BREAKING: The Select Committee has issued subpoenas to four individuals with close ties to...

[demmiblue]

BREAKING: The Select Committee has issued subpoenas to four individuals with close ties to the former President who were working in or had communications with the White House in the days surrounding the January 6th insurrection. Read More:

Subpoenas were issued to:
- Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
- Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Daniel Scavino
- Former Defense Department official Kashyap Patel
- Former Trump advisor Stephen Bannon

Chairman @BennieGThompson instructed the witnesses to produce materials and appear at depositions in the weeks ahead.

Link to tweet

[msongs]

1. what's the odds of these subpoenas being enforce lol nt

[dem4decades]

16. I know, has any of those crooks ever responded to a Congressional subpoenas?

No they just ignore them and go on their marry way.

[lagomorph777]

24. Zero. :-(

[Bev54]

29. Will it make a difference with a different AG and party?

[pazzyanne]

43. We can hope! nt

[hlthe2b]

2. All names I would have hoped to be prioritized. GOOD!

[malaise]

3. Happiness is

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215886181#post24

[demmiblue]

6. Lol!

[MontanaMama]

8. You called it!!!

[malaise]

10. The Committee rocks

Here we go

[C Moon]

44. :O

[malaise]

49. Wasn't a rocket science call

Had to be done first week back and it was never going to be a Friday news dump.

[C Moon]

54. ...

[AllaN01Bear]

4. cant these people be charged w contemtive congress if try to ignore them?

[malaise]

17. Watch the ride

Contempt and then they will be locked the fuck up - this is serious

[triron]

36. I wish but not optimistic.

[demmiblue]

5. Here is the letter to Meadows:

Link to tweet

[Bev54]

32. The thing is with these assholes, they do not know what information Biden

may give to the committee and will make public.

[mcar]

35. Can't be clearer than that

[luv2fly]

7. It will be interesting to see what happens if they refuse n/t

[everyonematters]

12. They will refuse, and will the American people care. That is the big question.

[C Moon]

45. Will the media care?

[JohnQFunk]

70. Oh hell 𝐘𝐄𝐀𝐇

You can bet that the attempted overthrow of the US governemnt will attract eyeballs and generate ad revenue.

[Bev54]

34. count on it, that is likely why they are first, they will have to go to court

and the interim they can be sending subpoena's to those they think might cooperate.

[dchill]

9. Get a subpoena from the Jan6 Committee?

There's your sign!

[Cryptoad]

13. Con gress has not enforced any ,,,,

subpoenas in over four years,,,,,, u really think that is g oing to change?

[Grasswire2]

21. It took six months to even get Barr under oath.

And then he tap danced.

[lagomorph777]

25. And then he skated away.

Should've been arrested.

[Grasswire2]

52. yes

that exchange of his with Harris still pi$$es me off.

[Progressive Jones]

50. That was then. This is now. nt

[JohnQFunk]

72. Yes. The Republic depends on it, and Schumer, Pelosi, and Thompson know that.

[MagickMuffin]

14. I certainly hope this goes DEEP

As deep as it needs to go. Keep digging deeper and deeper. Feel your body starting to dig, deeper and deeper, just listen to my voice, deeper and deeper.

[Botany]

15. Didn't Mark Meadows' niece file the paperwork to get

the pre-riot party permit

[BlueIdaho]

18. I served on a jury

Where a potential juror didn’t show up for duty. The judge swore out a bench warrant and had him brought to court in handcuffs in 30 minutes. Do you suppose these pampered scofflaws will be given the same treatment if they ignore a subpoena? My guess is no.

When will we get serious about the consequences for ignoring the law?

[wnylib]

40. Congress has had people arrested many times

in the past when they ignored subpoenas. With a Dem president, Dem AG, and Dem majority in both houses, I don't think that Madam Speaker will let it slide if they don't show.

They might hide, though, to avoid being arrested. But Biden has records to release to the committee. Those records will speak, even if the subpoenaed people refuse to.

[BlueIdaho]

47. Thank You!

For your perspective.

