Former Vice President Mike Pence Called On To Testify Over Conversations With Trump During January 6 Event

( – A Federal judge has rejected appeals from former President Donald Trump’s legal team to excuse former Vice President Mike Pence from testifying on conversations he exchanged with the then-president during the events of January 6, 2021, NBC reported.

Pence has been ordered to comply with a federal subpoena to testify on the events of the Electoral College notarization on January 6. The judgment was handed down by Chief Judge James Boasberg, the judge of a U.S. district court in Washington, D.C. overseeing the January 6 grand jury, sources told CBS News.

The former president is accused of attempting to subvert the results of the 2020 Presidential Elections, which Trump claimed he rightfully won. Trump maintains that the election was stolen through ballot harvesting practices on the part of the Biden campaign and that he was the rightful winner. Trump’s public statements on social media at the time of these events preceded the incitement of a violent rabble that stormed into the Capitol and detained Congress. Trump is now being investigated by a grand jury for his involvement in inciting this rabble.

While Trump’s legal team argued that Trump had special diplomatic immunity due to occupying the office of the president at the time of these events, the federal court ruled that Pence was not immune from testifying on the “potential illegality” of Trump’s conduct, NBC reported.

Pence had previously pledged to fight the subpoena, which was issued by Special Counsel Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating the January 6 events. Pence argued that he was protected by the Constitution’s “speech or debate clause” from testifying, CBS News reported. Pence referred to the Constitution’s Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, which gives U.S. government officials certain privileged exemptions for arrest or giving testimony while carrying out official duties, “except in cases of Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace.” The Supreme Court explained that this clause is ‘broad” and can’t be interpreted literally.

Copyright 2023,