Responding out of order (again). The subpoena I looked at was officially issued under the late Chairman Cummings’s authority, under his oversight and legislative jurisdiction.
“This subpoena is being issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform under the Rules of the House of Representatives in exercise of its oversight and legislative jurisdiction and after consultation with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.” https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-10-04.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20to%20Mulvaney-WH%20re%20Subpoena.pdf
No, you misunderstand me. I don’t think Mr. Giuliani has the authority to make a charge. It would be the Department of Justice making the charge, and Mr. Giuliani just knows what it is. I’m speculating here, but there’s a good chance that Mr. Giuliani had a hand in establishing probable cause for the investigation(s).
The rules carried over with H.Res.6, passed January 9, authorized committees to issue subpoenas “for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties” under Rules X and XI.
With regard to the October 4 subpoena served to Mr. Mulvaney, and subsequently rejected by Mr. Cipollone, my assertion is that the oversight committee (which issued the subpoena) doesn’t have jurisdiction (the right functions and duties) under rules X and XI.
Doesn’t today’s court ruling (RE: releasing the Mueller report) give the impeachment inquiry judicial and legal legitimacy? The ruling was “the impeachment inquiry is underway,” shutting down the defense that “the House has not invoked their full impeachment power.” Apparently, legally, they have. Right?
BTW, what’s the “reason” the GOP has for refusing to allow Congress to view the entire Mueller report? It’s supposedly so exonerating, why did it take a court legally compelling them to release it?
I take your argument as seriously as if the White House Counsel argued that the House used the wrong size paper, because the subpoena was only a “letter” and not “legal” in any way.
I think your operative word is, “yet.” Bill Barr is a terrible AG, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is exactly the opposite of a “rule of law guy,” and his arguments in the case before Judge Howell were contrary to virtually any understanding of legal precedent. They were supported by, well… not much of anything except his wish that his world view be accommodated, prompting the judge to comment, “Wow.”
I’ll read the full decision tonight, but notably that case involved the House Judiciary Committee, which is the committee I said did have jurisdiction.
I haven’t been following this case, but if Mr. Barr is filing ridiculous briefs to try and protect the president, contrary to reason and law, I might join you in disparaging him. At the present instant though, I don’t think the Attorney General has gone so far as to flat out defy a court order.
And there is no right to ignore a subpoena. If you don’t think it was properly issued, you can point this out to the issuer, and if they don’t agree, you can seek to quash it.
That there could be some conceivable case where the person or persons seeking to enforce the subpoena don’t have standing has zero to do with the duty to obey it. It just means you might get away with contempt of Congress because of a litigation error. It would not mean that you were in the right all along. Those quotes you posted talking about votes of the House to authorize the litigation to enforce the subpoena, are about an entirely different issue.
I mean, it’s the DoJ who actually enforces subpoenas. So when it’s the executive branch being subpoenaed, there’s no threat of penalty unless and until a court rules that it must be enforced. Functionally, ignoring the subpoena then arguing about it in court is the same as just asking the court to quash it.
Congress does have an inherent contempt power, but I don’t think that applies outside of the actual Capitol.
No, DOJ doesn’t enforce Congressional subpoenas. I’ve seen sources discussing that too, but it turns out that in practice, they don’t do it. So there’s Congress’s inherent authority, which would allow certain kinds of sanctions, but, they are somewhat limited and haven’t been used in a long long time, and then there’s the third option, which is what is used. Congress goes to court and asks the court to require compliance with the subpoena. If the court agrees, then it issues an order requiring compliance. Then, if the person still fails to comply, all of the normal processes connected to defying a court order come into play.
Max, do you notice how all of this discussion has nothing to do with any wrongdoing by the administration? And how, once you actually look into it, the administration’s arguments about the process keep falling apart? Can you see how those two things might be connected?
There is nothing wrong with the process. But focusing on bogus arguments about it can keep people from talking or thinking about the evidence of wrongdoing that keeps coming out of that process.
Like Fiona Hill’s testimony that after a weird meeting with John Bolton and Sondland et. al., Bolton, who was taken aback at the direction the meeting went in, told Hill to go see White House lawyers to establish that “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” referring to the plan to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.amp.html