Mediaboss Marketing

Former President Donald J. Trump has filed a motion asking a federal judge to prevent his former vice president, Mike Pence, from testifying to a grand jury about specific issues that Mr. Trump is claiming are protected by executive privilege, a person briefed on the matter said.

The filing is unsurprising Mr. Trumps lawyers have repeatedly sought to assert executive privilege over former aides as a means of blocking testimony but it underscores how much the Justice Departments attempts to get Mr. Pence to testify in the investigation into Mr. Trumps efforts to cling to power may be drawn out.

The sealed filing was made on Friday, according to the person briefed on the matter. Its existence was reported earlier by CNN. A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Pence was recently subpoenaed for grand jury testimony after negotiations between his team and the Justice Department over his appearance came to an impasse, people briefed on the matter said. Mr. Pence is a key potential witness in the investigation, as the person Mr. Trump pressured repeatedly to thwart the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.s Electoral College victory by Congress.

Mr. Trump took his pressure campaign public several times, including on Jan. 6, 2021, the day of the congressional session, which Mr. Pence had a ceremonial role in overseeing. At a rally near the White House before it began, Mr. Trump publicly pressured Mr. Pence and then directed his supporters to go to the Capitol in protest.

The pro-Trump mob ultimately overran the Capitol building, with some chanting, Hang Mike Pence!

The New York Times reported earlier that the Justice Department had filed what amounted to a pre-emptive move to say executive privilege did not apply, seeking to compel Mr. Pences testimony in the matter. Before that motion was filed, Mr. Trumps lawyers had sent a letter to prosecutors saying they were not going to waive executive privilege with regard to Mr. Pences testimony.

Mr. Pence has said he will try to fight the subpoena, but has indicated it will be under the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, which applies to legislators. His argument is under the auspices of his role as president of the Senate.

How Times reporters cover politics.We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.

The investigation is being led by a special counsel, Jack Smith, whose aggressive moves to advance the case have contrasted with the Justice Departments handling of the Jan. 6-related investigation previously.

But it is unclear how quickly it will be settled. The matter could take months, at a time when Mr. Trump is a presidential candidate for the Republican nomination and Mr. Pence is considering a campaign of his own.

Mr. Trumps lawyers also sought to block testimony by two of Mr. Pences top aides: his former chief counsel Greg Jacob and his former chief of staff Marc Short. The privilege disputes have been dealt with by the chief federal judge in Washington, Judge Beryl A. Howell, who is stepping down this month and will be replaced by a new chief judge.

In the cases of Mr. Jacob and Mr. Short, she ruled that they had to testify on issues that Mr. Trump had sought to shield through executive privilege, people briefed on the matter said at the time.

Grand jury subpoenas in the Jan. 6 case were also recently issued to Mr. Trumps daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. It remains unclear whether Mr. Trump will seek to assert executive privilege there.

See the original post here:
Trump Asks Judge to Block Pences Testimony to Grand Jury

Former Vice President Mike Pence still won't say whether he's running for president next year, and he won't speak ill of his ex-boss, former President Donald Trump. But in an interview with CBS News in Michigan on Wednesday, he also twice declined to commit to supporting Trump if he is the Republican presidential nominee.

Instead, Pence said he believes voters in 2024 will choose "wisely again," as they did in 2016. But said he thinks "different times call for different leadership."

"I'm very confident we'll have better choices come 2024," he told CBS News political correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns. "And I'm confident our standard-bearer will win the day in November of that year."

But if Pence does run, he's offering a vision of conservative principles and Trump-era like policies without the Trump-era personality. The former vice president said his message in a speech to young voters in Michigan Wednesday was to "resist the temptation of focusing on personalities or embracing a populism unmoored to conservative principle."

"You know, I joined the Republican Party in the days of Ronald Reagan, and I really believe that the conservative movement has always been animated by ideas," Pence said. "We've had big personalities, from Reagan all the way to Donald Trump. But I think it's the ideas of commitment to a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, limited government and traditional values that really I think created this movement in many ways and I think they still sustain it."

