Judge rejects Trump's demand for 'missing' Jan. 6 docs — saying they don't exist

Judge Tanya Chutkan just shut down Donald Trump's latest conspiracy theory.

According to a court filing, Trump requested that prosecutors turn over "missing materials" from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack and attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.

But, according to a response from Chutkan Monday, those "missing materials" don't exist and thus can't be subpoenaed.

The committee's full investigation is online via Rep. Bennie Thompson's (D-MS) official congressional website.

"Defendant has not met his burdens with respect to his proposed Rule 17(c) subpoenas," Chutkan's ruling explained. "He has not sufficiently justified his requests for either the 'Missing Materials' themselves or the other five categories of documents related to them."

ALSO READ: You might think the NFL is racist. An insider says he’s about to prove it in court.

She cited the Scooter Libby case, which explained, “The first prong of this test — relevance — requires the Court to assess whether the documents sought have ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’”

Among the requests from Trump were any documents pertaining to subcategories — such as videos and transcripts of interviews, anything deemed private, or operational details pursuant to agreements with the White House and Department of Homeland Security.

"According to the letters Defendant cites, however, the Select Committee did not actually send any material under most of those subcategories," the judge wrote.

"With regard to the subpoena duces tecum for the written interview transcripts — subcategory (B) — the Government represents that it 'obtained these materials from the Select Committee, the White House, and the Secret Service, and it produced them to the defendant in its first discovery production more than two months ago,' itemized in a source log," it continues.

"Defendant does not dispute that report. ... The written transcripts are thus 'procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence' and therefore a Rule 17(c) subpoena for those transcripts is unnecessary."

You can read the full filing here.