White House orders 2 former aides to defy House subpoenas
What if one or both of them testified anyway? What repercussions would there be for them?
They’d be fired. They might lose the legal counsel they receive as government employees and would have to hire their own lawyers. They might also lose job-related immunity.
They don’t work for the White House anymore.
They’d get the wrath of Donald on them. But there is really nothing that can be done if they choose to testify. There is no "contempt of the president statute as far as I know. Probably they don’t want to testify and are using it as an excuse. By the time this gets settled in the courts, the election might well be over.
Here is my take. First place, if congress cannot investigate a possible impeachment by subpoenas of white house papers and personnel, then the impeachment clause is a dead letter. Any court that ruled against the congress is ignoring the constitution big league. On the other hand, I also don’t think the house has any real expectation of impeaching the president; they want only to investigate him and the impeachment proceedings are the easiest way to do that. That’s also their excuse for asking for his tax returns which they have an absolute right to, but the executive is still blocking it.
Nothing. They cannot be held personally liable for obeying a subpoena.
Can they be held personally liable for disobeying a subpoena?
I don’t think they can as long as they can point to the POTUS’ claim of immunity from the subpoena.
Short answer no, after they go through with a Supreme Court fight and lose then Trump just pardons them. They are basically being told that the POTUS has their back if they defy congress.
If Trump is asserting some variant of executive privilege, (which in its original formulation would not mean people could just not show up, I think) then Trump could intervene and ask a court to enjoin the proceedings/questioning/answers/whatever. What the rights of the executive are will get sorted out, and then (I’m betting) the proceedings will continue with some limitations based on a much narrower understanding of executive privilege than Trump and his administration is asserting.
I do not at all understand how the Justice Department can be advising people to defy Congressional subpoenas though, when it is DOJ that prosecutes contempts of Congress, I think. (Not sure, can’t look it up right now.) It seems like there would be a big conflict there.
Yes.
Can the law society disbar a lawyer that the House judges guilty of contempt of congress?
You’re right. (In my defense, the Trump administration breaks so many laws, it’s difficult to keep up.)
We don’t have law societies here. The governing body in each state is typically called the [state] bar association, but it may just be called the state bar or something else. Convictions are sometimes grounds for disbarment, but disbarment or suspension is highly unlikely based on a political refusal to testify before Congress.
One could question how much that is worth, given the number of Trump lawyers & associates currently serving prison time.
[Moderating]
A reminder, all, that this is a General Question, not a Great Debate.
Does the President have carte blanche to pardon anyone he sees fit or is there a limit to that power?
If the Wikipedia article on pardons is anything to go by, he’s limited to pardoning people convicted of federal crimes (as well as crimes which have been convicted by a military court martial, and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia).
I remember this coming up during one of the trials of either Manafort or Cohen, where commentators noted that Trump would not have had the authority to pardon them if they were convicted of state crimes.
There’s also been the discussion as to whether the President has the power to pardon himself (to which I do not know the answer).
If, hypothetically, these people were guilty of a federal crime, disobeying the directive of someone who can pardon them for that crime seems like a suboptimal move.
The only limits on the Presidential pardon power is that it only applies to federal crimes, and it can’t be used in case of impeachment. Though of course, the voters might not approve.
Complete side bar, but welcome back, The Chao Goes Mu! Long time, no see!