Marc Short, who was the chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, reportedly appeared before a federal grand jury examining the Capitol riot.
The adviser made the appearance last week under subpoena and had been caught on camera leaving a federal court in Washington, D.C., ABC News reported Monday.
TOP PENCE AIDE SAYS BOSS TESTIFYING FOR JAN. 6 PANEL WOULD SET ‘TERRIBLE PRECEDENT’
He is now the highest-ranking former Trump administration official known to have testified before the panel. The report said Short declined to comment.
Earlier this year, Short, who was with Pence when rioters stormed the Capitol, delivered testimony to the House Jan. 6 committee. His testimony is believed to have come after receiving approval from Pence, per Axios.
In tandem with the House inquiry into the events surrounding the Jan. 6 riot, the Justice Department has been conducting its own sprawling investigation. So far, the DOJ has prosecuted over 850 individuals for crimes connected to the Capitol attack and has issued subpoenas against participants in an alternate elector scheme backed by former President Donald Trump and his allies.
The DOJ’s inquiry reportedly encompasses preparation efforts for the rally at the Ellipse near the White House that preceded the riot and how the rally was financed.
On the eve of the Capitol riot, Short had warned the Secret Service about security risks to Pence. He also told the Jan. 6 committee that Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, doubted Pence had the authority to decertify the election, Axios reported.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Short recently argued Pence should not testify before the Jan. 6 committee.
“I think it would be incredibly unprecedented,” Short said. “I think conversations between the president and the vice president, that there is a separation of powers that should be respected. And let’s keep in mind that there is currently a former vice president who occupies the Oval Office. Do you want Congress being able to drag up former vice presidents for certain subpoenas or for certain testimony? I think that would create a terrible precedent.”
