Trump loses latest bid to block former US V-P Mike Pence’s grand jury testimony

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has denied Donald Trump’s latest effort to stop former vice-president Mike Pence from testifying before a grand jury exploring whether crimes were committed by Trump and his allies as they worked to undo President Joe Biden’s 2020 win.

The order from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Wednesday rejected a push by the former president’s legal team

to stop Mr Pence from being compelled to appear.

A federal district judge earlier in April had rebuffed Trump’s position that Mr Pence should be barred from testifying on executive privilege grounds.

Unless Trump asks the full DC Circuit to weigh in or petitions the United States Supreme Court to intervene, the order, which was filed under seal, clears the way for Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team to enforce the subpoena for Pence’s appearance. 

Mr Pence would be the highest-ranking former Trump administration official to go before the grand jury in connection with Mr Smith’s inquiry.

He has spoken publicly about rebuffing Trump’s demands to interfere with the certification of the electoral results by Congress on Jan 6, 2021 – but he has not had to do so under oath.

It was not immediately clear when Mr Pence would be scheduled to testify.

A spokesman for Mr Smith’s office declined to comment. Spokesmen for Trump and Mr Pence did not immediately return requests for comment.

Much of the DC Circuit activity is under seal, but Bloomberg News previously confirmed the appeal by Trump.

The public docket shows that a three-judge panel entered the order: Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, both nominated by former president Barack Obama, and Trump nominee, Judge Greg Katsas.

Separate from Trump’s unsuccessful executive privilege claim, Mr Pence had lodged a separate challenge to the subpoena on the grounds that it would violate a section of the US Constitution that shields members of the legislative branch from being forced into court to discuss their official activities. 

Mr Pence’s attorney had argued that because of the special role the vice-president plays as president of the US Senate, his activities related to presiding over the Jan 6 joint session would fall under that protection, known as the Speech or Debate Clause.

The full order from US District Chief Judge James Boasberg addressing the privilege claims raised by both Trump and Mr Pence is under seal.

In interviews and public statements, Mr Pence and his camp indicated that Trump lost on the executive privilege issue, and that the judge had agreed the Speech or Debate Clause applied to the vice-president. 

Mr Pence did not specify how Judge Boasberg drew the line between what prosecutors could and could not question him about going forward, but his spokesman announced on April 5 that he would not appeal the ruling.

Mr Pence, who had the role of presiding officer when Congress met on Jan 6, had been the subject of a pressure campaign by Trump and his allies to disrupt the certification based on the existence of slates of so-called fake electors in battleground states that Mr Biden had won. 

Mr Pence rebuffed the notion that he had legal authority to take unilateral action that day despite Trump’s entreaties, which were described in the final report by the special congressional committee that investigated the post-election period. BLOOMBERG