[wnylib]

51. There is much more that Congress can do.

I mentioned it in another post. Can't provode the link from my phone, but the Wikipedia entry under "Contempt of Congress" spells it out - the Congressional authority, the possible consequences to the scofflaw witnesses, and the specific procedure for carrying out arrests, fines, and incarceration. According to this Wikipedia entry, so long as Congress or its committee meets 3 legal criteria, the courts cannot intervene.

[malaise]

66. Great post

[StarfishSaver]

73. That's not true

There have been times in the remote past when Congress had people arrested, but it has not happened many times and it also happened before some laws were changed that restricted the sergeant at arms' ability to arrest anyone off of Capitol grounds.

The only reason Congress' inherent contempt authority was an issue recently is that the Justice Department, which has the responsibility for enforcing congressional subpoenas, did not do its job in the Trump administration. That is no longer a problem, so Congress will have no need to try to enforce subpoenas on its own. The Biden Justice Department can prosecute any contempt of Congress - these witnesses surely know that andl are unlikely to thumb their noses at Congress the way Trump officials did previously.

[dem4decades]

19. Meaningless, they will just laugh at those subpoenas.

It's so disheartening, all the time, none of those bastards ever pay a price.

[kairos12]

20. They will never show. Chump showed subpoenas mean nothing.

[essaynnc]

22. But, you forget....

They aren't the pResident, and they can't claim executive privilege, now can they? And it's too late for the orange guy to pardon them, right? Even if they are, it's to testify, not be accused of a crime.....

[AZSkiffyGeek]

23. Wow, now all the people whining they wouldn't do anything

Are now whining that they won’t enforce anything.

[msongs]

27. not enforcing is pretty much the same as not doing anything nt

[AZSkiffyGeek]

41. We get it

[CatWoman]

37. fucking sickening, isn't it?

[Grasswire2]

53. just stop, please. nt

[bucolic_frolic]

26. Rule of law is dead if subpoenas are unenforceable

I know a Congressional subpoena, not a judicial one. SCOTUS will rule ... it doesn't want to side with one branch or the other. Sort of muting Marbury v. Madison.

[wnylib]

46. Congress and its committees have the authority to

subpoena people for testimony and to arrest them if they refuse, without SC involvement. Congress also has the authority to levy fines on people who refuse a Congressional subpoena. They can even issue an incarcerstion sentence.

Wikipedia explains the circumstances when this authority applies and the specific procedures for carrying out arrests, fines, and incarceration. It's at their "Contempt of Congress" entry.

[bucolic_frolic]

58. Thanks

So when Trump officials and ex-officials ignored subpoenas, it was just Congress not enforcing them. I thought there was talk at the time of it bouncing between courts to see if they were enforceable.

[wnylib]

65. Trump and his cronies were claiming

executive privilege. It would have involved a court battle then because executive privilege is a legal issue for a sitting president regarding separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. I think he would have lost in court because Congress does have oversight authority. But I am not a legal expert, so I could be wrong on that. At any rate, since timing was important, and to avoid being bogged down by litigation, the House proceeded with what it had, without witness testimony.

But this time, as Biden has pointed out, executive privilege does not apply since DJT is no longer president. There is no executive privilege for former presidents.

So there is no reason for the House Select Committee not to proceed with its full authority.

[StarfishSaver]

61. Congress's authority to arrest people for contempt is not as broad as people think

Among other things, they have very small geographic jurisdiction and no criminal authority. And even if they did manage to arrest someone pursuant their inherent contempt authority and the court didn't immediately release them under habeas corpus (which it would), there was still no way to make anyone actually testify, since contempt goes to the refusal to appear, not the refusal to testify if they decide to invoke a privilege or otherwise skirt questions.

We also need to remember that only DOJ can charge and prosecute people for contempt of Congress and until January, DOJ was under Trump's control and there was no way in hell they were going to enforce any Congressional subpoenas.

