the Senate budget. What’s more, as J. William Leonard recently wrote:

“Former President Harry Truman himself wrote in his memoirs that the Vice President ‘is not an officer of the executive branch.’ Until Lyndon Johnson got an office on the White House grounds in the Executive Office Building, the only official office for use by the Vice President was in the Capitol building, and it was not until Walter Mondale that the Vice President had an office in the West Wing of the White House.”

When one of us (Andy) worked for Vice President Al Gore, a significant portion of the Office of Vice President staff was paid for out of the Senate budget, and those staff members had to abide by a different set of ethics rules than the Executive Branch staff. Compare Letter from Laurence H. Silberman, Acting Attorney General, to the Hon. Howard W. Cannon, Chairman, Senate Comm. on Rules and Administration, at 6 (Sept. 20, 1974) (“Certainly the Vice President is not a Member of Congress as that term is used in the Constitution. To be sure, for certain purposes he can be regarded as being in the legislative branch.”).

The Speech or Debate Clause is designed as a safeguard against politically motivated civil litigation or criminal prosecutions that can chill congressional debate or intimidate legislators. Given those objectives, it makes sense that the protections should extend to a Vice President when acting as President of the Senate or in other legislative branch capacity. It would be anomalous for the Constitution to provide all members of Congress legal immunity for casting a vote, but not the Vice President when he or she breaks the tie.

That said, insofar as the Clause is designed to protect members of Congress from the Executive’s “power to harass” them through use of law enforcement authorities, that separation-of-powers concern would scarcely if ever apply to the Executive’s turning such power against its own Vice President.

Regardless of how scholars and other commentators may view the issue, the Department of Justice, in August 2021, already adopted the position that Vice President Pence was covered on January 6th itself by the Speech or Debate Clause. The Department stated its position in a brief filed in response to a civil suit that named Pence and other members of Congress as defendants. The federal district court then indicated its agreement with the government stating that the plaintiff’s claims against the former vice president and members of Congress were “likely barred by absolute legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate clause.” (For a different view that accords far less weight to the Department’s August 2021 brief, see analysis by the National Review’s Matthew J. Franck.)^{^[1]}

That’s not the first time the Department expressed that position. In a Dec. 31, 2020 brief, the Justice Department defended Vice President Pence against a suit filed by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) who was trying to stop the electoral count on Jan. 6. The Department stated: “The United States disagrees with plaintiffs’ unsupported assertion that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause does not apply to the Vice President in his official capacity as the President of the Senate” (p.4 n. 1 & see also p.6). Over a year earlier, in a 2019 brief in a civil suit, the Justice Department also asserted that the Speech or Debate Clause covered the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate (p. 10 n.11, pp. 11-12). The brief discussed Supreme Court cases that have extended the protections of the Clause beyond “Representatives and Senators.”^{^[2]} Compare Robert G. Dixon Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and Other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution While in Office, at 36 (Sept. 24, 1973) (“With respect to his responsibility as tie breaker his immunity from prosecution should be analogized to that of Members of Congress under Article I, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution.”) (emphasis added due to the lack of clarity).

What’s more, in a 2014 brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of then-Vice President Joe Biden, the Senate Legal Counsel took the position that the Speech or Debate Clause precluded a civil action against the vice president along with other Senate officers.^{^[3]} In the lower federal court, a 2012 brief filed on behalf of Biden by the Senate Legal Counsel stated flatly, “The activities of the Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, fall squarely within the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause,” and the brief proceeded to defend the position at length.

All that said, it can become more complicated to determine the role a vice president is playing in a specific factual scenario. On a continuum, there are clear executive branch roles (such as convening an interagency meeting in which the president has delegated a policy coordination role to the vice president) versus clear legislative branch roles (such as casting a vote when there’s a tie in the Senate) versus dual or more difficult to parse roles (such as participation in legislation formulation in which the vice president may be advising the executive on policy). See also Memorandum from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to Edward L. Morgan, Deputy Counsel to the President, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2 (Feb. 7, 1969) (“[T]he Vice President has now assumed a particular place in Government in which his status may be characterized as Legislative or Executive depending on the context.”).

But our focus, for the balance of this analysis, is on the limits to the scope of Speech or Debate protections assuming that Pence is covered by the Clause for his role on January 6th.

II. Scope of the Speech or Debate Clause protections as applied to Vice President Pence and the 2020 presidential election investigation

The Speech or Debate Clause protections are formidable, and the DC Circuit has defined them even more expansively than other circuits without the Supreme Court stepping in to resolve those circuit splits. But even within the broad understanding of the Clause, there are clear limitations that would allow for many lines of questions of Pence by the Department of Justice. We include Department requests for both documents and oral testimony, but focus here on questions that prosecutors could pose to Pence in his testimony before the grand jury.

