Jan. 6 committee studying whether it can subpoena U.S. Republican lawmakers - chairman

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Reuters

By Jan Wolfe

(Reuters) -The congressional committee investigating last year's Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is looking at issuing subpoenas to Republican members of Congress to force their cooperation, the panel's chairman said on Sunday.

Representative Bennie Thompson, a Democrat, said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that the committee is examining whether it can lawfully issue subpoenas to sitting members of Congress.

"I think there are some questions of whether we have the authority to do it," Thompson said. "We're looking at it. If the authorities are there, there'll be no reluctance on our part."

Thompson chairs the House of Representatives Select Committee on Jan. 6, which is expected to hold public hearings and issue reports in the coming months.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jan-6-committee-studying-whether-it-can-subpoena-us-republican-lawmakers-chairman/ar-AASm5GK?li=BBnb7Kz

[Walleye]

1. Jordan wanted to be on the committee so bad he should come in and sit on the other side of the table

I think the Republican congressman are terrified of having to raise their right hand and tell the truth. They are so used to getting away with whatever lies they want to tell on the floor of Congress. Because they are protected by statute

[KPN]

2. Frankly, given the circumstances it seems ridiculous that there is any question

about this whatsoever. But what do I know, right?

[CrispyQ]

3. I know, right?

WTF?

[DallasNE]

5. There Is No Separation Of Power Issue Here

So what else is left?, what kind of message does it send if the rules say they are above the law?

[FBaggins]

24. Actually... there is

The issue does not just arise when two branches of government disagree with one another.

[DallasNE]

36. Give Me Just one Example

Of where that has happened and not some unproven hypothetical either.

[FBaggins]

37. That's easy - but it's also an odd request

Odd... because the subject of the OP (whether Congress can subpoena a member) has never happened.

But there are loads of examples of my point. A recent one is the ruling against the CDC's eviction moratorium last summer. Congress wasn't fighting the administration's decision... yet it was overturned because the executive branch was exercising powers that it didn't have.

There's no question that the executive (DOJ) and judicial branches combine to be able to subpoena someone in Congress when a crime is suspected. But it's an open question whether Congress can do so - and that question is almost entirely a separation of powers issue (the rest being a due process issue).

[DallasNE]

38. That Example Doesn't Work

I presume a private party challenged the executive order and the courts ruled that Congress had not granted them executive that power. Those kind of cases happen from time to time and that is the judiciary checking the power of the executive. The only example I can think of that is close is when the Parliamentarian rules on whether a legislative provision fits within the framework of the reconciliation act as an end run on the Senate filibuster rule. That is a process question rather than a separation of power issue. Here we have Jim Jordan and others performing in a manner akin to Benedict Arnold.

[FBaggins]

39. It works perfectly

and the courts ruled that Congress had not granted them executive that power.

Right. Another way of saying that is that the separation of powers in our system did not give that particular power to the branch that tried to exercise it.

Those kind of cases happen from time to time and that is the judiciary checking the power of the executive.

The judiciary also checks the power of the legislative branch when they try to arrogate executive authority to themselves. One example is when Congress appropriates funds but then claims to still control them subject to some cabinet secretary reporting to them semi-annually. Lots of presidential signing statements (both parties) deal with such arrogations of executive authority and Congress has lost in court each time they've tried to challenge the issue.

The relevant comparison is right in the part of the post that you didn't reply to. There's no question that the executive/judicial branches can combine to subpoena a member of Congress. The open question here is whether or not the legislative branch can do so on its own. If the answer turns out to be "no"... it's most certainly because of the separation of powers (and due process concerns), and not because congressmen are immune to subpoenas generally. Congress does not investigate/prosecute crimes or adjudicate those cases.

[Bayard]

4. No one is above the law

Drag them in by their ankles if need be.

[cadoman]

6. what is there to examine? put them on the stand and see what happens

Sheesh. Why are we so soft on anti-science, anti-democracy traitors?

[abqtommy]

7. If there really is anyone who is above the law then we might as well give up our

Democracy and our lives right now. That is just what the reTHUG Fascists would like
us to do so let's not give them the satisfaction.

