Jim Banks opposes a Senate inquiry into Trump Jr. over the wedding celebration

U.S. senator from Indiana, writing on X

“Don Jr. is a businessman, not an administration official. There is no evidence he sold access to the presidency. That is the difference between him and Hunter Biden and it is not a small one. The Senate should investigate actual crimes, not manufacture fake ones.”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Post by Jim Banks (@Jim_Banks) on X, September 23, 2026 · Jim BanksComplete post 2102731295277080954, 12:06 PM EDT (16:06 UTC); all three paragraphs
Open source (opens in a new tab)Moreno, Banks warn of 'Russiagate 2.0' amid GOP push to probe Trump Jr. wedding party · The HillParagraphs beginning 'A day later, Banks responded' and 'We are not doing it again'

Source and context

Original post

Post by Jim Banks (@Jim_Banks) on X, September 23, 2026 (opens in a new tab) · Jim BanksComplete post 2102731295277080954, 12:06 PM EDT (16:06 UTC); all three paragraphs

About this source

Banks wrote in a post about a proposed Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into Donald Trump Jr. and the Kremlev-funded wedding celebration. The Hill independently reported the post and quoted the same passage.

Reporting

Moreno, Banks warn of 'Russiagate 2.0' amid GOP push to probe Trump Jr. wedding party (opens in a new tab) · The HillParagraphs beginning 'A day later, Banks responded' and 'We are not doing it again'

About this source

The Hill reports on Banks's post concerning the proposed inquiry, links to the original post, and quotes its central language. It corroborates the attribution and context but does not establish whether any underlying allegation is true.

Before the quotation

The post came amid public discussion of Curtis's request for a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into Trump Jr. over the Kremlev-funded celebration. The Hill says Banks wrote it after Sen. Bernie Moreno made a similar public argument.

After the quotation

The post ends by saying the Senate should investigate actual crimes, not manufacture fake ones.

How this statement is classified

Defended or excused

Case context: Should the Senate Judiciary Committee Subpoena Donald Trump Jr. Over His Kremlev-Funded Wedding Celebration?

The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.

Why this label?

Relative to whether the Judiciary Committee should subpoena Trump Jr. over the Kremlev-funded celebration, Banks argues against an inquiry and says there is no evidence Trump Jr. sold access. This defends Trump Jr. from the case's concern and rejects a subpoena based on it.

Recorded on
Published here
People and groups discussed
Donald Trump Jr.
Editorial split-screen composite of Donald Trump Jr. and Umar Kremlev.
Credit: Gage Skidmore; Dulverov; composite by The Dispute Index

More from this case

Read the full case

Tom Emmer

“This partisan distraction is NOT what the American people voted for!”
Read statement

Richard Blumenthal

“We have a real duty to investigate all of this just absolutely blatant corruption that’s so dangerous to our national security, like the Trump Jr. wedding gift.”
Read statement

Thom Tillis

“After the election, if everybodys still interested in it, then lets do it. If I were Donald Trump Jr., Id be offering this up immediately. Just lay it out there. How on earth did this happen? Because on its face, it looks pretty dumb. Colossally bad judgment at best.”
Read statement