On the limits of the Speech or Debate Clause, the Supreme Court said in the landmark Gravel opinion, “Article I, § 6, cl. 1, as we have emphasized, does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases. Quite the contrary is true.” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626 (1972). That same year, the Court explained in another influential case, “The only reasonable reading of the Clause, consistent with its history and purpose, is that it does not prohibit inquiry into activities that are casually or incidentally related to legislative affairs but not a part of the legislative process itself.” United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 528 (1972) (emphasis added).

More specifically, the Supreme Court and DC Circuit case law allow for the following lines of inquiry to be pursued by the Justice Department and would not be vulnerable to meaningful litigation if Pence were to try to assert the contrary in court.

Permitted Line of Inquiry 1. Questions about Pence and his staff’s knowledge about and communications with and within the Trump Presidential Campaign.

Supreme Court case law:

In United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 512-13 (1972), the Supreme Court defined political activities broadly to include actions by a congressional members’ office that are not legislative in nature and are often performed for the purpose of seeking reelection. This is especially significant because the types of questions we identify below are several degrees removed from even those kinds of official activities, and involve Pence’s personal involvement in political campaign activities and communications with the Trump Campaign.

The Supreme Court in Brewster stated:

“It is well known, of course, that Members of the Congress engage in many activities other than the purely legislative activities protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. These include a wide range of legitimate ‘errands’ performed for constituents, the making of appointments with Government agencies, assistance in securing Government contracts, preparing so-called ‘news letters’ to constituents, news releases, and speeches delivered outside the Congress. The range of these related activities has grown over the years. They are performed in part because they have come to be expected by constituents, and because they are a means of developing continuing support for future elections. Although these are entirely legitimate activities, they are political in nature, rather than legislative, in the sense that term has been used by the Court in prior cases. But it has never been seriously contended that these political matters, however appropriate, have the protection afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause. Careful examination of the decided cases reveals that the Court has regarded the protection as reaching only those things ‘generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it,’ Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 204, or things ‘said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office,’ Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 27 (1808).” (emphasis added)

An example of applying this understanding of the Clause to the 2020 election is the unanimous Eleventh Circuit ruling in the case of Sen. Lindsey Graham and the Fulton County GA special grand jury subpoena. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Senator’s “communications and coordination with the Trump campaign regarding its post-election efforts in Georgia” could not qualify for Speech or Debate Clause protections “under any understanding of Supreme Court precedent” (emphasis added).

Example of permissible questions for Pence:

“Where you aware of internal Campaign research or outside research conducted on behalf of the Campaign that showed there was no widespread election fraud?”

“What were your communications and any coordination with the Trump Campaign regarding the campaign’s post-election efforts in Georgia”?

Note: John Eastman was a personal lawyer working with the Trump Campaign; Pence and his staff’s communications with Eastman may accordingly also be included within this line of inquiry.

Permitted Line of Inquiry 2. Questions about public speeches given outside of Congress

Supreme Court case law:

Once again, the influential passage in United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 512-13 (1972) identifies activities not covered by the Speech or Debate Clause, including “speeches delivered outside the Congress.” Cf. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622 (1972) (“Senator Gravel’s alleged arrangement with Beacon Press to publish the Pentagon Papers was not protected speech or debate within the meaning of Art. I, s 6, cl. 1, of the Constitution. Historically, the English legislative privilege was not viewed as protecting republication of an otherwise immune libel on the floor of the House.”).

DC Circuit law: Subsequent DC Circuit case law explains that documents introduced in Congress but then released by the Member to the public are also not covered by the Clause. McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277, 1288-86 (D.C.Cir.1976) (en banc) stated:

“To the extent plaintiffs charge dissemination outside of the Halls of Congress, the federal defendants are not immune to further questioning. “That Senators generally perform certain acts in their official capacity as Senators does not necessarily make all such acts legislative in nature.” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972). Even though Members of Congress or their aides frequently intercede on behalf of constituents with agencies of the Executive Branch or disseminate to the public beyond “the legitimate legislative needs of Congress” documents introduced at committee hearings, such conduct falls outside of legislative immunity. It does not meet the test set forth in Gravel, that activities other than literal speech or debate are entitled to the immunity of the Speech or Debate Clause only when they are ‘an integral part of the deliberative (or) communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings’ with respect to matters before the House. 408 U.S. at 625.” (emphasis added)

An example of applying this understanding of the Clause to the 2020 election is the unanimous Eleventh Circuit ruling in the case of Sen. Lindsey Graham and the Fulton County GA special grand jury subpoena. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Senator’s “public statements regarding the 2020 election” could not qualify for Speech or Debate Clause protections “under any understanding of Supreme Court precedent” (emphasis added).