Pence said recently that he would make a decision on whether to run by "this spring," which now is just weeks away. On Wednesday, Pence said he and his wife, Karen, would continue to listen to the American people and should have a clear sense of whether he should run by this spring.

Pence told CBS News he and Karen are "continuing to give prayerful consideration to entering the race."

Asked if he wants to reflect a "pre-Trump Republican Party," Pence said he wants to be true to his calling in public life and would shun any campaign that wholly focuses on the negative.

"As I've traveled around the country, I've heard again and again that people look at the record of the Trump-Pence administration. They want to get back to our policies of a strong defense, American leadership in the world, a vibrant free-market economy, secure borders and conservative judges. But I also hear that they they want to see us get back to the kind of civility in politics that the American people show each other every day."

Pence, asked if entitlement reform would be a key piece of his platform, laid out what a Pence platform could look like.

"My wife and I are continuing to give prayerful consideration to entering the race for the Republican nomination for president," Pence said. "But I can assure you that if we choose to run, we'll bring that broad conservative agenda that's characterized my life and my career before. That means a strong national defense, it means standing up for America's place as leader of the free world. Confronting aggression, whether it's in eastern Europe or standing strong in the Asia Pacific."

"But yes, it also means promoting policies that will get the economy growing again but also advancing policies that will set our national budget on a sustainable pathway," he continued. "I must say, the American people have a demonstrated ability to do hard things. But it's only been at those times in our history when we've had leaders that were willing to be straight with the American people. Tell them what the real challenges are, what the solutions are. And if I'm called into that contest, I'll speak just that way."

The former vice president also defended his decision to challenge a subpoena in from the special counsel overseeing investigations into efforts by Trump and Trump allies to alter the results of the 2020 presidential election. Pence's team argues it's unconstitutional to compel a former vice president to testify in the case, although some legal scholars disagree.

"The notion of compelling a former vice president to appear in court to testify against the president with whom they served is unprecedented, but I also believe it's unconstitutional," Pence said, adding that he's "limited in what I can say about those proceedings."

The former vice president also declined to criticize other potential or declared candidates, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. But he did disagree with former Gov. Nikki Haley's position that there should be a competency test for politicians over 75 years of age.

"I come from southern Indiana, where people think most politicians should have a competency test," Pence joked.

"No, I think the American people can sort that out. I really do," he added.

Kathryn Watson is a politics reporter for CBS News Digital based in Washington, D.C.

Here is the original post:
Pence won't commit to supporting Trump if he's the nominee

Former Vice President Mike Pence has declined an invitation to the Conservative Political Action Conference, sources told ABC News.

The decision by Pence, who is debating a 2024 presidential run, comes as other notable figures are absent from this year's lineup.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who spoke at CPAC last year, has two events scheduled in Texas as CPAC gets underway in Maryland.

A spokesperson for CPAC told ABC News that neither Pence nor DeSantis are currently slated to attend.

"It's a missed opportunity for any potential Presidential Candidate to not address the thousands of grassroots activists at CPAC this year. Luckily, CPAC attendees will get to hear from every announced Presidential candidate and over 100 premiere speakers, including over 30 elected officials," Megan Powers, a spokesperson for CPAC, told ABC News on Saturday.

DeSantis' spokesperson did not respond to ABC News' request for comment. A spokesperson for Pence declined to comment.

Pence did not attend the event in 2022 and declined an invitation in 2021. This year's absences come as the chairman of CPAC -- which bills itself as the "largest and most influential gathering of conservatives in the world" -- is embroiled in a sexual assault scandal.

Earlier this year, a staffer for one-time Senate candidate Herschel Walker alleged that Matt Schlapp, the chairman of CPAC, "groped" and "fondled" his crotch while he was driving Schlapp back from a bar in Atlanta, according to a report from The Daily Beast. The staffer then filed a lawsuit against Schlapp and his wife, Mercedes, seeking $9.4 million for sexual battery and defamation, according to a report.

