Donald Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm, 1789 Capital, has denied allegations from House Democrat Representative Jamie Raskin that the firm exerted "insider political influence" through its business dealings. In a letter obtained by CBS News, the firm’s legal counsel, Alexander J. Merton, criticized Raskin’s investigative methods as a "spaghetti-against-the-wall approach" and stated that the firm would not comply with requests for confidential business records. Raskin, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has been leading an inquiry into whether 1789 Capital invested in companies shortly before they received federal government contracts or favorable policy decisions. Raskin cited several companies, including Polymarket, an online prediction market; Juul, an electronic cigarette company; Anduril Industries, a defense technology firm; and Vulcan, a small company involved in rare-earth mining. The Democrat requested records related to the firm’s business decisions and communications with the Trump administration. However, 1789 Capital did not provide the requested materials. Merton’s letter highlighted that one of the companies, Vulcan, had already been awarded federal contracts dating back to 2024—before 1789 Capital invested in it. The letter from Merton accused Raskin of making "unsubstantiated and emotional aspersions" about the firm and claimed that Raskin "repeatedly conflates separate entities, mischaracterizes transactions, and, in several instances, appears fundamentally at odds with the very sources it cites." The letter was sent on Tuesday, just one day before the Republicans’ first-ever midterm convention in Texas, which is set to begin. Trump Jr. is scheduled to attend the event in Dallas on Thursday, while President Trump is expected to deliver a keynote address on Wednesday. In recent months, House Democrats have sent numerous letters demanding information from government officials, members of the Trump family, and companies that have done business with them. While the Trump administration and private firms are not legally required to respond to such requests, the pattern of demands may indicate that Democrats are preparing for more aggressive oversight if they gain control of the House in the upcoming midterms. Such control would grant them the authority to issue subpoenas, potentially forcing compliance with their information requests.