WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Jim Jordan swatted back his subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — demanding the panel first turn over information to him.
Jordan doesn’t refuse to comply but argues in a four-page letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and the panel’s chairman, that subpoenaing a sitting member of Congress “violates core Constitutional principles” and “disregards House rules and precedent.”
Jordan, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, also writes that the committee has not answered his question about its “abusive tactics and pattern of due process violations.”
A committee spokesman had no comment.
Jordan was among five House Republicans, including GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, the committee subpoenaed earlier this month.
Jordan, McCarthy and Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Mo Brooks of Alabama and Andy Biggs of Arizona had previously rejected requests to testify voluntarily.
They are among several Republicans whose names surfaced in other testimony and documents tied to Donald Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, or discussions with the former president’s allies on strategies to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Jordan, like McCarthy, has acknowledged talking to Trump by telephone as a mob of the former president’s supporters stormed the Capitol.
Jordan’s letter serves as a preview of the extended litigation that would follow any efforts to enforce the subpoenas. Many legal experts have said courts would ultimately uphold the subpoenas, but a prolonged legal battle would hinder the committee’s plans to hold public hearings next month and deliver a final report in the fall.
In his letter to Thompson, Jordan demands from the committee “all documents, videos, or other material in the possession of the Select Committee that you potentially anticipate using, introducing, or relying on during questioning.”
He also writes he wants all documents, communications, testimony, and other material in the possession of the committee “in which my name appears or in which I am referenced.”
Jordan also argues that the committee failed to “articulate” why the information it seeks is necessary to advance a legitimate legislative purpose, or why such information cannot be obtained through other means.