A statement from Schlapp's attorney at the time said the complaint is "false" and the "Schlapps and their legal team are assessing counter lawsuit options."

But some say the allegations have "exacerbated" issues for the organization.

"It shouldn't come as a surprise that CPAC is not attracting the big names that it once did. There's a feeling within the Republican Party that CPAC has long abandoned the traditional values that it once stood for," one GOP operative said. "The allegations against Matt Schlapp for allegedly 'pummeling' a man's 'junk' against his will have only exacerbated these issues and are likely to contribute to further decline by the organization."

Still, the event had drawn speakers such as former President Donald Trump and ambassador Nikki Haley, both of whom have declared their candidacy for 2024.

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who recently called for a "national divorce" between Republican and Democratic states, is also scheduled to speak.

Kari Lake, the Trump-backed candidate who lost her bid for governor in Arizona and pushed false claims of election fraud, will be the featured speaker for Friday night's Reagan dinner.

The CPAC announcement praised her as "a rare leader who captured the hearts of conservatives with her honest, bold message including closing the Arizona border and exposing widespread election fraud."

"CPAC is a great place for conservatives to come together, Lake said in a video posted on Twitter by Schlapp last week.

The event is scheduled to run from March 1-4.

Go here to see the original:
Mike Pence declines invitation to CPAC as event's leader comes under ...

Federal prosecutors have asked a judge to compel Vice President Mike Pence to comply with a grand jury subpoena for his testimony in a criminal investigation of ex-President Donald Trump for efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden, a new report says.

The sealed motion, filed in recent days with Chief Judge Beryl Howell in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., came after attorneys for Trump asserted executive privilege over Pence's subpoena, CBS News reported Thursday.

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the probe, obtained grand jury subpoenas compelling the testimony of Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner.

Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner served as senior White House advisors during her father's administration.

Trump previously sought to exercise executive privilege which allows certain presidential communications to be kept confidential over grand jury testimony in the probe, news outlets have reported.

He has also tried to invoke it in other recent legal matters, including a battle over the hundreds of documents seized by the FBI last summer from his personal residence at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. Smith also is leading a criminal probe of Trump in connection with that case.

Smith's motion to compel Pence's testimony in the election investigation asks Howell to uphold the legal authority of the grand jury subpoena, according to CBS, which cited people familiar with the case.

Pence's spokesman, when asked about the report by CNBC, pointed to CBS' reporting that Howell recently issued a gag order barring people involved in the probe from commenting on it.

Howell on Thursday rejected an effort by media outlets to access records related to the grand jury investigation.

A spokesman for Smith declined to comment to CNBC. An attorney for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pence last week said he would fight the subpoena.

"No vice president in American history has ever been compelled to testify against a president with whom they serve," Pence said.

Pence plans to argue that his former role as president of the Senate which he held by virtue of being vice president of the United States means he is covered by the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause, which can protect legislative branch members from legal threats related to their work.

An attorney for Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., cited that clause earlier Thursday, telling a federal appeals court that the Justice Department has no authority to search the congressman's cell phone as part of the agency's probe of Trump.

Separately, the FBI seized a classified document in a search of Pence's home earlier this month.

That consensual search was scheduled weeks after an attorney for Pence alerted the government to a "small number" of records with classified markings that were found at his residence.

Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed Smith as special counsel in November, in response to Trump's announcement that he is running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

At the end of his first term in office on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump urged Pence to help challenge the election results by rejecting key Electoral College votes for Biden.

After Pence refused,a violent mob of Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, sending the vice president and congressional lawmakers into hiding.

Pence, who is teasing a possible White House run of his own, said he believes there will be "better choices" than Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

Read the full report from CBS.

Continued here:
Trump investigation: Mike Pence testimony sought by prosecutor

Mike Pence is expected to fight his grand jury subpoena as part of the January 6 criminal investigation with the speech or debate protection a move that could prevent the special counsel from obtaining his testimony about key conversations with Donald Trump and members of Congress.

