All of the lawmakers said they do not intend to comply with the subpoenas. Hmmmf.

[lonestarnot]

13 lawmakers subpoenaed in bribery trial

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer




WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt and 11 other members of Congress have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial of a defense contractor charged with bribing jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.


All of the lawmakers said they do not intend to comply with the subpoenas.

The subpoenas were sought by attorneys for contractor Brent Wilkes, who faces a trial in San Diego later this year on more than 30 counts of bribery, fraud, money laundering and conspiracy in connection with his relationship with Cunningham.


Guess next time I am subpoenaed I just won't go either. hmmmmf.

[zanne]

1. BREAKING NEWS......Subpoenas no longer enforceable!

In a move that is likely to change the face of American jurisprudence, several congressmen today have stated that subpoenas against them are not enforceable. Big changes lie ahead! You can now give a judge a raspberry and just walk out! Extraordinary!

[lonestarnot]

3. Wow! A rapsberry! What if they prefer apples?

[hisownpetard]

5. Felons, Rejoice!! People should start doing this all over the country, refusing to appear

even though they've been subpoenaed by the court. Hey - good enough for Harriet Miers
and Condoleezza Rice, good enough for Joe Shmoe.

Really - why not?

[lonestarnot]

22. My point zactly.

[liberal N proud]

2. Since when did compliance to a cort order become optional?

[lonestarnot]

4. Courts have been outlawed by the Unitary Executive! Haven't you heard?

[hisownpetard]

6. Uhh - since Bush was in office? n/t

[lonestarnot]

7. Yeah that would be the one, Unitary Executive.

[Tyler Durden]

19. Don't you mean the "Urinary Executive"?

So named because he ain't worth piss?

[lonestarnot]

23. Unitary urinary.

Not worth one piss! :rofl: :toast:

[hisownpetard]

28. Sorry - that title's already been taken by Larry Craig. n/t

[Wesman 85]

8. some of these fine

elected reps are ours as well.

[I Have A Dream]

9. Well, then they're just as despicable. n/t

[lonestarnot]

10. donkey holes.

[SlowDownFast]

11. Your point being? n/t

[lonestarnot]

24. That dems are getting on the bandwagon with this no show shit too.

[SlowDownFast]

27. Which I find just as despicable

as repugs ignoring subpoenas.

This 'no show shit' is setting a terrible precedence.

[lonestarnot]

29. So what's next anarchy, every man for himself in lawless pugland?

[Occulus]

31. I'm sorry... what's setting the bad precedent

is the refusal of those who should be- indeed, MUST be- enforcing these subpoenas to do their jobs and throw the refusers in jail.

It is what would happen to you, or me, or members of Kos, or Free Republic, or Huffington Post, or Little Green Footballs. ANY of us, from any of those sites, when refusing a subpoena, would be jailed.

:wtf: :wow: :wtf:

[ljm2002]

12. This is astonishing...

...and I say that even in light of all the Administration's refusals. That's because, at least the Executive branch can wrap it in some thin fig leaf of executive privilege -- even if that is debatable in most cases -- whereas, this is a straight criminal case and there is no constitutional issue at stake, even theoretically.

Now, if they did show up, I'm guessing more than a few of them might have to take advantage of the good ol' Fifth. But simply saying "I decline to appear" is just amazing.

If they are not compelled to testify then, we are no longer a nation of laws. Period. And if that happens, a lot more people are going to figure that out. I agree with other posters -- this means the rest of us can say "Thanks, but no thanks" should we receive a subpoena for any reason.

And how much play is this getting in the media??? Probably shouldn't even ask.

[lonestarnot]

14. "Fif"

They don't have time for dat.

[wildbilln864]

13. ON a side note........

what ever became of the investigation where Cunningham was wearing a wire for weeks before he was indicted? I've not heard anything. Did it reveal anything new? :shrug:

[lonestarnot]

17. I don't know. Too many atrocities, to many glaring piles of bullshit to keep up.

[bbgrunt]

15. is it time for a military coup?

[lonestarnot]

18. Military chicken coupe.

[leftofthedial]

16. laws don't apply to repukes

[lonestarnot]

20. or apparently dems either.

[leftofthedial]

26. enforcing laws is not the "democrats'" job

they have a "real agenda" to pursue (although I'm damned if I can tell what it is)

[AuntPatsy]

21. I hope that means that we the people need not follow the law either.

[lonestarnot]

25. What is a law? " Lawmakers" don't need to be bothered. Why should we?

[simmonsj811]

30. MY GIFT

TO THE NIGHT SHIFT :kick: