This is over the Duke Cunningham's briber Brent Wilkes:
In addition to Issa, Blunt, R-Mo., and Hastert, R-Ill., Wilkes' attorneys are seeking testimony from:
_House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.
_House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo.
_House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha, D-Pa.
_California Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter, John Doolittle, and Jerry Lewis. Hunter chaired the Armed Services Committee and Lewis chaired the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress.
_Republicans Reps. Peter Hoekstra and Joe Knollenberg of Michigan. Hoekstra chaired the House Intelligence Committee in the last Congress.
_Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington.
The subpoenas from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California were read on the House floor late Monday in accordance with House rules requiring lawmakers to inform the House speaker if they've been subpoenaed.
All the lawmakers said in notifications to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that after consulting with House attorneys they had decided not to comply with the subpoenas.
Good to know that we don't have to take these thing seriously....
Update: Steve Bates of Yellow Doggerel Democrat reminds me in comments what it says in the Constitution:
Members of Congress probably do have a leg to stand on in this case. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, first paragraph:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Emphasis mine. This may not apply directly, but the principle that one cannot interfere with members' activities while Congress is in session is pretty clear.
Standard reminder: I am not a lawyer, nor do I even play one on the web.
5 comments:
Members of Congress probably do have a leg to stand on in this case. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, first paragraph:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Emphasis mine. This may not apply directly, but the principle that one cannot interfere with members' activities while Congress is in session is pretty clear.
Standard reminder: I am not a lawyer, nor do I even play one on the web.
(Emphasis very difficult to see. That font, at that size, renders bold about the same as normal on my display. I think you can tell which passage is to be emphasized.)
The bold shows up fine on my monitor. And thanks for the quote. What does this mean then? If the attorneys for Wilkes know before they send subpoenas that they will be ignored, why send them?
And to those politicians who ignore the subpoenas, doesn't it look like how I took it? That they are being defiant and ignoring the law?
ellroon, you may have answered the questions in your first paragraph with those in your second. The lawyers know that few people will consider the possible validity of the reasons for not requiring members of Congress to answer arbitrary subpoenas. So they issue a bunch of 'em. I'm sure they'll howl at congressional rejection of their quite possibly unconstitutional subpoenas; it will be great theater. Don't think for a moment that this is aimed at the judge.
You know the saying. If you've got the facts, pound the facts. If not, but you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table. I think this is a lot of probably necessary table-pounding. It's about all they've got.
---
How the bold looks on this digital display may be a matter of my tweaking the ClearType™ settings for how it renders individual color pixels. I don't know. I can tell the bold is different, but it isn't bold. I see bold just fine on most sites.
Appreciate the insight. I can see why we must protect our representatives from lawsuits and harassment. I also see why lawyers try to get to the truth (or maybe try to smear the blame around).
Oh well. Tomorrow will have yet another scandal.
Post a Comment