[wnylib]

68. Granted that Wikipedia is not

a perfect reference, but its Contempt of Congress entry says that Congress does have arrest authority and can have a witness forcibly brought to Congress to testify. It gives past examples of this and spells out in detail the procedures to be followed. It also says that Congress can fine the witness or even have the witness incarcerated for a period of time, up to a year, I believe. There are limits set on the fine, too.

[StarfishSaver]

71. Theoretically, Congress has arrest authority

But in reality, that's not as simple as it sounds. For example, the Sergeant-at-Arms' jurisdiction is limited to Capitol complex. Unless the witness is on Capital grounds, the sergeant of arms has no authority to take them into custody.

Also, as soon as an arrest warrant was issued, the witness would likely go straight to court to get a rid of habeas corpus ing the warrant or, in case they've already been arrested, ordering their release .

And even if, by some bizarre set of circumstances, they were taken into custody and brought before the committee, there's no requirement that they actually answer any questions or provide any information helpful to the committee.

[wnylib]

76. I'm using the Wikipedia entry as my source

because it is in language that a lay person can understand. But it is pretty detailed. I would provide a link and cut and paste the parts that I am referring to, but I can't get my phone to do it.

At one point in the procedure for arrest, the case can be referred to the DC District Court for a grand jury.

So, my question is, Wouldn't that coart be able to compel an arrest? For example, Trump no longer lives in NY, but NY courts are conducting investigations of him. If he were indicted by a grand jury, the indictment would be valid regardless of his current residence. So why would DC be limited in its jurisdiction regarding charges? Since the case goes to a US district court, coudn't a US marshall do the arrest?

In the past, there was a contempt arrest in which the party filed for a writ of habeas corpus. The SC court ruled against him, saying that Congress had acted legally.

Of course the current SC is different, but there is a precedent in favor of Congress.

[StarfishSaver]

78. I understand

But while Wikipedia can be helpful in some instances, it is not a legal authority.

Regarding your question about arrests, your conflating two different bodies and jurisdictions .

Anything related to the courts and grand juries are within the judicial system and under the jurisdiction of DOJ, the US Attorney and the federal courts. You're right that the court can order US Marshals to make an arrest for contempt, but that would be for contempt of court not contempt of Congress. A court would not order and arrest for contempt of Congress.

The procedure would be that once Congress determines a witnesses and contempt, they refer the matter to the US Attorney who would prosecute the contempt as a criminal or civil matter and seek an order from the federal district court compelling the witness to appear. If the court orders the witness to appear and the witness continues to refuse, this would no longer be a question of contempt of Congress, but it would be a contempt of court (i.e., refusal to comply with the court order that they appear).

In that instance, the court could order the US Marshals to arrest the witness and hold them in custody until they agree to testify.

This is very different than Congress issuing a warrant and ordering the house sergeant at arms to arrest a witness. Among other things, unlike the US Marshals, the Sergeant-at-Arms has an extremely limited geographic jurisdiction.

Over the last few years, there was no point in Congress referring the contempt charges to DOJ because they knew Trump's justice department would never enforce the subpoenas. But things are different now. If these witnesses defy the subpoenas, Biden's Justice Department surely will take them to court.

[wnylib]

81. Thanks for clarifying it.

And for making me happy to know that the DOJ under Biden CAN haul their asses in line. Makes my day just to contemplate it.

[Mike Nelson]

28. Great news!

... but I wonder what will happen to their subpoenas? We've seen the routine... #1. Don't show... #2. Lie... We need consequences!

[StarfishSaver]

62. The Justice Department prosecutes Contempt of Congress

There's a reason subpoenas weren't enforced in the last few years.

We now have a different Justice Department

[BlueLucy]

30. They won't comply with the subpoenas...

If they do they'll plead the 5th.

[Marius25]

31. Let's see if they ignore the subpoenas or claim executive privilege

I still can't understand why Bannon hasn't been arrested yet. He literally admitted in public that he helped plan 1/6 with the intention of overthrowing the Biden presidency and keeping Trump in power. That's treason and sedition.

