Efforts to erase the insurrection: Deletion of Jan. 6 database by Trump administration appears to violate federal law, watchdog says
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a federal watchdog group, has called for an investigation into the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) removal of its January 6th database, which contained details about criminal charges and convictions stemming from the 2021 Capitol attack. CREW believes the removal of this information likely violates federal law and has urged the Inspector General of the DOJ and the Archivist of the United States to take immediate action.
The letter sent by CREW highlights that the removal of this crucial database is part of a broader effort by former President Donald Trump to reshape or even erase the history of the January 6 insurrection. According to the letter, the action taken by the DOJ may be in direct violation of 44 U.S.C. § 3106, a statute that governs the lawful handling of federal records. This law requires the head of each federal agency to notify the Archivist of the United States about any unlawful removal, destruction, or alteration of records held by the agency. CREW claims that the DOJ’s failure to report the removal of this database to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) suggests non-compliance with this law.
The removal of the database was first noted following President Trump’s issuance of pardons related to the January 6th events. Reports revealed that only parts of the database remained accessible through the Internet Archive, with the rest scrubbed clean. Supporters of the pardon, including individuals who were directly involved in the Capitol attack, have celebrated the removal of the database. Some argued that the database unfairly targeted individuals involved in the riot by listing charges and accusations that were not always substantiated in court. Brandon Straka, a pardoned rioter, claimed that the DOJ database had become a tool for harassment, as it included information about individuals even when they were not convicted of certain crimes, negatively affecting their reputations and livelihoods.
Despite the claims of those who support the removal, CREW contends that the Jan. 6 database is an essential federal record. The database documented the DOJ’s actions related to the Capitol attack, including investigations and prosecutions, and thus qualifies as a federal record that should be managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. According to CREW, the database’s deletion without notifying the Archivist of the United States is a clear violation of federal regulations that mandate the reporting of unlawful or accidental removal of federal records.
The letter further emphasizes the legal consequences of knowingly destroying or altering federal records. Such actions can result in fines and imprisonment for up to three years. The watchdog group pointed out that no record of the DOJ notifying NARA about the database removal exists, and there is no evidence that the matter has been reported to the appropriate authorities.
In light of the database’s deletion, some have taken matters into their own hands to preserve the records. For example, one judge involved in the Capitol riot cases, Paul Friedman, has compiled his own list of defendants, documenting their cases in a 138-page document. This list serves as an alternative to the now-defunct DOJ database, offering a comprehensive record of the sentences and proceedings related to those involved in the January 6th insurrection.
The removal of the DOJ and FBI databases has raised serious questions about transparency and accountability in handling sensitive public records. While these actions may not have immediate consequences for those involved, the broader implications for how federal records are managed and the potential for historical erasure are significant concerns. As investigations continue, the question remains whether the deletion of the January 6th database will be addressed, and whether corrective actions will be taken to prevent future violations.
