Maybe everyone should just ignore a subpoena now. Everyone.

[ck4829]

And cite Carl Kline, if it's OK for him, then it's OK for everyone.

White House instructs Carl Kline, who greenlit Kushner’s security clearance, not to comply with Congress’ subpoena. Kline’s attorney says he’s listening to the WH over Congress and will not testify.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212039885

[True Blue American]

1. Perp walk?

[Peace06]

2. Ignore subpoenas

DEMS should punish to full extent of law to set the example of how ignored subpoenas will be handled. Who has final say on this before courts? Barr? Maybe we should impeach Barr first while waiting for trump investigations?

[uponit7771]

12. +1

[ancianita]

15. Absolutely. How they handle this will be interesting.

[NewJeffCT]

19. Sadly

I think if he is in Contempt, it's referred to the Barr/Trump DoJ for prosecution.

The House Sergeant at Arms hasn't arrested anybody since like 1935, but it might be time to put him to good use since these are unprecedented times.

[FBaggins]

3. No... not everyone. But separation of powers is a real thing

Congress does not have unfettered access to force executive branch employees to testify. This has been proven over and over again by almost every administration.

[watoos]

5. The only reason that executive branch employees

can refuse to comply with a subpoena is to cite executive privilege.

In the case of Don McGahn his executive privilege was waived.

[FBaggins]

7. There are several forms of executive privilege

Nor does the waiver of privilege in one situation mean that it cannot be asserted in another.

And, of course, McGahn is not the subject of the OP.

[watoos]

8. By several do you mean 2?

[FBaggins]

10. Nope

At least five.

And more could be added since neither boundary is in the constitution

[ancianita]

16. So please lay them out for us. DU needs a good look at this.

[FBaggins]

22. Here's a good treatment of the subject by the Lawfare blog

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congressional-subpoena-power-and-executive-privilege-coming-showdown-between-branches


The key takeaway is:

"But the precise contours of any executive privilege are contested, and the executive branch, the courts and Congress tend to take divergent positions that favor their respective constitutional roles."

[ancianita]

24. Since Contempt of Congress is the law of the land, and EP is contestable, who do you think will win?

It's not as if Trump won't use that legal norm with every subpoena, right?

Will winning the first court battle be enough to make him cave? Doubtful.

He'll probably make them battle in court over every single one, not to preserve the power of the executive branch, but to preserve his own.

I would think Nadler and others would see this as an attempt to obstruct congressional oversight, even if it's hiding behind the EP claim.

[FBaggins]

31. Contempt of Congress is no more the law of the land than EP is

You might want to actually read that article.

As for which will win in any given case? That remains to be seen... but there are far fewer cases of contempt votes actually causing the witness to testify then there are cases where the testimony never occurred.

[ancianita]

36. Wikipedia cites the SCOTUS cases that gave them law of the land status. Just sayin.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

[FBaggins]

44. And there are SCOTUS cases that also recognized executive privilege

Therefore... one is "no more the law of the land" than the other. As I said.

Neither is explicitly enumerated/codified. Both are implied/inferred from the constitutional separation of powers.

[vsrazdem]

38. In almost all of the contempt cases, it was regarding release of information.

In those cases, the subjects were voted on and found to be in contempt. Prior to actually going to court, they information was released to congress.

[FBaggins]

45. Mostly true... but it misses the point

All the times that executive branch employees refused to testify due to executive privilege and weren't even found in contempt.

Prior to actually going to court, they information was released to congress.

That's not universally true at all. It doesn't even have to go to court if the DOJ declines to prosecute.

[vsrazdem]

48. See post 26. It doesn't matter if DOJ declines to prosecute, but your point is well taken that

Congress needs to a grow a spine and start findings these people in contempt. The republicans had no problems doing it.

[vsrazdem]

50. They need to just do it.

Person Subcommittee/Committee Chamber Ultimate Disposition
Rogers C.B. Morton (Republican),
Secretary of Commerce November 11, 1975
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce Not considered Morton released the material to the subcommittee.

Henry Kissinger (Republican),
Secretary of State November 15, 1975
House Select Committee on Intelligence Not considered Citation dismissed after "substantial compliance" with subpoena.

Joseph A. Califano, Jr. (Democrat),
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare August 6, 1978
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce Not considered Califano complied with the subpoena about one month after the subcommittee citation.

Charles W. Duncan, Jr. (Democrat),
Secretary of Energy April 29, 1980
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations Not considered Duncan supplied the material by May 14, 1980.

James B. Edwards (Republican),
Secretary of Energy July 23, 1981
Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations Not considered Documents were delivered to Congress prior to full Committee consideration of the contempt citation

James G. Watt (Republican),
Secretary of the Interior February 9, 1982
Subcommittee of House Committee on Energy and Commerce
February 25, 1982
House Committee on Energy and Commerce Not considered The White House delivered documents to the Rayburn House Office Building for review by Committee members for four hours, providing for no staff or photocopies.