Example of permissible questions for Pence:

Even though Pence publicly released his “Dear Colleague statement” on Jan. 6 explaining that he would adhere to his duties of counting the ballots during the congressional proceedings, we doubt whether this publication of the statement would open him to questions about the advice he received from staff or the process behind the statement. However, the public statement is arguably not privileged under the Speech and Debate Clause, and where the line is drawn here could be debated.

In sharp contrast, Pence’s book presents a meaningful distinction from a publicly released Dear Colleague letter because the publication of a commercially-sold book bears no relation to the legislative function. Importantly, that may render the Speech or Debate Clause inoperative to bar questions about claims made in Pence’s book.^{^[4]} Prosecutors would likely be able to obtain testimony designed to test the factual basis of claims Pence makes in his book, since he elected to publish those claims outside of a legislative role. It would not be appropriate for the Speech or Debate Clause to be allowed to be used – whether by Pence or any other vice president or member of Congress – as a sword when it is designed to be a shield.

Permitted Line of Inquiry 3. Questions about Trump trying to get Pence to promise to perform a certain act in future, especially if Trump was doing so corruptly.

Supreme Court case law:

Taking a page from the Supreme Court’s bribery and public corruption cases in the context of the Speech and Debate Clause, it is clear that “promises by a Member to perform an act in the future are not legislative acts.” United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 489 (1979); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 524 (1972) (“[I]f the Executive may prosecute a Member’s attempt, as in Johnson, to influence another branch of the Government in return for a bribe, its power to harass is not greatly enhanced if it can prosecute for a promise relating to a legislative act in return for a bribe.”)

Note: One of the criminal offenses of relevance to the Special Counsel investigation is 18 USC 793 (prohibiting a conspiracy “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof”).

Example of permissible questions for Pence:

“What actions did Trump expect you to take outside of your proper legislative duties?”

“What pressure did Trump apply to encourage you to violate your oath? Did you know that, on Jan. 5th, your Chief of Staff Marc Short alerted the head of your Secret Service detail that Mr. Short was concerned for your personal safety on Jan. 6 knowing that Trump’s disagreement with you was going to become public that following day?”

Permitted Line of Inquiry 4. Questions that predate Pence’s deliberations of how he would act on January 6th.

The Speech and Debate Clause would at most be triggered only once Pence’s role as President of the Senate and how he would act on Jan. 6th became a relevant consideration. Pence’s activities and knowledge of events preceding that point in the timeline would be fair game for the Department of Justice.

Example of permissible questions for Pence:

“Before Nov. 3, 2020, were you aware in advance of Trump’s plans to claim victory on election eve?”

Permitted Line of Inquiry 5. Cajoling or exhorting executive branch officials

The Speech and Debate Clause does not cover legislators’ efforts to cajole or exhort members of the executive branch at the federal or state level.

Supreme Court case law:

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972): “That Senators generally perform certain acts in their official capacity as Senators does not necessarily make all such acts legislative in nature Members of Congress are constantly in touch with the Executive Branch of the Government and with administrative agencies — they may cajole, and exhort with respect to the administration of a federal statute — but such conduct, though generally done, is not protected legislative activity. United States v. Johnson decided at least this much.” (citing United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 172 (1966)).

An example of applying this understanding of the Clause to the 2020 election is the unanimous Eleventh Circuit ruling in the case of Sen. Lindsey Graham and the Fulton County GA special grand jury subpoena. The Eleventh Circuit held that any of the Senator’s “efforts to ‘cajole’ or ‘exhort’ Georgia election officials” could not qualify for Speech or Debate Clause protections “under any understanding of Supreme Court precedent” (emphasis added).

Example of permissible questions for Pence:

“Were you aware of or involved in Trump’s efforts to cajole senior Justice Department officials to make false statements about findings of election fraud?”

“Were you aware of or involved in the preparation of Trump’s efforts to cajole Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to come to a different election count in Georgia?”

“Were you aware of or involved in the preparation of Trump, Eastman, and Giuliani’s efforts to cajole Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers to overturn the election results in Arizona?”

III. Additional points and questions for further reflection

We do not necessarily resolve the issues below, but we note them for further consideration. None of these additional issues should distract from the clear boundaries of the Speech and Debate Clause and the lines of inquiry available to the Justice Department discussed above.

