I came across an article in today’s NY Times: 13 Lawmakers Supoenaed in Bribery Trial (free reg required). From the article:
My question: what (legal) justification is there for lawmakers to not comply with a subpoena? Why would the subpoenas go unenforced?
As it turns out, I started a GQ thread concerning subpoenas in January of last year which was rather informative, but gives no indication of excusable noncompliance beyond “undue burden” and trade secrets.
Possibly the Speech or Debate clause: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=421&invol=491
But not Immunity from Arrest: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0606_ZO.html (Nor does freedom from arrest confer immunity on a Member from service of process as a defendant in civil matters, or as a witness in a criminal case.)
“Not comply” may imply, albeit with admittedly sloppy imprecision, that they intend to ask that their subpoenas be quashed, rather than that they intend to ignore them.