The special counsel overseeing the Trump investigations recently issued a subpoena to Pence a key witness with unique insight into a number of conversations with the former president and the efforts to stop the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Pence spoke to Trump one-on-one on 6 January 2021, when Trump was imploring him to unlawfully reject electoral college votes for Biden at the joint session of Congress, and was at a December 2021 meeting at the White House with Republican lawmakers who discussed objections to Bidens win.

The two interactions are of particular investigative interest to the special counsel Jack Smith as his office examines whether Trump sought to unlawfully obstruct the certification and defrauded the United States in seeking to overturn the 2020 election results.

Pence is not expected to ignore the grand jury subpoena, in recognition that some of the special counsels questions might pertain to issues beyond his role as presiding officer on 6 January a role the vice-president assumes when certifying a presidential election such as deliberations on election night, according to people familiar with the matter.

But Pence would invoke the speech or debate clause the constitutional provision that protects congressional officials from legal proceedings related to their work for testimony about his preparations for the day with Trump and members of Congress that the special counsel might not otherwise be able to obtain.

The issue for the special counsel is broadly whether the presiding officer at the joint session is protected by the clause, and if so, the extent of the protection for Pence in his preparations for assuming that role.

The crux of it is whether theyre going to treat him as a senator or representative whether he is covered by the text, said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

But if you get past the threshold question, the historical distinction between legislative and political functions seems to put Pences behaviour on the legislative side of the line, Vladeck said, adding that the clause would probably be absolute for any deliberations Pence had about preparing for the joint session.

Pences lawyer would probably argue that not only is the joint session a legislative function as the justice department has said in prosecutions against low-level January 6 rioters but the presiding officer is more than just a ceremonial or ministerial role.

The logic comes in part from the fact that the presiding officer at the certification acts like the presiding officer when Congress is normally in session, or the chief justice during impeachment trials, adjudicating objections and complex parliamentary matters of procedure.

And if Pence can successfully show that he is covered by the speech or debate clause, legal experts said, supreme court precedent suggests the protection is absolute and cannot be overcome even by showing an overwhelming need for Pences testimony or underlying criminal activity.

So long as Pence is entitled to the protections of the immunity, there would be no way for the government to overcome that privilege where it applies, unlike executive privilege, said Stan Brand, the former general counsel to the House of Representatives and partner at Brand Woodward Law.

The supreme court ruled 8-1 in Eastland v United States Servicemens Fund (1975) that the clause was absolute when applied, superseding a 5-4 decision in Gravel v United States (1972) that the protection did not immunize a senator from testifying in cases involving third-party crimes.

The Gravel decision could be problematic for the special counsel, since the court separately found that Senator Mike Gravels preparation with his aide to introduce the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record was protected indicating acts in preparation for legislative activity are off-limits.

With Pence, those two cases could be particularly instructive, since the caselaw appears to fall squarely on what the special counsel is expected to want most from him: his deliberations with Trump and members of Congress about using objections and fake electors to overturn the election results.

And in United States v Helstoski (1979), the supreme court reiterated the absolute nature of the speech and debate clause for members, which prevented them from being questioned in any other place than Congress.

The 6-2 majority opinion in Helstoski in particular rebutted Justice John Paul Stevens assertion in dissent, that the admissibility of speech or debate should depend on the purpose for which it is offered, finding instead that the clause does not refer to the prosecutors purpose in offering evidence.

A potential exception to the speech or debate clause surfaced in United States v Brewster (1972) and later in Helstoski in 1979 for promises to take future legislative action.

But for Senator Daniel Brewster, who had been charged for soliciting and accepting bribes in exchange for introducing bills, the supreme court ruled that while the promise to accept a bribe was not covered, the legislative acts he undertook to complete his side of the arrangement voting, debating remained protected.

The court found only the illegal arrangement was not protected suggesting that the question of whether Trumps conduct was illegal would not strip Pence of the privilege against testifying.

More:
Mike Pence effort to block January 6 testimony could succeed, experts ...