The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

House Jan. 6 committee requests information from and meeting with GOP Rep. Jim Jordan about his contact with Trump

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, July 27, 2021. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob is seeking information from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), one of former president Donald Trump’s staunchest allies on Capitol Hill.

Jordan has previously said that he cannot recall how many times he spoke with Trump on Jan. 6 but that they spoke at least once.

Also on Wednesday, a federal judge denied a motion by Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, for a temporary restraining order against the select committee over subpoenas it has issued against him.

In a letter to Jordan on Wednesday, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the select committee investigating the attack, wrote, “We understand that you had at least one and possibly multiple communications with President Trump on January 6th. We would like to discuss each such communication with you in detail.”

The House select committee investigating the attempted insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 faces an uphill battle with former Trump administration officials. (Video: Blair Guild/The Washington Post)

Thompson also asked for details of any communications Jordan had on Jan. 5 or 6 with Trump’s legal team, White House staffers, members of the “war room” team that assembled at the Willard hotel ahead of the attack and any other individuals “involved in organizing or planning the actions and strategies for January 6th.”

He asked Jordan to meet with the panel on Jan. 3 or 4, 2022.

“The American people deserve a full and accurate accounting of what happened on January 6th,” Thompson wrote. “We aim to make informed legislative recommendations taking account of all relevant facts.”

A spokesman for Jordan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The request marked the second time this week that the committee has sought information from a sitting member of Congress. On Monday, the panel contacted Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) for information about his communications with Trump White House officials.

That letter marked the first significant action the committee had taken to obtain information from a sitting member of Congress. The pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 was trying to stop the affirmation of Democrat Joe Biden’s election win. The attack resulted in the deaths of five people and injuries to about 140 members of law enforcement.

Perry on Tuesday rebuffed the committee’s request for communications and voluntary testimony, declaring in a statement that he “will continue to fight the failures of the radical Left.”

“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 U.S. House of Representatives,” Perry said.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had sought to put Jordan on the bipartisan committee investigating the attack, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected Jordan and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) for the committee, citing their “statements and actions” and the need to ensure “the integrity of the investigation.”

In the months since the Capitol attack, Jordan has given conflicting answers about his communications with Trump that day.

The Washington Post reported in May that Jordan suggested he spoke with Trump on Jan. 6. At the time, Jordan rejected the idea that he or others should be subpoenaed to testify about their interactions with the former president.

“I think this commission is ridiculous, and why would they subpoena me? I didn’t do anything wrong — I talked to the president,” Jordan said in May. “I talk to the president all the time. I just think that’s — you know where I’m at on this commission — this is all about going after President Trump. That seems obvious.”

In July, Jordan said he was not certain exactly when on Jan. 6 he spoke with Trump. Then, in an August interview with Politico, Jordan confirmed for the first time that he spoke with Trump “more than once” on Jan. 6.

During a House Rules Committee hearing in October, Jordan struggled to answer questions about his communications with Trump and told the panel that he doesn’t recall the number of times he spoke with Trump that day. He also said he had never spoken with Trump about a coordinated effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Earlier this month, Jordan declined to say whether he participated in a Jan. 5 briefing with Phil Waldron, a retired U.S. Army colonel who was working with Trump’s outside lawyers.

During that briefing, Waldron shared a 38-page PowerPoint presentation that outlined proposals to challenge the 2020 election.

“I think this whole thing is a complete farce -- Mark Meadows is a good man,” Jordan said, referring to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who was held in contempt of Congress last week for defying a subpoena issued by the Jan. 6 select committee. “But this whole committee is just like, what a sham. I mean, the American people are fed up with it. But Democrats got nothing else to talk about.”

The panel’s efforts to investigate the Jan. 6 attack received a boost Wednesday when a federal judge denied a motion by Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, for a temporary restraining order.

U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven ruled that Flynn’s request did not meet the requirements needed to obtain such an order, including proving that “irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted” and “that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.”

Flynn had sued the select committee Tuesday in an effort to block the panel from obtaining his phone records and requiring him to testify in the Jan. 6 probe.

Flynn failed to comply with many of the procedural requirements that the court has in place to determine if a restraining order should be granted, Scriven ruled. She wrote that Flynn’s failure to provide such information was “fatal” to his request. A lack of explanation as to why Flynn should not be required as well as why doing so would be considered “impractical,” as his lawsuit stated, was also factored into the judge’s ruling.

“In addition, there is no evidence that Flynn’s counsel made any effort to provide notice to Speaker Pelosi, who is not a member of the Select Committee and who is sued in her official capacity as Speaker of the House,” Scriven ruled.

“Flynn may refile his Motion if he believes that he can comply with the procedural requirements discussed above,” she added. “If Flynn chooses to renew his request for a temporary restraining order, he must adequately explain why injunctive relief is necessary before Defendants have an opportunity to respond.”

Jacqueline Alemany, Tom Hamburger and Beth Reinhard contributed to this report.