The Jan. 6 committee subpoenaed top Trump White House officials, ramping up its investigation.
Source: NY Times
Sept. 23, 2021, 7:40 p.m. ET
The select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol on Thursday subpoenaed four of President Donald J. Trumps closest allies, ramping up its scrutiny of what the former president was doing during the deadly riot.
The committee issued subpoenas for information from Mark Meadows, a former White House chief of staff; Daniel Scavino Jr., a former deputy chief of staff; Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trumps former adviser; and Kash Patel, a former Pentagon chief of staff.
The committee is demanding the four men turn over documents by Oct. 7 and submit to depositions the following week.
In letters transmitting the subpoenas, the committee said it was seeking information about Mr. Trumps actions in the run-up to and during the riot.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/us/politics/jan-6-committee-trump-white-house.html
leftieNanner
(14,998 posts)ananda
(28,783 posts)Chomp chomp
Fullduplexxx
(7,818 posts)hibbing
(10,076 posts)wnylib
(21,146 posts)and be forcibly brought before Congress.
Congress can do this when they meet 3 criteria (which this committee investigation does) and then the courts cannot intervene.
For details, see the Wikipedia entry under "Contempt of Congress."
I am betting that Pelosi will see that the committee carries out all the authority that it has.
RockRaven
(14,784 posts)to the US Atty for DC who is duty-bound to proceed with a criminal contempt of Congress prosecution.
At least, that's what I recall off the top of my head.
leftieNanner
(14,998 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,369 posts)IIRC, The offender would be detained by US Marshalls in a holding cell until they agreed to comply with the subpoena.
RockRaven
(14,784 posts)process for enforcing the contempt of Congress criminal statute. It requires a referral from the house of Congress to the DOJ, and a DOJ prosecution in federal court. The reason it was never used when TFG was in office was because it would have been pointless to try. The corrupt Trump appointed DOJ leadership would have derailed it immediately despite what the law says.
The inherent contempt and criminal contempt processes each have their advantages and drawbacks but with a cooperative DOJ the latter may be superior.
gab13by13
(20,867 posts)and claiming the 5th Amendment?
Marcuse
(7,399 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,265 posts)I'm trying to remember if I learned from the commentary during the second impeachment trial, I feel like it was then. Might have been during the first impeachment hearing/trial.
So I thought to myself: So what if there's no longer a holding cell in the basement! Improvise!!!
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)gab13by13
(20,867 posts)he has zero case to make that claim but the law suit will go through a district court, an appeals court, and maybe even the Supreme Court. This is why I have been crying for Democrats to hurry, Republicans don't plan on winning the law suits, just delaying.
I hope someone who is a lawyer can show me that I am wrong.
bucolic_frolic
(42,676 posts)Decision
The Supreme Court decided 61 to overturn Watkins' conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority.[2] Warren noted that it is an offense for a witness to refuse to answer any question "pertinent to the question under inquiry" in testifying before a Congressional committee, but he wrote that the Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision:
There are several sources that can outline the "question under inquiry" in such a way that the rules against vagueness are satisfied. The authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves, might sometimes make the topic clear. This case demonstrates, however, that these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt.
The New York Times commented: "The Supreme Court has placed fundamental restrictions on a Congressional investigatory power that in recent years has been asserted as all but limitless."[5]
Senators James Eastland and William E. Jenner, who played principal roles in investigating left-wing activities, issued a statement accusing the Court of contributing to "the trend of the past year of undermining our existent barriers against Communist subversion."[5]
The decision's impact was limited in that the Court limited the application of the principles it espoused in Watkins.[6][clarification needed]
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)it's not so much they are worried about the subpoena's , it's getting caught up in the perjury of a Congressional criminal investigation ! that's heavy-duty jail time & life ending career breaker !