Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected a request from former President Donald Trump’s legal team for “missing materials” from the January 6 investigation, referring to it as a “fishing expedition.”
The judge denied Trump’s motion to subpoena individuals and entities to obtain “missing records” from the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol investigation, stating that Trump failed to justify the broad scope of the records he sought.
Chutkan also declined a request from the Department of Justice to put Trump in jail for violating a gag order she re-imposed on him, determining that it was not necessary at the time. (Trending: Donald Trump Confronts Bud Light CEO)
JUST ANNOUNCED ..🚨🚨 OUTRAGEOUS
Judge Chutkan denies Trump request for J6 Committee Doc's his Attys say exonerate him
(RT) if you want Speaker Johnson to release all of the Documents related to the J6 hoax pic.twitter.com/1ehGdW8ymj
— Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸 (@Chicago1Ray) November 28, 2023
“Defendant likewise fails to meet his burden for the remaining five categories of records that he seeks,” wrote Chutkan.
“Those categories cover documents and communications ‘in any way pertaining to the Missing Materials,’ including their storage, loss, or transfer. See Motion at 5; id. at 8–9, continued the judge.
“Defendant does not state with any specificity the information that he seeks in those records, repeating only that it is important and related to the events and people associated with the Select Committee’s work and therefore the January 6, 2021 attack. Id. at 9–11,” explained Chutkan..
“The broad scope of the records that Defendant seeks, and his vague description of their potential relevance, resemble less ‘a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence’ than they do ‘a general ‘fishing expedition’ that attempts to use the [Rule 17(c) subpoena] as a discovery device,'” ruled Judge Chutka.
“The Government argues that the video recordings are categorically irrelevant at this time because (1) the written transcripts render them ‘superfluous,’ and (2) that seeking them before the exchange of witness lists would be ‘at best, premature.’ Opp’n to Motion at 7. Because Defendant has failed to satisfy his initial burden, however, the court need not reach those two arguments,” added Chutkan in a footnote to her ruling.
“For these reasons, the court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Pretrial Rule 17(c) Subpoenas, ECF No. 99,” wrote Chutkan in her conclusion.
Most Popular:
Tucker Carlson Predicts 2024 Race Won’t Be Between Biden, Trump
‘Woke’ Target Sells Controversial Christmas Decorations