The Special Counsel need not end up in protracted litigation over whether the Speech or Debate Clause applies to Pence. The Special Counsel (and the courts) can assume that it does, and swiftly reject Pence’s effort to resist showing up at the courthouse or answering the lines of questions we outline.

1. Waiver

The Speech and Debate Clause also applies to a Member’s staff, according to the Supreme Court’s well settled case law. Pence’s chief of staff and chief counsel appear to have answered the Special Counsel’s questions before the grand jury about Pence and done so without invoking the Speech and Debate Clause. Instead, they appear to have drawn the line around direct conversations with President Trump (as they did in their congressional testimony) and raised claims of “executive privilege” (to be overturned on those grounds by the DC federal court). Especially if Pence provided his senior staff guidance on the scope of questioning, their prior testimony raises the prospect that Speech and Debate Clause has effectively been waived and it is too late for Pence to raise it now for his testimony before the grand jury. Cf. Gravel, 408 U.S. at 622 n.13 (“It follows that an aide’s claim of privilege can be repudiated and thus waived by the Senator.”).

2. Ministerial role

Some might argue that the purely ministerial/ceremonial role of the vice president on Jan. 6 and the absence of any discretion on his part but to count the electoral ballots narrows the range of the Speech and Debate Clause. For example, this minimal role — which is different from the vice president’s role of casting a tie-breaking vote — could potentially constrain the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause that might otherwise be available for “information gathering” purposes. There was no fact-finding activity for Pence to conduct.

For DC Circuit case law on information-gathering and the Speech and Debate Clause, see: McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277, 1286-87 (D.C.Cir.1976) (en banc) (“We have no doubt that information gathering, whether by issuance of subpoenas or field work by a Senator or his staff, is essential to informed deliberation over proposed legislation. The recent decision in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 (1975), holds that “[t]he power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process plainly falls within’ the test for legislative activity announced in Gravel. We think this principle must also extend to field investigations by a Senator or his staff. ‘A Congressman cannot subpoena material unless he has enough threshold information to know where, to whom, or for what documents he should direct a subpoena. The acquisition of knowledge through informal sources is a necessary concomitant of legislative conduct and thus should be within the ambit of the privilege so that congressmen are able to discharge their constitutional duties properly.’).

3. Purpose of protecting Congress against Executive abuse

It is worth considering whether a broad application of the Speech and Debate Clause to the specific case at hand would be inconsistent with, or in fact defeat, a principal purpose of the Clause.

The Clause is designed to protect members of the Legislature from the Executive Branch’s “power to harass.” Compare United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 524 (1972). The Justice Department’s purpose here is instead (a) to hear from Pence as a potential witness to a crime and (b) to protect the vice president as a member of the Legislature from pressure by the then-President Trump. Some federal courts have used this sort of logic in interpreting the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause. See, e.g., Brewster, 408 U.S. at 524-25 (“[F]inancial abuses by way of bribes, perhaps even more than Executive power, would gravely undermine legislative integrity and defeat the right of the public to honest representation. Depriving the Executive of the power to investigate and prosecute and the Judiciary of the power to punish bribery of Members of Congress is unlikely to enhance legislative independence.”); In re Fattah, 802 F.3d 516, 529 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Brewster); United States v. Renzi, 651 F.3d 1012, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (same).

Two countervailing points might be made, however, in rejection of that line of analysis. First, in the DC Circuit the distinction that Pence is only a witness to a potential crime by a third-party seems unavailing. DC Circuit case law suggests the purpose of obtaining evidence from members of Congress is not relevant to whether the action triggers the Speech and Debate Clause. See, e.g., United States v. Rayburn House, 497 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“[O]ur opinion in Brown Williamson makes clear that a key purpose of the privilege is to prevent intrusions in the legislative process and that the legislative process is disrupted by the disclosure of legislative material, regardless of the use to which the disclosed materials are put.”) (citing 62 F.3d at 419). Indeed, the Clause appears to prevent members of Congress from being called to testify about legislative acts that may implicate a third-party’s civil or criminal actions. Brown Williamson Tobacco v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 418 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“We rejected the argument that the privilege ‘is available only if Congress can demonstrate that it faces the burden of defending a lawsuit that threatens an impermissible interference in congressional business by the judiciary.’ The Speech or Debate Clause, we said, ‘cannot be limited by so artificial a line. … A litigant does not have to name members or their staffs as parties to a suit in order to distract them from their legislative work. Discovery procedures can prove just as intrusive.’”) (citing Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Services, Inc., 844 F.2d 856, 859 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (emphasis added); see also Brown Williamson Tobacco, 62 at 418-19 (even if a subpoena does not embarrass or impugn the reputation of the members of Congress as a third party, that is irrelevant to the Speech and Debate Clause which protects the integrity of Congress and the legislative process).