[Captain Zero]

57. I'm hoping Bannon gets Epstein's old jail cell.

nt

[malaise]

33. Chris Hayes is delighted - it's all Subpoenas for prime time

Straight to the critical witnesses

[CaptainTruth]

38. Where's malaise??? They predicted this, this morning...

[malaise]

42. Happiness is #3

They who - I am just one lil ole lady

[blogslug]

39. Yes, please

[DET]

48. What Is The Process?

I assume that these four will file some kind of bogus lawsuit that will take forever to wend it’s way through the courts. Does that immediately shield them from further consequences (e.g., arrest for contempt)? Would a lawsuit be expedited through the courts, given the gravity of the matter?

If they are eventually ordered to testify by the court, and they don’t show, are they subject to arrest? If so, who would arrest them? What is the likelihood that they would actually be arrested?

If they actually do eventually show up before the committee, can they claim the fifth amendment or does that just apply to judicial proceedings, which this isn’t? Can they simply refuse to answer the questions? I assume that they will show a remarkable degree of memory loss regarding the circumstances around the insurrection. Can they somehow be compelled to jog their memories or face legal consequences?

Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer.

[gab13by13]

55. Trump will sue

and claim executive privilege. He has no executive privilege since he isn't president. With that said, I expect it to go to a district court, an appeals court, and probably the Supreme Court.

Bannon has zero case for executive privilege of the 4 people subpoenaed since he wasn't working in the Trump administration.

This is why I have been crying for Dems to hurry up. Republicans don't plan on winning these court cases, just delaying them.

Time is the most important issue for the select committee.

[StarfishSaver]

64. Trump can still claim executive privilege since he was president at the time

But I don't see how it can apply to Bannon since he was not a government employee during the relevant period.

[gab13by13]

67. He isn't president now,

only president Biden can claim executive privilege now, that's what impeachment lawyer Dan Goldman said tonight. Trump will sue but should lose.

[StarfishSaver]

69. That's not true

I thought that previously, but was corrected

He can invoke executive privilege for communications he engaged in while he was president.

He will probably lose but not because he has no standing as a former president

[kentuck]

77. I think you are right that he will claim some sort of privilege and take it to court...

But, I really cannot see any judge upholding the "executive privilege" claim when the Select Committee is attempting to find out what happened on January 6th?

I would hope it would be quickly discharged thru the courts.

[Kablooie]

82. He will drag it out until after the election in 2022.

Dems are unlikely to hold the house again so,them whole investigation will fade away.

[bullwinkle428]

59. Rick Wilson lays out a step by step approach the Democrats should follow, given

that we know the Pukes are planning on howling like monkeys in protest.

[Takket]

63. here's the thread........

https://threader.app/thread/1441188578441109513

Link to tweet

?s=20

[bullwinkle428]

75. Thank you for including this link!! I don't have an account yet, and just read

a few people here and there.

[kentuck]

79. They would probably be wise to listen to some of that advice.

These people are manipulative snakes. They do not deserve a lot of courtesies.
============

1/ Now, let me take a moment to note something for the 1/6 committee.Each one of these Trump mooks will resist the subpoenas. Each one of them will demand to testify in private. Each one with make spurious claims of executive privilege. Each one of them will lie and lie.

2/ Now...and this is the tricky part, but do try to pay attention.Fuck. These. Guys.Don't let them or their lawyers wedge you into the phony courtesies and hollow formalities of the Old Washington.

(Source: https://threader.app/thread/1441188578441109513)

[StarfishSaver]

80. I'm pretty sure they didn't need to read Rick Wilson's tweet to figure that out

Chairman Bennie Thompson and the other Committee members didn't just fall down with the last shower of rain and wake up grateful that Rick Wilson explained the world and their jobs to them on Twitter ...

[The Unmitigated Gall]

60. They'll need to pre-shower and de-louse Bannon.

[lindysalsagal]

74. No matter what, they have to live with the knowledge their country said

they were part of something potentially damaging. I think it's great, regardless of the rest of it. It can't feel good to have this hanging over your head.