Is the Jan. 6 committee even legitimate? U.S. appeals court has doubts

Just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s partisan committee that she ordered to “investigate” the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol announced its next staged “hearing” will be held on Sept. 28, a court opinion has cited doubts about its legitimacy.

It came in an unusual ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

It affirmed the dismissal of a fight by the Republican National Committee against a subpoena from Pelosi’s committee, which is partisan because she refused to seat GOP members nominated by their own party and instead hand-picked two Republicans whose opposition to President Donald Trump is well-established.

The committee largely has accepted only testimony that could damage Trump, and it has refused to delve into the evidence that officials responsible for the Capitol’s security, including Pelosi, refused President Trump’s offer of National Guard troops for that day.

The case was dismissed because the committee withdrew its subpoena for detailed RNC information, making the case moot.

Typically in such cases, a court essentially releases a short order that the case is dead.

In this case, however, the court went much further, citing significant constitutional questions now left unresolved because of the committee’s decision the committee decided to run away from the fight.

“The subpoena sought various documents held by Salesforce.com, an RNC vendor, regarding fundraising emails sent by the RNC to its supporters,” the judges wrote. “The RNC claimed that disclosure of these documents would reveal sensitive information about its digital strategy, so it sued to prevent the disclosure.

“The RNC argued that the committee was not lawfully constituted and that the subpoena violated the First Amendment.”

While the case was on appeal, Pelosi’s committee suddenly “reversed course.”

“It withdrew the subpoena, promised not to renew it, and moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. … Because the committee caused the mootness and thereby deprived us of the ability to review the district court’s decision, and given the important and unsettled constitutional questions that the appeal would have presented, we vacate the district court’s judgment.”

The court cited a previous case that included a decision to vacate a lower court’s judgment over a party’s “avoidance of constitutional questions.”

Just the News which posted the court’s order online said the judges “went out of the way to acknowledge RNC’s appeal raised important issues and also took a dig at Democrats for vacillating.”

The report said, “The appellate judges went out of their way to acknowledge the RNC’s concerns about the subpoena raising important issues and that the lower court’s ruling needed to be reversed.”

WND previously reported that the fight over the legitimacy of Pelosi’s partisan group already has been submitted to various courts.

At least three individuals, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, broadcaster Alex Jones, and U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., all have challenged the committee’s authority in separate legal actions.

They joined a long list of others who already have sued, charging the committee is trying to abrogate the Constitution’s First Amendment with its demands and isn’t even legitimate because it fails to meet the requirements of the authorizing resolution.

The committee, for which Pelosi recruited anti-Trump GOP members, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Rep. Kinzinger of Illinois, has issued broad demands for statements, evidence, phone records, testimony, and much, much more.

But the Gateway Pundit documented that Flynn sought a court restraining order against Pelosi and her committee.

That request explained, “General Flynn did not organize, speak at, or actively participate in any rallies or protests in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, and he of course did not participate in the attack on the Capitol that day. Ex. A Declaration of Michael Flynn (‘Flynn Decl.’) ¶ 5. Nevertheless, the Select Committee—assuming the role of shadow prosecutor for the January 6 attack and working in parallel with the actual prosecutors at the Department of Justice—has diverted its attention from its important work to target General Flynn for a quasi-prosecution that is either aimless or transparently partisan.”

He continued, “Despite not participating in any public events in Washington on January 6, Defendants have issued General Flynn a sweeping subpoena seeking twenty different categories of documents and a demand that General Flynn appears for a deposition in Washington, D.C. The subpoena demands records of General Flynn’s communications about the 2020 election and seeks to identify the basis for his beliefs and the persons with whom he associated, in addition to contacts with government officials. It thus constitutes a frontal assault on his 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association, and petition.”

The Washington Examiner reported Perry was declining to appear before the commission, insisting Pelosi’s faction wasn’t legitimate.

“I stand with immense respect for our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the Americans I represent who know that this entity is illegitimate, and not duly constituted under the rules of the US House of Representatives,” he stated. “I decline this entity’s request and will continue to fight the failures of the radical Left who desperately seek distraction from their abject failures of crushing inflation, a humiliating surrender in Afghanistan, and the horrendous crisis they created at our border.”

The committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, had accused Perry of having “multiple text texts and other communications with President Trump’s former Chief of Staff regarding” Jeffrey Clark, as well as various “communications with the White House,” in demanding his testimony.

It was Politico that reported broadcaster Alex Jones had sued the committee to block members from obtaining his telephone records and compelling him to testify.

Politico pointed out the committee already was facing “a flood” of litigation, including cases from John Eastman, a lawyer who has sued to protect his phone records. Also, Cleta Mitchell, a prominent conservative attorney who joined Trump’s early January call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, sued to quash a subpoena from the committee.

WND also had reported on a case against the committee from Ali Alexander, the national organizer of “Stop the Steal.”

His charges include that the committee is illegitimate, because it never has complied with the resolution that created it, and its subpoenas are therefore irrelevant.

The case was filed by lawyers Jonathan Moseley and Paul Kamenar, who is serving as Alexander’s main attorney.

Moseley explained he was attorney of record, and that “Stop the Steal, LLC” was to encourage all responsible to address the concerns of millions of voters about how their votes were counted.

“‘Stop the Steal’ held many rallies and events in cities around the country over many months, without incident which were 100% peaceful. Stop the Steal never had any relationship whatsoever to any act of violence nor any goal of preventing the certification of the Electoral College vote,” the statement from Moseley explained.

“The nation’s political class is gripped with a Salem Witch Trial like madness which is unable or unwilling to distinguish between approximately 50-250 people who were violent, and the exercise of free speech by hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators,” the statement said. “Hyper-ventilating articles confuse Ali Alexander as helping to organize the 100% peaceful and lawful demonstration at the Ellipse and Washington Monument because it ‘preceded’ some violence at the Capitol.”

Latest News