Should the Dems refuse to honor subpoenas?

[Comshaw]

Democrats should oppose any subpoenas issued by Kevin McCarthy. That’s what he did

Should they? Or should they take the high ground, do the right thing? What say you?

Comshaw

 

[ll74]

They should work with their counsel and act in good faith accordingly.

 

[Lazaran]

Democrats should oppose any subpoenas issued by Kevin McCarthy. That’s what he did

Should they? Or should they take the high ground, do the right thing? What say you?

Comshaw

Anyone McCarthy would call has nothing to hide. Honor the subpoenas.

And just like here, the right-winger’s threads never turn out the way they planned.

The Democrats probably see any investigation as an opportunity to clown the republicans.

Bring it on.

 

[KeithD]

They should honor all subpoenas without using the fifth when they show up (like Hillary Clinton) and they should join any investigative committee they are invited to. And in both cases, they should note often and loudly that the Republicans didn't cooperate in these. And nearly every time they mention Kevin McCarthy, they should include the fact that he has been referred to the Ethics Committee for not honoring a congressional subpoena.

 

[Dribble]

It depends on who makes up the Committees. I do not expect the Fascist traitor to assign any Democrat to anything. In that case, why should we walk the higher road?

 

[KeithD]

I would think it's because Democrats haven't done any of the noxious shit Republicans constantly do and have nothing to fear in testifying. But then, if they have, they deserve to be pinned to the wall for it as much as Republicans deserve to be.

 

[SubzeroGirl]

They should do the opposite of whatever you recommend

 

[jomar]

The repubs in question were afraid while the dems have nothing to fear. I agree with KeithD-shove it in their face hard.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Impossible to five an informed answer to this question. Depends on who gets a subpoena, what for, and what legal grounds might be for noncompliance. All we know at this point is that the House will be investigating Biden‘s relationships with the family‘s foreign business partners, the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco, Covid 19 origins, the southern border, and the DOJ.

 

[phrodeau]

All we know at this point is that the House will be investigating Biden‘s relationships with the family‘s foreign business partners, the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco, Covid 19 origins, the southern border, and the DOJ.

Five witch hunts.

 

[Comshaw]

Impossible to five an informed answer to this question. Depends on who gets a subpoena, what for, and what legal grounds might be for noncompliance. All we know at this point is that the House will be investigating Biden‘s relationships with the family‘s foreign business partners, the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco, Covid 19 origins, the southern border, and the DOJ.

Why is it impossible to answer the question? You appear to be trying to tap dance around the subject and not express a solid opinion on it. The key word here is "trying".

"Depends on who gets a subpoena, what for, and what legal grounds might be for noncompliance." From this sentence I gather you believe the Dems should, under certain circumstances, refuse to honor a subpoena from a congressional committee. So what grounds would there be for them to refuse one? Or conversely, what grounds would require them to honor one? Should they use the same requirements that the Republicans did for refusing a subpoena? If not why not?

Comshaw

 

[ll74]

Impossible to five an informed answer to this question. Depends on who gets a subpoena, what for, and what legal grounds might be for noncompliance. All we know at this point is that the House will be investigating Biden‘s relationships with the family‘s foreign business partners, the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco, Covid 19 origins, the southern border, and the DOJ.

The only answer is - respond with counsel advice and in good faith.

I e. - don't respond in an effort to extend the timeframe in order to outlast the subpoena.

 

[phrodeau]

Biden‘s relationships with the family‘s foreign business partners: subpoena Ukraine officials.

The Afghanistan withdrawal: subpoena Taliban leaders.

Covid 19 origins: subpoena Chinese scientists.

The southern border: subpoena Central American officials

The DOJ: no way to enforce subpoenas.

 

[KeithD]

They should do the opposite of whatever you recommend

Of course, you'd say that. You'd fail to respond to a subpoena and plead the fifth on everything if you did show up, because you are in the sedition crowd.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Why is it impossible to answer the question? You appear to be trying to tap dance around the subject and not express a solid opinion on it. The key word here is "trying".