Anne Gorsuch (Republican),
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency December 2, 1982
Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation
House Committee on Public Works and Transportation House of Representatives After legal cases and a court dismissal of the Executive Branch's suit, the parties reached an agreement to provide documents.

Rita Lavelle (Republican),
EPA official April 26, 1983
House Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000

Jack Quinn (Democrat),
White House Counsel May 9, 1996
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Not considered Subpoenaed documents were provided hours before the House of Representatives was set to consider the contempt citation.

David Watkins,
White House Director of Administration
Matthew Moore, White House aide

Janet Reno (Democrat),
Attorney General August 6, 1998
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Not considered Documents in question were revealed during the impeachment of President Clinton.

Harriet Miers (Republican),
Former White House Counsel July 25, 2007
House Committee on the Judiciary[16] February 14, 2008 House of Representatives[17] On March 4, 2009, Miers and former Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush Karl Rove, agreed to testify under oath before Congress about the firings of U.S. attorneys

Joshua Bolten (Republican), White House Chief of Staff
Eric Holder (Democrat), Attorney General June 20, 2012
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[18] June 28, 2012 House of Representatives Found in contempt by a vote of 255–67[19][20]

Lois Lerner
Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division March 11, 2014
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[21] May 7, 2014[22] House of Representatives Found in contempt for her role in the 2013 IRS controversy and refusal to testify. The Department of Justice has been directed by the House to appoint special counsel. (See: Finding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress (H.Res. 574; 113th Congress))

Bryan Pagliano (Democrat)
IT director, Hillary Clinton aide September 13, 2016
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[23][24] Not considered House Committee voted, 19–15, to recommend Pagliano for a contempt resolution for failing to appear during a September 13th and September 22nd, 2016 hearing after being subpoenaed and submitting a written Fifth Amendment plea in lieu of appearing in person.[23][24][25] No contempt resolution was considered by the chamber but Committee member Jason Chaffetz subsequently addressed a letter to the US Attorney General, writing as an individual member of Congress, requesting DOJ prosecution of Pagliano for misdemeanor "contumacious conduct."[26]
Backpage.com ?
Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations March 17, 2016[27] Senate Found in contempt for failing to provide documents in an investigation into human trafficking.
Other legislatures in the U.S.

[uponit7771]

54. THIS !!!!

[machoneman]

51. Thank you, very informative. Sadly, we can't do much to enforce a witness to testify.

[ancianita]

53. If that's true, it sure sounds like a lot of chest beating drama, doesn't it. They need to build

enforcement mandates into these useless laws.

[Kablooie]

4. Exactly what I expected.

Trump will get everyone to just ignore the law.

If Congress pussyfoots around this we are done.
If Congress uses the law as it's supposed to be used it will be War and we will be done.
With the whole Republican party supporting anarchy over the rule of law we are done.

Putin's dream is coming true. He is systematically destroying the foundation of our government.

[lark]

6. Lock them all up!

how them we are not a totally fascist country yet.

[marble falls]

9. I think he'll show up.

[uponit7771]

11. What can congress do about people who are doing just this?!

[vsrazdem]

13. They can find them in contempt of Congress, and they better start doing it soon.

Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in federal prison.

[uponit7771]

14. NICE !!!

[watoos]

25. If the executive branch fails to enforce,

the fine and jail sentence there is nothing the legislative branch can do.

[vsrazdem]

26. Yes there is, enforcement through the federal courts.

Enforcement of a Criminal or Inherent Contempt
Resolution Against an Executive Branch Official
Although the DOJ appears to have acknowledged that properly authorized procedures for seeking
civil enforcement provide the preferred method of enforcing a subpoena directed against an
executive branch official, 260 the executive branch has consistently taken the position that
Congress cannot, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, invoke either its inherent contempt
authority or the criminal contempt of Congress procedures261 against an executive branch official
acting on instructions by the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional
subpoena. Under such circumstances, the Attorney General has previously directed the U.S.
Attorney to refrain from pursuing a criminal contempt prosecution under 2 U.S.C. §§192, 194.262
This view is most fully articulated in two opinions by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
from the mid-1980s,263 and further evidenced by actions taken by the DOJ in the Burford, Miers,
and Holder disputes, discussed below.264 As a result, when an executive branch official is
invoking executive privilege at the behest of the President, the criminal contempt provision may
prove ineffective, forcing Congress to rely on other avenues to enforce subpoenas, including civil
enforcement through the federal courts.

[watoos]

33. How long will that take?

When Obama refused to release documents on Fast and Furious it took 3 1/2 years.

