Don't threaten, just do it!

[triron]

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2019, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

[Fullduplexxx]

1. Im really damn sick of these games

[RKP5637]

2. K&R!!!!!!! n/t

[triron]

6. When will they learn?!

[RKP5637]

3. Like the GOP gets so scared of these threats ... n/t

[dalton99a]

4. Perhaps the threats should be strongly worded

[real Cannabis calm]

5. recommended to publicize

[gratuitous]

7. Yes, it's tiresome

But there are certain hoops to be jumped through before a subpoena will be issued. If and when this comes before a judge to force the Secretary of Defense to comply with a congressional request, the judge is going to want to be sure that all the procedural niceties were observed: Did you ask for these records? Yes? Did you give the Secretary a reasonable period of time to respond? Did the Secretary fail to meet that deadline or ask for more time? Did you inform the Secretary that the next step would be a subpoena? Did the Secretary fail to respond to the subpoena, if only to tell you to go jump in the lake? All right, you exhausted your administrative remedies, the court will now hear the arguments of the parties as to why Congress should ask for these records and, if it's a legitimate request (as it appears to be, which is why the court is involved), why the Secretary doesn't think he needs to respond to Congress.

If you don't go through all these steps, a judge will make you go back and do them before he or she will hear any motion to compel a response.

[triron]

8. This makes congress pretty ineffective imo.

[maxsolomon]

10. it exposes our constitution as a sham.

and trump knew it.

[triron]

12. I am increasingly disappointed in the constitution and our so-called 'justice' system.

[stopdiggin]

14. Uhmmm. OK. Guess that settles that. (nt)

[maxsolomon]

16. they have no timely means to force compliance with their oversight responsibilities.

mnuchin is running roughshod over their lawful requests. DOJ won't help them.

do you see this otherwise?

[stopdiggin]

17. do you see any (rational) recourse? (nt)

[maxsolomon]

18. obviously i don't. i already said as much.

if i'd said "toothless", would that be better? our constitution has been exposed as toothless.

[stopdiggin]

13. and your suggestion for a "more effective" congress?

somebody provides a decent explanation .....

[stopdiggin]

15. excellent explanation

Thanks, once again, for taking the time to lay out some of the "legal legwork" (and facts on the ground) involved. Apparently we need to keep hearing them ...

[Skittles]

26. yes, that's what they keep saying

then nothing ever happens

[triron]

9. knr

[spanone]

11. the committee SHOULD KNOW goddamn well why they are ignoring this request.

like they've fucking ignored every other request.

[elocs]

19. I don't click on tweet links so a hint for this cryptic thread would have been nice. n/t

[triron]

20. You can't see it? Quite a bit of detail I see.

[elocs]

21. "Don't threaten, just do it!" Who threatens? Just do what? A title should be like a headline

and tell you what the thread is about.

[triron]

23. According to?

[SoCalDem]

22. Unfortunately, while Dems are checking the regs..dotting our "i"s, crossing our "t"s

republicans are packing courts, breaking every rule, rampaging at will..

It's what we do. and it's why we lose a majority when we do finally get one.. we do not use the power we seek.

[triron]

24. Conplicitousness?

[triron]

25. kick for visibility