"Depends on who gets a subpoena, what for, and what legal grounds might be for noncompliance." From this sentence I gather you believe the Dems should, under certain circumstances, refuse to honor a subpoena from a congressional committee. So what grounds would there be for them to refuse one? Or conversely, what grounds would require them to honor one? Should they use the same requirements that the Republicans did for refusing a subpoena? If not why not?

Comshaw

It’s not impossible to answer the question. It’s impossible to provide an informed answer without knowing the circumstances and reasons for a subpoena. An answer based on what some Republicans did wrt subpoenas is not an informed answer.

 

[Lazaran]

The OP poses a yes / no question.

*Babyboobs tap dancing*

BabyBoobs

 

[KeithD]

The OP poses a yes / no question.

*Babyboobs tap dancing*

BabyBoobs

Yes, BB's post is bullshit. The congressional subpoena power is legitimate. Even if it's used maliciously, there's no reason not to show up and, by honest response, defeat its purpose. If you don't show up or you plead the fifth constantly, as the Republicans who are backing a coup attempt in the United States have done, you are showing your guilt.

 

[Comshaw]

It’s not impossible to answer the question. It’s impossible to provide an informed answer without knowing the circumstances and reasons for a subpoena. An answer based on what some Republicans did wrt subpoenas is not an informed answer.

Aw, I see. You don't want to commit to a solid answer. I understand. But let me see if I can understand what you did say.

You are saying that it depends on the circumstances whether a congressional subpoena is valid or not, right? So there is such a thing as a congressional subpoena that is invalid? And who gets to determine that criteria? The one who is issued the subpoena? If so then anyone can refuse to honor one any time for any reason, right? So a congressional subpoena isn't worth the paper they are written on?

Hmmmmm...

Comshaw

 

[Lazaran]

Aw, I see. You don't want to commit to a solid answer. I understand. But let me see if I can understand what you did say.

You are saying that it depends on the circumstances whether a congressional subpoena is valid or not, right? So there is such a thing as a congressional subpoena that is invalid? And who gets to determine that criteria? The one who is issued the subpoena? If so then anyone can refuse to honor one any time for any reason, right? So a congressional subpoena isn't worth the paper they are written on?

Hmmmmm...

Comshaw

At this point, BabyBoobs and their ilk are quasi anarchists who don’t really have (or want) an answer to anything.

Chaos, deflection, and distraction is the whole point / goal.

That ^ is the behavior you would expect from a wounded / failing animal in its death throes - See also: The Republican Party.

Making random noises, flailing, and lashing out.

Basically deaf, dumb, blind, and dangerous.

They don’t want to govern - they want to take government down with them.

SAD!!!

 

[SubzeroGirl]

Of course, you'd say that. You'd fail to respond to a subpoena and plead the fifth on everything if you did show up, because you are in the sedition crowd.

I’m more likely to be in the Nordstrom crowd.

You mean exercise my 5th amendment rights guaranteed by the constitution? Where are my pearls, they need clutching.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Aw, I see. You don't want to commit to a solid answer. I understand. But let me see if I can understand what you did say.

You are saying that it depends on the circumstances whether a congressional subpoena is valid or not, right? So there is such a thing as a congressional subpoena that is invalid? And who gets to determine that criteria? The one who is issued the subpoena? If so then anyone can refuse to honor one any time for any reason, right? So a congressional subpoena isn't worth the paper they are written on?

Hmmmmm...

Comshaw

Correct. Congressional subpoena powers are not unlimited. There must be advance “a legitimate legislative purpose.” So part of the decision process would be assessing that. Another factor would be assessing the risk of noncompliance. Ignoring the subpoena would not have any consequences unless Congress held the recipient in contempt of Congress. That would require a majority vote on the issuing committee and if passed, a majority vote by the chamber would be needed. If Congress deemed the recipient in contempt, they can then try to enforce it. That’s really hard. And even if successful, the penalty for noncompliance is up to $1000 fine and up to a year in jail.

