When did it become acceptable to ignore subpoenas? Does that apply to the riff-raff (us), too?

[babylonsister]

13 members get subpoenas in Wilkes corruption trial

Thirteen senior House members -- nine Republicans and four Democrats -- have been served with subpoenas from defense attorneys representing Brent Wilkes, the former defense contractor charged with bribing imprisoned ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.).

None of the lawmakers will comply with the subpoena, according to an official notification read on the House floor Monday evening.

Wilkes is seeking testimony from all the lawmakers but after consulting with the House General Counsel's office, which advises lawmakers on legal issue related to their official congressional duties, the members declined to comply with the subpoenas.

The subpoenas were read into the Congressional Record late in the day's session, after the final vote, and the recipients include some of the top members of the House on both sides of the aisle. The list of members getting subpoenas includes: former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.); House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.); Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), former chairman of the Appropriations Committee; Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), former Intelligence Committee chairman; Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.); Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas); Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Defense subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee; Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.); Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.); Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.); Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.); and Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.).

more...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/13_members_get_subpoenas_from_Wilkes_in_corruption_trial.html

[Toots]

1. We no longer live in a society dictated by law. Now we have us a "Decider"

:shrug: America was good while it lasted..

[CoffeeCat]

2. Excellent point, Babylonsister!

You're right...if Congress members (or the White House for that matter) doesn't have to
comply with a subpoena order, then why would any of us?

IN FACT! We're not technically members of the Executive Branch either--as Cheney so duly noted
about his own lack of accountability. None of us is part of the Executive Branch, so I guess
it's party time for the entire country!

[luckyleftyme2]

4. if your the little guy

you can ignore a subpoena also; the difference is a black and white will pick you up and make sure you attend when court re-convenes!
I say we show those above the law what we think of them on election day and send them home for ever!

[rateyes]

3. We would have bench warrants issued for our arrest. nt

[Solly Mack]

5. so what happens when the spin is -

- Democrats in Congress won't comply with subpoenas but expect the Bush administration to comply -

and you know the right wing, it won't matter that the GOP also got subpoenas and are not complying...

[cascadiance]

16. I think there are a lot of variables to consider

These subpoenas are coming from Brent Wilkes' legal team. Mark Geragos, who at one point said he was quitting Wilkes' legal team because they were going to force him into taking a full security background check is the one that's behind this. What is their motivations? Hard to tell at this point.

Could they be trying to delay the trial from starting as long as they could? By creating this controversy, probably knowing full well with this many people being subpoenaed, that they would not comply with them and therefore prolong the legal wrangling to buy him more time before his trial starts, which was supposed to be in October, but some articles today say might be delayed until next year.

Could they be doing a "shotgun" approach, knowing that many of these folks on the list aren't really part of the investigation. If they do a big enough shotgun approach, they can also go after Democrats, and therefore make them look bad, especially if Dems are trying to enforce other subpoenas on Bush administration officials.

With the shotgun approach, are they trying to conceal who they really feel are appropriate people to be testifying at the trial? My gut feeling is that folks like Hunter, Lewis, Doolittle, and a few of those other Republicans were definitely targets they wanted to bring in (as Carol Lam, etc. were investigating them here beforehand when she was US Attorney). Issa is a question mark, but the way he pointedly went after Carol Lam earlier, perhaps puts him in the radar sites too.

Of all of the Democrats here, the one that I think might have some validity in terms of this investigation would be Silvestre Reyes, House Intelligence Committee chair. It was noted a few weeks ago that he was the one that tried to keep a lid on the Cunningham FBI report that came out a month ago, and probably has some splainin' to do there. Pete Hoekstra, who was the committee chair before the Dems took the house is also being subpoenaed here too, so that kind of adds up.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/critics-slam-in.html

When you couple these subpoenaes with the mysterious things happening in the related Thomas Kontogiannis case that took a weird turn this week as noted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2994721&mesg_id=2994721

and also that just recently Wilkes' lawyers got access to the sealed records of this case, as noted here, which makes me wonder if this quick turnaround to issue subpoenas is linked to what they got from those notes.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004200.php

There are a lot of spooky things going on here, and I think that both sides have some degree of coverups happening, and I also think that there are some pieces that are also "planted misinformation". It could be that many of these subpoenas are part of that "misinformation". It could also be that some are trying to paint it as such too.

We'll have to wait and see.

[AlCzervik]

6. it's not acceptable at all. What are they hiding?

[atreides1]

7. So what exactly does this mean???

"...which advises lawmakers on legal issue related to their official congressional duties"

[ThomWV]

8. This Article is Horseshit - Once Again -

Not one word in that article told us what the reason was the General Councel's Office advised not to honor the subpoenas. Don't you think that might be userful information in determining if the avoidance of them makes sense? What in hell is wrong with people who jump immediately to the conclusion that our Congress is corrupt to its core, that anything any of our Representatives do is done with evil intent?

[babylonsister]

9. It might be (consider the source, and my apologies) but I don't

imagine even the Politico would print this if the subpoenas hadn't been/won't be ignored. Read on the House floor?
But you are right; more background would have been helpful. I'll see if I can find some.

[zbdent]

10. depends ... how much money have you donated to the GOP?

[babylonsister]

11. Four Dems are ignoring subpoenas, too; there goes that theory. nt

[bemildred]

12. Around the time the anthrax was sent to various congresspersons. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. That is a verrrrrrry interesting list of recipients. nt.

[babylonsister]

14. Yes, most of them are well-known and have some clout. I hope

this isn't the last we hear of this.

[Javaman]

15. and yet, rove, rice, miers and bolton still have yet to answer theirs.

I'll be whistling over here past the grave yard.