Court Rules Rep. Scott Perry Must Share 1,600+ Communications in Trump Probe

( – The communications from members of Congress are not always protected by privilege from public scrutiny, as a December 19 ruling showed Republican Rep. Scott Perry from Pennsylvania.

The ruling is connected to the investigation being performed by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump, who refers to Smith’s probe as a “witch hunt.” Smith is seeking to prove that Trump and nearly everyone who worked for him in late 2020 and 2021 were trying to illegally disrupt the 2020 Presidential election. Smith has indicted Trump twice, although Smith himself was dealt a recent setback by the US Supreme Court in a way that works in Trump’s favor.

Most recently, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg decided that Rep. Scott Perry cannot hide thousands of communications between him and Trump. Perry had hoped that 1,659 emails, texts, and other electronic messages could be kept private under the privilege extended to members of Congress pertaining to their working “papers.” But the messages did not have much to do with Perry’s job as a legislator, Judge Boasberg ruled, and so do not qualify for protection.

This works in Special Counsel Smith’s favor, as he’s trying to get as much as he can from the files of all Trump’s allies and alleged co-conspirators to bolster his case that the 45th President tried to steal the 2020 election.

Rep. Perry’s files were first discovered when the FBI seized his phone in late summer 2022. That seizure was part of a probe into another Trump ally, Jeffrey Clark of the U.S. Dept. of Justice. At the time, Perry was trying to convince Trump to appoint Clark as the U.S. Attorney General, apparently in an attempt to get the Justice Department to question the legitimacy of the 2020 election and ultimately President Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump did not make that appointment, largely because of the prospect of a mass exodus of DOJ staff in protest.

Rep. Perry’s attorney has not yet said whether he will appeal the District Court’s ruling.

Copyright 2023,