In terms of pressure from the Executive, Pence’s team might argue that this case is exactly the situation called for by the Clause. On this view, a new Executive with politics hostile to Vice President Pence’s is deploying law enforcement resources to seek otherwise immunized information to prosecute overzealous supporters of the prior administration. We do not agree with that argument, but it shows how the logic of the analysis may be disputed. More strongly, Pence could argue that the purpose of the Clause is not a generalized pressure from the Executive and instead is specifically about imposing criminal or civil liability on Members of Congress or compelling them to testify or provide documents in criminal and civil proceedings that concern their legitimate legislative acts.

Finally, it is important to note that the DC Circuit takes the view that when a member of Congress is not themselves the target of a criminal investigation but instead can provide evidence for a grand jury investigation of a third party, “the privilege might be less stringently applied.” Rayburn House, 497 F.3d at 663; see also Brown Williamson Tobacco v. Williams, 62 F.3d at 419-20 (“Gravel‘s sensitivities to the existence of criminal proceedings against persons other than Members of Congress at least suggest that the testimonial privilege might be less stringently applied when inconsistent with a sovereign interest, but is ‘absolute’ in all other contexts.”).

4. The significance of the fact that Trump wanted Pence to take action that was not within the vice president’s legislative authority, and Pence never considered it to be within his authority.

In applying the Speech or Debate Clause, the Supreme Court has drawn lines around protecting legitimate legislative activity. Accordingly, Trump’s pressuring Pence to violate his oath of office and engage in conduct not lawfully permitted by the role as President of the Senate is arguably not covered by the Clause. Cf. Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (“The question to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the ‘sphere of legitimate legislative activity.’ If they do, the petitioners “shall not be questioned in any other Place” about those activities since the prohibitions of the Speech or Debate Clause are absolute.”) (emphasis added); Brown Williamson Tobacco v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 415 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“The Clause is not, to be sure, a blanket prohibition on suits against congressmen. It protects only those congressional acts properly thought to fall within the legislative function.”) (emphasis added).

– – – footnotes – – –

See Jubelirer v. Singel, 162 Pa. Commw. 55, 63-64 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994) (“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that the scope of the Pennsylvania Speech and Debate Clause is essentially the same as that of the federal Speech and Debate Clause and that cases clarifying the federal clause provide guidance in interpreting the Pennsylvania clause;” “Moreover, in Nolan, 470 Pa. 372, 368 A.2d 675 (1977), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court indicated that the Lieutenant Governor, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, would also be immunized from suit under the Speech and Debate Clause.”); Consumers Education and Protective Association v. Nolan, 470 Pa. 372, 382 (1977) (“We agree, however, with the contention of appellees Nolan and [Lieutenant Governor] Kline … that the complaint should have been dismissed as to them because of Article II, Section 15 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides in pertinent part that ‘for any speech or debate in either House’ the members of the General Assembly ;shall not be questioned in any other place.’); The Constitution of Pennsylvania Art. II, § 15 (“The members of the General Assembly shall in all cases, except treason, felony, violation of their oath of office, and breach or surety of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective Houses and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place.”) (emphasis added). ↑
The brief cites Eastland, 421 U.S. at 507; Gravel, 408 U.S. at 616-18, but discusses at greater length, Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 320 (1973) in which the Supreme Court stated that “the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents … to the extent that they serve legislative functions, the performance of which would be immune conduct if done by Congressmen, these officials enjoy the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause.” ↑
The brief states: “The Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 1, precludes jurisdiction over this suit. Under that Clause, Senate officers are absolutely immune from suit for any legislative actions supporting the Senate in carrying out debate under its rules because such acts fall squarely within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity protected from questioning by the Clause.” ↑
Brown Williamson Tobacco v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1995): “As with criminal prosecutions, however, the privilege only bars civil suits when the action complained of falls within the legislative sphere. For example, although a congressman cannot be sued for defamatory statements made on the House floor, he has no claim to immunity for a libel action based on his subsequent republication of those statements outside Congress; those later expressions are no part of the ‘legislative process.’ See Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 127-28 (1979); see also Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-27 (1972); cf. McMillan, 412 U.S. at 314-16 nn. 8, 10 (1973); McSurely, 553 F.2d at 1285-86.” ↑

Photo credit: Former Vice President Mike Pence gives remarks at the Calvin Coolidge Foundation’s conference at the Library of Congress on February 16, 2023 in Washington, DC. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The post The Limited Scope of Vice President Pence’s Speech or Debate Clause Immunity appeared first on Just Security.