[Botany]

8. Come on down Mr. Jordan and you can bring Mo Brooks and Rep. McCarthy too (see video)

CNN: Jim Jordan sent one of the texts revealed by January 6 committee

Rep. Jim Jordan forwarded a text message to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on January 5, outlining a legal theory that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the authority to stand in the way of the certification of the 2020 election.

A portion of that message was read by the January 6 select committee during their contempt report presentation against Meadows in a meeting this week. The full House voted Tuesday night to refer Meadows to the Justice Department.

snip

"Mr. Jordan forwarded the text to Mr. Meadows, and Mr. Meadows certainly knew it was a forward," Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Jordan confirmed to CNN.

snip

Jim Jordan's idea (or one that was fed to him)

'On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/politics/jim-jordan-mark-meadows-text/index.html

[bucolic_frolic]

9. It would be a political farce

Time's a wasting. The only thing they'll hear is lies because they've already interviewed so many people.

[TeamProg]

11. It's a question worth asking. What if a Rep. was somehow involved in.. you know..

treason or something like that?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

16. It would still be political.

FBI investigates treason as a crime.

[TeamProg]

10. Why not? They can vote for their OWN PAY INCREASES!!

[OneCrazyDiamond]

15. In my union

We get vote on our compensation.

[TeamProg]

18. With each new contract agreement, yes? Not just random? That's different. Is that Publicly funded?

Local municipalities like Boards Of supervisors also get to vote on their own pay raises.

I think it's wrong, but what do I know?

If most people want to make more money, they have to work harder or work smarter.

And no, I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but it's weird being able to vote for one's own tax payer funded salary increase.

Don't you think it's off?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

33. My work Is publicly funded.

The union is funded by us members, and we get to vote on the contract that pays our raises. Some of us get to negotiate with management, and management gets the same percent increase negotiated for us.

The board gets only a token pay, and is more or less voluntary if elected. Like 500 per year

Is it off? I only vote on the contract, and it always pays more. I like the extra money. It helps with inflation.

Honestly....don't you think it is off the private sector doesnt embrace the model more?

Single negation with the union is way more efficient, and cost of living should adjust periodically.

Not for mall businesses, but greater than 100 annual pay negotiations gets expensive.

[LiberalFighter]

12. They were not acting as members of Congress at the time.

So of course they can be subpoenaed.

[Karma13612]

32. EXACTLY what I was thinking!! ..eom..

[crickets]

35. Excellent point. nt

[TeamProg]

13. I would LOVE to see them all take THE FIFTH !!

[mjvpi]

14. It's not apples to apples ......

…… but we should should keep reminding them that HRC sat for 11 hours. If they have nothing to hide, show up.

[BlueIdaho]

31. None of them have the stamina, the wisdom,

The honesty, the frankly the innocence to withstand the 11 hours of examination that Senator Clinton did and they know it.

[Achilleaze]

17. Do it

[Orrex]

19. Why not let murderers decide if they can be charged with murder?

[Grins]

20. If they can't there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG! NM

[yaesu]

21. if the fascists were in charge do you think they would stop to consider IF they should do this?

No, they would do it & the committee should do it because it MUST be done. Playing nice will lose us future elections.

[kentuck]

22. Can they be subpoenaed to go before a Grand Jury?

Sort of, pay me now or pay me later?

[Kid Berwyn]

23. First kick ALL the traitors out of Congress...

…then subpoena them.

Easy peasy.

[PoliticAverse]

25. There's only one way to know for sure - do it and wait for the court cases to finish. n/t

[Orrex]

26. Each subpoenaed member would sue individually, and each case would take six months

Two cases would be more than enough to run out the clock on the currently seated House.

[former9thward]

27. "We're looking at it. If the authorities are there..."

Please... How many months does that take? A law student could look at the "authorties" in an afternoon.

[monkeyman1]

28. this is a crime !

not a political pissing contest!!!! If your guilty, your congressional career is over !! that fucking simple !

[FBaggins]

29. You just made the argument against being able to subpoena him

Congress doesn't investigate and prosecute crimes. The executive branch does that.

[monkeyman1]

30. no shit !!

[Progressive Jones]

34. Thompson should not gave made this announcement. It looks very weak. nt