To the hypothetical question posed about what Democrats should do, the smart answer is “it depends.” If they feel the GOP majority is staging political theater that does not serve a legitimate legislative purpose, ignoring the subpoena might be a smart and principled decision. If they feel subpoenas do serve a legitimate legislative purpose, compliance would be the better option.

 

[KeithD]

I’m more likely to be in the Nordstrom crowd.

You mean exercise my 5th amendment rights guaranteed by the constitution? Where are my pearls, they need clutching.

Yep, marks your ass as guilty of sedition.

 

[SubzeroGirl]

I very much enjoyed the innuendo.

 

[Comshaw]

Correct. Congressional subpoena powers are not unlimited. There must be advance “a legitimate legislative purpose.” So part of the decision process would be assessing that. Another factor would be assessing the risk of noncompliance. Ignoring the subpoena would not have any consequences unless Congress held the recipient in contempt of Congress. That would require a majority vote on the issuing committee and if passed, a majority vote by the chamber would be needed. If Congress deemed the recipient in contempt, they can then try to enforce it. That’s really hard. And even if successful, the penalty for noncompliance is up to $1000 fine and up to a year in jail.

To the hypothetical question posed about what Democrats should do, the smart answer is “it depends.” If they feel the GOP majority is staging political theater that does not serve a legitimate legislative purpose, ignoring the subpoena might be a smart and principled decision. If they feel subpoenas do serve a legitimate legislative purpose, compliance would be the better option.

So to condense, distill and try to understand what you said above: the legitimacy of a congressional subpoena is and should be determined by the one subpoenaed. To do so they only need be labeled as “political theater” to be ignored and the repercussions for ignoring one are so miniscule (in the scope of things) and so hard to enforce as to be irrelevant.

Okay. So let me ask outright, did you support the Republicans decision to ignore the subpoenas by the January 6th investigative committee? And if so would you support the Democrats doing the same thing for any investigation by the Republicans?

Personally I think that Congressional subpoenas should be mandatory and have some kind of real teeth to enforce them. Ignoring one should have severe consequences for ANYONE who does. It SHOULD NOT be left to the variables of congressional makeup either, IE; "we need to get a majority vote to sanction them". It should be codified into law. Just my opinion on it.

As far as should the Dems respond to subpoenas: Yes they should. I am an advocate of do what you ask of others. The Dems expected and demanded the Congressional people subpoenaed to respond. In their turn I expect them to do exactly what they require of others.

Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So to condense, distill and try to understand what you said above: the legitimacy of a congressional subpoena is and should be determined by the one subpoenaed. To do so they only need be labeled as “political theater” to be ignored and the repercussions for ignoring one are so miniscule (in the scope of things) and so hard to enforce as to be irrelevant.

Okay. So let me ask outright, did you support the Republicans decision to ignore the subpoenas by the January 6th investigative committee? And if so would you support the Democrats doing the same thing for any investigation by the Republicans?

Personally I think that Congressional subpoenas should be mandatory and have some kind of real teeth to enforce them. Ignoring one should have severe consequences for ANYONE who does. It SHOULD NOT be left to the variables of congressional makeup either, IE; "we need to get a majority vote to sanction them". It should be codified into law. Just my opinion on it.

As far as should the Dems respond to subpoenas: Yes they should. I am an advocate of do what you ask of others. The Dems expected and demanded the Congressional people subpoenaed to respond. In their turn I expect them to do exactly what they require of others.

Comshaw

Assessing the legitimacy of a congressional subpoena is a two way street. If members of Congress are not issuing subpoenas in good faith, the recipients should respond accordingly. As far as the Republicans who didn’t comply with subpoenas, I don’t care. They made their choices. The Congressional investigation was a joke.