Yeah. After all, even old New Yorkshit was once New Amsterdamshit.
So far has anyone actually defied a subpoena? I know many people are saying they INTEND to defy them, but so far all issued seem to give a reasonable length of time to comply. Have any subpoenas gone unanswered AND past the deadline?
“…the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, …”
This would be spectacular. But dammit, I just don’t see it happening.
Quote:
Sondland attorney Robert Luskin says that as the sitting U.S. ambassador to the European Union and an employee of the State Department, Sondland is required to follow the department’s direction. No reason for the direction was cited, he said.
Honestly, if I were Sondland and serious about wanting to testify, the easy response to that order would be for me to hand them my resignation on the way into court.
That is if he actually (cough, cough) wanted to testify.
But I guess it is nice of the Trump so-called administration to set the precedent that nobody has to do any fucking thing that they don’t feel like doing.
Not sure about the most recent ones, but Steve Mnuchin (Treasury secretary) simply ignored the ones that were issued for the IRS to provide Trump’s tax records back in the spring – when he did not provide them by the date on the subpoenas, it led to the legal procedings that are now going through the appeals process.
Edit: on reflection, I’m not sure if those were, technically speaking, subpoenas.
Don McGahn defied a subpoena of the House Judiciary Committee to come testify. That case is before the DC District Court. In late August, Democrats asked for an expedited ruling in that case to occur before the end of this year. (The Hill)
It’s all games. The court’s ruling is a foregone conclusion unless they are prepared to overturn the historic understanding of executive privilege. I doubt they will.
McGahn has said he will comply with the court’s order to testify if that is the ruling. (It will be.)
I believe Contempt of Congress is impeachable. As a historic note, the charge that the House felt was guarantied a conviction in Andrew Johnson’s impeachment was disparaging Congress by saying laws were improperly passed since not every state was represented** (although his words were not quite politic). If talking mean about Congress can bring you up on charges then clearly a criminal contempt can. It was THAT charge losing by one vote that pretty much ensured that Johnson would be acquitted. The famous “violating the Tenure of Office Act” charge (article I) was questionable since there was a question of whose term Stanton was approved for and was not even voted on.
I’m honestly shocked the Republicans never tried to impeach Eric Holder on Contempt of Congress but the day he was held in contempt, SCOTUS upheld Obamacare so to say the priorities of Republican congressmen shifted is an understatement.
**
So hold those failing to show up in inherent contempt and jail them. If the Republicans are going to such extraordinary lengths to violate laws and norms, then the Dems should use the full extent of their powers. It’s time for Congress to start flexing it’s fricking powers.
Does the SaA of the House have an enforcement arm? I mean, literally, how does this happen? Does the SaA walk over to the DOJ with a couple of goons and slap the cuffs on Barr? Does he/she wear a spiffy uniform with epaulets and everything?
Yeah. The Sergean-at-Arms is not going to arrest anyone. If someone directs their minions to willfully ignore a lawfully executed subpoena, then that someone would be impeached.
Now, if the Senate declines to convict on such a charge: then the concepts of Congressional oversight and separation of powers are defunct.
And what if Nixon had simply said “fuck you, I won’t”. And his entire party and a television network backed him up?
And what if Elliot Richardson had said “Archibald Cox is a partisan hack, and I fired him. So what?”
And what if Barry Goldwater, instead of urging Nixon to resign, instead swore that Nixon was the best president in history, the Democrats were engaging in a witch hunt, and he would support Nixon no matter what?
They’ll send them a sternly worded email and that will be the end of it.
Republicans are saying “fuck you” to the norms and to the legal processes. And getting away with it. So why would they not continue?
The House does have a nuclear option. It can shut down the government on 21 Nov when the current CR runs out. The government is not functioning because the President is violating the law. The House can shut down the government until Trump complies with all Constitutionally mandated oversight issues.
Yes, the Supreme Court (or other appellate courts) need to be asked to take a case on an expedited basis, or to skip intervening levels of appeal.
During Watergate, Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski struggled with bypassing the appellate court to take United States v. Nixon directly to SCOTUS; he worried that the Supremes would reject the appeal and tell him that it wasn’t really all that urgent (which would certainly have been a public relations disaster, if nothing else). In the end, however, both he and Nixon went directly to SCOTUS, where the court delivered a unanimous verdict upholding the district court’s order for Nixon to turn over tapes in response to Jaworski’s subpoena. (Nixon resigned 16 days after that verdict was handed down.)
That sounds like a terrible idea. Shutting down the govt. puts people out of work and threatens their pocketbooks. Why do that just because Republicans are behaving like criminals trying to hide something? Let Trump the Imbicile shut the govt. down unnecessarily should he feel like it again. In the meantime, I’d like to (and better, I might add) see these house Democrats rise to this occasion with the urgency and gravity it demands.
“The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury.” -Lindsey Graham, Dec 1998
That didn’t age well.
Well, there it is officially: “We simply will not cooperate in your impeachment.”
This is an older Reuters article from earlier this year (I think) discussing what could be done if trump continues to ignore subpoenas from the House.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1S02K8
Not sure if this is applicable. Would this mean civil fines against trump himself? He’d just refuse to pay them. I doubt anyone is going to actually try to arrest a sitting president even though this one richly deserves such.
Is it true that the letter from Trump’s lawyers ended with the words “Now go home and get your fucking shine box?”