[FBaggins]

47. Actually... some documents were never released

There are multiple variations of executive privilege. A couple categories withstood not just the contempt vote, but also the courts.

[ancianita]

29. According to what's in the lawfareblog link above ...

shifting resolution of interbranch privilege disputes to the courts undermines Congress’s ability to maintain its place as a coequal branch in the constitutional scheme.

It could also mean that if the courts side with Congress, they could strengthen its powers in the people's interests in continuing the Special Counsel's investigation.

One example of context is the Contempt of Congress charge against Eric Holder in Darrel Issa's Fast and Furious Investigation.

January of 2016—a full three and a half years later ... a federal judge rejected Obama's assertion of executive privilege to deny Congress access to the records on the grounds that “under the unique and limited circumstances of this case, ... the qualified privilege must yield, given the executive’s acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the investigation, and the fact that the Department itself has already publicly revealed the sum and substance of the very material it is now seeking to withhold.

So "legitimacy," and "publicly revealed sum and substance" seem to win out over executive privilege claims in this context as well.

[vsrazdem]

32. Yes, that's how I read it as well. I'm sure it would be a fight, but could be worth having.

Amazing how these jerks keep citing executive privilege, when it can only be invoked by the president, not them.

[ancianita]

35. So, if there is a fight, will he be named? Or will Trump be named? He could lose. 45 could win.

[ancianita]

17. If they can't do anything about this, they'd better explain why not, and why they issued it at all.

[Historic NY]

18. He is in the Pentagon now....

[link:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/white-house-security-clearance-suspension/index.html|]

[UCmeNdc]

20. Carl Kline should not be allowed to ignore congress. It will be the start of a decline in the rule

of laws. This is bad!

[doompatrol39]

30. Start?!?!? START in the decline?!?!?!

We are nearing the bottom. The start was long ago.

[AllaN01Bear]

21. time to send the master at arms after him, or are we no longer a nation of laws?

if a dem did all this omg.

[Firestorm49]

23. Then haul his sorry ass in in handcuffs!

[beachbum bob]

27. WH and trump will learn the hard way with what the House can do

Can't wait for the Sargent of arms to go to Kline's house to arrest for contempt of congress

[doompatrol39]

28. But....I thought subpoenas were better than impeachment?!?!

That's what the fainting couch crowd on here who says we can't (I mean shouldn't) start impeachment hearings because we can just subpoena members of the administration and get all the relevant information we need to just expose their malfeasance.

Are you trying to say that a group of people with zero respect for the law and who have received next to no consequences for their dismissal of said laws are going to just.........continue to ignore them?!?!

Shocked! I'm shocked!

[watoos]

37. Yes, you have nailed it,

Republicans will fight every subpoena right up to the SC. By the time it dawns on Democrats that there is only one way to bring justice to Trump and his crime family it will be too late, it will be election time.

The only option that Democrats have to bring justice to our nation, is impeachment. Will the Senate convict? No, but the hearings will change the narrative, should give us all of the grand jury information, should better expose, in public, all of the evil that Trump has done. If after Democrats have impeached Trump and Republicans still stand by him in the Senate, and Trump wins, then our democracy is doomed, but at least we Democrats did all that we could.

[Honeycombe8]

34. Everything will be a fight. It has to be taken to Court for sanctions, I guess.

Whatever the next step is.

This won't be easy. All Republicans are going to OBSTRUCT at every level.

[watoos]

40. That is Trump's plan,

to delay everything right up to the election. Trump and Barr won't just play defense and obstruct, you heard what Barr said. He is going to investigate the FBI and Democrats who led a witch hunt against Trump. Trump is going to put Hillary back on the ballot in 2020.

[CrispyQ]

52. I hope she & Obama both have an emergency suitcase packed.

Everyday this asshole is in office I grow a little less confident that our representative government will survive. My husband has said that the division in the 60s was worse, but now he agrees that the country is more divided today than it was then. Forty years of unchallenged hate radio is a big part of the problem.

[anarch]

39. maybe everyone should just ignore all laws, because they are obviously meaningless at this point

We'd probably better all start aligning ourselves with some kind of local warlord for protection, because that's where we're headed if the rule of law is abandoned (which the fucking Republicans have done already)

[duforsure]

41. Coming from the candidate who ran on

law and order, the opposite of yet another claim of his. All he's done is promote lawlessness, and disorder and show contempt for the rule of law,and sown disorder wherever he goes.

[zaj]

42. New crimes of obstruction?

[malaise]

43. I have never seen such lawless behavior

ITTMF!!

[barbtries]

46. exactly.

this is unconscionable. the contempt being shown toward congress is symptomatic of the overall breakdown of the rule of law promoted by trump and republicans. it just cannot stand. it's so frustrating!

[NYMinute]

49. If he doesn't show up, convict him of contempt

and haul him to the jail.